Population White Paper : Simply Flawed.

I just going add one last comment on this Population White Paper debate before I going to shut my mouth (or rather my fingers) for good on this (since the white paper going to be passed regardless, no thanks to those who voted PAP in in such majority:

Its not even abt the figure 6.9 million. Its about the concept of using immigration as the resort to replace the ageing workforce and the lack of babies.

It is the hallmark of 1st world developed society that birth rate will drop drastically upon reaching the status of educated and developed society. And its no surprise most of the 1st world countries have less than 2 for 2 replacement for their population.

So what makes you think that immigrants who finally settled in Singapore (lets say that they are all 100% loyal to Singapore and would rather die than to leave Singapore) would do otherwise than what we Singaporeans chose : to have 1 or 2 babies only. Or even not getting married?

Wont the immigrants also have the same cost of living and comfort of life concerns once they settled in Singapore. What makes anyone think that these foreigners would choose having a large family over material comfort, in contrary to us local bred Singaporeans? Do these immigrants can escape the daily traffic congestions and public service failures that we Singaporeans facing today?

So ask yourself, by 2030, when all these artificial population increases completely sets in, and the reality of each individual's personal desires reflected thru their choices in life and their future : isn't PAP going to set about yet another artificial population increase to remedy the yet-another series of ageing and lack of babies issue?

And if PAP decides that in 2030, we should try something different like - NOT artificially pump up the population and try encourage the couples of today to have more babies; why not we simply do it now instead? Rather than when the social fabric of Singapore is already totally torn beyond recognition, and with the Singaporean Identity all in tattles.

Artificial population increase (or you can call it prostituting ourselves) will never solve this 1st world problem, without the genuine allegiance from the people who picks up the pink card and their sincerest desire to fit in to become one of the coolest people on Planet Earth: we, the Singaporeans.

*prostituting ourselves : devalue the value of Singapore Citizenship to the point that its so cheapo and pointless to have it, to give to ppl whom just barely wants it; and deny those people who would truly treasures it*

(p.s: this is a status update i posted on my facebook after debating and sharing a lot on this issue in facebook. I kindda give up on it, so I want to just move on; although not before i final word on this matter.)

ANSWER TO WHY HDB SO EXPENSIVE

The biggest problem is that while HDB thinks that they are pricing to the market price, the market is actually looking at HDB prices to price their Real Estate.

Imagine I am the real estate company, and my condo is priced at 125% of what a similar size apartment by HDB (meaning HDB would cost 80% of the condo). And then HDB happen to decide that HDB apartments will be priced at 85% of the price of the condo. <--- so who win? both will just keep increasing their pricing to match their reference price.

Developer: Okay, my condo will cost 100k since the HDB apartment is 80k
HDB - 80k
Condo - (new) 100k

Garmen: Wah, market price increase liao. Cannot cannot cannot, we need to peg to market price!
Condo - 100k
HDB - (new) 85k

Developer: Wah, cannot lah... HDB already at this price liao. We need to adjust accordingly.
HDB - 85k
Condo - (new) 106.25k

Garmen: Wah, market price increase again. No choice.
Condo - 106.25k
HDB - (new) 90.3k

Developer: CCB.... this HDB want to push us out of business is it? HIKE HIKE HIKE!!!
HDB - 90.3k
Condo - (new) 112.9k

Garmen: We are very concern abt the housing situation, and we will be monitoring the real estate prices closely. (hiu lan lah, set to the market price!)
Condo - 112.9k
HDB - (new) 95.9k

Fiance to Fiancee: I think we can call of the wedding liao...

Developer: wah lao eh... HDB very tmd.... keep increasing, my show room no one come liao. But we cannot degrade our brand and lower the price. CHIONG AH!
HDB - 95.9k
Condo - (new) 119.9k

ChannelNewsAsia: The Singapore Property Market had yet raised for the 8th straight months since the start of the years. Market Analyst are expressing deep concern with the possibility of the housing bubble developing in Singapore.

Garmen: We will be implementing various cooling measures to control the housing prices, and we will continue to monitor closely in the coming months (must do something liao, set the HDB price to 84% of the Condo)
Condo - 119.9k
HDB - (new) 100.7k

Developer: We will not surrender! HDB 100k, we must go higher!
HDB - 100.7k
Condo - (new) 125.9k

Singaporeans: lets vote for the Opposition... cannot tahan liaoz.....

