Opposition Media A.S.S makes claim that LKY is not fit to be a Founding Father of modern day Singapore

Reprint of The Battle For Merger will provide 'reality check for revisionist views': DPM Teo
POSTED: 09 Oct 2014 13:35 UPDATED: 10 Oct 2014 18:25 

SINGAPORE: The re-publication of a book of former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s radio talks from 1961, The Battle For Merger, will provide a “reality check” for revisionist views, said Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean at the launch event on Thursday (Oct 9).

“I hope it will awaken interest among younger Singaporeans in the events of this crucial period in our history, educate them into what actually happened, what the battle was about, and why it was so crucial that the right side won,” he said in his speech at the launch.

Originally published in 1962, The Battle For Merger is a book that contains a series of 12 radio talks delivered by Mr Lee between Sep 13 and Oct 9, 1961, giving a vivid account of the ongoing political struggle over merger.

Below is the speech in full:

    I am pleased to be here today to launch the reprint of the Battle for Merger publication, which comprises a series of radio broadcasts by Mr Lee Kuan Yew in 1961. I am lucky to own a copy of the original Battle for Merger printed in 1962. It belonged to my father. I remember hearing these radio broadcasts as a child. Although I was too young then to understand them, I could sense the magnitude and gravity of the events that were swirling around us. But Singaporeans of my father’s generation, and those just a little older than me, will certainly remember those tumultuous days, and Mr Lee’s radio broadcasts.

    It was a time when momentous decisions had to be made for Singapore. A wrong decision then would have been calamitous and Singapore might still be trying to shake off the dire effects today. Mr Lee’s broadcasts electrified the population, and were crucial in making Singaporeans understand what the battle was about, and persuading them to support Merger with Malaysia.

    THE BATTLE FOR MERGER

    Some may wonder: Why should the Battle for Merger be reprinted now? In 2015, we celebrate Singapore’s 50th anniversary. This is a significant milestone, especially when we consider our precarious and tumultuous beginnings. While we only became an independent nation in 1965, our road to independence began earlier, with our attempt to forge a shared destiny with the then Federation of Malaya. Our hard-fought attempt to gain independence by merging with Malaya was in fact a battle for the future of Singapore. On the surface, it was a battle for merger. But this was only on the surface. Below the surface was another deeper, more momentous, more dangerous battle – that between the communists and noncommunists in Singapore.

    At the heart of this battle were two contrasting visions of how society should be ordered and how we should govern ourselves. It was not simply a fight to get rid of British colonial rule; rather, the communists and their allies had a larger agenda. Their objective was to impose a communist regime in Malaya and Singapore through all means, including subversion, and ultimately, armed revolution. They never gave up on this larger agenda. That is why the communists continued to pose a security threat to us long after both Malaya and Singapore had gained independence in 1957 and 1965, respectively; and even after all British forces had left in 1971. In one incident in June 1974, the Inspector-General of Police in Malaysia was gunned down in broad daylight by a Communist hit squad.

    The events vividly described in the Battle for Merger bear testament to the resourcefulness, will and spirit of pioneer Singaporeans, led by Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his colleagues in the government and the PAP. Our pioneers were confronted with difficult challenges and dilemmas, and had to make critical choices not just for themselves, but for future generations of Singaporeans. This is why, despite the vast changes that have taken place in the world and in Singapore over the past 50 years, this crucial turning point in our history continues to be relevant to us today.

    SINGAPORE IN 1961

    What was Singapore like in 1961, when Mr Lee Kuan Yew made these radio broadcasts? What was the broader strategic environment? The Cold War between communism and the free world was at its height. The Berlin Wall, which for decades signified the divide between the two contending sides, had just been built. In fact, construction started on 13 Aug 1961, exactly a month before the first of Mr Lee’s broadcasts on 13 Sep 1961. Proxy wars and ideological battles were being fought in many countries. Southeast Asia was a hot spot. Malaya and Singapore were not spared. There were grave security concerns over the growing communist influence in Malaya and Singapore.

    In the 1950s and early 1960s, communism was in the ascendant in Singapore. The Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) had waged a violent armed insurgency since 1948 and fomented urban strife in its attempt to establish a communist Malaya (which included Singapore). The CPM targeted those who opposed them, including civilians, and security and police personnel. In Singapore, between 1950 and 1955, CPM hit squads carried out at least 19 known murders, as well as numerous acid attacks, arson and other acts of violence. When the CPM’s violent, armed guerrilla war and their intimidation of the civilian population failed to turn Singapore and Malaya ‘red’, the communists switched strategy to place more emphasis on subversive Communist United Front (CUF) tactics instead. Through the CUF, the CPM intended first to drive out the British from Singapore, and then to topple the Malayan Government. From 1954 to 1963, the CPM penetrated student bodies, labour unions, political parties, and cultural and rural organisations in Singapore to spread their ideology and influence, attract supporters, and mobilise activists to mount a campaign to destabilise and take over Singapore.

    The CUF organisations instigated unrest and dissatisfaction among the population by exploiting unhappiness over socio-economic issues and particular government policies. Singapore went through a period of great upheaval and civil unrest. Protests, sit-ins, strikes and demonstrations were frequent. The trade unions and student bodies were the front organisations for these confrontations. But they were controlled and manipulated from behind-the-scenes by communist hands. Some of these events resulted in the deaths of innocent Singaporeans and security personnel. The result, which was intended, was tension, anxiety and instability in Singapore.

    Why did the CPM and their pro-communist allies operating in the CUF organisations decide to oppose Merger? When Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his colleagues in the People’s Action Party (PAP) were elected to form the government in June 1959, it was on a pro-merger platform. Merger was also supported by the communists and pro-communists who at that time were in the PAP.i Other political parties also had similar pro-merger agendas. Merger was deemed essential for Singapore’s economic survival. People travelled across the Causeway frequently and co-mingled freely. Even the CPM considered Singapore a part of Malaya – there was no “Communist Party of Singapore”, because in their eyes, Singapore was an integral part of Malaya. There was only the Singapore Town Committee of the CPM.

    Yet, when the PAP announced its support for merger and the concept of Malaysia to attain full independence from the British, the communists and procommunists opposed it and tried to capture the PAP and the Singapore Government in July 1961 . Merger was against the communists’ interest, for two reasons. First, it would result in the quick end of British rule in Singapore and make it harder for the CUF to disguise its agenda to establish a communist regime as an anti-colonial struggle. Second, the CPM expected the anti-communist Federation Government to clamp down on them as internal security would come under the Central Government in Kuala Lumpur once merger was achieved.

    The CPM never believed that Singapore should be independent of Malaya. Indeed, much later, when Singapore separated from Malaysia in August 1965, the CPM denounced Singapore’s independence as “phoney”. The Barisan Sosialis took the same line, when it decided to boycott and later withdraw from Parliament and take to the streets instead. But in 1961, the communists wanted to capture power in a self-governing Singapore and use that as a base to subvert the Federation and in due course establish communist rule over the entire Malayan peninsula.

    As Mr Lee said in his preface, the Battle for Merger broadcasts were pivotal in lifting the curtain on the communists and exposing their hidden manoeuvrings. It was necessary for Mr Lee to make public the communist threat and reveal key CPM personalities, as well as how the communists operated, including their objectives and methods. Singaporeans, whether they were for or against merger, needed to know the real communist agenda in order to make their choice.

    This was why Mr Lee decided to speak to Singaporeans directly on the matter. He gave three talks a week, each one delivered in English, Mandarin and Malay, totalling 36 broadcasts in less than a month. This gruelling effort left him thoroughly exhausted. But he got his message across. The talks played a vital part in defeating the anti-merger campaign of the communists and pro-communists. In the referendum on merger held in September 1962, 71% supported the PAP’s position while 25% cast blank votes as advocated by the anti-merger group.

    Although public support for merger was unequivocal in 1962, and Singapore joined the Federation of Malaysia on 16 Sep 1963, the differences in views between the Singaporean and Malaysian governments as to how a multi-racial, multi-religious nation should govern itself caused merger to fail. In 1965 when independence was thrust upon Singapore, we were struggling with poor economic prospects, fraught communal relations, and a continuing communist threat. The Cold War raged on, and the Vietnam War was intensifying. The Gulf of Tonkin incident, which led the US to engage in Vietnam, had occurred in 1964. The Cultural Revolution which brought turmoil to China for a decade started the next year, in 1966.

