Letter from Worker's Party

Viper52 SG

An Open Letter from Ms Sylvia Lim, Chairman of the Workers Party, to all Singaporeans.

Read the letter, and ask yourselves, are Singapore's opposition members not "credible", or is it because the government controlled media who has a monopoly on news here, say they are not?

------------------------------------

http://www.wp.org.sg/news/hammer_online/06_The%20WP_Romance_Reality_Revival.htm

The Workers' Party: Romance, Reality, Revival?

By Sylvia Lim

Sylvia Lim, 38, law lecturer, former Police Inspector and lawyer, is the Chairman of the Workers' Party.

In late June 2003, I received an email from a school student. He said:

"I am secondary four student currently.Though I am still below the legal age to vote, I guess people of my age group would [be] the target group for votes in the near future.

[O]ne thing I realise about people of my age group is that they have the impression that PAP = Government and Opposition Party = Anti-Government. I believe that each individual party should be known as it is. But currently, any other parties other then the PAP is known as the opposition party. Not many people of my age know what constitutes "opposition party". They know nothing about the WP or SDP or any other party.

If they do not know the opposition party now, I don' think they will in the future. I believe that being known as WP and not the Opposition Party is the first step to reach out to people. This will help to eliminate hopefully the feeling that any other party other than the PAP is anti-government.

These are just some of my views and I hope they can be of some help to you."

On June 1, 2003, the Workers' Party cadres voted for a "mega" Party renewal at our biennial Conference of Organisers. Eight out of the 14 Central Council members were not even Party members at the time of the previous Conference in May 2001. Since the announcement of those results in the press, we have had renewed interest from Singaporeans including those overseas. While I believe the 2003 Conference will historically be seen as a watershed for the Party, we have still a long road ahead. We, as a Party, must earn the people's trust as an organisation of committed Singaporeans who are not anti-government but have our own brand of constructive politics, as so well-advised by the student above. However, we have yet to reach the critical mass which is necessary for us to be a significant force in advancing the welfare of Singaporeans.

Singapore claims to be first world, but, in the field of politics, it does not seem to be so. The ruling People's Action Party, the Opposition Parties and the People have all played a part in creating this state of affairs. If we are to mature politically, we must remake ourselves.

WP has since 1957 not flinched from the challenge of opposition politics in Singapore. In our next phase, it makes sense for us to concentrate on building our organisational capabilities and not rely on individual heroes. To this end, there are 3 key areas we would want to enhance:

First, our intellectual capability and resource pool so as to provide constructive, timely and relevant input on public policy (in short, brainpower);

Second, our work on the ground, so as to convince Singaporeans of our sincerity and to canvass their support ahead of the next General Election (in short, manpower);

Third, our pool of funds, so that we can acquire resources and expertise to broaden our public outreach (in short, money).

Brainpower

Our world has become very complex, and the continued economic and political survival of Singapore is no longer the "napshot" it was 20 years ago. The PAP government is now facing unprecedented challenges in an uncertain world and seems to be dependent on the USA to stimulate our economy and supplement our national defence.

The country needs to have input from varied sources in moving the country forward, and even the PAP admits this by having many committees of "outsiders" debating the remaking of everything in Singapore (except remaking the PAP, which Prime Minister Goh says is not necessary).

Any government, however apparently benign, must be effectively checked. The omnipresence of the PAP government in business and the media has already weakened the nation in its capacity for independent thought. This needs to be urgently corrected by getting experienced and/or qualified Singaporeans to participate in politics in opposition parties.

We are often asked questions like: "How will voting for the opposition help the country to solve problems?" Well, two answers: First, it will pressurise the government to work harder and keep its promises / obligations to the people, and secondly, with adequate brainpower, we can consistently go into the details and offer alternative policies across many areas of public policy.

I recently had an informal chat with some Nominated MPs, and shared with them that WP is not so much concerned with making political capital per se from the PAP's mistakes, but with the larger question of how to solve the pressing problems facing Singapore.

In order to be able to constructively question the PAP, we need to address challenges such as:

Information Access. Due to official information often being classified, we need alternative sources of information and people who know how to search for it. Unlike PAP ministers, we are unable to get civil servants to spend sleepless nights providing us with data and analyses within a short turn-around time. We do all the work ourselves from scratch through copious reading of materials, searching web-sites and consulting. If resources improve, we could have dedicated teams looking into specific areas.

