FEER: Pressure builds on Singapore’s system Hugo Restall Far Eastern Economic Review During the national Day festivities last month, Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s gloomy prognosis for the economy—a “bumpy year” ahead—was overshadowed by even more dire warnings that the city state is about to start running low on its main resource, people. With an aging society and one of the lowest fertility rates in the world at 1.29, the government is pulling out all the stops, doubling the budget of baby-making incentives to $1.13 billion. Meanwhile, in order to make Singapore a more tolerant and pluralistic place, political videos will be allowed, as well as protests in a downtown park. It’s all straight from the ruling People’s Action Party’s standard playbook. Play up the anxiety of a small nation beset on all sides, in need of a strong government to take positive action to avert disaster. Individual citizens who are failing to live up to the expectations of society need to be brought back into line. At the same time, leaders are willing to give those citizens a few of their rights back, as long as they are not used to undermine harmony. Since Mr. Lee took over the premiership in 2004, Singaporeans have been watching for any sign he plans to reform substantially the authoritarian state created by his father, Singapore’s founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew. So far there has been little indication that in his heart the prime minister is a liberal democrat. But the system of control is coming under increasing stress due to the changing structure of society. A process of subtle change will continue to be driven by pressure from below, rather than a change of heart at the top. Last month’s gestures far fall short of lifting what the opposition calls the climate of fear—past experience, such as the detention of former Solicitor General Francis Seow in 1988, suggests that retribution for challenging the PAP can come in many forms, from bureaucratic harassment to detention without trial under the Internal Security Act. The government is making a virtue out of necessity by lifting the 10-year-old ban on making or showing political films, and allowing political podcasts during election campaigns. Oppositionists were successfully skirting the restrictions, so that they only served to hamstring the PAP’s own efforts to utilize online media. The opening of a protest area is a token gesture, which no doubt will be raised to deflect international criticism the next time police arrest dissident politician Chee Soon Juan for illegal assembly. In that sense, the move suggested that Mr. Chee’s campaign of civil disobedience is causing some heartburn within the regime. But the real problem is not Mr. Chee—the stressors on Singapore’s political machine lie elsewhere. The PAP’s legitimacy has always rested on its performance, backed by trust in the party. Given its chaotic past and neighbors, Lee Kuan Yew argued, the tiny country could not afford the risks associated with liberal democracy. In the past that argument was largely taken at face value by the Chinese working class, despite the experiences of other Asian nations that contradicted it. Today, however, there is more apathy than agreement. No one seriously questions the PAP’s track record of governance or probity of its top leaders, yet trust is giving way to resentment at the party’s arrogance. The main proof is in the erosion of the party’s share of the popular vote in elections. In 2006, it hit 66.6%, down from 75% in 2001, and 75.6% in 1980. In the past, opposition parties deliberately refrained from contesting more than half of the seats, since they found that while some Singaporeans wanted to cast a protest vote, they would not vote for the opposition if there was any chance the PAP would be thrown out of office. But in 2006, the opposition contest 47 of 84 seats, suggesting that the PAP’s hold on voters’ loyalty is not as fearsome as before. Why is this? For one thing, Singaporeans are better versed in critical thinking. During the 1980s and ‘90s, people may have grown wealthy, but they remained politically unsophisticated. Development happened so quickly that it took decades for education levels to catch up. According to the government statistics, between 1990 and 2005 the percentage of the population with a university degree grew to 17% from 4.5%. That is matched by an even more dramatic shift in individual age cohorts—in 2005, 32.1% of 30-34 year olds had a university degree, as compared to just 6.6% of 50-54 year olds. The language spoken at home is now predominantly English, meaning that Singaporeans are increasingly able to learn about and interact with the outside world. Moreover, the PAP has pushed the economic structure of the country in a direction that is no longer win-win for all classes. A certain amount of economic inequality is tolerable as long as there is a sense that everyone’s lives are improving. But inequality and real hardship are on the rise, as inflation running at 6.5% erases the 3.3% wage gains that the poorest tenth of the population enjoyed last year, even as the top tenth picked up an 11.1% increase in income. PAP loyalists control a lucrative web of government-linked companies, while ministers have also picked up big pay rises, since their salaries are indexed to the private sector, making them some of the world’s highest paid politicians. As for social mobility, the top scholarships, which are a ticket into the elite, increasingly go to students from wealthy families that live in private apartments, rather than public housing. Despite this trend, the PAP is unwilling to dismantle its policies of holding wages low in order to attract multinational companies to invest. This was a strategy born of necessity in the 1960s, when Singapore was short of capital and struggling to catch up with Hong Kong’s model of creating an export-oriented growth. Today it is economically obsolete, yet it suits the government politically because the combination of state-owned companies and politically quiescent multinationals prevents the emergence of an independent commercial class that might push for political change. The result is a top-down economy which is running up against the limits of its capacity to drive growth. Without an entrepreneurial class and successful home-grown companies, Singapore’s productivity growth has historically lagged behind that of its laissez-faire twin, Hong Kong. As University of Chicago economist Alwyn Young showed in a 1992 paper, Singapore had one of the lowest returns on physical capital in the world. Its growth has been fueled by forced savings programs shoveling ever increasing amounts of capital into the furnace, rather than by innovation or managerial efficiency. Mr. Lee’s administration has found that the only way to defuse public dissatisfaction is to do something the PAP consistently condemned as the hallmark of Western democracies: Give away money. The government used to damn welfare as a dirty word, yet transfer spending is on the rise. This year, $2.1 billion in giveaways were planned. Then last month Mr. Lee announced a 50% increase, totaling $179.8 million, in utility rebates and “growth dividends”—cash payments to households that started in 2006. The new prime minister has brought in other social spending programs for the poor. For instance in the 2008 budget, the Ministry of Manpower’s expenditure rose by 184%, almost entirely due to a new scheme of workfare, the $306 million Income Security Policy Programme. The pressure for more entitlements will only grow as retirees find that their savings do not provide enough of a cushion. The compulsory government-run Central Provident Fund sucked up a huge percentage of income to finance the state’s development goals, but offered dismally low returns. As a result, many of the generation that built the Singapore miracle now finds itself eking out a retirement in public housing while the government surpluses remain under the management of the PAP. Beside the carrot, there is also