Cooling Off Day - Roy Ngerng and Teo Soh Lung testing the system

Testing Fate on Cooling Day

The Independent Singapore ‪#‎TISG‬, ‪#‎royngerg‬ and ‪#‎teosohlung‬ were all courting disaster, to put it in simple terms.

Alternate sites and noises online are trying to divert netizens' attention from the crux of the issue, which is "Why did they make election advertising posting on Cooling Day?"

The police raided the house, took my laptop, phone blah blah blah is just a distraction.

2 points we want to state here on ‪#‎onwardsingapore‬

Firstly, the system is fair.

In 2001, ‪#‎nicoleseah‬ made a Facebook post on Polling Day. Investigations found that the posting was made by a party volunteer, the explanation was acceped and no further action was taken against her.

Secondly, TISG, Ngerg and Teo acted deliberately.

Assistant Returning Officer(AGO) specifically reminded TISG not to post any election advertising. As for Teo and Ngerg, they regularly engage in promotion and discussion of political issues. Being social media gurus, they ought to know that the content they post are related to election advertising.

There is no abuse of power. All parties involved have been acting against their judgement, wanting to throw their weight behind Chee Soon Juan.

This is an obvious case of blantant disregard to the regulations and now is the time to face the music. If in doubt, they should not have posted anything. Suck it up.

Cheerz

Onward Singapore

Bukit Batok By-Election ... Whose Side is Chee Soon Juan On?

Whose side is Chee on?

I can forgive Dr Chee’s many flaws, but there’s one thing in particular that I really can’t stand.

And that is how he consistently puts Singapore down overseas. I mean, I’m not even asking him to defend us (clearly that’s too much to ask for), but could he just for once, stop badmouthing us to foreigners to make himself look less of a failure? It’s downright embarrassing.

To defend his lack of success in anything, he chooses to drag Singapore down by repeating his venomous words to anyone who cares to carry his remarks.

What are some of his greatest hits? Calling us a country without human rights, without democracy. FTAs are tools for exploitation.  State-controlled media who has an axe to grind with him. Seriously, this is probably his favourite hobby.

Maybe instead of penning articles and making videos slamming Singapore and telling everyone how ‘backward’ and ‘undemocratic’ we are, perhaps he should spend more time working on himself. Perhaps, he can also provide some solutions and telling us how he can better our lives?

Maybe his real loyalty is to other countries and their interests, not to Singapore and our way of life. But he needs to remember that we are the ones who hold the vote, not these foreigners he’s pandering to. He can’t slam Singapore and Singaporeans overseas, and then come back and ask us to vote for him.

I mean, whose side is he really on? One thing for sure, it’s not the side of Singaporeans. 

Singapore Democratic Party - The Enemy Within

Defence Spending … Focus on Value not Absolute Dollar

Once again, the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) has raised the issue of Singapore’s defence spending. This is the same SDP that called for the merger of the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Health during the 2015 General Elections.

The SDP is quoted as saying that a “strong military is not the same as excessive and unsustainable defence spending.” We wonder on what basis the SDP is claiming that our defence spending is excessive and unsustainable?

Our question is where was the SDP when the Singapore Armed Forces’ Special Operations Force (SOF) saved the lives of Singaporeans during the SQ117 high jacking or the evacuation of Singaporeans from Phnom Penh. Or more recently, when the SAF deployed to forces to ensure that the instability in Timor Leste did not filter down to affect Singapore, Or the Navy’s daily protection of our sea line of communications from piracy to ensure that our ports remain one of the busiest in the world.

The strange thing about defence spending is that it is a Black Swan. When the SAF is effective in preventing and defeating threats, no one knows and says that defence spending is a waste of money. However, if the Black Swan event occurs, people will curse that the SAF (and the G) had failed to protect Singaporeans. This is similar to the recent arrest of the 27 Bangladeshi in Singapore. If the Government had chosen to remain silent on the matter few Singaporeans would have known. This is the same with the military. There is much that goes on behind the scene that keeps Singapore safe which cannot be revealed.

So, in response to the SDP’s call to cut defence spending, we say focus on the value and not the absolute dollar. There is much hidden value which you know nothing of. And judging from your calls to merge the Defence and Health Ministries, it is clear that you know nothing at all.

A teacher rebuts Chee Soon Juan

A Teacher, Germain Heng, rebuts Chee Soon Juan ....

