TR EMERITUS

Written by Our Correspondent Nearly a month after the double hit-and-run accident at Bukit Panjang involving a vehicle from the Romanian embassy which had claimed the life of an innocent young man Mr Tong Kok Wai, the Singapore police have finally "concluded" its investigations with the identity of the driver still not known or revealed. Channel News Asia quoted an unidentified police spokeswoman saying on Sunday that the investigation papers are now with the Attorney-General's Chambers "for their direction on the appropriate course of action to be taken". She was also quick to point out that they "have not handed the investigation file to the Romanian Prosecutor's Office". As usual, there are no comments from either the Attorney-General's Chambers or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The prime suspect in the case, Romanian diplomat Dr Silviu Ionescu was allowed by the Singapore police to leave the country three days after the accident. Currently in Romania, Dr Silviu has been recalled from his post in Singapore and will probably not return to Singapore again. In the meantime, the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has completed its own internal investigations within 3 days and submitted a request to the Romanian Prosecutor's Office to take the necessary action. Dr Silviu was questioned by agents from the Romanian Foreign Intelligence Service a few days ago. A spokesperson for the Romanian Jurse Court said that the investigations will take "several months if not years" to complete. The widow of Mr Tong, Ms Yenny Young has since engaged the services of Senior Counsel Mr Subhas Anandan to explore the possibility of securing some sort of compensation from the Romanian embassy. In an earlier email interview with The Temasek Review, Ms Young said she had not ruled out suing the Romanian government for compensation. A staff from the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs contacted Ms Young this week to offer its condolences for the accident. However Ms Young had not received any offer of help from the Romanian embassy in Singapore yet. There is no extradition treaty between Singapore and Romania. A Singapore lawyer told the state media earlier that Romanian law does not provide for prosecution of traffic offences committed overseas. The controversial case has hit the headlines in both Singapore and Romania for the last two weeks, but it is likely to fade away soon given the short attention span of the public. For Ms Young and her family, it will probably mean many more years of entanglement with the Romanian government and courts to seek justice for the deceased Mr Tong. Copyright © 2009 – 2010 The Temasek Review (If you are going to reproduce this article on your blog or forum, please provide a link back to ours) Related articles: 1. Romanian court: Investigation of Dr Silviu Ionescu will take several years 2. Dr Silviu Ionescu whisked away to secret location by Romanian Foreign Intelligence Service 3. Dr Silviu Ionescu: I will not return to Singapore 4. Email interview with Yenny Young, wife of Mr Tong Kok Wai 5. Dr Silviu Ionescu: fact remains that I was not in the car at the time of the accident 6. Investigating or procrastinating: Dr Silviu Ionescu still holidaying in Romania 7. George Yeo on Romanian embassy car crash: What happened is “very bad” 8. Online petition calls on Romanian govt to make ex gratias payment 9. Dr Silviu Ionescu: I took cab to notify car theft 10. Eye witness saw driver quarreling with a young girl in the car 11. Dr Silviu Ionescu: I have no connection with the case 12. Dr Silviu Ionescu flagged taxi at Sungei Kadut 13. From Romania with love: The Great Singapore escape of Dr Silviu Ionescu 14. Singapore police has not ruled out Dr Silviu Ionescu as a suspect in its investigations 15. Romanian diplomat suspected to be driver of Audi in hit and run accident at Bukit Panjang  Read More →

Written by Our Correspondent In yet another sign that the ruling party is completely out of touch with the ground, PAP MP and Mayor of South East District Mr Matthias Yao became the latest leader to parrot his party's stance and urged Singaporeans to accept and welcome foreigners. In an interview with Channel News Asia, Mr Yao was quoted as saying: "Singapore must welcome everybody, just as Singapore welcomed our own forefathers. My suggestion is welcome our new friends and citizens and for the new citizens, feel quickly a part of Singapore and contribute as much as they can to the economy and neighbourhood." It is disingenuous for Mr Yao to compare our situation now with the past when Singapore was a British colony and the British had to import large number of cheap foreign labor from other countries to keep its economy which is heavily dependent on external trade going. Now that we have been a nation for 44 years, a delicate balance must be achieved between safeguarding the interests of locals while welcoming more foreigners into the country at the same time. As a result of the ruling party's liberal immigration policy which had saw the relentless influx of foreigners into Singapore for the past few years, the nation's demographics was altered radically. Foreigners now make up 36 per cent of the population, up from 14 per cent in 1990. Of the remaining 64 per cent, there is a growing proportion of new citizens who are not born here in Singapore. At the rate the ruling party is "mass-importing" foreigners from elsewhere, true blue Singaporeans may find themselves in the minority in no time. While Singaporeans