Wednesday, 8 August 2012

National Day Message

JUSTICE PARTY SINGAPORE

Forty seven years ago, we gained independence and for the first time began to call ourselves Singaporeans.

I was born after the birth of Singapore and as a child, I remembered even then, the feeling that there was a sense of belonging and a certain bond with our country. I lived in Jalan Berseh area and every National Day, we, the whole neighbourhood would display the Singapore flag without fail.
Our living conditions then were not as comfortable as today’s – there were no MRT, public buses were limited in numbers and the infrastructure was still underdeveloped. But the kampong spirit was strong. We were united as a people as evidenced during the Malaysia cup matches. We never felt as if we were of different races. We were one people and one nation.

Over the past forty seven years, our government has brought Singapore into the rank of first world nations, but only economically. Priority has been given to economic policies over social policies to such an extent that the income gap has been allowed widen to a dangerous level. Despite the government’s promise, many have indeed been left behind in the Singapore rat race. Today, we see many people struggling to cope with high inflation and competing with foreigners on local soil for jobs at all levels. The frustrations of many, after years of suppression, finally found their voice through the new media.
If we wish to bring back the kampong spirit and be one united people, the mindset of the government has to change. This is because our government has not catered for the divisive effects of their economic policies. To do this, the government has to pay much more attention to its social policies than it has up to now. As a start, the government should institutionalize a Singaporean First policy where jobs are concerned. They should also have a policy of building up local skills, expertise and talents instead of taking the short cut of importing them. An obvious example would be the importing of foreign sportsmen.
Another area would be the preservation of our cultural heritage. Too often has our little pockets of culture been short changed in the name of economic expediency. All the little neglects by the government act to dissipate the sense of belonging of Singaporeans.
This National Day, my wish is for the government to be less money-minded and be more magnanimous towards the less fortunate in our society. Singaporeans should not be
disadvantaged in their own country.


Lim Bak Chuan Desmond
Secretary-General
Justice Party Singapore
A Heart for Singaporeans
Singapore for Singaporeans
Singaporeans First Policy


Tuesday, 1 May 2012

A DIVIDED SINGAPORE – COMING SOON



A DIVIDED SINGAPORE – COMING SOON
The abandonment of the high wage policy of 1979-1982, the rigid adherence to market forces as a policy tool and the more recent policy of importing cheap foreign labour combined to take Singapore to share the top spots on the chart of nations with highest income inequality.

But what is so bad about high income inequality?

The Singapore government has always boasted that its policy of meritocracy creates a level playing field, allowing people from even the very bottom of society to move up the social ladder.  This policy is now in grave danger of evermore becoming an empty boast as the ladder of meritocracy becomes more and more dysfunctional.  There is now a structural social problem in Singapore created by the income inequality that will become more intractable if it is not adequately addressed.

What is this structural social problem?

It is the environment where the position of the rich will get more and more favourable while the position of the poor will get less and less favourable.  Here is how we see it:

In the highly competitive education environment of Singapore, parents often go all out to give their children as much a head start as possible – getting into the right kindergarten, pre-school and enrichment classes, extra tuitions, volunteering at and making donations to the schools to gain priority points etc.   In this race, the greater the financial resources the parents have, the greater the chance that the child will get the education head start that the parents desired for the child.  While there is no guarantee that such privileged children will eventually make it financially in society, it stands to reason that as a group, children of such a privilege group will have better chances than the rest.  This is more so in Singapore given that here, paper qualification is such an important factor to the start of one’s career.

It is often said that it is not what you know but who you know that is important in enabling one to get ahead in society.  This is true in all societies to one degree or another.  Singapore is no exception.  A child that is privileged to be given a head start in education is likely as well to have parents with the ‘right’ connections.  A little word here and a nod there by the parents to their business associates, school alumni and the like, and doors of career and business opportunities will open that much more easily for that privileged child.  The Chinese even have a word for that.  It is called “guanxi”.

