Pap: Not even one

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

PAP: Not even one
Tuesday, 24 March 2009
Singapore Democrats
First it was five or more. Now it's not even one.

The PAP introduced the Public Order Act in Parliament yesterday that will ban all “cause-related” events, even if there are less than 5 persons. The introduction of this Act is not just the tightening of laws against protests, it is an outright ban of Singaporeans' right to peaceful assembly.


Already the people have no avenue of public protest because laws such as the Public Entertainment and Meetings Act and the Miscellaneous Offences Act prohibit 5 or more persons gathering in a public place without a permit.

Under the latest Public Order Act, even a one-person protest will require a permit which, by the way, the Government has indicated it has no intention of granting. Of course, public gatherings in support of the PAP will continue with impunity.

In addition the Films Act has been amended to ban the filming of illegal public events. This move is designed to stop the publicising of civil disobedience acts.

Taken together these laws and the way they are exercised are designed to ensure that public assembly is completely stopped.

Such legislation comes at a time when there is growing public anger at the Government. Not only is the economy the worst performing one in Asia, the country's rulers continue to lavish themselves with salaries that are the highest in the world for politicians.

The new legislation is also meant to curtail the growing interests of Singaporeans in conducting peaceful protests.

It is a clear sign that this Government is fearful of the future and knows that it cannot face the public in an open debate. It is therefore doing the next best thing – clamping down on dissent.

As the world moves to a new age where openness, transparency, and democratic accountability are the hallmark of good governance, the PAP is going in the opposite direction.

This signals one thing: That the PAP is determined to keep itself in power regardless what happens to the country and how unhappy the people get.

 

[scroobal]

A week before this the new laws were mentioned, LHL made claims about embracing the new media etc.

Now this. No integrity, no credibility.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Scroobal

Well I see Lui got his promotion by crafting the new PAP Liberal Internet two step dance. Suffice it to say that I am more and more disappointed with the PAP and their high handed mentality.

Firstly none of them, save a few are confident enough or have the political leadership ability to lead in a battle of ideas or hearts and minds for a CC let alone a Country. What ever happened to the old guard and to leadership, to battling and winning against far worst ideas, far worst ideologies then that espoused at present by some opposition camps ? Technochrats we have, but leaders and leadership we lack. How many of them can convince the uninspired about the need for sacrifice, compromise, about a vision if they have any.



Locke

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Oppression masked in a velvet glove:(

A week before this the new laws were mentioned, LHL made claims about embracing the new media etc.

Now this. No integrity, no credibility.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

An unnatural order
Friday, 27 March 2009, 6:02 pm | TOC



Why the proposed Public Order Act seems patently unnecessary

On the heels of its proposed changes to the Films Act introducing fresh restrictions on the use of political films, the government will be tabling a new Public Order Act to expand its already considerable powers for crowd control.

In explaining the move the Home Ministry argued that it was necessary to tackle “gaps in the current framework” and to update police powers for protecting “mega events” hosted by Singapore, specially the upcoming APEC meetings in November. Yet it is difficult to recall an example of such an event being disrupted – the IMF-World Bank meetings in 2006 went by without as much as a squeak – and the only “gap” in the Home Ministry’s jurisdiction that comes readily to mind is that infamous lavatory in its detention centre near Whitley Road.

At the heart of the new Act are the so-called “move-on powers”, enabling the police to order a person to leave an area and prevent him from returning if they determine that he is about to break the law. There seems to be little precedent to justify the introduction of such powers. Few protesters made it past security screening and into Singapore for the IMF-World Bank meetings in 2006, and even those that did made their dissent heard in exemplary lawful fashion. An attempted march by a tiny band led by a Singaporean opposition party was stopped by heavy police guard before it even got underway. The police presence was thick and highly visible, and several major thoroughfares were cordoned off. It is difficult to see how the new Act would improve on that performance.



Moreover, the “move-on” powers are unlikely to discourage serious protesters from trying to make their point, meaning that the police are likely to be forced into arresting them anyway. That would defeat the Ministry’s stated purpose of introducing “move-on” powers to avoid the police having to make arrests in the first place.

