Exploring the Extent of Executive Discretion

Part-time cleaner, Mdm Vellama d/o Marie Muthu is a Singapore citizen and resident voter of Hougang Single Member Constituency (SMC). 

On 15 February 2012, her Member of Parliament (MP) was expelled from his political party, which left his parliamentary seat vacant.  The next day, the Prime Minister said that there was no fixed time within which he must call for a by-election. He added that "there are many other issues on the national agenda right now".[1]

Unhappy at the prospect of being indefinitely without the service of an MP representing her vote, Mdm Vellama applied to the High Court on 2 March 2012 for remedy.

Asking to see the Judge

Mdm Vellama’s High Court application is for a declaration that the Prime Minister does not have unrestrained discretion when deciding whether or not a by-election should be called in Hougang SMC, and a mandatory order requiring the Prime Minister to advise the President to call a by-election within three months or some other reasonable time determined by the court.

According to Rules of Court, Mdm Vellama would first need to obtain the Court’s “leave” (i.e. permission) before her application can be heard by the Judge and decided on the merits.  The purpose of this initial “leave” stage is to serve as a filter:

“… to be a means of filtering out groundless or hopeless cases at an early stage, and its aim is to prevent a wasteful use of judicial time and to protect public bodies from harassment (whether intentional or otherwise) that might arise from a need to delay implementing decisions, where the legality of such decisions is being challenged.”[2]

As the Attorney-General explained:

“Leave must first be obtained in judicial review proceedings so that cases which are misconceived or unarguable can be weeded out.”[3] 

Hopeless cases which do not deserve to be heard, should be stopped on its tracks at the door.

On 2 April 2012, a High Court Judge decided that Mdm Vellama’s application passed the initial filtering test.  Mdm Vallama was given leave for a substantive hearing and a Hearing Date of 16 April 2012 was given to her.

Appeal against Judge’s decision to hear

On 4 April 2012, in a surprising move (at least to me it was), the Attorney-General filed an Appeal against the High Court Judge’s decision to grant leave to hear Mdm Vellama’s application.  This effectively translates to Attorney-General saying that Mdm Vallama’s application does not deserve to be heard and that the decision by the High Court Judge to hear her out, was wrong.  The Attorney-General’s Appeal will be heard on 16 May 2012.

From anecdotal accounts, it seems that many Hougang constituents and Singaporeans (including me) share Mdm Vellama’s unhappiness with the Government’s position that it is not held to any particular time frame for announcing the Hougang by-election, or for that matter, any by-election when a parliamentary seat of an SMC becomes vacant.

History of By-Elections

Mdm Vellama’s anxieties are not without basis.  There had been instances in the past, where parliamentary seats were vacated by the respective MPs due to death or disqualification, but where no by-elections were held:

(a)  In December 1983, the MP for Havelock constituency, Hon Sui Sen, passed away in office. His seat was thus vacated. No by-elections were held in the ward until the General Election in 1984, when the Havelock seat was erased from the electoral map.

(b)  In November 1986, the late JB Jeyaretnam’s seat in Anson was vacated after he was disqualified from holding a seat in Parliament. No by-elections were held and the seat remained vacant until the 1988 General Election, when the Anson seat was erased from the electoral map.

(c)  In December 1986, the Geylang West seat became vacant after its MP Teh Cheang Wan committed suicide. No by-elections were held until the 1988 General Election when the Geylang West seat was erased from the electoral map.

Academics have weighed in[4] and Singaporeans are keen to know the Court’s opinion on the limits of Executive discretion in respect of SMC by-elections.

Why Appeal?

Given the public interest in Mdm Vellama’s application, it is perplexing that the Attorney-General has decided to vigorously challenge the High Court’s decision to hear Mdm Vellama's application.  If the Attorney-General’s Appeal succeeds, Mdm Vellama’s case would be thrown out; which means that she, Hougang constituents and Singaporeans will be denied of the Court’s opinion on the question whether the Prime Minister’s discretion is or is not limited to a definite time-frame for calling by-elections.

If Mdm Vellama’s application is indeed "legally flawed" as the Attorney-General has argued, then it is doomed; and the Court will eventually dismiss it after it has been heard.  So what's the harm in letting Mdm Vellama have her day in Court and to let justice be seen to be done?

