Mildly different or credibly different? Differences between the Workers’ Party of over various eras may be more imagined that real Amid an indefinitely long hiatus from roving within the socio-political cyberspace, an Ex-Co Member of the WP Youth Wing alerted me to an interview with the WPYW’s President and Vice President by The Online Citizen. A hiatus is often a good thing – it allows one to get his mind off his pet interest, not be immersed in intensive pondering to the extent that one’s focus is affected, like an addiction, and develop clearer thoughts. The only drawback is that the current mediocre literacy level feels to have regressed further. Back to the article in mention, entitled “Milder but more credible“, and another in response to it, brought a question into my mind. Is there really a significant difference between the Workers’ Party under J. B. Jeyaretnam and the Workers’ Party under Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim? The wide range of diverse comments was fairly distributed but, in my view, whether netizens who were supportive or critical of the WP had all barked up the wrong tree. While it is true that the late Mr Jeyaretnam had a total of two defamation suits and two legal proceedings under his belt, that was out of an estimated 200 speeches he made or activities he participated in his life. I do not wish to disrespect the respectable opposition veteran by thinking that he was acquiescent to the PAP during the other 196 times, just as I do not think the zero legal record of the WP meant it was acquiescent during all times. Even if critics were to throw in the “good” or “bad” things PAP leaders say about various WP and opposition leaders – as if we should care, strangely speaking – this is also moot. The only three or four occasions opposition MPs, including Chiam See Tong, were lauded by the PAP for being constructive pales in comparison to the hundreds of times they were accused of being inapt to run the country and scoring political points. Similarly, while having been tagged by the PAP with several derogatory labels such as being dishonest, Mr Jeyaretnam had also been lauded at least once for his tenacity and not being a quitter. Finally, the last bastion of arguments – also the most subjective and unsustainable of all – is that one had brought up more and more important issues or was more passionate or aggressive in disposition than the other. The major difference is actually not inclined in any era of any opposition party – but in the PAP. The PAP of the past had the tendency to ensnare the opposition based on all sorts of legal technicalities that even lawyers are confused about. Not that this treatment is justifiable but this may be due to having exited shortly from the nightmares of grave political fights in the yesteryears. Today, it presumably sensed that this hard approach would not go down well with the new generation of Singaporeans, who are unlike their survival-worried ancestors – never mind that it was the PAP who lifted them out in the first place. Like the typical impressionable human, the TOC interviewer is probably under the paradigm that the WP today is mild but more credible and less of both in the past, and conducted the interviewed in this manner and direction. He, along with WPYW leaders and WP supporters – if applicable – cannot be faulted as even WP’s critics themselves had fallen into this. And, with due respect, even Mr Jeyaretnam himself has shown. In reality, apart from the lack of difference in approach as pointed out above, election results over the years also revealed no significant difference, at least to date. Nevertheless, credibility remains an important factor and not a “PAP-originated concept” as some affiliates of a particular opposition party have alleged it to be and, in the process, dismissed it. Several renowned books on success, whose authors hail from countries like America, also denote that credibility plays a crucial role and has to be guarded with utmost priority. In definition, it amounts to “believability” and “trustworthiness”. Voters all around the world would vote for what they believe in and trust more – although these do not merely infer to the credibility of a candidate or party but also the credibility of the outcome, which ideally should be one of plurality. The credibility of the PAP may exist – but a one-party Parliament is certainly not credible. This is because the historical purpose of any legislature was to reflect different voices in the first place. On this day before Christmas eve, I wish all readers a Merry X’mas! In the meantime, the hiatus shall continue… A lost sense of Parliamentary democracy Under the People’s Action Party, in power since 1959, the entire government has gradually become clueless about the spirit of Parliamentary democracy, despite having been the first political party to inherit it from the British “This speaks so much of the respect of the ruling party for the will of the people expressed at General Elections and how mature we are as a democracy.” - Low Thia Khiang, Hougang’s Member of Parliament and Workers’ Party Secretary-General, in a letter to The Straits Times on 10 October 2009 pertaining to the lift upgrading issue “This shows the respect the Government has for the people’s choice of MP, who is vested with the constitutional mandate to represent the constituency.” - Sylvia Lim, Non-Constituency MP and Workers’ Party Chairman, reiterating the point in another ST letter on 15 October 2009 Once again, the People’s Action Party’s inability to work beyond party demarcation and on the national platform has surfaced. This was evident when the HDB accorded the privilege of “fronting” the Lift Upgrading Programme in Hougang and Potong Pasir to the two grassroots advisors, who were concurrently defeated PAP candidates in two consectutive General Elections. Perhaps it was sufficient public bewilderment that prompted National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan to stand out and clarify the matter, which he did so in an ST interview published on 9 October 2009: “I don’t expect the MP who is not a government MP or PAP MP to go and front it, and explain why the Lift Upgrading Programme is like that…” While the mainstream media would not have the tendency to portray a PAP minister in a bad light, the above statement itself was enough for Mr Mah to shine it on himself. He mentioned “MPs” – but are the two PAP representatives “MPs” in the first place? Under the PAP, in power since 1959, the entire government has gradually become clueless about the spirit of Parliamentary democracy, especially when comes to dealing with Parliamentary Opposition. How Parliamentary democracy works If the PAP believes in holding elections for and making decisions through Parliament, it should rehash the origins of Parliamentary democracy and understand its workings all over again. When legislators in a country are elected, they are expected to uphold all laws passed by the legislature, regardless of being on the opposition side where the ruling party or coalition side occupies the majority. In this spirit, it is probably why Mr Low sits in the Nominated MP selection committee despite the fact that the WP, which he leads as Secretary-General, opposes the scheme, or why opposition town councils join the government, along with PAP town councils, to campaign against dengue and SARS. Any inconsistency is but a myth, and “working within a system it is supposed to oppose” is a lack of exposure to the true meaning of Parliamentary democracy. There is a difference between a party stand and a national duty. To use an analogy, citizens who oppose fare hikes are not expected to travel to their workplaces, schools or other destinations on foot to prove their point. Nevertheless, the perception that a “national duty” is a “PAP duty” in lieu of the PAP’s dominance in the country cannot be faulted, as it is a product of a PAP system – a party that has shown to share such a mindset as well. This does not mean raising an objection is merely “talk”. It is communicating a stand to the electorate such that if the people feel strongly against the NMP scheme and because of that – and any other reason – vote the WP into power in a GE, the party will proceed to abolish the scheme with not a least bit of compunction. However, if the people could live with the PAP, the WP would likewise live with the people’s decision and work in consideration of the NMP and other state tenets. Obviously, the WP adheres to the principle of Parliamentary democracy more than the PAP, which surprising still needs “Democracy 101″ lessons despite being the first political party to inherit it from the British. Politicking the real reason? The MND, through its Press Secretary Lim Yuin Chien in two letters dated 13 and 17 October 2009, expressed that opposition MPs were not “obliged to carry out and explain the Government’s policies” and it had to “implement government programmes through persons and agencies answerable to the Government”. An attempt is made to paint the picture that opposition MPs may not adhere to directions of the government if they were put in charge of the LUP – a “concern” that appears to be a fantasy and mere figment of imagination. In his interview, Mr Mah had said that “both MPs have been cooperative” and the grassroots advisors have been in talks with them. By acknowledging this, the concern is moot and the responses by the MND’s minister and press secretary become contradictory to each other. As mentioned by Mr Low and Ms Lim, they and the WP are prepared to work with the government for the benefit of constituents. Naturally, ideal MPs go for options that benefit the people – even if their political opponents score points along the way. If the government is genuinely worried over the possibility of not being able to work with the opposition, why did it decree the power of town councils to the opposition MPs in 1984? Had the opposition-held town councils fulfilled the prospect that the government pretends to be anxious about, many things would have long gone awry over the last decade. Moreover, the government ought to be aware that the two town councils would still be involved in the LUP in a way, unless the HDB does not plan to get them to co-pay for it. And unlike in PAP wards where the grassroots advisor may be involved in the operation of a town council, the grassroots advisors in opposition wards do not have town council resources. Since this is the case – and both the town council chairman and the grassroots advisor have to be tapped upon – what is intriguing was the choice of who was selected to announce it. To date, there is still no strong reason as to why the grassroots advisor was chosen, so it elementarily has to be politics at play because it facilitates free publicity. But the most ludicrous common line in the two letters by MND has to be “Opposition MPs are not answerable to the Government”. If that is so, why are opposition town councils made accountable to the government? Why are opposition MPs answerable to Parliament? Why does the PAP, also desiring to be known as the government, bring opposition candidates to court for defamation? Might as well have the opposition to be above the law since they do not answer to the government. Ironically, the PAP keeps promoting a chaotic scenario in the event where political diversity sets in, when it is the one that has more potential for causing it. People’s Association unconstitutional? Has it always been the practice of having the grassroots advisor, instead of the town council chairman, oversee the LUP? The question was never raised as the LUP