ChannelNewsAsia: PAP had lost Aljunied GRC to WP. This marks a new beginning in Singapore politics, and for the first time in donkeys years, we have more than 5 Opposition MPs in the Parliament.

Garmen: Law by Law.
Condo - 125.9k
HDB - (new) 105.7k

Singaporeans: ..........

PAP's GE2011 PR Catastrophe

PM Lee's Day Rally Speech

"I feel sad for the PAP... literally.

....I was expecting much more from our Ruling party."

Today, our Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong apologised for the mistakes made by the PAP over the last 5 years, ranging from Mas Selamat's escape to the floodings and also the shortage of HDB flats built. And overall, it wasnt a bad speech either!

Objectively, its wasn't a bad thing, to apologise and admit one's mistake is admirable and respectful. But what is wrong, is the timing. He cannot choose a worse time to admit to PAP's imperfection and existence of gaffes & mistakes.

"what is wrong, is the timing. He cannot choose a worse time to admit to PAP's imperfection and existence of gaffes & mistakes."

Throughout the past 5 years, for every big incident/disaster, PAP's ministers kept quiet; pushing the blame away, and blatantly unrepentant about the problem that absolutely made under their jurisdiction. None of these PAP ppl admit to any mistakes and none of them, astonishingly, apologised at all.

Fast forward to today, in the red hot middle of the Elections period; of all the time and days in the world, PM Lee decided to apologise today. What a big mistake....

PAP's ministers kept quiet; pushing the blame away, and blatantly unrepentant about the problem that absolutely made under their jurisdiction. None of these PAP ppl admit to any mistakes and none of them, astonishingly, apologised at all.

Now, all the Oppositions jumped on his admission and trampled all over his effort to pull those former PAP supporters back to supporting the PAP.

There can only be 2 good time to apologise. FIRST, and as always the best policy, is to apologise IMMEDIATELY when the disaster strikes, regardless any investigation had been made or whether the fault is on "him" (as to the person in charge) or not. Which the PAP did not...

The only other good time, is when PAP returns to power on Election Day, re-elected once again, gaining the mandate of the people. PM Lee could have triumphantly thank the People of Singapore for keeping faith in the PAP, despite all the mistakes and gaffes that the PAP had made, and to promise the Singaporeans that PAP will do better this term.

PM Lee could have triumphantly thank the People of Singapore for keeping faith in the PAP, despite all the mistakes and gaffes that the PAP had made, and to promise the Singaporeans that PAP will do better this term.

But no........... he chose today.


This entire incident, together with all the other "self foot shooting" speeches/interviews, poor understanding of what will tick the heart strings of the people and gutter politicking shows that the PAP is poorly prepared for this General Elections, despite being the one deciding when it would take place.

PAP is the most powerful, richest and most resourceful Party in Singapore. They are the people who run the show in Singapore and the leaders whom are supposed to lead Singapore to a brighter future. But General Elections, probably the most important event on any PAP calendar, had suffered with such poor PR strategies and skills (public relations).

The various PAP teams do not seemed to be sharing the same ideology or election message; SM Goh shoots Wong Kan Seng just to protect George Yeo's butt (which at the same time, shoot every single other ministers); Every PAP speech sounds so scripted, too much macro talk, little substance and many fails to touch the heart of the people. Not to mention, failing to provide the plans and solutions for the problem they created themselves (which they in turn blame the world for it).

As a Singaporean, I totally concede that no matter what happen at the polls, PAP is definitely going to return back to power as a Majority. But the abysmal PR by the PAP highlights how weak, unprepared and disorganised PAP could become; especially in the face of such brilliant PR and organisational abilities shown by virtually all the Oppositions parties.

And thus, with the prospect of another 5 years under the PAP leadership, I'm really worried how well PAP could do, especially for the People of Singapore, when they can't even give a good clean fight against the Oppositions...

"the abysmal PR by the PAP highlights how weak, unprepared and disorganised PAP could become; especially in the face of such brilliant PR and organisational abilities shown by virtually all the Oppositions parties."

I really hope PAP would buck up... They had disappointed me in the way their fight had gone (despite me backing the Oppositions); I was expecting much more from our Ruling party.

I feel sad for the PAP... literally.

(Doesn't make sense since I'm taking the Oppositions' side, but really... I feel genuinely emotionally sad at the state of affairs of PAP)

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.

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.

Locals lost again to "foreigners talents"; this time in football

In the press conference held just hours ago by S-league, they announced the identity of the 12th team for the new season.

