TR EMERITUS

The case of relief cabby Mr Teo Kian Seng, who was charged in court yesterday for "threatening" PAP MP Lee Yi Shyan had sparked an outcry in cyberspace with many netizens wondering why the MP felt fit to make a police report in the first place. Mr Teo allegedly told Lee in Mandarin that he hoped "history will not repeat itself" in a referral to the torching incident involving PAP MP Seng Han Thong last year at a Meet-the-People session on 1st of March. It was reported in the Straits Times today that Mr Teo had gone to see Lee over a summons received by his mother for leaving clutter along the corridor of her flat. Mr Teo's mother, who is currently in her 80s, has been working as a "Garang-guni" woman for many years in order to pay for her medical expenses. She might have no choice but to leave her "barang" along the corridor due to the nature of her work and lack of space in her own home. It is not unusual in first world Singapore to see the elderly scavenging for used cardboards and newspapers in the streets for a living. Despite its huge foreign reserves, Singapore has few social safety nets for its citizens who are expected to be self-reliant and not depend on the state for support. It is not known if Mr Teo is the sole bread-winner of the family and if his mother will be in financial distress should he go to jail. The Straits Times reported that Assistant Superintendent Raj Kishore Rai had told District Judge Low Wee Ping that "the prosecution was not ready to accept Teo's plea as the victim was an MP." Why should an MP deserve preferential treatment from the police? The authorities should assess the likelihood of Mr Teo acting on his very subtle threat thoroughly before taking action against him. He probably said it in the heat of a moment under some sort of "provocation". The odds are stacked heavily against Mr Teo who does not have the financial resources to afford a good lawyer to fight the case for him, not to mention the financial losses he has to suffer as a result.     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 →

Dear Fellow Singapore Citizens and Friends, My name is Ho Juan Thai. I am a born and bred Singapore Citizen, I completed my full time National Service several decades ago. For certain reasons I have been living in London as a Refugee from Singapore for the last 32 years, but it is not my choice. If you believe that Singapore belongs to certain Minsters who have the divine right in deciding which Singaporean does and does not have the right to a Singaporean citizenship and which Singaporean can and cannot be entitled to a Singapore passport, I would advise you to stop reading this now as it would be more meaningful for you to continue indulging yourself in the elite clubs of some kind. If you believe Singapore belongs to you, Singapore belongs to me and Singapore belongs to any other Singapore citizen and we all have the equal right to our citizenship and passports under the constitution, I hope you could spare some time to read on and see what you can do. A week or so after the December 1976 Singapore general election a group of plain clothes armed Inter Security Department (ISD) police officers came to my house in Jurong to arrest me. I managed to struggle away from their cordon of the house and escaped. During the chase one of the ISD officers took out his pistol, pointed it at me and shouted in Chinese Hokkien dialect “don't run, you run I will open fire”. After I disappeared in to the lemon grove at the back of my house, the chasing officer together with other officers, went round the neighbors with his pistol in his hand looking for me. I was advised to seek refuge somewhere else for my own safety. With the help of the late Mr. J B Jeyaretnam (JBJ), the then Workers Party Secretary General and his late wife Margrate, as well as others I managed to get to London in July 1977, after 6 months of hiding out in Singapore and Malaysia. Upon my arrival in London I asked for Political Asylum. The British Government, in accordance with International Law, interviewed me and carried out various investigations to establish my claim. Having completed a thorough investigation the British Government duly granted me political asylum the following year. I was issued with a Blue Travel Document in accordance with the United Nations 1951 Convention for Refugees. Under the regulations of the United Nations and the British Government, whoever holds a Blue Travel Document issued under the UN 1951 Convention for Refugees is a Refugee. So I became an official Refugee from Singapore in November 1978. Although I was out of the Singapore government's sight as a refugee abroad that did not mean I was out of their minds. Their paranoia prompted them to embark on changing the Constitution of Singapore in 1985. The amended constitution empowers the government to deprive any citizen living abroad for more than 10 years without returning once, of their