{Video} SDP’s Chinese New Year Message 2010
Dr Chee Soon Juan delivers the SDP’s Lunar New Year message. He talks about the hardship of working Singaporeans and calls on the people to make Singapore a place where competition for jobs, especially with foreigners, is fair.
{Videos} Let’s Talk with Ng Yi-Sheng and NUS law students on the mandatory death penalty
We’ve had bloggers, a women’s rights advocate, an anti-death penalty campaigner, an opposition candidate, and a former ISA detainee on our Let’s Talk series. This week we turn to the literary world where we get up close with Mr Ng Yi-Sheng, poet, playwright and winner of the 2008 Singapore Literature Prize. – yourSDP.org
The Online Citizen speaks to students of the law faculty.
{Video} Singaporeans’ views on the mandatory death penalty
TOC TV takes to the streets to ask young Singaporeans their views on the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking in Singapore.
TOC TV takes to the streets to ask working Singaporeans their views on the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking in Singapore.
Visit the blog The Death Penalty in Singapore.
Read about Yong Vui Kong’s case here.
{Video} Part 2 of SDP’s Let’s Talk with Michael Fernandez
In this episode Mr Michael Fernandez relates his ordeal during his nine-year imprisonment under the Internal Security Act. Because of the intensity and interest of the subject we have broken up the interview into two parts. Following Part I of the interview, we present Part 2 in which Mr Fernandez relates his experiences as a labour leader and his views on unions like the NTUC – yourSDP.org
Note: The Singapore Democratic Party is celebrating its 30th anniversary with a gala dinner on 27 Feb 2010. For details, please visit the facebook event page or read an evening of dazzle with the democrats.
Singapore remains the textbook example of a politically repressive state – Human Rights Watch
Singapore: ‘Textbook Example” of Repressive State
Human Rights Watch, 20 Jan 2010
Recent Convictions of Democracy Activists Show Intolerance Towards Pluralism
(New York) – As Singapore begins to emerge from the international financial crisis and focuses on elections that are likely to be held later this year, the government should act to improve its poor human rights record, Human Rights Watch said in its World Report 2010, released today.
The 612-page report, the organization’s 20th annual review of human rights practices around the globe, summarizes major human rights trends in more than 90 nations and territories worldwide. Its chapter on Singapore says the government fails to meet human rights standards in a number of critical areas, including freedom of expression, association, and assembly. While Singapore has touted its prowess as a leading economic nation in Southeast Asia, it continues to falter in respecting the rights of its own population, Human Rights Watch said
“Singapore remains the textbook example of a politically repressive state,” said Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “Individuals who want to criticize or challenge the ruling party’s hold on power can expect to face a life of harassment, lawsuits, and even prison.”
Freedom to express views publicly continues to be largely limited to the tiny Speaker’s Corner in the city-state, while any procession or assembly for a “cause-related activity” must have prior police approval under the Public Order Act of 2009.
Draconian laws such as the Internal Security Act (ISA), Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (CLA), Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA), and Undesirable Publications Act remain available to the government to muzzle peaceful critics. In December 2009, three long-time government critics-Dr. Chee Soon Juan, Chee Siok Chin, and Gandhi Ambalam-were convicted of distributing flyers critical of the government. After refusing to pay fines, all three were sentenced to short prison terms.
But appearance-conscious Singapore sometimes forgoes criminal prosecution in favor of other forms of harassment, such as defamation suits seeking punitive damages that snagged the Wall Street Journal and the Far Eastern Economic Review, restrictions on publication licenses under the longstanding Newspaper and Printing Presses Acts, and enforcement actions limiting rights.
Human Rights Watch called for the repeal of laws allowing corporal and capital punishment, noting that the penal code authorizes caning for about 30 offenses, and sets out more than 20 drug-related offenses for which capital punishment is mandatory. Singapore resists all calls to rescind arbitrary detention without trial, refuses to recognize that caning constitutes torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment, and insists on maintaining mandatory death penalties for offenses such as drug trafficking that are contrary to international human rights standards, Human Rights Watch said.
Human Rights Watch criticized Singapore’s continued legal ban on private and consensual sexual relations between men and called for it to be overturned.
“As Singapore looks to its future and new elections, the time is long overdue for it to abandon its stubborn defiance of international human rights standards,” Robertson said. “Singapore should have the confidence to trust its people with full freedom of expression, assembly, and association, and recognize that their participation is critical for the country’s continued prosperity.”
