Misconceptions about the Singapore Democrats

What you do not read from the Straits Times and MSM.

Misconceptions about the Singapore Democrats
Tuesday, 03 February 2009
Singapore Democrats

Through the years, much has been said about the SDP. As a result many views have been formed and propagated about what we stand for, our beliefs and how we go about achieving our goals – some accurate and others completely false.We take a moment here to address these misconceptions so that Singaporeans can get a better understanding of the party. The information below will also be useful to counter the propaganda put out by the PAP.

Misconception No. 1: The SDP is not interested in parliamentary elections

Parliamentary elections are the cornerstone of a functioning democracy and we cannot emphasize more that we see elections as the only legitimate way of political parties gaining power. We have taken part in every election in the past and will continue do so in the future.What we don't believe in, however, is that an opposition party, under present political circumstances, should focus exclusively on elections. This is because elections in Singapore are not free and fair. The PAP amends electoral rules to suit its own needs, controls the media, and victimises opposition leaders. Where else in the world can a prime minister openly say that he needs to "fix" the opposition and "buy" votes -- and get away with it?

The truth is that it is impossible for the opposition to make any meaningful inroads into Parliament through the existing electoral process. This is why, over and above taking part in elections, opposition parties – together with civil society – must work to reform the election system.What the SDP wants to see is a truly fair parliamentary election system in Singapore, one acceptable by international standards.

Misconception No. 2: The SDP wants to effect change through "extra-legal" means
As explained above, when effecting change through undemocratic elections is impossible other peaceful, non-violent approaches are the only other options open.What the SDP is fighting for are the freedoms of speech and peaceful assembly for Singaporeans, rights that are enshrined in our Constitution. They are the building blocks of free and fair elections without which we cannot press the Government to reform the electoral process.But when the PAP continues to violate the Constitution and bans citizens from peaceful assembly, Singaporeans must stand up and protect our Constitution. The only way that this can be achieved is by defying the repressive laws put in place by the PAP.

Protecting the Constitution is not extra-legal because the Constitution is the supreme law of the country. It is the PAP that has resorted to extra-legal measures by violating the supreme law of the land.

Misconception No. 3: The SDP is an extremist party that advocates breaking laws
Let us be absolutely clear: Citizens cannot go about breaking a law just because they don't agree with it. This is not what civil disobedience is about. Civil disobedience is about standing up and not submitting to unjust laws put in place by governments to deny citizens their most basic rights. These rights are universally accepted as inalienable to all persons and the PAP has no right to take them away.In fact it is the PAP that does not adhere to the rule of law. Case in point: The police arrested Tak Boleh Tahan protesters on 15 Mar 08 while allowing Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) members to conduct their protest. Such discrimination clearly infringes Article 12 of the Constitution which demands that the law must apply equally to all without favour or fear.

We, the Singapore Democrats, are protecting our Constitution and there is nothing extreme about that. In fact it is the duty of all citizens of this republic to stand up for our Constitutional rights.In any democratic society, we would be considered a moderate party. It is only in an authoritarian system that the ruling party tries to brand reformers as extremists.

Misconception No. 4: The SDP does not offer constructive alternative ideas

Like the other misconceptions, this is one that the PAP likes to spread despite abundant evidence to the contrary.Way back in 1994 the party adopted Dr Chee Soon Juan's book Dare to Change: An Alternative Vision for Singapore as its manifesto. The book explicitly spells out alternative policies as well as the rationale for these ideas, including those for the economy, politics, society, culture and the arts, education and the media.These ideas were subsequently expanded in Your Future, My Faith, Our Freedom: A Democratic Blueprint for Singapore. They are further developed in A Nation Cheated. Our flagship publication, The New Democrat, and pamphlets consistently focus on our alternative ideas to the PAP programmes.

A look at Our Manifesto in this website would nail the lie that the SDP does not offer constructive alternatives. The latest example is our Budget proposal to help Singaporeans and the economy.But Singaporeans don't know much of this because the state media will not publish our ideas and keeps printing lies that the Singapore Democrats simply criticise and don't offer constructive ideas.

