It all started on 15 July when Mr Wong received a letter from psychiatrist, Dr Calvin Fones, who had seen and assessed Mr Ravi’s state of mind on 14 July. In his letter, which was addressed to the “Law Society”, Dr Fones said Mr Ravi was “having a manic relapse of his bipolar disorder” and added that Mr Ravi “is currently unfit to practice law and his illness is likely to affect his professional capacity.”

On 16 July, Mr Wong attempted 3 times to interrupt court proceedings, where Mr Ravi was presenting his cases, to notify the courts of the content of Dr Fones’ letter. In two of those instances, the judges dismissed Mr Wong’s complaints against Mr Ravi and allowed Mr Ravi to proceed with his presentations in court. Witnesses at the courts revealed that Mr Ravi had acted normally and in fact, according to one, he had exhibited “exemplary” behavior.

Mr Wong’s attempts in trying to interrupt court proceedings were reprimanded and described by judge Philip Pillai as “unprecedented.” It also caused alarm among members of the public, and has raised deep concerns among members of the legal fraternity as well.

In response to the criticisms, the LSS tried to explain and defend Mr Wong’s behavior by saying that it had simply “informed the judge of the contents of the letter as it felt it was in the public interest to do so, and as officers of the court.”

A day later, however, the LSS did a complete about-turn and effectively disavowed any responsibility for Mr Wong’s behavior – despite having said it was “the Law Society” which had informed the court, implying that Mr Wong was acting on the society’s behalf. Now, in its second statement, the LSS said Mr Wong had “decided to go to Court on his own volition with Dr Fones' information.”  Indeed, the LSS disclaimed responsibility 3 times in its second statement – repeating that “Mr Wong had acted very much on his own” and that “a member of the LSS secretariat decided to go down to the Court to observe the proceedings… at his own initiative” as well.

The LSS’ statement seems to make light of Mr Wong’s behavior too – saying that Mr Wong had acted  “with the best of intentions.” It also said that the “LSS is confident that it has discharged its duties properly and in good faith.”

And in an audacious and arrogant attempt of its own to extract itself from any responsibility and instead point the blame at others, the LSS statement – signed by its president, Mr Wong Meng Meng – says, “LSS asks that commentators check their facts, preferably with LSS, before making their comments.”

It is a laughable attempt at casting blame elsewhere when the LSS’ second statement showed that the LSS itself did not ascertain the facts before it released its first statement on the matter - “Council was not in possession of the full facts,” the LSS said in its second statement, attempting to disavow its responsibility.

The president of the LSS’ explanation, however, cuts no ice with some within its own ranks. On 24 August, it was reported that a motion was filed with the LSS for the society to “shed more light on its recent clash with lawyer M Ravi.” The motion is being supported by “more than 50 members” of the LSS.

“Basically, some members of the Law Society have expressed concern over the incident and have not received a full explanation as to what transpired,” said lawyer Noor Marican, who is one of those leading the motion.

Criminal lawyer Josephus Tan agreed, adding that the society is obliged to account to its members. "Many of us are concerned about what happened," criminal lawyer Josephus Tan was reported to have said. "Procedurally, it's puzzling, to say the least. As vested members, we want an explanation from the Law Society," he added.

There has been no word from the LSS on whether the motion will proceed.

Mr Ravi had lodged a complaint against Mr Wong Siew Hong with the LSS and had asked that the “necessary and relevant disciplinary proceedings be initiated against him by the LSS.”

It is unclear if the LSS is indeed initiating disciplinary proceedings against Mr Wong.

Mr Ravi has also started legal proceedings against the LSS and Mr Wong Siew Hong for defamation and has served both parties the writs of summons.

In the latest twist to the episode, the LSS has “applied for a court order to have M Ravi medically checked by a psychiatrist from the Institute of Mental Health to determine if he is fit to practise law in Singapore.” In its application, the LSS said if Mr Ravi failed to submit to the medical examination at the IMH, his practising certificate will be suspended; and that if the IMH report concludes that Mr Ravi is unfit to practise law, his certificate will be suspended.

The LSS’ court application is made after Mr Ravi had seen a doctor three times in the last two months, the latest on 7 August.

On 23 July, Dr Munidasa Winslow, a psychiatrist at the Winslow Clinic at Mount Elizabeth Hospital, had attended to Mr Ravi who had voluntarily sought Dr Winslow’s examination. Dr Winslow again saw Mr Ravi on 7 August and noted, “He was well oriented to time, place and person. He was not depressed and his mood was elevated.”

Dr Winslow, who himself was the former chief of the Addiction Medicine Department at the IMH, said “Mr Ravi would benefit from medication to stabilize his mood” but he added that “this need not be imposed on him.”

Mr Ravi had submitted Dr Winslow’s medical report to the LSS on 10 August, according to a Straits Times’ report.

Some are, therefore, asking why the LSS is seeking a court order to compel Mr Ravi to see a psychiatrist again, given that the LSS has been given Mr Ravi’s medical report as recent as 10 August.

The questions one would ask are: what exactly is the LSS concerned about? Has Mr Ravi’s conduct as a lawyer in any way been detrimental to his clients? Has any of his clients complained to the LSS about Mr Ravi? Has any judge, who has presided over court proceedings involving Mr Ravi, raised any concerns about his conduct or professionalism?

Why has the LSS not sought to deal with whatever concerns it may have with Mr Ravi in private, instead of doing so in such a public fashion – first trying to disrupt court proceedings and now lodging an application with the courts?

The LSS’ own behavior these last two months or so leaves many questions unanswered and members of the public are rightly concerned about its seemingly unprofessional conduct, and what it is trying to achieve with regards to Mr Ravi.

Why is it “going after” Mr Ravi while at the same time apparently doing nothing at all about Mr Wong Siew Hong whose conduct has raised serious concerns about the LSS and indeed about the LSS’ integrity and professionalism itself?

Even the Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore (ACLS) had criticised the LSS and said that the behaviour of Mr Wong had “left a very bitter taste in the mouths and has potentially brought the Bar into disrepute.”

Yet, the LSS seems to have taken Mr Wong’s behavior lightly, and indeed seemed to have defended him – and the LSS has not indicated at all whether it will even hold an inquiry into Mr Wong’s conduct.

Instead, the LSS seems bent on entirely focusing its energy on Mr Ravi, even as it has not provided any explanation or substantiation to why it is concerned about Mr Ravi’s conduct as a lawyer.

