TR EMERITUS

Written by Our Correspondent U.S. Ambassador-designate to Singapore Mr David Adelman had promised to use "public diplomacy" to promote political and press freedom in Singapore at a nomination hearing in Washington D.C. Mr Adelman's nomination to be the next US Ambassador to Singapore was announced by the White House in November after the previous ambassador, Ms Patricia Herbold, relinquished her post in January last year at the end of the Bush administration's tenure. He was asked by Virginia Senator Jim Webb on his views on the United States' engagement with Singapore on its repressive political system: "The Economist Democracy Index ranks Singapore as 82nd in the world in terms of democratic development, below neighbours such as Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines. Reporters Without Borders ranks the country 133rd out of 175 for press freedoms. What is your view in terms of whether and how the United States should engage Singapore on these other issues?" Mr Adelman admitted that Singapore is not a democracy and replied that the United States must engage Singapore on these issues: "My view is the United States must engage Singapore on these issues. You identified the area where, quite candidly, Singapore needs the most improvement if it were to live up to the ambitions Americans have for democracy. Make no mistake, currently Singapore is not a multi-party democracy, and I intend, if confirmed, to use public diplomacy to work towards greater press freedoms, greater freedom of assembly and ultimately, more political space for opposition parties in Singapore to strengthen Singapore into a multi-party democracy." He did not elaborate more on how he will achieve his aims except tht he will bring some of his experiences in government and in the private sector to the United States' public diplomacy efforts run out of the Embassy in Singapore. Singapore's ruling party has received much flak from the international community lately over its atrocious human rights record. Respected international NGO Human Rights Watch described Singapore as a "textbook example of a politically repressive state" in its annual report released recently. U.S.-based Freedom House reported that Singapore is not a "democracy" as proclaimed by its leaders and though Singapore conducts elections on a regular basis, Singaporeans cannot expect to vote out the incumbents. Singapore has been ruled by the PAP for 50 continuous years since 1959. All institutions of the state including the police, media, grassroots organizations, civil societies and trade unions are under its firm control in one way or another. Repressive laws are put in place to curtail the political and civil rights of ordinary Singaporeans. There is no opposition in Parliament to check on it resulting in a gross lack of accountability and transparency in Singapore's political system. While we welcome Mr Adelman's committment to promote political and press freedom in Singapore, it is unlikely he is able to do anything without incurring the wrath of the vindictive PAP. In 1988, Hank Hendrickson, the First Secretary of the U.S. Embassy in Singapore was expelled from the island for “meddling in Singapore politics.” Hendrickson was a confidant of the then President of Singapore Law Society, former Solicitor-General Francis Seow who was later detained under the ISA for being a “willing partner to acts in interference in Singapore’s internal affairs by representatives of a foreign power.” Hendrickson was alleged to have “encouraged” Francis Seow to stand in the elections as an opposition candidate to challenge the PAP so as to have an opposition in the Singapore parliament which is “amenable” to U.S. interests.  The United States said that Mr Hendrickson had done nothing out of line with normal diplomatic practice. Tit-for-tat, it expelled a Singapore diplomat Robert Chua. Mr Adelman is an attorney who holds degrees from the University of Georgia, Georgia State University and the Emory Law School. He is a strong advocate of open government. In 2006, he authored and passed legislationi which provides public access to campus police department records. Perhaps he can use his experience to "persuade" the ruling party to increase the level of transparency in its governance of the nation which is sorely lacking at the moment.  Read More →

