Singapore Democratic Alliance Party

[fivestars]

Feedback from the ground

Despite PKMS’s very minor role in the local Opposition politics, I believe that a key factor in the future of the Opposition Unity lies in its hands – the joining of RP into SDA.

If we have a miss-step in how SDA is expanded, then the future model for Alliances among Opposition parties will be tainted.

But back to the story:

ST reports that the High Court has just ordered members of a breakaway faction of PKMS to sign over the trust deeds to the party's Changi Road building to elected party officials. The breakaway group is led by Borhan Ariffin. His group’s application to be recognised as PKMS' legitimate leaders was dismissed by the High Court in July last year.

On the other hand, Ali Asjadi was recently elected as leader of a new PKMS supreme council. In 2006, he was part of a group that ousted then-president Borhan and his deputy, Ali Aman, at the party polls. These developments seem to be bringing PKMS closer to settling its ongoing leadership dispute, with Ali Asjadi’s group gaining ascendancy.

The issue of which group controls PKMS has critical implications on RP's entry into SDA. Ali Asjadi is also the Supreme Executive Committee (SEC) Vice-Chairman of SDA, of which PKMS is a component party.

The SDA SEC has 13 members* - broken down to five each for SPP and PKMS and three for SJP. With five votes, and assuming they are united, the PKMS members’ collective position is important in the SEC’s decision making process.

If Ali Asjadi's faction had lost control of PKMS, the members might have been forced to leave PKMS. By implication, their positions in the SDA SEC would have jeopardised.

In May, the SDA SEC rejected the list of 11 conditions laid down by RP for its merger with the Alliance. It appears that Ali Asjadi and his group voted against the merger with RP. If the infighting within PKMS persists, and its leadership split, its standing in the SDA SEC would have been questioned.

Some parties (best left unnamed) might exploit the discord within PKMS to influence the voting position of the PKMS segment in the SDA SEC. Political sweeteners could be offered to PKMS representatives to influence their receptivity to RP’s predatory approach towards SDA.

To me, this would have be unhealthy and disastrous for the future of SDA as it would lead to its eventual demise as a balanced Alliance. It would have led to a swing of votes towards admitting RP on those onerous terms it sought to impose in May, leaving SDA vulnerable to RP’s dominance once CST leaves the political stage.

With the PKMS front approaching stabilisation, the SDA SEC’s ability to hold a steadfast position and make a equitable decision concerning RP’s “application” (or rather forced entry) is maintained. It would be able to resist any further lob-sided conditions imposed by RP.

(I can personally vouch that RP's 11 conditions exist and that they are absurdly unfair.)

It seems that discussions between KJ and CST/Lina are still currently ongoing. Around the same time, Desmond Lim (DL) released a statement proposing that “both sides immediately form a joint working committee comprising members from both RP and SDA to discuss and propose some viable options.”

Apparently, the suggestion has been ignored and and CST/Lina continue to take matters into their own hands to decide matters for SDA. The interest of the other SDA component parties are still being neglected.

If that is the case, then CST/Lina will just have to face disappointment again when the decision is reverted to the SDA SEC for a vote.


The keys are in PKMS's hands.

*SDA SEC 2009/2012
Chiam See Tong - SPP
Lim Bak Chuan Desmond - SPP
Yen Kim Khooi - SPP
Yong Seng Fatt - SPP
Sin Kek Tong - SPP
Ali Bin Asjadi - PKMS
Malik Bin Ismail - PKMS
Ahmad Bin Yusoff - PKMS
Ismail Bin Mohd - PKMS
Abdul Jamal Bin Abdul Rashid - PKMS
Habibi Bte Joharie - SJP
Kelvin Goh - SJP
Aminuddin Bin Ami - SJP

 

[fivestars]

Feedback from the Ground?

In the proposed hookup between RP and SDA, there was mention that RP imposed 11 conditions on SDA. (I will henceforth call it a “hookup”, since nobody can come to an agreement on whether to call it a merger or alliance)

Here is Condition No. 4, in verbatim :

“However first choice will be for Mr. Chiam to contest with RP candidates in West Coast GRC. RP candidates will be KJ, Tony Tan, Hazel Koa and one other depending on the size of the GRC after boundary changes. If we are not contesting in West Coast a seat will be offered to Mr. Chiam in a GRC either with KJ or with RP’s strongest team or alternatively SDA will offer up to two seats in Toa-Payoh Bishan to RP candidates. KJ reserves the right to contest in an SMC should it become necessary.”