Analyses and Positions. Each of us is limited by our own knowledge and life experiences, and will not individually have the necessary multi-disciplinary knowledge or experience to propose solutions from a macro-perspective. Teamwork is essential for this.

Manpower

In order that we may reach our potential voters in preparation for the next General Election and beyond, here are some realities.

A Group Representation Constituency currently consists of about 120,000 voters. Assuming each household has between 2 to 4 voters, this could easily work out to between 30,000 to 60,000 households. Would anyone like to place bets as to whether the PAP will further expand the GRCs by amending the Constitution to allow for 10, 20 member GRCs at the next General Election?

The PAP has successfully entrenched its grassroots mechanisms through the formation of Residents' Committees and the use of the People's Association e.g. through Mayors and the Community Development Councils. You only need to look around you in your neighbourhood, at your workplace, or among your friends to suss out people with PAP connections. Breaking through these mechanisms to win the people's votes is possible, provided that we have a team of people with the "can-do" spirit.

Moreover, only the "relevant few" would know how the electoral boundaries will be re-drawn ahead of the public announcement. At the last Election in Nov 2001, the report of the Electoral Boundaries Committee was released ONE DAY before Parliament was dissolved and the election called. In a Parliamentary sitting in May 2002, Minister Wong Kan Seng told the House that the PAP would "try not to do it again". Note that it was not phrased as a promise! Hence, working with the real possibility of a sudden re-drawing of boundaries, we will need people to work with us on large areas.

Viper52 SG

Funding

People sometimes ask how much we are paid by the Party and are then shocked that we are doing work voluntarily. Our Party is not rich, unlike the ruling PAP which has vast funds. As such, the challenge to produce quality work remains since most of us have to work full-time at other jobs. We need funds!

It is perfectly legal to donate to opposition parties, and we do not have any duty to report to the authorities who our donors are, unless you give us a sum of $10,000 or more in one financial year.

Political parties are required under the Political Donations Act to return anonymous donations if the total received by the Party from all anonymous sources in one financial year adds up to $5,000 or more. Hence, anonymous donations while appreciated may have to be surrendered to the Registrar of Political Donations; trust us, we have had to surrender donations in this way before!

Therefore, if you are a Singaporean and can afford to support us in this way, take that step of making a donation! No amount is too small to show your support and encouragement.

Why bother?

Is it worthwhile to join or support the Workers' Party, with no guarantee of electoral victory or material advancement? The following extract from an editorial in an Indian newspaper was passed to me by a Singaporean. Although commenting on India, it bears consideration in the local context:

"The long reign of popular favourites, without any significant opposition, is probably the main cause for the collapse of independent thinking (in this country). But a healthy democracy require[s] an Opposition that thinks differently and does not just want more of the same, a group of vigorously thinking citizens which aims at the general welfare, an Opposition that appeals to reason.... [S]uch an Opposition, even if it did not succeed in ousting the ruling party, might yet control and humanise it."

Do consider whether you can spare some time and effort to join us or assist us. Everyone, and every little effort, counts.

Atobe SG

It is ridiculous that the Government should weaken the Opposition Parties financially, by passing a Law (Political Donations Act) that prevent ANONYMOUS DONATIONS of more then $10,000 within any ONE Financial Year - whether it is a singular or collective donation of $10,000.

This shows the insecurity of the Ruling Party (not the Government) that overwhelming support for the Opposition Parties exist, and that recriminatory actions can be taken out against KNOWN DONORS - especially Corporate Donors - who provide large financial support to the Opposition.

When this act was passed, there was the fear of Foreign Governments providing financial support via anonymous contributions through local individuals.

This point is practically useless to be concerned with, as Opposition Party Members (including SM LKY) have been paid handsomely by Foreign Institutions to appear in overseas lectures from time to time, and some of these Foreign Institutions are supported by Foreign Governments.

Can the Government plug this 'backdoor funding' when it has also encouraged Singaporeans to 'spread their wings overseas' ?

