1Negative Constructive

By Li Ning, Ian Tay, Elisha Koh

Negative Case

1. There is no reason to change anything with the current electoral process. The reason the PAP has been dominant for so many years is because it has earned its respect and therefore many Singaporeans, although grudgingly, know that the PAP still is the only party that can and will uphold Singapore. After all if the public really wants more voice in parliament that just vote against the PAP.

2. Singapore is a democracy in practice as well as theory. Yes, the ruling People's Action Party has 81 out of 87 seats, and the power to rule Singapore has been kept by the PAP since the beginning of Singapore. But British parliamentary politics have heavily influenced Singapore and opposition is legal; unfortunately for them they just don't win and that explains the great ratio gap of PAP MPs and opposition MPs.

3. A natural reaction for the affirmative team to these facts is to assume massive corruption. But when you delve deeper, you'll find almost no supporting evidence for these suspicions.  Singapore gets stellar scores on Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index.  Even more amazingly, the World Bank's Governance Matters index gives Singapore near-perfect scores in almost every area making Singapore’s government is virtually uncorrupt.

4. Instead of looking at Singapore as a democratic country, we should compare it to democratic cities.  EX: In the United States, there are many major cities where one party wins supermajorities year after year.  In San Francisco, democratic mayors have continuously ruled longer than Singapore has been an independent country!  And although corruption strongly influences American urban politics, corruption is hardly necessary for one-party rule as the PAP shows.

5. Why is it easier for a one-party city to exist as opposed to a one-party country?  There are probably a lot of reasons, but the most obvious is that smaller polities (measured in terms of both population and land area) are less diverse.  3 million people squeezed into a few square miles might converge on a single worldview. If Singapore had a hundred times as many people as it does, it would be a lot more likely for the PAP to have multiple hard competitors.

6. From the recent election, the PAP’s win was big but fell from the last election. This drop in the supporters for PAP did not go unnoticed. Singapore’s Prime Minister said, “The PAP will analyze the results of the election, learn from what has emerged from this General Election, put right what is wrong, improve what can be made better, and also improve ourselves to serve Singaporeans better." Therefore, if the people really do not want PAP in power than VOTE against them.

7. Even if the affirmative team’s plans were instituted, there would be many disadvantages and issues with them.
   1. Their first plan was to tie electoral boundaries to townships. This seems like one of the issues affecting the “fairness” of Singapore’s voting currently but if you look closer, there is actually no need to change the government’s gerrymandering. The reason is simple. There is nothing unfair about the fact that the PAP is in power. The gerrymandering they did would not have ever made a difference if the public voted against the PAP. Therefore, if the affirmative team took this practice of the PAP away, it would not have any negative effect if all the same people still voted for the PAP.

8. Regarding the affirmative team’s plan to replace the current GRCs with SMCs. Also another issue with their plan is inherency. In the recent election, there were two SMCs running in the election so their plan has already been happening

9. Regarding the implementation of the STV, I would say that that would actually be a plan worth considering. I agree that that system of voting would be fairer on voters. However, changing the voting system would be a major task and it will only have minimal benefits opposed to the immense cost. Therefore, the only way the affirmative team can solve any of the “issues” is to vote the opposition out, and from the recent election, I believe that the majority of Singapore does not have a problem with the PAP in power.

10. The negatives “problem” with the PAP gerrymandering is not actually a problem at all. If the public sincerely does not appreciate the PAP, the can and will vote against them. Therefore, regardless of whether the PAP is or is not gerrymandering, a change with the electoral process would have little effect in making the process “fairer.”

11. What the negative team is proposing now is a change in the electoral process. Their plan has many DAs but if somehow it works, there would be a major conflict in parliament with a close power struggle. As we all know, in the past, power struggles between two parties have rarely ever ended with one side nicely being courteous and saying, “Go ahead you can be more powerful than us.” NO!!!! The more common outcome, as history can show, is political instability. This would eventually lead to economical instability and then social instability. At worst, a civil war could break out in Singapore and one day many decades later, parents would be telling stories to their kids about the Great Civil War that started just because some people thought that “more voice in parliament, which would come from more opposition, was a great idea.

12. Basically, what the affirmative team believes is that Singapore’s electoral system needs change but what we as the negative team believe is that change is not necessary. This change is change that we CANNOT believe in.   