To the surprise and amazement of all the S-league fans, the winner of the coveted final spot went to Beijing Guo-An, rather than the highly committed and motivated, successful in previous 2 season, and now going ALL LOCAL, Yishun Super Reds (Super Reds).

Being a member of the hardcore local football fan forum, KallangRoar.com , the anger and disbelieve is evident.

I understand that this blog, is meant as a political blog, but I cant rub off the connection of how Football Association of Singapore (FAS) & S-League is ran, with how the Singapore Government works.

This probably "unnoticable" saga (very few Sleague fans) is in my opinion, a bigger indication of our government policy and how foreigners and money is rated way higher of the development of our local and very own Singaporeans.

If any one from the media whom read my this post; I strongly urge you to condemn the selection of 2 foreign teams over a local team.

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.)

Singaporeans = Contemporary Coolies???

This was an article link which was posted on Facebook by Reform Party's General Sec, Kenneth.J. Then after i read it... i have to say, it resonates with every common man and I want to reproduce it here.

source: http://singaporeanskeptic.blogspot.com/2009/07/is-this-life-you-want-your-children-to.html

THURSDAY, JULY 23, 2009
Is this the life you want your children to have?

More than a hundred years ago, some of our ancestors were coolies. These peasants had a hard life working for little pay. At the end of each hard day's work, they would go home to their cramp squalid accommodations to rest and prepare for another day of back-breaking labour. Life was hard but they were powerless to do anything to change. No one helped or protected them. They had no labour union to protect them and they lived in constant fear of losing their only means of survival- their jobs.

Now in the 21st century, this coolie mentality is still prevalent in our society. We wake up every morning from our cramp HDB dwelling so that we could squeeze inside a tight MRT train to get to work. Because of the recession, we no longer work from 9 to 5 but 8 to 7. The hours are longer because of the unfortunate souls who got retrenched. But what can we do? If we complain, we could be the next to lose our jobs. Our unions are ,for all intents and purposes, non-existent. Why should our NTUC chief care? He receives a fat pay-check for being a minister and pleasing the government.

But we do nothing because it is in our cultural legacy to suffer. We only know how to endure suffering and not how to enjoy life. We learn it from our parents and they learnt it from their parents all the way back to the coolies. Nothing has changed except that instead of being ruled by an overseas master, our masters are now fellow Singaporeans who are overseas educated.

Yes, for some of us, our lives are miserable and this has to stop. Do you want your children to inherit this cultural legacy of servitude? Do you want them to break free from this cycle of lower wages and endless skills retraining? Do you want them to not go through what you have gone through.

If you want the best future for them, then educate them. Educate them not for the purpose of serving our PAP masters. Educate them to give your children the resources/skills to leave this Island. Imagine how much happier your son (and his sons) would be if he doesn't have to serve NS. Imagine how happy your daughter would be because she wouldn't need to work in a stressed out environment or live in a cramp HDB apartment.

Educate them so that they can leave. Because if they don't leave, some day they may have to explain to their own children why their manager father had to become a taxi driver.

After all, what is the point of your suffering if they have to experience it themselves when they grow up?


Excerpt from The New Paper. July 22 2009

--- quote ---
THE man had a simple question for his MP: I will be a security guard if I must, he said, but how can I encourage my children to do well in school if I can't find a good job despite my (tertiary) education?It was a statement that shook even a battle-hardened MP like Madam Halimah Yacob (Jurong GRC).'When he responded in that manner, I also started thinking,' she said.

Madam Halimah was raising this example with The New Paper last night after a hotly-debated Parliamentary discussion on how to help retrenched Professionals, Managers, Executives and Technicians (PMETs).The man, a former manager in his 50s with an engineering diploma, was retrenched late last year. Unable to find a job, he became a taxi driver.

Madam Halimah said she told him to look at the positive side and show his children that despite the setbacks, he is still doing his best.'Look, this is reality. In life, there'll be ups and downs,' she said. 'It is important not to lose hope, to do our best, stay on course, and try to improve ourselves.'
--- quote ---

The Original TNP Article that inspired the above post.

PICKY? GRAD EXPECTATIONS IN DOWNTURN

TRICKY
- We focus on those willing to be helped, says Minister
- PMETs aren't simply being choosy, say MPs. This recession has hit them especially hard
By Ng Tze Yong and Ho Lian-Yi
July 22, 2009

THE man had a simple question for his MP:

I will be a security guard if I must, he said, but how can I encourage my children to do well in school if I can't find a good job despite my (tertiary) education?

