Reform Party Our Vision and Beliefs

[Ah Hai]

This is a statement of the Reform Party of Singapore’s vision, beliefs and policies which will form the basis of our Manifesto for the next General Election.
A Vision for Singapore
The Reform Party’s vision for Singapore is of a people-oriented diverse and inclusive community with full participation and freedom of expression. Our vision is of a Nation which fosters inventiveness, creativity and the origin of ideas in a climate of security and trust. A Singapore where we can build a genuine Singaporean identity by de-emphasising outdated racial classifications.
In short:
A Nation which will make full use of our finest resource – our people
A Nation which, although still young, can hold its head up with pride in the 21st Century as a true democracy worthy of inclusion with the longstanding free nations of the world

The Reform Party believes that
DEMOCRACY = TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY and INCLUSION
• Whilst not the perfect system democracy where the voice of the people is represented by constitutionally elected members and where those elected members are directly accountable to their constituents is the least bad system of government.
• A democracy must also take steps to include the views of the minority, the weak and the vulnerable.
• True accountability is attainable through increased transparency and the presence of a strong opposition. A valid and credible opposition will only become possible via reforms to create an even playing field
• Non-constitutionally elected members of parliament and nominated members of parliament erode the principles of democracy.

Specifically we believe that:
FREEDOM AND PROSPERITY can go hand in hand
• Singapore is not a corporation and its people not simply workers who are expendable
• We believe in Economic reform alongside Political Reform
• Competition is as essential in politics as it is in the economy
• Stability will not be jeopardised by openness and transparency
• Suppression of rights of free speech and assembly is not only unnecessary but an obstacle to Singapore competing equally with its neighbours.
• The current model of economic growth founded on cheap labour is obsolete and has not benefited the vast mass of our people.
• We can raise living standards by reducing taxation and charges on the less well-off while maintaining a low overall taxation burden that supports investment and growth
• We can focus on raising productivity and real incomes through a minimum wage and greater investment in education while improving the environment and playing our part in policies to combat climate change
• We can reduce the unnecessarily high level of saving that is channelled into unproductive overseas investments and increase our domestic consumption and standard of living without sacrificing our future
• We can give ordinary Singaporeans a direct stake in the growth in value of our foreign assets and government-linked companies
We believe that.
Our Finest Resource is Our People.
• Education and training to be given a higher priority and higher levels of investment in order to reduce dependence on imported skills and to compete with Asian and other competitor nations
• Abolition of fees and more help for those on lower incomes to keep children at school for longer.
• Expansion of tertiary education in line with rest of OECD.

We believe in the creation of:
A Safety Net for the Most Vulnerable Members of Society

• Examine the introduction of a genuine national health insurance system and basic state pension
• More benefits to the most vulnerable groups of society without creating a welfare dependent society.
• More government involvement and a move away from the delegation of this function to charity and religious organisations which has resulted in an arbitrary and inconsistent approach. Those in genuine need should not be made to feel grateful for what should be an entitlement.
• Provide a safety net for those in genuine need whilst ensuring that the burden of taxation does not damage investment and economic growth.
• Cohesive and consistent policy on population growth and women’s right to choice with an absolute veto on Eugenics in any disguise.

 

[Ah Hai]

US tax rule changes and implications for Singapore: the Prisoner’s Dilemma


Kenneth Jeyaretnam

On May 06th I posted a link on my Facebook page in response to a speech by Obama *- where he announced that the US was going to end the tax deferral for US corporations on income earned abroad but not repatriated to the US. - and added that, “Whilst one might criticize the folly of doing this without simultaneously targeting foreign corporations’ global profits based on the proportion of their sales in the US, it does represent another threat to Singapore’s tax-arbitrage based export-driven foreign investment model. The government has yet to acknowledge this threat or explain what steps it intends to take to counteract it.”

There followed a lively string of comments and messages, mostly disagreeing and saying that this was never going to happen. I felt it would, particularly because the Obama administration has already pencilled in US$210 billion of revenue from this source between 2011 and 2019** and is desperate for revenue to reduce the mounting budget deficit projections. Since then there has been a flurry of articles in both the local and foreign press on this issue. So the threat does appear to be real.

