The media in Singapore: A structural problem

Many Singaporeans will readily acknowledge (however much the MSM may protest otherwise) that there is an inherent slant in the local news that favours the ruling PAP. Some techniques are pretty obvious whilst others are quite subtle. The newspapers here have for a long time been assisting the state in building a narrative about our society and its politics. Much of the slanted views have entered into the collective psyche of the nation to a point where Singaporeans would readily agree with many fundamental arguments put forward by the ruling PAP.

Looking beyond the the way the the traditional media reports news, it is worthwhile reminding ourselves of the structural aspects of the newspaper industry in Singapore. The possession of a printing press, the printing of a newspaper and its circulation and the formation and operation of newspaper companies are tightly controled by the government through the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act.


Firstly, by virtue of S.3 of the Act, the keeping and using of a printing press is subject to licensing by the Minister. If a licence is refused or withdrawn, an appeal can be made to the President. But, does the President have discretion in this matter? Well, we have to look at the Singapore Constitution:

Article 21.
—(1) Except as provided by this Constitution, the President shall, in the exercise of his functions under this Constitution or any other written law, act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet or of a Minister acting under the general authority of the Cabinet.

Thus the President's decision making under s.3 of the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act is subject to acting in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet.

So, if I were to apply for a licence to operate a printing press and it were to be rejected by MICA, I can appeal to the President. The President will then be told by the Cabinet to reject my licence anyway. It is a mockery of common sense. But, that is the law.

Secondly, the management of newspaper companies is controlled under sections 9 and 10 of the Newspaper and Priting Presses Act. The management shareholders of a newspaper company are persons approved by the Minister. Newspaper companies are not in a position to refuse the appointment of these management shareholders. The Minister's decision can be appealed to the President. the President's powers are subject to Article 21 of the Constitution.

Additionally, the management shareholders have 200 votes for every share that they hold in relation to hiring and firing decisions. As a result of this arrangment, the government approved management shareholders have effective control over the newspaper companies.

Section 10(11)of the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act is as follows:

"The holder of management shares shall be entitled either on a poll or by a show of hands to 200 votes for each management share held by him upon any resolution relating to the appointment or dismissal of a director or any member of the staff of a newspaper company but shall in all other respects have the same voting rights as the holder of ordinary shares."

Not happy with an article written by a journalist? No problem. Government approved management shareholders are on hand to fire him.

Journalists and reporters may want to perform their job impartially. But, there are structural aspects to our print media that prevent the aspiration for media independence to be truly realised.

To SPP: Don't oppose the Bishan nursing home

The Ministry of Health plans to build a nursing home at Bishan Street 13. This is a good thing and it should be welcome. Too often, Singaporeans are found complaining that the current government is not doing enough for the elderly and the poor. I would, therefore, expect that a decision to build a nursing home would therefore be welcome.

However, as in the past, residents living near the affected area are unhappy with the idea of a nursing home being built in the vicinity of their homes. Whilst welcoming the idea of a nursing home, these residents are not happy that it would be in their own backyard. What's wrong with my fellow Singaporeans? Why such selfishness?

To be fair, it has been reported that some residents welcome the idea. Besides, those individuals that are opposed to the building of the nursing home might well be in the minority. But, the disconcerting fact is that this is not the first time that residents living in a particular locality have opposed the building of a facility that would have served a larger communal goal. Why is the narrow-minded asset-enhancement mentality so entrenched in us that we are so troubled by worthwhile welfare projects cropping us near our housing estates?

Whilst I was not too surprised by the fact that some residents were unhappy about the decision to build a nursing home, I was definitely surprised to read a statement from the Singapore Peoples Party about this issue:

28 May 2012

The proposed nursing home at Bishan Street 13

The SPP believes in a humane and just Singapore, where the disadvantaged such as the elderly will be looked after with dignity. The proposed nursing home in Bishan will be an essential facility towards this, but the residents most affected deserve consideration.

Alternative sites should be actively sought. The location of the nursing home in this case is still negotiable. A voting exercise similar to that for the Lift Upgrading Programmes should be conducted to determine the site for the nursing home. A more entrenched culture of greater consultative decision-making can only be good for Singapore in the long term.

From what we understand, the residents in Toh Yi Drive who faced a similar incident a few months ago were in fact more unhappy that they were not properly consulted before the plans were drawn up, rather than the plans for building the nursing home in itself.

The situation we are in is caused by the PAP Government’s policy of “asset enhancement”. It has been drummed into Singaporeans that their HDB flat is not only a home, but also an asset that they can cash-out in their old age. It is naturally a hard sell asking Singaporeans to accept anything likely to devalue their ‘retirement plan’. This situation will not be fully resolved until Singapore returns to when a HDB flat is affordable housing, when retirement savings are diversified and liquid, and when Community regains its importance in Singaporeans’ lives.

The SPP has observed the good work of the various Lions organisations among the elderly and poor in Bishan and Toa Payoh. We thank them and encourage them to persevere in their efforts. Going forward, we hope to be able to work closely with them in our service to Bishan-Toa Payoh residents.

Finally, we note that residents will need more information and will need to be consulted thoroughly throughout the planning, construction and operations for the nursing home, should it proceed. The SPP will be engaging Bishan residents for their in-depth views during our scheduled walkabout this Sunday, 3 June 2012, beginning 9am that will cover Bishan Street 13. The SPP will work constructively with the Government, residents and the Lions Home for the Elders on this issue.


CHIAM SEE TONG
Secretary-General, SPP

I believe that there was no necessity for the SPP to wade into this issue. I have to admit that statement is finely poised and nowhere in there does Mr Chiam See Tong rubbish the need for a nursing home. He takes issue with the lack of consultation. However, should any government really be held ransom to popular sentiment when making decisions about land use especially when the use of the land is for the greater good of the community? After all, we are not talking about residential property being acquired and destroyed in order to make way for a golf course or a highway. Nor are we talking about destroying a heritage site in order to construct a highway. Even in instances where people may feel justified in objecting to government decisions on land usage, I do not believe that government decision making should be tied to a issue based voting by citizens. The SPP's idea of having a voting exercise similar to the Lift Upgrading Programme is in my view undesirable.

I do not oppose the idea of consultation. In fact, I welcome the suggestion that the government should consult before making decisions on land use where there may be significant impact on the properties of citizens. But, such consultation should not result in an expectation that the government should be restrained from exercising its discretion and making a decision one way or the other. Democracy in the form of a general mandate to govern based on a package of policies is one thing. This should not be confused with an anarchic attempt to engage in popular decision making on every single administrative and policy task.

I have often taken a critical stance against the PAP on matters pertaining to the law and the Constitution and in relation to the rights of individuals. But, I welcome the building of nursing homes. They are needed. As much as we demand that our government be more compassionate, we should examine ourselves and ask whether we are even taking any effort to cast aside at least a minute amount of our money-faced selfishness.

This is Hougang

I am a Liverpool fan. There is a famous sign at Liverpool's stadium that reads: "This is Anfield". It is awe-inspiring for every football player that has worn that famous red jersey and for every fan around the world that has seen that sign. In the days when Liverpool dominated the league, piling up victory after victory, "This is Anfield" was an intimidating statement to be confronted with as opposing teams entered the couldron.

Our politicians are fond of footballing analogies. This is my footballing analogy:

THIS IS HOUGANG!

When it comes to election statistics, the national norm does not apply to Hougang. When it comes to voter behaviour, the national norm does not apply to Hougang. When it comes to standing up to intimidation, the national norm does not apply to Hougang. There is something strong, resilient and courageous about the people of Hougang. I know a few Hougang residents personally. The ones that I know have been voting for the Workers' Party repeatedly. Why did these friends vote for WP? Check and balance in Parliament! That is the answer. What is particularly sophisticated about this way of voting is that these friends did not consider their local municipal issues as the key determinant for voting during a Parliamentary election. They understand that essentially in our system of democracy, we are voting for representatives in Parliament so that if there is a sufficient majority, that party could form the government and if not, those representatives could act as an effective check and balance. These friends are fully aware that the PAP's parliamentary majority is not under any threat. These friends are also uncomfortable with the size of the PAP's Parliamentary majority where Constitutional amendments can be pushed through. For these friends of mine, a strong opposition presence in Parliament of between 20 to 30 members would serve as a way to push the PAP to implement more people friendly policies and to monitor the way that the government functions.

So, what do they think about upgrading and other bullying tactics? It doesn't figure in their voting. In fact, I suspect that it enrages them and entrenches the WP vote.

