The SDP's Alternative Economic Programme Part 1: The GDP, productivity and you

Home

The Party

Our Manifesto

Singapore Democrats

The SDP's Alternative Economic Programme presented herein discusses the structure and present state of the Singapore economy. It provides an analysis of the problems that beset our economic system and, more importantly, makes concrete, workable, and realistic alternative proposals.

This report is divided into three main sections:
a. Economic Growth And How It Affects You
b. Rich Man, Poor Man
c. The Trouble With Savings

These sections will be discussed in several parts with alternative proposals made at the end of each section. We begin with Part 1: The GDP, productivity and you.

Part 1: The GDP, productivity and you

The health of an economy is usually measured by the Gross Domestic Product, or GDP. The GDP is effectively the total amount or value of all the goods produced and services transacted within a country in a year. Obviously the more a population produces, the greater is the GDP and the higher is the standard of living. Or is it?

Gross Domestic Problem

The truth is that the GDP is not really a good measure of a country's economic well-being. Yes, it tells us how much is being produced but, beyond this, not much more. It says nothing about how that growth benefits the different strata of society. A rich teenager making a couple of thousand dollars from a stock market bull run and a single mother holding down two jobs to make the same amount of money both contribute toward the GDP. A company that pays handsome bonuses to its directors and another that doles out painful retrenchment benefits to its workers both do their part in boosting the GDP.

Furthermore, the GDP does not distinguish between economic transactions that enhance society’s well being and those that harm it. Fathers out entertaining their clients are looked on favourably as far as GDP growth is concerned, whereas those who stay home and read to their children are not. Clearly, the GDP is a very limited, even deceptive, indicator of how well an economy is doing.

Another problem with GDP is that it doesn't tell us how the wealth generated benefits the different segments of society. Income inequality can, and has shown to, increase even as the GDP rises. (The subject of income disparity will be discussed in detail later.) What Singapore needs is a more clinical approach when it comes to measuring the economic well-being of its people. An alternative means to doing this is discussed later.

Falling productivity

Another, and perhaps more sensitive, indicator of economic well-being is productivity. To a large extent how well an economy performs depends on the productivity of its workers. Productivity is the measure of how efficient a workforce is, that is, how much it produces with a given amount of input such as time, labour, capital, etc. In technical terms productivity is usually determined by the output of the labour process per unit input. Unit input is usually measured in time. Productivity is said to increase if composition output of labour increases while the amount of labour time needed for this increase remains either unchanged or decreases.

From this standpoint it is not difficult to see how the measure of productivity gives us an indication of the quality of life. If, for instance, worker Tom makes ten computers in one year and his friend Jerry makes the same number of computers in half that time because of superior technological know-how. This means that Jerry is more productive. More important he gets to have more time to do other things, including pursuing leisure activities. Jerry's quality of life is enhanced.

With this in mind, let's take a look at the productivity situation in Singapore. Our productivity level has been falling since 2005, registering a precipitous drop in 2008. This trend continued into 2009.

This is despite the long hours that Singaporeans spend working. An International Labour Organisation (ILO) report showed that among 12 countries surveyed in 2008, Singaporean workers clocked in the most number of hours.

According to the Department of Statistics, the average weekly hours that our workers put in is 46 hours (the standard weekly work hours is 44). Workers in the construction and manufacturing sectors clock in at 52 and 50 hours/week respectively, way over the standard.

But while Singaporeans work the longest hours, their real wages have declined. The ILO report found that while a majority of countries could maintain declining but positive wage growth in 2008, Singaporeans experienced “falling monthly wages in real terms” with real wages slipping one per cent.

This is like our friend Tom. Not only is the poor guy taking longer to produce the same number of computers than Jerry, but he also finds himself working overtime everyday. On top of this, he finds his pay reduced.

And so we have this picture of our economy: Productivity is sliding, Singaporeans are putting in longer hours at work and real wages are declining. This cannot, by any stretch of the economic imagination, be considered a successful economic strategy.

So what is the PAP's response to all this? Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew chided Singaporeans for getting soft:

We tell them, look, they have got to work harder or they’ll become stupid. It’s just that they don’t see the point of it. Why race when you can canter and save your energy and do other things? Art, ballet, sports whereas these new migrants, they spend all their time slogging away in the library or at home.

