Who should the one providing the Future Plans of Singapore?

Honestly, I'm very disappointed with the way how the election is going so far because until today, just 5 days from Polling Day, I still dunno what are the macro plans PAP have for Singapore. I still dunno HOW PAP is going to tackle of the issues that had arise from PAP's last 5 years in power.

What more joke-able, is that so many People of Singapore are scrutinizing the plans and proposals from the Opposition... Do you know that MM Lee, SM Goh and PM Lee might be laughing at this "game" thats happening, and we the Singaporeans are really as daft as they believe?

"MM Lee, SM Goh and PM Lee might be laughing at this "game" thats happening, and we the Singaporeans are really as daft as they believe?"

I can't really stress enough: NO OPPOSITION PLANS WILL GET THE GO AHEAD FROM THE PAP (if PAP returns to power as a Majority Party).

I repeat again: PAP WILL NOT GIVE POLITICAL TOKENS TO THE OPPOSITION TO FULFILL THEIR ELECTION PROMISES.

I still have to say again: OPPOSITION PLANS MEANS NOTHING WITHOUT PAP'S BLESSING!



SO... why the hell are you still reading and finger pointing the proposals and points made by the Opposition which you think will not work for Singapore? Dun you think its a bit too early to scrutinize the Opposition for a credible alternative plan when everyone knows that the PAP will return to power with a massive majority ultimately in this election?


ONLY THE PAP's PLANS WILL GO THROUGH. And so, this question beckons: What is PAP's future plan for Singapore? How are the PAP going to deal with all the issues that faces Singaporeans today?



...........* silence *.............

"Why would the PAP stop what they had been doing for the past 5-15 years when their plans are planned up to 25 years in advance and had been working extremely well for them and their "report card"?"

Honestly, you know why PAP is so quiet? Because they CANNOT reveal their plans to you.... because...
- they intend to continue to bring in more foreigners
- increase the population in Singapore to 6.5 million
- continue to build more ERPs
- continue to raise their salary
- continue to raise GST to 10% for some stupid reason
- continue to let HDB prices balloon
- continue to control the number of HDB built to create a scarcity to push the prices up
- continue to give more scholarships to foreigners together with allowances
- continue to set up work fairs in China to attract for Foreigners
- continue to raise transport fees to keep the transport companies profitable
- continue to allow medical fee to increase to keep the hospitals profitable (or more profitable)
- etc...

You get my drift? Why would the PAP stop what they had been doing for the past 5-15 years when their plans are planned up to 25 years in advance and had been working extremely well for them and their "report card"?

Nothing will change under PAP in the next 5 years. Mark my words. NOTHING will change.

Gazetting of TOC - a sign of weakness?

"The first reaction I had was that the Ruling Party is attempting to "shut down" TOC."

The breaking news yesterday was the announcement of the gazetting of The Online Citizen.

Based on the article, the TOC is required to reveal all the ppl behind the site as well as being gazetted as a political association - thus cannot receive any fundings for overseas at all.

The first reaction I had was that the Ruling Party is attempting to "shut down" TOC.

TOC, is infamous for their extremely one-sided and anti-PAP stance; to register with MDA, gazette as a Political Association and at the same time revealing everyone's identity is as good as opening themselves to potential lawsuits and even the controversial National Security Act.

"...revealing everyone's identity is as good as opening themselves to potential lawsuits and even the controversial National Security Act."

I personally do not endorse the sort of reporting by TOC, but do give them credit for doing a pretty good job at revealing the plight of fellow Singaporeans and mis-doings under the current Government's imperfect rule.

But on the other side of this developing story, the leadership of the PAP apparently had revealed indirectly of their vulnerability ahead of the coming election. They apparently know that their profit and GDP driven rule for the past 4 or more years is rated very badly by the people. In addition, last year (2010) was the worst ever year for PAP for as long as any Gen Y babies (1983 and later) can ever remember.

"They (the ruling party) actually knew that they had pushed the envelope too much."

They (the ruling party) actually knew that they had pushed the envelope too much; they finally realised that they can actually and possibly sank into their worst ever performance in an General Election since our nation's independence; they are afraid the status quo will no longer be able to be maintained. The gazette of TOC reveals all this.

