Netizens take issue with PM Lee’s statement to remind Chinese Singaporeans to make minorities feel welcome
Published on 2017-10-02 by Neyla Zannia
In the reports by The Straits Times and The New Paper on Saturday, states that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong reminds Singaporeans that founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew once declared that “everybody will have a place in Singapore,” stressing that Singapore is “not a Malay nation, not a Chinese nation, not an Indian nation”.
His remarks on race were not just to reassure minorities, but also a sober reminder to the Chinese majority not to oppress the non-Chinese because they themselves had felt “squatted upon” when Singapore was in Malaysia.
PM Lee stated that Singapore’s objection to Malaysia’s leaders wanting one dominant race to enjoy special rights and its belief in multiracialism led to Separation. This was one of two reasons multiracialism was made the fundamental principle on which Singapore was founded.
The other thing that he said was bout survival as it is a majority-Chinese country in a Malay-majority part of South-east Asia. Being perceived as a “Third China” or a proxy for communist China would have caused problems with Singapore’s neighbours, and “we would not have been able to live peacefully” in the region.
In the past 52 years, PM Lee said, Singaporeans have made significant progress in “becoming one people - regardless of race, language or religion”.
Measures include designating English as the common working language, imposing ethnic quotas in HDB flats to ensure people of different races live together and creating group representation constituencies (GRCs) so there will always be minority MPs.
“Sometimes we think we have arrived, and that we can do away with these provisions and rules which feel like such a burden. In fact, it is the other way around. It is precisely because we have these provisions and rules that we have achieved racial and religious harmony,” he said.
Still, Singapore has yet to arrive at the “ideal state of accepting people of a different race”, PM Lee said, citing surveys that show people are not completely colour-blind.
He also stated that in day-to-day life, minorities also sometimes face discrimination when looking for jobs or places to rent and that the Chinese may not realise it, being the majority race, and “may think Singapore has ‘arrived’ as a multiracial society”.
They, however, may get “small reminders from time to time” of racism when they go abroad, saying that if you go to America or Australia or somewhere in Europe, you may know what it feels like to be treated as a minority," PM Lee said, adding that younger Singaporeans, having known only peace and harmony in Singapore, may believe race does not matter any more.
continue reading here :
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...-feel-welcome/
I wonder why he still need to talk about race issues when the Presidential election is already over ?
Misleading impression on EP decision: Sylvia Lim
Published 6 hours ago
Govt should have made clear the counting of terms was policy, not legal, decision: WP MP
Charissa Yong
Workers’ Party (WP) MP Sylvia Lim yesterday argued that the Government had misled people about its reasons for counting the five presidential terms of office needed to trigger a reserve election from President Wee Kim Wee.
The Government should have made clear that this was a policy decision and not a legal one, said Ms Lim (Aljunied GRC).
Instead, it gave the impression that the decision was based on advice given by the Attorney-General, she added.
Last month’s presidential election was reserved for Malay candidates, as a result of counting the five terms from that of President Wee - who was appointed but became the first president to exercise the powers of the elected presidency (EP).
Ms Lim questioned the basis for the decision and how it was communicated to MPs and the public, in a 20-minute speech at the close of the day’s Parliament sitting.
She quoted statements made by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean and others in previous parliamentary debates which she said gave this misleading impression.
PM Lee had said on Nov 8 last year: “We have taken the Attorney-General’s advice. We will start counting from the first president who exercised the powers of the elected president, in other words, Dr Wee Kim Wee.”
Based on AGC’s advice?
Workers’ Party MP Sylvia Lim arguing that the Government gave the misleading impression that its decision was based on legal advice:
“During that debate on Nov 8, the Prime Minister told the House the following… ‘We have taken the Attorney-General’s advice. We will start counting from the first president who exercised the powers of the elected president, in other words, Dr Wee Kim Wee…’
The clear impression given to members was that the Government’s decision to count from President Wee was based on the Attorney-General’s Chambers’ advice.
