Outreach Walkabout on 23 May around Buangkok area

This morning,  SDA team gathered at the Food Court at Blk 275 Compassvale Link for their prep talk, catching up and preparation for today's Outreach Walkabout session. Today's session is anchored by Desmond Lim himself.

The unrelenting rain that had persisted since the wee hours of the morning did not halt even at 10.00am as the SDA team set off for their interaction session. Undeterred, the team braved the rain to continue their fight for their beliefs, just like how they
braved the Sun on other Saturday mornings.

Armed with the Party's Pamphlets, the members penetrated the Food Court and made contact with the stall-owners  and diners. The contents of the pamphlets were being explained after the members introduced / re-introduced themselves and made the diners felt comfortable.

Many of the members of the public had queries on a certain "deliverance" today, and some expressed their views on the use of this interesting analogy.

The SDA members, shadow Town Councillors and DLs' Caring Community members moved from Blk 275 Compassvale Bow to Blk 266 Compassvale Bow, continuing their efforts to share their fighting spirit with the general public, as well as find out if there were any imminent concerns they were having currently.

Then the group proceeded over to Blk 267 Compassvale Bow's Coffee Shop to continuing reaching out to the residents there. Besides the introductions and gathering feedback on living conditions in Buangkok, the members also took time to listen to the residents' views on recent news and policies.

The team also touched base with the owners and employees of the various retail outlets / shop fronts situated along the estate, while they were on the way from one coffeeshop to another.

Today's Outreach interaction session concluded at 11.30am and the members headed for a debrief, consolidating the issues they had managed to collect during today's session.


Today's Walkabout session is covered by SDA's field journalist Elle Chen.








If you have any feedback, suggestions or would like to be a part of SDA or DLs' Caring Community, please feel free to get in touch via email or our Facebook page here or leave your comments on this blog itself. If you would like to be a part of this meaningful initiative, please feel free to get in touch too.

Expecting the unexpected

 

总理先生既然说"已怀胎",可否提前三个月让大家知道几时"生产",好让大家可以准备"鞭炮"。

Since the Prime Minister already says they are "expecting", would it be possible to inform everyone 3 months in advance on the "delivery date" so that we are able to prepare "firecrackers"?

Outreach Walkabout on 16 May 2015 at Elias Road

The SDA outreach walkabout for this morning was anchored by Mr. Desmond Lim himself, conducted at Block 610 Elias Road.  The session kick-started at 10.00am sharp.

As per standard protocol, the members and shadow town councillors started from level 18 and slowly made their way down, interacting with all the residents staying in this block.

It was another fruitful session today; many residents were at home this morning to the members' pleasant surprise, allowing them to have quality interaction and communication.

Leaflets were being distributed and discussed as the members explained its contents to the dwellers in this block. There were questions being asked by the residents, who were curious to know what SDA's next step would be.

 

 

After engaging the residents in further conversation, the general consensus was that many of them harboured concerns over companies (and now even governmental organisations) employing foreign talents with fake degrees.

"Let's not talk about fake degrees alone," quipped one *Mr. Wong (name changed to protect privacy). "I feel strongly that it doesn't matter whether the foreign applicant has an excellent or mediocre degree - priority for a job should be given to Singaporeans first!"

Another young resident, one *Mr. Abdul (name changed to protect privacy) brought up another very good point. "I feel that many Singaporeans seem to confuse 'foreign talents' with 'foreign workers' - they constantly mention that we need 'foreign talents' to sweep floors and work in construction sites!" He laughed in irony. "Is it the picture being painted, that blurs the true meaning between a 'worker' and a 'talent'?"

There were a couple of residents who feedback that the amenities in this area were inadequate, such as eateries. *Mdm Teng (name changed to protect privacy) expressed concern that the plans to build MRT station at Elias area would only be completed in around 2030. "I don't even know if I would live to be able to see it by then."

A *Mrs. Ratna expressed concern that there is limitation to what one dares to voice out in Singapore. She pointed out that she has her thoughts and views, but is afraid to address them for fear that they may be deemed unsuitable and she might get into trouble with the Law.

Other than that, the residents agreed that opposition parties are needed in parliament to keep the ruling parties in check. The opposition parties should also introduce new policies and strategies for the citizens - policies that are outside the scope of what is currently being implemented.

It was yet another meaningful session today, refreshing the residents on SDA's ever-present concern for them, as well as gaining understanding on what the people need. The graceful residents thanked the members for taking time to do these house visits and listen to them, become their voices. SDA in turn appreciate the candid feedback from the people.