As I observed the campaign by the two sides during this by-election, I can't help but realise that the PAP has lost the plot when it comes to the 'new normal'. Here was a perfect opportunity to show everyone that they have emerged from GE 2011 wiser and are now willing to go down the road of clean politics. But, this has become an opportunity squandered with them attempting to make an issue out of Yaw Shin Leong's selection and then making an issue out of Png Eng Huat's non-selection for the NCMP position in the last GE. What we saw was the same old tactics. I doubt that the campaign approach is going to go down well with Hougang voters.

What do I think will be the outcome of this by-election? WP will win, of course. I am sure that if this was open for a bet, even the PAP leaders would bet on a WP win. What would be interesting is the % of the win. How wide a margin would the WP get? Would they lose some ground? Would they gain more?

Firstly, I always assume a core group of PAP supporters and opposition supporters exist in every constituency. These voters would not change their vote. Yaw-gate and NCMP-gate will not move the strong WP supporter in Hougang to vote for the PAP. PAP's bullying and dirty campaign tactics will not move the hardcore PAP suporter into feeling disgusted and voting for the WP.

So, it is the middle ground that we are looking at.

I also suspect that most of the middle ground had already voted for WP in GE 2011. The PAP's 35% in Hougang (during GE 2011) represents the hardcore PAP support that exists throughout the country. (I use the Dr Tony Tan voters during the PResidential election as a gauge of the 'PAP-whatever-the-situation' vote in Singapore.)

In GE 2011, WP was scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of middle ground voters. It will be an uphill task to convert more of them, unless new voters added onto the register this year turn overwhelmingly towards the WP. Even then, it would be a small number. Maybe, we might tweak the national average a little bit since this is Hougang. So, instead of a hardcore 35% PAP supporters, we might assume that there is a 30% hardcore support for PAP in Hougang. If that is the case, there may be some votes to be scraped away from the PAP by the WP.

The probability of an increase in WP's percentage is very low. On the other hand, there is a reasonably high probability of WP's vote share going down. Any shift downwards would be by 1% to 3%. Any shift upwards would be 1% at the most. Anyone seeking to get the impact of a referrendum out of this by-election would be severely disappointed. The way that the campaign has been reported in the media and the way the online media has focused attention on 'NCMP-gate', the more important national issues have not been given any prominence and I am pretty certain that this is not going to turn out to be a referendum on the policies of the PAP over the last year.

WP was attempting to make this into an election about national issues at its rallies. Personally, I felt at the outset that in a small country like ours, the national and the local gets merged together inextricably. But, the loudest news filtering through the media is about Png Eng Huat's selection (or non-selection for the NCMP post). (And inexplicably the loudest 'political' social media shared event today is the XiaXue fight back against some pretty nasty comments by Facebookers.) The middle ground voters in Hougang may be swayed against Png Eng Huat. But, this is bound to be marginal.

Whatever the outcome, Hougang will remain with the WP. Hougang residents will continue to shout out loud and proud:
THIS IS HOUGANG!

UPDATE:
In GE 2011, the voter turnout was 23,176 out of 24,560 eligible voters. 1,384 did not turn up for voting. WP had 14850 votes (64.8% of valid votes) and PAP had 8065 votes (35.2% of valid votes). 261 spoilt votes.

Based on a Channelnewsasia report today, there are 23,368 eligible voters. Those 1,384 that did not vote would have been removed from the electoral register. New voters added onto the register would therefore be: 23,368 - 23,176 = 192 (bearing in mind that a small segment of the 192 would be those that got themselves reinstated in the register)

If everyone voted without changing their votes and if WP picked up all 192 of the new votes, the result would be 15,042 for WP and 8065 for PAP. That would be 65.1% for WP and 34.9% for PAP.
Similarly, if PAP picks up all the 192 votes, the result would be 14,850 for WP and 8,257 for PAP. That would be 64.2% for WP and 35.8% for PAP.

Any food, drinks or vouchers at the by-election rallies?

I am just wondering out aloud... Did either the WP or PAP rally involve any supply of free food, drinks, vouchers or other gifts?

Political parties should be aware that treating is an offence under the Parliamentary Elections Act.

58. —(1) A person shall be guilty of treating if he corruptly, by himself or by any other person, either before, during or after an election, directly or indirectly gives or provides, or pays wholly or in part the expense of giving, any meat, drink, refreshment, cigarette, entertainment or other provision or thing or any money or ticket or other means or device to enable the procuring of any such meat, drink, refreshment, cigarette, entertainment or other provision or thing, to or for any person —

(a) for the purpose of corruptly influencing that person or any other person to vote or refrain from voting;

(b) for the purpose of inducing that person to attend or remain at any election meeting;

(c) on account of any such person or any other person having voted or refrained from voting or being about to vote or refrain from voting at the election; or

(d) on account of any such person having attended an election meeting.

(2) A person shall also be guilty of treating if he corruptly accepts or takes any such meat, drink, refreshment, cigarette, entertainment or other provision or thing or any such money or ticket or who adopts any other means or device to enable the procuring of such meat, drink, refreshment, cigarette, entertainment or other provision or thing

It is clear that treating for the purpose inducing persons to attend a rally or to remain at the rally is an offence. So, has anyone attended these rallies? Do you have knowledge of infringement of this law?

Why is the PAP anxious to keep national issues out of the Hougang by-election?

For starters, let us not kid ourselves. WP is going to win in Hougang. This is an opposition stronghold and I am sure the PAP leadership and their candidate for Hougang, Desmond Choo, are under no illusions as to the outcome on 26th May 2012. The Hougang constituency has gone to the Workers' Party since 1991 and the election statistics are as follows:

1991 - 52.8% for WP
1997 - 58% for WP
2001 - 55% for WP
2006 - 62.7% for WP
2011 - 64.8% for WP

The demographic change between the last General Elections and this by-election is going to be miniscule and unlikely to have any impact on the voting pattern. There is no reason to believe that voters that went for WP last year would change their minds. There is not much that has changed in the national socio-political arena to suggest that significant change could take place in the voting pattern. There is no doubt that the PAP will put up a fight. But, they would be fully prepared for defeat on 26th May.

So, why are they keen to make this out to be an election about 'local' issues and not 'national'. (Incidentally, I don't buy into that 'local' v 'national' dichotomy. This is a false dichotomy in a country like ours where the 'national' morphs into, overlaps with and is indistinguishable from the 'local' in many instances.) I suspect that the PAP is worried about the prospect of a further swing towards the WP. Even a marginal 2 to 3% increase for WP can be interpreted as growing voter disapproval of the PAP government's performance in the last year. Though it is not fair to consider the Hougang outcome (whichever way the swing of votes goes) as a referrendum on PAP's policies, it is inevitable that WP MPs will attempt to paint the by-election as a referrendum in order to push the PAP on certain policies. For instance, transportation could be made into a major issue during this by-election and if there is a vote increase in WP's favour, WP would use that a leverage in its Parliamentary arguments on that issue.

I am pretty sure that the PAP does not want to be pushed into decision making on policy matters on the basis of the outcome in a by-election. It is therefore anxious to paint this election as one that concerns itself with constituency representation and about effectively taking care of Hougang residents. A by-election as a referrendum is clearly not in the PAP's best interest.

Did Subhas Anandan really say that?

It was reported in Temasek Times that Subhas Anandan has made an offer of setting up a Legal Bureau at the Hougang Community Club if the PAP candidate wins the Hougang by-election. ( http://temasektimes.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/subhas-anandan-to-offer-free-legal-aid-to-hougang-residents-if-desmond-choo-is-elected/ )

It appears that this information has been taken from a Chinese newspaper. I do not know Mandarin. But, I am given to understand that the article does not actually say that Subhas Anandan will set up a Legal Bureau at Hougang if Desmond Choo wins the by-election.

In fact, I should add that it would be shocking if Subhas Anandan actually made such an assertion as it could run counter to the Parliamentary Elections Act (Cap 218):

60. The following persons shall be deemed guilty of the offence of bribery:

(a) every person who, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, gives, lends, or agrees to give or lend, or offers, promises, or promises to procure or to endeavour to procure, any money or valuable consideration to or for any elector or voter, or to or for any person on behalf of any elector or voter or to or for any other person, in order to induce any elector or voter to vote or refrain from voting, or corruptly does any such act on account of that elector or voter having voted or refrained from voting at any election under this Act;

(b) every person who, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, gives or procures, or agrees to give or procure, or offers, promises, or promises to procure or to endeavour to procure, any office, place or employment to or for any elector or voter or to or for any person on behalf of any elector or voter, or to or for any other person, in order to induce that elector or voter to vote or refrain from voting, or corruptly does any such act on account of that elector or voter having voted or refrained from voting at any election under this Act;

(c) every person who, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, makes any such gift, loan, offer, promise, procurement or agreement referred to in paragraph ( a) or (b) to or for any person in order to induce that person to procure or endeavour to procure the return of any person as a Member of Parliament, or the vote of any elector or voter at any election under this Act;

Temasek Times ought to have been more careful in reporting the statement considering that it translates into a potential election offence. As we hurtle towards the new reality that more and more people are relying on online news, 'new media' must exercise some degree of responsibility in reporting information this like. True. We may put up such info hurriedly. But, if there are errors, we must be willing to acknowledge them. I am given to understand from a friend that the mistake could have been a result of poor translation. Does anyone with a good command of Mandarin care to comment?