Misconception No. 5: The SDP is only interested in human rights and not bread-and-butter issues

The SDP has always been at the forefront of raising concerns about the escalating prices of essentials. Again, a quick glance through this website would show clearly that issues such as health care costs, CPF savings, public transport fares, etc are regularly addressed.The ongoing Tak Boleh Tahan campaign, for example, is one of our main programmes to ensure that the Government keeps the cost of living affordable. The plight of working Singaporeans and SMEs remain high on our agenda. In fact during the general elections, we zero in on pocket-book issues such as the minimum wage, retrenchment entitlements, and the Singaporeans First Policy.The reason why the wider public does not realise this is because the mass media censor much of what we say and do, especially on pocketbook issues that we raise. A good example is their refusal to report our proposals for this year's Budget. At the same time, however, it is important to bring up human rights matters. Human rights and bread-and-butter issues are two sides of the same coin. In order for us to talk to the people about issues that concern them, we need freedom of speech. Without this freedom we cannot effectively communicate with the people.

http://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/perspective/special-feature/1796-misconceptions-about-the-singapore-democrats

Defending What is Yours.

"Are Singaporeans defending the PAP government and its interests? Are we defending the stratification of society? Are we defending the large income divide? Are we defending the institutions that cause elder people to continue to work when they can retire, to continue to be rubbish bin scavengers and all?"

http://thinkingbetterthinkingmeta.blogspot.com/2009/01/defending-whats-yours.html

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/01/blog-feature-national-service

Obama Warns Human Rights Abusers

Family wins suit

The fact that the family has to resort to a law suit to get Mindef to be responsible shows much the State loves NSmen. This family could afford the lawyers to take up the lawsuit, what about the poorer family?? Thank you MINDEF!!!

Jan 16, 2009, The Straits Times
Breaking News

Family wins suit
By Selina Lum

THE parents of a former full-time national serviceman, comatose for more than three years after an incident in camp, have won their lawsuit against the Defence Ministry. The High Court decision paves the way for the family of Jeremy Tan, now 26, to seek disability compensation and medical benefits from Mindef. On Aug 3, 2005, Mr Tan, then a corporal rostered as duty storeman at Seletar East Camp, was found unconscious at the foot of a building where his bunk was located on the third-level.

The ministry classified Mr Tan's injuries as non-service related and stopped paying for his medical treatment at Tan Tock Seng Hospital from March 2007. But Justice Tay Yong Kwang ruled at the end of a four-day hearing that Mr Tan's injuries were 'attributable to service' and he was therefore entitled to a payout. The case hinged on the interpretation of a provision in the Singapore Armed Forces (Pensions) Regulations, which provides for payouts to disabled servicemen. Lawyer Lau Teik Soon, acting for Mr Tan's parents, argued that when he was found with injuries at 6pm, Mr Tan's tour of duty had not ended. But government lawyers argued that even though Mr Tan was performing his national service, he was not doing anything related to his duty at the time. He was not at his place of duty and was last seen resting in his bunk. But Justice Tay said that the words 'attributable to service' can cover injuries caused while a serviceman is on standby duty and was not doing any particular work.

Opt-out Insurance Coverage for MINDEF Employees and SAF Personnel

http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/news_and_events/nr/2009/jan/01jan09_nr/01jan09_fs2.html

With effect from 1 January 2009, all MINDEF employees and Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) active servicemen will be automatically insured for $100,000. This initiative, which rides on the existing SAF Group Term Life (GTL) Insurance scheme, is aimed at encouraging them to have a minimum level of insurance protection for themselves.

For a monthly premium of $12.80, all eligible MINDEF employees, regular servicemen who are 45 years old and below, and full-time National Servicemen (NSFs), who do not opt out of the scheme will be insured for the sum of $100,000. The insurance coverage will provide protection against personal accidents in daily life.

SAF GTL Insurance Scheme
The SAF GTL insurance scheme is a voluntary life and personal accident insurance scheme that has been available to SAF active servicemen and Operationally Ready National Servicemen (NSmen) since 1983.

Features of the SAF GTL include:
● Low cost and affordability. MINDEF/SAF is able to leverage on its large population base to negotiate the best terms and rates for its employees and personnel.
● Portability. MINDEF and SAF personnel can continue to enjoy the coverage even after they leave service, as long as they pay their premiums. Insurance coverage will continue up to age 65 based on the prevailing premium. From age 66-70, the premium will be based on a different prevailing rate every year.

