Singapore Democrats

Firstly, we should welcome CSC back to freedom (....tongue-in-cheek).

Secondly, I would like to address the rhetorical question, "is the PAP becoming even more oppressive, if that's possible."

The answer is a "no" as to whether it is become more so, and as to whether it is possible to be more oppressive : unlikely. The ruling party has become more sensitive and adjusted itself accordingly to societal changes. The need for it to be oppressive has also diminished.

Society's tolerance of the tactics employed in the old days has dropped significantly. Thanks to a more conscious and globally-aware population and alternative voices, the ruling party is much more apprehensive in taking steps to curb dissension. It is not a vote-winner (and rather stupid) to be too "rough".

This should remain so unless it perceives the existence of agencies out to provoke disorder (or disobedience).

Bryan T, you said "The need for it to be oppressive has also diminished."

(Thank you for admitting that the PAP was & is oppressive.)

Society's tolerance of the tactics employed in the old days has dropped significantly. Thanks to a more conscious and globally-aware population and alternative voices, the ruling party is much more apprehensive in taking steps to curb dissension. It is not a vote-winner (and rather stupid) to be too "rough".
(So, any softening of the PAP's oppressive style is to be a vote winner & nothing else. Again, thank you for the clarification.)

"The ruling party has become more sensitive and adjusted itself accordingly to societal changes.The need for it to be oppressive has also diminished"

Sure or not??

So many Singaporean has either done or doing jail time. Some are still in trial. Almost all are petty crimes which can actually be given for verbal warning but it seems like the govt. is determine to mess up with our 'life record' (so that we 'owe' it to them? - with their yellow ribbon project??!!)


By year 2028, I can bet with you that there will be between 60%-80% of true blue Singaporean (locally born) that will have their names in court before (from now) due to cases as minor as paying up summons or perhaps, in 10 families at least 6 families will have a so called ex criminal in them.

...If PAP still in command. Hope not.

Re: "If opposition politicians cannot come together in groups of 5 or more to "demonstrate opposition to the actions of the Government" then what good is the opposition."

Aside from the unconstitutionality of both the police procedures (in not granting permits when they are already provided for in the law) as well as the law that the three accused have been charged with, in my opinion, questions regarding the role of any opposition party has is also a bone of contention.

I will probably post the full list of the functions of political parties in a multi-party system (which Singapore supposedly is0 later, but if I had it with me, it would included at this point in my post.

However, I do recall the particular function that is relevant here, namely that political parties also endeavor to "structure the vote", academic-speak for trying to woo the votes of the electorate.

One of the ways that is done, in case marsupials cannot imagine it to be the case, is by criticizing the government formed by the ruling party. Besides, can we depend on ruling parties anywhere in the world to damn itself?

Importantly, wooing the vote is an ongoing function of political parties, be they the political party that forms the government or one that does not. (Do the marsupials REALLY need evidence of this from other countries in which political parties are not illegal? Or how about the PAP's exercising of their right to this function when they criticize the oppositiojn parties?)

Denying any political party this right then becomes a violation of legal equality, as well as further count of a violation on the right to free speech.

Aside from the article, the thing I like about the group photos we take is that there is vibrant mix of people from all walks of life who all naturally came together.

betrayed, let me make it clearer for you (and others who are prone to misreading or misinterpretation) what I meant by “it is not a vote-winner (and rather stupid) to be too 'rough'”.

There are many things governments around the world can do to win votes – implementing some of the populist (and usually shortsighted) measures advocated by some of the opposition parties is one of them.

Taking overt oppressive steps in this changed political environment are VOTE-LOSERS, and I am sure the ruling party is very conscious of these. I suppose the “light-touches” will be become more the norm in future.

Yes, my opinion that some of the measures taken were excessive, even if political think-skinnedness does not permit it to admit so. (Do opposition parties, including SDP, ever admit that its measures were foolish?)

This is the follow up I promised.

BACKGROUND

I once came across this information (in a university level textbook) that Article 1 of the Constitution of Nazi Germany provided for ‘the Fuhrer to enact law, even if it was inconsistent with other Articles found within the Constitution’. After googling for more information on this, I have found this, while not exactly the way I recall reading about it, is still very similar. Perhaps more authoritative research is in order if it is relevant to this case:

http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob60.html

It was during the aftermath of World War II, and the experience with Nazi Germany in particular that the erstwhile League of Nations became the United Nations, one of whose first orders of duty as a direct result of WWII was the Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.

Yet, the Declaration has not prevented our own fascist state, a signatory to the Declaration, from enacting law that is similar in spirit to the ones in Nazi Germany, laws which essentially positions the government above the law.