Today's block visit is covered by SDA's field journalist, Elle Chen.




If you have any feedback, suggestions or would like to be a part of SDA or DLs' Caring Community, please feel free to get in touch via email or our Facebook page here or leave your comments on this blog itself. If you would like to be a part of this meaningful initiative, please feel free to get in touch too.

Would election be favourable?

既然调查报告说得那么好, 如果现在举行全国大选对行动党那么有利。

总理可以考虑立即解散国会举行全国大选。

以实际的行动看夹心层的选民对执政党的满意程度是否有如报告上所写。

Since the report claims that it is so good, that the holding of the national elections would be favourable for the PAP,

The Prime Minister may dissolve parliament immediately in order to hold the national elections.

Let's see the practical actions of the sandwiched voters , whether they are satisfied with the ruling party just like what the report stated.

Something to look forward to

If our party successfully wins the general election, we have decided that within the next three years,  we shall not to replace the entire staff and contractors of the existing Town Council.

 

We will hold district meetings on a monthly basis to allow residents of the region to get directly involved in the development and improvement projects.

There would be approval of land use rights, so that residents may produce vegetable and fruit orchards.

We would also approve the right of use over void decks, so that the estate neighbours may hold activities and gatherings there.

 

As long as the residents meet the criteria, they would be given priority rights to be employed by the Town Council etc.

Lim Bak Chuan Desmond 

Chairman of Singapore Democratic Alliance 

Secretary General of Singapore Justice Party

 

 

如果我党成功赢得大选,在三年内决定不更换现有的市镇会的全体职员。

 

会每个月举行分区居民会议,让居民直接参与区内发展和改善工程。

批准土地使用权,让居民开发蔬菜和果园。

批准组屋楼下的公共场所使用权,让居民搞邻里生活和聚会。

还有区内居民只要符合条件,有优先录取权等等。

林睦荃

新加坡民主联盟主席

[Press Release] The Threat of Democratic Legal System, Democratic Development and Future of Singaporeans

"The threat of democratic legal system,  democratic development and the future of Singaporeans"  

PAP government does not even require a court order application or an open court hearing to be able to order the closure of a group of social media sites. This is a serious threat to the democratic legal system, freedom of speech, democratic development and the future of the country Singaporeans .

We understand that irresponsible remarks may cause serious social and religious conflicts, and could threaten the security and economic development of the country. Therefore, some restriction is necessary; unless there is any organization or individual making irresponsible remarks posing a threat to the security and stability of the country, then it is necessary to take legal action.

We cannot accept those who for their own party political or other personal purpose to undermine social harmony and stability, ethnic and religion, and affecting of security and economic development of the country. Therefore, any person or group of social media sites promoting national and social stability with harmful remarks should not be tolerated. Our party’s position is that freedom of expression is a universal value, but must be based on facts and not illegal. Our party does not agree with the party’s ordering of the closure of the “The Real Singapore” website.

We think if PAP government party can order a ban in the absence of a trial, or even shut down any social media site, a move similar to the exercise of the Internal Security Act - it may also apply to the court to arrest any citizen without an open trial. This would  not only violate the constitutional freedom of speech of the people, but is also against the spirit of democracy and freedom and the rule of law. PAP government applied to the court in the absence of a court order, even when waiting for the results of the trial court has ordered the closure of “The Real Singapore" website, leading to the citizens questioning the political wisdom and judgment. This makes one wonder if the PAP government is going back to the high pressure rulership with an iron fist? If the PAP is really back to the high pressure and iron-fisted political line, we cannot sit back and ignore this, because it will develop a serious threat to democracy and legal system to a democratic country and the interests of the people. Therefore, we call on everyone to urge the PAP government to respect the constitutional power of democracy and freedom of speech of the people. When they wish to close any group or individual social media sites, they must apply to the court for a court order and court hearing so that it is fair and just. The future of Singaporeans lie in the people’s political participation and as well as democracy and freedom of speech in Singapore people.