Hougang by-election case may be withdrawn from the Court

It appears that Mdm Vellama Marie Muthu is seeking to withdraw her case if the AG were to drop the appeal. A proposal has been forwarded to the Attorney General's office by Mdm Vellama's lawyer that upon withdrawal of her application and the AG's appeal, a consent order be drafted and recorded in Court.

Firstly, I believe that the application for the mandatory order has become unsustainable by virtue of the PM's decision to call for the by-election. If at all there is a live issue for the Court to determine, it is in relation to the declaratory orders sought by Mdm Vellama.

Mdm Vellama's application involved the following:

(a) Declaratory orders:

(i) That the Prime Minister does not have unfettered discretion in deciding whether to announce by-elections in Hougang SMC; and

(ii) That the Prime Minister does not have unfettered discretion to decide when to announce by-elections in Hougang SMC and must do so within three months or within such reasonable time as this Honourable Court deems fit; and

(b) A Mandatory Order
- enjoining the Prime Minister to advise the President to issue a Writ of Election mandating by-elections in Hougang SMC pursuant to Article 49(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) and Section 24(1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act (Cap 218, 2011 Rev Ed) and to tender such advice within three months or within such reasonable time as the Honourable Court deems fit.


As the PM has already advised the President to issue the Writ of Election, (b) above is rendered nugatory.

The question of whether the PM has unfettered discretion in deciding whether to announce by-election or in deciding when to announce such by-elections still remains an important Constitutional issue that is undefined and speculative given the gap in our Constitutional and statutory provisions on by-elections. This being the case, I do not think that the declaratory orders are less significant now that the PM has called for the by-election. (Of course, the wording of the declaratory order should be amended in the application to remove the reference to Hougang SMC. There is a generic question as to whether the PM has unfettered discretion in relation to whether and when to announce by-elections in any single member constituency.)

What would happen if the matter proceeds? The application for leave is in the first place being made on account of the mandatory order sought and by virtue of Order 53 of the Rules of Court. The declaratory orders are also being sought under Order 53 and they ride on the mandatory order. If the Court of Appeal rules that leave to appeal would not be granted on the mndatory order, then the application would fail and Mdm Vellama's Counsel has the option of filing a fresh application for the declaratory orders under Order 15 Rule 16 of the Rules of Court. This application, being solely for declaratory orders, would not require the leave of court.

This could be one way to proceed. However, I understand that the letter sent by Mdm Vellama's lawyer alludes to the fact that the Constitutional clarification must await some future date when such matter may arise. That is as good an indication as one may get on whether a fresh application would be made for the declaratory orders. It is plain that Mdm Vellama would not be pursuing any clarification via a fresh set of proceedings.

Since Mdm Vellama has proposed withdrawal, I would expect that the AG (and presumably the PM) would decide to take up the offer and drop the appeal. That would be the politically prudent step to take to avoid any possible fallout.

In any event, I think that Mdm Vellama deserves the respect of every citizen in Singapore. There are some people commenting online about her wasting time in making the Court application in the first place. This is what I have to say: Even if she has been put up to it by some others with a political interest in this situation, it takes a lot of guts to stick one's neck out like this. For that alone she deserves respect. She is a Singaporean that has shown that she meant every word of the pledge that we unashamedly take... "to build a democratic society based on justice and equality". In fact, those people that choose to take our national pledge and still deride the efforts of Mdm Vellama are hypocrites of the highest order. The rest of us, proud citizens, salute her!

In a way, this is our own little Bersih... A cleaner takes the PM to court to clean up our electoral law.

Hougang by-election: 26 May 2012

I am very happy to hear that President Tony Tan has today at 4.05pm issued the Writ of Elections for a by-election at the Hougang single member constitutency. Nomination papers for candidates have to be filed by 16th May 2012 and the most likely date for elections would be the 26th of May 2012.

This is definitely good news. Many people have shown skepticism about the PM's willingness to recognise the new reality of the post 2011 political universe in Singapore. When I blogged about the Hougang by-election in an earlier post and expressed my hope that the PM would call for the election expeditiously, there were comments left on this blog and comments from my friends that expressed serious doubt as to whether a by-election would be held at all. I feel that my hope was not misplaced. I do still feel that the current cabinet is willing to go along with the process of re-thinking its approach to governance.

This current decision to call for a by-election has to be seen positively. Yaw Shin Leong was expelled from his party on 15 Feb 2012 and his seat became vacant. The 3 month time-frame that used to exist in our former Federal Constitution would have kicked in on 15 May 2012. (This requirement does not exist in our Constitution today and the timing is discretionary.) By issuing the Writ of Election today, the President under the advise of the Cabinet has clearly acted expeditiously.

What we need in the future is for such expeditious by-elections to be a norm. If a seat becomes vacant, we need a strong political convention that it would be filled expeditiously. A 3 to 6 month timeframe is reasonable. The PM has exceeded my expectation by calling for the by-election within 3 months.

Another small step in the direction of a more democratic Singapore.

(I can imagine that there would be those that take a cynical view about this. The PAP is bound to lose in Hougang anyway. They have nothing to lose, therefore, by calling for an early election. They have tremendous political capital to gain by acting responsibly on this occasion. That would explain the early date. But, I don't mind giving credit where it is due.)

The following is the PM's statement in relation to the Hougang by-election:

"In the General Election in May 2011, nearly all seats were contested. Many important issues were aired and debated. In the outcome, Singaporeans gave the PAP team a clear mandate to form the Government.

Over the past year, the Government has worked hard together with Singa­poreans to implement its programme to build an inclusive Singapore, and improve the lives of all.

We set the broad directions when Parliament opened last October. In the Budget in February we followed up with effective schemes to help the poor, the elderly and the disabled. We are also upgrading our companies’ and workers’ skills, so that our economy can grow and Singaporeans can improve their incomes year by year.

However, much work remains ahead to translate good policies and programmes into actions on the ground, and to deliver the results that we all look forward to.

In January this year, news surfaced of personal indiscretions by Mr Yaw Shin Leong, the Workers’ Party (WP) Member of Parliament for Hougang constituency. The WP first kept totally silent, then supported Mr Yaw, and then three weeks later suddenly expelled him from the party. Until now the WP has not given Singa­poreans a full and proper account of what happened, or why it acted in this way. Mr Yaw himself has said nothing, either to explain or to apologise for his behaviour, and has reportedly left the country. Both the WP and Mr Yaw have let down all those who voted for him. As a result of Mr Yaw’s expulsion from the WP, the Hougang constituency seat fell vacant.

I hope these events will not distract us from focussing on our national priorities, and building an inclusive Singa­pore. Although the Constitution does not require me to call a by-election within any fixed timeframe, I said in Parliament that I intended to call a by-election in Hougang. This morning I advised the President to issue the Writ of Election.

The by-election will give Hougang residents the chance to elect a new MP to serve them. I encourage Hougang voters to use this opportunity wisely, to elect the best candidate with commitment and integrity: someone they can rely upon to express their hopes and concerns, address their needs, and make a real difference to their lives."

GE 2011 & the New Normal: 1 year on

One of the more fascinating developments that has taken place after the last General Elections in May 2011 is that more and more people are coming forward to express their personal views publicly and in doing so more of them are willing to express views that may not be in keeping with the official policy line of the ruling PAP.

Whilst bloggers on the internet had already been gradually hacking away at the state's narrative for some years now, it has always been the case that academics and public figures from the mainstream would at most make rather muted comments about the status quo. Of course, we had academics like Prof Thio Li Ann (Nominated MP) who was pretty vocal during her term in Parliament on a number of legal and Constitutional issues. But, I can't help but notice that after the 2011 GE, more academics and establishment figures have come forward to express their views publicly on legal/constitutional/policy issues.

Much has been made of the so-called 'new normal'. Many Singaporeans cast away their fear at the ballot box last year. Many more were willing to show their disagreement at the Presidential Election as well (resulting in an 'unpopularly' elected President). The fear that a large segment of the population chose to jettison at the elections was a powerful signal indeed. That must have surely emboldened many public figures to come forward and express their personal disagreements with the official policy position.