It was a statement that shook even a battle-hardened MP like Madam Halimah Yacob (Jurong GRC).

'When he responded in that manner, I also started thinking,' she said.

Madam Halimah was raising this example with The New Paper last night after a hotly-debated Parliamentary discussion on how to help retrenched Professionals, Managers, Executives and Technicians (PMETs).

The man, a former manager in his 50s with an engineering diploma, was retrenched late last year. Unable to find a job, he became a taxi driver.

Madam Halimah said she told him to look at the positive side and show his children that despite the setbacks, he is still doing his best.

'Look, this is reality. In life, there'll be ups and downs,' she said. 'It is important not to lose hope, to do our best, stay on course, and try to improve ourselves.'

Is enough being done for PMETs like him? MP Ho Geok Choo (West Coast GRC) told Parliament that she had received feedback that PMETs who do not go to job interviews arranged by career centres are given warnings that they will not be considered for future job vacancies.

'I'm wondering how we can guide the career centres to do a better job,' she said.

Manpower Minister Gan Kim Yong replied: 'There are a lot of workers we need to help, and we need to be focused on workers who are prepared to be helped.'

He told Parliament that the Government has taken effective measures to reduce unemployment.

Tangible results

In just six months since Spur (Skills Programme for Upgrading and Resilience) started, more than 19,000 jobseekers have been placed in jobs, he said.

He said the Spur-Jobs scheme, implemented in May, saw 50 companies committed to hiring 1,200local workers in various industries in just one month.

He pointed out that, as of end-May, the Professional Skills Programme (PSP) had about 36,000 PMETs and fresh graduates trained or committed to training.

But the sense on the ground is that this is an especially tough recession for PMETs.

MP Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah GRC) noted: 'Whereas in the past, PMETs may be more nimble and adaptable, the same does not hold true this time around.'

He added that nowadays, everything has a shelf life - even a degree.

Madam Ho urged more to be done for PMETs.

For example, she said retrenched PMETs can be teamed up to carry out stock checks and review procedures in companies.

'PMETs have the experience and they can return to the workforce as consultants,' said Madam Ho.

She also feels better training will be useful for staff helping with job-matching at government agencies.

'A bit of psychology training may help them understand how to handle someone who has just lost his or her job,' said Madam Ho.

Asking the right questions

They can also be trained on how to ask the right questions and phrase them the right way, and have the tenacity to follow up on the cases.

'It cannot be just a clerical staff telling people we have a vacancy here and a vacancy there,' she said.

Peter (not his real name), a grassroots leader who works closely with retrenched workers, said that 'people are not being genuinely helped'.

Government agencies like the Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) and the Workforce Development Agency (WDA) are 'too focused on the numbers, because numbers equal more funding' from Spur, said Peter.

It has resulted in a lot of frustration on the ground, he said.

Instead, government agencies should be working more closely with employers to find out the nature and number of jobs that are available, to make their training more targeted, suggested Peter.

'After all, WDA and e2i have a lot of resources and a wide network of contacts in various industries,' said Peter.

'But they are not listening. Instead, it is always about training, training and training because that's the easier thing to do. What is the point of training thousands of people without knowing where the jobs are?'

Peter added that there are many organisations, such as the self-help groups, that want to help but are unable to 'because all the training is put under one roof, which is e2i.'

'Is this the many helping hands approach we always talk about?' he asked.

I will have my personal follow up post on this issue.

Childish Saga of Aware.

AWARE. So are you aware now? Of AWARE? Or AWARE being aware?

=X

The EOGM (Extraordinary General Meeting) of AWARE at the SUNTEC had became the national sensation and talking point. The fervent crowd opposing the allegedly "Un-Aware" ppl who won in their election to become the new Exco (executive committee) is probably the next most incredible scene of Singaporeans voicing out, after the Worker's Party's Election Rally.

Ppl were discussing and arguing, are the supporters of the Old Guards (the previous Exco) being ungraceful in the way they boo and disrupt the speeches of the "New Guards"? Or are the "New Guard" conspiring something that will hurt the reputation and meaning of AWARE? "SHUT UP!" and "Feminist Mentor" trash talk?

In my opinion, the entire saga resembles just like children's quarrel; simply childish. In fact, if the "New Guard" have ideologies of anti-gay rights and such, and thus joining AWARE to prevent, the alleged pro-gay education materials from continued used, are they going to prevent gays and lesbian from appearing in our society? I doubt so...

