NCMP system: Suggestions for improving it

Dear Friends,

If the PAP is serious about institutionalising the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) system and not just use it as a ploy to slow down the growth of a multi-party democracy, significant improvements must be made.

If not, it will always be just a charade ( or wayang). I have written to the traditional media ( what we call MSM-mainstream media) about this and am awaiting its publication ( or not).

What do you think? Any chance in hell of getting any of it adopted? No?

Anyway- no harm trying. Rome was not built in a day.

Dr Huang Shoou Chyuan

The letter to the Forum Editor: (Published here in Today Newspaper)

Dear Editor,

Re: Tweaking the NCMP system

The Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) scheme has been with us since 1984.

Depending on which side of the partisan fence one is on, it is either an example of pragmatic and innovative enhancement to our political system or a ploy to prevent the emergence of a viable multi-party parliament.

To many neutrals, the fact that Ms Sylvia Lim has become a household name is proof enough that the scheme is not altogether bad. Or at least like Ms Lim said of the system, the PAP was “trying to make a bad situation better”.

I hope that the NCMP system can be further tweaked to take into consideration the following premises that

1. it is honorable to seek public office and

2. talent (not withstanding which party they arise from) should be harnessed and retained in our parliament so that constructive debate can produce the best policies for Singapore.

The NCMP should:

1. Have full voting rights including voting on constitutional amendments, Supply or Supplementary Bills, Money Bills, or motions of no confidence in the government. There should be no differentiation from other MP’s other than that the NCMP is not in charge of a geographic district ( but on the other hand looks after the whole of Singapore).

2. Have same entitlements as other MP's eg allowances/ remunerations.

3. Be selected from best runner-up's of top 9 ( or whatever figure agreed by parliament) electoral contests irrespective of parties ie even PAP candidates can be NCMP's. ( minimum condition of winning at least 15% of votes as per present criteria)

4. Be eligible for all government front-bench office. ie NCMP's from ruling party or independents can be appointed Cabinet Ministers

These changes will ensure that many more people have the opportunity to play a greater role in our system including being part of the decision-making body of the government ( ie Cabinet).

This should shed once and for all the “second-class” and “loser” labels that are often stuck onto our present NCMP’s.

Dr Huang Shoou Chyuan

Upgrading PP & Hougang: Righting a shameful wrong

Dear Friends,

Despite the good that our PAP leaders have done, shameful partisan acts such as denying public resources to tax-paying citizens just because they exercised their constitutional right to elect a Member of Parliament (MP) of their choice, would negatively impact on their historical legacy when they have finally left the stage ( or the world).

Neutral historians ( not the Men-in-white type) will always add a post-script such as … “notwithstanding his positive contributions, he would also be remembered for controversial policies which…” ( feel free to complete the para).

Now that our rulers have decided to reverse their stand, what do we see? We see losing ( not loser) political candidates come out and try to claim the limelight ( and maybe credit as well).

Where were these PAP men when their party masters took away these rights from their prospective constituents? Did they raise vociferous objections or resign in protest? ( maybe they did but the MSM did not report them?).

They are now forming committees to help residents vote for the upgrading-the denial of which they or their predecessors consented to by their sheepish silence and lack of spine.

Oh, should not the voting be under the purview of the rightfully elected MP, the right honourable Chiam See Tong and (perhaps later) Low Kia Thiang?

"Shame. Shame,Shame... Shame on you!" ( sang Caroline Fernandez in a Talentine contest decades ago) Correction (5.10.09 8.40pm- it should be Carol Ann Fernandez)

Enough said!

Dr Huang Shoou Chyuan

Ref: ChannelNewsasia

HDB blocks 101 to 109 in Potong Pasir Ave 1 to get lift upgrading

02 October 2009 1907 hrs

SINGAPORE: Blocks 101 to 109 in Potong Pasir Avenue 1 will be the first in an opposition ward to undergo lift upgrading, according to People's Action Party (PAP) adviser to Potong Pasir, Sitoh Yih Pin, in a news release on Friday evening. In July, the government announced that some blocks in opposition-held Potong Pasir and Hougang will come under the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP). The plan is to have all eligible blocks go under the programme by 2014. Mr Sitoh, who was also the PAP's candidate in Potong Pasir in the last election, added that he will be forming a working committee. This committee will implement the upgrading, which involves garnering a necessary 75 per cent support from affected residents. The scope of works for LUP includes an overhaul of existing lifts and works required to give direct lift access on every floor.

Mr. JB Jeyaratnam: R.I.P.

Dear Friends,

The passing on of Mr. JB Jeyaratnam is a sad day for all Singaporeans.

JBJ, as he is affectionately known, is one man who believes in sticking resolutely to his principles to the very end.

To JBJ, the Westminster model of Parliamentary democracy is the only one worth emulating.

To JBJ, the many tweakings of our political model are at best compromises, at worse these are serious attempts to unfairly entrench the ruling party.

To some JBJ is a hero, to others a failure. There are yet others who feel that he could have played a greater role in the history of this proud little red dot, called Singapore. If only he would yield a little.

History will be the ultimate judge.

Mr. JB Jeyaratnam, May you rest in peace.

Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan

NB: Above letter printed in ST Forum (1st Oct 2008)

Former opposition MP JB Jeyaretnam dies of heart failure

By Lee Foong Ming, Channel NewsAsia

Posted: 30 September 2008 0814 hrs

SINGAPORE: Former opposition MP and former Secretary-General of the Workers' Party, Mr JB Jeyaretnam died early Tuesday morning due to heart failure.

He was 82.

His son Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam told Channel NewsAsia that Mr Jeyaretnam, who had a pre-existing heart condition, had complained of breathing difficulties at about 1.30am.

He was rushed to Tan Tock Seng Hospital but doctors were unable to revive him.

He passed away with his family by his side.

A lawyer, Mr Jeyaretnam was the first opposition member to win a Parliamentary seat in 15 years when he defeated the People's Action Party's Pang Kim Hin and the United People's Front's Harbans Singh in the Anson By-Election in 1981.

He left the Workers' Party in 2001, and in July this year, had launched a new party called the Reform Party.

Mr Jeyaretnam leaves behind two sons.

My thoughts on that Olympic Silver and that Political Liberalization Speech.

Hi Friends,

Just touched down from Down Under.

I only got to know that our girls were in the Table Tennis final match on Sunday itself!

I have no excuse at all not knowing as there was internet at the hotel’s business-centre and even if I did not want to spend the Aus $5 / half hour, there was always the internet café 100 metres down the street.

However after vineyard-hopping around the Barossa countryside, we were pleasantly surprised that the whole China-Singapore match was shown on TV. So there we were, in a quaint and cozy Tanunda cottage, cheering for Singapore and wondering if we had too much of the Wolf Blass reisling or Peter Lehmann’s shiraz.

That Table Tennis Olympic Silver

The Germans have done it- so have the Americans. Almost everyone is using athletes that are not home-born.

Before the diaspora of China’s ping pong talents to the Americas, Europe, Asia and Oceania, there was Martina and Monica.

Martina Navratilova was born Czechoslovakian but later became an American tennis icon. Monica “grunter” Seles, was from Yugoslovakia but represented USA when she migrated there. The reasons for migration for each of these athletes are varied and different and ranges from cold war political asylum to economic pragmatism where Chinese athletes who feel that they do not have any realistic chance of being on the China’s A team left for places like Singapore in search of greener pastures.

In my mind, so long as a foreign athlete has taken Singaporean citizenship, I will root for him/her to bring honours to Singapore. It matters not if this is ex-Briton Bennett of our football team or China's Li Jia Wei of ping pong. They will be deemed worthy of my cheer.

It also matters not if the athlete came 10 years ago or 10 days ago, so long as he/she has fulfilled the conditions for national representation, it is not an issue with me.

Ex- Brazilian Alex in Japan’s football team? Ex-Kenyan wearing Danish colours? No worries- Let the Games begin!

That National Day Rally speech by PM Lee

I welcome further political liberalization as announced by PM, although they are mere baby-steps. Political videos on the net and the right to demonstrate are bugbears of many a civil and political activist.

We should see this as a small victory won and look forward to further and more important victories eg dismantling of GRC’s and bringing down to earth the stratospheric Ministers’ salaries!

How will opposition parties respond?

If they still insist that demonstrating anytime and anywhere is their God-given right and ignore this opportunity given them at Hong Lim Park, neutral observers would be justified to think that these political activists are not really quibbling about the right to demonstrate but just want to break the law ( or worse-they just want to make trouble).

This does not prevent anyone from using Hong Lim as a platform for even further liberalisations.

So the ball is in our courts now.

Want to show commitment to your favourite political cause and get some publicity? See you at Hong Lim!

Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan

NB: Amongst teams beaten by China and Singapore's women teams enroute to the final match, the following other teams had players with Chinese names:

USA: Gao Jun;Wang Chen;Huang Xi
Netherlands:Li Jiao;Li Jie
South Korea: Dang Ye Seo
Dominican Republic:Qian Lian;Wu Xue
Austria:Li Qingbing;Liu Jia
Hong Kong:Tie Yana;Lin Ling;Lau Sui Fei

My response to Shriniwas Rai's letter about the need for political changes

How we are governed: Let's consider changes (ST Forum 5 Aug 08)

THE recent discussion in the press on democracy and the system of government in Singapore has generated some public interest. It is encouraging that the political leadership is prepared to accept some changes, in particular comments by Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong at National Day celebrations in Hougang. I appeal to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his colleagues to consider some of them.

The Westminster form of government is well established in Singapore, but to suit local needs it may have to go through changes. We have made some changes, such as giving the President power over reserves.

Although nearly one-quarter of the population votes for the opposition at each general election, the opposition failed to achieve any significant presence in Parliament. Granted that proportional representation is not ideal, we can marry the Westminster and proportional representation system in Singapore. Opposition parties that secure more than 15 per cent of votes in the general election could be given non-constituency members' seats. The maximum could be set at nine.

The Nominated MP (NMP) system has to be adopted by every new parliament after the general election. This was done by SM Goh to accommodate criticism of the NMP system. The time has come for Parliament to decide whether the system should become permanent. We should modify and allow a full term of five years instead of the present 2-1/2 years. A proviso that
NMPs should not serve more than one term should be entrenched.

Group representation constituencies (GRCs) were introduced to bring about multiracialism and minority representation in Parliament. The system began with a small GRC but now more half of Singapore is under GRCs. From three-member GRCs, we now have six-member GRCs. We should look into this and introduce two-member GRCs. This will ensure multiracialism.
We should also amend the law to reduce the voting age to 18, which is the practice in many other countries. I would like to believe our young are more mature and responsible than was the case 50 years ago.

We have a clean system of government, but we cannot ensure this will remain in years to come. In many other countries, popular mandates have been used to undermine the political system. It is therefore suggested that an independent election commission be set up.
Finally, constitutions are not written in stone. They are living institutions with their own strengths and weaknesses. We should be prepared for change, if it will improve the system.

Shriniwas Rai


My response:

Hi friends,

Mr. Shriniwas Rai is a well-known lawyer and an ex-Nominated MP and his letter today is much welcomed.

Although his letter to the forum contains much substance it is couched in mild and diplomatic phrases. Maybe it is just the cut of the editor’s scissors?

My response is as follows:

1.I am not as optimistic that what SM Goh has in mind is further liberalization. More likely SM Goh wants to enlarge GRC’s rather than reduce it. He has also confirmed that grassroot organizations under the People’s Association are part of the PAP’s tentacles and are definitely not apolitical.

2. I am for redressing the discrepancy between the amount of support that opposition parties get at the polls and the number of seats actually awarded to them. Yes some kind of hybrid of First-past-the-post and Proportional Representation (PR) can be considered. I am against total PR as this works for unstable governments. All of us know that smart money of capitalists (which we still depend on) loves stability ( yes including the PAP’s monopoly- they love monopolies!)

3.I prefer the abolition of GRC’s but will rather have 2-member GRC’s than 10-member GRC’s anytime! Let us just abolish GRC’s and not be satisfied with half measures. About the issue of minority MP’s- If on election night there are less than the desired X number of minorities, the best losing minority candidates would be considered duly elected.

4.Nominated MP’s should not be allowed to just walk into parliament. They should be elected as Independent MP’s on election day ( with no geographical constituency).

5.I totally agree on the need for an independent Election Commission. The government of the day should not just be fair but be “seen to be fair”. What better way than to have a Election Commission under Presidential purview headed by a prominent non-partisan Singaporean. This will once and for all remove all allegations of gerry-mandering and of pork-belly politics.

Dr. Huang Shoou Chyuan

Why Bukit Batok needs a by-election: Letter to the editor

Dear Editor,

We extend our condolences to the family of the late Dr. Ong Chit Chung. He has served his constituency of Bukit Batok diligently and with honor.

However the untimely demise of Dr. Ong has left a vacuum in the office of the MP of Bukit Batok-one that his successor will find difficult to fill.

Like Dr. Ong, the next MP of Bukit Batok must have the mandate of the constituents or else his or her work would lack legitimacy. Legitimacy is absolutely crucial in a challenging economic climate where tough but necessary decisions need be taken even at the ward level. An elected MP’s moral authority would more likely than not help him shepherd his residents through the stormy days ahead. An unelected political appointee would have to answer residents who say, “ Why must I listen to you? Did I elect you?”

To leave the seat vacant and to share Dr. Ong’s present responsibilities amongst the neighboring PAP MP’s would also be a mistake. It belittles Dr. Ong’s hard work and sends the unintended message that his work is not important and that life carries on even without an MP at Bukit Batok!

For the sake of the residents of Bukit Batok, a by-election should be held soon!

Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan

Link: 1. Article 14's post
2. Lush garden's post

PS: Published in Straits Times and My Paper

Singapore's 4 opposition schools- My unpublished comments

Hi friends,

I did an email interview with Straits Times' Syed Zakir Hussain on the so-called 4 opposition schools ie JB Jeyaratnam; Low Thia Khiang, Chiam See Tong and Chee Soon Juan.

Unfortunately, the editors did not print any part of my interview.

Since it has already been written, I thought I would share the interview with our readers.

To put the intervew in the correct perspective, I will include Zakir's letter also.

Straits Times Syed Zakir Hussain's letter (edited)

Dear Dr Huang,

I hope you are well. I'm a journalist with The Straits Times. We're working on a feature on "the four schools of opposition politics" in Singapore, and I was wondering if I'd be able to get your thoughts - as someone who's written (and blogged) on politics and related issues in recent years.

The feature is in the form of four stories on each of them (sort of an objective report card) - and we're speaking to political observers and a few others. It's essentially a short historical and current-day assessment of J.B.Jeyaretnam, Chiam See Tong, Low Thia Khiang and Chee Soon Juan - their approaches to politics, their track record and achievements (including in the non-conventional sense) and how their platforms/ideas have gone down with voters.

Would we be able to get your comments and views?

Our questions are:

1. How would you describe the political styles of each of these four politicians, say in two to three sentences each?

2. What would you say are the strengths and weaknesses of each of these four "schools"?

3. What is it about each of these four "schools" that you feel might appeal - or not appeal - to the average Singaporean voter? Does each of them cater to a different type of voter?

Look forward to your reply.

Thanks! Regards,

zakir

Zakir HussainJournalist,

The Straits Times


My comments

My opinions about the 4 opposition leaders and their leadership styles

General Introductory Comments:

I do not entirely agree that the politics of J.B.Jeyaretnam (JBJ), Chiam See Tong (CST), Low Thia Khiang (LTK) and Chee Soon Juan (CSJ) are so different that they should each be pigeon-holed into separate school. Each of the 4 is an individual with his own personality and style but the 4 veteran politicians share the common goal of trying to break the PAP monopoly with the hope of establishing a sustainable and healthy multi-party democracy.

This project may yet again be misconstrued by some as Mainstream Media’s (MSM) attempt to drive a wedge between the different opposition parties as a “divide and rule” tactic but I am willing to give the editor/writer the benefit of doubt.

I qualify my statements by saying that I do not know any of the 4 gentlemen personally and my impressions are gathered from the main and alternative media ( like everybody else).

1. How would you describe the political styles of each of these four politicians, say in two to three sentences each?

JBJ:

He is the elder statesman of Sg opposition politics and a hero to many. He is the biblical David who broke the PAP’s 100% stranglehold at Anson and single-handedly opened the door for others like LTK & CST. He is the only true believer of the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy ( amongst PAP and other opposition politicians) and could be described as the successor of David Marshall. He is the archetypical Westminister opposition party leader who is fearless and uncompromising and whose sole aim in life is to see the development of free and unfettered democracy. He has given his whole life for his principles.

LTK:

LTK is a cautious politician, perhaps as a result of what has happened to other opposition personalities such as JBJ, Francis Seow, Tang Liang Hong. He appears to want to work within the system even if the rules, which are made by the PAP, appear unnecessarily suffocating and restrictive. He does not believe in being confrontational for its own sakes and is seen by some as being too accommodating. His recent statements that WP is not prepared for political rule for at least 10 years or more and that his work is of a watch-dog may signal to the PAP that he is keen for co-opetition ( like Coke and Pepsi) ie mutual existence without trying to destroying each other.

CST:

Least colourful of the 4. Other than clinging on to Potong Pasir ( which is no mean feat in itself ), he has shown himself to be happy to be a localised municipal politician ( like a mayor) rather than a national leader. Unfortunately he has not been able to groom any politician to take over his mantle (perhaps due to bad experience with CSJ) . Popular at PP as he is undoubtedly sincere and a people’s politician. Not a threat to the PAP who is willing to wait for him to step down from the stage after which PP will be back in PAP’s fold.

CSJ:

Having failed to get any headway into mainstream politics due to what he considers as uneven playing field in a system where the incumbent is seen to be both a player as well as the referee, CSJ is resorting to extra-parliamentary struggle and advocates civil disobedience as he feels that unfair laws should be challenged in order for true justice to prevail. To CSJ, he will not compromise even if by challenging injustice, he may be seen to be washing dirty linen in public. He is comfortable with using local and foreign media to bring attention to his causes.


