Speak Up!

7 June 2005

Dear SDP,

While there certainly are valid reasons to abolish mandatory death sentences, I cannot but help sympathise with Irina Makarova over the chaotic situation in Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union and rise of criminal gangs, secret societies ("Mafia") and so on in the anarchic situation of post-socialist Russia.

So severe penalties (not necessarily the death penalty) implemented firmly and fairly are needed to help deter crime.

Warren wrote: "The best way is still to educate the pubic about drug abuse, through schools and community gatherings. And of course increasing the possibility of getting caught."

However, most importantly, governments should look into the social and economic conditions leading people to commit crimes and try and address the problem at its root.

For example, if motorists often take illegal shortcuts, building more places where they can make legal U-turns certainly reduce much incidence of it, except among a few recalcitrant die-hards who need stronger measures to stop them.

Just come up and see the number of motorists in Kuala Lumpur, Petaling Jaya and rest of the Klang Valley who not only ride motorcycles on the wrong side of the road, but cars as well and they make U-turns where they aren't supposed to, thus endangering law-abiding motorists like me.

Also, look at how traffic lights mean nothing, especially to motorcyclists who go whether the light is red, amber or green.

Then, let's not forget the degree of corruption in the civil service up here. Do you want that in Singapore?

That's why me and many fellow Malaysians admire Singapore for the relative order and little corruption you enjoy there and yes, one of the requirements for achieving that is effective enforcement and severe penalties , which people like myself and Irina yearn for in our respective countries.

Have you ever asked why leftist protestors and demonstrators in Russia carry portraits of Josef Stalin, instead of protraits of "moderate" leaders like Khruschev, Brezhnev, Andropov or Gorbachev?

The people of the former Soviet Union must see something good in Stalin, despite all that the West and his enemies have said to malign him.

Education is the option oftentimes suggested by impotent NGO's but no amount of education will deter people from committing a crime or beating the system when they stand to gain materially or gain much time or convenience by committing the crime or offence.

Increased chances of getting caught are further deterrents, as Warren rightly said, but if all they get is a slap on the wrist, then getting caught won't matter much to them, just like the drug traffickers in Russia which Irana speaks about.

Detering crime requires a combination of penal, moral, sociological and other measures and while even the harshest of punishments won't completely eradicate crime, I'd like to see whether crime will decrease in the absence of adequate punishment.

There's also good reason to review crime and corresponding punishment based upon scientific and other evidence but the last thing politicians should want to do is to throw the baby out with the bathwater and see their country descend into a crime-infested cesspit due to loony-liberal policies.

Thanks.

Charles
Malaysia

SDP: Dear Charles,

You start your letter off very rationally when you say that severe penalties (not necessarily the death penalty) implemented firmly and fairly are needed to help deter crime. Amen to that.

What we find harder to comprehend is why you move from discussing the death penalty for drug smugglers to the chaotic (according to your observations) conditions of Malaysian roads. If the Malaysian traffic police are incompetent in enforcing laws, how does that make executing small-time drug peddlers in Singapore anymore right?

Perhaps you are trying to say that the Singapore Government is much better (define better however you wish) than its Malaysian counterpart. This still does not mean that the death penalty as it is currently employed in Singapore is right. They are completely separate matters. We need to get out of the infantile mode of thinking that society will disintegrate into a crime-infested cesspit just because we want to address injustice in society. In short, a society can be orderly and still not have insane policies like killing people found carrying small amounts of drugs. You say look at Russia, we say think Melbourne, Toronto, or even Boston. Its always problematic when you pick the worst examples to substantiate your point because you tend to sow fear. At SDP we prefer to point to hope.

You then descend into lunacy when you point to Josef Stalin to make your case that (some) Russians want an orderly society and are waxing nostalgic. In case you dont know: approximately 20 million, including up to 14.5 million needlessly starved to death under Stalins reign. Another million were executed for political "offences". Nearly 10 million more were deported, exiled or imprisoned in work camps, with many of the estimated five million sent to the 'Gulag Archipelago' never returning alive. Other estimates place the number of deported at 28 million, including 18 million sent to the 'Gulag'. No, these are not statistics fabricated by Stalins Western enemies. They are documented evidence with files, ledges, and books that have names of the victims.

Of course, there are people who long for the return of Stalin-type rulers. They are also those who also long for Hitlerian type of politics or the days during Imperial Japan expansion. Should we bring these regimes back or work towards such systems?

You write: I'd like to see whether crime will decrease in the absence of adequate punishment. You have to be silly to think that it will. No one anywhere on this website or anytime in this debate over the death penalty is advocating that we make punishment for criminals inadequate. What we are saying is that the death penalty for small-time drug smugglers is excessive. This much we hope that you can appreciate. If a discussion is not to degenerate into ridiculousness, we must avoid exaggerating the oppositions claims: We seek to end the death penalty for drug peddlers, you say that will bring about the malaise of the Russian society. You have not shown us how the two are connected, much less how one will lead to the other.

You say that politicians should not lean towards loony-liberal policies. Excellent point. At the same time, we caution against the wild-eyed, scare-mongering tactics of right-wing autocrats.

7 June 2005

I was appalled at the callousness of the government in allowing the family of the late Shanmugam Murugesu only $150 a month. $150 a month will not even go towards paying for groceries!

I am willing to come forth with a small sum to help the family, especially for the boys' education which is vital if they have to make something of themselves. I would like to make a monthly donation of about $50. I know it's not much but I am not a very rich person to afford more.

I would like to know what bank account to credit this amount to.

ANONYMOUS

1 June 2005

If I were LKY and those few around him, I would feel embarrassed rather than appreciate the unimaginative, mechanistic self-censorship practised by ST in not publishing Anthony Yeo's letter defending Ravi.

ST was very loud when it reported PAP's insistence on "the right to reply" in its disputes with the foreign press. We have here a respected, reknowned Singapore professional counsellor explaining Ravi's action defending his character against the imputing of dishonourable motives for his support of Shanmugam's family.

And ST is solely responsible for publishing the character attack in a lead article. It seems that what the PAP allows ST to publish becomes law, and any alternative view is silenced, knowing full well how effective that is in a country where no press independent of SPH exists.

And the issue under discussion is not even a "political" one. Even the PAP will acknowledge that hanging drug traffickers is defensible at best only as a neccesary evil, and appreciate the prima facie disproportionality of capital punishment for just having been found in possession of that weightage of certain drugs.

Singaporeans would be devoid of any moral sensitivity if they don't feel the tension between that punishment and the justice and compassion the PAP seems also to want to instil in them.

We have been made aware of "OB markers". ST seems now to want to extend those to exclude discussion of just anything the PAP has made law, irrespective of how arguable it is. "OB markers" now becomes no longer to do with issues affecting national security.

D.J. Enright, in Memoirs, observed that the only paper that survived LKY's purging of newspapers in the 60s was the paper he had previously held in contempt for its spinelessness, that is the Straight Times. ST needs to grow some spine, if its support for the powers-that-be is not to prove embarrassing for them instead.

TAN TAI WEI

1 June 2005

Irena Makarova asks if the death penalty is a deterrent to drug smugglers.

The fact that Singapore executes more people per head of population than any other country shows that it is not.

I would attribute the high number of executions to the facts that firstly Singapore has more crimes punishable by death than any other country, and secondly that once someone has been sentenced to death they will be hanged, they won't get off if they have a clever lawyer and people don't spend over a decade on death row like they do in America.

By the way I was surprised to learn that tobacco is legal in Singapore, considering that firstly people can be executed for trafficking other dangerous drugs, and secondly chewing gum is illegal because it causes a major litter problem, but so are cigarette ends.

I have still not received replies from the Attorney General, the Minister of Law and the Chief Justice. Did anyone else write to these people, and if so did you get a reply?

CLIVE

1 June 2005

I was reading the papers yesterday and I came across an article of an interview on the Home Affairs Minister. He spoke of issues concerning our society on how pampered we are and mentioned that the government cannot always be taking care of the people and that the people should look for ways to foster ties among themselves.

The minister was quite eloquent in his argument when the topic shifted to the various restrictions in our society. I totally agreed with his argument that there should be certain laws to protect the citizens. The rights of an individual should be limited before hurting the rights of another individual. The final part of the interview was on the banning of political films and a statement he made really puzzled me:

"Political videos, by their nature, will be political, will be biased and, therefore, will not be able to allow the listener or the viewer to see the whole range of arguements."

I can understand that political videos tend to be biased but I don't see a whole range of arguments with regards to the opposition in other sources. Where are the opposition arguments in the newspapers? I guess this Act applies to all forms of media. The people need to see the perspectives of all the parties in Singapore on various issues. That is the reality or I would say that the listener or the viewer will not be allowed to see the whole range of arguments.

HARRY

1 June 2005

I have a friend from the United States, who wanted to learn more about our culture and our country some time go. I described our society and laws as any ignorant Singaporean would but what she said next nearly took me off my seat. She asked me whether I was living in a police state and immediately I felt insulted.

I have been told that the laws in our country are very strict but the people are safe and happy. When I spoke on the issue of drugs and laws governing drugs, she told me that it was too extreme. In her country, an american carrying as much as what Mr. Shanmugam was carrying would normally be let off. The authorities there would normally see it as personal use. Now, thinking of Mr. Shanmugam's case, certain things has to change. Who are we to decide on the life of a human being. He made a mistake and he should be corrected, not "hanged".

After learning and reading more on our country's politics, I realize things are not what they seem. Earlier I mentioned that our people are safe and happy...Was I right? or Was I wrong?. If I was wrong, then I guess I told a lie and my place in hell has been secured.

HARRY

SDP: Dear Harry,

Things are not quite as drastic; no one has to go to hell just because they were wrong or told a lie. Many Singaporeans have been wrong about their views on our country. To a degree, this is quite natural given that the PAP has been censoring information over the past four decades. Being ignorant is not wrong, staying ignorant is.

With the help of the Internet, the Singapore Democrats hope to provide information that our readers would not otherwise read in the controlled mainstream media. You can help by alerting more of your friends and colleagues to this and other website carrying alternative views and information.

Remember, information is knowledge and knowledge is power.

1 June 2005

Dear fellow democrat,

I am here to share a true account, I was from the Goverment section then and every year when it come to charity donation it really piss me off, does the public know of the president star charity sure most people heard of it well the so call charity drive is to lot of people nothing else but extortion every year the sector involve target to raise a sum of money then present it to the president for the president challenge.

Little does the public know that this sum of money is not raised from donations but the management actually force those employed to donate a certain amount of money willing or unwillingly. This has been the practice for years and nobody has voiced concern over it for fear of the superior unhappiness,

If I am not wrong two years back someone wrote to the newspaper forum asking a explanation from Mindef for the above topic.

Last year when the charity drive started I approach my superior voicing my concern over this issue. His reply was to tell everybody the amount given is not forced but strongly encourage...huh really good at using his words but later on he kept asking anybody got any complain regarding or any problem to come up with the amount given.

From my knowledge a department is given a target then passed on to smaller department which in turn must try to raise the amount. I guess the immediate superior wanted face so he force us to cough out the money which many did unwillingly out of fear.