Amongst the figures coming forward to set out a differing viewpoint (and sometimes in a critical fashion as well) are:
1. SMU Prof Kevin Tan (in relation to the Hougang by-election issue, he locked horns with PAP MP and Senior Counsel Hri Kumar)
2. Prof Lim Chong Yah of NTU (he made a somewhat radical proposal to introduce a form of shock therapy to address the problem of income equality)
3. Prof Tommy Koh (Ambassador at Large) - (acknowledging that Singapore's large scale import of low-skilled labour is depressing wages here)
4. Yeoh Lam Kheong (Institute of Policy Studies Senior Adjunct Fellow) and Kishore Mahbubani (LKY School of Public Policy Dean) have spoken in similar vein about the importation of low-skilled labour.

It is good to see that well-reasoned dissenting voices are surfacing more and more. This bodes well in the next phase of our nation's development. As we engage more openly in debate and consider and reconsider policy position more rigourously, we stand to benefit as a nation. It may not work out too well for the PAP as more reasoned dissent from the established views will undermine the PAP's stranglehold on information. But, we must be under no illusions that the nation is more important than a political party. Our country needs this type of open intellectual debate on policy matters.

So, as we 'celebrate' the 1st anniversary of the 'new normal', we have good reason to believe that the soul of our nation is gradually heading in the right direction. The most important thing about this development is that it is people-driven and not fed to the people by the state. Let the ideas flow from the many good minds that we have in our midst and let us recreate our soul.

The New Normal: Celebrating a New Media victory (or 'Why We don't need your COC')

Exactly one year ago, we were in the midst of one of the fiercest and most intensely fought out general elections in the history of our nation (post independance). There was much drama and passion; Grand and inspiring speeches by the likes of Vincent Vijeysinha; Rising chorus of anger amongst the voting public; Open display of disdain for PAP candidates (in a country that was often driven by fear of political reprisal, whether real or imagined).

There were particular moments during the campaign period when we felt that public opinion may be swinging so wildly against the PAP that Aljunied, Holland-Bukit Timah and Bishan-Toa Payoh might fall. Marine Parade was not looking very safe for the PAP nor was East Coast. These are GRCs. In the past, GRCs were the safe zones for the PAP and the opposition struggled to make a dent. In 2011, the opposition parties contested nearly all the seats and gave to the electorate an important gift: the ability to vote in the general elections. For many, it was the first time that they had a chance to vote. The opposition parties benefited from a more credible slate of candidates. The level of resentment against the PAP's policies had led to candidates with sound credentials coming forward to take up the cause of providing an alternative voice in Parliament.

Above all else, I believe the crucial development in the 2011 elections was the disappearance of fear from the minds of many voters. Perhaps, not surprisingly, this translated into a corresponding fear in the minds of the PAP candidates. The high and mighty and infallible PAP was reduced to issuing a public apology. On 3rd May 2011, at Boat Quay, we witnessed the vulnerability of the PAP and the true power of the ballot.

An important battle in the 2011 elections was fought online. It was not a straightforward battle between the PAP and the Opposition Parties. Much of the battle was waged by bloggers, websites such as The Online Citizen and Temasek Review, citizens posting on forum pages and Facebook users doing no more than clicking and sharing. The irreverance was infectious and it was curing many of the disease of fear. The online battles were crucial in averting serious damage for the opposition and in inflicting damage on the PAP. Singaporeans have grown accustomed to the reality that the mainstream media is the mouthpiece of the ruling party. Alternative sources of information were becoming more relevant to the assessment of issues thrown up during the elections. Quite tellingly, thanks to keyboard warriors, it became difficult to tarnish or trivialise opposition candidates and their policy positions.

Since it is now a year after that historic election campaign, I thought it would be good to reflect on one such online battle. During the campaign, Vivian Balakrishnan said the SDP was suppressing a video on youtube that raised "some very awkward questions about the agenda and motivations of the SDP and its candidates." He stated: "I can't help feeling that part of the reason for their (SDP) reticence is they have elements of their agenda they are not prepared to disclose and subject to scrutiny. Eventually, they will have to come out of the closet."

The phrase, "coming out of the closet" is often used in the context of a person coming forward to openly declare his sexual orientation. As it transpired, the video being referred to was one involving a speech by lawyer M Ravi. Vincent Wijeysingha of the SDP can be seen briefly in the video asking some questions. Vivian Balakrishnan's allusion was to a potential gay agenda on the part of the SDP. The perception amongst many netizens was that there was an attempt to tarnish the image of Vincent Wijeysingha by emphasizing that he is gay. A New Paper issue ran the headline: "Is Singapore ready for a Gay MP?"

The online backlash was consistent, virulent and mono-directional (against the PAP). Voters had too many fundamental concerns that needed to be addressed and netizens reflected this by displaying impatience with an attempted smear campaign against the SDP candidate. On April 28, Vivian Balakrishnan told the press that there is no need to discuss the video further.

The election campaign was marked by many instances of campaign issues being subjected to close scrutiny online. I wouldn't be overstating the case if I were to say that the 2011 General Elections was heavilly influenced by online discussion.

Today, we are engaged in discussion (initiated by the government) about a Code of Conduct for the internet. Given the fact that our laws relating to sedition, contempt of court, criminal and civil defamation and incitement to religious hatred are more than adequate to deal with some of the reasons stated for a Code of Conduct by Dr Yacoob, one can only arrive at the conclusion that the real issue for the PAP leaders is the control of information that is available online. PAP no longer enjoys a monopoly on information. The diversity of views expressed online (often in the form of intellectually sharp analysis) gives the people a very real opportunity to assess the truth for themselves. The days of an officially constructed reality are over.

Do we need a COC? No. In all likelihood this move is initiated as an attempt at information management. If that is indeed the motivation, then our leaders have not understood a key driving force behind the 'new normal'. So, here is some free advice: We don't want to be told. We want to make up our own minds.

Pri 1, PR, proximity and the need for principles in policy making

On 25th March 2012, the Ministry of Education announced some changes to the Primary 1 registration exercise. Basically, there will be no changes to the current phases of registration. But, there would be differentiation between Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents where a particular phase is 'oversubscribed'. MOE's press release states this:

"when balloting is necessary in a specific phase, SCs will be given absolute priority over PRs. SCs and PRs will continue to be eligible for the same phases, and all applicants will be admitted if the total number of applicants in any phase does not exceed the number of vacancies. However, if the number of applications exceeds the number of vacancies in a specific phase, SCs will be admitted first ahead of PRs, before home-school distance is considered."

This is clearly intended to win political capital by pandering to the section of the electorate that is clearly unhappy with the huge influx of foreigners. There is nothing stated by way of principle by the Ministry of Education as to why the differentiation ought to be made. There are possible ways that a principled argument could be mounted for the differentiation. But MOE does not seem to find the need to justify and I can only surmise that it is a response to electoral backlash.

In this piece I am not going to look at the need to differentiate between citizens and PRs. Instead, I wish to focus on another issue that I have been concerned about for some time: the lack of principles in the primary 1 registration exercise. The Pri 1 registration exercise is split into a number of phases. Each phase caters for different categories of 'interests'.

Phase 1
For a child who has a sibling studying in the primary school of choice

Phase 2A(1)
(a) For a child whose parent is a former student of the primary school and who has joined the alumni association as a member not later than 30 June 2011.

(b) For a child whose parent is a member of the School Advisory / Management Committee

Phase 2A(2)
(a) For a child whose parent or sibling has studied in the primary school of choice

(b) For a child whose parent is a staff member of the primary school of choice

Phase 2B
(a) For a child whose parent has joined the primary school as a parent volunteer not later than 1 Jul 2011 and has given at least 40 hours of voluntary service to the school by 30 Jun 2012

(b) For a child whose parent is a member endorsed by the church/clan directly connected with the primary school

(c) For a child whose parent is endorsed as an active community leader

Phase 2C
For all children who are eligible for Primary One in the following year and are not yet registered in a primary school

Phase 2C Supplementary
For a child who is not yet registered in a school after Phase 2C

Phase 3
For a child who is neither a Singapore Citizen nor a Singapore Permanent Resident

From the first time that I became aware of the phases, I have been uncomfortable with the way in which priority is given to parents offering voluntary services to the school and parents that are deemed to be active community leaders. Under its FAQ section, the MOE explains community leaders as follows: "Current serving executive committee members of the Residents’ Committee (RC), Neighbourhood Committee (NC), Citizen’s Consultative Committee (CCC), Community Club Management Committee (CCMC) and the Community Development Council (CDC) are eligible to register their children under Phase 2B."

