by: Benjamin Cheah/

On the 6th of August this year, the Singapore Democratic Party (“SDP”) organised a dinner to celebrate National Day at the Gallery at Fort Canning. Dubbed the “Singapore Day Party”, its name was a play on the SDP acronym. Dr Chee Soon Juan, leader of the SDP, said that the dinner let people ‘have a bit of fun’, ‘celebrate’ and ‘commemorate’ Singapore. However, the dinner was primarily a political event. It began with a recital of the National Anthem and Pledge, after which SDP member and civil activist Dr Vincent Wijeysingha made his opening remarks.

The PAP’s reward has not been earned

Dr Wijeysingha opened with his thoughts on the General Elections. He said he experienced ‘a feeling of mission, a sense of determination, a sense of hard work’, and ‘a true sense of gotong royong’ (‘sense of community’) during the elections. Referring to this spirit, Dr Wijeysingha said that this is the Singapore ‘we the people have built up’, and ‘not the PAP alone’.

He said that the PAP ‘have had their reward’, talking about the media’s focus on their million-dollar ministerial salaries, ‘lavish houses’ and ‘grandiose motorcades’. Then he spoke about the poor and disadvantaged he met on the street and the families the SDP is helping in its community service program, and said the PAP’s ‘reward had not been earned’. He said, ‘we would only truly celebrate…when none of our brothers and sisters have (sic) been left behind.’

Dr Wijeysingha said that the SDP was a party ‘that does (sic), but also thinks’. He brought up the SDP’s alternative economic strategy, shadow budget, and its soon-to-be-published recommendations on ministerial salaries and healthcare plans. He added that the SDP’s subcommittees were ‘working hard’ to carry the party to the 2016 elections.

Saying that the party ‘salutes community’ and ‘celebrates humanity’, Dr Wijeysingha said the dinner reaffirms the party’s commitment to the civil liberties of ‘every Singaporean whose birthright was written into a cheque that the nation’s bank hasn’t cashed’.

He said that the guests have chosen to ‘stand on the side of the Singaporean people’, to ‘reaffirm our dedication to the human rights of each and every man, woman and child’, because we believe ‘without an assurance of dignity, without an assurance of equal access to the full range of services and rights’, our nation ‘cannot grow up, cannot face the future that is to come’.

Dr Wijeysingha concluded the speech by thanking Dr Chee for his leadership, saying that Dr Chee had expanded political discourse and pushed back the out-of-bounds markers, making the ‘watershed’ elections of 2011 possible.

Speaking on issues of conscience

Taking over from Dr Wijeysingha, Mr Tan Jee Say opened his speech by thanking his supporters. A former SDP member, he outlined his reasons for running for President instead of remaining in the opposition.

Firstly, a ‘non-PAP President’ would provide ‘real checks and balances on the excesses of the PAP government’. He said that the PAP’s ‘control over Parliament is virtually absolute’, as the PAP can introduce new policies or change the constitution and the opposition is ‘completely ineffective’ to stop the PAP from doing so. Mr Tan contrasted this with the President’s veto power over five key areas, and his ability to provide moral pressure in other areas by speaking up.

Mr Tan said that he disagreed with Law Minister K Shanmugam’s stance that the President could only speak on the advice of the Cabinet. Mr Tan said that the ‘mission of the elected President’ is to provide checks and balances, adding that the President ‘would not be doing his duty’ if the President does not speak up when the government ‘crosses the line’ or fails to deliver on their promises. If elected, Mr Tan promised, he would not ‘betray the people’s trust’ and would speak up for the people.

Mr Tan also disagreed with Mr Shanmugam’s comment that a President who speaks up might ‘confuse the people’. Mr Tan pointed out that PAP members of Parliament have disagreed with the government in past debates, like those on casinos and foreign workers. These MPs have not confused the people, he said, and neither would he. Mr Tan said he would not ‘abuse (his) speaking rights’, saying that his first approach would be to speak ‘privately and confidentially’ to the Prime Minister. However, on ‘very fundamental issues of conscience’, Mr Tan said he would ‘reserve the right to speak up’ if he feels the people’s concerns are not addressed.

His second reason for running for President was that the campaign would ‘raise the profile of all non-PAP forces’, which would aid the opposition’s outreach campaign to prepare for the next general elections. Mr Tan said that the opposition cannot have a low profile for the next five years, and must ‘seize every opportunity’ to reach out to the people.

His third reason was to show Singaporeans that the office of President is neither a ‘shoo-in’ nor a ‘preserve’ for the PAP. He said that the office ‘is not theirs but right, but must be fought for and earned’.

Finally, Mr Tan wanted to ‘signal to all young Singaporeans’ that ‘the highest office in the land’ may be attained by those who ‘dare to dream the biggest dream in serving their country’.

Tan Kin Lian: Independent and Non-partisan

Mr Tan Kin Lian, remarking on the previous speech, promised to give a ‘more measured’ speech. Calling himself ‘independent and non-partisan’, he said he would be ‘very happy’ to give a speech if invited by the PAP, or any other opposition party. Mr Tan said that he had received support from members of the SDP and National Solidarity Party, and even members of the PAP cadre – albeit in their personal capacity.