Sad to say in this time now the goverment sector even knowing of the way they hit their target pretend to ignore the practice. Really sad to say and hear and even see all this practice still continue to this day. Mentally feel so imbalance when come to think of it, sick practice!

DEMOCRACY PURSUER

27 May 2005

After reading about the late Shanmugam Murugesu's case recently, one of my friend in Russia, Irina Makarova, decided to write to me about what she thought about the whole episode. Below is what she wrote to me via email:

"I re-read your e-mail that you sent me around two weeks ago. A letter to president about Shanmugam Murugesu's case. Does your country(Singapore) have a real problem of drugs? And does execution limit the sale of drugs in your country.? I ask it because here we don't have such law. And there are so many addicts in Russia. this problem is becoming more and more terrible, as a lot of people and even children died because of drugs. And nothing can stop spreading drugs here. As in Russia people who sell drug don't get enough punishment. They spent some time in prisons and then leave prison, they started to sell drugs again and again. Sometimes I started to think that only execution can solve this problem."

Irina Makarova
(irina_pm@hotmail.com)
21/5/2005

I think the above letter reflects what some foriegners might think of Singapore. No matter how harsh our legal system might be, there are always some foreigners who wish they had similiar laws back in their own country.

To answer Ms Irina, Singapore doesn't have a major drug problem or a drug trafficking problem. Singapore does not hang drug abusers, only drug traffickers. As i have mentioned in my letter to the President, the death penalty does not deter people from trafficking drugs. Improving the chances for getting caught will deter future traffickers. For example, if you dont want to deter bank robbers, having a law to hang bank robbers will not work that much. Because every potential crimminal will always think that he won't get caught. But if the bank installs security cameras and more security guards, bank robbers might think its too risky to rob the bank as the chance of them getting caught is high.

Last year a small group of foriegners here got caught for possessing cocaine. Two of them paid the hefty bail and they ran away to another country and thus they escaped before they could be sentenced. The truth is rich crimminals and big shots can afford to pay the bail and escape punishment while poor and middle class like Shanmugam suffer because they can't afford the bail and run away to another country.

Shanmugam was hanged for bringing in 1kg of marijuana into Singapore. It is scientifically proven that marijuana has certain health benefits and in countres like Canada, USA and Holland you can even get a doctor's prescription for it. Tobacco is the number one cause for cancer all over the world. So shouldn't we hang cigerrates smokers and those who buy cigerrates too?

Drug addicts in singapore have to serve their time in a special prison called "Drug Rehabilation center". There they will not only spend time in the cell but they will also have the medical and psychological treatment to help them get rid of their addiction. Even after they are released from jail they still have to go for treatment and report for urine tests regularly for about 2 years after their release. Because of such policies, second time offenders are lower. I must note that such a policy is easier to implement in a small country like Singapore and more difficult for a big country like Russia. The best way is still to educate the pubic about drug abuse, through schools and community gatherings. And of course increasing the possibility of getting caught.

WARREN

18 May 2005

My question is how sure are we that the crime merits such dire punishment.
The Government is too cocksure of itself for its own good.

Now I am scared to enter Johor Baru, in case somebody slipped some drugs under my car.

SAM

18 May 2005

It was with immense sadness that I read the coverage of Mr. Murugesu's wake. I cannot even begin to fathom the immense grief his poor mother and his two sons feel, not only because of the loss of the sole breadwinner in the family, but also the loss of a father and a son.

It must be heartwrenching, especially for the two boys, who have been brutally introduced to the way of the world, at least in Singapore. They have been told, in the most cruel way, that no matter how much one pleads, no matter how many people protest, no matter how strong the show of support for your cause is, the government of Singapore is not willing to listen.

Initially I wanted to attend the ceremony but I knew that I wouldn't be able to stand the grief and might break down myself, so I decided to remain home.

What did he have to die for? He carried a bag of "drugs" that is legal in many countries, has proven health benefits, and is as widely available as Panadol in the streets if you know where to look.

What is wrong with us? Why are we so barbaric? Was the crime really serious enough to warrant a death sentence? Aren't there mitigating factors to look into? Is it really so bloody black and white? Would
Shanmugam have even done that had his financial situation in the "country with the Swiss standard of living" been better? What message have we sent through his kids? That Singapore "takes a tough stance on crime" or "we are a brutal, savage society that has no pity on the poor"? Saudi Arabia takes a tough stance on crime as well, with its weekly beheadings and
mutilations. I always thought we were more civilized than that. Turns out we aren't that far behind.

My heart really goes out to Shanmugam's family, especially to his aged mother. Is there any fund we can contribute to, in order to tide them over? How will the kids fund their education? Please keep us informed as to what can be done to help them, as I am sure the government won't give them a penny.

HADES

SDP: Dear Hades,

It is indeed a tragedy that the execution went ahead. Please continue to visit this website as announcements about any follow-up action on the death penalty and for the late Mr Shanmugam's family will be announced here.

16 May 2005

Like any other activist, I refuse to be silenced. I think the PAP and their rulings extend beyond the political realm into that of self-glorification.

The death sentence is inhumane, and "the law" which condones such mindless killings defeats its own purpose. This practice goes beyond politics itself. It transcends into the realm of moral and humanity. The law and parliament is there not only to ensure there is order, it should also be to take care of its people. That is precisely why their capitalist ways should not be supported by us.

A lot of conservatives believe that capital punishment should be used as a deterrence. Little do people know that it is precisely such legislation that limits and restricts the potential that Singapore has. If we are going to allow our country to progress, we need people to be more active and be able to speak up publicly about current issues.

The people should run the government. If it goes the other way around, then it is called a military dictatorship, which will then have the potential of bringing about violent revolution.

The PAP has done a great job in silencing individuals and/or masking the important issues by placing public emphasis on other aspects of life. We deserve to know the truth. Singapore belongs to Singaporeans, not the rich pap ministers that make up less than 5% of the population.

If we want to see true justice, people must first learn to detach their lips where their mouths dont belong first. Everyone has the fear of being singled out, and that is precisely why we need some organisation. As long as we keep it peaceful and legal, it is of no grounds of arrest. Another piece of advice is for people to think before they vote. Many people dislike the trouble of voting, and that is why educating the public on such issues should be a priority.

MARK

16 May 2005

We should organise a candleight vigil outside the Istana so that the President can be reminded of his lack of empathy. Also, to alert the world.

Tell me when, I'll be there.

SHAN

16 May 2005

Hi there,

My God I cant believe they executed him after all the letters etc they received about his case. And just think this one action changed his fate. Its such a shame, I cant comprehend how his sons or family are feeling right now. I hope they find peace. May God Bless all of them.

JENNIFER

16 May 2005

I was saddened to learn of the death of Mr Shanmugam. My condolences go to his mother and sons.

I did write to the Minister of Law, the Attorney General and the Chief Justice, as you suggested, urging them to lift the death sentence on Mr Shanmugam, and for the government to reconsider its poilicy on the death penalty. That was on the 3rd of May, and so far I have had no reply.

As I said befor the sooner Singapore abolishes the death penalty the better.

CLIVE

16 May 2005

I am emailing because I found a link on this website. I have been following the news over the years and I feel that Dr Chee has been extremely unfairly treated.

My name is Ryan, I am 16 years old and I am currently pursuing my studies in Australia. I recall, while I was still in Sec 1, Dr Chee had an ordinary rally and was discredited by LKY and GCT for it. He was forced to apologize, and even though he did, it was not accepted. This is very unfair.

The PAP used to be good, they rescued us from Britain and Malaysia, but I feel that now they are in the decline. The only reason why they are still in power is because the population is ageing, and most people still respect them for what they did nearly half a century ago.

NS. An issue I would like to raise. What is it all about? Why do they have to have a citizens' army, when nowadays strength is not in numbers? Not everyone wants to go to the army, it is a total waste of time as well as a brainwashing experience. With modern warfare, big troops will not cut it.

The education system has lots of flaws in it. There is so much propaganda: Lower Sec Geography and History, Upper Sec Social Studies, Primary Social Studies, Civics and Moral Ed and above all the dreaded Chinese. I am totally against the idea of 2nd language learning. It is impossible to master both languages - or become a jack-of-all-trades.

The PAP has recently been encouraging people to speak out, and when they do, they get discredited. Dr Chee is an example, and Chen Jiahao, a PhD student in the USA, is another. I strongly believe something should be done to rectofy the situation. Dr Chee, you have my support. All the way.

RYAN LIM

16 May 2005

Dear Sir/Mdm,

I am sorry to hear of the plight the Shanmugams are about to face. I pray that they find their salvation. A number of people generally regard Singapore as a police state while others are quite passive about it. I have had a discussion with a few people and they practically came up with the same line..."at least we are safe". How are we to question the system when a number of people are happy with it? Wouldnt leniency bring about a compromise in safety?

HARRY

SDP: Dear Harry,

Executing small-time drug peddlers like Mr Shanmugam does not and will not make Singapore and safer. If we want to really make Singapore safe, then the Singapore Government should go after drug kingpins like Burmese narco-trafficker, Lo Hsing han, who operates out of Burma. As long as people like Lo continue to be allowed to wreak their havoc, we can continue to hang people who smuggle small amounts of drugs out of economic desperation and we would not make an iota of difference. The drugs will continue to be produced and the big-time traffickers will continue to find individuals who are desperate and silly enough to be their mules.

But heres the irony. Instead of going after people like Lo, the PAP Government has been doing business with him, investing in projects that the Government refuses to tell Singaporeans. Whats wrong with this picture: The PAP hangs poor people who peddle drugs out of financial desperation while doing business with the real evil-doers like Lo Hsing Han.

In Mr Shanmugams case, he was convicted and executed for carrying marijuana, a drug that is smoked. The problem is that tobacco and nicotine found in cigarettes is also addictive and causes cancer, the number one killer in many societies. Why are we not hanging cigarette producers and people who sell them?

Hanging drug peddlers is a punishment that is completely disproportionate to the crime committed. A country is made safe when laws are tough. But there is a difference between being tough and being cruel. Taking a mans life for small-time drug peddling is cruelty.

For more information about the arguments against the death penalty for drug peddlers, please see Dr Chee Soon Juans speech on the death penalty on this website: http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/news_display.php?id=753

11 May 2005

First and foremost, why are people interested in politics? That is because politics decides the directions and quality of the lives of these people. Given the culture of Singapore which is very materialistic, when the people are generally not materially wanting, there is lesser interest in politics among the general populace. Thus it is easy for authoritarian system to exist. So the problem with apathy now is not with the dictatorship, it is with the culture of the people.

Why are our people so lacking of righteousness, especially among the younger generation? Our people are all only interested in the paper chase, in securing a material future, and that is actually quite understandable. The cost of living in Singapore is so high and comparatively the wages are so low, even if one is university-educated. The people do not want to live in small and uncomfortable accommodation, and to live otherwise would cost a bomb, considering the price of housing, even 'government-subsidised' ones.

Also, who really wants to live in a poor or rough neighbourhood? The last thing one wants to encounter after a tiring day at work is rubbish over the place, its smell wafting through the whole void deck, urine-stained floors, and hostile neighbours who do not hesitate in picking a squabble. Also, who can really endure the thin walls that allow one to hear the karaoke next door or someone arguing on the next floor?

