TR EMERITUS

OPINION The Malaysian opposition Pakatan Rakyat coalition held its first convention last Saturday where it unveiled a common policy platform which promise sweeping reforms to the nation on three fronts: democracy, economy and social justice. Pakatan aims to overhaul to race-based policies of the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition and replace it with one which is more fair and equitable to all the races in Malaysia. It also advocates reforms in the political system, judiciary and the media. Malaysia's opposition won an unprecedented 82 out of 222 seats during the 2008 general elections which saw them denying Barisan its traditional two-thirds majority in parliament for the first time in Malaysia's history. It comprises of three ideologically different parties - the liberal Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), the Chinese-based Democratic Action Party (DAP) and the Islamist Parti Islam SeMalaysia (PAS). Despite the wide gulf between the three, especially between DAP and PAS, they manage to put their differences aside and hammer out a common platform to stand on in order to mount a credible challenge to Barisan Nasional. Despite occasional hiccups, Pakatan's dramatic transformation from a loose "marriage of convenience" to a structured coalition will surely put it in a strong position to offer Malaysians an alternative to the incumbent. All the three major opposition parties realize that they have no choice but to work together. If they fight the battle separately on their own, they will never stand a chance of defeating the formidable Barisan Nasional. What does the Singapore opposition hope to achieve in the next general election? Are the parties there just to make up the numbers or to give the PAP a run for its money? In order for the opposition to punch well above its weight and tap on the widespread anger on the ground against the PAP, they have to come together and adopt a common policy platform. It is simply not enough to defeat the PAP based on protest votes alone. The opposition needs to spell out an alternative vision for Singapore - what changes will they make if they should come to power one day so as to win the support, trust and allegiance of Singaporeans. They already have their work cut short. The ground sentiment is in favor of them. A rising number of Singaporeans are getting peeved at the PAP' for its ill-conceived immigration policies, high prices of HDB flats and the lack of accountability in the system. All the opposition needs to do now is to convince at least half of the fence-sitters who make up about 40 per cent of the electorate to vote for them and it is not impossible to have a repeat of Malaysia's political tsunami here. On paper, many of the reforms proposed by Pakatan Rakyat are applicable in Singapore too - for example, separation of powers to ensure checks and balances among the branches of the executive, judicial and legislative, a clean, free and fair electoral system as well as a free and independent media. The opposition's common manifesto must cater to all strata of Singapore society from the very poor to the very rich across all levels of education and qualification. Without coming together as one single coalition like Malaysia's opposition, none of the opposition parties in Singapore can take on the PAP on their own. If DAP and PAS can work together, why can't SDP, WP, NSP, SPP and RP set aside their petty and superficial differences and start strategizing for the next general election? Singaporeans are sick and tired with the PAP's "grow at all cost" policy which has caused tremendous hardships to many people, especially those from the lower income group. The relentless influx of foreigners over the last few years has changed the demographics of our little island to beyond recognition, whose result is omnipresent for all to see and it will not dissipate by the time the next election comes. The opposition should campaign under a single platform so that a vote for any opposition party is both a vote for the entire opposition and a vote for a new Singapore which is radically different from the PAP's version. Instead of having different electoral messages which is confusing to the average voter, the opposition should just "strike when the iron is hot" and harp constantly on only one single major issue on the minds of most Singaporeans: foreigners and immigration. The Singapore Democratic Alliance is a suitable vehicle to house all the opposition parties, be it WP, SDP or NSP and its slogan - "Singapore for Singaporeans" will surely resonate well with ordinary Singaporeans. There is no more time for childish squabbling or fighting among the opposition for the "spoils" of the election. Each party has to sacrifice a bit for the common good. So long as the opposition continues to fight the electoral battle individually and separately on their own like in the past, they will continue to remain as punching bags for the PAP. With public disaffection and disgruntlement against the PAP reaching an all-time high, the next general election is a "do or die" for the opposition. They have to win at least one GRC and a few more single seats on top of winning more than 40 per cent of the national votes in order to send a strong deterrent message to the PAP that Singaporeans will no longer give it a "blank cheque" to govern and it better start looking after the interests of the people or be prepared to be booted out of office. Once the opposition is able to secure a breakthrough, more young and qualified Singaporeans will step forward to join them which will herald in a new era in Singapore politics. It is time we replace this archaic political system meant to entrench one single dominant party in power forever with a competitive multi-party system which will promote good practices, accountability and transparency in the government. If the opposition continues to falter in the next election, they may not have that many true blue Singaporeans to count on for support in subsequent elections. Singapore citizens now make up only 64 per cent of the population out of which a significant proportion are new citizens who tend to support the ruling party. At this rate the PAP is "mass importing" foreigners from elsewhere to become Singapore citizens, native Singaporeans may soon find themselves in the minority one day. The opposition does not have to look too far for examples to learn from. When the Malaysian opposition is fighting individual battles like they are now in the past, they have never managed to win more than 20 per cent of the seats in the federal parliament. Now united, albeit loosely under the umbrella of the Pakatan Rakyat coalition, they not only occupy nearly 40 per cent of the seats, but are well poised to win the next general election. The Singapore Democratic Alliance has the potential to become the Pakatan Rakyat of Singapore if all parties can set aside their differences and work together for the sake of Singaporeans. The opposition should not think of themselves as separate entities, but as mere representatives of the people to bring out real change in the status quo which has eluded us for far too long. Only then will they realize that it matters little if they are standing for the elections under the banner of WP, SPP or SDP. What is more important is that they are fighting to reclaim the natural rights of Singaporeans as citizens in their land of birth.  Read More →

