Say NO to Pay Hike for Singapore Ministers

Source
Sign the Petition

To: Prime Minister of Singapore
We, citizens of Singapore and concerned individuals, STAUNCHLY OPPOSE the proposed drastic increase in the pay of the ministers and other members of the Administrative Service.

The ministers and scholar civil servants are already drawing millions with undisclosed bonuses per person at a time when more than 40% of the households in Singapore cannot even make ends meet and are seeing their real income deteriorate over the last two decades. Even the US President, whose responsibilities *FAR OUTWEIGH* many Singapore governments combined, is but drawing a salary of only USD400k or slightly more than SGD600k(http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa011600a.htm)! Leaders of other developed countries are even less well paid.

In addition, by pegging the Administrative Service's pay to the richest individuals in the country, it only serves to motivate the ministers and their scholar civil servants to serve only the rich. Using the per capita GDP as the benchmark is more equitable as this will ensure that they fulfill their duty towards all Singaporeans. Why should anyone in a risk-free ministerial or scholar civil servant post, especially in a context in which accountability to the people is virtually non-existent, deserves to be paid like a successful risk-taking entrepreneur?

The government claims that without paying the Administrative Service out-of-the-world remnuneration, it will become corrupt and will be unable to retain talents. This is misleading as corruption takes place only when there is no effective checking of the government, such as when the Opposition parties, civil groups and the public media are being manipulated, suppressed and destroyed through despotic means. In addition, their so-called talents are but selected from teenagers coming from rich and connected families based on their academic results, which more often than not, do NOT equate to actual performance in their later life. This can be attested to their numerous disastrous policies, which Singaporeans are currently suffering from. In addition, talents abound in the country, but are prevented from coming forward to serve due to the stifling political climate of one-party, one-family rule. As such money is not the real issue. It is definitely not the solution.

It is therefore obvious that the proposal to give the ministers and scholar civil servants an awesome raise on top of their already obscene pay is completely unjustifiable. The logic of pegging their pay to the richest individuals is glaringly flawed and insulting to our intelligence. It is but meant to satisfy the insatiable greed of vested individuals. We reject it unreservedly. In fact, we demand a big pay *CUT* for them for their dismal 'service' towards the majority of Singaporeans over the last two decades.

N.B. See also

Say NO to 7% GST in Singapore!
http://www.petitiononline.com/GST7/petition.html

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

to comment

Dr Chee Under City Arrest!

Chee found guilty for 'attempting to leave Singapore'
26 Feb 07

Dr Chee Soon Juan was found guilty of attempting to leave Singapore without permission today. He was fined $4,000 or 3 weeks imprisonment in default.

Dr Chee will appeal the decision and the judge has given a stay of execution pending the outcome of the appeal.

The matter involved the SDP secretary-general applying for permission to attend the World Movement for Democracy conference held in Turkey in April 2006.

As a bankrupt, Dr Chee had to apply for permission from the Official Assignee (OA) every time he wanted to leave the country. He was made a bankrupt when he failed to pay Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Goh Chok Tong $500,000 in a lawsuit the two former prime ministers took against him in 2001.

When he went to the airport on 1 April 2006, Dr Chee was stopped by Immigration officials and had his passport seized. He was subsequently charged.

During the trial before District Judge Aedit Abdullah, the following were established:

Fact 1: The OA's office admitted that even on the day that Dr Chee was due to leave for Turkey, it was still considering his travel application.

Fact 2: The Immigrations and Checkpoints Authority acknowledged that there was no way Dr Chee could have found out about the status of his application other than to present himself at the airport departure gate.

Fact 3: Dr Chee received the OA's rejection letter only on 13 April 06, two weeks after he was due to travel.

Verdict: Guilty.

Note: Since April 2006, Dr Chee has made 12 applications to travel. All of them have been rejected. This effectively places him under city arrest.

Dr Chee's travel applications


to continue reading...

Singapore

The ISA as a Political Tool

From Martyn See's Singapore Rebel

The second instalment of a five part excerpt from an Amnesty International report, first published in 1980.

(ll) A political background to the use of the ISA

Since 1959 Singapore has been governed by the People's Action Party (PAP) led by the Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew. The People's Action Party, founded in 1954, was a broad-based political party espousing a socialist program with backing from the mass of largely Chinese-speaking unionized labour in Singapore, but also from the English-educated Singapore Chinese intelligentsia. This coalition was however always fragile and tensions occurred between the two wings of the party, particularly as the British, who were responsible for internal security until 1963, did not hesitate to detain without trial the more militant and left-wing nationalists within the PAP. In 1959 the PAP won the general elections and Lee Kuan Yew became Prime Minister.

