Simon Tay & a Bicameral Parliament

[scroobal]

An interesting article by Simon. I suppose he did not have a close enough platform to put his agenda across and chose the AWARE incident which does have all the hallmarks of politics, parties and agendas but certainly nothing to do with the body politic of the nation.

In this article, Simon does the classic right wing manoveure of talking about the bad (vertical), then the good (horizontal) and then the need for order by authority to balance society and thereby legitimizing the mode of current governance. The same approach that the Chua sisters use but more saavy and smooth and less blunt and nauseating. In fact, it's a sanitised version of Paul Jacob's recent sonata on the AWARE incident. The question to ponder is why this article and why this time? The clue of course is Simon.

Simon who from undergraduate days has been in on the government or government linked payroll (and I don't mean it figuratively) in one form or another is being groomed amongst others for a seat in what will be the next stage of constitutional evolution.

Many moons ago, old man lamented about the lack of an institution resembling the House of Lords. A coterie of wise men and women, tempered by age and experience with a proven record of deeds an arm long. It also includes progencies of ancient warlords, feudal landlords assured a place by birth to ensure the fabric of society known as peerage does not tear at the seams. Notwithstanding the occasional spinkling of party donors gracing the house. Its single biggest function is to act as a backstop to the occasional abortion induced legislative tsunami that does society no good.

The NMP scheme is an not aberration. Its a plan, a roadmap that now has industry representation and its natural path leads in one direction - the evolution of an upper house, a house of lords, the senate or the house of nominated "wise men and women". Do note how Simon has weaved the NMP scheme in his article.

I suppose you will know who these front-runners will be. One clear criterion is not to intervene, comment, raise a profile or even hint until the results are known. Is this why Claire Ching or her better half did not surface. The only exceptions are Siew Kum Hong and Kanwaljit Soin, a lady who cannot be muzzled in any event. Is it why Cherian George a noted political commentator known previosuly for his timeliness emerged after the fact.

Back to Simon. Interesting how AWARE born out of a NUSSU's failure to address the great marriage debate under its then President, Simon Tay is now the vehicle to carry a message some 25 years later.

His article appears in the next post.

 

[scroobal]

[COLOR="_______"][COLOR="_______"]A tale of two communities
In a society as diverse as ours, restraint, tolerance should be order of the day