And it is not even because Singapore lacks space and that is why we can only allow small housing, it is because of the inefficient land use right now that greatly favours the wealthy so the government can earn money, and also because around 40% of Singapore's land is used for the military. Yes, 40%. Very potent indeed, but in the event of a real war, I doubt Singapore can survive anyway. In the hypothetical event that Malaysia and Singapore become the current China and Taiwan, and war really breaks out, there will be no redemption. What our military can do is only to ensure that all the blood that can be shed will be shed, regardless of the outcome. Diplomacy is always much more convenient, cost-effective and lasting than the threat of coercion. Even if not, the idea of war is immoral and should not be referred to.

Singapore's culture exalts only the 'best', the top of the echelon, the white collars among the people, and encourages others to be like them. Those in other professions, the service providers or the blue collars, are shunted aside and are thus labelled "the average". The people forget the importance, achievements and dignity of these men, and their wage levels represent as such. I am just wondering, how long can this situation persist? It is a sore thumb and definitely unsustainable. In the government advertisements that appear to extol the services of the blue collars, the ads seem to portray them as 'happy slaves'.

If society really wants to show their appreciation, then it should not be talk but action, and one can start by increasing their wages, so that their professions can truly be recognised. In Canada where I am staying now, a garbage collector after working for 2 years will on average bring home a paycheck of C$3,600/mth, about 50% more than a clerk. This is how to show appreciation and increase the status of such professions, not to mention that the workers will feel more motivated and thus be more productive.

From young, we have been taught and shown this culture of dog-eat-dog and the strongest survive. It is very rare that in the family nowadays, values of morality or righteousness are being preached. Anything not stoutly practical or profitable are considered useless. The level of humanity is so abject. Fortunately, due to the exposure of international media and mindsets through the internet, many of our youth understand various cultures and types of thinking, so in a sense we are not entirely closed off from the world.

However, the last straw comes when men have to undergo NS. It is truly the most brainwashing exercise ever possibly conceived by man, and those who have successfully gone through it will not easily realise they have been brainwashed. Not brainwashing in the sense of 'duty to the country', which most people already consciously do not think so, but in the sense of blind obedience and unwillingness to address an issue, but just enduring it. It will become an expectation and norm of the people after 2.5 years of such character-bashing, and that is the ultimate conditioning for apathy. It is not the conscript's fault that he does not have the courage nor understanding of how to tackle the issue, for he is just only 18 and has only finished schooling, without any experience of the world, and with still so much of a future ahead of him. It is too terrible and unimaginable a price to pay. For those who are currently imprisoned for standing up to the system, I commend you all, for you are truly the bravest of them all, as brave as the men who have suffered punishment for confronting the government. If this system is not changed, this problem and culture will keep perpetuating itself, and may even grow stronger in the future, for it is a self-sustaining one.

The conclusion is the poor culture that is running through all our veins, and if we do not see the error of the system and of our ways, then we will have no hope.

REY

5 May 2005

3 May 05

My fellow Singaporeans,

The news that our public transportation operators, SMRT and SBS, are submitting their proposals to the Public Transport Council (PTC) to increase fares of buses and MRT should not sound alien to us anymore. While I'm not a socialist, in that our transport operators should be operating at a loss, I'm rather baffled and unconvinced on the operators' rationale to seek PTC's approval to permit them to hike their fares.

First of all, lets get the record straight here. Our transport operators aren't operating at a loss here. While their using of 'higher operating cost' and the 'absence of price hike since 2002' to justify their request for a fare hike seemed convincing initially, further thought suggest that these rationale does not justify the impending price hike. It seems absolutely ironic that the news about SMRT's application to increase fares was published on the front page of the Straits Times on 29 Apr 05 while the financial report of the listed transport operator was published on the 'Money' session the same newspaper. Just for the uninitiated, it was reported that SMRT had made a record net profit of 126.9 million in the financial year ended 31 Mar 05 - thats a 42 percent increase in profits compared with 89.5 million in the previous year! Considering this, it seemed that the 'higher operating cost' may not be that high after all to seriously affect the company's profitability.

Even if readers do not subscribe to the above financial figures, it is publicly known that our commuter company is one of the few 'major' players in this industry. As such, it's only fair to infer that the transport company would have the luxury of having a broad base or volume of 'customers' (residents and non residents) and would have little or no chance of making a loss. According to information obtained from the Economic Development Board (EDB) dated for year 2002, the MRT and LRT served 1.071 million and 40,805 average passenger trips daily respectively. Their concern, it seems, is mainly to determine on the percentage of its profitability.

The other matter of concern would be the unemployment rate in Singapore. From a press release obtained on the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) website, it clearly states that the "Employment gains moderated in the first quarter of 2005 amid a SLOWDOWN in economic growth" and that although total employment "increased by 11,600, it is still lower than the 13,700 in the same period in year 2004". With the slowdown, it was also reported that the "unemployment rate was slightly higher at 3.9% in March 2005 compared to 3.7% in December 2004". Although the unemployment rate was slightly higher, "it was still lower than the unemployment rate in March 2004 which stands at 4.5 percent". However, although there's a slight improvement in terms of unemployment compared to March 2004, it is worthwhile to note that there's a probable 'rebound' in the quarterly employment rate as statistics for the unemployment rate indicated as follows:-
Mar 04 (4.5%),
Jun 04 (4.3%),
Sep 04 (3.6%)*(lowest)*,
Dec 04 (3.7%)
and finally Mar 05 (3.9%).

As such, it would be extremely insensitive to read that our few commuter companies, whose purpose were to serve the people of Singapore, would seek to increase their fares during this period of uncertainty.

As such, I would really hope that the authorities, in this case the PTC, would reject and delay the price increase for all BASIC public transport services such as LRT, MRT and bus (excluding cabs which I considered as a
luxury form of transport) at least to a time when our unemployment rate goes below 2.9 percent.

Finally, on a personal note, I would really hope that more Singaporeans would voice out their opinions whether its dissent, disapproval or for that matter, support on issues such as the issue of price hike.

REPUBLICAN OF SINGAPORE

5 May 2005

Good day sir,

I have seen your forum on the death penalty of drug traffick and I'm with you for that. However I also believe that such laundering of money cases can hardly be prevented. In a secular view, take for example the Colombian drug cartels. They threaten poor ignorance women for trafficking and many of them land in jail and imprison for 10,15,20 of years while the masterminds are still in operations. What can the world do about it? sad to say they can't because of their billions dollar investment in the Wall street. It will be disastrous if they decide to pull off their money from the market.

Personally I think it's a flaw in the capitalistic world and how the stock market works. We can't risk our people's life by standing at the side of justice. It's too late.

I always have lots of respect for you sir for your guts to stand up against PAP. However I believe that we should always present an unbiased view on issues so as to make it hard for the press and PAP to counter. And I also believe that some things remain politically correct because they just can't be let known. Just my 5 cent worth.

JAMES

26 April 2005

Looking back at how I a son of this land have not been treated more fairly than foreign mercenaries who seek work and to live in this country, I would have done things differently, as would doubtless many of my generation.

Before being enlisted. Before stepping into adulthood. Before returning after graduation. Before embarking on a career path. Before making any financial commitments, especially for life. Before getting married. Before deciding to have children

In the words of an older and wiser ex-Singaporean who had apparently seen the light of truth:

Son, before and lest you become inextricably tied down forever to this place in future for whatever reason, go first be a national of another land. Then, armed with your degree, come back and work and live here if you must perhaps due to family roots and ties but only if you absolutely must. And only then.

You will find life not that much different than when you were holding a citizens certificate. As a foreign talent, which you will be known as then, you enjoy the best of both worlds. Many worlds, in fact!

Not having to subject and consign yourself initially to needless conscription and later to frequent and disruptive call-ups losing precious years in the process, during which your more fortunate foreign peers would have, everything else equal, sped ahead on the academic road and climbed on the corporate ladder.

As a foreign talent, you will still be paid pension savings, like any Singaporean. But unlike any Singaporean, you will be able to withdraw those savings (in whole and in entirety) as and when you pat the dust off your bottoms and leave while for the poor Singaporean to draw out his life savings (less a certain minimum sum which is not a constant but a constant change upwards, according to the whims and fancies of the lords of this land), he has to wait till retirement age, which is again not a constant but a constant change upwards, again, subject to the dictates of the clueless lords of this land.

In short, the present Singaporean finds it that much harder to retire; the premise being if he can retire at all, since the ever upwards-spiraling costs of living will make retirement more an elusive dream to chase than a distinct prospect to realize.

Like any Singaporean too, you will be able to own lands and property. And at the same price the Singaporean pays no foreigner premium, no scrutiny!

And like any Singaporean, you are not obliged to dine at fine restaurants but get to dig in to lowest-cost hawker fare as well and indulge in a pig-out! Again, no foreign premium, no scrutiny.

Life is good here, they say. Yes good for anyone else but the unfortunate and misplaced Singaporean.

And this is something for every young Singaporean to ponder about: Just how good is your piece of citizenship paper in this your land of birth?

Before committing yourself further and becoming tied down to this land inextricably and meaninglessly, I say unto you: You have a choice. Seize the day. Exit before it becomes too late. For you have only one life. And you live once only.

ANONYMOUS

22 April 2005

To: His Excellency S R Nathan
Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong
Mr Wong Kan Seng

I am a student in the National University of Singapore and am writing as a concerned member of this community. Reading about Shamugam Murgesu has greatly disturbed me. I understand that what he did was against the law, and punishment must be dealt out.

However, a death sentence is too harsh, and what's more, if the sentence ensues, his two children will be effectively orphaned by the State.

From his family situation, it is clear that Shamugum trafficked drugs more as an act of desperation or neccessity than avarice. Do his actions really merit a death sentence? Did he rape, did he kill, did he victimize or oppress the weak?

From what I've read about him, it doesn't appear to be the case. He has contibuted to the good reputation of Singapore by taking part in international sports events. He fell into drug use when he became depressed after the divorce with his wife - are we not human enough to make the same mistake given the same circumstances?

In many developed countries, the trafficking of Cannabis is not considered to be punishable by death and the sentences regarding Cannabis are much lighter - in Cananda for example, trafficking up to almost three times as much of what Shamugam had (up to 3kg) would merit a mere five years of imprisonment as opposed to a death sentence that would be delivered here for trafficking 1kg (according to the Health Canada website - http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-sesc/cds/cannabis/facts.htm).

In addition to this, in Holland, it can be bought legally over the counter or consumed in a licensed coffeeshop.

In the light of all these facts,can one, with a clear conscience, sentence Shamugam Murgesu, who prior to this offence has never been convicted for anything else, to death for trafficking 1,028grams of Cannibis?

As a concerned citizen and member of a democracy, I feel that the Shanmugam should be released from a death sentence and the drug law concerning cannabis should be revised.

Yours Truly,

Deborah Lee

22 April 2005

Hello Matt Ngo

Are you a Singaporean? If not, please keep your bloody big mouth shut. SHAME ON YOU SDP! Allowing this stupid article from Matt Ngo to be posted on your website to curse your own fellow Singaporeans. What type of opposition party is that?

