TR EMERITUS

Referendum. It meets to seek support, and in political terms, it means to conduct a public vote to determine whether or not to implement a particular policy. This because highly controversial policy proposals may not be supported by the people and may even have unforeseen negative consequences by the ministers proposing them. While conducting referendums are par for the course in most other nations, it has never been done in Singapore. The rationale given by the government is that they have to act in the best interests of the country, and that sometimes bitter medicine is necessary. Of course, everybody knows that belt-tightening is necessary when a country is faced with a spiraling debt crisis, and that in times like these, unpopular but necessary policies are have to be implemented, but then again, that is not the real issue here. The real issue is this: are the proposed policies really necessary and in the best interests of the country? And for that matter, have the policies themselves been thought through carefully before being proposed? The government would argue that yes, their policies are well thought through by the best and brightest minds in the country. They would argue that Singapore is a meritocracy, and that the people they employ to come up with these policies are the best and brightest they can find. Meritocracy itself is a good thing. The problems are nobody possesses a monopoly on wisdom, and that the present generation of national leaders & their elite scholar pets are anything but talented. Even such true geniuses as Dr. Albert Einstein and Dr. Nikola Tesla have admitted to making mistakes. As such, a truly effective feedback mechanism such as a referendum becomes necessary to check on and minimize the possibility of making such mistakes. It's bad enough that the elites don't stop to think through the consequences of their policies: it's even worse when they don't listen to critics who notice the potential problems their policies can cause. Just witness how the entire Finance Ministry claimed they never expected inflation to shoot up by 50% from 4.4% to 6.6% after pm lee approved the simultaneous increase in GST, public transport, energy, fuel, food etc despite protests from the public. How on Earth can these elite scholars become economists when they don't even know that a sudden massive across the board price hike will fuel inflation? It's basic economics: too much money chasing too few goods. Just look at the potential consequences of the present government's policies. Mr. Lim Swee Say is a self-proclaimed “deaf frog” who refuses to listen to criticisms; so too was Capt E. E. Smith of the Titanic who ignored repeated iceberg warnings, and everyone knows how that ended. M.M. Lee wants to entrench the power of the elites and their relatives; one need only look at Thailand over the last few months to know exactly how this will eventually play out one day. P.M. Lee says that foreigners will strengthen the country; fat lot of good that a huge population of foreign talent did to Kuwait when Saddam Hussein & company came a-visiting and decided to stay as unwelcome guests. They all abandoned the country in its time of need. Nor are their underlings any better. Why is it the elite scholar commander of the Whitley Road Detention Center did not realize that someone could escape from the badly-designed toilet when his "lesser mortal" subordinates could and warned him about it? Is it because he never studied such a possibility in school? And why did the head of the PUB’s Drainage Department not realize that the large number of condominiums being constructed in the Bukit Timah area would reduce ground absorption, increasing the outflow into the Bukit Timah Canal and thus greatly increasing flood potential in the area? This is actually even worse in a way, because he definitely did study about it in school; it’s part of a standard civil engineering curriculum. Don't these debacles prove that Singapore-style "meritocracy" is no longer adequate for the country’s needs, assuming that it ever was? That being the case, shouldn’t there be radical changes in the way things are done here? At least a referendum may have prevented some of these problems. Do we approve of P.M. Lee’s plans to flood the country with semi-skilled foreigners? A “NO” vote, and it’s back to the drawing table for him, thus preventing many of the infrastructural problems that the country is now experiencing due to its sudden massive population explosion. No one claims that a referendum will solve all of Singapore’s problems. After all, it is possible that the public may vote to reject a necessary policy or accept a wrong one. However, should this happen and the negative consequences start showing up, at least public pressure can force the government to backtrack and do what is right. This is certainly not the case at present: presently, the government can simply do whatever it wants to even if they are the only ones to gain from such policies while ordinary Singaporeans have to suffer for them. A good case in point is the reappointment of Mdm Ho Ching as the CEO of Temasek Holdings after the resignation of former CEO Chip Goodyear, who was himself appointed as her successor after she resigned from the post. Finance Minister Mr. Tharman Shanmuguratnam reappointed her because “she is the best person for the job” in his own words. But if this was true, then why did he accept her resignation in the very first place? And for that matter, if she truly was as good as he claims, that how did she manage to lose $48,000,000,000/- in failed investments in the very first place? If a referendum had been held over her reappointment, given her past track record of failure and monetary loss, it would very likely be rejected by an overwhelming majority. But then again, that is probably the whole point why referendums are never held here; it’s not so much because the powers-that-be fear that Singaporeans will make the wrong choices, but rather because they fear that their self-serving policies will be rejected. Referendums are not the cure-all for any country’s problems. The best way to prevent abuses is to have effective check and balance mechanisms in place i.e. a strong independent judiciary & civil service, a strong opposition and a truly independent media. Referendums are however another highly effective tool to check against such abuses, because they allow the public to reject self-serving policies that benefit only the elite. Given the mindset shown by many government ministers though, staging them will only remain a pipe dream as long as these ministers continue to hold office. Tan Keng Leng  Read More →