To elaborate, the scheme worked out between CST/Lina and KJ would have seen CST abandoning his SPP colleagues and his current plans in Potong Pasir and Bishan-Toa Payoh. The sole purpose was to buttress RP’s ambitions in West Coast GRC. In an earlier note, I defined this as wife-snatching.

RP demands that all the other candidates for this GRC would be from itself – KJ, Tony, Hazel and another RP member (if needed). In other words, CST is being hijacked there merely to lend his personal political goodwill for RP’s selfish electoral gains.

In the event that West Coast is not targeted, CST’s services would still be similarly applied elsewhere – either with KJ or and RP team. The strategy here is to make sure that whichever GRC is contested, RP will dominate.

Only in the event that the decision is for CST to contest Bishan-Toa Payoh would SDA take some control. But in this case, two places MUST be offered to RP.

Finally, the condition further allows the newbie KJ to maintain flexibility to contest an SMC if he choose. This contrasts with the various restrictive conditions imposed on how the veteran CST can be deployed.

Overall, even for just this one condition (out of eleven), it can be seen that RP intended to exploit SDA and CST for its self-interest. With the among of outcry again RP for being predatory and covetous during the negotiation in May, KJ probably recognises the folly of some of the demands. As such this particular condition is likely to be dropped in the current round of RP-SDA discussion.

However, this change does not detract from the fact that RP was extremely rapacious in its dealing towards a fellow Opposition party and wanted to plunder the SDA for its own selfish gains.

While the demands on SDA is likely be relaxed for the ongoing round of negotiations, RP’s patronising attitude towards a party/alliance with a lot more experience and standing is unlikely to change.

It should also be reiterated that the current discussion seems to be still between bilateral CST/Lina and KJ. Other component parties continue to be left out and it is likely that their interests will be neglected, again.

 

[fivestars]

We are still dwelling on the 11 conditions imposed by RP for its hookup with SDA in May 10.

In the earlier note, I spoke about how KJ used Condition No. 4 to place restrictions on SDA. It would ensure that RP gets maximum advantage and flexibility out of the deal. He did so by dictating how CST and SDA members will jointly contest the coming elections with RP.

Next, let me focus on three related conditions for further discussion. They are, in verbatim:

Condition No. 2 - To be billed as “Partnership of Equals” in press conference even though rules require joint contest to be under SDA banner.

Condition No. 5 - RP reserves right to contest under its own name in other GRCs/SMCs provided it has enough candidates. These include but are not limited to Hong Kah, Choa Chu Kang +1 New SMC and Sembawang. RP may, but is not obliged to, offer some of the SDA candidates seats in these GRCs. However RP will retain a right of veto over the choice of SDA candidates.

Condition No. 10 - Changing the name of the SDA to Singapore Reform Democratic Alliance to be considered.

Normally, any party that joins a political alliance becomes one of the component parties. In the case of SDA, the new entrant would sit side-by-side with the existing members- SPP, PKMS and SJP.

But RP is not normal.

RP's inflated conception of itself due to an equally bloated ego forbids it from doing so. It does NOT want to be regarded as just another component party like the rest. Hence, Condition No. 2 demands that the deal be billed publicly as a “Partnership of Equals” not with the other parties, but between RP and SDA.

If RP is “equal” to SDA, then it deems itself to be one level above the other three parties. It is obvious that RP does not have any respect for its fellow Opposition parties. But RP goes one step further - it literally wants be publicly seen to look down on them.

RP forgets it was ONLY formed in 2008 and has no election experience, nor any parliamentary credentials. In contrast, the other three parties should be considered as veterans on the local political landscape. (Registration: PKMS-1961, SJP-1972, SPP-1994).

In tandem with its sense of self- aggrandizement, Condition No. 10 then suggests that the name of the Alliance be amended to "Singapore Reform Democratic Alliance".

“Reform” must be held head and shoulders above the rest.