had only been carried out in PAP wards and PAP MPs traditionally occupy both positions. However, the issue surfaced when the LUP went into the opposition wards – the roles of an opposition MP and a grassroots advisor is given to two different people. Before we question why the grassroots advisor and not the MP or town council chairman get to head the LUP, we should first question the validity of grassroots advisor appointments. “Civil servants under the constitution hold their allegiance to the president. The symbolism that is attached to that is we actually serve at the pleasure of a politically neutral institution. It is one of the values of the civil service that we are politically impartial.” - Owi Beng Ki, Deputy Principal Senior State Counsel from the Attorney-General’s Chambers, at a People’s Association Youth Movement forum on 17 May 2009 on the integrity of the election process Not everyone would bother to pore through the thick pages of documents that make up Singapore’s Constitution but most would agree, with commonsensical instinct, that any civil service should be impartial in dealing with different parties and outside political interests, with the rich or poor – and take it that such a practice is enshrined in the Constitution. Grassroots advisor appointments of the People’s Association are an exception. Never mind about PAP MPs being appointed – but it is the fact that only PAP members, with some being MPs and others not, that is disturbing. The PA is a national government entity, established as a statutory board and employs civil servants to its full-time administration. Hence, it should act like one. At present, all PA-appointed grassroots advisors are members of the PAP with no other criteria and this is good enough to conclude that the PA is really a political body in national clothing. Does this amount to the PA being unconstitutional and going against the grain of being a “politically neutral institution”? The justification of the WP’s proposal in the 2006 GE to dismantle the PA – dubbed as one of the four “time bombs” – actually becomes stronger because the latter has clearly not acted in good faith. What is crucial to note is that the PAP does not have a national mandate in all the elected constituencies but the MPs do – and since grassroots advisors are appointed along elected constituencies, MPs are more deserving of it or any national appointments than members of a particular party. To be truly fair and impartial, the PA should either appoint MPs as grassroots advisors across the board – or none of them at all. Alternatively, since the PAP is concerned about appointees not “answering to the government”, grassroots advisors should be appointed from real civil servants, who are typically not the politicians, party officials or election candidates. View the exchange of letters in ST Forum between WP and MND here Is ‘tripartism’ a myth? No “tripartism” can truly exist in Singapore when all three components are within the “PAP conglomerate” The ruling People’s Action Party has often hailed the tripartism model between the government, employers and trade unions for Singapore’s successful labour-management relations. With this, it forwards the argument that consensus, rather than confrontation, is emphasised. Ideally, going by literal definition, anyone would agree that consensus is preferred over confrontation? But does Singapore’s model truly promote “consensus”? Or is it “control”? Upon closer examination, the dominant PAP has not only entered but takes key positions in all three components. This arrangement appears to be more of being “in comfortable control” of matters rather than “consensus-building”, since it does not need to deal with external players that it has no jurisdiction over. As the PAP occupies nearly all the seats in Parliament – a third more than necessary to form the government solely on its own – it has left no room for coalition partners or opposition parties to influence governance. This makes any potential power shift appear to be more distant than in countries where the ruling party and opposition camp are within closer margins in their legislatures. Among the large companies dominating Singapore’s economy, many are Government-Linked Companies or GLCs, which are mostly in industries where the government has gazette as monopolies or allowed limited entrants. Many PAP Members of Parliament also sit in the board of directors of listed companies, with some even heading them. The only recognised collective entity representing unions is the National Trades Union Congress, which is a de facto wing of the PAP and like it is dominant and represents almost all the unions in Singapore. Ever since the Singapore Association of Trade Unions and its member unions – affiliated to the Barisan Sosialis – were dissolved in the 1960s, no other umbrella has emerged. Throughout the years, a PAP minister has always headed the NTUC, effectively blurring the lines between the government and unions, as the Cabinet would also comprise a Labour or Manpower minister. When members of the labour movement go into discussion and negotiation with the management, they would be effectively talking to their PAP entrepreneur colleagues in many cases. If the PAP government steps in, it is as good as a third PAP colleague stepping in. While this is not to say that each component has never acted independently – given that even the small opposition parties have squabbled in public – the fact that they are institutionally tied is inescapable. Therefore, the process would not entirely be the same as one involving distinct components with no trusses to one another. All in all, the ruling party is an adhesive but a too strong one. Consensus and avoiding confrontation does not equate to control. Similarly, truly independent components in a genuine tripartite model do not necessarily lead to confrontation or strikes. ‘Professional network’? YP a business network A new networking group targeting professionals in the business and corporate sectors has been launched by the Young PAP, youth wing of the ruling People’s Action Party, so sang a Sunday Times report two days ago on 20 September 2009. Certainly, this recruitment advertisement for the YP is not only free-of-charge unlike most paid advertisements in ST’s Classified section, who fork out at least $35 for a four-liner advertisement, but a lot bigger too. This comes after nearly three weekends and a few weekdays of reporting on the newly launched PAP-related book “Men in White” were still in digestion. Due coverage – back to the drawing board The nation’s mainstream media can hardly be remembered to have carried a similar manner of advertising for any Singapore opposition party, despite the fact that all of them need more (voluntary) human resources than the ruling party or its youth wing. To be mildly fair, it had recently given one opposition party – namely the Workers’ Party – a small amount of news coverage pertaining to its internet strategy and National Day message, whereas other opposition parties with counterpart initiatives were not even mentioned. Not that it is a good thing – neither WP’s (or opposition’s combined) news exposure lagging behind that of PAP’s nor all other parties’ lagging behind that of WP’s (and conclusively the PAP’s) is an acceptable or ideal scenario, even if it is an improvement from the past. In other words, given the monopoly of the MSM due to the PAP’s government laws, the buck doesn’t stop until all political parties are given due coverage, whether we agree with each of them or not, as they field candidates in an election (which is a very important event) and the people need to know them better, for better or worse. And this, needs to be drilled into the MSM for full understandability. A business network? According to the particular report, YP chairman Teo Ser Luck said that the “professional network” was started in order to “retain the interest of its members, many of whom have established themselves in their jobs and careers”. He added that many “are corporate executives” and “this group will enable them to network and also bring forth more members to join”. I had thought that, based on my observations, impressions and interactions with some of its members, the entire YP, as well as the PAP and the “national” grassroots, that professionals dominate its ranks and it is already, in effective, a business network. Many who join YP of these entities do so to get business contacts or tend to be more self-employed oriented. Several past and present business partners and clients of mine joined and declared, with no apologies, that they did so to establish a business network and know more fellow businessmen at gatherings and meetings. During the last general election in 2006, I met several PAP members who acted as campaigners, polling and counting agents, most of whom introduced themselves as executives or self-employed directors. Whether the above are representative of most or all of the active members in the YP, they predominantly make up the profile of its members I happen to be acquainted with or encountered. If the experience is indeed representative, the purpose of this “professional network” comes into question because “professionals” may not wholly mean those who are self-employed but may be employed in the sales and marketing portfolios of the companies they are in service to. To me, joining a political party means believing in it, being sensibly loyal to it, aiding it towards its cause, rather than building an unhealthy trend of gunning for the “network” and, perhaps, some not even appearing at the polls outside this intention. What would be more laudable is the YP’s attempt to reach out to rank-and-file workers, although I wonder why this is the “next goal” after and not “goal” before professionals, if the latter was even necessary. Mr Teo was also candid about the challenges faced in recruiting them, stating that they had “different set of interests, to do with finances and economic survival”, showing that he is at least, to an extent, in touch with ground sentiments and not all is well as the PAP government often claims. Nevertheless, I wonder if rank-and-file workers who have difficulty coping with living costs would join the party-in-government that had contributed to the present state of affairs. No opposition please, we’re short of talent! The Hammer The Workers’ Party Issue No: 0902 Is Singapore’s population too small for more than one dominant political party in the country? The PAP argues so. But their argument does not hold water. Does the PAP MP agree with these? PAP MP who seconded NMP Viswa Sadasivan’s motion should be ruling party’s internal catalyst for change During the Parliament sitting on 18 August 2009, new Nominated Member of Parliament Viswa Sadasivan delivered his maiden speech for the purpose of moving a motion to hold the government to reaffirm “its commitment to the nation building tenets as enshrined in the National Pledge when debating national policies, especially economic policies”. The speech and the aftermath scenes became a discussion topic within the confines of the political cyberspace arena for various reasons, foremost being the attraction of a counter response by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, who rarely spoke in Parliament, but paid enough attention to move an amendment to the motion. Much has been talked about and speculated this far about the roles of MM Lee, Workers’ Party MP Low Thia Khiang and other PAP MPs in the entire debate, even that of Mr Viswa himself, but one final “factor” has gone nearly unnoticed and yet to be examined – the PAP MP