[side tracking warning] if in our conservative society, gays and lesbians can continue to appear, I dun see the point, going anti-gay or not mentioning of gay-ism, is going to change anything.

Somehow, the booing and discrediting on the ground of the EOGM reminds me of what i did during football matches at the stadium. LOL~ Just find it hilarious happening in a General Meeting. To say the truth, if the New Guards get their way, and speak all their hearts all, without interruption, about their Feminist thingy and ting-tongs which I apparently dun understand much (gender equality is already is tip towards the fairer sex in our law already anyway): are the ground going to cast confident votes for them? NAH!

Its already over even before it started, so why bother talking all the 大道理 （Big Meaning “literally”），all their philosophy and watever, when ppl already discredited them beyond repair. What's worse is the Thio Thio whom self-styled herself as "Feminist Mentor".

Being successful in your own life doesnt make you a "Female Rights Leader". Abuthen, who is the "Masculinist Mentor" then? Maybe in Singapore is our dear, All Singaporeans Fav: MM Lee Kuan Yew. He made Singapore from nothing to really something. He can be the true "Masculinist Mentor" thus also MM. So he can be MM&MM Lee. =D (sarcasm)

You cant just start to call yourself something which includes other ppl, without other concurring with you.

Wat the hell is Feminist Mentor anyway? Girl are already female; you cant make a female more female right? And if my gf is going to mentored by that Thio Thio, I going to be very afraid....

----

At first, I was in support of AWARE to respect their electoral result, for the same reason, why we must support the PAP as long as they are in power, because they are whom majority had voted in.

But when revelation of most of the New Guard are from the same Church, and their Senior Pastor Derek Hong urged the women in his flock to ‘be engaged’ and support new president Josie Lau and ‘her sisters’ at AWARE; its apparent that it is something that was being said or probably instigated by their Pastor or in their sermons, or maybe someone whom is also from the same church, maybe that Thio Thio, that resulted in the sudden surge in membership of AWARE before the election and thus the surprise result in the election. And because of this, I agree with the supporters of the Old Guard that this Exco had to be replaced.

AWARE despite being well-reputated, isnt exactly a big organisation despite their great contributions to the society. So, to cause such a "problem" in election is quite easy, given the fact that a Church can have easily more members than a NGO like AWARE.

And thus, the voting of no-confidence vote in the EOGM can be seen as a more true reflection of the views of Singaporean women who cares.

So AWARE, pls add a new line to your "Constitution" - you cannot get elected without joining AWARE a year prior to the election, and must be involved in at least 1 "AWARE activity".



For those interested in how this Saga can become a lesson for PAP, read here: http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2009/yax-1018.htm
Yawning bread's view is something i concur with~ =}

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.

"Perm Sec, Tan Yong Soon Scandal" in perspective.

http://wayangparty.com/2009/01/08/senior-civil-servant-boasted-about-spending-s46500-to-learn-french-cooking/

So, there is this damn rich civil servant spending silly money on silly stuff (at least to the common man) and tio slammed silly on national papers....

Seriously lah, its his damn money, he can spend whatever he wants. This is my thinking. In fact, i can't be bothered even if PM Lee drives a Ferrari around Singapore. He got the money, so why cant he spend it?

So ppl, do you really want all those on top of us, be hypocrites, acting like they are all honest and thrifty, like as if they are god-like, money is not impt kindda thing? pls wake up your idea.

This world is ruled by money, and like the saying goes: Money makes the world goes round.

So just admit it, a Perm Sec is equivalent as a one or 2 star General in the SAF. Their pay per month is 5 digit. At least 10k+++. So why cant they spent they kindda of money to enjoy their life.

YES, its a bad time, recession in Singapore and around the world. But thats the lure and good thing about public service or government job, your pay continues to come on time. So when some of you guys get 6 months or 1 year bonuses, we civil servants continue to get stucked with the most 3 months bonus (usually dun have so much). Civil servants are also usually paid lower than outside jobs. So dun complain when they seem rich during bad times, because thats the trade off.

And just in case you dunno, its the civil servants that continue to keep consumer spending at a certain level when times are bad, so the economy dun crumble when everyone stop spending. There is benefits for civil servants to be paid quite well.

So just get on with it. Not happy with their high pay? Try increase your earning more, or swallow your pride and forget it.

Without those high pays for top jobs, no talents wants to serve in the civil service job liao...

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

Or lets see it in this perspective:

When you are eating good, sleeping good, got cable vision, got car, got credit card, got proper roof over your head, got maid; did you consider what your maids or the construction workers' thought?

