WP now in PAP's league.

I have not been certain of a Worker's Party victory in Punggol East SMC, despite feeling that WP have a good chance at winning it. Alas when the result came, its better than I expected, WP's Lee Li Lian won more than half of the total vote cast, despite being in a 4 corners fight for the seat.

Other than the usual generic stuff you had read or heard about what this means for Singapore and Singapore politics, more importantly, its how Worker's Party is officially seen as an equal to PAP.

Never before since the early years of our nation's independence, had any Opposition parties held in as high an esteem as the PAP. No Oppositions; not SDP, SPP, SDA, NSP or even WP years ago had been much of a fight for the PAP. PAP elections is like going thru the motion, just appease the people, and the election is won. PAP had never really needed to explain themselves thoroughly of their decisions and actions; they didnt even do that during the last GE which they lost Aljunied GRC; they only apologised. In short, the Oppositions had not been even vaguely been an effective check and balance they kept selling themselves to be; they just arent seen as credible enough.

However, Punggol East SMC by-election changed that. For PAP to lose their own ground, its devastating. Its a sign that in the coming General Elections, voters would be willing to put their bet on the Worker's Party just as the Punggol East SMC residents had done. I'm not saying WP is going to win every seat they fight, nor are they really better than PAP. But simply that WP had now officially proven that they are capable of winning against the PAP and seen as just as credible as the PAP which the resident can put their faith in - battles between PAP and WP during the next GE will have to be taken very seriously by the PAP.

PAP will have to really start answering serious question posted to them, look after their towns really well (especially those they are likely to be competed by WP) and can no longer "cheat" their way with carrots and threats (which works extremely badly against a nation of people who just have too big an ego to take that lying down). PAP will run risk of losing more GRCs to WP, as more and more people is embolden to vote for WP. Every PAP vs WP battles may all become a 50-50 fight.

Just like Mr Lee Kuan Yew had said, if the Opposition is any decent, the people will vote for them. And his prophesies are coming true.

[Youth Quake Reaction] Youth Parliament in Singapore?

I attended the Youth Quake discussion on yesterday at the WP HQ, titled: "Youthquake: Is there Space for a Youth Parliament?"

I came in pretty late, but still managed to catch at least 30 mins of the "debate".

There were talks and issues raised about how the youth MP should be elected, what segmentation should be used to select the youths to be represented, many emphasis on representation, talks abt how it could be a grooming ground for future MPs, whether it should be held at the actual parliament house, etc...

I did not speak, as I thought I might raise the same questions as someone else or issues that is already discussed while I was still on my way there. But one stark problem about the discussion persisted and disturbs me the entire time I was there listening: the lack of fundamentals.

Running a country in a macro-scale (read: actual government) involves the most important pillars of life: food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, leisure/rest, education and transportation. As long as all these pillars are fulfilled: meaning everyone can earn enough to pay for food, shelter, healthcare, transportation and lastly clothing and leisure as well as good access to good education- you can be assured you will be in power for a long time to come (thats how PAP under LKY, and subsequently inherited by GCT and now LHL had managed to dominate the Singapore Politics for so long).

Thus for every policy and initiatives set out by the government, its MUST fulfilled one of the above mentioned pillars (meaning it will benefit the citizens) or it must help to boost the economy of Singapore (which in turns boost the earning of Singaporeans - theoretically). So where does having Youth Parliament stands in this context?

If its like what I heard in the discussion - its really nothing more than just a political brainwash of the youth to become more "political" (than politically aware) and for that handful to become egoistic because of their perceived "power" in holding that Youth MP seat (which, in accordance to what was discussed, likely to end up having the same group of youth dominating those seats).

Someone quoted an example of how a Youth Assembly was tested in Malaysia, which was dominated by the youth from the various political parties; to avoid it becoming to partisan, the rule changed it to be non-political - the same group of youth turned up, this time round, representing their schools. <--- this is exactly what will happen if we go down the route of having a Youth Parliament without a anchoring fundamental - What is the purpose of a Youth Parliament?

Some had argued that the Youth Parliament is to give power to the youth, to give the youth the voice to speak out and be heard; for the adults to take the youth more seriously and allow the youth to contribute to the proceedings and policy shaping in the Real Parliament, etc... - I totally DO NOT concur with this "fundamental" of having a Youth Parliament. It does not do economical good, does not keep food price or housing price low, does not make transportation better and cheaper, does not earn Singaporeans more money, does not pay for our ever increasing healthcare cost.... so whats left is education. But what kindda education is there in the above mentioned "purposes" - it more likely to create more Chee Soon Quans than Low Thia Kiangs or Lee Kuan Yews.

But also because the establishment of a Youth Parliament cannot apply to any of the pillars except Education; THEN EDUCATION MUST be the focus of having a Youth Parliament.

So what do you want to educate the youths of Singapore, through having a Youth Parliament?

To me, there are several things youths can learn through a sitting in a Youth Parliament: 
- Critical Thinking (to above to see thru the haze and be constructive)
- Understanding how policies are made and shaped
- Understanding the hidden currents and hidden costs behind every policies that is crafted
- To allow the youth to think for the greater good
- To tap on the youth's creativity, thus to propose creative solutions that can be implemented by the government
- To allow the youth to become more politically aware (not becoming more political. its different)

Youth Parliament should be like what Internship for students are. It should be to experience what it is like to be in that position, understand the difficulties, the hidden problems - all in all, as an education.