As mentioned at the start of this article, the LSS gives one an impression of a headless chicken running amok recklessly – devoid of any sense of responsibility. How does the LSS expect the public to have, in its own words, “confidence in LSS as an independent professional body which has always balanced the interests of the public and individual lawyers” when its own professionalism and integrity is being doubted – by its own woeful conduct?

Perhaps the LSS should start with cleaning its own house and getting it in order – before pointing fingers at its critics and dismissing concerns raised about it, or going on what some see as a witch hunt against Mr Ravi.

-----------------

Join publichouse.sg on Facebook:

On 16 July, Mr Wong attempted 3 times to interrupt court proceedings,where Mr Ravi was presenting his cases, to notify the courts of the content of Dr Fones’ letter.

This gave rise to Mr Ravi’s protest that his right to confidentiality had been breached.

Consequently, Mr Ravi sued Mr Wong and the society for defamation. The case is now before the courts. He has also lodged a complaint against the Law Society. Mr Ravi’s latest application on Friday argues that since the society itself is responsible for what had transpired, “each and every member currently therein have shown themselves to be unfit to remain and continue to be Council members of an august and honourable statutory body like the Respondent, much deserving of better leaders at the helm.”

He added that it “is manifestly clear” to him “that by prosecuting such actions with undisguised malice, spite and vindictiveness, without respite and relentlessly, under the authority and complicity of the Council… each and every member currently therein have been tainted with the same malice, spite and vindictiveness.”

Mr Ravi then set out the events which have led to the action he is now taking.

The society’s actions have also been criticised by the Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore which said that Mr Wong’s behaviour had “left a very bitter taste in the mouths and has potentially brought the Bar into disrepute.”

On 24 August, a group of members from the Law Society was reported to plan to file a motion for the society to hold an extraordinary general meeting to explain its behaviour leading to the dispute and controversy. It is unclear if the society will hold the meeting.

Also on 24 August, it was reported that the Law Society had made a court application to order Mr Ravi to be “checked by a psychiatrist from the Institute of Mental Health to determine if he is fit to practise law in Singapore.”

Mr Ravi had in the last two months already consulted with two doctors separately. At the last such consultation which took place on 7 August, Mr Ravi saw Dr Munidasa Winslow. “He was well oriented to time, place and person. He was not depressed and his mood was elevated,” Dr Winslow said.

Dr Winslow, who himself was the former chief of the Addiction Medicine Department at the IMH, said “Mr Ravi would benefit from medication to stabilize his mood” but he added that “this need not be imposed on him.”

We understand that Mr Ravi had submitted Dr Winslow’s medical report to the Law Society, following his consultation.

“I volunteer to work on Sundays, salary being paid as usual as normal working days, without extra compensation.”

Before you think this is illegal, it actually is not. Section 37(2) of the Employment Act states:

An employee who at his own request works for an employer on a rest day shall be paid for that day —

(a) if the period of work does not exceed half his normal hours of work, a sum at the basic rate of pay for half a day’s work;

(b) if the period of work is more than half but does not exceed his normal hours of work, a sum at the basic rate of pay for one day’s work; or

(c) if the period of work exceeds his normal hours of work for one day —

(i) a sum at the basic rate of pay for one day’s work; and

(ii) a sum at the rate of not less than one and a half times his hourly basic rate of pay for each hour or part thereof that the period of work exceeds his normal hours of work for one day."

Simply, if it is the worker who requests to work on his rest day, his employer does not have to pay him up to two days’ worth of salary, as advised in this MOM “Employment Rights of Foreign Workers” advisory:

Hours of Work and Overtime

All work in excess of your contractual working hours shall be considered as overtime work. You can claim overtime pay which is 1½ times your hourly basic pay.

Rest Days

You are entitled to one no-pay rest day each week. However, if your employer asks you to work, you will be paid two days of your basic pay. If you want to work on your rest day and your employer agrees, you will be paid one day of your basic pay.

Public Holidays

For each public holiday that you do not need to work, you will be paid one day of your basic salary. However, if your employer asks you to work on a public holiday, you will be paid two days of your basic salary.

What Yangzijiang seems to be doing is to circumvent the regulations by getting the workers to sign off their work days without the appropriate compensation – with a carefully crafted “Work Report Card.”

As many foreign workers face various restrictive and exploitative situations, they are subject or forced to accept these compensation conditions. It is not improbable that the workers will be pressured to sign onto such conditions, given that if they do not, they could have their work passes cancelled and sent home.

“The Employment act states that a worker who requests to work on a rest day will not be paid double,” explains Mr Jolovan Wham, the executive director of the Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics (HOME). “Only if the work was requested by the employer that double pay needs to be given. But companies always claim in front of MOM that the workers request to work on rest day when in reality if the workers don't, the employer may deduct their salary or they may be seen as trying to be 'funny' and the employer may give them a hard time.”

Cases of salary disputes, as earlier mentioned, have been in the news in recent times and such disputes can take months and even years to be resolved. Migrant aid groups have been urging the Government to do more in not only settling such disputes quicker but also to implement measures to prevent them in the first place. (Read our report on what some of these measures could be, here and here.)

Without a greater – and more urgent – emphasis and enforcement of such measures, employers such as Yangzijiang will continue to try to circumvent current legislations which, evidently, are not appropriate in protecting the 900,000 migrant workers in Singapore.

The Ministry for Manpower has proposed changes to the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (EFMA) and further tightening of the law is expected. However, it should immediately look into companies like Yangzijiang which are attempting to hoodwink the authorities and to exploit the workers.

So I was naturally concerned that this competent educator had decided to quit her job and tried to find out why. This is what I was told. This teacher, who is friendly and open with her students, had shared with them that she was leaving the teaching service to spend more time with her own children. The heavy workload, she explained, had taken her away from her family too much and resulted in her neglecting her children. She had tried going part time, but that didn’t apparently didn’t reduce her workload and responsibilities enough. So she was resigning to, at least for a while, be a full time mum.

It saddened me that this good teacher felt torn between her job and her family. That she felt she had to choose. That her teaching job was so demanding that she could not juggle it with family. This sounds completely imbalanced and irrational. Amidst all this government talk about being pro-family, our very own education service—which deals with practically all the nation’s children everyday—still puts their own staff in positions where educating other people’s children becomes impossible to balance with raising their own. This is a serious disconnect.

This teacher is not unique in her decision. Other women teachers have left the teaching service for this very reason. And some never return. I don’t want to blame individuals within schools or MOE for this. The issue goes beyond individuals—systemic; it’s cultural. We have developed this collective work ethic that places way too much emphasis on achievement and rankings, and does not sufficiently respect this elusive thing called ‘work-life balance’.