Written by Our Correspondent Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC)'s S$14 billion dollar investment in giant Swiss bank UBS appeared to be in serious jeopardy following fresh concerns that UBS may face collapse if it loses its license in the United States after a protracted tax dispute. GIC made its initial investment of S$14 billion to buy a 9 per cent stake in UBS on the same day that it was hit by a S$14 billion in losses from the sub-prime mortgage crisis in the United States in December 2007. Dr Tony Tan, a former PAP minister and Deputy Chairman of GIC said he believes in the "long-term prospects" of UBS: "We take a long view. This is not an investment (for) which we have any fixed time frame. Of course, we'll review it from time to time. Our intention is to remain responsible, supportive investors... hopefully for the long-term." [Straits Times, 11 December 2007] GIC's UBS investments now look set to be wiped out unless the Swiss government manage to reach a settlement with the U.S. over a protracted tax dispute which erupted in 2008. UBS has initially agreed to transfer data on 4,450 clients suspected of tax evasion to U.S. tax authorities. However, a Swiss court ruled last month that most of the data cannot be transferred as this would break Swiss law. The United States has threatened to revoke UBS's license if the deal fails to go through and UBS will face collapse as a result. As expected, there were no immediate comments from GIC or Dr Tony Tan. Neither did the mainstream media report on the matter. Set up in 1981 to manage Singapore's growing national reserves, GIC has been led ever since by Singapore's strongman Lee Kuan Yew, who is a lawyer by training. His daughter-in-law Ho Ching heads Singapore's other sovereign wealth fund, Temasek Holdings. Both GIC and Temasek Holdings were hit by billions of dollars of investment losses recently. Despite calls from Singaporeans to establish an independent Commission of Inquiry to investigate into the losses, the ruling party has blatantly refused to do so. Till today, nobody knows the exact amount of losses suffered by the two sovereign wealth funds. There is no opposition in the Singapore parliament to hold the ruling party accountable. All the printed newspapers in Singapore are owned by a single media agency - SPH whose Chairman is none other than Dr Tony Tan himself.  Read More →

OPINION A staff of Bishan-Toa Payoh Town Council (and suspected PAP member) wrote a letter to the Straits Times Forum yesterday to defend the PAP's "track record" over the last fifty years. Entitled "Imagining a Singapore without PAP", Mr Ling Tuck Mun wrote that "every Singaporean would likely become a millionaire overnight" if the PAP were to distribute most of the country's reserves to all eligible Singaporeans to pay tribute to the PAP government's achievements over the last fifty years. "I wonder if any Singaporean can still be confident of the worth of having a million dollars without the PAP in power," he wrote. It smacks of utter desperation of PAP members and supporters to resort to such a hypothetical scenario which will never happen in real life to defend the PAP's continued political hegemony. While we must admit that the PAP has done some good for Singapore, we should not forget the fact that the bulk of the credit should go to ordinary Singaporeans for building the nation and not a few leaders of a political party. Without hardworking, thrifty and sensible citizens to generate year after year of budget surpluses, will the PAP government have so much reserves to splurge on risky overseas investments now? Besides, past achievements can hardly be used to justify the PAP's stranglehold on power. Instead of "imagine a Singapore without PAP", Singaporeans should be asking this: "Imagine a Singapore with the PAP in charge for another 50 years." A political party is only as good as its leaders are. The present PAP is a pale shadow of its former self and has ceased to be a political party altogether. It is merely a political vehicle for a single man to govern the country. No PAP member can ever hope to rise up in its ranks without prior approval from this man. The PAP has been enjoying a "good life" for far too long without any opposition in parliament to check on it. Due to the lack of political competition, it has become complacent with many of its leaders losing touch with the ground and forgetting that they are put into power by the people in the first place. There is little accountability or transparency in Singapore's present political system which resembles more like a third world dictatorship than a first world democracy. All institutions of the state are controlled by the PAP directly or indirectly such as the police, media, civil society, grassroots organizations and trade unions. Repressive laws are put in place to curtail the civil and political liberties of citizens under the guise of "public order and safety". It is not a surprise that Singapore is described as a "textbook example of a politically repressive state" by respected international NGO Human Rights Watch recently in its annual report. The entire set-up is put in place to perpetuate the PAP's rule forever so as to prevent an alternative center of power from emerging to challenge it. Even Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong admitted himself that Singapore is better off being dominated by a single party than multi-party politics. Law Minister Shanmugam defended Singapore's political system on the basis that it needs an "efficient" government which makes fast decisions. The stunning policy reversals made by the PAP