In May, ST called the deal a "merger"; but KJ would rather couch it as an “alliance”. To me, it is immaterial what it is coined as. It is the spirit behind it that counts.

It is definitely ludicrous for there to be an alliance between a party (RP) and another alliance (SDA). There is already an exist structure for SDA to take in new members. Why should RP compel SDA to form an alliance over and above the latter's own internal structure?

However, even Condition No. 5 betrays this so-called “alliance”. One cannot call it an alliance if KJ merely wants to exploit CST and SDA to help his own candidates enter parliament, while preserving all his party interests at the expense of the other entity.

Therefore Condition No. 5 stipulates that despite being in an alliance with SDA, RP retains full flexibility to contest in other constituencies by itself. For these contests, RP is not obliged to allow any SDA members to join in. And even if it does, RP retains the right of veto over the choice of SDA candidates.

In any agreement for a typical alliance, one would have expected some mention of a mechanism for collective planning and decision between both sides. What kind of Alliance is this when the preconditions are so lob-sided, with RP holding all the cards and flexibility? KJ essentially took advantage of CST's poor physical state, and the fact that Lina is a political novice, to bind and fix SDA in a position of disadvantage.


Lastly, some of the terms listed here might also be dropped as a result of the ongoing discussions between CST/Lina and KJ.

However it is important to remind ourselves that in May, KJ was very serious about imposing such predatory and self-centred stipulations on SDA. It is an indication of what goes through KJ’s mind when he pretends to “cooperate” with a fellow member of the Opposition. He was literally trying to entrap CST/Lina and the entire SDA.

(Fortunately, the SDA SEC held)

Would any other party want to co-operate, or heaven forbid, form an alliance with a party led by someone who pursues his own interests with such single-mindedness?


[Afternote: To those whom I have tagged, pls informed me if you do not wish to be tagged in any future notes from me. I will humbly adhere.]

RP-SDA Merger - RP's Condition Nos. 2, 5 and 10
by Bryan Ti on Tuesday, August 17, 2010 at 9:13am

 

[fivestars]

The SPP CEC list is appended as follows :-

Chairman: Mr Sin Kek Tong
1st Vice-Chairman: Mr Yong Seng Fatt
2nd Vice-Chairman: Mdm Loh Woon Lee Lina

Secretary-General: Chiam See Tong
1st Asst Sec-General: Mr Wilfred Leung
2nd Asst Sec-General: Mr Jason Leong

1st Treasurer: Mr Sydney Soon S K
2nd Treasurer: Mr Yen Kim Khooi

Council Members
Mr Ting Sze Jiang
Mr Eric Koa Hean Hong
Mr Lee Hock Huat
Thompson Chua
Mr Bryan Chua
Mr Desmond Lim

Co-Opted Members
Mr Rai
Mr Mohd Hamim

 

[fivestars]

ZB reported on the election of SPP CEC appointments which was held on 16 Aug. It stated that the results of the elections has essentially paved the way for RP to join SDA. The SPP CEC has already in-principle agreed to the entry of RP into SDA.

The ZB report quoted Sin Kek Tong as saying that SPP had already sent an email on 22 Jul before the recent OPC to formally invite RP to join SDA. Currently, the party is awaiting the reply from the RP Sec-Gen. ZB also observed that the stands of PKMS and SJP, which together with Desmond Lim opposed the lob-sided conditions imposed by RP, are currently unknown.

(note: technically, SPP cannot invite RP to join SDA - SPP is just a component party of SDA. The offer must come solely from SDA, after agreement at the SEC. I have this feeling that that PKMS and SJP have not agreed. But that is another story altogether.)

The issue is now this: Is RP being invited to JOIN SDA as a component party or are we still talking about an alliance between RP and SDA (which was KJ's version)?

The crucial difference is that if RP joins SDA, it becomes another political party ON PAR with the others - SPP, PKMS and SJP. If that is the case, then the terms and conditions that apply to SDA component parties MUST exactly apply to RP as well - nothing more, nothing less.

RP cannot impose any additional demands such as those “11 Conditions” that we heard so much about in May.

They would have give RP an undue advantage over the other parties. It does not augur well for an alliance for new members to start reserving “special privileges” for themselves. Within the Alliance, the playing field must be kept level. Otherwise, potential new members will also clamour for special treatments in future. With such as an uneven footing, the growth of the Alliance will be impeded.