2. What would you say are the strengths and weaknesses of each of these four "schools"?

JBJ:

Strengths: Seen as hero who is the victim of the incumbent’s tactics. Legendary oratorical skills at rallies and in parliament. Only opposition politician who can face-off the senior PAP leaders. Reputation as the Lion of Anson.

Weaknesses: Poor organiser and tactician/strategist. Assumes the Westminster system will be accepted by Singaporeans ( who are easily swayed by MSM which supports one-dominant party politics ( eg PAP and China)). Seen as too old. Does not seem to have long-term strategy.

LTK:

Strengths: Strong grassroot support. Has empathy for the disadvantaged and poor. Good organiser and seems to have a plan (but seem too slow to many). Integrity is admired by all and is acceptable to the PAP so much that he has been cited as the type of opposition politicians that has a place in Sg’s landscape ( contrasted to JBJ and CSJ).

Weaknesses: Appears to be too accommodating and not providing alternative views and politics like a conventional opposition politician. Seemed to remain silent even when the people felt frustrated by the govt’s unpopular policies. Being upstaged by SDP and CSJ now is the defacto opposition leader. Dares not take risk in raising his profile for fear of attracting attention from the PAP?

CST:

Strengths: Honest and sincere politician who is still able to command respect of PP’s residents. No skeletons in the cupboard.

Weaknesses: Unable to recreate the old SDP. No successor in sight. Does not seem to have a viable long-term strategy for his party.

CSJ:

Strengths: Known to be good orator and surprised even MM with his eloquence. Appears to be an inspirational and charismatic leader who is able to get party members to believe in him and his causes. In any other country, he might have been a leader of a significant alternative party. A master in getting maximum media attention. All who have interacted with him are surprised at his intellect ( not what is commonly portrayed by MSM)

Weaknesses: The majority of Singaporeans see him as discredited politician more intent on antics than proper serious politics. Unable to convert neutrals and pro-PAP supporters to his cause. At Sembawang GRC, his vote share of 20% plus is the same as the hard-core anti-PAP vote.

3. What is it about each of these four "schools" that you feel might appeal - or not appeal - to the average Singaporean voter? Does each of them cater to a different type of voter?

JBJ:

Appeals to all idealists ( all ages even the young). Many support him due to sympathy for his sacrifice ( lost property/ career and decades of his life) and that he seems to be the only opposition leader who dares spar with certain senior govt leaders.
Not appeal: To pragmatists and those who see him as too confrontational and uncompromising.

LTK:

Appeals to many average Singaporeans esply younger group. However if he becomes more and more centrist and share the PAP’s stances on major issues, voters may feel that they might as well vote for the PAP instead of a PAP-clone. He has to make a breakthrough soon. If he does not raise the party’s profile, the idealistic will flock towards CSJ’s SDP or even JBJ’s Reform party.
Does not appeal: To the bleeding-heart liberals who will support JBJ/CSJ, But faced with no other choice, liberals will still vote for WP.

CST:

Appeals to middle and lower-class PP constituents because of his track record and empathy with them. But due to his age and health, his hold on PP has limited timespan.

CSJ:

Appeals to hard-core anti-establishment types and increasing numbers of people who are disillusioned with moderate parties like WP who are deemed too compromised.
Does not appeal: To majority of Sgaporean’s as MSM’s demonization of him ( eg Chua Lee Hoong’s unkind article) will have some effect on people’s minds. He has to try very hard just to convince people that he is a normal rational person.

Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan

Malaysia’s GE Tsunami and implications for Singapore

Hi Friends,

Malaysia’s rakyat has spoken

Malaysia’s rakyat (people) has spoken in no uncertain terms.

In one fell swoop, Malaysian political’s landscape was unimaginably changed. Barisan Nasional (BN), the national coalition which consisted of racially-based component parties which until yesterday was supposed to give the different races a representative voice in the higher echelons of political power is no more.

Malaysia’s politics reached the “Tipping Point” yesterday.

BN has lost its 2/3 majority and is now holding on to power ever so tenuously. It does not have the mandate to amend any articles of its constitution. MIC, the Indian party is decimated as is Gerakan (Chinese-based party with origin in Penang). The MCA (Chinese party) is close to being mortally wounded.

In the states’ legislatures, BN’s collapse was equally dramatic. Besides Kelatan ( which was expected), BN lost Penang (PM Abdullah Badawi homestate) , Kedah (Ex-PM Mahathir’s homestate), Perak, Selangor and just held on to Trengganu with the skin of their teeth! The BN now only rules 8 of the 13 states!

The Perfect Storm

Malaysia’s opposition had a Perfect Storm with the following players and circumstances all in some sort of heavenly alignment:

1.Mercurial Anwar hitting his zenith with Princess reformasi “Nurul” mesmerising the crowds.
2.Indian and Hindu disenchantment with alleged marginalisation. Hindraf riots.
3.DAP getting their act together with many credible personalities willing to come forward to be counted. Tony Pua worked in Singapore and Dr.Ramasamy who slayed Penang's Chief Minister Dr.Koh Tsu Koon was working in a think-tank in Singapore. Men with guts and principles!
4.MCA’s Dr.Chua ( no need to say more).
5.MIC’s Samy Vellu and his fake hair ( also no need to say more)
6.Mahathir ( whose side was he on?)
7.Rise of alternative media esply internet.

As a Singaporean, I observe all these happenings over the TV and Malaysiakini.com’s website with concern and interest. The website has come a long way and was quoted extensively by Mediacorp’s Channelnewsasia last night!

We are thankful that there was no untoward public disorder or riots.

Hats off to the Election Commission and the police as it was a free and fair election and it looked like there were no major allegations of cheating or vote-rigging!

There is no doubt to me that the Malaysian BN would not be the only people doing a post-mortem.

Singapore’s PAP would be looking at the situation with concern and would definitely prefer not to get a surprise at our own GE in a few years’ time.

Not being connected at all to the PAP nor having any relations ( carnal or otherwise) with any PAP’s leaders, I can only guess at what the PAP would do next to prevent such a Tsunami from happening.

Likely Implications for Singapore

1.More and larger GRC’s. (Less single seat wards)
2. Heavy control of internet nearer the GE
3.PAP will fine-tune its feedback mechanisms to get more accurate messages from the grassroots.
4.Tighter control of MSM (Mainstream Media)
5. The disenfranchised and poor would be closely monitored to ensure that their unhappiness do not reach boiling point. Grass-root organs (PAP-aligned) would act as eyes and ears and will be the main channel for helping the poor. They will not look favourably towards any non-PAP group which wants to act as champions of the poor.
6.Internal Security ACT will remain in place. This would be handy for potential trouble-makers.
7. Opposition parties would not be considered partners but as necessary inconveniences.

Having said that, the idealistic side in me was hoping that someone with conscience within the PAP would feel that more should be done to allow greater voice from the people and the true feelings of the people should be made known- but the pragmatic side simply laughed and asked him to shut up!

Let us keep our fingers crossed and hope that Malaysia would emerge stronger after this and that calm and peace will prevail! Maybe Malaysia can also show the world that it is possible to have peaceful political transitions and that democracy is not something to be afraid of. You win some and lose some?

Cheers

Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan

Link: Malaysiakini.com report

Burma fools the world (again)

Hi Friends

Burma makes a fool of the international community once again.

It now has a draft constitution which more or less says, “ Anyone who is named Aung San Suu Kyi cannot participate in the 2010 elections.”

Okay, it actually stipulates that anyone who is married to a foreigner (even if the latter has long died) or who have children who are not Burma nationals cannot take part in domestic politics.

All these tailor-made laws and constitutions have a déjà vu effect about it.

Deja vu effect (or history repeating itself)

Now, let me think.... what does all this tinkering of the country’s laws remind me of?

Hey, isn’t it a real coincidence that the Malaysian elections has been hastily fixed for early Mar 08? Do you guys think early elections was called because the Malaysian economy is booming and the Barisan Nasional is confident of getting an overwhelming mandate from all the ethnic races- including from the Indians? And the electorate has forgotten how well their Health Minister Dr.Chua has performed ( in and out of bed)?

Or do you think that former deputy PM Anwar Ibrahim’s automatic disqualification till later in Mar 08 has anything to do with the election date?

Before I am accused of being arrogant and of belittling our ASEAN neighbours, let me be fair and state that such dastardly actions are not unknown on our own very shores. Really!

But I am getting old and my memory is fading... was it at our general elections when the polling date coincided with the disqualification period of some opposition politician? Someone please jolt my memory- was it JBJ ( again) or someone else?

Anyway it just goes to show that in the politics of this neck of the woods, the incumbent party always tries all tricks ( legal or otherwise) to stay in power! Like someone famously said, their job is not to help the opposition win!

