Singapore News »
	Time is GMT + 8 hours Posted: 24 May 2006 0833 hrs SDP's Chee Siok Chin wants High Court to void GE results

Defeated Singapore Democratic Party candidate for Sembawang GRC, Ms Chee Siok Chin, has filed a summons in the High Court asking it to declare the results of the 2006 General Election null and void. In her affidavit, Ms Chee said the PAP government had used the HDB upgrading scheme and given out shares and cash to induce voters to vote for it and secure electoral victory. She also wants the High Court to declare the ban on podcasting during the general election as unconstitutional. Ms Chee's claims were filed by the SDP's lawyer, M Ravi, and addressed to the Attorney General of Singapore. When asked to comment on the summons filed by Ms Chee, a spokesman for the Attorney General's Chambers said the Department has not been served with any legal papers at this stage. - CNA/ir/ls Singapore Votes 2006: Channelnewsasia.com special coverage >>>

Source: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/210016/1/.html

My sympathies have often lain with the Chee siblings, but I've never quite agreed with their tactics.  I maintain that they have been unfairly portrayed in many ways; that Chee Soon Juan, at least, is an impressive writer and from what I have heard, speaker (his sister has always rather scared me) - and that the siblings have been tenacious in clinging onto their ideals in a way that quite humbles and confounds me.  But once in a while I simply must say they really put their foot in it.  It is as though they are offering themselves up to the slaughterhouse.  Their ceaselessly bullheaded confrontations with the government have proved, over and over again, to be counter-productive to their cause.

If one knows that Singapore is a pragmatic, legalistic society that values its stability and progress perhaps above all else, if one knows that they will never allow that to be threatened or taken away from them, if one knows that the media is all too able to cast a dissident in a harsh and unforgiving light, if one knows that it is impossible to survive unless one plays by the rules - then why do they refuse to play ball? Credibility has allowed Low Thia Khiang and Chiam See Tong to survive for so long in Parliament.  Sylvia Lim will soon join them, and she too, seems a credible and honestly, just plain nice woman.  But I'm sorry, you'll never see Chee Soon Juan in Parliament with the ability to make a difference - not just because the PAP has gone to such lengths to keep him out, but because he seems prone to shoot himself in the foot quite often.  His 1993 hunger strike, his encouraging Australians to boycott Singaporean products and even impose trade sanctions against his own country - in two fell swoops he managed to alienate two of the largest groups of Singaporeans I've encountered so far; those who think with their stomachs, and those who think with their pocketbooks ;) that's excluding his antics with the loudhailer in 2001 and his unproved accusations against the PAP, most recently culminating in the SDP newsletter fiasco.

Now, while still bogged down by the lawsuit being launched against them, the siblings - or at least one of them, Chee Siok Chin - have decided to involve themselves in a second burden of court matters; overturning the results of GE 2006.  On the first level, those of you who have perused my archives will have found that I actually thought the results were quite heartening (opposition's mandate up in every single ward, even those contested by the SDP, especially notable in Ang Mo Kio where an astounding one in three Singaporeans voted for the newbie WP team, contrary to the PAP's earlier declaration of wanting to win at least 80% of the vote).  On the second level, Ms. Chee's chances of winning this one are zilch.  Even in the planet where the High Court gives this one to Chee, Singaporeans themselves likely - and in my opinion rightly - want to get on with their lives.  An opposition team which visibly pits itself against the 'mandate' of the people, as this has been lauded as, will only be presenting itself as an enemy of the stable status quo.

To survive in our political scene, one has to hang on by the skin of one's teeth, and make painfully sure that one (i) raises issues of import, (ii) substantiates one's views with credible sources and facts, and (iii) offer viable alternatives.  Else, your rallies will be swamped by people who may be eager to sample their taste of democracy, but at the end of the day will wander back to their old side of the fence - the one with the green pastures and cuddly woolly sheep for company.  Be a rebel, be a threat, be a wildcard, be a maverick, and you won't get too far along.  If the law and those behind it don't get you first, the people themselves will turn against you.  I admire the Chee siblings' tenacity, as well as the courage of the Singapore Democratic Party, but I would never choose the trail they've blazed.  It ends in the undergrowth.  That is one reason why I have been so careful, especially since this page saw so many more visitors, to double-check my sources, cross-refer them to one another, and make sure that I'm not making any allegations that can't be proven.  I am also willing to be corrected if someone can prove me wrong in any of my research.  But protecting myself (some would term it covering my rear end) is not, by any long shot, the only reason why I'm careful.  I'm careful because I genuinely believe that a Singaporean who loves her country has the duty to be honest about it and have integrity in how she deals with the issues confronting its progress.