The Alliance must operate on a equitable mode based on meritocracy – the best and most suitable candidates and parties takes the choice constituencies. Compromises between the component parties is a necessary feature of an alliance.

If there any new conditions are to be acceded to, then they should be equally APPLICABLE to all components parties. Once accepted by all, these new conditions should then be incorporated into SDA 's Constitution so that all parties are subjected to them.

Looking back at RP's infamous “11 Conditions”, there are indeed some which are reasonable and deserve some merits to be INCLUDED into SDA's Constitution (if they are not stipulated therein already):

Condition 8. No party that has gained a seat in Parliament under the SDA banner may be expelled from the SDA without the agreement of that party.

Condition 11. Town Council management positions to be decided by each party in proportion to its number of elected MPs in that GRC subject of course to the requirement that candidates should be chosen in a meritocratic manner.

On the other hand, some of RP's other demands raised as part of the “11 Conditions” are unfair and premature. They should be deferred until RP formally joins SDA first. The issues should then be tabled for COLLECTIVE discussion at the SEC:

a. Selection and allocation of constituencies (Conditions 3, 4 and 5)

b. Distribution and cross-sharing of candidates among parties. (Conditions 3, 4 and 5)

c. Who will be responsible for writing and presenting the English message for SDA for the television broadcast during the GE. (Condition 7)

Lastly, there are some of the “11 Conditions” which should be totally DISCARDED and not even raised discussed at the SEC. They are as follows:

Condition 2 - “To be billed as “Partnership of Equals” in press conference even though rules require joint contest to be under SDA banner”. - It no longer makes sense to speak of a “Partnership of Equals” if RP is joing as a component party. It will be equal to the other parties under a formal alliance.

Condition 6: “SDA will offer one of its key posts (either Chairman or Secretary-General) to the SG of the Reform Party.” - This ludicrous and self-centred demand should be discarded straightaway. The post of Chairman and Sec-Gen should be decided based on elections carried out within the SDA SEC. Nobody deserves to be “offered” such positions.

Condition 10: “Changing the name of the SDA to Singapore Reform Democratic Alliance to be considered” - No component party should have the “privilege” of incorporating its name into that of the Alliance. The name of the Alliance must be keep neutral to all.

An equitable basis to admit new members into SDA will bode well for the future of forging a larger Alliance and greater Opposition Unity. What RP tried to impose on SDA in May would have set the Opposition back several years in terms of having created distrust and discord.


If indeed RP has “seen the light” and is now willing to join SDA with a more humble attitude, then the future of the Opposition and the chances at the coming GE will be brighter.

But someone now has to switch on the bright light, so that we will see whether RP catches the ball already thrown into its court. Otherwise, if it can't catch it, then it is best that RP contests the election GE by itself. Then it's attitude will not adversely affect SDA.

PS. The whispering grapevine tells me that RP will still be imposing some conditions prior to acceptance of the SDA offer.

SDA - How RP Should Join the Alliance - Like the Rest!
by Bryan Ti on Thursday, August 19, 2010 at 8:51pm

 

[fivestars]

SINGAPORE MALAY NATIONAL ORGANISATION
On 09th August 1965 , Singapore was separated from Malaysia . After separation , UMNO Singapore had to adjust to the changed political circumstances of an Independent , multi - racial Singapore and had to sever its connections with UMNO Malaysia . On 05th May 1967 , UMNO Singapore assumed a new name - : PERTUBUHAN KEBANGSAAN MELAYU SINGAPURA ( PKMS ) or SINGAPORE MALAY NATIONAL ORGANISATION ( SMNO ) .

http://singaporemalaynationalorganisation.blogspot.com/

 

[fivestars]

The Chinese Revolutionary Alliance Affair Department (Tong Meng)
Vision

To promote the development of the Chinese Community in business, culture and education to the success of a multi-racial and multi-religious in East Asia

Mission

To nurture and develop the potential of the Chinese community in the economic prosperity, cultural, education and community service activities of Singapore

About Us

The Chinese Revolutionary Alliance Affair Department (Tong Meng) was found to assist the Chinese Development Assistance Council (CDAC), Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SCCCI) and Singapore Federation of Chinese Clans Association (SFCCA) in Singapore Chinese Community Development.

