Gerald Giam

Asking Chiam to step down? Only voters should decide

Last Sunday, the Sunday Times published a report about Potong Pasir MP Chiam See Tong, “Recovering from stroke but Chiam is sharp and lucid”. By mainstream media standards, this was a relatively positive article about an opposition politician who has served his constituents well for over 20 years.

Today, a letter in response to that article was published, titled “Chiam See Tong should call it a day”. In it, the writer wrote:

History is awash with leaders who do not know when to quit, and I hope Mr Chiam will not go this way.

This also raises the question of whether there is any parliamentary rule to retire an MP who has suffered a stroke.

The issue is not whether an MP wants to carry on working. That is for Parliament to decide.

It is not for Parliament to decide whether or not an elected MP should be forced to retire against his will, if he has committed no crime. Articles 45 and 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore lay out the grounds for disqualifications and tenure of MPs. Among the grounds for disqualification are:

Being of unsound mind;
Becoming bankrupt;
Being sentenced to prison for over 1 year, or fined more than $2,000;
Taking up citizenship in another country;
Resigning or being expelled from his political party;
Being absent from Parliament sittings for 2 consecutive months;

Article 44 states the qualifications of MPs, among which are:

He is able, with a degree of proficiency sufficient to enable him to take an active part in the proceedings of Parliament, to speak and, unless incapacitated by blindness or other physical cause, to read and write at least one of the following languages, that is to say, English, Malay, Mandarin and Tamil;

This is the only point that could make him unqualified to stand for election at the next election. However, the Constitution does not state in Article 46 (Tenure of office of MPs) that persons who do not meet the qualifications set out in Article 44 cannot continue to serve as MPs in their current term.

In any case, Mr Chiam has demonstrated in Parliament during the Budget and Committee of Supply debate that he is able to speak, albeit rather slowly and painfully. Even if he is unable to speak due to his stroke, being able to read and write will still qualify him to run for office in future.

If he chooses to run for office again, the voters of the constituency he contests — not Parliament — should be the ones who decide his political fate.

I fail to understand what the objective of the writer’s letter is. Is it to demonstrate his sympathy for an elderly gentleman, or to have one of the three opposition MPs in Parliament removed? I don’t think Mr Chiam needs any sympathy from the writer. He has chosen to continue serving his constituents to the best of his abilities. No one is forcing him to continue serving while ill.

Regardless of one’s political affiliations, I think Chiam See Tong deserves to be greatly honoured for his years of unwaivering service to the residents of Potong Pasir, and his contributions to the cause of a responsible and respected opposition in Singapore.

(Photo from Blue Skies Communications: Chiam See Tong walks in to a standing ovation by over 1,120 guests at the ACS Founders’ Day dinner in March 2008. Click here to read my comment about ACS’ guest-of-honour invitation to Mr Chiam.)

Defence spending as a deterrent?

It was surely a question his aides had prepared him for. The Defence Minister, Teo Chee Hean, was on Thursday yet again justifying to Parliament why there was a need to increase defence spending to $11.45 billion despite the economic downturn. This makes up a quarter of government spending.

Irene Ng (PAP-Tampines) asked: “Should the Defence Ministry be having a feast, while the other ministries, and indeed the entire economy suffer from famine?”

The current policy is to spend up to 6% of GDP on defence, come what may.

In answering the MPs, the Minister gave a negative example of Canada, which cut back on defence drastically after the Cold War only to find themselves lacking tanks when their troops were deployed to the Afghan war.

However the crux of his argument was this: “A steady budget through both good and difficult economic times sends a strong signal of our resolve to defend ourselves.”

This is not the first time the government has made this argument. So I take it that this is the main reason why defence spending keeps increasing even when the country is suffering economically. It is not because the threat level has gone up, or they are revamping their “3G” army. It is purely to send a signal.

A very expensive signal indeed.

Just for the record, I am a strong supporter of a robust self-defence capability. I accept that the Defence Ministry will always take up the lion’s share of the government budget because military hardware is expensive.

But I think we should drop this policy of using our defence budget to send signals to potential adversaries. It is imprudent, untargeted and unlikely to achieve its desired results. (No, I’m not talking about the Jobs Credit Scheme.)

In fact, if we can demonstrate to our potential adversaries that even if the defence budget is cut, the SAF can still maintain the same or higher level of operational readiness, that would send an even stronger signal to them. They would know that even if they impose trade sanctions or a naval blockade on us, we are still a poison shrimp that they would not attempt to swallow.

Graciousness out of whack

I was having lunch at the Kopitiam near my office recently when I noticed hanging all over the ceiling were banners titled “Goodness Gracious Me! Please return your dirty tray”. Apparently this is a joint project by the Straits Times and Kopitiam to promote “graciousness”.