ASEAN’s reaction ( or not) to Burma’s action

Going back to Burma’s situation, I do not think that Foreign Minister George Yeo’s statement,” But this is their own country, this is their own history, what can we do about it?" is particularly helpful to the cause of justice.

He could at least say, “Hey, if you continue like this, I don’t "friend" you!” or in diplomatic-speak, “ Burma’s actions are anachronistic and ASEAN and the rest of the international community cannot be expected to stand idly by while you continue to .... blah blah”

Sigh, in the real world, bad people continue to do bad things and the rest of the world just look away!

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”
Edmund Burke

Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan

Myanmar citizens with foreign husbands barred from domestic politics

By S. Ramesh, Channel NewsAsia Posted: 20 February 2008 0220 hrs

SINGAPORE :

Myanmar citizens who have a foreign husband and whose children are not Myanmar nationals cannot take part in domestic politics.

This is the regulation stipulated by the country's new Constitution.

Myanmar's Foreign Minister Nyan Win gave this update when he briefed ASEAN foreign ministers at their retreat in Singapore on Tuesday, according to Singapore Foreign Minister George Yeo who spoke to the media.

Mr Yeo was responding to a question on whether the Myanmar minister had given any indication if opposition leader Aung Syan Syu Kyi can take take part in the country's elections which is slated to be held in 2010.

According to Mr Nyan Win, this eligibility criteria has been around since 1974 and would be carried forward in the new Constitution.

Mr Yeo said "We (the ASEAN Foreign Ministers) expressed our views on this. It is not keeping with the times that certainly such a provision would be very odd in any other country in ASEAN. But this is their own country, this is their own history, what can we do about it?"

Separately, ASEAN's Foreign Ministers attending the informal retreat are due to spend the greater part of Wednesday discussing how members are implementing the ASEAN Charter.

Mr George Yeo, who is currently the ASEAN's Chair said, before getting down to discussions, Malaysia, Laos and Brunei will hand over documents to the ASEAN Secretary-General as their respective countries had completed ratifying the ASEAN Charter.

This brings the number of ASEAN member countries who have ratified the Charter to four, including Singapore.

Singapore was the first to hand over the documents to the new Secretary-General Surin Pitsuwan in Jakarta.

Observers say a top priority for ASEAN now is to set up a dispute settlement mechanism, as spelt out in the Charter.

Such a mechanism already exists to deal with disputes in the economic arena.

Another aspect of the Charter that has drawn much interest is the ASEAN Human Rights Body.

The terms of reference for this body has to be worked out and there's a committee looking into this matter.

All ASEAN Foreign Ministers are attending the two-day retreat in Singapore, except Malaysia's Syed Hamid Albar.

He is busy with preparations for the upcoming general elections.

Mr Syed Hamid is represented by the Secretary-General of Malaysia's Foreign Affairs Ministry. - CNA/de

Musings about Opposition parties and such

Hi Friends,

I was browsing through Littlespeck.com’s article on Party politics- A little ground shift when I stumbled upon Singapore Musing’s article entitled Opposition: Some suggestions for it.

I highly recommend it as a worthwhile read for the weekend. Do ponder over it. What is your take?

My feeling is if:

1. the economy continues on its pro-business track and is managed carefully and continues to grow in decent digits,

2. there are no major scandals occuring in the inner circles of the ruling party,

3. the official media (print and broadcast) is kept under a short leash - to allow just enough sense of “press freedom”. The govt is not worried (yet) about internet.

4. no charismatic figure/s appear in the alternative party side

5. racial tension amongst races and between new and old citizens are kept under control,

then PAP is in a class of its own and opposition parties have to be content with bit parts of this drama called Singapore politics.

Having said that, all bets are off if any of the above conditions are not met.

WP’s Low Thia Kiang- master strategist? Co-opetition anyone?

The PAP can feel secure for at least 20 years (as promised by WP’s Low).

But I thought it strange for Low,an opposition party leader to reveal his lack of ambition so openly. Or is it just a strategy to make PAP complacent. Is Low really an expert strategist offering the ruling party co-opetition instead of head-on confrontation, hence securing WP’s long-term survival?

Whatever it is, WP is opting to avoid the Red Ocean scenario where rivals slash and kill in a sea of blood, but instead looking at a Blue Ocean strategy- a new paradigm. Perhaps a Japanese LDP style politics? WP as just another faction of the ruling clique. PAP(WP) faction as opposed to PAP (Main) faction? A watch-dog to make sure the ruling clique does its work or else...

Enough of all these fanciful musings- In the meantime, WP and the others can just sit and wait for the right moment. And while at it, ponder over the contents of the post below...

Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan

Suggestions For Opposition Parties (22.10.07)
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/sing/2007/10/22/suggestions-for-opposition-parties/

There often is an undercurrent of chorus regarding the dismal state of opposition parties in Singapore. While part of the reason is due to the uneven political climate faced by these parties. There are other factors that they ought to consider as well if they desire to have any credible, successful chance of winning seats and representation in parliament. These suggestions are by no means exhaustive, and more suggestions will be forthcoming in the nearer future.

1. Stop Fighting among yourselves.

In a majoritarian system of parliamentary democracy where the winner takes all and the winner really is the person who finishes “first past the post” - 50% plus 1 vote. The first thing opposition parties should do would be to quit their own internally divisive agenda and to unify themselves as one. Efforts to conglomerate and unite various minority factions in society should be the first serious activity that they do. An example would be the 4 way fight in Cheng San GRC in the elections several years ago. Having a four way fight guarantees the incumbent party a win. A similar analogy in United States government would be how a third party candidate (libertarian party, independent, etc) takes a higher proportion of votes away from the two front runners. For example, Ralph Nader is said to have taken more votes away from Al Gore than George Bush in the 2000 elections - leading the way for Bush to claim the presidency. Within the context of a single-member constituency, the seats that opposition parties often target, there should be ideally just two candidates headed up for such contests - one from the PAP and one from the Opposition. No more and No less. Cooperative Game Theory strategies are obvious when it comes to such instances of maximizing polling victory. With too much internal strife and politics among the various opposition parties that bridge across economic, social, political-action and ethnicity. Its time that you guys got your act together and worked as a team instead of horizontally oppressing each other.

2. Focus on Bread and Butter Issues.

While enviable and admirable. The constant focus on human rights and Singapore’s actions in the international arena should instead be appealing to voters instead. And in Singapore, appealing issues are JOBS JOBS JOBS, WAGES WAGES WAGES. Period. Enough of the talk shop regarding censorship, Singapore’s International Actions, Freedom of Speech issues and so on. While these issues are very important. They aren’t going to strike a rapport with the Median and Mean of voters where abstractions of international theory and political philosophy is far removed from their hand to mouth existence, the need for healthcare and survival and what matters close to their hearts. It is far more important to focus on physical and critical issues rather than abstract political and social theory. No doubt, its very ideal to speak about such matters. But to the average Singaporean that comes forth for the rally and compares both parties at a glance. It simply boils down to this - which party provides a better economic platform for that particular voter. Its no surprise that elections are often held during good economic times. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that elections held during a time of economic difficulty often result in worst votes for the incumbent party. To get the largest share of votes, one has to focus on the issues that matter to the largest portion of people within the electoral district. The other philosophies on the agenda that appeal to a much smaller and intellectual politically concerned voters can be co-opted into the party’s plan. But ultimately, go where your electorate desires you to go to. Your voters are very often taxi drivers, hawkers, fresh university graduates, new families and those who are below the mean/median of the economic ladder. Do your research on the electoral district you are challenging and provide solid action plans. Not empty promises. Details Determine Destiny, as they often say. And in many cases, the opposition party in Singapore is often found to be loud in voice, but small in real practical action.

3. Recruit Talent across Minorities and Ethnicities.

Opposition Parties cannot continue to put their strongest candidates in Single Party constituencies alone. Since race and ethnicity is a factor in politics wherever you go, it would be better for opposition parties to get their act together in co-opting good quality talents to formulate possible group representative slates that can credibly stand for election. The word is CREDIBLE. In Singapore terms, and as much as this embodies elitism in many forms. This would mean a relatively well educated, articulate and knowledgeable person. While race and ethnicity should not be a factor in talent. The reality in Singapore is that it is. So instead of complaining that it is difficult to recruit across racial and ethnic boundaries, take action early on to make up for the anticipated difficulty in the future. If the opposition can credibly put forth a group of candidates in many electoral districts on elections day. What happens is that even if they do not win, they will start to gain a measure of credibility among voters. You need group candidates who can speak well, converse well and can give proper and good answers to the crafty questions in politics. Instead of fear-mongering, propose solutions. Instead of complaining about the current standards of governance, propose addition measures that may make the current means better. Even if these ideas are stolen and “co-opted” into the winning parties plan later on. It will be a triumph for integrity and a signaling measure of public policy credibility. Politicians are supposed to fix problems for their people. So quit whining about the issues and start fixing them. If you are tired of million dollar salary ministers, then do a better job than them and charge less at the same time!

