Singapore Election Watch

By: a1zb2y

Was watching the news report on CNA and ch 5 on the budget debate. All the PAP MPs who were reported were shown on tv giving their speeches. But when it came to Low Thia Khiang's speech, the news reader read what Low said and then the tv showed Hri Kumar's giving his reply to Low's speech!

It's the same with this report on the CNA website. They only reported what Low said but quoted extensively Hri Kumar's and Halimah Yaacob's reply. And of course, the PAP MPs always have the last word:

Low Thia Khiang welcomes Workfare but questions govt's sincerity
By Channel Nuisance Asia

SINGAPORE: Opposition MP Low Thia Khiang has welcomed the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) scheme, saying it will be another pillar in Singapore's social safety net.

But he rejected tying it to CPF contributions as this means some odd job workers may be left out of the scheme.

Mr Low, who spoke in Mandarin during Tuesday's debate on the Budget Statement, said this requirement showed a lack of sincerity on the Government's part in helping low-income workers.

He also questioned the need to raise the GST by 2 percentage points and the advantage of cutting corporate tax by just 2 percentage points.

Speaking after Mr Low, MP for Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC Hri Kumar rebutted Mr Low's criticisms, especially on the timing of the GST hike and the amount of corporate tax cut.

Mr Hri said that it was illogical to wait until the economy is not doing well before raising the taxes.

Mr Hri went on to say: "Mr Low said that the corporate tax reduction is not sufficient to attract business. Well, I agree that if that's all we're relying on, then that's not a good thing. But we're not relying solely on the corporate tax reduction. There's a whole slew of measures and which is why we need to invest in our infrastructure, which is why we need to invest in our people and upgrade their skills so that we can attract businesses to come to Singapore."

On Mr Low's criticism against the Medisave-Workfare linkage, MP Halimah Yacob said: "The decision to link WIS to Medisave is a crucial and important one. Unlike Mr Low who thinks it shows the insincerity on the government's part, I think that on the contrary this shows how much concern the government has on the plight of the low income and casual workers."

Recounting the hardships faced by workers without Medisave or CPF, she added: "We spoke to many of them in the cleaning industry, the construction sector, in the other services sector. Their sense of insecurity and fear is real. Why are the casual workers so concerned about falling ill, retiring from work, or if they are the sole breadwinner, if they were to die leaving behind their dependants? The reason is very simple - in Singapore, housing, health and retirement are all tied to the CPF." - CNA/ir

More...

Singapore Democrats
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.

Applications To Travel:

Apr 06
World Movement for Democracy (WMD) 4th Assembly
Istanbul, Turkey
Sponsors: WMD
REJECTED

Apr 06
Free Expression in Asian Cyberspace: A Conference of Asian Bloggers, Podcasters and Online News Providers
Manila, Philippines
Sponsors: Southeast Asian Press Alliance
REJECTED

June 06
Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats (CALD) & Alliance for Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) Annual Meeting
Pasay City, Philippines
Sponsors: CALD
REJECTED

Sep 06
Meeting of the International Steering Committee of the NGO Process of the Community of Democracies
New York City, US
Sponsors: World Forum for Democratization in Asia
REJECTED

Sep 06
Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats Executive Committee Meeting
Taipei, Taiwan
Sponsors: CALD
REJECTED

Sep 06
Book Launch of Dr Chee's ‘Political Myths of Singapore’
Gothenburg, Sweden
Sponsors: Swedish International Liberal Center
REJECTED

Oct 06
International Civil Society Forum for Democracy
Doha, Qatar
Sponsors: Qatar Government
REJECTED

Nov 06
Liberal International Congress
Marrakesh, Morocco
Sponsors: CALD
REJECTED

Jan 07
Community of Democracies ISC Meeting & the Asia Regional Roundtable
Taipei, Taiwan
Sponsors: Taiwan Foundation for Democracy
REJECTED

Feb 07
Political Party Management and Development Workshop
Jakarta, Indonesia
Sponsors: CALD
REJECTED

Mar 07
Working Group Meeting of the Community of Democracies
Rome, Italy
Sponsors: Italy Government
REJECTED

Mar 07
Travel with family to Taiwan to see ailing father-in-law
Sponsors: Relatives
REJECTED

More...