Simon Tay

THE clash of different interest groups in Aware has made headlines in recent weeks, perhaps too many. With the outcome of the weekend’s extraordinary general meeting now known, attention is likely to shift elsewhere.
.
But there are things to observe from this controversy that should be drawn not only for those directly involved. This is not an isolated incident, nor one that tells us that citizens are doomed to clash loudly and angrily. The lessons that can be learnt pertain to our civil society and how governance evolves.
.
Vertical and Horizontal Societies
.
The Aware saga shows that citizens now relate to each other directly and not only to the government. Singapore is no longer a vertical society, but one with horizontal links.
.
In a vertical society, citizens link only to the government. From the early years of Singapore, and even today, our political leaders have exhorted citizens on the full range of issues, like littering and having more children if we can afford it, so much so that it becomes part of the national agenda.
.
Even when the politics of consultation evolved under former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, we remained a vertical society. Consultation simply meant dialogue between the Government and citizens became more of a two-way street.
.
A horizontal society is one where citizens form different groups that express their own interests and beliefs and act independently of the government.
.
Issues are handled within and between these groups, with less reference and deference to the government, especially on personal or moral issues. The government’s role can then be cut back to refocus on core national issues like security.
.
A civil society can provide more space for citizens to be active and contribute. But it is not idyllic. There can be differences between groups that lead to conflict, which may lead to the kind of electoral battles seen in the Aware saga. There can even be violent clashes between rival camps.
.
However, horizontal society is not necessarily fraught with conflict and therefore to be avoided. Civil society groups can and do work together for mutual benefit.
.
Take for instance, the arts community. While headlines focused on the Aware clash, our arts community came together to select their representatives for consideration to be a Nominated Member of Parliament.
.
The arts community is not without its differences. But these were put aside for a common and higher goal — to ensure that artistic causes receive better representation in Parliament. There are other examples where civil society groups cooperate.
.
Communities of Interests
.
But why do some groups clash? Different viewpoints are only part of the reason. After all, differences can be discussed and understanding — rather than conflict — can result. This is an essential tenet of democracy.
.
This is a second lesson to be drawn from the Aware episode. While the matter was settled constitutionally, by voting, this is a bare legality. Democracy must involve more than the capture of power by votes. Otherwise, both sides only learn the habits of organising for power, rather than of accommodation and discussion. Knowing that differences exist, groups of citizens should increase the tolerance for, and acceptance of differences.
.
But some groups may press for others to be assimilated to their views and seek to oppose or suborn them. This is a third observation we can draw from the Aware case, in which individuals from a church came together because of accusations (subsequently refuted) that Aware promotes gay and lesbian causes.
.
They could have campaigned against Aware, started their own group or complained to the relevant ministry. Instead, their instinct, as promoted by self-described “Feminist Mentor” Thio Su Mien, was to take over Aware. Can one imagine the reverse? That someone who disagreed with the teachings of a religious group try to take over that group?
.
The attitude of most secular groups is to leave religion alone. We must hope conversely that religious groups — however much they believe in their positions — should also respect the rights of other secular groups.
.
This does not mean secular groups must be devoid of religious sentiment. Belief can drive individuals to work for charities, even if those charities are secular. But a line has to be drawn and observed. The more fervent religious groups become in our society, the more we should try to respect that line.
.
Governing Diversity
.
What if different groups clash? While Singapore is developing a horizontal dimension, the vertical axis of government has a role to play in governing diverse groups.
.
While eschewing liberal democracy, the government has evolved a degree of acceptance for citizen groups. From the early 1990s, Foreign Minister George Yeo elegantly explored this theme, even if he preferred the more conservative term of “civic” society. The Singapore 21 consultation, then chaired by Mr Teo Chee Hean, now Deputy Prime Minister, also explored the emergence of a people sector.
.
Re-reading ministerial statements on civil society explains why and how the Government acted in the Aware episode, or ways in which it refused to arbitrate on the matter..
It is not that Government leaders support Aware’s agenda under the Old Guard. Indeed, it is more likely that a number would personally have sympathy for groups that espouse conservative values in sexuality, gays and lesbians. The People’s Action Party’s leadership seems to recognise that they should not ask whether they personally agree with a view put forward by a group. No political leader offered his or her moral preference.
.
Instead, the Aware episode seems to suggest that the Government will set out broader parameters of acceptable behaviour. So long as they keep within those boundaries and do not threaten safety or public order, the prevailing attitude is to refrain from interceding as much as possible. If they have to intercede, they seem careful to act with restraint and fairness.
.
Going forward, the Government would do well to remain watchful but not anxious about most citizen’s groups.
.
Singapore society is becoming more complex. Civil society and interest and voluntary groups and associations have become more active. So have organised religious groups. Differences are inevitable.
.
But conflicts can be managed and clashes avoided. If not, groups run the danger of Government intervention or worse, increased distrust and disinterest of average citizens in their cause.
.
The preferred means for managing conflicts and avoiding clashes between civil society groups should not be the vertical strong arm of the Government. Nor even the test of strength and numbers by one group acting against another.
.
We can hope and expect that groups that emerge in civil society will depend first on their self-restraint. This should be borne out of a respect of diversity and a broad appreciation of the rights of others to their own opinions, even if — in their eyes — others do not have the right views[/COLOR][/COLOR]

 

[londontrader]

"The NMP scheme is an not aberration. Its a plan, a roadmap that now has industry representation and its natural path leads in one direction - the evolution of an upper house, a house of lords, the senate or the house of nominated "wise men and women". Do note how Simon has weaved the NMP scheme in his article. "

Dear Scroobal

I see that you are quick to catch on
It's not an Upper House that they want - more an Alternative Non-Partisan House to counter the kind of GroupThink we see amongst the less enlightened PAPies. An Upper House implies "powers of oversight" that the PAP aren't too keen on.

BTW I recall a conversation with Simon and Inderjit not too many moons ago. We were in a London Pub (after a rather boring event) knocking down a few and in their lighter moments, they alluded to what you just highlighted. Our dear opposition should note the implications.

Cheers

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Aiyah all this is conventional wisdom thinking while harry is still alive and kicking...the NMP scheme has always been seen as a wayang show lacking proper legitimacy...in the wee hours of the morning after Anson81' harry and raja were making dark sinister threats about looking at the one man one vote system...peasants however gullible, stupid and apathetic would not stand for this...so we now have GRC, NCMP, NMP and the EP instead which is all a wayang show as most people know...let's see the PAPs try to pull such a substantive constitutional stunt after harry kicks the bucket...i tell you it won't fly...