a stick. Starting in 1985, the PAP began to warn voters that if they supported the opposition, their government-built apartment buildings would not get priority for maintenance. This was gradually refined to the point that in 1997, then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong explicitly campaigned on the promise that individual precincts would get housing renovation spending according to their votes. When the U.S. State Department condemned this as undemocratic, the interference of foreigners was used as another rallying cry. Indeed, it seems that Singapore is increasingly cursed with the shortcomings of a democracy without enjoying the benefits. During the 2006 campaign, Prime Minister Lee inadvertently blurted out his fears of what would happen if there were more opposition members of parliament: “Instead of spending my time thinking what is the right policy for Singapore, I’m going to spend all my time thinking what’s the right way to fix them, to buy my supporters’ votes….” Putting aside the ominous sound of “fixing” opponents, the remark was ironic because the PAP now expends so much effort to buy the support of the populace with giveaways, all in order to avoid the transparency and accountability that a vibrant opposition would bring. Some younger Singaporeans with skills respond to this by voting with their feet, moving abroad to find greater freedom and a higher standard of living working with the kind of entrepreneurial companies that Singapore has yet to create. In order to eventually win some of them back, the possibility of recognizing dual nationality is increasingly discussed, a move that would represent a huge concession for a nation-building party that demands self-reliance and sacrifice of its citizenry. In the place of the émigrés, foreign workers are flooding in to man the factories, docks and construction sites, as the government steadily opens the doors wider. Foreign workers already account for more than one million of the total population of 4.6 million. Among the immigrants are talented individuals like the Chinese table tennis players who provided the country with its first Olympic medal last month. But they lack the loyalty to the country that the PAP has put a premium on. If Singapore were a plural democracy, it would no doubt have developed an independent civil society capable of binding together the native-born and immigrants, providing mutual support. But the PAP and Lee Kuan Yew are like the African baobab tree, whose spreading canopy hogs the sun and prevents other trees from growing up underneath. Such a society may be easier to control, but it is also alienated and rootless, jealous of others’ gains—the oft-quoted national characteristic, kiasu, literally means “fear of losing.” In a developed economy that depends on attracting and retaining creative individuals, this has become a significant handicap. The arrogance of the winners in society is becoming a major issue. The elder Mr. Lee’s ego is legendary, but given his accomplishments it is perhaps understandable. When his minions take on similar airs, however, it is a different story. In one extreme example two years ago, a furor erupted after the daughter of MP Wee Siew Kim used her blog to berate a man afraid of losing his job as “one of many wretched, undermotivated, overassuming leeches in our country” who should “get out of my elite uncaring face.” To make matters worse, Mr. Wee tried to defend her remarks. Naturally the PAP is aware of these trends and that its monopoly on power has become an important issue in itself. Over the years it has tried to come up with mechanisms for citizens to register their complaints and blow off steam. The government no longer seeks to destroy all opposition, leaving alone and even praising those tame MPs who focus on constituents’ issues rather than the PAP’s system of social control. Yet ultimately there is no solution to this problem, since the party is unwilling to share power in any meaningful sense. A siege mentality has been the hallmark of Singaporean politics for four decades, often with good justification given hostile neighboring governments to the north and south. Yet it is increasingly hard today to see how that anxiety can be justified and maintained. The generation now coming onto the political scene grew up in at least moderate prosperity, and may not be so easily bullied into voting for the PAP. It is eager to put down roots and create a civil society. So far the PAP has finessed this aspiration without compromising its control. Prime Minister Lee can afford to be sanguine for now, with the security apparatus, corporatist economy and civil service all at his command. Yet if this economic downturn worsens, he will be confronted with a more difficult choice of whether to accede to demands for greater pluralism. As academic Michael Haas once wrote, “Whenever the public exercises the independence of thought that better education brings, ‘a danger to be nipped in the bud’ or some similar cliché is articulated as the basis for repression.” It bears remembering that the laws like the Internal Security Act that have been used in past such exercises remain on the books. If pushed too hard, Lee Hsien Loong still has the means to prove he is his father’s son. Mr. Restall is editor of the REVIEW. Malaysiakini: Who is a Singaporean ? By Jeremy Fernando On the evening of Aug 17 2008, Singaporeans were faced with a dilemma: do we cheer for the table-tennis girls that are standing on podium at the Beijing Olympics?   On the one hand, this was the first Olympics medal that Singapore has won for the last 48 years. On the other hand, many were still skeptical whether these athletes – donning Singapore colours – were actually Singaporean at all: after all, they were born in China and had been acquired by the Foreign Talent Scheme to boost our sporting success.     The overall reaction was rather predictable: “of course we are glad that Singapore won a medal, but only if the girls were actual Singaporeans.” And in this you see the typical liberal reaction of “yes all is good, but if only it was better.” The question that we have to ask of course it, “what is this better that we are thinking of?” Clearly the discomfort that arises is a question of nationality, or more precisely, the issue of ‘what constitutes a Singaporean’, and by extension what makes us who we are.  And as if by a gut-reaction we reach for the time-tested notion of Singaporean-ness being defined by whether someone was born within the geographical boundaries of the country.   Read rest of article here What Anwar’s Malaysian Economic Agenda means for Singapore By Lim Siow Kuan, Malaysian Correspondent As the purported date for the takeover of the Malaysian federal government by opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim looms nearer, Singaporeans must be wondering what a Pakatan-led government in Kuala Lumpur have in store for them. Anwar has vowed to replace the 4 decade old New Economic Policy (NEP) which he claimed benefitted only a select group of well-connected Malays at the expense of the needy with his Malaysian Economic Agenda (MEA) espousing a more equitable distribution of the country’s wealth. In a report published by online news portal Malaysiakini, Anwar Ibrahim reiterated he would dismantle the controversial New Economic Policy (NEP) if he seizes power. Needless to say, the country’s Chinese and Indian minorities who have long suffered under the discriminatory practices of the NEA rush to throw their support behind Anwar’s Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) en masse. What surprises political observers is that the Malay ground not only accepts but embraces Anwar’s radical concept as well as evident by his resounding victory in the recent Permatang Pauh by-election where 70% of the electorate is Malay. Will Anwar, once a firebrand Islamic radical and an architect of Malaysia’s Islamization in the 1980s and 90s, really do away with a race-based affirmative action plan which has served his community’s interests over the year ? While Anwar’s political pedigree as a former Deputy Prime Minister and Deputy President of UMNO may have casted doubts in the minds of his allies (the secular Democratic Action Party and the Islamic PAS) initially, he appeared to have won them over with his consistent message that the time has come for a new dawn in Malaysian politics, one which emphasized on unity, meritocracy and justice.  