The US taxes the worldwide income of US corporations, whereas most other countries tax companies only on the income earned in that country. As a result, non-US companies are able to engage in global tax arbitrage by moving the base of their operations to countries with low corporate tax rates such as Eire, Hong Kong or Singapore. US companies are able to do this to the extent that they do not repatriate their earnings, i.e. remit them to the US rather than depositing them offshore. Over the years this has led to the kind of non-zero-sum game akin to what in economic theory is known as the Prisoner’s Dilemma+, where all countries would be better off in terms of tax revenues if they set the same tax rate. However there is a short-term incentive for individual countries to set a lower tax rate than the others but this is largely illusory since it only works if other countries do not retaliate. If they do, which fits with experience, then everyone ends up poorer.

This new US proposal may stop that game, at least for US corporations, though in the longer term it is likely to accelerate the process, which is already underway, of US companies being acquired by foreign ones (unless the US reduces its own corporate tax rate.) As such, it is a logical extension of the moves by the EU and the US to stop their citizens evading income taxes on interest earned on money deposited in tax havens. It is unlikely to be the end of the process however, as other major economies are likely to retaliate by moving to a global basis for corporate taxation as well.

Implications for Singapore

Given that the US is desperate to raise revenue in a manner that will not have a contractionary effect on its own economy there is every chance that these proposals will become law. In which case there are likely to be grave implications for Singapore as this will definitely lead to some, probably significant, loss of jobs and investment in Singapore. The situation becomes more serious particularly if the other major economies follow suit. Unfortunately, Singapore is not in a position to retaliate. Neither are the other Asian economies to which US corporations have relocated their manufacturing and which now run large trade surpluses with the US. This will obviously be mitigated by how much the decision to set up operations in Singapore was driven by tax considerations in the first place. If other countries take the same approach as the US then the implications could become extremely serious. What is worrying about the US proposals is that they have the explicit objective of repatriating jobs and investment that have moved offshore. As Obama said, “And it’s a tax code that says you should pay lower taxes if you create a job in Bangalore, India, than if you create one in Buffalo, New York.”**

Considerable room to expand S’pore’s economy

These new moves by the US only serve to reinforce the points I have made previously. Namely, that Singapore needs to develop alternative sources of growth. It may no longer be able to rely to the same extent on foreign investment by MNCs if one of the primary motivators, a low corporate tax rate, is negated.

Obviously Singapore’s small home market means that there are limits on how much domestically generated growth can replace exports. However, Singapore has a very large trade surplus in relation to GDP and near 50% of that GDP that was saved in 2008. So there is considerable room to expand the economy by increasing domestic consumption and investment. The lead here needs to be taken by the government sector through tax or service fee cuts (principally targeting the lower income groups) or increased infrastructure or education and health spending. My preference would be to encourage private sector involvement rather than further growth of the GLC sector. As long as other countries do not follow the US lead then low corporate tax rates still have a role in attracting investment by non-US companies.

Given the relative lack of indigenous world-class exporters (partly dictated by the small domestic market and partly the fault of the Government which has concentrated on boosting net savings and investing the surplus abroad) Singapore should also consider attracting more foreign (particularly US) companies to move their domicile to Singapore. A good example of this is Flextronics, a major contract manufacturer for the leading electronics companies, which is domiciled in Singapore but listed in the US. Again, the US may later take steps to prevent its companies moving offshore.

To conclude, Singapore is facing a potentially major challenge in the form of US proposals to eliminate the tax deferral for US corporations. If other countries retaliate and change the basis of their corporate tax regimes from territorial to global, then the problem is much more serious. Low corporate tax rates may be largely self-defeating. While there are no magic solutions, this is merely another straw on the camel’s back of a broken economic model. I have proposed that Singapore needs to rely less on net exports and more on domestic consumption and investment. Given the high savings rate there is considerable room to expand both these without the external impact causing problems. Only today the Financial Times reported that Stephen Roach, the Asia chairman of Morgan Stanley, had argued that the Chinese government was “clinging to antiquated policy and economic growth strategies that presuppose a classic snapback in global demand.”*** I believe Singapore can be substituted for China in that sentence quite easily. In the longer run Singapore needs to do more to encourage the growth of domestically owned companies that can replace the foreign investors who may relocate.