whom Mr Viswa had approached to second his original motion, with the latter’s consent. The PAP MP is none other than Mr Michael Palmer, MP for Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC. Considering the fact that several parts of Mr Viswa’s speech, primarily in the areas of paragraph 36 and 39, called upon the PAP government not to inhibit the growth of opposition parties and to encourage equal space to be accorded to the opposition, it certainly must raise eyebrows that Mr Palmer consented to seconding the Bill. One may now wonder if Mr Palmer agreed with the following extracts of the speech. From paragraph 36, they are: “Accountability requires the government to go beyond lip-service in addressing the call for greater democracy, civil liberties and choices.” Does Mr Palmer agree that the government has being paying “lip-service” in terms of greater democracy, civil liberties and choices? “In the Political arena – a more level playing field especially in the management of elections and media coverage. What is increasingly demanded is fairness and justice, not just in form but substance.” Does Mr Palmer agree that the political arena is lopsided and is fair and just only in form? “But what is asked for is that the government desist from making it difficult in an unfair and undemocratic manner for the opposition to gain success – through last minute changes in electoral boundaries, or a lack of media coverage or what can sometimes be seen as biased coverage.” Does Mr Palmer agree that the playing field creates disadvantages for the opposition in an unfair and undemocratic in the aspects described? And from paragraph 39: “Examples would be the ground sentiment about the string of libel suits filed by PAP leaders against various opposition party leaders” Does Mr Palmer agree that defamation suits against opposition personalities created negative sentiments? Should the PAP MP not concur with all of the above, why would he agree to second the motion? To clarify, this is not to say that Mr Palmer represents or should represent the official governance methodology of the PAP government or the position of the ruling party. Although he is a PAP MP, it is only fair to him to state this as he neither holds a cabinet post nor is a member of the PAP’s central executive committee. Nevertheless, it is generally clear that the PAP has never been open to the idea of fair political space where the opposition is concerned but prefers to maintain the unbalanced status quo and if Mr Palmer agrees with Mr Viswa, he should bring forth these points relating to a more even electoral playing field to his party leaders behind closed doors. Otherwise, it surely wouldn’t be delightful for PAP candidates to emerge victorious under electoral rules they are aware are favourable to them. Comment on An odd Young PAP letter by tankianhwee Apart from that, Gerald, another fas paux “the first time we are dealing with the law”. Gave either 1 of 3 impressions: 1) the YP hasn’t been doing anything. That’s more inactive than the opposition because the latter is always dealing with permits and enquires every other week 2) it has been going above the law all the while 3) she has been sleeping (since I recall YP cancelled a cycling event without a permit after WP was denied one). Regards Comment on An odd Young PAP letter by Gerald Giam We learned from TODAY today that Ms Chong wrote that letter in her “personal capacity” — but signed off with all her YPAP credentials? I was quite surprised to see that letter in the first place. Why would an ordinary exco member sign off on behalf of the whole youth wing of the party? It says a lot of the lack of party discipline in YPAP. Comment on An odd Young PAP letter by George I find it most enlightening whenever the YPAP members speak up – they have so far never failed to impress other people about their qualities and what they really are: a group of green horns, wet behind the ears, naive and half-baked impressionable youngsters, who had not seen life beyond the perspective of a frog in a well. An odd Young PAP letter That the Straits Times publishes some of the strangest letters in its Forum section and affixes its own creative but mismatching headlines is a fact known to many and needs no further elaboration. Another came on 21 July 2009, not surprisingly from the Young PAP (People’s Action Party youth wing) this time, by one of its officials, Ms Elaina Olivia Chong (“Nominated MP wrong to knock Young PAP”). For starters, the title given to the letter was disconnected with the text; Ms Chong criticised one of the new Nominated Members of Parliament, Mr Calvin Cheng, a former YP member himself, for what was thought to be returning the latter’s criticism against the YP. Upon further reading, Mr Cheng had merely portrayed the impression of someone who did not take his YP membership seriously after joining, based on his interview with the ST on 4 July 2009. Here, the “fas paux” of the ST ends but leaves one wondering how not taking a membership seriously could dent the credibility an organisation and implied that it was not worthy. Many people who join volunteer organisations do it out of spur or to contribute but realise later that they are unable to commit or that it may not suit them like it did for other people. Surely, Ms Cheong can’t be of the view that the organisation she so serves faithfully in is that vulnerable in reputation as to be discredited by just this incident. Also, the YP would have a lot more than just one person who joined and stuck to it all the way to date, and with that, Mr Cheng’s move would reflect more badly on himself than the YP. Next, it was rather odd for Ms Cheong to state that the NMP would be her voice in Parliament; her premise was that both were entrepreneurs and she appeared to be strengthening her justification in criticising Mr Cheng. One would have thought that she, presumably a full-fledged PAP member as well, would see the PAP voices as the ones representing her. Several PAP MPs, one example being Inderjit Singh, are also entrepreneurs. With more PAP voices than others, is it still necessary for its members to expect NMPs of the same profession to represent them? Or since Workers’ Party MP and chief Low Thia Khiang also happens to be an entrepreneur, would she see him as a voice for her? In the end, when statements that had not been criticisms are taken to be, it would highlight the narrow-mindedness of an entity and discredit it more than a number of other possible factors. THE STRAITS TIMES Forum Tuesday, July 21 2009 FIRST. I would like to congratulate Mr Calvin Cheng on his recent appointment as a Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP). I applaud his enthusiasm to assume heavy responsibilities. As his contemporary, and also an entrepreneur and media specialist, I appreciate that he will be my “voice in Parliament”, so to speak. Understandably, with his recent public comments on the Young People’s Action Party (YP), that he “joined out of curiosity…never attended a single branch activity…and in fact, never even picked up my membership card”, Mr Cheng has stirred a flurry of interest. At best, it was a brilliant display of his talent as a media spin doctor; at worst, it shook public confidence in his capacity to take on his new appointment. Having said that, I wonder if Mr Cheng is aware of the damage he has done, by denting the credibility of YP as a youth-worthy organisation. As a card-carrying member of YP since 2004 and now a volunteer on the YP exco, I am saddened that my soon-to- be voice in Parliament shows no sensitivity or respect to thousands of us who offer our time, resources and commitment to the party and the good work it does. Mr Cheng’s comments seem to imply that YP is not worthy of him, since he did not even pick up his membership card. More disturbing is the fact that he never gave himself a chance to understand how YP works and what it does. Without any knowledge or basis, he has discredited YP publicly as something he cannot be bothered with. What other statements will he make in future as he does not seem to do his homework before he speaks. If he had done his homework in this case, he would have understood that YP is a vibrant, activity-driven platform that aggressively engages citizens on the ground. Mr Cheng is well placed to benefit from the NMP scheme. But whether the business community feels he is worthy to be our trusted voice – that must be earned over time. He has made his kickoff so much harder for himself. Nevertheless, I have faith that he has learnt exponentially from these recent weeks. I am confident his performance in his new appointment will be no less than stellar. Elaina Olivia Chong (Ms) Young PAP Exco Member Comment on Time for ASEAN to expel Myanmar? by tankianhwee While that may be true, a further point is that there has been no historical linkage between Myanmar and China, unlike North Korea where both were Communist and the latter had been a vassal of the former once. There are a lot more former USSR states that could fall within China’s ambit and are closer and more strategic. And other ASEAN countries appear to be courting China as well. Furthermore, China is a lot more compromising towards USA these days, although it flexes its muscles every now and then to show “something”. Overall, international diplomatic relations are very fluid and whether Myanmar in or outside ASEAN it is 1) unlikely to compromise its position if the “inside” doesn’t change 2) could stray in spite of that. Regards Comment on Time for ASEAN to expel Myanmar? by CelluloidReality You may be right about the Chinese having more proxy states that could serve her needs, but as traditional understanding about Chinese foreign policy goes, they place states along their periphery as of higher importance, especially those that also straddle China’s key lines of energy security and maritime security.. Sad to say, the region around Port Blair and the Andamans may be a contested field in the future with growing Indian expansion and so on.. hence I view Burma’s position being a more important proxy than Central Asian states or even Pakistan. Comment on Time for ASEAN to expel Myanmar? by tankianhwee Hi, that is quite a credible suggestion though I don’t quite agree… Myanmar would not accept any form of sanction as long as it is within ASEAN and I am of the view that it is in because it gains shelter out of membership and would pull out immediately otherwise. I also do not think that poorly of China and that it wants to position itself respectably and there are a lot more “pariahs” it can embrace if it wanted to… it will leave less important matters it perceives aside. Regards Comment on Time for ASEAN to expel Myanmar? by CelluloidReality I believe it would be more worthwhile to explore a path that involves retaining Burma in ASEAN but with a stronger approach that involves financial sanctions by SEA states against key leaders of the junta. One argument states that we cannot let Burma drift into the Chinese orbit, because that would create a potential beachhead for an arguably Chinese string-of-pearls strategy for their energy security that starts from Port Gwadar in Pakistan, down to the Burmese island/coastal waters and so on.. down to the Straits of Malacca . I believe it is this assessment that is driving ASEAN to try and keep Burma engaged as an ASEAN state rather than a pariah backed up by a less-than-transparent superpower to be. Comment on Time for ASEAN to expel Myanmar? by Aaron Peng Agreed. Myanmar is acting like its the emperor of its own country. Why bother attending Asean meetings when they don’t allow any ‘outside interference’? What’s the point? They don’t want to open up… then forget it. Time for ASEAN to expel Myanmar? When even the office of the chief of the United Nations is not respected, it shows the length of audacity displayed by a country. