By Kumaran Pillai

Kumaran Pillai, the Chief Editor of The Online Citizen spoke to Dr. James Gomez over the recent announcement that Singaporeans For Democracy’s has moved to de-register as an ROS society and the launch of its report next week.

 

Dr. James Gomez
Why did Singaporeans For Democracy choose to de-register?

SFD’s membership chose to dissolve the society to draw attention to two sets of rules that hinder its work as a political association in Singapore. One set of laws pertain to the registration and the day-to-day operation of SFD. These laws are found in the Societies Act, Political Donations Act and Broadcasting Act. The other set of laws pertain to the operation of SFD’s program of activities. These laws are the, Films Act, Public Order Act and several others. The report entitled “Democracy and Civil Society in Singapore: The Politics of Control” will enumerate in detail how these have affected our work in the last two years. The upcoming report authored by Roderick Chia will be launched at 10am on 25 August 2012. The event is free, free copies of the report will be available then and all are welcome. See this link for event details:

 

What is involved in de-registering SFD?

Dissolving a society registered with the Registrar of Society involves the following steps. First, you need to hold a General Meeting of the membership to decide on the dissolution. SFD did this on 28 April 2012 and got the approval of its membership. Second, some forms need to be completed and a series of documents needs to be compiled such as minutes of the meeting and financial statements and these have to be submitted to ROS. SFD has now complied all the relevant documents and plans to submit these documents to the ROS in the next days. Third, once the ROS has validated these documents it will officially finalize the dissolution.

 

What will happen once SFD is officially “dissolved” by the Registrar of Societies?

While the SFD’s dissolution is being processed by ROS, we will update our website one last time to upload the SFD report “Democracy and Civil Society in Singapore: The Politics of Control” so that it is also available online. But once the dissolution is processed and finalized, SFD as a society under the ROS, will cease to exist and operate. However, SFD’s Facebook Page with its over 800 members will remain and continue to be a platform for the page members to continue posting and sharing information on civil society and politics in Singapore. We welcome, the phrase Singaporeans For Democracy to be appropriated by Singaporeans to continue their work on civil and political reform.

 

What will happen to SFD’s members?

Our members were already active in civil society when they came together to set up SFD. Even during their time with SFD our members were concurrently involved in other initiatives. As such it will be business as usual for our members as they continue their contributions in Singapore’s civil society landscape.

 

So what are your personal plans after SFD?

At the moment, I am busy supervising the completion of the SFD report and its release later next week. I will continue to contribute to civil society as there is still a lot of work to bedone, however the manner and approach of contribution I will decide after the launch and dissolution.

 

So what can we expect to see in the Report next week?

The report will chronicle the history of the first and second generation political associations and the evolution of civil society related laws in contemporary Singapore. It will contain never before published correspondences to the Internal Security Department and exchanges with the Elections Department. There will also be an analysis of local media coverage of SFD and a projection on the future of political associations in Singapore. There will also be a section on recommendations for legal reform to improve the functioning of civil society in Singapore.

You May Also Like

毕丹星回应《一条无障碍坡道》评论 点评“P.A.(P)式”民主

在上月26日,《联合早报》发布一篇由高级记者黄伟曼撰写的评论《一条无障碍坡道》,其中提及: “以目前围绕这起事件的舆论来评断,多数选民估计不太懂,也不太在乎在反对党区内市镇会与人协之间微妙的相处模式。 他们的思考逻辑很简单,即一条应惠及老弱残病等有需要者的无障碍通道的建造被拖延了,而若这背后可能有基层政治操作,那必然违反公平原则,在这过程中也牺牲了人民的利益,不能被接受。” 对此,工人党秘书长暨阿裕尼集选区议员毕丹星回应,针对上述第一段的说法,或许作者就已忽略,败选行动党候选人,仍能被委任为人民协会基层顾问,本身就有违民主。 至于是否公平原则,毕丹星认为,要探究人协在反对党选区的立场,不仅仅限于讨论对坡道建设的冷漠态度。他解释,败选行动党基层顾问不仅掌控纳税人的钱,他们的影响力更为深远和政治化,早已不是什么秘密。 他在昨日发布的脸书贴文列举其中一些例子:包括公民权仪式,由行动党政府委任的基层顾问主持,而在反对党选区,新公民是从败选行动党候选人手上领过身份证的,“难道总统旗下的公务员,或非政治人物来主持这类仪式,不是更妥当吗?” 至于市镇理事会靠“两条腿”:民选议员和基层领袖方能成事。市镇会不仅把建屋局权限赋予议员,也交予基层领袖。然而,如果不是在人协旗下的基层代表,行动党政府是不会予以承认的,反对党志愿者也不会得到基层身份。 故此,毕丹星指出在反对党选区,市镇会无基层代表;而基层领袖是由败选行动党候选人委任、受基层顾问管理的。 其三,社区设施改进委员会(CIPC)审批拨款,在人协缺席的情况,反对党市镇会只好依靠自己的盈余来支撑惠民项目,他指阿裕尼-后港市镇会多年来都是这么做;但与此同时行动党市镇会却可以透过CIPC拨款进行项目,而得以保持财政盈余。 即便如此,当阿裕尼-后港市镇会在2011年出现赤字,《海峡时报》甚至还质问“市镇会此前的300万盈余去了哪?” 最后,毕丹星反问,行动党在管理人协上,究竟政治和国人利益孰轻孰重? “答案或许不言而喻,我希望更多记者和政治观察员,可以超越国内目前最著名坡道议题,看得更为深远,去分析拖延建设的政治机制。诚如“选民的逻辑”,建设性政治岂非更应着重公平吗?”

Singapore People's Party to hold elections on October 16 – Chiams hint at leadership renewal

This morning, the Singapore People’s Party (SPP) announced that it would be…

Singapore and China to tighten bilateral relationship

Vice Foreign Minister of the People’s Republic of China Liu Zhenmin visited…

Bukit Brown crossroad – a viable alternative

~ By Goh Si Gium ~ With the increased population in Singapore,…