Any talk abt electing the kids to the youth parliament, giving them power, telling them to discuss national issues which they would not understand the magnitude at their age, without guidance from actual MPs that were elected into the real parliament - would be prematured.

And if this is to be implemented, the Youth Parliament should be a mass participation initiatives, that every week or every session, the youths that fills up the seats are always changing and different. We do not want clouts or the same individual turning up all the time - it should never be a place to be grooming politicians. Perhaps it can be run by the People's Association or the Ministry of Education. It can also be run according to educational level, where you will not have a 14 year old (sec 2) debating against a 22 year old (undergrad).


IN CONCLUSION: Any establishment of the Youth Parliament must be of the right reasons and fundamentals. As long as it does not fulfill any pillars of life or of economic good - its can only be of the wrong reasons: of individual/partisan interest <--- which we must avoid at all cost.

A Review of LKY's Hard Truth Interview

Watch the entire interview here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihiE4oGyYlQ

THE REVIEW
I totally concur with whatever was said by Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

As for the highly disputed topic on Muslim integration, my take is that, its being taken out of context and that because of the way how the question is ask and the incomplete snap answer that Mr LKY gave that created the misunderstanding.

Muslims "separate-ness" to me is best described as like a "Vegetarian-Christian with brotherhood (gotong royong)". Just like our vegetarian friends, they have unique needs in the stuff they eat (halal); they are religious like our Christians whom goes to churches; and uniquely, for the Malay Muslims, they have this unbreakable bond between them which is widely known as Gotong Royong, or the Kampung Spirit.

Muslims "separate-ness" to me is best described as like a "Vegetarian-Christian with brotherhood (gotong royong)"

But the separateness and distinctness would just be as starking if the Chinese is the minority, whom eats pork, drinks alcohol and dun go to the places of worship every week.

But ultimately, that's the beauty of Singapore - the beauty of diversity. And I sincerely believe if we were to go to war, we will fight alongside each other as brothers and be proud to die for one another. =} (hope that day wont never happen though)

The Regime of Fear and its Toll.

Posting in support of the Opposition here, and on a personal level of Facebook apparently taken its toll on the people around me, and the people who cares for me.

The amount of pressure and risk taken by the Opposition candidate are thus beyond what I can imagine.

Just still 5 days from the Polling Day, my love one already pleading me to stop my campaigning for Opposition support. I do not fear (since I do not attack personalities thus dun run the risk of lawsuits), but fear strikes those who cares of those that are campaigning against the Ruling Party.

This regime of fear, and the perpetration of the fear of the PAP had reached a point where, it suddenly felt like the 1960s and 1970s all over again. It reminds me of the time where Mr Lee Kuan Yew consolidates his power through amazing political maneuvers as well as hard stances/actions against its opponents. Although I'm not in irk with what was done, because all along history, great leaders make hard and difficult decisions for the good of the majority. Churchill sent Allied Troops up the Normandy against one of the most fortified regions in Europe; Emperor Han Wu Di consolidated power thru his patience and foresight, making countless tough decisions.

But in today's context, the existence of the "fear factor" is disappointing. And to think that we are in a democracy, the existence of fear of the PAP is ridiculous and at the same thing, distraughting.

PAP will come back to power at the end of Election Day, that is for sure. I can only hope that PAP will take a bit more effort, fill in the gap that left behind in their pursue of revenue and GDP growth and get back some of the lost trust Singaporeans have had in them.

At least 1/3 of the Singaporeans are disappointed with the PAP, despite I know PAP do not need their vote (PAP only need 51% to win); I hope PAP would do the right thing, a good political party would do.

Successful projects are lead by great visions - not tyrants.

A response to this article: Why People-Powered Projects Are Ruled by Tyrants - http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/02/st_essay_assange/

Actually, because "democracy" leads to infighting; projects that are successful are often born of the vision of one or a few individual. These few individuals gives "power" and "freedom" to the masses where themselves continues to steers and control the "rules" to make sure its going the right way.

Facebook would become MySpace if you give ppl unlimited freedom. Wikipedia will lose its credibility as an encyclopedia.

So rather than saying it ruled by Tyrants, its more like "guided by the vision set forth by the creator; with rules/limitations set to keep the entire project in the right direction to create the desired outcome".

=}

--extended response as continued--

Living in Singapore, there is nothing more apt than using my country's history and personality as an example.

The best example would be Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Minister Mentor of Singapore, the former Prime Minister whom led Singapore from a 3rd world nation without any natural resources, to one of the most vibrant nation in Asia.

He is definitely in all aspects and perspectives, a Tyrant/Dictator; BUT, he is guided by a vision, a philosophy and a strong conviction. It is thus, this vision, philosophy and conviction that path the way for Singapore to what it is today.

The vision that the entire stretch of the west coast be used as the port of Singapore - Jurong Port. A vision so ambitious and ahead of its time, many detractors laughed it off as a joke in the beginning - until the groundwork began that people realised its going to happen.

It is also his principle that Singapore will not have a National Airline just for the sake of having a National Airline, survived by Ego and Pride. SIA began right at the beginning as a profit driven airline, and takes drastic steps to differentiate and became the top airline in the world.