1 Affirmative Constructive

By Jerel Lim and Aaron Fong

Affirmative Case

~ It's Just A Guideline.

1AC

Intro:

“I don’t know what to say….” (Stomp, stomp). You know who I’m talking about… In the recent election of 2011, candidates of such low quality and naivety were voted into Parliament. Taxpayers are paying $15,000 to these MPs of low calibre; These MPs are “our voice”. Will they do their job of expressing the views of the people, and to make a stand for it in parliament? Or will they just not know what to say?

The Resolution:

Therefore, the affirmative team stands resolved that: The Singapore Parliament should substantially reform the electoral process.

Definitions:

Following that I would like to define a few terms here:

• Substantially reform means any change from what it is now to something different.
• Electoral process means the stuff and process pertaining to the elections of Singapore.
• A GRC is a Group Representative Constituency.
• The SMC is a Single Representative Constituency.
• A MP is a Member of Parliament.
• The PAP is the People’s Action Party
• Opposition means any party that is not the PAP.

Background:

• George Yeo and Nicole Seah are some of the “casualties” of the current GRC system.
• People like Tin Pei Ling benefited from the GRC system by hiding under the umbrage of Goh Chok Tong, SM of Singapore.- 50,000 people liked the “I don’t want Tin Pei Lin in parliament “and 70,000 people liked the “Petition to remove TPL as a MP” on Facebook.
• The GRC is a double edged sword. Meaning that stars such as George Yeo were voted out, while naive candidate TPL sneaked in.
• The current GRC system consist of 3 to 6 MPs, each “governing” a separate section of the GRC.
• There are currently 15 GRCs in Singapore. The PAP holds all except 1, Aljunied, which is now held by the Workers Party.

Plan:

Moving on, our

Mandate : All the GRCs will be split up into SMCs.

By that we mean, the GRCs will be split into 5 or 6 SMCs which would be run separately but still fall under the same region. i.e. Ang Mo Kio 1, 2 and so on.

Now I will give some justifications in support of our plan

Justification 1: Earn Your Own Stripes.

Point A: No “Back Door”

People care about the way politicians get into office. For example, in the case of Tin Pei Ling, the people were up in arms and infuriated by her being elected into parliament as a MP. The only reason why and how she was elected as a MP was due to the GRC system – She used a “Back Door” or basically hid behind the back of former Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong and his reputation. Loads of negative publicity has risen over this issue. A strong impact of this would be: TPL is a young naïve MP with very little life experience. The area where she is supposed to look after is the Macpherson region, and here reside many elderly citizens. Would she be able to fight for these helpless citizens and solve their issues? Unlikely. In many interviews, TPL failed to give any specific issue she would like to resolve as a MP and simply gave nice politicians statements. How on earth did she managed to be elected and now in charge of many elderly lives? To quote a certain famous line from a movie: quote: This is Madness! Madness! End quote. I’m not going to say the rest but you know what came next.

Point B: Fair, straight fights

Under the current GRC system, the PAP will field their most popular and most high profile MPs - usually a Minister with important portfolios to head each GRC. This would give a significant boost in the number of votes thus enabling the PAP to secure many victories even with weak candidates in the team. That is why we the Affirmative team want the elimination of GRC's to become SMC's. This will give the same level for the candidates to prove themselves - 1v1. No senior ministers to let you waltz into parliament, no veteran minister or liked MPs to aid you. Just you against your opponent. This would give the other parties a fairer and more level ground to fight on. There should be no more of using another candidate’s popularity to shelter weaker candidates.

Justification 2: Elimination of Undesired Results (May be used instead as a counter argument in a different speech)

Point A: Double-edged Sword

While candidates such as TPL managed to sneak into Parliament, respected and dearly loved minister of Foreign Affairs George Yeo had a different fate. He did not make it into parliament as his team lost to the strong opposition team led by Low Thia Khiang. The GRC system allowed GY to be voted out, while TPL voted in. If GY and TPL had run in a SMC, they surely would have been a different outcome. Therefore, there should be no more sheltering of new PAP candidates in group representation constituencies. As Dr Huang Shoou Chyuan stated in a published letter to the Strait Times, “The heat of electoral battle is a prerequisite for any politician. Those without the stomach for a contest may not have the right stuff sought by the electorate.”