Medical costs in Singapore were once really affordable.  Nowadays, ‘affordable’ and medical costs are practically oxymoron.  Staying healthy is a necessary condition to staying competitive.   Staying healthy means first, having access to proper nutrition and secondly, having access to medical facilities.  But such access is getting harder and harder for the bottom half of society as their purchasing power gets whittled away through low wage growth as consumer prices and asset prices run away.  So now, not only do the children of those on the low rungs of society not have the advantage of the head start in education given to the children of those on the high rungs, they increasingly have a health handicap as well.

If you think the above is bad, you are wrong.  It is insidious.  Why?  With wealth comes influence (guanxi) and with influence(guanxi) comes wealth.  The two tend to be mutually reinforcing.  So the benefits and advantages mentioned earlier can be rather sticky because of this reinforcing cycle.  So once you are in the top rungs of society, chances are you will stay there, and your children will stay there, and the children of your children will stay there.  You get the picture.    Similarly, if you are in the bottom rungs, you get caught in a poverty trap that gets harder and harder to get out of.  For those in the middle, some fortunate ones will be able to move themselves up.  For the majority there is a greater chance that they will slowly slide down and join the bottom scrappers.  This is because those at the top will be able to outpace those below them in the race to accumulate wealth and influence.  Over time, the fat middle income group, which is so essential for stability in a society, will thin out.

So how did this structural social problem come about?

It comes about by not by chance but as a consequence of the various policies of the government and the interaction between these policies.  This in itself is a big subject and we will not attempt to discuss it here.

Is the government seeing what we are seeing?

Looking at their current policy responses, they are more likely to be seeing the problem through the wrong end of a telescope.  The problem does not look big enough to warrant a paradigm shift in their mindset.  Either that or the government is unable to bring itself to admit the fundamental flaws in their policies.  The loss of face and credibility would probably be too much for this government that prides itself as highly talented and far-sighted. 

So what did they do instead?  They produced a plethora of handouts laid out at the end of a gauntlet of qualifying criteria that hopeful recipients are required to run through and survive.  Apart from not addressing the root of the problem, (namely the suppression of wage growth despite productivity and GDP growth, the runaway asset prices and their rent seeking behaviour) the handouts undermine the dignity of the recipients.  We Asians value “face”.  Do the handouts long enough and a generation of faceless (double entendre intended) citizens relying on handouts for their survival will be born and become a permanent feature in our social landscape.  This runs contradictory to the Government exhortation to Singaporeans not to fall into a welfare state mentality.   Is this government is trying to have the cake and eat it?

Time is running out for Singapore.  Let’s hope that from this Labour Day onwards, labour is given its fair due and the government labours for the benefit of labour rather than seeing them as a mass of faceless digits, a mere factor of production.

Central Working Committee




Thursday, 19 April 2012



Justice Party Singapore



High Wage Policy Revisited

Prof Lim was chairman of the NWC when the government implemented the high wage policy with the intended purpose of pushing companies in Singapore to increase their productivity through use of higher technologies, better skilled workers, etc.  Mr Lim Chee Onn who was the minister without portfolio and NTUC Secretary General also pushed very hard for this idea.


Why then did the idea not taken hold and high wage policy become the norm?  If it had, the government’s vision of a “Swiss standard of living”, a “vibrant society”, an “inclusive society” would have been attained long ago and we needn’t be talking about it still and ranting about the high income gap.


How bad was the high wage policy?  Let’s look at the table below:

             Taiwan               HK               S'pore
             growth rate        growth rate  growth rate     Remarks
1979        8.0                      11,6             9.4               NWC recommended high wage policy
1980        7.3                      10.3            10                
1981        6.5                      9.4              10.7              High wage policy
1982        4.0                      3.0              7.2               
1983        8.3                      5.9              8.6               
1984        9.3                      9.9              8.8 
1985        4.1                      0.7              0.6                Downturn
1986        11.0                    11.0            1.3                Wage restraint and flexi-wage policies
1987        10.7                    13.4            10.8
1988        5.6                      8.4              11.1
1989        10.3                     2.2             10.2


It should be reasonable to conclude from the table that when growth was strong, high wage policy was not a problem.  In 1985, Singapore went into a recession.  This was attributed to the high wage policy.  Rigidity in the wage structure made recovery from the recession difficult, so the high wage policy was subsequently replaced by wage restraint and flexi-wage policies.


