TR EMERITUS

OPINION The PAP government has never failed to emphasize on the "fact" that "Singapore's politics are reserved for Singaporeans only" as outsiders do not have a stake in the country to deter foreigners from "interfering" in local politics. Foreign journalists often have their work permits canceled without warning like in the recent case of Daily Telegraph journalist Benjamin Bland or banned from entering Singapore altogether like the Chief Editor of Asia Sentinel John Berthelsen who was once "deported" unceremoniously by the police upon his arrival at Changi Airport. Foreigners are required to apply for a police permit even when speaking indoors and they are almost always not given when the topic touches on local politics. For example, a Swedish human rights activist's permit to hold a workshop for SDP members was rejected with no reasons given. Being a non-partisan public institution, one would expect the Singapore police to apply the law equally to all political parties, but this is not often the case. Not too long ago, Chinese Daily Lianhe Wanbao hosted a public forum which saw a famous Taiwanese orator heaping generous praises on PAP leaders though the topic of discussion was supposed to be on China's development in the future. Since foreigners are not allowed to "interfere" in Singapore politics, then one should expect PRs to fall within the ambit of the unwritten rule as well. However, PRs are often given ample space in the Straits Times Forum to voice their support for the PAP government, the latest being a Pakistani Sam Ahmed who wrote a letter urging Singaporeans to be "more appreciative" of their own country. It is strange that letters critical of the PAP are almost always censored while those few lauding it are published to sway public opinion to its side. The Straits Times should have rejected these fawning letters to curry favor with the ruling party on the ground that they are "interfering" in domestic politics which are for Singapore citizens only. With the PAP giving Singapore citizenships freely to foreigners, these new citizens will form an increasingly influential voting bloc in the future, but are they ready to partake in the political life of Singapore? As many of them came to Singapore in the prime of their lives without ever serving National Service, life here is a bed of roses for them especially if they come from developing countries like India and China. A new citizen from India and YPAP member Mr Fredric Fanthome wrote an article for Contact Singapore in which he expressed his admiration for Singapore's "efficiency" - "everything works here!," he wrote. Mr Fanthome holds a senior position in a local SME. Armed with a decent-paying job and saved from the hassle of National Service obligations, it is little wonder that Mr Fanthome is so infatuated with the PAP. However for a Singapore man growing up in Singapore in the 1970s and 1980s, it is a different story altogether. During his younger days, he witnessed his parents being able to afford a HDB flat relatively easily, but when it comes to his time, he has problems servicing the hefty mortgage loan as a result of sky-rocketing prices in the last few months. He has to compete with an increasing number of foreigners like Mr Fanthome who are lured to Singapore by jobs which offer higher pay than their homelands. Furthermore, he has the mandatory 4 week reservist obligation to fulfill annually when the newcomers have none. It is only natural that the Singaporean will feel bitter and angry towards the PAP government. Unfortunately, such genuine grouses on the ground are incomprehensible to the new citizens who are courted by the PAP actively from the very beginning to rope them into grassroots organizations and the party itself to shore up its support base. Mr Fanthome can therefore be forgiven for dismissing online critics of the PAP as "anonymous hordes which spray venom at the government" for not being born and bred in Singapore as his perception of the PAP is somewhat colored and skewed by the propaganda churned out by the state media daily. As the new citizens have a limited understanding of Singapore politics, can we really trust them to make an informed decision during the elections? It is only natural to expect new citizens to vote for the ruling party which gives them the opportunity to start life afresh in Singapore in the first place. Since their support for the PAP is based largely on gratitude, they may be ignorant of the more important issues at stake such as the direction the nation is heading in the future. Many of them also appear not to be aware of the lack of accountability and transparency in Singapore's political system which allows one dominant party to ride roughshod over all other political parties, state institutions and the people. It may take some time before new citizens come to the same conclusion as the locals - that they are not getting a fair deal from the ruling party and by then it will be too late. Foreigners now make up 36 per cent of the population, up from 14 per cent in 1990. The percentage of new citizens is unknown, but is likely to be on an upward trend. In a small country like Singapore, a sizable number of new citizens in the electorate will have a significant impact on the outcome of the election. There are two ways to counter the unfair advantage enjoyed by the incumbent as a result of the rising number of new citizens: 1. New citizens are not permitted to vote within the first five years of their residency in Singapore to give them ample time to familiarize themselves with the political situation in the country so as to help them to make a calm and rational decision. 