----

Hi Soon Juan

I am going to take some time to highlight to you some of the observations that you and the SDP have pointed out in your article, MOE Written Textbooks Are Even More Biased And Partisan Towards The PAP (http://yoursdp.org/…/dear_ministers_moe_tex…/2016-02-15-6099).

I have vested interest in this as I am a Social Studies Teacher. These are purely my views that do not represent my fellow colleagues. I will respond to those portions pertaining to the Social Studies text. I cannot comment on the history portions as that is not my training. I will draw reference from the said Social Studies textbook (ISBN 978-981420884-0). Please also note that a new textbook and curriculum is currently being taught to the 2016 batch of Secondary 3 students.

Example 2: Photos and illustrations

You have pointed out a series of pictures which you have claimed to be slanted towards the PAP, most notably found on pages 26 and 147 of the Social Studies textbook.

In the former, the context of the picture is with regards to the need of government leaders to mingle with the community in order to learn of their concerns, and not so much as to point the student towards voting for the PAP.

The latter, found in the chapter Bonding Singapore, was used as an exemplar of how a GRC team has to be made up of a member of the minority race, in this case Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, in order to contest in an election so as to ensure minority representation in the legislature.

Example 3: Principles of governance

The picture, found on page 33, is a summary of what PM Lee Hsien Loong said in the National Day Rally Speech in 2004. I hardly will call reporting what he said as skewed, although it might have been watered down in order for our students, aged 15-16/17, to digest. Even you cannot deny the fact that it was your leadership that has allowed you to take the reigns of the SDP back in December 1996.

As with you highlighting Ministers and MPs like Phey Yew Kok, Tan Kia Gan, Wee Toon Boon, Teh Cheang Wan, Choo Wee Kiang, and Michael Palmer, their transgressions have been covered extensively in the papers, both the Straits Times and other platforms. I highly doubt if there are any restrictions on the students’ own reading.

Example 4: Representative democracy

Again, you have conveniently left out the context of the section, which is, I quote: 2.1 What is the system of government in Singapore? (page 26). Your argumentation and interpretation of what makes up ‘Representative Democracy’ is not the focus of the chapter, but the system that Singapore has adopted.

Example 5: The Pledge

This is found in page 134, also in the chapter Bonding Singapore. I doubt I have to elaborate any further.

Example 6: Healthcare

I hardly see this (page 72) as a rallying cry to support the PAP government. Rather, it is important for students to understand why government policies (or suggested policies), PAP or otherwise, needs support or else their legitimacy is lost. You of all people should know since your own alternative healthcare policies obviously did not get much support, as evidenced by the vote-share that you garnered.

Example 7: Foreign talent/low birthrate

You have missed the point of the quote (page 52). It was written to explain a way to boost population numbers. Even you cannot dispel the fact that no one country has monopoly over talents. Even the US has attracted talent from Singapore to work in their industries. I am disappointed that you did not point that out, given your extensive network.

Example 8: Media

You have pointed to the lack of discussion on the importance for dialogue and debate without resorting to violence. You might want to read a chapter earlier (Chapter 4: Conflict in Multi-ethnic Societies), where explicit effort was made to show how violence begot even more violence in both Sri Lanka and Northern Ireland, and how both countries suffered because of it.

And with regards to your often quoted gripe about the free press in Singapore, if there weren’t, yoursdp.org shouldn’t be in existence, together with many of the alternative news sites which claim to be neutral. We must remember that freedom comes with responsibilities, and this must apply to speech and claims made. You should know, since you seem to have a knack for misquoting statistics. Again, I don’t have to belabour this point.

Example 9: Self-help groups

The quote on the above, found in Chapter 5: Bonding Singapore, is presented in the context of the need for such groups to exist. The purpose of the text is to provide content for the basis of the Structured Essay Question. Critical analysis of the source is covered in the Source Based Questions, which allows students to analyse assertions made by political leaders and its reliability.

Your selective quote did not include the following paragraph (page 148), which goes on to explain how the different SHGs bring individuals of different racial backgrounds together, as is the lesson objective of this chapter.

Example 10: People's Association

Again, the content of this (page 149) is in the context of the aforementioned Chapter 5, which has nothing to do with politics.