citizenship. Soon after the Constitutional change I became one of only two Singapore citizens to be served with Citizenship Deprivation Notices. The government hoped to go through this process to eliminate any political challenge to them, including the innocuous and feeble one from me as a parliamentary candidate in the 1976 general election. Together with Mr. JBJ we decided to launch an appeal against the Deprivation Notice as a first step in drawing the attention of the international community to how fundamental human rights were being violated in Singapore. In the course of our appeal Mr. JBJ was unreasonably stripped of his legal practice for some other reason. The appeal panel known as committee of Inquiry put the appeal on hold while a new legal representative was appointed. When Mr. JBJ won his appeal and reinstated his practice by the final court of appeal Mr. JBJ continued to represent me. For unknown reasons , after about 2 years of delays, the Home Affairs Department suddenly informed us that they had decided to withdraw their Deprivation Notice. As such I remain as a Singapore citizen and retain the title as a refugee from Singapore in London. Since then from time to time I wrote to the authority inquiring if I could be issued with a Singapore passport. The answer has always been uniformly NO. The reason commonly given was that I was wanted by the Singapore police for questioning and therefore I could not be issued with a Singapore passport. What the police wish to question me about has never been clear to anyone. As Singapore forbids dual nationality the only way to keep myself as a loyal son of Singapore is to stay on as a refugee. I am always loyal to Singapore so I always end up remaining as a refugee. When our Premier Lee tried to champion human rights and speed up the Human Rights Charter for Asean in 2007 the mainstream media in Singapore made continued and prominent reports about it. I thought that was a signal of a genuine change. I wrote to the High Commissioner to UK, Mr. Michael Teo, asking him if I could apply for a Singapore passport. To my total surprise my request was not turned down as before, instead I was sent an application form. I filled in the form and went to the High Commission for finger prints etc. Initially, the Singapore Immigration and Control Authority (ICA) was not happy with the documents I produced. After 2 years of working hard and with the help of my London local MP writing many letters we managed to satisfy the ICA with the documentary evidence it asked for. When ICA was happy with my documentary evidence I thought that I could soon travel as an ordinary Singaporean with a Singapore passport and I began to think about getting married as an ordinary Singapore citizen. My excitement about the “new dawn” initiated by our premier Lee over the ASEAN Human Rights Charter in 2007 proved to be a false one. As ICA could not refuse my passport application on the grounds that I failed to satisfy them with the documents they asked for, they simply said they could only offer me the following “ you may be issued with a Document of Identity on application to the Singapore High Commission in London . “ . I wrote to ICA asking why I could not be treated just as any Singaporean since I have committed no crime? Their one way ticket of Document of Identity offer amounts to discrimination. Under the constitution no one should be discriminated against. Any Singaporean worth his salt should not accept discrimination. As a proud Singapore citizen I will never accept any treatment that is discriminatory. To avoid being seen as practicing discriminatory treatments, ICA now changed the tone in their reply. They now say that they suspected my original expired Singapore passport had been illegally tampered with at the time I left Singapore. Under such circumstances they may (not will ) issue me with a Document of Identity for me to return to Singapore for further investigation if I apply for it. My further reply to ICA on their latest one way ticket offer made in 8th December 2009 was asking ICA to spell out under which provision of the Singapore constitution was it that a person like me could not be issued with a Singapore Passport. I also asked them to explain why they keep changing their goal posts? So far ICA has given no reply. The Singapore High Commission in London also confirmed that the correspondence I sent through them to ICA has not gone astray and they too have not had any reply. The Singapore High Commission promised to put a chase on it for me. It has now been more then 4 months without any reply from ICA . The situation is now different. ICA, by giving me no reply and not issuing me with a Singapore passport , is doing more than simply keeping me outside Singapore as a refugee. I now have a son who was born in London in December 2009. Under the Singapore Constitution he has every right to be a Singapore citizen by descent. But according to the ICA rules