Legal Costs?

In Court proceedings, when a party “wins”, the winning party can ask the Court to order the losing party to pay costs.  If the Attorney-General’s Appeal succeeds, would the Attorney-General ask the Court to order Mdm Vellama to pay costs?  I hope not.

Every Singapore citizen in all other constituencies has his own elected MP to serve him.  Mdm Vellama has turned to the Court for help because she fears she would not be having what every Singaporean in all other constituencies has.  It would be disappointing enough if the Attorney-General "wins" their Appeal, for that would mean that her application is thrown out.  To be made to pay the Attorney-General's legal costs for asking the Court for help, would be a disastrous result.      

Role of Attorney-General

We know that the Attorney-General is the Government’s legal adviser[5].  If the Attorney-General serves the Executive, then do the interests of the Executive coincide, or conflict, with the interests of the public (i.e. citizens) in respect of the legal questions posed by Mdm Vellama’s application? 

What if the Executive one day decides to abolish SMCs altogether?  Or if supposing Executive thinks it is better to hold elections once in 10 years in the interest of political stability and to avoid the expense and distraction of holding general elections once every 4 or 5 years? 

If (hypothetically) the Executive wants to amend the Constitution in a manner which serves the political interests of the ruling party at the expense of civil liberties, and if the ruling party has the requisite two-thirds majority in Parliament to pass such amending legislation, who will defend the citizens’ rights from being encroached upon?

What will be the role of the Attorney-General in such a hypothetical scenario?  As the Government’s legal adviser, the Attorney-General would presumably defend the Government’s position with all its best efforts.

Screen-shot from http://www.singapore-elections.com/parl-1997-ge/cheng-san-grc.html 

Workers’ Party’s Complaint in GE 1997

In the aftermath of the 1997 General Elections, the Workers' Party complained to the police that PAP leaders (Prime Minister Mr Goh Chok Tong, Deputy Prime Minister Dr Tony Tan and Deputy Prime Minister Brigadier-General (NS) Lee Hsien Loong) had been inside a Cheng San GRC polling station on Polling Day, when none of them were candidates for Cheng San GRC[6].

The Workers' Party cited two sections of the Parliamentary Elections Act:

Section 82(1)(d):

"No person shall wait outside any polling station on polling day, except for the purpose of gaining entry to the polling station to cast his vote". 

Section 82(1)(e):

"No person shall loiter in any street or public place within a radius of 200 metres of any polling station on polling day."

However, the Attorney-General stated that the PAP leaders had not broken the law.  

Pointing to the use of the word “outside” in Section 82(1)(d), the Attorney-General explained[7]:

“Plainly, persons found waiting inside the polling stations do not come within the ambit of this section. …. Only those who wait outside the polling station commit an offence under this section unless they are waiting to enter the polling station to cast their votes.”

As for Section 82(1)(e), the Attorney-General pointed to the use of the word “within” and explained[8]:

“The relevant question is whether any person who is inside a polling station can be said to be "within a radius of 200 metres of any polling station". …Plainly, a person inside a polling station cannot be said to be within a radius of 200 metres of a polling station.”

If at that time, Singapore had an independent election body overseeing the election procedures, I think the Workers’ Party would probably have lodged their complaint to such a body instead of lodging their complaint to the police as they did.  I wonder how such an independent election body would have dealt with the Workers’ Party’s complaint.

In the English case of Adler v George [1964] 2 QB 7, the UK Official Secrets Act 1920 stated that it was an offence to obstruct a member of the armed forces “in the vicinity” of a prohibited place. The defendant was in the station at the time of the obstruction.  He argued that if he was on the station he could not be in the vicinity of the station. The court held that it would be absurd for a person to be liable if they were near to a prohibited place and not if they were actually in it.  The defendant’s conviction of the offence was upheld.

List of legislation amending the Constitution

Amending the Constitution

As we know, the provisions of the Constitution may be amended by the votes of two-thirds of the total number of elected MPs, which works out to 58 out of the current 87 parliamentary seats.  This has been done numerous times in the past. Since 1965 to date, there have been 37 acts of parliament to amend the Singapore Constitution.

