TR EMERITUS

The Reform Party and the Singapore Democratic Alliance have taken another step towards forming an alliance to contest in the next General Election expected to be called this year. The Secretary-General of the Reform Party Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam told Channel News Asia that his party and SDA are seeking approval from their central executive committees. He did not elaborate on whether the Reform Party will be joining the Singapore Democratic Alliance formally. The latter consists of Potong Pasir MP Mr Chiam See Tong's Singapore People Party and two other smaller parties. An opposition coalition will stand a far better chance of taking on the PAP juggernaut instead of fighting individual battles on their own. The move was welcomed by many netizens who are hoping to see the opposition putting up a stiff challenge to the PAP in the next general election. Loke Yu Ming wrote on TR's Facebook: "All the opposition parties should unite so that a vote for any opposition candidate, regardless of the party, is a vote for the United Opposition." Kevin Teo added: "Hopefully, more opposition parties will combined so that we will ultimately be like the USA's Democrats and Republicans, 2 big powerful parties, either one that become arrogant & stupid - like in the ... See Morecase of Republicans & George Bush that deregulated the financial industry, allowing the bankers to be greedy, leading to a financial crisis - ended up beaten by Democrats & Obama. So having another strong political party in Singapore is significant to balance the power of PAP." With public unhappiness and resentment against the PAP at an all-time high, the opposition is expected to make significant gains in the next general election including winning a coveted GRC.   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 →

OPINION Speaking on the eve of World Press Freedom day a few days ago, Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng repeated his calls for Malaysia to implement Freedom of Information (FOI) laws to promote transparency, accountability and competence in governance. Since assuming his position in 2008, Lim has introduced various measures to promote more transparency in the governance of Penang such as mandating all state executive councillors to make public their personal income and assets. Freedom of information legislation are rules that guarantee access to data held by the state. They establish a "right-to-know" legal process by which requests may be made for government-held information, to be received freely or at minimal cost, barring standard exceptions. A basic principle behind most freedom of information legislation is that the burden of proof falls on the body asked for information, not the person asking for it. The requester does not usually have to give an explanation for their request, but if the information is not disclosed a valid reason has to be given. Over 85 countries around the world have implemented some form of such legislation, but surprisingly Singapore is not one of them. For a country which prides itself on the accountability and transparency of its governance, it is strange that Singapore has no FOI laws to enable and empower citizens to gain easy access to information held by the state. There is usually an information gap between citizens and the state which is privy to a wealth of information not available in the public domain. Bridging the gap via FOI laws will enable Singaporeans to better scrutinize and assess the performance of their leaders and civil servants thereby keeping them on their toes and improving public governance in the process. Right now, unhappy citizens can only lodge a complaint to the relevant authorities and agencies which may take ages to give a reply, most of which are standard one-liner: "We thank you for your feedback and the matter has been looked into." They are not obliged to reveal details of any internal inquiry or measures taken to rectify the problem. The complainant often goes away feeling aggrieved with few questions and doubts answered. Having FOIs will enable individuals to demand for information from the state which is now legally obliged to provide due assistance to them. This will make it difficult for leaders and civil servants to hide their mistakes and to sweep them under the carpet easily without attracting public opprobrium. In the long run, it will serve to promote greater competency, accountability and transparency in all aspects of public administration and governance. PAP leaders have always boasted of how "capable", "upright" and "honest" they are. Self-praise is no praise really. If they are indeed so good as they claimed, they should not have any worries putting their track record under intense public scrutiny. With all important state institutions under their control, there are no other independent estates in Singapore to check on the PAP saved for the apathetic citizenry. In most democratic states, the media usually perform the function of scrutinizing political leaders, but not in Singapore where it is relegated to no more a mouthpiece of the PAP. The greatest flaw in Singapore's political system lies in the lack of an institutionalized system of checks and balances to hold the ruling party accountable to its actions. As such, it is able to get away with the most atrocious of mistakes without having to pay a political price. For example, when Temasek Holdings CEO-designate Chip Goodyear left the company under a cloud of controversy last year, Singaporeans are unable to demand an answer from the government. Finance Minister Tharman brushed the concerns of Singaporeans aside on the grounds that revealing the truth will not serve any "strategic purpose". Having FOI laws will compel Mr Tharman to release the information to the public so long somebody asks for it. Unfortunately, the PAP is unlikely to implement FOI laws to the detriment of its own selfish interest as it is too used to ruling Singapore at its whims and fancies without any external interference or opposition. Law Minister Shanmugam even had the audacity to claim that Singapore needs a "strong" government with a "clear majority" to govern with scant regard to accountability and transparency. Can we expect the PAP to check on itself? Singaporeans should realize that they have certain political and civil rights as citizens of their nation and they have the right to demand for information from the state for the purpose of scrutinizing its performance. The government should be afraid of the people and not the other way round. Sadly, many Singaporeans are still ignorant of the importance and relevance of FOI laws without which they will forever be giving the PAP a blank cheque to lord over their lives.   Please join our Facebook discussion on this article here and invite your friends to do so as well to raise awareness among fellow Singaporeans. This page is maintained independently by a TR reader.   Copyright © 2009 – 2010 The Temasek Review  Read More →

作者：陈华福 新加坡是沿袭英国的政治制度，最多每五年由人民投票选举多数党的议员组织政府，除了英国有女王而我们多了一个总统外，在官委议员和非选区议员方面，又似乎是执政党在原有的基础上想出来的独创点子。 根据执政党的说法，因为每届新加坡大选有不少集选区都因没有对手而自动获选，有选举的地区结果又有不少于30%的选票是投给反对党候选人，从国会议席分配上明显看出有民意代表性不足的遗憾，为纾缓人民的不满和化解积怨，增加官委议员和非选区议员就是在这种情况下提出来的一种方案。 究竟是政治异己被打压和缺少公平竞争的环境，还是反对党人才缺少积弱不堪造成，执政党和反对党各执一词，只有认真翻阅五十年来的历史才可能掌握脉络了解实情，不同年代和不同文化背景的人也都可能有不同的解读。 无可否认，官委议员和非选区议员容许在国会里畅所欲言，却没有赞成或反对的投票实权。有人批评宛如是国会里的点缀花瓶，是我们民主的倒退。执政党却说是出自一种善良的创意，在没有更好合理的解决民意合乎比率之前，这或许是一种苦心的策划和安排。 对任何课题都意见一致，恐怕是非民主国家才具有的特殊顺民现象，犹如我们不能把坚持反对改变母语在小学会考成绩比重的人，都说成是顽固的沙文主义分子一样。 在选举的政治制度下，倘若败选或受委进入国会的也享有同等权力，显然对通过人民投票选出来的民选议员不公平，也不合理。任何国会议员不管拥有多少票数胜选，都可说是得之不易，也是经得起考验。 官委议员和非选区议员的制度，应该不分任何政党皆适用。既然来自各行业的官委议员无实权，并规定投票率不超过15%的反对党候选人不能以非选区议员资格成为代表，一票皆无而自动获选的国会议员更是缺乏民意代表性。 如果以非选区议员身份委任他们就似乎合情合理，直至有人或有政党愿意角逐产生出新的民选议员为止，这也避免公民质疑国会议员是否具有真正民意的基础。  Read More →