But while blame may not rest with individuals, change must start with individuals. And I hope that enough individuals—parents and educators alike—will start to voice their concern over this issue so that eventually we will see change at a broader level.

I grew up in a family of teachers. In my days as a young student, I recall teachers getting home to their families after lunch. School breaks were school breaks. That seems like a very long time ago now.

I hope this very good teacher returns to the teaching service one day. In the mean time, it’s education’s loss.

This is logical, no doubt. Someone has to decide or things stall. And the People’s Action Party (PAP) has always maintained that winning a general election is a mandate from the people, who have expressed through their votes that they fully trust the judgment of the PAP to make the right decisions for the country for the next five years—not an opening for people to engage the Government, question them on everything, ask for accountability or propose alternative ways to do things.

But a politician can only take this stand if he or she is assured of being in power for a considerable period of time. Which is the unique position that the PAP has been in practically its entire existence. It has never really been in danger of losing an election, has dominated parliament since 1966, and enjoyed several walkover elections where it was returned to government before a single vote was cast. Even in the 2011 General Election, when all parliamentary seats, save one,  were contested for the first time since independence, there was no real question of the PAP losing the election. And come 2016, I doubt that scenario will change in any fundamental way though we may continue to see a shift towards having more non-PAP members of parliament if the opposition parties keep their act together.

And now that dissatisfaction with the state of things in Singapore has risen to a fever pitch, with the weaknesses of the PAP model showing through, an  alternative to the PAP is needed more than ever.

The opposition has begun its long, slow climb back up the political ladder. And the parties have made great inroads in 2011, with the Workers’ Party (WP) taking Aljunied GRC. But now—just like there is pressure on the PAP to reform—there is also pressure on the opposition parties to step up in a big way.

It will soon no longer be sufficient to be ‘opposition,’ to voice alternative views or to be a check and balance. The co-driver position put forth by the WP in 2011 must give rise to a full driver’s licence, where an opposition party has the capability to drive the bus and take it in a good direction. That’s what it really means to stand in an election—being prepared to win and able to do the job if you do.

The Reform Party (RP) in the 2011 elections said that it was contesting to become the government—which was an extremely bold claim, but is in principle correct. The RP’s infancy and small size of course meant that this was impossible, but that was the right stance to take—even if it was too forward for many voters here who are used to thinking of the PAP as the de facto government and opposition as vocal backbenchers at best.

Not having the PAP in power is still in the future but it’s inching its way towards us. And Singapore will seriously need a strong alternative if or when the PAP’s way really does fail us. Or we as a country simply outgrow them.

So far the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) has the most fully fleshed out policies and proposals, from its Shadow Budget to its Healthcare Plan and its recent Housing Proposal (which PM Lee Hsien Loong echoed in his National Day Rally speech), and probably has the most clearly defined vision. But no party is yet able to put together a shadow cabinet, to say who could be a finance minister or health minister or prime minister.

This is not to disparage the opposition. Given the huge odds stacked against them, the lack of resources, relatively few willing participants and still limited channels of communication, the opposition has come a long way in the past few years. And there are many admirable, noble politicians and activists in opposition parties who have sacrificed a great deal for their beliefs. Nor is this to lump ‘opposition’ into a single entity. Each opposition party is different and these differences will become amplified as parties are called on to present their ideas and their visions.

It is to say that the non-PAP parties in Singapore have a very important role to grow into. In the current state of things, the PAP is no longer going to have all the solutions. It’s apparent that its style and approach is falling out of favour with many and it no longer enjoys unquestioned support, as it did in the past. The PAP’s policies and top down stance have alienated a large number of people.

It is to say that one day, one of these opposition parties might really have to be government.

The other panel speakers for the forum, which was moderated by former Nominated Member of Parliament, Viswa Sadasivan, were:

Dr Cherian George, Associate Professor, Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information

Leon Perera, member of Maruah

Elaine Ee, freelance writer and editor, publichouse.sg

Kirsten Han, writer, blogger and activist

Richard Wan, editor, TR Emeritus

The forum lasted two hours. Here is Part 1 of the recording.

I’ve noticed that all the measures and campaign so far are based on one thing – to persuade the unmarried to get married and to also have children. I wonder if we are not barking up the wrong tree.

Preaching to, cajoling, persuading a people whose minds are occupied with fear of the costs and burden of having children are not going to change their minds, especially when it comes from the Government. And especially too when it is the same Government which is seen as the cause of the problem in the first place. Cost of living, for example, is a prime example. Another is education – how children are stressed, pressured. Healthcare is expensive and so on.

I would like to offer a suggestion which is slightly different.

Perhaps the Government should stop trying to persuade Singaporeans to get married and have babies. It is not working anyway. And when you have someone like Mr Lee Kuan Yew now speaking in his usual blunt and condescending style, as he did several weeks ago, and with the mainstream media putting his blunt words on the front page, it is making matters worse. Like this:

That sounds like an order, doesn’t it? And sure, that will work. Sigh.

Perhaps a little tweaking of the message is in order.

Instead of incessantly urging Singaporeans to quickly pop some young ones, the Government should focus on helping those who already have children. These are those who, without the Government’s encouragement, went ahead and have babies – and are facing problems now. And if you speak to them, they will roll out a litany of – very valid – concerns.

One of these is education – how their children are facing so much stress in schools. I know of a 10-year old boy whose mother is so stressed each time she tries to get him to do his homework. There are also other parents who find it challenging to guide their kids’ school work. And when they tell of these, they create a climate of fear for those who might be contemplating having children. This perpetuates the mindset that having children is a daunting undertaking, one best left to others.

And that is precisely the thing we must focus on – mindset. The difference is that it is not the mindsets of those who are unmarried which we should focus on but those who already are parents.

I wondered how those who do not have children know so much about (the fears of) having children. And then I realised that this is perhaps perpetuated by those who do have children.

So, isn’t it clear that if we want to encourage Singaporeans to have kids that we should focus on those who already have children and the existing problems they face, rather than try to convince – through incentives, campaigns, admonishments – those who do not have children to have kids?

I thought that was a no-brainer.

So, maybe we should address the problems parents have and see if these can be alleviated or even removed or resolved.

And if we are able to do this, these parents will then become de facto and natural ambassadors who will speak well of having children, instead of perpetuating the fears. They would be much more effective than the Government in delivering the message.

Would you believe the Government or your relatives, friends or colleagues?