2. Old citizens are given one additional vote to give them more say in the running of their nation, especially those who have spent the two most precious years of their lives serving the nation. Of course it is impossible to expect the PAP to do anything which will hurt their interest when the massive immigration we are seeing now is part of its grand design to perpetuate its political hegemony forever whether we like it or not. The only way out for locals is to stand up and be counted at the next general election and vote for sufficient opposition MPs into parliament to deny the PAP's its traditional two-thirds majority. Only then can we put a brake to its runaway liberal immigration policy to replace locals with their new pets from China, India and elsewhere. Singapore politics should be reserved strictly for citizens born and bred in Singapore. Even among citizens, a clearer distinction must be drawn between old and new citizens to acknowledge the sacrifices the former have made to the nation.  Read More →

Written by Our Correspondent A YPAP member Eric How had slammed netizens for "slapping on the government senselessly" because they did not get "any fruits of benefits" from their forefathers. Mr How was commenting in a discussion thread on the YPAP Facebook started by the moderator of 3in1kopitiam kojakbt asking for an apology from another YPAP member Sear Hock Rong on his blog: [Source: YPAP Facebook listed in the public domain] Mr Sear had earlier described the 3in1kopitiam forumers as being "terrorists" for a "YPAP Counterstrike squad" set up by some of them. In his reply to "kojakbt and friends", Mr How chided them for attacking the Singapore government in the 3in1kopitiam forum and said that they should blame it on their karma or forefathers instead: "Do not be bitter and go on slapping on the Government senselessly because you did not get any fruits or benefits from your forefather. You will have to blame on your karma or your forefathers for not getting all the paths right for their off springs." Mr How also boasted unashamedly that his "folks" get him a personal car so that he does not need to "squeeze into public transport" like other netizens: "My folks did the right thing by getting all the stuffs ready for us and we will never ever need to nag about the Government giving jobs to foreigners instead of locals. In fact, we create jobs for others. Our folks even make sure that we guys do not need to squeeze into public transport by getting each of us a personal car." Echoing a view shared and espoused by the PAP leaders, Mr How said the Singapore job market is an "open competition whereby the best person gets the job and not because of nationalities." Due to the ruling party's liberal immigration policies, many ordinary Singaporeans are finding it difficult to compete with foreign workers who cost a fraction of their wages for limited jobs in the labor market. In a recent interview with the National Geographic magazine, PAP's strongman Lee Kuan Yew said frankly that it is a "good thing" that Singapore has welcomed so many Chinese immigrants as Singaporeans have become "less hard-driving and hard-striving." "If native Singaporeans are falling behind because "the spurs are not stuck into the hide, that is their problem," he was quoted saying in the article "The Singapore Solution". According to information posted on Mr How's Facebook account, he graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in History and Political Science from the National University of Singapore in 2000 and currently runs his own business. In a separate development, a few forumers of 3in1kopitiam forum including its moderator kojakbt had had their nicknames banned by Delphi Forums for "infringing" its terms of services. Mr How had warned them that he will be "monitoring" their postings to ensure they do not "infringe any copyrights materials." "I am not mocking you guys on being banned on your own home ground. In fact, do not think that you can hide behind the keyboard doing all those weird stunts like posting pics of our members etc. I will be monitoring you guys and just be careful if you did infringe any copyrights materials." With the YPAP resorting to such tactics to silence its online critics, one must be extremely careful when posting comments about them on its Facebook and elsewhere.  Read More →

