People’s Voice Party chief Lim Tean on Monday (30 Aug) rejected Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s claim that there is a strong racial undertone to the objection against the India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA), saying that “some of the most ardent supporters of the movement are Singaporean Indians”.
“Yes, let me repeat that again. Some of the strongest opposition to CECA comes from Singaporean Indians,” said Mr Lim in a video posted on his Facebook page.
Mr Lim opined that racism is “not a problem we have in Singapore” due to its “multicultural” societal framework “since 1819 when (Stamford) Raffles founded us”.
However, racism, he said, is being used as a “tool” and “defensive mechanism” by PM Lee and the PAP in response to “the growing opposition” against their governance.
This, said Mr Lim, is most evident in PM Lee’s specific reference to the movement against CECA in the latter’s National Day Rally speech on Sunday.
“Now, when People’s Voice and I started speaking about CECA a couple of years ago, not many people knew about the intricacies of CECA.
“People’s Voice is the only party that has called for the total abolition of CECA, because to me–and I will not hesitate to say–CECA is an evil treaty,” he said.
CECA, said Mr Lim, is a treaty that has “brought grief to so many Singaporean workers and their families” and “has displaced so many Singaporean workers”.
The movement’s opposition to CECA, thus, is based on the realisation that Singaporeans “must have priority to jobs” and that the Government, on its end, “must fulfil that promise”, he said.
“If tomorrow, the Government were to sign an equivalent treaty, say, with another big country like Brazil, we will still oppose that treaty.
“It is not because we oppose Indians; it is because the treaty is fundamentally wrong for Singapore. Are we then to be labeled as racist against Brazilians?” Mr Lim posited.
On the relevance of the GRC system, Reserved Presidency, and the prospect of a non-Chinese Prime Minister
In his video, Mr Lim also questioned the relevance of the Group Representation Constituency (GRC) system and the need for a race-based Reserved Presidency, citing them as examples of structures and policies that contain “true racial undertones”.
“To think that after 32 years or 33 years of the GRC system being in place, we still need the GRC system … They still need to bring up the argument that a minority cannot win an election on his or her own,” he said.
“In 2016, they even introduced the Reserved Presidency,” Mr Lim added. “And it saddens me as a Singaporean to think that … We still have to trot this very narrow path.”
Citing the United Kingdom, a “predominantly White society”, Mr Lim noted that Conservative Party member Rishi Sunak — of Indian origin — is currently serving as Chancellor of the Exchequer, which he said is “the equivalent of our Finance Minister”.
Sajid Javid, another Conservative Party member, is currently serving as Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. The Pakistani-origin politician also served as Chancellor of the Exchequer from 2019 to 2020.
Both Rishi and Sajid, Mr Lim noted, are “often touted as future leaders of the Conservative Party”.
“And of course, when you are the leader of the Conservative Party, you are a potential Prime Minister. So why is it that in those countries, there is no fear that the minority cannot be elected?
“In fact, the minority has every chance to be Prime Minister,” he added.
The PAP government, said Mr Lim, has instead pointed the finger of racism against their opponents in situations such as the CECA debate while perpetuating notions such as Singaporeans not being ready for a non-Chinese Prime Minister.
“It has not only been defeated in the debate. It has been routed comprehensively to the extent that they even have to put up a propaganda video now. And they have to plaster HDB lifts and lobbies with their propaganda,” he said.
“No doubt” Maintenance of Racial Harmony Act will be used “very selectively” like POFMA: Lim Tean
Touching on the new Maintenance of Racial Harmony Act (MRHA), Mr Lim predicted that it will be used “very selectively like the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA)”.
“Unfortunately, we are going to have to put up with another piece of legislation where it is the ministers themselves who are going to be the adjudicators of what is racism,” he said.
Despite legislating anti-discrimination guidelines by the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP), PM Lee stressed that conciliation and mediation ought to be pursued first before any legal proceedings can be commenced in a labour dispute.
Mr Lim, a lawyer who has dealt with numerous employment disputes, said that such processes are “time-consuming” and has led to many giving up “at the end of the day because they feel that it is just not worth it”.
“And even when they go to the employment tribunal, there is no guarantee that they will get anything substantive,” he said.
“To me, all these are mechanisms that are not genuine in solving the discrimination against Singaporean workers.
“It is going to give errant employers all the scope to run rings around the authorities and our Singaporean workers,” said Mr Lim.
Why is tudung ban only lifted for nurses, Lim Tean asks
While Mr Lim expressed his happiness that Muslim nurses in public healthcare will be able to don the tudung–a religious headgear–at work with their uniforms if they wish to do so from November onwards, he questioned why the tudung ban was only lifted for Muslim women in the nursing profession.
“I know how important it is to the Muslims for the ladies to be able to wear the tudung. It is an expression of their faith,” he said.
“We have seen in many countries like New Zealand and England, where Muslim policewomen are able to wear the tudung designed beautifully,” Mr Lim added.
“Let it not only be in the nursing profession. Let it be in the police (force). Let it be in other groups that wear uniforms … I do not believe that Singaporeans are so narrow-minded or so sensitive to think that if a Muslim lady wears the tudung, that (she will suddenly become) a threat to secularism. That is total rubbish,” he said.
Mr Lim added that if it was not for opposition members in Parliament — most notably the Workers’ Party’s Faisal Manap who has repeatedly raised the tudung issue in the House — “the government would not have moved”.
“But even when it moves, it is moving at a snail’s pace,” he said.
PM Lee’s NDR 2021 speech reflects “severe leadership deficit” faced by Singapore, says Lim Tean
In a nutshell, Mr Lim opined that PM Lee’s NDR 2021 speech appeared to be an attempt to dig up issues “from the PAP archives”, which “are not relevant to the real problems faced by Singaporeans today”.
The speech, he said, reflects “the severe leadership deficit” faced by Singapore at present.
“There was nothing forward-looking about that speech. There was nothing in that speech that would have raised the hopes of you or your next generation. That better days are ahead that you are going to have a brighter future. That your next generation is going to have a better future,” said Mr Lim.
“I hope you will reflect on what you heard yesterday … Whether that gives you confidence that this is a government that is truly out to improve your lives, or it is a government that is more concerned about preserving the status quo,” he concluded.
