TR EMERITUS

Dear Mr Shanmugam, I refer to your speech at the New York State Bar Association Seasonal Meeting as reported by the Straits Times on 29 Oct 2009. You said that Singapore had a weak economy back in 1965 when our per capita GDP was US$500.  'Weak' as we were then, we nevertheless had the fourth highest per capita GDP in Asia after oil rich Brunei, Japan and Hong Kong. Next, you said that foreign investment would come only if we had laws which men of commerce could trust.  But men of commerce have invested in the oil fields of Russia and factories in China despite their less than ideal laws. Law or no law, as long as there is money to be made, men of commerce are willing to take risks.  Furthermore, the need for good commercial laws doesn't imply the need for laws that excessively constrain basic rights. Take Hong Kong for example.  It's commercial laws are as good as ours, yet it does not have laws that constrain basic rights like the right to demonstrate. Next, you said that Singapore faced a severe communist threat in 1948 that threatened our existence.  But the Malayan communist insurgency of 1948 never once reached the shores of Singapore but was always confined to remote towns and jungles in Malaya. The strikes and riots of the 1950s were essentially nationalistic rather than communist in nature.  They arose from the hardships that the people faced in the aftermath of the war and the unfair treatment of the Chinese educated Chinese by the British.  Sure, strike leaders like Lim Chin Siong and Fong Swee Suan have been labelled as communists and locked away.  But these were charges that have never been unequivocally proven even until today. What is clear however is that their struggles were anti-British and anti-colonial.  What is also certain is that the strike participants were ordinary students and workers.  They hardly qualify as communists, so the incidents hardly qualify as communist threats. Given that there wasn't even an armed struggle to begin with, it would be ridiculous to say that the strikes terrorised the people and threatened Singapore's existence. Next, you said that there were racial tensions and riots due to ideological differences between our leaders and the leaders of the Malay Peninisular which eventually led to Singapore's expulsion from Malaya.  This shows that the root of the racial riots were political in nature and once the political antagonism between Lee Kuan Yew and Tungku Abdul Rahman were disentangled, the racial tensions went away. Next you said that we are a little red dot surrounded by two countries with whom our relationships were tense.  But we weren't the only ones in this situation.  South Korea didn't just have a tense relationship with North Korea, it actually went to war with the latter and lost many lives.  Yet the South Koreans are some of the fiercest demonstrators today. Likewise, Taiwan had to face the People's Liberation Army jauggernaut.  Yet Taiwan today is a much freer, more democratic country than ours.  So the phrase 'little red dot' is no excuse for us to be authoritarian. Next, you analogised our situation with a hypothetical situation of the US being shrunk into the size of Connecticut and sandwhiched between Russia and China.  This analogy is not appropriate because the US shrunk to the size of Connecticut will not have the firepower to counteract Russia or China. On the other hand, shrunk as we are, Singapore has the firepower to counteract either Malaysia or Indonesia.  This should not be surprising given that Israel is able to hold its own despite being surrounded by numerous and much larger adversaries. So while stability is not a luxury we take for granted, it is also not an excuse upon which authoritarianism can be justified. Next, you said that speed of response is important to us.  But speed of response is also important to Hong Kong.  Yet Hong Kong is not authoritarian like us. Next, you said that chewing gum is not illegal.  But you neglected to mention that the sale of chewing gum is illegal.  What material difference does it make whether you ban chewing gum or you ban the sale of chewing gum? Next you compared Singapore with the US to show that we have lower crime rate achieved with a smaller police force.  Why don't you compare us with Hong Kong, which depending on the year of comparison, has lower crime rates?  Yet Hong Kong is not authoritarian like us. Thank you Ng Kok Lim  Read More →

