 | New blog | May 12, '09 12:44 PM
for everyone |
Further restrictions on rights in Singapore 23 April 2009, 08:28AM (Amnesty International) On 13 April Singapore’s parliament passed a new Public Order Act, which further restricts the human right to freedom of peaceful assembly and enhances policing powers to the exclusion of adequate safeguards to prevent abuse. The government stated that the Act was needed in advance of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit to be held in Singapore during November, when heads of state from member countries will meet. It claimed that such legislation was needed to combat the threat of terrorist acts during the summit. Amnesty International recognises the security concerns and the challenges of policing such a large event. However, this development has the potential of further constricting freedom of peaceful assembly in Singapore, which is already compromised. This law should be amended to ensure full compliance with international human rights standards. The law complements and strengthens provisions of existing legislation, including the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act (PEMA) and the Miscellaneous Offences Act (MOA) which have been used previously to suppress peaceful demonstrators. These include prominent opposition leader, Dr. Chee Soon Juan, the Secretary-General of the Singapore Democratic Party. He was sentenced in November 2006, under the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act, to five weeks in jail after refusing to pay a S$5,000 fine for speaking in public without a permit, prior to the country's general election in May 2006. Amnesty International calls on the Singapore government to meet its legal obligations under Article 14(1) of the Singapore Constitution to preserve freedom of speech and expression; the right to assemble peaceably and without arms; and the right to form associations. Amnesty International also calls upon Singapore to abide by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which states that, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes the freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”. While this right, as well as the right to peaceful assembly (in Art. 20(1) of the UDHR) may be restricted for purposes such as national security or public order, these restrictions can only be applied narrowly and to the extent necessitated by the specific circumstances. A law which defines as few as two persons moving “substantially as a body of persons” in order to show opposition or support to somebody’s view, publicise a cause or commemorate an event (Sec. 2(1) of the Act) - as “a procession” which needs a permit and on which restrictions may be applied cannot be seriously considered as falling within internationally accepted limitations on these rights. The circumstances under which permits may be denied are stated in Section 7(2), using vague language that can be broadly interpreted. This includes where there are reasonable grounds for believing that the proposed assembly or procession may “create a public nuisance” or “cause feelings of … ill will … between different groups in Singapore”. The government can, under Sections 12, 25 and 28 of the Act, give enhanced powers to the police by declaring an event to be a prohibited one. This would enable police to stop and search any person who is entering or about to enter such an area. They may also search any person who is already in this area. They may question an individual’s reason for wanting to enter a venue and also deny entry to such a venue. Failure to comply will subject the individual to a fine and imprisonment. Amnesty International is concerned that these powers are excessive and open to abuse, which could result in violations of the rights to privacy and freedom of movement, as well as arbitrary detention. Under Section 40 of the Act, police may arrest individuals without a warrant for contravening any of the Act’s provisions, which would include anyone who “assists or promotes… any assembly or procession” (Sec. 3(1)(a) of the Act). Rather than restricting further the rights to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly, Singapore should revise its laws and policies to accord with international human rights standards, including by ratifying international human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The government should also seek guidance from international human rights monitoring bodies and experts on maintaining security while respecting and protecting human rights. Background Singapore imposes significant restrictions on freedom of expression and assembly, particularly on critics of the government, the media, and peaceful demonstrations. In 2008, 18 activists and members of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party faced charges for holding unauthorised protest marches against the rising cost of living. In October 2008, already bankrupt Secretary-General of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party, Dr. Chee Soon Juan and activist Chee Siok Chin were ordered to pay S$610,000 (approximately US$406,000) in defamation damages to current and former government leaders. They were subsequently sentenced to prison for contempt of court after criticising the conduct of their trial. Although they have since been released, as bankrupts they were barred from seeking parliamentary seats or leaving the country without permission. Note: Thanks Jacob, for putting this on your blog!
(Written for the SDP website)
Contrary to popular perception that physical development refers simply to the physical growth of a child, this important area of development actually refers to the development of physical skills. In this write-up, I wish to focus mainly on the development of motor skills.What do we mean by motor skills?This is the ability to make purposeful movements with the utilization of the necessary skeletal muscles that are required to accomplish a task. Motor skills generally involve the proper functioning and co-ordination of the brain, skeleton, joints and nervous systems. The development of most motor skills occurs in early childhood and can be divided into gross motor skills and fine motor skills.Gross motor skillsGross motor skills are acquired during infancy and up to early childhood. Children at the age of two are normally able to stand up, walk and run. As the child grows, these skills involving the use of large muscle groups, will improve as he learns how to better control his movement.Tables outlining the normal age-stage of gross motor development, such as when a child should begin crawling or running, should be used only as a loose guide. This is because every child develops differently, depending on their social and physical environment.There are many things that can be done to aid a child’s development of gross motor skills such as walking on the balancing beam, crawling through tunnels, kicking a ball about and climbing onto child sized chairs and tables, and so on. The child will eventually learn how to move forward, shift and balance his body weight as well as learn the possible functions of his upper and lower limbs.Be watchful but don't stop a child from repeating particular activities even if she fails, and falls, at the first try. Encourage the child to try again. This will in turn build up the child’s confidence besides the intended gross motor skill(s).Fine motor skillsThis refers mainly to the co-ordination of small muscle movements usually occurring in the hands and fingers, in co-ordination with the sensory organs like the eyes and the ears. The development of fine motor skills is important for the development of other skills such as writing, cutting, basic self- help skills and so on.During a child’s infant and toddler years, basic grasping and manipulation skills are usually developed. By the age of three, a child can create objects with wooden blocks and play dough as well as scribble with crayons. Some children from this age group can even insert objects into matching spaces.It is also at this point of time that most children will tend to show preference of using one hand over the other. There are many debates over whether a child showing signs of left-handedness should be corrected but, personally, I don't believe that that is necessary.Attempts to manipulate simple tools such as pencils, zippers, snap buttons, scissors and spoons to complete specific tasks will emerge between the ages of three to four. At this stage, it is good that parents allow and guide their children to use such tools with patience and not dismiss them as slow and end up doing everything for them.Activities such as dough play, threading wooden beads, tracing, scooping, sorting and matching, cutting, painting, tearing and folding are activities that can help to improve a child’s fine motor skills.I have seen many parents stop their children from activities like dough play because of the ‘dirt’ and mess created. Such activities are important for the child's motor development. Besides, it will be a good opportunity to teach children to clean up and pack away. Excuses will not help a child, only patience will.In conclusionMany parents may want to push their children to read and write instead of running about outdoor. Many do not have the patience to wait for their children to finish simple tasks like self-feeding and putting on their own shoes, resulting in them waiting on their children from head to toe in the name of speed.Without being able to mold a ball of play dough into simple forms, how can the finger muscles learn to hold a pencil, not to mention writing a word? Without learning how to scoop and direct the hand to move the spoon into the mouth, how can a child learn to eat?If you love your children, let them have the time and space to grow. Let them play as children play and let them learn the way they should learn.