Increase in NSF allowance
With the introduction of the SAF GTL opt-out $100,000 insurance coverage, MINDEF will increase the monthly allowance of NSFs by $20 to help them pay for the monthly premium. The increase in NSF allowance takes effect from 1 January 2009.

NSman found Unconscious

"The Malaysians serve this 3 months chicken feed NS ...but I found out that the Malaysian govt is so paranoid it buys insurance for every one of its NS men for this 3 month period. They have alot to learn from the Singapore govt - they should save all this money ...why waste it on ordinary citizens who have to serve their NS by law anyway when they can use the money to send some of their elites for courses in Harvard."

http://singaporemind.blogspot.com/2009/01/ns-man-collapsed-in-camp-in-his-uniform.html

NSman found unconscious had apologised repeatedly, court told By Leong Wee Keat, TODAY 13 January 2009 2327 hrs

Jeremy Tan's father Tan Kian Lee (R) and mother Hor Hong Kiow (L) have chalked up outstanding hospital bills of S$133,000 for his treatment SINGAPORE: He had seemed "confused" when he returned to his bunk and, according to a platoon mate, Mr Jeremy Tan Chia Whee told them: "I do not know who I am." Twenty minutes after this, at about 6pm, Mr Tan - who was then a full-time national serviceman - was found unconscious on a grass patch outside the block of his third-level bunk at Seletar Camp.

More than three years later, Mr Tan is still on the mend. Now 26, he is warded at the Tan Tock Seng Rehabilitation Centre, unable to move or speak, fully dependent on doctors and nurses for his daily needs. His parents are now suing the Ministry of Defence (Mindef) over compensation issues. Mindef has classified Mr Tan's injuries as non-service related injuries, which means he is only compensated on 80 per cent of his ward and meal charges. But Mr Tan's parents claim their son should be entitled to full compensation as he was on duty, and was wearing his army t-shirt, trousers and boots when found. There were apparently no witnesses to what had happened; medical reports said he suffered a head injury consistent with a fall from height. Mr Tan Kian Lee testified yesterday that his son was the duty storeman on Aug 3, 2005, and had been waiting for his replacement, holding on to the store keys when he was found. But Staff Sergeant Wan Chuan Seah - Mr Jeremy Tan's superior - said the general practice was that the duty storeman may return to rest at around 5pm, upon completing his tasks for the day. This was despite the stipulated duty hours for the duty storeman being from 8am to 6pm.

Since Mindef's payments ceased in February 2007, his parents have chalked up outstanding hospital bills totalling $133,000 for his upkeep. Yesterday, mother Hor Hong Kiow told the court that manpower officer Linda Quek had told her she would appeal to Mindef to cover Mr Tan's medical fees, as his injuries had occurred in the course of duty. Madam Hor also claimed Major Quek had told her the Singapore Armed Forces would appeal on the family's behalf. Mr Jeremy Tan's sister, Jasmine, provided the court with a transcript of SMSes that he had sent to two servicemen, copied off his mobile phone. In one SMS, Mr Tan reportedly asked a serviceman what time he was coming back to the boat-shed. He also messaged another man, Sergeant Chew Zi Guo, with his apologies. State Counsel Shawn Ho said Sgt Chew, who also spoke to Mr Tan over the phone, would testify that he did not understand why Mr Tan said he blamed himself for everything, apologised repeatedly and cried. The hearing continues.

The Guise of National Service

http://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/perspective/vantage/1505-the-guise-of-national-service

The guise of National Service?
Sunday, 14 December 2008
Andy Tang Guest writer

National Service is a rite of passage for all Singaporean males, and the controversial issue of conscription has never been far from Singaporean minds. For a long period the defence of national security has been invoked to justify conscription.

However, growing shifts in official stance from the original "national defence" argument to the more current "common NS experience to build a more cohesive society" argument has increased suspicion as to whether NS is just a guise for another social engineering tool in the Government's arsenal.

Under the argument of defending national security and protection of secrets, the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) has made use of the SAF Act, which governs all NSmen, to silence any opposition or criticism. There have been reported cases of servicemen being forced to remove blog entries, and even entire blogs, because of alleged violations of the Act.

Disciplinary action have been taken against these "offending" entries. A deeper look at cases reveal disturbing parallels between the use of libel lawsuits to silence political opposition and the use of disciplinary actions to silence criticism from its own servicemen. Singapore is known for its use of its libel laws to silence political oppositions, and has come under heavy criticism from international bodies like the International Bar Association and Amnesty International.