In October 1908, Dr Sun Yat Sen went to Singapore from Saigon (Ho Chi Minh City) to expand the revolution's reach. Wang Zhaoming, Hu Hanmin and others arrived to aid him. They went to various parts of Southeast Asia such as Malaya and Indonesia to publicize the cause. At this point, the Revolutionary Alliance had more than 20 branches with a total membership of more than 3000 people. Southeast Asia had the most number of branches and Nan yang was closest to its Tokyo headquarters. Hence, Dr Sun decided to make Singapore the nerve centre of his Southeast Asian revolutionary activities. Dr Sun wrote to Deng Zeru of Malaya, informing him of the news that Singapore was now the regional headquarters.

During the Second Sino-Japanese war, Lim Bo Seng participated actively in activities organized by the Nan yang Federation to boycott Japanese goods and raise funds for the Chinese army. On 01 February, Lim left Singapore and travelled to Sumatra with other Chinese community leaders and made his way to India later. He recruited and trained hundreds of secret agents through intensive military intelligence missions from China and India. He set up the Sino-British guerrilla task force Force 136 in mid-1942 together with Captain John Davis.

On the 27 February 1949, Tun Dato Sir Tan Cheng Lock had struggled of the Chinese community in Malaya, especially in the fields of politics, education and social welfare. Strongly anti-communist, he was also trusted by the British colonial officials. The goal for the foundation of the Malayan Chinese Association was to unite the Chinese population in Malaya.

Lee Kuan Yew signed a separation agreement on 7 August 1965, which discussed Singapore's post-separation relations with Malaysia in order to continue co-operation in areas such as trade and mutual defense.

http://tongmeng.weebly.com/

 

[fivestars]

Hung Sing Buddhist
Our Vision: To be a Singapore Chinese Mahayana Buddhist Lay Person Community Center by compassion and wisdom for the Enlightenment of all.

Our Mission: To actively propagate, learn and practise the Chinese Mahayana Buddhist Dharma.
Founded in 2010 by Ng Chiew Kiat, Hung Sing Buddhist has grown to match the changing of Singapore Chinese Mahayana Buddhism in its Dharma propagation efforts. We aspire to be a model of Chinese Mahayana Buddhist Lay Person Fellowship Center, which nurtures a culture for the active propagation, learning and practice of socially-engaged Dharma, guided by Compassion and Wisdom, for the Enlightenment of all.
The Hung Sing Buddhist Fellowship training centers teaching the Chinese Mahayana Buddhist Dharma to produce in all participants a vibrant relationship with compassion and wisdom for the Enlightenment, in as many as are called, a passion to commit without reservation to lead in the cause of Buddha in the Singapore.

The main aims of The Hung Sing Buddhist Fellowship training centers include:

Organize Funeral Service for Chinese Mahayana Buddhist
Organize Full Month and Birthday Ceremony for Chinese Mahayana Buddhist
Organize Married Ceremony for Chinese Mahayana Buddhist
Organize Refuges and Percepts Ceremony for Chinese Mahayana Buddhist
Organize Sunday Dharma Fellowship (3pm)
Organize Sunday Morning Recitation Fellowship (5am)
Organize Daily Circumambulation and Invocation Fellowship (7pm)
Train Buddhist leadership
Support Buddhist Temples in the community
Teach preschool and school children
Aid and encourage families in the Buddhist training of their children.
Wherever the Buddha's teachings have flourished, either in cities or countrysides, people would gain inconceivable benefits. The Land and people would be envelop in peace. The sun and moon will shine clear and bright. Wind and rain would appear accordingly and there will be no disasters. Nations would be prosperous and there would be no use for soldiers or weapons. People would abide by morality and accord with laws. They would be courteous and humble and everyone would be content without injustices. There would be no thefts or violence. The strong would not dominate the weak and everyone would get their fair share.
Originally Bodhi has no tree, The bright mirror has no stand. Originally there is not a single thing: Where can dust alight?

http://hungsingbuddhist.weebly.com/

 

[fivestars]

NSP West Branch http://nspwestbranch.blogspot.com/ (by Anthony Ng Chiew Kiat)
CONSTITUTION OF THE NATIONAL SOLIDARITY PARTY

1. NAME OF BUSINESS

The name of the Party shall be the National Solidarity Party (hereinafter referred to as the “Party”).

