TR EMERITUS

By MP for Aljunied GRC, Low Thia Khiang Debate on President’s Address 2014 [Delivered in Parliament on 26 May 2014] Mr Low Thia Khiang Mdm Speaker, When Parliament first opened after the General Election in 2011, the President in his address noted that our politics was becoming more diverse and open and the composition of Parliament reflected this. He said this was positive for Singapore and advised that only by getting our politics right and keeping it constructive and responsible would Singapore make progress. The President, in his address to the same Parliament in May 2014, devoted a section of his speech to “Upholding Constructive Politics”. The President advises that the vigorous debate in this house should continue but we should not allow our differences to pull us apart and we should move ahead as one united people. Constructive Politics Mdm Speaker, Yes, this is what the Workers’ Party and I believe. This is the thought behind getting every candidate of the Workers’ Party to recite the National Pledge at the end of our final rally in General Election. It is to remind us that despite our differences, we are all Singaporeans. The recitation of National Pledge has now become a tradition of the Workers’ Party. Politics comes in many shapes and forms. One can describe politics by adding different adjectives in front or at the back of the word “politics”. In the President’s address, the phrase “constructive politics” is used, I assume to be contrasted with “destructive politics”. To me, in whatever way “politics” is described and coloured, it is still politics. To me, what is important is the outcome of the political process. Here, what the President has described as the desired outcome of Constructive Politics is moving ahead as one united people. We must all remember constructive politics does not happen by the order of the government, nor does it happen through a national conversation or public consultation. To achieve the outcome of constructive politics in a diverse and open society like those in mature democracies and to nurture an environment conducive for it requires much effort, and everyone across society has their part to play. There are three aspects to this: political values, political culture, and impartial institutions trusted by the people. Political Values Inculcation of political values needs to be undertaken in the young who have fresh minds. I suggest we take a hard look at the National Education syllabus in our schools. National Education should enable students to understand their rights and obligations as citizens in a democratic society as well as the values and concepts associated with democracy. These can include knowing and respecting the Constitution; understanding how the political system empowers the People to make decisions and to take responsibility for the decision made; and also inculcating values like mutual respect, tolerance and diversity, as well as human dignity. The youth are the future masters of the country and the political leaders of tomorrow. I believe Singapore will be a more stable and mature democracy if Singaporeans are in possession of democratic values, which will be the DNA enabling us to move ahead as one united people and mitigate against the worry expressed by the President of gridlock and paralysis in the hurly-burly of politics. Political Culture The people should speak and decide via the ballot box what political culture we want as a country, and politicians must be aware of what political culture we are building through our style of political engagement as well as our actions. If the people continue to support a government party that uses high-handed tactics against its political opponents, we are endorsing a bullying political culture. If the people support a governing party that uses governmental resources, including civil servants, to serve its partisan goals, we are condoning the abuse of political power as an acceptable culture. Similarly, if