TR EMERITUS

British historian and author David Irving specialises in the military and political history of World War II and believes the Holocaust never happened, just like some Japanese who think the Nanking Massacre never took place. When American academic Deborah Lipstadt called Irving a Holocaust denier, falsifier, and bigot in her book "Denying the Holocaust", he sued her and her publisher Penguin Books on 5 September 1996. Although the book was first published in the United States in 1993, Irving decided to sue in an English court. And for good reason: English libel law puts the burden of proof on the defence. Under American libel law, a public figure who claims to have been libelled must prove that the statements in question are defamatory, that they are false, and that they were made with actual malice. Furthermore, reliance on credible sources (even if they turn out to be false) is a valid defence. In contrast, English defamation law puts the burden of proving the truth of allegedly defamatory statements on the defendant, rather than the plaintiff. A defamatory statement is presumed to be false, unless the defendant can prove its truth, and reliance on sources is irrelevant. This has been considered an impediment to free speech in much of the developed world. Lipstadt was intimidated by the lawsuit, since she was a humble professor of limited financial means. Irving is the author of some 30 books, including "The Destruction of Dresden" (1963), "Hitler's War" (1977), "Churchill's War" (1987), and "Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich" (1996). To cut a long story short, Irving not only lost the case, but in light of evidence presented at the trial a number of his works that had previously escaped serious scrutiny were brought to critical public examination.  Irving was shown to have misstated evidence; misquoted sources; falsified statistics; misconstrued information and bent historical evidence so that it conforms to his neo-fascist political agenda and ideological beliefs. The expenses arising from the court proceedings forced him into bankruptcy, and he lost his home. Professor Lipstadt was fortunate in that many rallied to her cause when she was in dire need of support. Although gratified by the court ruling, she reminded us to be vigilant, "I do not delude myself that, though my battle with Mr Irving may be over, the fight against those who will pervert the historical record for their own political and ideological goals has ended". Especially those with the financial clout to unleash expensive litigation. Tattler * The writer blogs at singaporedesk.blogspot.com.  Read More →

Mrs Lina Chiam, NCMP Parliament speech in response to the President’s Address 2014 NCMP Mrs Lina Chiam Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the motion in thanking the President for his Address, which was delivered on behalf of the Government, in the opening of the Second Session of this Parliament. We agree with the President that empathy should be one of the core values of Singapore. However, we face an uphill task in achieving this. How do we help youths develop empathy in the face of tougher job competition, internationally and in their homeland? This is in a context of a world that is more protectionist. The President addressed the need for more opportunities for Singaporeans to realise their dreams and aspirations. Currently, many Singaporeans feel that they are priced out of their aspirations for cars, houses and higher education. In order to help and enable young Singaporeans to fulfill their potential, and pursue their dreams and aspirations, we must have a happy and healthy environment at home, in school and in the workplace. In order to build a healthy, caring society and, there must be mental wellness among Singaporeans. We need to do more for mental wellness of each and every of our citizens. Only then can we speak meaningfully of higher productivity among our workforce. Life long learning for retirees and the elderly should be encouraged to keep their minds active. We must not forget about the welfare of any Singaporean, even the detainees held under the Internal Security Act – the cases of those who have been detained for more than ten years must be reviewed. We urge the government to re-prioritise the needs of Singaporeans over and above that of medical tourism, for instance. CPF – there are alternatives to raising minimum sum While the government has tried to ensure affordable and quality health care, it has recently raised the CPF minimum sum to $155,000. This makes retirement tougher. Many Singaporeans are also deeply unhappy about the compulsory annuity CPF scheme. We need alternative retirement schemes to build an inclusive society. Singapore needs a complex mix of policies, such as alternative investment options to ensure a sufficient pool of funds in CPF. A non-mandatory CPF annuity scheme and private annuity schemes should also be considered. A stronger social safety net? It is important to provide more opportunities for those who fail in school, business or in life. We need to think carefully how to embrace failure and provide second chances for Singaporeans. This may include providing a stronger and less complex system of a social safety net for Singaporeans. Tougher questions regarding the localisation of our workforce need to be addressed soon. We understand that more than 50% of jobs in Singapore are not held by Singaporeans. Economic growth alone not enough for