 

[londontrader]

Aiyah all this is conventional wisdom thinking while harry is still alive and kicking...the NMP scheme has always been seen as a wayang show lacking proper legitimacy...in the wee hours of the morning after Anson81' harry and raja were making dark sinister threats about looking at the one man one vote system...peasants however gullible, stupid and apathetic would not stand for this...so we now have GRC, NCMP, NMP and the EP instead which is all a wayang show as most people know...let's see the PAPs try to pull such a substantive constitutional stunt after harry kicks the bucket...i tell you it won't fly...

Yes the idea started out as a wayang
Nevertheless, it seems to have gathered a momentum of its own
That's the PAP style ie. go with the flow if the implications are favourable for you

 

[Trout]

"The NMP scheme is an not aberration. Its a plan, a roadmap that now has industry representation and its natural path leads in one direction - the evolution of an upper house, a house of lords, the senate or the house of nominated "wise men and women". Do note how Simon has weaved the NMP scheme in his article. "

Dear Scroobal

I see that you are quick to catch on
It's not an Upper House that they want - more an Alternative Non-Partisan House to counter the kind of GroupThink we see amongst the less enlightened PAPies. An Upper House implies "powers of oversight" that the PAP aren't too keen on.

BTW I recall a conversation with Simon and Inderjit not too many moons ago. We were in a London Pub (after a rather boring event) knocking down a few and in their lighter moments, they alluded to what you just highlighted. Our dear opposition should note the implications.

Cheers

I think they actually want a screening body of alternative lawmakers who are able to add the "common touch" into any of the bills approved by Parliament, but them having no real political power. Thus, they do all the hard work of "keeping it real" for the people (softening the impact of harsh policies through the injection of suggestions to attenuate whatever ill-effects the bills will result in if they get turned into laws), while PAP gets all the credit. Essentially a cheap lunch of sorts.

Cheers,
Trout

 

[scoopdreams]

Yes the idea started out as a wayang
Nevertheless, it seems to have gathered a momentum of its own
That's the PAP style ie. go with the flow if the implications are favourable for you

I think there are too much at stake for PAP to "go with the flow" on governance issues - they cannot risk it. Even though your tavern mates might have "alluded" to it, they will know deep-down inside that the idea of an overseeing Senate, House of Lords, or whatever you might call it, have deep flaws that cannot be rectified simply.

The NMP scheme is dependent on the level of political awareness and activism in society - without it, the NMP scheme is and will remain a wayang show. They fight for fringe issues, lack political clout, and most importantly, the necessary connections with political leaders in other countries to successfully navigate the hazardous waters of government.

NMPs will come and go - exit Olsen, in comes Lorette.This merry-go-round style will ensure that the NMPs remain a factionless bunch, too unsavvy and defanged. Throw in some pro-government elements in there, and the NMPs will only cater to serve as a front for democracy and popularism, but never a real political force.

The House-of-Lords in England derives itself from the aristocracy and middle-segment landowners. It will work in a country with marked history, culture, and political movement, but in a country like Singapore - where the constant influx of FTs (which thin out the political power of the people), a decided defeatism amongst the populace with regards to changing the government (which reduces the amount of activism in the population segment that matters the most) - the NMP scheme is just what it is, a PAP Idol contest.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

good thing Olsen exited...tonight she can be seen in a towel only on Ch 5's Red Thread @ 8pm

INMPs will come and go - exit Olsen, in comes Lorette.This merry-go-round style will ensure that the NMPs remain a factionless bunch, too unsavvy and defanged. .

 

[scoopdreams]

good thing Olsen exited...tonight she can be seen in a towel only on Ch 5's Red Thread @ 8pm

I'd very much rather she keep the title, and lose the towel.

 

[scroobal]

Actually the potential "peerage" is growing. The push in this instance is coming from the 2nd generation leaders who want to see a back stop similar to the developed countries in case the lower house falls into the wrong hands. Old man conceived it as he worried about reserves. GY pushed it when he was the defacto idealogue.

Politically its does serve as a safety valve as there is double dissolution provision allowing it to go to the people in the event of a deadlock.

Simon is of course putting his hands up.

Aiyah all this is conventional wisdom thinking while harry is still alive and kicking...the NMP scheme has always been seen as a wayang show lacking proper legitimacy...in the wee hours of the morning after Anson81' harry and raja were making dark sinister threats about looking at the one man one vote system...peasants however gullible, stupid and apathetic would not stand for this...so we now have GRC, NCMP, NMP and the EP instead which is all a wayang show as most people know...let's see the PAPs try to pull such a substantive constitutional stunt after harry kicks the bucket...i tell you it won't fly...