Servicemen are being taken to task for writing critical entries on the Internet about the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) and the SAF. Some have spoken up against the censure but many more have chosen to remain silent for fear of further reprisal.

The double standard of selective punishment points to the undeniable fact that MINDEF is only interested in punishing servicemen who criticise SAF but ignore those that do not paint a negative picture of the organisation even the complimentary ones still violate the Official Secrets Act (OSA). A look at many online blogs and networking sites reveal many pictures taken of SAF camps and/or their activities.

According to the OSA, the revelation of SAF activities is a threat to the nation's security and is a punishable offence. However, MINDEF turns a blind eye to all these, focusing instead on warning bloggers about negative postings and punishing those that they can find when many of these blogs or entries did not reveal any security-related information.

This leads to several questions. Is MINDEF and SAF allowed to violate international laws and rights by having laws and punishing servicemen for having negative or critical views of the organisation? In this developed world, which organisation punishes its own people for holding dissenting views?

Given that MINDEF and SAF are public organisations, what right do they have to control what the public thinks about them? On the contrary, should they not be subjected to even greater public scrutiny and criticism given that they take up the biggest portion of the national budget?

By silencing the opposition and servicemen, is the Government trying to censor questions about the real intent of NS in today's Singapore? Are the authorities bent on keeping out discussion on whether NS exists solely for national defence or does it exist to serve a "greater" purpose? More broadly, is NS being used to build a nation of followers rather than thinkers, a society of compliant and unquestioning Singaporeans? Is NS a Government tool to perpetuate a climate of fear in our youths?

MINDEF and SAF have come a long way since 1967. Cover-ups that were common in the past are increasingly not accepted by Singaporeans who demand a safer training environment for their sons. It is time that MINDEF and SAF examine their roles in Singapore today, and re-evaluate their policies of banning servicemen from voicing out criticisms publicly.

The notion of "dirty linen should not be washed in public" should be discarded. If the Government has nothing to hide and everything is above board why fear criticism, especially from their own people?

Public accountability should be of paramount importance when it comes to asking citizens to risk their safety and lives in defending the country, and spending huge amounts of the public's money. In this regard, draconian bans and punishment on servicemen airing their views in public should be removed.

Andy Tang recently completed his fulltime National Service stint and contributed this article to the website.

A comment on this website:

exSINgaPOORean - Open Secret. Mon, 15 Dec 2008 3:12 pm

This article is writing the "obvious". That's the reason why I emigrated bec. I do not want my son to be suject the same type of systematic brainwash from kindergarden to the young adulthood when doing his N.S.The resevist training is just revision lessons of brainwashing.

I challenge the SAF to come to Edmonton, AB in 103 Ave and 97 Street to arrest me and my son for him not serving the damn army.

When I was back in Singapore this Aug 2008, why no SAF army dare to arrest me.

Stupid Singapore army who only know how to bully its citizens.

Let's put it this way, all Singapore needs is 30,000 stong full-time army to defend the island as it has allowed the US navy to use its harbour. Just allow the USA to base its 2 fleet of its carrier in Singapore and I bet Malaysia and Indonesia would not dare to attack Singapore.

Canada is 13,000 time the size of Singapore and yet we have less than 70,000 full -time army and less than 20,000 reservist or part-timers.

30,000 full-time Singapore army personel can consist of:
3,000 in the airforce.
5,000 navy
22,000 land soldiers (with 1000 commandos to fight terrorist)

There can be about 10,000 reservists for those who like army training but want to earn their money int he outside world.

This would free alot of Singaporean males develop like the Hong Kong males, instead of wasting 2 years of their precious time.

If Sillpore still want some sort to military training, then OK, just 1 month of basic training for all the males (yes 1 month)..basic shooting, a short 2 night camp, drill, train to fight in jungle and built-up area and firing of 3 rounds etc 2 days of first-aid training..and of course a full day of paint-ball shooting.

Send the full-timer to Somali water to fight the pirates for real experience...would be political neutral. Singapore can design a small aircraft carrier so that it can transport its F 16s to the Somali water to fight the pairates. After two years all the full-timer (part timers or reservists can be included on a voluterr basis) will have batter experience. Perhaps, Dufur would be another good training ground.