In My Own Words

"Raffles Hotel Singapore" - Not Singapore's

2012-01-14T01:12:00.000-08:00

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

2011-12-01T03:56:00.002-08:00

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

2011-08-24T10:22:00.000-07:00

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

2011-08-22T00:08:00.000-07:00

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

2011-08-08T08:38:00.000-07:00

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

Save the World’s Saddest Dolphins Campaign

2011-07-23T02:29:00.001-07:00

I was at the Save the World’s Saddest Dolphins stall today to do my small bit to support this wonderful effort. The stall, manned by a small band of enlightened youngsters, is located next to Subway on Level 2 Hougang Mall (Hougang Central MRT) and will be on today and tomorrow (23rd and 24th July 2011).

Dolphins are highly intelligent creatures. We have much to gain by studying and learning more about them. It benefits us very little to confine these magnificant wildlife miserably in captivity, to serve as a source of incidental entertainment.

Previously, I had assumed that performing dolphins at themeparks are generally well looked after and "happy". I found out about the shocking plight of dolphins after watching "The Cove"

Visit: http://www.saddestdolphins.com/

Like: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Save-the-Worlds-Saddest-Dolphins/202965303078326

If we humans do not take responsible care for the earth and its creatures, who will clean up after us?

BLIND VOTERS' RIGHT TO VOTE SECRECY

2011-06-29T03:33:00.000-07:00

One great thing about having stood for elections in GE 2011, is that I got to meet people that I would never have met in my ordinary course of life.

A few days before Polling Day, I got a telephone call from a blind voter living in Mountbatten. He introduced himself to me as RON CHANDRAN-DUDLEY.

Ron called me that day because he wanted to tell me how much he objected to the way blind voters had to cast their votes under current voting procedures. (A more accurate description will be "visually handicapped voters" and these will include those who are totally blind or who suffer from defects of vision, either at birth, or subsequently due to illness or accidents. Not all blind voters can read Braille, e.g. an elderly person who becomes blind as a result of illness. Some have been writing before losing their sight.)

According to Ron, a blind voter like him who is able to hold a pen, would not be able to write or mark his vote on the ballot paper by himself. Instead, he would be required to tell the Officer which candidate (or which party) he wishes to vote for, and the Officer would then write the cross for him on his ballot paper.

Ron said that in other countries, besides getting the Officer to mark his vote for him, blind voters had 2 other options:

1. He is allowed to have a relative or friend of his choice accompany him to the voting booth to mark the ballot paper for him.

2. He can ask for and be provided with a template (or stencil) with windows (openings) matching the places where to mark his vote on the ballot paper.

A template is a simple device which serves to give the blind voter privacy. The Officer would tell the blind voter which box is for which candidate/party, but after knowing that, blind voter can then align the ballot paper against the template and mark his vote on the ballot by himself in private at the voting booth.

I thanked Ron for his feedback. I kept his telephone number as I felt he sounded like an interesting person whom I would like to talk to again.

Subsequently, I found out that Ron is a famous man who has done quite a lot in his lifetime. He used to be the President of the Disabled People's Association and was also the President of the Singapore Association of the Visually Handicapped (SAVH). Here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0T2twepn6w is a 6 min documentary about him entitled "Asians of the Year". He was going to be a doctor but met with a rugby accident and became blind at age of 19.

On Polling Day, while visiting a Polling Station, one of my Polling Agents (Ong Suping) came up to me to raise her concern about how blind voters were made to cast their votes. I recalled my telephone chat with Ron about this. It just so happened that Lim Biow Chuan was also present at that Polling Station and so the 3 of us (Suping, myself and Biow Chuan) had a brief discussion about this issue. The conclusion of the brief discussion was that present procedures had to be followed.

Subsequently, I asked Suping to write me a note about her concerns as a Polling Agent. Here is her note to me:

When a blind voter comes to the polling station, he/she will be led to the correct queue by either a family member or a presiding officer if no family members are present. The presiding officer will then let the senior presiding officer know that this person is blind and that he/she will need assistance to mark out their vote on the ballot paper. What the senior presiding officer will then do is to announce to the polling agents that this person is blind and that a presiding officer will be assisting him/her in marking their vote on the ballot paper. The presiding officer will then accompany the person to the booth to make their selection.