Singapore Economic growth alone is incapable of satisfying the democratic and meritocratic hopes of the people. Specific institutions must be created for that purpose of redistributing the fruits of Singapore’s growth, rather than relying on market forces to ensure a meritocratic society. So far the government has chosen a purely capitalist system to grow our nation. Our national wealth increased. Companies located in Singapore prospered and business leaders were also able to make profits out of Singaporeans. Many of our local businesses rely on cheap labour to survive. Without them, managers complain that they will fold up. I believe them because they are simply unable to compete technologically anymore, after more than 20 years of cheap quotas. Innovation is no longer in their blood. Theoretically, some of them should be allowed to fail. Restructuring must take place, in order to recreate a competitive environment that can pay good wages. Meritocracy will not happen otherwise. Businesses will push wages down because the opportunity cost of not innovating is low. The Singaporean worker will always be too expensive to hire. To help one business survive, we will need limitless low wage foreign labour. I think this story is quite clear. We are not interested in asking which industries should stay or which should go. But we want to be part of a new governmental apparatus to help formulate polices that favour Singaporeans, not an absolute growth model. The President also talked about a stronger Singaporean core. At this stage, I also want to stress that capital stuck with the wealthy will almost always transform into rent as it accumulates. The poorer will never be able to catch up unless capital is forced to be more dynamic. On this ground, I question the validity of the current government's strategy of attracting top billionaires and how overrated the concept of trickle-down economics is in creating jobs. The incentives we throw to attract top businesses could have been better spent allowing students to get their hands wet on entrepreneurship. We disagree with what the government prescribes in the growth model – only in setting up agencies, creating schemes, and buying projects. We prefer that this model be abandoned, and that we work directly with tertiary institutions to build businesses. After all, Silicon Valley, Hong Kong and London did not become competitive because of aggressive incentives. Singapore owns a lot of capital. But Singaporeans lack easy access to this capital for basic uses such as retirement and education. We still cling onto the nanny state mentality that disallows a man to fail in life. We say that the ordinary man is incapable of planning his retirement, so we lock up his cash and force him to purchase an annuity. As if it is not bad enough to have a nanny state government that grows at all cost, our government refuses to install a minimum wage for low wage workers. Yet, there is in effect a minimum wage for senior civil servants and political leaders – we are referring to the pay benchmarks of our leaders. In the French monarchy period, they were not able to revamp their tax structure. Nobles were not paying taxes and this caused a lot of pain for the government. In Singapore's case today, we treat our businesses like nobles. Instead of increasing the tax and eliminating their access to cheap foreign labour, we decide to tax Singaporeans through systems such as the COE for cars. If the President is serious unifying Singapore, the path ahead is long. Different voices in Singapore The President shared that we must add substance to voices. After Our Singapore Conversation (OSC), the SPP urges the government to continue launching more nation-wide conversations – regardless their political inclination. After all, we are all working for a better Singapore. The OSC should be held with ordinary people, of all political inclination, in all places like coffee shops, hawker centers or shopping malls, and also on the internet – anywhere that is conducive for people to speak their mind freely. We will get better and more accurate feedback at the end of the day. Controlling the discourse online, such as through the new MDA internet regulations last year, is counter-productive and self-defeating. If the government is sincere about hearing people’s voices, we urge them to take an even-handed approach in reviewing the Broadcasting Act in the remaining term of Parliament before the next General Election, as they have slated. If being a constructive opposition means speaking up for the real needs of the people, to build a democratic society based on justice and equality – then yes, we are a constructive opposition. We have no interest at all in destroying the fabric of Singapore. But when we see policies that are detrimental to the well being of our people and our nation, make no mistake – we the Opposition will speak up fearlessly. The role of the SPP in Parliament The Singapore People’s Party shall be a loyal Opposition – loyal to the Constitution, loyal to the nation, but not to the ruling Party. [1] We will stand together with the government in times of national difficulties and emergency. But our role in Parliament is to keep the government in check, ensuring that its promises to the people and its policies are carried out. We will also continue put out our alternative solutions and policy proposals. As Singapore approaches a new chapter with its 50th anniversary next year, the Opposition’s role and responsibility is becoming a more integral part of the governance of our nation. In fact, the whole nation must also be responsible for that. We all have a role to play. Thank you Madam Speaker. [1] Quotation adapted from Chiam See Tong's maiden speech in Parliament, 4 March 1985.  Read More →