 

[sinren67]

I think we used to be a horizontal society, but will forcefully being tilted 90 deg by the old man.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

rather her co star Celest lose the towel instead...which come to think of it may well happen if she get's the role of rose chan in eric khoo's new movie

I'd very much rather she keep the title, and lose the towel.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

perhaps but what is the process?...who makes the selection and appointment?...btw i am aware of george's preference...he publicly came out to support a rethink of the one man one vote system awhile back with the usual crap justification...this idea should be disabused and rubbished from the outset...

as for simon...i think i said this before...but shall repeat for newcomers...quite a nice decent egg but basically no balls yet desperate to taste political power of any kind...no great shakes academically and apparently had to get into harvard with tommy koh's patronage...oh and it is rumoured that he once vomitted on wee chao yaw's carpet

Actually the potential "peerage" is growing. The push in this instance is coming from the 2nd generation leaders who want to see a back stop similar to the developed countries in case the lower house falls into the wrong hands. Old man conceived it as he worried about reserves. GY pushed it when he was the defacto idealogue.

Politically its does serve as a safety valve as there is double dissolution provision allowing it to go to the people in the event of a deadlock.

Simon is of course putting his hands up.

 

[bhoven]

It helps that his dad was Tay Seow Wah whom Oldman owes tonnes. Anyway, I don't see him as really independent..ever since he got the Chairmanship of NEA ( now relinguished) his views have tended more towards the establishment..

 

[scroobal]

Believe me, he was part of the estab from day 1.

It helps that his dad was Tay Seow Wah whom Oldman owes tonnes. Anyway, I don't see him as really independent..ever since he got the Chairmanship of NEA ( now relinguished) his views have tended more towards the establishment..

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

just look at what has happened post Roundtable...quite obvious who the desperate power seekers really are from this group...but i am all for objectivity and fairness...so perhaps yawning bread's old account on Roundtable is worth revisiting...

April 2004
Roundtable group disbands


For a small band of people, the Roundtable has certainly had an impact. But earlier this week, its members decided to close shop.
The ‘Today’ newspaper quoted political scientist Ho Khai Leong of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies expressing a common sentiment, “The Roundtable may not have been very high-profile. But in Singapore's civil society, even a small step backwards is significant, because we have so little to begin with.” [Today, 13 April 2004]

When 10 persons applied to the Registrar of Societies in 1993 to set up a non-partisan political discussion group called the Roundtable, it was a bold move. The government viewed it with such suspicion that they dithered over the application for nearly a year, until lawyer Chandra Mohan Nair threatened the Registrar with a writ of mandamus [source: Chandra Mohan’s own words at the NUSS forum on 29 March 2004]

Even when the approval came, there was a condition attached: the Roundtable must not hold any activities involving non-members.

I don’t know whether their original plans included such activities, so it’s hard for me to say if this restriction had any significant impact on their goals.

However, what we could observe over the years was that much of their energy was invested in writing papers, which our press carried from time to time. They were well thought out and well argued, and quickly earned them respect among thinking Singaporeans.

Generally, they had a moderate voice even as they took issue with some government policies, but as time passed, I suspect, individuals began to grow in different directions.

James Gomez was the most prominent critic of the government, and he eventually left the Roundtable to join the Workers’ Party. Three others, Simon Tay, Zulfikli Baharudin and Chandra Mohan were co-opted into Parliament as Nominated MPs. Raymond Lim joined the ruling PAP and is now a junior minister in government. Journalist Cherian George and constitutional lawyer Kevin Tan have remained independent and quite critical of many government policies.

One can suspect it was increasingly difficult to find enough consensus to carry on writing papers as a group.

In addition, there were rising expectations among Singaporeans for more political and civil space. Just writing papers, especially couched in gentle language, increasingly failed to match hopes for a more robust political debate.

As social activist Constance Singham said to ‘Today’, “As a group they have been rather disappointing. When they were formed, hopes were high that they would help create more political discussion in the society.”

“But they have not been very open and tend to be secretive and a bit elitist. Neither have they been very egalitarian in their selection of members. In many ways they function just like the PAP," she added.

I don’t think she was aware of the condition that the Registrar of Societies imposed. Like many, she might have expected the Roundtable to organize seminars and talks in order to raise the level of political consciousness and improve the sophistication of political debate here. But this was not possible under the constitution that the Registrar required.

So, in a sense, the reason given by Roundtable’s President, Harish Pillay, for their disbandment, was correct. He told Today, "We have decided that the vehicle of the Roundtable has fully run its course.".