So it seems that clearing your trays in food courts is the new “in” thing for government campaigns. Never did I hear this mentioned as part of the “kindness movement” until PM Lee made it an issue during his National Day Rally speech last year. The PM had quoted an email he received from a lady on making Singapore a better place:

“Actually we should feel quite embarrassed to leave our dirty plates and dirty table for the next diner. In my mum’s house, after eating, we will clear our plates and clean the table…this is a good habit we should adopt outside the home.”

And of course soon after the words left his mouth, government agencies, government-affiliated community organisations and businesses keen to gain favour with the government lined up to promote this new and important campaign.

Don’t get me wrong. I have no problem with promoting kindness and graciousness in Singapore. In fact, I think our lack of civic consciousness is one of the many things that makes us very Third World, despite our First World infrastructure and education.

But I think this emphasis on returning one’s trays shows a complete muddling of priorities. In fact, given the numerous areas in which we lack graciousness, I don’t even consider tray-returning as something we need to give attention to.

Firstly, should we be returning our trays? My answer is: It depends. In school canteens, army camps, company cafeterias, I think we should, because costs need to kept down. But in commercial establishments like Kopitiam and MacDonalds, I don’t think it is necessary. These establishments usually have cleaners who are hired to clear plates. If everyone (or most of us) were to clear our plates ourselves, there would be no reason to keep so many of those cleaners. And even with Jobs Credit, these workers are likely to lose their jobs (since they are mostly contract workers). In fact, at another Kopitiam near my house, the cleaner already looked very free despite most diners ignoring the tray-returning campaign banners.

Photobucket

Having said that, I always make the effort to place all my bones and dirty tissues onto the plates before leaving the table, just to make their lives a bit easier.

So if we don’t focus on tray-returning, what should the Kindness Movement focus on?

Giving up seats on the MRT and buses for a start. This is likely to make a bigger impact on people who need the kindness, like the elderly and pregnant moms.

A few months ago, I came across a bunch of NTU (or is it SMU) students, who had initiated a campaign called Project KLOE (Keep left on escalators) in MRT stations. This is a good, ground up initiative that would help commuters who are rushing to and from work.

Ultimately, I believe most of our bad manners is a result of poor upbringing in a very self-seeking and competitive society. If we want to improve our graciousness, we have to target children and parents. When I see schoolkids happily chatting with each other on MRT seats while an old lady stands in front of them, I wonder if their parents and schools ever told them that they should give up their seat in those situations.

Welcome to my new blog home

Dear readers,

I’ve officially moved from my temporary accomodation at geraldgiam.wordpress.com to my new home at geraldgiam.sg. This is my second move in 4 months, and I apologise for redirecting you again. Rest assured I don’t intend to move again anytime soon — unless of course ISD catches up with me and I’m forced to shut down my blog or send messages from some location in Whitley Rd (just kidding…I hope)!

You’ll probably notice at least two new features of my new blog — my own domain name, and ads. While the new domain name will be shorter to type (for those who don’t believe in using bookmarks), I hope none of you folks are too bothered by the ads. Unfortunately someone has to pay for the hosting (which is no longer free), and I need to save up to buy baby powder. :)

I’d like to take this opportunity to say a big thank you for all of you who regularly visit my blog and leave comments. Your readership and response always motivates me to write more, and put in more effort into each post.

This blog is still a work in progress. I very much welcome feedback on any matter related to this blog — whether it is regarding the topics I write about, my writing style, the blog’s design….anything. I want to improve it to make it a more enjoyable read for you, my readers. You can either leave a comment, or write to me directly at gerald dot giam at gmail dot com.

Let’s keep the conversation going. Hope to hear from you soon!

Best regards,

Gerald

Parliament debates HDB rental flats, upgrading, e-engagement and Gaza crisis

PARLIAMENT on Friday [6 Feb] debated the budgets of three ministries – Foreign Affairs, National Development, and Information, Communications and the Arts.

Ministry of National Development

Mr Low Thia Khiang (WP-Hougang) queried the Minister for National Development about the recent demolition of flats on Hougang Avenue 7. He lamented that the demolition took place just seven years after Hougang Town Council used its own funds to upgrade the lifts in those flats. (Hougang, being an opposition ward, is at end of the queue for the Lift Upgrading Programme [LUP]. The LUP expenses for PAP wards are typically borne by HDB with small co-payments by the local town council and residents.)

Mr Low remarked that much of the money was wasted because of the early demolition. He said that in future, HDB should inform the Town Council earlier of its redevelopment plans, lest such waste took place again.

In her initial response, Senior Minister of State (National Development) Grace Fu, skimmed over the issue. Mr Low later pressed Ms Fu for an answer, adding that HDB ought to reimburse Hougang Town Council for the money that went to waste.

Ms Fu reiterated the Government’s earlier commitment to complete the LUP by 2014. Given the time needed to complete the works, HDB would have to make their selections and announcements of contractors by 2011.