Two years later, in 1961, the left-wing of the People's Action Party, led by Lim Chin Siong, broke away, and established its own party, the Barisan Sosialis (Socialist Front). The Singapore government has repeatedly alleged that those who broke away were pro-communist but it is of interest to note that 80% of the PAP membership are estimated to have left the party at this time.* Soon after the split an agreement was announced, in August 1961, for the future merger of Singapore and Malaya. The Barisan Sosialis opposed merger and sought to test its strength in elections to be held in 1963.

( * ref. Pang Cheng Lian, Singapore's People's Action Party, Oxford University Press, Singapore 1971, pp 14-15; T J S George, Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore, Andre Deutsch, 1973, London, pp 62-63)

On the morning of 2 February 1963, however, the Singapore security authorities arrested 113 persons who were active in the anti-government opposition and who opposed merger with Malaya. Among those arrested were leaders of the Barisan Sosialis including Lim Chin Siong and Dr Lim Hock Siew as well as newspaper editors, trade unionists and university students. Despite this the Barisan was still able to obtain 33.5% of the votes in the 1963 elections, against the PAP's 46.9%.

Singapore's participation in the Federation of Malaysia was shortlived, as indeed the Barisan Sosialis leaders predicted, and in August 1965 Singapore left the Federation to become an independent republic. The Barisan leaders and other opposition figures arrested in 'Operation Coldstore' were however to remain in detention without trial under the Internal Security Act for many years to come. The Barisan leader, Lim Chin Siong, was released in 1969, after spending many years in solitary confinement. Reportedly administered drugs which intensified depression, Lim Chin Siong left prison and went into exile in England.

Whilst the bulk of the 'Coldstore' detainees were released in the late 60s and early 1970s, five men remained in prison in 1978 who had been arrested in 1963. The five were Dr Lim Hock Siew, Dr Poh Soo Kai, Lee Tse Tong, Ho Piao and Said Zahari. All five have consistently refused to make the ritual 'confession' that the Singapore government insists upon as a precondition of their release. One of the five, Dr Poh Soo Kai, was released in November 1973 only to be rearrested in June 1976. Two others however, Dr Lim Hock Siew and Said Zahari, former editor of the Malay-language newspaper, Utusan Melayu, were unexpectedly conditionally released on 18 November 1978 and exiled respectively to the offshore islands of Pulau Tekong Besar and Pulau Ubin. In August 1979 Said Zahari was released unconditionally and allowed to return to his home in Singapore. Meanwhile, Dr Poh Soo Kai, Ho Piao and Lee Tse Tong remain incarcerated in Moon Crescent Detention Centre.

to continue reading and comment...- Amnesty International (1980)

Related Article

Political Detention in Singapore

Singapore

Singapore’s ageing dilemma

Poverty increasing under PAP's economic strategy
AHDS Greenway
22 Feb 07
http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1081329


Singapore has been energetic and resourceful in managing globalisation. But like many other countries it is also faced with difficult policy choices as the rich-poor divide has become a serious political issue. Between 2000 and 2005, the real wages of the bottom 40 per cent of households declined. Unless this gap and sense of insecurity is managed with sensitivity, there is potential for undermining Singapore's current social and political arrangements.

Singapore's globalisation strategy is based on high growth, encouraging a large number of foreigners to work and settle here, and minimal social safety nets. Singapore's 2007 budget presented last week reaffirms the government's determination to continue the current strategy.

Singapore has experienced below-replacement fertility since 1975. For a stable population, the mean number of children per woman must be 2.15. But in 2005, its fertility rate was only 1.25. If the rate stays below 1.5 for several years, it will be difficult to increase it significantly through public policies.

The long period of low fertility, combined with increasing life expectancy, will make for a rapidly ageing society. By 2030, more than one out of four persons in Singapore will be elderly ie above 65.

There will be only 2.2 workers to support each elderly person, compared to 10 workers in 2000. In spite of the rapid increase in the elderly population, the government has relied primarily on the mandatory savings system to finance pensions and health care. Studies have shown that this system, administered by the Central Provident Fund (CPF), is likely to provide 15-25 per cent of pre-retirement income. This is far lower than the two-thirds to three-fourths recommended by experts.