Art? Ballet? Sports? Already Singaporeans work the most hours compared to many other countries with real incomes falling. How is anyone supposed to have time for leisure? Even the elderly can't retire, the number of older Singaporean men working is at a record high. Is it any wonder then that in a survey conducted by Taylor Nelson Sofres (TNS) Singaporeans were found to more likely have suffered from depression, stress and fatigue than most of their Asian counterparts?

And to remove any doubt that he is completely tone-deaf when it comes to inspiring workers, Mr Lim Swee Say, minister in charge of the National Trades Union Congress, exhorts workers to work "faster, cheaper and better.”

All said, it is clear that the PAP's economic strategy, if you can call it a strategy, is to compel people to work longer and harder, and for less.

An old problem

The question of productivity did not just arise recently. The SDP raised this issue as early as 2005. We cited the questionable productive nature of our economy. In his book A Nation Cheated, Dr Chee Soon Juan wrote: "Singapore’s labour productivity...is notoriously mediocre." He went on to cite the influx of foreign workers which "expeditiously and artificially inflate[d] GDP figures." This, he added, was problematic especially in the absence of "a concomitant increase in labour productivity."

Stanford University economist Lawrence Lau explained that a more accurate picture of an economy’s performance can be obtained by studying the differential between all the resources that go into increasing economic output (including capital investment and education) and the GDP. He worked out a mathematical model to test his assumptions. When he applied his calculations to Asian economies, he found that some Asian countries produced high economic growth without showing corresponding increases in qualitative output in productivity. Singapore, in particular, stood out.[1]

An economist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Alwyn Young, went a step further and compared capital investment against worker efficiency in Singapore’s economic growth patterns. He found that increased levels of capital investment could account for all of Singapore’s growth. In fact, through the most part of the 1960s, 70s and 80s, the output share of capital investment in Singapore increased from 11 percent of GDP in 1960 to more than 40 percent. But what is alarming is that very little, if any, growth is due to increased worker efficiency—that is, to the quality output of workers.[2]

This compares rather unfavourably to countries like the United States. Economists have estimated that approximately 80 percent of the rise in per capita income in America stems mainly from the productivity and efficiency of the workers themselves. Capital investment accounts for only the remaining 20 percent. Even the Japanese show a much higher rate of labour-efficiency growth. Singapore’s labour productivity, as pointed out, is notoriously mediocre. For example, in the retail industry, it is estimated that Singapore’s productivity is only 50 percent of its economy, compared to 70 percent in Japan and 80 percent in the United States.[3]

Another study pointed out that compared with workers from India, Taiwan, and the Philippines, Singaporean workers are rated as lacking imagination and adaptability.[4]

Young says compared to Hong Kong our overall economic performance has not grown any faster. Yet Singapore has spent much more of its resources in propping up that growth, a clear indication that the PAP Government has not invested the island-republic’s capital very efficiently through the decades. Young noted:

While the Hong Kong government has emphasised a policy of laissez faire, the Singaporean government has, since the early 1960s, pursued the accumulation of physical capital via forced national savings and the solicitation of a veritable deluge of foreign investment…Singapore has one of the lowest returns to physical capital in the world. The days in which Singapore can continue to sustain accumulation driven growth are clearly numbered.[5]

Another telling statistic is our public debt as a percentage of GDP. According to the latest estimates for 2009 from the CIA World Factbook, the figure for Singapore is 117.6 percent, making us one of the highest in the world – ranking sixth out of 126 countries surveyed. Hong Kong, on the other hand, ranks near the bottom at 110 with only a public debt of only 18.1 percent of GDP. This is a clue as to how Singapore derives its wealth which is primarily through the myriad of tax and savings schemes. Hong Kong, on the other hand, thrives on the energy and enterprise of its people.

Furthermore, a PriceWaterHouseCoopers report in 2006 found that the "average Singapore household is one of the most indebted in the world." At 174 percent of the personal disposable income, the household debt in Singapore surpasses that of even Britain (116 percent), Japan (100 percent) and the United States (90 percent).[6] As a percentage of GDP, Singapore's total household-sector financial liabilities stands at, according to the Monetary Authority of Singapore, 85 percent in 2004. This compares with 60 percent in Hong Kong. Much of this debt can be attributed to the ballooning of HDB loans. With the skyrocketing of HDB prices in recent months, the household debt of Singaporeans would no doubt escalate as well.