 

For and on Behalf of the Central Executive Committee 

of Singapore Democratic Alliance 

 

Lim Bak Chuan Desmond 

Chairman of SDA

 

Photo credit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy_in_Singapore

 

"威胁了民主法制建设、和国家民主的发展和新加坡人的未来" 

 

行动党政府未经申请庭令，或是在法庭公开审理之下，就可以下令关闭个团体的社交媒体网站,这严重的威胁了民主法制建设、言论自由、国家民主的发展和新加坡人的未来。 

 

我们理解不负责任的言论，可以造成严重的社会与宗教冲突、以及可能威胁国家的安全和经济发展。所以在必要时受到一些约束，除非有任何组织或是个人发表不负责任的言论，确实威胁到共和国的安全与稳定时,才能采取必要的法律行动。 

 

我党不能接受为自己的政治或是其他个人目的来破坏社会,民族与宗教之间的和谐与稳定，以及影响国家的安全与经济发展。 所以当任何人或是团体的社交媒体网站，推广有害国家和社会稳定的言论,是不能容忍的。

 

言论自由是普世价值，但必须有事实根据，也不违法这是我党的立场。但是我党却不认同新加坡媒体发展局下令关闭"真实新加坡"网站的程序。

 

我党认为行动党政府在没有向法庭申请或是经法庭审理就可以随意的下令禁止,甚至关闭任何社交媒体网站,此举相似于行使内安法,随时可以逮捕任何国民而不需经法庭公开的审理,这不只违背了宪法给予人民的言论自由也 违背了民主自由与法制精神。

 

行动党政府在没有向法庭申请庭令,甚至等待法庭开庭审理的结果之下就下令关闭"真新加坡"网站的做法,不只质疑新加坡人的政治智慧和判断力。令人质疑行动党政府是否要走回高压与铁腕政治路线?

如果行动党真是走回高压与铁腕政治路线,我党不能坐视而不理,因为它将严重的威胁民主法制建设和国家民主的发展以及人民的利益。

因此我们呼吁大家一起要行动党政府尊重宪法给予人民的民主与言论自由的权力。在关闭任何团体或是个人的社交媒体网站时,必需向法庭申请庭令并即以他们公平与公正的审理。

新加坡人的未来取之于新加坡民众的政治参与以及民主与言论自由。

 

 

谢谢!

 

林睦荃

主席

代表新加坡民主联盟全体中委致

 

Foreign Talent or Fake Talent?

Previously, a Minister remarked that a degree is not important for career advancement. Then fake degrees from foreigners began sprouting up in the local job market - degrees which can be bought with money. Another minister then remarked that MOM will disregard these qualifications completely. However, MOM will still assess the application of an S-pass based on a combination of factors and not solely based on academic merit. Do you agree with the way this matter is handled?

We have a large number of locals with a wealth of experience but lack the academic qualifications to get promoted. Some senior citizens with higher salaries were unfortunately dismissed. After that, they can no longer find another comparable job in the same position and have to accept lower salaries.

Besides, we have a number of local university graduates who have to compete with their peers and foreigners with fake degrees from degree mills.

We cannot see the government's resolve in clamping down on foreigners with fake degrees, who eventually took over some of our locals'  jobs. If we condone the import of such "foreign talents", our local university degrees would then be really worthless.

What is the government's responsibility to the people? What is the stand of the trade union on foreigners who have used such fake degrees to apply for S-passes?

The government's incessant excuses in the defence of foreigners and vacillating between conflicting statements would not be able to convince the public. Confucius once said, "If your title / degree is not accredited, then your speech will be improper. If your speech is improper, then your tasks will not be accomplished. If your tasks cannot be accomplished, there would not be harmony in society. If there is no harmony in society, then rewards and punishments will be unjust. If rewards and punishments are unjust, then the people will be at a loss as to what to do. If the people cannot guarantee their livelihood, there will be more resentment and the government will ultimately lose the trust of the people."

Lim Bak Chuan Desmond 

之前一些部长说大学文凭不重要?现在市场出现不用上课,付钱就可以买到大学文凭,而部长说只是把它当成没有认可的文凭,劳工部还是会以他们的经验和薪金来鉴定再决定发"S准证"给他们,你们认同这样的做法吗?

我们的一些老员工经验丰富却因为没有文凭升不了级,有一些更可悲因为年高龄和工资高过外来人才而被裁员。之后找不到相同收入或是同样的工作岗位,而委屈接受比之前低的工资。

还有每年我们有那么多大学生毕业,不只要跟自己人争取就业岗位,现在还要跟那些没有学历却用钱买大学文凭充当外来人才的外国人竞争。

我们却看不到政府有决心停止这些以所谓的"外来人才",跟我们枪饭碗。如果继续有大量的让这些"假外来人才"入侵,我们的大学文凭真的会如部长所说的那样不重要了。

政府对国民的责任在那里?对于外来人才采购文凭还能申请到"S准证",职工总会的立场又是什么?