The problem I am seeing is on 2 levels:

1. What comfort can the blind voter get that the presiding officer is marking the correct ballot box according to his/her wishes? A family member should at least be allowed to be present at the voting booth to witness and be the eyes for the blind voter. At least someone they trust is with them or is marking out the box for them.

2. How do polling agents (who are meant to be there to ensure votes are cast under no undue influence and is fairly conducted) ensure that there is no incongruous activity in this instance?

What the senior presiding officer told me when I raised the point that we have all taken the oath of secrecy and should therefore be allowed to witness this since we are all under oath and it is the job of the polling agent to make sure things are conducted in a fair manner, she told me that presiding officers have taken different oaths allowing them to see a person’s vote while our oath as polling agents only allow us to be present at the polling station and not to see a person’s vote. I am not sure if that really is the case or not. Are there really different oaths?

I don't believe there are clear guidelines today with regards to blind voters as when I asked for a copy of these guidelines saying that this is the way it is supposed to be conducted, the senior presiding officer could not give it to me.

My suggestion is for the blind voter to elect or authorize a person of their choice beforehand to accompany them on polling day to mark the ballot paper with them. Just because they are the minority doesn't mean we don't protect their rights as voters. And as a polling agent I can take greater comfort that the vote is rightly cast since the person marking the vote on behalf has been chosen by the voters themselves.

I must thank Suping for raising her concerns to me.

After receiving Suping’s note, I did some research, and I found out that in April 2011, the current SAVH President wrote to the Elections Department about Singapore’s blind community frustration that it does not get enough privacy when voting. Blind voters would like to have a family member or friend to help them mark their ballots, rather than have an electoral officer do it for them, as has been the case in past elections. However, the Elections Department replied SAVH, saying that under the law, family members are not allowed to help a blind voter mark his ballot as that ‘may compromise the secrecy of the vote cast and may subject the voter to undue influence or pressure’.

After I found out about this, I spoke to Ron. Ron told me that in 1991, he himself wrote to the Elections Department saying the exact same thing, and got the exact same reply from them. He said he is very disappointed that nothing has changed since 1991 till now. There is been no progress in the last 20 years on the rights of blind voters. But meanwhile, other countries were making changes to their voting procedures for blind voters. I checked and found that Ron is right. This is how blind voters cast their votes in UK: http://www.rnib.org.uk/livingwithsightloss/yourrights/Pages/voting.aspx

I also found out that Maruah has also written to the Elections Department on this issue on 5 May 2011.

I thank Ron for helping me to understand how a blind voter feels. A Blind voter does not want the Officer (who is a stranger) to know his vote. SAVH has asked for the blind voter to be allowed to have a family member or friend accompany him to the voting booth. UK and other countries go a step further. They respect the right of the blind voter to vote in PRIVATE. Hence, the voting procedures allow for the provision of a template for the use of blind voters who are able hold a pen.

I do not understand why the Elections Department rejected SAVH’s request for a trusted person to accompany the blind voter to the booth, yet they do not provide the solution of using a template. So the only way for a blind voter to cast his vote, including one who is able to hold a pen and write, is to inform the Officer, a stranger, who he wants to vote for.

I agree with Ron that I would like blind voters to be given a choice of either being assisted by a relative or friend of his choice or alternatively, be given a template so he can mark his vote by himself without assistance and in private.

The next GE is in 5 years’ time. I hope that some progress will be made before then in improving the rights of blind voters.

Meanwhile, the Presidential Elections are just round the corner. I wonder if it is not too much to ask of the Elections Department to tweak the present voting procedures to provide blind voters with the use of a template?

TRAGEDY OF MARRIED SINGAPOREANS GOING FOR ABORTION OUT OF FINANCIAL FEARS

2011-06-25T09:03:00.000-07:00

Transcript of speech by Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss at “Singaporeans First” event organised by transitioning.org at Hong Lim Park on 25 June 2011 (5pm to 7pm)

I am Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss. I am here in my personal capacity as a concerned fellow Singaporean.

Folks, it has only in the last few years that we have seen an unprecedented number of foreigners arriving to Singapore to take up jobs. Why did the Government invite them? They were invited to come because there are not enough Singaporeans in the workforce to keep the economy going. The natural birth rate of Singaporeans is incredibly low. It is so low, that Singaporeans are not producing enough babies to replace ourselves. We need a total fertility rate of 2.1 to replace ourselves. But our total fertility rate has sunk to an all-time low 1.16. Natural born Singaporeans are dwindling. So this is the reason why our Government says we have no choice but to keep importing foreign labour and foreign talent to cover the shortfall of Singaporeans in the workforce.