The law that Dr Chee, Ms Chee and Mr Gandhi Ambalam have been charged with is one such law. (In my opinion, the entire Films Act is also unconstitutional and for many of the same reasons that I will elaborate on in this case because Section 40 of the Act which states that ‘This Act shall not apply to any film sponsored by the Government’.)

(...cont)

(cont...)

ARGUMENT (PART 1)

In my opinion, Rule 5 of the Miscellaneous Offences Act (MOA) is unconstitutional – and thus illegal - because it violates both Article 12 as well as Articles 14(a) and 14(b) of the Constitution; Rule 5 of the MOA does not follow logically from the principle of legal equality (of political parties, in this case) and is therefore not a substantive equality - form over substance, in other words.

The other two types of equality that the fraudulent application of Rule 5 denies (non-ruling) political parties are:

a) Equality of Civil Liberties (or “the equal application of those rights spelled out in Section IV of the Constitution); and,

b) Formal Equality (or “equal treatment” or “treating like cases alike”).

In this post, I will deal only with one type of equality, and that is legal equality as it applies to this case.

LEGAL EQUALITY (or “equality in the letter of the law”)
Political parties are legal in Singapore and this is provided for by Article 14(c) – the “freedom of association” clause; the SDP’s legal status- and the inferred substantive equality of that status – is further bolstered by its registration not disputed by the Registry of Society; the SDP is legally due the equality provided for by Article 12 of the Constitution as any other political party and indeed the ruling party as well, a point I will elaborate on later.

However, any semblance of a substantive equality comes to a screeching halt right after this equality – on paper – of the SDP as a party that is legally equal to the all others and especially the ruling political party.

(...cont)

(cont...)

ARGUMENT (PART 2)

EQUALITY OF CIVIL LIBERTIES (or “the equal application of those rights spelled out in Section IV of the Constitution)

The freedom of assembly is one civil liberty provided for by law. However, also as provided by 14(2)(b), “Parliament may by law impose on the right conferred by clause (1) (b), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof or public order”.

Yet, what Parliament has done is to impose laws restricting assembly – both in the MOA as well as the Public Order Act (POA) - to less than 5 persons which in ALL other countries are part of Emergency measures that require a court application to be imposed. (The relatively recent cases of unrest in countries such as Burma and Thailand are instructive in this regard. Also, this only proves the veracity of my own statement a few years ago that Singapore has been under an undeclared Emergency Rule for the entire period since Independence till now.)

Additionally, the question of how the (permanent) Emergency laws in the MOA and POA are considered ‘necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof or public order’, given the current socio-political conditions in Singapore does need to be raise to court.

Next, I believe that Singaporeans are being increasingly educated to the fact that parliamentary statutes have to be consistent with constitutional law, a legal obligation that is so woefully lacking in a PAP government that is desperately trying to convince Singaporeans and the international community alike that it does indeed abide by the rule of law.

However, what has not yet seen enough discussion is that the procedure followed by any government agency – the Singapore Police Force in the issuance of permits in this case – is equally subject to constitutional requirements (of the equal treatment that flows from legal equality).

With the blanket denial of permits to all non-ruling political parties in any application for an assembly, this requirement for procedural fairness – codified as procedural law in some British Commonwealth countries though there is likely an equivalent in Singapore even if it is not called such by the legal profession – has been repeatedly violated and is also now in the court records from a previous case.

All of this results in the denial of another civil liberty, that of the freedom of speech not only to criticize the government on a matter of public policy and on matters that are in the public interest, but also the freedom of speech (communication with its political constituencies) inherent in the normal functioning of any political party – ruling or non-ruling – worldwide. (I will elaborate on the functions of political parties further in my next post.)

(...cont)

(cont...)

ARGUMENT (PART 3)

FORMAL EQUALITY (or “equal treatment” or “treating like cases alike”)

The government in multi-party polity is formed from the political party that wins an election. Indeed, governments in multi-party states are alternately referred to as “the ruling party” which underscores the government’s status as a *political party* in the main.

The various activities conducted by political parties usually fall into one of the following six categories that are known in academia as the functions of political parties:

1. recruitment of political leaders
2. aggregation of interests
3. formulation of public policy
4. integration and mobilization of the mass public
5. structuring the vote
6. organization of government

While I cannot recall the role, if any, of non-ruling political parties under the function described in #6 above, even a cursory glance at the first five functions reveals an something important to this case: the functions of political parties do not differ one bit whether they are the ruling party or otherwise.

In other words, all political parties, ruling ones or otherwise, continue to need to recruit future leaders, aggregate the interests of their political constituencies, formulate (though not implement in the case of non-ruling parties) public policy, integrate and mobilize the public, and structure the vote whether they form the government at any one point or not.