More importantly, Singapore’s electoral system has been amended at least four times since 1984, each of these amendments coming into effect shortly before general elections, as the following table illustrates:[9]

Constitutional Amendment	Effective Date	Nomination Day	Lead Time
Introduction of Non-Constituency Member of Parliament scheme	10 Aug 1984	13 Dec 1984	4 months
Introduction of Group Representation Constituency scheme	31 May 1988	24 Aug 1988	3 months
Introduction of Nominated Member of Parliament scheme	10 Sep 1990	21 Aug 1991	11 months
Change in Group Representation Constituency scheme	3 Jan 1991	21 Aug 1991	7 months
Act 41 of 1996	12 Nov 1996	23 Dec 1996	< 2 months

I imagine the short lead time between the effective date of the electoral changes and the date of elections would have made it difficult for opposition parties to react and to prepare themselves for elections.     

Notably, Singapore has never had an independent body overseeing election procedures and the drawing of constituency boundaries.  Our Election Department has always been under the Prime Minister's office.  Criticism by opposition parties of an unlevel political playing field cannot be independently evaluated. 

Balancing the Powers

Unless there are sufficient opposition MPs in Parliament (at least 29) to deny the ruling party their two-thirds majority, citizens have only two defenders left to protect their civil rights: the Judiciary and Civil Society. 

The effectiveness of the Judiciary in checking the Executive will be curtailed whenever the scope of judicial review of executive decisions are being reduced or eliminated (e.g. section 8B(2) of the Internal Security Act). 

The effectiveness of Civil Society in speaking out for the protection of fundamental liberties will be curtailed so long as freedom of speech is circumscribed by legislation mandating the requirement to obtain a licence to speak publicly, assembly or gather in public (Public Order Act), restricting the formation of societies (Societies Act), vigilant, vigorous enforcement of defamation laws by political appointment holders[10], and so forth.

We have heard the old adage: Absolute power corrupts absolutely.  All power must have limits.  The exercise of Executive powers, as with any other kind of powers, cannot be unfettered. 

Democracy is a flawed system, no doubt; but this imperfect system respects the collective voting might of ordinary citizens and makes everyone equal.  Whether rich, influential, poor or obscure – each citizen has one vote.   

In functioning democracies, Executive powers are checked and balanced by: 

• Clearly defined constitutional guarantees of fundamental liberties
• presence of sufficient numbers of opposition MPs in Parliament

• an independent Judiciary with effective, sufficient powers of judicial review over Executive decisions

• a Civil Society which is not overly hindered by laws restricting freedom of speech and public assembly

• an independent elections commission to oversee election procedures

As of now, are all these safeguards securely in place in our socio-political landscape?

By Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss

---

[1] http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1183211/1/.html

[2] Public Service Commission v Lai Swee Lin Linda [2001] 1 SLR(R) 133 at [23]

[3] http://www.agc.gov.sg/documents/AGCPressRelease5April2012.pdf Attorney General v Vellama D/O Marie Muthu Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2012

[4] http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/constitution-demands-election-hougang-experts-103527358.html

[5] http://www.agc.gov.sg

[6] http://www.singapore-elections.com/parl-1997-ge/cheng-san-grc.html

[7] http://www.singapore-window.org/ag0721.htm

[8] http://www.singapore-window.org/ag0721.htm

[9] Page 67, An Introduction to Singapore’s Constitution (2005) Kevin YL Tan

[10] http://maruah.org/2012/03/05/maruahs-comments-on-the-practice-of-threatening-defamation-lawsuits/#more-1372

Note: This article was published by The Online Citizen on 28 Apr 2012:
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2012/04/exploring-the-extent-of-executive-discretion/

With Teo Soh Lung (15 Jan 2012, Hong Lim Park)

With M. Ravi (27 Apr 2012, Breakthrough Cafe)

"Raffles Hotel Singapore" - Not Singapore's

Raffles Hotel [1] on Beach Road is undoubtedly an icon. I love the place. I am sure many Singaporeans are fond of the place too.

Built in 1887, it was extensively renovated between 1989 and 1991. I must say, those involved in the restoration works did a marvellous job. The architecture of the building and its elegant interiors evoke the nostalgic ambience of a bygone era. Raffles Hotel is certainly a Singapore landmark I would be proud to boast about and to bring my foreign friends to see.