"We believe that the offset package will actually stimulate some spending, additional demand. For example, the low-income households, the low-wage workers will be spending every dollar that they take from the Offset Package, every dollar that they get from the Workfare and incentive schemes on necessities."
- Labour Chief Lim Swee Say, CNA

More...

By: Leong Sze Hian, ST Forum, Feb 23rd 2007

I refer to the article, 'Singapore gearing up for 6.5m population' (ST, Feb 10).

National University Sociologist Associate Professor Pauline Straughn said that Singapore needs to assure its people that growing the population will not result in more competition for jobs, housing and places in school so that tension does not arise in the community.

The Manpower Ministry (MOM) said last year's figure for jobs creation was the largest number recorded and the highest ever at 88,200 for locals. In percentage terms, the percentage of jobs created to locals appears to be the lowest ever, having declined from 90 per cent for the period 1997-2002 to 70 per cent, 56 per cent in 2004 and 2005, and now 51 per cent last year.

According to the MOM Report on Labour Force in Singapore 2006, which covers the period 1991-2006, the number of unemployed for residents (Singaporeans and PRs) was 28,000 in 1991 and 69,600 last year. Against an increasing population, a more significant statistic is the Unemployment Rate (Non-Seasonally Adjusted) for residents, which increased from 2 to 3.6 per cent, from 1991 to 2006.

While the resident labour force increased by 27 per cent for the 15-year period from 1.373 million to 1.737 million, unemployed residents increased by 149 per cent from 28,000 to 69,600. This means that the resident labour force increased by 1.6 per cent per annum, while unemployed residents increased by 6.3 per cent per annum.

'Although the median gross monthly income of full-time employed residents has grown 2.9 per cent a year in the past decade to $2,040 as of June 2006', the number of part-timers has more than doubled over the decade from 51,400 to 112,300, expanding their share of employment from 3.5 per cent to 6.3 per cent.

The median monthly income for all employed residents (full-time and part-time) stagnated at $2,000 for the years 2001 to 2004.

This means that income grew by only $40 from 2001 to 2006, or 0.4 per cent per annum. Income growth may have been negative, after adjusting for inflation for the last five years.

The median monthly income for part-timers is still the same at $500 compared to 10 years ago.

In view of the 118 per cent increase in part-timers for the last decade, more residents are working for an income of $500 that has not changed for 10 years.

More...

Singapore's moral obligation
By: ZAKI HAMMAAD, London, The Jakarta Post, Feb 23, 2007

I read with interest the article titled Indonesia: Big nation led by small minds (The Jakarta Post, Feb. 17).

It seems to have escaped the writer that Singapore has struck hard bargains throughout its history and likes to set the agenda. It was to its dismay that it found Jakarta no longer dancing to its tune.

Remember that it was Singapore who tried to tie the security/defense pacts with that of the extradition treaty, and they tried to deal with these as a package. This was their idea and Indonesia was obliged to comply with this set-up.

The action taken by Indonesia is very courageous because of the fact that Singapore has been dragging its feet on the extradition treaty as well as other outstanding issues.

It is an apparent fact that Singapore harbors over 500 Indonesian citizens who are charged with corporate crimes in their own country. The total wealth taken out of Indonesia and deposited in Singapore banks totals US$30 billion. Here we see the real reason for Singapore's lack of interest in making the extradition treaty work.

I'm sure Singapore can afford to buy sand from other places at a premium price with the $30 billion it is "safekeeping" for the Indonesian criminals that are living the high-life in Singapore.

Indonesia must not fall for the stick and carrot game that Singapore likes to play. Indonesia must also not shy away from its right to get these criminals back home to stand trial and to recuperate the lost wealth that left with them.

Singapore needs to be made aware of its moral obligations and should not be surprised when it is at the receiving end of someone else's grievances.

More...

More...

Thu Feb 15, 5:18 AM

SINGAPORE (AFP) - When Singapore's finance minister took the floor of parliament to deliver the national budget, Lim Meng Seng hoped he could spare a little cash for people like him.

Sitting on the kerb in Chinatown with a trolley full of cardboard pieces in front of him, Lim is among those left behind by the city-state's economic boom.

Low-wage earners such as Lim have become an increasing concern to the government, which warned Thursday of a widening income gap and announced budget measures to help the less fortunate.

Lim, 50, said he was laid off from a better-paying hotel job six years ago and now tries to make ends meet by juggling two jobs.

