Netizen rips SDP John Tan apart for his comment on caning and expulsion of students involved in taking upskirt images

Reproduced from a netizen's Facebook posting:

John Tan from SDP feels that caning and expulsion of one student is ridiculous and does more harm than good.

Are there any educators from senior management in the SDP at all? Please step forward and help your party not look like a fool. These comments by John Tan shows how disconnected they are from the ground on how school policies help our students, even the ill disciplined ones.

1. He got to ask himself. Why is it that only ONE out of all the students involved? He claims expelling the student does more harm than good.

Here is the reason why students are expelled. Students who are expelled, usually have done something serious. Expelling the student gives him a second chance in a new school. Where the students and teachers do not look at him differently, and he can start on a clean slate. The reasons for transfer, for these cases, are kept to a very small group of staff, usually the P, VP and Discipline Head.

Can you imagine how the boy will go through his secondary school life every time he passes by a female teacher if he stayed? Can you imagine how the teachers would feel if they were assigned to teach in his class?

I am guessing he is the only one expelled because he is the one that distributed the photos most. While the rest played much smaller roles.

2. John Tan claims expelling the student means breaking of the Compulsory Education Act.

Again no one from SDP can help him understand. When it comes to expelling a student, Ps usually try to help them find a new school. Sometimes this involves "trading" problem students. So that both students get fresh starts. Otherwise, they may call upon their colleagues in the cluster schools to keep a lookout for the "expelled" student, so that they can make arrangements to accept the student when he turns up at their door.

3. On Caning.
Caning is not so much to cause pain to the students. But rather to show to the student body the seriousness of it.

Unless they are being caned in prison, caning in schools do not cause that much pain that cannot be rubbed off in a few hours.

Students also go through a lot of counselling before being caned. I have sat through quite a few caning sessions previously. By the time they are caned, the students usually understand their mistakes, and are willing to accept the punishment.

So SDP, please please, just like your white paper on Education. Instead of just painting gloomy clouds over our education system and policies, how about you offer some substantial solutions after you make your points.

Come up with a solution that takes care of all stakeholders. The School Leaders, the teachers involved, the students involved, the parents of the students involved. Show us how you guys would DO BETTER if you were in charge, and maybe you might just win some votes in the next Elections.

Taxi Uncle: Chee Soon Juan is 有头没脑, 头脑生草

A Singaporean had a conversation with a Taxi Driver on the looming by-election at Bukit Batok SMC: http://amateurbuddhist1978.blogspot.sg/2016/03/an-unexpected-by-election.html

In his conversation, the Taxi Driver said, "He (Chee) is too emotional and impulsive. That time he went to ask Goh Chok Tong about the billions of dollars lent to Indonesia. Did he have evidence? And to think he is a professor. He is really 有头没脑 (got head no brains)...头脑生草 (grass grow on the hair)." He was referring to an incident in GE 2001 when Chee heckled then-PM Goh Chok Tong in public.

For 6 months since GE2015, Chee Soon Juan and his SDP had not carried out any visits to the constituencies that they have campaigned vigorously to represent during the 9 days of campaigning.

It took the resignation of PAP MP David Ong, which resulted in PM calling for By-election, to trigger the opportunist party to restart their party activities. I truly hope Bukit Batok residents will be able to discern a candidate's and his party's sincerity level.

Presidential Candidate Tan Cheng Bock was fed up with Chee Soon Juan's arrogance and stubbornness

In Parliament 11 Dec 1996,

    Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion. I was a Member of the Select Committee on Health Care Subsidy and I sat through one of the longest Select Committee sessions I have ever attended. I came out feeling sad and disappointed that a person like Chee, with a doctorate, could act and behave in such a manner, unbecoming of a man of his standing as a lecturer and researcher. 

    Sir, from the very start, if you will remember, without seeking your permission, he took it upon himself the task of rearranging the seating arrangement laid out by Parliament. And this prompted you, Mr Speaker, to reprimand him and ordered him to refrain from such actions unless the Chair's permission is sought. But this behaviour reflected the arrogant attitude of the representor. Throughout the many sessions, there were attempts after attempts to show data, figures and charts that were 

Column: 1027

obviously incorrect or not substantiated. It is not necessary to go through all these as they were brought up by the Select Committee and previous speakers have already spoken on this subject, and the public is well aware of the obvious discrepancies and data presentation, especially the 5% typographical error. However, it is the indifferent attitude of the chief representor that caught many people's attention. He chose to ignore what is correct. The sad thing is that he sees no wrong in himself and he used a case or two of wrongful billing by the hospital to cast doubts on the hospital's policy of hospital charges. He insisted that the hospitals had created a pattern of over-charging or over-stating the bills, based on the case of Sunny Kow. 

    He attempts to accuse others of doing the very thing he did. This projection behaviour pattern comes out clearly in the above case of Sunny Kow. Although the Minister had told the Committee that the hospital had indeed made an error in the bill presentation and that Mr Sunny Kow need not have to pay more than what he needs to pay, the SDP chief representor refused to accept and insisted that the hospital had created a pattern of over-charging or over-stating the hospital bill. Yet he failed to see his own errors in the many charts, figures and data that were presented. He projected this type of behaviour to detract the Committee but, unfortunately, he was not successful. 