    Even after independence, the communists persisted in their violent attempts to destabilise Singapore. The CPM revived their armed struggle in the 1960s and 1970s. In 1970, a seven-year-old girl was killed by a booby-trapped bomb in Changi planted by a CPM unit. In 1974, three communists were on their way to plant homemade bombs in Telok Kurau when one bomb exploded prematurely in Katong, killing two of the bombers. The third bomber was injured, but escaped, and eventually fled to Johor with the help of CPM supporters. The following year, in 1975, the security authorities recovered two caches of 298 hand grenades in Loyang and Tampines accumulated by another CPM unit which had carried out vicious attacks in Singapore in the 1950s. Indeed, the Voice of Malayan Revolution, the CPM radio station, was broadcasting up till 1981, preaching revolution and communism. Several Singaporeans worked at this radio station.

    The spectre of communism receded only after the People’s Republic of China abandoned its support for the CPM in the 1980s. The CPM finally ceased hostilities and signed the Peace Agreements in Haadyai with the Malaysian government and the Thai authorities. The date, 2 December 1989, when the CPM finally laid down its arms, was barely a month after the Berlin Wall was breached on 9 November 1989 – that same Berlin Wall, the symbol of the Cold War, whose construction began in 1961, just a month before the first Battle for Merger broadcast.

    SIGNIFICANCE OF THE BATTLE FOR MERGER TODAY

    Today, the events surrounding Merger are no longer at the forefront of the minds of Singaporeans. For the older ones, the tumultuous years described in the Battle for Merger are a receding, distant memory. The younger ones, especially those born after 1965, would have no personal memory of these events. They would only know of these years through history books, or from their parents and grandparents.

    The Battle for Merger provides a powerful contemporaneous account of the events at that time. It captures the flavour and the intensity of the exchanges, the battle for the hearts and minds of Singaporeans over merger; and more fundamentally, the fierce struggle between the communists and the non-communists over the future of Singapore.

    As we approach our 50th year of independence, some revisionist writers have attempted to recast the role played by the communists and their supporters on the merger issue. They portray the fight as merely a peaceful and democratic disagreement over the type of merger. They ignore the more fundamental agenda of the communists to seize power by subversion and armed revolution.v The CPM’s armed struggle and the CUF’s efforts to destabilise Singapore before, during and after the Battle for Merger, have been well-documented by various academics and writers, including top leaders of the CPM such as Chin Peng and Fong Chong Pik.

    These multiple sources support the argument that Mr Lee Kuan Yew made in the Battle for Merger more than five decades ago: Namely, that there was a communist conspiracy to take power being played out over the merger issue, which he felt compelled to expose in his broadcasts. The re-publication of the book will provide a reality check to the revisionist views. I hope it will awaken interest among younger Singaporeans in the events of this crucial period in our history, educate them into what actually happened, what the battle was about, and why it was so crucial that the right side won.

    Indeed, one might ask: what if the communists and their pro-communist CUF allies had won, and Singapore had fallen under communist rule in the 1960s? We would have gone on a completely different path. Where would we be today? Singapore would probably not have survived, as a small communist outcast in South East Asia, as the Cold War raged in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. Even if Singapore had survived, life would have been harsh and miserable. We need only look at the communist world since the Russian Revolution of 1917, and countries that continue to subscribe to communism today. The more successful ones have made major adaptations in recent decades, and adopted drastic reforms and policies to make themselves more competitive and to enable the standard of living of their citizens to catch up with the free market economies.

    The 1960s were tumultuous times. We should respect the personal conviction and determination of those who held different views then and fought on the side of the communists. As Mr Lee said in his broadcast, “they are not crooks or opportunists. These are men with great resolve, dedicated to the Communist revolution and to the establishment of the Communist state believing that it is the best thing in the world for mankind”.

    But we should, even more, acknowledge and give our respect and appreciation to the Singaporeans who had the courage and wisdom to reject the CPM’s ideology and tactics, including its violent methods, and those of its procommunist supporters. Singaporeans who rallied to support the non-Communist cause under the leadership of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, who fortunately mustered a majority to defeat the Communist side in a democratic contest.

    Among those who have contributed to our nation building are some who initially joined or supported the communists. It took special courage for them to turn away from the communist cause after recognising its serious flaws and inadequacies. They made a brave choice in the face of intimidation and threats to their lives and their families. They had the courage to acknowledge that the path advocated by the CPM was the wrong one, and to join the majority of Singaporeans who had made that critical choice for a non-communist, democratic, peaceful and constructive path forward.

    There were others, including several senior CPM figures, who had fled Singapore in the 1950s and 1960s, but returned home with their families after the CPM laid down its arms in 1989. They made no pretence about their past activities and beliefs, and were reconciled to the fact that theirs was not a cause shared by the majority of Singaporeans. They had seen the road that communism had travelled and admitted that it had failed. After providing an account of their communist activities to the security authorities, they and their families settled back into Singapore as loyal citizens, and contributed to our country’s progress.

    But it was a close call. Then as now, Singapore has little room to manoeuvre. The wrong decision, and it would have gone the other way, and Singapore would have turned out very differently.

    Our pioneers’ spirit and their determination to rise above the hardships of the moment, including the dire threat of communism, and to focus on making Singapore a better country for the next generation is an inspiration for all Singaporeans. This spirit, epitomised in the Battle for Merger, is a precious heritage which we all as Singaporeans should honour, recognise and emulate.

    Thank you.


Source: Channel News Asia - Reprint of The Battle For Merger will provide 'reality check for revisionist views': DPM Teo
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/specialreports/battleformerger/news/reprint-of-the-battle-for/1405604.html


==================

Those who champion revisionist account of Singapore's fight against communists are distorting history: Sam Tan

Published Jan 14, 2015, 11:25 pm SGT
By Zakir Hussain Deputy Political Editor, ST

"Historical discourse and debate requires academic rigor, intellectual honesty, and respect for evidence.

"These qualities have been sadly lacking among those championing a revisionist account of a key fight on our road to independence."

He said that in distorting history, "they disrespect the memory of those who made sacrifices and lost lives to defeat the communist threat and build the Singapore that we have today".

His remarks come a month after Singapore's High Commissioner to Australia Burhan Gafoor wrote to Australian website New Mandala to rebut claims in an article by former Coldstore detainee Poh Soo Kai that the arrests were a "set-up" against political opponents of then prime minister Lee Kuan Yew, including Barisan Sosialis chief Lim Chin Siong.

Mr Burhan said the Barisan was the principal open united front tool of the banned Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) in Singapore. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong also included a link to Mr Burhan's letter in a Facebook post on Dec 20.

But Ms Teo Soh Lung - detained in 1987 after being accused of being part of a Marxist conspiracy - and revisionist historians rejected these statements.

"I don't care if Lim Chin Siong was a communist or a CPM member...What we need to know is whether Lim Chin Siong and his colleagues committed any acts of violence and acted against the interest of Singapore," Ms Teo said in a recent online commentary.

Mr Tan said Ms Teo and the revisionists "continue to maintain the hollow claim that the Communist United Front was an 'invention'. They have not refuted the evidence presented, drawn from both the British archives as well as published accounts by key CPM leaders."

He also cited the British archives and ex-CPM leader Chin Peng who said the Barisan was the CPM's principal political tool, and that Coldstore shattered the CPM's underground network throughout Singapore.

He added that Ms Teo's remarks showed she "has conceded that her previous assertion that Lim Chin Siong was not a communist was untenable, in the face of the evidence cited by Mr Burhan".

"It does matter that Lim Chin Siong was the CPM's key Communist united front leader in Singapore, because the CPM advocated armed struggle, and through the united front was fomenting unrest and disorder in Singapore in order to establish a communist regime throughout Malaya."

Source:
Straits Times Online - Those who champion revisionist account of Singapore's fight against communists are distorting history: Sam Tan
http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/those-who-champion-revisionist-account-of-singapores-fight-against-communists-are


===================
Source:

Image: Fabrications Led by Opposition Parties (FLOP)
https://www.facebook.com/fabflop/photos/pb.430232843680692.-2207520000.1445843992./892356294135009/?type=3&theater

[Haze 2015] While the Indo Govt potters around the haze, their own citizens suffer

This is a photo that was taken by Bjorneo Bear. Here is his story.

Today was a yellow day in Palangka Raya, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Air pollution index reached an all time high of 2900psi. I don't know what that means anymore. 

The man in the photo is Slamet. Normally he works in construction, but because of the haze there is currently no work for him in Palangka Raya. Slamet has no money, like literally no money. 

So he casts his net into a dirty canal somewhere in Palangka Raya. The water is full of garbage and toxic waste, yet he says "better a dirty fish than no fish at all. Always be grateful and give thanks to God."

