shadow of transcendence

Goodbye conformityisdead!

2007-03-16T21:32:00.000+08:00

Hi everyone. Thank you for visiting my blog. I have moved!

My blog can now be found on Singaporepolitics

A new look, a fresher perspective. !!

Budget 2007: No Western-style welfare

2007-02-19T10:56:00.000+08:00

In his Chinese New Year message, PM Lee Hsien Loong urged Singaporeans to keep the family unit strong and healthy

He cited a disturbing trend: more elderly Singaporeans living on their own

PM Lee elaborated, "But young families must also stay in touch with ageing parents and visit them regularly or, better still, stay with them ...... No institution or old folks' home can replace the love and warmth of family members, nor can the government."

Singapore must avoid the pitfalls of Western-style welfare, where generous state benefits for the jobless and elderly have weakened the family unit. With the provision of Western-style welfare, family members often feel little responsibility to care for one another.

Have we asked ourselves why are Singaporeans not wiling to cater to the needs of their parents. Does this trend coincide with Singaporeans not willing to have more babies?

I think maybe it is. Having one more elderly in a typical family unit of 4 persons means having an additional mouth to feed. With a rising cost of living (the monthly household expenditure has increased at a greater extent than the increase in personal monthly income), whereby everything around us seems to be rising in cost, it is no surprise Singaporeans are less willing to cater to their parents and having an additional child.

In budget 2007, the government introduced the Senior Citizens Bonus. With an ageing population, how long can the government finance the Senior Citizen Bonus?

The chances of Senior Citizen Bonus being a permanent feature of Singapore's society is very slim, since the government has made its stand vey clear. No Western-style welfare. But at the end of the day, when the family unit is unable to finance the needs of its elderly, the government has to come in and played its role.

The following could well sum up the entire phenonmenon.

"When I can't even feed my wife and children, how am I going to feed my father and mother? I don't even have enough money to put them up in an old folks' home. I think they have to stay out on their own. Occasionally, I will provide them with cash when the government gives me some money.

My dad's CPF had been depleted financing for his home. He now no longer have much CPF left."

Pardon the ignorance of a 21 year old youth, but I suppose some form of welfare to cushion the increasing cost of living will help.

At the end of the day, looking after my parents is my own sacred responsibility. I should not push this responsibiity to the government. But a helping hand along the way will be appreciated.

Budget 2007: More money for the government, less money for the needy

2007-02-17T12:01:00.000+08:00

In this Year of the Golden Pig, Singaporeans could hardly have asked for a more lavish lunar New Year present that what they got in the Budget presented in parliament by Second Finance Minister for Finance Tharmun Shanmugaratnam.

Singaporeans couldn’t have asked for a more generous budget!

Before Singaporeans get drowned in a chorus of praise and appreciation for the compassionate nature of the governement, I would also like to declare my support for the institutionalisation of workfare.

The Workfare Income Supplement(WIS) provides help to self-reliant Singaporeans who may not be able to cope in today’s globalised world.

However, before everyone starts jumping on the bandwagon hailing the budget as a generous budget with an eye for the future, I would like to damper Singaporeans’ festive mood and the “feel good feeling” hanging over our heads. (sorry for being a wet blanket)

There was much hype prior to the announcement of this year’s budget, mainly because of PM Lee announcement that GST will be raised from 5% to 7%. The government’s justification for this increase lies in their determination to combat the problem of a widening income gap and an investment into the future. Fair enough argument? I believe Singaporeans are in general satisfied with this justification.

2007: “Is is beter to take your medicine sooner or later to stretch it out? And do you want to take medicine once or two times? I prefer to take my medicine early.

But I witness Singaporeans taking their medicine in 2004/5 and antibodies in 1994. Economy good raise GST, Economy bad also raise GST. There doesn’t seem to be any logic behind this.

A closer look will tell us why. In 1994, the GST was introduced for the first time. Interestingly enough, it was a strategic move to shift our tax burden from direct taxation to indirect taxation. With this mind, the ruling government started cutting its corporate tax rate to its current rate of 18% and increase GST from 3% to 7%. It’s an ongoing long term policy move and the state of the economy only serve to justify the increase. (economy bad: must bite the bullet to restructure, economy good: better increase our resilience fast or we will lose the chance)

Thus, I believe that the GST tax rate will eventually increase to a rate of 10 -12%. In fact, a 15% GST rate is not that impossible after all, if one takes into consideration the marcoeconomic objectives of the government.

I forsee more misery and hardship for lower income Singaporeans! But hasn’t the government promised to help them in Budget’07. Come on. It’s worth noting that the Workfare Income Supplement scheme is a major policy change. For the first time, the state will be supplementing the market wages that low-wage workers receive. Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew is expecting Singapore’ income gap will narrow in the future.

2015: Look here, Singaporeans, our income gap has narrowed significantly since 2007, when we boldly took the move to increase GST to 7%, and subsquently 10%. The time is right to increase the GST rate to 15%!. I prefer to take my medicine now.

With an increase in GST from 5% to 7%, the Singapore government will be raking in $4.9billion worth of tax revenue. However only $200million will be spent on workfare. (4% of total tax revenues from GST!) Spending an additional $200 million on tops ups to post-secondary education accountis that much either. This speaks volume of their determination to establish workfare as a pillar of support and helping the poor to climb up the social ladder.

Will $200million a year help solve the widening income gap phenonmenon in Singapore?

In the first place, I believe the government has the capability to finance $200million of workfare on a yearly basis, with a tax rate of 5%.

The government would not have to give out $530million worth of GST credits if GST rate has been kept at 5%. Maybe more money from the GST credits should be channelled to the Workfare Income Supplement. But wouldn't that isolate your middle ground and rich Singaporeans? (What's the use of giving $100 to the rich over four years?)

It seems that the Singaporeans has forgot that with a cut in second-tier levy for foreign workers in manufacturing and services, the competitive edge is shifted from Singaporeans to foreign workers. Foreign workers are cheaper and Singaporeans will cost more due to an increase in employers’ CPF contribution rate and the demand for these workers will increase. What it mean is this. Singaporeans will find themselves out of a job and they no longer qualify for Workfare!

In concluding his budget speech, Mr Tharmun describes the Singapore’s spirit – can do, will do, do well. In my view after looking at the budget, Singaporeans will do well and they can do well, but Singaporeans especially those from the lower-come will do well with much more help.

The Singapore government has made the first step to help but there’s more they can do.

What about me?, asked Mr Lim, in his 50s who is on Public Assistance Scheme. Amid so much fanfare, no workfare for me!

How about 3 & 7 ?

2007-01-28T01:20:00.000+08:00

The article "5:7" by Mr Hri Kumar, MP for Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC on the p65 blog raises much questions and contradictions and I would hope to address them in the following article.

I do not agree with Mr Kumar's view that increasing GST is the best way to raise funds to establish and support programs to grow our R & D capabilities and enhance Singapore's medical and research infrastructure, and to help the less fortunate and the elderly. It is just one of the many ways to raise funds and to proclaim that little specifics can be offered to alternative methods just goes to show that the government has not fully explored all the other viable alternatives.

I would like to see the government raising the corporate tax rate by 1 or 2 percentage point. This may seems detrimental to Singapore's economic competitiveness but a closer look at it may provide us with a different picture to what the authorities and mainstream media would like us to perceive.

An increase in 1 percentage point would generate four to five hundred million dollars which could be used to finance benefits such as the workfare bonus and cash handouts while maintaining a healthy tax revenues from the 5% GST rate.

Is it wise to increase Singapore 's corporate tax rate or continue to wage a corporate tax "war" with Hong Kong?

No, definitely not. Though Singapore 's corporate tax rate (20% with plans to lower it to 19%) is higher than Hong Kong's rate of 17.5% but the point is this. Even at a proposed rate of 21 – 22 %, Singapore 's corporate tax rate is among the lowest and most competitive in the Asia Pacific region. It can be noted that the corporate tax rate for Japan, India , China and South Korea , Taiwan is 40.66%, 33.66%, 33%, 27.5% and 25% respectively. The average tax rate for the Asia Pacific region is 30%,much higher than the proposed rate of 22% that Singapore could adopt.

The fundamental fact is this. Even if Singapore increases its corporate tax rate to 22%, Singapore is still competitive and Singapore, in the words of Minister Mentor Lee, “can offers investors better returns than other places in the region.”

Moreover, the Singapore government should consider increasing our income tax rate from 20% to 22% as well. This is a practical way whereby the well-to-do and successful can lend a helping hand to the poor and needy and to contribute towards building an inclusive society.

Essentially, this is to take money from the rich and redistribute to the poor. Right now, with a possible increase of GST to 7%, the government is taking money from the poor and redistribute to the poor again. Is this a logical way to solve the problem of a growing income gap that Singapore is facing?

Furthermore, with the numbers of millionaires in Singapore set to swell to 40,500 by 2009 from the current number of 28,200 in 2004. Furthermore, it is expected that by the year 2009, the number of individuals with liquid wealth of more than US$200,000 will increase to 272,800 individuals. Indeed, the potential to collect substantial tax revenues is certainly possible without any increase in current GST rate.

In short, there are more than one viable alternative, other than an increase in GST rate which will allow the government to continue to finance R & D research and social programs.

Moreover, it is just too superficial to assume that just because of a high income tax rate, the rich and wealthy in Singapore will leave and seek greener pastures elsewhere in the region. More often than not, political stability, national identity and belongingness have much more influence on an individual's willingness to entrench its roots here in Singapore.

Looking at the Scandinvian countries of Sweden, Denmark and Norway, where there is a much higher income tax rate than Singapore, the rich and wealthy are still staying put because they see themselves playing an important role in the future development of the country. In this case, Mr Kumar's statement is regrettable as it tends to portray Singaporeans as materialistic, and quick to abandon the country once the going is tough.

It is also worth noting that Mr Kumar mentions that other than raising the GST rate, there could be a possibility the government will deploy part of the income earned on the reserves. This suggestion that leveraging on the huge reserves to help the poor was labelled as a "time bomb" by Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen during the last elections.

In the words of Minister Ng Eng Hen, this would potentially lead to "a tragic result if they implement these ideas." If that the case, why is the PAP government still considering to leverage on Singapore's national reserves to help the poor and needy?

Another point is this. Singapore experienced healthy growth rate of 7.7% in 2006. and the STI index pass the 3,000 mark for the first time ever. All signs point to a booming economy. This means that the government would have enough funds to finance the workfare bonus that it wishes to implement. In that case, why is there still a need to increase the GST rate?

I am convinced that youths today are not against raising the level of GST per se, but against the way and timing it will be implemented.

I would like to see a flexible GST structure whereby both basic necessities and luxury goods will be taxed. However, all basic necessities will be taxed at a rate of 3% while keeping the tax rate for luxury items at a consistent rate of 7% as proposed by the government. Though Mr. Kumar's argument is that a multi-tier taxation system will create a huge bureaucracy which will cost more money to sustain, I am not convinced by this line of thought.

In the first place, the entire apparatus of the government is a huge bureaucracy and it has been shown that with capable leadership, it can be cost-effective and efficient at the same time, while protecting the interests of our poor and needy.

In order to cope with the possible fall in revenue that the government might face in implementing 2 different tax rates, I also would like to see the government raising the tax rate for cigarettes and alcohol consumption to offset the impact of implementing a 3% tax rate on basic necessities.

Like Mr. Hri Kumar, I rather we do not run huge budget deficits to fund our R & D programs and finance our social policies and let our children worry about how to pay the debt. But I believed we can do that with a GST tax rate of 5% for the next 5 years.

The Internet in Singapore politics today

2007-01-18T00:16:00.000+08:00

Today, technology and especially the internet is something that is indispensable to the young. From online forums, school portals to email communication, the internet is a tool that is consistently and expertly harnessed by youths. This brings us to the question of how politics can stay relevant to the young in the era of this new media.

For once, the internet makes it easier for the young to express their ideas, views and opinions. It’s easy to handle, is not dependent on time and venue and thus makes it very enticing as a tool for political expression. In a generation which was brought up imbued with the concept of efficiency and effectiveness, the internet is the perfect platform from which the young can come into contact with politics. Moreover, the internet allows for and facilitates discussions and the exchanging of ideas among interested parties. This is done through Internet forums and school portals.

In this case, shouldn’t the internet be aggressively manipulated by political parties to reach out to youths? Personally, I feel that such a view is too superficial and inadequate.

Though forums and online portals make it easier for the exchanging of views among youths, it must be noted that such tools are unable to reach out to apathetic and disinterested parties. People who are interested in music will visit forums which discuss music and entertainment. Sports lovers will frequent forums, or even blogs with a sporting outlook and content. Likewise for politics, only youths who are interested in politics would bother to explore political forums, portals or even blogs online. In this sense, the internet thus poses an obstacle for political parties like the Workers’ Party to reach out to politically disinterested youths. Fundamentally, the Internet does not solve the problem of raising political awareness among youths in general.

The Internet also leads to a false perception among the youths that they are contributing to their country by expressing their views and ideas online. To put it in another way, the Internet creates a façade that their ideas and views are being heard and considered by policymakers. For instance, i-speak, a blog by a 17-year-old college girl, Gayle Goh, who frequents events and talk-shows organised by the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports, is capturing a lot of media attention and publicity. Such blogs tend to reinforce the mindset among youths that the Internet is a feasible and convenient tool through which youths can voice their suggestions to the country and government.

Personally, from my experiences of political activism, I realise that nothing beats a face-to-face engagement with the public, which allows one to get a feel of the problems and circumstances afflicting Singaporeans in general. On the ground is where you get the most exposure to youths, as you listen to the comments and opinions expressed by them. This gives you an inkling of what exactly are their thinking and mindset. Only then can you propose effective and creative ideas and suggestions to reach out to these youths.

It’s through being a part of a credible political party like the Workers’ Party, that experiences on the ground can be translated into youthful and creative ideas which will be heard and, most importantly, implemented. A political party in this context provides countless avenues – such as forums or dialogue sessions – for concrete, feasible and creative ideas to be pondered, discussed and introduced.

The youth wing of the Workers’ Party creates countless opportunities for youths to constantly interact with like-minded people, fostering the inception of various initiatives and ideas. Being in a youth wing allows for a pro-youth stance without asserting the main political stance of the mother party. This puts aside the formalities and practices prevalent in a political party, thereby encouraging the development of ideas and opinions crucial to assisting and raising political awareness among the youths in Singapore.

In conclusion, the Internet is a viable tool for political communication and dialogue and it is a fundamental step in bringing youths from political obscurity into the political domain. However, this must be further complemented by active political participation in credible political parties or their youth wings. Such participation enhances and amplifies an individual’s little voice, lending credibility to his or her ideas. Most importantly, participation in a political party or its youth wing is the perfect launch pad for your ideas to take root and flourish.

Youthful Perspectives on the Foreign Talent issue

2007-01-09T23:28:00.000+08:00

YOUTHFUL PERSPECTIVES

During the National Day Rally Speech, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong talked about the need to augment the lack of manpower in the near and medium term due to the declining birth rate. There is now an urgent need to attract more Foreign Talent into Singapore.

In the aftermath of this speech, views on this issue were wide-ranging and varied. However, the consistent stand is this: Singaporeans must come first.

I decided to ask a 17-year-old polytechnic student from Temesek Polytechnic, Warren Elliot, and a 21-year-old Singapore Management University student, Tee Kian Hin, for their views on this raging issue.

Bernard: Firstly, what is your stand on the Foreign Talent issue?

Warren: My stand is a very neutral one. I think that foreign talent can help Singapore economically, socially and culturally. However, it should not be over-hyped. Over-stressing on the need for foreign talent can do damage to the social fabric in Singapore. For example, Singaporeans may feel like second class citizens instead of owners of the country.

Kian Hin: I believe they are essential for the continuation of Singapore's prosperity and progress. In the age of globalisation, and especially given Singapore’s relatively small domestic market which relies heavily on exports, jobs can be easily move to countries which are more cost-effective. So we can't be too protective about the jobs available in Singapore, or else companies may relocate elsewhere, and even more jobs will be lost. This means local companies will be less able to compete in the global market.

Bernard: Do you think it's necessary for the government to increase its emphasis on attracting Foreign Talent to Singapore?

Warren: I believe they should increase the emphasis on attracting Foreign Talent in the industries or fields of work in which foreign talent is required. However, the government should try to avoid attracting foreign talent for jobs that can very well be done by the locals. They should protect the rights of the locals first.