they sent me, ICA will not process my son's Singapore Citizenship application unless I can produce a Singapore Passport. Effectively the right of my son to be a Singapore citizenship is being unfairly denied. My London born Singapore boy, technically at this particular point in time, is stateless. Again the Singapore High Commission in London confirmed to me that they too have not received any reply for the further clarifications I sent to ICA about my son's citizenship application about 3 months ago.. My wife has given me an ultimatum to sort out my son's Singapore citizenship in the very near future otherwise it is her turn to sort it out with the Thai or British Authorities. My wife's desperation is understandable as her wish to book air tickets to visit her homeland is being delayed without our son's citizenship and a baby passport being sorted out. When looking at my London born Singapore boy and the desperation of my wife, never before have I ever felt such a pressure to seek a solution to my refugee status. The available routes I could go down to have my son enlisted as a Singapore Citizen by descent and for me to gain a Singapore passport with the usual Singapore bureaucratic processes seem to be reaching an end. The only possible meaningful avenue left for me now is to appeal to you as fellow Singaporeans to see what you could come up with. What I hope for: 1. To have a trial in an open court. The fairest way to resolve my passport application is first of all to put me on trial on any alleged offense I may have committed in Singapore, except AWOL ( I will explain about my AWOL in more detail later). If I did commit any crime and under the law I do not deserve to have a Singapore passport, then I will be perfectly happy to close the chapter and go off with only myself to blame. If I did not commit any crime I do not see why a Singaporean can not be treated as any other Singaporean and enjoy equal rights in having a Singapore passport. Some years ago some Singaporeans did kindly raise this request for me in the Strait Times but the issue went away quietly after a while. This time I hope more people could help to raise their voice for me using the new technologies. I do not believe the government can operate hypocritically for too long if more people come to know about it. 2. To Gather knowledge of Other Mistreatment I do believe the mistreatment I have encountered is not an exception but rather the norm, though the mistreatment may not be in the same degree and always involve the ICA . If you or anyone you know of has encountered any mistreatment like mine, regarding passports or any other issues, I hope you could let me know. I hope the victims of mistreatment of various kinds can come together to make a stronger joint appeal. We can see change if we can come together . Please write to me at [email protected] (I do not have a blog or face book etc). 3 Write to Mr. K Shanmugam, The Minister of Law and second Minister for Home Affairs. Mr. Shanmugam who is directly responsible for ICA. He is able to get away with completely ignoring my repeated letters urging him to review the ICA practice. He did not even have the decency to acknowledge any of my letters. But if many of you could write to him he might be obliged to come out to explain why ICA needs to keep moving its goal posts regarding my passport application and and who made the last minute intervention to stop issuing me with a Singapore passport etc. What is this new political rising star up to is a matter of public interest. 4 Write to Mr. Goh Chok Tong, The Senior Minister Mr. Goh once famously said Singapore needs people that are “Pak See Bei Chao” (someone whose loyalty will never cease regardless of being confronted with a life threatening situation). I must say I fully agree with him on this point as I do share the thought that what sort of country we are and will be depends on the make up of our people. Mr. Goh may know what sort of people Singapore should have to make up our country. I wonder does Mr. Goh really have the final say on matters of this kind? Do you personally know Mr. Goh well? We are mulling over if we should appeal further to him and others? Is there any point in making further appeals? If you do know how the very top works please let us know. 5 To Appeal to SAF I come from a family which believes in having a strong and effective force in Singapore to defend our freedom and prosperity. My elder brother joined the Armed Forces in Singapore even before SAF was formed. Joining the Armed Forces at that time under the British Colonial Government meant helping to stop the Communists from taking over Malaya (Singapore and West Malaysia). My whole family gave my elder brother its full blessing and moral support. When my third brother graduated he fell outside of the National Service enlistment age. He decided to support SAF through joining SAF as a professional soldier. He dedicated his whole career