Analyst Dan Fineman also questions the wisdom of Singapore’s economic strategy. He points out that Singaporeans are deprived of disposable income by numerous (hidden) taxes, fees and expenses as can be observed by the fact that they consistently consume a share of GDP 10-20 percentage points below that of their counterparts in Hong Kong.[7]

Economist and Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman said of Singapore's economic system: “One can immediately conclude that Singapore is unlikely to achieve future growth rates comparable to the past.” This is because when quantitative accounting is performed, an “astonishing result emerges: all of Singapore’s growth can be explained by increases in measure inputs. There is no sign at all of increased efficiency.”[8]

Further confirmation of Singapore's economic predicament comes from a comparison of the rates at which emerging markets approximate the productivity of the industrialised countries. Among Asia's Tiger economies, Singapore ranks the lowest.[9]

Hong Kong   2.0
Taiwan     0.8
Thailand 0.1
Korea          -0.2
Indonesia    -1.2
Malaysia     -1.8
Singapore    -3.5

In a nutshell, the way that Singapore has gotten rich is not through efficient use of our resources and innovative production. Rather it has been through squeezing more and more out from a limited resource, that is, the people. But like the sugarcane-juice seller, as the cane is passed through the crusher less and less juice comes out with each squeeze. There comes a time when all that is left is pulp.

Read also
Introduction: SDP's alternative economic programme

Share this article:

Comments (15)

Fri 05 Feb 2010 9:36 PM | BryanT - Too late today....to weigh in

This first article to discuss SDP's stand on and proposals for the economy comes after Today reported on the opposition parties' response to the ESC proposals.

It reported that WP plans to respond during the budget debate in parliament, and SPP may also do likewise.

While being critical of some aspects of the ESC report, RP and NSP offered some suggestions (even if most are not too original). Notable was the fact that RP was even ready with a media statement – an indication of its preparedness, and readiness to serve the media so that they can serve the party.

However, SDP's contribution (or rather, lack of) was again prominently pointed out. It was relegated in the article to a “meanwhile”. It's thrust was distinctly negative and monotonous - that the report was simply “old wine in a new skin”.

Although there was mention of the impending alternative proposals by SDP in the next few days and weeks, the media opportunity would have already passed it by. WP and SPP may still get some media airtime on when both MPs make their views heard in parliament in March. But nobody in the MSM will be quoting SDP's rather extended (and late) study into our economic and social problems when it is eventually published. Yet another opportunity has passed it by.

Of course, its supporters here will remind us that the party can't be bothered with the MSM because the latter will never put the party in any good light. At last, this is probably what people call a self-fulfilling prophecy.

http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC100204-0000136/Opposition-parties-weigh-in

Sat 06 Feb 2010 12:17 AM | AhKow

Another BryanT classic:

BryanT says:"While being critical of some aspects of the ESC report, RP and NSP offered some suggestions (even if most are not too original). Notable was the fact that RP was even ready with a media statement – an indication of its preparedness, and readiness to serve the media so that they can serve the party".

Here he says RP and NSP offered some suggestion but can he point them out what they were?

No he can't. So next tactic, distract by talking about "preparedness" and "readiness" to "serve the media" -- whatever that means. Not a word about what was suggested by RP or NSP.

Yet, in his previous rant he complains that SDP often distract people's attention by talking about "freedom" -- a word he don't like.

New he distract people by taking about "serving the media" when he claims to be pointing out the strength of other parties vis-a-vis SDP but can't point out where the strengths are.

You see BryanT's agenda is to -- in his own word -- agitate (read violent) destruction of the SDP!

Sat 06 Feb 2010 12:35 AM | Robox

How typical of the PAP's approach to economic issues, one that BryanT has obviously imbibed as an important Economics 101 lesson: the management of the economy - like so much else in Singapore - is a strictly short term endeavour and should be likened more to a 100m dash than to a marathon.

As such, it is supremely important that reactions to the ESC be swift, or it is not valid.

Is it any wonder with such PAP-initiated attitudes then that the Singapore economy is still standing on shaky ground after all these decades of economic 'miracle' after 'miracle'? Is it any wonder then - with the PAP-cum Stupid Cow BryanT atitudes - that the Singapore economy is routinely being seen to be in need of a major overhaul every now and then? Not that anything really changes when the formula for taking a Third World economy to the status of a tiger economy remains the only paradigm for economic growth that the PAP has at its disposal.