Sadly, Raffles Hotel does not belong to Singaporeans, as I only recently found out. Until 2005, the hotel was owned by Singapore-listed “Raffles Holdings”[2], a Temasek Holdings company.

In 2005, Raffles Holdings sold all of its hotel assets to US-based Colony Capital for SGD$1.72 billion. The portfolio of assets owned by Raffles Holdings consisted of 41 hotels and resorts, with its most prominent establishment being the luxurious 103-suite Raffles Hotel. (I guess I did not pick up on this news at the time it was announced.)

At the time of the acquisition, Colony Capital chief executive Thomas J. Barrack said: "We are honored to become the custodian of one of the finest hotel chains in the world and a true national treasure of the people of Singapore. We deeply respect the historical significance of the Raffles Hotel, Singapore and we consider it our responsibility to protect that legacy."[3]

In 2006, Colony Capital teamed up with a Saudi businessman to buy Fairmount Hotels and Resorts in a deal that resulted in Toronto-based Fairmount Raffles Hotel International[4] becoming the new owner of Raffles Hotel.

On 8 April 2010, The Straits Times reported that a Qatar sovereign wealth fund has bought Raffles Hotel for US$275 million (S$384 million), making it the third change of ownership in seven years.

This morning, 14 January 2012, I read in the Straits Times[5] that “Singapore’s grand old dame Raffles Hotel is finally in the hands of its new Qatari owners” - the government-owned Qatar National Hotels Company.

Though I feel a sense of loss upon reading today’s Straits Times article, the fact is, that the horse bolted out of the stable seven years ago.

Still, questions nag my mind:

• How could parent company Temasek Holdings consider it alright to sell away “Singapore’s grand old dame”? There is only ONE Raffles Hotel and it is of historic and sentimental value to Singaporeans.

• Did Singapore need the money badly that we had sell off our heirloom and heritage? (To my understanding, people sell off their family jewels in times of war or crisis, out of necessity, in order to survive their hard times.)

• Have Singaporeans benefitted from the proceeds of the sale of Raffles Hotel in 2005? More hospital beds? Better care facilities for our elderly? More affordable housing for Singaporeans? Higher subsidies for education? Improvements in public transport?

I suppose it is pointless to lament the loss of Raffles Hotel. The next time I talk about Raffles Hotel to my foreign friends, I have to remind myself that Raffles Hotel does not belong to Singaporeans, so I have nothing to boast about.

---

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raffles_Hotel

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raffles_Holdings

[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/18/business/worldbusiness/18iht-raffles.html

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairmont_Raffles_Hotels_International

[5] http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_755535.html

My Speech at “Own Your Future” NSP Outreach held on 13 Nov 2011

FORMATION OF THE NSP LAW COMMITTEE

One Sunday morning in January 2009, I picked up The Sunday Times and read an article which I found quite inspiring. The title of the article was “Righting a Wrong Comes from the Heart” and it was written by Dr Lee Wei Ling. The writer is director of the National Neuroscience Institute.

The article was about the concept of ‘guilt by omission’. She said:

and I quote “Since young, I have always been upset with myself if I knew something was wrong and I could put it right but didn’t.” Unquote

Dr Lee went on to say:

I quote “If there is something wrong that we know of, I believe we should try to set it right whether or not it is our business to do so. Not to do so implies we condone the wrong and hence we would be guilty of committing the wrong too.” Unquote

According to Dr Lee:

I quote “It is good for any country to have an active citizenry. And that is precisely why the concept of 'guilt by omission' should be a part of our ethos.” Unquote.

I agree with Dr Lee. It does not matter to me that she is the daughter of Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

Inasmuch as there are many things right in our society, there are of course many things wrong. Most of the wrong things are beyond our control and beyond our expertise, so we are off the hook. If it is beyond our ability to help, then the next best thing to do, is for us to get behind, give our help to and support to those who are able to and have the solutions, to right the wrongs.

Now when it comes to laws and regulations, those of us who are legally-trained would be in the best position to check and see if the current laws are still relevant or outdated, and if proposed new laws and regulations and fair and just and serve the right purposes.

One would naturally expect the Law Society of Singapore to take the lead in this. The Law Society of Singapore is the organization that represents all lawyers in Singapore. This year, 3,800 practising lawyers are members of the Law Society.