Sources: 

Bjorneo Bear (Facebook)
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=717264005070209&set=a.173483706114911.37953.100003598492069&type=3&permPage=1

Stunning, heartbreaking photo of man going fishing in toxic yellow 2,900 PSI haze in Central Kalimantan
http://jakarta.coconuts.co/2015/10/19/viral-stunning-heartbreaking-photo-man-going-fishing-toxic-yellow-2900-psi-haze-central



And here is what the Indo Govt's Coordinating Minister is concerned about when asked about releasing the names of the companies that are responsible for starting the fires that are causing the haze.

Indonesia’s Coordinating Minister for Politics, Law and Security Luhut Pandjaitan said releasing the names would create uncertainty within the country.

Source: Channel News Asia - Jakarta not ready to name firms responsible for forest fires

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/jakarta-not-ready-to-name/2203338.html

To Luhut Pandjaitan, I say this:

[Haze 2015] Jakarta not ready to name firms responsible for forest fires

POSTED: 19 Oct 2015 19:43 UPDATED: 19 Oct 2015 23:19
By Sujadi Siswo, Channel NewsAsia

JAKARTA: Jakarta has said it is not yet ready to officially disclose names of plantation companies responsible for the forest fires in the country that caused the haze in the region.

Indonesia’s Coordinating Minister for Politics, Law and Security Luhut Pandjaitan said releasing the names would create uncertainty within the country.

Speaking to the media in Singapore after delivering a public lecture on Monday (Oct 19), he said Jakarta might consider releasing the names of the companies after they have gone though the legal process in Indonesia.

However, media reports said Indonesia's Environment and Forestry Ministry had revoked the concession licences of several companies responsible for causing forest fires in Sumatra and Kalimantan. Others had their licences or operations suspended. The companies' names have been mentioned by the reports.

More than 200 plantation companies operating in Sumatra and Kalimantan are being investigated for clearing their land by burning. A number of them are believed to have links to Singapore-based firms.

The Singapore Government has officially requested Jakarta to provide them with the names of those companies. This would allow Singapore to take legal action against those responsible for the haze that has blanketed the city-state and neighboring Malaysia and Thailand.

Luhut Pandjaitan said: “Well, we are not protecting (plantation companies). Like I mentioned earlier, we have not officially submitted the names to the court. So how can we disclose them to the public? It’s unfair. We’ll wait for the court’s final decision."

He added that the Indonesian government also do not want to create an uncertain situation within the country because of this. "Moving forward, they know that they are going to get punished by the government. I think this is very important.

"But next year, we have already given them a clear message: We are going to revoke their licence, no question about that. That I can assure you. They understand that fully.”

- CNA/al

Source: Channel News Asia - Jakarta not ready to name firms responsible for forest fires
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/jakarta-not-ready-to-name/2203338.html


============================================================

Isn't the Indo govt's response to releasing the company-names just bullcrap?

What the heck does it mean when the Indo govt says:

"it is not yet ready to officially disclose names of plantation companies responsible for the forest fires in the country that caused the haze in the region."

And the reason given for this stance by the Indo’s Coordinating Minister for Politics, Law and Security Luhut Pandjaitan is that:

"..releasing the names would create uncertainty within the country."


What the difference between a normal news report that releases the name of the suspect who has been charged with robbery, and the Indo govt publicizing the list of companies which are being/will be charged for causing the fires/haze??

How does the act of releasing the names "create uncertainty within the country"?

Like the person accused of robbery, these companies will be given their chance in Court to prove their innocence and refute the charges.

Or did Luhut Pandjaitan just unwittingly admit that there are so many govt officials and ministers involved or associated with these companies that to publicize the names would actually be bad for their financial interests/ destroy their voter support / expose their corrupt dealings?

And didn't the Indo Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi inform S'pore that they will soon share with Singapore the names of companies responsible for the illegal forest fires in Sept 2015? (ST: http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/jakarta-to-share-names-of-culprits-behind-haze-fires)

In the meantime, the Indo citizens suffer and the rest of the world continues to benefit choke from Indonesia's contribution poisoning of the world-wide environment while their joke-of-a-government continues to potter around and worry about "creating uncertainty within the country."

============================================================

POSTED: 21 Oct 2015 13:24 UPDATED: 21 Oct 2015 19:00

Carbon from Indonesia fires exceeds US emissions: Green groups

The World Resources Institute, using findings from the Global Fire Emissions Database, said in a recent report that since early September carbon emissions from the fires had exceeded average US daily output on 26 out of 44 days.

JAKARTA: Indonesian forest and agricultural fires cloaking Southeast Asia in acrid haze are spewing more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere each day than all US economic activity, according to an environmental watchdog.

The shock assessment came as Jakarta said the number of blazes was increasing across the archipelago despite a multinational fire-fighting effort, and announced plans to deploy more water-bombing aircraft.

For nearly two months, thousands of fires caused by slash-and-burn farming have suffocated vast expanses of the region with smog, causing respiratory illnesses to soar, schools to close, and scores of flights and some international events to be cancelled.

Much of the burning is in tropical peatlands rich in carbon but which are being drained and cleared at a rapid rate to make way for agriculture, particularly fast-expanding palm oil plantations.

The World Resources Institute said in a recent report that since early September carbon emissions from the fires had exceeded average US daily output on 26 out of 44 days.

The United States is the world's second-largest greenhouse gas source after China. The WRI, a US-based research organisation that focuses on environment and development issues, normally classifies Indonesia as the fifth-biggest emitter.

"The burning of tropical peatlands is so significant for greenhouse gas emissions because these areas store some of the highest quantities of carbon on Earth, accumulated over thousands of years," said the WRI.

"Draining and burning these lands for agricultural expansion, such as conversion to oil palm or pulpwood plantations, leads to huge spikes in greenhouse gas emissions."

In its report, the WRI used findings from the Global Fire Emissions Database, which uses satellite information to estimate emissions from blazes.

The smog crisis is escalating as world leaders gear up for talks beginning next month on a climate rescue pact, which will seek to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) over pre-Industrial Revolution levels.

FIRES SPREADING

The fires and resulting region-wide blanket of smoke occur to varying degrees each year during the dry season as land is illegally cleared by burning, regularly angering Indonesia's smog-hit neighbours Malaysia and Singapore.

Malaysia, which in recent weeks has repeatedly ordered school closures across several states as a health precaution, did so again on Wednesday for the third straight day as pollution levels climbed.

The landmark twin towers in the capital Kuala Lumpur were shrouded in dense, grey smog, with air quality in the "very unhealthy" or "unhealthy" range across much of the country. In Singapore, air quality was in the "unhealthy" range.

Popular Thai holiday islands have also been affected with the haze forcing several planes packed with beach-bound tourists to turn back earlier this month.

While the loudest complaints have come from leaders in relatively affluent Singapore and Kuala Lumpur, it is poor Indonesian villagers who are suffering most.

One of the worst-hit areas, Palangkaraya, on Borneo, has been engulfed in thick, yellow haze, which has drastically reduced visibility and pushed air quality to more than six times "hazardous" levels.

Experts warn the current outbreak is on track to become the worst ever, exacerbated by bone-dry conditions caused by the El Nino weather phenomenon.

The fires on the huge islands of Sumatra and Borneo are typically only brought under control by November with the onset of the rainy season.

But Herry Purnomo, a scientist at the Indonesia-based Center for International Forestry Research, told AFP this week that climatology data indicated the rainy season may be delayed this year and that the fires could last until year-end.

Indonesia earlier this month agreed to accept international help after failing for weeks to douse the fires and last week launched its biggest fire-fighting push yet, with dozens of planes backing up thousands of personnel on the ground.

But the national disaster agency said the number of "hotspots" - areas detected by satellite which are already ablaze, or ripe to go up in flames - had risen to more than 3,200 and spread to the eastern Papua region, which is usually largely unaffected by fires.

Authorities hope to deploy a further 10 to 15 water-bombing planes, which will join about 30 aircraft already fighting the blazes. Singaporean and Malaysian aircraft have taken part in the operations, while two Russian planes arrived Wednesday to provide assistance.

- AFP/rw/ec

Source: Channel News Asia - Carbon from Indonesia fires exceeds US emissions: Green groups
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/carbon-from-indonesia/2207404.html?cx_tag=similar#cxrecs_s

More misleading half-truths about CPF

Trashy, anti-govt "media" websites like TRE continuously mislead people by spreading half-truths about the CPF system.

Yes, the interest rates for CPF are between 2.5% and 4% (depending on which account you are referring to). But these are returns which are guaranteed by the SG Govt, the only AAA-rated (by Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s and Fitch) government in Asia, and is absolutely risk free.

If TRE wants to complain that the interest rates are not good enough, then don't just complain. Show us what alternatives you can come up with that have:
(1) Higher returns than CPF
(2) Is guaranteed
(3) Is Risk Free.