At night he helps out at a food stall, earning 700 dollars (458 US) a month. If he is lucky, he makes another 100 dollars (65 US) a month collecting cardboard boxes during the day and selling them to recycling companies.

"I was thinking that the government should give me some extra money because I am from the lower income group. I have financial difficulties," said Lim, father of a school-age child.

Official statistics released this week showed that average monthly income per person, adjusted for inflation, increased across all income levels last year but rose fastest for the wealthiest 10 percent.

"Income gaps are widening," Second Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam said in his budget speech.

A "Progress Package" of government handouts last year was weighted in favour of lower-income groups and helped reduce that disparity. Among the package was about 400 million dollars in "workfare" bonuses to the elderly and low-income wage earners.

Workfare will now become permanent, with an annual 400 million dollar supplement for low-income workers, Shanmugaratnam said.

He also announced an increase in the tax on goods and services (GST) from five to seven percent and a cut in corporate tax.

Many low wage earners interviewed ahead of the budget said the government should give a bigger hand to the poor, especially in the face of the GST increase and what they describe as the rising cost of living.

Lim said he received 300 dollars under last year's "Progress Package" but could use more.

"They should give more money on a monthly basis and also cut down public utility bills, town council bills and telephone bills," he said.

H.S. Lee, a cleaner earning 650 dollars a month, said a GST increase will hurt the poor.

"With more GST, it's not fair. Eating, taking the bus and even buying clothes all would mean higher expenses. How would I have enough?" she asked.

Lee, who supports two children, expressed doubt that any incentives offered in the budget would ease her burden.

"Any extra offset packages given will be used to pay off the higher food, transport and other costs. The package is only something sweet to the ear, but it won't be much help in reality," she said.

Workfare supplements the incomes of older low wage earners, but some Singaporeans are not working at all.

The government said Wednesday that unemployment was 2.6 percent in December, and the consumer price index rose 1.0 percent last year.

R.J. Deng, 55, said he has no steady job but picks up 20 or 30 dollars a day, when he can, by collecting old newspapers and cardboard boxes to sell.

He said that if the GST goes up, "it is only good for the government and driving competition among businesses. The lower income group will be badly affected."

Lee Sui Chor, 69, a diabetic who had a leg amputated, said he is supplementing government benefits with his personal savings of more than 1,000 dollars.

"How long will it last? My retirement fund monthly payout of 297 dollars from the government is not enough to feed myself, pay for rent and visit the doctor," said Lee, who lives with his mentally ill brother in a one-room flat.

"The government say they would help the elderly. I don't really see it. It's not even here yet," Lee said.

Singapore officials on Wednesday reported better-than-expected 7.9 percent economic growth last year and Thursday's budget speech widened the social safety net.

But the government has ruled out ever adopting the generous welfare systems for which Scandinavian countries are known.

Singapore's poor, like the cardboard collector Lim who works two jobs, are uncertain whether their lives will get better.

Lim worries the money he has put into a government-backed saving scheme will be sapped to pay for his housing, as well as for medical care as he ages.

"And there's nothing left in the end," he lamented.

More...

By: robertteh

The 2007 Budget just announced in parliament today by the second minister for Finance Mr. Tharmashamuratnam is the same budget in substance as all the previous years' budget.

It presented only half truths and untruths in places. The following are some areas of inaccuracies which cause problems to our citizens which if not properly addressed will pose greater problems to our costs of living and economic competitiveness:-

1. The budget is essentially Income and Expenditure in format. Based on such format, many relevant informations are hidden and citizens cannot see the real picture or fair presentation of our state of revenue, and expenditure and how to better manage our future economic competitiveness because of the lack of relevant information.
   
   Under such a format, the government is able to show that what it is collecting is not sufficient to cover expenditure. So it can use such creative accounting method to increase taxes, give a big of discount like the HDB is doing and at the end claim it is giving people subsidy. What a farce.
   
   Government should know full well it is hoarding citizens monies by such methods which is more than meet the eye. Despite all the beautiful statement, and giving of all the discounts and rebates the government is over-taxing in indirect and other taxes through the HDB, LTA etc and is giving some discounts to appease the victims so as to sustain the unfair and oppressive tax-and-recover system.
   