But in your memory, can you recall a time when you heard the Law Society speaking out against controversial laws or giving their opinions on proposed legislation? Perhaps you will find it hard to recall hearing any such comments from the Law Society.

Well, it may come as a surprise to some of you to hear this: The Law of Society is NOT allowed to comment on matters affecting legislation unless asked by the Government to do so – i.e. speak only when spoken to.

This muzzling of the Law Society occurred in 1986, when the then President of the Law Society was Mr Francis Seow. An amendment was made to Section 38(1)(c) of the Legal Profession Act in 1986 which removed the Law Society’s right to initiate comments on matters affecting legislation.

[Section 38 (1) (c) of the Legal Profession Act was amended in 1986 by adding the words in bold: “To assist the Government and the Courts in all matters affecting legislation submitted to it, and the administration and practice of law in Singapore.”]

Henceforth, the Law Society would be able to comment on matters affecting legislation, only when invited by the Government to do so.

If you ask me, the Law Society is in a bit of a moral dilemma. As an organization which represents 3,800 practising lawyers, it is standing in a vantage spot in the public square where it can sees things that others cannot. If the Law Society notices something amiss with a current law or has constructive comments to offer in respect of a proposed new law, should it practice active citizenry to speak up and thereby act in breach of its legal restrain? Or should the Law Society observe its legal restrain to remain mute (unless spoken to) and be thereby morally guilty of omission?

The Law Society has called on the Government many times to remove this humiliating restrain, but the Law Ministry responded that the amendment would stay as it did not want the Society to behave like a political pressure group.

In short, we cannot look to the Law Society of Singapore to help us to check and balance the operation of current laws and the appropriateness of any new laws proposed by Parliament.

So there is a worrying void in our society. Many social, political and civil activists have tried to fill the void by giving their comments on laws. But at the end of the day, their comments are from a non-legal perspective. Many lawyers too have spoken up in their own personal capacities to do what the Law Society should be doing. But how much can lone voices from isolated parts of the public square, do? How robust can the comments of a lone thinker hitting his keyboard at home, be?

The best way forward, is for individuals with the legal background to come together and to get organized. Once we group together, we can workshop and brainstorm ideas with each other. Iron sharpens iron. This is how we can formulate and articulate constructive comments on legislative matters, for the benefit of society.

With this in mind, NSP has tasked me to initiate the formation of a Law Committee for NSP.

AIMS:

• To provide information on the intent, effect and implication of laws and legislation of concern
• To help Singaporeans have a clearer understanding of the “why” and “how” of laws and legal issues
• To encourage public interest, debate and engagement on legal issues
• To formulate and give constructive comments on selected existing, new or proposed laws
• To provide legal advice to Singaporeans who cannot afford to pay for the same

WORKPLAN:

• To identify existing current laws which need to be reviewed
• To review and evaluate proposed laws
• To hold forums, workshops, debates and talks
• To work in tandem with the Policy Committee of NSP (so as to enable NSP to provide a more complete commentary on particular issues)
• To prepare written materials giving needed information on laws or legislation of concern
• To undertake legal research into parliamentary debates, legislative histories and caselaw
• To look into the laws of other countries for comparison and to see if we can learn from their experiences
• To run a free legal clinic for Singaporeans who cannot afford legal consultation
• (N.B. We can only provide legal advice. We cannot represent anyone in a legal matter.)

WHO ARE WE LOOKING FOR?

The Law Committee is not restricted to lawyers only.

We encourage anyone who has an interest in law and in legal development to join us.

You do have to be legally-trained or from a legal background.

• Anyone interested in law and in legal development
• Practising Lawyers
• Non-Practising Lawyers (e.g In-house Counsels, Retired Lawyers)
• Law Students
• Law Academics / Researchers
• Students, Academics and Researchers from other disciplines

Please do consider signing up to join the Law Committee of NSP! Let us join hands to make a better Singapore!

Presented by Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss

Email: vice.president@nsp.sg

HERE is the link to the video of my speech.

TRANSCRIPT OF MY SPEECH AT TAN JEE SAY’S PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS RALLY ON 23 AUGUST 2011

Hello good evening.

Much heat, though not enough light, has so far been generated in the recent public debates on the role of the Elected President.

On the one hand, we have Law Minister Shanmugam saying at a recent forum: “Our Presidency is created by the Constitution. This means that the Constitution alone can be the source of his powers.”