From SDP's website
Monday, 06 April 2009
University World News
Colin A Sharp
 Singapore's academic community has become increasingly concerned about a succession of deaths at the Nanyang Technology University campus, with at least two apparent student suicides in one week, one of them linked to the murder of an academic, as well as a fatal car accident - all in the space of three weeks and all from the same faculty.
The murder-suicide involved an Indonesian student who was in his final year of an engineering degree. The student allegedly stabbed his professor after his Asean scholarship was revoked. He is then believed to have thrown himself off a student building.
The death of a research fellow in the car accident and the other student suicide, who was also a Chinese national, involved Nanyang's school of electrical and electronic engineering. A report in last week's Singapore Sunday Times said the university would not comment on the series of events. Despite this, some writers in the Singapore press have suggested the deaths point to a possible trend.
Reports of increased enrolments in universities around the world suggest that students are taking up further study as a result of the global financial crisis. But this could be a mixed blessing for the institutions.
Apart from the stress on administrators and the bigger piles of assignments for academics to mark, there may also be longer queues at student counselling services. Even worse, there may be more students suffering untreated depression, with subsequent violence and suicide.
Younger students have never experienced the likes of the current economic crisis. Although this could be sufficiently anxiety-provoking to prompt their investment in additional qualifications, such anxiety associated with low self-esteem may bring with it increased stress and inevitable sleeplessness and depression.
Combined with the financial pressures of funding their studies, along with the pressures to do well, this could result in a lethal mix of stressors.
The International Education Association, which represents international education professionals in Australia and New Zealand, is one of the few organisations to have tried to develop a response to this apparent trend.
The association has produced a useful resource for its members handling critical incidents in the international student community, such as a suicide of an international student.
The Nanyang campus does have a student counselling programme for international students, as well as a crisis help line and advice on self-help for mental health problems and stress self-management support.
But the deaths last month raise questions about whether university administrations and student services around the globe need to review their crisis support resources in the context of the global financial crisis.
* Dr Colin A Sharp is Managing Director of Education Development Brokers
http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20090402214325834
(Written for the SDP's website)
In my last contribution, I mentioned five main aspects of early childhood education: social, physical, intellectual, creative and emotional development. This instalment writeup is an elaboration on the first area of focus, namely, social development.What is social development?Social development refers to the ability of children to interact and bond with others around them, establishing human relations such as friendship and kinship.The social development of a child starts off at infancy and is mainly about bonding with their parents and primary caregivers as well as anyone they may come into frequent contact with. As they mature, they begin to interact with each other through play. In Singapore, parents often associate play with empty fun, a waste of time that could be better used. Maybe its because the education is so exam-oriented that parents are so anxious that they make their children spend all their time and energy in front of books. What they don't realise is that play forms a very important function in the development of young children.The importance of playAs toddlers begin to play alongside each other engaging in solitary play, they interact directly with inanimate objects. This is what we term parallel play. Although during this stage of play toddlers often appear to be ignoring each other, they are highly aware of the presence of others around them. It is during this period that they begin to observe and imitate as well as form initial opinions about each other. Sometimes, one will reach out to snatch the object another toddler is playing or kick the one playing next to him. Such behaviour should be gently stopped but must not be seen as "naughtiness". This is the only way the toddler interacts with another because the concept of the needs and feelings of others has yet to be established. It is through such experimentation as well as the guidance that caregivers provide that they come to understand concepts such as sharing, showing consideration to others as well as the emotions of another individual besides themselves. When they slowly mature to engage in cooperative play, usually in pairs and then later forming small groups, young children start to learn more about social concepts such as trust, sharing, being considerate of others as well as cooperating with each other to achieve a common goal.
At the same time, they start to participate in contributing to discussions on how a game or an activity should be carried out. During such a discussion, arguments may arise and tiny fists may start flying. The role of parents and educators in such instances should ideally be one of facilitation and not reprimand.
Dealing with conflicts
In my experience so far as an educator, when my own students start to engage in physical fights, I normally separate them by putting them in separate chairs. The rest of the children come to undertake the role of arranging the chairs for the parties involved and it is amusing observing their reaction which has become automatic.