The PAP had, since under Mr Goh Chok Tong's rule, started to play with carrots like HDB upgrades, Lifts Upgrade, Before-Election-Cash-Payouts, and many other less than impressive ideas... They assumed that most Singaporean are daft and will not be able to tell that they are manipulated through the use of these carrots; that even if they knew, they would still vote the PAP in because the oppositions just cannot make it...

"...a new Generation of voters (the Gen-Y) that a high percentage are expected to vote nay to PAP."

But the coming General Election is different... it would going to go down in history as the first election in a long time to be fully contested without a single walk-over. It is going to happen at the back of the worst ever "living-condition" and happiness level since independence... as well as a new Generation of voters (the Gen-Y) that a high percentage are expected to vote nay to PAP.

I just wonder, if TOC refuse the register, what is going to happen? =\

New rulings for political chatters online.

source: http://www.todayonline.com/Hotnews/EDC100312-0000157/Elections-advertising--OB-markers-to-shift

Elections advertising: OB markers to shift
by Zul Othman and Zul Othman 05:55 AM Mar 12, 2010

SINGAPORE - There will be slightly more leeway for Singaporeans to discuss political issues and promote online any contesting candidate in future General and Presidential Elections. But the consequences will be more robust if anyone falls afoul of the law.

These changes to Internet elections advertising were among the details revealed yesterday as the amendments to the Constitution and the Parliamentary and Presidential Elections Acts were tabled in Parliament. While operators of non-political party websites will not be required to register with the Media Development Authority for propagating political issues during the polls, they would have to take note of where not to tread.

For instance, publishing false statements about the personal character or conduct of a candidate incurs a new penalty of a fine or jail time of up to 12 months, or both.

The Ministry of Information, Communication and the Arts also told MediaCorp: "They should be mindful that if what they do amounts to election activity which is done for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of a candidate, they need written authorisation of the candidate or his election agent to do so."

But just as political parties are not allowed campaign on Polling Day - and now also on the day before that, which Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong previously described as a new "Cooling Off Day" - this rule will also apply to any election advertising, online or offline.

Those who engage in such advertising can be fined up to $1,000 or jailed up to 12 months or both.

Election candidates will have a defence, though, if third parties still campaign on their behalf on these two days - if the circumstances were beyond the candidate's control, and he or she "took all reasonable steps, and exercised all due diligence" to prevent any advertising.



'NON COMMERCIAL' SMSES EXCLUDED FROM BLACKOUT

Where the election advertising is already lawfully published or displayed before the cooling off period, such as posters and banners and websites, the ban would not apply so long as they remain unaltered. Non-citizens, however, will not be allowed to advertise at all.

Also excluded from the election blackout: Emailing, SMSing or MMSing political views by one individual to another, "on a non-commercial basis".

What will not change are the traditional television broadcasts by political parties on the eve of polling day and election coverage by the media.

Political observer and Singapore Management University law lecturer Eugene Tan told MediaCorp it was "quite clear" the Government is tabling "a comprehensive set of rules as to what candidates can or cannot do".

However, he felt it "remained to be seen" if these rules can cover every scenario. "The big unknown is how these rules would be enforced. It's important that the electorate can see that these set of rules are applied to everyone without fear or favour," he added.

Dr Gillian Koh, senior research fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies, felt the written authorisation required from candidates to advertise on their behalf could work to the benefit of the bigger People's Action Party if it mobilises support online.

"But it is going to be challenging to get people to go to their sites when the public gets so much about it (election news) from the mainstream media," she added.



NOW SEIZABLE OFFENCES

The new rules come at a time when there has been a gradual political liberalisation. In recent years, the Government has made Speakers' Corner an unrestricted area.

During the election period, though, anyone who wants to hold election meetings - defined as public assemblies organised by or on behalf of a candidate to aid his campaign - will have to get a permit from the Commissioner of Police even at Speakers' Corner from the time of Nomination Day to Polling Day.

Many election offences - including displaying "any badge, symbol, set of colours, flags, advertisement, handbill, placard or posters as political propaganda" - on Cooling Off Day and Polling Day have been made seizable offences. This means the police can make an arrest without a warrant.