Sources

+The Prisoner’s Dilemma

In its classical form, the Prisoner’s Dilemma has nothing to do with which flotation device to choose but is more often presented as follows:

Two suspects are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated both prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal. If one testifies (betrays the other) against the other and the other remains silent (cooperates with the other), the betrayer goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence. If both remain silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge as there is insufficient evidence. If each betrays the other, each receives a five-year sentence. Each prisoner must choose either to betray the other or to remain silent. Each one is assured that the other would not know about the betrayal before the end of the investigation. How should the prisoners act?

The Prisoner’s Dilemma forms a non-zero-sum game in which two players may either cooperate with or betray each other. In this game, as in all game theory, the only concern of each individual player is maximizing his/her own payoff, without any concern for the other’s payoff. Assuming each player wants a shorter sentence, rational choice leads the two players to both betray even though each player’s individual reward would be greater if they both played cooperatively.

In the classic form of this game the only possible equilibrium for the game is for both prisoners to betray each other. No matter what the other prisoner does, one prisoner will always gain a greater payoff through betraying the other. Since in any situation betraying is more beneficial than cooperating, all rational players will betray, all things being equal

* Obama Targets Corporate Offshore Tax Avoidance, Wall Street Journal, May 6th 2009

** Titans Vow Overseas Tax Fight, Wall Street Journal, April 22nd 2009

*** Chinese Exports Tumble Sharply Again, Financial Times, May 13th 2009

 

[Ah Hai]

REFORM PARTY’ S RESPONSE TO PRESIDENT’S ADDRESS AT OPENING OF PARLIAMENT ON 18TH MAY 2009


A Flawed Economic Model



According to the latest statistics, GDP in the last quarter declined at a 14.4% annualised rate and was over 10% lower than a year ago. So, it is distressing to see that according to the President’s address the government has no new strategies for coping with the worst economic recession since independence. While it has been happy to take the credit for Singapore’s perceived economic success during the boom years, it can now only point to the global recession as the reason for Singapore’s problems and state that recovery will be dependent on a global recovery. There is no admission that the economic model underlying economic policy-making is now flawed and needs fixing.

The President’s address shows that the government still relies on a mercantilist high domestic-saving, high net exports model for economic growth. The government’s view is that it would be a waste of time for Singapore to increase domestic consumption and reduce savings as it would just leak into higher imports. In fact the import component of domestic consumption is only about 35%, about the same as investment and exports, so higher consumption expenditures would still have a substantial second-round effect on domestic output and employment via the Keynesian multiplier. To demonstrate how absurd the government’s mercantilist argument is, one need only consider what would happen if the US decided to take measures to curb consumption and increase exports and savings as its response to the present crisis. The result would be an even more devastating slump that would hurt the Asian countries that rely on exports and Germany most, akin to what happened in the 1930s.

Manu Bhaskaran commented in The Edge on 2nd May 2009 that the local economy does not appear to have suffered that much as Singaporeans are still shopping and eating out enthusiastically. While the government may draw comfort from this, the converse is that despite Singapore’s high growth rates between 2003 and 2007 this boom largely passed ordinary Singaporeans by. Instead it was evidenced by the growing numbers of foreign workers (which put pressure on the incomes of lower-skilled Singaporeans and led to falling productivity) and the higher profits of the corporate sector, which largely comprises foreign multinationals and Government-Linked Companies (GLCs). Indeed average wages increased more slowly than inflation during this period. And the worst may be yet to come, as unemployment normally continues to increase for some time after an economy has bottomed out. From the President’s address and MSM comments there appears to be a lot of wishful thinking out there that the global economy will start to recover from here on in.

When Mahatma Ghandi was asked by a Western journalist what he thought of Western civilisation he replied that he thought it would be a good idea. I feel like making the same response when the President talks about sustaining economic growth in an environment where GDP in the last quarter was falling at nearly a 20% annualised rate. To that end he says that Singapore has to stay competitive, upgrade our people and create an outstanding pro-business environment. We at The Reform Party also think that that would be a good idea. Indeed we consider it absolutely essential that Singapore continue to maintain an environment conducive to business investment and growth. However to talk of sustaining something (economic growth) which doesn’t actually exist is clearly nonsensical.

A Stimulus Package

The Reform Party calls for a stimulus package of 8-10% of GDP rather than the 3.5% that was projected as the Overall Budget Balance in the 2009 Budget. Since only 50% of the expected long-term real returns from reserves invested by GIC and MAS and 50% of the net income of Temasek were permitted to be used in the calculation of the Overall Budget Balance, the inclusion of the balance of the returns could mean, depending on the degree of divergence between actual and expected returns this year, that the Overall Budget Balance was actually in surplus and that therefore there was no stimulatory effect at all.

