Europe MPs 'gagged' by Singapore

last SG · 2007-04-16T04:44:04+00:00

I'm sure if the criminals could find a tangible way to tax you for the amount of oxygen you inhale, they'd bloody well do it too...

walesa SG

You've got to understand there're people in this part of the world raised on a diet of hope - specifically, futile hope spurned by criminals as infallible gospels... Laughing

Gazelle SG

Attracting FDI to Singapore is probably one of the toughest job, especially if you consider the lack of domestic market size and natural resources. And I would say the Singapore government has done a great job in that aspect.

I am not sure what are you expecting from these foreign companies. Iron rice bowl? European working hours? American golden handshake?

Arapahoe SG

while I agreed that FDI are importants but understandbly FDI is not the only tool to Economics development. We know that never to put all the egg in one basket so what are the other treatments? gov role isn't all about FDI how about creating a domestics economy? We have very little and very poor result

Arapahoe SG

I don't mean to be rude but, Please i almost fell off the chair when i read your comment......Federalist vs republic autonomy. The EU can't even establish a proper moral authority on the balken.....the political process still have some time to take shape.

Gazelle SG

I am not sure what you mean by putting in one basket because FDI in singapore are very extremely divesified and it has serving us well.

In order for create a domestic economy, you must first create job, and to create job, you need FDI, and to attract FDI, you need human resources and infrastructure, and you need a good government development them.

nismoS132 SG

while the EU economy and political scene is nothing to shout about, their respect for liberty, fellow human being and the environment is much greater than the US. do understand that the EU has only been in existence for around 50 years, and the past few decades have been mired in nothing but turmoil. considering all their troubles, they have come very far.

how many countires in the world do you know where gasoline engine powered vehicles are banned from driving in the streets during peak hours?

walesa SG

Would you then like to explain how an organisation "without a proper moral authority" is able to scrutinise various aspects of a potential member state so stringently and effectively? And how uncanny it is that all EU member states, prior to its admission, needs to adhere to certain guidelines with regard to numerous issues - ranging from a country's free-trade policies to human rights records - prior to their admission into the European community?

I suppose the fact that Czech Republic and Turkey being prepared to subject themselves to such scrutiny and potential loss of certain sovereign rights just says something about the significance of how much benefit being a EU member would yield that renders such efforts worthwhile, even at the expense of losing some sovereign rights.

While the EU is obviously not perfect (just as nothing is), I think what the EU has achieved on its own does say a lot about the institution as a whole. Compared to ASEAN (which is effectively a loose association of a group of suspect regimes), the EU has obviously proved itself to be lightyears ahead in terms of advancing the cause of humanity and civilisation at large...

Arapahoe SG

I am not denying the important impact of FDI for Singapore and its divesifying...and its multiplying effect bla bla bla, but FDI alone apparently is not enough to get Singapore out of a Small GDP. The recent argument made by LKY was the siting of small GDP. Singapore have been promoting FDI since 70's and with the increase high cost and competitive china, india needless to say the rate of FDI inflow into Singapore are diminishing. It has its peak and its positive impact.

What i saw was a lack of. A domestics economy that generate local solution for local needs. And by that I am not referring to hawker food center.
These are the key to retaining your growth domestically in the longer term. We may have a small base but it is an area that is I believe untap yet.

So the bottom line is that if gov reduce crowding out effect from the private sector and invest in domestics solution we could open a new source for our domestics economy.

Fingolfin_Noldor SG

You are missing the point. The point is that all these companies will bring us is tax revenue and some finite no. of jobs but by no means will they contribute to raising the standards of living of the people. Only a strong domestic economy will raise the standards of living as it will avail to the people a wider spectrum of jobs and allow people to progress up the economic ladder. And yes, we shouldn't expect anything from the foreign companies because of this. We should not expect them to help people develop themselves or anything. To them, this country is a mere hotel for them to stay for the time being until the hotel fees rise to a level too expensive for them to stay.

And ultimately, if we are going play a race in FDI we will loose in the long run. This is not a long run feasible problem and as usual the Govt is probably throw money at it again when we reach some plateau and that is hardly a sound economic decision, not least it is an efficient use of resources.

AndrewPKYap SG

Untapped or destroyed in favour of the GLCs and crony organisations?