The message must be delivered in a more personal, believable, trustworthy way. And the Government cannot do this. Its job, instead, should be focused on helping to address existing problems parents face. And truth be told, we do have the means to address these.

The prime minister’s announcement that his Government is considering giving priority to HDB flats to those with young children is one example. Another could be to grant free schooling to children and free healthcare to children. These are things well within our means to do. After all, isn’t raising our low birth rate a matter of national importance and of top priority?

So, we should not stinge on resources.

Stop trying to persuade Singaporeans to get married and have children – and instead, do all we can to help those who are already parents to make parenting a joy which it should be.

And perhaps then, we will have thousands of ambassadors who will, through very personal and intimate stories, show others that having and raising children are not hard to do. It is, surely, better than having one loud speaker droning on about how we are all doomed and how our nation will “fold up” if we all did not, effectively, do this national service.

Worse than the constant admonishment to have babies, such a message puts people off starting families because it makes it seem like the Government does not care about the problems parents are facing and that all that matters is the number of babies.

It is a very impersonal message to send on something which is entirely very personal indeed.

The organisation describes itself as "an initiative by a group of citizens who strongly believes that there is a need to facilitate the sharing of social, political and economic experiences of those who had, or are eager to contribute to society through reflection and civic discussion." Apart from its vested interest in what it perceives as unfair laws in Singapore, which curb freedom of expression, the group has also organised a series of talks called Changing Worlds which seek to encourage dialogue on topics such as urban planning, economics and art.

In the press release informing the public of the cancellations, Function 8 revealed that the "advisement" came from the National Arts Council (NAC), but this has been denied by Miss Pearl Samuel, the Deputy Director of the National Arts Council's Corporate Communications department. In a phone conversation with publichouse.sg, Miss Samuel assured us that the decisions were made without any intervention from the NAC and that she does not know much about Function 8 or the play Square Moon to tell us if it had broken any guidelines.

Substation's General Manager Miss Emily Hoe whom we also spoke to expressed disappointment at having to make such a decision. "We try and support events that have trouble getting space, but unfortunately we are unable to help in this case." She is unable to provide any further comments.

The Necessary Stage, which is the said programmer for the festival Square Moon was originally slated to be part of, has not gotten back to us.

The answers seem to lead to more questions. The most burning one being the exact grounds on which the play and the books for the launch were penalised. What sentiment or clause in the nation's cultural guidelines did it offend? In view of other plays like Cooling Off Day and The Campaign to Confer a Public Service Star to JBJ ( both staged by Wild Rice which incidentally had its NAC funding cut since 2010), which has dealt with the dicey issue of local politics, why was Square Moon, a play ironically set in a fictional context, considered inappropriate? Moreover, it is understood that the play is currently still seeking approval from the Media Development Authority (MDA). Why then has it been dropped and withdrawn by the venue operator and programmers, when the only agency with the power to decide has not made a decision yet?

"How far are the authorities allowed to override the professional judgements of the programmers that have been hired precisely to pick works that are worth showing?" asked one of the founding members of Function 8, Mr Tan Tee Seng. The organisation is currently seeking an open dialogue on the issue with the relevant authorities and hopes to shed some light on how the arts should be handled in the country.

While some may opine that the arts and activism should not mix, it is good to remind ourselves that art in its many disciplines is a medium with which the individual exercises his/her imagination, there are no limits or taboos. In that effect, the work should be judged based on its merit in execution and not in the nature of its theme. The latter is for the public to discern, not silenced with a heavy hand.

That is of course if the cancellations have anything to do with the subject of the play or the books. With the lack of real answers, one can only hypothesize.

We have also emailed the Ministry for Information, Communications and the Arts (Mica) about the matter. We have yet to receive a reply from them.

The other panel speakers for the forum, which was moderated by former Nominated Member of Parliament, Viswa Sadasivan, were:

Dr Cherian George, Associate Professor, Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information

Leon Perera, member of Maruah

Elaine Ee, freelance writer and editor, publichouse.sg

Kirsten Han, writer, blogger and activist

Richard Wan, editor, TR Emeritus

The forum lasted two hours. Here is Part 1 of the recording.

I’ve noticed that all the measures and campaign so far are based on one thing – to persuade the unmarried to get married and to also have children. I wonder if we are not barking up the wrong tree.

Preaching to, cajoling, persuading a people whose minds are occupied with fear of the costs and burden of having children are not going to change their minds, especially when it comes from the Government. And especially too when it is the same Government which is seen as the cause of the problem in the first place. Cost of living, for example, is a prime example. Another is education – how children are stressed, pressured. Healthcare is expensive and so on.

I would like to offer a suggestion which is slightly different.

Perhaps the Government should stop trying to persuade Singaporeans to get married and have babies. It is not working anyway. And when you have someone like Mr Lee Kuan Yew now speaking in his usual blunt and condescending style, as he did several weeks ago, and with the mainstream media putting his blunt words on the front page, it is making matters worse. Like this:

That sounds like an order, doesn’t it? And sure, that will work. Sigh.

Perhaps a little tweaking of the message is in order.

Instead of incessantly urging Singaporeans to quickly pop some young ones, the Government should focus on helping those who already have children. These are those who, without the Government’s encouragement, went ahead and have babies – and are facing problems now. And if you speak to them, they will roll out a litany of – very valid – concerns.

One of these is education – how their children are facing so much stress in schools. I know of a 10-year old boy whose mother is so stressed each time she tries to get him to do his homework. There are also other parents who find it challenging to guide their kids’ school work. And when they tell of these, they create a climate of fear for those who might be contemplating having children. This perpetuates the mindset that having children is a daunting undertaking, one best left to others.

And that is precisely the thing we must focus on – mindset. The difference is that it is not the mindsets of those who are unmarried which we should focus on but those who already are parents.

I wondered how those who do not have children know so much about (the fears of) having children. And then I realised that this is perhaps perpetuated by those who do have children.

So, isn’t it clear that if we want to encourage Singaporeans to have kids that we should focus on those who already have children and the existing problems they face, rather than try to convince – through incentives, campaigns, admonishments – those who do not have children to have kids?

I thought that was a no-brainer.

So, maybe we should address the problems parents have and see if these can be alleviated or even removed or resolved.

And if we are able to do this, these parents will then become de facto and natural ambassadors who will speak well of having children, instead of perpetuating the fears. They would be much more effective than the Government in delivering the message.

Would you believe the Government or your relatives, friends or colleagues?

The message must be delivered in a more personal, believable, trustworthy way. And the Government cannot do this. Its job, instead, should be focused on helping to address existing problems parents face. And truth be told, we do have the means to address these.