you support a political party which believes in overthrowing the government by taking mass political action against the government regardless of the laws and proper channels to change things, you are building a culture of lawlessness. If you support a political party conducting its political engagement with a habit of playing racial politics and mud-slinging and launching personal attacks on its political opponents, you are building a thug political culture. If you support a political party with the habit of fixing its opponents, you are breeding a political culture of fear. While all politicians play a role in building a political culture through political engagement, the government, is the dominant player of politics in Singapore, and plays a significant role. Using differentiating measures in policies to punish people who voted for the opposition breeds a culture of divisive politics. It also used to be said that the political incumbent has no obligation to level the playing field, that might is right, and that the political incumbent has the right to use all legal means to remain in power because everyone will do it if they are the incumbent. This is building a self-serving political culture. Building Institution of Public Trust There is weakness in every political system, which could potentially result in the political gridlock and paralysis the President is concerned about. One such concern I have is the Elected President system which is unique to Singapore. I am concerned that the efficiency of the government can be paralysed by the President exercising his “blocking power” if the elected President and the government do not see eye to eye. To avoid gridlock and paralysis, it is critical for us to build institutions of state that the public trusts. There are two examples showing why building institutions that the public trust is important. Nearer to home, we have an Asean member, Thailand, that is in political gridlock today. I believe the political gridlock could have been avoided if the Thai King decided to play an active role to defuse the crisis, as he had done in the past. He is a constitutional monarch with largely ceremonial and symbolic powers, but he embodies the spirit and values of Thai society. Most importantly, his past behaviour of acting in the interest of the nation has been consistent over a long period of time, and has won the respect and trust of the Thai people. Next, let us look at the United States Presidential Election of 2000 where the “Florida Vote Recount” episode threatened to derail political stability in US with its political system’s history of more than 200 years. US was in political gridlock for weeks until the Supreme Court of US made a ruling declaring George W Bush as the winner. Although the ruling was not without controversy and not all were happy with it, the US was able to move on from the political crisis without damage. This is because the people of the United States trusted their Supreme Court as the final interpreter of Constitution and respected its rulings. However, building such institutions is not easy. Public trust can be eroded very quickly due to political gaming, as seen in many countries when political infighting unravelled the efforts to build them. Building such institutions is the obligation of any responsible government, and entails whole-of-government efforts to protect these institutions from being perceived as political tools of the government. The key to the success of such institutions is Public Trust, not government trust. Therefore, the institution must be seen to behave impartially and to be above politics. Such consistent and predictable behaviour over a long period of time will gain public trust to enable them to play a stabilising role in a political crisis. Strengthening Our Political System Mdm Speaker, the sub-title “Upholding Constructive Politics” in the President’s speech is glaring to me. It is an expression of a direction of the