In Japan, Korea and Taiwan, a contested political space and higher priority for social issues have brought multi-tier pension and health care systems, with an important role for social risk-pooling arrangements. No such progress is evident in Singapore. So, the current arrangements, which place a disproportionate burden on individuals, will be felt after the full impact of ageing around 2010.

to continue reading...

Singapore

Socialist Swastika Symbolism in Singapore & its Peoples Action Party

February 22, 2007

Rex Curry

A recent Opinion Editorials column gained attention for showing the swastika's modern use as overlapping S-shapes for "Socialism." The column, which exposed the British Union of Fascists and National Socialists and its logo (an S-shaped lightning bolt for "Socialists") led to new discoveries regarding symbolism in the Peoples Action Party (PAP) of Singapore.
http://rexcurry.net/peoples-action-party-pap-singapore-socialism.html

The PAP began as a socialist party and adopted as its logo the same S-shaped symbolism of the British Union of Fascists and National Socialists (BUFNS). The noted historian Dr. Rex Curry (author of "Swastika Secrets") has established that the PAP's logo originated as an "S" letter for "Socialists."
http://rexcurry.net/british-union-of-fascists-sir-oswald-mosley.html

Wikipedia is announcing the amazing discoveries concerning the PAP and the BUFNS. Dr. Curry's research about the BUFNS ranks at the top of internet searches. Recent articles at opinioneditorials.com report on the many references to the research on Wikipedia. Even Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales has publicly commented on Dr. Curry's influence on Wikipedia. His work is probably be the most referenced historical research on Wikipedia. The work has been reviewed and verified by wikipedia writers. Some Wikipedia writers use Dr. Curry's work without attribution in apparent attempts to bolster their own credibility.

Of course, Wikipedia is a glorified anonymous bulletin board and is constantly changed, often at the hands of vandals and even neo-nazis. A recent web search for "British Union of Fascists and National Socialists" showed Dr. Curry's work at the top, and indicated that there is no wikipedia article in existence. Wikipedia gives the mis-impression that the BUFNS never existed, or that its name-change never occurred. It is more air-brushed revisionist history on wakipedia.

Amazon.com adopted as its policies recommendations advocated by Dr. Curry to combat neo nazism like that on wikipedia.
http://rexcurry.net/amazon-com-book-reviews-tags-discussions.html

The PAP smeared its way onto the political scene in 1954 when it was formed by English-educated middle-class men who had returned to Singapore from Britain. The PAP became a member of the Socialist International. The PAP logo has a double connotation for "Singapore Socialists."

http://rexcurry.net/peoples_action_party_pap_logo_singapore_socialist_swastikas.gif

The PAP's logo supports Dr. Curry's discovery that the swastika was used as alphabetic symbolism for overlapping "S" letters for "socialism" under the National Socialist German Workers' Party.

http://rexcurry.net/swastika3clear.jpg

In the early 1950's, when the socialist symbolism was adopted in Singapore, the leader of the BUFNS (Oswald Mosley) was trying to revive his socialist movement in Britain and was still using the same S-shaped symbol for socialism in his Union Movement (UM). Mosley had returned to the leadership of British national socialism by founding the UM in 1948 at a meeting in London's Farringdon Hall, where as many as fifty one separate groups came under the new umbrella. Mosley re-emerged as a candidate in 1959 in North Kensington (which included Notting Hill), in the first parliamentary election for him since 1931.

There is evidence that the PAP also adopted the stiff-arm salute of the National Socialists.

http://rexcurry.net/peoples-action-party-pap-singapore-nazi-salute.jpg

to continue reading...

Singapore

PAP - Trolls

First saw the term used in reference to the PAP here.

From wiki

In academic literature, the practice was first documented by Judith Donath (1999), who used several anecdotal examples from various Usenet newsgroups in her discussion. Donath's paper outlines the ambiguity of identity in a disembodied "virtual community" [2]:

In the physical world there is an inherent unity to the self, for the body provides a compelling and convenient definition of identity. The norm is: one body, one identity. ... The virtual world is different. It is composed of information rather than matter.

Donath provides a concise overview of identity deception games which trade on the confusion between physical and epistemic community:

Trolling is a game about identity deception, albeit one that is played without the consent of most of the players. The troll attempts to pass as a legitimate participant, sharing the group's common interests and concerns; the newsgroups members, if they are cognizant of trolls and other identity deceptions, attempt to both distinguish real from trolling postings, and upon judging a poster a troll, make the offending poster leave the group. Their success at the former depends on how well they — and the troll — understand identity cues; their success at the latter depends on whether the troll's enjoyment is sufficiently diminished or outweighed by the costs imposed by the group.