Kian Hin: Yes. There's nothing wrong with filling up these manpower 'gaps' with foreign talent. But the policy should not go overboard such that it ends
up marginalising and discriminating against Singaporeans – who may be equally competent – in terms of income and opportunities. Otherwise, Singaporeans will be fed up and eventually leave.

Bernard: What do you think is/are the reason/(s) behind this initiative of the government to attract more Foreign Talent to Singapore?

Warren: I guess the government has three reasons for doing so. Firstly, it is to make up for the lack of talent or skills of our locals, which will help in boosting our economy. Basically, it is to make up for what we do not have.

Secondly, it is to improve the workforce in Singapore as a whole. With the introduction of foreign talent, locals would feel insecure about their jobs and strive to improve themselves in order to keep up with the competition. As a result, many of them would strive to upgrade themselves, so as to be better equipped to take on the competition and fight for the jobs they want or already have.

Thirdly, the government wants Singapore to be a more cosmopolitan and vibrant city. With an influx of foreign talent, there would be added diversity and vibrancy to our already colourful country, thereby enhancing our social and cultural heritage.

Kian Hin: It was implemented in order to ensure the quality and quantity of our workforce, so that high-value industries could be set up in Singapore. This would, in turn, ensure that talented Singaporeans could continue to work here, rather than go overseas to achieve their goals.

Bernard: Personally, how do you think the 2-child policy has fared since its introduction?

Warren: Initially, the 2-child policy or “stop at 2” policy was a booming success and many households started practicing family planning and population growth stabilised. However, it was so successful that now, people are stopping at one or not even considering having children or getting married for that matter until a much later age.

No one policy can last for long periods of time. The current world we are living in is ever-changing and if you don't change along with it, you will lag behind. The government has introduced many bonuses and incentives to encourage more births in Singapore, but only time will tell whether it is a success.

Kian Hin: I simply think that people should have the right to have as many babies as they are able and willing to. I think the 2-child policy was more of a
deprivation of human rights rather than an issue of having any positive or negative economic benefits. By the same token, people should also have the right to decide if they want fewer babies, or not at all.

Bernard: Do you think that attracting more Foreign Talent into Singapore can solve Singapore's declining birth rate?

Warren: It will not solve the problem but it could alleviate the situation. A declining birth rate is Singapore's problem and outsiders should not be brought in for the sole purpose of solving it. We might as well go to the orphanages in third-world countries and conduct a pre-citizenship tests on the infants to see if they qualify for the competitive Singapore society; we would be doing charity at the same time, killing two birds with one stone! But seriously, if Singapore is attractive enough to make the expatriates stay and reproduce here, then it will help to arrest our declining birth rates. So let’s all smile and welcome them, and hopefully make them stay 

Kian Hin: No. A declining birth rate is an inevitable consequence of an increasingly affluent society. It is a common trend in many developed countries.

Bernard: Do you believe that Foreign Talent will deprive Singaporeans of jobs and what do you think the government should do to minimise the impact of Foreign Talent on Singaporeans and their livelihood?

Warren: I do not believe that foreign talent will actually deprive Singaporeans of jobs for the simple reason that there are so many jobs available and it is also partly because locals do not have the necessary skills to keep up with the industry’s needs. However, as mentioned before, the government should only attract foreign talent for areas in which they are needed, and not for every field of work.

If the situation gets too grave, which I seriously doubt it will, the government could either have compulsory upgrading courses so that locals can keep up with the expatriates, or impose a cap on the number foreigners who can work in certain industries.

Kian Hin: No. As I said, industries these days are very mobile and hence the best talents (local or otherwise) should be welcome to take on jobs that need their expertise, so that such industries can come to, or remain in Singapore. Otherwise, companies may relocate to places which can provide them the skilled manpower they need. I believe the greater problem in Singapore is the welfare of the lower-income group. Competing with foreign talent is generally more of a concern for those with higher education and earning power.

Bernard: What do you suggest a multi-cultural, multi racial society like Singapore should do to integrate Foreign Talent into the body politic of Singapore?

Warren: Well, we should do what we have been doing since our independence. Since we are a multi-cultural and multi racial society, why should we treat foreign talents from a different cultural or racial background differently? We should just continue what we have been doing and treat them with respect and tolerate them for who they are. World Peace!

Kian Hin: Be open-minded and open-hearted. Be fair and respectful to each individual. Basically, we have to continue what we have achieved in the past in
preserving racial harmony. However, we must guard against succumbing to the fallacy that foreigners MUST be more talented than Singaporeans - because it's definitely not true.

Bernard: With the influx of Foreign Talent into Singapore, what type of a society do you envision Singapore to be in 20 years time?

Warren: I would envision Singapore to be a vibrant, diverse, and global city. Ok, that's too clichéd. Well, I hope it would be much more “user-friendly”. I picture the streets filled with busy people (both locals and foreigners) rushing to get from one place to another, with sky-scrapers surrounding the CBD and cars jamming up the roads. (Well, I hope we have ariel modes of transport by then.) Singapore would be a very successful city economically and socially, and we will be known in every single part of the world.

Kian Hin: A cosmopolitan city, full of vibrancy. But this largely depends on whether the government is willing to open up and tolerate new – albeit more controversial and 'less politically-correct' – ideas and opinions, and not continue behaving like a nanny.

Brief Introduction of our youths:

Warren Elliot (left pic) is turning 17 this year and is currently pursing the Diploma in Leisure and Resort Management at Temasek Polytechnic. He says: “I am not a very political person, more of a “kaypo” gossiper; so I really hope my answers are relevant to the questions!”

Kian Hin (in red) is 21 years old this year and is currently studying at the Singapore Management University. In his free time, he likes to play the piano, take some photographs and is an ardent football fan.

The above article can be found in the current issue (07/01) of the Hammer

Power to the PAP ! !

2007-01-02T17:38:00.000+08:00

Under Singapore’s system of parliamentary democracy, it’s “winner takes all”. For example, in a Group Representation Constituency (GRC) of 5 candidates, the winning party will have all five of its candidates fast-tracked into power. In the recently concluded 2006 Singapore General Election, this form of parliamentary democracy had served the PAP well, sending 82 out of 84 candidates into parliament.

This sort of results obtained under a GRC system over the last few elections has created an impression in the psyche of Singaporeans and foreigners alike that the PAP seems invincible. Is that the case? What makes the PAP looks so invincible?

First, the structure of the electoral system makes the PAP looks invincible.

If Singapore was under a system of proportional representation, the PAP would not have looked so invincible. A proportional representation is a method of voting by which political parties are given legislative representation in proportion to their popular vote. Given 66.6% of the popular votes, the PAP would have obtained only 56 seats in parliament, leaving the remaining 28 seats to the rest of the parties, with the Workers’ Party garnering 13 seats, nearly half of the 28 opposition seats available.

The point is this: One of the reasons behind the PAP’s impressive electoral fruits in parliament is the inner mechanisms of the GRC system.

Let’s examine the effect of such an electoral system. A GRC system makes the PAP’s victory look impressive and overwhelming, creating a perception among the electorate that the Pro-Singapore Alternatives, no matter how credible and capable their candidates are, stands no chance at all against any GRC team helmed by a Cabinet Minister. This, in the long-run develops a mind-set within the electorate that they should only look at the PAP and nothing beyond. This certainly impedes the rise of any Pro-Singapore Alternatives parties in the formation of an alternative government.

Group Representation Constituencies should be abolished, as it dilutes the individual voter’s voice. Instead, elections should be run on single seats. We should also explore the implementation of a Mixed Member Proportional Representation System as practiced in New Zealand.

Election deposits too, contribute to the political apathy of most Singaporeans, increasing the sense of PAP’s invincibility. In order to run for election, one has to put down $13,000 in order to qualify as a candidate. This creates an impression, especially among the youths, that politics is only reserved for the elite and the rich. Subsequently, this kills off any budding interest that a young Singaporean might have in participating in the democratic process.

Moreover, there is a lingering and prevailing fear among Singaporeans about participating in politics, especially if you are on the wrong side of the ruling party.

At the basic level, Singaporeans are worried because they have never experienced a government without the PAP. They do not know what to expect if the PAP is not in power and this psyche among Singaporeans actually serves to benefit the ruling party in any tough contests, as shown in Aljunied GRC in GE2006. If the PAP were to lose in Aljunied, it means the departure of George Yeo, a foreign minister and a heavyweight in the cabinet.

Notwithstanding the PAP’s ‘scare tactics’ over the years, more often than not, opposition candidates bore the brunt of the PAP’s libel suits. From J.B Jeyaretnam in 1991 and 1997 to Tang Liang Hong in 1997, the PAP has successfully made Singaporeans adopt a subconscious stance against opposition politics. There’s only one side to be on – the side of the PAP.

Thus, the inherent mechanisms built into the electoral system, coupled with apathy and fear among Singaporeans, have made an opposition victory very unlikely, reinforcing the invincibility of the PAP.

However, given what the PAP has at its calling; i.e. financial resources, manpower, and grassroots mobilisation, there is no reason why the PAP should fail to complete a sweep of all the seats in parliament.

Despite this un-level playing field that the Pro-Singapore Alternatives faced, the Workers’ Party at the last managed to retain the Single-Member seat of Hougang with an increased majority of 7%. The Aljunied team managed a credible showing of 43% against the PAP team led by Foreign Minister George Yeo. Even more surprising was the fact that the “suicide squad” won 33.9% of the valid votes deep in the “lion’s den”, Ang Mo Kio GRC.

However the reality remains that the Workers’ Party only won 1 seat compared to the 13 seats that the party could have won under a proportional representation system.

In essence, it is the presence of these artificial constitutional barriers put up by the PAP, coupled with the implanting of fear within the electorate, that buttresses the ruling party in power long enough for them to produce an impressive track record.

In reality, the PAP isn’t that invincible after all.

Biggest Cover-up in Singapore ? ?

2006-12-29T15:01:00.000+08:00

Jurong Island Theft: 100kg of Jet fuel additive STOLEN !

I was shocked to see this piece of news in The New Paper (29th December 2006). It is reported that thieves had made off with 100kg of Stadis 450, a jet fuel additive. Stadis 450 is classified as a flammable liquid and hazardous material.

The New paper understands that the jet fuel additive was left in six sealed pails which later went missing. I was even more surprised to read that the jet fuel additive has been missing ever since 4th December 2006. The police was subsquently informed of the theft two days later, on the 6th.

According to the Phillipine Daily Inquirer, the incident was serious enough for Singapore authorities to alert a bomb data centre in the Philippines.

Mr Joe Moreira, a security and explosive consultant, doubts that the fuel additive will be a threat. He said, “Jet fuel furns quickly in the air and you can’t sustain it for long. You need diesel to sustain the fire. So, you’ll be wasting jet fuel on a bomb.”

“Being flammable, the additive can be used as fuel oil together with an improvised explosive device for incendiary effect,” the Singapore police said.

According to the Philippine Inquirer, "The Singapore police have alerted their counterparts in the Philippines about the disappearance of six pails of jet fuel weighing about 100 kilograms from an oil storage facility in the city-state, which they said could be used as a component for explosives, an alert bulletin obtained by the Inquirer said.

The bulletin came as Metro Manila police were recently placed on full alert in the run-up to the sixth anniversary of the Rizal Day bombings. "

I believed there remains of questions left unanswered that the Singapore authorities need to address. I strongly believed that Singaporeans need to know what exactly happened, what the authorities is doing to track down the stolen fuel, what it intends to do to prevent such similar incidents from happening again.

Personally, I would like to put forward the above few questions.

1. Why wasn’t Singaporeans informed of the theft until exactly more than three weeks later?

Why was it that the Singapore media only got to know about the theft through a foreign source?

On top of that, why wasn’t there any statement made by the Ministry of Home Affairs at the point of the theft?

2. How did the entire theft happen in spite of the tight security on Jurong Island? How can someone go in past all the access controls, and come out with stolen goods? (Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, security on Jurong Island has been stepped up and it has also been gazetted a Protected Area. Armed soldiers and police officers are involved in its security. In November 2003, the chemical hub opened a new security checkpoint featuring X-ray scanners to detect explosives and weapons, as well as three-tier vehicle barriers to bar intrusions. On top of all that, visitors must exchange their identity cards for a pass and all incoming vehicles are searched before being allowed entry).

3. If it is proven that there is a lapse in security on Jurong island, who is going to be held accountable?

4. More significantly, if the100kg of jet fuel is made into a bomb with diesel and is made to be detonated during the year-end countdown parties at Marina Bay, Vivo City, Siloso Beach, Expo, National Museum, Who is going to take responsibility for the enormous death toll and subsquently, economic and social damages.

I’m not trying to make a fuss here. I’m just concerned about the authorities’ attempt to hide information from the people. The authorities should alert the people once any breach of security or terror threat is discovered. At least, Singaporeans would not take their peace for granted. Despite all these, why is there still a media blackout on this theft, insignificant it may seem. So does this mean that in future, the authorities would only inform the people once a bomb had went off, or people are killed? I guess it’s a national security issue, thus it should remain secret. Is that the logic of the authorities?

I need answers from the top authorities now and when the investigations are done.

This is my country, my home. I do not want anything to happen to it and I placed my confidence in the security apparatus to ensure that such incidents do not happen again. However, in future, I would like to see a transparent and open attitude towards such breach of security issues. I believed that Singaporeans has the right to know about this. It’s an issue of national interest and by informing Singaporeans, each and every citizen can play its small part in helping to locate the stolen fuels if it is found lying around in our malls, transport systems and even our own neighbourhood.

Right now, many Singaporeans are still unaware of the theft, not to mention how Stadis 450 look like.

Stadis 450 ? What is that ?

A "Homing" Instinct requires a fundamental shift in mentality

2006-12-25T00:23:00.000+08:00

In an article in the Lianhe Zaobao (Wednesday, December 27th, 2006), author 吴俊刚 reiterated the same point that I made; that renaming streets, buildings, stadiums or even park after the founding fathers of modern Singapore is nothing but a name and a detached image.

"虽然这是很多国家的做法，但是我觉得，我们并没有必要有样学样。殖民地时代留下来的许多用人名命名的街道，对今人而言其实已经没什么意义，就单纯是一条路或是一座桥的名称而已，刻意去改动它们，只有给受影响的居民带来不便。可以想象，今天如果我们用一些人名给一些街道、建筑命名，若干年后，也会同样失去意义。

[. . .]

道路也好，地铁站也好，公园也好，建筑物也好，都不是“永垂不朽”的东西；任何一个国家的政治情况，也不是永久不变的。许多前殖民地在独立后，受民族主义热潮的冲击，总是免不了要想尽办法，抹除殖民时代留下的各种痕迹，包括街道名、地名、建筑物名等等。然而，在民族情绪沉淀之后，政治上不了轨道，民生没有任何改善，甚或战祸频仍，民不聊生，这一切政治动作也都变得毫无意义."

Of the same view is the fact that more should be done to educate our population on our past, either through physical descriptions or making our past alive in books.

"正如前面谈到的，文字的记载和叙述比命名更加重要。譬如，要使后人认识林金山对公共组屋的贡献，最好的做法是建屋局大厦内开辟一个历史长廊或历史馆，追溯建屋局的发展史。这样就可以图文并茂地把历史纪录下来，也可以让历史活起来，让学校组团参观，让学生接受鲜活的历史教育。"

In a speech by Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, at the 50th Anniversary of Tanjong Katong Secondary School, he said, “The Government is partly to blame for this state of affairs. The leaders did not believe in glorifying their place in history. They did not name streets, MRT stations, buildings, stadiums and parks after their colleagues who had departed. I think we should do so from now on so that Singaporeans can remember the pioneers, philanthropists, social workers, leaders and others who had made a difference to the lives of Singaporeans. This will make the history of our nation alive for Singaporeans.”

Are we seeing a dawn of new street names like Kuan Yew Road, Keng Swee Street or Chin Chye Avenue? Personally, I was quite surprised that Genting Highlands won the bid for the Sentosa IR. The Singapore Government had the perfect opportunity to name an entire resort after our First Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew. Remember the bid by the 8th Wonder: Harry’s Island? I guess in this case, as what SM Goh had perceived, MM Lee did not believe in glorifying his place in history.

But I can't help but disagree with SM Goh. Our leaders are not glorifying themselves. Indeed, I see it as a flawed statement made by our senior minister. Can you really believe that the SM actually said all these?

Their presence and "airtime" is everywhere. To name a few

1. Major bookstores like Kinokuniya and Borders

2. School textbooks & Case studies and even in GCE Cambridege examinations and last but not least, The Straits Times (the State Times?)