You commented "The Singapore Goverment has lost its moral authority to rule Singapore with the decision to build the Casino. This government isn't a moral government". Are you trying to say that those countries like the USA, Australia, Malaysia who have casinos do not have moral government. What the heck are you talking about?

You said "Why is the USA ignoring the blatant gross human rights abuses in South East Asia especially Malaysia and Singapore?" What blatant gross human rights abuses are you talking about? I think the USA is the worst cuplrit who does not uphold human rights. Just see what happened to the Iraqi war prisoners in Iraq. Are the abuses by the American soldiers on the Iraqi prisoners upholding human rights? Yes, I agree with you that USA must be the `big boss man' as it's the only global superpower capable of bringing world peace and securing universal freedom. But don't forget, Matt Ngo, the world is not as simple as you see, USA is also a sole global superpower capable of bringing war, chaos and uprising to a country which is not to their interest.

A TRUE SINGAPOREAN

21 April 2005

Dear Singaporeans

I read the media release by Dr Chee: SDP says casino idea imbecilic.

I find Dr Chee's suggestions to the existing regime to salvage the ebbing economy are sincere and honest, most of all, practical and sustainable as a pokey nation in the long run. His chief points are of broad-spectrum values for the locals to thrive in an economy as in individuals or companies as a whole.

Integrated-resorts with so-called "tiny" casinos may augment employment rate in Singapore and induce ripple effects on the economy but we are talking about a nation of more waiters, waitress, chambermaids and taxi drivers , of which the salaries many Singaporeans cannot survive on. OhI forgot something - reflexologists and shopkeepers they are rooting for.

What about experienced croupiers? Ironic either to set up a gambling school to train locals to game with high rollers when we read slogan like this "moulding the nation for the future". Are all these jobs creating true wealth for Singaporeans or foreigners? We cannot give in to plaintive tears in default of a detailed picture.

Casinos may at first seem small in proportion but there is always room for expansion when the patronage soars. Casinos as in the pop culture needs more than just resorts, you need notorious nightclubs to display revealing young merchandise for lust, in order to poach big time gamblers' custom, which converges to one ultimate sleazy competition when our neighboring countries could afford extreme enterprise in the pop culture. Oh yes, we are already mature to live with infamous activities, why whine. Drug lords do not consume, they leverage on handsome profits the traffickers suck from customers.

So when the casinos permit the entry of foreign maids and labourers, we stir up another debate to abolish the safeguard, it will be an eventual favorite haunt for the locals once again. Or in the midst of cutthroat competitions, the doors will eventually open without a levy when the casinos become also-rans. This is cold hard reality.

No wonder 30,000-concerned populace signs a petition against the casino idea to the highest office. Now, two casinos but not one notwithstanding listed in the inventory projecting to rake astronomical profits hand over fist, to add insult to the injury.

Also, are the resorts really going to be family-friendly to the locals? Are we anticipating something like Genting where you spend less than S$100 for one to two- night stay in a swanky hotel surrounded with magnificent setting? Or are they just another sightseeing venue for the locals or a field trip for students?

Should I send my son to a gambling school? I am confused because you cannot become rich in gambling but yet gaming is the revenue-pulling resource, so what role we play, as peasants, to become rich if the resorts and the casinos are our rainmakers? And two IRS to turn the whole economy around, sound good or silly? I am also very confused who is calling shots now.

How else can I guide my son to a better picture in life, and to earn a honest linear income or a residual income when he turns into a man, serve the army, when his peers are raking millions of dollars in the casinos, embracing wines and passion in the high culture hotels.

Are we being coaxed to seek true wealth, gain financial freedom and live a life to the fullest?
To be honest, besides chasing academic papers and get good grades, and gambling, there is none of any campaign to drive locals to becoming rich. Near future into the pop culture, we will have more bankrupts, slaves to banks and stressed-up citizens on the contrary.

Dr Chee brings up a very pertinent point "employ Singaporeans first policy". This is a simple formula yet highly effective. Replace those foreigners with the unemployed locals on those jobs that are unlikely to be shunned you get a humane answer to fight unemployment and create abundant jobs for Singaporeans. Then again, the formula can be cleverly disrupted by creating more new Singaporeans to defeat the formula if the subject of levy fees is raised.

Another point, if the environment has not been encouraging the locals to procreate and especially affecting the main group of the population, the proportion of population in the future will be a demographic time bomb. It is already clicking let alone talking about housing more millions of people in Singapore, we will be taking down the whole Mandai Forest.

Geographically, a small island has its limits and pushing it too far to maintain the exorbitant costs of upkeep will have negative repercussions when settle for less affluence is the pragmatic way out, and still straining to uphold the luxurious lifestyle will only degenerate Singapore into a banana republic sooner.

Many locals speak from mouth, not from their head and heart only to camouflage their conscience for self interests.

My father, who died 24 years ago, once said: "However poor we are, if we keep our heads high and soldier on without grants and handouts, we are what we are, under no beholden, we are free to make choices". My pop died a poor man, but in our heart, he died a rich gentleman I salute.
I have now an intangible legacy worth more than a million-dollar club; I am free to make choices I want and live my dreams while many are shackled to live on dreams of others. My son told me that his classmates could afford expensive football boots and footballs, but yet the school books were sponsored by the schools because they were so poor.

I sigh on the weakness and I begin to understand why I am not seeing things that are real.

You can give an earful, stigmatize me and condemn me for supporting Dr Chee's proposal, one thing is for sure, you will live to rue for many generations to come when the time arrives.

I salute Dr Chee as a man coming this far.

AH THIAM

21 April 2005

Hi, I was in India for a few months and what do you know, when I came back, a bloody casino in Singapore! Not one but two of them!

This is clearly a government that has run out of ideas and is now clutching at straws! Expecting casinos to boost the economy is like encouraging prostitution to boost the birth rate!

Truly sad state of affairs this. I am not against the idea of a casino per se, but is this the time? Shouldn't the government be doing something about allowing greater entrepreneurship? Creating REAL jobs?

I hope the people at SDP are okay. I was away for a while so lost touch.

BALAJI

21 April 2005

Hi,

I see no point, putting the case forward, to stop building a casino. How the hell can we get investment of such big scale?

Let the casino be built. You can choose not to go. Safe the 100 or 2000 dollars for a good holiday overseas. Go to beaches with family members. Do fishing if you need to pass time. If you want to try your luck just buy toto or 4D. Who knows, you may just strike it big.

With property value going down, and with so many Singaporeans caught in the property boom let's bring the property value back. Let people get the money back...and start your planning now to emigrate.

BENSON

21 April 2005

My thanks to Warren for answering my question on Singapore's military history.

If the political situation in Singapore was as volatile as, say, Israel, I would have rephrased my original comment on national service: "It is a sad fact that young men have to have their career plans interrupted by two years to do national service."

Republican seems to think that my opposition to Britain taking part in America's was on Iraq is at odds with my opposition to the death penalty. Taking part in the war would mean sending our own troops to their deaths and bombing innocent Iraqi civilians after all.

I agree with Republican that murder is a senseless act. However executing murderers will not make things any better for the victims' families.

Apart from murderers, there is another group of killers I am not on the side of, and that is the people who carry out the death sentences.

I read somewhere on the internet that more than half of all the countries in the world have abolished the death penalty. When I pointed out that someone told me that nine out of ten people believe in the death penalty, what I was trying to say was that whether most countries have the death penalty or not, whether the majority of the general public believe in the death penalty or not, it doesn't make any difference as to whether or not it is right. And yes, I am confident in my belief that the death penalty is wrong.

My comment that Singapore deserves better than the People's Action Party wasn't meant as a comment on Republican's postings. It was a word of encouragement for the SDP.

CLIVE

20 April 2005

SHAME ON YOU SINGAPORE! The Singapore Goverment has lost its moral authority to rule Singapore with the decision to build the Casino. This government isn't a moral government. It has blatantly chosen to ignore more pressing economic issues to indulge in immoral pursuits.

The Singapore government has also lost its economic authority since the Asian financial crisis with the inability to create jobs and prevent high unemployment in Singapore. All Singaporeans should rally to vote out this government which has no place in Singapore.

Singaporeans are a bunch of cowards. They are too obedient towards the regime. Their loyalty is misplaced. They are a blind people who don't understand universal sufferage and freedom. Stand up for your rights, Singapore Citizens. Do you want to see the PAP government morally and economically bankrupt Singapore. Make your presence and voices heard by condemning the `Pay and Pay' greedy government.

Why is the USA ignoring the blatant gross human rights abuses in South East Asia especially Malaysia and Singapore? The USA should use its political clout and economic muscle in the world to force through political reforms and economic reforms in South East Asia. The USA must be the `big boss man' as it's the only global superpower capable of bringing world peace and securing universal freedom. 'When the going gets tough, the tough get going'.

MATT NGO

20 April 2005

I cannot help but feel so in my land of birth.

Everyone had antipated, despite opposition, the Government's decision on the casino issue. But never, never in our wildest imaginations could or would we have expected the proposed imposition of the $100-a-day/$2000-a-year rule on fellow citizens.

Not that every citizen is clamouring to be on the local casino's VIP list or jostling to get into gaming rooms - the dire economic conditions of the past several years and an even gloomier outlook for the next several make sure that only the exclusively rich can. But the very fact that such a rule will be imposed at all shows how we are and will continue to be treated in our very own piece of the earth.

Disillusionment does not even begin to describe how many like myself feel...

Will the SDP stand up on this issue, Sir? Thank you.

PFC CITIZEN 2ND CLASS

SDP: If you think this is sad, wait till you hear that foreigners will be allowed to protest in Singapore during next year's World Bank-IMF meeting in Singapore while Singaporeans are denied that right in their own country.

The Singapore Democrats will not rest until Singaporeans are treated as citizens, not serfs, of this country.

20 April 2005

Dear President of The Republic of Singapore,

I am writing this letter as a concerned citizen of Singapore, requesting your Excellency to pardon Shanmugam S/O Murugesu; and lift the death sentence that the High Court has meted on him.

There are many reasons why Shanmugam deserves a second chance.

1. Shanmugan has contributed to Singapore society as a responsible citizen. He served in the Singapore Armed Forces for 8 years and was also in the Singapore Sports Council for another 4 years. During this period, he represented Singapore in water sports events even on an international level: World Championship Jetski Finals in Lake Havasu, Arizona, USA in 1995. His records of being a model citizen will hopefully win your sympathy.

2. Various campaigns have been launched over the years to promote Singapore as a caring, inclusive and forgiving society. The most recent, being the Yellow Ribbon Project, whose three main aims are: Create Awareness of giving second chances to ex-offenders, generate acceptance of ex-offenders and their families into the community, and inspire community action to support the rehabilitation and reintegration of ex-offenders.

If the President will pardon Shanmugan, this will send a clear signal to Singaporeans and the international community that we give our ex-offenders a second chance of rejoining the community. Shanmugan has submitted a plea of clemency, clearly indicating his repentance and desire to reform if he is given an opportunity.

3. Shanmugan was driven by desperate circumstances to possess drugs. As a sole breadwinner of his family, he had to financially support his two sons, niece, nephew and an ageing mother. This is a mitigating factor which I hope the President can consider seriously.