He also credited for making Singapore a "Garden City"; a result of his vision of a green city, with plants planted everywhere, along the roads; importing of new species of trees and flowers that fits Singapore's climate and etc... Not to mention his investment into the cleanliness of the country which became the hallmark and the most remembered aspect of Singapore.

"Tyrant", in the form of the article, isn't always bad. But tyrants without visions and guiding principles are the ones that we should be worried about. As far as the history had shown: Tyrants without vision, without principles, without an ambition of greatness/benevolence will go nowhere; failure and infamy beckons.

CPF becoming Income Tax

CPF was originally conceived as a mechanism to help Singaporeans save money for their retirement, in case they didnt do it themselves - a very legitimate and right thing to do, like many of the other policies created during the time when LKY is still in his prime, thinking clearly, connected to the ground and when the government is serving the people.

But over the years, after the government changed their philosophy from "serving the people" to "economic growth over everything", good intended policies starts to get corrupted and perverted.

"...the government changed their philosophy from "serving the people" to "economic growth over everything""

In recent times, the Government had announced that the retirement age will be raised from the original 55 to 65. As a result, the CPF will be freeze for another 10 years. That also mean that my mother whom is approaching 55, whom should be retiring soon, CANNOT retire and have to work for another 10 years. I wonder where...

In a country where prosperity was promised to be shared among everyone to make everyone's life better, it can't be further than the truth.

By raising the retirement age to 65, it effectively made CPF a form of Income Tax. And the payout, a form of welfare system which.... you actually paid it yourself - like Insurance with minimum interest rates.

"By raising the retirement age to 65, it effectively made CPF a form of Income Tax."

According to the statistics (http://www.singstat.gov.sg/stats/keyind.html), only less than 20% of the people at the moment now can live to the age of 65. It should increase in the near future BUT think abt this: in the modern day of polluted world, increased stress, increase health problems, and curse of diseases - how many can actually live past that 65. How many can still enjoy their life of retirement at 65?

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retirement), even in European countries, almost all the countries have less than 50% of the people past 60 still working in the work force. These are countries which also had their normal retirement age set at 65.

"...almost all the countries have less than 50% of the people past 60 still working in the work force. These are countries which also had their normal retirement age set at 65."

As a boss, would you want to hire even a 50 year old employee to work in positions in the lower rang of your company hierarchy? In the new economy (post 2010), the world is going to be increasingly competing through the use of innovation and design - in such a world, how does the older workforce find employment when everyone is looking for creative and trendy thinkers. Must a former director really go to be a taxi driver or a former manager become a kopitiam worker to fulfill that 65 retirement age?

What is retirement?
Retirement is the moment when people stop working and enjoy the fruit of their labour after over 30-40 years of toiling and struggling.

Even if I'm just 27 now, the thought of working to 65 is scary. CPF means nothing to me but just another name for a separate Income Tax (its based on your income isnt it?) and retirement age of 65 is simply the "marker" to qualify you for the welfare system camouflage as "CPF" (which the government kept saying they dun want to be a welfare state).

"...its just a branding exercise to make a 2nd Income Tax sounds NOT like an Income Tax."

Its simply the same thing as another country, setting a higher Income Tax level but have a welfare system to ensure you have money to stay alive after retirement - just that the government make it sounds like its doing it for you, but its just a branding exercise to make a 2nd Income Tax sounds NOT like an Income Tax.

Learn from Obama's administration | Singapore needs CHANGE

I just caught a LIVE broadcast online of Obama's speech to the students of United States. Feeling inspired, to the point, i wish to go back to school tomorrow and study like no tomorrow.

But as it ended, I ask myself: Why can Obama do all this "logical" things the moment he is president; knowing and understanding ppl's hardship, taking steps to elevate EVERYBODY's life... while in Singapore, the Government seemed to be reluctant to take steps to go "micro"; vehemently avoiding the OBVIOUS.

I can tell you guys today: The Opposition is going to win at least a GRC in the next election. And prepare to lose even more single seats

Its getting too obvious nowadays that EVERYONE is not happy. People are getting more vocal and more willing to talk abt their unhappiness abt the situation in Singapore. Seriously, I cant really see how PAP can defend their position any better in the next election, this term is probably the WORST term in the history of PAP's governance.

Connectivity had opened our eyes to the honest and truthful rule by Barack Obama, with all his goals and changes totally in line with what a politician SHOULD DO. On the other hand, Japan's election result sending shockwave throughout the world, especially to countries like Singapore, with their Opposition victory. With Logic (make sense policies of Obama) + Hope (of a victory against powerful incumbent) , the keyword "CHANGE" is become more impactful with the passing days.

Mr. Teo Ser Luck posted on his facebook status: "Change. Nothing will stand still. The outcome of the Japan election results really got me thinking. If we don't change, we will be changed. Whether in life or in career, we have to keep up with the pace of change. The environment would not change or wait for us. Like it or not, it is a never-ending race. We can never be complacent."

Even this major PAP politician knew that the wind of change in coming. But seriously, is PAP changing better or for worse? (based on that status update, it is suggested that PAP might had been changing, just not fast enough) Seriously, PAP HAD changed over the years, since Mr Lee Kuan Yew was Prime Minister; just that PAP seemed to change to become more "greedy" financially... It reaches a point where, all those giant reserve and huge government incomes that made Singapore rich, no longer had a link to the fortunes of Singaporeans.