As if these are not sufficient for them. Now they want a monopoly over our streets !

How about asking the URA to consider my proposal?

Thia Khiang Street?

See Tong Terrace?

Chin Siong Ave ?

Siew Choh Drive?

Underlying this statement made by the Senior Minister, it truly reflected a lack of national identity/ a national understanding of our past, and probably a lack of a sense of belonging to the little red dot.

Mr Ngiam Tong Dow in his book “A Mandarin and the making of Public Policy – Reflections by Ngiam Tong Dow” sums up this lack of a national heartware perfectly.

“Out of sheer necessity, we concentrated on the economic imperatives in education. Efficiency rather tha effetiveness, was the name of the game. Along the way, we also lost some of our cultural roots and ethnic instincts. […]

Today, we cannot go back to the status quo ante, to what was before. It will be pointless to restore dialect programmes back into our airwaves. The gerneration of grandparents today so not speak any dialect at all, having grown up under the non-dialect regime. What can be done?

A back of the envelope solution might be to encourage our English-speaking to read Chinese history, literature, and even poetry, in English to enthuse their grandchildren about their Chinese heritage.

It is not only Chinese culture that has been affected….[E]ven in English speaking schools, technical education was preferred over subjects such as literature and history.

With the neglect of English literature, yong Singaporeans do not have enough command of English to absorb the essence of western culture. Instead, Hollywood is their western cultural diet.[…]

In education, as in any field of human endeavour, we have to face reality. Our single-minded pursuit of economic prosperity has brought us to a crossroads. In a knowledge based global economy, inputs of land, labour, and captial are necessary, but not sufficient for growth and prospertiy. We have to learn to apply knowledge creatively.”

All in all, my take is this. The Singapore Government’s relentless pursuit of Sciences and Maths, due to economic necessity has led to a neglect among our citizens, an appetite for humanities like history and literature. This is especially so in today's secondary schools where humanities subjects such as history and literature are omitted from the school curriculum.

In light of this, what can our government, agencies and even individuals do to cultivate a “homing” instinct among our citizens?

“Singapore’s founding fathers will be the stars of an exhibition to be unveiled on National Day next year.

The exhibitions will showcase the contributions of the first post-independence Cabinet, which laid the foundations for Singapore’s success.

The project is one of four slated to be unvelied next year as part of the national effort to ensure their legacies continue to be remembered and that Singapore’s past remains alive among Singaporeans today.”

The Straits Times: “Contributions of founding fathers to be showcased” (Friday December 22, 2006)

Thus, I applaud this move by the National Heritage Board, through books and exhibitions, to ensure that Singapore’s past is not forgotten by our future generations and swept aside by the forces of globalisation

However, I would like to suggest some ways that the government should consider in trying to build up a national belongingness and identity among our citizenry.

A. Ensure that humanities especially modules on Singapore’s political, social and economic history is being taught to every single citizen from the age of 7 to 18. An important point to note is this. Singapore’s history must be related to our students in a just and neutral point of view, taking into account not only the PAP’s perspective on Singapore’s political and economic history, but from every single contributor to our past. Every single student will be given bonusus or exemptions for university admissions to encourage students to excel in their comprehension of Singapore’s political, social and economic history or humanities subjects in general.

B. All forms of literature on Singapore’s political, economic and social history must be sold in all major bookstores. Today, we are seeing only limited literature on these areas, usually favourable to the ruling party. Books such as Lim Chin Siong’s Comet in the Sky, and various publications by Think Centre are not being displayed or sold in major bookstores.

C. Allow political clubs and/or associations to flourish in schools. This is to encourage the exchange of ideas and the formulation of an “homing instinct” For example in France, French students are encouraged to enter universities or colleges. Some emerge as Socialists and others as Conservatives. Yet, at the end of the day, when the chips are down, they considered themselves to be Frenchmen. This is the sort of a Singapore society that I am looking forward to: political but not totally partisan; and at the end of the day, when the crunch comes, will stand side by side, and fight for Singapore. In this case, political clubs and associations thus played an important role in the initial butressing and exchange of ideas, opinions and viewpoints.

D. Ensuring all forms of participation in politics, economy, and society to be made available to all, not only the elites. The reason is this. Goh Chok Tong and his colleagues should just look inside the home to find the answers. Where the family feels warmth and a sense of ownership, its members will always come home. Where the home is cold, and the patriarchial authoritarian father beats his children often, the kids will run away from home and find comfort somewhere else. If a home makes certain members of the family feel more important than the others, more capable than the other siblings, the siblings who are ignored and dismissed as useless and pathetic will more likely end up in the Boys Home. By allowing all Singaporeans to be able to particiapte in nation building, it entrenches a “homing” instinct, knowing full well that everyone has a stake in the country. It’s as simple as that.

• From the political perspective, I would briefly suggest that elections be made fair and just. The mainstream media should be liberalised to allow for a wide exchange of political viewpoints, especially from the opposition perspective and possibly considering lowering voting age to 18.

In any case, feeling at home has nothing to do with the naming of the streets/places. We have to face that fact that even after millions of dollars are being thrown into the branding of the Merlion, one does not feel that he/she is a Singaporean just because there is a Merlion sitting at the mouth of Singapore river. Naming streets, buildings and such will have the same result - it is just a name and a detached image.

One calls Singapore home because the loved ones, family and friends live here, and whatever fate that Singapore face as a nation is faced by all who are rooted here. There's no need for any abstract speculation as to why people just dont feel rooted enough to this country. Everyone, especially the policymakers must recognised that the country of Singapore is larger than the PAP (PAP < Singapore). But even larger than the country of Singapore, limited by size and population , is the nation of Singapore, which includes a diaspora. Only when this mentality is entrenched within the body politic of Singapore will there be a way forward in cultivating a sense of belonging to the country we call home.

Updated: December 27th, 2006 @ 13 35 hrs.

Frozen Government Fees

2006-12-22T13:54:00.000+08:00

WP Youth Wing Policy Statement
22 Dec 2006

Half Frozen Half Helpful

The article "Govt to freeze fees for one year after GST hike" (ST 1 December 2006) gave much hope for the people that costs will remain affordable. The first paragraph of the article wrote:

"ALL government fees will stay frozen and not be raised for one year when the goods and services tax (GST) goes up from 5 to 7 percent"

These hopes were changed when the article "Government spells out fees to be frozen" (ST 13 December 2006) produced non-exhaustive lists of inclusions and exclusions to the fee freeze.

The Workers' Party Youth Wing would like to express its disappointment with the government having failed to take into account the need to freeze fees for basic amenities such as transport, utilities fees and polytechnic and university fees.

With the hike in GST from 5 - 7%, Singaporeans will be hard hit by an increase in their daily costs of living. Transport(16.7%), fuel & utilities (4.5%) and health care (5.3%) account for a total of 26.5% of the basket of Consumer Price Index (CPI) goods revised in 2004. This would account for a hike in inflation rates in the near future. If any offset in GST were to occur, these mentioned areas would provide a distinct impact on Singaporeans.

At the same time, radio/TV license, registration fees for passports, birth certificates and driving license, marriage registration fees are not significantly represented in the CPI. More often than not, the latter expenses are either annual or one-time payments with only a nominal impact on the lives of most Singaporeans.

The 13 Dec ST article also wrote "Fees not set by the Government are excluded from the list as any changes are determined by market or other forces". As far as the Workers' Party Youth Wing understands, public transport fees are approved by the Public Transport Council, road taxes decided by LTA, electricity tariffs are approved by the Energy Market Authority and polytechnics are Statutory Boards of the Government. However, it appears that these items were specifically excluded from the list of fee freezes.

Interestingly enough, The Workers' Party Youth Wing would like to point out that students in polytechnic and universities are already paying higher transport fees as compared to students from primary & secondary schools, Millennia Institute, junior colleges and the Institute of Technical Education. Coupled with this is the possibility of an impending increase in polytechnic and universities fees as has been historically demonstrated. The Workers' Party Youth Wing would like to see more in the budget by way of assurance that education remains foremost in the minds of polytechnic and university students instead of worrying about where the fare for the next bus or MRT ride is going to come from.

工人党青年团想要指出一个非常有趣的现象。相比之下，就读于理工学院和大专学府的莘莘学子们所缴付的车资费和小学生，中学生，初院生，工艺教育学院生远远大不相同。此外，这些莘莘学子们还得担忧明年消费税上涨之后，学费相对调高的可能性。因此，工人党青年团促请政府体恤他们的困境，在明年财政年度财政预案中给予工院和大学生们适当的帮助与津贴。由此一来，工院和大学生们就能更专心学业，再也不需要为每天的车资费发愁。

The Workers' Party Youth Wing welcomes the Government's announced commitment not to add to inflation at the time of the GST increase. To really achieve this goal, items for public transport fees, water & electricity and tertiary education fees should be included in the list of fee freezes. These items would provide more tangible help to the people.

Singapore Youth Parliament

2006-12-10T22:15:00.000+08:00

In order to ensure greater participation among Singaporean youths, I would like to propose the establishment of a Singapore Youth Parliament (SYP) , on top and above the lowering of the voting age from 21 to 18.

The Singapore Youth Parliament is a democratically elected youth organisation consisting of elected members aged between 14 and 25.

“The SingaporeYouth Parliament aims to be an effective, open, honest, inclusive and broad-minded voice for Singapore’s young people.”

Main Aims of the Youth Parliament

1. To offer young people in Singapore a collective national youth voice.

2. To make a difference in society by increasing young people’s participation.

3. To promote a positive image of young people

4. To connect the processes of policy making and development with young people

5. To be an independent and youth-led organisation free from influence, where young people can give their views to policy makers without hindrance, fear or barriers.

The work of the SYP is centred around involving young people in the decision-making process, particularly in consulting with young people and campaigning for these views to be adopted by the relevant decision-makers.

Too young to vote?

2006-12-10T21:03:00.000+08:00

Personally, I proposed that the voting age for Singaporeans to be lowered to 18 years of age. In this preliminary analysis, let me propose a few reasons why.

1. Male Singaporeans enlist into the Singapore Armed Forces at the age of 18. If young men at the age of 18 are required to serve, represent and possibly die for their country, why is it that the constitution are so skeptical of their judgements when it comes to matters of the state, in particularly electoral reforms.

2. Young Singaporeans can start pursing a life of choice and freedom at the age of 18. For instance, they have the freedom to choose whether to smoke, to drive, to club, to committ a crime and suffer the maximum punishment and exposure for their acts. In this case, why is it that young men upon the age of 18 cannot have the choice to choose who their representatives in parliament will be.

3. Politics is all about me and you. By lowering the voting age to 18, it helps to politicise the population and better create a sense of belonging to the country. This is because, with the right to vote, it's as good as empowering young men with the choice and decision to vote for policies and individuals who can best represent their interests. This will further entrench their roots into Singapore. Now that the are entasked with this heavy responsibility, they will now participate more actively in building a better future for themselves.

While it may be argue that young people are seen as rash and irresponsible in their voting patterns, I think that if given the chance, young people are far more intelligent, far more responsible, and far more mature than we give them credit for.

While it may be true that Singapore youths lack the "political acumen", it must be noted that with much political education in school and much political participation in schools, it will only be a matter of time that they are trained in electoral discipline. This particular skill in political education wil stay with them forever. Thus, in a sense, it can again be seen as a worthwhile investment in our young.

I will like to point out that by the time I turned 18, I could recognise that I am part of a community and I have to work together as a group of people in a community, whether that community is a school, a marketplace or even a country. By 18, I really can understand my obligations to the community. I'm confident that many more young people like me are mature enough to want to exercise their vote. In this case, what's stopping us from being more actively involved is the constitution which has since 1965, only allowed Singaporeans above the age of 21 to vote.

In essence, an adult is a person who has attained the age of maturity as specified by law.That's when the law recognises that you are entitled, in law, to have control over your own body, your decisions and your actions. This is where the OB markers lies.

Who is an adult? Someone who is 18 or someone who is 21?

The future of opposition

2006-12-09T14:40:00.000+08:00

There are about 23 registered political parties in Singapore, of which as of 2006, there are about 4 prominent political organizations in Singapore. They are namely the People’s Action Party, the Workers’ Party, the Singapore Democratic Alliance (Singapore People’s Party, National Solidarity Party, Pertubuhan Kebangsaan Melayu Singapura, Singapore Justice Party) and the Singapore Democratic Party. Essentially, these 4 political parties are the most active and recognized political associations in Singapore.

In the immediate aftermath of the 2006 GE, led by the success of the Workers’ Party, the opposition parties were back in the limelight, A similar phenomenon was also seen in the aftermath of the 1991 General elections, when the SDP won 4 seats in Parliament.

In fact, I would like to suggest that the 2006 GE was a political reawakening of sorts for much of the Singapore populace. However, this issue is not the focus of this article. With the “success” of the opposition, especially The Workers' Party, what is in store for the opposition and its sympathizers in the run up to the next elections, most possibly to be held as early as 2009?

While the Worker’s Party was gaining a lot of attention and seeing an increased number of memberships and a continued process of political renewal in its leadership ranks, the other political parties were relatively quiet and muted. The SDA was rocked by the leadership tussle in one of its alliance partners; the PKMS. The leadership of the SDP was subsequently charged in courts for various confrontations with the ruling party. However, this is not to suggest that only the WP is working hard while the rest are idling around. Certainly, it would not be fair to accuse that the SDA and the SDP is taking a backseat and waiting for the next elections. A look at the websites of the NSP and the SPP would show that the SDA is still aggressively working the ground in constituencies that it had contested in the last GE; namely Jalan Besar GRC and Tampines GRC. The same can also be said of the Workers’ Party as well.

An article in the Chinese mainstream newspaper caught my attention today.

成员党马民机构因党争闹上法庭民联动向令反对党人关注.

Essentially, the writer was contemplating about the future of the SDA and the impact on the political makeup in the opposition should the SDA breaks up. Interestingly enough, there was even mention of a possible alliance between the NSP and the WP.

"团结党和工人党这几年关系融洽，党要之间彼此都很熟络。据党内人士观察，以两党的交情，如果团结党因同民联的发展理念不同而出走，最有可能及最务实的做法是同工人党结成联盟，以在四五年后举行的大选中形成选战的重心。

团结党目前除了定期在星期天走访选区之外，接下来也会大力招募新党员，并且计划在明年一月把现有的党总部搬迁到惹兰勿刹，同工人党的赛阿威路总部距离不到一公里。"

In fact, with the PKMS going to court over its leadership battle, the SDA was unable to carry out its new election of its CEC, slated to be held later this year. It must be noted that the WP renew its senior leadership ranks just 2 months after the euphoria of the general elections. Again, I am not questioning the commitment and determination of the SDA in its renewal process.

From my perspective, I would firstly like to express my disappointment at this unfortunate episode in the senior ranks in the PKMS. But I harbour hopes that this will only be a minor hiccup in the renewal process within the SDA. My stand is this. The political renewal of any opposition party is a major and inevitable phenomenon in Singapore politics as the baton is gradually being passed from pre-65s to the post 65ers

Right now, I would like to urge Mr Chiam See Tong to relinquish his position as secretary general in the SDA executive committee and to allow the younger leaders in the SDA to take over. This is not a sign of disrespect and any indication of his loss of support within the party. This move is necessary as it is of utmost importance that young and capable leaders in the party gained maximum exposure to the grassroots and public before the next elections come by.

I would like to warn that if Mr Chiam holds on to power in the SDA, there could be major repercussions to future of the opposition in Singapore. Foremost, the SDA might break up and members would become disillusioned and join other political parties, thus sideling and weakening the position of Mr Chiam in his possible re-election bid in the next election. On top of that, any move to prevent political renewal would mean a step backward for opposition politics in general, dismantling the efforts and headways that the opposition had made in the last elections. It must be noted that when up against a powerful and resourceful opponent in the PAP, nothing should be spared to put up a strong, credible opposition in sync with the aspirations of the Singapore populace which is increasingly younger and more vibrant.

Be it the PAP, WP, SDA or even the SDP, the crucial thing is this. Every party that is interested in making a change in Singapore must continue to stay relevant to the electorate and continuously seek to improve, innovate and incorporate new ideas and platforms into the party. The Singapore electorate is particularly a pragmatic, choosy and fickle-minded lot. Serving the interests of all Singaporeans must be the objective of any political party in Singapore and the SDA must not have this liberty to hijack the renewal and eventual politicization of Singapore politics, which is finally at its crossroads after 41 years of PAP’s rule and structure.