As against all this, do you know that in Singapore, about 1 in every 4 pregnancies is aborted? Yes my friends, every year, there are about 12,000 abortions in Singapore. But what is shocking and disturbing to me, is that half of abortions are carried out by married women. Of course, there are many valid reasons why women go for abortions. According to statistics, only a small number of abortions are due to health reasons. So why do married women kill off their unborn children?

A Report by Associated Foreign Press dated 1 May 2009 , told the story of Mazlinda Majlam who had a recurring nightmare every night for a week, of a baby with no eyes sitting down and just looking at her. This horrifying dream began the night she returned home from having an abortion – 2 months after she was retrenched as a result of Singapore’s worst recession in more than 40 years. The mother of 3 said that “bad economic times” prompted her to terminate her pregnancy and she would not hesitate to have another abortion, if necessary. “I can’t afford it,” said the tall, slim Majlam of the prospect of having another child soon.

On 19 March 2011, the Straits Times published a letter from a Wendy Tan who decided to abort her twins. This is what the working mother of 2 she said in her letter to the Forum Page:

“So, when I was expecting for the third time two years ago, we made a very hard decision to terminate the pregnancy. We just did not have the energy to cope with a third because the first two had taken up all the energy we had. So far, we have had six years of interrupted sleep and we are not prepared for more. Finance was also a big consideration as I was almost out of a job then. If I had seen through the pregnancy I would not have been able to get another job. Relying on a single income was simply too tough because we had to care for our parents as well. Having two children was more than we could manage and having two more was just too much. Yes, my third pregnancy involved twins. The decision not to have them was doubly difficult.”

You know, my father used to tell me that in the olden days of China, it was common for married women to drown their newborn babies in a bucket of water immediately after giving birth, because of poverty. No way to feed another mouth.

My own grandma came from China to Malacca in the 1920s. When she gave birth to her 7th child, it was a girl and her husband forced her to give the baby away. He refused to support another child. My grandma reluctantly handed the newborn baby to a convent. Unfortunately the newborn girl soon died. My grandma was very sad and never forgot about this child which she had to give away.

I never would have thought that in this day and age, and after 46 years of nation building, Singaporean married mothers have to make the difficult decision to terminate their pregnancies because of economic hardships. At the same time as thousands of babies are destroyed by married Singaporean mothers out of economic necessity, the number of native Singaporeans is ever decreasing, our birth rate keeps falling and we having to rely more and more on foreigners to make up the workforce for our economy. What is going on here? I don’t understand it!

Folks, I can understand if women are forced to go for abortion because of health reasons or because of social stigma. But where we have married women going for abortion due to financial hardship, surely this is an area the Government can and must do something to help. After all, the Government has made it an aim to do something about the falling birth rate.

So, instead of focusing on importing more and more foreigners to cover the labour and talent shortfall, I want to see the Government pay more attention to alleviating the financial hardships of Singaporeans. I do not want to hear of married women having to go for abortions out of financial fears. The primary duty of the Government of Singapore is to take care of its citizens. Let us remind the Government of this.

Folks, Singaporeans are worried about their future. Singaporeans worry that they cannot find a job or that they may lose their job. They also worry that they don’t earn enough from their job to pay for their homes or to look after their aged parents, wife and children.

Until Singaporeans feel safe and secure about their future, Singaporeans will be reluctant to get married; if they are married they will be reluctant to have children; and if they get pregnant they will immediately think of aborting. Such is the tragedy of our modern day living in Singapore.

Folks I am glad you and I are here today. Today, by being here, we are taking a step to making things right for Singaporeans.

Watch excerpts of speech:

Video Part 1

Video Part 2

"...there were 12,222 abortions in Singapore in 2008, compared to 11,933 in 2007. No official figures are available for 2009. During the same period there were 39,935 babies delivered indicating that roughly 1 in 4 pregnancies are terminated. While a small proportion of pregnancies are terminated for health reasons, most terminations are due to financial or social concerns." (http://www.aware.org.sg/resources/information/abortion/)

DONATIONS & EXPENSES OF MOUNTBATTEN CAMPAIGN - FINAL ACCOUNTS

2011-06-23T01:13:00.001-07:00

Dear Donors, Friends & Supporters

Here are the FINAL Accounts for the Mountbatten Campaign GE 2011.