He inspired many with a proclaimation to be a leader of all Malaysians: “Anak melayu saya, anak cina saya, anak India saya” (the malay is my child, the chinese is my child and the indian is my child) The reinvention and rehabilitation of Anwar Ibrahim into a Malaysian leader for all Malaysians regardless of race had propelled him to the brink of becoming Prime Minister, a post which has since deluded him since he was sacked from government rather unceremoniously 10 years ago. Riding on mass support from the Chinese and Indians as well as a tectonic shift in the Malay mindset especially amongst the young, his opposition coalition, the Pakatan Rakyat won an unprecedented 82 seats in the March General Election, denying the ruling Barisan Nasional its traditional two-thirds majority in Parliament. As Malaysia celebrates its 51st Merdeka with renewed hope for a long-waited political revolution, few on both sides of the causeway would have remembered the call for a “Malaysian Malaysia” was first made by Singapore’s Mr Lee Kuan Yew in the 1960s when Singapore was still part of the Federation. In a speech to the Malaysian Parliament, Lee articulated strongly against a discriminatory race-based policy at the expense of the ethnic Chinese and Indian minority long before the NEP was formulated and implemented in the 1970s and Anwar Ibrahim’s plans for a new MEA: “Of course there are Chinese millionaires in big cars and big houses. Is it the answer to make a few Malay millionaires with big cars and big houses? How does telling a Malay bus driver that he should support the party of his Malay director (UMNO) and the Chinese bus conductor to join another party of his Chinese director (MCA) - how does that improve the standards of the Malay bus driver and the Chinese bus conductor who are both workers in the same company? If we delude people into believing that they are poor because there are no Malay rights or because opposition members oppose Malay rights, where are we going to end up? You let people in the kampongs believe that they are poor because we don’t speak Malay, because the government does not write in Malay, so he expects a miracle to take place in 1967 (the year Malay would become the national and sole official language in Malaysia). The moment we all start speaking Malay, he is going to have an uplift in the standard of living, and if doesn’t happen, what happens then? Meanwhile, whenever there is a failure of economic, social and educational policies, you come back and say, oh, these wicked Chinese, Indian and others opposing Malay rights. They don’t oppose Malay rights. They, the Malay, have the right as Malaysian citizens to go up to the level of training and education that the more competitive societies, the non-Malay society, has produced. That is what must be done, isn’t it? Not to feed them with this obscurantist doctrine that all they have got to do is to get Malay rights for the few special Malays and their problem has been resolved “ Lee’s fervent belief in a fair and just government for all Malaysians led him to cross swords with several radicals in UMNO leading to the eventual expulsion of Singapore from Malaysia in 1965. Lee made no secret of his bitter anguish and disappointment when Singapore gained independence: “For me, it is a moment of anguish. All my life, my whole adult life, I believed in merger and unity of the two territories.” 43 years later, while the NEP has created a new middle class of Malays in Malaysia, it is not exaggerating to say that Singapore has benefitted from it as well. As a result of marginalization of the Chinese under the NEP which denied their smartest students places in universities and careers in the public sector,  many Malaysian Chinese flocked to Singapore in search of a betterr future to study and work making invaluable contributions to the island’s developement and progress into Southeast Asia’s richest country today quite not unlike the French Hugenots’ migration to Britain in the 18th century. Linguistically and culturally close to their brethen in Singapore, Malaysian Chinese generally have few problems assimilating into Singapore society with many of them becoming leaders in various fields. Almost half of Singapore’s post-independent cabinet are born in Malaysia including Minister of Finance Goh Keng Swee and Minister of Law E W Barker. Singapore’s current Health Minister Mr Khaw Boon Wan was born in Penang and Ho Ching, recently voted in Forbes as the World’s No 8 most powerful woman, hailed from Kuala Lumpur. The constant efflux of Chinese from Malaysia to Singapore and other parts of the world had led to decline in the ethnic Chinese population on the peninsula from 30% in 1965 to less than 25% now. What if these Malaysian-born Chinese currently working in Singapore chose to serve their land of birth instead of us ? It does not take an economist to realize that Malaysia will be a more potent competitor to Singapore. In recent years, Malaysia has demonstrated its desire and ambition not only to catch up with Singapore, but to overtake us as the economic powerhouse in the regioin. The expansive new KL International Airport has already pipped Singapore’s Changi Airport to the title as the world’s best airport, The port of Tanjung Pelapas at Johor has emerged as a potent threat to Singapore’s previously indisputable position as a strategic port of call in the Straits of Malacca. As Malaysia continues its painful transformation from an agricultural to a knowledge-based economy, the NEP has become its Achille heel in its quest to surpass Singapore. Not only Anwar, but many Malay leaders including the NEP’s chief architect, ex-premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad have realized the increasingly irrevelance of the NEP in today’s rapidly changing world. Young, educated and urbane Malays who are products of the NEP itself have also spoken out against it and appear receptive to a complete revamp of the entire system as evident by Anwar’s stunning electoral gains. The last Malay leader to espouse an equal Malaysia for all races is none other than UMNO’s founder himself, Tun Onn Jaafar. He did not receive any support from his fellow Malays and was consigned to the political dustheap. Anwar Ibrahim may stand a better chance this time to convinced his community that Malaysia is ready for change. Anwar’s proposed plans to abolish the NEP together with a budget to to cut down the deficit, lower taxes and fuel prices, stimulate investments and adopt open tenders for government contracts will undoubtably enhance Malaysia’s competitiveness and in a way a subtle threat to Singapore’s economic dominance in the region. Carefully and meticulously implemented, it may even stem the present brain drain to Singapore and reverse it. Malaysia, with its plentiful land and relative low cost of living has the potential to offer a higher quality of life than Singapore’s cramped and hectic lifestyle. While it remains to be seen if Anwar’s repeated claims to topple the Malaysian government by 16 September 2008 will materialize, Singaporeans should start bracing themselves for an impending economic tsunami to arrive across the causeway sooner rather than later. Malaysia has finally come of age after 51 years. The Malays, who have gained the most from the NEP are ready to give up their long assured special privileges in exchange for a more transparent, accountable and efficient mode of governance which will put Malaysia in good stead to challenge Singapore in the long run. Waiting for Singapore’s Pakatan Rakyat By Fang Zhi Yuan According to a report published by The Malaysian Insider, more than 90 per cent of