Days of Being Wild

2006-12-03T22:20:00.000+08:00

Latest Update: 11th December 2006 21 52 hrs

Days of being Wild is now available in all major bookstores ! ! !

Days of being Wild Press Release (PDF format)

Last Thursday, I attended a book launch organised by ethos books. The book is entitled "Days of being Wild", a publication depicting the 2006 GE from the opposition perspective. Here are some of the pics, courtesy of TheOnlineCitizen

A Poem by Ong Ah Bee

Recently, my white MP,

Kok on my door, and very keh ki

Say "I've worked so hard, so vote for me,

Or rubbish won't be cleared in your vicinity"

I said "Dear MP of my GRC,

Dun remember u, so please pardon me.

I only saw you on TV,

Dozing off and jiak liao bee . . .

Last GE I voted for thee,

2% up in GST.

Cut CPF and up utility,

Are still very clear in my memory.

5 years later, then you come to me,

Fresh from your slumber of ivory.

Say that only you can help me

Escape from a life of poverty.

Just take a drive on CTE,

Count the number of all the gantries

Or squeeze a ride on the MRT,

That has not been cleared for ye . . .

My life since the last GE,

Has been doubtful though I voted P@P.

If I vote the same for your spending spree

I can expect the same misery.

So this time round, I vote for somebody

Who will kachiao you to productivity . . .

Forms fill wrong, no big deal to me,

If there's someone to speak up for Ah Bee . . .

So dear MP of GRC,

If life no improve, vote you cho simi . . .

This following poem can be found in "Days of Being Wild"

More infomation on the book launch

Straits Times' reporting on this event

"New" Progress package

2006-12-02T23:38:00.000+08:00

In school this semester, I am required to assist a golfing firm in its marketing campaign for its golf resort in Pulau Ubin as part of my assessment for the marketing module. After much discussion with my group, we decided to segment the population according to their income levels and we are targeting the rich and affluent.

Similarly, the Singapore Tourism Board announces details for the development of the Southern Islands and is seeking request-for-concepts as early as next March.

The Southern islands – Kusu, St John’s. the Sisters’ Islands, Kias, Lazarus and Seringar – draw at least 100,000 visitors a year and have been said to have the potential to be similar to Italy’s Isle of Capri, a marine village, or Dubai’s The Palm island, a development for the ultra wealthy.

On top of this next mega-tourism project, Sentosa looks set to have a new resort hotel with a beach front as well.

While there have been arguments along the line of environment and heritage, I would like to look at this issue from a totally different angle.

It is said that when there’s a demand, there will be a supply. And in this case, there is an increasing demand for products servicing the rich and famous in Singapore. As of 2004, there were 202,500 individuals with liquid wealth of more than US$200,000 each. This figure is expected to increase to 272,800 individuals by 2009, growing annually by 6.4%.

According to the latest World Wealth Report by Cap Gemini and Merrill Lynch, the number of millionaires in Singapore - defined as having liquid assets of US$1 million - grew by 22.4% over the past year to hit some 55,000. The Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore puts the number of people here earning over $1 million in taxable income at 1,724 – a 15% increase compared to the previous financial year

In fact, high-end properties such as The Sail@Marina Bay, Sentosa Cove and St Regis Residences – which don’t go for any less than $1,000 per sq ft – aren’t the only objects of desire to sell out like hot cakes.

Luxury cars like Lamborghini and Ferraris have seen brisk sales with 21 units and 32 units sold respectively this year.

Furthermore, fine dining clubs like The China Club has seen membership revenue increase by 85% over the past year, with average therespending per client up by 30%.

My point is this. Singapore has seen remarkable economic progress and this has allowed many Singaporeans to alleviate itself away from the poverty cycle in a span of a generation. While there are a lot of rich people here, there are also some poor people around us, and I am particularly worried about this burgeoning income gap between the rich and the poor.

"We will be starting on a wrong footing if we proceed on the premise that thus far nothing has been done to help our low-income, the poor and the elderly. In fact, through the Progress Package, ComCare Fund, workfare bonus and other initiatives, the Government has spent billions of dollars to help needy Singaporeans. With the many-helping-hands approach, the labour movement too has done its part to help our low-income workers. This year alone, NTUC distributed $6.4 million in the form of hardship grants, transport vouchers, Fairprice vouchers, Family Recreation Fund and through the Back-to-School programme as well as through bursaries and scholarships."

Mdm Halimah Yacob, MP for Hong Kah GRC, speaking in Parliament, 8th November 2006.

I fully support the fact that the government has been reluctant to institutionalise a welfare system into our social politic. However, there must be an institutional way to help our poor. At the moment, we are only seeing consistent and repetitive one-time handouts especially during times of economic growth. This has also resulted in Singaporeans being used to receiving yearly monetary rewards.

I believed that this will reduce the resilience of Singaporeans when the country faces a crisis. We are told that as long as we swallow the bitter pills and take the plunge to boldly cuts our cost and restructure our economy, we will be fine. There will be light at the end of tunnel. What happened if our economy plunges into a recession? It doesn’t matter as Singaporeans are already so used to receiving their share of the nation wealth year-in-year-out. When that comes, the government rationale of economic restructuring might not be that appealing to Singaporeans anymore.

In that case, there is a need to institutionalise our “progress package” for our lower-income families. Here is what I recommend:

We should set up a totally new government ministry with its own budget to directly tackle the needs of our poor. A cabinet minister should be appointed so that the poor will have its needs directly addressed to the Prime Minister. In this way, this will reduce the impression that the poor and disadvantaged are being marginalised.

This ministry for the poor and disadvantaged will set and oversee policies (to be revised)like

a. GST for basic necessities will be set at 3% - four percentage points lower than the approved tax rate. The implementation and enforcement of such a tax policy will be overseen by this particular ministry.

b. A better definition of the lower income and the middle income. More often than not, the people found at the lower spectrum of the middle income category suffered more from the increase in the cost of living.

c. Education costs must be addressed. School fees should be waiver until the college level. Subsidies should be given to ensure that each child’s expenses on education, from school books to stationary are being well taken care of.

d. GST on health cost expenses should be waiver.

While these recommendations required that huge amount of government expenditure are required, but the government should see it as a moral crusade and take this heavy burden upon its shoulders. In the first place, these people gave them the mandate and confidence so that their needs will be addressed. From their perspective, the PAP government is the best people to help. In this case, its more than a moral crusade, the government need to ensure that the poor are not left behind by society.

In the words of Mr Low Thia Khiang, secretary general of the Workers’ Party and MP for Hougang SMC at the recent parliamentary sitting:

“I feel that the transition into a globalised economy and the Government’s determination to maintain its principle of a low tax regime, the uneven distribution of wealth and the widening income gap will become an insurmountable social problem in future. The Government should help the low-income people as soon as possible to correct the mechanism that causes the anomaly in the distribution of the fruits of our economic development, and incorporate the appropriate measures into our social safety net structure.”

There’s no time to lose. It’s now or never.

I am Singapura

2006-11-19T20:48:00.000+08:00

Cartoon Version of "We live in Singapura"

Sadly, we have no ideas

2006-11-19T20:05:00.000+08:00

How many times have you heard these remarks?

"We can't do that."

"Your idea is stupid. Don't waste our time."

"It does not make any sense."

"We already know that. Don't reinvent the wheel."

Ever since 1959, the PAP has one way or the other employed the tactic of rooting out the creativity juices of Singaporeans or denying Singaporeans the opportunity to really voice out their opinions. This has subtly created a sense of fear among the populace of speaking up against the administration and its policies.

Why fear? Fear is paralysing.The fear of being judged, looking stupid, being wrong or feeling like a failure can take away all your creativity energy and conviction.

The PAP feel threatened by new ideas. They tend to promote an environment in which Singaporeans do their jobs and nothing more. This atomsphere hinders creativity and induces fear in Singaporeans, thereby hampering the chances of the opposition to grow and diversify.

What is stopping Singaporeans to voice out?

1. No sense of personal responsibility - I don't feel responsible/ rooted to the future of Singapore

2. Fear - If I contribute new ideas, people might think I am a troublemaker.

3. The usual soultions - PAP has always delivered what it promises, thus I should adopt a conventional approach in solving problems.

4. Narrow-minded peer acceptance - The people around me are not open to new/ wild ideas.

5. Red tape - I don't bring up my ideas because my ideas would violate the PAP's policies and procedures.

6. Bipolar thinking - I look at 2 alternatives. I thrive in terms of an 'either-or' solution.

What I think the PAP should do.

The PAP should lighten up and give Singaporeans the green light to do the same. It does not follow that just because the issue discussed is important, everyone needs to be serious and obeyed the rules. A little bit of humour and flexibility goes a long way.

The PAP leadership should adopt the corporate mantra from the highest echleon to the lowest in tha party: "I am open minded. I have good ideas. I am a creative problem solver. I want to break boundaries."

They should change their established ways of thinking and allow flashes of inspiration to come. Like any new skill and effort, becoming more creative takes time and effort. The same applies for creating a politically conscious population.

This is what I would suggest to the PAP.

1. Liberalise the mainstream media. Allow ideas and opposing viewpoints to flourish.

2. Allow schools to form political clubs and associations where the interests of the school populace is fought and national issues debated. Political organisations should be allowed entry into educational institutions.

3. Lower Voting age to 18. (Singapore is one of the only few countries where the legal voting age is fixed at 21)

4. Membership age to join any political party should be lowered to 15.

Political consciousness and awareness and eventually politcal creativity is not just the domain of a talented few. It can be fostered and revived. You just need to start working on it right now.

But the fundamental obstacle is this: Singapore still lacked a just and magnanimous ruling party. Elitism more than anything else I suppose.

Goods & Services Tax

2006-11-13T23:43:00.000+08:00

Updated: December 27, 2006 20 08 hrs
Goods & Services Tax

I am committed to seeing a flexible GST policy, whereby each citizen will contribute accordingly to their level of prosperity and progress in society.

I recognize the intrinsic problems faced by the Singapore society in the next 10 to 30 years, of which the yawning income gap between the rich and the poor and an aging population are of my top priorities.

Thus, from my perspective, the implementation of GST is a sound one as it provides the government with the financial resources to strengthen the existing social welfare programmes already in place, thereby enhancing the social safety nets to assist the low-income groups, with the intention to close the widening income gap.

Furthermore, financial resources are needed to conduct medical research and development, to build health care infrastructures, and to finance the increasingly costly medical bills of Singaporeans.

In the light of all these, it is crucial that the government receives healthy levels of revenues through the implementation of GST.

I support the notion of implementing a GST policy with a rate of between 3 to 10% and reject the call to abolish/ waiver GST on basic necessities. Basic necessities as well as luxury items should be taxed.

However, I beg to differ from the government proposal to keep GST at 7% across the board.

My Beliefs

Goods and Services Tax tend to be regressive in nature, more so if the bulk of the indirect taxes are on basic necessities. This will adversely affect the attempt to redistribute income more equally between the rich and the poor. However, if indirect taxes are imposed substantially on luxuries goods or goods which constitute more of a want than a need, then they are progressive in nature.

Increases to the Goods and Services Tax may be inflationary as well. They add on to the prices of goods and services, which may then spark off a wage spiral, and hence cost-push inflation. In the light of rising international oil prices, this will increase the financial burden on the lower-income groups, further eroding their spending power and subsequently affecting their standard of living.

Moreover, as the Singapore population ages, fewer people will be working to support an increasingly aging population. To reduce the tax burden of the working adults, a flexible indirect tax system is required.

Social safety nets and/ or welfare programmes aren’t really effective in assisting the lower-income groups on a permanent basis. More often than not, it is the lower-income groups that are bearing a large proportion of the tax burden.

My Proposals

1. To adopt a flexible GST structure. I propose a tax structure whereby both basic necessities and luxury goods will be taxed.

2. I, however propose that all basic necessities will be taxed at a rate of 3% while keeping the tax rate for luxury items at a consistent rate of 7% as proposed by the government.

3. What constituted a basic necessity and what does not will be determined by a special panel made up of government ministers, representatives from the various political parties, welfare help-groups, and more importantly, the general public.

4. In order to cope with the possible fall in revenue that the government might face in implementing 2 different tax rates, I also would like to see the government raising the tax rate for cigarettes and alcohol consumption to offset the impact of implementing a 3% tax rate on basic necessities.

5. This is in line with the inclusive society that the government has in mind as such a flexible tax structure alleviates the burden of the lower-income groups on a daily basis and at the same time, providing increased financial resources to assist the lower-income groups, thereby, reducing the widening income gap in Singapore society. More importantly, it provides an effective, feasible and long term solution to the income gap problem faced by the Singapore society.

6. All in all, each citizen contributes to the national coffers on a fair, equal and distributive basis, according to their financial status and needs in the economy.

Articles online:
2 GST rates are better than one
Progressive GST anyone?

What's the real story?

2006-11-13T00:53:00.000+08:00

I chanced upon the entry on Singapore Alternatives( http://singaporealternatives.blogspot.com/ ) . Singapore Alternatives happens to be Goh Meng Seng's own personal Blog. I thought there was a need to made known his opinion exposing the fallacies in the Sunday Times Report on both his resignation & Mr Chia Ti Lik's resignation from the Workers' Party.(What's the Story? November 12, 2006, Sunday). Once again we see the inaccurate and bias reporting of the mainstream media.

What's the Story?

I am amazed by the imagination that the reporters have when they write the "hot story" about Workers' Party with regards to Tilik's and my resignation. First of all, I must clarify again, two factual errors:

1) The report suggested that Salim bought the 'cheng tng' for the SDP protestors:

" Along with some other young WP members, he bought some cold cheng tng for Dr Chee and comrades, a gesture that was highlighted, with thanks, on the SDP website.
The cheng tng overture received an icy reception from the WP leaders."

As far as I know, it was Melvin Tan that bought the cheng tng, not Salim. I think ST reporters will have to keep up the 'high standards' that MM Lee has set for them, at least to be factually accurate in their reporting.

2) Secondly, the article seems to indicate that my resignation got to do with:

a) the internet guideline
b) the 'jockeying among young members' eyeing for the 'A' team.

One of the reporter that I spoke to even ask me whether my resignation got to do with my move from NEAC (where the Aljunied GRC is included) to CAC. I hereby reiterate that my resignation is a simple resignation for a simple but important reason, accountability. It is on my own initiative to request a shift from NEAC to CAC for strategic and tactical reason that I am not going to reveal.

Furthermore, I have resigned even before I know about the details of the internet guideline. Thus, it is impossible for me to make decision based on something that I was not even aware of in the first place!

As far as I know, there are no signs of "jockeying" among young members for a bigger role within the party. In fact, most younger (in age) senior party members have decided to step down from positions in the Youth Wing willingly so to let young and new members to take up more responsiblities within the party. Melvin, Tilik, Shin Leong and I have voluntarily stepped down from Youth Wing positions and did not take part in the Youth Wing Council re-election process! Most importantly, we come to the same decision without even the need to consult each other! We are all very happy that the party has grown in strength and that there are many more people willing to take up our positions in the Youth Wing. We are not 'power crazy' at all but in fact, altruistic in all sense. We understand our visions, missions and roles very well.

It is unfortunate that Tilik and I have decided to resign for two very different reasons. Some may think these are insignificant reasons or even "laughable", but to us, these are not small matters. It is a matter of principles and convictions. And to suggest that either Tilik or I resigned due to 'power struggle' would be grossly inappropriate and insulting to us. We have come a long way and decided to join Workers' Party when it was at its lowest point in recent history. It is definitely not power, fame nor any materialistic gains that motivated us to join Workers' Party at its weakest point. It is just pure passion, beliefs and convictions that bring us together in Workers' Party. If it is about power or better prospects of gaining power, fame or materialistic gains, we would not have chosen Workers' Party; Tilik would not have quitted PAP to join Workers' Party.

We have come together, work together, trying our very best to develop and build up the party, right from its lowest point. I feel that it is really insulting to us for people even suggest that we resigned due to 'power struggle'. Ironically, this would be the most 'laughable' reason in our persepective!

I would rather people see our reasons for resigning from Workers' Party mistakenly as 'trivial' or 'laughable' than being insulted in such crude way.

Goh Meng Seng

Resignation of Chia Ti Lik from the WP CEC

2006-11-12T22:15:00.000+08:00

As we all now know, the Workers’ Party Central Executive Council (CEC) has just passed a new regulation curtailing CEC members’ Internet activities, prompting the resignation of Chia Ti Lik, the leader for the WP’s team for East Coast GRC during the last elections.