The amendments yesterday also give powers to the President to postpone Nomination Day in the case of, say, natural calamities or the threat of violence. If it is a Presidential Election, that power is vested in the Prime Minister.

The Returning Officer appointed for an election can also make postponements to polling at a polling station or the counting of votes in such cases. What was not set out in the amendments: The number of Group Representation Constituencies and Single-Member Constituencies. This will be done by the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee.

But the proposed changes did specify the maximum number of Non-Constituency MPs from any single GRC: Two.

Everything sounds alright in my opinion except for ONE PART:

"What will not change are the traditional television broadcasts by political parties on the eve of polling day and election coverage by the media."

This "election coverage by the media" MIGHT be the grey area... although its nothing new.

It would be interesting how things will pan out during the election period.

---

Also interesting to note is how the internet plane will be subjected to monitoring and moderation because of the new law. Its another potential grey zone, as how one defines "ppl writing or speaking on behalf of candidates". If i'm a supporter of Party A, of course i gonna be commenting or speaking in favour of Party A; does that consider me writing on behalf of Party A?

And the ambiguous ruling of candidates needing to do their due diligence to make sure they did everything to make sure that they arent "spoke on behalf by" others. This could become a "weapon" to smear the "opponent" or a backhanded approach if things "gets out of hand".

Another pitfall is the also new ruling of the strong deterrence against ppl from speaking falsely abt the personality, action and character of the candidates. This could be a tripping line for many of those activists online (Majulah! is not a activist organisation nor do we support any particular party; we are neutral) as from observations, tend to be pretty firebrand in their criticism on the ruling party.

So all political activists, observers, commentators should take note of the new ruling and not get themselves into unnecessary trouble.

ELECTION IS LOOMING... =}

Response to "Young PAP on Budget 2010"

The "Young PAP on Budget 2010" is available at Young PAP's website or at this link - http://www.youngpap.org.sg/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=143:young-pap-on-budget-2010&catid=24:political-discussions

The reproduction of the article:

Young PAP on Budget 2010
Written by YP Activists from the North (Singapore)
Tuesday, 02 March 2010 08:45

A lot has been said about Budget 2010. We'd like to share our personal thoughts on some of the hot debate topics to date:



1) "Minimum Wage - why isn't this in Budget 2010?"
Some have asked for Singapore to have a Minimum Wage -- a mantra thickly repeated but thin on substance. Any Minimum Wage proposal needs to be clear on at least 2 questions. If the proposal hasn't answered them, you should ask why this information has been left out.
- Will a Minimum Wage be restricted to Singaporeans only?
- What is the level of Minimum Wage being proposed?

But even without these important details, one can see how a Minimum Wage policy would hurt ordinary Singaporeans.

If Minimum Wage is only for Singaporeans, it will encourage employers to fire Singaporeans and hire foreign workers -- because foreign workers will become even cheaper compared to Singaporeans.

If Minimum Wage is applied to both Singaporeans and foreign workers, mobile businesses will move their operations abroad, to places where the cost of labour is cheaper -- again losing Singaporean jobs.

It's clear: Minimum Wage would harm Singaporean workers - especially low skill workers whose jobs can easily be replaced when the employer relocates overseas.

Minimum Wage would hurt small businesses and SMEs with thin margins. Because these businesses have difficulty moving abroad -- so they may have to close shop instead.

Minimum Wage would disadvantage charities and social enterprises that hire Singaporeans and are trying to help fellow Singaporeans.

Yet despite all these bad effects, Minimum Wage would do nothing to help workers up-skill, retrain and find a new job.


2) "Shouldn't we reduce taxes and fees on the less well-off?"
Yes, that's precisely what Singapore has done through a progressive income tax system -- where high earners pay more income tax.

Furthermore, Singapore has a progressive system for redistributing the fruits of economic growth. Tax revenue comes from all taxpayers in Singapore regardless of their nationality. But Singapore's Budget transfers are aimed at Singaporeans. This gives more subsidy and transfers to less well-off Singaporeans.