4. Take a less combative role in politics. Instead, go upon the co-operational route.

While some may see this as a form of selling out. If an opposition member or an opposition party desires CREDIBLE and a respected place both in elections and in parliament. He should instead of vigorously and violently opposing all measure in local politics, instead take a softer stance of cooperation. Martin Luther King was known as a great civil rights leader in the philosophy of non-violence. However, without a violent reaction or oppression from the police (non-violent crackdowns are the norm in Singapore - with warnings and implicit threats like video surveillance being the norm) it will be difficult to gain credibility among Singaporeans if the state-dominated media label’s one as a troublemaker or martyr. Booker T. Washington is famous for his Atlanta Compromise as a way for African-Americans to gain a step ahead in civil rights. While they were not yet equal, they were able to work within the system and gains some concessions slowly through the period of time. Without a violent reaction or crackdown on opposition politicians by the PAP government in Singapore, the concept of a non-violent means of social protest will not work. Non-violence worked extremely well in the United States because the authority of the states government could be relieved and overruled by the Federal Government (see Selective Incorporation of the 14th Amendment and the Bill of Rights). In Singapore you do not have this luxury of an independent judiciary that is free from the reigns of political pressure to rule in a free and open manner, especially in areas like politics. A good number of every-day Singaporeans have a high opinion of the courts in Singapore when it comes to commercial and other litigation areas. However, it is obvious that this might not be so in political arenas. Anyone desiring to know more can simply google or read the books by famous dissenters such as Francis Seow or Chris Lydgate. Instead of being seen as an antagonistic and hostile force in politics, the cooperational route has worked relatively well for people like Chiam See Tong, Low Thia Khiang and perhaps Steve as well.

5. Its not what you say. It is what they hear.

With a media that tends to favor the opinions of the government and is supportive of the government in Singapore. Opposition parties have to work much harder at building credibility as well. Especially among an “apathetic mass” of people in Singapore, we are highly educated in practical things - mathematics, engineering, medicine, law and so on. But not very well educated in other areas of the humanities like philosophy, politics, perhaps economics and psychology when you look at the population from a holistic perspective. While this might be a generalization, the important thing is that people tend to take what the Straits Times says - even if it is complete BS, for what its worth and use it as means to justify their personal political convictions. The availability heuristic in psychology would be a good explanation for this - with a populace that is not very familiar with the systems of government, the expectations of governance and politics in general, it will be difficult for them to relate to all the aspects of politics being discussed except in issues that they have a strong emotional attachment to - namely JOBS JOBS JOBS. MONEY MONEY MONEY. Economic Survival.

6. Get Young People Involved.

America’s Universities have been accused by republican lawmakers as the last bastions of marxism. Opposition Parties should stop treating youth as second class voters. There is no need for separate institutions to reach out to youth and young people. Get youth involved in the policy making process, the suggestion and feedback loop. Giving them a separate institution might be a nice idea to separate the idealism of young people from the reality of real world politics. But sometimes, actually in Singapore opposition political party terms - it might be more than necessary to put forth a grander dose of idealism and passion from the youth into the policy making process and the political argumentative formulations. The future of elections will not be decided by powerful or richer older segments of the population, but the youth, who are growing up into a different rapidly changing world and are exposed to western ideas, culture and have certainly travelled abroad and know what life in other parts of the world is like. The future and long-term viability of opposition parties will depend on their ability to educate, co-opt and ability to build credibility among youth. Again - while it is lovely to be able to talk issues of Fair Trade, Free Speech and Human Rights with them. Let’s go to what’s important to them. Jobs. Can the opposition parties come up with a credible solution to the whole “Relevant Experience” thing when it comes to getting a job? It seems that you can’t get a job without relevant experience and you can’t get relevant experience without job. Can the opposition parties in Singapore at least voice these concerns of everyday Singaporeans, especially young Singaporeans to the PAP Government and its brilliant ministers? This is what opposition politics needs to be - credible, articulate and knowledgeable about the concerns of their electorates. Instead of being merely a forum for idealistic talk shop pontification, its time opposition parties engaged issues of prior relevance in their discourse and quit treating young people as second class voting citizens.

7. Reach Out to the Youth

It is often said that Singaporean Youth are apathetic when it comes to politics. Why are they even apathetic? Simple. Have they been taught to consider a different perspective? An alternative? A Credible Alternative that does not denigrate into protests or non-violent action? Opposition parties need to do research on the youngest, most mobile and educated segment of the populace that will determine their political survival in the long term. Because they are inherently much more familiar with advancing technology. Reach out to youths using technology. A quick search on FaceBook in Singapore reveals that a good portion of Singaporeans are either “Moderates”, “Liberal” or “Very Liberal” under political views. The PAP, with its highly conservative rhetoric and panderings to the “older generation” under a confucianist ethic has easily separated its real world view of politics from the idealism enchanted by youth. This is a golden opportunity for youth to be educated about issues that they can feel more passionate about - issues of social change, justice, freedom of speech, gay and lesbian issues and their youthful concerns. In America, it is not unusual for 16-17 year old individuals to be actively involved in politics. Especially so when many of them can vote come the age of 18. National Servicemen fall into the category of youth too - as defined by the world bank to be individuals under the age of 25. Can opposition parties raise concerns for national servicemen? Such as issues of safety, issues of mental health, issues of transport and salary? Can opposition parties harness the latent energies of our national servicemen into politics? They may not be able to vote while they are serving. But come ORD. There is always the chance that reaching out to such youth can prove to be a powerful way of establishing credibility and gaining votes further down the road. The government easily alienates a good portion of national service youth during their times of service. Opposition Parties should harness their concerns and raise them in parliament or propose solutions to their duress of unfairness.

Ultimately, if opposition parties want to win representation in parliament someday. Its about time they cleaned up their act and started appealing practical issues to their electorates and champion a variety of solutions to the issues in politics. Opposition parties have to work harder in appealing to the youth of Singapore, because within another two electoral cycles, these individuals will have the capacity, mobility, knowledge and understanding and become a political force on their own. It is time to take advantage of the PAP’s appeal to “older Singaporeans” and “their loyal old voters” and to work aggressively in capturing the sentiments and issues of the youth. Additionally opposition parties need to work up on their issues of credibility. They need to field talented candidates that are well spoken, effective communicators and well versed in the solutions of public policy. Instead of working a fear-mongering or mud-slinging rhetoric or combative non-violent action, parties should be more cooperative while distinguishing their political views and solutions from the ruling party. Only time can tell if they are willing to work in unison to reach The Tipping Point and shift politics into their favor - even with a difficult political climate. Passion alone isn’t enough. It takes passion, determination and smart work to succeed in the battle it is for parliamentary representation.

Singapore-City of im-Possibilities

Hi Friends,

I think I survived my Managerial Finance exams today. I am going to put my CAPM (Capital Asset Pricing Model); Harry Markowitz's Portfolio Theory; MM (Modigliani & Miller) Capital Structure Theory and the other interesting stuff behind me.

Instead, I am going to return to the other Harry and the other MM’s sphere of influence- ie Singapore.

From the letters to the forum page below, it seems that Professor Ho Peng Kee had been less than convincing in his assertion as to why Singaporean political activists cannot be trusted to organize a peaceful and routine recreational event.

It still puzzles me why in every other aspect of Singapore life, we can be so forward-thinking and be at the cutting edge- except in politics.

We can be first-world in education and healthcare; be the first mover in city-planning experiments like the ERP ( Electronic Road Pricing ) schemes etc.

But in politics, we are decidedly third-world. Third-world mentality when the only two opposition-led wards of Hougang and Potong Pasir are deprived of nation's financial resources to upgrade their estates. Third-world mentality when the government uses its enormous powers to curtail the growth of full and unfettered political freedoms.

Do not get me wrong! Even third-world countries with more draconian governments are liveable – I do not need to name them. You know which countries I am alluding to- the new Asian economic super-power; the nation that humiliated USA in IndoChina etc. So, even if Singapore remains as politically-conservative ; most Singaporeans will still vote for the party; and foreigners will still love and praise the Lee’s; and the economy will still chug along.

But… it would not be right. It would not be good in the long run.

So friends, do you think our leaders will ever shed their third-world small-mindedness anytime soon? Until then, Singapore remains a City of possibilities-Not!