Justification 3: Democracy enhanced

Point A: Accurate representation

A recent survey by Channel News Asia showed that 4 in 10 citizens were against the PAP, whereas only 6/87 seats were clinched by the opposition. Why the huge difference? Basically, The PAP has maintained their choke-hold on the Singapore Parliament by frustrating opposition parties, abusing the legal system and playing a dirty game. And because of this we believe the ideal of representative democracy ought to be restored

Points B: The People's Government

People will be able to evaluate each candidate solely on their own capability and commitment. And they will vote one way or the other not because they love or hate one particular member in the group, (or forced to vote for the leader of the GRC, even though the members are weak) but that decision will be based on the candidates personal character, competence and qualities of an MP. And because of that, the MPs whom the citizens want will get in, allowing the Singapore government to be more cohesive and be more of the government that Singaporean citizens want.

Justification 4: Potential Corruption

Point A: Your newest MP: Bob!

Regardless of party, the PAP or any of the opposition parties, this system is open to corruption. If the system becomes corrupt, anyone can become a Member of Parliament, provided they have the wealth or connection high up. All the corrupt party needs is a high profile Member of Parliament to anchor the GRC down, and shelter the other 4 or 5 seats or whose candidates can be just about any Bob, Tom, Dick or Harry.

In conclusion just to clarify, we are NOT supporting any particular political party, but we just want fairer and more level playing fields for the elections which would mean better and more accurate representation of the people's views and votes.

Conclusion: (For 2AR)

Friends, Singaporeans, Countrymen. We all have seen how the Singapore of many years ago was nought but a tiny fishing village. We were lost, we were small, and we were insignificant to the world. But then, a man stepped into to lead us. His name was Lee Kuan Yew, and he led us through those difficult years and with the PAP, made Singapore what it is today. From attap houses to HDB; from a village to a thriving city; from a 3^rd world country to a 1^st world country. We are all grateful for what LKY and the monarchy of the PAP has done for us. However, over the last decade Singapore has grown and matured, and many citizens strive for their views and voices to be heard. It is time for fair elections. It is time for justice. It is time for a parliament and a government where there is opposition representing the people as well, so that even the minority’s voice will be heard. Your voice will be heard; my voice will be heard; everyone’s voice will be heard. I had a dream, that one day that Singaporeans would mature and express their views, I had a dream, that one day, everyone’s voice would be heard, even the elderly and the little babies. I had a dream, that one day, from the hills of Bukit Timah, to the sandy beach of the East Coast, to the longkang outside my house, that justice will reign. Justice will reign! (Sniff and Fake tear) To borrow some inspirational words from our glorious national pledge: “We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion,
to build a democratic society, based on justice and equality, so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation.”

Some Quotes and Ideas:

• “Power used for the good is power that could be used for evil.”
• “Absolute power corrupts absolutely”
• The Singapore Police Force Motto: “Low Crime doesn't mean no crime”
• We are not taking sides or attacking the PAP or the opposition parties. All we want is a fair election process for Singapore, and level playing field for any of the parties, resulting in a more accurate representation.
• Minority representation solved by Grass-root leaders/the community or a board of residents that will help translate and convey your complaints to the respective MP. It's already happening in the SMCs and even in the GRCs which are ex-SMCs. (Only to be used if brought up)
• PAP is not the government: The PAP has to acknowledge that they are only playing the government and are not the government. To clarify, PAP is just a political party – the same as WP, NSP and so on. Currently, the PAP is doing the government's job for 5 years, but every election, they are essentially running to run for being the government again. They are not the government. They are a political party. So why should they get the unfair advantage over the other parties? (Insert Analogy)

Debate Final, Debate Camp, June 2011

Jerel's 1AC:

Elisha's 1NC:

Aaron's 2AC:

Ian's 2NC:

Aaron's 2AR:

Interview: Singapore Navy Diver - Corporal Francis Wong

by Daniel Wong and Aaron Fong


Corporal Francis Wong, a homeschool father, was enlisted in the Navy in 1986. He spent two and a half years as a diver there. Daniel Wong and Aaron Fong of The Homeschool Gazette spoke to him on his experiences as a navy diver.


THG: What did you do as a diver for the navy? 


FW: I was trained to defend the shores of Singapore by setting obstacles on the shores as well as removing obstacles for vessels to beach.