Seeing the Chee siblings sink deeper into the mire that's partly of their own making is a saddening affair.  Time will tell how this affair will unfold, but personally I no longer largely care - to me it is a tale of sound and fury, which will come to no good end, and isn't even particularly enjoyable along the way.

The issue of Singaporean ministerial salaries has been a hotly-debated one, at least behind the scenes of mainstream journalism.  I did a quick search on Google to find out the exact figures, but couldn't find as wide a range of independent observations and chronicles as I normally like to, so as to lend the information credibility.  If anyone has differing figures they deem more accurate, do update me.  But the consensus I gather from the Internet is that our ministers are the highest paid in the world, and that the Prime Minister's basic salary is USD 1 239 240 per annum, or SGD 1 958 000 (I converted SGD to USD using the latest exchange rate of 1USD=1.58SGD; again, tell me if I'm wrong with the figures).  That is more than three times that of the US President's salary of USD 400 000 per annum*.

The defence the PAP has always launched against the accusation that their salaries are too high is to say: "We must do so in order to prevent corruption." I have always found that to be a thin excuse.  What, after all, is corruption? The use of one's position in order to profit illegally.  High ministerial salaries simply permit the PAP to use their position in order to profit legally.  A simple analogy: it is illegal for someone to shoplift a gold necklace from a jewelry store.  But this thievery would be perfectly legal if we had no laws against shoplifting in the first place.  One could profit in an arguably unethical manner without breaking any laws.  Similarly, it would be illegal for the Prime Minister to siphon away $2 million a year.  But as a politician in power, instead of siphoning it away, he simply ensures that he can receive $2 million a year in a perfectly transparent and above-board manner.  That's what they really mean by the concept of high ministerial salaries removing the need for corruption.  They don't need to be corrupt: we just hand over the money anyway.

Yes, there are benefits to the system.  It keeps corruption under control by removing the primary incentive for it - money.  And a corruption-free government undeniably attracts investors.  According to Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) we are ranked as the 5th least corrupt nation in the world as of 2005, after Iceland, New Zealand, Finland and Denmark.  But the investigation does not, and must not stop there.

There is a basic principle to keeping ministerial salaries from skyrocketing, and it is one that is often overlooked in Singapore.  Politicians in our government exist not to further their own interests, but to subordinate their personal advancement to the needs of the nation.  They serve the nation, and not the other way round.  As a child, I used to wonder why they were called civil servants - the word 'servant' always had insulting connotations of someone that's second-class, servile and unworthy of much note.  But as I grew, I came to realise that there is great dignity, perhaps even the greatest dignity, in being a servant of others; in placing their needs above your own, and in committing yourself to serve and protect them.  That is the sacred vow, the tacit contract that politicians undertake by entering this service.  Lower salaries make it clear that they are fundamentally different from those in the private sector who seek to profit from their positions, making the frequent comparison between public workers and private ones like corporation directors or media stars totally redundant.  The nature and purpose of their work are as different as night and day.  Managing ministerial salaries ensures, too, that people do not enter politics simply to gain from the high pay and benefits, but that they do so because they genuinely want to put their talents to the good use of representing the country.  Else, people would work towards entering the government simply because of the dangling carrot that is a fat pay cheque - which would clearly have disastrous consequences for us all.

That is why George Bush, who is the leader of the most powerful country in the world and has far more responsibilities than PM Lee will ever have, is paid three times less*.  That is why there was such a public outcry when TT Durai's salary was uncovered - it was legal and above board, but it was wrong in principle.  But here in Singapore, this important principle is over-ridden, once again, by the excuse that it keeps corruption under control.  Very well then, let us bring that reason under scrutiny.  According to the aforementioned CPI, there are four countries in the world which are even less corrupt than ours.  As Singaporean ministers are paid the highest in the world, it obviously goes to follow that all these countries' ministers are paid less than ours.  I did a bit of research and found out, via this article, that New Zealand PM Helen Clark's salary is NZD 305 000 per annum, or USD 189 440 - less than George Bush, and six and a half times less than PM Lee (I converted 305 000 NZD into 189 440 USD with the latest exchange rate of 1.61). New Zealand is ranked 3 places above Singapore in the CPI, as the 2nd least corrupt government in the world.  Why is it that New Zealand ministers can be even less corrupt than our ministers, and yet are paid so many times less?

If we allow ourselves to succumb to the mentality that we need to pay them extravagant amounts of money in order for them not to be corrupt, we are implying that they otherwise cannot be trusted; that unless they benefit so much from their positions, they cannot do a good job; that our ministers are six and a half times as inferior, six and a half times as selfish and six and a half times as prone to corruption than ministers from New Zealand (not to mention Iceland, Finland and Denmark).  I would like to be convinced otherwise, but the message being sent by our high ministerial salaries is proving it difficult.  Let me tell you what makes it even more difficult: that salaries are being paid to the members of our government, on top of the lucrative salaries they are enjoying in their professional lives.