Mr Tan spoke about his campaign goals. Firstly, he would be ‘the voice of the people’. Secondly, he would be independent of the PAP. Thirdly, he would ‘perform the important roles of the President in safeguarding the reserves and other duties’.
Mr Tan also disagreed with Mr Shanmugam’s stance on the President not speaking without government approval. Mr believed that the President ‘has as much freedom of speech’ as any other citizen. He added that a constitutional lawyer could not find anything limiting the President’s ability to speak to government approval.

Mr Tan shared five key values he feels are embodied by the SDP. They are honesty, fairness, being positive, courage, and public service. He said these are values embodied by Dr Chee in his speeches, and would guide him in the future.

SDP may endorse candidates

Speaking to TOC at the sidelines of the dinner, Dr Chee said that the SDP invited every potential Presidential Candidate to the dinner. However, only Mr Tan Jee Say and Mr Tan Kin Lian could attend.

When asked if the SDP would endorse any candidate, Dr Chee said that the party would wait until the Presidential Elections Committee (PEC) awards the certificates of eligibility. However, he did not rule out endorsing any suitable candidate after PEC confirms who can contest.


Part 2 is HERE.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Millionaire Mah Bow Tan continues to hold shares in billionaire Sam Goi’s company

The son of billionaire Sam Goi, Ben Goi, 43, died on Sunday…

Dr Lee Weiling says “Papa knew what he was signing” in response to allegations that late LKY was rushed to sign final will

Dr Lee Weiling, in a Facebook post on Friday evening, said that…

刑事法(临时条款)修正法案明年1月1日起生效

我国内政部于本周二宣布,在今年二月通过的刑事法(临时条款)修正法案,将在2019年1月1日,正式生效。 内政部指出,配合拘留令(DO)和警察监视令(Police Supervision Orders),上述法案能透过拘留涉嫌犯罪活动份子,保障公共秩序和安全。 “有关法案权限只有在法院无法起诉的情况下使用,例如证人因害怕报复而不愿供证。法案过去也有效地对付那些秘密组织、有组织犯罪行为如贩毒和高利贷。” 事实上,刑事临时条款自1955年即沿用至今,国会需每五年检讨,都获得延长。第14次的延长期限,将在明年10月21日起生效。 在今年二月6日,国会经过四个小时辩论后,以77票赞成、10票反对、两票弃权,三读通过刑事法(临时条款)修正法案,使这项法令的有效期再延长五年。 其中八名工人党议员投下反对票。 上述修正增附第四附表,明确列出可援引法令行使拘留权的犯罪活动清单。内政部声称,此举能限制部长权限,也增强问责制度。 法案的其他修正包括,明确界定内政部长可针对哪些犯罪活动,下令拘留或指示警方监视一个人。 部长拥最后决定权 法案也阐明,一个人是否涉及犯罪活动,以及是否有必要为了公共安全、社会治安和秩序而将之拘留,部长拥有最后决定权。…

郭俨进泵井溺毙案:一级准尉法立被判13个月监禁

民防服役人员郭俨进中士被推入泵井溺毙一案,一级准尉法立(Mohamed Farid Mohd Saleh)犯下教唆他人做出鲁莽行为导致他人重伤罪名成立,昨天(20日)下午被判13个月监禁。 法立去年5月13日涉嫌指示将即将退役的郭俨进推入12米的泵井,导致溺毙身亡。同案被告亦包括将郭俨进推入死亡泵井的努尔法特瓦(Fatwa),法瓦特在日前已承认罪行,并接受年4星期监禁,目前正在服刑中。 控方对此表示,被告作为现场最高级别的民防人员,不仅没有履行保护安危的义务和责任,反而唆使法瓦特将过眼睛郭俨进推入泵井。 “法瓦是在被告的唆使下采取行动,因此,被告应与法瓦受到相对的惩处。在本案中不应有任何的差别对待”,控方表示。 控方指出,鉴于被告在第一时间不如法瓦一样,一开始就认罪,明显缺乏悔意,因此将刑法提高到至少14个月以上。 然而,被告的律师则争取四至八个月的刑法,他表明,尽管法立有作出指示,却没料掉法瓦特会以偷袭的方式将郭俨进推入其中,而且事后法立也相当后悔。 地方法官则表示,刑法本身必须反映本案所造成的伤害,与所应当的罪责,欲透过此案向公众传达鲁莽与冒险的行为是不能容忍,必须准备承担相关法律罪责,最重要是向军警人员传达类似陋习应杜绝的信息。 另外,法官也同意控方立场,认为被告已在民防部队服务长达11年,是清楚“整人”活动应被禁止,并了解泵井的深度和黑暗,却依然唆使将郭俨进推入泵井,因此刑罚也起到阻摄作用。 除了法特瓦与法立,另名被告阿迪哈扎里(Adighazali…