Written by Our Correspondent The moderator of one of Singapore's most popular forums - 3in1kopitiam, had posted on the YPAP Network requesting for an apology from Mr Sear Hock Rong for "accusing the people in 3in1kopitiam forum as "terrorists", thereby implying that 3in1kopitiam is a platform for "terrorists" Mr Sear had earlier described the forumers in 3in1kopitiam as "terrorists" based on a "YPAP Counterstrike squad" formed by some of them. “”Screenshot of the YPAP Counterstrike Squad “nominal roll”. This seemed like planning a terrorist attack” As usual, Mr Sear did not reply to the thread and leave it to his comrade Edgar Kieu to answer on his behalf. Mr Kieu counter-accused the moderator of 3in1kopitiam kojakbt of "falsifying" the truth to promote his forum: "Do not falsify the truth hoping to gain sympathy and attention for your forum. It is both irresponsible and uncalled for to falsely accuse Mr. Sear of labelling Singaporeans who did not vote for the PAP as "terrorists". He also challenged 3in1kopitiam forumers to reveal their identities in real life instead of hiding behind the cloak of anonymity: "If as you say, the majority of the people in 3in1kopitiam are true blue Singaporeans wanting to see a better Singapore for Singaporeans to live in, why do you not come out you cover anonymity and share your views in the open?" Mr Kieu ended his reply by demanding an apology from the aggrieved forumers instead: "Perhaps you might see the light and might deem it fit to issue an apology to both Mr Sear and the opposition for lowering the quality and integrity of debate online." From the recent exchanges between YPAP members and netizens, it does seem that they are not interested to engage the online community at all contrary to earlier claims by YPAP Chairman Teo Ser Luck that the YPAP is thinking of ways to reach out to netizens. YPAP member and moderator of its Facebook Mr Sear Hock Rong was embroiled in controversy of late after it was revealed that his company which was set up only six months ago, counts many grassroots organizations in Eunos where he holds many positions, among its clients. Instead of answering direct questions posed to him if there are any conflicts of interest, Mr Sear chose to skirt the issue and attacked the credibility of those who had queried him. YPAP members like Mr Sear and Mr Kieu have been taunting netizens to reveal their identities before they will engage them further. However, when a known 3in1kopitiam forumer Alex Tan challenged them to a public debate at Speaker's Corner, they declined on the grounds that it is pointless to engage a critic who is already opposed to the PAP. With the mainstream media firmly in their control, the PAP sees no need to debate with the opposition on issues of national importance. When SDP's Dr Chee Soon Juan wrote in not too long ago to Prime Minister Lee requesting for a debate, he was told by a minor official from the PAP HQ that "such matters are better left to be discussed in parliament." In other democracies like Japan, Australia, Canada, Taiwan and even Malaysia, it is a norm to see government leaders debating with their critics and detractors to defend their actions and policies, whether they are MPs or not. A few months ago in the northern Malaysian state of Penang, there was a debate between its Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng and his predecessor Tan Sri Koh Tsu Koon on the administration of Penang which was televised live on TV channels. Lim accused Koh of mismanaging the state's finances while the latter blamed the present government for not fulfilling its electoral promises to the people. Though there were obvious differences between the two, there were no animosities between and both are gentlemanly enough to shake hands after the debate. PAP ministers are the highest paid in the world, but seem unable to hold a decent dialogue or debate on their own with the opposition and their critics and has to resort to using the state media to get their message through. The YPAP members are adopting the standard "modus operandi" of their seniors by indulging in character assassination to demolish their opponents instead of addressing the key questions raised. It is indeed worrying that some members of the YPAP think they are "mini-LKYs" and can ride roughshod over netizens in cyberspace when they are just nobodies in real life except that they are hiding beneath the banner of the PAP.  Read More →

Mr Mah Bow Tan Minister for National Development   I refer to the Straits Times article "Two Toa Payoh blocks converted to dorms" on December 19, 2009. It stated that 2 HDB blocks were being used as dormitories for employees of Resorts World Sentosa (RWS). I would like the following queries answered: 1. Under which HDB scheme were the 2 blocks of flats rented out to RWS? 2. HDB rents out flats to the needy Singapore Citizens under the Public Rental Scheme (PRS). HDB had tightened the criteria for eligibility for the PRS citing "strong demand for rental flats" in a press release in Feb 2009. Why are these two blocks of flats not rented out to the needy Singapore Citizens? Does the welfare of foreigners have a higher priority than providing housing for needy Singapore Citizens? 3. The ST article states that "each flat houses four to six people who each pay between $140 and $260". This amounts to a rental ranging from $560-1560 per flat per month, which is generally below the median subletting rents for 2-room and 3-room flats in Toa Payoh in 3Q 2009. Why are these flats rented out to RWS at such a cheap rate? Was the intention to rent out the 2 blocks of flat made public to attract the highest bidding tenants? If not, why? 4. The HDB website states: "The Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP) is aimed to promote racial integration and harmony and to prevent the formation of racial enclaves, by ensuring a balanced ethnic mix among the various ethnic communities living in public housing estates. EIP is applicable to the purchase of new flats, resale flats, SERS ( Selective En-bloc Redevelopment Scheme) replacement flats and DBSS (Design, Build & Sell Scheme) flats as well as the allocation of rental flats in all HDB estates." What are the ethnic ratios of the occupants in the 2 blocks of flats rented out the RWS? In renting out 2 entire blocks of flats to a single tenant (RWS) to house foreigners, HDB could have violated the Ethnic Integration Policy. Why is EIP not applied in this case? What is the rationale for waiving the EIP quota for foreigners when all other Singaporean HDB flat dwellers are subject to EIP limits? Regards, Aurora Long  Read More →