Once the angry parties have been seated, a series of questions will be asked so as to let the children vent their anger verbally through the answering of questions. After one or two questions, the children will start arguing and debating with each other about the rights and the wrongs.
Through questions like “What could you have done if you don’t like what she was doing?” and “So do you mean to say that someone else can also kick you just because they don’t like what you are doing?”, they gradually start to admit that other actions could be done to solve the problems instead of getting physical. In fact, conflicts among children should not be seen negatively by adults but should be used to help children understand the feelings of others. It is by our facilitation and guidance that they will eventually develop a sense of empathy. Conflicts, just as much as play, are part of social interaction and as parents, care givers and teachers, we should not neglect or dismiss such opportunities and simply punish the children for being "naughty".
By doing so and judging children based on our "adult" view of socializing, we might just end up having children who "behave themselves" for the sake of conformity and for the sake of pleasing people. Is that what we really want? Conclusion
It is the responsibility of every parent, caregiver or teacher to observe and take note of their charges in the way that will facilitate and guide instead of punish and force. To force a child to play with another when he/she is not ready might, in many cases, lead to the child being more withdrawn or picking up the habit of simply pleasing the adults by following their instructions.
The same thing goes with apologies. We should not force a child to apologise to another without first making them realize their mistakes before initiating an apology.
Do you want the child to become someone who does things our of sincerity or do you want the child to become someone who lives by the way of subserviently pleasing others?
 Source: Seelan Palay
3 activists including filmmaker Ho Choon Hiong, lawyer Chia Ti Lik and myself gathered at the Singapore Botanical Gardens this morning to protest against an "Orchid Naming Ceremony" hosted for the Burmese junta leader Thein Sein.As Singaporeans we want to register our disapproval over the naming of Singapore's national flower, the Orchid, after a leader of the despotic military junta of Burma.We made our way through the park in red t-shirts, intending to hand a bouquet of 8 Orchid stalks (symbolizing the '88 revolution) with a greeting card to the General, to request that he help deliver them to pro-democracy leader Miss Aung San Suu Kyi.When we arrived at the location of the ceremony at 8.15 am however, we were approached by a group of National Parks staff who informed us that the event was over in 5 minutes and that the General had since left.Plainclothes police officers who had also been present at previous similar events were spotted at various points in the park long after the General's departure. I noticed one particular officer who was pretending to take photographs of flowers and told him, "Hey, you damn obvious lah!". He took a nervous glance at me and then looked in another direction.A decision was then made to walk to the Burmese Embassy on St. Martin's Drive to request them to hand the bouquet and card over to Aung San Suu Kyi. After a brief inquiry, the security guard on duty shouted at us from a distance that they refuse to accept the gifts.Standing outside the locked gates the embassy, I went ahead and read out the contents of the card:"Dear Aung San Suu Kyi,Today marks an unimportant occasion whereby an Orchid will be named in Singapore after Thein Sein, a general of the Burmese junta.We feel that it is more befitting to be named after you.This bouquet of 8 Orchid stalks is to honour you and your countrymen who have sacrificed so much for freedom and democracy in Burma.Respectfully yours,Singaporeans for Burmese democracy"We then unfurled a banner bearing the words, "Long Live Aung San Syu Kyi", and shouted out the slogan thrice with raised fists.We left after placing the bouquet and card at the doorstep of the embassy, hoping that one day, an Orchid flower will be honoured in the name of Miss Aung San Suu Kyi, the rightful leader of Burma.
 When the trial for the Tak Boleh Tahan 18 resumed yesterday, Mr Jufri Salim pleaded guilty to the two charges and was fined a total of $1,200. The young protester said that he could not get more time off from work and the trial looks set to drag on for a while yet.But Mr Jufri refused to pay the fine because he had done no wrong, adding "I am glad to serve time for a cause I believe in." He will serve an eight-day jail term in default beginning tomorrow. The SDP salutes a courageous and true Singaporean.
Eighteen activists are charged with participating in a protest outside Parliament House on 15 Mar 08. They had raised the matter of rising costs of living in Singapore and how it was affecting the poor.
Young Jufri seemed a little nervous at the prospect of going to jail. Everybody does. But he did not allow that fear to overcome his principle of yielding to an unjust law. Wearing his Tak Boleh Tahan t-shirt, he read out the following statement in court:Your Honour,
I wish to make this statement:
It is with a heavy heart that I have to plead guilty. I am doing it because of work commitments and the fact that I have 3 kids and a wife to provide for.
I am making it clear that I did no wrong. In fact what I did with the 17 others who exercised our constitutional rights on 15th March 08 is very noble and no one can take those rights away from us, citizens of Singapore. We stood up for Singapore and our fellow Singaporeans. The only regret is that I am unable to continue to fight this case.
And because I have done no wrong and committed no crime, I will not pay the fine although money has been raised. I am glad to serve time for a cause I believe in.
I hope that my fellow citizens will wake up one day to the fact that we have been oppressed for too long. Join us in our call for freedom and democracy in Singapore.
Jufri Salim
Source: Singapore Democrats
PRESS RELEASE
EXHIBITION OF REGISTERS OF ELECTORS
AND REGISTRATION OF OVERSEAS ELECTORS
The revised Registers of Electors for all 23 Constituencies (14 Group Representation Constituencies and 9 Single Member Constituencies) have been completed and will be exhibited for public inspection from 3 March 2009 to 16 March 2009 at the Elections Department, the Inspection Centres for the respective Constituencies and at nine Overseas Registration Centres. During this period, online checking of the Registers of Electors may also be made via the Elections Department’s eServices provided at its website (www.elections.gov.sg).