That must have been why the PM sequenced sentences as he did, that having taken the AGC’s advice, the Government was counting the five terms from President Wee.
The PM did not say that the Government intended to count from President Wee, and that the AGC had merely confirmed that it was acceptable to do so.”
Ms Lim said the “clear impression given” was that the Government based its decision on the advice of the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC). That must have been why PM Lee sequenced his sentences in that order, she added.
A day later on Nov 9, Mr Teo told her in Parliament: “On the reserved elections and how to count, I would like to confirm that this is indeed the AGC’s advice and, if not and you do not think that it’s correct, I think it’s possible if you wish to challenge judicially.”
Ms Lim said that “any reasonable person hearing those words would assume” the AGC had advised the Government, and that the AGC’s advice involved a question of law.
“Why else would I be asked to challenge it judicially?” she asked.
But it later became clear the decision had been made independently of the legal advice, said Ms Lim.
She highlighted the legal arguments made by Deputy-Attorney General Hri Kumar Nair in court after former presidential candidate Tan Cheng Bock challenged the Government’s decision to count from Dr Wee’s term.
Mr Nair said during the hearing on June 29: “The PM never said that the Attorney-General advised PM to start the count from President Wee. What PM said is that the Attorney-General advised that what the Government was proposing to do was legitimate.”
Ms Lim saw this as a contradiction. “The ministers kept consistently referring to the AGC’s advice as the basis for the legislative changes. Yet the Deputy Attorney-General says in court that the advice is irrelevant,” she said.
She added that the Government had engaged in “ambiguous language and red herrings”.
continue reading here :
http://www.straitstimes.com/singapor...ion-sylvia-lim
No disrespect to WP I would rather that you guys should spend more time on issues like mrt breakdowns and lift breakdowns and rising medical costs . Singapore need to vote more opposition members into parliament .
Count for reserved Presidential Election was policy decision: Shanmugam
By Lianne Chia
@LianneChiaCNA
SINGAPORE: The call to start counting from Dr Wee Kim Wee’s second term as President for the purpose of holding a reserved Presidential Election was a policy decision, Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam said in Parliament on Tuesday (Oct 3).
He made the point in response to an adjournment motion by Workers’ Party chair Sylvia Lim on the reserved Presidential Election. Following constitutional changes, an election will be reserved for a particular racial group if no one from that group has been president for five continuous terms.
In her motion, Ms Lim asked whether the choice of which President to count from was a legal question or policy decision.
She cited Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s speech in a debate on Nov 8 last year when he said that the election held last month would be reserved for Malay candidates.
Mr Lee said then that the Government should legislate on when the racial provision for a reserved Presidential Election should kick in.
“We have taken the Attorney-General’s advice. We will start counting from the first President who exercised the powers of the Elected President, in other words, Dr Wee Kim Wee. That means we are now in the fifth term of the Elected Presidency,” Ms Lim quoted Mr Lee as saying.
Ms Lim also recounted how replies by DPM Teo Chee Hean and Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office Chan Chun Sing during Parliament debates gave her the impression that this was a legal question.
GOVT GAVE IMPRESSION THAT DECISION TO COUNT FROM DR WEE WAS ADVICE FROM AGC: SYLVIA LIM
“Did the Government merely use the AGC’s advice as a cover to avoid full Parliamentary debate on why the count was not starting from President Ong Teng Cheong?” Ms Lim probed.
Ms Lim said she realised it was “completely a Government decision” three months later in February, during the second reading of the Presidential Elections Amendment Bill.
“Here we were, debating a law that would practically re-write history, by deeming President Wee as the first elected president. Yet, instead of the Government using the opportunity to clarify the matter and any mis-impressions created, it chose, instead, to impute sinister intentions to me.”
Read more at
PAP nervous? PM, ESM, 2 DPMs & 2 other ministers have addressed Elected Presidency anger.