"The purpose of the Roundtable has been achieved,” he added. “We have helped in some sense to open up the political space and define the modus operandi, although we don't hold any exclusivity in civil society. We have already tried our best to achieve what we set out to do, as far as we were permitted to under our constitution.”

You would have noted a special reference to what was permitted under their constitution.

* * * * *

But to the Straits Times, Pillay said rather more. However, I thought those words rang hollow.

'Our modest objective was simply to carve a space where Singaporeans were free to discuss policy issues without being told to join a political party,' its president, Mr Harish Pillay, said yesterday. 'We wanted Singaporeans to feel they had ownership of the political processes and institutions in their own country through active participation in the political system.'

But at the group's 10th annual general meeting on Sunday, members voted to dissolve the entity because they felt 'the vehicle of the Roundtable has fully run its course'.

'For what we wanted to achieve, we think we have already done what we can. So let's move on to something else,' Mr Pillay said.

Established three years after Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong took over with his brand of consultative politics, 'the Roundtable showed that the system was opening up', he added.

At that time, it took the group almost a year to get registered officially. 'But now, the process has eased up,' he said, referring to the introduction of a fast-track registration scheme in 2002 for some types of groups, allowing them an 'in-principle' legal status within two weeks.

- Straits Times, 13 April 2004



All of us involved in People Like Us think this fast-track registration scheme is more wool over Singaporeans’ eyes. Once again, efficiency is deliberately being confused with substance. It’s good to be efficient, but those groups who are now getting registered within 2 weeks were never the issue in the first place. They are the stamp-collecting associations, jazz-band fan clubs, and hamster protection leagues. Even before the Roundtable, they were not going to be denied registration, and that today they are waved through represents no substantive advance.

People Like Us was denied registration in 1997. Seven years later, in 2004, we are denied registration again. We are the test case for fair governance, and so far the government is failing the test miserably.

This whitewash which the Roundtable seems to have fallen for is very similar to many complaints made about our compliant judiciary. Every time someone points out this defect, the government rolls out some finding from an international business organization or publication pointing to how highly rated Singapore’s judicial system is. Alternatively, they point out how speedy is our judicial process compared to the long waiting lists in other countries. It is a shameless ruse. No one says our judicial system is unfair when it comes to commercial cases. No one says that there is injustice in Singapore arising from justice delayed. It’s the political cases we’re all pointing at and have been pointing at for decades. And in that area, nothing has changed.

A lawyer friend of mine put it succinctly: "Indeed justice is delivered quickly, but of what quality?"

* * * * *

I will now put on record the one occasion when People Like Us’ orbit grazed the Roundtable’s. Be warned, it’s not a pretty tale.

I think it was sometime like 1999 or 2000, certainly a while after the first registration attempt by People Like Us, when the Registrar refused even to disclose a reason why he turned our application down. PLU's Russell Heng was in communication with Roundtable’s Cherian George, an old friend from their journalism days. George was already quite familiar with the PLU saga, but Russell prodded him a little and suggested that the highhandedness of the Registrar was the kind of issue that the Roundtable might want to address as part of their mission.

My understanding from Russell was that George felt this to be so, but he needed to sound out others in his group.

A few days later, the answer came back. Apparently, one member of the Roundtable said he was completely opposed to the Roundtable taking up this subject because he was a Roman Catholic! He threatened to resign from the Roundtable if others in the group persisted in looking into this matter. [1]

This intemperance was rather curious for a group that wanted to lead intellectually when it came to political awareness. After all, it's not a novel invention to distinguish between agreeing with our aims, and defending our rights of expression and association. These rights are fairly fundamental to a healthy polity. Speaking up for these rights would not have required you to agree with our aims.

Well, it was their group, and they had the right to decide for themselves what their agenda was. But I, for one, knew from that day on, that the Roundtable was never going to amount to much more.

At least, not as a group.

Individuals have been supportive. I know Kevin Tan, Cherian George, Zuraidah all believe that the Registrar of Societies has been less than correct in his dealings with People Like Us. And I will acknowledge here that Simon Tay was instrumental in eventually getting the Registrar to reveal (in April 2000) his reason for the 1997 rejection.

So perhaps Harish Pillay was right when he said, they had already done what they could and it was time to move on.
© Yawning Bread

Footnotes

See the article When intellectualising about homosexuality gets too hard, just sell snake oil, for the stance of Singapore's Catholic Church on the matter
Return to where you left off

Believe me, he was part of the estab from day 1.