Cheers

Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan


1 Sept 07 Straits Times Forum page
1. Govt's call for greater civic role has clear limits
I REFER to the reports on the parliamentary sitting on Aug 27. The responses of both Minister of State for Education Lui Tuck Yew and Senior Minister of State (Law and Home Affairs) Ho Peng Kee suggest that the Government's calls for greater diversity and inclusiveness stop short of allowing genuine political debate and contestation.
Rear-Admiral (NS) Lui's reply to questions on why the Ministry of Education (MOE) rejected playwright Alfian Sa'at as a relief teacher was disappointing. While he may have been right to say that Parliament is not the right forum to discuss the personnel issues of any one individual, for him to suggest that Mr Alfian 'engage MOE directly' is inappropriate.
Anyone who has followed the online discussion on this knows that MOE has consistently refused to give Mr Alfian the real reason for its decision.
Unlike most developed democracies, Singapore does not have a Freedom to Information Act that requires a government to provide information to individuals who seek it unless doing so is against the public interest.
In the absence of such a legal requirement, our governance system is dependent on individuals and institutions making decisions that can stand up to public scrutiny.
Without external checks on the Government, the virtues of integrity, transparency and objectivity have to be imposed from within and practised by all public officers. If not, what assurance do we have that officials do not make arbitrary decisions, or decisions that serve only narrow party interests rather than the public good?
Associate Professor Ho's reply on why the Workers' Party was not given a permit to hold an outdoor event also stretched the incredulity of thinking Singaporeans.
Even if we gave Prof Ho the benefit of doubt and assumed the worst of Singaporeans - that open-door political events increase the risks of conflict - one must seriously question whether the strategy of avoiding conflict might not stunt society's maturation.
Both responses by the ministers show that the Government's call for greater civic engagement and participation has clear limits.
While the Government subscribes to economic openness and liberalism, its distrust of and discomfort with real political contest means that it will try to keep Singapore politically conservative.
Low Tzer Kai


30 August 2007 ST forum
2. Outdoor political events should be allowed
I REFER to the article, 'Outdoor events by political parties banned' (ST, Aug 28).
Political causes require visibility, and no place is more appropriate than the public square, which exists primarily for political purposes. In the years leading to Singapore's independence, outdoor rallies were de rigueur. Even today, we have accepted the need for political parties to hold election rallies in outdoor venues.
The answer that outdoor political events have a 'greater potential for breach of the peace, public disorder and unruly behaviour' needs to be justified. Outdoor activities organised along racial or religious affiliation are allowed, even though they have a more tumultuous past.
Assuming that Singaporeans are willing to risk prosecution or even their lives for political causes is an overestimation of Singaporeans' passion for political affairs.
The ban on outdoor political activities is a contributing cause of political apathy. With appropriate policing, there is no reason why political events should not take place outdoors.
The question then is how to balance political participation of the population against possible risks to the public peace.
Michael Tang Yong'An

The National Day Parade could have been even better…

Hi Friends,

I actually watched the parade today. It was interesting, heart-warming even.

The military hardware was reassuring and the heartware represented by personnels in all the different wings of the military were as usual faultless and put in a credible showing.

However, a certain marching contingent seemed out of place.

All other contingents were unifiers of Singapore’s citizens

All the other contingents were a public show of Singapore’s unity- that creed and culture need not be an impediment to Singapore’s aspiration to be a city of possibilities, and that diversity would not be a hindrance but a strength. Hence Singaporeans of all hue and colour and of both sexes marched side by side proudly and the whole nation’s heart beat as one with them.

One partisan contingent reminds of our "dividedness".

This other contingent was a show of partisanship- as if to say that only those that wore the all-white uniform on their bodies and the lightning flash on their sleeves deserved a place in Singapore’s political arena. A sort of winner’s justice?

How else can we explain that only the ruling People’s Action Party had a marching contingent on this our National Day? Do not the Worker’s Party activists want to celebrate Singapore’s 42nd birthday too? Are not Chiam’s Singapore People’s Party’s and the National Solidarity Party’s members patriots as well?

My suggestion:

1.All political parties should be invited for national parades. Granted, not all will jump at the opportunity to participate ( and you know which party I am alluding to – you don’t need to be a “rocket”-scientist to read my kind …clue in the “rocket”).

2.If possible, they should all march in an integrated contingent perhaps with alternating flags of different parties.Though some marchers may not take kindly to having to hoist other party’s flags, these are just minor logistical details to be sorted out later.

3.If the idea of inviting other political parties is so repugnant to the organisers, then no political parties should march and only grassroot activists will march under the People’s Association’s banners. After all, the PA is “supposed” to be non-partisan ( snigger snigger)

Conclusion

The entity and concept of Singapore is only slowly emerging and the nation’s identity is beginning to become separated from the ruling party that rules it – and it is a good thing. ( And that is one reason I displayed the Singapore flag together with fellow Singaporeans)

Hence, let not PAP’s sole participation in what should be a non-partisan event set back our development as a united and cohesive nation.

Cheers

Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan

BBC's Johnston freed but Hamas the Big Winner

Hi Friends,

Those of us who have been following the kidnapping saga of BBC Gaza correspondent Alan Johnston must be elated by this wonderful turn of events.

For once a kidnapping in the Middle-east does not end with the sordid beheading on some radical Islamic website.

Now I can edit out from my blog the logo for Johnston’s release. The tenacious campaign for Johnston's release was initiated by BBC and it included 200000 signatures ( mine included) and I had already commented how impressed I was for efforts that BBC had gone to secure his release. I am sure public pressure had some effect on Hamas and the kidnappers.

Hamas scores propaganda coup

It is obvious that Hamas now has added credibility. After all with its open split with Fatah ( and Hamas' sacking from the government) , Hamas was the sole de-facto government in Gaza and there is no one else to share the limelight ( and steal the thunder) in this event.

How significant is it that Hamas chose to engineer this release now:

1. In the early days of Gordon Brown’s stewardship of the British government. No matter what Brown says about there being no change in foreign affair posture with regards to Hamas, the British public must feel that Hamas is not as evil and unpredictable as they were made to believe.

2. Before Blair really could settle in as M-E envoy of the “Quartet” (ie USA/ EU/ Russia/ UN). This prevents Blair ( who is deemed too closely allied to Bush’s camp) from claiming any credit.

The next publicity coup for Hamas must surely be the release of Israeli soldier Corporal Gilad Shalit.

I think with Gilad's freedom, even Israel’s attitude could be softened towards Hamas and then there may actually be a glimmer of hope for some lasting peace.

The only problem is, what sweetener can Hamas offer for the neo-con’s of Washington? Might these neo-con's be tempted to throw in a spanner in the works?

My guess is that all of us will just have to wait for the next US president before we see some significant engagement from the US.

So,the lesson to learn here is that …

We are all pawns in the game of life.

Cheers

Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan


1. BBC's Alan Johnston is released (BBC News 4 July 07)

BBC correspondent Alan Johnston has been released by kidnappers in the Gaza Strip after 114 days in captivity.

Mr Johnston, 45, was handed over to armed men in Gaza City. He said his ordeal was like "being buried alive" but it was "fantastic" to be free.
Speaking live from Jerusalem later, he thanked those who had supported him, and vowed to return to "obscurity".

Rallies worldwide had called for Mr Johnston's release. An online petition was signed by some 200,000 people.

Mr Johnston's father Graham said he and his wife were "overjoyed" at their son's release.

"It's been 114 days of a living nightmare," he said.
Gordon Brown, in his first prime minister's questions session in the UK parliament, said: "The whole country will welcome the news that Alan Johnston, a fearless journalist whose voice was silenced for too long, is now free."
Mr Brown acknowledged the "crucial" role played by Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas in securing Mr Johnston's release.

Read here for full report




2.BBCNews 4 July 07
There is no doubt that Hamas has scored a major propaganda victory with the release of the BBC Gaza correspondent Alan Johnston.

The issue now is whether it can convert that victory into progress towards getting itself accepted as a recognised representative of the Palestinians internationally.

Currently, the outside world is concentrating its support on the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah party which controls the West Bank.

It was no accident that Alan Johnston was taken to the home of the Hamas leader in Gaza Ismail Haniya, who was sacked as Palestinian prime minister by Mr Abbas.

Read here for full report

How is the ex?

Hi Friends,

I hope none of the ruling elite reads the piece below.

If they did, they would really feel smug about themselves and the policies of astronomical ministers’ salaries as well as keeping retiring senior ministers on the payroll instead of letting them out to pasture or getting them to ride into the sunset!

Tony Blair, soon to be unemployed, will be trying to find meaning in his life after mid-week.

Regardless of whether he gets to be a reconciler of the 3 major ancient faiths or just a Middle-east envoy trying to find the middle ground for Israel and Palestine, he will feel a voluminous void in his life that is hard to fill.

I’ll give his memoir a miss. Too many current events to occupy myself with already without having to plough through the ramblings of a “has-been” whilst really donating to his retirement fund.

Nothing personal. Actually I think I like Tony.

Presentable, articulate and a loyal friend- especially to the Americans.

Some people thought he made a great pet- a poodle.

Cheers

Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan

How to be ex-Prime Minister

By Michael Cockerell (BBC News 25th June 07)

Political documentary maker

When Tony Blair leaves Number 10 on Wednesday he will be much better off than Winston Churchill was when he became an ex-prime minister in 1945 - after winning the war and losing the general election.

"My grandfather was effectively bankrupt by the end of the war," says the great man's grandson - also called Winston Churchill.

Churchill was forced to put his home, Chartwell in Kent, on the market.
"Lord Camrose, the then proprietor of the Daily Telegraph was outraged," says young Winston.

"And he corralled 10 wealthy well-wishers and they each ponied up the princely sum of £5,000.

"So for £55,000 - which was a lot of money in those days - they bought Chartwell on the understanding that my grandparents would live there until the end of their days and then it would be presented to the nation."