It culminated with PM Lee’s closed-door speech being made public – a week after it was given.
By Belmont Lay | 10 hours
You can tell when the PAP is nervous.
It is when they have to cart out the big guns to placate the masses.
So far, six of the ruling party’s heavyweight ministers have had to come out to address the groundswell of disgruntlement exhibited by Singaporeans palpably angry with the way the non-existent 2017 Presidential Election played out.
Six heavyweight ministers
In order of their appearance in the immediate lead-up to and after Sept. 14, 2017 when President Halimah Yacob was sworn in:
[Sept. 8, 2017] Law and home affairs minister K Shanmugam said at the Institute of Policy Studies forum a reserved election will preserve the unifying role of the president and it is one of the efforts by the government to actively promote racial harmony. [Source]
[Sept. 8, 2017] Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office Chan Chun Sing said at the same IPS forum that a reserved presidential election will cost the PAP votes but it is for the greater good of Singapore. [Source]
[Sept. 14, 2017] Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong admonished Singaporeans to get behind President Halimah after her walkover victory, as she ironically became the divisive figure in the non-existent PE. The former prime minister said the process is controversial but the president is not. [Source]
[Sept. 20, 2017] Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam said during a dialogue at the Nanyang Technological University that the strong reaction to the reserved presidential election is encouraging as people view race to not matter these days and it is good to have this aspiration, but it is not realistic — yet. [Source]
[Sept. 27, 2017] Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean said the elected presidency is part of many far-sighted moves put in place by the government and its justification will reveal itself in the future, apparently. [Source]
[Sept. 29, 2017] Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong addressed the elected presidency topic head-on for the first time and his comments were widely reported in the mainstream media. However, his take on the PE was actually made at a closed-door dialogue on Sept. 23, but only revealed publicly on Sept. 29, almost a week later — after the transcript of his comments was edited. This effectively gives him the last word on the issue that has divided a large swath of Singaporeans. [Source]
A hard sell?
Unless you were keeping count and paying close attention, the only odd thing you would have noticed is that the PAP government kept harping on this topic.
Taken individually, each minister’s message is piecemeal and not very effective or convincing in overriding the emotions the electorate have been displaying.
But taken together, the messages carry some weight due to it being repeated, but converge into a few usual talking points and well-worn arguments about race sensitivities and maintaining stability in Singapore.
The only two messages that managed to cut through the clutter were Chan’s and PM Lee’s.
Here’s why.
From policy to politics
Chan’s point at the IPS forum that the PAP stands to lose votes and inflict a political cost on itself, due to its role in the machinations of the reserved presidential election, strays from policy straight into politics.
Chan was the first among the ministers to highlight this political problem for the PAP.
To even acknowledge that the ruling party is actually cognisant of the fact that their actions are really pushing the buttons of the electorate is clever.
Well, clever within a forum context with an invited guest audience of academics and opinion leaders who can appreciate such macro trade-offs as necessary evils.
But post-forum and after the walkover election, Chan’s perspective invites counterarguments that are not as easily debunked.
For example: The ruling government can simply be seen as taking a calculated risk with whatever decisions they make in 2016 and 2017, because the next general election will only be due in 2021. And four years is a long time in politics.
continue reading here :
https://mothership.sg/2017/10/pap-ne...sidency-anger/
The true fact is that the PAP so not want Tan Cheng Bock to become the next Singapore President . I will also wonder about the Singapore reserves .
Readers comment that Minister Shanmugam’s response to Ms Sylvia Lim, suggest Government is above the law
Published on 2017-10-05 by Neyla Zannia
In a Channel News Asia report dated 4 October (Wednesday), it is reported that the Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam stressed in Parliament that the call to start counting from Dr Wee Kim Wee’s second term as President for the purpose of holding a reserved Presidential Election was a policy decision.