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon, who was seen to be the last bastion of liberation for Myanmar politician Aung San Suu Kyi, was turned away from his request to meet her, crushing immediate hopes of those who had otherwise held dimmed anticipation of this. Here, the term “opposition leader” is refrained because she would be more aptly be “prime minister-elect” since as far as nearly 20 years ago when her party, the National League for Democracy, won the election. When it involves a country where a party that won an election with a landslide became outlawed but another – backed by the military – that lost became a dominant, hegemonic ruling party instead, the grain of logic is opposed and Myanmar’s defence of “non-interference” should no longer apply. Therefore, the UN chief did not act in an inappropriate manner, for the person he had requested to meet was the supposed prime minister. In my view, Myanmar, or formerly Burma, may have acted with impudence as such because it believes it is a member of ASEAN and has the latter’s backing. Any ounce of economic benefit would be foremost enjoyed by members of the military government, which is the root cause of the problem in the first place. To ASEAN nations, of which Singapore is one, inclusion rather than exclusion would increase the accessibility of engagement with Myanmar. This approach is agreeable in principle. However, when nothing can be achieved by way of inclusion, there is no longer any difference between inclusion and exclusion. And Myanmar, along with Laos, has being a member of ASEAN since 1997. For 12 years, the eight fellow ASEAN countries have not been able to change a single thing in Myanmar and have not proven to their citizens and the world that co-opting it into ASEAN brought about any positive outcome, except positive embarrassment. Meanwhile, the dateline of the renegade country’s “Roadmap to Democracy” is expected to be as enduring as the endurance shown by its ASEAN partners. In lieu of this, it may high time for them to contemplate the expulsion of Myanmar from ASEAN. Comment on 50 years of PAP government… and another 50 to go? by Watanaporn great insight.. Comment on 50 years of PAP government… and another 50 to go? by Barisan The most optimistic scenario for Singapore is Barisan 2.0 after the elder Lee is no more. 50 years of PAP government… and another 50 to go? Smaller GRCs. More SMCs. More NCMPs. Permanent NMPs. When it comes to tinkering with the political system and civil laws, the PAP has mastered the craft and, once again, does it with finesse and par excellence – and without obstruction. Given its Parliamentary majority, this was given. After all, it would not be where it is without this, among other aspects. In other words, the longer the PAP stays in power, the longer they may stay longer, oxymoronically speaking. When Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong related in Parliament on 27 May 2009 the history of electoral changes, a realisation of how far the Singapore political system has come and how many times it has evolved in the PAP’s hands, especially since the 80s, creeps in. 1984 came the NCMP scheme and 1988 the NMP and GRC schemes. NMPs started from 2 and was increased to 9 in 1992. GRCs started with 3 members, were expanded to 4 in 1991, 4 to 6 in 1997 and 5 to 6 in 2001 and 2006. SMCs had also shrunk from 43 in 1988 to 21 in 1991, then 9 for subsequent general elections. It now appears that the GRCs would be along the lines of the 1997 model in the next election. Coincidentally, they were all implemented after the Workers’ Party’s late J. B. Jeyaretnam won a by-election in Anson, breaking the PAP’s monopoly since 1966. And now, these latest amendments came three days just as the PAP is about to complete 50 years of rule over Singapore. On 30 May 1959, the PAP won the general election to become the government for the first time. Established less than five years prior to that election, what was remarkable about the PAP’s victory, apart from capturing power in such a short time, was the landslide win in 43 out of 51 seats and finding enough candidates to field in all the available 51 seats. To date, the feat has never been repeated, with equal intensity, by any other political party. With that, the PAP unseated the beleaguered Labour Front government, which had morphed into the Singapore People’s Alliance. The magnitude of the PAP’s win may not have been so huge had it not been for the disarray of its political opponents. The Liberal Socialists, the largest party formed about via a merger of two biggest parties – the Progressives and the Democratic Party (not to be confused with the Singapore Democratic Party) – had a large faction spill out and leave for SPA, resulting in both the Lib-Soc and the SPA fielding less than 40 candidates each. Even as an opposition with 4 seats from 1955 to 1959, the PAP has always been clever to back different parties over others, firstly, the LF over the Lib-Soc, then the UMNO-MCA-MIC alliance over the LF, creating discord until the end-receivers realised it too late. The PAP was largely successful, as it had built up a level of credibility and following in a short time. At election rallies, it had crowds far superior to the Workers’ Party today. When the SPA, Lib-Soc, UMNO, MCA, MIC and every other existing party finally came together under the Singapore Alliance in 1963, which was backed by Malaysia’s Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman, it hardly made a dent in the PAP’s armour. The latter was to face a bigger adversary – one that came from within itself and had lent it the weight it needed. One-third of its legislators (formerly known as Assemblymen) broke ranks to form the Barisan Sosialis in 1962. About 70% of the PAP’s grassroots were lost by defection to the Barisan – with some branch offices even seized – precipitating it to form the People’s Association under government instead of party control. In the end, the PAP defeated the Barisan in 1963 by a wider-than-expected margin. The reason for this was not solely due to the government’s rapid economic track record – it also incarcerated the pillars of its main political opponent under the Internal Security Act – a dual deadly tactical combination that would put any political party where the PAP is – if only they could model after it. The ISA remains today – but those days are too far back to recollect for today’s generation and given the chaotic times, people were less sympathetic. The darker and probably darkest hour of the ISA – an issue that remains the biggest blemish in the PAP’s rule and the ISD’s name – could be the 1987 “Marxists” arrests of Catholic church members who had been volunteers of the Workers’ Party. This is manifested recently, on the 22nd anniversary of the incident, when the issue was revived by activists and bloggers. To date, the PAP government has refused to acknowledge that the entire episode was a harebrained idea of of its one-time Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and therefore, is expected to be its continued embarrassment and a thorn on its flesh in the years to come, as even three new generation ministers have expressed doubts over the validity of the arrests. On another note, the SMCs, which the PAP rode into power on, are feeble in existence today. Most of the constituencies are grouped under GRCs, with only 9 outside them. This would be increased to 12 by the next general election – but is still a far cry from the 51 single wards Singapore used to have. At the point of 50 years of the PAP government, it is now allowing more opposition members in Parliament by increasing NCMPs seats for opposition parties’ defeated candidates from 3 to 9. In addition to the 9 NMPs, there will be 18 non-PAP voices – the highest number ever – more than the 17 seats (out of 32) LF had enough to form the government in 1955, or the strongest ever 14 opposition voices the PAP ever had (13 Barisan + 1 United People’s Party). However, the overall number of seats have increased nearly three-fold from 32 to 93 today and the 18 voices are not likely to drown out more than 80 voices the PAP has like in the past. Would this also mean that the PAP government’s rule will continue if Singaporeans, who remain largely respectful and fearful of it, see no need to vote for non-PAP candidates, since they are guaranteed of non-PAP voices despite the fact that NCMPs and NMPs do not really have the same powers and resources as elected MPs? And if so, would its rule perpetuate for another 50 years, with the end scenario that I (if I am still alive) or someone else be writing an essay akin to this on the anniversary of PAP’s 100-year rule? Basically, Singapore has been pretty much ahead of most of the rest of the world, despite its sheer small territory. When cars, refrigerators and telephones were invented, Singapore had them – and, to a large extent, the best of them. When mobile phones were invented, it was one of the first to have them. When the internet came about, it was, again, one of the first to have it. On the whole, Singapore is neither perfect, nor is it disastrous. The question – one that begs curiosity and has no known answer yet – is, do Singaporeans want another 50 years of PAP rule? And that is a question they would answer in the next 10 to 12 general elections – and one that we, as mere fraction of the population, can only wait and see. WP Youth Wing: YouthQuake 5 Rethinking Education in Singapore Has our education system produce a nation of thinking and committed citizens capable of meeting the challenges of the 21st century? How far are we from realising the vision of “Thinking Schools, Learning Nation” set forth by then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong in 1997? Do you know that the Labour Front government in 1956 under David Marshall proposed multilingualism and placed emphasis on learning English in our schools, which formed the basis for Singapore’s present educational system? The Workers’ Party Youth Wing takes great pleasure in inviting you to participate in an upcoming public forum as part of the YouthQuake Forum Series. This forum series is into its 2ndseries and offers an excellent opportunity for Singapore youth to exchange ideas and experiences and you can keep pace with the pulse of today’s youth in a pleasant and stimulating atmosphere and experience the dynamic nature of youth-centric issues. The details of the YouthQuake Forum are as follows: Date: 25th April 2008 (Saturday) Time: 1400 hrs – 1700 hrs Venue: 216-G Syed Alwi Road #02-03 If you are keen on attending this forum, kindly register your interest with the Workers’ Party Youth Wing at youthwing@wp.sg or email Bernard Chen directly at bernardchen@wp.sg. We look forward to seeing you at the forum! Follow us on Twitter at www.twitter.com/YouthQuake or join the YouthQuake Facebook Group. Moderator for YouthQuake 5 – Nathaniel Koh Nathaniel Koh has been a member of the Workers’ Party since February 2009. He is currently pursuing his undergraduate studies at Singapore Management University (SMU). He is expected to graduate with a Bachelor of Science (Information Systems Management) in April 2010. In 2008, Nathaniel was elected into the SMU Students’ Association for a one-year term of office and served as its Honorary Finance Secretary overseeing the finances and budgets of over 100 student bodies in SMU. During