Read the full press release here.
Despite the recession, the smell of a parliamentary election seems to be in the air, but I am not all sure if the signs could be genuine. Yet at the same time, it could also be genuine. Honestly, I am rather confused by it. However whether an election comes sooner or otherwise, it will happen anyway. The question here is, how are we going to cast our votes?
Most importantly, how are you going to cast yours?
Many people I know and have spoken to admitted that they would love to see some changes in the local political scene however most of them lamented about the fact that the opposition camp is weak in their abilities and the disappointing performance of those who are already in the Parliament actually makes them think twice about voting for a so called 'alternative' government. Also, they added that the serial code printed on the ballot papers have discouraged them from voting against the ruling party, namely the People Action Party (PAP). Another thing that comes common is the fact that they are unsure whether the opposition politicians, if elected to Parliament, will help ensure the economic growth and stability of peace in our home soil. All of these reasons have given me the impression that many of them, although they have so claimed to want changes, fear the 'consequences' of their desire.
Can one blame them for their fears? Well, I don't think so. Not totally anyway.
Growing up in the same system, I can sometimes understand why some of us have been made crippled when it comes to political awareness. To name a few factors, the mainstream education system, the media and some of our upbringing have taught, brainwashed and caused us to be submissive and trusting to our government and the laws they have written down. What I don't understand is that, when something is obviously wrong and nagging the conscience, most of us still go about doing what we do best - complaining - and nothing else, nothing more. Someone once said to me,
"To speak out publicly against the ruling government is lunacy and to be convicted of such an act of lunacy simply adds on to more lunacy."
How does that make sense at all? Well it definitely doesn't make a single bit of sense to me. The same person also said,
"Look at Potong Pasir. Old flats, no upgrading... the opposition cannot do anything. The PAP is too powerful and they are rich so voting for them is only wise."
Now it might well be logical to all of you to call that person wise but have you wondered why the politicians from the opposition camps seem so 'weak'?
Unlike other countries whereby opposition politicians are free to exist, to speak to the press and to be published and made known to the people their ideologies, opinions and such, their counterparts in Singapore have been cornered and 'fixed' to a miserable corner, unable to do more than to whimper. Those who have tried to roar (and are still doing so) have been slapped with defamation suits and made bankrupts although what they have been roaring about reflects their concerns for the country and their fellow Singaporeans. We have no free press and the government has a tight control over the exposure of their opposition via the Films act and the Newspaper and Printing Presses act and many more. Many Singaporeans however, are quite oblivious about these two acts in particular and they believe that our mainstream media speaks fairly and objectively, bearing no sign of pro-governmental propaganda.
In my opinion, if one truly cares about this country and the generations to come, one should seek out the truth not by the way of reading mainstream media. Look out for opposition political figures when they are out and about, talk to them, hear them out and see them for yourselves. Avoiding them is not going to help this country or justify your negative and fearful opinions about them.
Everyone of us should find out the truth and honour our desire for an alternative government, for a better Singapore. No ruling elite should enforce upon us their opinions or buy our support through the use of handouts or fantastic promises of upgrading. Think... without our support, how anyone from the opposition camp prove their worth? Without our questioning and expression of dissatisfaction, how can the government change for the better?
We have been brought up knowing that it is unwise to follow strangers who offer us sweets, the same thing applies here when it comes to voting. Don't be fooled, vote wisely and without fear.
Ending on a personal note, PAP gets no vote of confidence from me because their governing and what their ministers (including the MM) have uttered so far, are in no way reflective of the pledge that I have learned to recite and understand in school as well as the ideologies I personally believe in. I simply refuse to be bought and no one can execute me for my right to that.
Read also:
Is a general election this year now confirmed?
Why an election in September is most likely
General elections this year?
ST going out of its way to bullshit the masses?
Analysis of an impending election
Boundaries of altered polling districts (PDF)
Ballot secrecy (from the Elections Department)
This is an article written for SDP's website and was published last month.____________________________________________________
"So long as he can read, write and is a good boy who gives no problems, we are happy enough because we are busy parents who cannot really spend much time teaching him." - Father of M"Does he keep up with the rest of his peers? If he doesn't, do inform us because when it comes to Primary One, it might be too late for us to do anything." - Mother of M"I am depending on you to improve her attention span. She cannot sit still for 10 minutes but I would like to send her to enrichment classes next month and it is important that she focuses. Otherwise it will be a waste of money. It is all very competitive out there, she should get a good headstart before going to primary school." - Mother of S
Welcome to Singapore. It is a garden (as described by a taxi driver in Shanghai) and a first world nation among other things. While we attain "first world standards" in many regards, our people's knowledge in the area of early childhood education (ECE) is appalling.
The above-mentioned quotes are from parents whose children are only four years old. At such a young age when they should be enjoying themselves, discovering the world through exploration, imaginative play and such, they are being driven from one enrichment class to another.
What were you doing when you were four, can you recall? I can -- fondly. I spent all my time getting into trouble and trying to get my younger brother from following me all over because he was such a pest. But it was hell of a fun! Undoubtedly the results were never pretty as canning was still not frowned upon back then.
Anyway, coming back to the question of early childhood education it is sad to see most parents being so ignorant. As gathered from most of the conversations with Singaporean parents over the past 2 years, the general belief is that preschools are only here to prepare the child for formal education (primary school) besides helping out with their child care load.
As an early childhood educator I find that the Ministry of Community, Youth and Sports (MCYS) is not doing enough to contribute to the awareness of what an early childhood education is about. From what I see, some of their officers have no idea of it themselves. Yet they are the people auditing and assessing the quality in preschools islandwide. This often frustrates me.