The Home Ministry has tried to emphasise that the possibility of a terrorist threat necessitated these new powers. Yet the aim of the legislation is not to address terrorism but rather to clamp down on any so-called “disruption” to public order. The link that the Ministry tries to draw between terrorism and its proposed Act is a rather spurious one: to prevent the former, the Ministry argued that its forces “cannot afford to be distracted” by “political activists, militants or mischief-makers seeking to exploit the media and political attention”.

The only bit in the proposed Act that seems justifiable is that which prohibits events being filmed if this might jeopardise operations or the safety of security forces. This is a change aimed squarely at addressing concerns following the Mumbai attacks of November 2008 where terrorists kept abreast of police operations by watching live media coverage of events on television. That said, such a provision might sit more comfortably in anti-terrorism legislation than in the current Bill.

In any case, the critical consideration is whether the government can be counted on to exercise its new powers judiciously. In this regard the Ministry’s attempt to validate the new Act by invoking the example of Australia’s “move-on” powers is specious – it neglects the fact that Australia’s strong tradition of civil liberties makes it far less likely that such powers would be abused or politicised.

It is instructive to note that the last time Singapore had a major demonstration was in 1988 when the country’s main trade union (which is practically run by the ruling party) organised one against alleged American interference in our domestic affairs; on the other hand, opposition parties have always been denied permission for similar acts. Given this precedent, it is not surprising that many Singaporeans are understandably wary of the government’s actual motivations behind the new Public Order Act.

 

[scroobal]

Dear Scroobal

Well I see Lui got his promotion by crafting the new PAP Liberal Internet two step dance. Suffice it to say that I am more and more disappointed with the PAP and their high handed mentality.

Heard that the acting rank was pretty demoralising for him. Guy is ambitious but apparently they can't seem to anticipate his reactions.

Firstly none of them, save a few are confident enough or have the political leadership ability to lead in a battle of ideas or hearts and minds for a CC let alone a Country. What ever happened to the old guard and to leadership, to battling and winning against far worst ideas, far worst ideologies then that espoused at present by some opposition camps ? Technochrats we have, but leaders and leadership we lack. How many of them can convince the uninspired about the need for sacrifice, compromise, about a vision if they have any.
Locke

Yes, unable to state their case, argue their stand and therefore unable to leave any indelible mark. Looks like the 3 decade leadership development model has gone far but not far enough.

My sense is that they erred when they created this pool of candidates from which entrepreneurs, political leaders and policy makers would emerge. The second mistake was take the less academically qualified from PAP/NTUC axis.

When you create a pool of 18 year olds who are raw and then you put them thru a select path with exceptionally high remuneration, these chaps will not have the hunger to reveal their inner mettle. Why bother and jeopardise the gravy train.

On a lighter side, the promotion of Teo Chee Hean will lighten the financial burden on the Teo household and hopefully the wife does not have to leech NTUC for a second income. That salary can be split some ways for the more needy.

On a serious note, he was brought in via special by-elections as he was then identified as PM material and I think he is still the best.

Looks like Grace, Zulkifli and 2006 batch has been disappointing.

 

[scroobal]

An unnatural order
Friday, 27 March 2009, 6:02 pm | TOC
Why the proposed Public Order Act seems patently unnecessary

I am disturbed by this as many are but this to me is a massive u-turn and does not match the recent rhetoric of political leaders especially the PM.

It now emerging in form like the ISA. Purely on the intrepretation of the Minister. With a laws like that AG has no room to move.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

This Lui chap should go see Drs JJ Chua , Georgia Lee and some orthodontist to get a full make-over, he looks awful

As for the pool talent, TOC ran an insightful article on Elite Talent in Singapore's context compared to Elite Talent in say the States awhile back. Clear that Singapore's meritocratic system is largely exam paper based which does not seem to produce creative innovative risk takers and dreamers.

TCH appears quite sound, capable and resolute but he shall not become PM barring unforseen circumstances. I believe the next PM is probably still not even in PAP.

As for the class of 06', yes are quite disappointing but then again what do you expect when they do not appear to be the very cream of the crop.

Oh and after this latest shuffle, I wonder whether Dr Viv shall continue to bite his tongue or will he soon get tired and leave the political scene altogether?

Heard that the acting rank was pretty demoralising for him. Guy is ambitious but apparently they can't seem to anticipate his reactions.




Yes, unable to state their case, argue their stand and therefore unable to leave any indelible mark. Looks like the 3 decade leadership development model has gone far but not far enough.