This brings me to the next issue: politics in money.  Our MPs do not work full-time.  They hold very prominent positions in businesses all throughout Singapore, and little wonder, too; they are recruited from these positions with the natural assumption that their high-flying careers make them capable, and not forced to give up their jobs, which are extremely demanding and exacting.  Only Chiam See Tong, as of April 21 2006 (the release date of the CNA article I'm reading at the moment) is a full-time MP.  The PAP made it a point to tout their new recruits as being young professionals.  Does this truly work for them? Will such young professionals, dedicated to their burgeoning careers, be able to devote all their time to the needs of the community they serve? I quote Steve Chia: "You can see the long queues at the Meet-the-People sessions every week.  Residents are sometimes even turned away.  How can MPs serve their constituents fully if they don't have the time to do so?"

Let me get this straight.  The basic monthly allowance that MPs receive has more than doubled over the last decade from $4516 in 1995 (not inclusive of their legislative and secretarial allowances amounting to $825) to $11 917 presently, and only one MP has stepped down from his job in the private sector? Meeting the needs of their constituency is still a part time occupation? Talking to residents is still a part time occupation? Serving the nation is still a part time occupation? But let's not be overly excited.  After all, perhaps these jobs are not so demanding - perhaps they are easy shoes to fill, with time left over to look into other things.

Or are they?

I went to the complete list of MPs, last updated 11 May 2006, and did background checks on 3 randomly-selected MPs.  Ong Chit Chung, Jurong GRC: Independent Director of WesTech Electronics Limited, and the President of Davos Life Sciences Pte Ltd (sounds like three jobs to me).  Ong Kian Min, Tampines GRC: Lawyer/Consultant at prestigious law firm Drew & Napier.  Cedric Foo, West Coast GRC: Group Deputy President and President Asia/Middle East of Neptune Orient Lines.  Any one of these jobs on its own sounds like a time-consuming, extenuating and exhausting position to fill.  How much time left over do they have? How much time are they inclined to spend on leaky toilets, flickering lights, and a resident's license application or financial woes?

There is more to the discussion, of course - the possible clash of interests when an individual serves both in the public and the private sector, hence giving him the power to formulate policies favourable to their own business interests, or the other manifestation of 'politics in money' - relations of government leaders who have high-ranking positions in prominent companies, government-linked or otherwise.  But for now this should be sufficient for us to ponder over, and have a second look at this dirty but unavoidable word of money, and the role it plays in our politics.

* It was pointed out to me that the American President's salary is now USD 400 000 per annum.  Thanks to Andrew who e-mailed me to make corrections.

I've changed the layout to make it a little easier for people to read, as I've received numerous requests to do so.  It's a bit painful to let go of the angsty white on black I've become so used to, but if this is more effective, so be it :)

On an unrelated note, someone posted a comment on the tagboard mentioning a wild party thrown for OCS cadets involving booze and strippers, and I believe that person wanted me to address it.  I checked out the story with someone I know in OCS, and he says it's a common occurrence, that they threw the party for themselves, and that 'it was lame, anyway'.  All I can say is, boys will be boys, and soldiers will be soldiers; I can only look on with mildly disapproving amusement.

One last thing I feel I have to make clear is that the AC teachers who spoke to me about my blog were fully supportive of my writing; they were only naturally concerned and reminded me that my blog is accessible to and read by people outside of my private circle.  So please don't be mistaken: they've all been wonderful, and if I were a teacher I would dispense to my student the same advice.

Today I want to discuss a group of capable, brave men who were willing to stand up for what they believed in despite the daunting odds; politicians who have contributed immeasurably to our national awareness despite the countless challenges which have dogged them at every step.

This group has decided to challenge the central government during our national elections.  Unwilling, however, to create the impression of instability and to perpetuate the misconception that they were planning to usurp the ruling party to become the central government, they decided only to contest a minority of the seats instead of forming a larger contingent.

Yet though their antics only won them a token representation in the government after the elections, they still commanded much attention.  One prominent leader said: '[E]verywhere we held rallies, huge crowds turned up.  They wanted to see and hear us.  They gave me a big cheer each time.'

Their campaigning, however, has been shadowed with controversy.  For instance, they have been accused of being 'chauvinists', interested only in representing the Chinese community, and being willing to play the race card in order to achieve their aims.  When this happened, a campaign of hatred and character assassination was launched against them to paint them out to be dangerous in the eyes of the community.