Is it not logical that medical fees should be lower?
Transport companies do not need that much profit, as their purpose is to serve our people?
Town councils do not need to invest money?
Old folks should be taken better care of with better facilities and lower rents since they are the people whom built our nation to what it is today?
That Singaporeans should have more spare money to spend and save?
Students should be banned from dropping out and better policies to make sure we dun lose this potential talents?
That better policies and ideas should be made and executed to ensure more babies are being born and reduction in the cost of raising a kid?
etc...

Why can Obama do the obvious and PAP cant? Why PAP have to make it always seems so complicated and changes be sounded so treacherous?

Haiz...

Oppositions, the same question is posted to you: What can you do for the country and the people?

Learn from Obama, stop closing one eye and play politics.

(p.s: The moment politics stops, like how Obama treated his Israeli ally on the Palestinian issue, the world just stop and applause.)

Excellent Article about Why the West hate Singapore.

Source: The Straits Times, Singapore
Source: http://forum.football.co.uk/about156207.html (surprisingly, its from a football forum)

Why they hate Singapore
Western detractors are getting the jitters as others copy our model

SINGAPORE is small enough to be a suburb in Beijing, but it has something in common with the mammoth People's Republic. The little red dot and Red China are both countries the West loves to hate.
There are those who wish bad things to happen to the Beijing Olympics. Likewise, there are those who have had it in for the Lion City for years.

What's eating them? The easy answer is that both China and Singapore are authoritarian states. The freedoms taken for granted in the West - freedom of speech and assembly - come with more caveats in these two places.

But things are not so simple. There are plenty of authoritarian states around, but most do not attract as much attention as Singapore and China.

The real sin: Singapore and China are examples of countries which are taking a different route to development, and look to be succeeding.

Success grates, especially when it cocks a snook at much-cherished liberal values.

As Madam Yeong Yoon Ying, press secretary to Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, said last month: 'Singapore is an example to other countries of how the free market plus the rule of law, and stable macro-economic policies, can lead to progress and success, but without Western-style 'liberal' democracy.'

Don't believe her words? Read these lines from British journalist John Kampfner, writing in The Guardian last month, lamenting the spread of what he calls the Singapore model.

'Why is it that a growing number of highly-educated and well-travelled people are willing to hand over several of their freedoms in return for prosperity or security? This question has been exercising me for months as I work on a book about what I call the 'pact'.

'The model for this is Singapore, where repression is highly selective. It is confined to those who take a conscious decision openly to challenge the authorities. If you do not, you enjoy freedom to travel, to live more or less as you wish, and - perhaps most important - to make money. Under Lee Kuan Yew, this city-state built on a swamp has flourished economically.

'I was born in Singapore and have over the years been fascinated by my Chinese Singaporean friends. Doctors, financiers and lawyers, they have studied in London, Oxford, Harvard and Sydney. They have travelled across all continents; they are well-versed in international politics, but are perfectly content with the situation back home. I used to reassure myself with the old certainty that this model was not applicable to larger, more diverse states. I now believe this to be incorrect.

'Provincial governments in China send their brightest officials to Singapore to learn the secrets of its 'success'. For Russian politicians it too provides a useful model. These countries, and others in Asia and the Middle East are proving that the free market does not require a free society in which to thrive, and that in any battle between politics and economics, it is the latter that will win out.'

Mr Kampfner seems in a genuine intellectual funk. He cannot quite understand why otherwise normal, intelligent Singaporeans would trade certain freedoms for economic progress, and accept the Singapore political system for what it is.

But perhaps he has got the wrong end of the stick. The problem lies not in the Singaporeans, but in his own assumptions. Namely: If you speak English, if you are well-educated and well-travelled, you must also believe in Western-style democracy. They are a package.

I was on the receiving end of similar assumptions when I was in the United States in 1991-1992. When Americans asked me, 'Why is your English so good?', often it was not out of admiration but bewilderment. Their next question revealed all: 'Why then do you (i.e. your Government) ban chewing gum?'

Another telling indicator of Western assumptions about Singapore comes from a remark by Singapore's Ambassador to Washington, Professor Chan Heng Chee, who went to the US at the tail end of the Michael Fay saga.

One year into her posting there, in 1997, she arranged for a retrospective of the late choreographer Goh Choo San's works. Her Washington audience was awed.

'People suddenly remembered Choo San was a Singaporean. They may have known about Goh Choo San, but to connect him with Singapore was not so obvious for them,' she said.

Sub-text: World-class choreography does not fit their image of a country with corporal punishment.

So the real difficulty for the West is this: We are so like them, and yet so not like them. We speak, dress, do business and do up our homes very much the same way as them. Yet when it comes to political values, we settle - apparently - for much less.

One observer draws an analogy with Pavlovian behavioural conditioning. So conditioned have Westerners become to associating cosmopolitan progress with certain political parameters, they do not know how to react when they encounter a creature - Singapore - that has one but not the other.

So they chide and berate us, as if we have betrayed a sacred covenant.

Adding to the iniquity is the fact that countries - rich and powerful ones too, like Russia and the Gulf states - are looking to the Singaporean way of doing things to pick up a tip or two.