This was what Mr Chia had to say about the new regulation passed by the CEC.

“I think the party leadership is overly conservative. Some might say that it’s about being cautious. But I think sometimes you can be too cautious, shy away from important issues, and you don’t perform as an opposition should”

He further argued, “The opposition at the moment does not live up to its role. It is too silent or too restrained in its criticism of the Government.”

With all due respect to Mr Chia, I do not really agree with what he said.

From my little knowledge of politics in Singapore, I would like to offer my 1 cent worth of opinion.

I do not agree with the Mr Chia’s statement that the opposition shy away from important issues. Since the end of the elections in May, the Workers' Party had addressed at least 4 major issues affecting Singaporeans through its press releases. Notwithstanding that, the Workers’ Party, I believed had also voiced out strongly in the casino issue, issues on taxes, utilities, and even the political process.

I can understand the cautious nature that the Workers’ Party is taking. Basically, the party is learning from past experiences encountered by the opposition. The PAP will pounce at any opportunity to discredit the opposition and make them look really awful in the eyes of the public. More often than not, the words and comments of opposition personalities have been taken out of context by the PAP, which in turn pave the way for the eventual demise of the opposition. Francis Seow in 1988, Tang Liang Hong in 1991, Ling How Doong during one of his parliament speeches, Chee Soon Juan and more recently James Gomez.

Essentially, the leadership of the Workers’ Party is trying to prevent a repeat of what happened to the SDP in the aftermath of the 1991 elections. SDP was in a sense, quite similar to the WP in 1991. Riding on their successes during the ’91 elections, they became bold, too bold for the liking of the PAP, which eventually brought about their downfall ever since.

Furthermore, with the internet emerging as a potent yet unknown political tool, every party including the Workers’ Party is still figuring out the correct and proper strategy to cope with the internet, so as to fully utilizing it to their advantage. I would not be surprised that the new regulations passed by the WP CEC are a temporary one. Even the ruling party is pouring in large sums of money to understand and research on the internet and its proper utilization.

From this perspective, it can be seen that the party is outward looking, with an eye for the future, contrary to what Mr Chia said about the conservative nature of the leadership. Imagine this. If the WP were to allow its CEC members to freely voice out their opinions before they fully grasped the nature of the internet and the amount of harm it can do to the party as a whole, it will be too reckless on the part of the leadership, which might in turn, given all the institutional and structural obstacles placed by the PAP government, lead to the demise of the party with the most potential to brand itself as the alternative to the PAP.

I thus applaud the Workers’ Party and its leadership for its foresight and humility in learning from past experiences. Essentially, the WP do not oppose for the sake of opposing. Rather, they seek to be relevant and constantly presenting their own point of view, but definitely not at the expense of their survival. Most definitely not at the expense of presenting Singaporeans with a credible and worthy alternative choice.

WP Vs the Mass Media

2006-11-12T22:07:00.000+08:00

The Workers' Party was recently hit by the resignation of two members from the Central Executive Council (CEC), lawyer Chia Ti Lik & businessman Goh Meng Seng. Does it hint of trouble in the party?

Since the end of the 2006 elections in May, the Workers’ Party has not managed to hit the headlines or at least the front page of the Straits Times until today. Lo and behold, the news on the resignation of the two CEC members took up one entire page of the Sunday Times today.

What it goes to highlight is this. From my perspective, it highlights and reminded me once again of the extreme biasness of the government controlled print and broadcast media, essentially, the mass media. We could once again see from this little episode that the tentacles of the ruling government in the mass media are so prevalent and all-consuming.

If one were to read the exclusive 1 page report on the WP today, it gives readers the impression that there is huge differences in opinions among the CEC members and more importantly, an ongoing power struggle within the party; jockeying for position among younger party members for bigger roles in the party’s activities and possibly future election lineups.

The report will inevitably tarnish the image and credibility that the party has painstakingly built up during the course of the 2006 election. I quote from the Sunday Times, “During the election, the opposition party had impressed the public and observers with its discipline and unity”. The growing belief of a strong, honest, credible alternative party to the PAP is slowly emerging. Thus, it is of little wonder that any little issues within the party will be played up by the media.

I see it as an attempt to derail all the positive publicity and political mileage that the Workers’ Party had gained in the aftermath of the 2006 elections.

I would like to pose the following questions to the editors of the Straits Times.

1. Why was a domestic issue within the WP given more attention than national issues? (Ms Sylvia Lim & Mr. Low Thia Khiang’s speech in parliament)

2. From the website of the Workers’ Party, I understand that they are not lazing around after the elections, contrary to what the PAP would like us to believe. Usually there will be a public outreach at least once a week. In this case, why was there no single report on the weekly public outreach of the Workers’ Party?

Surely, the Workers’ Party warrant more positive publicity that negative news?

Surely, the Workers’ Party warrant equal coverage with the PAP, since the Workers’ Party is unofficially recognized as the largest and strongest opposition party in Singapore?

That brings me to the 3rd question that I would like to pose to the editiors of ST. What is the hidden agenda behind this attention grabbing report?

I do believe that Singaporeans like you and me know the answer to all my questions. I rest my case.

6ixth

2006-10-24T23:31:00.000+08:00

Photo Exhibition: Chiam See Tong's 6th Electoral Victory

Venue: The Substation Gallery, 45 Armenian Street

Date: 25 - 30 October 2006

Opening Hours: 11 a.m. to 9 p.m.

This is a photo exhibition on Chiam See Tong's 6th Electoral Win at Substation gallery from 24th -29th October. I got to know about this through from reading popagandhi & ~ a little fish finding her way in the world ~

Chiam See Tong, one the most well-recognised and popular; i.e in Potong Pasir, politician and public figure in Singapore. Though I myself do not kinda agree with some of his erratic statements and policies, but I have to salute him for his courage in battling the entire PAP political machinery. It's never been more difficult being an opposition politician in a fear-ridden Singapore. And to think that he has survived waves after waves of onslaught from the PAP at every election and to emerge victorious is something to be noted.

Do check out the exhibition if you are free. the map of where the exhibit is being held is below;

Future of Singapore: Epsiode 4 (Do we have a Future?)

2006-10-22T21:13:00.000+08:00

Did i hear the wrong things or did i see it wrongly? I couldn't believe that anyone of any social position would have made such a childish, ridiculous remark. For one, I did not forsee it coming from not someone who had been through the Gifted Elite Program; one of Singapore's brightest prospect.

Though, I got to admit that Ms Wee does indeed have a rather terrific command of the english language. I certainly pale in comparison with her in this aspect, but that's besides the point.

More importantly, I was utterly disappointed, disillusioned and disgusted by Ms Wee's remark. Oh God, save me.

I will now respond directly to her reply to a fellow blogger in the aftermath of the saga . . .

******************************

"i apologise if i have distressed you with my tendency to rant. while i will not dispute some of the points you make in response to what i have written, i would like to bring to your attention the fact that the post in question was never meant to be a cogent response to the specific points raised in derek wee’s article. it is, quite obviously, a rant in the heat of the moment. in addition, i don’t believe that my blog has the wide readership of derek wee’s, or even your own, and my intention was more to vent my own frustrations than public denouncement.i’d also like to clarify my use of the word “elite”. while i understand how misinterpretation may have arose, i intended to use it in irony, as a label that people assume i enjoy, and not one that i take particular pleasure in.finally, i admit that i was harsher than i should have been, although the the crux of my belief in self-improvement and self-determination has not changed. once again, i apologise if my words have unintentionally offended you - i was under the rather naive impression that nobody reads my blog."

******************************

Do you think that by labeling your comments as "a rant in the heat of moment" will help to cover up your mistakes/ irresponsible remark?

Where's the respect for the diversity of views made by different individuals?

Where's the tolerance that you have shown for a different view proposed to you; a view that is potentially a total disagreement with your core values? In the first place, shoudn't respect, tolerance, diversity of views, human dignity be part of your value system?

Though i do understand that we should give you the benefit of the doubt. As it was put across in http://mysingaporenews.blogspot.com/,

"Before I proceed further, please forgive her. She is a child. She knows not what she was speaking. I will be really angry if that kind of views come from an adult or someone making policies and decisions affecting the people. What we see in her is the tip of a smelly iceberg. It transcends from the little spoilt brat that demands the maid to do everything for 'it' to the peanut people among the elite. Not all elite are in the same shitty mindset. Thank god."

But this only superficially diminish your responsibility in this saga. I'm sure that you are much brighter, much more nimble in your ideas and strong in your arguments. The system has put its trust in you becuase you have proved yourself to possess capabilities much higher than the rest of us, including me. You are training for leadership and management positions in future. I'm sure such statements wasn't made in the heat of the moment. I 'm also sure that you fully understood the repercusions of your statements. You are old enough to make your own decisions and to plot your future. No excuse at all.

Once again, I would like to question the effectiveness of the education system in Singapore? Are we giving up the nurturing of our student's moral values and upbringing for the sake of economic robustness. In fact, are we trying too hard to keep the Singapore economic machinery churning at the expense of Singaporeans' core values?

I believed it's time that we re-examine the education system once again. we have to decentralised the system, from an elitist mindset and system to one where each work and study for the benefits of each other. Not forgetting the focus on generating a strong Singapore identity. (Who says that Singapore with its diverse races and cultures will be unable to develop and infuse a national culture in the body politic?)

If a student from the GEP can make such a horrendous remark, maybe the system that breeds arrogance and superiority within a minority is starting to show signs of decay?

More importantly, taxpayers out there are financing the education of such students who will in no time assume the title of a scholar. Why should Singaporeans finance the scholarships of these people? Is it really worth it ?

I have expressed what I wanted to. I would like to hear from you. Do you agree with what I said? Or do you think that I have no basis for my words? Share it with me. I would like to know about your views on this saga.

Future of Singapore: Epsiode 3 (Climax)

2006-10-22T20:52:00.000+08:00

Before we continue, I would like to give you a short introduction on Miss Wee, one of the brightest student in Singapore.

Ms Wee shares the same surname as Derek. Her academic achievements are impressive. She was from the elite gifted program at RGS who went on to top Singapore in the GCE ‘O’-levels in 2004. She also won the Prime Minister’s Book Prize for purportedly being effectively bilingual in Chinese and English (even though she often expresses her disdain for the Chinese language). And she is fluent in French. Hers is a highly affluent and privileged background. And without doubt too, hers is the perfect pedigree for joining the ranks of the highest echelons of the government.

From Ms Wee’s blog:
http://www.suchvividnothing.blogspot.com/

Thursday, October 19, 2006

mom’s friend sent her some blog post by some bleeding stupid 40-year old singaporean called derek wee (WHY do all the idiots have my surname why?!) whining about how singapore is such an insecure place, how old ppl (ie, 40 and above) fear for their jobs, how the pool of foreign “talent” (dismissively chucked between inverted commas) is really a tsunami that will consume us all (no actually he didn’t say that, he probably said Fouren Talern Bery Bad.), how the reason why no one wants kids is that they’re a liability in this world of fragile ricebowls, how the government really needs to save us from inevitable doom but they aren’t because they are stick-shoved-up-ass elites who have no idea how the world works, yadayadayadayada.

i am inclined - too much, perhaps - to dismiss such people as crackpots. stupid crackpots. the sadder class. too often singaporeans - both the neighborhood poor and the red-taloned socialites - kid themselves into believing that our society, like most others, is compartmentalized by breeding. ridiculous. we are a tyranny of the capable and the clever, and the only other class is the complement.

sad derek attracted more than 50 comments praising him for his poignant views, joining him in a chorus of complaints that climax at the accusation of lack of press freedom because his all-too-true views had been rejected by the straits times forum. while i tend to gripe about how we only have one functioning newspaper too, i think the main reason for its lack of publication was that his incensed diatribe was written in pathetic little scraps that passed off as sentences, with poor spelling and no grammar.

derek, derek, derek darling, how can you expect to have an iron ricebowl or a solid future if you cannot spell?

if you’re not good enough, life will kick you in the balls. that’s just how things go. there’s no point in lambasting the government for making our society one that is, i quote, “far too survival of fittest”. it’s the same everywhere. yes discrimination exists, and it is sad, but most of the time if people would prefer hiring other people over you, it’s because they’re better. it’s so sad when people like old derek lament the kind of world that singapore will be if we make it so uncertain. go be friggin communist, if uncertainty of success offends you so much - you will certainly be poor and miserable. unless you are an arm-twisting commie bully, which, given your whiny middle-class undereducated penchant, i doubt.

then again, it’s easy for me to say. my future isn’t certain but i guess right now it’s a lot brighter than most people’s. derek will read this and brand me as an 18-year old elite, one of the sinners who will inherit the country and run his stock to the gutter. go ahead. the world is about winners and losers. it’s only sad when people who could be winners are marginalised and oppressed. is dear derek starving? has dear derek been denied an education? has dear derek been forced into child prostitution? has dear derek had his clan massacred by the government?

i should think not. dear derek is one of many wretched, undermotivated, overassuming leeches in our country, and in this world. one of those who would prefer to be unemployed and wax lyrical about how his myriad talents are being abandoned for the foreigner’s, instead of earning a decent, stable living as a sales assistant. it’s not even about being a road sweeper. these shitbags don’t want anything without “manager” and a name card.
please, get out of my elite uncaring face.

posted at 12:08 PM

*******************************

Disgusted and Disappointed ~

In the last Epsiode, I will provide my own personal opinion on the statements made by Ms Wee.

Future of Singapore: Epsiode 2 (Lights on, Cameras Rolling)

2006-10-22T20:35:00.000+08:00

By Derek Wee

October 12, 2006

When I read the Straits Times article (dated 24 Sep) on PM Lee calling the young to be committed and make a difference to Singapore, I have so much thought about the issue.

I am 35 years old, graduated from University and gainfully employed in a multinational company. But I cannot help but feel insecure over the future of Singapore. Lets face it, it’s not uncommon to hear, “when you are above 40, you are over the hill”.

The government has been stressing on re-training, skills upgrading and re-adapt. The fact is, no matter how well qualified or adaptable one is, once you hit the magical 40, employers will say, “you are simply too old”.

We have been focusing our resources and problem solving on low unskilled labour. But in reality, our managerial positions and skilled labour force are actually fast losing its competitiveness.
I travel around the region frequently for the past 10 years. It didn’t take me long to realise how far our neighbours have come over the past decade.

They have quality skilled workers, and are less expensive. When I work with them, their analytical skills are equally good, if not better than us.

It’s not new anymore. Taxi drivers are fast becoming “too early to retire, too old to work” segment of the society. I like to talk to taxi drivers whenever I am heading for the airport.

There was this driver. Eloquent and well read. He was an export manager for 12 years with an MNC. Retrenched at 40 years old. He had been searching for a job since his retrenchment.

Although he was willing to lower his pay expectations, employers were not willing to lower their prejudice. He was deemed too old. I wouldn’t be surprised if we have another No. 1; having the most highly educated taxi drivers in the world.

On PM Lee calling the young to be committed and make a difference. Look around us. How dedicated can we be to Singapore when we can visualise what’s in store for us after we turned 40? Then again, how committed are employers to us? But we can’t blame them. They have bottom lines & shareholders’ gain to answer to.

Onus is really on the government to revamp the society. A society that is not a pressure cooker. A society that does not mirror so perfectly, what survival of the fittest is.

But a society, where it’s people can be committed, do their best and not having to fear whether they will still wake up employed tomorrow. Sadly, Singapore does not offer such luxuries and security anymore.

On the issue of babies. The government encourages us to pro-create. The next generation is essential in sustaining our competitive edge. Then again, the current market condition is such that our future has become uncertain. There is no more joy in having babies anymore; they have become more of a liability. It’s really a chicken and egg issue.

Many of my peers, bright and well educated have packed up and left. It’s what MM Goh called “quitters”. It’s sad but true, Singapore no longer is a place where one can hope to work hard their lives and retire graciously. It’s really the push factor.

A future is something we sweat it out, build and call our own. Unfortunately, people like me, mid 30’s going on 40’s, staying put by choice or otherwise, we can’t help but feel what lies ahead is really a gamble.

To PM Lee and the Ministers, we are on a different platform. Until you truly understand our insecurity, the future of Singapore to me remains a question mark.

All may seems calm and responsible till now; a concerned citizen voicing out his opinions on the PM's appeal to the young. However, what you are gonna see next in Epsiode 3 is the comments made by a student from the Gifted Elite Program (GEP) in RGS, now a student in RJC, a particular Miss Wee.