Still the bloody poison spewing snake BryanT will spew absolutely no venom at the even more laggard all-Chinese WP who might only manage to 'respond during the budget debate in [the next] parliament'. None of his toxic venom for the one man party known as the Chiam See Tong Party either;the CSTP may - or may not - respond in parliament and as belatedly as the WP.

BryanT, comment on the contents of the article, you bitch. But I'll bet that you cannot because you don't even have the werewithal to discuss economic issues with any conviction.

The only thing you can do here is to spew your PAP venom and bitch incessantly.

Sat 06 Feb 2010 12:49 AM | Robox

A couple more things Stupid Cow BryanT:

1. What will happen to Singapore's economy now that RP and NSP were - according to you - the first to cross the finish line with their proposals? Have you studied those proposals, assuming that you can even make head AND tails of it, and considered its applicability to the current situation?

2. What will happen to Singapore's economy in the event that there is greater coverage of the WP's AND CSTP's proposals in the so-called mainstream media? Or you just saying this because of the well-known spitefulness towards the SDP that you carry in your stinking little heart?

3. Will RP's, NSP's, WP's and the CSTP's COMBINED proposals be able to match the SDP's far more extensive - and already, seemingly far more detailed and substantial - several-part proposals?

BryanT: I have a challenge for you which I hope you will very seriously consider taking up.

You had previously mentioned that you had a son. Why don't you inform him of your activities here (give him details such as your toxic moniker), get him to log on to this website.

I put it to you that if you are proud of what you do here - I mean genuinely proud of being the Supreme Bitch that you are - you would be proud enough for your son, and even the rest of your family and friends, to witness you in operation here.

Sat 06 Feb 2010 2:21 AM | quantum

It is not that SDP is not bothered by the MSM. It is just that there is nothing the SDP can do about the MSM without compromising its own written principles. The SDP stands out amongst all political parties because it does not betray its principles, just as the US politicians do not betray the US constitution.

But one thing is for sure, SDP is not bothered by you.

Sat 06 Feb 2010 11:31 AM | nobody

Aiyoh! Come on! Do not be too harsh on the sdp and other oppositions, mind you, do you think opposition’s critics and the ruling party’s supporters are being too demanding on the oppositions taking into considerations limited resources, in actual facts and reality, close to none that the oppositions have, don’t you?

Just imagine, the idiotic million-dollar miw having annual exorbitant remunerations coupled with the full support of the whole very well paid top-civil-servants cum top echelon of the corporate honchos can only produce *ESC report proposing on the future use of nuclear energy as well as relocating museums, art exhibitions and theaters underground*, in respective and relative, sdp with no resources other than its own party supporters can provide alternative economic system, do you think if sdp and/or other opposition parties have the opportunity to form the next government with the full support of the civil service and business sector can do a more amazing, marvelous and fantastic job than this bunch of idiotic ingrates of the miw, don’t you?

Hence, I strongly opine that we, the true-blue or simply born and bred Singaporeans should give SDP and other opposition parties the benefit of doubt and not just brush them off as accordance to the philosophies and ideologies of the contemptible million-dollar useless nerds of the miw!

Indeed, I am really relaxing and optimistic about Singapore’s future with this group of undaunted, brave, diligent and assiduous opposing voices! Singapore will not sink!!!!!

Kowtow to democracy, freedom of speeches and expressions, last but not least to the respectable opposition parties which give feeble, gullible and credulous born and bred Singaporeans an alternative to choose from, other than under the tyranny rules of the despicable, mercenary and insatiable miw.

Keep up with all the good works done, all opposition parties especially SDP!

Sat 06 Feb 2010 12:25 PM | Robox - The PAP's Obsession With The GDP

Re: "The truth is that the GDP is not really a good measure of a country's economic well-being. Yes, it tells us how much is being produced but, beyond this, not much more."

The truth in the above statement can be determined even if one were to take an unscientific and unscholarly approach to the topic of the GDP. To illustrate with examples, according to the 2009 list by the same CIA World Factbook cited in the article above, Belgium's GDP was USD461500m placing it 20th among the 191 countries in the survey, but India's GDP was USD1243000m ranking it the 12th highest GDP in the world.

Yet, without giving the matter any further thought, is anyone now prepared to conclude that, based on the last year's GDP figures, the average Indian citizen lives better - economically and financially - than the average Belgian?

