Exploring the Extent of Executive Discretion

Part-time cleaner, Mdm Vellama d/o Marie Muthu is a Singapore citizen and resident voter of Hougang Single Member Constituency (SMC). 

On 15 February 2012, her Member of Parliament (MP) was expelled from his political party, which left his parliamentary seat vacant.  The next day, the Prime Minister said that there was no fixed time within which he must call for a by-election. He added that "there are many other issues on the national agenda right now".[1]

Unhappy at the prospect of being indefinitely without the service of an MP representing her vote, Mdm Vellama applied to the High Court on 2 March 2012 for remedy.

Asking to see the Judge

Mdm Vellama’s High Court application is for a declaration that the Prime Minister does not have unrestrained discretion when deciding whether or not a by-election should be called in Hougang SMC, and a mandatory order requiring the Prime Minister to advise the President to call a by-election within three months or some other reasonable time determined by the court.

According to Rules of Court, Mdm Vellama would first need to obtain the Court’s “leave” (i.e. permission) before her application can be heard by the Judge and decided on the merits.  The purpose of this initial “leave” stage is to serve as a filter:

“… to be a means of filtering out groundless or hopeless cases at an early stage, and its aim is to prevent a wasteful use of judicial time and to protect public bodies from harassment (whether intentional or otherwise) that might arise from a need to delay implementing decisions, where the legality of such decisions is being challenged.”[2]

As the Attorney-General explained:

“Leave must first be obtained in judicial review proceedings so that cases which are misconceived or unarguable can be weeded out.”[3] 

Hopeless cases which do not deserve to be heard, should be stopped on its tracks at the door.

On 2 April 2012, a High Court Judge decided that Mdm Vellama’s application passed the initial filtering test.  Mdm Vallama was given leave for a substantive hearing and a Hearing Date of 16 April 2012 was given to her.

Appeal against Judge’s decision to hear

On 4 April 2012, in a surprising move (at least to me it was), the Attorney-General filed an Appeal against the High Court Judge’s decision to grant leave to hear Mdm Vellama’s application.  This effectively translates to Attorney-General saying that Mdm Vallama’s application does not deserve to be heard and that the decision by the High Court Judge to hear her out, was wrong.  The Attorney-General’s Appeal will be heard on 16 May 2012.

From anecdotal accounts, it seems that many Hougang constituents and Singaporeans (including me) share Mdm Vellama’s unhappiness with the Government’s position that it is not held to any particular time frame for announcing the Hougang by-election, or for that matter, any by-election when a parliamentary seat of an SMC becomes vacant.

History of By-Elections

Mdm Vellama’s anxieties are not without basis.  There had been instances in the past, where parliamentary seats were vacated by the respective MPs due to death or disqualification, but where no by-elections were held:

(a)  In December 1983, the MP for Havelock constituency, Hon Sui Sen, passed away in office. His seat was thus vacated. No by-elections were held in the ward until the General Election in 1984, when the Havelock seat was erased from the electoral map.

(b)  In November 1986, the late JB Jeyaretnam’s seat in Anson was vacated after he was disqualified from holding a seat in Parliament. No by-elections were held and the seat remained vacant until the 1988 General Election, when the Anson seat was erased from the electoral map.

(c)  In December 1986, the Geylang West seat became vacant after its MP Teh Cheang Wan committed suicide. No by-elections were held until the 1988 General Election when the Geylang West seat was erased from the electoral map.

Academics have weighed in[4] and Singaporeans are keen to know the Court’s opinion on the limits of Executive discretion in respect of SMC by-elections.

Why Appeal?

Given the public interest in Mdm Vellama’s application, it is perplexing that the Attorney-General has decided to vigorously challenge the High Court’s decision to hear Mdm Vellama's application.  If the Attorney-General’s Appeal succeeds, Mdm Vellama’s case would be thrown out; which means that she, Hougang constituents and Singaporeans will be denied of the Court’s opinion on the question whether the Prime Minister’s discretion is or is not limited to a definite time-frame for calling by-elections.

If Mdm Vellama’s application is indeed "legally flawed" as the Attorney-General has argued, then it is doomed; and the Court will eventually dismiss it after it has been heard.  So what's the harm in letting Mdm Vellama have her day in Court and to let justice be seen to be done?

Legal Costs?

In Court proceedings, when a party “wins”, the winning party can ask the Court to order the losing party to pay costs.  If the Attorney-General’s Appeal succeeds, would the Attorney-General ask the Court to order Mdm Vellama to pay costs?  I hope not.