Chapter on Singapore
Events of 2009
Singapore’s legal framework continues to perpetuate an authoritarian state tightly controlled by the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP). Although the party has won all elections since 1959 and is currently represented by 82 of the 84 parliamentarians with full voting rights, it is concerned that the next election, slated for no later than 2011, may demonstrate significant erosion of its popular support. To bolster its standing, the PAP has touted a relaxation of curbs on free expression, assembly, and association, and has expressed intent to introduce amendments to the constitution and the Parliamentary Elections Act to guarantee a minimum of nine opposition members of parliament.
Appearances, however, are deceiving. In the interests of security, public order, morality, national harmony, or friendly foreign relations, Singapore law authorizes censorship of content and distribution of print material and films, severe limits on public processions and assemblies, and prolonged detention of suspects without trial. Mindful of the disruptions by civil society organizations at the 2006 World Bank-International Monetary Fund meetings in Singapore, parliament passed the draconian Public Order Law 2009 to preempt any such disruption at the Singapore-hosted November 2009 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit.
Freedom of Assembly, Expression, and Association
In April 2009, seven months after the government rescinded the need for a police permit if more than four people wished to gather or stage a rally at Singapore’s Speakers’ Corner, parliament passed the Public Order Act 2009, effectively negating the earlier move. The new Act requires permits for any “cause-related activity”-such as a procession or assembly-no matter how many people are involved (a “cause related activity” is defined as a show of support for or against a position, person, group, or government). For “major” events, the Act permits police to issue “move-on” orders and to prohibit filming of their own activities.
Despite the October acquittal of three leaders and two supporters of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party, space has not opened up for political opponents. The five were tried for conducting a procession without a permit on September 17, 2007, while wearing T-shirts reading “Democracy Now” and “Freedom Now.” The judge first noted that although the home minister could make bylaws regulating assemblies and processions, nothing in the act defined what constituted either, and then ruled that the “natural and ordinary” meaning of procession was not applicable to the five walking casually on pedestrian pathways, taking breaks and impeding no one. However, the judge refused to rule the act unconstitutional, leaving in place a de facto police ban on outdoor political activities by opposition political parties. On October 12, 2009, the Attorney General’s Chambers filed an appeal.
Some of those involved in that “procession” are defendants, along with other Singapore Democratic Party members and supporters, in four other trials for “assembly without a permit,” “attempted procession without a permit,” or “speaking in public without a permit.” Fines imposed after earlier trials have bankrupted the party’s secretary-general, Dr. Chee Soon Juan, and his sister, Chee Siok Chin.
In March a judge found Wall Street Journal senior editor Melanie Kirkpatrick in contempt of court for allegedly impugning the independence of Singapore’s judiciary. In October the Far Eastern Economic Review and its editor-in-chief Hugo Restall lost an appeal in a defamation suit brought by Singapore founder Lee Kuan Yew and his son Prime Minister Hsien Loong Lee for a 2006 article they said implicitly suggested they may have abused the public’s trust. Damages and legal fees filed on November 13 totaled Singapore $405,000 (US$292,438).
The Newspaper and Printing Presses Act requires yearly renewal of licenses and empowers authorities to limit circulation of foreign newspapers alleged to “engage in the domestic politics of Singapore.” Internet content is less tightly controlled. Some political films and videos such as Singapore Rebel, a film biography of Chee Soon Juan, are approved, in part because their circulation cannot be controlled. But films containing “partisan or biased references to or comments on any political matter” are prohibited.
State law and political repression, including the threat of defamation suits and attendant bankruptcy, prevent the establishment of human rights NGOs and limit individual willingness to challenge the government. The Societies Act requires that most organizations of more than 10 people register with the government but limits engagement in “political activities” to registered political parties. Trade unions may not contribute to political parties, and the National Trade Union Congress, with which most unions affiliate, does not permit members supportive of opposition policies to hold office.
Criminal Justice System
Singapore’s Internal Security Act (ISA), Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (CLA), Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA), and Undesirable Publications Act permit arrest and detention without warrant or judicial review. The ISA and CLA also authorize preventive detention. The MDA permits the Central Narcotics Bureau chief to detain suspected drug users for three years in “rehabilitation centers” without recourse to trial; those who relapse face extended prison terms and caning (even though relapse is a common milepost on the road to recovery from drug dependence).