Soon Juan, please do not politicise a subject that I truly love teaching. Social Studies is a subject meant to help young people develop the ability to make informed and reasoned decisions for the public good as citizens of a culturally diverse, democratic society in an interdependent world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_studies). It DOES NOT serve as a political tool for students to make an electoral choice, PAP, SDP or otherwise.

I would strongly suggest you study the Social Studies curriculum in its entirety, and not make accusations against the textbook that I teach from out of context. The subject gives more than sufficient flexibility for teachers to deviate from the text, to train the mind of an active Singapore, and global, citizen. My fellow professional colleagues will attest to the rigour and commitment that we put in to sharpen the minds of our nation’s future. My own students can attest to the skills that I have imparted to them to be as critical of what is presented to them, as your source has allowed me to do.

Rebutting Chee Soon Juan

My rebuttal to Chee Soon Juan’s article ….

Authoritarian rule and the impending crisis in Singapore If Singapore was indeed authoritarian rule, how can Chee Soon Juan continue to put Singapore down internationally, let alone write this article, and still roam free in Singapore?

BY ONLINECITIZEN ON JANUARY 18, 2016

By Dr Chee Soon Juan

“We have learned that any solution to our problems require much more that the piecemeal measures attempted in the past. It demands nothing less than a fundamental change in our approach to the idea of development, a paradigm shift toward the parallel pursuit of democracy and a market economy.” How can Singapore not be considered a market economy when practically everything from housing to car purchase is determined in a free price system?

So said the late Kim Dae Jung, South Korea’s former president. When the country was undergoing its economic throes in the wake of the 1997 Asian financial crisis, Kim knew that South Korea needed radical changes in order to resuscitate the economy. South Korea was emerging from a long period of dictatorships and a command economy dominated by the the political elite and chaebols (conglomerates owned by wealthy families).

When Kim was elected president in 1998, he ditched authoritarian rule and took the country on a sharp turn towards democracy. The result? South Korea’s economy bounced back with a vengeance. Today, corporations like Samsung, LG, Hyundai, SsangYong, Kumho, etc. compete on the international stage with the world’s leading brands. What sharp turn? Nothing has changed in Korea. The chaebols still dominate the economy.

And it’s not just gadgets and cars that South Korea is exporting, the country’s pop culture have found its way into the hearts of people far and wide. Korean television dramas are popular not just in Asia but places as far away as Brazil, Argentina, and Chile. The musical genre of K-pop has become a mainstay in the teen subculture all over the world with the Korean boy band, BigBang, even becoming the “gods of pop” in Indonesia. In 2012, Korean musician Psy took the globe by storm with this Oppa Gangnam Style dance video. Is this a product of democracy, or simply shifting preferences. If this assumption was true, why are television programmes from countries like the UK and Australia not popular around the world?

Somewhere in here is a lesson for us in Singapore. When I met Kim before he became president, he had repeated to me that it was unfortunate that much of Asia was still under undemocratic rule which stymied the development of our societies. LOL! Sorry, I can’t rebut this as I was not there. Not sure if anyone else can verify this too.

It is a view I share deeply. Innovation does not take place in the halls of government buildings and it cannot be kindled from ministerial pronouncements. Innovation thrives in a culture that not just tolerates but celebrates openness, diversity and, yes, dissent; it flourishes in an environment where people have free and full access to information. What information are Singaporeans denied that will impede their innovation? Apart from pornographic sites, Singaporeans can access practically everything that is available online. Including rubbish articles like this by Chee Soon Juan.

Financial analyst Michael Schuman expressed this point perfectly, writing in Timemagazine in 2010: “Fear caused by political control doesn’t foster an atmosphere conducive to free thinking. Censorship and limitations on information curtail the knowledge and debate necessary for the generation of new ideas. I’m not the only one who believes this is true. Some Koreans…argue that the country couldn’t have become more innovative without democracy.” It is no accident that freedom of expression and innovation are so commonly juxtaposed in the entrepreneurial world.

But even before the 1997 meltdown, economist and Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman had pointed out that Singapore’s top-down, input-driven growth model was unsustainable: “One can immediately conclude that Singapore is unlikely to achieve future growth rates comparable to the past.” This is because, Krugman explained, “Singapore’s growth can be explained by increases in measure inputs. There is no sign at all of increased efficiency.” Is Paul Krugman the same guy that pushed for Governments to embrace globalisation? Isn’t globalisation what is putting Singaporean jobs at risk from developing nations like India and China where labour is cheaper?