On the other hand, Law Professor Thio Li Ann has said that the Constitution is not exhaustive, as presidential powers may be found in two further sources. First, long practice. For example, we are all familiar with the President’s role in promoting charitable causes and in fostering community bonding, but you cannot find mention of these roles in our Constitution. Second, there are also written guidelines or rules of engagement between the Government and the President that have been worked out in the interest of a harmonious working relationship. These written arrangements are outside of the Constitution.

These two legal eagles seem to have opposite views. So people are still unsure about the extent and limits of the Elected President.

But what everyone agrees and what is clear to me, is that the President is the Representative and Guardian of the People’s interests. He symbolises and represents the whole country. He must be the unifier of all the various sectors of society in Singapore. He must be above politics.

Now, of the other candidates apart from Jee Say, all of them were active members of the PAP for a decade or more, and two of them were politicians holding political office for long periods of time.

For example, TAN KIN LIAN was a member of the PAP for 30 years, before he resigned in 2008. For 10 years, he was an active PAP member for the Marine Parade constituency. He was the PAP’s branch secretary at Marine Parade for three years.

TAN CHENG BOCK was MP for Ayer Rajah SMC for 26 years. He was also the first non-Cabinet Minister elected into the PAP’s Central Executive Committee, which is the highest ruling committee within the PAP, where he served for 9 years. Representing PAP, Tan Cheng Bock has fought no less than six(6) contested General Elections. I think I am not wrong to say, that Tan Cheng Bock is a veteran politician and an active, long-standing member of the PAP.

TONY TAN KENG YAM has been a PAP member since 1979 till this year June, more than 30 years. Representing the PAP, he became MP in 1979 and was MP for the next 27 years. From 1980 to 1991, Tony Tan Keng Yam was in the Cabinet where he served as Minister for Education, Minister for Trade & Industry, Minister for Finance and Minister for Health. From 1995 to 2005, he re-joined the Cabinet, where he served as Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence.

Apart from being a PAP old guard, Tony Tan was until 1 July 2011, Executive Director and Deputy Chairman of the GIC and Chairman of Singapore Press Holdings.

According to Dr Tony Tan, he said the Elected President "... has to be above politics and needs to work with the government of the day and all political parties, including the opposition, civic and social organisations, and he cannot take a partisan view."

According to Dr Tony Tan, he is equal to this role, despite his 30 years membership in the PAP, despite having been an MP for 27 years, despite being a Cabinet Minister for two periods of 10 years each, and despite having been at the helm of the GIC and the SPH until last month. Dr Tony Tan has assured voters that, if elected, he would be independent.

TAN JEE SAY - Much has been said of the fact that he contested on the opposition ticket in the last GE. But let us put things in context. Jee Say’s stint as a politician lasted less than four months from early April to July. Previous to joining SDP in April this year, Jee Say had spoken up at forums and other places, to share his views in his personal capacity and representing only himself. But by no means can he be described as having any kind of political career, apart from those three and a half months with SDP.

Is Jee Say “partisan”? He was a member of SDP for only three and a half months. The other three candidates have been PAP members for decades. Well, I think it fair to say, that of the four, Jee Say is by comparison the least partisan, and hence the most likely to be able to act independently.

I come back to Dr Tony Tan’s words. He said that the President needs to be able to work with the government of the day. On this point, it is to be noted that Jee Say was a member of the civil service for 11 years, including six years in the Ministry of Trade and Industry. He also served as the then-Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong's principal private secretary for five years. I am sure that in the many years that Jee Say spent in the civil service, he would have made a lot of friends and acquaintances. He would also have acquired a deep understanding of how the civil service is organised and run.

After 11 years in the civil service, he entered the private sector. In the private sector, he worked in the finance industry for a decade. So Jee Say has experienced how it is like to work in the public sector as well as the private sector.

Again, I come back to Dr Tony Tan’s words. He said that the President must be able to work with “all political parties, including the opposition, civic and social organisations….”

Let not forget, that in the last GE, 40% of the votes went to the opposition. That is a sizeable proportion of Singaporeans. Now, Jee Say’s short stint as an opposition politician puts him in a unique position. He is someone who has spent long years in the civil service, including five years working with Goh Chok Tong. He has also spent many years in the finance industry of the private sector. Yet, he has also spent time with members of the opposition. Many prominent civil activists and social workers are his personal friends.