young voters aged 21 - 30 voted for Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim in the recent Permatang Pauh by-election. One key reason for Anwar’s empathic victory over his Barisan Nasional (BN) opponent lies in the fact that young internet savvy voters obtain their news chiefly from the pro-opposition alternative media which are seen as more credible than the mainstream media controlled by the ruling party. They simply do not buy the dirt that BN has heaped on Anwar through the mainstream media. Young educated and urbane voters are also more concerned about good governance, human rights and democratic ideals than basic bread-and-butter issues. In spite of feeable attempts to engage young voters, the ruling Barisan Nasional has failed miserably to win them over. What they don’t realize is that younger Malaysians will only support a political party which shares their aspirations, not one that continues to lecture them. In Singapore, the recent furore over People’s Action Party (PAP) MP Lee Bee Wah’s perceived high-handness in a media interview to replace the Singapore Olympic Table Tennis Team manager and coach so soon after winning the silver medal in Beijing marked only the tip of the ice-berg of a groundswell of discontent building up against the ruling party. Many are quick to point out that Mrs Lee’s attitude reflects the typical modus operandi of the PAP - insensitive, callous and arrogant. Some even called her to step down as a Member of Parliament. Youth and Sports Minister Vivian Balakrishnan, perhaps realizing the political repercussions of a protracted saga moved in quickly to smoothe the flames with a rare public apology by Mrs Lee. However, irreversible damage has already been done, making another dent at the PAP’s image and reputation as an overbearing authoritarian control freak. Decades of one-party rule without the presence of an opposition to provide a counterbalance has made the ruling PAP complacent and out of touch with the ordinary citizenry. Singaporeans, especially the young are getting increasingly restless, disgrunted and peeved at the current state of affairs. Like our Malaysian counterparts, we yearn for the competency, accountability and transparency (CAT) as espoused by Penang Chief Minister Mr Lim Guan Eng in the formulation and implementation of government policies. We hate to be lectured repeatedly by the PAP and have unpopular policies forced down our throats without any proper consultation such as the GST hike, annuity scheme and rise in Ministers’ salaries. The PAP must have realized that it is entering a new era where perceptions of the populace is easily shaped and influenced by the online media, hence its recent token move to liberalize the political landscape to allow political podcasts and public protests at a designated area. The Malaysian government had a meeting last week to discuss the impact of the new media on their continued stranglehold on power. The conclusion is sombre: by the next GE, there will be 2 million new voters, most of which will vote for the opposition. If the Barisan Nasional continue to ignore this emerging trend, they will be voted out of the government in the next GE. I am sure our astute PAP leaders are not ignorant to this unsavory fact. Unfortunately, there is no real risk of the PAP losing power in the near future as compared to its Malaysian counterpart because there is no Anwar Ibrahim in Singapore to unite the weak and fragmented opposition. Without an united opposition to galvanize Singaporeans long fed up with the PAP, it is highly unlikely the PAP hegemony will be broken. The “largest” opposition in Parliament has only 2 seats out of which one is a “gift” bestowed by the PAP on the “best loser” during the last GE. The de facto opposition “leader” Mr Low Thia Kiang of the Workers’ Party (WP) was widely discredited as being a Trojan horse in the opposition, offering only feeble opposition to the PAP while legitimizing its’ dubious “mandate”. (WP’s organizing secretary Yaw Shin Leong admitted to voting for PAP during the last GE and is proud of it) On the other hand, the real voice and conscience of the opposition, Dr Chee Soon Juan of the Singapore Democractic Party (SDP), is banned from electoral politics for the foreseeable future due to his status as a bankrupt. Even if he is free to participate, his popularity and electability with the pragmatic Singapore voters is a suspect as a result of a decade-long media campaign to demonize him. (SDP’s vote of shares has been sliding since 1991 when it won an unprecedented 3 seats in Parliament). Singapore’s long-suffering opposition icon Mr Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam who formed the Reform Party this year, is already 84 and there are valid concerns on whether his health permits him to contest in the next GE. The political situation on the ground for Singapore’s opposition is grim. Without a viable alternative coalition in the mould of Malaysia’s Pakatan Rakyat (consisting of three opposition parties - Parti Keadilan Rakyat, Democratic Action Party and Parti Islam SeMalaysia), Singaporeans will have no choice but to continue to vote for the PAP though deep down inside their hearts, they have little enthusiasm or belief in a future dependent on the PAP running the country. I for one, cannot fathom why the opposition parties in Singapore just simply cannot stand together on the same platform in the spirit of solidarity against the PAP while Mr Anwar is able to weave together quite a formidable coalition from disparate parties such as the secular Democratic Action Party (DAP) and the Islamist Parti Islam SeMalaysia (PAS). Singaporeans have become depoliticized over the years of adversarial politics promulgated by the PAP. Even the PAP acknowledged it had problems recruiting new members into its ranks let alone the already decimated opposition camp which continues to be helmed by a few senior leaders hailing from the 1970s and 80s. Apathy breeds disillusion and disillusion eventually leads to despair. While many are resigned to their fates, more and more Singaporeans especially the upper-middle class are opting to vote with their feet - by taking their money out of PAP-controlled CPF to start life afresh in a new land. (Well, why should they allow their hard-earned money to be misused to bail out ailing US banks without their consent?) Mr Anwar Ibrahim’s call for a second Merdeka has inspired countless of young Malaysians to join his cause. At this juncture in time, the Pakatan Rakyat is on the threshold of seizing power in the federal government. In Singapore, where the local population is increasingly becoming diluted, marginalized and even oppressed by an uncontrolled influx of foreigners, this second Merdeka continue to be a distant dream. Meanwhile, the wait for Singapore’s Pakatan Rakyat to liberate the masses from the clutches of a draconian autocracy remains as forlorn as ever. The great WAYANG KULIT LTK The greatest WAYANG KULIT LTK thinks he can hide behind a veil of vague nonsense and pass off his cheap bullshit as being a moderate opposition. In reality, LTK is not interested in providing any strong challenge to the PAP, but only in playing the role of an obedient poodle waiting for scraps to fall off the table of its Master. LTK is no understanding of basic issues like democracy, what the Constitution provides, what it means to be a credible opposition, or even fundamental issues like the nature of parliamentary democracy. At most LTK can hookwink uneducated Singaporeans into believing he is standing up for them and challenging govt policies on their behalf, but well read Singaporeans will have no problems seeing through his muddled and confused double-talk and his great pretense at trying to pass himself as a true opposition parliamentarian. LTK is a fake, a wayang, a deceitful venal low life form charlatan with no political conviction of his own apart from trying to get a share of the PAP rule. He has no interest in opposing the PAP at all. His WAYANG PARTY believes that the PAP laws are