I can imagine the shudders of Singapore's Western detractors should they read about a suggestion made by Mr Kenichi Ohmae this week.

In an interview with Business Times, the Japanese management consultant who first became famous as author of The Borderless World, said Singapore should 'replicate' itself in other parts of the world.

What he meant was that Singapore should use its IQ, and IT prowess, to help organise effective economies in other regions, as its own had succeeded so well.

To be sure, his reasoning was economic, not political. But for those who hate Singapore, a Pax Singaporeana would be something to work against and head off.

Lee Kuan Yew's Garden

If its not for the press (if I am not wrong, The New Paper), I would not have known that the Garden City of Singapore, is in fact, a vision of the Great man himself, Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

For I am already full of admiration and respect for our former Prime Minister, the Man who led us to who we are today; my liking for him went up a notch after reading the article.

His vision (or maybe preference) of covering all the articificial silhouette and buildings with the green of nature; the insistence of having all this done fast and done well; his ability to command the dedication and passion of our unsung heroes, the gardeners, to source for the ideal plants to bring back to Singapore; simply his love for nature and parks... is simply inspiring.

It reminds me of my own journey now, where I had my visions that I hope and want to achieve; the path and decisions I see myself taking; I very much similar to his passion and desire to make something that is probably a first in the world, into reality.

Thanks the reporter whom came out with that article; the gardeners whom had helped built Singapore's reputation as the Garden City; the cleaners whom kept Singapore clean and tidy; and Mr Lee, your commitment and unfaltering dedication to make it happen and maintain it.

I am proud to be a Singaporean.

Singapore Politicians Highest Paid in the World!!!

Today, i happened to got this links from my email forwards abt our local politicians pay; and we can safely say we just achieved another Number One. =X

In summary, the TOP 30 HIGHEST PAID Politicians are ALL from Singapore.

ALL TOP 30.

ALL...


ALL.......


........

April 01, 2009
The 10 highest paid politicians in the world

There is nothing like a scandal involving porn films claimed on Commons expenses to focus attention on the pay and perks enjoyed, sorry earned, by our public servants.

Even before Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, was forced to apologise for her husband's blue movies there had been calls for the whole system to be overturned. The committee on standards in public life which has promised to report on MP pay and expenses by the end of the year is under pressure to do something radical.

Whenever MPs come under attack over pay they are quick to argue that compared to executives in the private and public sector they are not particularly well paid.

With the G20 leaders in the country we thought it was worth getting a snapshot of how much the highest paid presidents and prime ministers around the world earn. For comparison's sake all earnings have been converted into dollars. It also shows basic annual salary only, not the expenses claimed on top.

So, where does our own Gordon Brown stand?

1. Lee Hsien Loong - Singapore

Salary in dollars - $2.47 million

Salary in local currency - S$3.76 million

2. Donald Tsang Yum-Kuen - Hong Kong

Salary in dollars - $516,000

Salary in local currency - HK$4 million

3. Barack Obama - United States

Salary in dollars - $400,000

4. Brian Cowen - Ireland

Salary in dollars - $341,000

Salary in local currency - €257,000

5. Nicolas Sarkozy - France

Salary in dollars - $318,000

Salary in local currency - €240,000

6. Angela Merkel - Germany

Salary in dollars - $303,000

Salary in local currency - €228,000

7. Gordon Brown - UK

Salary in dollars - $279,000

Salary in local currency - £194,250

8. Stephen Harper - Canada

Salary in dollars - $246,000

Salary in local currency - C$311,000

9. Taro Aso - Japan

Salary in dollars - $243,000

Salary in local currency - Y24 million

10. Kevin Rudd - Australia

Salary in dollars - $229,000

Salary in local currency - A$330,000

source: http://timesbusiness.typepad.com/money_weblog/2009/04/the-10-highest-paid-politicians-in-the-world.html

The TOP 30 highest paid politicians in the world

The TOP 30 highest paid politicians in the world are all from Singapore:
1. Elected President SR Nathan - S$3.9 million.
2. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong - S$3.8 million.
3. Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew - S$3.5 million.
4. Senior Minister Goh Chok Thong - S$3.5 million.
5. Senior Minister Prof Jayakumar - S$3.2 million.
6. DPM & Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng - S$2.9 million.
7. DPM & Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean - $2.9 million
8. Foreign Affairs Minister George Yeo - S$2.8 million.
9. National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan - S$2.7 million.
10. PMO Miniser Lim Boon Heng - S$2.7 million.
11. Trade and Industry Minister Lim Hng Kiang - S$2.7 million.
12. PMO Minister Lim Swee Say - S$2.6 million.
13. Environment Minister & Muslim Affairs Minister Dr Yaccob Ibrahim - S$2.6 million.
14. Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan - S$2.6 million.
15. Finance Minister S Tharman - S$2.6 million.
16. Education Minister & 2nd Minister for Defence Dr Ng Eng Hen - S$2.6 million.
17. Community Development Youth and Sports Minister - Dr Vivian Balakrishnan - S$2.5 million.
18. Transport Minister & 2nd Minister for Foreign Affairs Raymond Lim Siang Kiat - S$2.5 million.
19. Law Minister & 2nd Minister for Home Affairs K Shanmugam - S$2.4 million.
20. Manpower Minister Gan Kim Yong - S$2.2 million.
21. PMO Minister Lim Hwee Hwa - S$2.2 million
22. Acting ICA Minister - Lui Tuck Yew - S$2.0 million.
23 to 30 = Senior Ministers of State and Ministers of State - each getting between S$1.8 million to S$1.5 million.