4. As regards to the above factor, if Shanmugan were to be sentenced to death as decided by the High Court, this will be an enormous and detrimental loss to the family and society. We have to consider the utmost pain and loss that the family members will suffer. Without any support and the love of the father, I worry immensely about the financial, emotional and psychological well being of the kids and his mother. Shanmugans growing teenage sons and sick mother deserve a father and son who can provide for them in any possible way. Various societal organizations will need to come to the aid of the family to prevent the family from plunging into further distress and poverty.

5. Various precedent cases of offenders who carry more drugs into Singapore have been pardoned.

6. This is indirectly related to Shanmugan. As a firm believer of abolishing the death penalty, I hope the President can reconsider the reasons why the death penalty is not an effective sentence against the offender.

First, the death penalty is one of the most basic violation against human rights. This is clearly stated in United Nations Declaration of Human Rights Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Both the UN and European Union, has made clear positions on the death penalty issue.

Second, studies have been done which fails to find a link in proving that the death sentence is effective in crime deterrence.

Third, over half the countries in the world have abolished it in law or practice.

Global recognition of abolishing the death sentence has become one of the benchmarks on which countries are judged based on their human rights records. If Singapore wants to become a contemporary society on par with other societies in terms of respecting human
rights, we need to abolish the death penalty once and for all.

Most importantly, Shamugan has run out of options within the limits of the Singapore judiciary system, except to ask for a pardon from you, the President.

I hope The President will make a wise and compassionate choice.

A Concerned Singaporean
Charles Tan Teck Wee
S7735919B

Dear Mr. President,

I sincerely hope you will find it in your heart to give serious consideration to a plea being made on behalf of Shanmugams family to spare Shanmugam of the death penalty. I, like many others do not believe that drug trafficking should be taken lightly but neither do I feel that anyone caught trafficking illegally or legally for that matter in drugs should be executed by hanging.

The severity of the offence, I believe stems from the fact of the potential danger it poses for society. However, there are other vices equally destructive to the stability of society - gambling being one of them.

There has been much effort taken to persuade the public to view this otherwise negative habit from an economic point of view. I am sure most Singaporeans do not doubt the economic merits of the proposal even if it can pose a snare to our Singaporean youths. However, the right of choice does not make it an inevitable disaster for all, anymore than drug trafficking can.

Let the onus of responsibility lie with the consumer the State does not have to selectively play the role of nanny for its citizenry.

It is indeed a grave, serious responsibility to take the life of another. Can we, conscientiously justify such horrendous punitive measures in the name of the Law Law which we sometimes conveniently amend to suit our changing times and needs?

Margaret Louis

Note: If you would like us to post your letters of appeal for Mr Shanmugam on this website, please send them to speakup@singaporedemocrat.org.

18 April 2005

First, I must express that its regretted that Clive have altogether missed the point and crux of my response and arguement in my previous mails.

As such, I would just like to summarize in 9 main points on my previous exchange with Clive and perhaps readers of this website could just draw their conclusions based on logic and reason. That's the main purpose of having a discussion and the grand notion and purpose of having free speech anyway.

I do not intend to go into great depth on the credibility on Michael Moore's films as there's more than sufficient information available on the internet for interested readers to draw their conclusions. My point of bringing his films was to highlight to Clive that its extremely subjective especially if he tried to use biased 'works of entertainment' to substantiate any of his arguements.

As indicated earlier in my response to Clive, I've explicitly expressed to him that while NO legal system in the world, including that of Singapore, is 100% foolprove, we have adequate legal checks and honest judges to ensure that no one is put to death by the lack of proof.

As to Clive's belief that it would be a totally senseless act to even execute a GUILTY felon convicted in a court of law, all I would just like to highlight is that its basically his belief. I don't think its a senseless act to execute a convicted person whenever I think of the plight of victims such as women who got raped, abused, innocent children or even infants who were tortured or abused or even murdered, old folks who got mugged and punched because of theft etc. To these unfortunate folks, its even more senseless to be hurt, abused or murdered. They didn't asked for it. Apart from that, those who are on death row knew very well and clear on their penalites if their clandestine activities should failed. They made an 'informed' choice and they gotta be responsible for their own actions. It's not a case where for instance someone got caught for stealing and the court at its own pleasure meted the dealth penalty when the law or statues did not state that at all!

While I do not stop people or even myself from feeling sorry for those on death row, like what Clive said, they are human after all, I think we should all give some thought and sympathies to those who suffered or are going to suffer for their crimes or illegal activities.

Clive stated it in his last mail as a FACT that more than half of the world have abolished the death penalty. I'm not really convinced that that's a fact. If Clive had obtained the above statistics from the Amnesty International website, I would suggest that he study the figures indicated meticulously because the numbers and his abovementioned statement simply do not tally.

Apart from that, Clive mentioned that he spoke to an independent candidate who was pro death penalty and proudly indicated that he responded that 9 out of those 10 folks who believe in the capital punishment were wrong. Well, I'm not too sure what's his statements meant? Its either Clive is a person who's extremely 'confident' in his belief that even if 90% of folks do not agree with him or is he simply too out of touch with the others in his 'philosophical dreamland'.

At this point, I would just like to perhaps clarify a certain point with Clive. I'm NOT 'PRO DEATH PENALTY', sounds as though I'm someone who enjoy sending someone to the gallows or seeing some humans get fried on the electric chair. I think the right term used should be 'PRO JUSTICE and the RULE OF LAW'. Isn't that whats the rule of law seeks to accomplish and attain? That EVERYONE should NOT BE ABOVE THE LAW! So if someone breaks the law and that statue states the accordiing punishment, then it shall be carried out without fear or prejudice. That's why I thought the term 'pro death penalty' does not truly reflect those who support capital punishment. At this point, I do not wish to dwell into how some thought become statue or law as the process is explained quite readily in any legal websites.

Next, I think Clive completely misunderstood and miss the point on the issue of Britain joining hands in the liberating Iraq. Well you know what, Clive, I NEVER assumed that you supported the war because you had explicitly distanced yourself from the effort to free the innocent Iraqi people from their dictator. Neither do I wish to know who you voted for because that doesn't matter to me at all! What I want to highlight to readers is that someone (Clive) who fought vehemently against the death penalty would OPPOSE the effort to free the Iraqi people from their 'death penalty' meted solely by Saddam Hussein (NOT EVEN A COURT OF LAW)!

Finally, I'm appalled at Clive's last statement that the people of Singapore deserve a lot better than the People's Action Party (PAP). While I believe that no one is perfect in this world, even if he or she is a member of the PAP, I do believe in the integrity and honesty of my leaders who had tried hard, though sometimes imperfect, to run this island state and made all Singaporeans proud of our land and country. While you may argued that it's not the PAP but normal Singaporean folks that made Singapore the way it is now, I seriously and honestly think that while EVERY Singaporean has a role to play (and should be proud of it) in the Singapore success story. I think every team, organization, state and country would not be able to achieve its potential if they lack a great leader or team of leaders. Well, the record speaks for itself Clive. Singapore from an unknown 3rd world fishing village to a safe, grand, beautiful and sophiscated country with almost 97% of its population educated and living under their own shelters is something I think every Singaporean including me is extremely PROUD of.

Well, although we may not be 'perfect', no countries in the world do anyway, but I thought your sweeping statement that we, people of Singapore, deserve a lot better than what our leaders have done and is still doing, sounds extremely hollow and unconvincing.

Lastly, though I may not agree with everything what our leaders may have done or intend to do, I still trust in the integrity, spirit, capabilities as well as honesty of my leaders cos I always believe that faith in GOD, the well-being and stability as well as the integrity of my country SHOULD always takes precedence over my own individual freedoms.

REPUBLICAN OF SINGAPORE

18 April 2005

I read with much interest about the on-going feud between Clive from the UK and Republican of Singapore. I would like to offer some information which I think would be useful to Clive's argument. I was forced to return Singapore from Spain last year just to complete my military obligations since I still hold a Singapore passport. I am in the midst of completing my service now and wish to highlight some facts that I have got to know from my stint here so far.

Firstly, Singapore has never been engaged in military conflict. Yet the country maintains as many as 225,000 operationally ready National Servicemen and has one of the most advanced air forces in Southeast Asia. The only time that this island was subject to war was in 1942 when the Japanese defeated the then British ruled empire here as part of their attack on the Allies.

There is more than one reason why Singapore likes everyone to believe why it still has National Service. Firstly because it has a population of about 4 million. An army comprised mainly of professionals would simply be too small to adequately defend the country (although many similar sized and smaller countries also do not have National Service). It is interesting to note that recruits are trained to combat in jungle warfare in certain off-shore islands when there is hardly any jungle in the mainland where they are supposed to defend in the event of an attack.

Secondly, national service is supposed to instill a certain degree of harmony and racial/religious unity among its countrymen. All national servicemen are required to take pledge and sign an agreement that they will "die for the country and THE GOVERNMENT if the need arises" on their enlistment day. In simple words, it is used as a mean to implement forced patrotism.

Though it should be noted that Singapore has a thorny relationship with its neighbour Malaysia over disagreements regarding issues such as the sale of water, land reclamation and certain activities allegedly violating maritime boundaries between the two countries, the chances of these issues resulting in war between the two countries is slim.

Republican of Singapore seems to have his pride hurt since Clive is a non-Singaporean commenting on certain Singapore policies. There are other Singaporean writers from of this column who also share similiar sentiments as Clive who have been spared the rod from this Republican of Singapore. I applaud Mr Clive for taking interest in this website though it is of little benefit to him or his country how the PAP runs Singapore. Certain Singaporeans should learn to take negative comments in positive light if they really believe in debate, arguement and persuasion.

WARREN

18 April 2005

SDP,

I see you try to twist and turn facts. Very original of what PAP always accuse you of. For once I am inclined to think PAP is telling the truth when they say SDP is not very honest.

When did I say Seow and Tang are SDP members? I said these fellows are supporters of Chee and SDP and also Seow and Tang, the 'sued club'. Trying to push the blame to their supporters? I will contact Seow and Tang if I can but I can't. What matters is these people are also supporters of Chee and SDP, thats what I mean. At the least ask your supporters to behave themselves.

The SDP people are speaking ill of WP and SDA with no Seow and Tang. You jolly well know they left Singapore a long time and trying to mislead when you tell me they are from WP. I know that. Seow and Tang were members of WP, not are. Another misleading point.

When did you ask people to vote 29 candidates? Show me the report please.

I found out former MP Cheo Cai Chen and Kwan Ywe Keng are no longer with your party CEC. Seow Yong Chew has pass away! Why are their names still in the web site? Why you put dead man names on web site?

Why SDP talk so much abt PAP incompetence and you don't even update your web site?

EMPTYCAGE

PS Dare publish this letter again?

SDP: We highlighted the point about Tang Liang Hong and Francis Seow because you mentioned that SDP members and supporters were attacking the WP and SDA and supporting Dr Chee and SDP.

Your exact words were: ...SDP supporters have been sowing discord among opposition, claiming to support SDP but not SDA and WP...In fact many forumites are taking them as SDP members becos they claim to support only Chee and SDP and some politicians like Seow and Tang.