Let's take taxi drivers for example. They were making good money as micro entrepreneurs until you know who did you know what (raise their road tax to more than $7000)

These are the people that knows how to "reward" themselves million dollar salaries but begrudge the taxi drivers their living and make them coolies.

Resulting in what? Long wait for taxis as compared to Bangkok, KL and some say Batam.

AndrewPKYap SG

and the best part? The taxi drivers’ more than $7000 road tax goes towards their million dollars pay and losses in “SHIN CORPS”.

Arapahoe SG

ai yeah don't pull shin corp into the picture lah....

Atobe SG

Would you dare to defend your rights to be involve in Politics when the Ruling Party make it their exclusive territory, and that your involvement is only a privilege that will be accorded to you only when you gain their approval ?

Is CSJ "sticking it up the ass of Singapore" for what he has done, or is it simply your simple submission to a one sided propaganda ?

What is the difference between the foreigners invited by the LKY School of Public Policy in its Distinguished Speakers Series, or those invited to the forums organised by the Insitute of Stragegic Studies, and the forum that is currently organised by the SDP ?

Why are foreigners allowed to speak only at such approved forums that give publicity and international exposure to the Ruling Party, and that any such international recognition should be starved off from the Other Political Parties ?

The Ruling Party attitude is no difference from the attitude of the Communist Parties of Vietnam and People's Republic of China towards any attempt by any individuals to involve themselves in National Politics.

to provoke a situation where the idiot powers will use their usual ham-fisted reactionary nonsense.. which pissed off them foreigners.. they'd be already primed by CSJ and will have a bad impression of Singaporeans as a whole, not just the accused powers...

they have the influence to spread this around.. saying "Singaporeans are not worth it" and they probably would.. again somehow, i think CSJ would be happy to goad them into doing so..

You need not worry a bit about this, as LKY had stemmed the brunt of the worst that the European Libertarians had thrown at him, when he snubbed the European Socialist Democrats in the early 1970s over his same hardline attitude towards the Singaporean in Operation Cold Store; and pulled Singapore's membership from the European Socialist Democrat movement.

Singapore survived all the supposed economic and political boycotts, and LKY still managed to get himself a seat on the Board of Advisors with Mercedes Benz, as well as Airbus Corporation (stand to be corrected on this one).

In this Globalised World, Singapore is one of the lynchpins amongst the major corporate players, and as long as Singapore is able to offer itself as a viable economic place, politics are normally thrown out of the window.

then there's CSJ himself... he's causing more problems for himself and trying to be a "martyr" but he's just an attention whore

all-in-all, what was the point of the whole situation except a destructive publicity stunt? much like most of his bloody career...

CSJ is probably doing us a favor to help loosen the dead bolts that have rusted into the woodwork, and is helping to loosen the tight political rules that have made politics the exclusive territory of only those annointed and accepted by the Ruling Party.

Is Singapore Politics the exclusive domain of a SINGLE Party much like that of Communist Vietnam and China, or the Military Dictatorship of Myanmar ?

Is it not a shame that with all the political instability that Indonesia is facing, these European Parliamentarians were given the opportunity to speak their two-cents worth in an Indonesian Forum, while FIRST WOLRD Singapore is afraid to allow its Citizens to hear some enlightened political views from some Members of Parliament from another FIRST WORLD ?

btw, i'm bitter about him causing the opposition to be set back by a few decades with his debacle of ousting his mentor... maybe i'm biased against him, but can you actually blame anyone for hating him?

Where on earth did you get this piece of information from ?
Gossip or false propaganda promoted by the supporters of the Ruling Party ?

It is sad an educated person will hold personal view towards another person that is skewed from information that is erroneous and baseless gossip.

The following information is easily obtained from Wikipedia, and members of the SDP could have easily protested or even updated any information if it was incorrect.

Similarly, it would have been in Chiam See Tong's interest to correct the following, if any part was in serious error and that would have validated your sympathy towards Chiam for the supposed back-stabbing by Chee.