Note: 

1. The above pay does not include MP allowances, pensions and other sources of income such as Directorship, Chairmnship, Advisory, Consultancy, etc to Gov-linked and gov-related organisations or foreign MNCs such as Citigroup, etc.
2. Though it is based on an estimate, the data cannot be far off the official salary scales.

source: http://mysingaporenews.blogspot.com/2009/04/top-30-highest-paid-politicians-in.html

Dun believe? Believe it.

political disillusioned...

Although we cant be sure if the conspiracy abt the NTU case is true or not, but somehow, I got a sense of disillusioned as regards to politics; the fakeness and wayangness of it...

This even which most likely going to cause a big stir is the trigger, but the thought is a result that had laid layer over layer over a period of time. Somewhat similar to my disillusion with SAF's wayanging routine; but this is worse, because i cant quit it. Its part of my heritage in fact.

Somehow, i kindda understand the frustration behind some infamous opposition dudes like JBJ, Chee Soon Quan, Low Thia Kiang and those frustrated ah peks(still i am no sympathizer with Chee Soon Quan; i still think he is an idiot); the feeling of seeing injustice or crappiness, but you have no power to change or stop anything.

Like how our ah pek and ah mm started digging the rubbish bins for aluminium cans; how living cost had been rising non-stop while the basic pay remain largely the same; how nurses are underpaid even when their course in poly is so much more demanding than most of the other course, which ironically pays much higher; how town councils can have so much money till they can go do investment on their own while at the same time still can collect even more money; how useless our oppositions are; how elitism is practiced to unassailable levels; how the fuck can certain officers can even become officer; how certain great guys have to salute those fuck up officers; how officers pay can keep increasing while specialist remained stucked; how our minister suggested that we should send the people who helped to build this country to what it is today, to the slums of Johor to see out their final years; how money-minded our government had become; how Mr Lee Kuan Yew isnt stopping and changing all of the above i mentioned; etc...

I ever thought of going into politics, but also discouraged myself from doing so, as it does not really serve much of a practical purpose; because i believe that if you want to serve, you do not need to be a minister or a MP, as long as you can have the money, you can do your part in improving the society...

But now, i cant even see the point of going into politics or even staying in Singapore...

To be able to see what many cant also means to see more crappy stuff than most ppl can.

I want to make Singapore a better place, but I just cant see Singapore surviving for another 100 years... Greed will probably consume our nation one day. And that day, no one in Singapore would want to pick up arms and defend the elites that are enjoying the privileges of being up there, and the country they called home. Because home do not seem to fight for them, thus the lack of the need to fight for home as well.

When we have so much money, and yet our ppl have to work till 65 in order "have enough money to retire"; come on... something must be wrong somewhere. And I still cannot pardon the thought by a certain elite that our old folks should be sent to Johor's old folks home because its cheaper....

THEY ARE THE ONES WHO BUILD THIS NATION. and this is the way we pay our gratitude...


Fuck off....



I dun believe in our leaders anymore. Not PAP, not WP, not SDA, not SDP.

I believe its up to the new generation to CHANGE what is wrong. I dun question the need to be financially power; but not at the expense of our old folks whom build this country and pledge their loyalty to PAP and Mr Lee K Y, for those puny amount of money and land, that is PEANUTS to the elites.



Dear Government, Ministers, MP, and leaders: Please ask yourself why you serve. And if its money and power with no regards for Singaporeans; Pls quit and go into the private sector.

For now, i will just blame myself to be so poor and powerless in changing my country.

"Is S'pore ready for a minority PM?" - HELLO!? Open Your Eyes.

3 Lessons from the US Elections

IS S'PORE READY FOR A MINORITY PM?

Can we see beyond the colour? Not yet, but young are more colour-blind

By Tan May Ping - November 07, 2008  

OVERNIGHT, American voters put us to shame.

They voted in a black president, while Singaporeans will still baulk at accepting a non-Chinese prime minister, say some political top guns and many observers.

In the evolution of democratic politics, Americans just took a giant step forward.

Meanwhile, Singaporeans are still lumbering along like Third World tribes, dragging our baggage of racial hang-ups.

Of course, not all Americans are enlightened voters.

Half of the country's population, who are older and mostly white, are still living in the past and might well view President-elect Barack Obama as an 'uppity nigger'.

As one academic commentator noted: 'Today's radical Republican Party represents a large segment of the population that believes that abortions and same-sex marriages are immoral, God sent America to Iraq...'

So while Mr Obama was the favourite in polls, many expected whites to reveal their true colours when put to the test.

Well, they did the right thing by putting race in the background. Can they continue to do so as America attempts to heal itself after bruising campaigns?

And could Singaporeans do the right thing and ignore the skin colour of a future prime minister?

The leaders of the People's Action Party believe that Singaporeans do vote on racial lines, said Dr Gillian Koh, senior research fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS).

Dr Koh said: 'They feel that there are social faultlines that divide us, especially on race, so Singapore is no where near to being a de-racialised country.