By Tan Jing Quee, co-author of The Fajar Generation: The University Socialist Club and the politics on postwar Malaya and Singapore (An excerpt of Mr Tan’s article from page 263 to 297, republished here with the kind permission of Mr Tan so that more Singaporeans are able to know about the history of their nation from untainted glasses) THE 1959 CONSTITUTION The 1959 constitution for the state of Singapore is a misnomer. Nominally called a state, Singapore's political status at that time was that of a colony in law and infact, despite the ingenious installation of a fully-elected legislative assembly. However, the sovereignty of the state remained with the United Kingdom and it was anticipated that the final advance to full statehoold and sovereignty would have to be negotiated in yet another round of constitutional talks scheduled for 1963. The new government under the constitution was formed in June 1959. At the apex of the state structure was the constitutional head of state known as the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. The first incumbent was the British governor at the time, Sir William Goode, subsequently followed by the first local head of state, Yusof Ishak. The constitution provided for a unicameral legislature, known as the legislative assembly, which would be fully elected and comprise 51 members. It also specifically provided that the naval base at Sembawang would remain under the control of the British. This constitution did not grant full independence or even full internal self-government to Singapore, as the fully elected legislature did not have the power or authority over matters affecting defence, foreign affairs or internal security. The creation of the tripartite Internal Security Council (ISC) purportedly representated a partial concession on the part of the British government. As matters trned out, the ISC provided a convenient cover for tripartite collaboration to deal with the opposition in Singapore as events in the next few years would reveal. The report entitled "The outlook of Singapore up to the end of 1960" (in Appendix to C.O.S. (59)237, CO 1030/656) is an interesting document with which to begin an understanding of British policy towards the new state of Singapore. It clearly note that the British and the "moderate" leadership of the People's Action Party (PAP) regarded the left-wing group led by Lim Chin Siong as a potential threat but one that they could handle with all the armory at hand. Lee Kuan Yew was quoted as anticipating a conflict with the left wing of the PAP within a year. It also records Lee's intention to reorganize the labor movement into one general federation and 30 other fedderations or unions for each particular trade, together with the reorganization of the Trade Union Congress (TUC) secretariat, to control any potential threat from the left-wing trade unions. XXX The document also contains a revealing insight into the thinking of the PAP's "moderate" leadership in the early days of the formation of the government under the 1959 constitution. It states that "it was notable that at the first meeting of the Internal Security Council (ISC) on 28th August, Lee gave a very full and frank explanation of his approach to the problem of Lim Chin Siong's activities and other threats to security which impressed all present." This was just about three months from the PAP victory at the May 1959 general elections. It was obvious that a fundamental consensus had been reached between the British and PAP governments that the principal concern for the next phase of constitutional development before 1963 would be how to manage, control and if possible, eliminate the left-wing movement from Singapore political life. There is no mention of any PAP programme to continue with the anti-colonial struggle. Almost from the beginning of the PAP's assumption of power, the bilateral consensus would be turned into a tripartite agreement (including the Malayan government) on an anti-communist campaign under the cover of a closer association of the Federation of Malaya, Singapore and the three Borneo states. The anti-communist crusade would soon replacce the anti-colonial struggle as the fundamental driving force in the regional political context. As Singapore's last colonial governor under the new constitution, Sir William Goode wryly observed to his superior just before he left his post: "To regard the present PAP leaders as crypto-Communists would be an entire mistake. To describe them as crypto-anti-Communists would be much nearer the mark." (Goode to Secretary of State for Colonies, CO 1030/652, 23 November 1959).   Related articles: >> Part 1: Introduction >> Temasek Review to kick-start political education for Singaporeans >> Interview with Dr Poh Soo Kai in Chinese by Merdeka Review >> Photo Gallery: Book launch of “The Fajar Generation” >> Interview with Dr Lim Hock Siew and Dr Poh Soo Kai >> Dr Lim Hock Siew on “immorality” of the political situation in Singapore today >> VIDEO: Dr Lim Hock Siew speaks of his detention >> Book launch: The Fajar Generation   EDITORS’ NOTE: “The Fajar Generation” is published by GB Gerakbudaya Enterprise Sdn. Bhd: 11 Lorong 11/4E, 46200 Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia. Tel: +603-7957 8342/8343   Fax: +603-79549202 Email: [email protected] or [email protected] Website: www.gerakbudaya.com  Read More →