The prime minister’s announcement that his Government is considering giving priority to HDB flats to those with young children is one example. Another could be to grant free schooling to children and free healthcare to children. These are things well within our means to do. After all, isn’t raising our low birth rate a matter of national importance and of top priority?

So, we should not stinge on resources.

Stop trying to persuade Singaporeans to get married and have children – and instead, do all we can to help those who are already parents to make parenting a joy which it should be.

And perhaps then, we will have thousands of ambassadors who will, through very personal and intimate stories, show others that having and raising children are not hard to do. It is, surely, better than having one loud speaker droning on about how we are all doomed and how our nation will “fold up” if we all did not, effectively, do this national service.

Worse than the constant admonishment to have babies, such a message puts people off starting families because it makes it seem like the Government does not care about the problems parents are facing and that all that matters is the number of babies.

It is a very impersonal message to send on something which is entirely very personal indeed.

The organisation describes itself as "an initiative by a group of citizens who strongly believes that there is a need to facilitate the sharing of social, political and economic experiences of those who had, or are eager to contribute to society through reflection and civic discussion." Apart from its vested interest in what it perceives as unfair laws in Singapore, which curb freedom of expression, the group has also organised a series of talks called Changing Worlds which seek to encourage dialogue on topics such as urban planning, economics and art.

In the press release informing the public of the cancellations, Function 8 revealed that the "advisement" came from the National Arts Council (NAC), but this has been denied by Miss Pearl Samuel, the Deputy Director of the National Arts Council's Corporate Communications department. In a phone conversation with publichouse.sg, Miss Samuel assured us that the decisions were made without any intervention from the NAC and that she does not know much about Function 8 or the play Square Moon to tell us if it had broken any guidelines.

Substation's General Manager Miss Emily Hoe whom we also spoke to expressed disappointment at having to make such a decision. "We try and support events that have trouble getting space, but unfortunately we are unable to help in this case." She is unable to provide any further comments.

The Necessary Stage, which is the said programmer for the festival Square Moon was originally slated to be part of, has not gotten back to us.

The answers seem to lead to more questions. The most burning one being the exact grounds on which the play and the books for the launch were penalised. What sentiment or clause in the nation's cultural guidelines did it offend? In view of other plays like Cooling Off Day and The Campaign to Confer a Public Service Star to JBJ ( both staged by Wild Rice which incidentally had its NAC funding cut since 2010), which has dealt with the dicey issue of local politics, why was Square Moon, a play ironically set in a fictional context, considered inappropriate? Moreover, it is understood that the play is currently still seeking approval from the Media Development Authority (MDA). Why then has it been dropped and withdrawn by the venue operator and programmers, when the only agency with the power to decide has not made a decision yet?

"How far are the authorities allowed to override the professional judgements of the programmers that have been hired precisely to pick works that are worth showing?" asked one of the founding members of Function 8, Mr Tan Tee Seng. The organisation is currently seeking an open dialogue on the issue with the relevant authorities and hopes to shed some light on how the arts should be handled in the country.

While some may opine that the arts and activism should not mix, it is good to remind ourselves that art in its many disciplines is a medium with which the individual exercises his/her imagination, there are no limits or taboos. In that effect, the work should be judged based on its merit in execution and not in the nature of its theme. The latter is for the public to discern, not silenced with a heavy hand.

That is of course if the cancellations have anything to do with the subject of the play or the books. With the lack of real answers, one can only hypothesize.

We have also emailed the Ministry for Information, Communications and the Arts (Mica) about the matter. We have yet to receive a reply from them.

And for parents to benefit from the Baby Bonus savings scheme, it depends on how much money they contribute to the scheme in the first place. That is something that better-off parents naturally find easier to do.

Subsidies are given for a certain period of time, and may or may not be renewed, so while they offer temporary relief as needed - and as intended and determined by the government agency that is giving them out - they are not a security blanket.

Subsidies also tend to be fixed dollar amounts, meaning that parents are not protected against fee increases, which happen from time to time. In June 2011, for instance, it was reported that a number of PAP Community Foundation (PCF) kindergartens - which cater to those who find private preschools too expensive - were planning on increasing their school fees because they were losing money and struggling to meet rising operational costs.

On a rough average, a full day preschool programme sets parents back about $700 a month per child. Much cheaper options, such as PCF kindergartens, charge about $100 a month. On the other end of the spectrum, more expensive options cost well more than $1,000 a month per child.

A lot of the stress of paying these fees evaporates once a child enters primary school, because the Education Ministry starts to bear most of the cost of educating a child - and continues to do this through secondary school and junior college - so this is not passed on to parents.

It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to educate a primary school child, but parents are not charged any school fees at all. Some pay only miscellaneous fees that never exceed $11 a month, and a part of this can be paid through Edusave, a government fund that pays for enrichment programmes or extra resources.

In secondary school, fees are $5 a month and miscellaneous fees are capped at $16 a month. Junior college fees are $6 a month, and miscellaneous fees capped at $22 a month. These fees are very affordable. They apply to all Singaporean parents, regardless of income, with subsidies available to those who find even these fees difficult to pay.

Can this approach not be extended to preschool education?

The majority of preschool costs could be borne by the government and not passed on to the parents - who contribute to government revenue anyway through the various taxes that they pay, including Goods and Services Tax, which has risen steadily since it was introduced in 1994.

If we already provide free or close-to-free education for 12 years of a child’s education, can we not do it for a few years more - at least the two years of kindergarten, if not the two nursery years as well?

One could implement this with existing preschools, using accreditation and certification to take them all to whatever is considered a decent and consistent standard, including those run by non-profit organisations.

There would still be room for those preschools that prefer to operate in the privatised sphere outside government funding and that want to charge what they will for those who can afford to pay.

This would remove a huge source of stress for parents with young children, make it just that bit easier. And take Singapore one step closer to being a place where people want to have and raise children.

(The views and opinions expressed by the author and those providing comments are theirs alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of publichouse.sg, inSing.com and SingTel Digital Media Ptd Ltd.)

Comprising of a well organized Public Private Partnership (PPP), the recent launch of the Singapore River One (SRO) initiative on 13 August 2012 brings hope to businesses along the zone between Boat Quay, Clarke Quay and Roberston Quay. These areas,  according to the Singapore Tourism Board figures, are frequented only by 18 per cent of tourists. In the words of the SRO pro-tem chairman, Mr Wilson Tan, who is also the director of CapitaLand and Retail Management, the non-profit grouping comprising of local and foreign board members from government organisations like the Urban Redevelopment Authority and the Singapore Police Force to hotel chains “want to depict the river’s rich history and heritage”, and to “make the Singapore River a must-go destination” (AsiaOne 14 August 2012). History becomes not just a tool for collective memories, but integrated into part of the marketing efforts.