Trolls can be costly in several ways. A troll can disrupt the discussion on a newsgroup, disseminate bad advice, and damage the feeling of trust in the newsgroup community. Furthermore, in a group that has become sensitized to trolling — where the rate of deception is high — many honestly naïve questions may be quickly rejected as trollings. This can be quite off-putting to the new user who upon venturing a first posting is immediately bombarded with angry accusations. Even if the accusation is unfounded, being branded a troll is quite damaging to one's online reputation." (Donath, 1999, p. 45)[3]

Some of us know how best to deal with trolls.

PDNFTT

Singapore

SDP calls on the PAP to identify itself on the Internet and challenges it to an online debate

05 Feb 07

Mr Ng Eng Hen
Minister for Manpower and
Chairman, PAP New Media Committee

Dear Sir,

It is with much pleasure that the Singapore Democrats learn of the PAP's admission that its members have been actively rebutting its critics, albeit anonymously, on the Internet.

We are disturbed, however, that you choose to do so using pseudonyms thus avoiding identifying yourselves as members of the ruling party.

This is odd given the Government's claims that its policies and the way it runs the country is well-supported by the people of Singapore. One would think that under such circumstances, you would want to proclaim your views like a shining beacon upon a (cyber) mountaintop.

Instead you choose to engage netizens under a cloak of anonymity which is, frankly, unbefitting of a ruling party that has been in power for close to half a century.

It also seems a trifle hypocritical given the fact that years ago, the Government insisted that writers to forum pages in the newspapers not conceal their identities and use their real names but now choose to hide behind nicknames when the shoe is on the other foot.

Worse, didn't Mrs K Bhavani from the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts, challenge Mr Lee Kin Mun over the Mr Brown affair last year to "come out from behind his pseudonym to defend his views openly"? You see, Mr Ng, here at the SDP we would like to think that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Perhaps, the PAP is afraid of being criticized by Singaporeans if it identifies itself to Internet users. In which case, we say: "Welcome to the democratic world of free speech!" This is where the ruled are not, and cannot be, bullied into silence and, worse, their silence is not distorted into support for the PAP and its policies.

Since you have been hanging around on the Internet, you must know that the Singapore Democrats have participated in online forums, in particular the Sammyboy Coffeeshop. A few of my colleagues and I have posted our views, answered questions, and, yes, responded to criticisms from our fellow Singaporeans in our real names and affiliations.

We did this because we believe that political parties aspiring to governing this country must subject themselves to questions and criticisms from the people. Debates must be conducted freely and openly, and the people given the means to question and challenge policies that affect them and their loved ones.

It is the only means where the rulers are held accountable and compelled to govern in the interest of the masses, not just the rich and powerful. It is the surest way that a thinking and mature society can be developed, one that will make our society more competitive and stable. It is, in short, the best thing that can happen for Singapore and its future.

In this regard, we, the Singapore Democrats, would like to engage you and your colleagues in the Government to a debate on the Internet. Since you are already in cyberspace, it wouldn't take too much to organise yourselves for an online debate.

The only reason that you would turn down this invitation, or simply ignore it, is that the Internet, which you don't control, is a medium that allows for genuine exchange of views while the mass media, which you do, censor your opponent's views.

But if the inability to suppress your opponent's right to speak and counter-argue is what prevents the PAP from debating the SDP online, then I must say that your effort to persuade netizens of your views, even if carried out anonymously, is doomed.

The SDP is happy to discuss the format and procedures by which such a debate takes place. In fact, we would propose an online, realtime video-conference debate where representatives of the PAP and the SDP engage each other, and invite Singaporeans to participate and judge the exchange.

We hope you will welcome this initiative and make your presence on the Internet less surreptitious. We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Chee Soon Juan
Secretary-General
Singapore Democratic Party

Singapore

Reconnecting with the Internet generation

Or not as the case may be.

Rather up beat article about how the blogosphere and the PAP are embracing each other, slowly.

The Singapore government is trying to replace the current bottom-up citizen generated discourse with a top-down consultation exercise. As more and more blogger posts continue to be shaped by the daily stories of the Straits Times, while aggregator blogs continue to ignore the very same issues that the Straits Times ignores, while the blogosphere tries to gain entry into the distorted world of the mainstream media and vis-a-versa.