If the Government cannot prevent Opposition Party members from overseas earnings, then this legislation is clearly aimed at the Freedom of Singaporeans to provide DISCREET and ANONYMOUS popular support to the Opposition Parties.

:
Why bother?

Is it worthwhile to join or support the Workers' Party, with no guarantee of electoral victory or material advancement? The following extract from an editorial in an Indian newspaper was passed to me by a Singaporean. Although commenting on India, it bears consideration in the local context:

"The long reign of popular favourites, without any significant opposition, is probably the main cause for the collapse of independent thinking (in this country). But a healthy democracy require[s] an Opposition that thinks differently and does not just want more of the same, a group of vigorously thinking citizens which aims at the general welfare, an Opposition that appeals to reason.... [S]uch an Opposition, even if it did not succeed in ousting the ruling party, might yet control and humanise it."

Do consider whether you can spare some time and effort to join us or assist us. Everyone, and every little effort, counts.

In each of our own small way, we can support the Opposition with research and information.

Those who are reluctant to commit full time - due to extraneous circumstances : financial, career, political security - can do so anonymously with well researched works and information.

Between 1996 to 2000, the various debacles experienced by the SDP Secretary-General (CSJ) - despite his brave (although seemingly foolish) efforts in confronting the Government - was due to the lack of researched information, and expert manpower to vet the data and information prior to facing the public debate with Government Ministers.

The most memorable debate was between the SDP Secretary-General with the then Minister of Trade and Industry, George Yeo.

With the vast resources of Official Statistics classified as SECRET, and an army of Civil Servant Statisticians and Researchers, the Government has the easy ability to demolish the SDP Secretary-General's public pronounced positions:

that the Cost of Living in Singapore has affected the Lower Income Groups,

that the Present Education Policies have resulted in a High Psychiatric Casualty Rate amongst the students even at Primary Levels,

that the economy is being weakly structured around MNCs capitalising on Government Policies that favor them and who will speedily pull out when alternative centres are proven to be more favorable, when the Government should nurture local enterprises.

Although the Government had scored major publicity in demolishing the SDP Secretary-General, and gained political mileage by discreditting him publicly, yet these assertions from the SDP Secretary-General have been proven correct as events in recent times have borne itself out.

The Government had quietly addressed these issues:

the Lower Income Group, especially those in the One-Room HDB flats were given extra handouts - (abhorred by the Ruling Party) - through various schemes that include PUB Credits, Singapore Shares in its various forms, Residential Committees' visits and financial aids, student books schemes, student pocket allowance schemes,

the Education Policy was reviewed under the guise of 'Working Towards a New Economy', Primary Education and the PLSE workload and the entire approach to O-Levels and A-Levels Exams were reviewed and resulted in the new flexible approach roads to Higher Education,

the recent large scale pull out of MNC operations from Singapore to lower cost centers else where had proven correct, with massive retrenchments from 2001 and 2003; and seen in the Government's recent earnest efforts to develop Entrepreneurship, and providing buddy-life line from the larger Corporations to Small and Medium Enterprises.

For the continued success of Singapore, the monopoly of talent, enterprise, resources and support CANNOT rest singularly with the Ruling Party that form the Government.

If Singapore is to succeed in the First World, politics should also be conducted in the same principled and disciplined manner as practised in the First World.

While we can afford to pick and choose what is POLITICALLY desireable from the First World for Singapore, can we leave it to the biased judgment of the Ruling Party that happen to form the Government ?

oldbreadstinks SG

but i have a question
what would happen if the op party wins the election?
i dun mind if they win , what i fear is most of the population in
spore is pap inclined
what if the pap supporters refuse to cooperate
like what they've already done before?
causing trouble in places where they didn't win?

Uwei SG

All i can say to Workers Party is... next election please come to sengkang. I wanna vote for ya. Smile

foxtrot1985 SG

Sengkang is under Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC ah?
Anyway, alternatively you could shift to Hougang GRC if you want to be in an area under Workers Party control. Smile

MooKu SG

slow transition bah.. it shouldn't be too tough? there's already a MP from the opposition party.. forgive me for i cannot remember his name Embarassed what a blunder. and his position there is rather.. stable no? Confused

i'd sure like to see a change in the government composition... and see what the opposition parties can do for us Smile

Atobe SG

Presently, there are two Opposition Party Members of Parliament, and they are :

Singapore Democratic Alliance - Mr Chiam See Tong

Worker's Party - Mr Low Thia Kiang

The government will very unlikely change its composition to include anyone from the Opposition Parties, as the Ruling Party holds a majority of 82 seats in a 84 seats Parliament.