And better yet, if our CPF system was so bad, then explain why are more people putting more money into their CPF accounts voluntarily?

And CPF skeptics should read read the HSBC article and do their own research on retirement planning. The plain facts are that due to the increase life expectancy and expected inflation - we just simply need to put more money aside for our retirement.

"According to the HSBC-commissioned independent research study into global retirement trends, The Future of Retirement: A balancing act, future retirees in Singapore foresee their savings to last only 13 out of an average of 23 years in retirement.

The study, which involved more than 16,000 people from 15 countries including 1,000 Singapore respondents, also found that the key reasons for a retiree's savings shortfall are: lack of financial preparation during their working years, negative impacts of economic downturn as well as other life events.

The global report by HSBC also examines the pressures surrounding working age savers and retiree spenders, their different approaches to secure a desired standard of retirement life and also global retirement trends."

HSBC Research: Singaporeans financially unprepared for retirement
http://business.asiaone.com/news/singaporeans-financially-unprepared-retirement-hsbc-research#sthash.l6XbrJhS.dpuf


=========================================================

More making voluntary contributions to CPF accounts

SINGAPORE: More Singaporeans are making voluntary contributions to their Central Provident Fund (CPF) accounts. According to the CPF Board, these top-ups amounted to about S$500 million last year, up 25 per cent compared to 2013.

One such Singaporean is former investment analyst Lim Chin Yong, who retired in 2012. The 56-year-old has been making voluntary contributions to his own CPF account for the past two years, to earn higher interest on his savings.

Last year, he also topped up his wife's retirement account, so that she can be eligible for the CPF LIFE Scheme.

"CPF LIFE to me - at the time when I was looking at it, in 2014 - when you contribute, a minimum of S$148,000, it will guarantee you something like S$1,000 to S$1,200 from 65 until (you turn) 80 or 85, or until you die. S$1,000 to S$1,200 - it doesn't take you far, so I decided to put money into my wife's account so that she can have her own income stream of S$1,200 when she retires,” said Mr Lim.

Mr Lim is not alone. According to the CPF Board, there were nearly 74,811 top-ups last year, up 24 per cent compared to 2013.

Said Associate Professor Jeremy Goh from the Singapore Management University’s Lee Kong Chian School of Business: “When people make decisions like topping up their CPF accounts and looking at how much are the rates that are being paid, they are also looking at what the alternatives are. So if the alternatives out there are not as attractive as the one offered by CPF, then they will choose to top up. When people top up their CPF accounts, it just signals to me at least, that the rates seem pretty attractive.”

If what you want are risk-free returns and a higher annuity payout after retirement, financial advisors say you may be better off putting your spare cash into your CPF accounts. But for those with no spare cash on hand, it might be best to increase your income, experts recommend.

Said Mr Tan Siak Lim, financial advisory director at Financial Alliance: "There are not a lot of solutions, to be honest, other than to try to increase their income, because everything starts from your income. If you don't have excess funds, obviously you'd want all your money to be out, for your daily bread-and-butter necessities."

Currently, Singaporeans with sufficient balances in their Retirement Accounts at age 55 will automatically be placed under the CPF LIFE scheme. This is S$60,000 at the payout eligibility age for those turning 55 on Jan 1, 2016 or after.

For those turning 55 between Jan 1, 2013 to Dec 31, 2015, there must be at least S$40,000 in the Retirement Account at 55 years old, or at least S$60,000 in the Retirement Account at payout eligibility age, which is currently at 65.

According to the CPF Board website, those with insufficient funds can also apply to join CPF LIFE.

- CNA/dl



Sources:

Image: Shut Down TRS Facebook

https://www.facebook.com/shutdowntrs/photos/a.1438069629738857.1073741828.1437466759799144/1674937516052066/?type=3&theater

Channel News Asia - More making voluntary contributions to CPF accounts

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/business/more-making-voluntary/2136430.html

HSBC Research: Singaporeans financially unprepared for retirement
http://business.asiaone.com/news/singaporeans-financially-unprepared-retirement-hsbc-research#sthash.l6XbrJhS.dpuf

The Guardian - The AAA-rated club: which countries still make the grade?

http://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2014/oct/15/the-aaa-rated-club-which-countries-still-make-the-grade

Han Hui Hui and 3 others go on trial over Hong Lim Park protest

Blogger Han Hui Hui, 24, and three co-accused are facing public nuisance charges for disrupting a community event held at Hong Lim Park in September last year. Han is facing an additional charge of organizing the demonstration without approval. 

By Vanessa Paige Chelvan
POSTED: 13 Oct 2015 07:00 UPDATED: 13 Oct 2015 18:02

SINGAPORE: The trial of blogger Han Hui Hui, 24, and three co-accused began on Tuesday (Oct 13) at the State Courts. The quartet are facing public nuisance charges for disrupting a community event held at Hong Lim Park in September last year, by shouting loudly, chanting slogans, waving flags, holding placards, blowing whistles and beating drums, the court heard.

Han is facing an additional charge of organising the demonstration without approval. Two more co-accused, Roy Ngerng, 34, and Chua Siew Leng, 43, have previously pleaded guilty and have been ordered to pay fines of S$1,900 and S$300, respectively.

District Judge Chay Yuan Fatt is presiding over the trial, which is scheduled over four days until Friday. The four accused are unrepresented, and will be conducting their own defence.

Han, together with fellow blogger Ngerng and their co-accused, held their #ReturnOurCPF protest rally at the same time and place as the YMCA Proms @ The Park 2014 charity carnival held on Sep 27, 2014.

Han’s group had made a successful application to the Commissioner of Parks and Recreation through the NParks website for approval to give a speech at Speakers’ Corner, located within Hong Lim Park.

Han, posting on the #ReturnOurCPF – Jobs Facebook page, said that according to NParks, “it’s very common to have two or more events happening on the same day”. She went on to add that “we are all Singaporeans at the end of the day. Let’s educate them on the root cause of the problem and let us shout in unity when Teo Ser Luck comes”. She added: “Bring placards and whistles!”

On Sep 27, NParks officers spotted Han and her co-accused - Ngerng, Low Wai Choo, 54, Goh Aik Huat, 41, and Koh Yew Beng, 59 - gathering next to the registration point of the YMCA event.

The officers advised them to use an adjoining lawn of the park which was not occupied by the YMCA event, but the group refused.

When then-Minister of State for Trade and Industry Teo Ser Luck – the guest-of-honour for the YMCA event – arrived at the park, the attendees of Han’s protest became more emotive.

Han then suggested to Ngerng that the group “walk one round”. The two then led their co-accused and a group of at least 20 other people in a march towards the YMCA event.

The group demonstrated by shouting loudly, chanting slogans, waving flags, holding placards, blowing whistles loudly and beating drums, the court heard.

DOWN'S SYNDROME CHILDREN 'VISIBLY AFFECTED'

The prosecution on Tuesday called the first four out of the 14 witnesses expected to testify. Two were mothers of children with Down’s Syndrome whose dance performance at the YMCA event had been disrupted by the protest, the court heard.

The Down’s Syndrome children whose mothers testified were part of a group called Y-Stars, who were invited to perform a dance routine at the YMCA event. The court heard that the Y-Stars’ performance was disrupted due to the commotion the protest was causing – loud, shrill noises scare Down’s Syndrome sufferers, who are sensitive to loud and sudden noises, the mothers said.

“They could have stopped for three minutes for them (the Y-Stars) to perform”, said one witness. “These are not normal children. They are Down’s Syndrome children”, the second mother said. The children were visibly affected by the disruption, as they were not smiling like usual after the performance, the mothers said.

LIKE 'BRINGING A COFFIN TO A WEDDING'

In cross-examining the prosecution’s witnesses, Judge Chay had to intervene several times to stop Han from pursuing an irrelevant line of questioning and repeating questions several times, which was frustrating witnesses and causing tensions to rise.

In one instance, Han asked a witness: “Do you think YMCA did a good job in the event?” The witness replied, “it’s just like a wedding function and someone brings a coffin around. Do you think you will be happy?”

For disrupting the YMCA event and causing a public nuisance, each of the accused can be ordered to pay a fine of up to S$1,000.

For organising a demonstration without prior approval, Han could be ordered to pay a fine of up to S$5,000.

The trial continues.