understand the need to welcome foreigners to boost the nation's flagging birth rates, what they are perturbed with is the quality of the new citizens we are accepting which resemble more of uncouth peasants than top-notch professionals. A Gallup poll done in July last year reveals that the United States is the top destination for college students from mainland China and not Singapore. Despite Singapore's best efforts to woo the Chinese to study and work here, it does not even feature in the top 5 immigration destinations for them. The United States accepts thousands of Chinese immigrants each year, many of whom are world class scientists, engineers, doctors, artists and respected professionals from other fields. In contrast, the majority of Chinese immigrants in Singapore hail from the poorer inland provinces and many are unable to speak a single word of English. There are few newcomers from the affluent coastal cities of Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen and Tianjin. Recent media reports reveal that even cleaners, masseurs, beauticians and construction workers are given Singapore PRs and citizenship. Are we so desperate of people that we have to welcome these "rejects" from other countries? Social integration and assimilation takes time and it will not happen overnight simply by pouring money into it. The Japanese Americans took one or two generations to become fully naturalized American citizens. In the case of the United States, the new immigrants have no choice but to force themselves to adapt to a new environment as they remain a minority compared to the native whites. The increasing large number of Chinese and Indian immigrants flooding into Singapore will make it more difficult for them to integrate into Singapore society as they tend to mix within their own social circles. With Singapore's new found national identity being eroded away by the ruling party's reckless and short-sighted immigration policies, we may end up becoming an economic "colony" for the ruling elite and rich foreigners.  Read More →

OPINION When Law Minister Shanmugam mooted the idea of introducing some form of "political education" to Singapore students as part of the school curriculum a month ago, few had taken him seriously. Now that The Straits Times published a two-page feature on it to sell the idea to Singaporeans, it appears that it will become a reality after all. In all likelihood, the idea must have been explored and pondered over repeatedly a long time ago not by Shanmugam, but by the PAP's strongman Lee Kuan Yew. Shanmugam is merely his "messenger" to get the his intended message across to Singaporeans. The apparent haste at which the idea is imposed on the public with no consultation with the people smacks of utter desperation of the PAP to retain their grip on power. With young Singaporeans being more politically aware, educated and astute, the PAP can no longer afford to pull a wool over their eyes to masquerade Singapore as a "democracy" when it is a de facto one-party totalitarian state. The inherent weaknesses and deficiencies in Singapore's political system has become so blatantly obvious in the last few years that even the state media has difficulties hiding them. A political system like ours dominated by a single party with no opposition to check on it has little accountability and transparency. Recent incidents have proven to Singaporeans that we cannot expect the PAP to check on itself. For example, when its two sovereign wealth funds lost billions of taxpayers' monies in overseas invesstments, there was no Commission of Inquiry set up to investigate the fiasco. Unpopular policies such as its liberal immigration policy are rammed down the throats of ordinary Singaporeans who are paying a price for their mistakes. The PAP ministers are the highest paid leaders in the world. Living high up in ivory towers of their own, they are unable or unwilling to empathize with the suffering and hardships of the common man in the street resulting in lop-sided policies which benefit only the elites and not the general population on a whole. In his commentary published in Petir, Shanmugam said "the PAP understands how vulnerable Singapore is in many respects – size, geographical situation, racial make-up, regional political, economic, military and social situations." and because of our "unique" situation, we need "an excellent, strong leadership, and its political structures and systems must allow for effective and speedy decision-making." What he didn't mention is that for the PAP to make speedy decisions, there must not be an sizable opposition in parliament to hinder its policy-making but yet in governing a nation which concerns the lives of a few million citizens, speed is not everything. The government has to be attuned to the concerns and aspirations of the people and this involves a lot of patient listening to understand the problems they faced in their daily lives. Ultimately, it boils down to the fact the PAP still thinks its "model" of government is the only acceptable model for Singapore and it fears that young Singaporeans may be swayed by "western" democratic ideals and rise up against it. "They (young Singaporeans) have grown up with stability, safety and security. About 75 per cent of each cohort get some form of tertiary education. They are therefore confident, and often with clear ideas of what the political process and system should be like in a democratic state. These ideas are based on the dominant political philosophy today – the Western