Mr Shanmugam was responding to Aljunied GRC Ms Sylvia Lim who filed an Adjournment motion to ask the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean and Minister of Prime Minister Office, Chan Chun Sing if they misrepresented to the Parliament on the counting of the first President from which the Reserved Election was based on.
During the Parliament held on Monday, Ms Sylvia Lim asked, “Did the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean, and Minister Chan Chun Sing make misleading statement to the House that the question of which President to come from was illegal question? Did the Government all along make a policy itself to count from President Wee Kim Wee?”
“Did the Government merely use the AGC advise to avoid full Parliamentary debate on why the count was not starting from President Ong Teng Cheong?“she added.
Responding to the question, Mr Shanmugam said, “In a dialogue session held, after the Government released the White Paper, I was asked the following question. The most direct answer is actually the Government can decide.”
The Minister then stated, “When we put on the Bill we say we wanted to start from this period. It is a policy decision. A Court of appeal has confirmed that it was for Parliamentary to decide.”
“Ms Lim said she was present, she heard this judge asked that question, that was said, this was said. Why didn’t you read the judgement? There is only one person in this House whom the Court have held to be misleading Parliament. And he is not from the PAP. Only one person, after evidence is held, Ms Lim knows whom the High Court held was misleading Parliament. So, I suppose, Ms Lim knows all about misleading Parliament,” he ended.
Many netizens commented that Mr Shanmugam’s statement would suggest to Singaporeans that he and the party are above the law.
Diu Lei wrote, “There you go, he is basically telling you they are above the law and they can do whatever they want whenever it serves their agenda.”
Ken Chee wrote, “K Shanmugam is very right. Government can decide. They can even convert Indian to Malay. What else the government cannot decides. Sylvia Lim, if you are not careful, the government can decide to change you from female to male.”
Hoe-leong Wong wrote, “What an arrogant guy- does he understand he works for the people of Singapore, not the reverse? The government did not decide, they changed the rules!”
Sakhti Alderwereid wrote, “He just shot himself in his foot by telling everyone that the law is in their pockets and they can manipulate it to their advantage just to get things done their way.”
Conrad Li wrote, “Of course any government can do what it wants with absolute power. If race can be changed, what else cannot?”
continue reading here :
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...above-the-law/
This is all thanks to the 69.9% who voted for them .
Parents and readers refute Minister Ng Chee Meng’s statement that there are “very few” incidents of school bullying
Published on 2017-10-05 by Neyla Zannia
In a Yahoo Singapore report dated 3 October (Tuesday), it is reported that Minister of Education (Schools) Ng Chee Meng has said in Parliament that Singapore students are generally well behaved and there have been “very few” incidents of bullying in schools.
The Minister was responding to a question from Non-Constituency MP Daniel Goh in Parliament on whether bullying is prevalent in schools and the preventive measures to deal with such incidents.
Mr Ng said, “Based on a student-perception survey conducted by OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) in 2015, about 10 and 20 per cent of our 15-year-old students reported they had experienced some form of social and verbal bullying, respectively. Physical bullying was less prevalent, at about 5 per cent. This is quite similar to MOE’s findings and other local studies.”
The Minister also stressed that the Ministry of Education (MOE) does not tolerate bullying in any form and when students misbehave or make mistakes, schools will discipline and educate them.
The comments by the minister came three weeks after a video was circulated online of a group of boys from St Hilda’s Secondary School who was fighting in a classroom while an adult looked on.
In the video, the boys were seen throwing punches and shouting obscenities at each other.
The Minister then stated that schools have put in place bullying prevention and intervention measures such as providing avenues for safe reporting of bullying cases, investigating and following up on reported cases.
He stressed that school personnel have been trained to counsel students who are involved in bullying as well as those affected by such incidents, adding that through counseling and education, students learn about relationship management, and values including empathy and respect for others.
continue reading here :
President Halimah Yacob spent more than S$220,000 on election campaign
Most of the money was spent on advertising and printing of promotional materials.