    Sir, in passing judgment on the four SDP representors, we face a section of Singaporeans who think that we are trying to do the Opposition in. It is not a question of whether these four people are Opposition members or not. It is clearly a question of what must be done to a group of people who swear to tell the truth in Parliament but clearly did not. We in Parliament must do what is right and correct, or this House would be taken too lightly by those who wish to present their case before Select Committees. In other words, we are dealing with the conduct of the representors, not their political affiliations. 

    Sir, my comments on Opposition MPs' behaviour carries less weight than those 

Column: 1028

coming from independent non-PAP sources. On 20th July 1996, I read in the Berita Harian an article which clearly tells you the character of Dr Chee. It was headlined Kecewa dengan sikap dan cara Dr Chee semasa perbahasan. Translated it means, "Disappointed with Dr Chee's attitude and manner during the debate." I will quote the translated version. It is very short: 

    `Disappointed with Dr Chee's attitude and manner during the debate - by Noraini Hamzah. I recorded Monday, July 15, as an important date in my diary because representatives of the Singapore Democratic Party were scheduled to speak in front of the Select Committee to study Government subsidies for hospitals and polyclinics. It gives the SDP's General Secretary, Dr Chee Soon Juan, and his colleagues the opportunity to explain their stand. I imagine the meeting to be serious as the SDP's allegations were grave. Were the allegations founded? The day I had been waiting for came, but I was disappointed. In following the 8-hour discussion on television in the reporters' room at Parliament House, I observed that Members of the Select Committee panel were obviously very serious in presenting their questions, views and statements. Nonetheless, I cannot say the same for Dr Chee who became the lone voice of the 4 SDP representatives there. My observation of Dr Chee was that he twisted his answers. He often deviated from the matters discussed, blamed others. He was dishonest in his answers and he did not observe the Select Committee proceedings. He often condemned the panel members. In short, he appeared to be playing politics through his answers. His conduct made it necessary for the Chairman of the Select Committee, Mr Tan Soo Khoon, to warn him on several occasions.' 

    She went on to discuss about the proceedings and she concluded, and I quote: 

    `The hearing went beyond 11 pm. Some people might consider Dr Chee a hero for being firm in his position, but I was quite fed up with Dr Chee's arrogance and his stubbornness in not admitting the mistakes in his figures. I was not the only one. My colleague who had all along respected Dr Chee stated, "I lost my respect for Dr Chee from today onwards." Was the SDP sincere in bringing up the issue of health care subsidies? I doubt it. As a former university lecturer, Dr Chee must have realised that an undergraduate would fail in his examinations if he distorted his answers or deviated from the questions asked.' 

    This is how she concluded: 

    `As a mother, can I tell my children that it is not wrong to be disrespectful and to distort answers? Certainly not.' 

    Mr Speaker, Sir, this was the observation of a newspaper reporter, not by the PAP. The comment reflected the feelings of someone who was present at the hearing. Yet, the latest paper of the SDP, 

Column: 1029

The New Democrat, sees a repetition of all the points brought up by the SDP representors. They obviously do not care and do not intend to hear the truth. This is not the correct way to change things. Change will come not with making political statements, but with sound alternatives that will win the hearts and minds of all educated Singaporeans. 

    Mr Speaker, Sir, Parliament is the highest institution in the land. It passes laws that affect every Singaporean. Therefore, it must be respected and obeyed. If politicians choose not to do so, then he or she must be reprimanded and appropriate punishment meted out. Politicians fight hard at every election to enter this Chamber and our behaviour and conduct in this House sets the tone for other Singaporeans. If we misbehave, then Singaporeans will not be proud of us and this country will suffer. Thus, if you remember, Sir, I chose not to speak at the last debate on the Select Committee's findings because you made a ruling that our speeches should not contain materials that will prejudice the findings of the Committee of Privileges. Mr Speaker, it is my respect for you and your ruling in Parliament that I choose to speak today instead. 

    Sir, I support the motion. 


** 

The motion, made by Minister Wong Kan Seng, reads as follows: 

    That this Parliament doth agree with the Committee of Privileges in their Report contained in Parl. 6 of 1996 and resolves -- 

    (1) that Parliament impose on Dr Chee Soon Juan a fine of

$25,000;

    (2) that Parliament impose on Mr Wong Hong Toy a fine of

$13,000;

    (3) that Parliament impose on Mr S. Kunalen a fine of 

    $8,000; and 

    (4) that Parliament impose on Mr Kwan Yue Keng a fine of

$5,000

Teacher rips Chee Soon Juan on groundless claims on Social Studies syllabus

Read how a teacher ripped Chee Soon Juan off, on his party's groundless claims on conspiracies behind reviewing of Social Studies syllabus:

Hi Soon JuanI am going to take some time to highlight to you some of the observations that you and the SDP have...
Posted by Germain Heng on Monday, February 15, 2016

Replicated:

Hi Soon Juan

I am going to take some time to highlight to you some of the observations that you and the SDP have pointed out in your article, MOE Written Textbooks Are Even More Biased And Partisan Towards The PAP (http://yoursdp.org/…/dear_ministers_moe_tex…/2016-02-15-6099).

I have vested interest in this as I am a Social Studies Teacher. These are purely my views that do not represent my fellow colleagues. I will respond to those portions pertaining to the Social Studies text. I cannot comment on the history portions as that is not my training. I will draw reference from the said Social Studies textbook (ISBN 978-981420884-0). Please also note that a new textbook and curriculum is currently being taught to the 2016 batch of Secondary 3 students.