Total Campaign Expenses: $27,002.29
Total Donations received: $11,099.93
Total Sale Revenue from Mountbatten T shirts: $2,449.00

Thank you all for the FABULOUS SUPPORT!

MR S – ELDERLY, POOR AND INELIGIBLE TO RENT FROM HDB

2011-06-06T11:20:00.000-07:00

Mr S is a 70 year old man who lives by himself in a rented room at a flat in Pine Close (Old Airport Road). He is currently in poor health and is unable to hold down a regular job. For all practical purposes, he has no family. Some eight years back, his wife divorced him after 32 years of marriage. Since the divorce, he has not spoken to his ex wife or his children.

Currently, his monthly expenses come up to about $900 per month, including the $300 he has to pay as rent for his room. He is receiving $297 per month from his CPF Retirement Account. His cash savings currently stand at about $30,000. He estimates that his savings will be completely depleted in 4 years’ time, assuming he does not encounter serious medical problems. His precarious financial situation worries him a lot.

But it is not to say that Mr S did not forsee this. He told me that he knew he would be facing this worrying situation ever since the time of his divorce. At that time, he was already 62 years old and not in good health. From the sale of his matrimonial flat, he received:

(a) Cash proceeds of about $60,000; and

(b) Refund of about $42,000 to CPF Board for retention under his Retirement Account.

Too old to get a loan and too ill to earn a steady income, buying a new flat for himself was out of the question. He reckoned that his best option forward, was to rent a flat from HDB under the Public Rental Scheme.

However, he found that two HDB Policies operated against him:

(1) Under HDB policy, a HDB lessee who has sold his flat in the open market, is barred from renting a HDB flat for 30 months from the date of sale.

According to HDB, HDB rental flats are heavily subsidised and meant for low income citizen families who are unable to afford home ownership flats. Thus, an HDB lessee who sells his home ownership flat in the open market will not be eligible to immediately rent an HDB flat and has to wait out a time-bar of 30 months.

But Mr S was rendered homeless as a result of a Court Order to sell his flat upon divorce. Yet, Mr S was barred from applying to rent from HDB. Mr S felt aggrieved by this 30 month debarment, because he sold his flat by Court Order, not by his choice.

After his divorce, he approached his MP to make appeals to HDB to waive the 30 month debarment, but his appeals were unsuccessful.

(2) Under HDB policy, a single person is not allowed to rent a HDB flat alone. Hence, Mr S can apply to rent from HDB only under the Joint Singles Scheme, whereby two single persons aged 35 or above can combine to rent a one-room flat on condition that their combined income does not exceed $1,500 per month.

When his 30 month debarment ended, he tried but failed to find anyone who could fulfil the criteria under the Joint Singles Scheme. Mr S tells me he cannot understand how he, at his age and given his poor health condition, can be expected to find someone willing to share a rented one-room flat with him. Moreover, he risks complications if it turns out that he and his flatmate cannot get along.

As a postscript to his story, Mr S told me that when he tried to seek help from public services, he was advised to sue his children for maintenance. To Mr S, this is an appalling proposal. It is already bad enough that he has lost his family. It would be beyond his dignity to do such a thing.

So in the end, Mr S had no option, than to rent a room at the market rate.

Mr S still hopes he can somehow rent from HDB at a subsidised rate under the Public Rental Scheme. It would help to stretch his dwindling savings a little further, and give him some peace of mind.

While Mr S, elderly, poor and alone ponders his uncertain future, estate agents are marketing the rental flats at nearby Dakota Crescent to prospective tenants, as this link shows. No HDB Policies operate against any Singaporean (single or otherwise) or any foreigner with a valid pass, from renting a flat there from HDB at commercial rates.

http://www.iproperty.com.sg/propertylisting/1394391/Geylang-3_Room_HDB_Flat-ForRent

NOTE: I first published this post on 24 April 2011 in http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150164113634563

Work Permit Holders living in Dakota Crescent SIT rental flats

2011-06-06T11:14:00.000-07:00

Dakota Crescent at Old Airport Road features a cluster of iconic low-rise flats which were built in 1958 by the Lim Yew Hock Government under the Singapore Improvement Trust (SIT). These SIT rental flats pre-date the establishment of the Housing & Development Board. Today, many of these flats are still occupied by Singaporeans who have lived there for decades as subsidised tenants. The current subsidised rent is about $75 for a two-room flat.

