- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
[h=1]When Parliament Defies the Will of the People …[/h]On the call for a referendum on the Population issue
Tan Wah Piow
Since the “Say No to 6. 9 million” 5000-strong rally at Hong Lim Park on the 16[SUP]th[/SUP] Feb 2013 in response to the Population White Paper, people in Singapore are rooting for change. The government has kept a strategic silence, while its cheer leaders in the media did what is expected of them, down-playing the numbers and the significance of the event.
Still the question remains, what options are there in a country where those elected to Parliament fail to articulate the will of the people? Netizens appear to have provided the clearest answer: vote the PAP out in 2016. But in the interim of at least 1500 days there is a genuine concern that the government will continue with its unpopular and dangerous expansion population policy that would cost billions of dollars of tax payers’ money to construct an undesirable fait accompli, resulting in greater dissatisfaction, social tensions and xenophobia.
In a parliamentary democracy, even if it is not one like in Switzerland where the system of rule by referendum is entrenched, it is normal for a government to initiate a Referendum to consult and solicit a political consensus on contentious issues that affect the future of a nation. In the UK for example, the government has now promised a referendum on whether the country should remain in the European Union and also for the Scottish Parliament to hold a referendum on whether Scotland should remain within the United Kingdom.
However, the Singapore Government, not surprisingly, has turned a deaf ear to the call for a referendum by both the opposition National Solidarity Party (NSP) and the former Presidential candidate Tan Kin Lian. In law, the PAP government is of course not obliged to heed any calls from the people having whipped their own MP’s into voting “aye” for the Population White Paper but in the real term the failure to address widespread dissatisfaction will not be healthy for the stunted democracy.
Clearly the increasingly vocal netizens in the social media are not hopeful that a proposed Petition for a referendum will gain any traction with President Tony Tan, the Singapore Head of State. (reference netizens’ response to concerned citizen Patrick Low’s letter in TR Emeritus dated 22.2.2012). They do not harbour any illusions that the minority President Tony Tan would dare to act on behalf of the concerned citizens. They see him as lacking the moral courage to influence the government. The Presidency is seen by some as an adjunct to the ruling PAP rather than a non-partisan national institution.
Notwithstanding the current scenario I take the view that a campaign to Petition for a Referendum is still a meaningful exercise to engage the population. In the same way as 5000 people chose to brave the rain and the m&d to stand for 3 hours on 16[SUP]th[/SUP] February chanting “Reject Reject Reject to 6.9 million” anyone signing a petition to call for a Referendum will be similarly engaged in the political process. And if the 5000 who voted with their feet on the 16[SUP]th[/SUP] February can each prepare an A4 size petition with space for 20 signatories, there will be 100,000 signatures for a start. Such a proposed Referendum can seek the citizen’s response to a simple question:
Whichever way the petition for a referendum turns out, it may give reasons to the government to pause, reflect and rework its Population White Paper before rushing pell-mell to implement it. Earlier policy failures such as the “Two Is Enough” population policy and “Graduates Mothers’ Scheme” would serve as warnings to the PAP that elitist policies will not stand up to scrutiny and the test of time.
A lesson from JIM (Jurong Industrial Mission)
An episode which happened some 40 years ago is worth sharing as it may offer some relevant lessons.
Back then in 1972, Jurong Town was the newly designated industrial estate, with many newly built unoccupied flats. It was effectively a ghost town with more flats than residents. In the bleak and deserted town there was fortunately a ray of light.
With funding from the Lutheran church, a Jurong Civic Centre was built to offer space for community activities. Then came the Jurong Industrial Mission (JIM) which was likewise funded by the Christian churches. The aim was not to evangelise but to help people identify the problems affecting the community, and encourage them to organise around those issues in search of solutions. Their modus operandi was community organising, based on the model popularized by Saul Allinski in Chicago where Barrack Obama first cut his political teeth.