Singapore’s penal code mandates caning along with imprisonment for some 30 offenses, including drug and security offenses. Its use is optional for other crimes involving force. From January to September 2008, courts reportedly sentenced 4,078 males between ages 16 and 50 to caning. Women may not be caned.
Singapore is believed to have one of the world’s highest per capita execution rates, although statistics are not made public. Most sentences involve some 20 drug-related offenses for which execution is mandatory and which, according to the MDA, require the alleged perpetrator to prove his innocence to escape conviction. Singapore remains vocal in its defense of the death penalty. In March 2009 Singapore defended the death penalty for drug offenses at the United Nations Human Rights Council, notwithstanding conclusions by UN human rights mechanisms and UN drug and human rights agencies that the death penalty for drug offenses violates international law.
Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
Although Singapore law bans private and consensual sexual relations between men, movement toward acceptance is noticeable. A May 2009 rally at Speakers’ Corner, which drew some 2,500 gay rights supporters, proceeded without government interference despite the deputy prime minister cautioning against stridency. In July Singapore’s law minister, referencing the state’s conservative leanings and affirming that Singapore would not follow India’s example and decriminalize its own law, nevertheless stated that the courts were free to interpret it as they saw fit.
Migrant Domestic Workers and Trafficking
Although progress has been made on successfully prosecuting abusive employers and on recovery of back wages for foreign domestic workers, Singapore has failed to regulate recruitment fees. Out of a two-year contract, repayment costs workers 8-11 months’ wages.
The US Trafficking in Persons 2009 report listed Singapore on Tier 2: countries that are not doing enough to address trafficking. Women are trafficked to Singapore for domestic work and commercial sexual exploitation. Singaporean authorities misrepresent the number of trafficking victims by eliminating those who were deceived into migrating by false promises.
Key International Actors
Singapore is a key member of the Southeast Asia Regional Centre for Counter-Terrorism along with the United States, Malaysia, and others, and is an active participant in regional and sub-regional security issues including maritime and aviation security and combating of money laundering.
At a March 2009 meeting of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Singapore’s prime minister raised the issue of the region’s inability to solve the problem of a safe haven for stateless Rohingyas fleeing persecution in Burma (see also Burma and Thailand chapters). However, a senior minister of state for foreign affairs later clarified that Singapore would not accept refugees or asylum seekers but could only offer humanitarian aid “so they could depart for a third country.”
As an important financial center for Southeast Asia, Singapore faced criticism for reportedly hosting bank accounts containing ill-gotten gains of corrupt leaders and their associates. Two banks named as holding the proceeds of Burma’s sales of natural gas, which are not duly reflected in official Burmese budgets, denied the allegations.
An evening of dazzle with the Singapore Democrats
An Evening Of Dazzle With The Democrats
Singapore Democrats, 21 Jan 2010
2010 marks a special year, it’s the 30th anniversary of the Singapore Democratic Party. And we are commemorating it like we have never done before.
We’re starting off with a bang! On 27 Feb 2010 (Saturday) we’re having a gala dinner entitled An Evening of Dazzle with the Democrats to showcase what the Singapore Democrats have done through the years as well as to peek into what we have in store for the future. It promises to be a meaningful evening of fun and entertainment.
Tickets are priced at $50 which includes a full cocktail dinner, free flow of wine and great entertainment. Plus you will receive a complimentary copy of the commemorative magazine worth $20. It is a publication full of colour and life, like none you’ve ever seen before in Singapore’s politics.
So come and join us this evening and help us commemorate 30 years of democratic service in Singapore.
For tickets, call Jaslyn at 9239-3133 or email us at sdp@yoursdp.org
Cuffed, shackled and chained for distributing flyers AND final leg in the trial of TBT activists
Chee Siok Chin
Gandhi Ambalam and Dr Chee Soon Juan
I continue to say that what we did was not a crime. Criticising one’s government is a right guaranteed in a democratic society. By finding us guilty you are as good as saying that we do not have this right. By pronouncing us guilty you are also saying that Singapore is not a democratic society and that this government is an undemocratic one – Chee Siok Chin addressing the Court after being found guilty, along with Gandhi Ambalam and Dr Chee Soon Juan, of distributing flyers critical of the PAP government
Read these articles from SDP:
Ambalam and Chee serve jail sentence, pledge to continue fight
Chee Siok Chin begins jail term and Going to jail is least of Chee Siok Chin’s concern
Judge agrees that it is illegal to criticize government without permit
Related blog posts:
Two separate reports on Singapore judiciary’s ‘independence’
Tak Boleh Tahan activists with friends and supporters on the first day of trial in Oct 2008. Click to enlarge.
