Singapore Democrats

Well done Dr Chee

See you 25.09.10

Our future PM has spoken.

Dr Chee had made some fair comments on race issues, which most minorities can relate with however, please be cautious and not make race issues an election issue - the immigration issues, jobs, houses etc are more than enough to bull doze the PAP.

Race issues will mostly likely make matters more complicated and the SDP will be the losers!

Define losers.

I agree that race is better off not be part of any campaign platform - especially if Lee kuan Yew insists on not stepping down - although I doubt that the SDP had any intention of doing so in the first place.

Never mind the PAP's hypocrisy in that they are the only ones who are exempt from this unofficial law, but that is exactly what I am coming to.

It is important for the maximum possible number of Singaporeans to know the reason for this double standards: the PAP is protecting a sizeable proportion of its vote base - a potential swing vote category - by manipulating the rules of the game so as to become The Patron Saint of the Minorities. This is even while it continues returning the minority vote with substandard representation, and often even more racism.

It's why I would support the SDP voicing these concerns from time to time so that more minority race Singaporeans can start feeling that they have another party that will give them the quality representation they deserve.

I also agree that there are already sufficient issues slated for the next elections without any need for issues of race to be raised. The full slate is also a reason why we should heed the party's call to desist from xenophobia because it is very off-putting to the swing vote most of whom who have yet to come online but may do so during the elections.

it is true that the country also consists of both minority and majority but sdp must try to be party of the people and not a party of a particular group.

I wrote in the earlier post about the need that minorities - Indians and Malays in particular - have for quality representation in Parliament, be that representation by PAP or opposition MPs. (In truth, all Singaporeans need the same in every issue. But as the capacity of the opposition critics grows, I somehow sense that quality representation for minorities is still lagging; it's the bane of minorities everywhere.)

I now raise one such issue that affects the Indian and Malay minorities (only), that despite having been raised in Parliament last week, fell far short of addressing the issues. (I know that this is an issue that is not going to go away, and I plead with SDP MPs to raise them on our behalf.) I will do this over several posts.

NMP Viswa Sadasivan posed these questions to the MND:

(a) How does the Government address the issue of HDB flat owners, especially ethnic minority owners, who have difficulty selling their flats because of the restrictions under the Ethnic Integration Policy;

(b) how many such owners have had to sell their flats below market valuation; and,

(c) whether in such cases, the Government will consider buying back the flat from the owners at market valuation or offer a cash top up equal to the deficit, to demonstrate that such owners will not be unduly penalized because of restrictions resulting from a government policy.

I refer to the replies by Parliamentary Secretary for National Development Mohamad Maliki Osman as reported in these two stories:

http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_579682.html

http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20100917-237646.html

I quote from the reports:

"Of 162 neighbourhoods affected by EIP, only 14 per cent have reached their quotas..."

A couple of red flags were raised for me:

1. The EIP has been in operation for more than two decades. But only a few months go the PAP government made upward revisions to the percentages of Indians and Malays allowed. No doubt this has happened only because of mounting pressure.

However, is the 'only 14 per cent of 162 Housing Board neighbourhoods have reached the racial quotas set by the Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP)' that Maliki refers to the figure since the recent revisions took place?

If it is, what was the previous percentage of neighbourhoods in which minorities were financially disadvantaged by the EIP before the revisions?

2. A few years ago, when my family was thinking of selling our flat, we were told by HDB that we were restricted to selling our flat only to other Indians because - now get this - the quota of Indians in our BLOCK has already been reached.

But now, Maliki is projecting the impression that the EIP is imposed not on a block-by-block basis, but on the basis that the ethnic quota for a NEIGHBOURHOOD has been reached.

So is the EIP imposed by BLOCK or by NEIGHBOURHOOD?

Clearly, somebody is lying but I ask who it is?

I refer to the same quote as above:

"Of 162 neighbourhoods affected by EIP, only 14 per cent have reached their quotas..."

If the above amounts to saying that Indians and Malays in 'only' 14% of neighbourhoods are affected adversly by the EIP when reselling their flats, then it is an admission that SOME of us are - or continue to be depite the revisions - in fact adversely affected by it even if that means a minority within a minority? (My family is.)

If it is true that only a minority within minorities are adversely affected by the EIP, then isn't it also now more affordable for the HDB to compensate us since not all Indians and Malays are affected by this policy.

The affected must still be compensated.

Based on the two reports, this is the question that Maliki deftly and cunningly sidestepped: "Will the Government consider buying back the flat from the owners at market valuation or offer a cash top up equal to the deficit, to demonstrate that such owners will not be unduly penalized because of restrictions resulting from a government policy?"

Finally, will court action against the State for racuial discrimination, our final recourse in a non-existent check abd balance system, work given how we already know that the kangaroos we have in the judiciary ALWAYS ruled in favor of the Executive when challenged?

We have only one recourse still open to us and that is quality representation in Parliament; hopefully that will come from the SDP.

Finally, I recall PAP MP Lee Yi Shang who only last week wrote about his opposition to Min Wage legislation on the grounds that it distorts market forces. Well, the EIP also causes the same market distortions that the PAP only opportunistically defends.

But not when it comes to the EIP.

LKY said in Moscow that his dream is that Singapore will become a "cosmopolitan city" rather than keeping her identity as "Asian".

A major shift of policy, or just old age forgetfulness?