fair and just, when the PAP has detained its opponents under the ISA and have won numerous defamation suits against opposition leaders. His WAYANG PUKIS brag about voting PAP on their blogs, and when criticized, they offer no apology and say their “conscience is clear”. LTK is a dishonest and uneducated ill-bred charlatan who can even stoop so LOW as to criticize and put down the western parliamentary system just to bolster his own shoddy brand of wayang politics as being superior. LTK does not even know the history of parliamentary democracy, let alone able to criticize it. The WAYANG PUKIS give so many lame excuses why they cannot do this or cannot do that, why they cannot offer alternative policies, when in fact opposition parties all around the world regularly offer alternative policies and propose intelligent alternatives. Just look no further than Malaysia. Look no further than what Anwar Ibrahim is doing. LTK’s vacuous assertions of “Politics should be responsible politics” and “Opposition should be a watchdog, not a mad dog”, while being true statements in themselves, are in this context nothing but silly and childish attempts at diverting attention from the fact that the WAYANG PARTY has been seriously underperforming and not living up to the mark of a true opposition party. LTK’s lame, nonsensical and empty rhetoric may fool simple-minded voters, but will never fool educated Singaporeans who can spot cheap low-class bullshit when they see it. The WAYANG PARTY is suggesting we should just vote for it even though it is not prepared to form an alternative govt even in 20 years. If the WAYANG PARTY is not prepared to challenge the PAP, they should just SAVE WHATEVER FACE THEY HAVE LEFT, EXIT THE OPPOSITION SCENE, and leave the hard work of opposition politics for real opposition parties like the Reform Party and SDP who are not only willing to provide a robust challenge, but also are prepared to work towards forming an alternative govt one day. LTK is full of wishy-washy hogwash and cowardly antics that only serve to strength PAP’s political hegemony and allow PAP to pass Singapore off as a sham democracy. The sham opposition WAYANG PARTY is the greatest hindrance to democratic progress in Singapore. Source: http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread.php?t=346 NSP candidate Goh Meng Seng defends net posting of topless woman‏ National Solidarity Party candidate Mr Goh Meng Seng has said that there is nothing wrong with posting pictures of topless women online. The discussion began in the Sammyboy’s legacy coffeeshop forum ( http://forums.delphiforums.com/sammyboymod/ ) when some forummers mentioned an incident that happened a few years back when one forummer using the moniker of PMonkey10 posted a picture of a topless woman with large breasts. In the latest discussion thread, some people defended PMonkey10’s actions, one of whom was Goh Meng Seng. Goh Meng Seng said that PMonkey10’s posting was not pornographic, and that PMonkey10’s detractors are deprived people who “are really stuck here with no porn in Singapore.” See: http://forums.delphiforums.com/sammyboymod/messages?msg=184415.276 Goh Meng Seng also said “It seems that they do not understand what “PORN” stands for; sexually arousing is the key! But they keep thinking that anything to do with baring breast will automatically considered as “PORN”! How narrow could one’s mind is?” See: http://forums.delphiforums.com/sammyboymod/messages?msg=184415.319 Goh Meng Seng’s controversial stand was not taken lightly, and the discussion thread has since heated up to over 400 postings. I think many netizens are taken back by Goh Meng Seng’s position that posting pictures of topless women is not necessarily considered pornographic, especially since he is a public figure who is supposed to appeal to the more conservative masses. Janice Loo   A sign of paradigm shift in the PAP’s mindset ? By Fang Zhi Yuan The Singapore media, ranked  147th by Reporters without frontiers on its latest Press Freedom Index, is constantly being ridiculed and villified by its detractors for being a stooge of the PAP government, in short “The PAP Times”. Not only does it churns out daily PAP propaganda to poison and brainwash the minds of Singaporeans (I admit that I am one of its “victims” for the last 18 years before the advent of the internet) to mould them into “obedient, subservient and unthinking citizens”, it is also an indirect conduit for the PAP to monitor the sentiments on the ground through the ST Forum. Though we know the PAP is an arrogant political behemoth which will never admit its mistakes, it is actually more adverse to public opinion than we have thought. To put it succinctly, it knows cleverly when to “steer the wheel according to the winds”. When it knows it is running against the mill, it will not hesitate to fine-tune, tone down and moderate its rhetoric and stance. The recent IBA’s critique of Singapore’s human rights record is a slap on the face of the PAP which had spent much time and resources courting the organization. Though it carried a robust defense to exonerate itself through the state media to the extent of dismissing them as a ”Western conspiracy to do us in”, it is well aware that in this digital era where information is widely availabe at the click of a button, most Singaporeans especially the young IT-savvy, remains unconvinced by its desperate attempts to redeem its bruised credibility, if there is any left in the first place. As such it is not surprising to see a subtle yet significant shift in the state media’s stance on human rights. Initially it tried perhaps too hard to propagate the PAP’s view that human rights is a western fallacy that is inapplicable and irrelevant to the Singaporean context amid some blatant character assassination. Now it appeared to have taken a more conciliatory and balanced approach bereft of the usual political rhetoric as evident by two articles published in the Straits Times today. In “Human rights: Not whether, but what to debate“, Chua Mui Hoong (the sister of the “Dr” Chua Lee Hoong, the self-proclaimed psychiatrist who diagnosed Dr Chee to be suffering from a personality disorder) tried to put things into perspective by arguing that the two opposing prevailing views of human rights are not mutually exclusive of each other and it is more productive to look at its content and relevance to Singapore. She even offered a mild rebuttal to the PAP’s rigid hardline attitude towards foreign criticism: “But this assertion of sovereignty over political discourse should not close our minds to what has merit in foreign criticism of Singapore.” The next article “The biggest conundrum in Singapore politics” by Li Xueying bears uncanny similiarities to a communist-style self-confession of faults in which she outlined quite frankly the major grouses and grievances against the PAP such as gerrymandering, GRC, use of HDB upgrading as an electoral carrot and the PAP’s restriction on civil and political rights. She even chided PM Lee for not moving faster in his promise during his swearing-in speech to liberalize the political landscape. The last paragraph strikes me as holding out an olive branch to Dr Chee: “After all, ultimately, everyone is battling for the same team: Singapore”. I are glad that the PAP is aware of the widespread discontent and resentment on the ground against its political high-handness and repression. However, plain empathy alone is still not enough to win back the hearts and minds which have been lost. Unless the PAP reforms itself and the system it entrenched its power in, it is not inconceivable that Singapore ends up being the First World’s Zimbabwe one day. The subliminal shift of the state media to a more middle ground is an indication that the PAP is not so monolith and rigid after all. There are liberals in the party who do not agree with how things are done currently. They are acutely concerned about how Singapore’s image and standing in the international community had taken a battling lately. A first world economy is not