3) "We should privatise Temasek and GIC and give the equity to Singapore citizens."
This is, in essence, a proposal to deplete Singapore's Reserves and give them away as a handout. It is good to help Singaporeans but wrong to squander Singaporeans' future away!

In recent times, some First World countries have seen financial difficulty, e.g. Greece and Iceland. Even the British Pound Sterling was attacked by currency speculators in the Black Wednesday incident of 1992 -- speculators later described as those who "broke the Bank of England".

Any proposal to drain Singapore's Reserves dry, no matter how carefully disguised, must be seen for what it is -- lowering Singapore's economic defences.


4) "Can't we get the private sector to do low cost housing? We can just give away the land for low-cost housing."

Low cost housing, without responsible stakeholders, can cause a race to the bottom in quality and safety.

There is also the problem of causing property prices throughout Singapore to fall. This will undermine the major investment of most Singaporeans who are homeowners.

Any "cheap deal" to create low cost housing out of nowhere in Singapore must be studied carefully. Will it compromise housing quality for less well-off Singaporeans? Will it destroy the value of Singaporeans' homes?

Last Updated on Tuesday, 02 March 2010 08:52

--------

The article is written by a group of PAP activist, whom call themselves "YP Activists from the North", whom shared their personal thought on certain "hot debate topics". Unfortunately, after reading what they got to say,they seemed to turn out to be a very shallow group of activists - single faceted and totally lack of the sensing of the ground temperament. At best, they are simply trying very hard to "back" the governing party's party lines. In summary, its simply a poor attempt to dismiss what the Oppositions got to say and encouraging ppl to resist "change for the better".

And I'm extremely unimpressed by their lack of "pride" to show their names and identity. And for their article to be published on the official youth wing of the PAP is, what i deem, a big SNAFU and a pathetic reflection what the Youth Wing of the biggest and more powerful political party can offer.

In a immediate response thru the facebook, this is the comment i made (in case they "censor" it):

-----------

all i can say is its a matter of perspective and how you gonna commit to our beliefs.

1) Just as a minimum wage you guys claim will hurt ordinary Singaporeans, the lack of minimum wage is already hurting "ordinary" Singaporeans. Aren't the foreigners already taking up a lot of jobs that Singaporeans were used to be doing. Just check out your neighbourhood Kopitiam. Minimum wage is not a single economic instrument that works on its own. It should be coupled together with immigration policies as well as other economic and social policies.

Just as i'm on immigration policy, why is the immigration so slack to the point where "unqualified" immigrants are taking up jobs that originally belonged to our less educated population?

To become PR or Citizen, one must be at least very rich, or they have to be skilled workers in order to be able to stay in Singapore. Now all these unskilled workers are taking up the jobs of our unskilled population (because they can accept even lesser pay as opposed to what is already very low pay)

2) I have no complains abt the taxation as the less well off already do not pay income tax.

3) Privatising of the SWFs does not mean it would deplete the Singapore's reserves. At the same length, you might as well close down the stock exchange as it would "bankrupt" all the floated companies. Your "fuller explanation" is in fact more dilute than the "summary".

4) I'm sure there is a much more "complete" plan towards whatever solutions or suggestion there is. I personally do not see a benefit of leaving building of low cost housing to private sector.

I'm sorry, i have to dismiss with your "analysis". I'm disappointed if this "article" is what Young PAP (Official Youth Wing of the ruling party) can come out with. Its extremely shallow; either its irrelevant or its single faceted.

---------

Additional comment towards their article:

They do not provide solutions and suggestions, but just pure dismissal of what the public is concerned abt. Their dismissal of these debatable topic is also done is an extremely one sided and bias approach - tanishing what "respect" one might held for the YP before reading the article.

If this is the quality of the "young leaders" within the Youth Wing of the PAP, there is no wonder why the PAP kept looking for talents beyond their own party hierachy, from the private sector. And it also re-assured my decisions not to be associated with them nor joining their youth wing, is correct.


With the election looming, this article is a pure political snapshot at the Opposition, which missed by a million mile unless the reader is really really shallow and have a total lack of sensing of the ground.

Childish; Disappointed; Disgusted.

Its just all wayang....

