TR EMERITUS

HLP 7th June 2014 I decided to pen down my thoughts after seeing the big turnout at the CPF protest. Before the event, the expectation was that there was to be a small crowd. Ironically, after the big D by PM Lee, it generated interest and publicity for civil society. "Thank you", PM Lee. Roy made a Queen's sacrifice that gave a boost to the protest. (Unintended or not, it is up to you to judge.) It is logical for the common man to be worried. Worried that the money we put into the CPF will disappear right before their eyes. Raising the Minimum sum and that GIC & Temasek not revealing their accounts are good reasons why the common people are in fear. After all, our money is at stake. Worried that we are facing a Swiss Cost of living, when our wages are not keeping up. Worried that there is nothing to fall back on, as we are supposed to be self reliant, until to the point where either we are at a total loss, fall into depression or even suicide......It will certainly take a lot of courage to keep going on. The common argument is that raising the Minimum sum is supposed to help us for our retirement. Everyone, I call on you to ask yourselves the following questions. Especially "龙的传人“. I dare you to search your soul (if you do have one). 1) The CPF was instituted in 1st July 1955. The PAP did not come up with the CPF, the British did. (Textbook knowledge that Sec 2 students should know). What was the original purpose? Was it the schemes we had today? Or was it much simpler than that? One thing is for sure. Our savings are supposed to come back to us by 55 years old. 2) Not everbody has a consistent flow of income. Can you acknowledge that? Not everyone has a good salary. Can you also acknowledge that? 3) The houses that you bought in the past were "cheap". You do feel rich as the paper value of your houses has skyrockted to a point where you are too happy to say anything. Public Housing, unfortunately is very expensive now. And with the Minimum Sum creeping up, it is a foregone conclusion that any remainder will be locked up. Are you seriously ok with that happening to your neighbour, friend etc? 4) Lastly, you strongly feel that the government takes care of the people. And you view us as people who are a threat to the country stability. If they could sue Roy, an ordinary man like us, do you think they will not sue you? People of all ages are supporting Roy, to fight against "Pinky". Do not ignore the fact that people are supporting him, when some people think he is a renegade. Also, Tan Cheng Bock has shown to be a prime example of one who has served Singaporeans, yet he was uninvited to the Istana dinner some time ago. Does it make sense to you, considering the theme of Constructive Politics? Fellow Singaporeans, in Teo Chee Hean's words, what do you think? Honest Singaporean * Submitted by TRE reader.  Read More →

Dr Chee Soon Juan delivered the following speech at an event on 4 June 2014 held at the New South Wales Parliament to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the Tiananmen massacre: In 2004, Singapore’s former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew was asked whether China would be more prosperous and stable had the students succeeded in overthrowing the communist government and established a democracy in 1989. He replied: "I didn't think so then, and I don't think so now." He then quoted Deng Xiaoping: “If I have to shoot 200,000 students to save China from another 100 years of disorder, so be it." Obviously, Lee, no stranger to autocratic politics himself, thought that Deng handled the Tiananmen incident correctly. Given the remarkable economic strides that China has made in recent decades, it is tempting to conclude that Lee and Deng were right. In Singapore, Lee ruled with a ruthlessness that instilled fear in citizens – and still does. He did not, however, attract the kind of opprobrium that other autocrats did, largely because he was able to usher in the kind of economic progress that we see in Singapore today. The strategy was clever: label democracy and human rights as a Western concept unsuited to Asians, but ensure that the door is kept wide open for Western investments. Such a regime will get corporate America and Europe eating out of its hand because these multinationals operate on the basis of opening new markets and maximizing profits, and anything that can help facilitate such expansion – including the absence of human rights which necessarily implies the subjugation of workers’ rights – is welcomed. China saw the political convenience and has adopted the stratagem with ruthless efficiency, resulting in economic expansion that is the stuff of legends. Before we celebrate, however, it may be prudent to remind ourselves of some of the developments in Asia in the recent past. Most notable is the case of Indonesia. Under Suharto, Indonesia’s economy was making fine progress. Even the World Bank made much of its success story. But, as in all cases where economic growth, or more specifically foreign investments, are not accompanied by transparent and accountable government which democracy demands, autocracies become adept at using economic data to present almost anything they want to present. And when those who question the wisdom of such an approach, aka the dissidents, are silenced, the system is set up to never fail. Until it does, of course. When economic reality meets make-believe, the former always prevails. In Suharto’s case, his regime was unceremoniously chucked out by Indonesia’s reformasi movement in 1998, but not before the country went into political and economic convulsions, which threatened to pull the entire region down with it. China is going through such a cycle. While making breathtaking economic growth through the years but ensuring that democracy is held at bay, the country’s problems have not been allowed to be aired and debated – and, more importantly, rectified. Most worrying is the property and housing industry that defies logic. With ghost cities sprouting up all over the country and a government that looks like it is unable or unwilling to deflate the economic bubble, it seems like a question of when, not if, China’s economy will unravel. When it does, it will make Indonesia’s tumult look like child’s play. Singapore is also showing signs that its economy is malformed and that its trajectory is not one that inspires hope and optimism. And because the system does not lend itself to democratic change, I fear that matters will become worse, dramatically worse. Even so, I remain hopeful because bad things, like good things, must come to an end. Reform will take place and peoples will rise and bring about democratic governance. A quick survey of the political landscape in Asia over the last few decades will give us the confidence that democracy will overcome dictatorship. This is not to say that things will happen in a mechanically pre-determined manner. Political changes have always necessitated the toil and sacrifice of defenders of democracy and China is no exception. Throughout history, it is people who speak truth to power who eventually bring truth to the people. The text is also available on Sydney Democracy Network's The Conversation. Chee Soon Juan * Dr Chee Soon Juan is Secretary-General of the Singapore Democratic Party. He is a visiting Fellow at the University of Sydney until end-June 2014.  Read More →