THG: What are some things you enjoy in your job? If not, why?


FW: I often enjoyed the specialized training and working with the special equipment. For example, we repelled down a cliff or helo-jumped out of the helicopter. Long swims and jungle survival tests were some of my most enjoyable memories.


THG: What are the challenges you face as a diver?


FW: It is physically challenging to battle the harsh currents, and at the same time have the mental composure to complete the task at hand correctly.


THG: What are the safety regulations you have to observe as a diver?


FW: As divers, we would have to report our physical condition to the doctors. Also, consumption of alcohol or medicine 24 hours before diving is prohibited. We were expected to maintain the equipment well and follow all the safety regulations strictly and to the letter.


THG: Do you have any interesting story(ies) you would like to share?


FW: Once, we were assigned the task of retrieving a dead corpse. We were repulsed at the thought of handling a dead body. And so fortunately for us, we did not manage to find the corpse. 


THG: What was your diet like?


FW: As a diver, meat is a big part of the diet as protein is essential. Vegetables and rice are standard fare, and we have to drink lots of milk for the calcium.


THG: Did you find your two and a half years as a military diver fulfilling?


FW: Yes, it trained me to have survival instincts, both physical and mental instincts. In those two years, I broke many barriers that I did not think I could ever achieve.

How Then Should I Vote?

by Jerel Lim

Warm, Personal, Generous. These are some traits describing President S. R. Nathan. He served the office with dignity, care and charm. Mr. Zainul Abidin Rasheed, former senior minister of state at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs:” He has represented Singapore to presidents, kings, princes, prime ministers and ministers, and done the job so well that he will be remembered not only just by Singaporeans .”

With President Nathan leaving behind such a legacy, how will the future president match up? Even presidential candidate Dr Tony Tan said:” His (President Nathan) time in office will be remembered as one of wisdom and compassion. I join Singaporeans in thanking him for his steadfast commitment to duty.”

How are supposed to vote in this upcoming presidential election? The answer is really simple- President Nathan has done a terrific job as Head of State, lets give head to what he says in his statement to the press regarding his decision not to run for a 3rd term. 

“Whatever the constitution says about the powers of the elected president, and however varied people’s perceptions of the office may be, ultimately the welfare of our country and people depend upon the way Singapore is governed and administered…At the same time, whether in the office of the president or in the executive arm of government, we will always need people of strong character and vision who resist populist pressures and the temptation to sacrifice the long-term interest of the nation in response to those who merely snipe without having to take responsibility.” –a fair warning, and good advice to take heed.

Can any candidates match up to that? Maybe. As well as being dignified, caring, warm, personal, generous? Very rarely do we see such a person. In my opinion, in this election watch out for these traits, as these define a President.

Even though the President does not have much executive powers as compared to some other countries, but President Nathan has not been idle during the 12 years of being the president. “He (President Nathan) always had a special place in his heart for people who are vulnerable, for children, for the disabled.” Said Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Vivian Balakrishnan.

Will the president that we are going to elect have similar goals? Or will he have his own agenda, even though the presidential powers are severely limited?

Presidential Candidate: Tony Tan

By Elizabeth Fong

Introduction and Background

Six years have flown by and it is again time for Singaporeans to vote for their new president. Seventy-one year old Dr. Tony Tan is one of the candidates running for presidency in this upcoming election. Since 1979 to 2006, he has been a Minister and a Member of Parliament. Dr. Tan has served as the Senior Minister of State for Education (1979 – 1980), the Minister for Education (1980 – 1981) and the Minister for Trade and Industry (1981 – 1986). As he served as the Minister for Trade and Industry, he concurrently served as the Minister for Finance (1983 to 1985). He again became the Minister for Education in 1985 and served in that department until 1991, serving also as a Minister for Health (1985 – 1986). In 1995 to 2003, Dr. Tan was the Minister for Defence. He concurrently served as the Deputy Prime Minister from 1995 to 2005.