Every Singapore citizen in all other constituencies has his own elected MP to serve him.  Mdm Vellama has turned to the Court for help because she fears she would not be having what every Singaporean in all other constituencies has.  It would be disappointing enough if the Attorney-General "wins" their Appeal, for that would mean that her application is thrown out.  To be made to pay the Attorney-General's legal costs for asking the Court for help, would be a disastrous result.      

Role of Attorney-General

We know that the Attorney-General is the Government’s legal adviser[5].  If the Attorney-General serves the Executive, then do the interests of the Executive coincide, or conflict, with the interests of the public (i.e. citizens) in respect of the legal questions posed by Mdm Vellama’s application? 

What if the Executive one day decides to abolish SMCs altogether?  Or if supposing Executive thinks it is better to hold elections once in 10 years in the interest of political stability and to avoid the expense and distraction of holding general elections once every 4 or 5 years? 

If (hypothetically) the Executive wants to amend the Constitution in a manner which serves the political interests of the ruling party at the expense of civil liberties, and if the ruling party has the requisite two-thirds majority in Parliament to pass such amending legislation, who will defend the citizens’ rights from being encroached upon?

What will be the role of the Attorney-General in such a hypothetical scenario?  As the Government’s legal adviser, the Attorney-General would presumably defend the Government’s position with all its best efforts.

Screen-shot from http://www.singapore-elections.com/parl-1997-ge/cheng-san-grc.html 

Workers’ Party’s Complaint in GE 1997

In the aftermath of the 1997 General Elections, the Workers' Party complained to the police that PAP leaders (Prime Minister Mr Goh Chok Tong, Deputy Prime Minister Dr Tony Tan and Deputy Prime Minister Brigadier-General (NS) Lee Hsien Loong) had been inside a Cheng San GRC polling station on Polling Day, when none of them were candidates for Cheng San GRC[6].

The Workers' Party cited two sections of the Parliamentary Elections Act:

Section 82(1)(d):

"No person shall wait outside any polling station on polling day, except for the purpose of gaining entry to the polling station to cast his vote". 

Section 82(1)(e):

"No person shall loiter in any street or public place within a radius of 200 metres of any polling station on polling day."

However, the Attorney-General stated that the PAP leaders had not broken the law.  

Pointing to the use of the word “outside” in Section 82(1)(d), the Attorney-General explained[7]:

“Plainly, persons found waiting inside the polling stations do not come within the ambit of this section. …. Only those who wait outside the polling station commit an offence under this section unless they are waiting to enter the polling station to cast their votes.”

As for Section 82(1)(e), the Attorney-General pointed to the use of the word “within” and explained[8]:

“The relevant question is whether any person who is inside a polling station can be said to be "within a radius of 200 metres of any polling station". …Plainly, a person inside a polling station cannot be said to be within a radius of 200 metres of a polling station.”

If at that time, Singapore had an independent election body overseeing the election procedures, I think the Workers’ Party would probably have lodged their complaint to such a body instead of lodging their complaint to the police as they did.  I wonder how such an independent election body would have dealt with the Workers’ Party’s complaint.

In the English case of Adler v George [1964] 2 QB 7, the UK Official Secrets Act 1920 stated that it was an offence to obstruct a member of the armed forces “in the vicinity” of a prohibited place. The defendant was in the station at the time of the obstruction.  He argued that if he was on the station he could not be in the vicinity of the station. The court held that it would be absurd for a person to be liable if they were near to a prohibited place and not if they were actually in it.  The defendant’s conviction of the offence was upheld.

List of legislation amending the Constitution

Amending the Constitution

As we know, the provisions of the Constitution may be amended by the votes of two-thirds of the total number of elected MPs, which works out to 58 out of the current 87 parliamentary seats.  This has been done numerous times in the past. Since 1965 to date, there have been 37 acts of parliament to amend the Singapore Constitution.

More importantly, Singapore’s electoral system has been amended at least four times since 1984, each of these amendments coming into effect shortly before general elections, as the following table illustrates:[9]

Constitutional Amendment	Effective Date	Nomination Day	Lead Time
Introduction of Non-Constituency Member of Parliament scheme	10 Aug 1984	13 Dec 1984	4 months
Introduction of Group Representation Constituency scheme	31 May 1988	3 Sep 1988	3 months
Introduction of Nominated Member of Parliament scheme	10 Sep 1990	21 Aug 1991	11 months
Change in Group Representation Constituency scheme	2 Jan 1991	21 Aug 1991	7 months
Act 41 of 1996	12 Nov 1996	23 Dec 1996	< 2 months

I imagine the short lead time between the effective date of the electoral changes and the date of elections would have made it difficult for opposition parties to react and to prepare themselves for elections.     

Notably, Singapore has never had an independent body overseeing election procedures and the drawing of constituency boundaries.  Our Election Department has always been under the Prime Minister's office.  Criticism by opposition parties of an unlevel political playing field cannot be independently evaluated. 