model of liberal democracy is superior. There are many aspects of the model which several countries, including Singapore, have sought to adopt. But not every aspect can be transplanted in totol across cultures, without regard to different economic, social and geo-strategic situations," Mr Shanmugam wrote. He expressed his concern that many Singaporeans may not fully realize Singapore's vulnerabilities and the "younger electorate may find it difficult to accept the PAP’s basic message – that Singapore is unique, and the liberal democratic model has to be adapted considerably to work for us." The "democratic" model has been "adapted" by the PAP to masquerade Singapore as a democracy to the rest of the world when it was never a democracy at all. Besides conducting regular elections once every five years, the other quintessential pillars of a democracy such as a free press, independent judiciary, active civil society and an informed electorate are grossly lacking in the Singapore system. Mr Shanmugam wrote that education is the only way to "get Singaporeans to understand the costs and benefits of different political systems; the factors which have made Singapore successful; and the costs and benefits of changing our system." Is his purpose really to educate Singaporeans on the "cost and benefits" of different political systems or to promote the PAP's brand of political system to Singaporeans to make it more palatable for them to swallow?" There is a very fine line between political education and indoctrination and students can be easily swayed by subtle and soft propaganda to unwittingly think that the political system endorsed by the PAP is superior than all others. Let us give you an example by comparing the political systems of Singapore and Taiwan: "Taiwan's political system is modeled after the United States. There are two major political parties in Taiwan - Kuomintang (KMT) and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). DPP's Chen Shui Bian was the President of Taiwan from 2000 - 2008, however the Legislative Yuan was controlled by the KMT. Due to intense political bickering between the two camps, good initiatives and policies by the President were seldom implemented as they were vetoed immediately by the opposition. As a result, the Taiwanese economy stagnated leading to a lower quality of life for the ordinary Taiwanese. In contrast, Singapore does not have an opposition in parliament to hinder the government from making fast and effective decisions. When Singapore was hit by the Asian Financial crisis in 2008, the government was able to respond immediately and rolled out a series of schemes such as the Job Credit Scheme to save the jobs of Singaporeans.  This will not be possible if Singapore's political system is like Taiwan which allows for a strong opposition to check on the government thereby tying its hands. The main role of the opposition is to oppose the government and not to help it perform its job better. The resultant politicking between two opposing camps is detrimental to the day-to-day running of the government and the people will suffer in the end as a result." A student with limited knowledge of the outside world will have the erroneous impression that Singapore's political system is superior to Taiwan, a "western liberal democracy" after reading the above paragraph which while laying down the bare facts, also add a spin to it to promote the PAP's brand of governance. In fact, the state media has been subtly promoting the political agenda of the PAP for ages to warn Singaporeans of the perils of "western liberal democracy". If you realize, Mediacorp will be quick to show footage of mass protests in other Asian democracies like Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, but never broadcast their parliamentary sessions in which the opposition ask sharp and sensitive questions to hold the ruling party accountable. The Straits Times is always the first to splash the photos of violent protesters damaging public property or riot police beating them on its front pages to instill fear into the minds of Singaporeans so that we grow up being averse to "western liberal democracy". Mr Shanmugam should remember that the PAP is only a political party and its mandate to govern Singapore comes from the people. It does not have the right to misuse taxpayers' monies to promote its own preferred political system to our next generation. Besides, with the internet providing Singaporeans an alternative source of information, it is unlikely that his plan to enable Singaporeans to make an "informed" choice will work. The pitfalls of an one-party system are too obvious for all to see. One does not need to be a political science graduate to understand the simple fact that "absolutely power corrupts absolutely". As Abraham Lincoln said: "You can fool some people all the time, you may fool all the people some of the time, but you can never fool all the people all the time." The PAP and its mouthpiece - the Singapore media have been fooling Singaporeans for fifty continuous years since 1959, but one day the people will awake to the truth and vote for change. The winds of change are blowing across the world and it is only a matter of time before they reach the shores of Singapore. Mr Shanmugam is on the wrong side of history and we hope he can be proven dead wrong in his lifetime. Related articles: 1. Shanmugam to go ahead to spread PAP propaganda in schools 2. Should comparative political systems be taught in schools? 3. Challenge of communication  Read More →