Perhaps a prize catch for the group has been the appointment of Mr Ty Tabing who has been reputed internationally in rejuvenating the Chicago River through his leadership of the Chicago Loop Alliance. Although Tabing has honestly admitted that prior to his new job, the closest he got to Asia was Turkey, he is determined to replicate the North American experience in tropical Singapore (Straits Times, 14 August 2012). On paper, the SRO looks like a wonderful holistic initiative where the group will try to inject a range of exciting events, improve land and water access and most interestingly to address concretely the perennial anti-social problems along the stretch where its approximate 10,000 residents have to endure with drunks and noise every weekend. Nonetheless, this initiative brought me to revisit not just Walter Benjamin’s “Paris”, but also my own memories of the Singapore River.

Shortly after the formal completion of the massive Clean River Campaign that lasted for a decade in 1987, like many Singaporeans led to believe that the aquatic life had returned, I brought my fishing rod to try my luck near what was then the former Immigration Office (now Asian Civilization Museum). I spent an entire morning with no catch and decided to end the day at the Empress Place Food Centre. Back then, there were still remnants of the traditional tongkang trade along the river where bumboats were used to ferry goods from offshore ships. But all that changed where for more than two decades the entire area became one long stretch of lifestyle alfresco dining and discotheques. Life around the river has been completely gentrified where the original residents whose maritime related trades defined the entire Kallang Basin since the1800s were completely displaced to make way for the post-industrial “New Economy”.

At the same time, the organic vibrancy of the Singapore River has also been systematically reduced by the resettlement of entire local communities into public housing estates in the 1960s and 1970s as various districts of the waterway became one yuppie-tourist-expatriate zone.  However posh it may seem, businesses do realize that a completely gentrified area becomes at a certain point rather artificial and contrived, and eventually distancing both the local and tourist populations. It does not help when the emphasis on exciting 24-hours nightlife has devalued the character of the place into endless rows of restaurants, bars and nightclubs and associated with them, touts, drunks, criminals, noise and traffic congestion. While numerical tourist and expatriate numbers may have soared in recent years, they have been mainly pulled away from the Singapore River by attractions such as Marina Bay Sands and Resorts World Sentosa.

Dramatically rising property prices have also pushed the general population away from the Central Business District (CBD), where according to the Singapore Statistics “Resident Population by planning Area, 2011", the heaviest population densities of 250,000-300,000 are found in the corners of the island - in Woodlands in the north, Bedok and Tampines in the East and Jurong West in the West. In fact, according to the Singapore Statistics Newsletter in September 2009, Jurong West registered the largest increase in population of 10,900 people in just one year, followed by 8,200 in Woodlands and 8,000 in Sengkang (p. 8). In contrast, the population density around the CBD is registered as 10,000 and less. With the peripheral areas like the old Rochore Road estate being made to give way to the new North-South Expressway, the number of ordinary Singaporeans residing near the city is expected to dwindle further.  In spite of the expanding transportation networks, it is very unlikely in the near and even intermediate future for commuting times between these zones and the city centre to be shortened and made more pleasant for passengers, many of whom are probably keen to leave their workplaces as soon as possible in the CBD after long hours of work at the offices.

Given the macroeconomic, social and cultural conditions, it seems that the Singapore River, as well as much of the city, will on a routine basis, become more distant for an increasingly larger group of ordinary Singaporeans and even residents in Singapore.  In spite of the acknowledgement of the significance of the Singapore River, the organizational structure and modus operandi of the SRO seem to be narrowly business oriented. In addition, despite mentioning extensive interviews and consultations in its 5-Year Business Plan, I see little evidence adoption of more progressive ideas of social inclusion, environmental sustainability and cultural sensitivity. With neither formal representation of community associations and civil society groups within the organization dominated by business interests, the SRO’s “managerial marketization” seem to place greater value on managerial rather than democratic accountability.

Termed as the “New Public Management”, or NPM, this form of PPP that is based mainly on the individualistic consumer-customer centric KPIs mode of governance that claims market rationality to be as effective as public interests.   Without the more serious considerations to these determinants, it is highly likely that the SRO will turn Singapore River into another commercial template of perhaps a safer wining, dining and clubbing experience for a limited number of tourists and highly privileged expatriates and so called “cosmopolitan” Singaporeans.  As observers like  J.V. Denhardt and R.B Denhardt (2003) point  out: “Citizens are bearers of rights and duties within the context of a wider community. Customers are different in that they do not share common purposes but rather seek to optimize their own individual benefits.” (60) Hence, it is not surprising to see the persistence of anti-social behavior along the pubs and bars of the Singapore River from customers, local and foreign, in a “community-less” place that has little meaning for them.

Not surprisingly, the image of Singapore here seems to resemble Walter Benjamin’s observation of Paris, where we as Singaporeans no longer feel a sense of belonging to the Singapore River regardless of how many museums and historical centres that the SRO will build. Boat Quay, Clarke Quay and Robertson Quay will be reduced to tourist photo-imaginations and extended playpen for the wealthy while real Singapore is pushed into the congested Jurong Point, Causeway Point and Sengkang Mall.

Instead of one Singapore Story, a future Singapore may be a tale of two cities.

Hence, a more urgent task than just merely corporate branding of different zones by a small core of PPP would be for the government to fundamentally reassess its housing policies in putting more ordinary Singaporeans into the heart of the city through highly subsidized housing for the purpose of long term social equality and a healthier geographical distribution. New plots of land that would be freed up by the completion of the construction of the Thomson Line as well as the North South Expressway should be prioritized for affordable public housing. Waterfront activities should not be associated with merely luxurious yachts and boats for the few. Perhaps the state may even consider bringing back smaller scale and less pollutive maritime and lighterage industries that would provide jobs and enliven the area as they had before the Clean River Campaign. Instead of just endless rows of posh restaurants  and bars, some of the shophouses and buildings along the river should be reallocated for community organizations, and arts groups. Personally, I would rather that the memorable Empress Place and Boat Quay hawker centres be brought back instead of having faceless and forgettable standardized rows of al-fresco restaurants and clubs that do not seem to last more than a few years.