政府一味为外国人开脱，立场摇摆不定，是很难让人民信服的。子曰：名不正，则言不顺；言不顺，则事不成；事不成，则礼乐不兴；礼乐不兴，则刑罚不中；刑罚不中,则民无所措手足。政府的刑罚不中，不只让人民不知所措，最终必遭选民所唾弃。

林睦荃

More private Rides, more Ricebowls shattered

Photosource: http://www.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/transport/story/taxi-apps-singapore-20141217

Yesterday, a Bill had been passed to regulate third-party taxi booking apps. While Minister Lui addressed some minor concerns regarding the third-party apps, he neglected to address the more important concerns regarding private limousine services provider like Uber Executive, Uber X, GrabCar etc. This makes it rather apparent that the only point that Minister Lui brought across is that, all limousine providers like Uber and GrabCar are allowed to operate in Singapore!

 

Have the government stopped to consider the dire consequences of allowing them to operate in Singapore?

The Pioneer Government successfully wiped out the pirated taxi services in the 1960s and 1970s, only to have Minister Lui reverse the good work done by the Pioneers now!

Passengers have always been voicing their confusion about the local taxi fare. Now with the introduction of these private Limousines that set their own pricing, wouldn't it be more confusing to the passengers? For instance, Uber had their price surge when their limousines were in demand; the fare for a single trip could cost as high as $200. While Grabcar, with their complicated formula, charges different prices at different timing; this is not transparent to passengers at all. All these services are theoretically using metered charges, but they are easily tampered with so this casts doubts on the accuracy of the metered charges.

These days, any app provider is able to create meter apps on mobile phones, so does this mean that the government deems this to be legal?

Whenever someone witnesses a taxi getting involved in an accident, the first thinking would tend to be, “Taxi at fault again!”  Actually, with the constant watchful eyes of the public and in-car video recorders these days, most of the drivers will behave while driving on the roads. This cannot be said for those limousine drivers as the public does not know if they are transport service providers or private-owned cars.

While taxi drivers are worried that the “Feedback” given to LTA or their companies would result in them losing their rice bowls, it is unknown how these “Feedback” will improve the service standard of the drivers overall.

Due to stringent safety standards set by LTA to the taxi companies (for example, the taxi companies are not allowed to exceed the number of accidents per 10,000km travelled), the taxi companies are to comply with higher maintenance, while no rules are set for the Limousine operators.

Taxi vehicles are allowed to be used up to a maximum of 7 years with one year optional extension, upon which the taxis have to be scraped; whereas the limousine vehicles are allowed for use up to the end of the COE expiry date, and worst yet, the COE may be renewed to extend the life of the limousines!.

It is foreseen that a trend might emerge such that people buy their own vehicles under a company, using them to fetch passengers as and when they like without being subjected to any form of regulations at all.

This will in turn flood the industry with excess of transport providers, posing potential serious threat to the rice bowls of the full-time transport providers.

Taxi industry has been allocated to Singaporeans. With the introduction of the private transport providers, PRs are now allowed to drive, so the taxi industry is losing its original grounds of being an industry reserved for Singaporeans only.

Taxi fares are set by taxi companies; and any increase in fares need to be approved by PTC. Ironically, fare adjustments by private transport providers do not require seeking of the same approval, hence fares may be adjusted at the providers’ whim and fancy.

 
Certainly, a bad bill has been tabled and throngs of taxi drivers will soon be out of a job soon!

 

 

Yours sincerely,

William Lim

Constituency Secretary, SJP

Three weeks of justice served

对他的提控以及判监三周是维护国法威严以及保护个人安危的最佳做法。

To prosecute him to be jailed for three weeks is the best way to maintain the country's dignity and for the purpose of personal safety.

Who bears the brunt of increased costs?

为了怕司机被挖角,私人巴士公司可能会提高司机的薪金来保留他们。这么一来,家长是否必须承担这些格外的开销呢?

把合约发给高投标者,使后者有条件以高薪挖角。为什么在解决公共交通品质问题的同时,却制造了另外一个问题给人民来承担。为什么政府不可以直接管理公共交通运作,而必需假手于人呢?

Due to fear of the drivers being poached away, private bus companies may raise salaries to keep their drivers. This way, do the parents have to bear the extra cost of it?

Contract is awarded to the highest bidder, hence the rest need to resort to poaching drivers with higher salaries. Why is it that the citizens have to shoulder the brunt when the government is resolving the issue of the quality of our public transport? Why can't the public transport be managed by government instead of private operators?