2. PLACE OF BUSINESS

Its place of business shall be at

397, Jalan Besar
#02-01A
Singapore 209007

or such other address as may subsequently be decided upon by the Central Executive Council (hereinafter referred to as the “CEC”) and approved by the Registrar of Societies.

3. OBJECTS
Its objects are:

3.1 To build a multi-Party democracy by winning seats in parliamentary elections.

3.2 To organise and maintain an active ground presence to understand the people’s needs and concerns.

3.3 To provide a credible platform for the people to express their views and concerns so as to influence government policies.

http://anthonyngchiewkiat.weebly.com/nsp.html

 

[fivestars]

Nationalism
Nationalism involves a strong identification of a group of individuals with a political entity defined in national terms. Often, it is the belief that an ethnic group has a right to statehood or that citizenship in a state should be limited to one ethnic group, or that multinationality in a single state should necessarily comprise the right to express and exercise national identity even by minorities.

It is also used to describe a movement to establish or protect a homeland for an ethnic group. In some cases the identification of a national culture is combined with a negative view of other races or cultures. Conversely, nationalism might also be portrayed as collective identities towards imagined communities which are not naturally expressed in language, race or religion but rather socially constructed by the very individuals that belong to a given nation.

National flags, national anthems, and other symbols of national identity are often considered sacred, as if they were religious rather than political symbols.

The Principle of Nationalism, literally "the People's relation" or "government of the People." By this, Sun meant freedom from imperialist domination. To achieve this he believed that China must develop a "civic-nationalism," Zhonghua Minzu, as opposed to an "ethnic-nationalism," so as to unite all of the different ethnicities of China, mainly composed by the five major groups of Han, Mongols, Tibetans, Manchus, and the Muslims, which together are symbolized by the Five Color Flag of the First Republic (1911–1928). This sense of nationalism is different from the idea of "ethnocentrism," which equates to the same meaning of nationalism in Chinese language.

Today, our Singapore National Anthems is in Malay Language. Our post independent National Language is Johor Sultan Malay Language. Our National Flag is a crescent moon with five stars represent a Muslim Country. Our post independent National Religion is Johor Sultan Sunni Muslim. Our Chinese Singaporean exit in Singapore was due to we were British Malacca Strait Citizen. Our pre-independent National Language was English and pre-independent National Religion was Christian.

As a Chinese Singaporean shall remain our mother tongue base on China common language and our personal faith is Chinese Mahayana Buddhist (Mahayana Buddhist and Chinese Taoism). According our Chinese Culture, we must learn and master Malay Language, Malay Culture, English, Sunni Muslim and Anglican Christian as well we will promote our Chinese Language and Chinese Mahayana Buddhism.

We wish we can create a new national identity. We can speak English, Johor Malay and Mandarin. We can understand Sunni Muslim, Anglican Christian and Chinese Mahayana Buddhism. We can master Johor Malay Culture, British Culture and Chinese Culture. We also can master Modern China History, Modern Johor History and Modern United Kingdom History

 

[fivestars]

Democracy is a political form of government where governing power is derived from the people, either by direct referendum (direct democracy) or by means of elected representatives of the people (representative democracy). The term comes from the Greek is "rule of the people", which was coined from "people" and "power", to denote the political systems. These principles are reflected in all citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to power. For example, in a representative democracy, every vote has equal weight, no restrictions can apply to anyone wanting to become a representative, and the freedom of its citizens is secured by legitimized rights and liberties which are generally protected by a constitution.

There are several varieties of democracy, some of which provide better representation and more freedoms for their citizens than others. However, if any democracy is not carefully legislated – through the use of balances – to avoid an uneven distribution of political power, such as the separation of powers, then a branch of the system of rule could accumulate power and become undemocratic.

The "majority rule" is often described as a characteristic feature of democracy, but without governmental or constitutional protections of individual liberties, it is possible for a minority of individuals to be oppressed by the "tyranny of the majority". An essential process in representative democracies is competitive elections that are fair both substantively and procedurally. Furthermore, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press are essential so that citizens are informed and able to vote in their personal interests.