In 1993, three months after joining the SDP, Chee was accused of using his research funds to send his wifes PhD dissertation to the US. Dr Chee had asserted, and still does, that this was not the case as his wife was an employee in the same department at NUS at that time and was working with him, sharing and collaborating in their research, and that the funds were legitimately used. The NUS decided to sack Chee.[3]

Chee claimed this was a political vendetta plotted by the ruling party as his supervisor Mr S.R. Vasoo was a PAP MP.[citation needed] The PAP had, however, denied the accusation and insisted that the offence was real.

Chiam wanted to censure Chee but the former was not supported by the Central Executive Committee and they voted to oust him as general secretary and to replace him with Chee. Supporters of Chiam left the party and formed the Singapore People's Party in 1994, which Chiam took over from Sin Kek Tong as the secretary-general in the 1997 general election.

The SDP decided to strip Chiam See Tong's membership after the latter had gone to the Singapore Press Club and denounced the SDP and the Central Executive Committee.[4] Had he lost his membership, under the law, he would also have to lose his seat in parliament. The courts ruled that his dismissal was unfair and that he should be allowed to remain as a member of the SDP.

How could his dismissal be seen to be unfair, when the general SDP membership approved the decision of the Central Executive Committee to dismiss Chiam ?

Is it any surprise that the Singapore Judiciary should make a decision in favor of Chiam, when the process of his dismissal was recorded to be correctly executed and submitted to the Registrar of Societies ?

Should we wonder who would benefit in stoking up the rumor mill to pin the blame for Chiam's removal on CSJ ?

This rumor fits CSJ personna that was already seen to be a "party spoiler", and would have served the purpose of neutralising him as a direct threat to a smooth LHL future accenscion to the throne.

Unfortunately for the Ruling Party, CSJ's mercurial arrival spoilt the meticulous plans that were already in motion to neutralise all political threats from internal dissenters(old guards), and external threats from the likes of JBJ, Tang Liang Hong, Francis Seow - all of whom would have given LHL's rule a hard time.

It is so easy to pin it on CSJ, and the State Controlled Publicity Team has been working overtime to make CSJ a real goof, which somehow is not seen by others looking at him without tinted glasses.

Arapahoe SG

I agreed that EU do have a more liberal policy, and it does prescribe to a certain EU standard. Moral authority has a historical connection, one must also understand EU are homogeneous in historical (both positive/negative) aspect that is to say (they die together in the plauge, they kill one another in WAR, they have revolution, bla bla ....renaissance all the good stuff!) With that the moral authority are established within the western hemisphere.

Take it out of context we have to conclude its failure to halt the ethnic cleansing policy in the Balkan, the recent disappointing decision of the Hague decision on the Serb. I am not sure how one could equate that and try to insert the western moral authority especially on human right effectively on the Balkan. Try convincing the Arab Muslim it is not a western hypocrisy at play, and they will demonstrate how they chop of the heads of infidel inkind and tell us muslim is a peace and loving faith. At the end of the day it is Machiavelli politics at best. We still have a long way to go.

So I would not go as far as to say that all to follow that was my fall off the chair line. Hope no offence taken.

walesa SG

Have you any idea what you're talking about? Referring to your initial post, are you actually talking about the European Union(the collective assembly of 27 member states) as an institution or are you talking about Europe as an entity? I was addressing the former and not the latter - hence, I haven't got a clue how the Balkans fall within the premise of the EU.

For the record, the court you're talking about (ie.the one based in The Hague, Netherlands) is the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICJ has nothing whatsoever to do with the EU.

The EU's equivalent would be the European Court of Justice(ECJ) based in Luxembourg which has a binding influence in terms of ratifying any judicial decisions undertaken by a court in any of its member countries. While the ECJ forms an integral part of the EU, any decision(s) made by any body(ie.European Commission, ECJ, European Council, etc) within the EU has no effect on any states who are not members of the EU.

Addressing your point : it's absolutely ridiculous to suggest the EU could have done anything - legitimately - to halt the ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia (as it was known then) as Yugoslavia wasn't a member of the EU. This, by extension, renders any sovereign affairs concerning Yugoslavia to be beyond the jurisdiction of the EU. Putting it in simpler terms : you can't expect KFC to have any sort of authority to enforce policies on the way McDonald's operates, do you? In essence, this should have been a matter handled by the UN's Security Council and/or General Assembly.

Please get your facts right...