A crucial issue in making education available to all and accessible to all is to consider the child's interest. A young child would need all the assistance necessary to make the transition into a competitive school environment a smooth one. Distance may be a factor to be considered. If a child has to travel a long distance to and from school, precious time is lost and the child gets understandably tired. This can affect the overall concentration and performance of the child over the years. The fact that a sibling is presently studying in a particular school appears to be a relevant factor that is capable of improving the child's performance. Clearly a child is likely to benefit from the presence an older sibling in the school. These methods of giving priority can be classified as 'principled'.

What befuddles me is that someone that has joined a Residents' Committee or has helped out as a parent volunteer (and often does so out of self-interest), can easily fit into phase 2B and that person's child will be given priority over a child living in vicinity of a school. By officially maintaing a category for parents serving the community or the school, a wrong behaviour is encouraged. Community service should be undertaken with the spirit of service and not through expectation of benefits. But, the current registration system encourages many parents to join RCs simply because of the benefit of priority in pri 1 registration. Whilst proximity ought to be a superior factor in comparison to RC membership by virtue of the principled position adopted, proximity is subordinated.

If this was not official policy, it would be the offence of corruption. Parents providing volunteer services to schools do so with the expectation that their child will get priority in registration. The schools receive this benefit of services provided by the parents and know that they are expected to reciprocate. I am drawing this comparison with the corruption offence to put things into perspective. There is no principled approach to Pri 1 registration.

It is important that public bodies rationalise their policies in a principled way instead of catering to 'interests' in an arbitrary fashion.

(On a personal note: About 5 years ago, I was strongly encouraged by an active RC member to join the RC as it would enhance my son's school registration. I found the suggestion repulsive then and I still feel the same way about it today. I continue to receive the same suggestion today. My son will be going through his Pri 1 registration in the middle of next year. I refuse to give myself an advantage by joining the RC. I think that there is a more important value that I need to inculcate in my son. Sometimes, it is a matter of principle.)

That US 4 billion to the IMF: Is it unconstitutional?

On 20th April 2012, the Monetary Authority of Singapore announced that Singapore will give a "bilateral loan of US$4 billion to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), as part of the broader international effort to provide the Fund with sufficient resources to tackle crisis and promote global economic and financial stability."

Let me just state at the outset that I am not going to question the wisdom of such a move. I can see the need for the global community to rally together to hold steadfast against any future economic crisis. Some would question whether this is nothing more than an exercise in futility. In fact, in the United Kingdom (where the government has pledged 10 billion pounds), several ruling party MPs have started questioning the wisdom of providing such a backup to the IMF. Peter Bone (MP from the Conservative Party) said: "We might as well put £10billion in the nearest litter bin.” There is a sense in which this move is seen as money down the drain and an exercise in futility even if it may appear to be well-intentioned.

The Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls (of the opposition Labour Party) had this to say: "The IMF has a vital role to play in the global economy and should have the resources to do that job, but it should not be bailing out the eurozone when the euro area countries are not doing their own bit to help themselves." "The IMF cannot and should not become the de facto central bank of the euro area." "The IMF is being put up to step in and play the role that the European Central Bank should be playing - a strategy which cannot work and is self-defeating by highlighting the lack of a proper ECB firewall." I can see the validity in this proposition that IMF should not do ECB's job.

Meanwhile, back in Singapore, we have mundane news reports of a mere 4 billion US dollars being pledged to the IMF. I am rather curious about the status of this loan commitment from a legal standpoint. Under our Constitution, there are some restrictions on loans and guarantees provided by the government. Article 144 of the Constitution is as follows:

Article 144.
—(1) No guarantee or loan shall be given or raised by the Government —
(a)except under the authority of any resolution of Parliament with which the President concurs;
(b)under the authority of any law to which this paragraph applies unless the President concurs with the giving or raising of such guarantee or loan; or
(c)except under the authority of any other written law.
(2) The President, acting in his discretion, may withhold his assent to any Bill passed by Parliament providing, directly or indirectly, for the borrowing of money, the giving of any guarantee or the raising of any loan by the Government if, in the opinion of the President, the Bill is likely to draw on the reserves of the Government which were not accumulated by the Government during its current term of office.

The present issue of the loan to IMF comes under Clause 1(b). The Constitution makes reference to specific laws under which loans may be given and one such statute listed at Clause 3 is the Bretton Woods Agreement Act (Cap 27). Subscription payments to the IMF and other monetary commitments to the IMF are covered by the Bretton Woods Agreement. Given this fact, the Constitution clearly prohibits at Clause 1(b) above any loan given to the IMF without the President's consent.

I wonder if the President was consulted. I wonder if he has given his consent. Given that this is one of the areas of the President's discretionary powers and given the fact that he is an Elected President, I would expect some transparency and accountability here simply in the form of an official request for the President's consent and the President's communication of such consent with reasons stated. This would ensure that the people can judge the President's record when it comes to the next Presidential Election. What decisions did he make in relation to his discretionary powers? How did he justify those decisions? Are the justifications acceptable? These are important questions and can't be brushed aside on the bare assertion that our President is like the Queen of England and that he carries out his functions behind closed doors. Our President is Elected (and not appointed or a hereditary title holder) and these are part of his discretionary powers for which he was elected.

Thus I have 2 issues with the current loan to the IMF. (1) A guarantee or a loan without the President's consent will be unlawful. (2) If the President has consented, can we have an official statement from Istana?

Can SGX be subject to judicial review?

There is a case that is presently in court over the question of whether the High Court can exercise judicial review over the decisions of the SGX.

This is an interesting legal problem that has not been addressed yet in Singapore and I am hopeful that the Court would come to the conclusion that SGX is performing a 'public function' even though it is not a public body and hence it ought to be subject to judicial review. This is the outcome of a similar litigation in the UK involving the powers of the Panel on Takeovers and Mergers. In the cases of R v Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, ex parte Datafin plc and another, the English Court of Appeal came to the conclusion that the Panel was performing a public function and therefore subject to judicial review by the courts.
Sir John Donaldson MR made the following observation about the Panel:

"It has no statutory, prerogative or common law powers and it is not in contractual relationship with the financial market or with those who deal in that market.

Lacking any authority de jure, it exercises immense power de facto by devising, promulgating, amending and interpreting the City Code on Take-overs and Mergers, by waiving or modifying the application of the code in particular circumstances, by investigating and reporting on alleged breaches of the code and by the application or threat of sanctions. These sanctions are no less effective because they are applied indirectly and lack a legally enforceable base."

The Court of Appeal in that case went on to conclude that the Panel was fulfilling a regulatory function that would have otherwise been fulfilled by the state. The fact that it was a wholly private entity did not prevent the Court from exercising its judicial review powers over the Panel.

It would be interesting to see how our Courts would deal with the SGX. It is strongly arguable that SGX's regulatory functions place it within the ambit of a body that is subject to judicial review by the courts.

The following article appeared in Business Times:

Is it a public body issuing reprimands or a private club?

[SINGAPORE] Is the Singapore Exchange (SGX) a public body exercising a public function when reprimanding companies and their directors? Or is it a private club, dealing with its members?

The question was hotly debated yesterday after a former independent director (ID) of China Sky Chemical Fibre sought to have a public reprimand from SGX overturned by the court.

SGX is "not a creature of statute" and its relationship with listed companies is a contractual one, said Davinder Singh, chief executive officer of Drew & Napier LLC, who represented the Exchange.

Its power to reprimand companies or directors is not subject to judicial review since it is rooted in private law, he added.

Tan Cheng Han, a consultant at TSMP Law Corporation, contested this view. "To the extent that the Exchange is exercising a power that is inherent or necessary for the proper regulation of the securities market in Singapore, it is exercising a power of public character," he said.

The two Senior Counsels locked horns on the grey area of SGX's dual commercial and regulatory roles yesterday in court in an unprecedented lawsuit brought by a former director of a listed company against SGX.

Yeap Wai Kong, former ID of China Sky, wants to overturn a public reprimand from SGX through a quashing order from the court. The company and its directors were publicly rapped on Dec 16 after the group's failure to comply with SGX's directive to appoint a special auditor.

SGX's hybrid nature has long been a source of market debate but the lawsuit has probably brought the discussion on the source of its powers in court for the first time.

Representing SGX, Mr Singh stressed that SGX's position is different from that of the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), which is a statutory body that regulates the securities market and SGX itself.

Under Singapore's "unique framework", companies that seek to be admitted into the official list enter a "consensual submission" to abide by SGX listing rules.

SGX's power to reprimand arises because "the Company and the Applicant (Mr Yeap) both agreed to be bound by the Listing Rules, thereby consensually submitting to the Exchange's power under Listing Rule 720(4) to issue the Reprimand", Mr Singh said in his written submissions for SGX.

"Like any other private club, the Exchange has rules governing the conduct of its members, and seeks to ensure compliance with its rules. This does not lead to the conclusion that the Exchange was exercising a public function in issuing the reprimand."

