Saturday, 31 December 2011

Property Price rise after GE 2006

From the above Graph of property prices can you see that prices started to rise every quickly after PAP won GE 2006 and opened floodgates to foreigners, gave out PRs & Citizenships like toilet paper...

This is the evidence of the price rise after 2006GE

Tuesday, 27 December 2011

Strong and credible opposition needed now - Singapore June 5, 1999 Chiam See Tong

Strong and credible opposition needed now

Singapore June 5, 1999 BY Chiam See Tong, MP and leader of the Singapore People's Party at the forum organised his party on June 5, 1999 at Asia Hotel .THE way Singapore is governed is a paradox. We are suppose to be a democracy yet we are run like a communist state with all its attendant controls.

We are suppose to have a system whereby the rule of law prevails yet we have laws which give powers to the government to be above the law. The government can order the arrest of a citizen without the necessity of bringing him before a court of law to be tried.

In a democracy the possibility of a change of government is an accepted part of the system. But in Singapore the government builds a system that it ensures that there is little possibility of a change of government and that everything possible is done to ensure that the PAP rules Singapore forever.

That is why Singapore needs a strong and credible opposition now. We must be a strong opposition. A weak opposition can never make a dent in the PAP especially we know that the PAP's intention to build a system which makes certain that it wins at every general election.

Some of you may still be sceptical of what I say in that the PAP wants to rule Singapore forever.

Let us look at some of the measures taken by the PAP to stay in power.

1. The PAP does not intend to hold any more by-elections unless they know that they will sure to win as at Marine Parade GRC in December of 1992. Other than that I do not think that anymore by-elections shall be held. The PAP learnt a bitter lesson in the Anson by-election in 1981 where its candidate lost to J. B. Jeyaretnam of the Workers' Party. After the Anson defeat the PAP decided that it shall not risk another by-election. There were two constituencies which were due for by-election after 1981. One, at Havelock when the then Minister for Finance, Hon Sui Sen who was also the incumbent MP for that constituency died in office. The other was at Anson when J. B. Jeyaretnam was disqualified for allegedly diverting Workers' Party funds when the party was declared insolvent. The opposition called for by-elections to be held in those two constituencies but the calls were in vain. The PAP refused to hold by-elections in those two constituencies when there were at least 1 1/2 years left in each of those constituencies before the next general election was due. The PAP sent their own caretaker MPs to those two constituencies. That proved that the PAP does not believe in the democratic process at all. In a true democracy once an incumbent MP vacates his constituency for whatever reason the electorate in that constituency must be allowed to choose another MP to replace the previous one who is no longer there. In a democracy, choice and representation are important. The constituents must be given a chance to choose an MP of their own choice to represent them in parliament. Without an elected member the voter in a constituency has no voice in parliament.

It would appear that the PAP's main concern is not to promote democracy but to keep itself in power.

2. The other way the PAP does away with by-election is to change the election laws. Starting from 1988 the Constitution and the Parliamentary Elections Act were amended to introduce GRCs or Group Representation Constituencies. In a GRC comprising four, five or six candidates there is no need to hold a by-election if any one of them drops out. Say in a six member GRCs there is no need to hold by-elections even if five of them resign from parliament. Originally the GRCs comprised of three members but now the least number of MPs in a GRC is four. I do not envisage a situation where all four MPs in a four member GRC leave parliament so that a by-election need to be called. Speculation is now raved as to whether there shall be a by-election in Jalan Besar now that one of its members Choo Wee Khiang has resigned his seat in parliament. My opinion is that the PAP shall not hold a by-election in Jalan Besar. The Prime Minister says that his present concern is to revive the economy which is right and does not want his attention to be diverted by a by-election at Jalan Besar. I am surprised that the Prime Minister thinks that he should be involved in that by-election if it does take place. The truth is that the memory of Anson is still in his mind. The possibility of losing a GRC at a by-election is much greater that losing one in a general election. The Workers' Party's assertion that the PAP is afraid to lose at Jalan Besar is a credible reason. JBJ might just do another Anson at Jalan Besar if a by-election were called there and the PAP certainly does not want that. Also the PAP only narrowly won in Rochor which is part of Jalan Besar GRC, in 1963 when its then chairman Dr Toh Chin Chai contested against Dr Lee Siew Choh the Basisan Socialis candidate. The PAP candidate won by the skin of his teeth. I believe the margin was only 63 votes and the votes were counted and recounted to confirm the narrow margin. I believe there were three recounts in that instance.

My view is that the PAP shall not call a by-election at Jalan Besar. One corespondent wrote in the Straits Times today that the voters at Jalan Besar voted for a slate of four candidates. It is like four legs of a chair. Now that one of the MPs has resigned the chair is now left with only three legs. I do not think it is very comfortable to sit on a chair with only three legs but I am afraid that is what the voters in Jalan Besar have to contend with. So much for voting the PAP.

3. Despite the fact that the PAP wants to do away with by-elections the opposition is not entirely outsmarted. The opposition can still depend on the by-election effect strategy. This strategy was effectively used in 1991 General Election. In that election the PAP was put in power on nomination day. It had a majority walk-overs, 41 seats out of a 81 member Parliament. The opposition secured its greatest success that year. It won four seats. The following general election in 1997 the PAP countered that strategy by offering upgrading to HDB flat dwellers with success. The opposition's member of MPs in Parliament were reduced from four to two.