Had the government been too hasty in abandoning the high wage policy?  Could the outcome be different?  While the high wage policy was intended to be the push factor, what was lacking then were pull factors that would aid companies go to the next level and supporting factors that would help smooth the path of the high wage policy.  The idea of high wage was good, but it cannot work alone.  As the wage structure in Singapore is no longer as rigid as before and with the high income gap and the attendant social costs, it is time to revisit the high wage policy.


We all know rental costs in Singapore are very high and form a major cost component of companies in Singapore.  And the Government is probably the biggest landlord.  To help companies, especially SMEs cope with a high wage policy, the Government and perhaps the GLCs could take the lead to reduce the rental rate in stages, in tandem with each push in wages.  Companies that are taking steps to skill up their workers and to redesign their processes to cope with the higher wage costs could be given greater rental reductions than those that do not.  The reduction in rentals will mitigate cost-push inflation.  Similarly, HDB could reduce their stall rental rate in tandem with wage increases so that the hawkers are not pressured as much to increase their prices.

Small companies may also need help in their effort to redesign their processes and to train their workers.  As we are likely to have a substantial pool of underemployed, unemployed and retired skilled workers due to displacement by cheap foreign labour and old age, so perhaps a scheme to gather these people and match them with companies that needed their skills for productivity enhancing projects could be looked into.  The fees earned by these people could be made tax free and the companies entitled to double deduction of these costs for tax purposes.  This would create a win-win situation for the struggling small companies and the displaced or retired Singaporeans with the requisite skills.

A system of recognizing different skill levels is another area to explore.  For example, when you engaged a contractor to do your home renovation, you do not know the skill level of his workers.  Wouldn’t it be useful if you know whether the worker who is doing up your kitchen cabinet is a master carpenter and not merely someone who can saw wood and hammer a nail?  Wouldn’t it be useful if you know that the contractor is a top-class project manager and that under his supervision, your renovation will be completed on time?  Would you pay a little more for such peace of mind?  If such a system is in placed, workers can be motivated to upgrade themselves.  Employers will be happy to get their workers upgraded as well.  Customers and clients will also be much happier and more willing to pay for their services as they know they are getting their money’s worth.

The high income gap is a problem that needs to be addressed and it is hope that this article will spur further discussion and throw up more ideas and solutions.

JPS Central working Committee



Wednesday, 4 April 2012

Singapore Citizens will be given priority during the Primary 1 registration.


Justice Party Singapore

               
   
 Singapore Citizens will be given priority during the Primary 1 registration.                      

I am happy for Singaporeans with the recent announcement by the Government that Singapore Citizens will be given priority during the Primary 1 registration. This policy is long overdue. As part of our mission, the Singapore Democratic Alliance has always advocated that Singaporean’s interest should be placed first above all others. We have urged the Government to take care of Singaporeans between the ages of 25 to 50, especially couples building up a family. Hopefully, this recent policy announcement will go towards making the lives of this group of Singaporeans easier.

I would also like to comment on reactions by Permanent Residents (PR) to the announcement, which is one of general disappointment. My response to them would be this; show your commitment to Singapore and take up citizenship. Be like one of SDA candidates, Harminder Pal Singh, who was born in India but decided to commit serving his national service and even as President in Nanyang Technological University Student Union.

I abhor Singapore PRs, who refuse to take up citizenship although they have stayed here for many years. To me, they merely want to enjoy the best of both worlds, perks from their country and Singapore. There is no sacrifice and commitment on their part. They can claim that they have made economic contributions but how can they compare to Singaporeans who have made both economic contributions and a firm commitment to defend Singapore.