By Yoong Siew Wah Flash in the pan. It is common knowledge who was the smart-alec Singapore political leader who said these infamous words in describing Mr. Barack Obama before he was elected American President. Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew appeared to be disdainful about the prospects of a black American candidate becoming an American President and true to his highfalutin character he irresistably opened his big mouth to make his disparaging portrayal of Mr. Barack Obama. Any possible repercussion arising out of his cavalier utterance could not have been further from his mind. He was apparently rooting for the white candidate Mr. John McCain and was no different from the white American supremacists who considered the election of a black American President to be apocalyptic. As a result, the victory of Mr. Barack Obama in the American presidential election could not but bring mortification to MM Lee. That President Obama was subsequently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize within a year of taking office added to MM Lee's consternation. This was not the first time he opened his big mouth which brought embarrassment to the point of disaster. But all is not lost because MM Lee has a thick-skinned quality and can change like a chameleon. He calculated that he had to come to terms with the untenable problem sooner or later. The opportunity presented itself when he went to America to receive an award presented by the US-Asean Business Council end of October. He managed to wrangle a meeting with President Barack Obama the day after the award dinner. That President Obama was magnanimous enough to condescend to see MM Lee warts and all could not have escaped his narrow outlook of black people. He was naturally astounded and overwhelmed when President Obama described him as "one of the legendary figures of Asia". President Obama was very liberal with his accolade to people who had been disparaging in their behaviour towards him. And MM Lee may be forgiven if he had been mesmerised by the thought that President Obama had been incredibly forgiving. This must have been so exhilarating to him that he forgot himself and made his gaffe by calling on President Obama to engage in Asia in order to counter-balance the emerging economic and military might of China. This immediately evoked a colossal uproar from the Chinese people, especially their netizens, which looked like it was going to be prolonged. But Chinese leaders very judiciously mitigated the situation, not necessarily out of any consideration for MM Lee but more likely for the overall political interests. Can the leopard change its spots? Can MM Lee be counted on to curb his tendency of making political gaffes in future? We may see a subsidence of indiscretions on his part for a time but there is no guarantee that there will not be a recrudescence of his gaffes. This is a problem which deserves a final solution by the PAP leadership. After all, he is drawing a whopping salary for doing a nominal job. About the Author: Mr Yoong Siew Wah is a former director of the Internal Security Department from 1971 to 1974. This article was originally published on his blog - the "Singapore Recalcitrant" on 13 November 2009  Read More →

Written by our Correspondent Philipines President Gloria Arroyo has lavished generous praise on the contributions  of Filipino workers in Singapore to the economic development of the Philipines during a speech made to some 600 members of the Filipino community at the Fullerton Hotel in Singapore where she was attending the APEC Summit. Ms Arroyo noted that from January to August this year,  overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) remitted $11 billion to their families back home. There are an estimated 144,000 Filipinos in Singapore, many of who are taking up jobs which can otherwise be filled by locals in various fields such as banking and finance, medicine, education, information technology, retail services, engineering, and entertainment. Describing OFWs in Singapore as hardworking and talented, she said they have excelled in various professions be it as doctors, nurses, healthcare workers; information and communication technology technicians, architects and engineers. Filipinos are highly prized in Singapore for their proficiency in the English language. They initially came as nurses, healthcare assistants, IT engineers and domestic maids, but can be found in semi-skilled jobs such as clinic assistants and bank tellers in recent years. Filipinos form a substantial proportion of foreign nurses in Singapore. Many of them are fast-tracked to become PRs and citizens. Filipino doctors are also increasingly seen in the polyclinics and public hospitals. Singapore's population has just crossed the 5-million mark, out of which 36 per cent are foreigners. Despite rising unhappiness and frustration on the ground at the relentless influx of foreigners, the government continues to insist that immigration is essential to the Singapore economy. The Singapore government has gone out of the way to ensure that foreigners feel welcomed in Singapore. A $10 million Community Integration Fund was set up recently to help the newcomers "integrate" into Singapore society. With elections around the corner, some senior leaders have begun to sing a slightly different tune in order to placate the restive electorate. Prime Minister Lee promised to "slow" the intake of foreigners though he did not elaborate on it. Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong reiterated that the "rights" of Singapore citizens will still be protected. Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew called on Singaporeans to "bear" with the tide of immigration, saying that it will benefit the country in the long run. The state media has sung to the tune of its political masters by publishing a series of articles and letters in favor of its immigration policy. On the other hand, Singaporeans who "protest" too much are labeled as xenophobic, unreasonable and petty. With no alternative party to represent their interests in parliament, Singaporeans will have little choice but to put up with the "flood" of new migrants for some time to come. News source: GMA TV News  Read More →