Arapahoe SG

Originally posted by walesa:

Have you any idea what you're talking about? Referring to your initial post, are you actually talking about the [b]European Union(the collective assembly of 27 member states) as an institution or are you talking about Europe as an entity? I was addressing the former and not the latter - hence, I haven't got a clue how the Balkans fall within the premise of the EU.

For the record, the court you're talking about (ie.the one based in The Hague, Netherlands) is the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICJ has nothing whatsoever to do with the EU.

The EU's equivalent would be the European Court of Justice(ECJ) based in Luxembourg which has a binding influence in terms of ratifying any judicial decisions undertaken by a court in any of its member countries. While the ECJ forms an integral part of the EU, any decision(s) made by any body(ie.European Commission, ECJ, European Council, etc) within the EU has no effect on any states who are not members of the EU.

Addressing your point : it's absolutely ridiculous to suggest the EU could have done anything - legitimately - to halt the ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia (as it was known then) as Yugoslavia wasn't a member of the EU. This, by extension, renders any sovereign affairs concerning Yugoslavia to be beyond the jurisdiction of the EU. Putting it in simpler terms : you can't expect KFC to have any sort of authority to enforce policies on the way McDonald's operates, do you? In essence, this should have been a matter handled by the UN's Security Council and/or General Assembly.

Please get your facts right...[/b]

Coquitlam SG

Even CNN covered it...I sure agree with them

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/04/13/singapore.speakers.reut/index.html

SINGAPORE (Reuters) -- Singapore has banned seven foreigners, including three members of the European Parliament, from speaking at an opposition party debate on Friday on a big pay hike for ministers and civil servants.

The government said this week that ministers and senior civil servants would enjoy a 60 percent pay increase, giving them an average salary of S$1.9 million ($1.25 million).

The prime minister's pay is set to jump to S$3.1 million -- five times what the president of the United States earns.

The announcement has drawn widespread criticism from ordinary Singaporeans given the country's widening income gap and the fact the city-state's ministers were already among the highest-paid in the world.

The police told the Singapore Democratic Party it could not hold a public forum on Friday to discuss the increases, and the immigration authority rejected applications for professional visit passes for the seven foreigners the SDP invited to speak.

"Singapore's politics are reserved for Singaporeans. As visitors to our country, foreigners should not abuse their privilege by interfering in our domestic politics," the Ministry of Home Affairs said in a statement issued on its Web site late on Thursday.

"Foreigners who abuse the privileges that Singapore accords to guests and visitors, and meddle in Singapore's domestic politics, are not welcome here," the Ministry said.

The barred speakers include European parliament members Graham Watson of the United Kingdom, Anders Samuelsen of Denmark, and Lydie Polfer of Luxembourg, a former deputy prime minister of that country.

Under Singapore's Public Entertainments and Meetings Act, public speaking is generally prohibited unless it has been licensed by the government.

Singaporeans who wish to speak indoors do not need to be licensed, but forums featuring foreign speakers require a permit, the ministry said.

Chee Siok Chin, sister of party leader Chee Soon Juan and a senior party member herself, said the SDP would go ahead with the forum with local speakers.

"You have this autocratic government coming down and showing utter disrespect for our international peers. I'm ashamed," she said on Friday.

She said the seven foreigners barred from speaking at the forum are currently in Singapore.

According to the SDP Web site, Chee Soon Juan plans to speak at the forum and rebut remarks made by Lee Kuan Yew, modern Singapore's first prime minister, about the ministers' pay hike.

Lee said earlier this week that Singapore should pay ministers competitive wages because the city-state needs an "extraordinary government with extraordinary government officers".

Copyright 2007 Reuters. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Gazelle SG

I disagree, FDI will always add value to our economy and improve the standard of living in this country. Plus it is our government's duty to ensure that the type of FDI we attract are of high value added and knowledge based industry

Arapahoe SG

Originally posted by walesa:

Have you any idea what you're talking about? Referring to your initial post, are you actually talking about the [b]European Union(the collective assembly of 27 member states) as an institution or are you talking about Europe as an entity? I was addressing the former and not the latter - hence, I haven't got a clue how the Balkans fall within the premise of the EU.