in SAF. Again our family took pride in what he has done. All my nephews whenever they were enlisted served the National Services with enthusiasm and pride. For me there was no exception. I served in both the Singapore National Service Police part-time when I was at the high school and subsequently full time full term in SAF before I joined Nanyang University. I served SAF with pride and full enthusiasm. Ironically, I now have a record of being AWOL in SAF. My AWOL came about not because I ran away from SAF to avoid being sent to the front line. It came about soon after the government withdrew its Citizenship Deprivation Notice, about 13 years after I left Singapore. Suddenly Military Police were sent to my parents house asking my mum where I was and an official record was made that I had disappeared from the SAF reservist recall? Did SAF really need me 13 years after I had left Singapore? Why did the SAF military police need to visit my parent house after they withdrew their Citizenship Deprivation Notice? Under Singapore law any citizen who is fined for $2000 or more, or imprisoned for more than 12 months, will automatically be forbidden from standing for parliamentary election for 5 years. Should I now go back to Singapore, and the government could not find anything substantial to fine me for or to imprison me for long enough, to disqualify me from standing for election they can always rely on the SAF AWOL record to achieve their aim. I believe this was why I got an AWOL record, but I hope I am wrong to think so. I strongly believe Singapore should do two things to achieve peace and stability. One is to set Singapore up as a centre of peace, a centre for talking peace and a centre for promoting peace and humanity. Perhaps we need to do a bit more than the Swiss by just having the UN civilian physically set up, providing various conveniences for peace negotiations and having various peace making NGO. We need to open up our military bases and facilities to UN-led intervention forces, either for peace keeping purposes or humanitarian support. UN needs an efficient neutral strategic location for speedily responding to various emergencies in Asia and the middle east region. If this idea can be pulled through and accepted in UN we will have multi-national force on our soil. Indirectly this force will give us protection. To help others to achieve peace and to improve our own security is definitely a worthwhile strategy to explore. However we cannot be under the illusion that becoming a peace promoter and having a permanent UN–led international police force if it could be successfully implemented in Singapore, would give us a guarantee of total security and stability, because the complications of International politics is beyond immigration. The only thing that can ultimately give us a guarantee is our own invincible defence force – SAF. To have a strong and effective force SAF must maintain neutrality politically. SAF must never be made use of by any political party for their own selfish ends. Political parties may come and go, like it or not, it is just a matter of time. SAF must be permanently strong and well supported from Singaporeans within and without the country. Not all the ROD guys who left Singapore without an Exit Permit left without good reasons. Requiring the father of an offspring to have a valid Exit Permit in order to apply to be Singapore citizen by descent is a shot in its own foot. It will cut its potential recruits and supports and is unfair. SAF needs to review this policy as it has isolated some who are quite willing to see their sons serve national service when their sons grow up. I hope my son will grow up to help promote peace and humanity of some kind but I also want him to continue our family tradition in supporting Singapore in having strong and effective forces now and at any time in the future. Should an unwelcome situation be forced upon us from forces from abroad I will be very proud to see my son be one of those who can be counted on as a comrade in arms” in SAF. I do hereby appeal to SAF to review its Exit Permit policy and stay neutral politically. Conclusions Thank you for reading my appeal up to this point. I am not sure what you make of the whole affair? As far as I am concerned the issue superficially looks like it is me and my entitlement to a Singapore passport, as well as my son's constitutional right to be a Singapore citizen by descent, which has been unjustly prevented by someone at the top. However, if you look at the series of events over the last 33 years you will realise that it is more about they and their desperate attempts to deny a past parliamentary candidate from ever again participating in open parliamentary politics in a cowardice way. I am nobody and am just like anyone of you who cares and loves our Singapore. Do I deserve such treatment? Being someone who has come from a stone broke family growing up in a Tao Payoh Kampung