Refer to the article by CNA below.
(just for info, i'm a hougang kid through and through, although i dun stay in the WP's ward, but Hougang nevertheless)

Its seems like all the "services" done by the PAP candidates is just for show; purely with the intention of getting the votes than to really serve from their heart.

According to the report below, Eric Low slapped a fee on the free medical check up, stopped his "meet-the-people" sessions and canceled the popular free breakfast for the needy - to describe this in a stronger tone - a retaliation against the what was perceived as a betrayal by the Hougang ppl in the last election. As for Sitoh Yih Pin, he just simply stopped everything and disappear like a wisp of smoke.

And now, as elections looms, our dear Mr Eric Low is "up-ing the ante". Launch a wheelchair loaning service, considering of resuming his "meet-the-people" sessions and day-care center for the old soon...

I say, COME ON LAH! Thats really way too fake.

Only at the impending election that he springs into action. Since when service to the people (for someone whom "really cares") get to rest (for reportingly a year) and refuse to "meet" the people whom sought for his help. If someone wanted help from you and approach you, do you tell them: "Wait after National Day can? I may consider meeting you..."

Does the people whom need help get to put their problems aside for a year able to wait for you???

I say, if you are really sincere abt making all this wheelchair loan thingy and the day care center thingy... you wouldnt wait till now and it should have a clear way of funding these stuff so that it can last forever.

My fear is that, this may just be another "political" move just like the free breakfast for the needy thingy. So you lost the election, then our needy no need to be taken care of and the free breakfast thingy should stop?

WTF is, "not to be taken for granted"??? [getting personal and emotional liaoz...]

You decide that this is a way to service the people and help the needy; THEN, it should never be considered into your plans that this is going to be a component in your election plans.

What is our Dear Mr Eric Low treating the Hougang Residents as??? Casino Chips? Chess Pieces? Dispensable Commodities?

DEAR POLITICIANS, Please serve from your heart and with sincerity. If you are sincere in serving the people and wanting the best for the people; you wouldnt care if you get elected or not - since if you can serve without being a MP, whats stopping you to continue serving even if you lost the election.

If Eric Low still want to fight in Hougang, I am confident he is going to lose again; and possibly with an even bigger margin.

Mark my words. People remember your words and actions!

---------

source: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/282914/1/.html

Eric Low gears up for the fight again
By Loh Chee Kong,TODAY | Posted: 18 June 2007 1123 hrs

SINGAPORE: A year ago, a despondent Mr Eric Low fresh from a second straight morale-sapping electoral defeat at the hands of Workers’ Party (WP) chief Low Thia Khiang — decided that he would stop being taken for granted by Hougang residents.

So, he slapped a fee on his previously free health-screening programme and stopped his Meet-The-People sessions and popular free breakfast service for the needy.

But on Sunday, the 59-year-old Cisco Security general manager and defeated People’s Action Party (PAP) candidate told TODAY he was ready to up the ante again, in the Opposition stronghold.

“Since the elections, I have completed a renewal of my grassroots leaders and launched a few new programmes. And now that I’ve had one year’s rest, I’m considering recommencing my Meet-The-People sessions very soon,” said Mr Low.

He is expected to make the announcement at the constituency’s National Day dinner. The Hougang grassroots adviser, who gets a handful of letters each month from residents seeking help, said: “There has been quite a number of requests to see me. I may consider seeing them ... We shall see after National Day.”

In the General Election held in May last year, his WP opponent not only successfully defended his parliamentary seat, but also stretched his winning margin to more than 62 per cent of the votes in Hougang.

There have been doubts cast over Mr Low’s candidacy in the next polls, due by 2011. But the PAP stalwart, who entered the political fray in 2001, said he was encouraged by the enthusiasm of his new grassroots leaders and would “continue to do what I can”.

There are signs that he is stepping up his game: On Sunday, he was out and about with Minister of State for Finance and Transport Lim Hwee Hua, spreading the anti-dengue message to Hougang residents.

Last month, he launched a “wheelchair-for-loan” programme; next up is a day-care centre for senior citizens. He has also drawn up a five year activity workplan aimed at forging a “kampung spirit” in Hougang, despite not having been given any signal by the PAP leadership that he will be contesting the ward again.