Companies are obliged to abide by SGX rules and they can say "no" to any SGX directive only through the Board, he added. Mr Singh pointed out that announcements by China Sky rejecting SGX's directive were issued "by order of the Board" and there was no evidence that Mr Yeap had disagreed with them.

"Distinction between the Board and its directors is an artificial one," he said. "To say that there is a need for notices to be issued to individual directors is a weak point".

Judicial review is a review of the manner in which a body makes a decision. In a judicial review, the court is concerned not with the merits of a decision but the process by which that decision has been made.

Representing Mr Yeap, Mr Tan argued that since the court has already decided that it has jurisdiction to hear this case, the decisions made by SGX are susceptible to judicial review.

"A hybrid body like SGX that discharges a public function is under the obligation to act judicially or fairly," he said, adding that SGX did not give Mr Yeap an opportunity to be heard before issuing a public reprimand on him, hence breaching natural rules of justice.

"I can find no piece of correspondence or a phone call from a SGX representative to the applicant to say that it is issuing a public reprimand to him and 'please explain yourself'," Mr Tan argued.

Neither was there a show-cause letter to Mr Yeap, similar to the ones issued to China Sky and another independent director at that time, Lai Seng Kwoon.

Mr Singh argued, however, that a show-cause letter was issued separately to Mr Lai because he was asked to explain his personal role in the interested person transactions with China Sky and his potential conflict of interest as chairman of the audit committee.

SGX had in January applied to the court to compel China Sky to comply with its directives, but executed a sudden withdrawal of its court application within two weeks without any reasons given.

"I find it strange that the respondent (SGX) is not pressing the company now to appoint auditors but is allowing the public reprimand to stand," Mr Tan said.

Mr Yeap was appointed to China Sky's Board in May last year before quitting on Jan 12 with two other IDs, Er Kwong Wah and Mr Lai, citing the company's non-compliance with SGX's order.

The Commercial Affairs Department is now probing Fujian-based fibre maker for possible breaches of securities laws after a number of irregularities were flagged by SGX.

MAS has also sought a court order to freeze the assets in Singapore belonging to the former chief executive of China Sky, Huang Zhong Xuan.

The Houngang by-election case - The decision to grant leave

Justice Philip Pillai has given his written reasons for the decision to grant leave for judicial review in the case of Vellama d/o Marie Muthu v AG.

Having read the court's reasoning, what I can gather is that the judge has stated that he is satisfied that the 'low threshold' for granting leave has been crossed. Exactly why the Court is satisfied as such is not stated (or at least I can't find it.

In his conclusion, the judge states:

"Based on what was presented and submitted to me for the purposes of the leave application, without making any comment or decision on the merits or the substantive legal issues, I granted leave for a judicial review hearing as I was of the view that the very low threshold for leave has been met."

I suspect that this might be a problem during the appeal. What was the judge's reason for coming to the 'view that the very low threshold for leave has been met?

Paragraphs 1 to 3 of the decision set out the orders sought by Applicant (Ms Vellama) and the fact that the Court granted leave for judicial review on 2nd April 2012.

Paragraphs 4 to 8 set out the factual background to the application.

Paragraphs 9 to 13 set out the law relating to the threshold to be crossed for the granting of leave for judicial review. The law here is uncontroversial and it is as follows:
(i) the matter complained of is susceptible to judicial review;
(ii) the applicant has sufficient interest in the matter; and
(iii) the material before the court discloses an arguable or prima facie case of reasonable suspicion in favour of granting leave.

Points No.(i) and (ii) were not disputed. The issue before the court was, therefore, whether there's a "prima facie case of reasonable suspicion"

Paragraphs 14 to 16 deal with the relationship between Order 53 and Order 15 Rule 16. This relates to the question of whether leave for judicial review is required for declaratory orders (as opposed to mandatory orders for which leave is clearly required). (A declaratory order is one that is in the form of a clarification of the legal position without ordering any government body to do anything. A mandatory order requires the government body to comply with the court's direction to carry out a particular act.)

The discussion in these paragraphs did not relate to the issue of whether there was a "prima facie case of reasonable suspicion." It was more on the question of whether leave was required in the first place for the declaratory orders.

Paragraphs 19 to 23 involve a narration by the judge of the arguments put forward by the respective lawyers on the mandatory order sought by the applicant. The judge did not express his opinion on these arguments.

Paragraphs 24 to 27 involve a narration of the arguments by the parties on the declarations requested by the applicant. The judge states the following:

"Counsel for the applicant earlier informed the AG’s counsel and the court that he would if necessary immediately apply under O 15 r 16 for the First and Second Declarations to be considered as standalone declarations for which the leave of court is not required. In light of this, the question of whether the quite separate requirements for standalone declarations have been
met would have to be determined at a substantive hearing, which this O 53 leave hearing is not."

The judge therefore appears to have taken the view that the issue of leave requirement for the declaratory orders did not need to be addressed.

Finally, at paragraph 29, the Judge concludes:

"Based on what was presented and submitted to me for the purposes of the leave application, without making any comment or decision on the merits or the substantive legal issues, I granted leave for a judicial review hearing as I was of the view that the very low threshold for leave has been met."

I am unable to ascertain from the decision the specific reason that led to his assessment that the "low threshold for leave has been met" apart from his assertion that the threshold has been met (Unless, one is to assume that he accepted the arguments put forward by the Counsel for the appellant and that constituted his reason for stating that the low threshold had been met.)

I hope that the Court of Appeal does not find this problematic. To be fair, the judge has no duty to examine the substantive merits of the application. But, I would have expected that something was stated as to why he made the finding that the threshold had been met.

Shimun Lai - What's her crime?

What did Shimun Lai say that has gotten so many people riled up? Indians upset over her remark; non-Indian netizens upset over it in a show of solidarity; other netizens upset that people are upset with Shimun....

Something is not right with this picture. Let's just face it. Racial stereotyping is a common feature in every society. In just about every country I've been to, racial comments, racial jokes, insensitive racial stereotyping is part of the ordinary social landscape. Singapore is no different.

From the time that I was in Primary school, I can remember comments and jokes about my dark skin. Sometimes kids would shun me because the darkness of the skin equates with being dirty and I used to get those comments thrown straight at my face. I have heard people characterise Indians as slimy, fork-tongued, liars. Even as a practising lawyer, I used to get back-handed compliments about why so many Indians make good lawyers (because we are good at twisting things around).

There are racial stereotypes about Malays. There are those that relate to Chinese. Let's be honest. Even those of us that try to live life with a sense of universal brotherhood, have the weakness of resorting to the base instinct of classifying certain mannerisms and behaviour as being peculiar or predominant in a particular race, nationality or culture. The difference is often about whether we are prepared to allow our entire thought pattern to be dominated by these classifications or we are willing to rise above these base instincts.

It comes as no surprise to me that Shimun felt that Indians are smelly. All throughout the time that I was growing and a long period throughout my 20s, I have experienced situations where some aunty in a bus or train would cover her nose or move to another seat if an Indian sits next to her. It is a perception that does exist. Some netizens in Shimun's defence have said that she was referring to Indians from India. There are others that have enjoined the debate by saying that many foreigners (especially PRC and Indians from India) are noisy and smelly. Somehow, foreigner bashing is seen as being not racist and therefore pardonable in comparison with bashing a Singapore Indian.

I think we are all getting quite mixed up about this whole episode.

Firstly, as an Indian let me just say that my instinctive reaction when I read about Shimun was to chuckle. Was she racist? Well there is some element of that in all of us. It is just a question as to where we target that emotion. For some it is merely in the thoughts racing through their minds. For others, it exhibits itself in the words that they casually use. Yet others, hurl it out as insults. These people are harmless when we compare them with those that would deny a person his socio-economic opportunities in life. Some people refuse to employ a person or to promote a person on account of his race. That is more vile, insidious and worthy of condemnation than some young girl that went crazy with her words.

When I was much younger, I used to get all worked up by racial remarks. But, over the years I have learned to ignore nasty comments. The human animal is rather strange. The very person that is capable of making racially insensitive comments is often capable of forming friendships with persons from such other races. It is not the remarks that make a person racist. It is the actions of that person that make him racist.

Take a deep breath. Give each other some space. There are more pressing concerns than the hasty comments of a 19-year old.

Register of Electors to be updated

The following notice has been issued in the Government Gazette at 5pm yesterday (26 March 2012). As the updating of the Register would take place on 13th April, there is a realistic possibility that the announcement of the by-election date for Hougang would be made sometime at the beginning of May 2011. (Just speculating)

"In accordance with section 13(5) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, notice is
hereby given that the Registration Officer intends to do the following on 13th April
2012 pursuant to section 13(4) and (4A), respectively of the Act:

(a) to remove from any register of elector the name of any person where
the Registration Officer has reason to believe that the address of that
person as shown in the register has on or before 19th March 2012 ceased
to exist or to be used as his place of residence or his contact address; and

(b) to transfer the name of any person to the appropriate register of electors
where the person has on or before 19th March 2012 notified the
Commissioner of National Registration in writing of his change of
address or contact address.