Example 2: Photos and illustrations

You have pointed out a series of pictures which you have claimed to be slanted towards the PAP, most notably found on pages 26 and 147 of the Social Studies textbook.

In the former, the context of the picture is with regards to the need of government leaders to mingle with the community in order to learn of their concerns, and not so much as to point the student towards voting for the PAP.

The latter, found in the chapter Bonding Singapore, was used as an exemplar of how a GRC team has to be made up of a member of the minority race, in this case Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, in order to contest in an election so as to ensure minority representation in the legislature.

Example 3: Principles of governance

The picture, found on page 33, is a summary of what PM Lee Hsien Loong said in the National Day Rally Speech in 2004. I hardly will call reporting what he said as skewed, although it might have been watered down in order for our students, aged 15-16/17, to digest. Even you cannot deny the fact that it was your leadership that has allowed you to take the reigns of the SDP back in December 1996.

As with you highlighting Ministers and MPs like Phey Yew Kok, Tan Kia Gan, Wee Toon Boon, Teh Cheang Wan, Choo Wee Kiang, and Michael Palmer, their transgressions have been covered extensively in the papers, both the Straits Times and other platforms. I highly doubt if there are any restrictions on the students’ own reading.

Example 4: Representative democracy

Again, you have conveniently left out the context of the section, which is, I quote: 2.1 What is the system of government in Singapore? (page 26). Your argumentation and interpretation of what makes up ‘Representative Democracy’ is not the focus of the chapter, but the system that Singapore has adopted.

Example 5: The Pledge

This is found in page 134, also in the chapter Bonding Singapore. I doubt I have to elaborate any further.

Example 6: Healthcare

I hardly see this (page 72) as a rallying cry to support the PAP government. Rather, it is important for students to understand why government policies (or suggested policies), PAP or otherwise, needs support or else their legitimacy is lost. You of all people should know since your own alternative healthcare policies obviously did not get much support, as evidenced by the vote-share that you garnered.

Example 7: Foreign talent/low birthrate

You have missed the point of the quote (page 52). It was written to explain a way to boost population numbers. Even you cannot dispel the fact that no one country has monopoly over talents. Even the US has attracted talent from Singapore to work in their industries. I am disappointed that you did not point that out, given your extensive network.

Example 8: Media

You have pointed to the lack of discussion on the importance for dialogue and debate without resorting to violence. You might want to read a chapter earlier (Chapter 4: Conflict in Multi-ethnic Societies), where explicit effort was made to show how violence begot even more violence in both Sri Lanka and Northern Ireland, and how both countries suffered because of it.

And with regards to your often quoted gripe about the free press in Singapore, if there weren’t, yoursdp.org shouldn’t be in existence, together with many of the alternative news sites which claim to be neutral. We must remember that freedom comes with responsibilities, and this must apply to speech and claims made. You should know, since you seem to have a knack for misquoting statistics. Again, I don’t have to belabour this point.

Example 9: Self-help groups

The quote on the above, found in Chapter 5: Bonding Singapore, is presented in the context of the need for such groups to exist. The purpose of the text is to provide content for the basis of the Structured Essay Question. Critical analysis of the source is covered in the Source Based Questions, which allows students to analyse assertions made by political leaders and its reliability.

Your selective quote did not include the following paragraph (page 148), which goes on to explain how the different SHGs bring individuals of different racial backgrounds together, as is the lesson objective of this chapter.

Example 10: People's Association

Again, the content of this (page 149) is in the context of the aforementioned Chapter 5, which has nothing to do with politics.

Soon Juan, please do not politicise a subject that I truly love teaching. Social Studies is a subject meant to help young people develop the ability to make informed and reasoned decisions for the public good as citizens of a culturally diverse, democratic society in an interdependent world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_studies). It DOES NOT serve as a political tool for students to make an electoral choice, PAP, SDP or otherwise.

I would strongly suggest you study the Social Studies curriculum in its entirety, and not make accusations against the textbook that I teach from out of context. The subject gives more than sufficient flexibility for teachers to deviate from the text, to train the mind of an active Singapore, and global, citizen. My fellow professional colleagues will attest to the rigour and commitment that we put in to sharpen the minds of our nation’s future. My own students can attest to the skills that I have imparted to them to be as critical of what is presented to them, as your source has allowed me to do.

Will Tan Jee Say form new party?

The Straits Times

EVEN as the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) restructures its leadership, questions are being raised as to whether its famous former member Tan Jee Say, who quit the SDP to run for president, will rejoin it or form a new party.

Mr Tan himself says he is keeping all options open: 'I'm open to all possibilities. As I've said before, I will listen to my supporters and see what they say.'

During his presidential campaign, Mr Tan was helped by opposition figures such as SDP's Dr Ang Yong Guan and Ms Michelle Lee, and the National Solidarity Party's (NSP) Ms Nicole Seah and Mrs Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss.

When Dr Ang was asked whether he would follow Mr Tan if the latter set up a new party, he was non-committal.

'All of those supporting him have to reflect and think how best to contribute to his party and what role they can play,' he said.

Mrs Chong-Aruldoss and Ms Seah said they would not. The former is NSP vice-president and the latter a member of its executive committee. Ms Lee could not be reached for comment.

Political analyst Derek da Cunha said he would not be surprised if Mr Tan and other opposition figures set up a new party as a vehicle to contest a GRC at the next general election, due by 2016.