By Jalelah Abu Baker
07 Oct 2017 11:42AM (Updated: 07 Oct 2017 07:32PM)
SINGAPORE: President Halimah Yacob spent a total of S$220,875 on her campaign, according to documents made available on Saturday (Oct 7) by the Elections Department.
The bulk of the money, S$198,154, went to the advertising and printing of promotional materials. Her biggest investment in the campaign was 20,110 posters that cost close to S$73,000, which included the cost of incinerating posters and banners.
The 200 PVC banners used in the campaign alone amounted to over S$20,000.
Another 1.28 million pieces of Admail A5 cards cost S$34,000, excluding GST, while the making of a profile video that took six days to film came up to S$29,000.
She received seven single donations of S$10,000 or more, totaling S$800,000.
Businessman Ng Kim Choon was her biggest donor, contributing S$440,000. Others who donated include Sheng Siong owner Lim Hock Chee and Singapore Salvage Engineers, a firm that is involved in marine salvage repairs and diving operations. They each donated S$50,000.
Under the Presidential Elections Act, the principal election agents of candidates who contest in an election must submit a declaration and a return of election expenses to the Returning Officer within 31 days after the day on which the result of the election is published in the Gazette.
These returns are required to ensure accountability and transparency in the candidates’ campaign finance.
Madam Halimah, who was declared the only candidate in the Presidential Election this year, submitted the statement of her campaign expenses to the Elections Department on Oct 3.
According to the documents, called the returns of election expenses, election agents, polling agents and counting agents did not receive any remuneration. No amount was recorded under Mdm Halimah’s personal expenses.
Mdm Halimah and her team appeared to have a couple of favourites when it came to food, with a breakfast order from Delifrance on Sep 13 - Nomination Day - and a buffet dinner the day before at Islamic Restaurant which came up to about S$2,000 for 45 people.
A room at the National Trades Union Congress on 1 Marina Boulevard cost Mdm Halimah almost S$9,000 over several days in August and September. The cost included the rental of a Fuji Xerox copier, car park coupons and the installation of printer drivers, telephone sets and a fax line.
She received seven single donations of S$10,000 or more totaling S$800,000.
Read more at
Tan Cheng Bock engaging in ’elaborate charades’ over remarks on reserved Presidential Election: Shanmugam
08 Oct 2017 10:24PM (Updated: 08 Oct 2017 10:40PM)
SINGAPORE: Minister for Law and Home Affairs K Shanmugam on Sunday (Oct 8) rejected claims by Dr Tan Cheng Bock that remarks he made in Parliament last week were inconsistent with previous statements he had made concerning the publication of the Attorney-General’s Chambers’ (AGC) advice on the reserved Presidential Election.
Referring to a Facebook post made by Dr Tan on Saturday, Mr Shanmugam said that Dr Tan was “engaging in elaborate charades”, and had “spliced my remarks, rearranged them, and put them together in a way to suggest something which I did not say”.
Speaking in Parliament last week, Mr Shanmugam had said that the call to start counting from Dr Wee Kim Wee’s second term as President for the purpose of holding a reserved Presidential Election was a policy decision, and also said that the Government generally does not publish legal opinions that it gets.
He made these remarks in response to an adjournment motion by Workers’ Party chair Sylvia Lim, and noted that a point made by Ms Lim - that the Government is starting the count from Dr Wee because of the AGC’s advice - was never suggested.
In his Facebook post, Dr Tan said that there was an “apparent contradiction” between Mr Shanmugam’s words in Parliament and comments made at a dialogue last year, in which he said that there were legal questions about the Elected Presidency and that the Government has asked the AGC for advice.
He had been responding to a question on when a “circuit-breaker” (to hold a reserved election after a racial group has not been represented after five continuous terms) would come into effect.