In my walkabouts there, I found a surprising number of these rental flats have been let out to foreigners at commercial rates of over $1500 per month (maximum 6-8 persons to a two-room flat).

However, many Singaporeans are in dire need for housing and such desperate Singaporean families typically wait for months to get a rental flat.

There are also those who are eligible to apply for rental flats, but for reasons of child or elderly care arrangements, have to live near relatives staying at Old Airport Road or Kampong Arang.

Therefore, I would like to know:

Question 1:

As and when a rental SIT flat at Dakota Crescent becomes vacant, on what basis does HDB decide to (a) re-let the flat at the subsidised rate to an eligible Singaporean family; or (b) at commercial rate to work permit holders?

Question 2:

If the flats are being let out at commercial rate because HDB has decided to withdraw these Dakota Crescent flats from the Public Rental Scheme, what is the basis for this decision, given the long queue of Singaporeans for rental flats?

I hope that there is a better answer to my questions than the simple explanation that HDB prefers to rent these SIT flats out at commercial rates for profit, than to let these flats out to destitute Singaporeans at subsidised rates.

I am raising these questions because HDB is a public housing authority and should be accountable to the public for its policies and decisions, especially when they impact on low income earners.

NOTE: I first published this post on 23 April 2011 in http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150162942544563

MY DAD (27 February 1936 - 4 June 2011)

2011-06-04T03:55:00.000-07:00

My father, Dr John Chong Yean Chiong, passed away at 3 am this morning. He fought a long and valiant battle against prostate cancer. In his last days, he succumbed to urosepsis. He leaves behind his loving wife, Aileen Chong, four children (myself, Jacqueline, John and James) and 10 grandchildren aged 5 months to 21 years.

I brought my father to SGH on 27 May 2011 (coincidentally it was my birthday) for emergency treatment. Early this week, he seemed to stabilise. His blood pressure and temperature returned to normal. So on 2 June 2011, I decided to take the risk and join my family to attend my church camp being held in KL over the weekend.

But yesterday 3 June 2011, while I was in KL at the church camp with my family, I received a telephone call at 63o pm from my mother that my father's condition had worsen and he might only have a few hours left. I immediately rushed to KLIA to catch the next flight back to Singapore. On the way back to Singapore, I regretted leaving Singapore and prayed that my dad would not go before I reach him. I arrived at SGH just after midnight. He passed on at about 3am this morning. I thank God I was able to make it before he went. Myself, my mom, sister, brother and uncle were at his bedside till the end.

I also thank God that his suffering is over and he is now in a better place.

"Do not be afraid, I am with you
I have called you each by name
Come and follow Me
I will bring you home
I love you and you are mine"

http://www.lyricsoncall.com/lyrics/david-haas/you-are-mine-lyrics.html (lyrics probably inspired by Isaiah 43:1)

Click here and scroll all the way down this post for the last photo taken of of my father: http://jeannettechongaruldoss.blogspot.com/2011/05/normal-0-false-false-false-en-sg-zh-cn.html

DONATIONS & EXPENSES OF MOUNTBATTEN CAMPAIGN - UPDATE (31 MAY 2011)

2011-06-02T08:46:00.000-07:00

Dear Supporters & Friends

Shown here is the Donations Account (version as at 31 May 2011) together with the Expenses Account (FINAL version).

Following my online appeal for help to defray the costs and expenses for the Mountbatten Campaign http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150181574974563 I have received a total of $9,043.93 as at 31 May 2011.

I am very grateful indeed for the generosity of the many supporters who have kindly contributed to the Campaign.

Also, the Campaign Expenses have now been finalised and the total amount spent is $26,986.04.

It will be seen that the total amount collected as at 31 May 2011 is about one-third of the total costs of the Campaign. The remainder will be borne by me personally.

The last day for me to file the requisite returns with the Elections Department is 13 June 2011 (not 9 June 2011 as I previously assumed), so I still have some time.

Therefore, I am extending this appeal for another 5 days till 7 June 2011. I am hoping to raise enough to cover at least half the costs of the Campaign, so as to alleviate my personal liability. I hope that a few more supporters could consider helping.

I will post the FINAL Donations Account after 7 June 2011.