- CNA/vc

Source: CNA http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/han-hui-hui-and-3-others/2187202.html


=============================================

Additional Notes

Roy Ngerng Yi Ling, 34,

GE2015 Reform Party Candidate for Ang Mo Kio GRC

Received 21.6% votes, vs PAP

Han Hui Hui, 24,

GE2015 Independent candidate for Radin Mas SMC

Received 10.04% votes – deposit forfeited, vs RP & PAP

Janet Low Wai Choo, 55

GE2015 People's Power Party Candidate for Chua Chu Kang GRC

Received 23.11% votes, vs PAP

Related Links

14minute video of NParks and Police Officers approaching ReturnMyCPF Protestors

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w1hYRVyclo

17-minute, uncut video shows Roy Ngerng & ReturnMyCPF protesters encroaching on YMCA’s venue

Article: http://mothership.sg/2014/10/uncut-17-minute-video-indeed-shows-cpf-blogger-roy-ngerng-encroaching-on-ymcas-venue/

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozAaFra5ycw

Online reactions to Hong Lim Park rallygoers’ heckling of special needs children at charity carnival

http://mothership.sg/2014/09/online-reactions-to-hong-lim-park-rallygoers-heckling-of-special-needs-children-at-charity-carnival/

Mr Brown: On the #ReturnMyCPF Protesters disrupting the YMCA event

http://www.mrbrown.com/blog/2014/09/on-the-returnmycpf-protestors-ymca-incident.html

Hong Lim Park fracas: When protests cross the line

 http://ifonlysingaporeans.blogspot.sg/2014/10/hong-lim-park-fracas-when-protests.html#sthash.1al1MmRw.dpuf

Roy Ngerng pleads guilty to disrupting YMCA event, fined S$1,900

The Judge singled blogger Roy Ngerng, 33, out as the leader of a group that caused a public nuisance at Hong Lim Park. He also pleaded guilty to organising a demonstration without approval.

By Vanessa Paige Chelvan  POSTED: 07 Oct 2015 11:12  UPDATED: 07 Oct 2015 23:29

SINGAPORE: Blogger Roy Ngerng, 33, pleaded guilty to charges of public nuisance and organising a demonstration without approval, on Wednesday (Oct 7). He was fined S$1,900.

Both offences were committed at Hong Lim Park on Sep 27, 2014, where the YMCA was holding a charity carnival, YMCA Proms @ The Park 2014.

Ngerng, together with fellow blogger Han Hui Hui, 24, and four others, held their #ReturnOurCPF protest rally at the same time and place as the YMCA event. The group had made a successful application to the Commissioner of Parks and Recreation through the NParks website for approval to give a “speech” at Speakers’ Corner, located within Hong Lim Park.

Han, posting on the #ReturnOurCPF – Jobs Facebook page, said that according to NParks, “it’s very common to have two or more events happening on the same day”. She went on to add that “we are all Singaporeans at the end of the day. Let’s educate them the root cause of the problem and let us shout in unity when Teo Ser Luck comes”. She added: “Bring placards and whistles!”

On Sep 27, NParks officers spotted Ngerng and his co-accused - Han, Low Wai Choo, 54, Goh Aik Huat, 41, and Koh Yew Beng, 59 - gathering next to the registration point of the YMCA event.

The officers advised them to use an adjoining lawn of the park which was not occupied by the YMCA event, but Ngerng and his co-accused refused.

When then-Minister of State for Trade and Industry Teo Ser Luck - the guest-of-honour for the YMCA event - arrived at the Park, the attendees of Ngerg’s protest became “more emotive”.

Han then suggested to Ngerng that the group “walk one round”. The two then led their co-accused and a group of at least 20 other people in a march towards the YMCA event.

The group demonstrated by shouting loudly, chanting slogans, waving flags, holding placards, blowing whistles loudly and beating drums, the court heard.

NGERNG "DEEPLY REMORSEFUL"

In court on Wednesday, Ngerng’s lawyer Eugene Thuraisingam said his client had contributed to society by volunteering his time to teach special needs and autistic children. He is also a “well-known advocate for matters of public interest”, Mr Thuraisingam said.

“His offence is ignorance”, said the lawyer, as Ngerng did not know that separate approval was required for a demonstration, after he had already obtained approval to hold an event at the Park.

Ngerng holds a “genuine belief” that he was speaking on matters of public interest, and is “deeply remorseful he did not do this in accordance with the law”, the lawyer said.

“He will not reoffend”, Mr Thuraisingam added, in seeking a fine of S$1,900.

Deputy Public Prosecutor John Lu agreed that a fine of that amount would be “appropriate”.

In ordering Ngerng to pay the fine, District Judge Liew Thaim Leng singled Ngerng out as the “leader of the group”, and said that the demonstration had “caused disruption to other events in the vicinity”. The Judge reiterated that the permit was granted for a specific purpose, and the demonstration was not covered by the permit.

Ngerng’s co-accused are expected to go on trial on Oct 12. Han is facing charges of public nuisance and organising a demonstration without approval, while Low, Goh and Koh each face a charge of public nuisance.

Another co-accused, Chua Siew Leng, had pleaded guilty in March this year. She was fined S$300 for causing a public nuisance.

- CNA/wl/vc

Source: CNA http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/roy-ngerng-pleads-guilty/2175122.html?cid=fbsg

This is the full 17-minute, uncut video recording of what happened at Hong Lim Park on 27 Sept 2014.

Additional Note

Roy Ngerng Yi Ling, 34, GE2015 Reform Party Candidate for Ang Mo Kio GRC

Received 21.6% votes, vs PAP

Related Links

14minute video of NParks and Police Officers approaching ReturnMyCPF Protestors

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w1hYRVyclo

17-minute, uncut video shows Roy Ngerng & ReturnMyCPF protesters encroaching on YMCA’s venue

Article: http://mothership.sg/2014/10/uncut-17-minute-video-indeed-shows-cpf-blogger-roy-ngerng-encroaching-on-ymcas-venue/

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozAaFra5ycw

Online reactions to Hong Lim Park rallygoers’ heckling of special needs children at charity carnival

http://mothership.sg/2014/09/online-reactions-to-hong-lim-park-rallygoers-heckling-of-special-needs-children-at-charity-carnival/

Mr Brown: On the #ReturnMyCPF Protesters disrupting the YMCA event

http://www.mrbrown.com/blog/2014/09/on-the-returnmycpf-protestors-ymca-incident.html

Amos Yee's appeal to overturn conviction and jail term dismissed

Teen blogger Amos Yee was expected to attend the High Court on Thursday (Oct 8) for his appeal to be heard, but did not show up. His appeal was dismissed.

By Vanessa Paige Chelvan  POSTED: 08 Oct 2015 10:20  UPDATED: 09 Oct 2015 14:13

SINGAPORE: Teen blogger Amos Yee had an appeal against his prior conviction and jail sentence dismissed by the High Court on Thursday (Oct 8).

Yee was expected to attend the hearing for his appeal to be heard, but did not show up. His lawyer, Mr Alfred Dodwell, who filed the notice of appeal on Jul 9, was present.

Justice Tay Yong Kwang decided to conduct the hearing without the 16-year-old, who has already finished serving his 4-week prison sentence. Following a hearing that lasted about two hours, the appeal was dismissed.

The teen was found guilty of two charges in May this year, after a two-day trial. Yee was convicted of one count of making offensive or wounding remarks against Christianity and one count of circulating obscene imagery.

Said Justice Tay: "Yee used offending words against the central figure of the Christian religion. There can be no doubt that be deliberately intended to arouse Singaporeans, Christians or not, into verbal combat with him."

Another of Yee’s lawyers, Mr Chong Jiahao, said that it “cannot be proven as fact” that Yee intended the comments to wound the religious feelings of Christians. “His purpose was to talk about the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew”, Mr Chong said, adding that there was no “cogent evidence” otherwise produced in court.

The fact that it was Yee’s “dominant intention” to critique Mr Lee is irrelevant, said the prosecution, led by Second Solicitor-General Kwek Mean Luck. As long as Yee had a “deliberate intention”, it is enough to prove the charge, Mr Kwek said.

Yee’s “deliberate intention” was evident, said the prosecution, as Yee himself had admitted that he was “fully aware that his remarks were bound to promote ill-will amongst the Christian population”, said Mr Kwek.

Justice Tay noted that Yee had an “unhappy experience” in the Catholic Church. In one of his police statements, Yee said that he was “kicked out of the altar boys” for uttering a profanity at an altar boys meeting. There was therefore a background when he made the offending comments. “They were not innocent words uttered without real thought”, Justice Tay said.

"COMPLETE DISREGARD FOR OTHERS"

On the obscene imagery charge, Justice Tay said that the image Yee circulated “must be obscene by the standards of any right-thinking society”.

Yee’s third lawyer, Mr Ervin Tan argued that the image “does not depict any genitalia” and that the district judge had used the “wrong vantage point” in determining the image to be able to deprave and corrupt young minds.