Did you care about their feelings? They earning meager pay to do super tough and demanding jobs, while you shake your leg reading newspaper and slam our civil servants for spending silly money on silly stuff with caring about your feelings?

Come on.

Dun even compare these top civil servants life and those who choose to sleep in the streets. If those who strayed in the streets arent getting help for the 10k++ earners, you arent helping these folks either. I bet, you would be finding ways to even avoid these "liu lang hans" (vagabonds).

Want me to go on? I wont go so far as Africa, lets just say Indonesia or even Cambodia. They are plenty of ppl living poor life in poor environments. Can say its beyond their control to even improve their life any better than its already is. Did you help?

Until the common man attains god-like generosity and grace; dun blame all the shit on rich ppl. (i am not rich just for info)

Singapore, singapore.... haiz...

Town Council use our money to invest???

The fall of Lehman caused lotsa revelation throughout the world; from regulations to the over-deregulations, as well as what the mini-bond is all about. A few days ago, something new is revealed by the crash of the giant: Town Councils investments.

I am totally caught off guard that the money we paid to the Town Council is used to do investment.

What does that means? That our public fund is actually more than what they really need to service our town needs? Then why collect so much at the first place? Why arent we paying for what we need than always paying more than what is required, as a result, having enough surplus to do huge investments (one of the town council is actually a major share owner of Creative).

Come on... What is the job of the Town Council. We must be very clear here. No matter how you look at it, investment with people's money is never their job. We have CPF, GIC, even Temasek, not withstanding insurance, personal investments etc... Not to forget, the Government already collecting tax from GST, ERP, Income Tax, COE, etc... Still not enough money to serve Singaporeans???

I always wondered how the Worker's Party's Town Council able to collect so little money from their people while PAP's need to collect so much more. And eventually, Hougang under Worker's Party actually looks more beautiful and cleaner as compared to the other half of Hougang New Town.

Town Councils should collect just enough for the upcoming projects and planned projects. If there are surplus, then they should reduce the amount collected thus not putting additional pressures on the people, especially those who are earning hardly enough to save.

I had enough of seeing those Ah Ma and Ah Peks digging rubbish bins for used aluminium cans. The Government is formed to serve Singaporeans, not to make profits after profits without giving back to the people in substantial ways. (not by giving cash that you would eventually tax back)

If got excess money, keep it or invest it (on 100% guaranteed safe investments) until the next collection, and reduce the collection for the next round. There should not be over-collection on the part of the Town Councils, and if there is any ad hoc need of additional funds, it should be gotten from the Government or relevant ministries. 

Ridiculous.

"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?

Sorry, Prof of Strategy, Linda Lim of University of Michigan, I dun agree with you.

QUOTE:

Singapore
Published October 25, 2008

Is Singapore trying to excel in too many areas?


WHY aspire to be a second Boston or second London and not a first-rate Singapore?


PROF LIM S'pore's growth model may not be sustainable as it tries to do too much and achieves too little in terms of delivering returns --
It's time - particularly during a global crisis - for Singapore to rethink its economic model and employ niche targeting right where it has unique strengths to become a world leader, rather than stay a follower in various sectors, an economist suggests.

While highly successful so far, Singapore's growth model - built on wooing multinationals to drive key sectors here - may not be sustainable in the changing environment, says Linda Lim, professor of strategy at the University of Michigan's Ross School of Business and director of its Center for South-east Asian Studies.

A Singaporean academic who has been in the US for some four decades, she was a speaker at the Singapore Economic Policy Conference yesterday.

In her view, the Singapore growth model has both tried to do too much - going against what theories such as comparative advantage and diminishing returns propose - and achieved too little in terms of delivering returns for Singaporeans relative to foreigners and foreign firms.

'Singapore cannot be internationally competitive and a world leader in semiconductors, life sciences, healthcare, education, financial services, creative industries and casino tourism, all at the same time,' she says in her paper for the conference.

Speaking to BT, Prof Lim said: 'Of course you can make an argument for doing 10 sectors instead of three; you say diversify. But if we do all, everyone becomes uncompetitive; all face rising costs as they compete with each other for scarce land and talent.'

Outlining her alternative strategic vision, she says that the starting point is to take stock of 'what you have, including your geographic location'.

Then look for a strategy of differentiation: 'What do you have, what can you do that nobody else can do? You want to develop a blockbuster drug? Any number of places in the world can do it. You have to look at what is specific about you.