'Cut off'

In contrast to Churchill, Blair will receive a severance package from the state worth some £300,000 a year.

Thanks to some astute lobbying by other ex-PMs, Blair will get a car, a police driver and round-the-clock special branch protection.

He will also receive an immediate prime-ministerial pension of almost £64,000 a year as well as a further £84,000 to run his office - on top of what he makes as an MP.

But how will Blair cope with life in the ex-prime ministers' club, after what his predecessor John Major describes as the longest farewell tour since Dame Nelly Melba?

One of Blair's closest advisers inside Number 10 told me: "Tony still doesn't know what is going to hit him.

"The thing he will miss most of all is being cut off from top-grade information.
"He will no longer receive secret intelligence reports and papers and briefings which tell him what is really going on - both in Britain and the rest of the world."

When I put this to John Major - a rueful smile of recognition came over his face.

He produced an answer worthy of Donald Rumsfeld: "People ask you questions and you're about to answer and you think to yourself, 'hang on, I'm about to express an opinion on this and I haven't seen the papers. I don't know what it is that the prime minister knows that I no longer know'.

"So here am I about to say that I think he should have handled this differently, but he may know something that I once would have known that nobody else knows."

'Disorientating experience'

Blair will also face the practical problems of adapting to the loss of the life-support system provided by Number 10.

"When you stop being prime minister it's a very disorienting experience, because you go in such a short period of time from having everything arranged for you to being on your own," says Lord Powell, who was Margaret Thatcher's right-hand man for seven years when she was prime minister.

"You don't have an up-to-date telephone book of your own because of course Number 10 had all your telephone numbers. Code numbers have probably changed since you came in.

"I remember being rung up by Margaret Thatcher a week or two after she left Number 10 and being told on a Sunday she had a plumbing problem. And I said 'oh dear, better get a plumber in'. And a long silence. 'How do I do that?' 'Well', I said, 'try the Yellow Pages'. And that's the way we had to go. I ended up ringing the plumber in the Yellow Pages."

The biggest question of all is how to fill the suddenly empty days.

The former Tory cabinet minister, Ken Clarke, who as an MP since 1970 has watched five prime ministers come and go says: "Like a departing captain of industry, Tony will want the next big job in the career.

"In his case I think it will be trying to govern the world and advise all the other political leaders how to run things. And he'll find that difficult, because you are very ex as an ex-prime minister."

Blair's meeting with the Pope on Saturday is one key to what he plans to do.
According to one of Blair's closest advisers: "Tony is obsessed with the idea of becoming a roving envoy who would seek to reconcile the Abrahamic religions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam."

Blair sought Papal endorsement for his plans to set up an inter-faith foundation - headed by himself.

And there are also strong hopes in the White House of Blair becoming a Middle East peace negotiator on behalf of the West.

Ken Clarke scoffs at these ideas: "Not that Tony would ask for my advice, but if he did I would say, 'forget about reconciling the faiths. You have disqualified yourself from that in a very big way'."

Memoirs goldmine

Blair's former press secretary Alastair Campbell is unsurprisingly more sanguine.

"There are all sorts of things Tony will do in the future," he says.

"He is 54 - while Gladstone and Churchill were in their 80s when they left office. And if you look at someone like Bill Clinton and Al Gore and you see what they have achieved since leaving office - Tony's going to want some of that: to still be involved and focus on the big international stuff - like climate change and Africa."

But Blair is also sitting on a goldmine - his memoirs. Campbell has long described his own diaries as his pension. Blair's will be worth many times more.
I asked Campbell's literary agent, Ed Victor, the New Yorker who's now the top London literary agent to the superstars, how much he thought Blair would get.

"£5m - plus or minus," replied Victor.

"And he should sell his memoirs immediately he steps down. Ronald Reagan did the deal the day after he left office, and that was very smart. Thatcher waited and I think she got less money as a result."

Blair will also have to decide on whether to stay involved in domestic politics or whether he will sign a peace treaty with Gordon Brown.

"An ex-prime minister's a rather unusual fish in politics," says John Major.

"If they say nothing, what are they doing there? If they say something, there's every chance it will be construed as an oblique attack on your successor. So it is extremely difficult to have a role that isn't capable of severe misinterpretation."

"I certainly don't think Tony will be hanging around, backseat driving on Gordon," says Alastair Campbell.

One sure way that Blair can make big bucks outside politics is by following his wife's footsteps on the American lecture circuit.

Although the rapture that once greeted him after 9/11 has waned, Blair remains the most popular and recognisable British public figure there since Lady Thatcher. He would wow US lecture audiences.

"And the lecture circuit has another purpose for you as an ex-prime minister.

When you have been used to public adulation, at least appearing before wildly enthusiastic audiences of hundreds of Americans in Tuscaloosa or elsewhere, still has a nice role in your life.

"It makes you think you are still admired and wanted - and psychologically it's a great compensation for the loss of office."

"I think Tony Blair would make a minimum of $150,000 (£75,000) per lecture in America: all expenses paid, flown there first class, put up in a nice suite," says Ed Victor.

"If he does 10 a year - say one a month - he will be making huge, huge money."

Finding happiness

But can all the money in the world make up for the loss of the most political drug of all - power?

"I don't know whether you can be happy after being prime minister, but I can tell you that I don't believe Margaret Thatcher has not had a happy day in her life since she ceased being prime minister," says Charles Powell.

It may take you a very long time to adjust fully to no longer being the most powerful person in the land.

For the one thing all members of the ex-prime ministers' club have in common is that they have lost the most exciting job that they will ever have.

Ken Clarke sums it up: "I think almost all of them, if you said that, by some amazing miracle, you could go back tomorrow and you could be prime minister again and take on all that hassle, and all that strain, and all that criticism, and all those crises, they'd all have jumped at it and gone straight back straight away."

How to be ex-Prime Minister, Michael Cockerell's TV documentary, will be shown on BBC Four on Sunday at 2100BST.

The indefatigable JBJ is back!

Hi friends,

JB Jeyaratnam, the one face that is most recognizable as being the icon of opposition politics in Singapore is back!

I have nothing but admiration for JBJ. No one doubts that he has given up much for what he believed in. His legal career, his material possessions and his whole life had been dedicated to the ideal of a multi-party politics of the Westminster model.

For him there is no compromise. Either the whole nine yards or nothing. Everything else is not worth considering. Only a completely free unfettered democratic system is the real McCoy.

Not for him the accommodating styles of LTK and CST. For him, the PAP are just wily predators taking all for a ride. The way the PAP has ridden roughshod over its opposition will forever be a stain on its legacy, notwithstanding the real benefits enjoyed by the people. In his usual unapologetic style he says, “I believe that it’s only confrontational politics that will get you anywhere.”

Believe in him or not, he will not be ignored, even if he is already 81 year-old!

What’s with all these 80 year old’s ?

For the pre-65’s who have lived through the roller-coaster highs and lows with JBJ, we can only wish this Lion of Anson well.

JBJ, Live Long and Prosper ( according to your own unique definition of prosperity)!

Cheers

Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan





JBJ plans to set up new political party

Today 21.5.07 Loh Chee Kong

AT AGE 81, when most people would be relaxing and spending time with their grandchildren, Mr Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam is instead gearing up for a new challenge. One of Singapore’s most colourful Opposition figures, he announced his political comeback yesterday.

“I intend to form a new party to give Singaporeans a chance again ... I would like Singaporeans to say they want a complete, thorough change in the way this country is
being run. I want them to say, ‘Enough is enough’,” he said. Tentatively called the Reform
Party, Mr Jeyaretnam hopes it will be set up within three months.

“Singaporeans who are happy with the system shouldn’t come to us — they should go and see Chiam See Tong or Low Thia Khiang who are happy with the system,” said the former secretary-general of the Workers’ Party (WP), reflecting his dissatisfaction with the work of the two incumbent Opposition Members of Parliament (MPs) from the Singapore Democratic Alliance and the WP respectively.

Any new political party has to seek approval from the Registrar of Societies.

Mr Jeyaretnam, who was discharged from bankruptcy earlier this month, has recruited nine people for his new party, including long-time ally Mr Ng Teck Siong and current WP member James Teo, who has not yet told the WP that he plans to quit the party.

The other seven, who include several lawyers, are “in their 30s and 50s” and “new to politics”, Mr Jeyaretnam added.

Some opposition activists welcomed the news. While Mr Chiam declined comment, SPP chairman Sin Kek Tong told 938Live: “Look at the kind of political culture in Singapore, it is dominated by the PAP. Maybe there should be more parties to counter it.”

Speaking to TODAY, Mr Jeyaretnam, who has lived at his late sister’s home in Malaysia and in a Singapore hotel over the last seven years, said he would move back to strategise for the next General Election, due by 2011.

Disappointed that he could not be discharged in time for last year’s polls, he said he would contest the next election if health permitted — if not, he would build a team to do so. He said: “I’ve been accused of being confrontational. But I believe that it’s only confrontational politics that will get you anywhere.”