recently is a testament to the failure of a rigid one-party system over-dependent on a 86 year old "forecaster extraordinarie" to think out of the box, anticipate future problems and to inspire an entire nation to follow its leadership. Based on current policy trends and direction, the following stands a higher chance of happening than PAP distributing our reserves to every citizen if we were to allow the PAP to rule Singapore for another fifty years: 1. Native Singaporeans will become a minority: Due to the PAP's liberal immigration and pro-foreigner policies, foreigners now make up 36 per cent of Singapore's population, up from 14 per cent in 1990. Of the remaining 64 per cent who are citizens, an increasing proportion are born overseas. The birth rates of native Singaporeans, especially the ethnic Chinese, continue to decrease despite a slew of government incentives introduced to encourage them to bear more children while the PAP has promised only to "slow down" the inflow of immigrants. At the rate they are mass importing foreigners elsewhere to take up Singapore citizenship, it is only a matter of time before native Singaporeans fall below 50 per cent of the population. In fact the day is not too far away. With Singaporeans becoming a minority in their own country, it will become increasingly difficult for them to vote out the increasingly unpopular PAP which is actively wooing PRs and new citizens by roping them into grassroots organizations in a desperate bid to hang on to power 2. Brain drain will accelerate: According to figures from the Home Affairs Ministry, there are about 180,000 Singaporeans working overseas, many of whom are unlikely to return. About 1,000 Singaporeans give up their citizenships yearly and the number is set to rise in the coming years. In an interview done by the Straits Times two years ago, more than 50 per cent of youths interviewed had expressed thoughts of emigrating. Common reasons cited include stressful living conditions, lack of social security in old age and a repressive political climate. Contrary as to what the PAP would like to believe, the degree of political freedom in a country is an important factor in keeping and attracting world class talents, few of whom want to live forever under the shadow of a totalitarian state. Furthermore, there is an increasing number of unhappy, frustrated and angry Singaporeans who are voting with their feet because they have given up hope of voting the PAP out of office altogether. The PAP is replacing the talented Singaporeans who left with second and third class "talents" from China and India which will surely decrease the quality of our "stock" in the long run. How can Singapore expect to compete with China, India and its neighbors when it is importing "inferior" talents from them while its own talented people are emigrating in droves? The future of Singapore is becoming indeed bleaker and bleaker with each passing day. 3. Widening income gap between the rich and the poor: Under PAP rule, Singapore's income gap between the rich and the poor has widened considerably over the last two decades. Singapore now has the highest income gap among the thirty most developed countries in the world due to the PAP's lop-sided economic policies which favor big businesses at the expense of ordinary citizens. It is widely acknowledged among economists that Singapore's phenomenal economic growth over the last few years is a result of its open-door policies to foreign workers which help to keep labor costs down thereby boosting the GDP growth figures artificially. The relentless influx of cheap foreign labor has depressed the wages of ordinary Singaporeans which remain stagnant at $2,600 monthly. The PAP doesn't seem to be concerned about the implications of Singapore's widening income gap as illustrated by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's reply to a question on it at a Kent Ridge Ministerial Forum last year. He said that Singapore's widening income gap is an "inevitable consequence" of globalization and it mattered little so long the government continues to create jobs for Singaporeans. He forgot the fact that some jobs offer too low a pay to afford a decent standard of living in Singapore and that Japan, South Korea and Taiwan have been exposed to globalization too and yet they have a much narrower income gap than Singapore. Singapore will soon become only a playground for the rich ruling elites and foreigners while the poor continue to slog day in and out to pay for the roofs over their heads. 