What this then implies is that, based on the FUNCTIONS of political parties in a multi-party polity, laws that constrain non-ruling political parties while exempting the government from those same constrains are unconstitutional – and illegal – because they do not extend the equality – of the functioning, in this case - guaranteed by Article 12 of the Constitution to the non-ruling political parties.

In conclusion, Rule 5 and its application, while not criminalizing the EXISTENCE of non-ruling political parties – very expedient for attracting those all-important FDIs, you know – instead criminalizes the NORMAL AND PROPER FUNCTIONING in any multi-party state of the same political parties.

ur words r hallow & u r certainly shallow,i have read in this blog ur comments,ur flip flop & certainly u should be glad that here is democratic at work,if not,u will not be heard,but at the same time,exposed such souless,un intelligent being like u,ur professed Christian?from e way u blast someone's Christmas message(john's,in case u forget)& even e men in white wil not accept a licking(dog)like u..who u r & what u r made of,ur up bringing is manifested in the words u carry..& over time u have worn 'recognition'& whoever or whatever ur intend is,whether u are just 'testing'e water or wasting some old time here cuz u have nothing better to do,u have won already yourself a brand..as we live in the last days,as ur breathe are taking u away from this realm,i say unto u,what you speak & e conviction of life,living & believing besides this land of Singapore,i hope u serve a better master,if not,serve e spirit of your conviction,without having to flig swing here & there,yes,i did not read ur comments,i scroll u out BUT,u thick skin still want to be in this blog,blasting away others;really, if there are words to describe u, guess u fit the bill of clanking sound in the wind of the chime,where music is not made,neither is sound, just notes in the wind,neither here nor there, PATHETIC SOUL! GET A LIFE...perhaps if e greater force of the universe is willing unto giving...U.

What SDP is doing is to make sure that people like BryanT will not be sent into a concentration camp in future. I hope BryanT can understand that.

Nazi Germany is certainly a "strong" leadership and "pragmatic" government that hates the "communists", emphasizes "society above self", and does not like to hear "complains" from its citizens.

Anna, if you read SDP's article more carefully, you'd realised that CSJ was referring to political oppression. That's what I took as reference for my comments too.

I don't he was referring to the civil or petty crimes. But if it has issues with the way these cases are being managed in terms of whether punishments are too harsh or other alternative rehabilitative avenues should be exploited, then an article should be written so that we can discuss the issue.

Meanwhile, I doubt that 60-80% of Singaporeans will have their “names in court due to cases as minor as paying up summons” or have an ex-criminals in the families.

Firstly, I don't think (true blue) Singaporeans are that reckless or desperate to need to infringe the laws. I don't know whether you are aware, many offences can be compounded (and are being compounded) and these do not go get registered as criminal records.

As to the conspiracy theory that the government is determined to “mess up our 'life records'” by sending people to jail or put them on trial, I seriously doubt so. The simplest logic is that making us a nation of criminals does not make economic sense when it comes to international trade and investion. Besides, the police force and attorney general's office resources to do so simply does not exist. They are more discerning as to who they take action against, even if it sometimes defy the best political and legal sense.

Last but not least, I think your suggestion that the government is trying to incriminate the people and then make the latter “owe it” (and be perhaps be a little appreciate as well) through assistance such as the Yellow Ribbon Project is so ridiculous. Maybe you can tell us when was the last time you (or anyone you know) were so entrapped.

Lighten up (your political burden).

Hi, my "Contemptible BryanT", I really salute you for being such a despicable and adulterate stunt supporter of the ungrateful and deceptive ruling party! It really surprises me that you are always the first to post comments on sdp's website and the first to butter-up to the ruling party! By the way, do you need to sleep? How come you know so well when sdp has new posting on its website? Are you a mole planted by the ruling party to specifically spy on sdp? How much the ruling party has paid or simply what types of benefits you have received from them? A brand new hdb flat at duxton square or a cozy civil service job or may be a top corporate honcho at one of the gic? Shame on you to be such a lowly and contemptible nerd and nothing else!

Now, come to the main point, by the way, thank you very much for giving so much attentions to the opposition sdp's humble website, whereas, people like me non-opposition member nor ruling party supporter has never given a DAMN Bloody effort to surf the idiotic website set-up by the YPAP(post 65ers) as being perceived as another stupid and steadfast rhetorical tool set-up by the ruling party to propagate its selfish political agendas to further enhance its already strong grip of political cum commercial power! We already have enough of these non-senses and “uncanny news” from the state media. Likewise, I opine strongly that you should spend more time shoring up the support of the ruling party as its doomsday is not far from presence!

Also, last but not least, sdp has done a marvelous and fabulous job by attracting so much attentions and resources from this bunch of million-dollar ingrates whom fearing that they will lose all power insatiable acquired over the years in the near future!