Balancing the Powers

Unless there are sufficient opposition MPs in Parliament (at least 29) to deny the ruling party their two-thirds majority, citizens have only two defenders left to protect their civil rights: the Judiciary and Civil Society. 

The effectiveness of the Judiciary in checking the Executive will be curtailed whenever the scope of judicial review of executive decisions are being reduced or eliminated (e.g. section 8B(2) of the Internal Security Act). 

The effectiveness of Civil Society in speaking out for the protection of fundamental liberties will be curtailed so long as freedom of speech is circumscribed by legislation mandating the requirement to obtain a licence to speak publicly, assembly or gather in public (Public Order Act), restricting the formation of societies (Societies Act), vigilant, vigorous enforcement of defamation laws by political appointment holders[10], and so forth.

We have heard the old adage: Absolute power corrupts absolutely.  All power must have limits.  The exercise of Executive powers, as with any other kind of powers, cannot be unfettered. 

Democracy is a flawed system, no doubt; but this imperfect system respects the collective voting might of ordinary citizens and makes everyone equal.  Whether rich, influential, poor or obscure – each citizen has one vote.   

In functioning democracies, Executive powers are checked and balanced by: 

• Clearly defined constitutional guarantees of fundamental liberties
• presence of sufficient numbers of opposition MPs in Parliament

• an independent Judiciary with effective, sufficient powers of judicial review over Executive decisions

• a Civil Society which is not overly hindered by laws restricting freedom of speech and public assembly

• an independent elections commission to oversee election procedures

As of now, are all these safeguards securely in place in our socio-political landscape?

By Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss

---

[1] http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1183211/1/.html

[2] Public Service Commission v Lai Swee Lin Linda [2001] 1 SLR(R) 133 at [23]

[3] http://www.agc.gov.sg/documents/AGCPressRelease5April2012.pdf Attorney General v Vellama D/O Marie Muthu Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2012

[4] http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/constitution-demands-election-hougang-experts-103527358.html

[5] http://www.agc.gov.sg

[6] http://www.singapore-elections.com/parl-1997-ge/cheng-san-grc.html

[7] http://www.singapore-window.org/ag0721.htm

[8] http://www.singapore-window.org/ag0721.htm

[9] Page 67, An Introduction to Singapore’s Constitution (2005) Kevin YL Tan

[10] http://maruah.org/2012/03/05/maruahs-comments-on-the-practice-of-threatening-defamation-lawsuits/#more-1372

Note: This article was published by The Online Citizen on 28 Apr 2012:
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2012/04/exploring-the-extent-of-executive-discretion/

With Teo Soh Lung (15 Jan 2012, Hong Lim Park)

With M. Ravi (27 Apr 2012, Breakthrough Cafe)

"Raffles Hotel Singapore" - Not Singapore's

Raffles Hotel [1] on Beach Road is undoubtedly an icon. I love the place. I am sure many Singaporeans are fond of the place too.

Built in 1887, it was extensively renovated between 1989 and 1991. I must say, those involved in the restoration works did a marvellous job. The architecture of the building and its elegant interiors evoke the nostalgic ambience of a bygone era. Raffles Hotel is certainly a Singapore landmark I would be proud to boast about and to bring my foreign friends to see.

Sadly, Raffles Hotel does not belong to Singaporeans, as I only recently found out. Until 2005, the hotel was owned by Singapore-listed “Raffles Holdings”[2], a Temasek Holdings company.

In 2005, Raffles Holdings sold all of its hotel assets to US-based Colony Capital for SGD$1.72 billion. The portfolio of assets owned by Raffles Holdings consisted of 41 hotels and resorts, with its most prominent establishment being the luxurious 103-suite Raffles Hotel. (I guess I did not pick up on this news at the time it was announced.)

At the time of the acquisition, Colony Capital chief executive Thomas J. Barrack said: "We are honored to become the custodian of one of the finest hotel chains in the world and a true national treasure of the people of Singapore. We deeply respect the historical significance of the Raffles Hotel, Singapore and we consider it our responsibility to protect that legacy."[3]

In 2006, Colony Capital teamed up with a Saudi businessman to buy Fairmount Hotels and Resorts in a deal that resulted in Toronto-based Fairmount Raffles Hotel International[4] becoming the new owner of Raffles Hotel.

On 8 April 2010, The Straits Times reported that a Qatar sovereign wealth fund has bought Raffles Hotel for US$275 million (S$384 million), making it the third change of ownership in seven years.

This morning, 14 January 2012, I read in the Straits Times[5] that “Singapore’s grand old dame Raffles Hotel is finally in the hands of its new Qatari owners” - the government-owned Qatar National Hotels Company.