So what is early childhood education?
From a local perspective, ECE simply means sending a child to a preschool, be it a kindergarten or a child care centre. This is not so. It refers to the education of a child from birth to the age of 8 in general and it does not have to take place in the absence of parents or caregivers in a formal setting of a classroom or school. It takes many forms, depending on the educational beliefs of the parents or teachers.
To put it simply, it refers to the learning experiences of a child at an early age. So broad is the term that the process of toilet training a child at home is also considered a form of ECE. This is because infants, toddlers and young children learn differently from older children and adults. They learn mainly through experiences and are especially effective if all the five senses are involved in the experiences.
Words like 'dangerous' and 'slippery' mean nothing to them unless they step on a slippery surface and take a fall. Concepts like 'high' and 'low' cannot be understood well enough unless, for example, they take turns climbing up a tree and look down from an elevated height. It is only through such experiences that a child begins to understand various concepts of the world.
Conscious and unconscious facilitation by an adult or an older child will further enhance this learning process as they introduce the vocabulary through explanations to build up the logic of an experience. This facilitation is what educationist, Lev Vygotsky, refers to as "scaffolding". The following are the main areas of development that ECE focuses upon (especially in the very early years):-
1. Social
2. Physical
3. Intellectual
4. Creative
5. Emotional
In between the above areas of development stated, we also have language development as well as the development of morals and sense of responsibility and independence.
Effective ECE is not about training a child to be an instruction follower and adult-pleaser. It is also not just about preparing the child for formal and institutionalised schooling. It is about developing the child into a thinking being who, by facilitation, gradually makes sense of the concepts of life while at the same time maintaining their thirst for further understanding and attainment of knowledge and life skills.
That to me as an early childhood educator, is the most important aspect of my role in the lives of the children under my care. For it to work, the co-ordination and collaboration of effort between parents and educator make a huge difference in the development of children.
May I be so daring as to claim that ECE is as, if not more, important as university education. For how can one even write a thesis without first learning how to develop an idea or thought?
| Tuesday, 03 February 2009 | | Singapore Democrats | Through the years, much has been said about the SDP. As a result many views have been formed and propagated about what we stand for, our beliefs and how we go about achieving our goals – some accurate and others completely false.
We take a moment here to address these misconceptions so that Singaporeans can get a better understanding of the party. The information below will also be useful to counter the propaganda put out by the PAP.
Misconception No. 1: The SDP is not interested in parliamentary elections
Parliamentary elections are the cornerstone of a functioning democracy and we cannot emphasize more that we see elections as the only legitimate way of political parties gaining power. We have taken part in every election in the past and will continue do so in the future.
What we don't believe in, however, is that an opposition party, under present political circumstances, should focus exclusively on elections. This is because elections in Singapore are not free and fair. The PAP amends electoral rules to suit its own needs, controls the media, and victimises opposition leaders. Where else in the world can a prime minister openly say that he needs to "fix" the opposition and "buy" votes -- and get away with it?
The truth is that it is impossible for the opposition to make any meaningful inroads into Parliament through the existing electoral process. This is why, over and above taking part in elections, opposition parties – together with civil society – must work to reform the election system.
What the SDP wants to see is a truly fair parliamentary election system in Singapore, one acceptable by international standards.
Misconception No. 2: The SDP wants to effect change through "extra-legal" means
As explained above, when effecting change through undemocratic elections is impossible other peaceful, non-violent approaches are the only other options open.
What the SDP is fighting for are the freedoms of speech and peaceful assembly for Singaporeans, rights that are enshrined in our Constitution. They are the building blocks of free and fair elections without which we cannot press the Government to reform the electoral process.
But when the PAP continues to violate the Constitution and bans citizens from peaceful assembly, Singaporeans must stand up and protect our Constitution. The only way that this can be achieved is by defying the repressive laws put in place by the PAP.
Protecting the Constitution is not extra-legal because the Constitution is the supreme law of the country. It is the PAP that has resorted to extra-legal measures by violating the supreme law of the land.
Misconception No. 3: The SDP is an extremist party that advocates breaking laws
Let us be absolutely clear: Citizens cannot go about breaking a law just because they don't agree with it. This is not what civil disobedience is about. Civil disobedience is about standing up and not submitting to unjust laws put in place by governments to deny citizens their most basic rights. These rights are universally accepted as inalienable to all persons and the PAP has no right to take them away.
In fact it is the PAP that does not adhere to the rule of law. Case in point: The police arrested Tak Boleh Tahan protesters on 15 Mar 08 while allowing Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) members to conduct their protest. Such discrimination clearly infringes Article 12 of the Constitution which demands that the law must apply equally to all without favour or fear.
We, the Singapore Democrats, are protecting our Constitution and there is nothing extreme about that. In fact it is the duty of all citizens of this republic to stand up for our Constitutional rights.
In any democratic society, we would be considered a moderate party. It is only in an authoritarian system that the ruling party tries to brand reformers as extremists.
Misconception No. 4: The SDP does not offer constructive alternative ideas
Like the other misconceptions, this is one that the PAP likes to spread despite abundant evidence to the contrary.
Way back in 1994 the party adopted Dr Chee Soon Juan's book Dare to Change: An Alternative Vision for Singapore as its manifesto. The book explicitly spells out alternative policies as well as the rationale for these ideas, including those for the economy, politics, society, culture and the arts, education and the media.