Said Mr Low: “You do what you can as long as you are at it. Nothing is permanent in life.”

Over at the other Opposition-held ward Potong Pasir, however, Mr Sitoh Yih Pin — who also made his debut for the PAP in 2001 — has been keeping a low profile since his loss to Mr Chiam See Tong.

Resident Melvin Tan, 28, remarked: “It has been very quiet as compared to in the past. I’ve not seen Mr Sitoh or his people around.”

When contacted, Mr Sitoh said he had “no immediate plans” to resume his activities, including meet-the-people sessions, in Potong Pasir. According to grassroots leaders, residents have probably seen the last of the famous $2 shark’s fin soup and abalone porridge dished out at community events in the past.

Mr Sitoh’s right-hand man Chua Kian Meng said no community outreach events have been held since the elections. “So far, there’s been nothing. There’s also nothing planned,” he said.

But Mr Chua, who had earlier told the press he might resign as chairman of the Citizens’ Consultative Committee, now says he is staying on.

Shortly after the PAP’s defeat in the two single-seat wards, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong — who had thrown his political weight behind the two candidates - announced that both would cut back on their services to residents. They would also “act like an opposition” by pointing out faults in the two constituencies, Mr Goh had said.

Mr Low emphasised that he “didn’t want to be seen as a watchdog”, adding: “It’s best for residents to judge rather than for me to point out the faults.”

WP chief Low could not be reached for comment on Sunday, but Mr Eric Low’s perseverance has not gone unnoticed by Hougang residents. Said 60-year-old Mr Ng: “He is still working very hard. We still see him making his rounds regularly.”

A neighbourhood shop-owner added: “When you lose, you should continue to work hard, not less. You cannot abandon the people, especially those who need help.”
- TODAY/fa

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.)

[RECOMMENDED READ] Level the playing field for locals and foreigners in employment?

I would like to recommend this read from The Online Citizen

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/08/level-the-playing-field-for-locals-and-foreigners-in-employment/

Its about the inequality between Singaporeans and Non-Singaporean when comes to employment and certain "rights". The implications is that, it would cause business owners to have preference in employing foreigners than Singaporeans.

It also created a question, which is always on my mind... And its NOT "What it meant to be a Singaporean" (as in being proud of being Singaporean)... BUT, "What differentiates us Singaporeans from non-Singaporeans?"

Although, it can also be questioned as "What it meant to be a Singaporean" (but as in, why the fuck Singaporeans arent treated like we from this country).

Seriously, I have no idea whats the diff between PR and Singapore Citizen... NS and Polls? Somemore?

Singaporeans = Contemporary Coolies? My Take.

The article from SingaporeanSkeptic.blogspot.com highlighted a growing issue in Singapore.

Its the same problem I always highlighted to ppl (not sure if i did that in this blog), that the salary had not really increase much for the past 20 years (since I was 6-7 years old). Maybe at that time the starting salary is $1200. Now? Its isnt very must better, just $1600 to $1800. But then, taxi fare starts at $1.20 and now its already ard $3 the moment you get into the cab. And I havent talked abt bus fare (which is worse)

Expenses literally doubled (other than food...) but salary hadnt. Rents for shops and stalls had raised tremendously, until, what used to be profitable business, now become a struggle to continue - resulting in debts...


Singaporeans as a whole, we are really educated to be workers and employees. We are inculcated the "get a degree and get a high pay job" mentality throughout the past 30-40 years and this itself had even starting to evolve into "get a degree so that you can get a decent job".

Singapore had transformed tremendously since independence, but mentality and culture of Singaporeans had not. Even though the Government's foreign worker policy (from highly trained to construction workers) had made it easier for Government to keep the numbers up and business flowing; they had forgotten to consider what individual Singaporeans going to face in such demographic change in our workers' population.

Top jobs going more to foreigners and bottom jobs given to cheap labours from overseas. Singaporeans are left stucked in the middle. The middle class is historically weak and easily affected by policy change or recession. And this is exactly whats happening now.