The Budget

The following is a (non-exhaustive) list of the major measures announced in the Budget:
1. A cut in employer CPF (the Jobs Credit Scheme);

2. A move to lend directly to companies (only what every one of the major Central Banks has been doing since 2008) and forecast as having a budgetary impact of less than 10% of the headline S$5.6 billion figure (the Special Risk-Sharing Initiative);

3. Enhancements to existing training schemes (again not markedly different from similar schemes offered in the UK and other OECD countries);

4. An expansion of public sector employment;

5. Accelerated depreciation of some investments for corporate tax purposes; and

6. Some limited measures aimed at lower income groups such as the Workfare Income Supplement scheme and additional rebates of HDB service and conservancy charges for those living in smaller HDB properties.

We believe these measures are likely to be wholly inadequate to address the current crisis.
The Reform Party response to the economic crisis would be as follows:

• A minimum wage with exemptions for both old and young workers. In his speech the President refers to economic growth as a high priority and also calls on Singaporeans to welcome foreign workers and new citizens into our midst. While the Reform Party is against racism in any form and believes that diversity brings benefits, Singaporean citizens must not be disadvantaged compared with foreign workers. Men already have to do National Service whereas foreigners escape this. Employers of Singaporeans with reservist commitment s also have to take account of the disruption this causes to their businesses, something they do not have to worry about wit foreign workers. The Reform Party will look at ways in which this disparity can be addressed. The fact that economic growth is the sole criterion for the present government has already led to a planned increase in population size from the present 4.5 million to around 6.5 million by 2015. The Reform Party believes this focus is misplaced as using the government’s logic economic growth could be maintained or increased with declining average and median incomes (leaving on one side for the moment the question of declining quality of life as population pressure means less green spaces and smaller living spaces) just by importing more and more labour. A minimum wage should have the effect of discouraging employers from just importing cheap labour from poorer Asian countries which has depressed wages and led to declining productivity. It may also need to be combined with moves to prevent GLCs from hiring foreign workers unless they are unable to get Singaporeans of equivalent skills at the same salaries.

• A reduction or suspension of the GST which disproportionately impacts lower-income households

• Higher tax rebates for lower income households which will be clawed back as income rises

• Reductions in fees and service charges beyond what the government announced in the 2009 Budget. This should include total elimination of school fees at the primary and secondary level

• Massively increased investment in education and infrastructure.

 

[Ah Hai]

Education

The President is right to emphasise education in his speech. However the Reform Party believes that, while in certain areas and for small elite of pupils, and for those who can afford tutoring, Singapore has a commendable track record in maths and science education, there are still many areas in which Singapore is only keeping pace or falling behind. Clearly we cannot produce citizens for the 21st century and call ourselves a first world Nation when our system only allows for compulsory education up to the age of 11. This is symptomatic of a government that has neglected development of its most important resource, its people, finding it easier and cheaper to import people from abroad. Once again the question that needs to be asked is for whose benefit the country is being run? The Reform Party proposes the following:

1. Pre-school education is not yet universal and is used as a political tool by the present government by channelling state funding to its own Party-run kindergartens. We would make pre-school education universal and have it run directly by the government rather than being associated with any political party.

2. At present education is only compulsory till the end of primary school which is a woefully low standard in the 21st century for a country at Singapore’s stage of development. The Reform Party would immediately make education compulsory up to the end of O or N Levels.

3. The Reform Party would increase education spending to allow the school day to become a full-time day, from 8.30 to 3.30, rather than as now with school being split into a morning and an afternoon shift.

4. It is ludicrous for the government on the one hand to commend the Singapore education system and then on the other to provide assistance for poorer families to pay for tuition. Tuition should not be necessary if the teaching system is good enough. In fact to budget for assistance with tutoring is an admittance that the education system m is failing the majority. The Reform Party would concentrate on improving the quality of teaching and reducing class sizes rather than paying for tuition. Tuition allowance should be targeted at those families with children facing special educational challenges.