You are right it could have hands off it rush to recognized croatia and there after the spint that could not be stop. Perharps when the institution does not have a political will it should not get involved just sit down.

After frantic negotiations among postcommunist republic leaders failed to find a new formula to preserve a version of Yugoslavia, Croatia and Slovenia seceded on June 25, 1991. The European Community, now the European Union (EU), recognized Croatia in January 1992,

For the record, the court you're talking about (ie.the one based in The Hague, Netherlands) is the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICJ has nothing whatsoever to do with the EU.

The EU's equivalent would be the European Court of Justice(ECJ) based in Luxembourg which has a binding influence in terms of ratifying any judicial decisions undertaken by a court in any of its member countries. While the ECJ forms an integral part of the EU, any decision(s) made by any body(ie.European Commission, ECJ, European Council, etc) within the EU has no effect on any states who are not members of the EU.

i have already said comes from the common historical value within the region you cannot discount that or else we will won't be call SE Asian. or Singaporean.

Addressing your point : it's absolutely ridiculous to suggest the EU could have done anything - legitimately - to halt the ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia (as it was known then) as Yugoslavia wasn't a member of the EU. This, by extension, renders any sovereign affairs concerning Yugoslavia to be beyond the jurisdiction of the EU. Putting it in simpler terms : you can't expect KFC to have any sort of authority to enforce policies on the way McDonald's operates, do you? In essence, this should have been a matter handled by the UN's Security Council and/or General Assembly.

Please get your facts right...[/b]

So where is the moral authority of Recognizing legitimately 1 ethnic in a multi ethnic groups and expect the other half to just sit by do nothing. Try that to Singapore. So as mention it was not that I do not agreed that EU have better HR record but not necessary to follow.

walesa SG

Would you like to tell me where you obtained any information to suggest any member states of the EU that is/are seceded from the former Yugoslavia had actually been a member of the EU during the Balkan conflict?

For the record, the list of the 27 members states of the EU can be found here : http://europa.eu/abc/european_countries/index_en.htm - nowhere is it indicated Croatia is a member (not even today) and Slovenia had only become a part of the EU in 2004. So how is it humanly possible for the EU to enforce any order - moral or not - over the actions of states who do not come under their jurisdiction?

You aren't telling me if you were to commit murder in China, you're liable to face a trial in the US, are you? In strictly legal terms, there's a principle known as "sovereign immunity"(there could be slight variations to this term depending on the countries invoking it) which is widely adopted by various courts from time to time that basically halts any judicial decisions stemming from other countries from being enforced in the country invoking that clause.

The truth of the matter is that the EU is exclusive in its own right stems primarily from the fact that it essentially comprises of a "supranational government" for which all member states of the EU need to conform and comply with certain standards on various policies - from having an acceptable degree of free trade to fulfilling obligations on the labour/human rights front. Putting it simply, if an EU citizen should feel that his rights have been curtailed(ie.for a case where someone thinks he's been unfairly dismissed from his job) and have failed to adequately redress his issue in the courts of his homeland, he can very well take this case to the EU. Should the EU rule in his favour, then the initial verdict of the courts in his homeland would then be overturned. Such proceedings are only possible as a result of the EU member states signing their respective treaties with the EU that recognises and permits the EU to have a say in these matters, even at the expense of compromising a nation's sovereign rights.

Applying that in the ASEAN context, it's literally comparing heaven and hell. ASEAN is effectively a loose, albeit formal, association of nations in the SE Asia region which exercises no jurisdiction over anything! At the end of the day, all matters are decided by the judicial courts of its respective member states - ASEAN, unlike the EU, does not have any right, authority or capacity to enforce anything on its member states. While they have a series of treaties (think FTA's with the US, etc) that seek to bolster the collective interests of its member states as a whole, the purpose of ASEAN does not come anywhere remotely close to serving the interests of the region as a whole nor its citizenry in particular as compared to the EU.

I do not think there's an alliance anywhere on this planet that has come anywhere close to rivalling the EU at present, nevermind surpass it. Obviously, the tangible benefits an institution like the EU offers is there for all to see - regardless of the industrial output, GDP, labour/human rights standards you're talking about, they're still lightyears ahead of any other alliance anywhere else on this planet.

« Previous Page Next Page »