Looking at her comments, I believed if her comments was made public, it is almost certain to create a huge huge wrangle and possibly a painful backlash.

Future of Singapore: Epsiode 1 (Background to a saga)

2006-10-22T20:27:00.000+08:00

Below is a press report in the Straits Times on PM Lee Heisn Loong's appeal to the younger generation.

The Straits Times, September 24, 2006
PM to young: Help make S'pore better

By Peh Shing Huei

THEY told Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong they wanted to engage the Government, to contribute and be heard.

But the question that several young Singaporeans had at a dialogue with him yesterday was how. A youth parliament perhaps? Or internships with ministers, through blogs, or more such dialogues?

Mr Lee listened intently, interacting with the 220 in the audience at the Supreme Court auditorium, and gave this assurance: His Government recognises and encourages them to be a part of the process here.

What was important, he said, was not so much the medium used.

'What you really need is also not just the medium but to be on the same wavelength as the young people, to know what the young people are concerned about and to be able to talk to them so that they connect, their concerns, their issues,' he said.

He told the audience that included students, civil servants, representatives from the media, youth and voluntary organisations that their generation 'had been prepared to the best of our ability'.

Picking up a point from one participant who noted a recent survey which said youths wanted to migrate, he said they must ask themselves about their obligations to Singapore.

Reminding them of the seriousness of his pledge to engage them, he said: 'We're looking for a young generation to come along and take the team forward. And if you go to another country...will you be heard? What will be your impact on public life on the community in a country with a few hundred million people?'

They must, instead, stay and make a difference.

'If I say I don't like this, I'm fed up, let's go, I think that's a great pity. We would have lost somebody in whom we've put a lot of hope, and I think Singapore will be worse off.

'But if we say this is not good, I'm going to make a nuisance of myself until I fix it, that's different. Then I think there's hope for Singapore. You stand your ground and you make it better.

What is it you are unhappy with, let's get that changed...You must have the optimal degree of unhappiness - just right, and the conviction to make a change.

What is to unfold next in epsiode 2, is a gentleman's (Mr Derek Wee) reply in the Straits Times Forum to the above appeal made by PM Lee, which was not published in the mainstream media.

Excuse me ~

2006-10-16T13:11:00.000+08:00

This is what I meant when i say that the PAP does need people from all spectrum of the political divide to guide them in their thinking and consideration. The PAP aren't that careful either, looking at the way they speak and comment on various phenomenons and policies. Essentially, no one party has the monopoly of great ideas. Creative and capable initiatives can also be found outside the circle of PAP ministers and policymakers.

Lim Boon Heng, 03 May 2006
"PAP aims to win at least 80% of votes in Ang Mo Kio GRC."

Irene Ng, 4 May 2006
"Let me ask you - do you think the ministers will listen more carefully to a PAP MP than to an opposition MP out to make trouble?"

Lee Hsien Loong, 03 May 2006
"Right now we have Low Thia Khiang, Chiam See Tong, Steve Chia. We can deal with them. Suppose you had 10, 15, 20 opposition members in Parliament. Instead of spending my time thinking what is the right policy for Singapore, I'm going to spend all my time thinking what's the right way to fix them, to buy my supporters votes, how can I solve this week's problem and forget about next year's challenges?"

Lee Bee Wah, 2006
"WP's young team are donkeys"

Lim Boon Heng, warned Chua Chu kang residents before Polling Day on May 6th, 2006
"If you elect Steve Chia, I'm sorry, he's not (in) my party. If he comes to me and says he's got somebody who is jobless, well, I'll tell him (he's) got to find somebody to help him."

Kausikan, permanent secretary in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 21 May 2006
"There was a limit to how much older workers can be re-trained...and they are not going to conveniently die off..."

Ms Denise Phua, 24 May 2006
"I know that something has gone wrong when more than 85 per cent (of the traffic) writes negatively about the PAP...This is something that the PAP would do well to take into account ... and to manage this channel of communication."

Now whose being Opportunistic here ? ?

2006-10-15T19:49:00.000+08:00

Singaporeans have been more than patient. Fourteen years on, what progress has been made?

How many more years should Singaporeans endure the haze? (Read about the Workers' Party Press Release on the Haze Problem)

Miss Sylvia Lim, Chairman of the Workers' Party, 13 October 2006.

In response to Sylvia Lim's press release to the media on the haze problem, this is what Environment and Water Resources Minister Yaacob Ibrahim replied.

"It is always very easy and opportunistic to criticise the Government and once you criticise, it gets reported in the media you score some political points and then what happens after that? (Yaccob Ibrahim's reply can also be found in the Sunday Times of 15th October 2006, Page 19)

It is of deepest regret that I write this post. Why do the government think that the Workers' Party was trying to be opportunistic? What good do the Workers' Party stand to gain from highlighting a persistent hazard to Singaporeans? More Votes at the ballot boxes? Unlikely.

Be it PAP or WP, both parties are pro-Singapore. WP is Pro-Singapore and believes national interest should precede party interest. Essentially, the Workers' Party like all Singaporeans is worried and tired of seeing the haze year in year out. i believed that was the entire motive behind the press release; to once again remind the government that the recurring haze is a big problem, and Singaporeans are getting increasingly disappointed with seeing the haze problem recurring again.

Do you think that the Government would have said what it said in its reply if the same words was commented by a resident living in Tampines GRC? Seriously , I doubt so. Essentially, there would be greater impact and pressure of the ruling party if the problem is highlighted by an opposition party who understand the mechanisms of governance.

The Workers' Party, by issuing the press release, serves to pressure the government more effectively and this would have more of an effect on the "urgency and firmness" on the part of the government to tackle and eventually solve the problem. What Sylvia Lim was trying to do is this. To move the entire issue back from the back-burner and into the forefront. To bring the entire matter into focus and urging the government to exercise more urgency and firmness in tackling the issue.

I believed that the PAP or otherwise, have the interests of Singapore at heart and contrary to what Yaccob Ibrahim had mentioned, it's definitely not a case of "Look here, I can do this better than you, woeful PAP !"; essentially political tic-for-tat. The PAP must recognised that the viewpoints of the opposition is worth listening to and taken seriously into consideration. The basis of the viewpoint of a credible opposition party like the Workers' Party is based on grievances of the people. I believed this aspect is crucial enough for the government to sit up and take notice.

As a matter of fact, the people gave this existing government the mandate to rule and essentially, this government is the people's servant and the government owes it to every single citizen for its position in power.

Contrary to what the PAP would like us to believe, the ruling party and the opposition parties are coalition partners in advancing, promoting and sustaining the interests of the people. The PAP do not have the monopoly of ideas and policies.

In my viewpoint, the Workers' Party do realised the problem and knows that it is rather diffcult to eradicate the problem and Sylvia Lim is definitely not trying to accuse the government of failure in tackling the problem. Why then did Yaacob Ibrahim attempt to politicise the entire issue and hoping for a response from the party and thereafter using the entire media machinery to discredit the Workers' Party? Another case of overreaction or the PAP being opportunistic?

Once again, the PAP-knows-everything-you-shut-up-listen-and-follow attitude is prevailing again. "I'm glad that she has come to this realisation, it's something that we have known for a very long time." Not only Sylvia Lim knows the problem. Every Singaporeans does!

And it's truly time for real action !

The Big Divide

2006-10-06T18:21:00.000+08:00

In my previous article entitled, "The Young and Restless", I observed the phenonmenon of a increasing divide between the PAP and the young. And if nothing was done to bridge this divide, the young will become increasingly frustrated and disillusioned with the ruling party and they might well expressed this cold hard truth to the PAP at the next General Election, whereby more than half of the electorate would be citizens born after 1965, or to put it in the lingo of the PAP, "P65 citizens". P65 MP to cater for the needs, desires and wants of this batch of "P65 citizens".

It's no secret that the PAP are busily courting the young. If that's so, I would appreciate the fact that the PAP might as well admit it. When asked to comment on the hip-hop performance at the upcoming Chingay Parade, this was what Mr. Teo Ser Luck, Parliamentary Secretary, Community Development, Youth and Sports Ministry said. "The whole process was very enjoyable because the Post-65 MPs, the P-65 team, are very close, so we had a lot of fun doing it. It's more because of the closeness that we have and learning a new dance skills that we're coming forward to also participate in the Chingay." There's no point in hiding the political agenda that you had in mind: I want to win them over to my side, the PAP's side.

In fact, the battle for the hearts and minds of young Singaporeans began earnestly since 2004. Just to name a few of the tactics and strategies adopted by the ruling party to influence the thinkings and ideas of the youths:

a. Young PAP's 18th Anniversary Celebration @ Zouk: PAP Rocks !

PM Lee in the Groove ~ !

b. The launch of STOMP

c. Celebrating Youth Day with a Youth Month

d. George Yeo started blogging

e. Chingay 2007 Hip Hop Performance: Report + Video

f. Not forgetting their lastest initiative ~

Seriously, how desperate can the PAP get in their attempt to bridge the divide?

My open letter to all fellow young Singaporeans,

Do not be taken in by such initiatives of the government. At the end of the day, they are coming to you because of your electoral muscle; You hold the key to the PAP winning their 13th consecutive GE. Simply said, they want your vote. While I do not discouraged you from participating from such events and activities, (Personally, I was a volunteer for SHINE during the youth month, a blogger myself, visits STOMP and P65 on a regular basis) you must look at everything with an eye on the bigger issue. Everything was done, huge amount of money was spent for their own personal electoral gain.

Certainly, I'm not saying that the PAP should never use such tactics and initiatives to win over our hearts and minds. It is definitely legitimate. This, as you can see is the benefit of incumbency and having the entire national propaganda machinery behind them. What I'm trying to show is that we got to be more conscious of the hidden political agenda behind their every move and action. There is no way the PAP can claim that it's just for the fun of it. If you are observant enough, ever since the conclusion of the last GE, focus has significantly being shifted to us (I am again not to trying accuse the government of neglecting the other important and vital segements of the populace.) We, as future owners of Singapore, got to be more critical and observant to any attempt to win us over. Again, I would like to say this again. If the government's initiative is sound, just, effective and beneficial, young Singaporeans would certainly back it. But do not expect us to conform to everything you say, especially flawed policies.

Regards,

Bernard Chen Jiaxi

In fact, this is in sync with the pragamtic nature of the ruling PAP government. Since young Singaporeans is going to form more than half of the electorate in the next GE, emphasis would have to be given to them, as the young is going to affect their continued success at the ballot box. The young is the key to their continued staying power. I can truly understand this. But I would again urge the government not to neglect the welfare of other Singaporeans, especially the aging segement and lower income workers. No matter what, the PAP government has the responsibilty of addressing the needs of each segement in the population.

More importantly, how successful can this divide be bridged?

Humility is key. Maybe the PAP would like to have a look at my previous article on humility. It's high time that the PAP shed their aloof stance, elitist mindset, arrogant with their seemingly I-know-everything-you-just-keep-quiet-and-follow-me attitude. Do not argue with me, I warn you again.

Lo and behold, humility could just be the key to unlocking a more personal and engaging relationship with the youths. There's no need for any "artificially cool" initiatives. That means, do not try to act cool in front of young Singaporeans. This might backfire on you. I would urge the PAP not to expose their weakness in front of us. I remember my A level history teacher telling me this. "In order to do well in an examination, always seek to display your abounding strengths and try your very best to hide your weaknesses" This is my message to the PAP. Take Care and have fun, P65 MPs.

I didn't know we had a racist government !

2006-10-05T16:02:00.000+08:00

"One evening, I drove to Little India and it was pitch dark, not because there was no light, but becuase there were too many Indians around"

PAP's MP Choo Wee Khiang (Jalan Besar GRC), speaking in Parliament in March 1992, arguing for greater control over the number of foreign workers

He later apologised for that remark

Let's look at the response of then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong,

"People make mistakes from time to time."

Interesting isn't it, that a statement like this was uttered by a PAP minister. Statements that might caused immense tension and uproar between the different races in Singapore. To put it in the words of Malaysian PM, Dr Abdullah Badawi,"Such an unfortunate remark is uncalled for and not appreciated"

Maybe it's high time to revamp our policies with regard to the teaching of national education and history. As exemplified by MP Choo Wee Khiang, it is something that Singaporeans are lacking, which if nothing is properly done about it, it would in the long term, severely threaten the body politic of Singapore, unravelling all the effort of our past leaders.

Dark Side of Nationalism

2006-10-05T15:33:00.000+08:00

After viewing the video, do consider this initiative that the Workers' Party proposed in its 2006 Manifesto,

"The curriculum content of the National Education should be reviewed to incorporate the teaching of our Constitution, the political system of Parliamentary Democracy, the rights and obligations of being a citizen and the meaning and spirit of our national symbols such as the national flag and national pledge"

This is exactly not a bad policy after all. Hmmm.. Maybe our wise PAP government might consider adopting it?

Do not forget to award credit when credit is due ~

Appearance of Prosperity?

2006-10-05T15:21:00.000+08:00

This is a rather observant opinion on the cost of living in Singapore and the apparent appearance of prosperity in Singapore.

What is the government led by the PAP going to do about the rising cost of living in Singapore?

Giving credit when credit is due

2006-10-05T14:14:00.000+08:00

Recently at the workplan seminar of the Education ministry, Education Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam made sweeping changes to the primary school education by replacing streaming with subject-based learning.

"The people who were calling for doing away with EM3 were also calling for doing away with ability-based education. In other words, everyone studies the same thing. It doesn't look nice to be studying a simpler subject and so on, so forth."

"We think it is fair, and the most decent thing to do is to give a student, who is struggling in a subject, something more fundamental to work on, consolidate his learning and progress from there. And that is why the foundation subjects have their place."

"What we are doing is moving from a fixed menu to an ala carte menu - choose the subjects you are strong in, for the subjects you are weak in, consolidate your learning at a foundation level."

Education Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam, 28th September 2006

As a Singaporean who underwent his education under the previous streaming system, I got to applaud the Education Ministry for adopting a beneficial, effective and less discriminatory methodology of teaching in primary schools. Kudos for the initiative of the Education Minister.

However, to my surprise, I was shocked to realise that the education ministry took exactly 18 years to consider and formulate a policy that was beneficial to all Singaporean students.

"There should not be "ability" streaming as practised in the present educational system. An American educationalist called Dominick Esposito writing in the 1973 Review of Educational Research at pp 163-179 reviewed research into streaming in the United States during the 1960s and early 1970s and concluded that streaming aggravates social and economic differences between children and is of no demonstrable value in the teaching and learning process."

Workers' Party 1988 Manifesto

"The current system of streaming is based on aggregate points of subjects obtained at an examination and is used as the basis for segregating students. This does not really measure the potential ability of students. In addition, the social stigma of streaming far outweighs its usefulness as a convenient way to segregate the students based on academic results."

"WP welcomes the launch of the subject-based pilot classrooms plan. Further customisation of the education and learning process by re-organising the class system based on subject and module should be looked into. "

"Each student should be allowed to advance in different subjects at his pace."

Workers' Party 2006 Manifesto

Way back in 1988, the opposition had already suggested that the government led by the PAP looked into the system of streaming students, replacing it with subject/module based learning, customising the learning of each student according to their competency in each subject. The point was reiterated in the Workers' Party 1994 and 2006 manifestos.

I have 2 questions that I would like the Education Minister to address:

a. Why did the Education Ministry took 18 years to consider & recognise the positive benefits that subject-based learning would give to our students?

b. Why did the Education Ministry took the idea of the Workers' Party and treated it as their own brainchild? Why isn't credit given when it is long overdue?

At this critical juncture of a new leadership in Singapore, I would like to urge the government led by PM Lee Heisn Loong to refrain from being elitist and idealistic, thinking that only the PAP possessed the talents and ideas that would bring the country forward. It's high time for the PAP leadership to practise more circumspection and prudence.

The fact is no one single party has the monopoly of talents and ideas influencing the populace in Singapore.

By recognising that the Workers' Party had a strategic role in the implementation of national policies would only give them more credibility and send out the signal to Singaporeans that the Workers' Party and the opposition in general possess creative and capable leadership with ideas that would propel Singapore forward, contrary to what the PAP would like Singaporeans to believe.

In politics, It's all about credibility. It's all about telling the truth. If that's that case, the PAP should have admitted that the Workers' Party had in 1988 and subsquently in 1994 and 2006, been proposing for such a change in the education policy and they have overlooked it. The PAP should recognised that they certainly looked forward to co-operating with the leadership within the opposition to better formulate effective and beneficial policies for all Singaporeans. Where's the humility?