The District Judge had put herself “in the shoes of right-thinking parents and teachers of our community” and concluded that they would not approve of their children or students viewing the image, said Mr Tan, adding his view that this test is wrong and has “no foundation in law”.

“A picture does not become obscene only when genitalia is explicitly shown”, Justice Tay said. “Depravity and corruption relate essentially to the mind”, said Justice Tay.

He then challenged Mr Tan: “Would a young man bring this picture to show to his girlfriend’s family and say ‘hey, look that this funny picture’? No. Why would he not do it? Something in you says, it’s not right.”

On the issue of the sentence, the High Court judge added: "Yee's attitude of complete disregard for others ... is hardly ever seen … he gave no respect to anyone." Justice Tay noted that the blogger had "openly defied directions of the court" and made sure his "bravado" in doing so was made known.

The defence argued that Yee was exercising his constitutional right to freedom of speech and provoke "critical discussion". Said Mr Dodwell: "Yes, Amos has been rude but were his actions a crime?"

In response, Justice Tay said: "This is not freedom of speech, this is a licence to hate, to humiliate others and to totally disregard their feelings or beliefs by using words to inflict unseen wounds”. It seems like Yee is throwing stones at his neighbour's flat to force the neighbour to notice him, (and) come out to quarrel”, Justice Tay said.

The judge also had sharp comments on the blogger's manner of speech.

"Yee used coarse, hard-hitting words to arouse emotions ... vulgar insults to deliberately provoke readers and draw them out," he said, adding that the 16-year-old should "wean himself off his preference for crude, rude language (and engage in) real debate", which can "flourish in an environment of goodwill, reasoning and civil language".

Justice Tay also noted that the period of 53 days that Yee had to spend in remand, which exceeds his four-week prison sentence, “was caused entirely by (Yee) alone”, pointing to Yee’s repeated flouting of bail conditions and initial refusal to cooperate with the court.

CASE HISTORY

Apart from the two charges Yee was convicted of, a third charge regarding statements Yee made in a YouTube video about the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew had been withdrawn.

Yee uploaded the controversial video on Mar 27, just five days after Mr Lee’s passing, in which the teen likened Mr Lee to Jesus and criticised the founding Prime Minister.

He was arrested two days later, after several police reports were made against him, and charged in court on Mar 31. Yee was initially granted bail, set at S$20,000, with the condition that he would not post materials online while his case was before the courts.

He later flouted these conditions on Apr 14 by publishing a post asking the public for donations. His parents refused to post bail again, and Yee was instead bailed out by family counsellor Vincent Law.
However, Yee flouted his bail conditions a second time on Apr 29 following two blog posts that touched on the terms of his bail and accusing his father of being abusive, causing Mr Law to discharge himself as bailor.

Yee, on his way to the courthouse the next day, was struck by a 49 year old man who wanted to “teach him a lesson”. Neo Gim Huah was sentenced to three weeks’ jail.

After being remanded at the Institute of Mental Health for two weeks for psychiatric assessments, Dr Cai Yiming concluded that Yee does not suffer from any mental disorder.

After Yee’s sentencing on Jul 6, Mr Dodwell had said his client was “remorseful”, but added: “Let’s not run away with the idea that just because he’s remorseful and stuff, that is in relation to the social context. Whether this was a crime or not, still remains a question we want to determine in the High Court”.

- CNA/vc

Source: CNA http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/amos-yee-s-appeal-to/2176608.html

Image Source: Fabrications About The PAP  https://www.facebook.com/FabricationsAboutThePAP/photos/a.245735922149090.70599.213440582045291/909738089082200/?type=3&theater

"Discouraged at first, but then I saw they were listening" : Inderjit Singh on early days in PAP

938LIVE REPORTS: The former Member of Parliament goes "On the Record" on why he joined the PAP and continues to stay even though his views often diverge from the Government's.

POSTED: 09 Oct 2015 22:42

Former Member of Parliament Inderjit Singh. (Photo: Justin Ong)

SINGAPORE: Inderjit Singh had been a PAP Member of Parliament for about two decades before he stepped down just before this year’s General Election. He remains a member of the PAP. He is known for openly opposing some of his party’s policies in Parliament. Post-election, he has also offered advice to the PAP on how to stay relevant. A childhood of service at the temple his family went to sparked a desire in him to serve his community as a student leader, then an MP.

He sat down recently with 938LIVE’s Bharati Jagdish for “On the Record”, to talk about the PAP’s strengths and weaknesses, and why he eventually stepped down. The following are excerpts from the interview.

GETTING INTO POLITICS

Inderjit Singh: In 1994, when I started, my elder girl was 2 1/2 years old, and my younger girl was 6 months old. My son wasn't even born. He was born in ‘98, after I entered politics. And I also started my company at the end of 1997. As an entrepreneur, it's a big undertaking, so I was really busy, spending very little time with the family. I missed out on the growing-up years of my girls, and my boy. Although I tried my best to spend time with them. I made it a point to go for short holidays during the end of the year. In terms of their education, I could not contribute that much. My wife, fortunately, when I entered politics, she decided - she's an engineer also by the way - to leave her job to focus on the children. I have to thank her for that because if she had not done that, I don't know how we would have brought up our children.

Bharati Jagdish: Do you think your family feels a sense of resentment that you weren't there for those crucial growing up years?

Inderjit: I have to thank them because I don't sense that. In fact they do see the value of what I've done, and that I have contributed in many ways. Whether to the community, to Singapore, in the area of entrepreneurship, business ... I've done quite a lot, and I think I've had significant impact, so they are proud of that, but I don't see any resentment. But until today, my children, when they are with me, they still ask me, “Are you free tonight?” Because they know, most of the time, I'm not. So they always look forward to the days when I'm free, so that I can spend time with them. The fact that they look forward to spending time with me, that's good, versus not being bothered at all. I think it is only right that now, before all of them really live their own lives, I spend time with them, and I think they don't mind spending time with me.

Bharati: Any personal regrets on your part that you couldn't spend time with them as they were growing up?
Inderjit: Yeah, you know, I wish I could have balanced it a bit better, but I have no real regrets, because I think I did my duty. I discharged my duty the best that I could.

Bharati: You are best-known for speaking up in Parliament and your long FB posts on policy issues. Why are you so critical of PAP policies even though you were a PAP MP and are still a PAP member?

Inderjit: I do have a good feel of the issues. I keep very close touch with my residents and my volunteers. I spent a lot of time to understand the issues. Many people are willing to come and share with me, no matter who they are, and I give them a listening ear. I do not try to explain things away, like some MPs do. So I saw it as a duty to speak up in Parliament to raise those issues because it's an important platform - that's where policies are discussed, and policies can change too - and also it's a national platform on which I was elected to represent the people who voted for me. I found that it was my duty to speak up, even though it would have been very unpopular with the ministers and with the government, with the civil servants. But that did not hold me back because I wanted to speak the truth, and also push for changes that will improve the lives of Singaporeans. Even if it meant that I was going to put myself in a difficult situation, I did not mind doing that because I had a duty to do.
Bharati: How difficult a situation did speaking up put you in?

Inderjit: Well, over the years, some of the ministers did express resentment. In fact, I could see their reaction towards me - the way they deal with you, trying to brush you off, trying to ridicule what you say. In fact, I think in some of my budget speeches, I was ridiculed by some of the finance ministers also. One main thing I still remember is when I talk about growth at all cost, economic policy, I was ridiculed. They said, “there's no such thing.' But in the end, they admitted that I was right when they changed their tack to “inclusive growth”.

Bharati: How did it feel to be ridiculed?

Inderjit: Of course in the early days when I was new, it was quite discouraging that someone like me, who was sincerely trying to bring up issues, giving alternatives that are maybe even better than what the ministers may have suggested, was being ridiculed and having my argument destroyed.

It was disappointing. But after some time, I saw that they were listening, and although they needed to destroy your argument to pass through their policies and bills, in the longer term, they actually took them into account for future improvements. It was difficult, because every time I challenged the ministers, they came back with a sledgehammer. And I know where the sledgehammer was coming from. It was coming from the civil servants, because civil servants are there to defend the policies. I knew that some of them did not like it, but it was more important for me to speak the truth, represent people's feelings, and also more importantly, to try to effect some changes.

And I'm very happy to say that things have changed. If people like us did not push this, we would not be seeing an inclusive growth strategy.

Bharati: Do you think enough credit has been given to people like you though?