Therefore, going forward, the Government should pay attention to PRs, especially those who refuse to take up citizenship after many years.

Thank you.


With best regard


Lim Bak Chuan Desmond
Secretary-General of Justice Party Singapore

Monday, 26 March 2012

2011 GE Manifesto

                                         

                             Justice Party Singapore


The JPS shared the common slogans, mission & manifesto with SDA
Our Slogan:
A Heart for the People
Singapore for Singaporeans
Singaporeans First Policy

SDA’s Mission

The Singapore Democratic Alliance was formed in 2001 to provide a common opposition front. It originally comprised the National Solidarity Party (NSP), the Singapore People's Party (SPP), the Singapore Malay National Organisation or Pertubuhan Kebangsaan Melayu Singapura (PKMS) and the Singapore Justice Party. The first two parties have since left but SDA remains true to its purpose of acting as a rallying point for oppositional parties to unite and will continue to court new members.

This Manifesto sets out the SDA’s rationale for contesting the Singapore General Elections 2011 and proposes specifc initiatives it will undertake for the people of Singapore on its election to the next Parliament.

Singapore Citizenry Coming of Age
Singapore has done well. It has come a long way since we achieved independence some four decades ago. Progress is clearly visible in the modern city that we have built, in the institutions and systems that have been developed, and in the accolades and recognitions we have achieved internationally. For this we must give credit and thank the PAP government which has ruled over us without a break since it came into power in 1959 when Singapore first became independent. However this has not come without costs, especially social costs.

This coming General Election heralds a change, a change which may not take place so immediately but one that is inevitable and will increase in momentum over time. The clearest signal of this change is the unprecedented increase in both the number and the quality of opposition candidates standing for election to the Singapore Parliament. For the first time since in over four decades, all 87 Parliament seats in 12 SMCs and 15 GRCs are very likely to be contested. This will result in a great number of citizens having the opportunity to vote for the first time.

This change is about a citizenry which is coming of age and is becoming increasingly aware of how governmental policies and actions affect their daily lives. While appreciating the economic and material gains achieved, many feel that that the social costs have been much too high. These social costs include an increasing gap between the haves and the have-nots, an erosion of our social values, and an increasing unhappiness with a societal system that misses out on true care and concern for the people.

The Future of Singaporeans
Singapore essentially comprised of Singaporeans. When we speak of the future it is the future of Singaporeans that is of primary concern to us – not the city state, not the infrastructure, and not the systems that make Singapore work. These are important but they exist to serve people, the citizens of Singapore and others who chose to live here or visit us. There is a very real danger that we are building Singapore as an entity, as a showcase of excellence, and forgetting that it is ordinary people that make up Singapore.  Does the average Singaporean care if Singapore wins international acclaim? Has he or she benefited from staging of major events here like the National Youth Olympics. How has he or she been affected by the influx of foreigners?

These considerations and other consequences of building the entity Singapore and not putting people first are leading to a rising tide of disillusionment, dissatisfaction and discontent among the lower and middle income groups as well as educated thinking Singaporeans. The time has surely come for us to moderate our relentless pursuit of economic development and material gains. The time has surely come for us to attend to people needs, their feelings, and their aspirations. We need to reflect, and reflect deeply, beyond the physical Singapore that we wish for our children but, much more importantly, how the society they live in will shape their values, characters and behaviors.