4. More and more expensive HDB flats: Due to limited supply of new flats and rising demand fueled by immigration, the prices of HDB flats have sky-rocketed in recent years. Despite widespread frustration, worries and resentment on the ground, the PAP has refused to even acknowledge the problem. National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan continues to insist that HDB flats remain "affordable" to ordinary Singaporeans though he admitted that he was "caught off guard" by the recent spikes in prices. His deputy Senior Minister of State Grace Fu said the price appreciation is a "good thing" for Singaporeans as it help "create wealth" for them which can only be unlocked if they emigrate out of the country. Law Minister Shanmugam claimed he had a "hunch" that Singaporeans are responsible for the sky-rocketing prices when it is the PRs who are "spoiling" the market as admitted later by MM Lee himself. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said there is nothing his administration can do to control prices in the resale market when all it needs to do is to increase the supply of new flats, housing subsidies and income ceiling. At the rate the prices are going up, HDB flats will soon cost more than $1 million dollars in the not too distant future thereby plunging Singaporeans into greater debts. The PAP is unlikely to bring down prices because it will spark an outcry among earlier buyers who have bought their flats at exorbitant prices and hence prices will continue to go up in the future. Unfortunately, the wages of ordinary Singaporeans are unlikely to keep pace with the increase in HDB flat prices and Singaporeans will have to pay through their teeth for a 99-year old leasehold property which do not belong to them in the first place. 5. Uncertain and insecure future, especially in old age: Though Singapore is the second richest nation in Asia after Japan and its two giant sovereign wealth funds GIC and Temasek Holdings can afford to lose billions of dollars of national reserves in failed overseas investments, Singaporeans, its citizens enjoy few social welfare benefits especially in public healthcare. Despite repeated claims by the PAP that public healthcare is affordable to Singaporeans, there are increasing concerns on the ground that their savings may be depleted by hefty medical expenses. Indeed there is a common saying among Singaporeans that "one can afford to die, but not fall ill in Singapore." With stagnant wages, increase in cost of living and little savings left after paying for over-priced HDB flats, Singaporeans from the middle and lower income group face an uncertain and insecure future ahead of them, especially in old age. There is no job security in Singapore. Regardless of one's qualifications, one can easily get replaced by a cheaper "foreign talent" in their 30s, 40s or 50s and force to take up a lower-paying job. There is no security in old age and unless one belongs to the top 10 per cent of the earners in Singapore, one is expected to work for as long as it takes till the day they drop dead and die. Is this all life is about? The Singapore government can well afford to increase spending on social welfare to provide cheaper public healthcare and to assist the needy, but has blatantly refused to do so. Is this the kind of life you want for yourself, your children and grandchildren under another 50 years of uninterrupted PAP rule without any checks and balances? 6. Viability of Singapore as a nation is becoming a suspect: It took us 50 years to forge a common identity as Singaporeans, but this good work done by past PAP leaders is being dismantled bit by bit by the relentless influx of foreigners which has diluted Singapore's national identity. There is little time to integrate all the newcomers because too many of them have come within too short a period of time. As there are already substantial number of them in Singapore, they tend to congregate among themselves instead of reaching out to other Singaporeans. We are already seeing ethnic enclaves emerging in the HDB heartlands and the situation is likely to worsen in the future. With native Singaporeans leaving en masse and being replaced by economic migrants from third world countries, the viability of Singapore as a nation is becoming a suspect. Singapore is becoming more like a playground for the rich and connected and a hotel for the foreigners than a home for Singaporeans. When native Singaporeans are struggling daily just to make ends meet, it is difficult to expect them to have any sense of belonging to the country. To compound matters, with China and India becoming more developed and prosperous, the brain drain is starting to reverse with Singapore Chinese and Indians flocking there to work, live and retire. There is already a sizable Singapore community in the Pearl River Delta region of China and the number will probably set to grow in the coming years. As the PAP continues to build Singapore as an economic paradise for big businesses, it has forgotten how human nature works: human beings will always seek a better life and security is foremost on their minds when they decide where to plant their roots. This will be where our country is heading to if we allow the PAP to rule Singapore for another fifty years. GIC and Temasek may still have billions of reserves in their kitties, but what significance do they have if we do not have a nation to speak of?  Read More →