Manpower Minister Tan Chuan-Jin (Photo: ST) Dear Minister, I am not impressed with your long clarification of what CPF is and why it is good for Singaporeans. Good attempt but I must say it’s just another GP paper writing exercise. It’s long, sounds reasonable but lacks factual and alternative analysis. Seriously, my English sucks but I wouldn’t give you a pass for your efforts. Simply regurgitating facts in GP will surely give you an “F”, ask any GP teacher if you don’t agree ya. Yes, CPF serves a good purpose but the story ends there in today’s context. CPF was better in its olden days when it was simple, with higher returns and people had the assurance that they could have it when they reached 55. People could use it to supplement whatever savings they had and their children' support to see them through their golden years, without having to ask for aid, assistance. Wasn’t that good for society? Wasn’t that good for the person’s self respect? Compared to what is happening today, our CPF was managed by ministers and MPs who were not paid elite salaries and yet could provide higher returns to us. What have you got to say about that? Lowering CPF returns over the years by so called better and more expensive ministers, MPs and civil servants just doesn’t add up, does it? You claim that the MS is raised to cater for our increased lifespan. However, you fail to provide advice and support for those who need to or are forced to retire earlier than 65. What do you propose that these people do while waiting to grow old till 65? 吃风 (chia hong - eat wind)? Of course, you can claim that people can downgrade their lifestyle, downgrade their home and get help from people around them to see themselves through until they reach 55. Worst case scenario, can approach PAP Kueh Lapis Social System for assistance assuming they can find their ways around. Now, wouldn’t that be equivalent to lowering one’s living standard, financially and emotionally? Now, why should one need to go through all this trauma? In the name of retiring in “comfort when they reach 65″ in your words? Can they make it to enjoy your so called retirement? You, the minister claim that the pension system in other countries is failing and the governments there use methods such as increasing taxes, reducing pensions or delaying the paying out of pensions or all of the above (wow, shitty TIMES for citizens with such measures). Now that would really reduce the pensioners’ living standard even before they retire, wouldn’t it? Now, you claim that such a system is NO GOOD. Well, I don’t see any difference compared to how PAP is managing our CPF now. We all end up with lower living standards. PAP has reduced employer’s contribution and reduced returns to our CPF over the years (shit, less to spend). PAP then increases the withdrawal time-frame by 10 years (shit, delay my pensions by 10 years). PAP then pays monthly “pensions” to us using our money using super low returns, some say negative returns considering inflation (shit, not enough to spend now). PAP then increases the MS amount citing the need to cover inflation (shit, less money to cover 55 to 65 period). PAP then say sell your house (in full or in part) to cover any shortfall before 65 to ensure you don’t need to beg for a living (shit, PAP never guarantees sure make super money from selling house). PAP then introduces new super expensive STUDIO flats based on psf and number of years for those who can’t afford to downgrade any further (shit, money already no enough but now got to buy more expensive and smaller pigeon holes with shorter lease … even though our elite Minister in his own words in his GP essay here says we might end up living beyond 90 but never explain why STUDIO lease is only 30). So please Minister, stop selling the SHITS to us! There are some stupid citizens who buy your SHITS (sorry, my mistake). Let me try again. There is a number of citizens among us based on the last GE’s results who buy and enjoy the SHITS you are serving to them for one reason or another. These 60% of the electorate likely include your own GANG who benefit from your current way of doing things, those who benefit directly or indirectly through your current ways of doing things, the rich ones who are not affected by your current way of doing things and don’t care, those who are fearful of perceived repercussions if they don’t go along with your current way of doing things and lastly, those that are still in dreamland. Now, hopefully the Minister will agree and understand why he didn’t get an “A” for this particular GP essay which his boss commissioned him to write. One word of advice for you for your next essay (now, now, stop crying and don’t give up) as what my GP teacher used to say to me. You are not stupid my dear Minister, next time just remember to cover all corners and most importantly, write with your heart, don’t just copy & paste and don’t try to explain them away as if you understand. People can tell. But honestly, who gives a SHIT about whether this Minister learns his lesson or not other than his own conscience perhaps. TrustNoPig * Comment appeared in: Minister Tan: The truth about our CPF and Minimum Sum  Read More →