The Peoples Action Party can rest easy.


INSIGHT DOWN SOUTH
By SEAH CHIANG NEE

The government is now taking tiny steps to win back a young, not-too-friendly Internet generation which it lost when it ignored them in the last general election.

LIKE one dipping his toes before stepping into a heated tub, the government has taken several tiny steps to engage a young, not-too-friendly Internet generation.

This appears to be a departure from its previous “ignore them” strategy that was shown during the last general election to be outdated and politically dangerous.

Months before the May election, it launched its own singaporegovt.blog to counter an opposition offensive that subsequently won a surprising 33% of the votes.

Secondly, a group of 12 new People’s Action Party (PAP) backbenchers, all born after Singapore’s independence in 1965, started their own online diary (http://www. p65.sg/) to bond with their peers.

It is a small, belated foray to wrestle back the blogosphere ground lost through long neglect.

Early this month, it moved a step further. A Cabinet minister met several young Singaporean bloggers for the first time in a TV discussion on blogging, something considered improbable a year ago.

The chat that Foreign Minister George Yeo had with some young critics was not confrontational by Internet standards but it represented a milestone of sorts.

“I must say that I felt younger after the session, provoking and being provoked. Without that altercation, there is no communication,” Yeo later blogged.

The PAP has always viewed the free-talking, critical Internet with suspicion and dislike. What was termed “the first Internet election” gave the party hierarchy a glimpse of the future.

The birth of the digital generation in Singapore has largely been the result of government policies, the first being the creation of a “smart” cable city and, second, pushing the use of computers in all schools.

On their part, Singaporeans, with the exception of the elderly, have enthusiastically embraced it. Today, 66% of the homes have access to the Internet.

A recent survey here has shown a blogosphere expanding faster than most people had thought.

Half of all Singaporean teens aged 15 to 19, and 46% of the 20- to 24-year-olds are on the Internet, blogging or podcasting.

This adds up to 120,000 young Singaporeans reading and writing on websites that, according to one PAP member of Parliament, are “80% anti-government”.

Among the 20 to 24 age group, some 46% do so, while only 18% of those aged 39 to 49 are bloggers, according to the official Media Development Authority of Singapore.

In fact, net usage is highest – 90% – among children between 10 and 15 years old, a consequence of the schools equipped with a computer for every two students.

All these figures are set to rise in the coming years as Internet literacy grows and costs come down.

To put things in perspective, not all surfers and bloggers talk politics, let alone oppose the government.

A majority in fact uses it for non-political activities, including school projects, social networking, games or exchanging music videos.

But the interest in current affairs is definitely growing. Its political reach has dramatically reduced the government’s almost-total control of the channels of information.

That Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has been loosening up on society is attributed in part to this phenomenon.

In last year’s National Day Rally speech, Lee spoke of the Internet benefits and problems, including spreading “half-truths and untruths” as well as “good views, also bad views, extremist views which will divide our society”.

Many global corporations and politicians were using blogs to communicate, he said, “so we have to update, to try these out and move with the times ? We can’t do (everything) the old way.”

He said Singapore’s laws would have to change, including those that ban political podcasts and videos during elections.

It has also led to calls by government backbenchers to loosen up on the mainstream media, saying that regulations are driving readers towards an uncontrolled digital media.

In line with global trends, more young Singaporeans have been abandoning the 162-year-old Straits Times and turning to the Internet.

(Since 1998, its daily circulation has fallen from 391,612 to 381,934 despite a population rise of a million people to 4.5 million and its near market monopoly.)

Readers who believe that Singapore’s mainstream media is an official mouthpiece have given up reading it and are opting instead to congregate in the blogosphere to get their news and opinions.

They have formed a virtual sub-community of disenchanted youths who talk among themselves, taking only a perfunctory interest in what the government says through the mainstream media.

This is also propelling younger PAP leaders to try and reconnect with them.

By ignoring and regarding them as threats, rather than engaging them, the government has lost this community by default.

So far, web opinions, however rational and well-written by professionals or businessmen, have no recognition. This includes those whose names and identities are known. In government eyes, they simply don’t exist.

Two years ago, I suggested that Lee Kuan Yew – who is active and with a sharp mind – start his own personal blog (with technical help, of course) to fulfil his wish to pass on values and advice to the young.

They may not agree to everything he has to say, but his vast experience will generally benefit all.

Will it happen? At 83 and still busy winging round the world on state matters, the chances are rather slim. But one never really knows!

Singapore