(At this juncture, and as a public service to those who might find themselves conned by the PAP's hype over China, it has been projected that China's economy - ie. it's GDP - will become the world's largest in about a decade. It is also projected that China is expected to retain it's status for another thirty years after that until India overtakes it as the world's largest economy. The world's largest GDP, that is. Yet, even in the next four decades, the average citizen of neither India or China is expected to be living better economically and financially than the average American. Or Belgian. Perhaps even the average American or Belgian of 2010. So much for all that hype.)

But the PAP has managed for the longest time to throw smoke in the eyes of Singaporeans as well as the international community, exploiting ignorance on economic matters to the hilt, by trumpeting the economic 'miracle' that Singapore supposedly is.

I know that this is repetition from discussions last year, but I do think that for many subjects, repetition is exactly what is needed to effect public education. This is my contribution just to the subject so that readers are properly oriented to what GDP actually is, and why as the article mentions, it is not the all-important statistic that the PAP has misled Singaporeans into believing it is.

If GDP per capita (or GDP per person) = (Total) GDP *divided by* the number of people in the workforce, then it follows that:

GDP = GDP per capita *times* the number of people in the workforce

It can thus be concluded that to increase GDP, the government can either:

a) increase the GDP per capita; and/or,

b) increase the size of the workforce; and/or,

c) increase both of the above.

However, as the article correctly notes, the main way of increasing the GDP per capita is by doing everything possible to increase productivity, which the article points out has not been a major contributing factor to GDP in Singapore. This has left the PAP with the ONLY quick-fix and unsurpassably LAZY option in GDP increase: importing foreigners since a natural increase in the Singaporean population has not been forthcoming to the desired degree.

I stand corrected if I am wrong about the following, but from what I understand from discussions on ministerial income, a cabinet minister's income consists of:

a) a base salary;

b) a discretionary component - a performance bonus - decided on by the PM; and,

c) a variable component determined by the GDP in any given year - I understand that the entire civil service, a vote bank made secure for the PAP with the PAP's refusal to give concrete assurances to the electorate that their vote is indeed secret, also enjoys this variable component in their annual bonuses.

It is with c) above that the reader also needs to bear in mind in any discissions on the Singapore economy: it is abundantly clear that the PAP's GDP obsession has an undeniable self-serving element to it.

Sat 06 Feb 2010 12:45 PM | Robox - PAP Bankrupt For Ideas On Raising Productivity

[Quote]

But while Singaporeans work the longest hours [among the 12 countries in the ILO report], their real wages have declined...And to remove any doubt that he is completely tone-deaf when it comes to inspiring workers, Mr Lee Swee Say, minister in charge of the National Trades Union Congress, exhorts workers to work "faster, cheaper and better.”

[Endquote]

Very tragically, the above reflects a rampant mindset - the PAP government and employers being the guiltiest parties - when Singaporeans talk about productivity, and specifically how it can be raised. However, even casual observation of the average Singapore workplace will reveal that what passes for increases in productivity usually falls under.

1. faster: to exhaust the average Singaporean worker even more than s/he is already exhausted

2. cheaper: lately, cheaper has come to mean cheaper labour costs to the employer ie. lower incomes

3. working longer: this is usually the recommendation by employers who have absolutely no clue about how output per hour can be increased without having to work more hours and at a lower output per hour

4. better: a dubious claim at best

In short, increases in productivity are never about increases in the quality of worker output given the same, or even less, worker input. The article cites two authors who - Lawrence Lau and Alwyn Young - who corroborate this with evidence of their own.

Sat 06 Feb 2010 12:57 PM | quantum

BryanT accuses SDP of covert actions. What actions is he talking about SDP, that is covert and not above board. On the other hand, BryanT should identify himself, and who is he working for, and explain why he seems intend to destroy SDP.

Sat 06 Feb 2010 1:01 PM | Robox - The HDB Problem

Re: "Much of this debt can be attributed to the ballooning of HDB loans. With the skyrocketing of HDB prices in recent months, the household debt of Singaporeans would no doubt escalate as well."

HDB policy has always been one of two major bugbears to me. (The other one is CPF.)

First, I believe that the fundamentals - the who, what, why, where, when, and how - of public housing needs very seriously to be revisited; I regard HDB policy as long having lost its way from the purpose it was originally meant to serve.

As public housing, with a strong element of social housing infused in it, HDB flats should as far as possible not be allowed as speculation in real estate with a view to windfalls in profits; it is antithetical to the idea of affordable housing for those most in need of it when speculators in HDB property drive prices up from their speculative activities.