4. The introduction of the GRC system has given the PAP four distinct advantages. Firstly it eliminates by-elections, Secondly it makes it difficult for the opposition to canvass in an election because of its size, Thirdly it makes it difficult for the opposition to put together in one slate of so many equally good candidates, Fourthly Even if an opposition party is able to gather good Chinese candidates it may not be able to get an equally good minority candidate. The weak link in the minority candidate may cause an opposition party its chance of winning.

The introduction of GRC is very unfair to the opposition.

It is not only unfair but it makes communalism an issue at every general election because the issue of race is brought up at every general election. The minority candidate will have to appear before a committee to certify that he is a Malay, Indian or "others". One wonders why in a national election a Singaporean has to appear before a committee to certify that he is a Malay, Indian or Eurasian if he wants to participate in that election.

5. There is no level field in the contest of a general election. Other than the unfairness of the GRCs, the allocation of broadcast time, both for TV and radio is very unfair. The rules set by the PAP favour the PAP because it has the largest number of candidates. The rule, if my memory serves me right, only allows a party air time if that party puts up more than seven or eight candidates. I believe three minutes of air time is given for seven or eight candidates. The PAP always get the maximum exposure on TV and radio during the election. The exposure during the campaign period can be very crucial because the minimum number of nine days is allowed. The campaign time allowed by constitution is between nine days to one month. The PAP so far as I know has always only allowed nine days for the election campaign. The small opposition parties which fielded a two or three candidates are completed deprived of broadcast time.

Therefore the lesson for opposition parties that wishes to take part in a general election is to campaign way ahead of time. But then again this may not also ensure success because in the last minute the PAP can alter the boundary lines of constituencies, like in the case of Braddell Heights. The shifting of boundary lines in Braddell Heights is a case of blatant gerrymandering. Our chairman, Sin Kek Tong, has stood in Braddell Heights twice. In his secondtry in 1991 he got something like 48 percent of the votes caste. He nearly won. He would have won if he had the third chance but he did not. Come the general election of 1997 Braddell Height which has no common boundary with Marine Parade GRC was suddenly swallowed up by the latter GRC. Constituents of Braddell Heights have remarked that one morning sometime in 1996, they woke up and found that they were in Marine Parade constituency except that they do not have the beaches. That may sound funny but not to our Mr Sin who is deprived of a very good chance to be in parliament if not for the disappearance of Braddell Heights as single constituency.

6. PAP over the last three decades has overwhelmed Singaporeans with its presence, it has become like a Banyan tree. Almost nothing grow under it. The political presence of the PAP is felt at both national as well as constituency levels. The mass media like the TV, radio and the newspaper are controlled by the political leadership. Foreign publications sold in Singapore also do not escape that control. The PAP leadership makes sure that all facets of life in Singapore is under some form of their control. The political presence is so overwhelming that many just resign to that fact while others who are better trained or educated just simply quit Singapore and emigrate to some other countries.

Although I am the elected MP at Potong Pasir I also feel the presence of the PAP in my constituency. I do not monopolise everything there. The grassroots organisations which lean towards the ruling are active in my constituency. Now, we have a Community Development Council or CDC established at Potong Pasir although Potong Pasir is a single member constituency and the smallest one in Singapore, yet a CDC is established there. The original idea of a CDC was to amalgamate two or more GRCs to form a mega unit (CDC) yet in the case of an opposition ward with small population a CDC is formed there and Andy Gan, the PAP prospective candidate is appointed its chairman. Obviously with a view to increase his status and enhance his chances of winning at the next election. The CDC is equipped with funds. Although the PAP is purportedly against welfarism or handing out money freely. Yet, Andy Gan the prospective candidate at Potong Pasir as chairman of the CDC visits householders at Potong Pasir and hands out money when the head of the household is out of job for at least one month. The PAP does practice welfarism and hands out money freely to flat dwellers when it is to its political advantage to do so.

7. When Goh Chok Tong took over the premisership in 1990 people expected some relaxation of the PAP rules. As far as the opposition is concern they do not see any. The ISA and the ISD are still present. People can still be arrested and detained without trial. All the harsh laws are still there. Whatever activity the opposition wants to organise we still need to apply for the permits. For example we have to have a permit for today's function. If we want to hold a lantern festival at Potong Pasir we need to apply for a permit.

With the drastic changes in the election laws that have converted nearly 90 percett of the constituencies into GRCs, the opposition find it even more difficult to win at a general election. In addition to changing the election laws the PAP also up the stakes in the last election by offering upgrading to HDB flat dwellers which involve the government about $15 billion.

Under Goh Chok Tong things have not become easier for the opposition in fact life has become tougher for the opposition.

We the opposition cannot rely on the ruling party to make the situation easier for us. Whatever we want we have to strive for it ourselves. And the only way we can do it is to make the opposition strong. Without a strong force the opposition cannot achieve anything for the people. If we want to be effective there is only one way and that is to build our forces.