Positive Feedback

Due to the amount of important positions Dr. Tan has held, some Singaporeans believe that he should be elected President. Mr. Soon Kim Hock said on the Straits Times’ Forum, “Dr Tony Tan has…held more important jobs, with heavier responsibility, that have had great bearing on the lives of Singaporeans. His experience and knowledge in the administration of finance in various sectors, besides a string of other government ministry portfolios in the past…would certainly stand him in good stead in office, once he is elected.1”

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong stressed that Dr. Tan will unite Singaporeans. He said that “he has no doubt that former deputy prime minister Dr Tony Tan will be a unifying figure for all citizens and will bring honour and credit to Singa­pore if he is elected as Singapore's next president.2”

Negative Feedback

Younger Singaporeans argue that Dr. Tan has put them at a disadvantage when it comes to education. When he was the Minister for Education in the 1990s, Dr. Tan allowed foreign students to come to Singapore and study in the local universities. Astonished young Singaporeans suddenly found themselves competing for a place in universities. A NTU graduate commented, “Tony Tan is responsible for one of the greatest policy errors that will cause great, untold harm to Singapore…Which citizens would not lose their feelings for the country if they… have sacrificed 2.5 years of their lives under a humiliating military conscription service.3” Some of them wonder whether Dr. Tan will end up taking better care of foreigners than Singaporeans, if elected as President in this upcoming election.

Another weakness that most Singaporeans believe Dr. Tan has is the fact that he used to be the Deputy Chairman and Executive Director of Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC). This corporation uses and invests Singapore’s reserves. However, if Dr. Tan is to be elected and becomes Singapore’s President, he will have to keep Singapore’s reserves. Some Singaporeans think that this is a “conflict of interest4” and therefore do not want Dr. Tan elected as President.

Conclusion

Dr. Tan has both strengths and weaknesses. The number of important jobs held is an advantage to him. He will be able to contribute to Singapore in a more meaningful way as Singapore advances into the more challenging era. Many young Singaporeans, however, are still not convinced that Dr. Tan will make a good President due to the policy that allowed foreign students to study and work in Singapore. Nevertheless, it would be challenging for a developing country like Singapore not to open the educational door to foreign students.

The big question: “Why is he running for presidency and what can he contribute to Singapore, if elected President?”

Dr. Tan said during a press conference, “The answer is simple. How could I not run? How could I remain a spectator while Singapore faces such complex challenges? How could I not step forward when I know I have more to contribute to the country we all worked to build?…The years ahead will be challenging, but exciting. In the midst of so much change, we need a President with experience and a steady hand…If I am elected President, I will be fair and independent. I will work in partnership with the Government, all political parties, and civil society to safeguard and advance the future of all Singaporeans…Singapore’s best days lie ahead of us. If we remain united, and respond with creativity and energy to the challenges ahead of us, our country will continue to progress and thrive. Together we can build a better and more fulfilling future for all Singaporeans.5”

References :

"Dr Tony TAN Keng Yam." National University of Singapore n. pag. Web. 29 Jun 2011. <http://www.nus.edu.sg/president/past_presidents/tonytan.php>.

"Presidential Elections." Elections Department of Singapore n. pag. Web. 29 Jun 2011. <http://www.elections.gov.sg/elections_presidential.html>.

Hock, Soon Kim. "Tony Tan is no yes-man." Straits Times (2011): n. pag. Web. 30 Jun 2011. <http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/Story/STIStory_683654.html>.

Cheney, Satish. "Tony Tan will be unifying figure if elected: PM Lee." Channel NewsAsia (2011): n. pag. Web. 30 Jun 2011.

<http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1137172/1/.html>.

"Young Singaporeans angry at Dr Tony Tan for depriving them opportunities at home." Temasek Review Emeritus (2011): n. pag. Web. 30 Jun 2011.

  <http://www.temasekreview.com/2011/06/27/young-singaporeans-angry-at-dr-tony-tan-for depriving-them-opportunities-at-home/>.

local123, . "Tony Tan to contest Presidential Election." 23 June 2011. Online Posting to Channel NewsAsia. Web. 1 Jul 2011.

Tan, Tony. New Asia Republic (2011): n. pag. Web. 1 Jul 2011.

<http://newasiarepublic.com/?p=29933>.

Presidential Candidate: Tan Kin Lian

By Joshua Ng

Introduction & Background

Presidential Candidate Mr Tan Kin Lian came from a humble family background. When he was a child, Mr Tan lived in a rented room and had to move residence a few times. Later, he lived in a HDB flat for 7 years. Today, he lives in an ordinary house and like many Singaporeans, has a car but often travels by bus and MRT. In this aspect, Mr Tan says he can empathize with the many people struggling to earn enough to meet the cost of living, have to travel in crowded public transport daily and have to face the competition for jobs.