commensurate with a third world political system. To the younger generation who are educated and widely traveled, it is not enough just to have basic economic rights such as a roof over our heads. We want equal civil and political rights as rightful citizens and owners of this land to participate in the running of our nation. We do not want to be told all the time by the PAP that only its decisions are right for Singapore and nobody else’s. Does the post-65er MPs in the PAP really understand our concerns, needs and expectations ? I doubt so. Maybe there are some with a reformist streak, but they will be powerless to effect any meaningful changes in the presence of a certain octagenarian. Therefore, I do not expect any paradigm shift in the PAP’s mindset on the whole though the subtle shift in the official stance do suggest there is some introspection in the PAP on recent developments so far. It is time the PAP and the state media stop treating Singaporeans as idiots with no minds of their own. The more it tried to impose its views on us, the more peeved we will be and eventually it will lose its credibility and clout completely if not already so. Let us get this clear that Singapore is built by countless of people - our grandfathers and grandmothers, with their blood and sweat, not by the PAP or one individual. We are not indebted to the PAP forever. We want the best for Singapore and if this involves reforming the entire political system and tossing out a rotten decadent political entity incapable of keeping up with modern times, we should do so without any reservations. Enough is enough. Tak Boleh Tahan ! The Economist: Raising the bar Jul 17th 2008 From The Economist print edition A rare slip-up in court by Singapore’s elder statesman, Lee Kuan Yew MEMBERS of Singapore’s government are notorious sticklers for legal exactitude. So it has been interesting to watch the reaction after the country’s elder statesman, Lee Kuan Yew—a British-trained lawyer before he became a politician—gave inaccurate testimony in the trial of two opposition leaders. In May Mr Lee testified in a hearing to decide damages against Chee Soon Juan, the leader of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), and his sister, Chee Siok Chin, for defaming the former prime minister and his son, Lee Hsien Loong, who is now prime minister himself. Mr Lee senior claimed that after the London-based International Bar Association (IBA) held its annual conference in Singapore last October, its president sent a letter to the Law Society of Singapore praising the country’s justice system. It has since emerged that there was no such laudatory letter. Mr Chee (who along with his sister was briefly jailed for contempt for accusing the judge in his case of bias) tried unsuccessfully to have the hearing reconvened in the light of Mr Lee’s incorrect testimony. Mr Lee’s counsel, Davinder Singh, wrote to the court on July 9th admitting that his client was wrong about the letter but noting that the IBA’s president, Fernando Pombo, had praised Singapore’s “outstanding judiciary” in a speech at the start of the conference. Mr Singh argues that what matters is that the IBA did praise Singaporean justice, not whether it did so in a speech or a letter. Mr Chee says there is a difference: the speech was made before the conference, where criticisms of the justice system were aired. Mr Lee was claiming, in effect, that the IBA was still impressed after this. By coincidence, on July 9th the IBA’s Human Rights Institute issued a report criticising the use of defamation suits by the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) to silence the opposition and the press, and expressing concerns about the independence and impartiality of Singapore’s judges. The law ministry has rejected the IBA’s report, pointing out that Singapore’s legal system has won excellent ratings in other international surveys. Indeed, in cases not involving the country’s leaders, there is no dispute about its quality. As for the IBA’s worries about cases involving PAP figures, the law ministry claims that the IBA failed to substantiate its “grave” allegations with evidence, though its report does discuss several worrying cases. America’s State Department, which is in rather less danger of being sued by the PAP than are the opposition or newspapers, has expressed concern about judicial independence in political cases in Singapore. In its latest human-rights report, in March, the department noted that the PAP’s consistent success in defamation suits against critics “led to a perception that the judiciary reflected the views of the ruling party in politically sensitive cases.” According to the Straits Times newspaper, Mr Lee on July 11th accused human-rights organisations of “a conspiracy to do us in”. He said that they saw that Russia and China had been studying Singapore’s success, and hence regarded it as a threat. Mr Lee and the government argue that doing things their way has made Singapore prosperous, orderly and corruption-free, and has earned international respect. The threat of defamation proceedings may make opposition politicians weigh their words more carefully than they do elsewhere. But Singaporean voters continue to buy the PAP’s argument that such constraints are a price worth paying—so far. Source: The Economist Uniqueness of perfection that sits to our north Michael Backman July 17, 2008 The International Bar Association has found that, when it comes to criticism, Singapore is in no need. A REPORT released last week, Prosperity versus Individual Rights? Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law in Singapore, published by the International Bar Association, provides a fair and balanced account of how Singapore’s Government really operates. It lists 18 recommendations for Singapore to strengthen its rule of law and to better promote a civil society. They are all reasonable, as is the analysis on which they are based. But of course the Singapore Government doesn’t think so. Even though the IBA provided the Singapore Government with a draft of the report, allowed it to comment and then inserted the Government’s views in the final report, the Government still managed to diss the report by the end of last week, just as it disses everything remotely critical. Singapore’s Government is unique among governments around the world: it doesn’t need advice. The report chronicles how human rights are constrained by the Singapore Government and how freedom of speech is in the hands of the police. It lists the media restrictions that ensure the media does not monitor the Government but is more its mouthpiece. It describes the restrictions on the right to assemble. One bizarre practice highlighted is the constitutional requirement for members of parliament to resign if expelled from their elective party, thereby ensuring that elected members do only what their party rather than their constituents or even their conscience tells them. Another aspect mentioned is the cowing of the Singapore Law Society so that even this channel for independent comment on laws and proposed laws has been neutered. Many questions about the independence of the judiciary are raised too. Read rest of article here The role of sham opposition in a one-party state Suppose you were a doctor, and one day you diagnosed a young male adult with a malignant tumour. The only way to cure the patient was through major surgery. What would you do?   Would you just dish out some homely advice about having a proper diet, getting exercise, sleeping well, reducing stress in one’s life, and hope the patient gets better on his own?   Or would you immediately perform surgery on the patient and try to remove the malignant tumour once and for all?   Any qualified doctor would definitely answer that the patient must undergo surgery to remove the tumour. Just asking the patient to eat right, sleep well, would do nothing to cure him. He may end up dying from the tumour no matter how good a diet or sleep habits he adopts.   