5. The President outlined a target of 30% of our students admitted to state-funded universities. We believe this is very unambitious and more should be done to reverse a neglect of higher education for the general population over the last few decades. For example, only some 25% of Singapore’s population had tertiary qualifications in 2005 compared with figures ranging from near 60% for Australia and an OECD average of nearly 40%. It is notable that for PRs as opposed to Singapore citizens the proportion of those with tertiary qualifications is much higher, at 39% compared with 14%. While Singapore should welcome well-qualified foreigners the government has an obligation to try to ensure that our own people have equal opportunities to reach the same standards.

Multilateralism

The Reform Party is supportive of the President’s emphasis on multilateralism believing that Singapore should take the lead in fostering greater regional cooperation and economic integration, particularly as regards economic links with the increasingly dominant Asian powers of India and China. However Singapore must change its policy of friendship with unsavoury regimes, such as Burma, which earn Singapore international opprobrium but bring not especially significant economic benefits.

Political Reform

The President’s speech also mentioned that “Our political system is not set in stone. Singapore politics must evolve over time, as the world and our society changes…For our political system to continue working well, we must find outstanding, younger men and women to lead Singapore.” Whilst we would be naive if we did not think that the President intended anything else than to refer to the emergence of a new leadership team within the PAP, we at the Reform Party hope that soon the people of Singapore will view us a credible alternative government arguably better fitted to deal with the new challenges facing Singapore.

 

[Ah Hai]

"Cast off the slumber into which you have been led into for the last 10 years. Wake up to your rights as a human being, to your proper role as citizens of this country."
- Mr JB Jeyaretnam, at the inaugural dinner of the Reform Party on 11 July 2008.


Reform Party Inauguration Video (11 July 2008)

The newly-registered Reform Party, headed by veteran politician JB
Jeyaretnam, held its inauguration dinner on the 11 of July 2008. Among
the 500 guests were leaders of all the main opposition parties in
Singapore. Fortunate Restaurant, Toa Payoh Central.

Apologies that the video comes with the typo "Inaugeration" that ought to be "Inauguration".
<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/urzcZnbd2N8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/urzcZnbd2N8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

[Ah Hai]

Will this be Singapore’s Lost Decade?


Kenneth Jeyaretnam

Recently there have been quite a few articles in the international press speculating that the recent financial crisis and ensuing severe recession may lead to a lost decade of growth for countries such as Germany, (which have relied on exports rather than domestic demand for growth). The German economy is characterised by high net exports, a high savings rate and low domestic consumption.

But this is also true of the high-growth Asian economies, such as China, Korea and in a particularly exaggerated fashion, Singapore. The Singapore government has long relied on exports and on the U.S. to be the ultimate driver of demand to provide the stimulus for Singapore’s growth. Domestic saving has been increased through the forced saving mechanism of the CPF, government budget surpluses and curtailing domestic wage growth through the import of low-cost labour from overseas. This model is no longer viable.

In 2008 net exports were 19% of Singapore’s GDP (however this was down from 32% in 2007 due to the collapse in external demand)**, the current account surplus was close to 15% of GDP (down from 23% in 2007), while domestic saving was 47% of GNP. Personal consumption expenditure was about 41% of GDP in comparison with countries like the US where personal consumption expenditure is around 70% of GDP.

The U.S. Administration has stated that the US cannot continue indefinitely to be the world’s consumer of last resort. President Obama recently called for America to consume less and export more. Here, despite a fall in first quarter GDP of close to 20% at annualised rate, the government’s policies mainly consist of waiting for a revival of U.S. growth whilst announcing limited measures to cut business costs. Whilst a package of S$20 billion may appear large, the actual budget deficit was much smaller and after taking account of the income from overseas investments smaller still.

It must be remembered that Singapore lacks many of the automatic stabilisers, such as unemployment benefits, which increase spending in a recession and mitigate the multiplier effects from declining exports and falling demand. Cutting costs through wage reductions and other domestic income-reducing measures may work for one country but cannot work for the world economy in aggregate; a point which I thought was conclusively settled with the publication of Keynes’ General Theory. Lower wage costs (which are in any case likely to be a relatively small proportion of the costs of production) are unlikely to stop firms here from laying-off workers when their export sales have fallen off a cliff.