his term, he initiated a new reserves framework to enhance fiscal responsibility, accountability and transparency in the management of the Association’s financial reserves. Since 2000, Nathaniel has been a member of Toastmasters International. In January 2007, he achieved the Distinguished Toastmaster award for communication and leadership excellence. He had served in various leadership capacities such as Club Vice-President for Education, Club President, and Area Governor. In May 2006, Nathaniel was elected with more than 80% of the valid votes from over 200 Toastmasters Clubs in Singapore, Hong Kong, Macau and Thailand, to serve as the Division Governor for one of the largest Toastmasters Divisions in Singapore. At the end of his term of office in June 2007, his Division achieved the highest distinction from Toastmasters International, the President’s Distinguished Division award. The speakers for this event are: >> Chia Yeow Tong: Entitled “What’s the moral of the story?”, Yeow-Tong will be providing an overview of citizenship education in Singapore since 1955. Since Singapore acquired self-government status in 1959, and subsequently independence in 1965, various civic and citizenship education programs have been put in place, only to be dismantled later and replaced with yet other programs. He argues that an understanding of both the different citizenship education programs, as well as the constant changes in these programs over the years provides the necessary historical context to the current ‘National Education’ program. >> Shiao-Yin Kuik: Shiao-Yin’s presentation entitled “Are we are educating our children out of creativity?” explores Sir Ken Robinson’s theory that 21st century education systems should emphasise creativity as much as literacy or numeracy. Shiao-Yin will explore the problems of centring our classroom cultures on just functionalism and what can be done to address the fear of failure and excessive pride in grades in today’s students. >> Bernard Chen Jiaxi: Bernard will be speaking from his experiences as a polytechnic student on the challenges and inner struggles that a typical polytechnic student faced when seeking a university education in Singapore. He is of the view that no deserving student who chooses the polytechnic route should be denied a placement in a local university. He will address the issue of perceived perception of favouritism towards students from a junior college education and will proceed to offer recommendations to overcome the perennial frustration of a polytechnic student of not being able to study in a local university. >> Dr. Roland Cheo: Dr. Cheo will be discussing the concept of “Thinking Schools, Learning Nation” introduced by Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong in 1997. He will also be looking at the recent developments to revamp the schooling system and will evaluate the merits and the possible pitfalls of the new policies. He will also discuss whether elitism is perpetuated by the schooling sector and the possible ways to promote meritocracy and greater transparency in the system. Of particular interest, he will pay attention to the issue of ranking and performance in schools. Speaker profiles Chia Yeow Tong Chia Yeow Tong is a Ph.D Candidate at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto (Canada). His doctoral dissertation examines history and civics education in Singapore from 1955 to 2004. In addition, he has presented several academic papers on Singapore’s history and civics education at overseas conferences. Yeow Tong was previously a history and social studies teacher, and had a stint at the Ministry of Education HQ. He has a Master of Educational Management degree from the University of Western Australia, a Postgraduate Diploma in Education from the National Institute of Education, and a Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in History from the National University of Singapore. Academics aside, Yeow Tong is a keen observer of the Singapore film scene. He founded the Toronto Singapore Film Festival (http://www.tsff.org) in order to do his part to promote Singapore films overseas. Shiao-Yin Kuik Shiao-Yin Kuik Shiao-Yin Kuik, 32, is creative director of a collective of social enterprises: School of Thought, Food for Thought,Thinkscape Heritage Trails and Think Tank Publishing. The collective’s shared social objective is to spread awareness of local and global issues as well as love for the community among Singaporeans. Bernard Chen Jiaxi Bernard Chen Jiaxi Bernard Chen Jiaxi, 24, is the secretary of the Workers’ Party Youth Wing. He is celebrating his third year of active involvement in the Workers’ Party and likes to describe himself as a non-violent reformer to the weaknesses of the capitalistic, paternal and materialistic society, and searching to replace it with a just, compassionate, righteous, fair society via the parliamentary process. At the end of the day, through his work in the Workers’ Party, he hopes to leave this nation better than the one he inherited from his parents. Bernard is also known among the student activism circles as the main engine behind the recent successful campaign to lobby for fairer transport fares for tertiary students. At the same time, he is also the founder of the YouthQuake series of forums that has caught the eyes of many with its responsible and constructive approach to policy discourse in Singapore. Dr. Roland Cheo Dr. Roland Cheo is currently a visiting fellow with the Department of Economics, NUS, whose areas of specialisation include education and labour markets. He has researched on the tuition market in Singapore as well as the ranking of secondary schools andi ts effects on efficiency. As a fresh graduate in the mid 1990s, he was successfully denied 4 times into the Ministry of Education NIE programme because he had not completed his ‘A’ levels before leaving to the States to do his undergraduate studies. He then went on to finish his graduate studies in NUS and Monash University, Australia under an Australian government scholarship. Taken from http://www.wpyouth.sg/youth/yq/ An expensive Singapore Prices in Singapore are like a launched rocket – they keep going up. Over the years, GST has increased from 3% to 5% to 7%. Public transport costs – buses, trains and taxis – are ever-increasing. The same goes for household utilities charges. Healthcare costs are exorbitant and with means testing, a sandwiched class may find themselves ineligible for “C” Class wards. As markets are upgraded (forcefully or otherwise), corporate owners increase rents and hawkers have to raise food prices. Even the salaries of ministers are ever-increasing and we are paying for a “premium” government. In other words, everything here is getting expensive. Basic services went from nationalised (SBS, PUB, Telecoms) to privatised (ComfortDelgro, Singapore Power, SingTel) and thereafter have to commit themselves to become profit-oriented, even listing on the Singapore Exchange. The government that released these services to the private sector in turn invests in these private entities through GLCs. On the other hand, the people’s pockets and wallets are not growing as fast. For some, they have even shrunk. A job vacancy for fresh university graduate with starting pay of $2,500 10 years ago is still advertised for the same rate today. According to government statistics, employment has fallen. But was this resolved by keeping wages – which have hardly gone up – low? For what it used to pay 9 employees, an employer can now pay 10 employees. Without a labour safety net, we began to hear some Singaporeans complain about being overworked and at the same time, others having difficulty finding a job. Despite claims of being a first-world country, a car is out-of-reach or pay-through-the-nose for most people and public transport costs is not exactly maintained low. Taxi fares are raised to help drivers get that little bit more by but no one up there thought about reducing cab rental charges or waiving ERP for them instead. What about transportation for the elderly who can’t walk far yet need to see their doctors? The popular theory is that all these go hand-in-hand with economic growth but this is disputable. When the economy is positive, costs go up and wages don’t rise much. Young couples who wish to buy a HDB flat may have to fork out a five-figure sum in cash when they can hardly save more than hundred dollars per month. When the economy is negative, there are no price drops and people are either retrenched or have their wages cut. The former have to upgrade before they can find jobs, which means additional costs in training courses even before they start on new work. What about those who go for job interviews after interviews without success while his remaining dollars are “eaten” up by travelling expenses to attend these interviews, with a family to feed behind him? Many Singaporeans in the middle-class have become what is termed as “The New Poor”. As for the poor, they continue to be poor – or poorer. No matter what the difficulties, these problems has to be addressed by those who have the power to do so – before it blows out of proportion. Increased stakes for the ruling party I chanced up the weblog post by Young PAP member Mr Ephraim Loy “Increased stakes for the opposition” on 29 March 2009 through a link from another blog. After reading what he had written, I venture to think that the increase in stake in next general election would be larger on the side of the ruling People’s Action Party instead. In Singapore politics, the PAP ought to perceive its stakes to be higher – because most of its candidates become incumbents and any electoral loss is a “loss too big”. On the contrary, only a few opposition candidates manage to get elected and hence, they are more accustomed to “weathering storms”. Most of the current crop of PAP MPs and ministers, except, needless to say, Mr Lee Kuan Yew and perhaps those like Mr Goh Chok Tong and Dr Tony Tan, would not be able to establish themselves in opposition politics the way Mr Chiam See Tong, Mr J B Jeyaretnam and Mr Low Thia Khiang did and would become one of the many unsuccessful opposition candidates in history had they joined. While Mrs Lim Hwee Hua, a PAP MP in Aljunied GRC, is now a full cabinet minister, the leader of the Workers’ Party team that contested the GRC in 2006, Ms Sylvia Lim, has since moved on to establish a Parliamentary track record a as Non-constituency MP. Assuming the WP returns to the GRC again the next round with both Lims retaining their spots as per the previous GE, the stakes are actually increased for both sides – and more for the PAP that sees it holding a higher national portfolio. Rather than hailing it as a breakthrough, the promotion of Mrs Lim highlights a bigger problem within the PAP that several observers have been asking for time immemorial – why is it that, after all these years, there is only one woman in a government cabinet of more than 20? Why aren’t there more women ministers in the first place? In contrast, more than a third of the WP’s Central Executive Council are women. To add, Mr Chiam, the MP for Potong Pasir, has announced that he would be moving into and helming a SDA team in a GRC, putting one more PAP-held GRC at a bigger risk. In the next GE, the opposition is also expected to collectively contest more seats in lieu of new individual and organisational participants. An estimate of up to 9 GRCs could face competition and if this indeed manifests, could mean an increase of about 2 GRCs’ worth of candidates compared to the last round and, conversely, an equal amount in reduction of walkovers