In him, I feel can be found the best hope of being a Unifier and the most Representative of all Singaporeans. Whether you voted PAP or not, whether you agree or disagree with this or that Government policies, we are all Singaporeans.

Today in Singapore, we have the privilege and the dilemma of having to choose between four qualified candidates for the top post of President. To me, Jee Say offers the best chance for a truly independent, non-partisan, unifying President. Because his political career lasted less than four months, I have faith that if elected, Jee Say will not be pro-Opposition or for that matter pro-PAP, he will be Pro-Singaporeans. I have the confidence that Jee Say will be fair and impartial and he will uphold the dignity of the office of the Presidency. On top of it all, Jee Say has also shown me that he has the passion to serve Singapore. So, without skipping a heartbeat, my vote is for Tan Jee Say.

See Video of my Speech HERE.

TAN JEE SAY – A MAN WITH THE PASSION TO SERVE

During The Online Citizen’s Face to Face Forum held on 18th August 2011, the following exchange (click here for the video clip of this exchange) took place between Tan Jee Say (TJS) and Dr Tony Tan (TT) when the topic of detentions without trial under the Internal Security Act (ISA) came up for discussion:

TJS: "The ISA has been used on political opponents and those who on the other political side of the law. So the history is such that it has been used for political purposes….."
At this point, TT cut in and interrupted TJS in mid-sentence. The moderator did not stop TT from speaking.

TT: "I think this is, to be fair, when one says it is used against political opponents, I think this is a VERY serious charge. You must be able to back it up!"
TJS: “Well, the people who have been detained had opposed the Government. That’s what I am saying. Had they been pro Government ….. "
At this point, the moderator interrupted TJS and eventually got TJS to agree to move on.

I hear that some people who saw the exchange are saying that it was “unpresidential” for TJS to have “lost his cool” at TT’s interjectory remarks.

But other people are also asking: was it dignified for TT to have suddenly cut in while TJS was speaking?

I am intrigued by the spontaneity by which TT reacted when TJS said: “the history is such that it has been used for political purposes...”. TT’s sudden interjection sounded like a buzzer, warning TJS that he was crossing an imaginary OB marker.

The specific issue under discussion was the detention under the ISA in 1987 of 22 alleged Marxist conspirators. If the ISA was indeed abused to detain without trial one innocent person for even one day to serve political purposes, it should be enough to arouse our strident indignation at the injustice done.

These 22, one of whom was detained for 3 years, have consistently protested their innocence, asserting that their incarceration had been politically motivated. In fact, the public space is replete with books and articles written by many ISA detainees from different times, including several of the 22, giving evidence of their innocence and the political motivations behind their detentions. (See for example, “Time to set up a Truth and Reconciliation Commission and abolish the ISA” an article written by Teo Soh Lung who was detained for 2.5 years under the ISA, posted on the internet on 19 August 2011.)

In 1991, our former Attorney-General Mr Walter Woon said in an interview to the Straits Times: “As far as I am concerned, the government’s case is still not proven. I would not say those fellows were Red, not from the stuff they presented…I think a lot of people have this scepticism.” In 2001, Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam told the Straits Times: “Although I had no access to state intelligence, from what I knew of them, most were social activists but not out to subvert the system.”

See: http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/05/operation-spectrum-was-political-rape/

Recently, Mr Goh Chok Tong revealed in the book “Men in White: The Untold Stories of the PAP” (SPH 2009) that former National Development Minister S Dhanabalan left the Cabinet in 1992 because he was not comfortable with the way the 22 had been dealt with in 1987. “At that time, given the information, he was not fully comfortable with the action we took…he felt uncomfortable and thought there could be more of such episodes in the future…he’d better leave the Cabinet. I respected him for his view,” Mr Goh said.

So I think it is fair to say, that the way the ISA has been used, is controversial.

When TT interrupted TJS in mid-sentence, warning TJS that “when one says it is used against political opponents, I think this is a very serious charge. You must be able to back it up", TT might as well be asserting that the ISA was at all times correctly applied and never ever political motivated. TT’s interjection could also be interpreted as implying that the 22 are lying about their innocence; or even as questioning TJS’s credibility.