   
2. What is not presented in parliament is the double-charging on assets and lands already paid by citizens by HDB, JTC, LTA, SP and all the ministries through other methods not revealed e.g. HDB double-charging on lands owned and paid for by the citizens and LTA continuing to charge on vehicle excise duty, petrol duty, road taxes when COE and ERP have been introduced as the fairest method to price road usage.
   
   
3. Ministries and statutory boards providing basic necessities have been corporatized into Pte Ltd GLCs in order to enable them to charge higher monopoly fees which continuously drive up costs of living.
   
   
4. Off-budget surpluses sucked by HDB, JTC, LTA, SP, PSA, are hurting people and driving up our costs of living and cost of doing business and are killing our entrepreneurship and driving away our investors.
   
   Such off-budget surpluses amount to more than one billion per year of which the finance minister remains silent. On top of these double-charging the budgeted expenditures are being liberally spent by ministries like LTA on extravagant signboards and signposts, expensive buildings, expensive bus stops and even drain repairs which are unnecessary. Why can't the Finance Minister allow unspent budgets to be banked into the endowment funds mentioned to be placed on hold for future use or lower the costs of living.
   Even if the government does not raise GST, it has made more than enough monies from all these GLCs indirect taxing and cost recovery to pay all the rebates and concessions in taxes.
   
   So I am disappointed with the lack of presentation of such off-budget surpluses hidden among all our GLCs which continue to drive up our costs of living and killing our own economic competitiveness.

More...

Average household incomes up, but rich-poor gap continues: report
By CNA

SINGAPORE: The average monthly household income from work for Singaporeans grew by 4.3 percent to $6,260 last year.

One reason for the growth was the sustained economic expansion.

But a Department of Statistics report also noted that the gap between the high and low income groups was continuing.


The report said the expanding economy and improving labour market had benefited all income groups.

Taking inflation into account, employed households enjoyed real income growth of 3.2 percent last year.

Among the lowest 10% of employed households, there was a strong pick-up even though individual wages among lower-income workers had generally remained stagnant.

This might be due to an increase in the number of working persons in the lower-income households.

Professor Chew Soon Beng, Professor of Economics at Nanyang Technological University, said: "During the recession, many household members in the low income group had quit the labour market. Now that the economy is doing very well, many of them, especially housewives, have rejoined the workforce and find gainful employment. That is good news. But I think the pay they get is relatively low."

Higher-income households saw faster income growth, reflecting higher wage increases for skilled workers.

But this was also causing the gap between the high and low income groups to continue.

Professor Chew said: "High-income executives in Singapore, their pay is determined by the pay of high-income executives in developed countries. The pay of low-income workers in Singapore is determined by the pay of similar workers in the developing countries. The Workfare is very important and also the government has to ensure the cost of living in Singapore remains affordable."

According to the Department of Statistics report, the government's policies such as the Progress Package, including the Workfare Bonus, have helped control the household income disparity. - CNA/ir

More...

"Any attempt to establish a dynasty should be opposed. Umno does not have to duplicate the way of Singapore, which has the Lee Kuan Yew Dynasty," he said in his keynote address at a leadership seminar organised by website blog MYKMU.NET here.

"Don't try to make your son or son-in-law as the PM," Mahathir told the 400-strong crowd at a function.

"I hope all Malaysians would oppose any attempts to start a dynasty. In our country anybody can become the PM even the fisherman."

"I feel very sad because UMNO has now changed. Today it is not ready to hear what it doesn't want to hear," he said. "There's climate of fear."

More...

"I would challenge that, having never practised as a doctor, Mr Yeo is strategising about biomedical research directions in an ivory tower. He has been very successful in selling Singapore in the past, but biomedical research is a different ball game. The fact that he dismisses the importance of Hepatitis B and head injury shows how out of touch he is with reality."
- Dr Lee Wei Ling in a letter to TODAY, Feb 8 2007

http://www.todayonline.com/pdf_main.asp?pubdate=20070208

-----------

"This is not a matter of one-upmanship. We're talking about billions of dollars of tax-payers' money. I will not let this mistake continue."
- Dr Lee Wei Ling, Straits Times, Feb 8, 2007

More...

By: Leong Sze Hian

I refer to the article "Chiam: Now, about the $80 milion..." by Derrick A Paulo (Today, Jan 24).

Singapore is not a signatory to the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

Perhaps Singapore’s most well known and controversial negative attribute as perceived by foreigners and Singaporeans in the context of political openness and democracy is that of "upgrading" for opposition wards.