'Five or six quality individuals who can get along well with each other forming a 'Dream Team' and going up against the PAP in a GRC would make sense,' he said.

They would, however, need to secure at least 100 volunteers to handle the logistics for such a task, he added.

SDP's new committee under scrutiny

Tessa Wong - The Straits Times

WHAT does the Singapore Democratic Party's (SDP) election of a new central executive committee (CEC) say about its future direction?

Political observers are divided on this question.

The new CEC, formed two weeks ago, comprises a mix of old and new faces. Mr Jufrie Mahmood, a veteran opposition member, is now its chairman, while Mr Vincent Cheng, a former detainee and newcomer to opposition politics, is vice-chairman.

Civil society activist Vincent Wijeysingha, another newcomer to opposition politics, has been promoted to treasurer.

Mr John Law, another newcomer, fills in Dr Wijeysingha's previous post as assistant treasurer.

Among the old faces: Dr Chee Soon Juan and Mr John Tan remain as secretary-general and assistant secretary-general respectively, and Ms Chee Siok Chin and Mr Mohamed Isa as CEC members.

Former vice-chairman Francis Yong is now a CEC member.

Excluded from the CEC line-up are Dr Ang Yong Guan and Ms Michelle Lee, who were among a number of highly qualified former establishment moderates who recently joined the party to contest the May General Election.

Dr Ang is a psychiatrist and retired army colonel, and Ms Lee a former Monetary Authority of Singapore officer.

The two of them, together with Dr Wijeysingha and Mr Tan Jee Say, formed the SDP's A-team in the General Election and stood in Holland-Bukit Timah GRC. Mr Tan quit the party in July to run for president.

The prominence of these candidates played a part in attracting more young professionals with moderate liberal views to the SDP, both during and after the election.

Dr Ang and Ms Lee were among those in this moderate group, and some speculated that they might take up leadership positions in the SDP.

But the two told The Straits Times that they did not wish to run for the CEC, preferring to be involved in newly set-up subcommittees.

Ms Lee said she also needed more time to concentrate on her family and work. She currently teaches at a private school.

'(The party leaders) discussed with us, and said there was a two-track system. They said they wanted to see how things go. And it's vice versa. We also want to find out where we can best contribute,' said Dr Ang.

SDP secretary-general Chee Soon Juan said that the SDP has seen a 'dramatic expansion' of its ranks, and hence now needs a larger structure to ensure 'a high quality of management across all the party's work streams'.

'As such, capable members are being deployed across a much wider leadership team outside of the CEC,' he said.

He said new members are now holding key positions in subcommittees.

Dr Ang heads a health care advisory panel, and Ms Lee facilitates a fund-raising group. Academic James Gomez coordinates a policy studies subcommittee and Mr Alec Tok, who owns a theatre company, is involved with a training and development subcommittee.

Dr Gomez joined the SDP last year, while Mr Tok joined right before the General Election.

Political observer Alex Au noted that the party appears to be opting for 'stability rather than an abrupt shift' by voting in familiar faces known to be 'steadfast to a certain political standard'.

'There has not been any wholesale change, and I'm not surprised. We have to consider the membership base, where the moderates are probably not that significant in number,' he said.

The SDP declined to reveal membership figures.

Assistant law professor Eugene Tan of the Singapore Management University, however, views the new CEC line-up as a sign that moderate voices are being 'sidelined' in the party.

As this was the first committee elected after the May General Election, it would have been 'a powerful signal' if more moderates occupied CEC positions. But the new line-up 'suggests that the moderate ascendancy during the May General Election was but a false dawn', he said.

In the run-up to the election, the SDP started playing down its erstwhile activist image and projected a more accessible, moderate tone. It also moved away from human rights advocacy and put more emphasis on bread-and-butter issues.

The new CEC line-up shows that a human rights agenda is still central to the party's philosophy, noted political analyst Derek da Cunha.

Mr Au, however, pointed out that, unlike some other SDP members, Dr Wijeysingha and Mr Jufrie, while holding strong views on human rights issues, are not known to advocate public demonstrations.

Dr Wong Wee Nam, a medical doctor who follows opposition politics closely, believes the SDP is willing to continue the change that started before the General Election, and is aiming for 'gradual renewal'.

He said: 'This is not an issue of moderates versus hardcore supporters... I think the SDP is taking a long-term view, because if people are bogged down by day-to-day running of the party, they may not be able to spend time on more important things like socio-economic and health-care programmes, which they have to develop.'

Alex Tan Zhixiang says SDP is "more like selfserving pigs like the PAP"

Presidential explosion

The Real Truth about Tan Jee Say

I quote a letter comment posted by a Singaporean on various online forums.

"TheRealTruth:
August 14, 2011 at 10:23 pm (Quote)

Dear Fellow Singaporeans

In the interest of transparency and in the spirit of being the voice of conscience,
this to correct the false impression that is conveyed in the Sunday Times article about tjs.

Tjs has no moral righteousness, compass or anchor and blows where the winds of opportunity takes him. He quit as PPS when it became apparent that he would not become perm sec. Tjs is driven by greed and selfishness.

After quitting the government, he joined Morgan Grenfell, then Peregrine Bank, Standard Chartered Bank and finally AIB Govett.