Family Builders
Some faced greater difficulties than others than others. One major group that will face the greatest difficulties and for a prolonged period are the family builders. This group comprises mostly those between the ages of 25 to 50 who are in the process of building a family and are at the lower or middle income levels. They include young couples as well as older couples in the later stages of building and maintaining a family. As they move from relatively carefree bachelor days and found a partner to settle down with, financial considerations will begin to dominate. First, there are the costs of marriage and setting up a home. Those who have been living it up and even splurged on a car may have difficulty finding the deposit to put down for their first home. Coupled with career advancement priorities many would delay their marriage plans. Some may even opt to remain single. The next stage is having children and starting a family. This will bring about not only additional responsibilities and financial burdens which will last for years, even longer if they are planning for their children to go for tertiary education. Those at the lower end will struggle to make ends meet. Those at middle income level will not necessarily be better off as their standard of living and career aspirations for their children would be higher. As the financial commitments to one set of dependents ease off another is likely to emerge, namely ageing parents who have not provided for their own retirement.

From the above scenario it is clear that this family group bears the greatest financial burden. This group covers over 50% of Singapore’s population and will be the most severely affected by rising cost of living issues. Ironically this group is also the bedrock of our society. They comprise the great majority of our working population. Procreation of our future generations depends entirely on them. They are the earners who will bring food to the family. They are the ones who have the greatest influence in shaping the minds and characters of the next generation, either positively negatively.

Ironically, how this group responds to the challenges they face will determine the type of society that emerges in Singapore. Furthermore, faced with such economic issues and aggravated by competition from the influx of foreign talents, many in this group may choose to remain single or childless. Already falling birth rates would fall further and increasing numbers would seek to emigrate. Where would Singapore be then?

Key Issues and Concerns
Economic and material pursuits that we have relentlessly pursue over these last four decades for Singapore are well and good. But high priority must be now be given to meeting the needs and aspirations of individual Singaporeans, not Singapore as an entity first managing our people’ social needs and issues. From this perspective SDA has identified the five key issues that it will strenuously champion to achieve a better quality of life for these family builders and their dependents from both the lower and middle income groups.

SDA has identified the following five burning issues:
(1) Cost of Living: Cost of living is going up while wages of lower income earners stagnate.
(2)  HDB Prices: Prices have skyrocketed and affordability is now a major problem.
(3)  Income Gap: While worker wages stagnate ministers enjoy massive pay hikes.
(4) Job Security: Severely threatened by foreign influx of both workers and S-Pass holders.
(5) Medical Expenses: Medisave have various limits and elderly face insurance problems.







Wednesday, 21 March 2012

Intro of Justice Party Singapore



Justice Party Singapore was established in 1972, by a group of shipyard workers led by Mr A.R. Siub (Party Chairman) and a former Trade Union leader Mr M. Ramasamy (Party Secretary-General).


In those days, Singapore was under one dominant party rule. Moreover, the Trade Unions were pro-Government policies. They felt that their welfare and interest was not well represented. Hence, one of the impetuses was to form a political party to champion for fair and equitable rights of the ordinary citizens.

Hence, JPS believed in embracing the “Fair and Equitable” values as our basic philosophy. These values have not changed since 1972, and are still relevant till now.

JPS believes that these values are the fundamental cornerstone to address the challenges faced by the ordinary citizens in overcoming the injustice and unfair treatment. “Fairness and Equitable” compasses the area of our social, economic and governance systems. With “Fairness and Equitable” in place, it will lead to a harmonious and stable society.

With the strong support from our citizens, JPS pledge to vigorously continue holding the ruling party to account for the “Fairness and Equitable” principle so as to secure more benefits for our citizens.

We can be contacted at sjpfeedback@gmail.com.

A founding member of Singapore Democratic Alliance
Slogan: A heart for the people, Singapore for Singaporeans, Singaporeans First Poliicy.


Justice Party Singapore emblem:


Justice Party Singapore

(A founding member of Singapore Democratic Alliance)
Slogan: A heart for the people, Singapore for Singaporeans, Singaporeans First Policy


Emblem:

The triangle represents the country spectrum - Social, Economic, and Governance.
Three sides of the triangle of equal length represents - the Harmony, Strength and Balance.
The flame represents - Justice, Fairness and Transparency.
Candle represents - People Power
Red represents - Brotherhood and Equality.