' Perhaps it may be that if we want to have financial services, then we cannot have life sciences, integrated resorts. You have to make a choice, you cannot have everything. You choose the thing you can do better than anybody else.'

And one indicator of a 'market advantage', she says, is whether a country needs to provide 'inducements, or investment incentives, otherwise known as subsidies' to attract talent.

'If people are naturally coming here, that's fine.'

And not least, 'let the private sector do it', she says, suggesting that capital and talent be released to local entrepreneurs, to be allocated according to market forces. When and if private enterprise fails, it will take only small parts, rather than big chunks, of the economy down with it, she argues.

Singapore is particularly well-placed for a whole cluster of economic activities 'from finance to forestry and fisheries', Prof Lim says.

'Where are we? We're next to the biggest forests in the world. Why not be a carbon finance centre? People are doing this in San Francisco! They are doing Indonesian . . . avoiding deforestation . . . out of San Francisco! Why can't we do it from here?

'Why do we want to be a second Boston or second London? We want to be a first Singapore. There are already second, third and fourth Singapores all over the world - people are copying our strategy.'

Singapore could also be a centre of expertise in creative fields such as traditional and modern Asian arts and culture. Already, Singapore is the best place in the world to do South-east Asian studies, Prof Lim says.

Economic growth here has focussed on quantitative targets, but it may be time to look at the qualitative aspects such as its 'purpose' and nature.

'I'm saying, look at net value creation for citizens. 'People for growth' - growth as an end in itself - is not the same as 'growth for people', growth as a means toward greater welfare for people.'

http://www.businesstimes.com.sg/sub/news/story/0,4574,302734,00.html?

-----------

I seriously dun agree with her. I think one a many of you guys might be "duped" by her simply "make-sense" analysis but here we examined why her words cant be taken at that.

First, despite her superb resume of being the ,professor of strategy at the University of Michigan's Ross School of Business and director of its Center for South-east Asian Studies, bombastic isn't it?; we must take into account that she is a "Singaporean" whom had been living and looking at Singapore half a globe away (physics will tell you she can only see stars), for 4 DECADES. 

4 DECADES!!!

40 YEARS.

So how is she to judge when she didnt even live through the struggles and miracles of this little red dot called Singapore?

Being Singaporean doesnt make one an expert in Singapore's affairs.

She quoted saying that Singapore's current policies  are "going against what theories such as comparative advantage and diminishing returns propose" is inaccurate and simply a wild shot hoping that it could hit something.

If one were to predict Singapore will become a first class port, handling a huge percentage of cargo, boasting the World's Best and Most Valuable Airline, being the only country that have 0 slums, a financial center in the middle of turmoil-easy neighbours in the laid-back waters of South East Asia; any sane guy will tell you, you must be crazy.

Same for the current pursuit of the country. We are no longer the cheap and highly trained labours who manufacture goods and electronics efficiently; that role is now China's area of expertised. Singapore had transformed from a manufacturing nation to one which must depend heavily on service-centric businesses and acting as the safe-water for MNC to park their regional HQ as well as their funds; all together with what we already had been doing. 

To further our livelihood and survivability, we need explore into the tourist dollar, which had already shown to be a important contributor to our GDP; we must get a head start into new sectors like Life Science, Health Science R&D, Nano-Tech, as well as the ever bigger Electronic Gaming & Animation industry. All the just mentioned are new frontiers, and for a country as nimble and flexible, coupled with strong financial backing, we must not wait for these technologies to flourish THEN we get into it.

We cannot beat India and their army of IT experts and really smart ppl, nor the economic power of China with their limitless resource making them almost near god-like in their potential to become a powerhouse in nearly every industry you can imagine (think Baidu vs Google). So for Singapore to have an edge in the global stage, WE MUST engage into all these various sectors.

We cant make every Singaporean financial ppl nor, just concentrate on just 3 sectors like the writer mentioned; what about ppl like me who majored in Design? What I eat then? There are always ppl for every industry; foreign investment remains as important as ever, Singapore must not slow down an compromise. 

Like most PAP's decision, most of the time, they are going to be right.

I glad this Mdm Linda Lim still cares for "her country", but be realistic, we no need to be a 2nd Hong Kong. (HK is mainly a financial center, with service sector being the biggest GDP contributor, other than that, nothing.)

Republicans? OMG...

I am seriously doubtful about who would vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin into the top job in United States, possibly the most important job in the entire world...