When Morgan Grenfell came knocking, tjs jumped at the chance. He promised to bring in much monies from the Malaysian conglomerates which he came into contact with during his tenure at MTI. His results at Morgan Grenfell speak for themselves, tjs did not deliver the monies and his peers soon found that he was a light weight load of hot air.

Tjs had a contributory role in Bank Peregrine’s demise. He did not dispense proper advice that the investment into an Indonesian concern was not viable. Tjs, the person at the site did not do proper due diligence.

At AIB Govett, it was reported that his strength was in policy making. This firm collapsed whilst others survived, obviously tjs’s policies were wrong. This forebodes poorly on the potential for tjs to be EP as at every employment stop he has demonstrated poor judgement. Translate this into safeguarding our nation’s reserves and it will result in disastrous consequences.

Tjs’s next stops at Standard Chartered Bank and Hi Green is also empty of significant contributions. He was forced out of Standard Chartered by his Indian boss.

His claim to be ‘not a lavish man’ is not true. In tjs ‘high flying’ years, tjs openly boasted that his income tax contributions were higher than an average man’s annual income. Tjs aspired to the lifestyle of his successful PAP friends and his banking colleagues. Tjs had his fair share of thoughts about redeveloping his Frankel Avenue house into a mansion.

It is obvious that tjs squandered his wealth on ill conceived and dubious ventures in his empty years. If tjs had prudently invested his wealth, he would be fairly well off. This can be verified by any banker.

2006 till present, tjs was unemployable as by that time the banking industry had seen tjs for what he was, no substance and only hot air.

Let the people exam tjs’s empty years for themselves. And these were indeed empty as he was trying to chase his ‘China make money’ dream backed up by casual connections made when he accompanied government officials in China state visits.

There was the attempt at marketing Chinese breast enhancement drug treatments in Singapore.

His attempt to provide training of bank personnel also failed as tjs could not deliver what he promised.

There is also an erroneous reporting that Tjs’s wife was an investment banker. This is inaccurate. Pls verify which investment bank she was employed under. In fact, Mrs tjs abused her position when she was with their 4th child. NTUC Income would not grant her paid maternity leave so she took unpaid leave but traded on her information from the NTUC Income equity positions she managed to make money for herself. In what ever manner one looks at this, this is a conflict of interest.

Tjs’s selective use of reality makes him dangerous to Singapore.

Reporting tjs an independent candidate is also very wrong. He was brought up through the PAP system and for a time worked within the system when he was PPS to DPM GOH. In truth, tjs is a rogue PAP minion setting out his own agenda to revenge the wrong that he perceives the PAP has done to him under the disguise of public interest.

Tjs cannot claim to be a people’s man and have the Singaporeans’ interest at heart. For those who know tjs, tjs thinks highly of himself, is full of himself, highly opinionated, talks down to people. Tjs can no way be representative of Singapore’s President.

I feel that tjs does not have our nation’s interest at heart; tjs has an axe to grind with the PAP because he is disgruntled that his dreams of higher government office was not realized.

This is very dangerous and a threat to our country’s stability and because of this I feel strongly that when reporting on tjs the truth must be correctly reported.

Best regards,
The Real Truth"

Tan Jee Say escorted by SDP member

It turns out that Tan Jee Say is not shy in showing off his SDP support.

Tan Jee Say had been frequently sighted with SDP members after he declared his interest to run for President.

In his newly launched website, Tan Jee Say was even seen watching a soccer match with a member of the Young Democrats.

How Tan Jee Say wants to unite Singaporeans, without any past baggage from any political party, would be a huge question he has to answer. Or perhaps he has no answer to it.

So what does the above photo tells about Tan Jee Say?

That he wants to be different from Singaporeans or he is not supporting the Singapore team in the match against Taiwan.

Puzzled by Tan Jee Say's presidential promises

Here's a forum letter to The Straits Times. It shows how Tan Jee Say is acting as a proxy of the SDP in running for the Presidential race.

I AM curious about the reasons behind Mr Tan Jee Say's motivation to serve Singaporeans ('Another Tan enters the fray'; last Saturday).

The investment adviser has resigned from the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP). Yet he continues to promote his five-year $60 billion National Regeneration Plan, which he lobbied for as an SDP candidate at the hustings for the recent general election, in his presidential bid. Has he confused the role of Singapore's head of state with that of an opposition MP?

If he is elected president, Mr Tan is reported to have stated that he plans to turn the grounds of the Istana into a central park. As far as I know, no country in the world, including the United States, has done this for the official residence of its titular head.

Security is a key consideration. There is also the dignity of the office. Imagine a foreign dignitary being met by sweaty joggers on his way to an official meeting with our president and prime minister.

Singaporeans may want a president who is not merely a rubber stamp for government policies, but it is just as important that we do not elect someone who rolls out populist schemes to appeal to the masses.

Toh Cheng Seong

'Burn minister' man quits SDP

A SINGAPORE Democratic Party (SDP) member who was investigated for inciting violence against a minister has quit the party, citing internal disagreements.

Mr Abdul Malik Mohammed Ghazali, 27, was arrested in August last year for his comment on a Facebook group page set up to complain about the Youth Olympic Games' organising committee.

In the comment, he said it was time to 'burn Vivian Balakrishnan and the PAP'.

A day after his arrest, he met SDP leaders and later joined the party. The project executive helped out in organising rallies and walkabouts.

Last Friday, the police said in response to media queries that they will not be taking any further action against him.