P. S. I am indebted to my friend, Ching Haw Sern, a trained accountant who has volunteered his time and expertise to do up the Mountbatten Campaign accounts that are shown here. Its also great that Haw Sern is a Mountbatten resident! In fact, Haw Sern (who speaks fluent Cantonese) accompanied me on countless walkabouts in Mountbatten.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150143752254821&set=a.10150143752114821.291013.522819820&type=1

Currently, Haw Sern and I are also helping Nicole Seah to do up the Donations Account for the Marine Parade Donation Drive. Once Haw Sern has gone over all the figures, he will do up the Marine Parade Donations Account for Nicole to post online for her supporters to view.

THE UNCOMMON JACK SIM - SINGAPOREAN EXTRAORDINAIRE (AND MOUNTBATTEN RESIDENT!)

2011-05-30T07:29:00.000-07:00

This morning, my life was enriched by the opportunity to meet and chat with the matchless Jack Sim, a man who specializes in doing the extraordinary.

This Singaporean and long-time Mountbatten resident is the founder of the World Toilet Organisation: http://www.worldtoilet.org/aboutus3.asp

He was also featured in TIME Magazine "Heroes of the Environment 2008": http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1841778_1841781_1841822,00.html

But best of all, Jack was the Mountbatten resident who DISCOVERED the World War One fort hidden beneath the grounds of Katong Park (Meyer Road)!

"In 2001, the outline of the top of the bastion wall became visible during a dry spell; this prompted a Katong resident, Jack Sim, to seek out the relevant authorities to investigate its origins." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Tanjong_Katong

Thanks to Jack's keen observation and passion for heritage, Mountbatten can now boast of having a genuine archaeological site in its midst.

A love for history and an affirmation of our heritage - these are the cornerstones for fostering a community and in turn, building a nation.

It was great to meet you, Jack! We'll keep in touch!

DONATIONS & EXPENSES OF MOUNTBATTEN CAMPAIGN

2011-05-24T01:23:00.000-07:00

Dear Friends & Supporters

On 14 May 2011, I made an online appeal on my Facebook page for donations to defray the costs and expenses incurred for the Mountbatten Campaign: http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1384508550571.40778.1767724184&saved#!/note.php?note_id=10150181574974563

The response has been encouraging and I am very grateful indeed for the kind generosity of the various donors.

As of 23 May 2011, I have received $6,829.00 in donations. I attach a copy of Donations Received as of 23 May 2011. I also attach a copy of the Mountbatten Campaign Expenses which total $26,442.72.

By 9 June 2011, I will submit to the Elections Department an account of the Campaign Expenses and Donations Received: http://nsp.sg/2011/05/23/nsp-statement-on-donations/

Therefore, I will have to close off the donation drive by 31 May 2011.

I will personally bear the remainder of the Campaign Expenses not covered by donations received by 31 May 2011. Meanwhile, your contribution of any amount will be greatly appreciated!

Yours Sincerely,

Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss

HANGING BY MYTHS AND BELIEFS

2011-05-23T20:54:00.000-07:00

Dear Readers

Before you start reading this posting, I had better tell you that what I am about to discuss, is an issue which will have virtually no impact on your lives, your livelihood, your choices, your lifestyle or your pocket. It is a matter which only affects …maybe 20 people? … in a year, some of those affected will not even be Singaporeans.

But for those who are affected, it is quite literally a matter of life and death. What we Singaporeans think and say about this issue, will make a difference to whether someone lives … or dies. I am talking about the use of the death sentence in Singapore. For certain crimes like murder and drug trafficking, the death sentence is mandatory, meaning that the judge has no power to change the death sentence to life imprisonment in deserving cases. They must hang.

Don’t get me wrong, I want a safe and secure Singapore. I want a low crime and drug-free society where I can raise my kids and walk around in freedom.

We have been told that Singapore’s low crime rate is due to our tough laws, including our willingness to impose the ultimate penalty of death.