Trials and tribulations of Tak Boleh Tahan activists (Note: The final leg of this trial began yesterday, Jan 19th, and will last for 2 weeks. The trial is at Subordinate Court 24 from 10am to 5pm. My thanks to Seelan for this info)
Reform Party seminar on education this Saturday 23 Jan
Seminar on Education – Reform Party press release
Following our successful seminar on Economic Policy, we are starting 2010 with a seminar on the Education system in Singapore. The following issues will be discussed:
1. What are the education policies needed to prepare our next generation?
2. How can we make education the key means of enhancing social mobility and employability of Singaporeans?
3. What are the education plans for Special Need/Disabled Children?
The Reform Party’s Secretary General, Kenneth Jeyaretnam will be delivering the keynote speech. Our panel of speakers from the Reform party is detailed below:
1. Mr. Tony Tan graduated from the University of Cambridge with 1st Class Honours in Engineering. His first career was with the SAF as an Army Officer. Currently, he is the CEO of a Private Education Organisation and is a member of the Central Executive Committee of the Reform Party as well as holding the key portfolios of Education and Defence in the Shadow Cabinet.
2. Ms Hazel Poa graduated from the University of Cambridge with 1st Class Honours in Mathematics. She was a PSC scholar and former Administrative Service Officer. She is currently the Managing Director of an education company with operations in Singapore and Indonesia.
3. Mr. Justin Ong is a corporate banker in a GLC. He obtained an Honours Degree in Political Science from the National University of Singapore (NUS) and currently serves on the NUS Political Science Alumni Association as an Ex-Co member. He is a member of the Central Executive Committee and Head of the Youth Wing.
The external speaker for the seminar is Dr James Gomez. Mr. Tan Kin Lian, who is unable to attend, has penned a paper to share his thoughts on Singapore’s education system. His paper will be circulated during the seminar.
The seminar will be held on 23 Jan from 1:30pm to 4.30pm at Berkshire School Pte Ltd, 100 Beach Road #02-19A, Shaw Towers, Singapore 189702. Registration can be done on Facebook by searching for “Reform Party”.
Released by the Reform Party’s CEC:
Kenneth Jeyaretnam
Edmund Ng
James Teo
Tony Tan
Justin Ong
Amy Lui
Mohammed Affendy
Quek Teow Chuan
Tan Tee Seng
The Reform Party on facebook here and the facebook event page for the seminar here.
Dr James Gomez is a Lecturer, Communications, Public Relations & Writing, at the School of Humanities, Communications and Social Sciences, in Monash University.
Over the years James has brought his field experience into the classroom, in various capacities, at the undergraduate level at National University of Singapore (1996) and for the Masters in Asia-Pacific Studies for the University of Leeds’ (1998) distance learning course in Singapore. Additionally he has taught a Masters level course at Thammasat University (2002-2004) and guest lectured at various times at Mahidol University, Thailand (2002-2009). He has also acted as advisor to various student research projects. In 2009, he designed and delivered a Masters level course “New Media and Political Culture” at Tsukuba University in Japan. James has done short term research fellowships at the Baptist University of Hong Kong (2002), Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (2005) and at the National Chengchi University in Taiwan (2008). He sits on the editorial board of Asia Rights (Online Journal of Human Rights), the Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University….continuing reading
Dr Gomez, along with fellow members of Singaporeans For Democracy (SFD), gave a talk and fielded questions at a Talk Politics meeting held recently at Post-Museum. See here for media reports on the event. And here for photos of the event thanks to Aidil Omar. See here for the statement on the soft launch of the SFD website and facebook group and information on the registration of SFD.
A red-hot political issue in a country where dissent is still tightly controlled by the government
SINGAPORE—For years, this rich city-state has marketed itself as one of the world’s most open economies.
But as Singapore recovers from recession, its residents are questioning a key part of the country’s economic model: its long-standing openness to foreigners.