Contacted yesterday, Mr Malik said he quit the SDP because of internal disagreements on 'matters of principle'.

He said some members were unhappy that he spoke to the media without prior approval about the case against him and were thinking of drawing up new guidelines. He felt these would be too restrictive: 'These protocols go against party ideals of democracy. It's very heavy-handed.'

Mr Malik, who e-mailed his resignation to SDP chief Chee Soon Juan on Tuesday night, also disclosed yesterday that he has applied to join the Singapore Malay National Organisation, a component party of the Singapore Democratic Alliance.

Kenneth Jeyaratnam disagrees with SDP's route

Finally, an Opposition Leader has casted doubts on the publicity tactics taken by the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP).

Reform Party Secretary-General Kenneth Jeyaretnam has this to say about the SDP:

"SDP has chosen another route whereby they campaign for equality and Freedoms directly. ( I hope I haven't misrepresented them -this is my understanding)...

Whatever CSJ is or isn't, and after all he's my political rival. But we can't stand by and be a country which allows a political leader to be imprisoned for an act that would be perfectly legal and even deemed necessary to the democratic process in most other countries. (Not that I am disparaging the decisions of our legal system here.)"

Kenneth Jeyaretnam is the son of the late Opposition Leader Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam (or affectionately called "JBJ").

Chee Soon Juan is now soliciting for funds to help save him from a jail-term for an offence he committed. He has so far raised S$6,000.00 from Singaporeans' hard-earned money. SDP is even holding a "Kampung Night" dinner to raise funds for him.

Chee's party members also sell his books in public to raise funds for him.

Show your disapproval to this party machinery and the selfishness of Chee Soon Juan. Vote "no" to SDP!

YD Member draws inspiration from autocratic Sukarno

One wonders if the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) even screens its young members or orientates them properly.

Muhd Shamin, a member of the Young Democrat (YD) - the youth wing of the SDP - recently wrote an article on the SDP's party website, invoking the wisdom of former Indonesian President Sukarno:

"“100 orang hanya bermimpi, tetapi berikanlah aku 10 pemuda maka akan kuguncang dunia!” (100 people only dream of, but give me 10 young people, and I will shake the world!)"

Didn't he know that President Sukarno used guided democracy to impose autocratic rule on Indonesians?

I wonder if Muhd Shamin is trying to imply that a democratic system doesn't require winning support of the masses, but just the support of a few.

SDP has always been a small fledgling party and in GE2006, it was regarded as the least significant political party in Singapore. This comes as no surprise since SDP espouses liberal ideas that are influenced from their ties with foreign organisations.

In SDP's Secretary-General Chee Soon Juan's own words "I occasionally receive foreign funding".

A Muslim that drinks?

Breaking the law with camera phone?

Vote wisely.

Say no to nonsensical politics. Say no to SDP.

Top 10 Questions to ask Chee at walkabouts

According to Singapore Democratic Party's (SDP) article, Chee Soon Juan met MCYS Minister Vivian Balakrishnan during a walkabout and Chee told him:

"I think there are some issues that the voters here would be concerned about, don't you think?"

and then Chee pointed out to the Minister that the issue would be the YOG.

Our team came up with these following top 10 questions you can ask Chee when you see him at walkabouts.

1) Why are you using your party machinery to raise funds for personal gain to repay your fine for an offence that you deliberately commited?

2) You and your party have very strong links with many foreign advocacy groups. Are you speaking for Singaporeans or imposing foreign ideas on us?

3) We see you and your party members selling your books. Where do the proceeds go? Do they go into your pocket?

4) In one of the past GE, you shouted at Goh Chok Tong regarding some accusations on him. Would you be doing it this time round to gain publicity?

5) What are you physically doing to help all those poor folks (pushing carts & begging) featured on your party videos? (Hey wait! Aren't those the same photos you use every time?)

6) What's your current job?

7) Heard your wife is from Taiwan. Has she gotten her citizenship? What are your views on the Government giving out so many citizenships and PRs?

8) On one hand you mentioned freedom of speech and fought so hard even to get jailed for espousing that, but on the other, your party bans your critics from posting comments on your party website and facebook. So should we believe you?

9) Will SDP survive beyond you and your sister?

10) Could you please tell me that SDP is not contesting this constituency, please?!

Chee Soon Juan lied to escape from questions from media

On the 28th of March 2010, Chee Soon Juan commented to the Shin Min Daily, rebutting the accusations by Mdm Loh Woon Lee Lina (otherwise known as Mrs Linda Chiam, wife of Mr Chiam See Tong) that Mr Chiam See Tong was ousted from the Singapore Democratic Party by Chee.

The article was then translated to English by The Straits Times on 29 March 2010.

Appearing cornered by Mrs Chiam, Chee Soon Juan "told the Chinese-language daily he did not want to take the issue further".

However, on 2 April 2010, the Straits Times published a forum letter written by Chee Soon Juan. He started the letter with "Mrs Chiam See Tong's comments in Monday's report... is regrettable". And then he continued to explain that "no one forced Chiam out".

What happened between the 3-4 days? Nobody knows.

Going back on his words, Chee Soon Juan went ahead to defend himself and stressed that Mr Chiam was wrong in that Mr Chiam "spoke at a Singapore Press Club and attacked his own party".

The forum letter was not posted on the SDP's website. This is the first time SDP is not posting its letter written to the press on its website.