Lighten up? Thanks to you and yours we now have a growing cohort of underclass struggling in quiet desperation to keep their heads above water, not poor enough to beg, not well-off enough to stop running for just one moment in time. Living on the bleeding edge of poverty, stressed to the eyeballs.

Have you any inkling what that's like, Mr. Stock-Market Player? Have you ever dreaded the sound of the postman dropping a letter into your letterbox because it could be yet another demand for a payment you have no money for? Turned off all the lights indoors and had one cheap meal a day because that is all you can afford? Walked to save on the bus fare?

Oh wait, maybe they should be grateful to the PersistentlyAnalParty that they can at least afford the dignity of labour, huh? They were better off under the British, you know. At least then they could always fall back on the land to eke out a debt-free living. They had pensions. Now? If you're 55 on 1/7/2009 you're in the freaking hole for $117,000 minimum sum, can't touch your own enforced savings even assuming you had that amount. What can I do with the minimum sum asks the CPF Board website rhetorically. Well they answer, you can apply to join CPF LIFE you lucky, lucky bastard. Hahaha, roll me over, pin me down and do it again, why don't you!

Is it not self-evident that people pushed to the wall do indeed become (in your own words) "reckless or desperate to need to infringe the laws"? Why are youngsters doing the dirty work for loan sharks if their living conditions have not become dysfunctional? Why does one Singaporean commit suicide every single day? Why spend $126m on MRT platform screen doors when it's far cheaper simply to employ an FT to scrape the meat off the tracks? You seem a fairly intelligent person. Why are you surprised that conspiracy theories grow and flourish when the down-trodden are mercilessly crushed underfoot?

Thank you ever so much for your churlish attempt to belittle Miss Chee's spell in prison. When a citizen is sent to jail merely because she distributed flyers that were critical of the incumbent, I call that effing OPPRESSIVE. What's your spin for it? Rolled on the floor and laughed your ass off when Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was sentenced to an additional 18 months of house arrest last August, didja?

If this goes on, spore will have another 1st "illegal to wait outside a Prison to receive those released from the Prison by a group of XX number."

Politically or not, Singaporean are being oppressed!

Oh.. you've only just heard from me and you have yet to listen from others. Yes, a petty act as simple as sleeping in a park will make a Singaporean be in trouble. Fined = $200. Even if it is not a petty crime, the person still have the experience of attending court and has his name called out. No record? Of coz, it won't be a national record but still a name recorded in court. Registered in court for future references? Not depressing enough for most people?

Anna, I don't work for the police force and have never done so in my life. My impression of the police force is quite positive when it comes to community policing.

Based on the opportunities when I have observed them at work, they are not out to arrest or booked people. I can understand this as a good police force is most effective when it works with the community, and not against the community.

Their technique is the soft approach, especially against petty offences - persuade, warn, and if all else fail, then take action. And even if people are arrested, it is not inevitable that they are charged.

It has come to a stage where people are no longer afraid of policemen, including children. Nowadays, parents who threaten their children that "if you are naughty, the police will catch you" sound so ridiculous.

I really think your prejudice of the police force is misplaced.

As a Singaporean, don't tell me you didn't know the enforcement units that are most active to issue summons on people are the NEA and TP/LTA?? Aren't they acting on behalf of the govt.?? Didn't mention the PF but yes, they too.

And you agree that in Singapore no one should be allowed to take a nap/sleep in the park?? Just because they may be afraid of getting caught and pay up an amount that is more expensive that a 2 star hotel rate...

Have to tell you that you might need to check at the sub court every evening (although now the authority has cut off the common sight which was a very very long queue @6pm daily on weekdays just to pay up summons - people from all walks of life) now still exist at the 'waiting/sitting' area just outside court 25. It's a 'jolly revenue' our govt. is collecting every weekdays with at least 60 cases per day. And in Singapore, $200 of fine is a common amount to be collected from us.

So BryanT, never sleep in the park when you are alone, no matter how tired you are (nap attack) unless you are having a picnic with family or friends, you will be as unlucky as so many other Singaporean if a civilian clothed enforcement officer might get a chance to tap your shoulder, wake you up and ask for your ID to collect your $200 (pay in court) with a smile, issuing you a summon. Never happen to me but it has happened before.

BryanT, please understand this... Yes, we are being oppressed and deprived of 'freedom' including the freedom of speech. Anyway, police pun samalah.. sembarang je dorang asal dapat tutup kes.

Here's a not so shocking news to me but perhaps would be shocking for most. To back up my earlier comment. News that came one day AFTER I wrote my reply to you.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?ref=profile&id=1132869106#/note.php?note_id=254377408963&id=14440041382&ref=mf

and this

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?ref=profile&id=1132869106#/note.php?note_id=284433013967&id=748087966&ref=mf

Isn't it great proof to what I've said??! Me exaggerating on SPF? Cummon....