My sense is that they erred when they created this pool of candidates from which entrepreneurs, political leaders and policy makers would emerge. The second mistake was take the less academically qualified from PAP/NTUC axis.

When you create a pool of 18 year olds who are raw and then you put them thru a select path with exceptionally high remuneration, these chaps will not have the hunger to reveal their inner mettle. Why bother and jeopardise the gravy train.

On a lighter side, the promotion of Teo Chee Hean will lighten the financial burden on the Teo household and hopefully the wife does not have to leech NTUC for a second income. That salary can be split some ways for the more needy.

On a serious note, he was brought in via special by-elections as he was then identified as PM material and I think he is still the best.

Looks like Grace, Zulkifli and 2006 batch has been disappointing.

 

[Watchman]

We will not give them the riots that they bought so many anti-riot gear and vehicles that they so want one !

We will all stay in our homes and with our love ones !

And make the streets full with congestion and vehicles but not spending anything with boycott of all establishment !

 

[scroobal]

TCH appears quite sound, capable and resolute but he shall not become PM barring unforseen circumstances. I believe the next PM is probably still not even in PAP.

Oh and after this latest shuffle, I wonder whether Dr Viv shall continue to bite his tongue or will he soon get tired and leave the political scene altogether?

Agree, that the PM is not in the PAP yet. I suspect that they will bring in more matured and proven individuals, possibly 3 such chaps, with Ng in the race. Tharman and Viv are certainly out even if the leadership is prepared for the change. I suspect resistance will come from Cadres and local Corporate.

Interesting times - looks like another 2 GE with LHL before we see a new PM.

 

[zhihau]

Interesting times - looks like another 2 GE with LHL before we see a new PM.

a question in tow, does the position of PM requires the person to be elected as an MP in the GE? or the PM is usually the Secretary General of the Party elected into power?

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Possible. To me Dr Ng has already proven to be a dismal political leader and the fact that even the PAP cadres appear not to voted for him in droves speak volumes. Perhaps he hopes to rehabilitate himself at the next GE?

Agree, that the PM is not in the PAP yet. I suspect that they will bring in more matured and proven individuals, possibly 3 such chaps, with Ng in the race. .

I think more like 3 GEs barring any unforeseen circumstances.


24) Tom on March 29th, 2009 11.17 pm Watch out for Ong Ye Kung, new assistant General Secretary of NTUC…

He could be the next Prime Minister of Singapore!

Interesting times - looks like another 2 GE with LHL before we see a new PM.

 

[jw5]

Agree, that the PM is not in the PAP yet. I suspect that they will bring in more matured and proven individuals, possibly 3 such chaps, with Ng in the race. Tharman and Viv are certainly out even if the leadership is prepared for the change. I suspect resistance will come from Cadres and local Corporate.

Interesting times - looks like another 2 GE with LHL before we see a new PM.

Why resistance from local corporate?
You are assuming that LHL would be victorious in the next few elections?

 

[jw5]

a question in tow, does the position of PM requires the person to be elected as an MP in the GE? or the PM is usually the Secretary General of the Party elected into power?

I believe all the office holders, i.e. minsters, mos and parliamentary secretaries are required to be elected mps.

 

[zhihau]

I believe all the office holders, i.e. minsters, mos and parliamentary secretaries are required to be elected mps.

it was 60% votes for the incumbent in AMK GRC in the last GE?

 

[jw5]

it was 60% votes for the incumbent in AMK GRC in the last GE?

Bro zhihau
I think so, but that doesn't mean that 60% of Singaporeans would have voted for him as pm.
If Singaporeans were hypothetically allowed to vote for the pm based on the elected mps, perhaps more than 60% would have voted for LHL after looking at the other possible candidates.
Or then again, perhaps less than 60% would have voted for him.

 

[zhihau]

Bro zhihau
I think so, but that doesn't mean that 60% of Singaporeans would have voted for him as pm.
If Singaporeans were hypothetically allowed to vote for the pm based on the elected mps, perhaps more than 60% would have voted for LHL after looking at the other possible candidates.
Or then again, perhaps less than 60% would have voted for him.

no no no no... my point is, the opposition only need some 11% more votes to take him out

 

[jw5]

no no no no... my point is, the opposition only need some 11% more votes to take him out

OIC, but it's not easy to change fearful, apathetic, ignorant mindsets.