that the PAP will get to enjoy, which I feel is good for the country no matter what the outcome will be. E-mail interview with TOC Interview with The Online Citizen for its article “TOC Report: Workers’ Party hit by latest spate of resignations” and below is the full response: On resignations… “Of course any resignation is a ‘loss’ for any political party. But from what I see, the WP’s renewal process is still very much on track with new members, who are the ‘gain’ of a party. It is impossible for any renewal process not to have turnover and just because there is does not mean a party is not renewing. Resignations have occurred in every party including the PAP – even in the period from 2006 until the present. An organisation would be seriously problematic only if the ‘loss’ outstrips the ‘gain’, which I do not see is the WP’s case. Hence, I expect voters to see more new WP candidates in the next general election and whom I believe have more staying power, although I am personally not an advocator of an opposition party fielding a number of candidates that is beyond its means.” On paying more attention to the aspirations of members… “The WP, like any organisation that does not want to end up becoming irrelevant, has to consistently re”flect on where it can improve – and there are areas that I think it definitely can at the moment. However, this would be more in its approach and policy, in order to meet people’s expectations. Personally, I don’t agree that a party’s leadership needs to meet its members expectations in areas where it does not meet the people’s expectations. Doing so would only fit a party into the description that it puts its party’s interest above national interest. It is both its leaders and members who have to jointly work together meet the people’s expectations. The way a party should be is leaders and members serve the people, not leaders serve the members.” Cabinet changes – what does it mean for next GE? Article written for The Online Citizen and published on 27 March 2009. Special thanks to the TOC Editorial Team for the edits and permission to reprise it. There have been many cabinet reshuffles in the PAP government’s history. The most recent one announced on 26 March 2009, coming just up to two years before the next general election is due, gives away some telltale signs of the election permutations that could pan out. Pasir-Ris Punggol GRC One PAP man, who had long been anticipated to become deputy prime minister (DPM), has finally been made one. When then-RAdm Teo Chee Hean entered politics in the 1992 by-election, observers predicted that he would be DPM, along with Mr George Yeo, by the time Mr Lee Hsien Loong took office as Prime Minister. That didn’t immediately happen, though, for after PM Lee was sworn-in, two DPMs who were older than him were already in place, one – Mr Wong Kan Seng – being incumbent. The part about Mr Yeo becoming DPM did not happen, nor is DPM Teo likely to take over as prime minister, for he is merely two years younger than PM Lee. In other words, this is the farthest DPM Teo will go in the Cabinet. With Mr Teo’s appointment as DPM, Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC becomes a tougher “nut” to crack. Likewise, chances are he may meet with a stronger “adversary” in the next elections. The PAP team in Pasir Ris-Punggol met a contest from a team from the SDA in the 2006 GE but there are indications that it would face a Workers’ Party team the next time round. East Coast GRC Chances are now high that Prof S. Jayakumar will retire from politics in the next election. When the late Mr S. Rajaratnam became the first Senior Minister of the country in 1985, he retired at the next GE in 1988. As observers may discern, unless one is a former prime minister, he does not hold the SM position for more than an election term. While the PAP cabinet is perceived to be bloated, the PAP is still wary of setting tongues wagging by having two SMs in a long-term period. Also, SM Jayakumar was relieved of his law minister portfolio in 2008. Therefore, even as SM Jayakumar leaves the Cabinet, SM Goh Chok Tong is likely to remain. Another very likely exit in the same East Coast GRC that SM Jayakumar helms is Mr Abdullah Tarmugi, as he is one of the few PAP MPs in his 60s – a threshold at which PAP MPs are often retired. Hence, the new leader for the PAP’s East Coast GRC team in the next GE can only be Mr Raymond Lim, the current Minister for Transport. Should the WP return to this GRC since in the next elections, it will face a new PAP anchorman. Jalan Besar GRC and Hong Kah GRC Another indicator of a political retirement is when a full minister steps down to become a backbencher. Normally, this is to allow him to complete his term as MP before a new PAP candidate is fielded in his place in the subsequent GE. With that, Dr Lee Boon Yang, along with Mr Yeo Cheow Tong in Hong Kah GRC who stepped down as minister not long after the 2006 GE, are not likely to run for elections again. Given that there is another Cabinet minister in Jalan Besar GRC – Yaacob Ibrahim – he is likeliest to be the one to replace Dr Lee as leader of the PAP team there. As Jalan Besar is a regular “turf” of the National Solidarity Party (NSP) – which contested under the SDA banner in the 2001 and 2006 GE – they are likely to face a now-independent NSP challenge in the next round. Chua Chu Kang SMC Now that Mr Gan Kim Yong, the SMC’s MP, is a full minister and with the absence of a full minister to helm Hong Kah GRC, one of Singapore’s longest-surviving SMCs may well be absorbed into a GRC. In any case, Chua Chu Kang SMC is nearly surrounded by Hong Kah GRC, according to the electoral boundaries map, and such an occurrence would appear rather “natural”. Therefore, if former NCMP Steve Chia of the NSP is planning to return to the SMC for a third time, he may well need to develop a contingency plan. Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC As with SM Jayakumar, DPM Wong’s tenure as DPM is not likely to be much longer in lieu of his age and his most probable successor – Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam. However, this is probably going to take place only after the next election. In the meantime, the GRC is likely to continue housing two Cabinet ministers – the other being education minister Dr Ng Eng Hen. This is especially so when Potong Pasir opposition MP, Mr Chiam See Tong of the SDA, has publicly announced that he will be leaving the seat he has held for six election terms to enter the fray in this GRC with a team. Jurong GRC One surprise retirement by the next election could be Mr Lim Boon Heng’s, who stepped down as NTUC secretary-general in 2006 in favour of Mr Lim Swee Say and currently holds no other portfolios apart from being a minister in the Prime Minister’s Office. If that happens, the likely DPM candidate in the same GRC – Mr Tharman, as mentioned earlier – is poised to replace him as the PAP team’s anchorman. Jurong GRC was not contested in 2006 and in the 2001 elections, a Singapore Democratic Party team garnered only 20% of the votes. It is another “tough nut” GRC to crack. Nee Soon Central SMC Another PAP MP who is in his 60s is Mr Ong Ah Heng. If he does quit politics, the SMC, also one of Singapore’s longest-surviving single wards, is likely to be absorbed into a neighbouring GRC. The ward was captured by the SDP in the 1991 GE but Mr Ong, with his skills with the grassroots, defeated the opposition incumbent by 60% to 40% in 1997. While Mr Ong increased his margin to nearly 80% against another SDP candidate in 2001, an unknown and new candidate from the WP slashed it by 15% in 2006. This shows that the SMC has always been a potential hotbed for the PAP. Yio Chu Kang SMC Given the unfortunate incident involving the PAP incumbent Mr Seng Han Thong, there is a chance that he will not be seeking another term. The SMC may be reabsorbed into Ang Mo Kio GRC, although chances put this as less likely to occur because the single ward is perceived by the PAP to be sound enough to “stand on its own feet” with any veteran PAP MP parachuted into it. Aljunied GRC Mrs Lim Hwee Hua, an MP of Aljunied GRC, has been appointed to the Cabinet and becomes the first female full minister. Effectively, this increases the stakes of a second Aljunied GRC battle when the PAP meets its opposing WP team, expected to be led once again by another key woman politician – WP’s chairman Ms Sylvia Lim, whose stature has, like Mrs Lim, also since increased with her NCMP stint. The GRC is presently anchored by another more experienced minister, Mr George Yeo. The other to watch is whether Mr Zainul Abidin Mohamed Rasheed, a strong grassroots man capable of winning the Malay swing voters, would also call it quits after his post of Northeast CDC mayor was assigned to Mr Teo Ser Luck. Mr Zainul Abidin is past 60 and ministers of state are normally retired younger but before an election. Tampines GRC and Sembawang GRC Yet another surprise retirement could be Mr Mah Bow Tan’s, who currently holds the position of national development minister. This is because Mr Mah is one of the oldest and longest-serving PAP minister in the cabinet. Should that happen in the next GE, the only GRC with two cabinet ministers – save for the tough battlegrounds of Bishan Toa-Payoh GRC and Aljunied GRC – is Sembawang GRC. In this hypothesis, law minister Mr K. Shanmugam could be shifted to helm the PAP Tampines GRC team. The PAP team’s leader in Sembawang, Mr Khaw Boon Wan, is unlikely to move, for he had already been shifted once – from Tanjong Pagar GRC – and he has shown himself capable of helming a GRC on his own in the 2006 election. In conclusion, the above possible ministerial retirements are not to be unexpected and cannot be ruled out, for with the latest appointments, the government cabinet has further bloated from 18 to 21 ministers. Cabinet changes – what it means for next GE There have been many cabinet reshuffles in the PAP government’s history. The most recent one announced on 26 March 2009, coming just up to two years before the next general election is due, gives away some telltale signs of the election permutations that could pan out. Pasir-Ris Punggol GRC One PAP man, who had long been anticipated to become deputy prime minister (DPM), has finally been made one. When then-RAdm Teo Chee Hean entered politics in the 1992 by-election, observers predicted that he would be DPM, along with Mr George Yeo, by the time Mr Lee Hsien Loong took office as Prime Minister. That didn’t immediately happen, though, for after PM Lee was sworn-in, two DPMs who were older than him were already in place, one – Mr Wong Kan Seng – being incumbent. The part about Mr Yeo becoming DPM did not happen, nor is DPM Teo likely to take over as prime minister, for he is merely two years younger than PM Lee. In other words, this is the farthest DPM Teo will go in the Cabinet. With Mr Teo’s appointment as DPM, Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC becomes a tougher “nut” to crack. Likewise, chances are he may meet with a stronger “adversary” in the next elections. The PAP team in Pasir Ris-Punggol met a contest from a team from the SDA in the 2006 GE but there are indications that it would face a Workers’ Party team the next time round. East Coast GRC Chances are now high that Prof S. Jayakumar will retire from politics in the next election. When the late Mr S. Rajaratnam became the first Senior Minister of the country in 1985, he retired at the next GE in 1988. As observers may discern, unless one is a former prime minister, he does not hold the SM position for more than an election