These ideas were subsequently expanded in Your Future, My Faith, Our Freedom: A Democratic Blueprint for Singapore. They are further developed in A Nation Cheated. Our flagship publication, The New Democrat, and pamphlets consistently focus on our alternative ideas to the PAP programmes. A look at Our Manifesto in this website would nail the lie that the SDP does not offer constructive alternatives. The latest example is our Budget proposal to help Singaporeans and the economy.
But Singaporeans don't know much of this because the state media will not publish our ideas and keeps printing lies that the Singapore Democrats simply criticise and don't offer constructive ideas.
Misconception No. 5: The SDP is only interested in human rights and not bread-and-butter issues
The SDP has always been at the forefront of raising concerns about the escalating prices of essentials. Again, a quick glance through this website would show clearly that issues such as health care costs, CPF savings, public transport fares, etc are regularly addressed.
The ongoing Tak Boleh Tahan campaign, for example, is one of our main programmes to ensure that the Government keeps the cost of living affordable. The plight of working Singaporeans and SMEs remain high on our agenda. In fact during the general elections, we zero in on pocket-book issues such as the minimum wage, retrenchment entitlements, and the Singaporeans First Policy.
The reason why the wider public does not realise this is because the mass media censor much of what we say and do, especially on pocketbook issues that we raise. A good example is their refusal to report our proposals for this year's Budget.
At the same time, however, it is important to bring up human rights matters. Human rights and bread-and-butter issues are two sides of the same coin. In order for us to talk to the people about issues that concern them, we need freedom of speech. Without this freedom we cannot effectively communicate with the people.
 Opposition - Where to?
Singapore Democrats
In an age of democratic change, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong continues to insist that a one-party system is good for Singapore. This is regardless of what the opposition and Singaporeans at large think and want.
But even as we debate on whether such a one-party state is desirable for this country, what are opposition parties doing to build confidence among the electorate for support? Is greater Opposition unity and cooperation a necessary, or even important, factor in attracting votes? Or is the authoritarian system making elections in Singapore a non-starter?
Also does civil society and the blogging community have a role to play in helping to develop a multi-party system? Given the state of politics here, is it desirable for the political opposition and civil society to work closer together to promote democracy? If so, in what ways?
These are important questions that will be tackled at a public forum organised by the Singapore Democrats entitled Opposition - Where To?:
Date: 7 Feb 09, Saturday
Time: 2-5 pm
Venue: Aerides Room, Copthorne Orchid Hotel, 214 Dunearn Road
Admission: Free
We are honoured to have the following party and civil society leaders as panel speakers:
1. Desmond Lim, Secretary-General, Singapore Democratic Alliance
2. Ng Teck Siong, Chairman, Reform Party
3. Sin Kek Tong, Chariman, Singapore People's Party
4. Sebastian Teo, President, National Solidarity Party
5. Gandhi Ambalam, Chairman, Singapore Democratic Party
Representing civil society are:
1. Chia Ti Lik, blogger and activist
2. Mohd Jufrie, activist and former election candidate
3. Ng E-jay, blogger and activist
4. Tan Kin Lian, blogger and financial activist
5. Seelan Palay, blogger and activist
Source: Anonymous
A friend sent me a link to the following report from the Straits Times last night.
Reviews on public order laws
By Li Xueying, Political Correspondent
THE Government is reviewing existing public order laws, and may craft new legislation to deal with civil disobedience acts such as illegal protests. In the works could be a new law to give the police pre-emptive powers, for instance, to act earlier to prevent people from congregating in certain places, such as Parliament House and the Istana. The review is in tandem with a possible liberalisation of regulations affecting public gatherings, especially social and recreational ones.
Honestly, I was rather disturbed by it. How much more control over freedom of speech does the government want? Haven't they already made this place stifling enough? Anyway I thought I was jumping to conclusions... but I happened to come across this today:
Singapore government to tighten laws against protests: deputy PM
AFP - Saturday - January 17
SINGAPORE (AFP) - - Singapore's deputy prime minister said the island state, which is hosting a summit of Asia Pacific leaders this year, may further tighten laws against public protests, according to reports.Wong Kan Seng, who is also Home Affairs minister, said the government is reviewing public order laws and may pass legislation to deal more effectively with illegal protests and other acts of civil disobedience, the Straits Times said.The legislation is expected to be passed in time for the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum in November which could attract both local and overseas protesters, he said.US president-elect Barack Obama, due to take office next week, is among the 21 leaders scheduled to attend the summit.Public order laws are already tight in Singapore, where protests require a police permit if held outside a designated free-speech zone and gatherings of five or more people are illegal. Nevertheless Wong said fresh legislation is needed to deal more effectively with political activities, while relaxing regulations on people gathering for social and recreational purposes. He said police could be granted power to take action before protesters could gather at specific areas such as parliament, and cited protests by the political opposition, and by Myanmar nationals against their country's ruling junta. "They make a show of breaking the law," Wong said of the protesters. "The police watch and do nothing and can only follow up with investigation after the show is over when they pack up and leave. This cannot go on," he said.
Now there exists a question in my mind for as long as I can remember and that is, why are protests not allowed here? Look, protests have always been peaceful until the police arrive to create some drama due to over reaction. What is wrong with protests if they are peaceful? If everything is so rosy and nice and f the government is willing to open all channels to engage in dialogues with people who do not see eye to eye with them, then the need to protest will somehow lessen. The tightening of the law on protesters simply proves to us the arrogance of the government. They have also proven so much that this is an authoritarian government that finds creating more fear among citizens with the threat of law enforcement the solution for a 'peaceful' society.