An issue in Jurong Town at that time was the absence of any public transport. Young workers and residents had to use the services of “pirate taxis” in Bukit Timah to reach their living quarters in the Industrial Estate. This issue was identified by JIM following discussions amongst the residents. Before long, with the help of JIM, the residents managed to organise two bus loads of residents to call upon their MP, the then Ho Kah Leong, who of course was from the PAP. Mr Ho was taken aback by the visitation, but he had a ready answer. He claimed then that there were no public buses because none of the bus companies were interested.
The residents returned empty handed. JIM then initiated an enquiry with the various bus companies, only to be informed that they did apply to the appropriate Registry of Vehicles to run bus routes into Jurong but were turned down. The reason, they were told, was because if there were transportation into Jurong, people would not take up residence in the industrial estate, but would commute instead from other parts of Singapore. It was a perverse form of town planning, but then who cares.
Armed with these revelations, the residents were emboldened and instead of visiting Ho Kah Leong, they invited him to a meeting in Jurong Town. A gathering of 500 residents of all races, including Singaporean and Malaysian workers gathered to present a sight that Ho Kah Leong rarely saw. Feeling cornered, his only defence was Rome was not built in one day. The residents retorted: We are not Rome!
Following this encounter, licenses were swiftly granted to the bus companies, the town started to grow and the rest was history. It was a happy ending, but for a small footnote whereby JIM was forced by a mysterious hand to shut down. The sign of the Jurong Civic Centre was removed, in less than 24 months.
I hope this little digression might offer some food for thoughts.
In the same way as the residents in Jurong in 1972 were in the dark until they started organising and demanding for facts, the same may be true about the Population White Paper. Supporters for a referendum may also wish to consider directing their respective PAP Member of Parliament to call upon the Government to release on the internet all information relating to the consultation process, including all research papers, submissions to the government from the public, ministerial and cabinet minutes on the Population White Paper.
There are another 1500 days to the General Elections. We need not be idle.
.
Tan Wah Piow
28.2.2013
London
Since the “Say No to 6. 9 million” 5000-strong rally at Hong Lim Park on the 16[SUP]th[/SUP] Feb 2013 in response to the Population White Paper, people in Singapore are rooting for change. The government has kept a strategic silence, while its cheer leaders in the media did what is expected of them, down-playing the numbers and the significance of the event.
Still the question remains, what options are there in a country where those elected to Parliament fail to articulate the will of the people? Netizens appear to have provided the clearest answer: vote the PAP out in 2016. But in the interim of at least 1500 days there is a genuine concern that the government will continue with its unpopular and dangerous expansion population policy that would cost billions of dollars of tax payers’ money to construct an undesirable fait accompli, resulting in greater dissatisfaction, social tensions and xenophobia.
In a parliamentary democracy, even if it is not one like in Switzerland where the system of rule by referendum is entrenched, it is normal for a government to initiate a Referendum to consult and solicit a political consensus on contentious issues that affect the future of a nation. In the UK for example, the government has now promised a referendum on whether the country should remain in the European Union and also for the Scottish Parliament to hold a referendum on whether Scotland should remain within the United Kingdom.
However, the Singapore Government, not surprisingly, has turned a deaf ear to the call for a referendum by both the opposition National Solidarity Party (NSP) and the former Presidential candidate Tan Kin Lian. In law, the PAP government is of course not obliged to heed any calls from the people having whipped their own MP’s into voting “aye” for the Population White Paper but in the real term the failure to address widespread dissatisfaction will not be healthy for the stunted democracy.
Clearly the increasingly vocal netizens in the social media are not hopeful that a proposed Petition for a referendum will gain any traction with President Tony Tan, the Singapore Head of State. (reference netizens’ response to concerned citizen Patrick Low’s letter in TR Emeritus dated 22.2.2012). They do not harbour any illusions that the minority President Tony Tan would dare to act on behalf of the concerned citizens. They see him as lacking the moral courage to influence the government. The Presidency is seen by some as an adjunct to the ruling PAP rather than a non-partisan national institution.