government’s priority in its work plan to Parliament. This is unprecedented in President’s Address since I entered Parliament in 1991. I believe some will be cynical of the real meaning of Constructive Politics due to recent government actions. For instance, media convergence regulations extended the individual licensing regime for print newspapers and TV broadcasters to online news sites; this could result in a loss of valuable political diversity when online news commentary sites run by passionate and dedicated volunteers decide to shut down rather than be subjected to onerous licensing requirements. This smells of Compliant Politics and not Constructive Politics. However, it takes time for the establishment and citizen activists to internalise and put in practice constructive politics and to cultivate the thought as a norm for consideration in the decision making process. I am of the view that bitter and negative experiences of citizens participating in politics, such as being detained without trial and becoming bankrupt, hamper us from moving towards constructive politics. We should also bear in mind that making personal attacks during political engagement does not help us to “come together again”. Instead, the attitude of “live and let live” despite our differences and unhappiness with each other will help us to move ahead as a united people. As we approach 50 years of nation building, I am happy to note that we have made political progress in strengthening our political system. Our political system today is more competitive and the government is more responsive to the people. This augurs well for the future of Singapore as the geopolitical environment around us is becoming more dynamic, and the younger generation of Singaporeans are becoming citizens of a globalised world with diverse views. Conclusion The younger generation of Singaporeans today are better educated and the internet connects us to the world instantly. Hence, the expectations and horizons of Singaporeans today are very different from the older generation; they expect better standards befitting a first-world Singapore not only in terms of hardware like physical infrastructure and efficient services, but also software like quality of life, as well as in politics and government responses. Therefore, this is a timely realisation of the government to put in efforts to enable a more robust political process, to cultivate political norms and to build an environment for constructive engagement in politics to safeguard the future of Singapore. Source: wp.sg/2014/05/mp-low-thia-khiangs-speech-debate-on-presidents-address-2014  Read More →

Wednesday, 21 May 2014. Today is the 27th anniversary of Operation Spectrum, carried out on 21st May 1987. People are still being detained without trial by the Singapore government today. When will we have justice for those who were wrongfully detained? On 21 May 1987, 16 people were arrested under the ISA, in dawn raids conducted all over Singapore. It was a huge operation. The police called it “Operation Spectrum”. Imagine a minimum of about ten police officers arresting one unarmed person. Sixteen people would have involved 160 police personnel on the ground not counting those who were trailing the 16 for at least twelve hours before the raids and those who were in the police headquarters planning the operation, setting up the rooms for interrogation, discussing the method of interrogation and taking care of the dirty cells that would eventually receive the prisoners. Yes the operation was huge and totally unnecessary because all the 16 were unarmed law abiding citizens. They were not even political opponents. A month after, on 20 June 1987, six more persons, three of them polytechnic student leaders, were arrested. On 20 May 2014 morning, Roy and I prepared documents for submission of NMP. In the afternoon, we were at the parliament house. [Read:  Blogger Roy Ngerng submits bid for Nominated Member of Parliament position] By