Regarding his capability in handling the Presidential role, the public can rest assured. He was previously NTUC Income’s chief executive officer (CEO), and from 1992 to 1997, was Chairman of the International Co-operative and Mutual Insurance Federation (ICMIF), an international organisation representing 123 insurance groups in 65 countries. Thus, he surely would have the mental proficiency, financial and management expertise to carry out the Presidential duties.

Besides his corporate successes, he also has had many awards conferred upon him, such as: the Friend of Labour Award in 1978, the Public Service Medal in 1983, the Rochdale Medal Award in 1992, the Financial Personality of the Year Award in 2000, the 2001 International Management Action Award, the Public Service Star in 2004, the Leading CEO Award in 2005 and the Friend of I.T Award in 2007.

According to Mr Tan, his main reason for contesting is to respond to the call from many readers of his blog and friends. Additionally, he says it is his “public duty”. More than 100 people have e-mailed him over the past months, urging him to stand for election. They felt that Singaporeans should be given the chance to vote and they think that he may represent that chance. Mr Tan also thinks his experience in insurance and the financial sector makes him “more qualified”.

His Strengths and Weaknesses as a Candidate:

Strengths

Firstly, according to the Constitution, the President must primarily safeguard the past reserves. As said earlier, Mr Tan is well versed in financial matters, having chaired NTUC Income and ICMIF. He should then have no difficulty safeguarding our CPF money and the national reserves.

Secondly, the President chooses key personnel in the Government, such as the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice, the Attorney-General, and so on. As a former CEO, he would have had experience selecting people for various positions within the company. Therefore, he should be able to make wise decisions.

Lastly, Mr Tan has not been associated to the PAP, or any other political party. This is a clear advantage, seeing that the other Candidates are closely related to the PAP, which has been criticized for maintaining a chokehold over Singapore politics. Because of this, people will probably choose a President that will not be inclined to the policies of any one party. This will reassure the public that politics in Parliament is fair play.

Weaknesses

As stated in a Statement by the Minister of Law, the President is the Head of State, not the Head of Government. Mr Tan Kin Lian has previously acted in various Government-related positions, such as being: the CEO of NTUC Income and a PAP member (until 2008). It is likely that Mr Tan will take interest in Government affairs if he becomes President, and might go unnecessarily beyond his non-executive role. This might be seen as meddling and interfering with the Government.

Also, Mr Tan has an unconventional way of doing things. For example: During the Lehman Brothers collapse, Mr Tan went to Speaker’s Corner to advocate for the people who were affected. For this, Mr Tan might very well be deemed “provocative” by the Government for aggravating the populace, who in turn vent their frustrations in various Internet forums. If he comes into conflict with the Government during his Presidential term, it is conceivable for him to use the same tactics.

Conclusion:

Mr Tan Kin Lian has both strengths and weaknesses. The various important appointments he held is an advantage to him as it gives people confidence in his capabilities. If he becomes President, he will be able to contribute to Singapore in a more significant way as it tries to keep abreast of the ever-changing economic and political world.

Sources:

Tan, K. L. Tan Kin Lian for President. Retrieved from Tan Kin Lian for President website: http://easyapps.sg/tklep/

Shanmugam, K. Retrieved from Statement by the Minister for Law: http://www.news.gov.sg/public/sgpc/en/media_releases/agencies/minlaw/press_release/P-20110610-1/AttachmentPar/0/file/Press%20Statement%20from%20Minister%20(Law)%20-%20Elected%20President%20_10%20June%202011_.pdf

Homepage: Tan Kin Lian and Associates. Retrieved from Tan Kin Lian and Associates Website: http://www.tankinlian.com/

The Singapore Government. Retrieved from Constitution of The Republic of Singapore: http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_retrieve.pl?actno=REVED-const

The Online Citizen. (2009, July 21). Minibonds fiasco settled “without political pressure”, says Lim Hng Kiang. Retrieved from The Online Citizen: http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/07/minibonds-fiasco-settled-%e2%80%9cwithout-political-pressure%e2%80%9d-says-lim-hng-kiang/