Though I feel a sense of loss upon reading today’s Straits Times article, the fact is, that the horse bolted out of the stable seven years ago.

Still, questions nag my mind:

• How could parent company Temasek Holdings consider it alright to sell away “Singapore’s grand old dame”? There is only ONE Raffles Hotel and it is of historic and sentimental value to Singaporeans.

• Did Singapore need the money badly that we had sell off our heirloom and heritage? (To my understanding, people sell off their family jewels in times of war or crisis, out of necessity, in order to survive their hard times.)

• Have Singaporeans benefitted from the proceeds of the sale of Raffles Hotel in 2005? More hospital beds? Better care facilities for our elderly? More affordable housing for Singaporeans? Higher subsidies for education? Improvements in public transport?

I suppose it is pointless to lament the loss of Raffles Hotel. The next time I talk about Raffles Hotel to my foreign friends, I have to remind myself that Raffles Hotel does not belong to Singaporeans, so I have nothing to boast about.

---

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raffles_Hotel

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raffles_Holdings

[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/18/business/worldbusiness/18iht-raffles.html

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairmont_Raffles_Hotels_International

[5] http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_755535.html

BLIND VOTERS' RIGHT TO VOTE SECRECY

One great thing about having stood for elections in GE 2011, is that I got to meet people that I would never have met in my ordinary course of life.

A few days before Polling Day, I got a telephone call from a blind voter living in Mountbatten. He introduced himself to me as RON CHANDRAN-DUDLEY.

Ron called me that day because he wanted to tell me how much he objected to the way blind voters had to cast their votes under current voting procedures. (A more accurate description will be "visually handicapped voters" and these will include those who are totally blind or who suffer from defects of vision, either at birth, or subsequently due to illness or accidents. Not all blind voters can read Braille, e.g. an elderly person who becomes blind as a result of illness. Some have been writing before losing their sight.)

According to Ron, a blind voter like him who is able to hold a pen, would not be able to write or mark his vote on the ballot paper by himself. Instead, he would be required to tell the Officer which candidate (or which party) he wishes to vote for, and the Officer would then write the cross for him on his ballot paper.

Ron said that in other countries, besides getting the Officer to mark his vote for him, blind voters had 2 other options:

1. He is allowed to have a relative or friend of his choice accompany him to the voting booth to mark the ballot paper for him.

2. He can ask for and be provided with a template (or stencil) with windows (openings) matching the places where to mark his vote on the ballot paper.

A template is a simple device which serves to give the blind voter privacy. The Officer would tell the blind voter which box is for which candidate/party, but after knowing that, blind voter can then align the ballot paper against the template and mark his vote on the ballot by himself in private at the voting booth.

I thanked Ron for his feedback. I kept his telephone number as I felt he sounded like an interesting person whom I would like to talk to again.

Subsequently, I found out that Ron is a famous man who has done quite a lot in his lifetime. He used to be the President of the Disabled People's Association and was also the President of the Singapore Association of the Visually Handicapped (SAVH). Here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0T2twepn6w is a 6 min documentary about him entitled "Asians of the Year". He was going to be a doctor but met with a rugby accident and became blind at age of 19.

On Polling Day, while visiting a Polling Station, one of my Polling Agents (Ong Suping) came up to me to raise her concern about how blind voters were made to cast their votes. I recalled my telephone chat with Ron about this. It just so happened that Lim Biow Chuan was also present at that Polling Station and so the 3 of us (Suping, myself and Biow Chuan) had a brief discussion about this issue. The conclusion of the brief discussion was that present procedures had to be followed.

Subsequently, I asked Suping to write me a note about her concerns as a Polling Agent. Here is her note to me:

When a blind voter comes to the polling station, he/she will be led to the correct queue by either a family member or a presiding officer if no family members are present. The presiding officer will then let the senior presiding officer know that this person is blind and that he/she will need assistance to mark out their vote on the ballot paper. What the senior presiding officer will then do is to announce to the polling agents that this person is blind and that a presiding officer will be assisting him/her in marking their vote on the ballot paper. The presiding officer will then accompany the person to the booth to make their selection.

The problem I am seeing is on 2 levels:

1. What comfort can the blind voter get that the presiding officer is marking the correct ballot box according to his/her wishes? A family member should at least be allowed to be present at the voting booth to witness and be the eyes for the blind voter. At least someone they trust is with them or is marking out the box for them.

2. How do polling agents (who are meant to be there to ensure votes are cast under no undue influence and is fairly conducted) ensure that there is no incongruous activity in this instance?