Apparently, Chee Soon Juan had lied to the press, saying that he did not want to pursue the issue further, so as to escape from the questions that are posed to him by reporters.

This is yet another stark instance where the integrity of Chee Soon Juan is exposed.

Thinking back, do you believe him when he did the hunger strike? You shouldn't, because he drank glucose during the "hunger strike".

Vote wisely.

SDP Economic Forum 28 Mar 10-- Downright Disappointing

By Lee Wai Leong

SDP held its Economic Forum last Sunday at the former Allson Hotel.

I went with high hopes but left disappointed.

Their so-called proposals are flimsy and clearly not well-thought out, and they spent half the time taking digs at the PAP instead of elaborating on their proposals. Although the forum was meant to showcase SDP's alternative economics proposals, it degenerated to the usual criticisms of minister's salaries, calls for accountability for Temasek and GIC losses, lack of transparency in GIC and Temasek, barbs against the Lee family, etc.-- accompanied by the expected smirking and cheers from their regular attendees.

Sad.

Notwithstanding the above, what they presented would be demolished by any Economics 101 student. Shows they just don't have the requisite economics expertise within the party.

Sad.

Examples of the proposals:

Reduce URA/JTC rentals and lower the selling prices of HDB flats.

Minimum Wage

Scale back GLC's and MNC's

Provide more support to SME's

Allow workers to form independent trade unions


And the best one:

Pay 18 months of benefits on a sliding scale to ALL retrenched workers, although it was not clear who would foot the bill-- taxpayers or companies.

Why these proposals are not well-thought out
Simple logic tells us one cannot change one part of a system without upsetting the rest of it. So if the govt reduces URA/JTC rentals and HDB prices, what could possibly happen?

For rentals, either the tenants pocket the savings (ie they charge the sub-tenants the current rates and pocket the difference) or they pass it through. If the former, it won't really benefit the economy at large. If the latter, the rental market could collapse as businesses flock to cheap URA/JTC properties and desert commercial space. The rental index will crash overnight. Private landlords could then be driven into negative equity and foreclosures if they can't come up with cash flow.

Ditto lowering HDB prices. Either it creates a mad rush for new HDB flats (and for the chance to make a killing) or it depresses the prices of resale flats and likely drive resale flat owners into negative equity and foreclosures by banks.

The collapse in HDB prices will then spread to private property as buyers avoid condos and go for HDB.

Private property owners will then be sitting on negative equity and they will not be able to sell out. Market activity will be paralysed. Foreclosures may well follow and property prices will crash, hurting everyone.

Anyone who has done central banking would certainly understand the importance of price stability. One simply cannot administer price shocks to a system in equilibrium without causing massive repercussions. That's why every central bank in the world has as its mission to ensure price stability and economic growth with minimal inflation.

Did SDP ever think of that?

Like it or not, we are all stuck. Stuck with our mortgage, stuck with our valuations, stuck with our repayments.

If a market crash happens and people lose their homes thru foreclosures and others sink into negative equity due to lowered valuations, they have no choice but to accept it. But if the govt causes a spectacular property devaluation by selling new HDB flats at bargain basement prices, that govt is not going to last too long in power.

Much as we want, we can't wind back the clock and sell flats at 1980's prices any more.

Ditto reducing reliance on MNC's, scaling back GLC's, dismantling Temasek and nurturing SME's by taking away tax incentives from MNC's and using it to help SME's.

These are very laudable goals but they have massive repercussions and will cause much unemployment, significant adjustments and extensive structural changes before the goal can be achieved.

I estimate it'll take more than two terms of govt to even achieve half of these goals-- and that's assuming the disgruntled property owners and workers who are displaced as part of these sweeping changes do not vote the govt out before the grand plan can be carried out.

Did SDP think of that?

Minimum wage seems very popular among "opposition" parties these days, although I don't see how it can solve our problems (which is either (i) that Singaporean's wages, in real terms, are slipping or (ii) productivity in Singapore is decreasing).

For (i), the minimum wage applies only to the bottom rung of workers, so it really doesn't help the executives or managers. It won't arrest our continued slide in real wages, when compared to other countries.

For (ii), it's true that minimum wage may force bosses to find ways to increase efficiency and productivity. However, SDP presented stats to show Singaporeans work the longest hours among 12 countries surveyed by ILO. So the logical conclusion is that minimum wage will likely cause bosses to get staff to work longer hours or increase their job scope.

In other words, we could be back to square 1.

Did SDP think of that?

I don't think SDP or other parties really understand the rationale behind minimum wage. They were implemented by advanced countries not to tackle productivity problems, but because of workers' rights.

They came about because unions wanted to make sure their workers got a good deal.

Thus minimum wage is always implemented with limits on the no of working hours per week.

Without proposing such limits here, implementing minimum wage is useless.

But most importantly, don't be misled-- MW is to improve workers' welfare, it's not a productivity tool first and foremost.

Last-- some observations on the SDP leadership.

After 20 years, Dr Chee is still charismatic as ever, still as eloquent, still as much fire in the belly.

The same cannot be said of his team.

Mohd Jufrie looks so tired, as does Gandhari.

John Tan looks so mild-mannered.

Sylvester Lim looks so out of his depth. No wonder, the guy is not even 30.

But what is truly amazing about this party is their fighting spirit. Despite the crippling lawsuits, they have not given up.

That's the most important takeaway from this afternoon.