We have been told that the mandatory death penalty for murder and drug trafficking has been an effective deterrent against would-be murders and drug traffickers.Sparing the lives of convicted murders and drug traffickers, would signal that we have gone soft. Going soft will put our families and loved ones in danger of crime.
http://app.mfa.gov.sg/pr/read_content.asp?View,14940,

And we have been told that a Singapore Press Holdings survey conducted in 2006, indicated that a large majority of Singaporeans are in support of the death penalty, and thus, the death penalty is the will of the majority.
http://singabloodypore.blogspot.com/2006/02/96-of-sporeans-back-death-penalty.html

If it were really so straightforward that “death penalty means low crime”and “no death penalty means high crime”, then of course, we should and must retain the death penalty, and to oppose those idealists who seek to abolish it. Why should I risk the safety and well-being of my family for the sake of a worthless criminal who should have known better?

But is it really as simple as “death penalty means low crime”?
· Why do people kill?
· Why do people agree to be drug mules?
· Does the death penalty really deter murder or it is to exact revenge, as in “life for a life”?
· Will murders and drug trafficking be more rampant if Judges were given power to change the death sentence to life imprisonment in deserving cases?
· What are other effective ways to reduce crime?
· What are other ways of keeping down crime besides the death penalty?

I am glad to see that today in Singapore 2011, we are more discerning and a lot more sophisticated. Decades of emphasizing the value of a good education has produced a generation of new Singaporeans who ask for the facts and figures behind claims and statements.

In the old days, whenthere was no Internet, it was harder to double check statements and not easy to find alternative views to a proposal. Today is the age of information technology. The new generation Singaporeans are better educated, well-travelled and well-informed.

Today, we do not accept propositions at face value. If someone tells us, “eating durians causes baldness” we will automatically retort: “How so? Who said that? What are his credentials? Where are the surveys, scientific studies or research showing the correlation between eating durians and baldness?”

We don’t let people get away with saying something, without providing hard evidence for what is being said.

So if we cannot see the evidence that the death penalty for a particular crime has served its role as an effective deterrent to that crime, then I am afraid to say, that such a proposition is a belief which is at best a hypothesis and at worse a myth!

Now surely no one will be party to taking away a person’s life on the strength of anunsupported hypothesis or a personal belief?

When it comes to the issue of death penalty, the stakes cannot be any higher. A person’s life is to be taken from him. The sting of the death sentence is after all based on the fact that the wrongdoer highly values his own life. If it were not so, then it would not mean much to take it away!

When it is a matter of life and death, surely we need to call for convincing evidence proving the deterrent effect of the death penalty, so as to justify using such a drastic measure. Surely it is only right that we think long and hard about whether or not to use the death sentence.

We have been told: Look at Singapore’s low rate of drug abuse – that is evidence that mandatory death penalty has been an effective deterrent against drug trafficking. I am thankful that Singapore’s drug problem is well under control. But aren’t there also other factors which contribute to Singapore’s successful fight against drug abuse? Factors like a well-organized police force, well-trained investigation officers, a well-equipped central narcotic bureau and a comprehensive anti-drug abuse education program – don’t all these also help in the fight against drug abuse?Will Singapore’s fight against drug abuse be seriously hampered without the mandatory death penalty?

The mandatory death penalty for murder has been with us since the colonial days. We have had the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking since 1975. Today is 2011. We have at least 40 years of data on state executions. It is time to take stock and review in detail all the statistics on state executions to date. The public should also be involved in this extensive review. The results of the review should be published for the public to digest and to ask questions about the findings. After all, it is has been said that the death penalty is the will of the majority of Singaporeans. So Singaporeans should be informed.

The public has the right to see the studies, statistics or research published by officials which support their claim that the mandatory death penalty has been an effective deterrent against drug trafficking. The burden of proof must rest on those seeking to retain the mandatory death penalty.

In the absence of such evidence, then we Singaporeans must conclude that it is not necessary to resort to using the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking. In which case, we should seriously consider changing the law to give judges the power to convert the death sentence to life imprisonment in deserving cases.

There is also the question whether it is even necessary to retain the death penalty at all. Again, without convincing documentary evidence that the death sentence has more of a deterrent effect than a life sentence for drug trafficking, then it is only right that we do away with the death sentence altogether.

A person’s life, even the life of a drug trafficker who should have known better, is too high a price to pay for an opinion not supported by enough evidence.