What the senior presiding officer told me when I raised the point that we have all taken the oath of secrecy and should therefore be allowed to witness this since we are all under oath and it is the job of the polling agent to make sure things are conducted in a fair manner, she told me that presiding officers have taken different oaths allowing them to see a person’s vote while our oath as polling agents only allow us to be present at the polling station and not to see a person’s vote. I am not sure if that really is the case or not. Are there really different oaths?

I don't believe there are clear guidelines today with regards to blind voters as when I asked for a copy of these guidelines saying that this is the way it is supposed to be conducted, the senior presiding officer could not give it to me.

My suggestion is for the blind voter to elect or authorize a person of their choice beforehand to accompany them on polling day to mark the ballot paper with them. Just because they are the minority doesn't mean we don't protect their rights as voters. And as a polling agent I can take greater comfort that the vote is rightly cast since the person marking the vote on behalf has been chosen by the voters themselves.

I must thank Suping for raising her concerns to me.

After receiving Suping’s note, I did some research, and I found out that in April 2011, the current SAVH President wrote to the Elections Department about Singapore’s blind community frustration that it does not get enough privacy when voting. Blind voters would like to have a family member or friend to help them mark their ballots, rather than have an electoral officer do it for them, as has been the case in past elections. However, the Elections Department replied SAVH, saying that under the law, family members are not allowed to help a blind voter mark his ballot as that ‘may compromise the secrecy of the vote cast and may subject the voter to undue influence or pressure’.

After I found out about this, I spoke to Ron. Ron told me that in 1991, he himself wrote to the Elections Department saying the exact same thing, and got the exact same reply from them. He said he is very disappointed that nothing has changed since 1991 till now. There is been no progress in the last 20 years on the rights of blind voters. But meanwhile, other countries were making changes to their voting procedures for blind voters. I checked and found that Ron is right. This is how blind voters cast their votes in UK: http://www.rnib.org.uk/livingwithsightloss/yourrights/Pages/voting.aspx



I also found out that Maruah has also written to the Elections Department on this issue on 5 May 2011.

I thank Ron for helping me to understand how a blind voter feels. A Blind voter does not want the Officer (who is a stranger) to know his vote. SAVH has asked for the blind voter to be allowed to have a family member or friend accompany him to the voting booth. UK and other countries go a step further. They respect the right of the blind voter to vote in PRIVATE. Hence, the voting procedures allow for the provision of a template for the use of blind voters who are able hold a pen.

I do not understand why the Elections Department rejected SAVH’s request for a trusted person to accompany the blind voter to the booth, yet they do not provide the solution of using a template. So the only way for a blind voter to cast his vote, including one who is able to hold a pen and write, is to inform the Officer, a stranger, who he wants to vote for.

I agree with Ron that I would like blind voters to be given a choice of either being assisted by a relative or friend of his choice or alternatively, be given a template so he can mark his vote by himself without assistance and in private.

The next GE is in 5 years’ time. I hope that some progress will be made before then in improving the rights of blind voters.

Meanwhile, the Presidential Elections are just round the corner. I wonder if it is not too much to ask of the Elections Department to tweak the present voting procedures to provide blind voters with the use of a template?

Postscript:  On 18 August 2011, the Straits Times reported (at Pg 4 Prime) that for the upcoming Presidential Elections on 27 August 2011, the Elections Dept had produced special stencils to enable blind voters to mark their ballot papers on their own. For the first time in Singapore's election history, blind voters would be able to vote on their own and in privacy. My wish had become a reality.  See also this article by Theresa Tan: http://blogs.straitstimes.com/2011/08/19/not-being-blind-to-different-voting-needs/

TRAGEDY OF MARRIED SINGAPOREANS GOING FOR ABORTION OUT OF FINANCIAL FEARS

Transcript of speech by Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss at “Singaporeans First” event organised by transitioning.org at Hong Lim Park on 25 June 2011 (5pm to 7pm)


I am Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss. I am here in my personal capacity as a concerned fellow Singaporean.

Folks, it has only in the last few years that we have seen an unprecedented number of foreigners arriving to Singapore to take up jobs. Why did the Government invite them? They were invited to come because there are not enough Singaporeans in the workforce to keep the economy going. The natural birth rate of Singaporeans is incredibly low. It is so low, that Singaporeans are not producing enough babies to replace ourselves. We need a total fertility rate of 2.1 to replace ourselves. But our total fertility rate has sunk to an all-time low 1.16. Natural born Singaporeans are dwindling. So this is the reason why our Government says we have no choice but to keep importing foreign labour and foreign talent to cover the shortfall of Singaporeans in the workforce.

As against all this, do you know that in Singapore, about 1 in every 4 pregnancies is aborted? Yes my friends, every year, there are about 12,000 abortions in Singapore. But what is shocking and disturbing to me, is that half of abortions are carried out by married women. Of course, there are many valid reasons why women go for abortions. According to statistics, only a small number of abortions are due to health reasons. So why do married women kill off their unborn children?