My Hypothesis
So now that Singaporeans have gone thru life from the bottom: coolies, construction workers, factory workers.... to the middle class which lasted for the past 20 years: office workers, sales people, etc... PERHAPS, its time for Singaporeans to move up the ladder again. Lets start to be the people at the TOP of the food chain, managing "Middle Class Foreigners" and "Blue collar foreigners"

Perplex?

Its probably untenable for Singaporeans to continue to stay with their worker mentality and continue to subject themselves to availability of jobs and competition with increasingly smart and cheap foreign labour. Its only logical that Singaporeans should start to have more entrepreneurial mindsets and start to transform the demographic from a middle class majority, to a "top heavy one"; one that shows a tremendously high percentage of people are business leaders, entreprenuers, whom their business stretch beyond Singapore and into the regions around Singapore.

When I now use the word "Entreprenuers" , i'm not talking abt those Property Agents and Financial Consultants, nor those small businesses that just scrapping to earn those little money within our borders; I am talking about transforming Singaporeans to become creative and daring to scale their business bigger and bring their business overseas.

The Goal: is to make Singapore a business entreprenuership powerhouse.

Imagine a Singapore, which is already a financial centre and a jewel in South East Asia, that have the highest percentage of people running their own business in the world; many of our local companies stretch their arms into other countries in the region, providing high quality products and services into our neighbouring countries and in turn, bring in more cash back into Singapore.

Think this little Red Dot is becoming so satuated that its had to burst outwards with multiple arms reaching out for more "domination" in the business realm.

Think Japan's economic miracles and dominance. Think Silicon Valley (but instead of just IT stuff, but across ALL industries). Think of our Sovereign Weath Funds (SWF), that stretch aross seas to make their mark. Think Middleeast, where their petrol money is coming from all over the world.



This is the only viable way to go, and it will bring Singapore even more years of economic success and anchor Singapore as an ever more important country among the league of nations.

But I have reiterate, that this can only be achieve if our Government willing to pool resources in helping to train, educate and even fund the Singaporeans to become entreprenuers. It requires massive change in the educational system to help switch our mindset from worker to start-own-business mentality. Singaporeans then should make use of our favourable business environment in Singapore to build their business.


From a nation of workers, to a nation of business leaders. Imagine.


(p.s: might seemed a bit lofty and maybe i didnt organise my writings properly as well. But i do suspect PAP does understand this, and sec sch students are having "education" in entreprenuership based on my understanding... cheers anyway)

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.

Changing of Electoral Rules - A Masterstroke.

sorry for the lack of "action" in this blog...
too busy..

Anyway, the biggest talking point on Singapore politics lately had been the new election rulings, abt the additional single seat wards, reduction of size in GRC, increase of minimum Opposition in parliament to 9, etc...

My view is this is a positive move by the PAP. Although WP can say all they want abt this changes is not enough or whatsoever, but think again, PAP can jolly well just continue on status quo; so lets be thankful that PAP is willing to give the Oppositions more chance to get into the parliament and put in their part in making Singapore a better place.

New single wards and reduction of GRC size is perhaps the most bewildering move, as far as PAP supporters are concerned. Because this is basically a weakening of PAP's dominance, given the history and fact that our Oppositions hardly able to build up a strong team to compete in the GRC. And additional SMC also means more chance for individual talented linguists to grab a seat for their parties.

Why such a move?
Perhaps it comes down to the lack of "quality" MPs within the PAP. As GRC is embraced, the number of the powerful-passionate-committed PAP politicians takes a dip (its just an impression). Weak PAP candidates, like Heng Chee How (who took on Low Thia Kiang and lost), is put into a GRC, to ensure their "qualification" into MP-hood.

To me, GRC is less of an avenue to protect minority groups, but more of an avenue to either putting "quiet" and "abiding" PAP members into the Parliament (which is more "strategic", to prevent infighting and less opposition within the PAP) or someone who is capable, but just cannot connect with the constituents (wish I hope is the case. But still usually, such ppl are still too quiet to make any decent contribution in Parliamentary debates).