Every political party was formed to stand up for what they believe in, putting the interests of the country before anything else. No one political party was formed to enhance its own interest at the expense of national interests. Not for own personal electoral gain, but for the progress of the country. The PAP must urgently realised this flaw within their goverance.

The final message that I would like to convey is this: When the PAP government suggests a good initiative, the oppostion would certainly back it, and vice-versa. Only with 2 way communication can the country porgress and move forward.

The PAP's big sacrifice

2006-09-28T21:12:00.000+08:00

Have you ever wondered why Singaporeans in general are politically apthetic?

Look no further. The media plays a major role in the dreadful state of political interest among Singaporeans, especially the young.

The Singapore media, if one have not yet realised, is heavily censored by the Singapore government. This gives rise to Singaporeans being not politically informed, which over time leads to political ignorance. The Singapore government's iron grip on the media has lead to the coming of the New Media. The root cause and/ or major culprit behind the rapid rise of the new media is largely due to the heavy censorship of the mainstream media.

Young Singaporeans do know that there are missing jigsaws (infomation blackout) in the mainstream media. We are not so ignorant in the first place.

Singaporeans, in a bid to understand the "actual truth", mobilised the new media, like blogs, podcasts and forums to depict the politically incorrect infomation; infomation that the government has purposefully left out in the mainstream media. In a sense, this has created much unhappiness and disappointment among Singaporeans, especially the youths who are much more internet savvy.

Young Singaporeans especially are sick and tired of hearing the news that the government wants them to hear. The PAP government has yet to realise that they do not have the monopoly of views and opinions of all Singaporeans and they are seriously lacking behind in their attempt to monpolise the opinions and viewpoints of young Singaporeans.

The PAP government can't never hope to engage the youths if they consistently block out infomation through national appartus like the media and the ministry of the infomation and the arts. The Ministry of Infomation and the Arts serve the purpose of encouraging freedom of speech and the freedom to transmit infomation, not to block infomation and censor politically incorrect and/ or harmful content.

The government led by PM Lee Heisn Loong must realise the fact that the young has more than one way to access infomation. By restricting infomation that Singaporeans can access through the internet and other forms of media, the Singapore government is in fact making themselves look bad in front of Singaporeans and the international community.

Fundamentally, they are questioning the fact that Singaporeans cannot disect infomation individually and is unable to determine for themselves between what is right and sensible and what is wrong and offensive. What a subtle slap on the cheeks of all Singaporeans!

In this case, the PAP government has to make the biggest sacrifice ever since coming to power in 1959. They need to relinquish control of the media and allows it to function and report on an independent basis. If ever this was to happen, it will speak volumes of the humility and honesty of the PAP leadership, a hallmark of a 1st World administration. The PAP leadership has been claiming that they are a special breed of leaders and are part of a 1st World government. It's time to put their words into actions.

Youths in Singapore are not puppets in the Mediacorp Drama called Nation Building directed by PM Lee Heisn Loong. We are leading actors and actress having a stake in the eventual success of this ongoing drama.

I can't really hear you . . . .

2006-09-26T14:32:00.000+08:00

Is this the PAP's attitude in its communication and/ or discussions with young Singaporeans? If the PAP continue to adopt this kind of arrogant attitude in its handling with the youths, in no time, the youths will climb up the pillar and topple the state with its overwhelming force and might.

Gutanomo @ Suntec

2006-09-26T01:36:00.000+08:00

Did I see wrongly or is it really true that the US Government moved the entire Gutanamo Bay to Suntec City, Singapore?

Let's find out !

Dodging Public Opinion

2006-09-26T00:23:00.000+08:00

During the last elections, the use of podcasts, internet blogs and internet forums for political profit during the period of campaigning was essentially banned.

"The streaming of explicit political content by individuals during the election period is prohibited under the Election Advertising Regulations. A similar prohibition would apply to the videocasting or video streaming of explicitly political content."

Dr. Balaji Sadasivan, April 02, 2006.

The 2006 GE gave the electorate a glimpse of the might of the New Media; essentially, the use of Podcasts, Internet Blogs, Forums to communicate ideas, opinions and even policies. The New Media provided an alternative choice to the mainstream media, practically, the New Media allows the electorate to catch a glimpse of news, opinions and mindsets that were censored by the mainstream media ruthlessly.

In the aftermath of the 2006 General Elections, the issue of the New Media was constantly on the mind of the ruling party, the People's Action Party(PAP). From my perspective, the PAP was not prepared for the emergence of podcasts, internet blogs and forums during the campaigning period, thus the ban on using internet media as a tool for campaigning. Even after the elections, the PAP was clueless on how to tackle the challenges brought about by the emergence of the new media.

The urge to censor and keep out inappropriate infomation (infomation that is deterimental to the interests of the PAP) on the internet is especially tempting; provided the means and ways are available to the government. Logically, this is usually the practice of a government that rules with an iron fist. In this instance, the Third Reich, U.S.S.R, and more recently the military rulers in Thailand pops up in my mind.

Thus, it is of utmost importance that the PAP do not try to control the flow of infomation, the exchange of ideas and even personal opinions in the internet-sphere. Furthermore, I would also like to urge the PAP not to interfere in the mainstream media. They could start by diluting their influence in the mainstream media; especially in the Straits Times and Channelnewsasia.

Listed below are 2 examples where infomation and news on the mainstream media were restricted.

a. Daily newspaper Today sacks blogger “Mr brown” after government criticism

b. A complete media blackout on the rally march conducted by the SDP during the IMF-World Bank event in Singapore.

- SDP's Rally March demanding for Transparency and Accountability - Video

Let me explain the reasons behind my appeal for the government to open up the mainstream media and not even think of trying to censor the New Media.

1. The PAP should not be seen as working in complete contrary to the open society that they envision and proclaim.

2. Again, Singaporeans are living in a democracy and we, the people of Singapore on the 6th of May 2006, elected into parliament a democratic government, not a dictatorship.

Right now, the PAP might be thinking that I'm being too idealistic and the above 2 reasons are not practical and doesn't hold much truth.

If this is the case, let me propose a more sensible reason: The PAP has been eagerly positioning themselves mainly in the form of a publicity campaign to tap on the viewpoints and opinions of young Singaporeans. And it ever the PAP is to censor and control infomation, ideas and views on the New Media, it would constitute a colossal backlash. This only further reinforces the fact that the ruling PAP government is not interested at all in getting feedback from the ground. Opinions in forums, blogs and even podcasts are original and as raw as you can get. True and Frank to the core. These constructive criticisms and praise are what the PAP need to move the society and economy forward and maintain the unity of all races in Singapore(PAP 2006 Election Manifesto: "Staying Together, Moving Ahead")

In the first place, if the PAP only want to hear stuffs that is pleasing to the ear and eye, then I would suggest them to busk in the literature of the Straits Times and stay tuned to CNA all round the clock, and stop wasting public funds on creating a feedback unit, organising forums on TV and in schools. Start to subscribe to Reuters, International Herald Tribune for all PAP officials?

A better appreciation of all form of diverse ideas and opinions would not only generate better policies and thus enhance its electoral chances, but it also goes a long way in being recognized as a tolerant and amiable government; hallmark of a 1st World government.

Looking at the way things are going, the PAP is pretty far behind in the race to be a 1st World government, something which they aren’t really used to.

Chain Reaction

2006-09-10T21:53:00.000+08:00

From my own personal perspective, the entire fiasco of not allowing professional and experienced(peace-loving of course!) civil society representatives into Singapore for the IMF/World Bank Meeting can be sum up in a simple phrase: Chain Reaction

The Singapore Government is basically fearful of the chain reaction that may occur in the psychology of Singaporeans, especially young Singaporeans, in the aftermath of allowing demostrations on the streets of Singapore.

Singaporeans, have fortunately or unfortunately been brought up in a peaceful, quiet and obedient society, whereby all forms of civil disobedience is considered taboo. Contrast Singapore with mature democracies like South Korea and Taiwan.

Thus, it is of utmost importance to the government that the oppressed populace does not come into direct contact with displays of civil disobedience as this may very well trigger of the rebellious nature in Singaporeans, expressing their opinions and viewpoints in a democratic and acceptable manner; in the form of demostrations, sit-in, vigil sessions. To be fair to the government, they are insulating Singaporeans from "negative and dark" behaviour, behaviour that may in the middle to long term, threaten the PAP's stranglehold on power.

Remember what MM Lee said when Singapore first became independent? Flashback to 1965.

"Now I LEE KUAN YEW Prime Minister of Singapore, DO HEREBY PROCLAIM AND DECLARE on behalf of the people and the Government of Singapore that as from today the ninth day of August in the year one thousand nine hundred and sixty-five Singapore shall be forever a sovereign democratic and independent nation, founded upon the principles of liberty and justice and ever seeking the welfare and happiness of her people in a more just and equal society. "

Singaporeans, especially young Singaporeans (after seeing what civil disobedience is all about) who are constantly seeking outlets to express their views and opinions might be more inclined to try to use methods of civil disobedience to make their views heard; which is consistent with democratic practices. This type of behaviour will be replicate among the entire population, leading to a chain reaction, often serving as agents of change.

This is something that the government will not want to see happening. This is a first step towards the re-politicisation of Singaporeans, and eventual politcal re-awakening and political maturity among the populace. Constantly, over the past 41 years, through the mass media and other forms of restrictions, the PAP has been trying to prevent or strangle such movements at its source. By allowing acts of civil disobedience to occur on the streets of Singapore, the policy of de-politicising Singaporeans might possibly backfire against the PAP in the future, and it constitute damaging party interests.

Sometimes, I do wonder as the people's representatives, which is of higher and urgent priority to the PAP government; national interests or party interests?

Thus, I boldly put this across: The Singapore government's grip on power is so so tight and complete that any indication of a possible tentacle being knocked of is being met with maximum fear and government reaction, to the extent of damaging its international standing, all in the name of holding on to power and providing the best for all Singaporeans.

Is this the kind of government that you have voted for? Is this the kind of government which claimed that they are of 1st World standards?

You decide !

CSO = JI ? ?

2006-09-10T21:22:00.000+08:00

Refering to the Joint Statement From World Bank And IMF On CSO Participation In The Annual Meetings In Singapore,

"In the interest of good governance, transparency and accountability, we urge the Government of Singapore to allow all properly accredited civil society representatives to attend our meetings. We have consistently opposed any restrictions on full participation and peaceful expression of views. Open dialogue with civil society is also important for the effective operation of our institutions."

So is the Government of Singapore trying to say that civil society representatives are equvialent to terrorists?

Despite the amount of economic revenue and benefits that Singapore would draw from the IMF/World bank event, Singapore would also become a laughing stock in the international community. Such a superficial and highly immature decision of the Singapore government would have severe repercussions on Singapore's prestige and standing in the international community. Singapore, in the future would find it even more diffcult to earn hosting rights to any international events. Will the IMF/World Bank meeting very well be the last top-bill international meeting to be held in Singapore for the next 20 years?

This above decision of the Singapore Government is once again a sharp contradiction to the PAP's government's claim of good governance, transparency and accountability. And it is of the utmost disrespect to civil society representatives by indirectly accusing these professionals who are extremely peace-loving and experienced in their duties and responsibilities , as terrorists. Is the Singapore Government too paranoid of what? This above decision blaffed me.

What utter and blatant disrespect for fellow citizens in the globalised world.

These people are properly accredited civil society representatives NOT Jemaah Islamiyah Terrorists! Is it so difficult to diffentiate between these two different diverse groups with different aims and objectives. Certainly, it's misjudgement of the top order.

Singaporeans, it's finally time again to look at how 1st World the PAP administration claim to be. Such behaviour and blatant disregard for constructive and diverse opinions speak volumes of the incapability of the Singapore Government to compare itself to mature and respectable systems of government in the world.

Thus, it is of little wonder that such behaviour is repeated time and over again in Singapore politics. The government has never been confortable in allowing its people to freely expresses its views and opinions contrary to Article 14 (I) of the Singapore Constitution where all citizens is accorded the right to free speech and expression. The government believes that they have a monopoly over all forms of constructive and feasible ideas that will contribute to the development of the nations.

Now, do you consider such behaviours as a characteristic of an arrogant government? I will leave it up to you to decide.

Hard to say I am sorry

2006-09-06T20:01:00.000+08:00

Sorry seems to be the hardest word.

Is it so diffcult for the PAP to admit that

1. The 2-child policy has failed

2. The education system has cultivated an elitist society

3. They have been shifting the goal posts time and time over again to stay in power.

4. They have been allowing and supporting the exploitation of the populace by the transport companies every year. (Singapore is the only country in the world that transport companies can raise transport fares on a yearly basis; with a dateline set for them to hand in their proposals.)

Excuses and countless excuses to account for their deficiencies in the various policies over the years.

Is it so diffcult for the PAP to apologise to the people that some of the policies over the years has failed?

"Dear Singaporeans, the 2-child policy that Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, initiated in the 1970s has failed and Singapore is right now facing a population crisis, and there is now no choice but to allow foreign talents to come into Singapore to make up for the lost numbers that the 2 child-policy has brought about."

From my perspective, such a statement would never ever be uttered by any PAP policymakers; not to mention Lee Kuan Yew himself.

Is it so diffcult to say that I'm sorry?

It's high time that the PAP adopt a more humble stance. It's high time for the PAP to recognise the fact that they do have the monopoly over all the ideas that is contributory to the nation. It's high time to place national interests over party interests.

Let me explain why: By adopting a humble and respectable stance, they are actually establishing a more personal relationship with Singaporeans and removed the stigma that politics is for intellectual people, the rich and wealthy. Essentially, politics is for you and me. By making politics more appealing through its attitudes and behaviour, more people, especially the young would be more interested and willing to join politics, with PAP being their top consideration. In this sense, this actually aids their renewal process. (Isn't it an irony that while the PAP championed a policy of self-renewal, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew is still proclaiming that he will still be contesting in the next election?)

With due respect to MM Lee, It's high time that he takes a back seat and relinquish the running of the country and daily affairs of the state to the new generation of leaders.

In fact, sorry seems to be the hardest word (Doesn't this gives you an indication of how 1st world our current government is)

PAP and the Young !

2006-08-27T21:46:00.000+08:00

Referring to the article in the ST on 26th August 2006, titled “Young PAP beefs up exco to woo more young voters”, the author would like to look at the above strategy of the PAP in another light.

“The youth wing of the People's Action Party (PAP), the Young PAP, is set to increase the size of its executive committee as it aims to reach out to more young voters.
It is part of a planned two-pronged change, the other being an expansion in the number of advisers to the committee, to include all party MPs from the post-65 generation.
Under the new plans, all the Young PAP heads of the 14 group representation constituencies (GRCs) will be inducted into the executive committee for the first time.”

Barely a few months after the end of the last election, the PAP has right now set its sights on wooing young voters. This is clearly evident from the way the PAP intends to expand the executive committee of the Young PAP and kicking off recruitment drive to attract the young to join them. At the 2006 GE, the young voters made up around 40% of the 1.22 million eligible voters. Come the next election in 2011, the proportion of young voters eligible to vote will increase to roughly about 55%. This meant that young voters will play a major role come 2011, in deciding the composition of the government. Clearly, this is a frightening enough for the PAP to take some concrete actions.

Since taking office in August 2004, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has periodically stressed the importance for the PAP to remain relevant by engaging the young. According to the PM, the PAP must stay relevant to the young. The author chose to interpret his message in this manner. The PAP must realign themselves urgently to tap on all the possible grievances, ideas, initiatives of the young electorate so as to pacify them, and persuade them, albeit on a superficial level, that at the next election, the PAP is still the most viable and innovative party that can bring Singapore forward.

The author would like to offer his 1 cent worth of opinion with regard to this issue.

1. The PAP is fearful of losing power. All thanks to the ruling PAP government, the 3rd generation of Singaporeans are proud products of a rigorous and effective education system and increasingly they are tired of the intellectual crap that the ruling PAP government conveys through the mainstream media. The young are better able to discern and see through the tricks and facades that the government is trying to create so as to account for their policy initiatives and past mistakes.

2. The PAP is losing it. They are trying to monopolise the ideas and opinions of the youths in Singapore. This can be seen in the various initiatives that the government have came up with during the past nine months. From the advent of STOMP to SHINE, it’s basically, an attempt by the PAP to better grasp the ideas and opinions of the young. Reason being: The PAP find themselves increasingly detached from the young through its style of government and their aggressive methods to systematically deny the opposition a fair chance in the elections. In short, the PAP no longer understands the youth electorate and if nothing is being done, sooner or later, power will slowly slip from their iron fist.