Yahoo Singapore News - ‘Relook ways to handle religion and race issues’ - Andrew Loh

‘Relook ways to handle religion and race issues’

By Andrew Loh | SingaporeScene – 13 hours ago

Government should revisit how it handles race and religion issues. (Yahoo! photo)

The ruling People's Action Party's (PAP's) views on matters racial and religious are no secret. These, to them, are sensitive, perhaps ultra-sensitive, issues which are best left alone.

The PAP's stance is that Singaporeans should trust it to be rational and fair, and to have faith that it knows how members of each race and religion feel, and that it will act in their best interests.

In the past, perhaps Singaporeans, who were pre-occupied with making a living and in any case had no avenues to voice their unhappiness or frustrations, went along with whatever the governmentdecided. But this didn't mean the issues — along with the unhappy sentiments about them — had vaporised into thin air.

Instead, because such matters cut right to the heart of one's very identity as a citizen and indeed as a human being, the feelings never left. They never could have.

With new media coming to the fore, Singaporeans now have a channel to speak their minds — even and especially on these once-taboo subjects.

2011 will perhaps be remembered as the year the matters of race and religion were given a much-needed airing. The sentiments which had simmered underneath finally rose to prominence. And while debates and disagreements abound in each case or incident of racism or perceived racism which arose this year, the government now has an opportunity to relook the way it has handled these matters.

Where to start

And the place to start is the heart of government — the Cabinet.

When we speak of the nucleus of government, inevitably we will conclude that there is one person whose views hold sway, and has for 50 years, by the sheer force of this person's personality. We are, of course, talking about former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew.

A pragmatic realist, some call him, and not inaccurately. Having emerged as leader of Singaporesociety from the ashes of racial riots in our early days, Lee's views on life — and in particular, the matters of race and religion — are shaped by personal experiences. If there is one person who would be more acutely aware and deeply wary of the potentially catastrophic consequences of racial and religious sentiments run amok, it would be Lee.

Yet, it could also be said that it is precisely of the profound impact past experiences had on him that his policies, when he assumed prime ministership, were crafted with fear of extreme circumstances in mind.

In short, while wanting to prevent similar altercations between the races and religions from breaking out, it instead resulted in policies of distrust, particularly affecting the minority groups among us. And with the government wielding the heavy hand of various legal and state instruments to keep the citizenry in check, unhappiness was forced underground and left to simmer, waiting for an outlet.

As long as Singapore continues to live up to its potential of being an "Asian tiger economy", with its citizens enjoying materialistic trappings, things will be fine. Or so the belief goes.

But all it will take to collapse this superficial house of cards is the chilling echoes of suppressed emotions.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong chose to ostensibly break from the past after the General Election in May when he reconstituted his Cabinet, which saw the senior Lee stepping down. An "epochal" change, PM Lee said. And indeed it is — indeed it could be.

Questions to consider

While much disgust and impassioned criticisms were expressed towards those who had infringed and trespassed onto the out-of-bounds spheres of race and religion in recent times, these incidents have also opened up an opportunity for the government — and indeed all of society — to take a long hard look at itself and consider some questions:

What are the areas which discriminate against the non-Chinese races?
Have our policies of distrust served us and even if they have, should they not be dismantled?
Have we allowed the non-Chinese races to have avenues to speak their minds freely and openly, so that we could all understand what they face and address these collectively? Or have we left them to their own devices?
Have we heard them but dismissed their concerns?
Have we treated them right — that is, as equal fellow Singaporeans, in all aspects and in all respects?

There are many more questions, of course, but I will leave them to perhaps another time.

On the government's part, there needs to be some intense and in-depth soul-searching among its ranks, especially in Cabinet. It should start with two areas:

Are the Cabinet's views on race and religion based on wrong assumptions, false suspicions, and fear of the extreme, even if these are predicated on pragmatic and realist considerations or rationalities?
A relook at a slew of policies and practices which are discriminatory or seen to be so, to the minority races.

The former can be done within the Cabinet itself, in earnest. The latter should be discussed openly with those most affected by these discriminatory policies. The government should realise that sometimes while policies may make sense intellectually or theoretically, they may not convince emotionally or morally, which are just as important, especially in the arena of race and religion.

In other words, policies may look right, but they may not be right. And this is where perhaps the most intense feelings are directed at — that viscerally and intuitively — Singaporeans, especially those who feel discriminated against, feel these policies and practices are morally wrong.

50 years on, a new generation of Singaporeans has emerged and is ready to look the tiger in the eye, so to speak. They are looking for a new paradigm in how racial and religious matters are handled. Give them a chance. If we are to learn anything from this latest outcry, it is that the time has come to speak honestly, to shine a light on our darkest corners, to see what it shows us and to address these accordingly and honestly.

Let us not be paralysed by our fear and experiences of the past so much so that we would rather bury our heads in the sand, even as the ground under our feet has moved.

Andrew helms publichouse.sg as Editor-in-Chief. His writings have been reproduced in other publications, including the Australian Housing Journal in 2010. He was nominated by Yahoo! Singapore as one of Singapore's most influential media persons in 2011.