In my view, the government should be much more aggressive in taking steps to boost domestic demand to offset the contractionary impact arising from the export sector. It is completely unnecessary for Singapore to be saving 47% of GNP when the returns from our foreign investments have been so low. I would like to see the following steps (the list is not meant to be exhaustive) to boost domestic demand adopted as a matter of urgency:

· A minimum wage with exemptions for both old and young workers. This will also have the effect of discouraging employers from just importing cheap labour from poorer Asian countries which has depressed wages and led to declining productivity

· A reduction or suspension of the GST which disproportionately impacts lower-income households

· Higher tax credits for lower income households which will be clawed back as income rises

· Reductions in fees and service charges, including total elimination of school fees at the primary and secondary level

· Reductions in Employee CPF

· Massively increased investment in education and infrastructure, particularly aimed at increasing energy efficiency and developing new “green” technologies along the lines of the recent US stimulus package

Given the magnitude of the falls in GDP year-on-year we need a total stimulus (tax reductions plus additional spending) of the order of 8-10% of GDP, instead of 3.5% of GDP which is what was projected as the Overall Budget Balance in the Government’s 2009 Budget. It should be pointed out that whereas the Budget says S$5.8 billion will be spent by the government on stimulating bank lending this is not actual spending but is in the form of loans or loan guarantees. There will only be spending and losses to the taxpayer if the loans have to be written off. Therefore the actual stimulus arising from this scheme will only be a small fraction of the headline number. This is much less than the other central banks, such as the US Federal Reserve and the Bank of England, are doing on a massive scale already.

All this can be done without raising taxes on the higher earners and without raising the low marginal tax rates that make Singapore an attractive place to invest and do business in.

To conclude, Singapore risks a lost decade of economic growth akin to that suffered by Japan in the 1990s or even worse unless the Government recognises that the old model is broken and that we must reorientate the economy away from exports and saving towards higher domestic consumption and investment.

—–

 

[Ah Hai]

Comments

6 Responses to “Will this be Singapore’s Lost Decade?”

1. Sharon on April 19th, 2009 10:36 pm

Dear Mr Kenneth Jeyaratnam,

we are so so glad to learn of your commitment.

we wish you and your party all the very best.

May Our Almighty God Bless Your Labour and Sacrifice for the people of this country.

2. REMF on April 21st, 2009 4:57 pm

PAP was formed in 1954 - a group of English-educated Elitists returning from UK - and gained political power in 1959.

SImilarly, Reform Party was formed in 2008, and I expect that it should evolve into an Alternative Party to challenge PAP in GE2016.

Do not fettle away all your resources and talents in GE2011 as it is a poisoned chalice.
Let PAP marshalled their undivided attention to pull Singapore out of current recession, when int eh meantime, you satrt to woo and attack PAP “soft underbelly” - HDB heartkanders and labour unions like what PAP did in the 50s, wooing Lim Chin Siong, Devan Nair and Ahmad Ibrahim.

3. The rising son : The Online Citizen - a community of singaporeans on April 27th, 2009 4:29 pm

[...] The party is expected to focus on bread and butter issues and the economy, as Jeyaretnam told the Associated Press on 10 April: “I want to create an image of economic competency of the opposition, meaning that [...]

4. Henry Lam on April 28th, 2009 1:09 pm

Dear Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam:
Congratulations on your appointment !
Allow me to pray that U form the next Government by say not more than 2 General Elections. In my view, U have the ability to attract more able & capable ones to come forward & speak for those who are now “suffering in silence”
In my view, not even the MOST powerful man in this land can touch U because of the “superb” intelligence , care & many other qualities U have.
From your Economic article I read, U have what it takes to bring better lives to those sufferers.
Please accept my Best Wishes ………

5. jeevindran on April 28th, 2009 4:34 pm

dear mr KENNETH JEYARATNEM

WE SO GLAD THAT YOUR FOLLOWING YOUR FATHER FOOTSTEP IN THIS POLITICAL ARENA TO STORE THE REAL DEMOCARCY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE
WITH YOUR ECONOMIST IDEA HELPS U TO OVER THE ECOMOMIC CRISSIS

GOOD LUCK COMRADE

6. aldeayea on May 3rd, 2009 4:01 am

Congratulations to Kenneth Jeyeretnam for joining the opposition cause!His expertise in economics would be very valuable to the opposition.I wish him all the best in his poltical endeavours and may there be unity and cooperation among all the opposition parties(SDP,SDA,NSP,WP and RP).No three-cornered fights in SMCs and GRCs please!Because now the election deposit is pretty high,at $13,000!I don’t want to see any candidate lose his/her deposit!