This is the situation with our local politics at this time. We have a sham opposition which is like a malignant tumour in our political body. It is making us unwell, and we may die a political death if we don’t treat it our condition soon enough.   The sham opposition I’m referring to is the Wayang Party. Why do I call it a sham opposition? It is because over time, we have seen that through its words and actions, it has no real intention of opposing the ruling party, but only making a show and pretending that it is opposing.   People may argue, but the Wayang Party often speaks up in Parliament and criticizes the government. How can you call it a sham opposition? Well, consider these instances: WP Sec-Gen Low Thia Khiang openly gave the PAP a passing grade in governance, and used the media to insinuate that other opposition leaders are “mad dogs”. This remark was made before WP’s 50th anniversary dinner in 2007. WP Chairman Sylvia Lim spoke in the IBA Conference held in Singapore that PAP’s laws are fair and just, and serve as a good benchmark for international standards. This is despite the fact that PAP has detained opposition leaders under ISA, people are denied freedom of speech and assembly, and numerous defamation suits have been won against political opponents. WP (joint) Organizing secretary Yaw Shin Leong openly bragged on his blog that he voted PAP and openly slammed opposition candidate Ling How Doong as a justification. When Yaw was hammered in cyberspace, he maintained that his conscience is clear, and never offered a single word of apology to his supporters. Low Thia Khiang frequently backs down when challenged by PAP MPs. He also remains silent on important issues. For example, when PM Lee asked LTK in Parliament if Wong Kan Seng should resign, LTK kept quiet. PM Lee then passed a sarcastic remark: “No answer. So I guess that settles the point”. By his silence, LTK made the PAP look good, and made the opposition look very bad. One wonders whether LTK is helping the PAP or helping the opposition. The truth is that the Wayang Party only provides token criticism to PAP policies, but they never push through with their challenge, and back down when rebutted. The Wayang Party has praised the PAP on numerous occasions and even attacked other opposition leaders.   In 2001 after JBJ was bankrupted as a result of a defamation suit filed by PAP leaders, Low Thia Khiang held an AGM in which only 31 out of 60 cadres attended. JBJ was absent during this AGM, and LTK became the new Secretary-General of the WP. LTK’s appointment drew the ire of other cadres who considered the AGM illegitimate. A disgruntled faction, led by Goh Yew Chye, considered taking legal action to contest the legitimacy of the AGM. This event was reported by Agence France Presse, a report is archived here: http://www.singapore-window.org/sw01/010607a1.htm   Thereafter, JBJ resigned from the WP, totally disheartened at what had happened. It is clear that LTK had carefully orchestrated JBJ’s exit.   From that point onwards, LTK turned the WP into a Wayang Party, keeping it out of direct confrontation with the ruling party, but only providing superficial challenge and resistance. The PAP in turned has praised the WP for being a responsible opposition, and media coverage of LTK has frequently been positive even though LTK had not said anything of substance.   Why does PAP approve of WP? By having a couple of opposition in Parliament, the PAP can claim that Singapore is a democracy. In reality, Singapore is a sham democracy because the opposition in Parliament has failed to represent the constituents who oppose government policies. The fake opposition has allowed the PAP to claim on the international stage that Singapore is a first world democratic nation, but that is far from the truth. Till today, the PAP has full control of Parliament and is effectively a one-party state.   The presence of the Wayang Party legitimizes PAP’s rule and helps the PAP maintains its dominance and political hegemony. The opposition in parliament has been castrated.   The PAP in turn uses the Wayang Party to check on real oppositions like the Reform Party and SDP. The presence of sham opposition is the greatest threat to the growth of opposition parties who are genuinely interested in challenging the PAP rather than playing second fiddle to the PAP.   The Wayang Party is like a malignant tumour in our political system. If we ignore the fact that WP is a sham opposition, and only focus on voting in more opposition members to Parliament without considering the quality of the candidates, we end up achieving nothing, because the candidates we vote in will not challenge the PAP, but only help PAP perpetuate its rule. In the end, it is like telling a patient with a malignant tumour just to eat and sleep well, but not performing the necessary surgery to remove the tumour. The patient will die in the end.   The Wayang Party is the greatest obstacle to democratic progress in Singapore. We must be prepared to bite the bullet and perform the surgery to remove the Wayang Party first. Otherwise, our political system will forever be unhealthy, no matter how many candidates we vote into Parliament.   Some cyberspace fellows have asked, what can we do about the Wayang Party? There are a lot of things we can do: Stage a complete boycott of the WP. Avoid all their activities and election rallies. Do not legitimize their activities by participating in them. Spoil your vote if WP contests in your constituency, to send a strong message to both the PAP and WP that wayang politics is no longer tolerated. Support true oppositions like the Reform Party and SDP with your resources, manpower and money. Consistently criticize PAP policies even if the WP does not do so. Make it clear that the WP does not challenge the PAP at all. Cutting the sham opposition out from the local politics scene may seem harsh, but it is necessary if we are to achieve democracy and political plurality in Singapore. We must each play our part and cooperate in this venture. Spread this message to your friends and colleagues. Tell everyone the truth about the Wayang Party and urge them to give their support to true opposition instead. Together, we can make our nation healthy again. The above article was contributed by an annonymous netizen and regular SBF forumer whose identity is not revealed due to fears of reprisal from the WP internet brigade which has gained notoriety in cyberspace for stalking and intimidating critics of WP. My thoughts on the TOC video coverage of the RP dinner First thoughts, wow, The Online Citizen really looks professional, with its voice recorders, journals etc. I think TOC will have a nice headstart on its way to become Singaporekini. Well done, please keep writing but keep it fair and balanced. Mr Chiam, in this video seems so old and frail, and he really does look like he is having a hard time keeping up with the TOC reporter. I hope that his condition will improve and that he’ll keep on fighting the good fight. He’s one man I respect, next to JBJ and CSJ. Please find a successor soon so that your party can keep on fighting for us Singaporeans. I wish him good health and I hope he’ll continue to be active in the Singapore political scene. Mr Low, oh my god, what is wrong with Workers Party nowadays. He just seem like he doesn’t care about being interviewed and brushed the TOC people aside. Come on, you’ve already made multiple gaffes when it comes to the party’s political moves and you’ve already out-flat rejected the Internet community when you tried to limit your own members from fully leveraging on the Internet, do you really want to have even more backlash from the Internet community? I’m really disappointed with WP lately, with the mistake by YSL and Ms Lim praising the local judiciary for being fair and just. It really feels as though WP is not up to the task of ensuring check and balances in our legislative body. Dr Chee, watch out for this man, he’s the next rising star. On the contrary to WP, he and his party are able to harness the power of the Internet very well. He