Notwithstanding the current scenario I take the view that a campaign to Petition for a Referendum is still a meaningful exercise to engage the population. In the same way as 5000 people chose to brave the rain and the m&d to stand for 3 hours on 16[SUP]th[/SUP] February chanting “Reject Reject Reject to 6.9 million” anyone signing a petition to call for a Referendum will be similarly engaged in the political process. And if the 5000 who voted with their feet on the 16[SUP]th[/SUP] February can each prepare an A4 size petition with space for 20 signatories, there will be 100,000 signatures for a start. Such a proposed Referendum can seek the citizen’s response to a simple question:
“Whether the government should continue to pursue the policies according to the Population White Paper” – YES / NO
The 5000-strong supporters and each of their 20 signatories can also call upon their respective Member of Parliament to account to them if the MP had voted with the Government, why he or she had ignored the aspirations of the electorate. If their MP happens to be from the Workers Party, they can likewise call upon the MP to help promote the signing of the Petition within the constituency.
Whichever way the petition for a referendum turns out, it may give reasons to the government to pause, reflect and rework its Population White Paper before rushing pell-mell to implement it. Earlier policy failures such as the “Two Is Enough” population policy and “Graduates Mothers’ Scheme” would serve as warnings to the PAP that elitist policies will not stand up to scrutiny and the test of time.
A lesson from JIM (Jurong Industrial Mission)
An episode which happened some 40 years ago is worth sharing as it may offer some relevant lessons.
Back then in 1972, Jurong Town was the newly designated industrial estate, with many newly built unoccupied flats. It was effectively a ghost town with more flats than residents. In the bleak and deserted town there was fortunately a ray of light.
With funding from the Lutheran church, a Jurong Civic Centre was built to offer space for community activities. Then came the Jurong Industrial Mission (JIM) which was likewise funded by the Christian churches. The aim was not to evangelise but to help people identify the problems affecting the community, and encourage them to organise around those issues in search of solutions. Their modus operandi was community organising, based on the model popularized by Saul Allinski in Chicago where Barrack Obama first cut his political teeth.
An issue in Jurong Town at that time was the absence of any public transport. Young workers and residents had to use the services of “pirate taxis” in Bukit Timah to reach their living quarters in the Industrial Estate. This issue was identified by JIM following discussions amongst the residents. Before long, with the help of JIM, the residents managed to organise two bus loads of residents to call upon their MP, the then Ho Kah Leong, who of course was from the PAP. Mr Ho was taken aback by the visitation, but he had a ready answer. He claimed then that there were no public buses because none of the bus companies were interested.
The residents returned empty handed. JIM then initiated an enquiry with the various bus companies, only to be informed that they did apply to the appropriate Registry of Vehicles to run bus routes into Jurong but were turned down. The reason, they were told, was because if there were transportation into Jurong, people would not take up residence in the industrial estate, but would commute instead from other parts of Singapore. It was a perverse form of town planning, but then who cares.
Armed with these revelations, the residents were emboldened and instead of visiting Ho Kah Leong, they invited him to a meeting in Jurong Town. A gathering of 500 residents of all races, including Singaporean and Malaysian workers gathered to present a sight that Ho Kah Leong rarely saw. Feeling cornered, his only defence was Rome was not built in one day. The residents retorted: We are not Rome!
Following this encounter, licenses were swiftly granted to the bus companies, the town started to grow and the rest was history. It was a happy ending, but for a small footnote whereby JIM was forced by a mysterious hand to shut down. The sign of the Jurong Civic Centre was removed, in less than 24 months.
I hope this little digression might offer some food for thoughts.
In the same way as the residents in Jurong in 1972 were in the dark until they started organising and demanding for facts, the same may be true about the Population White Paper. Supporters for a referendum may also wish to consider directing their respective PAP Member of Parliament to call upon the Government to release on the internet all information relating to the consultation process, including all research papers, submissions to the government from the public, ministerial and cabinet minutes on the Population White Paper.
There are another 1500 days to the General Elections. We need not be idle.
.
Tan Wah Piow
28.2.2013
London