Any bills tabled by the Opposition Members of Parliament will not have sufficient supporters, and similarly they are in no position to block any bills that favor the Ruling Party's attempt to perpetuate itself.

Bills tabled in Parliament will speed through its usual readings, and passed by 'rubber stamping' Members of Parliament from the Ruling Party that are forced to tow Party Lines by the Parliamentary Whip from its own Ruling Party.

For an Opposition to be successful, there need not be an equal number on both sides of the house.

IF an Opposition Party can hold 40 seats, and the Ruling Party 44 seats, any Opposition Members of Parliament will have the full confidence of support from his fellow members on his side of the House.

At least, the Opposition Members can provide strength in numbers and morale suppport to one another.

At least, the Opposition Members will not be overwhelmed by the present disproportionate imbalance in Parliament.

MooKu SG

oops. yep yep i was trying to say mr chiam see tong but i wasn't quite sure if i got the name right.. Embarassed

Forgive me for my ignorance, but the ruling party decides the percentage of MPs from the opposition parties?

Any bills tabled by the Opposition Members of Parliament will not have sufficient supporters
Hmm that is, if the ruling party deliberately wants to suppress any power or any kind of action that will prove to be favorable to the opposition, then they will not support those bills? But what if those bills are to the people's great advantage? Confused

Atobe SG

It is the choice of Singaporeans who will decide the number of MPs from the Opposition Parties that will represent Singaporeans in Parliament.

The Government do not allot Parliamentary Seats to whoever they please or favor.

Singaporeans have the choice to vote a Nominated Candidate who is willing to stand for election, by offering his/her political services at the respective Political Constituencies in Singapore.

The Election Process will determine which Political Party will form the Government, and the Party with the most seats in Parliament will form the Government.

From past elections, at least 50 seats are not contested, and have by default, resulted in the People's Action Party having the majority seats in Parliament to form the Government.

The remaining 34 seats are open for contest, and the Opposition Parties have appealed that since the PAP will form the Government, Singaporeans need not fear of political instability but will have a higher standard of Government services if there is Opposition presence in Parliament.

Atobe SG

Throughout the political history of Sinapore, the Ruling Party has shown disdain and arrogance towards the ideas and views given by the Opposition Parties.

From the early warnings of merger with Malaysia, to the current economic and social problems in Singapore, the Ruling Party has displayed arrogance and condescending superiority of their own infallible position of their own political views.

During the early days before merger with Malaysia, there were strong opposition of such a move from the Opposition Parties - such as the now defunct Barisan Sosialis (actually fall-out members from the PAP, who had serious disagreement with LKY and his team), Worker's Party, Singapore Democratic Party - all with different political personailities from today.

Merger with Malaysia was pushed through in a referendum that some say was heavily weighted towards the fateful outcome.

It took another twenty years after 1965, when Singapore was kicked out, that LKY acknowledged that if he had the wisdom of the 'Father of the present Sultan of Brunei', Singapore would have followed Brunei's decision not to merge into Malaysia.

During the late 1980s and 1990s, the Secretary-General of the SDP had written several books about the slanted policies of the Government that portends future hardship for Singaporeans.

The various criticism raised in the books were also raised in Parliament by Opposition Members of Parliament, and these criticisms included:

(1) Education Policies that placed unreasonably high standards that resulted in wasted talents at an early age, resulting in a high rate of psychological casualties amongst the young, which can only cause future social problems.

(2) Economic Policies that provide huge incentives for foreign MNCs to establish their facilities in Singapore, to provide a high absorption rate of the large number of tertiary and secondary, academic and technical graduates that annually join the labor pool.

This high dependence exposes Singapore's weakness in depending on MNCs that itself are highly dependent on cheap labor, and hence will easily relocate to alternative locations with cheaper labor pools.

(3) Government participation in local economic activities through Government Linked Companies, and partnerships with MNCs, that killed local enterprise and any further interests in entrepreneurship.