This is underscored by Singapore’s low 38.2 score for "Voice & accountability" in the 2006 World Bank report on governance.

Singapore has continued to slip in "voice and accountability", an indicator which measures political, civil and human rights. Singapore scored 38.2 out of 100, declining from 59.1 in 1996, What this means is that Singapore is worst off than about 62 per cent of all countries.

In the Jul – Sep 2006 quarterly newsletter , "Feedback News", of the Feedback Unit, the most number of inputs received from March to May 2006, pertaining to "the public’s hopes and expectations for the new government", were in four areas, one of which was "Lift Upgrading" - "It was felt that life upgrading for residents in opposition wards should not be tied to voter support, as the residents in these wards were also Singaporeans and taxpayers. Life upgrading would alleviate the suffering of the elderly and disabled, especially those living in the other estates where the lifts do not stop on every floor".

In this connection, the Minister Mentor said at the Raffles Forum on September 15, 2006, that "The day Singapore can produce a political opposition group as strong as the People’s Action Party (PAP) is the day the Republic is in a "safer condition" …. My hope is that there will be a government as equal to the job as the PAP was".

At the same forum, Professor Summers, former president of Harvard University said "But the maturation of Singapore as a successful nation will require, over time, some opening …. if the effectiveness of the Government is to be maintained through increasing credible competition between the ruling party and Opposition. He pointed out that dissidence, which often comes with creativity, is a positive driving force in every sphere of society, from arts to business". His hope was that "the Government in Singapore, over the next half-a-century, will come from more than one competent stream of political leadership"

In the context of the on-going debate on whether the provision of services in constituencies should or should not be linked to how residents cast their votes, I am reminded of the Prime Minister’s remarks in his press interviews during his visit in 2006 to Australia and New Zealand.

The Prime Minister said that the policy of placing opposition-held wards at the end of the lift upgrading queue must continue, because putting the national interest above party politics in theory is ideal but in reality is impossible, because people vote for a party that benefits himself or his community. The root cause of this behaviour is the PAP because of its party politics, without which this question would not arise in the first place.

The citizens of a country should vote for a government more so for what it can do for the country as a whole, rather than what it can do for individuals, a block of flats or a constituency.

The continuance of the "upgrading last" for opposition wards policy, may in a sense be encouraging Singaporeans to focus on individualism and selfishness, instead of the national interest and unity.

In so doing, what kind of message are we sending to our children ? That personal material gain is more important. That the principles of equality, fairness, societal cohesion and the national good are subordinate ! Is winning regardless, more important than the principles ?

In this regard, perhaps it is appropriate to quote one of the most renowned and frequently quoted statement of a nation’s leader in modern times, John F Kennedy, former President of the United States, who said that we should not ask what our country can do for us, but what we can do for our country.

An important principle is at issue, in that if we start with lift upgrading, then what’s next ? Priority for building MRT stations, schools, repair of lightings, etc.

Let us not continue to further divide the nation into "upgraded already", "upgrading first" and "upgrading last", and who knows what else in the future.

The definition of democracy is the freedom to choose, without the threat of adverse selection or consequences.

Singapore has had such a wonderful and unsurpassed track record of development from third world to first that we need not continue to subscribe to the politics of denial of basic amenities to citizens who voted for the opposition.

How the rest of the world sees us in this context of political democracy is an unnecessary blemish to Singapore’s numerous top rankings in the world.

We should give more consideration to what the people want and feel as evidenced in the barrage of debate and sentiment in the media and internet blogs, instead of what the PAP wants in order to win more votes.

History shows us that political balance and dominance is a fine line.

In my view, there is no substitute for the current government which has made Singapore into what it is today.

It would be a pity, if the downgrading trend of the share of votes at 66.6 per cent continues to slide because of the upgrading issue.

If the PAP is magnanimous in victory, it may win even more hearts and votes.

As the Prime Minister put it, if you treat everybody the same, people will vote for the opposition because it doesn’t matter as the government will have to take care of the people anyway.

This logic can cut both ways, because as more people get upgrading, more may vote for the opposition as it doesn’t matter anymore too since they are no longer in the queue.

This may become a vicious cycle in that more new carrots may have to be found and dangled before the electorate to entice them not to vote for the opposition.

More...

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

More...

By: KWEKHONGPNG

"People should not be afraid of their governments. The Government should be afraid of their people." - from the movie "V for Vendetta".