MORNING WALK WITH NICOLE AT MACPHERSON – 21 MAY 2011

2011-05-23T02:31:00.000-07:00

Last Thursday night (18 May), Nicole called me up to share her misgivings after a visit she made that evening to a certain block of flats in Circuit Road. She said the block she visited was particularly dirty, grimy and smelly and she could not understand why it was so. That night, she wrote her thoughts in her FB Notes: Evening walk at MacPherson - 18 May 2011 at http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=146292282108518

I had to see the place for myself. So Saturday morning (21 May), Nicole brought me to the block she had visited. Indeed the common areas looked like they had not been cleaned for weeks. There were litter and grime everywhere. And oh dear, there was a stench in the air! The playground was in a dismal state of disrepair. The external walls of the block were stained, the paint chipping off. Overall, the common areas of this block were dirty and poorly maintained. The block was an eyesore.

I really hope that the poor maintenance of the block is confined only to its external appearances. I am assuming that the lifts, plumbing, electrical and other facilities are regularly inspected and properly maintained, for safety’s sake.

On further inquiries, it seems that the residents of this particular block are tenants renting from HDB under the public rental scheme. The fact that the residents of this block are low income Singaporeans paying HDB subsidised rent, cannot mean that the Town Council is therefore not obliged to upkeep the common areas of this block to the same standard as other blocks whose residents are owners paying conservancy charges.

Residents under public rental scheme should still be entitled to a decent place to live in, even though they are paying subsidised rent. If the place is a dump, then the low rent won’t be a “subsidy”!

It has been said that the benefits of a GRC include being able to enjoy economies of scale when negotiating with suppliers for goods or services. If so, then one more block of flats to clean, out of so many blocks of flats in a precinct, should not cost the Town Council a whole lot more. It would certainly be very strange if the Town Council would instruct the cleaning contractor not to do a particular block just because the block is under the public rental scheme. Surely it would make sense for the Town Council to contract for the common areas of ALL blocks to be cleaned to the same acceptable standard, regardless whether the block is owner-occupied or rented out to low income Singaporeans under the public rental scheme.

In any case, the common, public spaces of HDB estates anywhere in Singapore should be regularly cleaned and maintained to the same standard. There should be no reason why some estates are well maintained and other estates badly maintained.

We met and spoke with many friendly residents during our visit that morning. We will be returning to that place again soon for more visits.

FOOD TIP: FOOD TIP: The wanton mee at Blk 79 Circuit Rd food court is superb!

LETTER TO YEE JENN JONG, WORKERS' PARTY CANDIDATE FOR JOO CHIAT

2011-05-16T08:26:00.000-07:00

Letter to Yee Jenn Jong, Workers’ Party Candidate for Joo Chiat Constituency (GE 2011)

16 May 2011

Dear Jenn Jong

Congratulations on being appointed an NCMP!

Like me, my elderly parents are Joo Chiat voters. I want to tell you how proud I am of my father. My dad is 75 years old. He is bedridden and suffering from advanced stage of cancer. Thank God, he is not in pain, but he is very frail and weak. For this GE, he insisted on casting his vote. My brother and mother could not dissuade him. As a result, they had to plan and devise a way of bringing him to the Polling Station, which was Katong Convent Primary School. With much effort and trouble, they made it to the Polling Station, and my father did cast his vote!

I know that you lost out on being a Member of Parliament by a narrow margin of votes. My father says to tell you that he did his part to keep margin to 388 votes, else the vote margin would have been 389!

I had to leave it to my brother and mother to bring my father to his Polling Station. Being a Candidate myself, I was visiting each of the Polling Stations in Mountbatten SMC throughout Polling Day. I saw, with humble admiration, many elderly and non-ambulatory folk making their way to the Polling Stations to do their part as Citizens of Singapore. I know that for some of the elderly and for those who are not mobile, it is a physical challenge for them and their care-givers to make it to their Polling Stations. I am awed by their desire to participate in this national process. They have spirit. I salute these sons and daughters of Singapore!

I’ll catch up with you for breakfast in Siglap soon!

Yours Sincerely

Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss

POSTCRIPT:

After he read this posting, Jenn Jong contacted me to ask if he could visit my father. I gladly made the arrangement. So on 19 May 2011, Jenn Jong came over to my parents' place. It was the first time that my father (Dr John Chong Yean Chiong) met Jenn Jong.

Here is a photo of Jenn Jong with my father, my mother (Mrs Aileen Chong), me and my brother James Chong. James had plied Jenn Jong with hard questions when Jenn Jong came by during the hustings. Jenn Jong did not know at that time that James was my brother, nor did James know much about Jenn Jong, hence the hard questions.

It was really nice of Jenn Jong to come over that Thursday evening!