But instead of liberalising our society and encouraging the hard work of innovation like the Koreans did following the financial crisis in 1997, the PAP took the easy way out by transforming our city into a tax haven and attracting the super rich of the world. Instead of making policy adjustments to retain our local talent and investing in our people, our rulers found it expedient to bring in foreigners by the millions. What is SkillsFutures? What about the National Technology Plan? The SME21 plan? What about the Economic Review Committee and the Economic Strategies Committee? Chee Soon Juan slams them in subsequent paragraphs of this article, but didn’t the Government make the effort?

Of course, these measures generated GDP growth but it was growth that masked deeper structural problems of our economy. For one thing, labour productivity levels remained dismal even as GDP expanded. The problem persists to this day with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong lamenting that we have “maxed out” on easy ways of achieving economic growth – a tacit admission that Paul Krugman was right. A case of the rooster crowing?

“Productivity is very tough to do,” Lee acknowledges. Indeed it is. Analysts observe that it is harder now to retool Singapore’s economy. The PAP has done everything – or almost everything – to kickstart the productivity engine. In 1991, it came up with the National Technology Plan to propel Singapore into the “major league of a world-class innovation-driven economy by 1995.” Five years later, it launched the SME21 plan to “promote SMEs is to help them tap into global networks.” This was followed by a 2001 report from Economic Review Committee (ERC) which promised to “make Singapore a knowledge economy powered by innovation, creativity and entrepreneurship.” Nine years later, another committee, the Economic Strategies Committee (ESC), was formed to “make skills, innovation and productivity the basis for economic growth.” Now in 2016, the government has reincarnated the ERC and ESC in the form of theCommittee on the Future Economy, or CFE, to (predictably) “recommend strategies to enable companies and industry clusters to develop innovative capacities.”

In between, there were a myriad of schemes – costing taxpayers more that $20 billion – to boost productivity. They included promoting R&D, enhancing of public-private sector collaboration, upgrading workers’ skills and capabilities, increasing foreign-worker levies, subsidising businesses in purchasing IT equipment, and so on. Bodies like the National Productivity Board, SPRING Singapore and, more recently, the National Productivity and Continuing Education Council were established to lead the productivity chase.

And yet, for nearly two decades, productivity gains continue to elude us, and we have produced few innovative enterprises that are able to compete internationally. Such a scenario does not paint a bright future of our economy. In fact, Nomura’s Global Markets Research predicts that the failed productivity drive will be a drag on economic growth until the end of this decade. Productivity rates in Singapore are still higher than the rest of the world. Please be fair Mr Chee.

We have tried everything except the one that is key: Freeing our society from authoritarian rule. It is clear that the anachronistic paradigm of undemocratic, one-party dominance – where debate, a free media, and a fair election system are non-existent – is the proverbial albatross around Singapore’s neck. If this was not a democractic country, how did the Worker’s Party win their seats? Or could it be a case that Singaporeans see you for who you are and have rejected you Mr Chee.

And because we have taken the easy way out all these years, we are ill-prepared to weather the global economic storm that is about to descend upon us. There is gloom in our housing market, our dollar continues to weaken even as we spent $40 billion of our reserves trying to prop it up, our oil-rig builders Kepple and Sembcorp Marine are under severe strain from cancelled projects; our flagship shipping company Neptune Orient Lines collapsed under unsustainable losses and was sold off; household debt of Singaporeans soared to become one of the highest in the world and, perhaps most frighteningly, China’s economy seems on track to becoming the epicenter of the next global economic meltdown – an economy of which we are the biggest foreign investor. The gloom and dangers that come from the housing market and the high household debt is a direct function of a market economy. Isn’t this what you wanted?

Assuredly, we will not be able to avoid the upheaval. The question is, when we emerge from it, will we divest ourselves of the many excuses we have put up to defer from opening up our political system, or will we continue down the dead-end alley of authoritarian rule? I think Singaporeans have clearly spoken at the last GE.

Dr Chee Soon Juan is the Secretary-General of Singapore Democratic Party (SDP). This post was first published at Huffingpost, Dr Chee had submitted this post for Straits Times for publishing consideration but was rejected. The Straits Times has journalistic integrity and will not publish pseudo research articles like this.