OPINION There was an active debate in Parliament last week on the proposed changes in the Criminal Procedure Code to allow more sentencing options by the court for minor offences other than just jail terms and fines. While the move is laudable, it does not address the inherent weaknesses in Singapore's criminal justice system in which the accused is presumed guilty unless proven otherwise the moment he/she is hauled up by the police for investigations. The Singapore police has overwhelming and far-reaching powers over the citizenry and it is frightening that there is very little we can do to check on it which gives rise to potential abuse of power and authority. A senior police officer (normally the HI) has the power to order an investigation into anybody based on just mere suspicion alone and there is nothing the suspect can do to question his/her decision. Such 'ongoing investigation' can carry on for months, even years and eventually even if the suspect is found to be innocent of the alleged offence, the police will normally not inform the suspect of the outcome and leave the suspect 'hanging' without a formal closure. Such 'hanging' practise of the police will definitely have a detrimental effect on the suspect's life as he will have to live his life being suspected of a crime he did not commit. One can be arrested and detained for up to 48 hours for a seizeable offence to be interrogated by the police in the absence of a legal counsel on prima facie evidence. How many Singaporeans have been wrongfully arrested or investigated by the police over the years? Should they be compensated for the emotional trauma and distress they have been put through? Shouldn't the police officers who mishandle these cases be punished? At the present moment, Singaporeans are able to provide "feedback" to the Singapore Police Customer Service or Ministry of Home Affairs which will often re-direct the complaint back to the police division which was in charge of the case. Can we trust the Singapore police to check on itself? There is an Internal Investigation Division under the Service Development & Inspectorate Department of the Singapore Police Headquarters which conduct internal investigations into alleged abuse of power by police officers, but its findings are never made public. Neither will victims of police negligence and abuse be entitled to any form of compensation unless they file a civil suit which is both costly and time-consuming. Law Minister Shanmugam said in Parliament that the Home Affairs Ministry is now reviewing its investigation practices and training, to raise the professionalism of investigating officers. If he is indeed serious about doing so, he should not be afraid of setting up an independent Police complaints and Misconduct Commission to scrutinize the decision and conduct of the investigation officers. The Commission should comprise of MPs from all political parties, civil servants, retired police officers and lawyers from the private sector. It should be vested with the powers to conduct investigations into alleged abuses of authority, acts of negligence and bias in investigations by police officers after which the findings are made public. If the police officer is indeed judged to have made a mistake, he/she should be reprimanded and punished accordingly. The Singapore police is not above the law. Police officers are mere public servants whose primary aim is to serve the interests of the public and not to become a nuisance, or worse a menance to law-abiding citizens whom they should be protecting. Without having such a watchdog to check on the police, miscarriages of justice will be inevitable and there will be no channels for the victims to seek redress. Many first world countries such as Hong Kong (IPCMC), Australia (Police Integrity Commission) and United Kingdom (Independent Police Complaints Commission) have independent bodies for the public to lodge their complaints about the police directly to. It is about time that Singapore follows suit.    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 →

Coming short after a blaze of daily propaganda in the state media to instill a "feel-good" sentiment among unsuspecting Singaporeans, PAP minister Teo Chee Hean is now claiming credit for Singapore's economic turnaround on behalf of the public service which he is in charge of. During a speech made at the Public Service Awards ceremony today, Mr Teo claimed that the Singapore Public Service and the country's political leadership had worked together to find "practical solutions" to the challenges faced by the nation during the global financial crisis last year. "This ability to work as one networked government is one of the reasons why the Singapore Public Service is effective and distinctive compared to many other public services in the world. We must remain committed to serving and engaging our citizens as best as we can," he was quoted as saying in Channel News Asia. With the global economy improving, Singapore trade-dependent economy has rebounded strongly, growing by 15.5 percent in the first quarter of this year as compared to minus two percent last year. When Singapore became the first Asian country to enter into a recession at the end of 2008, PAP leaders were quick to put the blame entirely on the global financial crisis. Now that the economy has recovered, they are equally as quick to claim credit for it though how much of the "turnaround" is contributed by their "efforts" remain a suspect. Mr Teo's latest remarks will probably pave the way for another round of pay hikes for PAP ministers and senior civil servants. An unknown percentage of their pay is pegged to GDP growth - the higher the growth, the more money they bring home. It was reported by TODAY earlier this year that PAP ministers are expecting a 8.8 percent pay hike this year based on predicted growth rates of between 4 to 6 percent. With the economy performing better than forecasted, their pays are likely to increase again, courtesy of the generosity of Singapore taxpayers.   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 →