'And that is the whole basis of the GRC system.'

The GRC or group representation constituency was introduced in 1988 to protect Parliament's multiracial composition.

The need for such a scheme shows clearly that we're still tribal folk, flocking together like birds of a feather.

But the immediate post-65 generation, said Dr Koh, would probably be more ready for other ideas as to who the PM can be.

'They were brought up to think One Singapore, One Nation, and would probably not be averse to the idea because of the political ideals of their time,' she added.

The young and the cosmopolitan are likely to be even more colour-blind, say some observers.

They will let the best man lead.

Political analyst Terence Chong from the Institute of Southeast Asia Studies said: 'Many Singaporeans, especially younger ones, are ready because the ideologies of multiculturalism and meritocracy have become part of the Singaporean myth.'

Singaporeans are very pragmatic, and will look for leaders with management ability and people-skills, IPS' Dr Koh said.

Citing an IPS post-2006 election survey, Dr Koh said respondents indicated they voted their members of parliament based on whether they thought they would be effective, fair and have a heart for the people in general.

Another survey last year by two academics at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS) on race and religion also produced surprising results.

It found that over 91 per cent of all races polled said they would accept a prime minster of another race, while at least 92 per cent said they would vote an MP or a Singapore president of a different race.

Among the Chinese, 94 per cent did not mind if the PM was an Indian, and 91 per cent, if he was a Malay.

Referring to the topic of race as an old issue, Workers' Party's organising secretary Yaw Shin Leong said: 'If we truly believe in merit and capabilities, then so long as the person is Singaporean and can do a good job, there should be no reason why the person can't be given the top job.

'To say that certain ethnic groups are not suitable or ready for top office is regressive'.

All that debate might be purely academic given that the electoral system here is focused on political parties, not individual candidates.

The party which has the majority forms the government and chooses the prime minister.

Dr Koh said: 'I think we would need a fully functioning two-party system before we ever reach that scenario.'

The question of race and prime ministership was on then-PM Lee Kuan Yew's mind back in 1988.

He publicly said then that he would have considered then-National Development Minister S Dhanabalan for the PM's job if not for his Indian ethnicity.

Singapore, Mr Lee said, was not ready for an Indian prime minister.

Mr Dhanabalan himself did not think Chinese Singaporeans were ready to accept a non-Chinese PM. In a Straits Times report in November last year, he said that such cross-racial acceptance takes time.

Referring to the RSIS race survey, Mr Dhanabalan felt that the respondents probably gave 'politically correct' answers that did not reflect their real feelings.

He said then: 'I'm not quite convinced. It will take a bit more time. You look at the United States. How long, how many years were they a nation before a Catholic could be elected?

'Let's don't even talk about blacks. Now Barack Obama is the first one. Well, he may not even make it through the primary, right?

'So these are very deep feelings. I'm not saying it's not possible, but I think it will take some time.'

Fast forward a year later.

Mr Obama has done it, despite the widespread fears of voting along racial lines.

Commentators even spoke openly of the prospect of his assassination by a white supremacist group.

But, as in Malaysia's general election, many voters surprised even the experts by rejecting race to 'do the right thing'.

All this gives Singaporeans good reason to gaze in the mirror and ask ourselves how deep runs a tribal instinct and how far we want to evolve as a society.

extracted from The New Paper :http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/news/story/0,4136,182629,00.html?

Seriously, I feel like giving the writer a slap first before I start.

I am seriously angry and felt insulted the very first line of the article.

I want to question you, Ms/Mdm Tan May Ping, how did you get the impression that Singaporeans are not ready for a non-Chinese Prime Minister? And how does that going to put Singaporeans to shame?

First, lets talk facts. The United States took more than a hundred years to arrive at this stage. The African Americans were first brought into the continent as slaves and labourers. They are forced labours. Badly treated and discriminated. The hatred between the 2 races goes beyond you and our understanding. So on this first context, you are already making a very bad assumption or presupposition that the different races in Singapore are hostile against each other, or at least in the state of serious racism.

Singapore had lasted the past few decades based on meritocracy, and equality among all. I have Indian friends, I have Malay friends, not to mention Indonesian, Burmese, PRC nationals... Do I have any issues with them? No! 

2ndly, you are neglecting the fact that, despite the country is governed by the Prime Minister; It is the President that is the head of state. The President is above all and is the only one who can grant a 2nd chance for a person of death sentence. So by choosing PM as the topic of contention, you are making a big mistake, out of context, and insulting our President. And talk about the President, all 4 races were represented throught the rotation of Presidents. So when President S.R Nathan became the President, do any Singaporeans complaint or resented? In fact, we cheered for him every National Day Parade. Thats Singapore for you.

3rdly, while the U.S President is, may I emphasize?, VOTED IN by the citizens of United States, but our Prime Minister aren't. The choice of the Prime Minister is based on who the Cabinet and the incumbent PM choose, based on one's ability to carry out the important task of leading our country and care for the people. So by this context, YOU cannot imply that Singaporeans REFUSED to have a minority to head the nation. And again, this previous sentence is still wrong, because the President IS the head of state, not the Prime Minister. 