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson, third President of the United States.

We are now witnessing this in Singapore -- 20-year jail term for assaulting an MP, 2-year jail term for unlawful assembly, PAP spies to monitor online forums. The PAP government is now very afraid of its people.

For the last decade in particular, the PAP government has been prostituting the country to foreigners, squandering the people's hard-earned pension on fancy projects that failed spectacularly, plundering the commoners' wealth with exorbitant public housing prices, increasing the tax burden on the poor to finance tax breaks for the rich, and all the while enriching itself with obscene salaries.

The PAP government has failed its people. An ever increasing number of Singaporeans are living a life of misery. While the government continues to hoodwink the people in the hope that they won't notice who's really responsible for their hardships, the PAP leaders are also getting an insurance policy in case things turn ugly, namely, passing special laws to protect themselves from the people they are supposed to serve.

The strength of the Gurkha contingent in Singapore is now at its peak. There used to be less than 200 Gurkhas in Singapore when it gained independence, but there are now more than 2000 Gurkhas in Singapore protecting the ruling elites. That's the barometer of how much the PAP government fears its people -- it is one of the very few governments in the world that rely on foreign mercenaries to protect itself.

DICTATORSHIP WERE NEVER VOTED OUT, THEY WERE OVERTHROWN !!!!

More...

AAAAAA50 repiles to ST reporter Li Xueying's article "PAP moves to counter criticism of party, Govt in cyberspace"

By: AAAAAA50

"counter-insurgency"

Counter-Insurgency???

WTF is this PAP propaganda lap dog Li Xueying talking about? Criticism of the PAP is a terrorist activity? We are the terrorists? We are the bad guys and the PAP are the good guys?

Still dare to say the shitty propaganda times is "neutral" when you have PAP lapdogs like Li Xueying using such indiscriminate terms like these?

"Sources told The Straits Times the initiative is driven by"

Sources? What sources? What mysterious sources that could not be identified that leaks such news to the press? Isn't that breach of the official secrets act? Shouldn't the Ministry of home affairs immediately investigate to find out where this leak is coming from? What sort of a reporter is this Li Xueying who could not identify the source on news which is clearly vetted and approved by the PAP before publication?

"some 20 IT-savvy party activists are also involved"

Shouldn't this reporter Li Xueying also question what methods are they going to use? How are they going about executing their purpose? Will there be any infringement of privacy? Mr Baey may decline to give details but did Li Xueying also extract any assurances that privacy is respected? No!

"'How do we facilitate views that are pro-party and propagate them through the Internet?'"

This is an admission that they are created for the sole purpose of PROPAGANDA. They are not interested in genuinely debating issues and reforming themselves. They just want to brain-wash the people to their self-interests. Is this what LHL means by engaging the people? Not to discuss issues but to spread propaganda?

"But this can only work if activists are not 'too obvious' about it, Mr Baey said yesterday. Otherwise it comes across as 'propaganda'. "

Is this the way how a "respectable" party full of integrity and morals ought to conduct themselves? Hiding behind false names and dodging responsibility? At least the WP people dare to stand up and be recognized here. They may end up embarrassed and having to admit their blunders, but at least we know they tried, and I give them credit for it. It is not possible to be perfect all the time. Mistakes can and will be made, but at least WP admit and took it in their stride. How about the PAP? Too scared to engage in direct dialogue, too scared to lose, too scared to be debunked for the arrogant, self-centered incompetent fools that they are! Call this engaging the people? By hiding under the skirts of some female online persona?

"he does not identify himself as a PAP member."

Why is he embarassed to identify himself as a PAP member if he is so convinced of the righteousness and integrity of their policies? What do they have to fear? As the Chinese saying goes, true gold does not fear fire, by their reasoning and self-proclaimed talent, they ought to do so much better than the "irrational" opposition members right??

"'We don't rebut everything. Sometimes, what is said is fair enough, and we send the feedback on to the committee.'"

Alright, send this to the committee: I want to see true PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION in Singapore's parliament and cabinet. I want 33% of parliament to comprise of opposition MPs and 33% opposition MINISTERS in the cabinet to represent the 33% of Singaporeans who DID NOT VOTE FOR THE PAP.

"Tan Tarn How said those who post on forums such as Sammyboy tend not to be interested in 'intellectual debate' and so will not be persuaded by PAP activists anyway."