term. While the PAP cabinet is perceived to be bloated, the PAP is still wary of setting tongues wagging by having two SMs in a long-term period. Also, SM Jayakumar was relieved of his law minister portfolio in 2008. Therefore, even as SM Jayakumar leaves the Cabinet, SM Goh Chok Tong is likely to remain. Another very likely exit in the same East Coast GRC that SM Jayakumar helms is Mr Abdullah Tarmugi, as he is one of the few PAP MPs in his 60s – a threshold at which PAP MPs are often retired. Hence, the new leader for the PAP’s East Coast GRC team in the next GE can only be Mr Raymond Lim, the current Minister for Transport. Should the WP return to this GRC since in the next elections, it will face a new PAP anchorman. Jalan Besar GRC and Hong Kah GRC Another indicator of a political retirement is when a full minister steps down to become a backbencher. Normally, this is to allow him to complete his term as MP before a new PAP candidate is fielded in his place in the subsequent GE. With that, Dr Lee Boon Yang, along with Mr Yeo Cheow Tong in Hong Kah GRC who stepped down as minister not long after the 2006 GE, are not likely to run for elections again. Given that there is another Cabinet minister in Jalan Besar GRC – Yaacob Ibrahim – he is likeliest to be the one to replace Dr Lee as leader of the PAP team there. As Jalan Besar is a regular “turf” of the National Solidarity Party (NSP) – which contested under the SDA banner in the 2001 and 2006 GE – they are likely to face a now-independent NSP challenge in the next round. Chua Chu Kang SMC Now that Mr Gan Kim Yong, the SMC’s MP, is a full minister and with the absence of a full minister to helm Hong Kah GRC, one of Singapore’s longest-surviving SMCs may well be absorbed into a GRC. In any case, Chua Chu Kang SMC is nearly surrounded by Hong Kah GRC, according to the electoral boundaries map, and such an occurrence would appear rather “natural”. Therefore, if former NCMP Steve Chia of the NSP is planning to return to the SMC for a third time, he may well need to develop a contingency plan. Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC As with SM Jayakumar, DPM Wong’s tenure as DPM is not likely to be much longer in lieu of his age and his most probable successor – Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam. However, this is probably going to take place only after the next election. In the meantime, the GRC is likely to continue housing two Cabinet ministers – the other being education minister Dr Ng Eng Hen. This is especially so when Potong Pasir opposition MP, Mr Chiam See Tong of the SDA, has publicly announced that he will be leaving the seat he has held for six election terms to enter the fray in this GRC with a team. Jurong GRC One surprise retirement by the next election could be Mr Lim Boon Heng’s, who stepped down as NTUC secretary-general in 2006 in favour of Mr Lim Swee Say and currently holds no other portfolios apart from being a minister in the Prime Minister’s Office. If that happens, the likely DPM candidate in the same GRC – Mr Tharman, as mentioned earlier – is poised to replace him as the PAP team’s anchorman. Jurong GRC was not contested in 2006 and in the 2001 elections, a Singapore Democratic Party team garnered only 20% of the votes. It is another “tough nut” GRC to crack. Nee Soon Central SMC Another PAP MP who is in his 60s is Mr Ong Ah Heng. If he does quit politics, the SMC, also one of Singapore’s longest-surviving single wards, is likely to be absorbed into a neighbouring GRC. The ward was captured by the SDP in the 1991 GE but Mr Ong, with his skills with the grassroots, defeated the opposition incumbent by 60% to 40% in 1997. While Mr Ong increased his margin to nearly 80% against another SDP candidate in 2001, an unknown and new candidate from the WP slashed it by 15% in 2006. This shows that the SMC has always been a potential hotbed for the PAP. Yio Chu Kang SMC Given the unfortunate incident involving the PAP incumbent Mr Seng Han Thong, there is a chance that he will not be seeking another term. The SMC may be reabsorbed into Ang Mo Kio GRC, although chances put this as less likely to occur because the single ward is perceived by the PAP to be sound enough to “stand on its own feet” with any veteran PAP MP parachuted into it. Aljunied GRC Mrs Lim Hwee Hua, an MP of Aljunied GRC, has been appointed to the Cabinet and becomes the first female full minister. Effectively, this increases the stakes of a second Aljunied GRC battle when the PAP meets its opposing WP team, expected to be led once again by another key woman politician – WP’s chairman Ms Sylvia Lim, whose stature has, like Mrs Lim, also since increased with her NCMP stint. The GRC is presently anchored by another more experienced minister, Mr George Yeo. The other to watch is whether Mr Zainul Abidin Mohamed Rasheed, a strong grassroots man capable of winning the Malay swing voters, would also call it quits after his post of Northeast CDC mayor was assigned to Mr Teo Ser Luck. Mr Zainul Abidin is past 60 and ministers of state are normally retired younger but before an election. Tampines GRC and Sembawang GRC Yet another surprise retirement could be Mr Mah Bow Tan’s, who currently holds the position of national development minister. This is because Mr Mah is one of the oldest and longest-serving PAP minister in the cabinet. Should that happen in the next GE, the only GRC with two cabinet ministers – save for the tough battlegrounds of Bishan Toa-Payoh GRC and Aljunied GRC – is Sembawang GRC. In this hypothesis, law minister Mr K. Shanmugam could be shifted to helm the PAP Tampines GRC team. The PAP team’s leader in Sembawang, Mr Khaw Boon Wan, is unlikely to move, for he had already been shifted once – from Tanjong Pagar GRC – and he has shown himself capable of helming a GRC on his own in the 2006 election. In conclusion, the above possible ministerial retirements are not to be unexpected and cannot be ruled out, for with the latest appointments, the government cabinet has further bloated from 18 to 21 ministers. A murkier Films Act In 1998, a blanket ban on political films came into existence and 10 years later, the PAP government began to “rethink”. With that, Parliament passed a bill yesterday (23 March 2009) to amend the Films Act – but in a way that it confounded more than clarified certain perspectives. Last year, some had already sensed something amiss when it was revealed that the Act would be liberalised in stages, with a dash of new laws and a preview of what they may comprise. Several prominent netizens then called for a total, one-off repeal of Section 33 of the Films Act instead. Choo Zheng Xi, editor of The Online Citizen, could not be more than spot on when he said in December 2008, during an interview with Channel NewsAsia, that it would be “messy legislation” if repealed in stages. Indeed, it turned out to be. The legislation is now official and opened frontiers that were previously restricted – but three new areas are engulfed in obscurity. 1) Filming of illegal events become illegal The principle of law states that a person is “innocent until proven guilty”. After the police arrest people who may have broken the law, the judiciary is ultimately the body that delivers the verdict. However, filmmakers may have to play the role of a judge to know if an event is illegal or otherwise. Should a filmmaker be convicted but the defendant(s) are acquitted, what would happen remains curious. Should the defendant(s) be pronounced guilty, the filmmaker would probably be left to suffer sleepless nights. 2) No animation, please “Animation” is defined as a “rapid display of a sequence of images or positions in order to create an illusion of movement”. With political films not allowed to display animations, the government was in effect not liberalising films but Microsoft Powerpoint presentations. In the first place, Powerpoint presentations were never banned and Workers’ Party members have used it for the party’s closed-door events. Even then, one wonders if switches between various slides in such presentations would be termed as “movements”. While on the topic of “new media” in his National Day Rally speech last year, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was waving a video camera – without realising that one is not even needed to generate static images. 3) “Partisan” or “non-factual” films are “no-no” Are manifestos of political parties – one of the items listed by the Straits Times – not partisan? Perhaps the PAP has to include footage of the opposition in its own films or it would be deemed to be making partisan films. Then again, the PAP is of the opinion that opposition’s mantra is never factual, case in point being the WP’s “time bombs” and “poisons” in its manifesto. Hence, it is tantamount to saying that the opposition can never make any political films without contravening the law – or they could try to make one extolling the PAP. All in all, there are liberalised aspects that defeat a blanket ban but the progress could have been better – and less ambiguous. On GRCs and walkovers Letter to The Straits Times Forum Election walkovers not due to GRCs I REFER to Mr Tan Chak Lim’s letter last Friday, ‘Review GRC system, so more can vote’. I am not a fan of the group representation constituency (GRC) system, but GRCs are not the main cause of walkovers. The primary cause is the lack of opposition candidates. After many years, the stigma associated with the opposition remains as apparent as before – and it is partly, though not wholly, its own doing. Even before it is given an opportunity to prove itself, the opposition is dismissed as a ‘motley group’. So most normal people think twice about entering opposition politics. Also, although it is the people’s right to vote overwhelmingly for the People’s Action Party, it is hard to deny that this has become the root of the opposition’s problem in finding good candidates. How many clever people will be willing to sow their seeds in unfertile soil? Tan Kian Hwee Original letter to ST Forum Impact of GRCs on walkovers marginal I refer to Mr Tan Chak Lim’s letter in The Straits Times Forum, “Review GRC system, so more can vote” (ST, Friday, 20 March 2009). Not a fan of the Group Representation Constituency scheme myself, I would venture even further than Mr Tan to recommend abolishing GRCs altogether. But in reality, GRCs are not the main cause of walkovers. They can cause opposition parties – the factor to contests or walkovers – to withdraw a handful of candidates if they do not have the numbers to form one more GRC team. The result is marginal – at the most, the electorate in one or two more GRCs will not get a chance to vote. The primary reason for walkovers is the lack of opposition candidates. After many years, the stigma associated with the opposition remains as apparent as before – partly, though not wholly, its own doing. Even before being given an opportunity to prove themselves, they are immediately dismissed as a “motley group”. By this, most normal persons would think twice about entering opposition politics, not to mention reputable ones. Lastly, although it is the right of the people to vote overwhelmingly for the PAP, it is difficult to deny that this became the root of the opposition’s problem in scouring for enough good candidates. How many clever people in the world can you find who are willing to grow seeds in unfertile soil? Tan Kian Hwee S74XXXXXZ Tel: 9623-XXXX While wishing to express a word of thanks to the ST for the publication of my letter, the final version after edits concealed certain points I was attempting to bring across, which are underlined in the original letter. 