So after the 3rd point, that brings us to the 4th point that I want to make: The President IS voted in by the People of Singapore. And we had been representated well by former Presidents of all the 4 races: prominently, President Yusof bin Ishak, President Benjamin Sheares, President Ong Teng Cheong, and the current President, S.R Nathan. Despite I understood that the Presidential election only began with Mr Ong Teng Cheong, its still without doubt that they holding the highest position in the Government of Singapore.

So now, I come to the next point, about practical steps a minority lawmaker should take, in order to "convince" the general public, especially the majority Chinese that you make out to be "colour-bias".

First we should look back to Mr Lee Kuan Yew's early political life. If you realised something, while he is a Chinese, he spoked in Malay. Big Hint.

If one minority wants to command respect among ALL races, especially from those Chinese aunties and uncles, those Ah ma and Ah peks; they need to learn to speak Mandarin. Its not a must seriously, but if you notice that Mr Lee Hsien Loong speaks in Malay during the National Day Rally, you should understand that I am not joking. 

To connect with the people, especially those less well off and less educated, you MUST speak their language, to let them know that you understand them and know their need. Imagine the impact of a Malay politician or an Indian politician speaks fluent Mandarin or even Hokkien to the crowds during the Rallies before the election. Can you imagine the impact, especially on those Ah ma and Ah peks whom only understand Mandarin? But of course, this works best with the Opposition since that commands the biggest and easily impressed crowds. Those Ah Ma and Ah Peks might very well voted the minority in...

So, stop making false accusations at your fellow Singaporeans. If JBJ can be voted in at Anson against a Chinese PAP politician, there is no reason why we are still at this question of Racism and Biasness.

After all, the Prime Minister is not of our choice. If Mr Lee Kuan Yew, then thinks that after him, Singapore is not ready for an Indian Prime Minister, then so be it. We should look forward and see how is the best capable person to "memberi kita kepada masa depan yg lebih baik". 

K?

Understand what I meant?

Anwar D-Day

Today is the supposed D-day, anniversary of the formation of the Federation of Malaysia, that Anwar say he is going to form the new government.

And on the news, Anwar said he gotten 31 lawmakers from Barisan Nasional to join his coalition. Abdullah Badawi, the Prime Minister reject that claim.

So everything seemingly stucked in the air somehow.

But I kindda happy, in fact wanted, Malaysia to be headed by Anwar and his non-BN coalition.

Reason : It will mark the end of the Bumiputera Policy

The Malay superiority policies had actually hampered the growth of Malaysia more than the BN government like to believe. And with the UMNO (United Malay National Organisation) looking more and more racist, and their increasingly disregard towards the Chinese and the Indians Malaysians; it had no doubt that one day, this aggression might be directed towards my country: Singapore.

Singapore left the Federation because of the disagreement on the same issue that Malaysia is STILL facing today. 

Malaysian Malaysia or Malay Malaysia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysian_Malaysia

Mr Lee Kuan Yew's vision of an equality society marked by meritocracy, more or less rejected by the PM of Malaysia then, Abdul Rahman, eventually strived in the little Lion City to the south. While Malaysia pushed itself forward to becoming one of the most looked up to Islamic Country in the world, the social fabric remained very very fragile.

Mainly due to Minister Mentor Lee's power and success that built up over the years, he made calculated potshots at Malaysia's Bumiputera policy; saying that the the attitude of neighbouring Malaysia and Indonesia towards Singapore was shaped by the way they treat their own ethnic Chinese minorities.

"Our neighbours both have problems with their Chinese. They are successful. They are hardworking and therefore they are systemically marginalised," he said.

Indonesia and Malaysia "want Singapore, to put it simply, to be like their Chinese — compliant", Lee said.

MM Lee's words seems sinister and very deliberate, perhaps the revenge for expelling of Singapore from Malaysia; but with his influence and power today, he know he can pull it off.

And true enough, Malaysia goes into racial turmoil; not once, but twice. With the local minorities agreeing with MM Lee's words while of course, the main Malay papers and the government condemning it. But the damage is done.

As Malaysia decides their fate during the election just months ago, everything becomes very clear: Malaysian want changes.

What changes exactly i dunno. The minorities definitely rides on the promise of the Pakatan Rakyat's intention to put an end on the Bumiputera Policy, while the Malays, perhaps fed up with the probable corruptions, worsening crime rates as well as Malay Elites dominance through the exploitation of the Bumiputera Policy.

Anwar definitely gains from all these. Anwar had proven during his term in government, good knowledge of economics and seemed to understand that for some long term benefit for the country, short term pains must be endured (Singaporeans are so used to this till we are immune to such pains). He was sent to prison before he can implement his widely opposed plans. Now he is back, and I reckon that Malaysia will grow stronger with him as leader.

A stronger and more prosperous Malaysia will also add on to the growth of Singapore; and of the whole of ASEAN.

Not that i dun not like Badawi, but its just that i dun not like the Bumiputera Policy that is enforced by his party. 

Anwar should be able to succeed in his "change the sky" operation, i guess, no minority in Malaysia would want the disputed policy to continue any longer.

other articles abt Lee Kuan Yew's "accusation":

http://lawmanthoughts.blogspot.com/2006/09/non-malays-marginalised-in-malaysia-and.html

http://www.jeffooi.com/2006/10/marginalised_chinese_harry_lee.php

http://www.overseassingaporean.sg/forums/index.php?showtopic=375