“The most direct answer is actually, the Government can decide. When we put in the Bill, we can say we want it to start from this period,” said Mr Shanmugam at the dialogue. “It’s … a policy decision but there are also some legal questions about the Elected Presidency and the definition and so on, so we have asked the Attorney-General for advice.
“Once we get the advice, we will send it out. Certainly by the time the Bill gets to Parliament, which is in October, I think we will have a position and we will make it public.”
Dr Tan wrote: “In the report, he said ‘…once we get the advice, we will send it out. Certainly by the time the bill gets to Parliament, which is in October … and will make it public.’ But in Parliament, he said ‘this government, as a rule, generally, does not publish legal opinions that it gets’.
“Would the Minister explain to Singaporeans his apparent contradiction?”
Responding to this on Sunday, Mr Shanmugam said that “clearly, I was referring to making the Government’s position (and not the AGC’s advice) public” in the interview.
Read more at
‘I am still cheerful’: Tan Cheng Bock responds to K Shanmugam’s rebuttal within 2 hours
Tan said he will leave it to Singaporeans to decide if he misquoted Shanmugam.
By Belmont Lay | 5 hours
Within two hours of Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam’s pointed rebuttal response on Sunday night, Oct. 8, former presidential hopeful Tan Cheng Bock issued a riposte within two hours:
Tan’s quick response at 11.11pm on Sunday night was issued within two hours of Shanmugam’s post published at 9.13pm.
Tan Cheng Bock’s response to Shanmugam’s rebuttal
Tan made three main points in his quick response to Shanmugam:
• He said he will let readers decide if he had unfairly misquoted Shanmugam and if the minister has answered adequately the questions posed previously.
• He also said he never asked about parliamentary procedure, but simply asked why Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong stayed silent when he could have spoken during the 10 minutes allocated since it was the PM’s statement that was being challenged.
• Lastly, he said he wanted Shanmugam to know he is still cheerful despite being accused of being bitter and engaging in “elaborate charades” by posing the questions he did in his previous Facebook post.
K Shanmugam: Tan Cheng Bock may be bitter, but no excuse for elaborate charades
Tan Cheng Bock’s post gets a pointed response within one day.
Tan Cheng Bock claims K Shanmugam contradicted his own words: Does the govt publish legal opinion or not?
The minster said last year the government will publish legal opinions but recently in Parliament said the government doesn’t.
continue reading here :
https://mothership.sg/2017/10/i-am-s...ithin-2-hours/
And so the great roti prata saga continues .
We Singaporeans are not stupid you know .
Head of MHA should reflect on himself before lamenting on his officers being abused
Published on 2017-10-13 by The Online Citizen
by Willy Sim
I refer to your article: Public’s response to intended legal framework to protect police officers, “Respect needs to be earned, not asked or bought” regarding the needless need for Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to further enhance legislation to an already lopsided and overprotective criminal procedural code in Singapore, one where even judicial officers are unable to supervise proceedings!
I felt the need to touch on this after hearing from friends on how police can simply confiscate one’s electronic devices using force without full justification, interrogate suspects and demand they undergo “lie detector test” without informing them of their legal rights and insufficient safeguards on how privacy is not infringed after the authorities return impounded items. All these protocols are opaque especially in the case of Teo Soh Lung and Roy Ngerng. We do not know what or how much personal info is being extracted and to where these information are heading to.
In the unfortunate ongoing case of the death of a youngster and of another whose mother filed complaints of abuse of power, police internal affairs has not provided explanations beyond a reasonable doubt except to repeat templates of no wrongdoing on the officer’s part. Responses such as these do not assure the public of impartiality and will only serve to further erode painstaking trust in the civil service built over the LKY years. The 38 Oxley saga and continued silence of the Lee Shengwu case are fine examples.
It is also noteworthy as to why citizens are increasingly “taking matters into their own hands” in the words of actor Tay Ping Hui: “When d people take justice into their own hands, it’s because they have given up on d authorities to act on their behalf. So who’s to blame?”
continue reading here :