They have also been accused of preaching to an international audience.  One man in particular has travelled widely overseas to talk about domestic politics, in order to garner support for his party's cause.  The ruling party has accused that man of trying to 'blacken the image of the central government abroad'.

Lastly, these men have launched accusations of corruption against the ruling party in order to discredit them and cast aspersions over their integrity, showing how desperately they were gunning for votes.

Yet these men have not abandoned faith.  They have kept to their cause and persevered against all the unfair odds mounted against them, to chase a dream, to woo an ideal, to court a vision. 

Given the nature of my opinions, I'm sure it's obvious to guess that I've been discussing the Opposition here in Singapore.  After all, prior to GE 2006, the Opposition had been unwilling to contest a majority of seats in Parliament since 1988 - their strategy to convince the people that it was safe to vote them in, and that their intention was not to become the ruling party.  Yet at the same time, their rallies have drawn huge crowds, notably the Workers' Party rally in Hougang this year which I had the privilege to attend.  Most of us will remember Tang Liang Hong, who was accused of being an anti-English, anti-Christian chauvinist when he contested Cheng San GRC in the 1997 general elections, and then was sued for defamation to the tune of $8 075, 000 - Tang now lives in Australia.  The part about the overseas audience describes Chee Soon Juan perfectly; the PAP has always said that he is more concerned with building overseas connections than he is in connecting with the people.  And, of course, the SDP has infamously accused the PAP of corruption many times before, and been slapped with heavily exacting lawsuits in return.

But the first seven paragraphs haven't been dedicated to describing the Opposition in modern-day Singapore.  I was instead painting you a portrait of the People's Action Party.

For the April 1964 elections (after merger, before separation), the PAP decided to field a small contingent so as not to convey the message that they were looking to usurp the ruling government.  '[E]verywhere we held rallies, huge crowds turned up.  They wanted to see and hear us.  They gave me a big cheer each time' is a quote from Lee Kuan Yew's memoirs as he recalled those days of hustings.  When they refused to campaign along the lines of special rights and privileges accorded to the Malays, they were accused of being pro-Chinese, which they subsequently denied.  And when Lee Kuan Yew travelled abroad to Australia and New Zealand where he received prominent coverage for his criticisms, it was Tun Abdul Razak, the 2nd Prime Minister of Malaysia and Tungku Abdul Rahman's successor, who said he was trying to 'blacken the image of the central government abroad'.  Furthermore, the PAP spearheaded the smear campaign against the Labour Front government, accusing one of its members of misappropriating funds, leading to the scandal that eventually caused the split in the then-incumbent party and the subsequent resignation of Francis Thomas.

The 'rites of passage' of the People's Action Party almost eerily mirror the challenges which face the Opposition today.  I have often wondered if the PAP is so effective in 'fixing' the opposition because they have so much experience in being the opposition.  More than that, I have wondered how a party who has had so much experience in being themselves persecuted can countenance to make things even more difficult for alternative voices in the political landscape.  When and how did they decide to sit down and say: "They have done this to us.  Now we will do it to others - only we will make it worse"? I think, perhaps, they never did.  Perhaps they were all compelled into the unspoken plot to an unwritten play, brought to life by vivacious marionettes.  Do be clear, I'm not accusing them of corruption.  I think they never had even had to break a law to do so.  They never had to be corrupt to do so.  They just had to be willing to go along.

Today, most of the older, more wily politicians are bowing out, and the party is being revitalized with younger professionals and civil servants.  Politicians who do not remember what it was like to fight against the odds, who have never had to fight - really fight - to win the hearts of the voters, instead relying largely on a track record of success and the fact that the various constituencies often see walkovers.  Can these new professionals hold the bay against the incoming tide of the opposition?

I leave you with a quote from a man I have always admired from the bottom of my heart.  A man who amazes me, awes me, inspires me - and confounds me.  Let us hear what he has had to say:

"Repression, Sir is a habit that grows. I am told it is like making love-it is always easier the second time! The first time there may be pangs of conscience, a sense of guilt. But once embarked on this course with constant repetition you get more and more brazen in the attack. All you have to do is to dissolve organizations and societies and banish and detain the key political workers in these societies. Then miraculously everything is tranquil on the surface. Then an intimidated press and the government-controlled radio together can regularly sing your praises, and slowly and steadily the people are made to forget the evil things that have already been done, or if these things are referred to again they're conveniently distorted and distorted with impunity, because there will be no opposition to contradict." [Emphases mine]

- Lee Kuan Yew as an opposition PAP member speaking to David Marshall, Singapore Legislative Assembly, Debates, 4 October, 1956