Story by Ching Ann Jie When Mr Moe Kyaw Thu took part in a protest to support the Burmese people’s struggle for freedom in November 2007, he did not realise that he was putting his own future in Singapore at stake. Mr Moe is now racing against time. His work permit expires on 20th January and all his earlier three appeals to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) for extension have been rejected. He has appealed to the President and the Prime Minister of Singapore in a last ditch attempt at trying to avoid being deported. In November 2007, Mr Moe had taken part in the Orchard Road protest by about 40 Burmese nationals. The protest was held at the same time that Singapore, the chair of ASEAN then, was hosting the ASEAN Summit at the Shangri-la hotel. The protesters had marched down Orchard Road, wearing red t-shirts and holding placards calling for ASEAN and the UN special envoy Professor Ibrahim Gambari to take a harder stance towards the Burmese military junta. (See here.) More than one year on, Mr Moe, who has not been warned or called up by the police for any investigation with regards to the protest, is being asked to leave Singapore. In all his appeals to the MOM, he was not given any reasons why his work permit was not being renewed. The only answers he has received from the ministry were terse, such as the one given to him on 16 December last year. It said simply: We have reviewed your appeal but regret that it is not successful. Our decision to reject your appeal still stands.
Rejection after rejection – but no reason given  Mr Moe, 35, has been working in Singapore since 1997 with Sembawang Engineers and Constructors Pte Ltd. He is currently involved as a site supervisor (purchasing and administration) with the LTA’s Circle Line (Stage 5) project.
Mr Moe’s problems started in November 2008, when his applications for a S-pass and a renewal of his work permit were rejected. No reason was given for this rejection, even though his employer was willing to extend the term of his employment. He appealed to MOM in an email dated 25 November 2008, stating that he felt that he was “being punished under a generalised misunderstanding” with the Overseas Burmese Patriots (OBP) – of which he is not a member. Neither is he a member of any Burmese organization. Unlike the members of the OBP, Mr Moe did not have his particulars taken down by the police, and has never been called to the police station for an interview. (Members of the OBP have encountered problems in having their permits renewed, as documented in yawningbread.org) This appeal was rejected. Still determined, Mr Moe sent another email on 16th December, asking for “compassionate support to rescue my life from ending in a Burma jail” as his picture and name had been prominently featured in newspapers and video clips about the May 2008 referendum, where more than a thousand Burmese visited their embassy in Singapore to cast their votes. Mr Moe wrote that he feared he would be charged by the military junta for disrupting the referendum and public tranquility, or violating the press law if he returns to Burma. This appeal was rejected, and again, no reason was given. Together with his friend, Mr Moe headed down to the Ministry of Manpower on the 2nd of January 2009 to personally appeal to the authorities. They met an officer there and spoke for 45 minutes about the problems he would face by leaving Singapore. Mr Moe says the officer confided that she could not share the reason why his pass could not be renewed. She then told him to send another appeal, saying that MOM would reply accordingly. In his last appeal to MOM dated 3rd January, Mr Moe asked to be allowed to stay in Singapore for a period of 6 months to a year so that he could arrange for relocation to another country. This appeal was rejected once more without explanation. “Contempt for the law” but no prosecution? The authorities’ press release on 12 January about the arrest of the two activists (see here and here) who protested in support of the two Burmese finally gave some concrete reason for the non-renewal of work permits for Mr Moe and his friend, Mr Win Kyaw, who is also being asked to leave Singapore. (Read MHA and MOM’s press release here.) It stated, “They have shown in their actions and attitude a wilful disregard and contempt for the law and the Singapore authorities.”  Mr Moe does not deny his involvement in the Orchard Road protest, the candlelight vigil outside the Myanmar Embassy (both in 2007), and other events. But he questioned the authorities’ press statement, saying, “If we broke the law, why don’t they bring us to court?” he asked. “It’s not fair. If they mention the law, they should charge us.”
“In September 2007, after the PM and foreign minister’s announcement, we thought the Singapore government was helping us to support [the] pro-democracy [movement],” he says of the public statements by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Foreign Affairs Minister George Yeo, who had said: … we could not stay silent when the Government violently cracked down on peaceful demonstrators including Buddhist monks. ASEAN would have lost all credibility otherwise. Developments in Myanmar cast a pall on the entire region and have been raised at the UN Security Council. ASEAN’s policy of non-interference cannot be rigidly applied when internal developments in a member country affect the rest of us. (Source) What Mr Moe cannot understand is why the government renewed the work permit of his friend, Mr Win, in January of 2008 if, as the MOM and MHA said in its latest press release, that they had shown “contempt for the law.” Mr Moe asks why it has taken one year for the authorities to take action. He also questions whether such actions were arbitrary and selective. He pointed out that of the 40 who took part in the 2007 protest, some were called up for police interviews, others were not called up at all, while now some are having their work permits not renewed for taking part in the protest. But none have been charged under the law. “Why don’t they charge all 40 who took part in the protest?” he asks. “Why not treat everyone equally?” The Ministry of Home Affairs, in August 2008, had said that some Burmese had “persistently ignored police warnings in the past year”. Minister of Home Affairs, Mr Wong Kan Seng, had cited the “persistent defiance of the laws”, in September 2008, by the Burmese as one of the reasons why the work permits of some Burmese had not been renewed. “If we broke the law, why not charge us in 2007?” Mr Moe asks. “Their words and actions are different.” “I want to respect the law,” Mr Moe says. “If I break the law. I still want to go under the law. If they really want to do it by law, they charge us and our lives can go on.”  He stressed that the 2007 protest was a peaceful one and that the protesters had obeyed police instructions when approached. (See Straits Times report.)