The veteran lawyer also said he hoped to renew his practising certificate in “a week or two”.
Asked if the sacrifices he had made during his 36 years in politics were worth it, Mr Jeyaretnam said: “A number of people have said that I’ve woken them up to the grim realities of Singapore — that in itself is an achievement.”

Surprised by Mr Jeyaretnam’s move, Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Zainul Abidin Rasheed, who crossed swords with him in Cheng San GRC in 1997, said: “He might have his own reasons for it but he’s been through quite a lot, so I don’t know what else he wants to achieve.”

Mr Jeyaretnam made history in 1981 by becoming the first opposition candidate elected to the post-independence Parliament but lost his seat after a court conviction.In 2001, he fell out with the WP after being barred from contesting elections as he was a declared bankrupt.

That chapter came to close earlier this month, he revealed, when his two sons – one
of whom is Law Society president Philip Jeyaretnam — and “three or four Singaporeans”
helped him raise the $233,255.78 needed to pay off his creditors and have him discharged from bankruptcy.

True to form, Mr Jeyaretnam spent 90 minutes attacking the Government at the press conference.

He also had harsh words for current WP chief Mr Low. He accused Mr Low of having “served the PAP’s cause” in 2001, when the WP refused to contribute towards clearing Mr Jeyaretnam’s debts incurred in 1995 for defamation damages. Mr Low could not be reached for comment yesterday.

WP’s organising secretary Yaw Shin Leong did not think Mr Jeyaretnam was trying to belittle the efforts of opposition activists with his comments. “Diversity is good for the country,” he added. – LOH CHEE KONG

TAFEP: Good step taken against discrimination but more needed

Not fair form to ask these questions?By Lee U-Wen, TODAY
Posted: 02 May 2007 1140 hrs

THE next time you pick up a job application form, it could look different.

Certain fields — such as those asking for your gender, religion or marital status, even the space where you attach your photograph — could be absent.

As part of a national push to fight discrimination at the workplace, a new set of guidelines for fair employment practices will be launched on Thursday.

These are expected to address, among other things, some of the biggest bugbears among job-seekers here — the interview questions and application forms.

Giving TODAY a foretaste of what might be announced, Madam Halimah Yacob, co-chairperson of the one-year-old Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices, said existing guidelines were not so "specific" about what the forms could or could not ask.

"Now we are saying that questions such as religion, gender, marital status — even photographs — unless absolutely necessary should be cut out," said the assistant secretary-general of the NTUC. (read full article)

From MOM's website on TAFEP (read full guidelines here)

Dr.Huang: I have appended salient parts of guidelines below.

"IV. Recruitment
6. Consistent and fair selection criteria should be applied at all stages of the recruitment process. This will help ensure that the best candidate, assessed based on the candidate’s ability to perform the job, is recruited to fill the post. Staff involved in recruitment should be trained to recognise and avoid discriminatory practices.

Job Advertisements
7. Employers should abide by the “Tripartite Guidelines on Non-Discriminatory Job Advertisements (2006)” when advertising job vacancies. Selection criteria should be stated clearly in the job advertisements, and should principally be related to qualifications, skills, knowledge and experience. Employers who advertise a position requiring a specific attribute which may be viewed as discriminatory should ensure it is indeed a requirement of the job and state the reason for the requirement in the advertisement. This will ensure that the job requirements are well understood, expand the range of eligible candidates, and avoid negative perceptions of the employer concerned.

Criteria which should NOT be in Job Advertisements
Age
8. Employers should not stipulate age as a requirement for employment. Words or phrases that suggest preference for job candidates of a particular age group should also not be used in job advertisements. Examples include “young”, “youthful working environment” or “fresh school leaver/ fresh graduate”.

9. If the nature of the job is physically demanding such as the handling of heavy cargo, the required physical attributes or other job-related criteria should be clearly described in the job advertisements, rather than indicating an age cut-off. Examples:

a. Candidates are required to load and unload sacks of rice of at least 10 kg each.

b. Candidates are required to handle heavy equipment.

Race
10. Race should not be a criterion for the selection of job candidates as multi-racialism is a fundamental principle in Singapore. Selection based on race is unacceptable and job advertisements should not feature statements like “Chinese preferred” or “Malay preferred”.

Language
11. If a job entails proficiency in a particular language, employers should justify the need for the requirement. This would reduce ambiguity and minimise incidence of misunderstanding between the job seekers and the recruiting party. Examples:

a. Chinese-language teacher for pre-school centre, good credit in ‘O’-Level Chinese.

b. Translator for a leading Malay sports magazine. Proficiency in Malay is a must.

c. Tour Guides to take Chinese/ Japanese/ Indian tourist groups. Knowledge of Mandarin/ Japanese/ Indian dialects is essential.

Gender
12. Where the practical requirements of a job dictate the need for employees of a particular sex, the reason should be clearly stated.

Example:
Women’s Fashion Boutique requires salesgirl to model clothes while on the job.
Words or phrases that suggest preference for job candidates of a particular gender such as “female working environment” or “waitress” should not be used in job advertisements.
Marital Status
13. Marital status is generally an irrelevant criterion in employment, as jobs can be performed equally well by either married or single persons.

Religion
14. Religion is unacceptable as a criterion for recruitment except in cases where employees have to perform religious functions as part of the job requirement. In such cases, the requirements should be clearly and objectively presented.


Job Applications
Job Application Forms
15. After having made clear the job requirements in the job advertisements, employers should not ask for information in job application forms which are not relevant to determining the applicant’s suitability for the job. This includes:

a. Age;
b. Race;
c. Gender;
d. Religion;
e. Photograph;
f. Marital status; and
g. Whether a female applicant is pregnant

16. Requesting such information may give rise to the perception that the employer is making preliminary assessments about the candidate based on these attributes.

17. If it is necessary to require such information (e.g. for security screening), employers should explain the need for such information. This additional information should then be made available only to the person who needs to use it for security screening etc., and not to persons involved in the selection process. Such a procedural safeguard should be made known to applicants.

18. If a standard application form is used which requests information which may not be relevant to a specific position, employers should explain in the form that it is a standard form and require the applicant to fill in only relevant parts of the form.

19. After the selection has been made, the employer may elicit personal data from the candidate for administrative purposes.

Job Interviews
20. Interviewers should be conscious not to stereotype candidates on the basis of their age, race, gender, religion or family status. Questions related to these areas should not be asked, including questions such as whether the applicant intends to have children or any more children. Such questions may be perceived as discriminatory even though there may be no intention to discriminate, and may lead to complaints of unfair treatment."


My comments

Hi Friends,

This news item had been largely ignored by our blogosphere.

To me, this is a significant step taken towards combating discrimination of racial minorities and ageism (discrimination based on age) etc.

Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices (TAFEP) correct step forward

The guideline is comprehensive and includes all steps of the recruitment process.

It may not interest bloggers and netizens as these tend to be of the younger set, but older job applicants have trouble even getting an interview for job vacancies, and many end up jobless or as taxi-drivers. This is a nice respite for them. It will however mean that Human Resource departments will have more work to do as they would not be able to sieve out unsuitable applicants at the job application stage and more interviews will be required to find the right candidate. Nevertheless, this is a small price to pay.

Although this is only a guideline and not legally binding, there will be much pressure on employers to conform to these best practices. If the “Classified ads” sections of major papers will accept only correctly phrased ads, companies cannot help but to comply.


Other discriminating practices I like to see removed

1. Removal of “race” from NRIC (National Registry Identity Cards)

In this day and age, it must an anachronism to be sub-classified as separate racial groups and to have this reflected in our identity cards. Remember the ruckus that the James Gomez Saga caused all of us during the last GE? Even though he was classified as “Indian” or is it “Eurasian”?, he still needed to apply to the election authorities to be vetted and confirmed as Indian/Eurasian!

I say remove this item to make a gesture that we are united as Singaporeans and it matters not where our forebears originate from.

2. Discrimination of Singaporeans according to political choice

The HDB should upgrade homes of citizens (85% Singaporeans live in HDB) according to priorities based on objective criteria and not whether the Member of Parliament is from PAP or not. Hougang and Potong Pasir who have opposition MP’s are victims of discrimination and have no realistic chance of getting government help for their estate upgrading.

An independent body comprising competent and non-politically affiliated members should be allowed to decide in a transparent manner which estates need upgrading. Public monies should not be used as political tools to get votes for any party.

Read an old post on this evergreen subject:
Click here :Shocking yet not unexpected ( about upgrading for PAP wards only

3. Domestic maids need more protection from MOM

MOM should take similar proactive steps to ensure that maids, who are amongst the more vulnerable sub-groups in Singapore, are accorded minimum working conditions that other Singaporeans take for granted.

How can we deny them at least one day off a week?

The present “guideline” is one day a month and even this is not compulsory and can be waived if the employer can prove that the maid has “voluntarily” surrendered this “day-off” in lieu of privately agreed compensation. MOM should do the right thing although politically this may not be popular with many Singaporeans.
Read an old post about "Maids not human? Click here

All said, I will give credit where it is due and say, "MOM, well done for the TAFEP".

Cheers,

Dr.Huang Shoou Chyuan