And just when I was comtemplating for like 2 weeks on how am i going to "condemn" them on Majulah! , i saw this today:

John McCain 'endorsed by al-Qaeda supporters'

Supporters of al-Qaeda have said they would prefer Republican candidate John McCain to win the US election because he is more likely to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

Last Updated: 5:43PM BST 22 Oct 2008

Senator McCain supported by his wife Cindy in Bensalem, Pennsylvania Photo: AP

In a message broadcast on the password-protected al-Hesbah site, the group said they would also welcome a pre-election terror attack on the US because that would make a McCain win more likely.

In an endorsement that will not be welcomed by Mr McCain's flagging campaign, the group said that if al-Qaeda wants to exhaust the USmilitarily and economically, the "impetuous" Republican presidential candidate is the better choice.

"This requires presence of an impetuous American leader such as McCain, who pledged to continue the war till the last American soldier," the message said.

"Then, al-Qaeda will have to support McCain in the coming elections so that he continues the failing march of his predecessor, Bush."

"If al-Qaeda carries out a big operation against American interests," it said, "this act will be support of McCain because it will push the Americans deliberately to vote for McCain so that he takes revenge for them against al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda then will succeed in exhausting America till its last year in it."

Mark Salter, a senior McCain adviser, had no immediate comment.

The message is credited to a frequent and apparently respected contributor named Muhammad Haafid. However, Haafid is not believed to have a direct affiliation with al-Qaeda plans or knowledge of its operations.

So its kindda... wtf...

What those this show? Even Al Qaeda believes that John McCain is more less the same type of "Enemy" as George W Bush.

John McCain for the past week had been reduced to simply using negative tactics to smear Obama's name, rather than putting up a head to head fight to see who can come up with a grand plan to save America and save the World from further degradation...

Reminiscenes of our own Opposition party of the past which went firebranding into battle against the PAP. Which of course, any "smearing" is dealt with in the most "appropriate" manner. But of course, United States do not have such stuff.... Imagine Obama sueing McCain for compensation for damages of reputation...  = \

The funny thing is that, Sarah Palin, herself, condemned the smear tactic deployed by John McCain; what an Ally he got there.

The best part about Sarah Palin also appeared in the papers today:

Republicans spent more than $150,000 on Sarah Palin's clothes

The Republicans have spent more than $150,000 (£92,000) on clothes and accessories for Sarah Palin and her family since she was chosen as the vice-presidential candidate in August.

 

By Tom Leonard in New York 
Last Updated: 7:53AM BST 23 Oct 2008

Previous

1 of 3 Images

Next

Sarah Palin's bills for campaign accessories include a $75,000 shopping trip Photo: AP

Questions over the legality of Mrs Palin's wardrobe bill – paid for out of campaign donations – prompted her spokesman yesterday to say that the clothes would not be kept but donated to charity.

According to financial records obtained by Politico.com, a US politics website, the fashion spending spree started in early September.

The spending on so-called "campaign accessories" included bills from the fashion chain Saks Fifth Avenue in St Louis and New York that came to a total of $49,425.

There were also a couple of hefty splurges at another expensive fashion store, Neiman Marcus, in Minneapolis, including one worth more than $75,000.

The Republican National Committee also spent $44,716 on Mrs Palin's hair and make-up in September after reporting no such costs in August.

The rest of the Palin family made do on rather less. Around $295 was spent at Pacifier, an upmarket baby store, and just under $5,000 at Atelier, an expensive men's clothes shop.

The legality of such expenditure was questioned by campaign finance experts who cited the Federal Election Commission's opposition to campaign money being used to buy items for personal use.

Federal campaign finance law prohibits the use of campaign funds for personal use, which it defines as any expense "that would exist irrespective of the candidate's campaign or duties as a federal officeholder".

After initially refusing to discuss the spending, the McCain campaign issued a new statement as criticism mounted.

"With all the important issues facing the country right now, it's remarkable that we're spending time talking about pantsuits and blouses," said a McCain spokesman.

"It was always the intent that the clothing go to a charitable purpose after the campaign."

Tax experts said Mrs Palin will be liable to tax on the clothes, even if she eventually gives them away.

Excessive primping and preening by presidential candidates is fraught with risk. John Edwards was lambasted over his $400 hair cuts in 2007 as was John McCain over his $520 Ferragamo shoes.

In 2006, Hillary Clinton was teased after she spent $3,000 for two sessions at the hairdressers.

I am speechless about the extend of how messed up the Republicans made of themselves and the Presidential Campaign.

God bless America. = P