Source: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=104454799593506&id=685766564

Mrs Chiam: Chee Soon Juan ousted Chiam See Tong from SDP

This article appeared first on Lianhe Zaobao on Sunday (28 March 2010) and then got translated into English on Straits Times on Monday (29 March 2010). The article titled "Chiam's SDP exit: Wife speaks up" is the first time Mrs Chiam is speaking on the issue and is revealing on the integrity of Chee Soon Juan. The integrity that of a liar and an opportunist.

A LONG-STANDING spat between Potong Pasir MP Chiam See Tong and former protege Chee Soon Juan has resurfaced, with Mr Chiam's wife and Dr Chee engaged in a fresh exchange of views.

The row centres on Dr Chee's role in Mr Chiam's dismissal as secretary-general of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) in 1993 and his eventual exit from the party in 1996.

In an interview with the Chinese-language daily Lianhe Zaobao published yesterday, Mrs Lina Chiam dismissed comments that Dr Chee made in an earlier interview with the same newspaper that he had tried to persuade Mr Chiam to stay on.

She instead accused Dr Chee, who succeeded Mr Chiam as SDP chief, of ousting her husband from the party he founded in 1980.

Mrs Chiam - who told the newspaper she was speaking with her husband's knowledge and authority - said that despite the SDP central executive committee's initial attempts in 1993 to make Mr Chiam stay, it held a disciplinary hearing in August that year, where it decided to expel him.

She said: "If he (Dr Chee) really wanted to keep Mr Chiam, he could have politely declined the position of secretary-general. Or when the central executive was taking a vote on whether to take disciplinary action against Chiam, he could have opposed the dismissal."

She noted that Dr Chee wrote to the Speaker of Parliament to tell him of Mr Chiam's ouster, and asked for any further necessary action to be taken.

The Constitution says that an MP who loses membership of the party he represented in a general election automatically loses his seat in Parliament.

Mr Chiam was elected as Potong Pasir MP in 1984 on the SDP ticket. He contested his expulsion from the SDP in court and left the party only in 1996 for the Singapore's People Party.

Mrs Chiam said: "The People's Action Party tried all means to defeat my husband, but failed after several general elections. But the SDP achieved it effortlessly with one stroke of the pen and did the PAP a great service."

Mr Chiam asked her to clarify the matter with Lianhe Zaobao after it interviewed Dr Chee, she said, adding that she wanted to set the record straight: "For the sake of my husband and to let the younger generation understand 'Uncle Chiam', I have to step forward to clarify matters. He did not turn his back on the SDP. When we were forced to leave, our hearts were filled with anguish."

Dr Chee told Lianhe Zaobao in his interview that he tried to persuade Mr Chiam - who had differences with the central executive in May 1993 - not to resign. He said he went to Mr Chiam's office several times to withdraw his resignation, "and told him he was still regarded as our leader".

Yesterday, Dr Chee reiterated that neither he, nor anyone else, forced Mr Chiam out. He told Shin Min Daily News that the SDP spent one month persuading Mr Chiam to change his mind: "But Chiam insisted that he would return to the SDP as its secretary-general only if the SDP central executive committee gave him the maximum power to appoint or remove any central executive or party member."

He also told the Chinese-language daily he did not want to take the issue further.

SDP exploiting underage teens

If Chee Soon Juan were to be believed, the Young Democrats is indeed seeing some new faces, faces that are perhaps too young.

The legal age to be a member of any political parties in Singapore is 21. These chaps (see photo below) are aged 15-16, and still studying secondary school. Uniformed students should not be involved with politics. But yet, as shown in the photo, they participated in the Singapore Democratic Party 30th Anniversary dinner. These chaps are Kenneth Lin, Sebastian Puay and Darren Choy.

The most prominent underage YD sympathiser is Kenneth Lin (16 years old). Studying in St Andrew's Secondary School, this secondary 4 student has been SDP's latest new toy (after Alex Tan) in the social media front. Recently, he created a Facebook group to get Singaporeans to sign a petition demanding Lee Kuan Yew to apologise. A brief glance on the list of petitioners showed that a huge majority of them are fake.

A new face is Sebastian Puay Tong Kehl. Born in 1993, he is still currently studying in Maris Stella High School.

Last but not least, Darren Choy, also a student of the Maris Stella High School.

Singapore Democratic Party's dirty tactics of using teens as proxies should not be condoned.

Fighting, by Urging Others to Fight Back....

Bryan Ti

Rather chivalrously, SDP states that it will fight for the Bt Panjang residents.

It then reminds us that the residents have some form of economic power that they must exercise to fight back.

Besides all the talk and sending out letters, one wonders whether SDP's way of fighting for the residents is simply to urge them to fight back (while it sniggers from the side-lines).

Otherwise, SDP could also be planning to carry out yet another round of petition signing, which incidentally got nowhere the last time round. Of course, I am sure it will also NOT fail to seize the opportunity to sell more of its newsletters as a form of side-income.

Incidentally, perhaps this fight it now threatens (and is hopefully legal) will also be considered part of the series of activities to joyfully celebrate its 30th Anniversary. This is in addition to the gala dinner and coming public forum it is organising.

(By the way, I am also wonder whether the letter sent to Mr Teo Ho Pin really had a photo of a rather jovial looking John Tan on it. If so, I am sure Mr Teo would be fuming at the deliberate snigger on John's face that he seems rather adept at making.)