Aside from the annual National Day Parade, many Passing-Out Parades of army recruits now take place at the floating platform at Marina Bay. The last thing for these NSmen and Singaporeans to feel is that their National Service is merely about protecting MBS or perhaps a revamped and corporatized Singapore River . An inclusive Singapore is one where having a 3-room Build-to-Order (BTO) apartment facing landmarks of the Singapore River is a workable ideal rather than a preposterous idea. If we want a Singapore Story rather than a tale of two cities, we have to put real Singaporeans back onto the Singapore River, the cradle of our history and our future.

---------------

References

Benjamin Walter (2008).  The work of art in the age of its technological reproducibility and other writings on media. Cambridge, Mass: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Denhardt, J.V. & Denhardt, R.B. (2003). The New Public Service: Serving not  steering. Armonk, NY: M.E.

Department of Singapore Statistics.  Population Trends 2011. http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/popn/population2011.pdf ( Accessed: 6 September 2012)

Jonas, Andrew E. & Linda McCarthy (2009). “Urban management and regeneration in the United States: State intervention or redevelopment at all cost?”, Local Government Studies. 35(3): 299-314.

Hall, Stuart (2011). “The neo-liberal revolution”, Cultural Studies, 25 (6): 705-28.

Pang, Ching Eng (2009). “Geographical distribution of the Singapore resident population” , Statistics Singapore Newsletter.  September. http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/papers/people/ssnsep09-pg8-12.pdf (accessed: 6 September 2012).

Sager, Tore (2009). “Planners’ Role: Torn between dialogical ideals and neo-liberal realities” European Planning Studies 17:1 65-84. Singapore River. Five Year Business Plan (2012-16). http://www.singapore-river.com/pdf/Singapore_River_One_Business_Plan_Small.pdf (accessed: 6 September 2012).

But the forum met with a hitch, as SDP chairman, Mohd Mahmood Jufrie, revealed at the forum. The authorities had wanted to stop the event, saying that the forum was on “sensitive issues” and that a permit was needed. The SDP however insisted that since the event was to be held indoors, there was no need for a permit. Indeed, the Government had changed the law to forego such requirement some years back. In the end, the event was allowed to go ahead – after the SDP paid S$22 for the permit, Mr Jufrie said, to laughter from the audience.

It was a good thing that the event was not barred because there have been rumblings on the ground in recent times among the Malay community about various issues. The organisers of the forum, however, were mindful that it not degenerate into a PAP bashing session, or one which was overshadowed by emotive expressions, a point which Dr Vincent Wijeysingha, the moderator for the afternoon, reminded the audience of. Thankfully, everyone generally stuck to the issues and kept the emotive and Government bashing to the minimum.

The forum is to “discuss several issues including education and economic progress affecting Singapore Malays – and therefore Singapore – with the view to formulating an SDP alternative policy position on the subject,” the party said.

Indeed, one of the main points raised was that minority – especially Malay – issues are not confined to the community alone. The drug problem - seen in some quarters as a predominantly Malay issue - was cited as an example. Instead, such matters were national issues and pigeonholing them as "Malay issues" will have consequences for wider society. It was point reiterated by panelist Mr Walid Jumblatt, who teaches at the Political Science Department at NUS, who explained that social friction and stratification, and a growing socio-economic gap between the Malays and the other races, will emerge if the concerns were not addressed.

Speakers urged that the Malays be not disadvantaged, especially when Singapore has seen an influx of workers from China and India. This has led to sentiments that the Malay community is being further marginalised and has caused more anxiety and feelings of dislocation – within their own country. Of the influx itself, questions were raised on why the Government has allowed such a large number of mainland Chinese and Indians to flood to Singapore when the same is not seen with regards to Malaysians and Indonesians who are our next-door neighbours.

Mr Maarof Salleh, who is the former president of the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS), says Malays are not looking for handouts or entitlements.

Mr Abdul Halim bin Kader, another of the panellists, agreed. Mr Abdul Halim had held several positions within the PAP, including being secretary of the PAP's Kampong Kembangan Branch and deputy chairman for the PAP Bedok Reservoir-Punggol Branch at the Aljunied GRC of which he is still a member. He is a founding member of Yayasan Mendaki and has served as Mendaki's assistant secretary-general. Mr Kadar urged the Malay community to step up and be involved, and for the non-Malays to contribute as well.

One of the more contentious issues raised at the forum was the issue of the political leadership for the Malays. While criticisms have often been hurled at PAP ministers and Members of Parliament for being inadequate in representing the community, Mr Maarof and Mr Abdul Halim said there have been much done in the last few decades. Mr Abdul Halim cited the Malay self-help group, Mendaki, as an example – and the 53 programmes which it has to help those in need.

Mr Walid, however, raised the issue of legitimacy of Malay PAP politicians. He explained that some may have a lower regard or respect for them because of the group representation constituency (GRC) system through which they become MPs. These Malay MPs are seen as riding on or needing to ride on the coattails of other more capable non-Malay candidates to help them into Parliament. While Mr Yaacob Ibrahim, Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts, had helmed the PAP’s Moulmein-Kallang GRC team and led it to victory in last year’s general elections, Mr Walid said he is perhaps an exception. The perception that Malay MPs are somehow less capable remains.

Mr Maarof defended Mr Yaacob and suggested that perhaps the problem lies “upstairs”, referring to the higher-ups in Government, who may not be as cognisant of the issues the Malay community is facing.

A member of the audience suggested that the solution is to vote out the PAP Government. Mr Abdul Halim, however, said this is not the solution because there are no alternatives from the opposition. He urged the opposition parties to do more to let the non-Chinese communities know what they propose with regards to these issues. Only then will these communities have alternatives to choose from.

The forum, which was scheduled for 3 hours, ran a half-hour longer because of the lively exchanges between the panel members and the audience. The SDP says it hopes to hold a second forum on the issue.

Audience members this writer spoke to all agreed that the forum was not only a much-needed one but they were also encouraged and happy with how it turned out. One of the main sentiments was that Singaporeans perhaps are now ready and "mature enough" to discuss openly and honestly these longstanding “sacred cow” issues which needs to be addressed.

It is fitting perhaps that the forum was held on the same day that the Government introduced its own panel of committee members for its National Conversation initiative. Ironically, it is the SDP which has shown how such a conversation can take place – even if the topic for discussion is a “sensitive” one.

More pictures of the forum here.

I have now begun to focus on second-timers.  These are still early days, and results will take a few more months to show.   This means going into next year.  But I am confident that we will have results to show eventually.