A Report by Associated Foreign Press dated 1 May 2009 , told the story of Mazlinda Majlam who had a recurring nightmare every night for a week, of a baby with no eyes sitting down and just looking at her. This horrifying dream began the night she returned home from having an abortion – 2 months after she was retrenched as a result of Singapore’s worst recession in more than 40 years. The mother of 3 said that “bad economic times” prompted her to terminate her pregnancy and she would not hesitate to have another abortion, if necessary. “I can’t afford it,” said the tall, slim Majlam of the prospect of having another child soon.

On 19 March 2011, the Straits Times published a letter from a Wendy Tan who decided to abort her twins. This is what the working mother of 2 she said in her letter to the Forum Page:

“So, when I was expecting for the third time two years ago, we made a very hard decision to terminate the pregnancy. We just did not have the energy to cope with a third because the first two had taken up all the energy we had. So far, we have had six years of interrupted sleep and we are not prepared for more. Finance was also a big consideration as I was almost out of a job then. If I had seen through the pregnancy I would not have been able to get another job. Relying on a single income was simply too tough because we had to care for our parents as well. Having two children was more than we could manage and having two more was just too much. Yes, my third pregnancy involved twins. The decision not to have them was doubly difficult.”

You know, my father used to tell me that in the olden days of China, it was common for married women to drown their newborn babies in a bucket of water immediately after giving birth, because of poverty. No way to feed another mouth.

My own grandma came from China to Malacca in the 1920s. When she gave birth to her 7th child, it was a girl and her husband forced her to give the baby away. He refused to support another child. My grandma reluctantly handed the newborn baby to a convent. Unfortunately the newborn girl soon died. My grandma was very sad and never forgot about this child which she had to give away.

I never would have thought that in this day and age, and after 46 years of nation building, Singaporean married mothers have to make the difficult decision to terminate their pregnancies because of economic hardships. At the same time as thousands of babies are destroyed by married Singaporean mothers out of economic necessity, the number of native Singaporeans is ever decreasing, our birth rate keeps falling and we having to rely more and more on foreigners to make up the workforce for our economy. What is going on here? I don’t understand it!

Folks, I can understand if women are forced to go for abortion because of health reasons or because of social stigma. But where we have married women going for abortion due to financial hardship, surely this is an area the Government can and must do something to help. After all, the Government has made it an aim to do something about the falling birth rate.

So, instead of focusing on importing more and more foreigners to cover the labour and talent shortfall, I want to see the Government pay more attention to alleviating the financial hardships of Singaporeans. I do not want to hear of married women having to go for abortions out of financial fears. The primary duty of the Government of Singapore is to take care of its citizens. Let us remind the Government of this.

Folks, Singaporeans are worried about their future. Singaporeans worry that they cannot find a job or that they may lose their job. They also worry that they don’t earn enough from their job to pay for their homes or to look after their aged parents, wife and children.

Until Singaporeans feel safe and secure about their future, Singaporeans will be reluctant to get married; if they are married they will be reluctant to have children; and if they get pregnant they will immediately think of aborting. Such is the tragedy of our modern day living in Singapore.

Folks I am glad you and I are here today. Today, by being here, we are taking a step to making things right for Singaporeans.

Watch excerpts of speech:

Video Part 1

Video Part 2

"...there were 12,222 abortions in Singapore in 2008, compared to 11,933 in 2007. No official figures are available for 2009. During the same period there were 39,935 babies delivered indicating that roughly 1 in 4 pregnancies are terminated. While a small proportion of pregnancies are terminated for health reasons, most terminations are due to financial or social concerns." (http://www.aware.org.sg/resources/information/abortion/)

MY DAD (27 February 1936 - 4 June 2011)

My father, Dr John Chong Yean Chiong, passed away at 3 am this morning. He fought a long and valiant battle against prostate cancer. In his last days, he succumbed to urosepsis. He leaves behind his loving wife, Aileen Chong, four children (myself, Jacqueline, John and James) and 10 grandchildren aged 5 months to 21 years.

I brought my father to SGH on 27 May 2011 (coincidentally it was my birthday) for emergency treatment. Early this week, he seemed to stabilise. His blood pressure and temperature returned to normal. So on 2 June 2011, I decided to take the risk and join my family to attend my church camp being held in KL over the weekend.