Regarding the flat demolitions, the Senior Minister of State explained that HDB regularly reviews its land use, and that her Ministry “can’t tell seven years in advance” of redevelopment plans – “not even seven months”.Mr Masagos Zulkifli (PAP-Tampines) and Mdm Ho Geok Choo (PAP-West Coast) asked the Minister about the shortage of subsidised HDB rental flats for needy residents.

Minister for National Development Mah Bow Tan revealed that there were currently 4,550 applicants in the queue for subsidised rental flats. He said that “two-thirds of them have reasons not to be in the queue”. He cited examples of retirees who had no income but significant savings from the sale of their flats, yet qualified for rental flats. His ministry’s solution to this housing crunch would be to further tighten the eligibility criteria for rental flats.

Mdm Cynthia Phua (PAP-Aljunied) expressed dismay at this proposal, emphasising that in times of economic downturn, the Government “should have more love” instead of tightening the rental housing criteria for old folks. Mr Mah responded, saying that the purchase of a $90,000 two-room flat is “easily affordable” to someone earning $1,200. Continue reading “Parliament debates HDB rental flats, upgrading, e-engagement and Gaza crisis”

Trust, but verify

This is the exchange in Parliament between Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam and MPs, including the Opposition leader and PAP MPs, taken from Channel NewsAsia:

“The concern arises over the way the two-key system operates. It seems the two-key system operates simultaneously at the same time. When the government key says ‘unlock’, the other key unlocks automatically,” said Low Thia Khiang, MP for Hougang.

Mr Tharman said: “This is not a ’wayang’ (show)… The point is: the President, advised by the CPA (Council of Presidential Advisers), makes an independent and careful judgement on the government’s case.”

MP for Tampines GRC, Irene Ng, said: “Can I ask the minister whether the process can be refined and improved further so that in future we can make the process more transparent — that the public knows that the institution of the President is one that is strong, and that it can exercise an independent turn of the key.”

Inderjit Singh, MP for Ang Mo Kio GRC, said: “What’s missing is the process that the President took after he got briefed by the government. If we could get a sense of what they discussed and what process they went through to decide, then this may clear many of these questions.”

But Mr Tharman said: “I’m not sure why it is relevant. At the end of the day, this is a system that is different from Norway and Australia, where as much detail as possible is provided.

“This is a system that relies on trust in the individuals who are in charge, including those appointed to the CPA and the Elected President. Do you trust them? Have they made decisions wisely? Has the government been acting responsibly?”

———

I am deeply shocked that the Minister would say that our government’s system is one that relies on trust.

How can you have trust without transparency? The two go hand in hand. Particularly so for financial and governance matters. Is the Minister expecting Singaporeans to trust a few handpicked men with hundreds of billions of dollars of our nation’s reserves?

In my opinion, this is the most fundamental weakness in Singapore’s system of governance. Those in leadership expect — or even demand — that we trust them, without them having to demonstrate a commensurate level of transparency. It extends down to the ruling party’s philosophy that a one-party system works best for Singapore, and there is no need for an opposition to keep them accountable.

All men are fallible. Donning a white uniform does not put one above scrutiny.

My response to RAdm Lui’s remarks about “self-regulation”

TODAY newspaper asked me for my views on Senior Minister of State for Information Lui Tuck Yew’s remarks about how the local online community has not “self-regulated” regarding the Seng Han Thong affair. Here are my responses, all of which did not get published.

1) What do you think of Mr Lui’s comments, especially his comments on how the online community should be more self-regulating?

I agree in principle, but self-regulation is not something that the Govt or individual bloggers can impose. It boils down to how individual Netizens wish to portray themselves to their readers.

2) How fair do you think Mr Lui’s comments are?

I think he made some sweeping generalisations. I personally responded to some unkind comments on one blog. The Online Citizen also ran an article criticizing some Netizens for their unkind remarks. This was not highlighted by Mr Lui.

It should be noted that many of the unkind comments were directed at the Govt, not Mr Seng personally. The criticism should therefore be seen in that context.

I think it’s appropriate to ask: What about those who are pro-govt or were indignant about the unkind criticism they read online? Why didn’t they step forward to comment or blog about it? They are also part of blogosphere and have a part to play in shaping the Net culture in Singapore.

3) What do you think we can do to improve the quality of online public discussion?

I think those bloggers with a higher readership can help shape the tone of discussion. It’s not to say that they should impose anything on fellow Netizens, but they could lead by example.

As more citizens from both sides of the political spectrum join blogosphere, I believe we will naturally see more balance.

Is Straits Times protecting Govt from criticism?