As I mentioned earlier, the lack of "out-spoken" and "endearing" MPs from PAP could have started to backfire at PAP: losing ground support and respect; lack of contributions in parliament; just simply not "capable" enough. The general "standard" of PAP could be degenerating to a point where, the cabinet ministers close a blind eye anymore (in exchange for "parliamentary compliance"). Of course, all this is just speculations; DUN SUE ME.

Either way, quality is starting to prove to be more important than quantity, especially in the onset of a difficult era, a new age, a new world order. PAP can no longer just dominate the political scene (albeit with "mediocre" ppl) and just have the "quality" in the cabinet (the one whom really make decisions).

The new age, beyond the global economic crisis, is a treacherous one for vulnerable Singapore. In the past, manufacturing industry is easier to build up and grow Singapore; its very much a hardware thing... But the Singapore now, finance center, service sector, tourism, high tech reseach, bio-med science, IT, digital media, games development, movie industry... All the just mentioned is extremely volatile. Research can anytime be triumph by others with greater capacity and talents (China, Japan, US, etc...); games dev and movie dev is one of the highest risk possible in investment, they can just flop and you lose millions... not to mention how behind we are in term of digital media and games dev technology...

In the face of all this caprice and uncertainty, PAP must be worried abt the future, and one which they are now finding their "laid-back GRC tag-along" quite useless (or so i think).

On the other hand, Oppositions are starting to consolidate and gaining strength, in both wisdom and talents. With the leadership of Reform Party, under a man, whose credentials and paper qualifications matching, if not, beating many of the PAP members; the stability and growth of WP under Sylvia Lim and Low; its simply "untapped" Singaporean talents. Thus, with the introduction of 9 NMP slots for Oppositions, they get to acquire the views and input of the best and more talented 9 Opposition members. At the same time, it can also cause the Oppositions to "relax" on their drive to unroot the PAP, since they are like almost guaranteed a spot in the parliament; if to worst, cause infighting between Oppositions parties when they try to negotiate which wards they want to compete in (might even en up with 3 way fight, which will definitely benefit PAP).

Thus, to say the truth, this entire move, is a total masterstroke by the leadership of PAP; which kills many bird in one stone: get more talented ppl with gd views, visions and input to contribute to the parliament; reduce "animosity" of the Opposition (or appease them, but giving them almost guaranteed spots); discourage ppl from voting lousy Opposition candidates simply because they dun want to vote PAP; cause infighting among the Oppositions when they fighting for wards to compete in, especially when there are more candidates than possible seats to fight for; and lastly, put pressure on those "tag-along" PAP MP, whom their iron-bowl in parliament is perhaps, all but over.

Even for the Oppositions, there is simply nothing to lose, but all to gain. A surprising win-win situation... something that could never happen in politics, turns possible.

AWARE not aware.

Reading the drama of the women group, AWARE's AGM surprise shuffle in the papers really kindda sums up a lot about human nature.

As we stay in a job or organisation for sometime, we were then regarded as senior and expect respect from ppl whom just joined. But its also the reality of life that this hierarchical concept of thought does not always stay fixed.

So after many years of mingling in AWARE, the supposed leaders of the group got kicked out by a organized mass of newly joined. Now the defeated "clique" questions the intention of these newbies and pointed out that they should form their own grouping since they have differences in philosophy.

But if thats the case, why have AGM? Why have ppl to vote in the committee? And why give entry to the organisation so easily if you want to limit thus freedom? Its an irony and also a fact of life.

In another perspective, now that these "newbies" got voted in by majority vote, which thus means they are now the leader the majority wanted, thus they have the legitimacy to lead. They are like the Thai Rak Thai Party led by Thaksin few years back where he commands the majority support in the country. But these "elites" or "old birds" resents the new order, much like the Yellow Shirts, whom successfully ripped down the legitimate voted-in party (twice) to install their opposition politicians.

So in summary, not respecting the majority results in? ---> Chaos. Resentment. Hatred. Ultimately, Failure...

So the lao jiao of AWARE, I understand your pain, but perhaps, your time is up. Your opponents got more support. What you should do is to get MORE supporters of yours to join AWARE, and hopefully win back the seats in the next election. If not, just continue to do your part in the organisation and see how the new leaders do. Dun whine in the newspapers anymore; you simply lose more than you probably think you gain.