All he is hoping for now is for the President and the Prime Minister to grant him his request – to remain in Singapore for 6 to 12 months so that he has time to look for another country to go to. “My return to Burma is of great concern affecting my life, my family, friends… prison for decades would be the severe result,” he said in his letter to the President and the PM. Mr Moe has already booked an air ticket while he awaits an answer from the Istana. He is unsure of his future plans. “Singapore is my second home,” he says, having lived here for 11 years. “You can say we are part of Singapore.” He hopes to return to Burma one day under different circumstances. “I love my country. My dream is to live in my country,” he tells me. “A fully democratic country.” ———— Win Kyaw Mr Win Kyaw, 39, has been in Singapore for 13 years and worked as an aircon technical officer at Nanyang Polytechnic. He too had taken part in the November 2007 protest but his application to renew his one-year work permit was approved in January 2008. Like Mr Moe, he had taken part in the protest as an individual and not as a member of any organization. In the wake of the destruction of cyclone Nagis which struck Burma in May 2008, Mr Win donated 10 per cent of his monthly salary to the victims. His work permit expired on January 14. He has left for Cambodia with his wife, who is a Singapore permanent resident. Source: The Online Citizen
Something caught my eye last night as I was going through the online reports regarding the arrest of the two activists who protested outside the Ministry of Manpower yesterday.
According to the report by Channel NewsAsia, the activists "... entered the MOM building at about noon...". When I read that, I was appalled.
Clearly shown in the above picture, the activists do not seem to be inside the building. Are my eyes tricking me or is there something wrong with the report? Misinformation can seriously lead to defamation. What's more, without providing a picture of the protest, readers of this report may seriously come to believe that the activists were actually inside the building. So, can someone tell me what's going on here?  (Screen shot of the report. Click on it to read the whole thing.)
Written by Ng E-Jay
12 Jan 2009, 1.30pm
Two activists, Seelan Palay and Chong Kai Xiong, were arrested at around 1pm for staging a protest outside the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) Building over the non-renewals of Burmese work permits.
The activists, who were decked in red T-shirts, were holding placards.
More Burmese facing expulsion from Singapore
Seelan Palay
Yet another two Burmese nationals working in Singapore have fallen victim to the Government for their support of the pro-democracy movement in their home country.
In the latest development, Singapore’s Manpower Ministry is refusing to renew the work permits of Mr Moe Kyaw Thu, 35 and Mr Win Kyaw, 38, who had both worked here for 11 years each. Moe is a construction supervisor and Win, a technical supervisor.
This drastic turn of events resulted from the two men’s involvement in highlighting human rights abuses by the Burmese military junta following its crackdown of the pro-democracy movement in Rangoon led by monks in September last year.
Moe in particular appealed to MOM reiterating that he has no police record of any kind and he has fully respected the laws of Singapore while working here.
Both men have participated in the activities of the Overseas Burmese Patriots (OBP), an advocacy group formed in Singapore after the military crackdown. The group was involved in organizing and conducting a series of public campaigns in Singapore against the Burmese regime.
One of the activities was when over 40 Burmese, assembled in groups of four, held a peaceful protest along Orchard Road on 20 Nov 07 during the ASEAN Summit in nearby Shangri-la Hotel.
Following the event, the group was accused by the Singapore Government of deliberately breaking local laws. Its members were given a police warning for their participation in the protest. But none of the Burmese activists were ever charged with any unlawful act while pursuing their political objectives.
The hands of the PAP Government first became apparent in September this year when three members of the OBP were expelled when their work permits or residence in Singapore came up for renewal.
Deputy Prime Minister and Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng defended the Government’s action then, stating that the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority “considers this small group to be undesirable persons and rightly decided they should leave.”
In the ongoing saga, despite their employers wanting to retain them, Moe and Win have been ordered to leave Singapore by the end of January 2009.
“If they send me back, my family will suffer greatly. I’d have to spend the rest of my life in prison.” said Moe
The latest expulsions go against the sympathy and support that Burmese pro-democracy activists receive throughout the world. The inhumane act of the Singapore Government is an indirect endorsement of the murderous Burmese junta. seelanpalay@gmail.com View the video of the arrest made by Ho Choon Hiong here.
 Last year's New Year's eve was spent alone at home, flipping through some old photographs of my grandparents whom I was very close to. It was not totally a happy day because I spent the countdown privately remembering the lovely memories that have been etched so painfully deep in my heart and mind, sad but yet trying to smile through tears, glad that they have touched my life in significant ways.
This year, I spent it in a totally different manner and I am still smiling at the memory of it.
Being involved in the countdown at Hong Lim Park organised by the Singapore Democractic Party was great fun and way more meaningful than spending it with a huge crowd of pretentiously dressed up people and drinking shitloads of booze. Of course I wished I had a spliff with me last night as was the 'tradition' when I was in Shanghai but well, too bad I am in Singapore where my favourite green herb is not easily available at all hahaa!
Songs of freedom were sung, speeches and tributes to JBJ were made. The candle light display was lovely and the company of friends and familiar acquaintances was great. At the end of it as we were doing the countdown, fireworks started going off in the sky and I believe I was smiling from ear to ear, so happy and excited like a little kid.
Although the whole process of planning, setting up and carrying out the event had all of us busy running about here and there, probably missing sleep too, it was certainly great fun. At the end of it, all I could think of was that the whole experience was absolutely beautiful.
Thanks SDP and all involved for making it awesome!
Happy 2009, everyone.
(Thank you Sijia for the photo!)
Read also:
Opposition fighters counted down to 2009 & Remembered Mr. JBJ
A message right til the end
The last hours of 2008
It's 2009 nowA night of song
| |