(06/06/2014)   Singapore is willing to accept slower growth as a trade-off for social stability as it aims to keep down the number of foreigners working in the city-state, Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam told Reuters. Over the past decade, Singapore's economy has expanded by a 6.4 percent annual average. Tharman said that he would be happy if Singapore grew 3 percent a year, as long as growth was driven mainly by gains in productivity. "Three percent growth is good growth," he said during an interview on Thursday. High past growth has brought rising numbers of foreigners to work in wealthy Singapore, which in turn has spurred discontent among citizens angered by the strains put on infrastructure and services. Between 2000 and 2013, Singapore's population rose to 5.4 million from 4 million, with foreigners accounting for the bulk of the 35 percent increase. Unhappiness about inflows of foreigners helped an opposition party gain ground in the 2011 general elections as the People's Action Party, which has ruled Singapore since independence in 1965, won only 60 percent of votes, its worst showing to date. The next election must be held by January 2017. Tharman, who is also a deputy prime minister, said the government accepts a slower growth rate as the cost of ensuring the country retains its national identity, combats over-crowding and keeps the ratio of foreign to local workers at around one-third. Not like Dubai "We are never going to be Dubai, we are a country with a social ethos that we take very seriously," the 57-year-old finance minister said. The number of foreigners in Dubai is larger than that of locals, a result of its aggressive economic growth strategy. At the end of 2013, there were 1.32 million foreigners in Singapore who held employment or work-passes, around 38 percent of the total work-force. In 2010, Singapore launched a 10-year plan to restructure its economy, aiming to increase productivity and cap the ratio of foreigners in the workforce at around one-third. The plan aimed to raise the productivity rate by an average of 2 to 3 percent a year, though it actually fell in 2012 and 2013. In line with the plan, the government has imposed regulations to curb hiring of overseas workers in some sectors. Now many companies, particularly in the construction and hospitality sectors, are clamoring for a let-up in the rules, saying they are hurting their businesses. Last week, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said the government would delay S$2 billion ($1.59 billion) of construction projects in order to reduce demand for foreign labour. Tharman said no tweaks would be made to the rules to help companies in the sectors that are struggling, as they had to adjust and find more productive ways of working instead. "Giving them a little more slack can make some sense in the short-term but it delays that long-term transition," he said. "We know that this is a transition that can be done, it's not inventing something that hasn't been done elsewhere." Read more: www.abs-cbnnews.com/business/06/06/14/why-singapore-never-going-be-dubai  Read More →