We were merely pointing out that it is not true that SDP supporters have been sowing discord among the opposition because they support SDP and not SDA or WP. According to you, these Internet commentators also support Tang Liang Hong and Francis Seow, who are (or were) WP not SDP members. (We will just take your word that Tang and Seow are no longer members of WP although you have not given us any indication that what you say is the official situation, not that we care either way.) It seems clear, therefore, that these people support both SDP and and non-SDP opposition politicians and, by extension, the matter cannot be a simple one of SDP members and supporters sowing discord among the opposition.

SDPs Assistant Secretary-General Wong Hong Toy called for voters to vote for all 29 opposition candidates at its final rally in the 2001 general elections. It may or may not have been reported by the media. The matter was discussed and the Singapore Democrats decided that it would be important for Singaporeans to see some cross-opposition-party support.

As for the partys website, we thank EmptyCage for highlighting that some of our pages need to be updated. He (or she) may be happy to note that the Party is revamping the website which the reader will see in the not-too-distant future.

The SDP posts letters on this website because there are valid arguments and interesting points that our readers make. Emptycage has dared us twice and twice we have posted his letters. But please note that the SDP does not post letters on a dare or not basis. This is the type of tricks that kids make on playgrounds not befitting serious political discussion. If Emptycage advances new arguments in his next email, we would be happy to continue the debate. As it stands, the exchange has run its course and we will bring this thread to a close.

18 April 2005

To the Singapore Democrat Party,

My name is Gaanashree Wood and I am a Singaporean. I have always lionized Singapore and forever been proud of her and her achievements. But recent activity surrounding the S. Murugesu v the State case and the dismissal of his appeal has saddened me greatly. The fact is that taking the life of this man could spell the eventual doom of his twin sons and possibly decide the future of capital punishment. However, this has failed to stir any kindness or humanity within the heart of the adjudicator. Now he has appealed to President Nathan for clemency. I have begun to question my faith in the Singapore Government and its jurisdiction. I fear the outcome of this appeal and what it may come to represent.

Another perturbing issue is the detention of Mr Boon Suan Ban and Mr Robert Ho at the Institute of Mental Health for criticising the Singapore Government. There are questions about the matter that need to answered.

I believe there is to be an election coming up in 2006/2007 and for the first time I will be able to vote. Should I too follow the herd and vote for the domineering PAP or for once take a stand? I think the Singapore Democratic Party has to stand up and speak out, not just for themselves but for all Singaporeans without a voice. I have seen the economic plans SDP has planned for Singapore and I am impressed and believe that it will work. SDP can change the future of human rights, free thought, free press and media and freedom of speech in Singapore if it aims towards it.

Fear not and take campaigning that step further and open the eyes of Singaporeans who are blind to what is happening. Take that one step and the party will be surprised by the immense support. And if the party does take that risk and give it all they have, the party will definitely have another vote, mine.

GAANASHREE WOOD

14 April 2005

I must write to respond to Republican's response to my earlier posting. If anything I found it more offensive than the previous reply.

I agree that Michael Moore's films are one sided. But these films are his side of the argument. I didn't agree with everything in 'Farenheit 9/11', although I agreed with most of his points. 'Bowling For Columbine', however, I thought was a sound argument for gun control.

I certainly don't trust Singapore's legal system 100% after reading the article "Forum on the death penalty and rule of law".

Other reasons that I'm opposed to the death penalty, include my belief that even if the person was guilty executing them would be a senseless act. There are even relatives of murder victims who hold this view.

My statement that more than half of the countries in the world have abolished the death penalty wasn't intended as an argument for abolishing the death penalty. I was just stating a fact. During our last general election I spoke to an independent candidate who was pro death penalty, and he told me that nine out of ten people believe in capital punishment, and I replied that those nine out of ten people are wrong.

You still haven't answered my question: When was Singapore last invaded, and what are the chances of it being invaded now. Perhaps the moderator of this website would care to supply me with the answer.

What I found distasteful in my earlier post was Republican's assumption that because I am British I agreed with the British government's decision to support America's war against Iraq, when in fact I was strongly opposed. Not every British member of parliament voted to support the war. Not everyone who voted for the current Labour government supported the war. Some people went on protest marches to express their opposition to the war (although I wasn't one of them).

As Republican said Britain is a democracy and a free country, and if the government makes a decision that some people agree with they are perfectly entitled to express their disagreement, whether it's by writing to a newspaper, joining a demonstration, or forming a pressure group.

You should not assume that I even voted for the current government. And I won't tell you if I did or not because we have a secret ballot and I feel no obligation to tell anyone how I vote.

The people of Singapore deserve a lot better than the People's Action Party.

CLIVE

4 April 2005

Dear SDP,

I can let go of the rest but just the following pts:

1. You may want to visit Sammyboymod forum to see how SDP supporters have been sowing discord among opposition, claiming to support SDP but not SDA and WP. If you don't know the link I can show you http://forums.delphiforums.com/sammyboymod/. The way they write portrays them as SDP members. If they are not, then that is not the impression they give. In fact many forumites are taking them as SDP members becos they claim to support only Chee and SDP and some politicians like Seow and Tang. I think this should be of your concern becos they claim they are supporters of Chee your leader. If Chee remains silent, it is taken that he endorses the attacks on other opposition and thinks SDP is chief of the opposition parties. Don't write a long letter back to me telling me Chee doesn't not think so with flowery words becos I believe in ACTIONS, not WORDS.

2. Attacks on SDP has always been carried by PAP supporters and not opposition supporters. Why is SDP supporters attacking SDA and WP supporters. In some instance, SDP supporters even join hands with PAP supporters to attack them!

3. You respect everyone the right to express opinions? How about opinions of SDP supporters that undermine the credibility of opposition? If you are that dumb to sit around and do nothing or practice double standards then you are not credible party.

EMPTYCAGE

SDP: Dear EmptyCage,

It is regretted that you have missed the point in our previous response to you. For clarity's sake, we repeat it: The Singapore Democrats have no desire, nor do we feel that it is in the interest of free speech, to tell Internet users what they can and cannot say in cyberspace.

You presumed that many of these Internet users criticisng the WP are SDP members "becos they claim to support only Chee and SDP and some politicians like Seow and Tang." We take it that you are referring to Francis Seow and Tang Liang Hong. There is a fundamental error in your presumption as neither Seow nor Tang have been, or are, members of the SDP. In fact, we believe that they are members of the WP. Perhaps your anger at SDP is misplaced.

You also say that "Attacks on SDP has always been carried by PAP supporters and not opposition supporters." The Singapore Democrats do not follow Internet discussions closely and we can only presume that what you say is true. However, we do not chafe at criticisms, those from PAP supporters or otherwise. If fact, we welcome them because any party that cannot accept criticism cannot become a good government when they win power. In politics the bitter comes with the sweet, praise comes with criticism. We repeat: If you feel the need, answer your critics, otherwise leave them alone. Trying to shut them up is unbecoming of a political party, especially one that champions democracy.

The Singapore Democrats would never ask its supporters to join hands with PAP supporters to criticise other opposition parties. However, we are of the view that they are intelligent and mature people who are able to discern who is doing what is right and wrong. We may or may not agree with them, but we support their right to say them.

And speaking of undermining the credibility of the opposition, it is on public record that the SDP is the only party that asked voters to vote for all 29 opposition candidates during the last election right till the very end of the campaign. Does this sound like a party out to sabotage the cause of the opposition to establish democracy in Singapore? Any party or group that believes in, and works toward, a democratic system where human rights and freedom of Singaporeans are respected, can expect the full cooperation and support from the Singapore Democrats.

4 April 2005

Before I begin, I would like to express my regret that the respondant found some of my comments offensive. However, I do not think I should be
apologetic about that and once again I've highlighted his 'casual' style
kind of argument.

I would like to inform the respondant that I had watch Michael Moore's
trademark 'biased documentary' "Bowling For Columbine" and some of his
notorious propaganda 'documentaries' notably the recent "Farenheit 9-11".
Perhaps I should reciprocate by suggesting that you read some of the
feedbacks and 'professional movie reviews and commentaries' about the nature of Michael Moore and how he's 'skilfull' enough to 'convice' his viewers, unfortunately I believe Mr Clive was one of them.

I do not wish to deliberate further with the respondant on the issue of the death penalty as he could only just express distrust on a country's legal system, the remote possibility that an innoncent person might be executed wrongfully and 'other reasons' that he chose to withold. How unfortunate, or perhaps it is fortunate as that would spare us from the respondant's litany of complaints and distrust.

"More than half of the countries in the world no longer have the death
penalty and the sooner the rest follow the better" is one of those
statements I found to be pretty hollow much least convincing. Just because half of the world practiced certain things, doesn't mean its correct and should be practice by the rest of the world! Apart from that, I just wonder how my respondant came up with the statistic that more than half of the countries in the world do no have the death penalty!

As for his question as to when Singapore was last occupied or what are the possibilities that Singapore would be invaded, I would like to take the honor to recommend my respondant to read the book titled 'Defending the Lion City: The Armed Forces of Singapore' by Huxley, Tim. Hope that would assist and further reinforced my position of having a credible and effective armed forces as a deterrant and clear some of the doubts my respondant may have.

Lastly, as for the comment that my respondant found extremely offensive and his subsequent reply, all I could say is that it really reaffirmed my belief that my respondant is really 'hollow' in his comment that 'it was his government's decision and not his'! What a JOKE, and unbelievable one too! Doesn't he know the basic of what's a representative democratic government is all about?? It's supposed to represent the will of the people! And your government was elected democratically, right!

But what REALLY and TRUELY troubled and saddened me was that my respondant who's living in a FREE country was against his own government's and the U.S as well as other countries in the 'coalition of the willing' efforts to liberate a country that was before ruled cruelly by a notorious DICTATOR who was known to have GASSED his own people and deprived his own people of basic human rights!! My respondant was AGAINST the liberation effort to free the Iraqi community!! What an irony that a person who is against the death penalty on the grounds that someone may eventually be wrongfully executed, is against an honorable military operation against freeing the innoncent Iraqi majority (Shiites) and minority (Kurds) from the 'death sentence' meted by Saddam Hussein when he was in power!!! What an unbelievable contradiction which really makes me doubt the moral credibility of my respondant.

Finally, its not my idea or thought that a sovereign nation such as the United Kingdom could be the 51st state of America at all! Its both ludicrous and unfathomable!

Perhaps I should just correct my thanksgiving statement and thanked the U.K EXCLUDING my respondant instead, for lending a hand and shoulder as a true friend might, to help give a chance and save the innoncent Iraqi civilians from their 'death penalty'!

Hope that would alleviate my respondant from some of my 'offensiveness'.

REPUBLICAN OF SINGAPORE

29 March 2005

I write in response to the letter from Republican of Singapore who replied to some of my comments.

Some of the comments in this letter I found offensive.

I suggest the correspondent watches Michael Moore's Bowling For Columbine for a view on America's gun culture.

I don't trust any country's legal system completely. I still stand by my view that any country that has the death penalty will execute an innocent person sooner or later. But that isn't the only reason I'm opposed to the death penalty.

More than half of the countries in the world no longer have the death penalty and the sooner the rest follow the better.

I admit that Britain and Singapore are two quite different countries. I should point out that Britain only introduced conscription when the two World Wars started. I don't know when Singapore was last invaded by another country or what the chances are of Singapore being invaded now. I would be interested to know.