But yesterday 3 June 2011, while I was in KL at the church camp with my family, I received a telephone call at 63o pm from my mother that my father's condition had worsen and he might only have a few hours left. I immediately rushed to KLIA to catch the next flight back to Singapore. On the way back to Singapore, I regretted leaving Singapore and prayed that my dad would not go before I reach him. I arrived at SGH just after midnight. He passed on at about 3am this morning. I thank God I was able to make it before he went. Myself, my mom, sister, brother and uncle were at his bedside till the end.

I also thank God that his suffering is over and he is now in a better place.

"Do not be afraid, I am with you
I have called you each by name
Come and follow Me
I will bring you home
I love you and you are mine"

http://www.lyricsoncall.com/lyrics/david-haas/you-are-mine-lyrics.html (lyrics probably inspired by Isaiah 43:1)

Click here and scroll all the way down this post for the last photo taken of of my father: http://jeannettechongaruldoss.blogspot.com/2011/05/normal-0-false-false-false-en-sg-zh-cn.html

THE UNCOMMON JACK SIM - SINGAPOREAN EXTRAORDINAIRE (AND MOUNTBATTEN RESIDENT!)

This morning, my life was enriched by the opportunity to meet and chat with the matchless Jack Sim, a man who specializes in doing the extraordinary.
This Singaporean and long-time Mountbatten resident is the founder of the World Toilet Organisation: http://www.worldtoilet.org/aboutus3.asp
He was also featured in TIME Magazine "Heroes of the Environment 2008": http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1841778_1841781_1841822,00.html
But best of all, Jack was the Mountbatten resident who DISCOVERED the World War One fort hidden beneath the grounds of Katong Park (Meyer Road)!
"In 2001, the outline of the top of the bastion wall became visible during a dry spell; this prompted a Katong resident, Jack Sim, to seek out the relevant authorities to investigate its origins." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Tanjong_Katong
Thanks to Jack's keen observation and passion for heritage, Mountbatten can now boast of having a genuine archaeological site in its midst.
A love for history and an affirmation of our heritage - these are the cornerstones for fostering a community and in turn, building a nation.
It was great to meet you, Jack! We'll keep in touch!

HANGING BY MYTHS AND BELIEFS

Dear Readers

Before you start reading this posting, I had better tell you that what I am about to discuss, is an issue which will have virtually no impact on your lives, your livelihood, your choices, your lifestyle or your pocket. It is a matter which only affects …maybe 20 people? … in a year, some of those affected will not even be Singaporeans.

But for those who are affected, it is quite literally a matter of life and death. What we Singaporeans think and say about this issue, will make a difference to whether someone lives … or dies. I am talking about the use of the death sentence in Singapore. For certain crimes like murder and drug trafficking, the death sentence is mandatory, meaning that the judge has no power to change the death sentence to life imprisonment in deserving cases. They must hang.

Don’t get me wrong, I want a safe and secure Singapore. I want a low crime and drug-free society where I can raise my kids and walk around in freedom.

We have been told that Singapore’s low crime rate is due to our tough laws, including our willingness to impose the ultimate penalty of death.

We have been told that the mandatory death penalty for murder and drug trafficking has been an effective deterrent against would-be murders and drug traffickers.Sparing the lives of convicted murders and drug traffickers, would signal that we have gone soft. Going soft will put our families and loved ones in danger of crime.
http://app.mfa.gov.sg/pr/read_content.asp?View,14940,

And we have been told that a Singapore Press Holdings survey conducted in 2006, indicated that a large majority of Singaporeans are in support of the death penalty, and thus, the death penalty is the will of the majority.
http://singabloodypore.blogspot.com/2006/02/96-of-sporeans-back-death-penalty.html

If it were really so straightforward that “death penalty means low crime”and “no death penalty means high crime”, then of course, we should and must retain the death penalty, and to oppose those idealists who seek to abolish it. Why should I risk the safety and well-being of my family for the sake of a worthless criminal who should have known better?

But is it really as simple as “death penalty means low crime”?
· Why do people kill?
· Why do people agree to be drug mules?
· Does the death penalty really deter murder or it is to exact revenge, as in “life for a life”?
· Will murders and drug trafficking be more rampant if Judges were given power to change the death sentence to life imprisonment in deserving cases?
· What are other effective ways to reduce crime?
· What are other ways of keeping down crime besides the death penalty?

I am glad to see that today in Singapore 2011, we are more discerning and a lot more sophisticated. Decades of emphasizing the value of a good education has produced a generation of new Singaporeans who ask for the facts and figures behind claims and statements.

In the old days, whenthere was no Internet, it was harder to double check statements and not easy to find alternative views to a proposal. Today is the age of information technology. The new generation Singaporeans are better educated, well-travelled and well-informed.

Today, we do not accept propositions at face value. If someone tells us, “eating durians causes baldness” we will automatically retort: “How so? Who said that? What are his credentials? Where are the surveys, scientific studies or research showing the correlation between eating durians and baldness?”