knows that the Internet is one place where the government cannot censor him. Where people can write and publish articles that are not biased towards the incumbent. His internet reach has managed to touch the lives of many people who follow him into his Tak Boleh Tahan rallies. Not to mention, with videos like One Nation Under Lee and Uncle Yap’s video coverage of both the rallies and other protests, concerned citizens are now able to read both side of the story. JBJ, the man of the hour. The first opposition leader to break the 100% PAP attendance in parliament with his victory in 1981. Truly a firebrand, and its really great to see him so cheerful and happy on the video. He has struggled to push Singapore democracy and he had paid the price for the last 10 years. Age seems to be catching up with him. He has openly said a couple of times recently that he is open to the idea of civil disobedience. Perhaps, we’ll see a CSJ+JBJ multi-rally in the next couple of years? With JBJ’s backing and supporters, I think the turnout for that will be tremendous. Oh and, I see Seelan Pillay in the video. Sup mang. Source: http://sgfrag.net/?p=3759 New Singapore party calls for end to ‘elite’ rule SINGAPORE (AFP) — A new political party has called for an end to rule by an elite minority in Singapore, and rejected accusations the opposition would quickly ruin the country if it took power. The Reform Party was responding to a recent warning to voters by Singapore’s founding father Lee Kuan Yew against putting the opposition at the helm of government “in a moment of fickleness or just sheer madness.” “Let me say from here to Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, that that is crass arrogance on his part,” said the party’s secretary general, J.B. Jeyaretnam in a speech to inaugurate the party late Friday. “I tell him from here, tonight: We’ve had enough of a minority, of the elite, making all our decisions.” Lee, 84, is widely credited for shepherding the underdeveloped port into one of Asia’s wealthiest nations in one generation. His People’s Action Party (PAP) has been in power since 1959 and has all but two elected seats in the 84-member parliament. The opposition plays only a marginal role in Singapore, but four other parties sent delegations to the Reform Party launch. Jeyaretnam told AFP he did not know if the parties could unite for the next election due by 2011. “I don’t know. It depends on a number of factors… You know, policies and outlook, and methods,” said the lawyer. Jeyaretnam, then with the Workers’ Party, made political history in 1981 when he became the first opposition politician elected to parliament. He was declared bankrupt in 2001 after failing to pay libel damages to members of the PAP, including a former prime minister. Last year Jeyaretnam, 82, cleared the bankruptcy, which had prevented him from running for political office. Source: AFP Singaporeans should reflect upon IBA’s recommendations I refer to the letter entitled ” World body fell for a distorted view of Singapore” by Mr Joshua Yak published in the Straits Times Forum on 11 July 2008. In it, Mr Joshua expressed his “complete disappointment and disgust” with the International Bar Association (IBA)’s for being misled by the “irresponsible political criticism” of Dr Chee Soon Juan to publish a report which “stated that Singapore falls short of international standards in human rights and political freedom.” Mr Yak himself had acknowledged that the IBA is a “respectable” organization whose opinion is widely sought after even by MM Lee. If this is so, can this august honourable, prestigious and respectable organisation of international lawyers be so blinded by the clowning and distortions of one little known opposition leader in Singapore ? Mr Yak’s insinuations that the IBA based its report on Dr Chee out of “pity” is outright baseless, childish and incredulous. Perhaps Mr Yak should go and read page 5 of the IBA Report which stated clearly in no uncertain terms that: “The research leading to this paper commenced in the preparation for the International Bar Association (IBA) 2007 Annual Conference, held in Singapore in October. Considerable efforts were made to consult with interested parties, including the Singapore Government and the Singapore Law Society.” Nowhere was it mentioned in the report that Dr Chee was interviewed and his views were incorporated into the report. Casting doubt and scorn on the independence and objectivity of the IBA is an indirect slur on the judgment of the Singapore government since it had earnestly courted the IBA for several months to hold its annual conference in Singapore. Mr Yak next asked if Singapore “really deserve stiff criticism from respectable organization”. Since Mr Yak himself has admitted that “no government is perfect”, our government should not be immune to criticism too, be it constructive or not. In fact, it should read through, analyze and reflect upon the recommendations outlined by the IBA and to take appropriate actions to reform the current system so as to “improve our lives and give us as good a life as can be.” as said by Mr Yak instead of dismissing them simply as “feeble and without substance”. Singapore leaders are quick to quote from international organizations and agencies such as the World Bank, Transparency International, PERC etc to burnish their credentials as and when the occasion warrants. However, when organizations of similar standing and reputation make less than favorable remarks about Singapore their views were not even acknowledged. Are our leaders so perfect and infalliable that they have lost basic decent humility ? Like Mr Yak, I stand by my country and am proud to be a Singaporean. Precisely because I love Singapore, it is my duty as a citizen to constantly scrutinize, question and even criticize our leaders if the need arise so as to make Singapore a better place for us and our next generation to live in as Singapore belong to all of us and not a select group of people. Loke Siew Wai (Mr Loke is a regular reader of our blog. He is currently working as a General Manager in the F&B industry. He had sent this letter to the Straits Times Forum today) Because we love Singapore http://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/component/content/article/1-singapore/629-because-we-love-singapore   Singapore charges 19 for protest on rising prices   SINGAPORE, July 11 - A Singapore court charged 19 people on Friday, including several opposition party members, for taking part in a protest over rising prices in the city-state. Amongst those accused was Chee Soon Juan, leader of Singapore’s most vocal opposition party, the Singapore Democratic Party, and several of its executive members. Court documents showed they were charged for participating in a procession and an assembly, offences that carry a maximum fine of S$1,000 . “The Tak Boleh Tahan Protest was meant to speak out against the multitude of ill-timed price hikes initiated by the government,” said a joint press statement by the group. Tak Boleh Tahan means “Cannot Take It” in Bahasa Malay. Singapore’s inflation is at a 26-year high, leaving increasing numbers of the city’s poor turning to temples for free food. Some economists believe the government’s two percent tax hike on goods and services last July helped stoke inflationary pressures. Protests in Singapore are rare and an assembly of five or more people requires a permit from the police. Singapore says it needs tough laws on assembly for the maintenance of peace and stability. The accused said they will go to trial but are currently without legal representation. In a press statement, the group’s sole lawyer, Chia Ti Lik, said he was unable to represent them because he was also accused. “We are now all the more convinced that the protest was needed and justified and simply had to be done,” the statement said. “We make an appeal for Singaporean lawyers to come forward to represent us in these proceedings.” (Reporting by Melanie Lee; Editing by Neil Chatterjee and Jerry Norton) Source: Reuters