TJS responded to TT’s interjection with courage and boldness. Out of respect for any innocent who had suffered years of indefinite detention under ISA, this was not the time for TJS to show meekness, submission nor, least of all, deference to TT’s status as having been a former Cabinet Minister. I would have been absolutely ashamed of TJS if he has responded to TT in any other way, than how he actually did.

At the end of the day, what is most disappointing to me as a voter, on seeing TT sudden interruption, is that TT appeared as if he was protectively defending the controversial actions of the then Cabinet. The last thing I want from my Elected President, is for him to take on the role as Defender of the decisions of the Government of the day. Much heat (though not enough light) has been generated from the on-going public debates about what the Elected President can (or cannot) do or say. But it is clear that the Elected President has to be Defender, Protector, Advocate and Guardian of the people’s interests. Otherwise, it is a pointless exercise to be directly elected by the people.

When TJS threw his hat in the ring to run for the office Elected President, it was a game-changer. Up till then, we had three credible and worthy candidates, but they were all former members of the ruling party for decades. Now, for the first time in Singapore’s history, we have as a presidential candidate, a man with no affiliation with the ruling party. Among the four, TJS gives me the fullest assurance of independence and offers the best hope of being a people’s President. In him we shall have a truly independent, completely non-partisan people’s President.

All four presidential candidates are undoubtedly sincere in their desire to serve Singaporeans. But seeing the robust, courageous and convicted way in which TJS responded to TT’s remarks, TJS has proved to me that he also has the PASSION to serve Singaporeans.

Independence, moral courage and passion. I have no doubt that if elected as the President, TJS will serve the people well. My vote is for TJS.

By: Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss

NATIONAL DAY MESSAGE 2011 FROM THE NATIONAL SOLIDARITY PARTY

Politics is the Responsibility of all Citizens

Friends and fellow Singaporeans,

It has been an historic year. Not since the early days of our nation has an election been so intensely contested. For too long we believed that Singaporeans were politically apathetic and had no care for the course of our country.

But in the last elections, by our actions, we have proven all of this false.

Many men and women broke off the shackles of fear to stand up for what they believed in and to fight for our common interests. Singaporeans came out in tens of thousands on humid evenings and torrential rain alike. You stood firm on the ground as you listened, gave thought to what you heard, then voted. You wrote letters online and participated in forums offline. You debated each other made your stand public, and in doing so gave others courage.

Together, we have altered Singapore’s political landscape forever and no one can take this away from us. Our government now knows that it cannot be business as usual – governing in a unilateral fashion and with a single minded pragmatism that has allowed so many to fall through the cracks of our society.

We have discovered that by speaking up we can impose accountability on the Government. Ministers who were not performing to expectations can be replaced.

By speaking up, we can reverse strongly defended policies like ministerial salaries.

By speaking up, we can improve the quality of bus and MRT services, and deny transport operators the full increase in fares that they seek without adequate justification.

By speaking up, more HDB flats became available at lower prices.

This new landscape brings with it exciting opportunities. For most, this may feel like a newly won right, but the truth is that it has always been our responsibility – a responsibility we have shirked for so long because we were comfortable in our belief that government has all the answers and can solve all our problems. We now know that this is not the case.

Singapore faces challenging times ahead. On the economic front, we face turbulence as the large economies of the United States and Europe continue to falter. Existing problems such as the escalating cost of living, income inequality and sky-high housing prices remain unsolved.

Socially, the heightened tensions between locals and foreigners demand our attention. While these foreigners have been the easy targets of our discontent, remember that they too have the right to seek a better life on our shores, much as our forefathers did before. We who have been here for so long must never condescend and forget that Singapore is a society of immigrants.

So there is still much to be done and we must stay engaged with matters of the state. Continue to speak up, participate in the debate and join an organisation that shares your beliefs so that together, your voices are louder. We must not let our enthusiasm slip away with the passing of the elections. Instead we must practice the art of government in the small spheres within our reach because politics is the abiding responsibility of all citizens.

In the years ahead, let us exercise our new found power with responsibility and mutual respect, to realise the society that we want – one that is just, prosperous and compassionate.

Happy birthday, Singapore!

Hazel Poa

Secretary-General

National Solidarity Party