However the comment I find extremely offensive is "I would like to thank Clive and the UK for their support to the US in Operation Iraqi Freedom". Do not thank me for this. It was the government's decision not mine. I was againts Britain's involvement in America's war on Iraq. Britain is not the 51st state of America.

CLIVE
UK

29 March 2005

SDP is not a credible party.

1. Being an oppo party against PAP, you have members and supporters attacking WP all the time on the internet just because they are growing and you are not.

2. The attacks contain lots of untruths and lies. SDP has more to hide and despite so attack WP weaknesses.

3. Martin See is not SDP member? My source tells me other wise. Lying to the press abt his membership with SDP yet come to internet to lie and accuse WP of lying.

EMPTYCAGE

PS: Dare to (publish my letter without) Change?

PS2: My warning to SDP -- stop the attacks on WP esp on Sammyboymod for the truth abt Martin See will be exposed. Take my wager?

SDP: Dear EmptyCage,

The Singapore Democrats have no information that its members are actively attacking any political party on the Internet. If you have any evidence that this is happening please forward it to us and we would be happy handle the matter.

To be sure, there have also been numerous attacks against the SDP. Many of them have even written to this website and their letters have been posted. The best way to expose "untruths and lies" is to answer them with reasoned argument and logical persuasion, not "shut up or else..." This is the PAP's tactic and it would be a shame for the opposition to try to imitate it. To cite Voltaire, while we fight with the views of our detractors, we will fight even harder to defend their right to express them. It is called freedom of speech and it is the cornerstone of democracy, a principle which we hold dear as Democrats.

But principles are easier to fight for than live by. It would be a shame for us to excoriate the PAP for denying us the right to freely express ourselves and then turn around and threaten those who disagree with us. The Internet is a forum where a myriad of subjects and a spectrum of opinion on these subjects can be expressed without censorship and control by the PAP. There are many things posted there which are disagreeable to many who participate in, or simply browse, it. Defend against those that attack you if you must, ignore them if you choose. But please respect everyone's right to express their opinion - intelligent or inane, reasonable or rude. We have enough PAP censorship in Singapore to last us many lifetimes, let us protect this little corner of freedom zealously.

We believe that you are referring to Martyn See and not Martin See, the film-maker who made the documentary Singapore Rebel. For the record, Mr See is not a member of the Singapore Democrats.

We thank you for your email despite our inability to agree with you.

29 March 2005

Dear Sir,

It is with interest that I've decided to pen a few words which I feel will open up someone's eyes as to what is happening in my beloved Singapore. I'm a 3rd generation Singaporean of Indian decent, I had always respected and conformed to all rules & regulation in this country till I came face to face with the ugly side of this wonderful country.

It took place some 6 years back at the immigration in Kallang. A friend of mind from India whom I met in Bahrain while working there came to Spore for a visit. He had called earlier to inform me that he had booked the hotel (Peninsula) and that he wanted to stay for a week for shopping. After arrival and checking into the hotel, he called me to say that the immigration at the airport had only given him 3 days stay. He was very upset. Anyone in his shoes would be! Spending all this money for some good holiday break, only to be told to leave after 1 day. As a S'porean, I told him "No problem, we can go down to the immigration dept. at Kallang and have it extended". You guessed it, my application to sponsor this person to stay another 4 days was rejected, this was even after being told at the immigration that I can sponsor him as I was a S'porean with the necessary qualifications.

When I went over to the immigration to ask for an explanation with my friend in tow, the officer told me, sorry I don't have to give you a reason! What does that make me, a Singaporean!

I've given up on this country too. The only option people in this country have is to stay and accept things the way they are or leave like me! This episode is only one of many I've written, and it has all added up to make me think hard and decide my future. I just hope Singaporeans will wake up to the fact that "what you see is not always what you get."

QUITTER

SDP: Dear Quitter,

The Singapore Democrats have received numerous letters on incidents such as the one you have experienced. We feel the anguish as much as you do when the authorities treat citizens like serfs. We want to help you and many others like you to overcome this problem and let our citizenship as Singaporeans really mean something.

Unfortunately we cannot do much if you choose to leave this country. If everyone who feels disenchanted with the government packs up and leaves, we will just fulfill the self-prophesy that we are helpless in the face of PAP domination. If everyone who cares leaves, then we will never be able to change anything.

The truth is that we are NOT helpless. Not if we all stay put in Singapore and band together. The Singapore Democrats need you and you need the SDP. It is by standing together that we can eventually overcome our plight. It is not impossible. Peoples in other countries have overcome even greater odds.

The process to reform the PAP system has already begun and the SDP will work tireless with all concerned to turn this into an honest to goodness movement for democracy. We are too aware that the road to freedom is long and paved with difficulties and hardship. But nothing worthy in life has ever been obtained without sweat and tears.

Instead of leaving Singapore, come join us. We're at 1357A Serangoon Road, Singapore 328240.

23 March 2005

I refer to the respond to Rosiati Jumardi from Clive from the UK (7 March 2005) and have to disagree with him on several points.

First, Clive seemed to conclude casually that America has a high rate of gun crimes, including child gun crimes, due to the fact that Americans are permitted to possess guns.

This argument is absolutely too casual and baseless. In fact, statistics in America have shown repeatedly that having guns by individuals in fact deter would-be muggers, robbers, molesters and rapists etc. The high rate of gun crimes mentioned by Clive could be mistaken to be the rate of gun-related deaths cos that's often been used to, mistakenly though, quote by anti-gun lobbyists. What they miss out is that this statistic includes shooting by legal enforcers (such as policemen), shooting mishaps and accidents etc.

However, I do agree with Clive with one point - that I don't really come across any cases of gun shooting or crimes committed by children as young as five years old!

Secondly, Clive tried to decry and discredit the death penalty based on his assertion that 'Singapore my sooner or later hang someone innocent by mistake'. Well, that would be one of the most unfortunate case if that ever happens.

However, I TRUST our nation's legal system and the wise men and women presiding in cases which involved the life of an individual. These men and women are humans too and I believe that its with great reluctance and sadness that these men and women passed the death sentence on guilty individuals in the court of law. In addition, sentenced individuals have the RIGHT for an appeal to the court of appeal which comprised of three distinct, individual and honorable high court judges. All this was done in the hope that not one individual, if an element of doubt exist, would be mistakenly sentenced to death as Clive suggested.

However, at this juncture, I would like to stress that I'm also not in favor of Rosiati's statement which mentioned that the death sentence was meted out so that convicts may not commit their crimes again when freed and to deter the possibilities of a prison breakout! This statement is so ridiculous that I don't see the need to elaborate on it.

Lastly, I totally disagree with Clive's notion that 'if the country isn't at war, you don't need every able bodied young man to serve in the armed forces. It's just a waste of their time, and the army's time as well'. So Clive what do you suggest? That we enlist able bodied young men to serve when there's a war? That's pretty naive and foolish to even contemplate and suggest! Its certainly not a waste of time to have our men do their national service and if the need really arise, war in that case, they would be well trained and prepared to do and complete their job. While a well prepared army may deter and finally win in any battle and scenarios, I think the most important thing national service does was that it ensures that each and every young men are trained so as to increase their chance of survival in any crisis and battle or war! Lives are at stake in every conflict Clive, and it would be extremely myopic to think that we can 'prepare' young people for war only when war arises, it would be too late.

At this point, I may wish to remind Clive that the case of Singapore and Britain is different as we are a small nation compared to his and thus his country has the luxury to have an army consisting purely of volunteers and professionals.

At this juncture, I would just like to take this opportunity to thank Clive and U.K for their support to the US in 'Operation Iraqi Freedom'. I'm not an American, but I think to liberate a country ruled by a dictator is what every armed forces in the free world and every freedom loving people such as Clive would like to do and participate.

REBULICAN OF SINGAPORE

21 March 2005

I read with disdain the recent initiatives by the Singapore Government to expand more tools to "safeguard our cyber infrastructure". My response to
this is bull****!

The fact that this call to defend against cyber terror comes from a reigning Minister of Defence, tells us
much.

Militarists have always used "defence" as a convenient excuse to develop worse arsenal of offensive weapons. I believe that this so-called defence against terror is nothing but an attempt to boost the state's surveillance technologies on its own citizens, to further cripple the growing and burgeoning feeling in Singapore that "WE DO NOT NEED THE PAP AND WE CAN STILL SURVIVE" mentality that is growing among more and more disillusioned people.

I foresee a day when People Power will force the change in Singapore with or without these oppressive technologies being imposed in the name of defence.

The people need defence not against an imagined enemey but the clear and present danger that is the Men in White.

FRANCIS D SILVA

21 March 2005

Dear SDP

I admit I have never been a great fan of your organization because I thought that you guys are all talk. But after reading the recent Sintercom article on the non-violence workshop SDP organized, I feel that I might have misjudged you guys too rashly and impulsively. You guys are actually not all talk but admirably have some action too. However, I am amused that Mr Moser-Puangsuwan found your leader uncharismatic! He does not seem confident about the SDP leadership it seems. The idea of a workshop is great but maybe next time SDP should enlist the help of people who respect SDP? Frankly, Mr Moser-Puangsuwan's views have blunted the SDP image and sadly undermine the thrust of the workshop somewhat.

EDWIN CHAN

SDP: Dear Mr Edwin Chan,

Thank you for your email.

There has been much that the SDP has done to fight for the freedoms of Singaporeans. As you know, SDP has been calling on Singaporeans to exercise their freedoms of speech and assembly. Dr Chee has in fact taken the lead in this regard by speaking in public in defiance of unjust laws restricting freedom of assembly in Singapore. The Singapore Democrats will continue to lead in this area.

Mr Yeshua Moser-Puangsuwan is a respected non-violence action campaigner. Dr Chee is a firm believer in the philosophy of non-violence as practiced most notably by Gandhi and Martin Luther King. He has indicated that he would like to expand the idea more widely in Singapore and thinks that Mr Moser-Puangsuwan is an able exponent and practitioner of non-violence, and would therefore like to seek his assistance in this matter. Whether Mr Moser-Puangsuwan thinks that Dr Chee is a charismatic leader or not is irrelevant. The point is that Singaporeans need to know about the principles and methods of non-violent action and the process of education must be undertaken. In this regard, Dr Chee has indicated that he looks forward to working more closely with Mr Moser-Puangsuwan in the future.

15 March 2005

Hi SDP,

I'm a fellow Singaporean but now reside in another country. My family will come home to vote for you every time there is an election.

Our Government is really doing a lousy job but gets paid so highly. We are so sad that two young families ended that way so sad and I'm sure there are many more families that are suffering that we dont know about.

Though the Government is not totally responsible for their actions but my life is very tough to continue on in Singapore. When Singaporeans are hit with the crisis, our Government made it difficult to help us with so many conditions, even saying that we should not be a welfare state.

So clever is the Government that The New Paper reported: They studied the wrong literature textbook for the O-level exams. Even stranger is that no one spotted the mistake. Not the students, not their teachers, not the Education Ministry, not the University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate, and not even the Singapore Examinations and Assessments Board. What are they doing?

Keep up the good fight!

SDP SUPPORTER

15 March 2005

I am hearing impaired but can hear with the help of a hearing aid and communicate well in English.