Inderjit: I think that’s a weakness that our leaders need to overcome, that they seldom give credit. But I did not do this for credit. However, I think it's useful to acknowledge, not just me, but many of the other MPs, whether they are from the PAP or Opposition, who may have had great ideas that were later on implemented. So I've noticed that over the years, when I speak in Parliament, many people tell me "Why waste your time?" But actually it's not a waste of time. Ng Eng Hen, after everything else he's said, he did say that "Whenever Inderjit made a speech, all our ministers stood up and listened." So I want to say that they listened, both in Parliament and outside Parliament, because we have many discussions. They may argue their point, maybe quite vigorously, to try to destroy your point in the Parliamentary debate, but at the end of the day, they bring it back. Someone brings it back, and then looks at it, and sometime later, maybe a year or two, the policy changes do come.

I remember I crossed swords with Teo Chee Hean, when he was Education Minister, on the streaming policy. I spoke up very strongly against it, and he challenged me repeatedly. A few years later, the changes came - streaming at Primary 4, a hybrid method that I had suggested. Similarly, in many of the policies, many of the arguments, economic policies, many of these things that I argued about, I saw changes some years later. So it was worth the battle.

Bharati: Why do you think they were so reluctant to give credit?

Inderjit: I think it's difficult for anyone who is in charge to give up credit for any improvements. That's natural for any human being. I think my reason for why it would have been useful for the government and ministers to give credit to some of the MPs - not just me - but many other MPs over the years, particularly the PAP MPs who had many good suggestions over many years, is that giving credit to them would have shown that many of the improvements in government and policies were the result of PAP MPs suggesting it, and not because of opposition suggested, or put pressure on the government to change. I think over time it's good for the public to know where the beginning of the change came from, and on the balance, I think people will see that many PAP MPs have disagreed with policies and also suggested improvements that later on became part of new policies.

Bharati: A lot has been said since the election about the PAP needing to be more humble and the Prime Minister himself has said it. So how confident are you that the stance they took towards people like you in Parliament will change?

Inderjit: I remember none other than Lee Kuan Yew once telling us that "you should speak your mind, and it's the minister's job to defend the policy and to explain things. We should not hold back."

I've held on to that principle of not holding back and speaking my mind. Some of the ministers actually are willing to listen and not ridicule, but some of them still do. I think it is a message for them to be more humble, be willing to listen. I think if it's a reasonable, constructive thing, even if it may not agree with your view, you must give due credit and some ministers do say that "If not now, then let us think about it." I think that is a better approach than to use a sledgehammer. Having said that, not every minister is like that. Some are willing to listen, and don’t use the sledgehammer, but some do.

Bharati: Why did you join the PAP considering many of your views run contrary to theirs?

Inderjit: Many may not know that I have always had my strong views, and I do not hold back. Even before I entered politics. I remember one of the dialogue sessions when I was a party activist for a young PAP chairman at that time. There was a dialogue section with our current Prime Minister when he was just new to politics. I spoke and said that "Why would anyone join the PAP as an MP when he can't vote with his conscience sometimes, when the party whip is not lifted, and I don't agree with this”.

I was quite aggressive in my closed-door discussion with him. When I went for my first tea party, I criticised some of the policies. You would think that they wouldn't want a person like that to join them, but they wanted.

Bharati: Sure, but my question is why did you want to join them, considering that you disagreed with them on so many things. Why not join an opposition party? Form one of your own? Why do you stay a PAP member?

Inderjit: If I look at the whole environment here - all the parties - the principles and the values of the PAP are not wrong. In fact, they are the best party I would say. I meet very good people, very good leaders also, so if you want to serve in politics, you want to join the best. So I think of all the parties, PAP is still the best. For many years, I've also had many occasions when my views, which may not be the same as the views of the government or some of the ministers, are taken seriously.

I had an occasion when Heng Swee Keat was a permanent secretary in MTI, heard my speeches in Parliament, called me up and said immediately, "I'm working on one policy and I want your views on that policy." And he came over to see my office to meet me, and I discussed with him. There was another occasion, Richard Hu, as the Finance Minister, called me and said "You've got so many ideas, my ministry officers don't have the same ideas, can you come and talk about some of your ideas with our ministry's officials." So he gathered all of his key people, and I spent a few hours discussing my ideas with them. To me, they may not have the same views as me, but my job was to internally make the changes to make them see my point of view and see the alternatives that could be good alternatives.

ON DIVERSITY WITHIN THE PAP

Bharati: So in your view, the PAP is a party capable of tolerating dissent? Most people think it isn’t.

Inderjit: Well, I stayed for 21 years. I'm still a party member. I've not seen them not tolerating me, so I think they are capable of tolerating dissent, not just this leadership but also in the past. Over the years, I have had no problems making my point in Parliament and speaking my mind. I would say that they are willing to embrace diversity, although it'll be better if they're willing to do more of it, get a more diverse group of people in the key leadership positions. I think that will do them good.

Bharati: Some might say that the fact that you were never in a Cabinet post implies that they are uncomfortable with diverse views. They might have accepted you as a PAP member and MP, merely tolerated you, but they didn’t promote you even though you had made good policy suggestions.

Inderjit: Well, I never showed interest. I think I was perfectly happy with the balance that I had, being involved in my own businesses. Whether a rejection of my disagreement on some policies was the reason that they did not choose me is not important, because I did not aim for it. I did want to have some influence in the way policies are shaped in some areas, and for that, I did debate very vigorously in Parliament and gave many suggestions for improvement. Of course it's up to the Prime Minister to choose a team he wants in the Cabinet and how he wants to deal with them. If he tolerated me in Parliament, then he could have tolerated me in Cabinet if let's say he'd offered. I think it was really a question of who he had to put in Cabinet and who was willing to do it. I know I never aimed for it.

Bharati: The Cabinet has been unveiled, and many people have noticed that the ones who have been appointed key Cabinet posts are really more of the same in terms of their backgrounds. What do you think?

Inderjit: I think this is one of our problems when we talk about diversity, it would have been better to have a mix of people holding Cabinet positions. The way the system works is like this: there is a civil service that formulates, that will help to put up most of the policy changes and ideas and so on. And they develop the initial policy papers.

The greatest debate and where change really happens is in Cabinet. And then in Parliament, we get the finished product, where we debate, give our views and then changes come a few years later if they willing to listen to us. So the real place where this debate takes place is in the Cabinet.

Now, if you have everyone on the same 'mode' in Cabinet, then I personally believe that the quality of the debate will not be good enough. I think it's not a bad idea to have about 20 to 30 percent of people who are not from the same group in Parliament.

So I made this point after the 2011 election results to the Prime Minister. I wrote to him a note, and I had suggested that, he should seriously consider putting people of different backgrounds, not the same, and also people from the private sector. Some of them may be the grassroots type of MPs who could represent people's view in Cabinet. That actually would then, would have given us a very high quality debate in the Cabinet and the result would have been better policies.

Bharati: You’ve also said that diversity can be better reflected if the party Whip is lifted more often. Why do you think the government seems unwilling to do these things?

Inderjit: I think like in any organisation, you want to have people in your team, in your management, that you can work with, that can work with you, that understands your system. I think that has been our biggest issue. Efficiency and speed has been more important than having a bit of messiness and diversity in views, and loss of efficiency in policy making. We move very fast on many things.

An example is the Population White Paper. Very few MPs were consulted on that before it came out. I think it would have been very useful for us to at least involve the MPs in a thorough discussion, and maybe a wider public participation before it came out into Parliament. And the reason was efficiency. They wanted to move fast. I think we must be willing to give up a bit of efficiency and accept a bit of messiness so that we can take in diverse views and debate things more, with more people.

ON DIVERSITY IN GOVERNMENT

Bharati: What about diversity within the civil service, not just in Cabinet. Considering that the government has been pushing ASPIRE, recognising people based on their performance and capabilities rather than just their academic qualifications, do you think people are still often offered positions in the civil service based chiefly on their academic prowess?

Inderjit: I think that has not changed. If you look at the admin service officers, they are still the scholars who are selected based, I would say, purely on academic results. If you don't have that, you're not even considered. So it's still the same. I think, depending on the need for the job, you should look for qualifications that are alternatives to academic. In some areas, you may need real people who are academically strong. In other areas, you may not necessarily need those people, so I think, not to swing all to the other way, but I think you need to identify the type of jobs.

Bharati: In your interactions with those in the civil service, have you found that a lot of them still don't understand the issues on the ground? That they are still not exercising political judgement in formulating policies?
Inderjit: They're good in their own right. The scholars are smart. They're capable of analysing well and formulating policies and so on, but it all has to start with understanding the real issues on the ground. I think if you look at what had happened in the run up to 2011, and then even up to the Population White Paper in 2013, the 10 years before that, there was an error of policies because they did not understand the issues on the ground. For example, housing. We were told all along it's affordable, and it's more than enough. Actually there was shortage of housing that needed Khaw Boon Wan, when he came in after 2011, to fix.