where there was no public transport, no electricity or gas supply at one time. Our family have been taking the changes in Singapore positively. Like many Singaporeans, I do appreciate the economic advances and the living improvements achieved under the older generation leadership. We are grateful for it. I am prepared to let my mistreatment “justified” under the so called “necessary evil”, as something of the past and let bygones be bygones in order to move on for the good of moving forward. However, what concerns us all at this moment is that the older generation is leaving us, most of them have already gone. But the younger generation of leadership, especially the rising stars, ignoring the world out there has completely changed, are still trying to practice the old craft to justify them to continue their outdated way of ruling which is increasingly losing support and respect. Their complete lack of fresh ideas and courage to engage the aspirations of the younger generation is worrying. The young do rightly and correctly believe that national building and advancement is more than just a matter of economic growth alone. Their wish to have a culture of more openness, trust and accountable for the good of humanity, social justice, freedom and fairness, expressed in everyday alternative media has never been respected. Based on the inspiration led by our younger generation I hereby make my appeal for help and for change. I do share the popular saying that together we can.   Ho Juan Thai [email protected] 19 Claremont Road London NW2 1BP United Kingdom 3rd June 2010 Editor's Note: The email was sent to our editor complete with his personal information, published verbatim. Mr. Ho Juan Thai was a Worker's Party candidate contesting Bukit Panjang in the 1976 GE. He subsequently lost and was accused of making seditious remarks during his election speeches. He is now in England and wanted by the SAF for AWOL and ISD for sedition.   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 Takashi Yokota from Newsweek The two Koreas seemed headed for a dangerous collision ever since international investigators determined that North Korea had torpedoed its Southern neighbor's warship Cheonan. The North's National Defence Commission called the investigations a "farce" and threatened "all-out war" if Seoul and the international community imposed sanctions. South Korean President Lee Myung-bak responded by promising to push for sanctions at the United Nations, to cut off trade with the North, and to resume anti-North propaganda along the demilitarized zone. Adding to the alarm, four North Korean submarines left a naval base along the Sea of Japan, putting the South Korean Navy on high alert. This fracas may not be all it seems, however; because North Korean leader Kim Jong-il seems to be seeking a face-saving way out. Even as the North's fire-breathing generals threatened war, the political leadership is adopting a more diplomatic, if not quite conciliatory, tone. The Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of Korea, which claimed to be speaking on behalf of the entire government, said it would react to sanctions by freezing inter-Korean relations, as well as scrapping the North-South non-aggression agreement. The Foreign Ministry also issued a statement dedicated mostly to blasting the United States, but ending with a claim that its broad aim remains to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula. Translation: the softer side of Kim Jong-Il's regime wants out of this mess. Seoul, which wants to ease tensions before hosting the G20 summit this fall, made sure to offer the North a way out. In his statement, Lee demanded that Pyongyang "apologize and punish those responsible for the attack," laying down relatively easy terms for the North to resolve the conflict. Pyongyang may be preparing to comply. Even before the North was officially blamed for sinking the Cheonan, the National Defence Commission dimissed Kim Il-chol, its highest-ranking naval officer, citing his "old age." Kim is said to be in his late 70s, but so are many commission members. Observers speculate that Pyongyang may cite Kim's dismissal to claim it has already punished the man responsible, and perhaps to set the stage of an apology. Kenneth Quinones, a former State Department negotiator and a Korean expert, says a "similar dynamic" guided North Korea's response when one of its submarines infiltrated South Korean territorial waters in 1996. Ultimately, moderate elements in Pyongyang persuaded the military hardliners to apologize. And Pyongyang's declaration that it will no longer deal with the South while Lee is in office may be read as a call to China to step in and mediate. Far from escalating, says Quinones, Pyongyang officials "seem to be trying to keep some hope open for negotiations." As long Kim can do so without looking weak, he seems to be serious about finding a way out. Source: Newsweek  Read More →