This has allowed me to begin to think about how to address the singles’ housing needs.

Since PM’s ND Rally, many more comments and suggestions have surfaced.

Some are quite sound.  For example:

-   Allowing singles to buy BTO flats should not be at the severe expense of married couples;

-   There must be some restrictions on the type of flats that singles are allowed to buy;

-   Singles should not be allowed to rent out the flats;

-   If two singles with 2 BTO flats subsequently get married, one of the flats should be sold;

-   There must be a difference between the subsidy received by a single and a married couple.

There were other suggestions.

For example:

-   The flats sold to singles should be of shorter lease and longer MOP;

-   A higher (than 35) age threshold should be imposed on such BTO applicants.

Property analysts have added to the debate, commenting on the impact of such a policy on the resale market, and in particular on the “shoe-box” market.

I am glad that many Singaporeans have given thoughts to this topic.  That is the value of such national conversation, creating a forum for interested Singaporeans to share their views and suggestions on a common topic.  The Government cannot obviously accept all suggestions, but the informal nature of the consultation allows all views and ideas to be aired and duly considered.

I will continue to mull over this issue.  In any case, I cannot hurry too much as firstly, I need to focus on the immediate needs of the second-timers until they are largely addressed next year.  Secondly, I want to have a better handle over the likely additional demand on new HDB flats when we open the scheme to singles. The additional demand is unlikely to be small and if we misjudge, the interests of the married couples, especially those with children, may be adversely affected.

I suppose one practical approach given the difficulty of assessing demand, is to adopt an incremental approach to implementation.  We can start the scheme with some initial restrictions (e.g. on flat type). This way, we can better ensure the scheme meets the needs of the singles, while still protecting the interests of the married couples.

Another logical way is to launch a larger number of BTO flats next year.  Question is what should that magical number be.  This requires some study, and market research.  Hence, I need some time.

Meanwhile, please continue to let me have your views and suggestions.

In a national conversation such as this one, there will be many differing views on many issues and topics. And the Government is right that there must be an understanding that not everyone's views or suggestions will be taken on board and implemented. I think we can understand that. However, one does hope that we are not going by majority view, or majority vote.

What I hope is for the Government to consider what is right - rather than what is popular (or not popular).

For example: repealing 377A is the right thing to do, even as most S'poreans may be against it. Another example: people of low IQ should not be subject to life imprisonment and caning. They may be a small minority group but it is nonetheless right that they be treated with compassion, even if they do commit serious crimes. Yet another example: public assembly of one person should not be illegal. While most may frown on public protest, nonetheless this should not mean that any one person should have his right taken away just because.

The point is this: Singaporeans want the Government to take the lead, even and perhaps especially on issues which have moral connotations. We want leaders who will do what is right, and lead from the front so that our society is not stuck in stereotype, inertia and navel-gazing.

We want leaders with the gumption to say, "You know what, we have been in this situation for long enough. It is time to take that leap of faith."

So, this national conversation is not just about talking to S'poreans. It is - and must be - more than that.

It is about how the Government should have the moral courage, political will and steadfast leadership to listen, and then to act - and to do so not just with an eye on the economic but also on the spirit.

A week ago, Minister Lim Swee say urged Singaporeans to take ownership of issues. Other ministers have, throughout the years, also urged Singaporeans to take ownership of the country. This is all well and good - except that when you try and do so, you realise that there are restrictions placed in your way. Even a fictitious play allegedly met with the invisible hands of the Ministry for Home Affairs, the Internal Security Department, the National Arts Council, and the Ministry for Information, Communication and the Arts - all seemingly leaning on the organisers and programmers to have that play canned. (See story here.) And attempts to get answers from all the parties involved have been met with either non-answers or complete silence.

And this is but the latest instance. There have been many more such ridiculous gestapo-like behaviour from the authorities. (See here: A chronology of authoritarian rule in Singapore.)

So, how serious is the Government in wanting to change things?

The truth, actually, is that there isn't much to change - the authorities just need to reverse some of these archaic laws and practices, and give S'poreans back the space which have been taken away from them.

In the Sunday Times (9 September), its front page carried this picture and report:

Students as young as 15 were at the forefront of protesting the authorities' plans to implement a "national education" programme in the schools. The authorities eventually relented and decided against the plans after protest (on the streets) by Hong Kongers.

If we can empower our own 15-year olds (and all Singaporeans) with such rights to truly take ownership and express them, and enshrine these rights in unequivocal language in our Constitution, we would indeed have seen a new dawn.

But one fear that such things are not even within the scope of the radar that is the NC.

The question thus remains: is the NC willing and able to look at these "unpopular" issues and be bold in leading the call for changes with regards to these?

At the moment, there are no signs that it is.

And that perhaps is the greatest doubt about the NC - that it will continue to protect these "sacred cows" and fence them up behind electrical wires.

But if the NC is courageous enough to recommend such changes, and these are accepted by the Government, then we would have empowered Singaporeans - and we would no longer need a national conversation in future, for Singaporeans would be able to truly express themselves whenever they feel the Government has done something wrong.

Not needing a national conversation in future would depend on the results of this NC. And it would, in fact, be the greatest achievement of this NC initiative if empowering Singaporeans were its legacy.

Will the National Conversation turn out to be nothing more than an inconsequential footnote in history? Or a momentous undertaking which - finally - stirred the hearts and spirits of Singaporeans through genuine empowerment?

Secondly, the tenor of online voices is not all hate speech. There are some truths that the government urgently needs to stop sweeping under the carpet. It is undeniable that the influx of foreigners created unrest in the social fabric of Singapore. Yet since last year’s general election, the government has taken every opportunity they have to reinforce their old idea that foreign workers are absolutely indispensible to the development of oureconomy.

The SPP prefers to address the larger issue with sound policy ideas, not by reprimanding Singaporeans misguidedly.

The crux of the matter is that we desperately need to grow our economy without over-reliance on cheap foreign labour. The distinguished former civil service chief Mr Ngiam Tong Dow has recently recommended that the government administer a $100 million fund to aid local entrepreneurs. This is an example of a fresh idea to grow our economy. Perhaps is it time to do a stock take on how much incentives were given to create jobs over the last 10 years –  more specifically, how many local jobs were created among thereported job creation figures.

We fear that by playing up the xenophobia card, the government is inadvertently painting a worse image of Singapore and Singaporeans to the outside world than is in fact the case.

The government should change their style of rhetoric, if they are serious about having a national conversation with Singaporeans.

Mrs Lina Chiam, NCMP

Chairman, Singapore People's Party