evening, I was suddenly flamed for things that I did not do. Today morning, Roy was flamed by the same account but the same account took down the post. We expected these. This is not the first time I was accused of being pro-pap. This is also not the first time I was accused of being anti-pap. I’m not a politician and I do not serve any political party. I want to help fight for the rights of Singaporeans to voice out what’s wrong and you can go decide for yourselves. Be logical, state facts, if you’re speaking to impersonators, report them to the police instead. I don't need you to think like me. I just want you to think of the future of this country. There are politicians who took part in GE2011 taking the opportunity to condemn us. Fact is, the CPF issues have been there for decades but what did they do? In Feb’s event, I said “If we were to all unite together, and we were to vote wisely in the next election, we can make what we have been saying today possible.” In May’s event, I said “If they don’t know how to take care of us, then we must unite instead of letting them treat us like this.” I know there are some who ask why I don’t just publish and shame these politicians too. The answer is enshrined in our laws: Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so. This route is not easy but we will continue to fight on the internet, we will fight at Speakers' Corner, we will fight all over the world, and we will fight forever especially for transparency and accountability for our CPF. Singaporeans, learn to fight for our rights to transparency and accountability for our CPF by standing in solidarity on 7 June 4pm at Hong Lim Park. #ReturnOurCPF Han Hui Hui * The author blogs at huihui247.blogspot.sg.  Read More →

新加坡民主党昨天推出了我党的替代性教育政策。我党探讨了我国教育体制目前所面临的许多问题和挑战，并阐明了我党如何去克服这种种的问题。 徐淑真女士提出了我国中小学系统如何扼杀学生的创造力和造成现今新加坡社会日益扩大的不等式。她建议以下补救措施： 1.培养创造性思维 学生们可通过独立思考和从犯错中建立信心，并坚持不向失败低头。教师必须经过培训，以便能帮助学生发展创意技巧： 鼓励学生提出问题和表达个人意见，而不是被动地吸收课堂材料 制止惩罚性行动和批评学生所犯的错误 促进学生之间讨论各自的想法和答案的多种可能性 教导学生如何批判性地评价思路的技巧 提高对于创造性工作需要时间发展的认知 2.取消小六会考和延缓分流制度 如果我们继续强调学生考试和分流的激烈竞争，那么培养创新能力的努力将会受到阻碍。从一次考试中评估小学生的能力和才华是没有好处的。 通过废除小六会考和延缓分流制度至高中，学生将能获得更全面的教育，而不是遭受可怕的心理创伤，甚至萌起自杀的念头。 3. 拓宽课程设置，降低教学大纲 民主党将提倡更广泛的科目，包括分配时间给予音乐欣赏、演讲、戏剧、文学、艺术和体育。学生在传统科目的上课时间大致上是相同的​​（约每星期三小时）。 学生也将享有固定时间参与促进相互沟通和团队合作的活动，而不是盲目的个体相互竞争。这对于发展创造力是极为重要的。 每项科目的内容也将减少，从而使学生不用背负着沉重的功课。教师将必须监督和指导学生在学校完成具有复习性和锻炼性的功课。当学生放学后，他们就能够花时间与家人娱乐消遣。学生也应该能够早睡。 4. 减少每班学生人数 研究显示小班教学能为教师和学生促进更优质的教育经验。民主党将减少每班学生人数为每班二十名。目前，很多学校有近四十人一班。 这将能协助学生在学术发展上得到必要的关注。随着学生人数的减少，照顾学生的行政工作也将逐渐减低。教育工作者将能腾出更多的时间专心教学。 5. 鼓励阅读 减少教学大纲后，学生就能腾出更多的时间享受阅读的乐趣。学生在现今制度下排斥阅读，因为它与考试息息相关。其实，阅读是能鼓励终身学习，并培养创意思维的工具之一。 根据民主党的政策，教育部将与国家图书馆管理局合作，使学校图书馆能提供国家图书馆的书籍。国家图书馆管理局将通过社区图书馆，定期地探访学校并举办讲座，以便鼓励学生培养阅读的好习惯。 6.加长上课时间 所有学校都将采用单一上课时间制度。上课时间将延长至八小时，从上午八点至下午四点结束。如前所述，学生将能利用上课时间完成他们的作业。这也将能让教师督促学生完成功课，从而排除补习的必要性。 7. 提供学校午餐 教育部将安排学校提供健康午餐给予学生。这将确保贫困家庭学生能够摄取健康发展所需的营养。 8. 推行专用教师系统 民主党将推行专用教师系统，将其中一位老师分配到一个班级，并让这位老师从小学一至三年级带领这班学生, 然后再让另一位教师从小学四至六年级接管这班学生。 这不仅能让学生与老师和同学们建立更好的粘结力，还能够提供更多时间来建立家长与教师之间的信任与合作。 9 . 废除学校和班级排名 我党不赞同在编排班级时，把优良成绩和不理想成绩的学生分开的作法。家长被逼压迫自身的孩子取得比其他同学更好的成绩，使他们能够进入比较良好的班级和学校，并最终能促使他们步上优质的职业道路。 这种做法是不利于孩子的身心健康的。比较学生和班级的考试成绩只会导致校长、教师和家长（甚至学生自己）沉浸在有损教育真正目的盲目竞争，而不是达到自我完善和自我实现的目的。 徐淑真女士还强调了其他的措施，包括提升教师地位和培训、恢复原能力倾向测试、根据各自中学的强项重新组织这些学校，并让家长参与教育。 幼儿和特殊需要教育 民主党财政张慧芳女士谈及幼儿教育和特殊教育。她说，这两方面的教育制度应该被国有化。 目前，许多贫困家庭因经济困难，而不把孩子送到幼儿园。这使他们的孩子在进入小学一年级时处于劣势。 通过国有化学前教育，我们能确保每一个孩子将获得他们所需要的启蒙和在进入小学时，能够公平地与其他人竞争。 此外，学前教育工作者将在国家教育学院接受广泛的教育心理学和儿童早期发展的培训。目前，许多在我们幼儿园的照顾者缺乏足够的培训和不具备所需的资格。 同样的，在民主党的计划下，政府将从志愿福利团体接管需要特殊教育的儿童，并为这些学生提供重返主流教育的后盾。 大专教育 詹姆斯·戈麦斯博士提出了我党高等教育的替代政策。他说，政府不应该干预大学的施政。 目前，教育部还在控制新加坡大学生毕业生的人数。维基解密泄露的文件揭发了人民行动党已规定我国大学毕业生只能占我国人口的百分之二十三至二十五的事实。 他也对外国学生大量地涌入我国的课题提出警告。他举例说，自二零一零年以来，约五万名外国学生每年进来的，而出国深造的新加坡学生仅有两万人。 我党建议取消现今的外国学生学费资助计划。这项计划每年为外国学生资助了大约两亿元。 当国外学生在享受这种待遇时，许多贫困的本地学生却无法负担大学教育。我党不只要废除这项外国学生学费资助计划，而且还要为本地学生提供免息贷款计划。 戈麦斯博士还强调了本地学者不满外籍员工在我国大学占不成比例的课题。 为了取得平衡，我党的新加坡人民优先政策将被用来确保新加坡学者优先获得学术职务和提供资助给那些想继续追求学术职务的毕业生。 Singapore Democrats  Read More →