The list of the names of persons removed from any register of electors under
section 13(4) of the Act, and the list of the names of persons transferred from
a register of electors to another register of electors under section 13(4A) of the Act,
will be available for inspection at the office of the Registration Officer at 11 Prinsep
Link, Singapore 187949 from 27th March 2012 to 9th April 2012 during the
following hours:

(a) between 8.30 a.m. and 1 p.m. and between 2 p.m. and 6 p.m. daily on
Mondays to Fridays (except public holidays);
(b) between 8.30 a.m. and 1 p.m. on Saturdays (except public holidays)."

George Yeo: Many had "lost faith in the government"

As reported in the media, Mr George Yeo has pretty much acknowleged that last year's poor showing (relatively speaking) in the general elections, indicates that many people had lost faith in the government.

It is good to see that with the burden of the Ministerial post off his shoulders and the lack of a Parlimanetary seat, George Yeo is able to speak his mind and admit the reality on the ground. I wonder if the extent of the populuation's loss of faith has filtered through to the leadership.

I believe that the only reason why PAP did not suffer further losses in the last GE was because there were still a sizeable number that believed that change was possible from within the Party. It was clear from the Presidential Elections that many PAP voters had voted for Dr Tan Cheng Bock instead of Dr Tony Tan (the preferred PAP candidate). This was undeniably the soft option for voters wishing to express their discontent. They got their PAP government at the General Elections but they had the possibility of a non-endorsed and yet ex-PAP member (and old-school grassroots savy PAP MP) as an option for President. In one sense, a vote against Tony Tan by those that voted for the PAP at the GE was a clear message of the displeasure felt even by that segment of the population that had supported the PAP.

The extent of the displeasure is not limited to the 40% that voted for the opposition in the GE. I believe that the Presidential Elections last year constituted a form of an opinion poll on the loss of faith felt by Singaporeans. Yes, the 1,372,847 Singaporeans that did not vote for Tony Tan indicated in various shades that the current government needs to get its act together. That was effectively 64.8% of the electorate.

I appreciate George Yeo's suggestion that we have to set aside political differences and work together as a nation. I believe that these are the tentative signs of us maturing as a nation. There is still too much bitterness in the conversations carried out across party lines. A political history of repression of alternative voices has led to too much suspicion and lack of a willingness to listen (applicable to the ruling party and the opposition supporters). We need to recognise that it is perfectly fine to have strong political views and it is healthy to engage in virulent debate. In the midst of all that we must not forget that we are friends, family, Singaporeans.

My favourite Parliamentary speech made by LKY

The following speech made by MR Lee Kuan Yew on 21st September 1955 as an opposition member of Parliament was part of the Second Reading of the Preservation of Public Security Bill. The then Chief Minister, Mr David Marshall, had explained his reasons for supporting the new legislation permitting arbitrary arrest and detention when he had, not too long before, called for the repeal of the previous Emergency Regulations providing for arbitrary arrest and detention. After several short speeches by other MPs and also a passionate speech by PAP's Lim Chin Siong, Mr Lee Kuan Yew rose to speak on this issue.

One has to admire the skill and dexterity of this young opposition MP.

Amongst the justifications put forward by Mr David Marshall for the repressive legislation was the Hock Lee Bus riots. It is interesting that the post-independance PAP government has employed the Hock Lee bus riots as part of the national narrative justifying the uniquely repressive approach of our democracy. In the context of this, I thought that LKY's response to the Chief Minister's reference to Hock Lee bus riots was interesting.

The events of the 1950s and 1960s are unfortunately presented to us today as a particularly politicised history. I wonder what really transpired and wonder if we will ever get to know the real story.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, it seems that this House wishes to deny the People's Action Party time to consider the Chief Minister's very calculated remarks. I never like to speak in haste and to regret things at some later date.

Since the House wishes me to meet the ferocious attack by the Chief Minister on the People's Action Party straightaway, may I first congratulate him? I have always been an admirer of his tactics in Court, for he is the supreme advocate of the strategy of attack when you are on the defensive. If there is one person in this Assembly who today feels a sense of guilt - if he is the sensitive and honest politician that I have always believed him to be - he must also feel a sense of shame, because he has not had the courage to put his powerful and persuasive arguments before the people who gave him the mandate to come to this House to repeal the Emergency Regulations.

One of the basic political tenets of democracy is that a Party is elected on its election platform. Of course, if one wishes to avoid the inconvenience of having to go back to the people after going back on an election pledge one could say, in a moment of flamboyance, "I would break a promise if it were in the interests of the country." To commit that heresy would make a mockery of democracy.

The whole attack that the Chief Minister has skilfully directed does not explain why, if he honestly and sincerely believes that he is right in changing his mind, he should not take the people into his confidence, and put these facts before them. Let him ask for a mandate for this most important of all the Labour Front's election platforms - a mandate for the Emergency Regulations to be attired, not in a policeman's uniform, but in the Chief Minister's bush jacket.

Column: 719



Everyone knows that the Public Security Bill is but an alias for the Emergency Regulations. There are some modifications and some amendments. For example, from a Review Committee to an Appeal Tribunal; from one Judge with a panel of laymen, to three Judges; from a Judge who could only recommend, to three Judges who could order. But none of these things can explain away the fact that what the Labour Front is seeking to do today is something quite contrary to what they told the people they were going to do. That is the most serious political mistake that any political Party can make in this part of the world. There is one thing which we must prize above everything else. If we condemn the Communists for being hypocrites, for being thugs, for being rogues who intimidate other people, then let us be honest Democrats. Let us face the world and face the music, if we find out that we have made a mistake, as the Chief Minister has said he has.

If I were a good actor like the Hon. the Chief Minister, I could feign surprise and righteous indignation at this blatant attempt by his colleagues and himself to cloud this very important constitutional principle by launching into a tirade against Members of my Party, and reciting a slanted account of the now familiar events of the Hock Lee riots and the general strike. If I were David Marshall, Sir, which I am not, I would have thought that the honest thing to do would have been to go back to the people and say, "When we drafted this election platform, I was away learning Socialism in England. My colleagues in Singapore, even more political innocents than myself, were trying to outbid the People's Action Party. They wrote in their platform that they would repeal the whole of the Emergency Regulations when the People's Action Party, with care, circumspection and deliberation, said they would repeal the Emergency Regulations which provide for arrest and detention without trial, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of publication." If the Chief Minister today accurately represents the feelings, the temper and the views of the people, then, no doubt, he

Column: 720

and his colleagues would be returned with greater strength and greater confidence. They would have a mandate to go through with this legislation; and I and my Party, if we were also returned by our constituents, would have less reason to doubt the political integrity, if not the sagacity, of the hon. Members on the other side of the House.

Not long ago, the Chief Minister himself let one of the biggest cats out of the political bag when, in a moment of anger and bitterness, he recounted how a colonial Governor tried to inveigle him into a conspiracy to cheat the people. The colonial Governor invited him to repeal the Emergency Regulations. Then they, the colonial government, would re-impose them under the Governor's reserved powers. The Chief Minister, his sense of decency rebelling at this indecent suggestion, said he would not cheat the world in such a way as to make it believe that he was an honest democrat, and the Governor was - if I may quote the words of another publication which we have all received this morning, a memorandum which the Chief Minister has referred to in slighting terms - "the vicious and repugnant" instrument of oppression.

But we are now being asked to elevate rules and orders under the Emergency Regulations, from the lowly status of Emergency Regulations to the resplendent status of being part of the normal law of the land. The reason advanced is that this is necessary to combat Communist terrorism and subversion. Sir, no one denies that there is Communist terrorism or subversion. When any "ism", be it Communism or Fascism, resorts to violence or terror, it must be resisted. But we are at the same time being asked to believe in democracy. We say we believe in democracy because it is a more liberal and a more civilised way of life. We say we dislike Communism because, under that form of government, they have arbitrary powers of arrest and detention without trial. They have, what we fortunately so far have not got here, arbitrary powers of physical liquidation without trial. So we are told that the democratic way of life is far superior. Yet, for

Column: 721

over eight years now the British and their friends have gradually worked themselves into a frame of mind when, in the name of democracy, they can introduce every rule and every order which is a complete denial of the basic tenets and beliefs of democracy. That I think is the greatest psychological defeat suffered by the British in this battle between the two fanaticisms - Communism and anti-Communism. We, in this part of the world, I think, could profitably avoid being implicated in this clash of fanaticisms, for as long as it is possible. There are other people in Asia, far more knowledgeable in these matters than colonial officials like the Chief Secretary, who believe in dynamic neutralism -

The Chief Minister: The countries in Asia have not got this law.