Popular sovereignty is common but not a universal motivating subject for establishing a democracy. In some countries, democracy is based on the philosophical principle of equal rights. Many people use the term "democracy" as shorthand for liberal democracy, which may include additional elements such as political pluralism; equality before the law; the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances;due process; civil liberties; human rights; and elements of civil society outside the government.

The Principle of democracy; literally "the People's power" or "government by the People." To Sun, it represented a Western constitutional government. First, he divided political life of his ideal for China into two sets of 'powers':

Dr Sun Powers:
The power of politics (政權, zhèngquán) are the powers of the people to express their political wishes, similar to those vested in the citizen or the parliaments in other countries, and is represented by the National Assembly. There are four of these powers: election (選舉), recall (罷免), initiative (創製), and referendum (複決). These may be equated to "civil rights".

The power of governance (治權, zhìquán) are the powers of administration. Here he expanded the European-American constitutional theory of a three-branch government and a system of checks and balances by incorporating traditional Chinese administrative tradition to create a government of five branches (each of which is called a Yuan (院, yuàn) or 'court'). The Legislative Yuan, the Executive Yuan, and the Judicial Yuan came from Montesquieuan thought; the Control Yuan and the Examination Yuan came from Chinese tradition. (Note that the Legislative Yuan was first intended as a branch of governance, not strictly equivalent to a national parliament.)

Singapore was base on United Kingdom Democracy:

The politics of the United Kingdom has taken place in the framework of a constitutional monarchy, in which the Monarch is head of state and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is the head of government. The judiciary is independent of the executive and the legislature, the highest national court being the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is the supreme court in all matters. It is the court of last resort and highest appellate court in the United Kingdom. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to resolve disputes relating to devolution — cases in which the legal powers of the three devolved governments or laws made by the devolved legislatures are questioned. It shares the Middlesex Guildhall in the City of Westminster, with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

The Supreme Court was established by Part 3 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and started work on 1 October 2009. It assumed the judicial functions of the House of Lords, which were exercised by the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (commonly called "Law Lords"), the 12 professional judges appointed as members of the House of Lords to carry out its judicial business. Its jurisdiction over devolution matters had previously been held by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.


The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) is one of the highest courts in the United Kingdom, established by the Judicial Committee Act 1833. It is also the highest court of appeal (or court of last resort) for several independent Commonwealth countries, the UK overseas territories, and the British Crown Dependencies. It is simply referred to as the Privy Council, as appeals are in fact made to the Queen as Her Majesty in Council, who then refers the case to the Judicial Committee for "advice". The panel of judges hearing a particular case (typically five members) is known as "the Board".

In Commonwealth republics, appeals are made directly to the Judicial Committee instead.





Our Singaporean Democracy Principle shall:-

1) The President is the Head of State
2) The Prime Minister is the Head of Government
3) The Supreme Court of Singapore is independent of the executive and the legislature (Adopt The judiciary UK Model)
4) The rule of the people by civil rights and a system of checks and balances on European constitutional theory of a three-branch government

 

[fivestars]

The Principle of the People's Welfare and Livelihood. Through this, Sun meant socialism (democratic socialism) and communism, though the government of Chiang Kai-shek and onward shied away from translating it as such. He defined this principle of saying in his last days "it's socialism and it's communism.". The concept may be understood as social welfare as well. Sun understood it as an industrial economy and equality of land holdings for the Chinese peasant farmers. Here he was influenced by the American thinker Henry George (see Georgism) and German thinker Karl Marx; the land value tax in Taiwan is a legacy thereof. He divided livelihood into four areas: food, clothing, housing, and transportation; and planned out how an ideal (Chinese) government can take care of these for its people.