Similarly, population growth. That was terribly uncoordinated, resulted in a huge infrastructure shortage, whether it was transport, lack of hospital beds, even a lack of doctors. These obviously were policies that were formulated in silos and based on what they felt was right, but not actually what was happening on the ground.

In 2011, during our party conference, I was asked to speak, and I basically made this point that we need to inject more political judgement in policy making. My point was that ministers are the ones who will have to play that role. They cannot just take what civil servants suggest to them as final. They have to challenge the civil servants a lot more because ministers are also MPs, so they will have the feel of the ground.

ON THE OPPOSITION

Bharati: We’ve talked a lot about diversity within the Cabinet and the civil service, but what about diversity in terms of a larger and more robust opposition presence in Parliament? Obviously there is a school of thought that having a dominant party, even if that party is very capable, is unhealthy for a democracy. Democracy needs, necessarily needs, dissenting voices within Parliament in the form of a strong, capable opposition. How do you feel about that?

Inderjit: I think it's not a bad idea to have some of opposition who are constructive and able to provide alternative views. I think if they have good people, then some of them could be the opposition and that could improve the quality of debate and even the quality of policies in the longer term. But having opposition for the sake of opposition is also not the right thing, and especially if the PAP - the dominant party - is able to change within, and to have challenges within the party to do the right things. This has been the case in most of the fifty years we have been independent. In most cases, the PAP has been able to change within. Realise, listen, and change. Therefore, there may not be a need for huge opposition to stifle the government.

The day the PAP starts becoming inefficient and starts doing the wrong things, I think is the day you will need a change, but that has not happened. We have had PAP admit some policy mistakes, some miscalculations resulting in the problems of infrastructure and so on in the past, but they also have made amends. But if the PAP keeps on making mistakes, then I think yes, more opposition. But if not, then why?

Bharati: However, during the election period, some had said that they felt the PAP only became responsive after the 2011 election and it was the larger opposition presence that made them more responsive and of course your party has denied this, saying that some of the changes had been in motion before 2011 and that the WP made no meaningful contribution to policies. You’ve said you agree with this, but you've also implied that the party has to remain humble and continue being responsive with or without an opposition in order to stay in power. Which aspects of the PAP leadership style would you say worked in the past, but are not going to work in the next few years?

Inderjit: I would summarise it as a "we know best" approach. It’s “we know best” and the civil servants and driving it. I think this is an aspect that must change, and I think that PM did mention that he wants more participation, more conversation to go on and hopefully all of that becomes input to better policies. Rather than in the past, all I needed to do was to have a dialogue section, to explain to you the policies. I think now we should go into, "I need your views to formulate better policies".

Bharati: You say that a stronger opposition is only needed if the PAP keeps on making mistakes. The concern is that by the time the PAP gets to that stage - I'm not saying it definitely will, but let's say it does - there may not be a capable opposition in existence in order to take over. There are perceptions that the playing field is not level in politics and more should be done to ensure a level playing field so that a capable opposition can develop.

Inderjit: In this election, we saw all seats contested. Every party had a chance. Even if we redraw the boundaries regularly, I think if the opposition, throughout five years, have been doing their job working the ground and speaking about alternatives that they think are better, getting noticed, it will help them when the elections come. Of course, every ruling party will try to do things that will be in its favour. Everyone does that in every country, but I think the situation is not that bad. The opposition actually can get themselves noticed, even before the elections.

Especially with social media these days, it's easily happening. Many of them are putting up their views, giving alternative ideas and so on, and I think they just need to look serious, come up with serious ideas, really good alternatives that even the PAP could not think of, and I think they will get rewarded for it at the elections. I've learnt one thing in life, that when you are the underdog, you have to work doubly hard to make things work. So, instead of complaining, I think the opposition candidates should be working around these things and show themselves anyway. And if you work doubly hard, you look doubly good.

Bharati: Would it be in the interest of Singapore to have a PAP that is not so strong, so that alternative policies can be given a better airing?

Inderjit: I think, we are a small nation and I think it's not unrealistic to feel that we are vulnerable. We are small and if let's say we really get into trouble, we may not come back again.

Bharati: Some have said that kind of thinking smacks of paranoia.

Inderjit: I think we have to be paranoid about this. Only the paranoid survive. If the government becomes too weak, it could mean the future of the nation at stake.

Bharati: Not the government, but the PAP in particular, so that some political creativity and diversity can emerge in parliament and the possibility of someone else forming the government.
Inderjit: I want to say this. When Singapore was in trouble many years ago, there was a group of young men and women who came forward and formed the PAP. Because they did not agree with the government of that time.

And they were serious men and women who formed the PAP and then later on formed the government. So similarly, I'm quite confident that Singaporeans are very capable people. If the PAP is weak and is not capable of delivering, I'm quite sure that there will be a good group of people who will be willing and who are able to come forward to provide that alternative. We are not at that place yet, where the PAP is so weak that alternatives need to come out. I don't think any of the current opposition has got that kind of composition that could be the alternative, but I'm quite confident that there will be enough people who will either join the PAP to strengthen it, or will come forward with an alternative that will strengthen the opposition.

Bharati: If you were in the opposition, what would you do to make meaningful headway?
Inderjit: I think check and balance alone is not enough. You have to be able to provide good alternatives, serious views that are actually well thought through that can be successful if implemented as a policy. I'm not saying that the Workers' Party ideas were bad. They were not bad ideas, but I think not thought through deep enough. They did a good job in explaining what they wanted, but I think if you go deeper, and think yourself if let's say I'm the government and I have to implement this, will it work for the nation? I think if they think about it, they will realise that not everything is possible.

MANAGING DIVERSITY

Bharati: You said in a previous interview that some elements of a liberal democracy that the opposition parties were espousing did not go down well with some Singaporeans you spoke to.

Inderjit: I've seen, particularly during these elections, Singaporeans looking at broader issues, particularly the liberal Western approach to democracy and they start to think twice, you know, "This is not how we want things to be done here in Singapore." Some do. They want to have more freedom of speech, more freedom of the press, and many of those things, but at the same time they want to avoid many of the other things that they feel are not desirable for society. Particularly the religious organisations, and they are big groups. I think they are not ready for liberal policies in Singapore yet.

Bharati: What specifically do they take objection to, based on your interactions with them?

Inderjit: I think one of the things that has come out strongly is the LGBT issue, which I think many people have an issue with especially religious organisations. I saw that in play during this election as I went around, so I think this is an example and there will be others.

Bharati: What is your personal stance on this?

Inderjit: I see myself as a more conservative person. A gradual release and opening up is what I prefer as compared to a rapid change which will make a lot of people uncomfortable.

Bharati: On subjects of that nature – not just LGBT issues, to what extent do you think perhaps the government should be the one to set the tone for an acceptance of people who are different, who are in the minority in Singapore, but are Singaporeans nevertheless, instead of waiting for society to be “ready” so to speak, for a more inclusive society?

Inderjit: I think this is a fine balance that we have to find. The government can take the lead on many of the issues. I think over time they have been doing that, so we talk about housing for single mothers, parents. I think we have relaxed this somewhat with the recent allocation of rental flats and 2-room purchase flats for them. There is some amount of relaxation already, and so this means they are listening and are willing to take the lead, although generally, society at large may not accept some of these things. I think it's a question of judgement right now - at what pace the government is willing to take the lead and change before society is ready.

Bharati: Let's talk about the Population White Paper. You walked out of Parliament when the vote for this was taken, because you disagreed with it and the party Whip was not lifted during the vote. You opposed it in many ways saying that PR and citizenship are granted too easily. You opposed the influx of immigrants at the pace of the past. The immigration policy has been tightened since then, so has the granting of PR status. But the issue of National Service for the children of PRs still comes up, they still have the option of renouncing their PR status to avoid NS. You mentioned this in 2013. How do you feel about this now?

Inderjit: I think they should go to jail! Just like if my son skips NS, he's going to go to jail. So for the PRs, whose children do not do NS, if they grew up here and benefited from Singapore's system, they should be similarly treated.

Bharati: You’ve said that you’ll continue making your views known through other channels such as the media, but what do you miss about being an MP?

Inderjit: I spent a lot of time in my constituency, and I developed a very strong relationship with my grassroots leaders, with my branch activists, and also my residents. That's kind of a family too that I'm leaving behind, so I miss that most, especially all the volunteers who have helped me. They were really a good group of people who supported me throughout my 21 years, and I miss them. These volunteers spend their time serving the community and helping me. I miss them the most.

- 938LIVE/hs

Source: CNA  http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/discouraged-at-first-but/2181300.html?cid=fbsg