(4) Government neglect and inattention towards the social and economic hardships of the lower income group and the destitute in Singapore society.

There remains a large section of Singapore society that are living in homes that are either rented from the HDB, or from tenants of HDB Flats that illegally sub-let rooms to eke out a living.

These are the group that remain trapped in the cycle of low income, inability to perform educationally, untrained and unskilled to participate meaningfully in the economy so as to pull themselves and their family out of their circumstances.

These criticisms were never acknowledged and have been continuously refuted in public, with headlines in the newspapers of statistics from the Government data bank.

QUIETLY, the Government tinkered with the education system, with the many changes in the syllabus, with the Education Minister and ministry officials, Parliamentary Sub-committees, making oversea trips to study the education systems of USA, Europe, UK and Japan.

Schools were suddenly encouraged to be flexible in their approach towards education to develop a more creative and thinking person, instead of the heavy dependence in meeting exam standards.

Schools were allowed to drop their participation in the 'O' and 'A' Levels benchmark exams for entries into the Tertiary Insitutions.

Exam orientated syllabus were dropped, and the students are regularly graded according to their performance in assignments and projects.

The number of Universities in Singapore have now been increased, when it was once deemed politically sensitive for a country to produce too many intelligent univesity educated persons, which the economic performance of a country cannot absorb. This view was held by our Government since independence, as the political turmoil in the Philippines, Indonesia, India and in Europe, have always been led by Political Thinkers with University Education.

Since the economy crashed in 2002, with massive retrenchment by MNCs relocating to China and other cheaper labor areas, the Government has embarked on a belated drive to encourage Local Enterprise and create Singaporean interests in ENTREPRENEURSHIP.

There has been talk (so far talk only) of Government Linked Companies being dismantled, so as to allow local enterprise to thrive. Unfortunately, the dismantling seems to see the GLCs going into the hands of approved individuals, who seem to be acting as proxy for the Government again. Wayang Kulit at work.

Quietly, the Government has adopted policies that they have publicly abhorred to assist the lower income group and poorer sector of the Singapore population - as they begin to default and pay for their daily needs of having a roof over their head, utilities and essential services on a daily basis.

The Government has to subsidised and provide social welfare on a larger scale as a larger number of Singaporeans begin to qualify for assistance as their economic capacity lowered as a result of the present economic situation; and this the Government does so only grudgingly, with requirements attached that 'rub salt into wounds' suffered by the economic downfallen.

Up till this day, Government direct assistance towards the welfare to the aged has been practically zero, with only the paltry tax deduction towards a single individual income tax from each household.

No direct Government grant is given to any Welfare Home that look after the aged, and this policy is adopted in a moralistic tone that it will require the young to continue to look after their aged parents.

With the economic hardship that has been felt since the first economic fallout in 1985, made worse in 1997, and double whammed in 2003, the young can hardly cope with their double jobs to maintain their own needs, let alone looking after their aged parents with high medical fees.

Without Government grants to Welfare Homes to look after Senior Citizens, the Welfare Homes are dependent on charity and contributions; and have to charge a high monthly fees to take care of the aged that are left in their care.

The contradictory demands made by the Government towards Singaporeans only serves to put more unnecessary pressures.

They need Singaporeans to be productive, to be entrepreneurial, to contribute to the economy. Meanwhile for the employed, they work for a reduced salary and CPF, while the Government charges higher rate for essential services and also increase the GST.

They expect Singaporeans to look after the aged parents, but they expect Singaporeans to be gainfully employed too. To be gainfully employed, Singaporeans will need to employ a foreign domestic help to look the aged left at home. Meanwhile, the Government will impose a Foreign Worker's Levy that is more then double the wage paid to the foreign domestic help.

Do we need to suffer another cycle of hardship as had experience repeatedly since independence in 1965 ?

Without any strong Opposition presence in Parliament to provide a serious challenge to the Ruling Party that form the Government, it can only result in the continued high handed, arrogant, and condescending attitude that has been displayed by the Ruling Party towards alternative views.

It is only with a credible presence in Parliament that will signal to the Ruling Party that Singaporeans are willing to take a risk for CHANGES to be made to the status quo.

Business cannot continue in the usual manner all the time.