Not interested in intellectual debate? Then maybe Tan Tarn How can suggest how the 33% of Singaporeans be represented in parliament and cabinet? Come on, Mr Tan, be as intellectual as you can. Work all your brain cells and give us a solution as befitting such an intellectual such as yourself: Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) senior research fellow.

MAHJULAH PAP!

More...

PAP moves to counter criticism of party, Govt in cyberspace
By Li Xueying, ST, Feb 3 2007, Link

THE People's Action Party (PAP) is mounting a quiet counter-insurgency against its online critics.

It has members going into Internet forums and blogs to rebut anti-establishment views and putting up postings anonymously.

Sources told The Straits Times the initiative is driven by two sub-committees of the PAP's 'new media' committee chaired by Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen.

One sub-committee, co-headed by Minister of State (Education) Lui Tuck Yew and Hong Kah GRC MP Zaqy Mohamad, strategises the campaign.

The other is led by Tanjong Pagar GRC MP Baey Yam Keng and Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC MP Josephine Teo. Called the 'new media capabilities group', it executes the strategies.

Both were set up after last year's General Election. Aside from politicians, some 20 IT-savvy party activists are also involved.

When contacted, Mr Baey declined to give details of the group's activities, but he outlined the broad principles of the initiative.

It was necessary for the PAP to have a voice in cyberspace as there were few in the online community who were pro-establishment, he said.

As such, the committees aim to 'observe how new media is developing and see how we can use the new media as part of the overall media landscape', he added.

'How do we facilitate views that are pro-party and propagate them through the Internet?'

The approach reflects comments by Rear-Admiral (NS) Lui at the PAP's party conference in December. He called on younger activists to put up views 'to moderate the vitriol and balance the skewed comments' on the Internet.

But this can only work if activists are not 'too obvious' about it, Mr Baey said yesterday. Otherwise it comes across as 'propaganda'.

'The identity is not important. It is the message that is important,' he added.

One activist who is involved said that when posting comments on online forums and the feedback boxes of blogs, he does not identify himself as a PAP member.

He tracks popular blogs and forums to 'see if there is anything we can clarify' on hot-button topics such as the impending hike in the Goods and Services Tax.

But he added: 'We don't rebut everything. Sometimes, what is said is fair enough, and we send the feedback on to the committee.'

This latest initiative comes on top of a blog site with posts by 12 MPs born after Singapore's Independence in 1965.

It recognises that more younger Singaporeans are relying on the new media as a main source of information.

An Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) study conducted last year found that younger and better-educated Singaporeans relied on information from the Internet when shaping their voting choices at the last GE.

Among the opposition parties, members and supporters of the Workers' Party, in particular, post regularly on forums online.

But IPS senior research fellow Tan Tarn How wonders about the effectiveness of the PAP's campaign.

He said Internet users who post on forums such as Sammyboy tend not to be interested in 'intellectual debate' and so will not be persuaded by PAP activists anyway.

As for more serious-minded bloggers, he said the views that the activists may put out are already available in the mainstream media.

KnyghtRyder says:
The problem with the powers that be in Singapore is that they think that there should only be 1 view for everything.. 1 solution to every problem. They simply don't know how to handle themselves in the complex world where there are many ways and many views.

That's why there is all this talk about fixing and managing. they should take a lesson from nature.. if you over-prune your garden, it may look well managed but it will be sterile. Sometimes you need a bit of weeds and a bit of undergrowth.

While it is true that most of the posts in this forum are frivolous, anyone who has spent any time trawling the other popular forums knows that Sammyboy is still the place where people post their true feelings as opposed to the sanitised and self-censored forums like stomp and ypap. I would much rather spend my time here than anywhere else. Who wants to read the same substantive post over and over again like in stomp.

honour6 says:
Those fucks are already in Sammyboy. Don't engage any of these fucks; they are just using it to gauge the ground.

How to have an intellectual debate with people who insist 66.6% is a mandate; who thinks of fixing the opposition and who puts hum in their mee siam.

methings2say says:
Let them come, one and all. It will be interesting to see those 'intellectual debate' by pappies. I for one would like to be persuaded.

I am looking forward to it. But are the pappies capable?

The_Latest_H says:
I will be happy to and welcome and counter those PAP online activists.