Singapore has thrown open its doors to bankers and expatriates in recent years, making it easy in many cases to establish residency and hastening the country’s emergence as an Asian version of Dubai. It also welcomed low-skilled laborers from Bangladesh and other developing countries to help man construction sites and factories.
The goal was to capture more Asian wealth and offset Singapore’s low birth rate with immigrants, spurring economic growth. But the push has also fueled discontent, turning immigration into a red-hot political issue in a country where dissent is still tightly controlled by the government.
Between 2005 and 2009, Singapore’s population surged by roughly 150,000 people a year to 5 million—among the fastest rates ever there—with 75% or more of the increase coming from foreigners. In-migration continued in 2009 despite expectations it would collapse because of the global recession.
The influx helped boost Singapore’s economy in the short run by creating new demand for goods and services and helping manufacturers keep labor costs low. Developers built apartments and posh shopping centers for the new arrivals.
By some estimates, a third or more of Singapore’s 6.8% average annual growth from 2003 to 2008 came from the expansion of its labor force, primarily expatriates, allowing Singapore to post growth more commonly associated with poor developing nations.
At the same time, though, foreign workers have driven up real estate and other prices and made the city-state’s roads and subways more congested. Their arrival has kept local blue-collar wages lower than they would be otherwise, exacerbating Singapore’s gap between rich and poor.
Some economists say the most damaging effect of the immigration is that the influx appears to be putting a lid on productivity gains, as manufacturers rely on cheap imported labor instead of making their businesses more efficient. Labor productivity, or output per employee, fell 7.8% in 2008 and 0.8% in 2007—a phenomenon that could eventually translate into lower standards of living.
Lee Ah Lee, a 58-year-old who makes 850 Singapore dollars a month (about US$600) clearing tables in a cafeteria, says the flood of immigrants has made it hard to make ends meet by pushing down blue-collar pay in Singapore, which has no legal minimum wage. Sitting nearby in a drab apartment block built by Singapore’s Housing Development Board, a state-owned body that constructs and sells subsidized housing, 79-year-old Lee Kwang Joo says low-skilled foreign workers are often housed in corporate dormitories, meaning they have no housing costs and can survive on lower pay.
On Temasek Review, a Web site dedicated to Singaporean affairs, one writer recently warned Singaporeans would be “replaced” as “3rd class citizens” by foreigners, while another said that immigration “will emerge as the single most important issue” in Singapore’s next general election, due by 2011.
Immigration “kept our economic growth high but, at a tremendous cost,” says Kenneth Jeyaretnam, the secretary-general of Singapore’s Reform Party, a small opposition party founded in 2008. Relying on foreign labor to help boost growth is unsustainable, adds Choy Keen Meng, an assistant professor of economics at Singapore’s Nanyang Technological University. He says a better model would involve the reining in immigration and accepting that Singapore is becoming a more mature economy like the U.S. or Europe, with a long-term growth rate of 3% to 5% a year.
Singapore, unlike many of its neighbors, has a reputation for reliable public services and minimal corruption. Its openness to foreign investment is one reason why gross domestic product is expected to rebound to 4.5% this year, according to the Asian Development Bank, from a contraction of 2.1% in 2009.
Still, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, speaking at a Singapore university in September, said there was a need to be “mindful of how quickly our society can absorb and integrate” new arrivals, and vowed to curb immigration.
The government is also studying immigration as part of a wide-ranging review of the city-state’s economic model launched in 2009. Results of the review, due this month,are expected to include steps to diversify Singapore’s economy and reduce its reliance on exports to the United States and Europe by boosting domestic consumption, among other things.
Yet people familiar with the government’s plans say it is unlikely to press for deep cuts in immigration, and will aim to find other ways to restore productivity growth. Singapore remains committed to a long-term goal of increasing the population to 6.5 million, though it would do so by prioritizing high-skilled residents as opposed to blue-collar workers.
Immigration “is not a weakness, it’s a strength,” said one person familiar with the long-term economic planning process. “People want to come here, why not make use of that strength?”
Serious cuts to immigration could also generate a backlash from other interests—notably the factory owners and real-estate developers who rely heavily on foreign arrivals. Many employers complain that local Singaporeans, accustomed to a higher standard of living than most other Southeast Asians, are unwilling to take on menial jobs, and are likely to resist further tightening of foreign labor supply.
leave a comment