The following is a letter from a volunteer with TWC2, a migrant worker advocacy group, that was sent last week to the Straits Times Forum. It got rejected for publication by the Forum editor, but was re-published by The Online Citizen. I felt it was an excellently argued piece. It makes no wild accusations, and cogently explains the difference in how the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and a victimised foreign worker defines a “resolved” salary dispute. If it was rejected primarily for the purpose of protecting MOM from criticism, I find it quite shameful of the paper to do that.

————

Dear ST Forum,

(MOM deputy director) Ms Ng’s letter aims to counter a remark in an earlier Straits Times article in which Jolovan Wham, Executive Director of H.O.M.E., was quoted as saying ‘foreign workers here are given little real protection’.

Ms Ng stated that foreign workers wage claims are usually resolved before they return home except in exceptional circumstances. The veracity of this statement depends on what Ms Ng means by ‘resolved’. Workers may have accepted settlement terms and agreed to return home, but whether or not the settlement terms equal a fair and just outcome is a different matter. In the past few months, many foreign workers from Bangladesh and China have been repatriated and statements from MOM often claim their cases have been ‘resolved’. Yet it is not always the case that these workers are paid fully what they are owed nor are mediation processes necessarily fair.

While a salary case is pending, workers are generally unable to work and cannot afford to stay in Singapore for too long. When cases drag on, workers tend to grow desperate and, under pressure, agree to ’settle’ for whatever is given. The alternative, of prolonging their stay with no guarantee of a higher settlement, weighs mediation outcomes heavily towards employers’ interests.

Furthermore, it is not unreasonable to expect workers to be compensated for breach of contracts. Citing ‘impracticality’ and an economic downturn is questionable. A bad economy does not excuse unethical business practices nor flexibility in upholding the law. It must also be pointed out that there have been many cases in which construction workers from China have been fined hefty ‘breach of contract’ fees despite the fact that their contracts have terms less favorable than the Employment Act and should be void. Companies then deduct large sums of money from the workers’ unpaid salaries, citing ‘breach of contract fees’, before repatriating them. In the past few months, MOM has allowed these ‘breach of contract fees’ to be deducted from workers salaries during mediation meetings.. How is it that this is not considered ‘impractical’ in an economic downturn?

It is encouraging to know that the MOM is taking the recent media coverage seriously and is acting to ensure employers uphold the Employment Act. We look forward to greater enforcement of existing laws and prosecution of errant employers so that all workers will be protected. After all, it is not the mere existence of laws that provide protection but its active and consistent enforcement.

Ms. Stephanie Chok Juin Mei

(This letter was re-published with Ms Chok’s permission. MOM’s letter to the ST can be found here.)

Amendments to the Films Act

The Films (Amendment) Bill was read the first time in Parliament on 22 January. The Bill is found here. No huge surprises, since the Government had made its intentions clear in its response to AIMS.

However one change which political parties should take note of is the replacement of Section 2, subsection (f), which now permits:

(f) a film without animation and dramatic elements —

(i) composed wholly of a political party’s manifesto or declaration of policies or ideology on the basis of which candidates authorised by the political party to stand will seek to be elected at a parliamentary election; and
(ii) made by or on behalf of that political party;

I think this is a step forward, but still unnecessarily restrictive. Does it mean that films which are simply statements from political figures, but are not stated in their manifesto and are not their official election platform will still remain banned? I sure hope not!

A new Section 4A introduces a new Advisory Committee to “provide advice to the Board (of Film Censors)” regarding political films. However, Section 4A(2) immediately overrides the power of the this committee by stating “the Board may consult the relevant advisory committee…but…shall not be bound by such consultation.”

Another point, which has been highlighted by other bloggers, is Section 2, subsection (d), which states that the following is now allowed:

d) a film designed to provide a record of an event or occasion that is held in accordance with the law for those who took part in the event or occasion or are connected with those who did so.

Alex Au has pointed out that this is another of those “Chee Soon Juan laws” — laws which were specifically enacted to counter the activities of Dr Chee Soon Juan and his followers. (In fact, Section 33, the original law which bans political films, was enacted soon after Dr Chee made a video promoting his party some years back.)

While it would be illegal for filmmakers to film an illegal protest, it would not be an offence for Mediacorp to do the same, since Section 2, subsection (a) allows “a film which is made solely for the purpose of reporting of news by a broadcasting service licensed under any written law”.

But this raises another point: Are the police, then, allowed to film illegal protests and submit it as evidence in court? I don’t see anything that permits that. Unless, of course, there are other laws (or lack thereof) which give the police the power to do anything they deem necessary to perform their work.

I hope there will be more debate on this law during its second reading in Parliament.

Gems from President Obama’s inaugural address

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of shortcuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the fainthearted — for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things — some celebrated, but more often men and women obscure in their labor — who have carried us up the long, rugged path toward prosperity and freedom.

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.

For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.

For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.

Time and again, these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

* * * *

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control — and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous.

* * * *

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society’s ills on the West: Know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world’s resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

* * * *