This is what I feel has been allowed more of that has resulted in the most recent substantial increases in HDB property, and is due in a great part to:

1. the massive influx of foreigners;

2. who easily qualify to buy HDB flats;

3. but don't intend to make Singapore their permanent home;

4. and who end up buying HBD flats;

5. and who sell their flat - and always for a healthy profit - before taking off for greener pastures than Singapore.

A speculative bubble is set up in exactly such a scenario, and the people who pay are those who live permanenetly in Singapore.

Sat 06 Feb 2010 7:39 PM | quantum

In 2001, Mr Goh Chok Tong said:

"I was also quietly satisfied that we realised our vision of reaching the 1984 Swiss standard of living last year. In 1984, we had set this as a target to be achieved by 1999, but we missed it by one year because of the crisis."

Do you agree that we have reached the Swiss standard of living?

Sun 07 Feb 2010 12:49 AM | BryanT

Ah Kow, RP and NSP did make some suggestions beyond what the ESC recommended, or at least that is that both parties believed. I don’t think the suggestions were particularly good or original, but my opinion is not particularly pertinent to my earlier comment engagement of the MSM. That is why even though I COULD have quoted the suggestions, I DIDN’T. There was nothing to hide, since the suggestions are theirs.

To know what RP and NSP (and since today, SDA as well) suggested, I recommend that you visit their party websites and FBs to read for yourself, first hand. Maybe you can consider writing a comment here on your views of their suggestions so that we can have a discussion here on their merit.

-----

Quantum, you said that “there is nothing SDP can do about the MSM without compromising its own written principles”. I don’t think engaging the MSM is against any principles. For political parties, it is a necessity.

Other opposition parties have allowed themselves to engage the MSM or be engaged. They have wisely recognised that to communicate to the people effectively, the MSM is an expedient means, even though some caution is needed.

A case in point is a report by ST today on Page B2. It reported on an opposition party (best left unnamed here) which welcomed the incoming US ambassador's remarks that he intends to “use public diplomacy to work towards greater press freedoms, greater freedom of assembly and ultimately more political space for opposition parties in Singapore to strengthen Singapore into a multi-party democracy.” The opposition party also pointed out the government’s efforts to raise barriers-to-entry to opposition parties’ participation in elections.

The messages got through because this particular opposition party recognises the useful of the MSM, even in bringing across statement unfavourable to the ruling party. No principles were breached.

SDP’s reticence with the MSM is NOT one of principle, but one of face. Having “thrashed” the MSM and reiterated MSM's apparently hostility to SDP over the years, the party is left abashed to have to admit that it may have to rely on the MSM to reach the people. Recognising that its website and newsletter have limited reach, that is why it can only (uncreatively) resort to illegal CD activities to publicise its causes.

Sun 07 Feb 2010 1:38 AM | Clear eyed - Surpassing the Swiss Standard of Living

quantum, when Goh Chok Tong said that 'we realised our vision of reaching the 1984 Swiss standard of living last year", he was talking about himself and the rest of the MIW and their stooges and cronies. And yes, they have not just reached, but SURPASSED the Swiss standard of living.

Sun 07 Feb 2010 6:33 PM | quantum

BryanT:

SDP uncreative? Maybe, maybe not. But the more important question is : are they right? This is important, because a 100 years down the road, everything will be reflected in the history texts.

Mon 08 Feb 2010 11:39 AM | quantum

>> I find this video on the Stanley Prison Experiment enlightening.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0jYx8nwjFQ&feature=related

Please login or register to post your comments.

Joomla components by Compojoom

Singapore Democrats on Facebook

Act Now

Support Democracy!

The party that stands up for you

More options to donate

Support SDP , buy our 30th Anniversary Magazine here

Awesome Words

“And that is why I swore never to be silent whenever and whereever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”

Elie Wiesel

Other languages

Poll Results on...


Which issue concerns you most at this time? Government's ban on peaceful protests Demonstrations at Speakers' Corner Voting in the opposition Defamation suit held in open court Mas Selamat's escape Mr Wong Kan Seng's resignation Opposition parties cooperation Should LKY step down? Do you support the sale of wet market?

Singapore Democrats

Act Now

Ads

Awesome Words

Other languages

Poll Results on...

Login

News feeds

Most Read Articles

Latest Articles