I have a troubled heart over by hunting for jobs. I don't get enough satisfaction with the work that I am doing because I feel that I waste my certificates and education on such a simple job like data entry. I am wondering why don't I get the job similar to what I learnt at the ITE. All the job applications that I am interested to apply for, which fit my education, experience, and career interests are all rejected by employers because of my hearing impairment.

I get discouraged and disappointed. At same time I blame hearing people for not giving me a chance. I know the next thing you are going to say is to change my mindset. But I feel that this is not fair because from what I observe my ex-colleagues (who are not hearing impaired) are not serious in their work. They end up making a lot of mistakes whereas I, being deaf and needing to work so hard and concentrate well, have to proofread and edit the errors for them. Yet they get higher pay than I do although we are in the same positions.

Why cannot I get the job that I like? Why must I have to lower my expectation? Why cannot I get the salary as the market rate?

T GINA70

15 March 2005

Dear Dr. Chee,

I read with dismay, the rising jobless rate, the rising suicide rate and the general gloom that prevails in Singapore today.

The problems are due to one man, one man alone LKY. Since 1959, he has felt that he knows best, and no one else had a head on his/her shoulder. He will decide, and everyone else will conform. Any contrary opinion must be silenced. The people must submit or else. This arrogance has over the years, made an entire population silent and submissive. We have an entire Singapore population unable to think independently. An entire population silenced. The only speakers are those who will parrot the government line.

This style may have worked in the late 50s and the 60s where Singapore could attract foreign investment by purveying their assets, namely a docile English speaking work force that will work for peanuts, without complaint. But this marketing technique has been copied by our neighbors who have the advantage of lower wages. So the niche in the cheap labor market is gone. But the problem was that during the good times wages went up, salaries went up, property prices went up. Now with the niche gone, property prices are declining, foreign investors are leaving, banks are foreclosing and the ripple effect of the downturn is causing Singapore to fall on an unstoppable tailspin.

And this is mainly because LKY thought he knew best. Instead of 4 million people thinking and finding their own niche, now they can do nothing because their thinking caps are off. They do not know what to do.

And what have we in Singapore? A very large government sector with thousands of pen-pushers doing clerical work. Now when times are hard, they are laid off. What else can they do? They can learn to cook mee goreng, but how many mee goreng sellers can there be? Singapore does not have a large reservoir of artisans and technicians and tradesmen who can work in the industries that the foreign capital in Singapore needs, even if Singapore can attract more foreign capital. If Hewlett Packard intends to have a plant in Singapore, they can only employ assembly line workers. And the cost of assembly line workers in Singapore is no longer competitive. You get much cheaper costs in Jakarta Indonesia.

And with the lack of work, people turn to suicide. Suicide is something that can be prevented. If you had a caring society which can give some support for people in dire straits. But LKY says that people should stand on their own feet, they should be robust. Giving any assistance would turn Singaporeans into a lazy people. That is etched in stone. But Mr. Lee does not realize that not everyone can be as robust as he wishes them to be. Giving some assistance sometimes is necessary. It is necessary because it will give people a sense of belonging, the knowledge that Singapore cares. And in return the people would be loyal and appreciative. At least you will stop this tragic syndrome of suicides.

I live in California, near San Francisco. Here, people fall into dire straits too. Families suddenly find themselves penniless. But they dont drive to the Golden Gate Bridge and throw themselves into the San Francisco Bay. Why? Because the State has a system in place where people can turn for help, until they can stand on their own feet again. They invariably recover. They appreciate the government for this. They become useful citizens again, having learnt their lesson. But of course, in California, there is no LKY. Thank God.

If only LKY will listen, but he will not. I have sent him various emails telling him that Singapore is now a metropolis. Singapore has to find its own direction. And for that the 4 million people should be able to think and reason without fear or favor. That way Singapore will somehow find its own direction. Suing Dr. Chee and JBJ for thousands of dollars and bankrupting them, sends a wrong signal to the entire population. A society of fear is not going to produce anything. And topping it all, with the Internet, any discerning person in any part of the world, is already aware that Singapore is, to quote a phrase Disneyland with the death penalty. This too prevents many international companies from stationing in Singapore, because of the bad name it has earned.

I urge all readers who read this letter to write to Mr. Lee, and point out to him that he is barking up the wrong tree. Write to your local MP, write to your Minister, write to your local Residents Committee, write to everyone, and keep telling them, ad nauseum that their policies are driving Singapore down on the fatal tailspin.

You can see the desperation that Singapore now faces. Macau, the former Portuguese Colony which is now part of China, earns its income entirely on gambling and prostitution. There is nothing else there. Is this what the PAP wants to do with Singapore with the casino push. Tell the PAP that there are other ways to succeed and that gambling is not the way out. All LKY has to do is to come down from his high horse and realize that Dr. Chee, JBJ and the 4 million Singaporeans also have heads on their shoulders. And collectively, with their thinking caps on, Singapore may yet be saved.

GOPALAN NAIR

15 March 2005

With the recent shameful mistakes by MOE and many others in the past notwithstanding, I am sure citizens will be more convinced with the government IF the media has reported in this manner:

(Below is a fictitious ST article to illustrate how the PAP should have responded to blatant mistakes made by the government.

ST headlines, 7 March 2005: Tharman accepts responsibility for blatant mistake from MOE.

As part of the Real Remaking of Singapore (RRS), MOE was fined $10 million yesterday for causing untold hardship, inconveniences and emotional stress to many parents. He chides and chastens internal policy makers for not being able to 'Listen to citizen's voice'. Under RRS, all ministries and statutory boards are liable for fines for wrong, poor or unproductive policies made.

The money will be used to compensate the families involved who have suffered during the incident which includes giving bursaries and grants, cash incentives among many others, as a form of apology. Poorer families with students who have good results will have the highest priority.

Drawing his vast experience from his economics background and previous job as head of MAS, he also stresses the fact that implementing wrong policies that make live difficult for Singaporeans has a drastic effect that can wreck havoc in the country's economy.

Education is the key to Singapore's future which is heavily dependent on human resources to remain competitive in the region in this knowledge economy. Hence this fine is just a small amount compared to grave consequences that can affect the country in the long term.

It's a wake up call for every statutory board to remain really sincere and not just making policies on the fly just to create action and meet deadlines.

Agreeing with Tharman's statements in yesterday's key speech in parliament, PM Lee wants to convince fellow Singaporeans that the government cares for their hardships and will try all means possible to remake Singapore for a brighter future.

He chastens MOE that now its the time to Walk the Talk. Stringent policies such as fines and restrictions that were imposed on ordinary citizens must be applied to the government as well.

Its the citizens who elected us, he says, not the other way round and warns them to stay nimble and not to repeat the same mistake again or else heads will roll.

We have a lot to learn from PM Abdullah who mentions recently that government leaders must take citizen's curse at the government as a form of blessing. Without criticisms, we will never grow and we are also partly responsible for the majority Singaporeans who tends to whine and complain about the government.

He adds: Most S'poreans are generally unwary and non-participative in politics, As such, many vote for us blindly and entrusted us with a grave responsibility to ensure better lives for all. This must be the mindset for all ministries from now onwards that we simply cannot afford to provide a blind eye to citizen's problems.

The old perfectionist's mindset of trying all means possible to explain our mistakes is over. The onus now will be to admit more mistakes we have made, with more apologies, even from the past, in order to ensure a forthright and responsible government. This is the only way forward to prevent blatant mistakes from becoming unrecoverable in the future. From the communications point of view, with the citizens who have signed a social pact with us, the government has been taking the stand of the defense attorney who always wins the court case. Winning the argument against citizens of lesser knowledge must be thrown out of the door from now onwards.

The reasoning is simple, PM Lee says, Winning through scholarly explanations does not mean that the conclusion is a practical and credible one and of course we will always win (to the audience's laughter). And we must not be like the thief who stuffs his ears while robbing the temple's bell, thinking that people will not hear him, since he cannot hear it himself.

What's wrong with admitting mistakes? PM Lee reiterates. My apologies to my fellow ministers if you have received unnecessary stress from the past. Imagine, If we are in a situation whereby ministers have the idea that they are not allowed to mistakes, then any mistakes made will be quickly covered up thought slippery lies and explanations. If this is the case, Minister's win, but the poor citizens lose and suffer in the long run. I do not wish this nightmarish scenario to happen from now onwards.

"If we adopt the mindset of being Kiasu, Kiasi and selfish in all our policies and legislations, citizens will subconsciously follow. No wonder such are the end results what kind of citizens we have today. And I have to admit that the government is mainly responsible for it.

"Some time ago, I watched the CNA news telling Singaporeans to do good deeds and be nice to one another so that others will follow, this is what we call 'Paying it Forward'. And frankly speaking, I watch it with a deep remorse and embarrassment. If we are really sincere, we should start from the top that is, all Ministers must set good examples for the citizens to follow because it's a known fact that policies will always trickle down the hierarchy to affect ordinary citizen's lives. If we really want to Remake Singapore, this is one wise method to begin with.

He also cites a recent mistake made in his speech to the media that the cost of living has not increased drastically as compared to the salaries of workers and that prices has remain stable overall. Admitting that the mistake was because he relied mainly on the consumer price index, which is not an accurate statistic to gauge the true nature of the cost of living here.

He mentions that he understands now the main culprits are transport costs, housing, COEs, car costs, and fines (to the audience's laughter) that have increased from at least three to eight times more than citizen's salaries for the past 15 years, a terrible tragedy which is mainly responsible for Singaporeans late marriage and low birth rates.

He promises to make good such mistakes and that the government is studying all means possible to solve this major problem.

Finally, PM Lee mentions that most parents have to juggle and balance their fragile jobs in a highly stressful society to provide for the families. 'Yes, we are calling the shots, he says, but thats the whole problem when we cannot walk the ground to understand citizens hardship.

A NON-SCHOLAR ORDINARY FOLK

7 March 2005

I refer to the letter "I like things the way they are" by Ms Rosiati Jumardi (24 February 2005). In my reply to the letter, I occasionally refer to Spain because I lived there for a period. Therefore, I am in good position to compare Singapore with Spain more than with any other country. My response to her comments are in bold.

Dear Sirs and Madams,

First of all I would like to apologise for any rough words
used later in my statements or the wrong use of the English
Language. I am after all a student and is not that
proficient in my language. I am still coping but I will try
my best to bring across my points.

I have just stumbled upon this website while i was doing my
research for my upcoming school debate.

I have been following this website regularly for the last 5 months and have read all the articles in the archives even those which date a few years back. A far contrast to your "just stumbled upon this website"

I've read some of the opinions of those Singaporeans and other users of the
website on how Singapore really should be. But really, may I
ask all of you, are your suggestions really feasible? Does
it really make sense?

Please be specific in which suggestion you are refering to. I can give you a dozen PAP policies which dont make sense too.

Most of you feel that Singapore should allow her people to
be more open and expressive. You feel that the citizens of
Singapore should really be allowed the freedom of speech.
May I bring you all back to the reality that YES, Singapore
has allowed her people to have that freedom. This can be
seen from the opening of the speakers corner here in
Singapore itself. But may I ask you people, really, how many
people have been there to express th