We don’t let people get away with saying something, without providing hard evidence for what is being said.

So if we cannot see the evidence that the death penalty for a particular crime has served its role as an effective deterrent to that crime, then I am afraid to say, that such a proposition is a belief which is at best a hypothesis and at worse a myth!

Now surely no one will be party to taking away a person’s life on the strength of anunsupported hypothesis or a personal belief?

When it comes to the issue of death penalty, the stakes cannot be any higher. A person’s life is to be taken from him. The sting of the death sentence is after all based on the fact that the wrongdoer highly values his own life. If it were not so, then it would not mean much to take it away!

When it is a matter of life and death, surely we need to call for convincing evidence proving the deterrent effect of the death penalty, so as to justify using such a drastic measure. Surely it is only right that we think long and hard about whether or not to use the death sentence.

We have been told: Look at Singapore’s low rate of drug abuse – that is evidence that mandatory death penalty has been an effective deterrent against drug trafficking. I am thankful that Singapore’s drug problem is well under control. But aren’t there also other factors which contribute to Singapore’s successful fight against drug abuse? Factors like a well-organized police force, well-trained investigation officers, a well-equipped central narcotic bureau and a comprehensive anti-drug abuse education program – don’t all these also help in the fight against drug abuse?Will Singapore’s fight against drug abuse be seriously hampered without the mandatory death penalty?

The mandatory death penalty for murder has been with us since the colonial days. We have had the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking since 1975. Today is 2011. We have at least 40 years of data on state executions. It is time to take stock and review in detail all the statistics on state executions to date. The public should also be involved in this extensive review. The results of the review should be published for the public to digest and to ask questions about the findings. After all, it is has been said that the death penalty is the will of the majority of Singaporeans. So Singaporeans should be informed.

The public has the right to see the studies, statistics or research published by officials which support their claim that the mandatory death penalty has been an effective deterrent against drug trafficking. The burden of proof must rest on those seeking to retain the mandatory death penalty.

In the absence of such evidence, then we Singaporeans must conclude that it is not necessary to resort to using the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking. In which case, we should seriously consider changing the law to give judges the power to convert the death sentence to life imprisonment in deserving cases.

There is also the question whether it is even necessary to retain the death penalty at all. Again, without convincing documentary evidence that the death sentence has more of a deterrent effect than a life sentence for drug trafficking, then it is only right that we do away with the death sentence altogether.

A person’s life, even the life of a drug trafficker who should have known better, is too high a price to pay for an opinion not supported by enough evidence.

LETTER TO YEE JENN JONG, WORKERS' PARTY CANDIDATE FOR JOO CHIAT

Letter to Yee Jenn Jong, Workers’ Party Candidate for Joo Chiat Constituency (GE 2011)

16 May 2011

Dear Jenn Jong

Congratulations on being appointed an NCMP!

Like me, my elderly parents are Joo Chiat voters. I want to tell you how proud I am of my father. My dad is 75 years old. He is bedridden and suffering from advanced stage of cancer. Thank God, he is not in pain, but he is very frail and weak. For this GE, he insisted on casting his vote. My brother and mother could not dissuade him. As a result, they had to plan and devise a way of bringing him to the Polling Station, which was Katong Convent Primary School. With much effort and trouble, they made it to the Polling Station, and my father did cast his vote!

I know that you lost out on being a Member of Parliament by a narrow margin of votes. My father says to tell you that he did his part to keep margin to 388 votes, else the vote margin would have been 389!

I had to leave it to my brother and mother to bring my father to his Polling Station. Being a Candidate myself, I was visiting each of the Polling Stations in Mountbatten SMC throughout Polling Day. I saw, with humble admiration, many elderly and non-ambulatory folk making their way to the Polling Stations to do their part as Citizens of Singapore. I know that for some of the elderly and for those who are not mobile, it is a physical challenge for them and their care-givers to make it to their Polling Stations. I am awed by their desire to participate in this national process. They have spirit. I salute these sons and daughters of Singapore!

I’ll catch up with you for breakfast in Siglap soon!

Yours Sincerely

Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss

POSTCRIPT:

After he read this posting, Jenn Jong contacted me to ask if he could visit my father. I gladly made the arrangement. So on 19 May 2011, Jenn Jong came over to my parents' place. It was the first time that my father met Jenn Jong.

Here is a photo of Jenn Jong with my father, my mother, me and my brother. My brother had plied Jenn Jong with hard questions when Jenn Jong came by during the hustings. Jenn Jong did not know at that time that he was my brother, nor did my brother know much about Jenn Jong, hence the hard questions.

It was really nice of Jenn Jong to come over that Thursday evening!