Welfare or welfare work consists of actions or procedures — especially on the part of governments and institutions — striving to promote the basic well-being of individuals in need. These efforts usually strive to improve the financial situation of people in need but may also strive to improve their employment chances and many other aspects of their lives including sometimes their mental health. In many countries, most such aid is provided by family members, relatives, and the local community and is only theoretically available from government sources.
Social Fund
A Social Fund (sometimes also called Social Investment Fund, Social Fund for Development, Social Action Fund, National Solidarity Fundor Social Development Agency) is an institution. Social Funds also aim at contributing to social capital and development at the local level. In many cases they serve as innovators and demonstrators of new methods of decentralized participatory decision-making, management, and accountability that may be adopted for broader application by public sector organizations.
Social Funds spread quickly with the intellectual and financial backing of the GIC's, GLC's, Listed Organisation and other donors.
The social funds were created to serve as short-term safety nets to soften the impact of structural adjustment policies on the poor, which was mainly achieved by providing temporary employment. The social funds also have adopted more explicit institutional strategies aimed at empowerment and capacity building of communities as well as local governments in the context of decentralization.

Funding Livelihood
Employee financial and vocational support for living. Skill training, Leadership training, On Job Training, Quality Training, Safety Training and Financial Control Skill. Reasonable Salary, Foods, Drink, Electricity, Fuel, Transport, Phone, Hand-Phone, Internet Service, Education, Medical fee, Home and other necessities that Singaporean needs time to time.
Funding Self-employment Hardship
Self-employment is working for one's self rather than for another person or company. In other sense, it is, earning one's livelihood directly from one's own trade or business rather than as an employee of another. To be self-employed, an individual is normally highly skilled in a trade or has a niche product or service for his or her local community. With the creation of the Internet, the ability for an individual to become self-employed has increased dramatically.
Fund Needy Hardship
Poor is an adjective related to a state of poverty, low quality, low income or pity.
In Singapore, we shall review the needy, low income, middle class and self-employ personnel need, time to time with new policy to assist them. Nations would be prosperous. People would abide by morality and accord with laws. They would be courteous and humble and everyone would be content without injustices. There would be no violence. The strong would not dominate the weak and everyone would get their fair share. The Big Organization will help the needy, low income, middle class and self-employ personnel to share nation prosperous fairly.
What Do Employers Really Want?
Our education system and training academic can match the employment livelihood needs?
Top Skills and Values Employers Seek from Job-Seekers ability get better livelihood need?
Most job-seekers wish they could unlock the secret formula to winning the hearts and minds of employers. What, they wonder, is that unique combination of skills and values that make employers salivate with excitement? Every employer is looking for a specific set of skills from job-seekers that match the skills necessary to perform a particular job. But beyond these job-specific technical skills, certain skills are nearly universally sought by employers. The good news is that most job-seekers possess these skills to some extent. The better news is that job-seekers with weaknesses in these areas can improve their skills through training, professional development, or obtaining coaching/mentoring from someone who understands these skills. The best news is that once you understand the skills and characteristics that most employers seek, you can tailor your job-search communication to showcase how well your background aligns with common employer requirements. Numerous studies have identified these critical employability skills, sometimes referred to as "soft skills." We've distilled the skills from these many studies into this list of skills most frequently mentioned. We've also included sample verbiage describing each skill; job-seekers can adapt this verbiage.

 

[fivestars]

How about Singaporean try to master the soft skills and hard skills?

How about Singaporean lower down their salary and employee welfare?

 

[fivestars]

The tussle for control at Singapore's only Malay-based political party is not over.

Despite a court order to do so, the president of the Singapore Malay National Organisation's (PKMS) breakaway faction has not ceded control of the PKMS Building in Changi Road.

On Aug 10, Justice Lai Siu Chiu gave Mr Borhan Ariffin and two other trustees 15 days to sign over the trust deed, thereby handing control of the building, estimated to be worth $10 million, to the rival faction led by council adviser Osman Hassan.

The Registrar of the Supreme Court can now sign the deed on behalf of Mr Borhan's faction but his representative told MediaCorp they plan to appeal.

While they may have a month from the date of the decision to do so, Mr Osman's lawyer, Mr P E Ashokan, said he plans to go ahead with getting the Registrar to sign the transfer. ZUL OTHMAN

 

[loudhailer]

SDA : CEC

BAH! Who does CST think he is? When I sacked him from the SDP in 1993 he should just have faded away. Ater 17 years he is still an MP.

I call on my OA dogs to ban anyone who does not worship my reCHEEme.

SDA, BAH!