1) Firstly, the title assigned by the ST should more accurately be “Election walkovers not primarily due to GRCs”, to reflect what was in the letter. This is because GRCs do cause walkovers – but only in an additional few more constituencies. They are neither entirely a factor nor are they a zero-factor. The explanation to this was also omitted. 2) Interestingly, the stand of abolishing GRCs was excluded, although this was not unexpected. 3) The keyword “most” in prelude to the words “normal people” is also critical. I do not perceive the present opposition Members of Parliament or unelected members of opposition parties as “abnormal”. Singapore can produce and has produced good opposition candidates – the question is, how many? 4) The world didn’t produce many Bill Gates but it doesn’t mean there were not a few “Bill Gates” who did things differently and succeeded, so it is possible, except not easy, for the opposition to draw talents in. And the more reputable they are, the harder it is for them to draw themselves in towards a futile cause. Nevertheless, I am appreciative of the fact that the main thrust – that the main cause of walkovers remains the shortage of opposition candidates – was duly conveyed. PAP member’s telling ‘insight’ Today’s Straits Times “Insight” column on Singapore’s opposition parties was insightful indeed – and not because of its contents (”Opposition plans battle formation”, 14 March 2009). After all, much of it is mere guesswork on the election preparation plans of the Workers’ Party and other opposition parties that might contain inaccuracies, which will not be discussed here. What was more telling was a particular sentence in a supplementary section entitled “Electoral boundary changes: Chatter on the ground”. In it, a PAP activist from Ang Mo Kio GRC reportedly said that “since the PAP did not do well in Aljunied GRC in 2006, the weakest link there could be moved out and put into Ang Mo Kio GRC – which, no matter what, is still much stronger“. If this was not a misquote, it shows even PAP members are of the opinion that their party has control over the electoral boundaries and indirectly implies that the electoral boundaries commission, convened before every general election, is not independent. One wonders why, then, does the PAP take the trouble to credit its hold on power to its good governance and shakes off notions that this is attributed to its often “shift of goalposts” (i.e. change in electoral laws and rules to favour itself), when even its own members are not convinced. Perhaps, to the PAP, both are factors but then again, the counter argument that a truly superior ruling party need not resort to extraordinary tactics to win has been repeated enough already. Discrediting the ‘new media’ Article written for The Online Citizen and published on 11 February 2009. Special thanks to TOC Editorial Team for edits and permission to reprise it. Rear-Admiral (NS) Lui Tuck Yew, who is Senior Minister of State for Information, Communications and the Arts, recently expressed disappointment with netizens for what he felt were “unkind comments” over the mishap involving PAP MP Seng Han Thong. During a grassroots event in Yio Chu Kang SMC last month, Mr Seng was torched by an elderly resident, Ong Kah Chua, and suffered serious burns. The Straits Times also interviewed Aw Chui Seng, the grassroots leader who was injured in the same attack while sacrificing himself to save Mr Seng, which saw him describe netizens as “inhuman” and “extreme”. Are these a continuation of attempts by the mainstream media to discredit the “new media” (a term the internet is popularly known as)? After all, sweeping statements have been made by the mainstream media against the new media on various occasions, most notably by the Straits Times’ “Chua sisters” – Chua Lee Hoong and Chua Mui Hoong, examples as shown in the below quotes: “Anonymous bloggers and grandstanding kopitiam rabble rousers aside, I am doubtful if many right-thinking Singaporeans seriously think Mr Wong should resign over one lapse in one of his agencies.” - Chua Mui Hoong, “Beyond witch-hunts to sanction for lapses” (ST, 23 April 2008) “The problem with the Internet is reliability: To what extent can you trust what you read online? Whether due to ignorance, mischief or sheer absence of quality control, much of what is written online has to be taken with a pinch of salt.” - Chua Lee Hoong, “Political challenges in 2009″ (ST, 3 January 2009) Oddly, from what I have come across, the derisions of Mr Seng were hardly rampant in the socio-political spectrum of cyberspace, which encompasses primarily bloggers and online forummers. Absent were any bloggers, identified or anonymous, mocking Mr Seng over the unfortunate incident. On the contrary, several of them, including sympathisers of Singapore’s political opposition, expressed sympathies for Mr Seng and wished him a speedy recovery. True, there were forummers armed with callous remarks and graphics but they did not constitute the majority either, bearing in mind that a handful of participants in an online forum cannot represent an entire slate of a few hundred or a few thousand registrants. On my part was an article in my Chinese blog examining the potential causes of more senior citizens developing mental illnesses, attributing mainly to the increasing pressure in Singapore society and their inability to retire. When RAdm Lui brought this to light in Parliament on 4 February 2009, he obviously had, intentionally or otherwise, drawn from a very small sampling and not a very significant portion of the new media’s population. As for Mr Aw, I am unsure if he accesses the internet or browse socio-political websites because many people of his generation do not and if so, he might probably be fed the wrong information, most likely by the ST reporters interviewing him. Generally, netizens are predominantly not as “beastly” as what the mainstream media makes them out to be by refusing to be specific about the level or originators of such derisions, in particular bloggers whose channels and readerships require more efforts to establish and maintain and would be foolish to squander their own efforts. Why such a portrayal? Although the effects of new media are limited, it is a useful tool to disseminate information of opposition parties as well as independent groups and garnering 1% of Singaporeans’ eyeballs beats garnering none at all, as what it was before the internet came into existence. While the socio-political sphere is largely critical of the PAP government, it is due to the political circumstance that results in this and with voters of opposition political party candidates being under-represented, they have nowhere else to head to. To put it in a fair manner, the ruling PAP gets more power it deserves and more flak, while the opposition parties in Parliament, namely the Workers’ Party and the SDA, do not take much of the heat with the understanding that it does not receive much executive delegation. This outcome stems from the reality that the Singapore government, along with several countries with enduring governments, such as in Malaysia and China, cultivates its national mainstream media to restrict it broadly in the areas of policies and politics with authority, making the presence of online alternative views desirable to carry the service of balancing the information dished out by these channels. Unless the online acts are illegal, the internet can never be regulated or self-regulate, with only each netizen or blogger able to determine the direction he or she wishes to embark on. Doing so would be akin to regulating a daily life aspect like sleeping or talking because cyberspace is a mirror of the real world, which is how the word “netizen” originates from “citizens”. Anyway, the PAP does not believe that most Singaporeans are suitable to belong in their ranks, with its emphasis on “credibility” and “talent” for their leadership and candidature. So why would they expect “lesser-mortal” netizens to express themselves the PAP way? Being an uncontrollable medium, there would surely be a fair share of distortions and the PAP is neither the only political party that encounters them nor is the mainstream media not guilty of the same. From my experience, the WP once had an impromptu visit by a seedy blogger to its weekly open house in the pretext of finding out more about it, pulling along another who, ironically, would be in an apparent position to provide him with honest information. Later, a journalistic review was penned, with misleading pictures as well as quotes taken during private conversations from a WP Central Executive Council member and those present there that day, without informing them that they were being interviewed. Apart from these rare instances, in fact, rarer than how the mainstream garbles the perceptions of the WP and other opposition parties over the years, netizens and bloggers are fine and should not be painted into an absolutely different light. A reversal of roles? In democratic legislatures around the world, the president, or the prime minister, and his cabinet are the most grilled personalities whenever a debate ensues. Known for its “Uniquely Singapore” traits, the most grilled in Singapore’s Parliament are, conversely, opposition Members of Parliament, courtesy of its lopsided political balance and exclusively partisan mindsets of MPs from the ruling party with an overwhelming majority. When Workers’ Party Secretary-general and Hougang MP Low Thia Khiang raised his disagreements with the new Jobs Credit policy in the 2009 Budget Debate three days ago, a barrage of PAP MPs, mostly from the PAP co-opted National Trades Union Congress, stood up one after another to counter him, as if he is the one most accountable to the nation. Even the local media had lost count of the number of MPs responding to Mr Low – some whom stood up more than once – with the Straits Times reporting it as six and TODAY stating seven (the former is the accurate figure). Also rare was a ST senior writer mentioning that these PAP MPs did not grasp Mr Low’s point and the publication of a letter to the same newspaper’s forum in support of his views, which goes to show that this incident had probably crossed logical tolerance levels. As an organisation that touts itself to be a caregiver of workers, did these NTUC-representing PAP MPs grill the PM or the Finance and Manpower ministers with equal zeal, which ideally should be the case? Not forgetting that apart from Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong, who was grilled to nearly the same extent as Mr Low, two other PAP MPs had expressed reservations about the Job Credits scheme themselves – and they neither belonged to the trade union movement nor were questioned in a similar manner. Like a lecturer, Mr Low had to expound the WP’s “national stand” to the PAP MPs in “opposition” to him, and to the House, which looked rather ironic if one examines the roles each of them were supposed to fill. After all, even if the WP presented a detailed, extensive alternative, it would not have the authority to implement it to warrant this amount of scrutiny, something the Jobs Credit idea deserved more but failed to manifest, and the PAP government would also not take it up at this point of time or be expected to laud it. With a single-dominant political party landscape, the essentials of Parliamentary democracy will cease to function effectively, resulting in this one of many outcomes, and I am unsure if the electorate knows what it misses through its voting choice, as much as its decision ought to be respected.