Besides, pro-PAP people have been in this forums for a long time now, and I have successfully countered their arguments.

Angry_One says:
I have no qualms about PAP lackeys coming in here and reading all that we have to say, but what annoyed me was the mindset of the establishment towards disagreeing minds, using words like "dissidents" and "rabble-rousers".

It is one thing to be a dissident against Sinkapore; it is another to be one against the corrupt PAP.

I would like a chance to go into forums like STOMP too, to 'clarify and manage their views'. But my personal details are required, which is a violation of my cyber-freedom.

The very same cyber freedom which the PAP lackeys use to post here anonymously!

Doggyy says:
I personally feels that it is a welcoming sign that those PAP bast**ds are finally engaging with the bloggers.

They could offer us an alternative view from their perspective and explain further on their actions. This could help us to broaden our perspective as well. We could be wrong at times but at least they could consider our feedback and understand where we come from.

StingWasp says:
Are these people paid by the PAP as employees of the PAP or are they funded by the taxpayers of Singapore.

I hope they are employed and PAID by the PAP themselves.

yapi_yapo says:
It was not so long ago that they say the internet do not have credibility as people post anonymously.

Now they are justifying this themselves and propagating anonymously.

Talk about slapping their own face!

More...

Singapore per capita GDP crosses US$30,000(SG$46,000)
By ANNA TEO, ST February 3, 2007

(SINGAPORE) Singapore's per capita gross domestic product (GDP) would have crossed US$30,000(SG$46,000) for the first time in 2006, edging it closer to OECD high income average levels.

Booming: The Singapore economy is widely expected to have grown about 8% in 2006, bringing GDP to almost S$210 billion in nominal terms, or about US$133 billion

While official full-year economic data has not been released, the Singapore economy is widely expected to have grown about 8 per cent in 2006, bringing GDP to almost S$210 billion in nominal terms. At 2006 US-dollar exchange rates - which hovered between 1.65 at the start of the year and 1.53 by the end - this amounts to about US$133 billion, or just over US$30,200 in per capita terms based on a population of 4.4 million.

In 2005, Singapore's per capita GDP - or, very loosely, output per person - was just under US$27,000. So a jump to US$30,200 would spell an increase of close to 12 per cent - well over the GDP growth.

Singapore's per capita GDP first exceeded US$20,000 around 1994 when the economy was booming and the Singapore dollar was near its strongest vis-a-vis the greenback. In 1993, per capita GDP was about US$19,000.

GDP is the sum of output, or value-added, by all residents, including foreigners in the country. Other common measures of national wealth include GNP (gross national product) - or now known as GNI (gross national income) - which essentially comprises GDP plus net income of citizens abroad.

The World Bank, for instance, uses GNI, in both US dollars and purchasing power parity (PPP) terms. Calculating per capita GDP on PPP using hypothetical 'international dollars' rather than based simply on exchange rates is supposed to give a better picture of living standards.

According to World Bank data, the average per capita GNI of high-income OECD economies was US$33,547 in 2004 and US$36,715 in 2005. By this measure, Singapore's was US$27,490 in 2005 - 29th on a list headed by Luxembourg, the richest at US$65,630.

In PPP terms, though, Singapore's per capita GNI in 2005 was 29,780 international dollars, and four spots higher at 25th. In any case, the International Monetary Fund has long classified Singapore - with the other three Asian newly industrialising economies and 25 others traditionally known as industrial countries - as an 'advanced economy', since 1997.

The IMF classification, though, reflects not only the economies' 'relatively high' per capita income levels but the overall 'advanced stage of economic development' they have reached. In the IMF's books, the advanced economies share a number of key industrial country characteristics, including well developed financial markets and diversified economic structures, with large and rapidly growing service sectors on the one hand, and a declining share of employment in manufacturing on the other.

Other sources, such as the US Central Intelligence Agency's The World Factbook, also have Singapore's per capita GDP (in PPP terms) at US$30,900 in 2006 - behind 27 others.

Notable in the top 20 are various tiny isles and states, mostly British-linked, such as Guernsey, Cayman Islands, Jersey, and the British Virgin Islands, plus San Marino.

Most surprising, perhaps, is third-ranked Equatorial Guinea, with a PPP per capita GDP of US$50,200, behind only Bermuda and Luxembourg. The tiny African nation has had a windfall from oil production in recent years, but with little to show for it in people's living standards.

More...