Mr Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Sir, when the Indian Government in 1950 passed their Act, they had a mandate from the people - and that is a great difference.

The Chief Minister: Ha!

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Is it not?

The Chief Minister: A colony cannot legislate against rape and murder! Only the free countries can!

Mr Speaker: Mr Chief Minister, order, please.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: The Chief Minister has a colourful inclination towards colourful metaphors. We are not saying one should not legislate against rape and murder. In fact, the Chief Minister would have the support of the People's Action Party if he decided to bring further penalties against rape and murder, if it were found to be too prevalent in this part of the world. But -

The Chief Minister: Not for public security!

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: - But, Mr Speaker, Sir, what the Chief Minister does not realise is that an independent

Column: 722

government, which has the freedom to decide its own destiny, has the right, through its elected representatives, to choose any way of life - any rule of law under which they should live. But in a Colony where the circumstances are different, where the people have never been given the power and their elected representatives the right to decide their own destiny, I say it is morally wrong to do what the Chief Minister now seeks to do. What he is seeking to do in the name of democracy is to curtail a fundamental liberty and the most fundamental of them all - freedom from arrest and punishment without having violated a specific provision of the law and being convicted for it. Of course, the Chief Minister could quibble and say, "After all, it is not punishment; it is not imprisonment; it is detention under the most benign and kind conditions." But no man should be deprived of his liberty. It may be that such a liberal way of life does not and cannot exist in conditions in South-East Asia. But if that is so, then let the Chief Minister at least have the courage to go back to the people and tell them so, and seek a mandate to do what he wants to do. I am sure he will understand that it is better done that way now than deferred for three years.

The most important observation which the Chief Minister has allowed to drop from his lips is that, after eight years of the Emergency, we are faced with a problem as grave and as acute as when it began. It is the most conclusive proof that the Emergency Regulations are not the answer either to Communist terrorism or Communist subversion. The Emergency Regulations have not destroyed Communism, but it may well destroy democracy. It has not completely frightened the Communists, but it may act as a dampening restraint on the nationalists. Of course the Chief Minister has not given his assurance to me personally that I would not suffer under these Regulations - but we all believe, at least we all should believe, that as long as his Government

Column: 723

is in control, conscientiously, scrupulously, and honestly working these rules and regulations, no one will be penalised or made to suffer who does not deserve to be penalised or made to suffer. But he has not said what would happen if, in fact, these special powers were not used with the same scrupulous care and regard for human values as they are -

The Chief Minister: Three Judges!

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Three Judges! Great play has been made of three Judges! But I should have thought that purely counting by numbers it does not get us very far! One good judge is as good as three. If you have one good judge and you put in two bad ones, I should have thought you would have lowered the mean average! But what does it all prove? It only proves that three Judges can order a man's release against the wishes of the Governor. It is an advance, I am not denying that. It is better than what it was before, when one Judge could not order but could only recommend a man's release. There will be three Judges who sit and receive evidence in the absence of the person against whom the evidence is being given, and in the absence of his counsel. I think the Chief Minister will be the first to admit that it does not, in any way, approximate to the protection which a trial by confrontation -

The Chief Minister: Never pretend to!

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: I am not saying the Chief Minister pretended, Sir. The Chief Minister pretended a lot of things this morning, but I am not accusing him of this. I am pointing out to him now that it nowhere approximates to the same protection which he, as a criminal advocate, must know is of vital importance.

If, after eight years of these Regulations, we are faced with the same conditions - and we are now asked to be more realistic and incorporate these Regulations in a more permanent form for another three years - we wonder whether it is because the Chief Minister and his colleagues expect the danger to exist for another three years, or that only the Bill will exist for another three

Column: 724

years. If the Bill is designed against Communist subversion, and will be maintained so long as Communist subversion is present, then I say this Bill will outlive this Legislature and many Legislatures to come, for Communism is not a passing fashion or a passing craze. It is and it has become the way of life of nearly half of Asia and a large part of Europe and we must understand the basic causes of it -

An hon. Member: Fight it!

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Before you fight it, you must understand what you are fighting. It is no use saying that they are evil men out to wreck, out to create chaos, out to stir up disorder, or out to make the poor worker suffer, when you do not understand, or attempt to understand, why it is that they, and they alone, can work this passion: first, for freedom; second, for their own political beliefs.

The Chief Minister: They do not win such allies!

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: They do not what?

Mr Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: It is a significant point, and the Chief Minister should think more of it: that nowhere in SouthEast Asia is Communism more successful than in colonial Indo-China and colonial Malaya. I am not saying that India, Burma, Pakistan and Indonesia have not got their own Communist problems. Communism, as I understand it, and not only from textbooks, is a product of social and economic frustration and discontent. When you have this social and economic discontent and it is exacerbated by the irritants of colonial control, then you have a situation growing into cancerous proportions. I am not suggesting that if we are free tomorrow of the eminent members of the civil and legal services who sit with us here as of right under the constitution, we should be free from all our troubles. But I do say that we have a much better chance of resolving the internal social and economic discontent than we ever can have now. To me, Sir, it is an act of faith. If it does not work, then

Column: 725

what can work? Violent military suppression of Communism? It has little chance of succeeding. It might succeed in South America because it is so far away and it is such a different world, where dictators come and go. But Asia in revolt, Asia on the march, is a very different proposition.

The Chief Minister, with his flair for colourful metaphor, will appreciate this when I say that the problem of Communist subversion and terrorism has become a cancer in our body politic. These Emergency Regulations at best can only be barbiturates. They numb the pain. They lull one into a sense of security, into an illusion that perhaps, after all, the thing that causes the pain is not there. But I myself would prefer a bold cure. I would take one bold step to freedom. Then I say we have a fighting chance to resolve our own social and economic problems when they are reduced to the proportions which they naturally assume in any part of the world, for anywhere social and economic discontent inevitably leads to industrial and social unrest.

I would say that such a free government, speaking for the people, deciding its destiny absolutely and unreservedly, could drastically repeal those parts of the Emergency Regulations which militate against the fundamental rights of human beings anywhere in the world. This would not lead to Communism if such a step were accompanied by an equally bold and drastic economic and social reform. To shrug and doubt is to admit defeat. You may stifle political discontent, but it will come out at some subsequent date in a much more virulent form. If we take our chance now, I say Malaya can succeed as an independent and free democracy.

The Emergency as a violent struggle is very probably going through a decline, and a new phase of bitter political struggle is opening up. If we do not relax these Emergency Regulations with a relaxing of this violence, then we are admitting to ourselves that we are irrevocably wedded to what I am sure the Chief Minister will agree is a totalitarian method of government.

Column: 726



An hon. Member: Nonsense!

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: "Nonsense", Sir, covers up a lot of ignorance of many, many things. If it is not totalitarian to arrest a man and detain him when you cannot charge him with any offence against any written law - if that is not what we have always cried out against in Fascist States - then what is it? I am sure the Minister for Communications will be the first to say that that is what is wrong with Communist States. Then what is done in the name of democracy is right. When it is done in some other name, it is wrong. But these are fundamental beliefs. They may or may not work in Asia, that no one can say. But one can say this:one must have the courage to make it work, to try it; for if it cannot work, then the alternative is one of constant suppression the end of which no one knows.

I believe that for seven years now we have developed an Emergency mentality. Many people believe that the only way to keep down any form of agitation, which anybody may have exploited for their own personal or political ends, is by the use of repressive laws, more policemen, and more arrests. But this has been proved false after seven years. I hate to think that after another three or four years, or whenever it may be when the Chief Minister decides to go back to the people, that it is again to be proved false. It is such a futile answer to the Communist challenge. If we are to survive as a free democracy, then we must be prepared, in principle, to concede to our enemies - even those who do not subscribe to our views - as much constitutional right as you concede yourself. My plea - to quote from sonic-one in another context - is that the time has come in Malaya for an agonising reappraisal of strategy and strength. To go on blindly in the hope that somehow or the other suppression can prevent latent social, economic and political discontents from manifesting themselves and disrupting the structure of society is a piece of folly to which my Party does not subscribe.

I ask the Chief Minister, before he launches into another furious tirade

Column: 727

against me and my Party, to think of the political implications it has, first, on himself and his Party, and, second, on Singapore and Malaya. My Party believes, passionately, that the only solution is a hard one, where a great deal of social adjustments may have to be suffered in order that a more stable and a just society could emerge in the non-Communist world in South-East Asia.