On the other front, the opposition does understand the dynamics of the changing demographic in the electorate. The opposition is positioning themselves to take advantage of this changing demographic in the electorate. The Youth Wing of Workers' Party recently elected their new executive committee, with an average age of 28, with the youngest being 21. The Central Executive Committee’s decision to elect Mr. Perry Tong to head the youth wing is an indication on how serious the Workers' Party is on this issue.

As such, it can be seen that the government’s attempt to engage the youths is a superficial one with a hidden agenda. Essentially, the PAP engaged the young because of personal self-interest which is to keep them in power. Thus, it can be said that the PAP is putting party interests ahead of national interests. The government should engage the young with no hidden agenda. Rather, engaging the young in community work and eventually politics should be carried out with the purpose of raising the political awareness of young Singaporeans, igniting the political awakening of the future owners of Singapore, with the ultimate goal of establishing a uniquely Singapore national identity which will be crucial for the future societal, economic and political development of Singapore in a globalised world. However, the PAP has no intention whatsoever to reawake the political consciousness of the young and Singaporeans in general, because this could have the long term repercussions of threatening the PAP’s hold on power.

Isn’t this putting party interests ahead of national interests? What an irony as the PAP continues to champion that they are the sole and only viable protector of the interests of every Singaporeans.

PAP Vs WP

2006-06-16T14:51:00.000+08:00

In the 2006 election, the opposition contested 47 out of the 84 seats in parliament, For the first time since 1988, with the Workers' Party contesting 20 seats.

The Workers' Party was in a better shape than before and carried out preparations earlier and was seen to be the most credible threat to the PAP. There were even talks of the party winning Aljunied GRC. (Note: The opposition have never won a GRC before since the GRC system was introduced in 1988) A rejuvenated WP, under the leadership of Secretary-general and sole WP MP Low Thia Khiang and WP's first woman chairman Sylvia Lim, released its manifesto ahead of PAP and introduced several well-qualified candidates.

What was even more surprising for the electorate was this: The Workers' Party with its limited resources and funds were able to put up 20 capable, honest, clean, credible candidates for the elections. Coming from all walks of lives, these candidates includes a political science graduate, financial controller, entreprenuer, lecturer, businessman, etc. Of the twenty candidates, 3 were woman candidates. This attracted pretty much attention and Singaporeans stood up and took noticed of this rising political force.

The Workers' Party underwent the renewal process of its 3rd generation leadership by appointing Miss Sylvia Lim, who joined the party in 2003, as its party chairman. Young and dynamic candidates who joined the party after the 2001 elections were also pushed to the forefront to lead the charge to gain more seats for the party. The Workers' Party began the renewal process even earlier than PAP and this goes to show the party's emphasis on continued self-renewal in order to stay in touch and valid with the electorate.

Comparing the Workers' Party with the other opposition parties, the Workers' Party stood out with its dynamic personalities, better and systematic organisation, a more efficient application of resources.

More importantly, the Workers' Party did not engage in a tactic of tic-for-tat with the PAP. The party abandon a confrontational behaviour towards the PAP, focuses on its agenda and went about bringing their agenda to the electorate. The Workers' Party realised that open confrontation will never ever bear fruit in Singapore and will not appeal to the electorate. This was something that the SDP fail to appreciate.

The Workers' Party was much more willing to renew and in the process, attracted a bigger talent pool than the SDA. It was clearly evident with the profiles and characters of the various candidates of the Workers' Party when measured up against those candidates from the SDA. The failure of the SDA to attract woman candidates will also be key to its credibility and image.

What does all this mean for Singapore's political landscape:

1. The various opposition parties will be unable to continue to stay relevant & will self-destruct from within and/or fade away into annoymity.

2. The most powerful and credible threat to the PAP's rule will be the Workers' Party, in the short-term and in the foreseeable future.

In conclusion, the author's vision of a 2 party system of politics in Singapore is slowly but surely being realised. Internal factors within the Workers' Party, for instance, its continued emphasis of self-renewal, and the ability to attract good candidates, coupled with external factors like the sef-destruction of the other opposition parties, the electorate's desire to see a credible opposition, makes this vision a reality. The Workers' Party will thus be able to coordinate to opposition efforts against the PAP, and with greater economies of scale, comes greater financial funds and resources.

However, the most significant aspect of this rising force is that the electorate, being much more educated and tenacious, do applaud the significant inroads that the Workers' Party is making in terms of image, publicity, renewal. For the first time in Singapore political history, the electorate sees the possibiity of a future alternative government coming from the Workers' Party.

WP Vs PAP in all 84 seats: It's not that impossible after all ~

The Young & Restless

2006-06-15T14:40:00.000+08:00

In the 2006 general elections, out of the 1.22 million eligible voters who fortunately had the chance to cast their votes, an approximate 40% of the electorate were made up of the young and were most probably voting for the first time.

The young in this context refers to the 3rd generation of Singaporeans. Singaporeans who did not experienced the ardous process of nation building and were the main beneficaries of the PAP system. This group of people are usually born after 1975.

The young had the opportunity to study about Western values, history, culture and the system of government and most of the young do compared our model of government that we have in Singapore to the form of government they see in more established democracies. Slowly, but surely, major flaws in the system were inevitably noticed.

The young were not only more daring to challenge the status quo and more willing to question the major flaws in the government, for instance, the government's habit of filing libel suits against the opposition to keep them out of the fray, the GRC system, the politial donations act, the attitudes of the PAP in Hougang and Potong Pasir, but this group of people are also able to come up with alternative ideas, policies that could potentially be much better than the policies of the current PAP government.

In the 2006 elections, it was clearly evident that the PAP courted the interests of the young aggressively. This was clearly illustarted in the TV debate that MM Lee Kuan Yew had with a group of young journalists. The PAP do realised that this group of people is increasingly pivtol to the balance of power in Singapore in the years to come. Ignoring them is as good as political suicide.

In the opinion of the author, the government faced an uphill challenge of striving to stay relevant to the young. Although there was no concrete evidence to show that the young tend to vote against the PAP, but if the PAP were to continue to adopt strategies and policies that were so effectively in pulling in the votes of the 1st and 2nd generation of Singaporeans, this new force in Singapore politics could be eventually become disillusioned with the government and would most probably expressed this at the ballot box in the 2011 elections.

In short, the 2006 elections exposed the fact that the PAP is not in sync with the 3rd generation of Singapore and plenty needs to be done to bring them into the fold. What makes this group of Singaporeans different from their predecessors is this: They are not so easily taken in by the "hongbaos" given out by the government as they are able to better reason out and decide for themselves the underlying motives and intentions of the PAP and its policies. However, what is the most detrimental to the PAP about this group of young and restless Singaporeans, is that they possessed the ability to be the "informal" government is terms of policy-making and breeding of better ideas and concepts - policies and ideas that the PAP government sorely needs to bring the country forward.

The inability to involved them in the the decision and policies making process could spark off an exodus of votes to the increasingly credible and appealing opposition who are increasingly been perceived as being able and equally as capable as the people in the PAP government, and who might be able to address the needs and demands of this group of young and restless Singaporeans better

Rise of the Internet Media

2006-06-10T13:43:00.000+08:00

If one still remembered, 3 weeks before the last parliament was dissolved for the elections, the government banned the use of podcast and other relevant internet media during the 9 days of campaigning.

The official line was this:

1. To ensure responsible use of the internet during campaigning as the free-for all environment of the internet is open to abuse.

2. The government's view is that people can have diverse views, but should not hide behind the anonymity of the internet, to manipulate public opinion.

It was again stated clearly by the government that individual bloggers can discuss politics, but have to register with the Media Development Agency if they persistently promote political views and even when registered, they are not allowed to advertise for any political parties during the hustings - something only political parties, candidates and election agents are allowed to do only.

If this above regulation was to be forcefully enforced, many netizens, like the author himself, would have seen the authorities knocking on their doors, sharing a cup of coffee and toast at the icy-cold Cantonment Complex along New Bridge Road. It seems like all the netizens in the internet-sphere, other than the Singapore Democratic Party escaped unscathed.

What account for this phenomenon and its significance for the PAP ruling party?

The author strongly believes that more and more Singaporeans, especially the young(ages between 18 to 35) are becoming disillusioned with the arrogance, seemingly know-what-is-the-best-for-us attitude and more importantly, unfair politics; with regard to the GRC system, upgrading as a carrot and stick tactic, the political donations act and many more other issues that serve to undermine and disadvantage the opposition.

This phenomenon further erupted in a stream of hot lava and volcanic gas, after the arrogant and persistent media mistreatment of James Gomez, one of the Workers' Party candidate for Aljunied GRC. Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew went on and asked that James Gomez sue him for his words said. (It worth noting the extent of arrogance of the PAP, and their disregard for the intergrity for a fellow political opponent.)

Compare this kind of politics practised by a 1st world government to the Westminister form of electoral debate in Britain and we will get a glimpse of how 1st world the PAP government is.

Thus, it was of little wonder that netizens was forced into action and used whatever available resources they could get their hands on to voice out their respectively viewpoints, opinions, perspectives on various election issues and other related bread-and-butter issues and more importantly to address the biasness and unfair reporting of the local mainstream media during the hustings.

Of course, given the strength of the PAP, its past track records, past achievements and its party machinery, there should be no need to fear the words of a few netizens out to discredit the government and lower the standing of the PAP in the eyes of voters, especially first-time voters.

However, right now, the government is changing stance and are looking to review the parliamentary elections of 2001 and loosen up on the ban on podcasting and videoasting on the internet during elections. You might ask why ?

Ride this Net animal

Government to review media policies for next GE

This is a significance coup for the all netizens, bloggers and political activists in Singapore.

The author hereby put forward this:

1. The PAP government, having witnessed the marauding effect of the internet media during election 2006, is geniunely fearful that this might lead to a political-reawakening of Singaporeans, which have been consistently suppressed by the PAP's indifference to political education. This could very well in the future, break all boundaries and undermined its all encompassing hold on power.

2. Furthermore, the PAP government wants the internet media to grow and develop but at their own pace and discretion and within its sphere of control, so as to draw maximum political and social benefits for itself.

In a nutshell, that pot of water which is the political awareness of Singaporeans, is boiling and the emergence of political netizens serves as firewood/charcoal, threatening the overflow of that pot of water, which could extinguish the raging fire below. The PAP, on the hand, seeks to control the influx of firewood/charcoal into the fire so as to boil its own eggs in the water, but at the same time, keeping the lid in its rightful place.

Election 2006 could very well be a watershed in the development of politics in Singapore, with the rise of the internet media being the main perpetrator.

Colossal Failure of the PAP's electoral tactics

2006-06-08T20:13:00.000+08:00

Election 2006 saw a major, significant collapse of the PAP's electoral tactics in Hougang and Potong Pasir.

Way before the election mechanism was set in place, the PAP saw it as a major election objective to re-capture Hougang and especially Potong Pasir. They promised everything from upgrading to funds to "committed' PAP candidates to serve and reward the residents of the Hougang and Potong Pasir if the PAP gets voted into power. On the day before voting day, SM Goh Chok Tong even put everything on the line by promising S$100m and S$80m to Hougang SMC and Potong Pasir SMC respectively.

The difference between Election 2006 and the past elections is this: The PAP was so confident of victory in Potong Pasir that Mr Lim Boon Heng, Chairman of the People's Action PArty declared that winning 83 out of 84 will be a good showing for the Prime Minister way before voting day itself. SM Goh, who was tasked by the PM Lee to re-capture Potong Pasir and Hougang, commented that victory in Potong Pasir is highly likely; Hougang might prove to be more of a challenge.

There's good reason for the top echleon of the PAP to feel this way. The winning margin of the incumbent Chiam See Tong had been diminishing with every passing election. The battle for Potong Pasir went as close as 52% to 48% in favour of the opposition in the 2001 general election. From the perspective of the PAP and the rest of Singapore, Mr Chiam See Tong have been the MP for the last 25 years and not much materials improvements was made to the living environment in Potong Pasir.

On top of that, Mr Chiam is ageing and the committment, energy and passio level was questioned repeatedly by the PAP. (If the Lee Kuan yew at the age of 83, is still very much involved in the government as the Minister Mentor, the author find the accusation of the PAP as rather baseless and illogical).

Fast forward to the night when the election results was announced. Not much surprises in the opposition camp. The opposition kept Hougang SMC and Potong Pasir SMC and lost every other seat contested across the island. The most stunning aspect of the results, however was this. Mr Low Thia Khiang and Mr Chiam See Tong improved on their winning margins by 7% and 3% respectively. An interesting phenomenon indeed.

Personally, the author believes that this result came as a total surprise to the entire leadership of the PAP.

The question of "what happens" was on the lips of the PAP and its supporters, but obviously it was made in a subtle manner. The PAP stayed cool in the face of the result and insisted that winning out of 84 seats was a very good result (Was that what they say before the election?)
and the focus in the maintream media was on the strong mandate that Singaporeans gave to the PAP leadership.

The author put forward this argument. The PAP believes that the snatching of Potong Pasir from the opposition was within sight and major headways will be made in Hougang. In this instance, it is reasonable to argue that the PAP's election tactics and agenda in the opposition-controlled ward of Hougang and Potong Pasir was not in sync with the voters in Hougang and Potong Pasir and had thus failed on a substantial level. Basically, they couldn't find the appropriate wavelength to reach out to the residents in the Hougang and Potong Pasir.

Thus, it was not surprising to see the PAP reviewing its electoral tactics in Hougang and Potong Pasir in such a short span of time after the election, with SM Goh once again spearheading the review. The seriousness that the PAP placed on this issue further reinforced the author's argument.

It signal a colossal setback to the PAP leadership and the PAP would find it even more diffcult to pry Hougang and Potong Pasir away from the opposition in the next election due in 2011. This could very well signal the first indication of a complete entrenchment of opposition power in Hougang and Potong Pasir.

8 reasons why Singapore is not democratic

2006-05-17T14:37:00.000+08:00

"Now I LEE KUAN YEW Prime Minister of Singapore, DO HEREBY PROCLAIM AND DECLARE on behalf of the people and the Government of Singapore that as from today the ninth day of August in the year one thousand nine hundred and sixty-five Singapore shall be forever a sovereign democratic and independent nation, founded upon the principles of liberty and justice and ever seeking the welfare and happiness of her people in a more just and equal society. "

Even being a sovereign, democratic and independent nation is part of our nation's principles and founding fathers' vision and goals.

So why despite 40 years of nation building and independence, is Singapore lagging so far behind in democracy??

The author seeks to find out the underlying factors that contributed to such a lowly performance by democractic Singapore.

1. The way our ministers are being elected into parliament through the Group Representation Constituencies(GRC).

2. The government's control on the local media and press.

3. A dominant one-party presence in parliament.

4. The failure of the weak opposition to give the citizens of Singapore a more viable choice other than the ruling PAP government.

5. The continued mentality among Singaporeans that MM Lee is still helming the affairs of the state.

6. A lack of a national self-identity among young Singaporeans.

7. Singaporeans are more interested with their livelihood than working towards a truly democratic nation.

8. The lack of a vibrant and youthful political environment in schools and educational institutions to promote the exchange of ideas.

WARNING: Unless all the obstacles are removed and eradicated, Singapore will always be a successful 1st world nation without a proper spirit and soul.

Disappearance of Aljunied GRC ? ?

2006-05-13T22:30:00.000+08:00

After the loss of Aljunied GRC to the PAP team led by Foreign Minister George Yeo, Miss Sylvia Lim, party chairman of the Workers' Party declared, "We will be back."

The question is: Will the Workers' Party even have a chance to come back to contest Aljunied GRC in 5 years time?

If one were to notice, every GRC that encountered a close fight between the opposition and the ruling PAP government, suffered the same fate of being craved up; Braddell Heights in 1981, Eunos in 1988 and Cheng San in 1997 all but disappeared from the face of the electoral map.

What about Aljunied 2006? What will Aljunied GRC 's fate be?

The author thus present the following argument forward:

The practice of continually moving the goalpost around is an indication to the public that the PAP is shying away from healthy and much needed competition posed by an increasingly credible opposition and this sharply contrast with the PAP's claim of being a 1st World government.

In this case, if the PAP is a 1st World government, as what they potrayed themselves to be, the author would like to urge the PAP to keep the current electoral map intact. This is for two purposes:

1. To ensure a level playing field for all parties concerned.

2. To allow the voters in the constituency to judge for themselves as to whether the PAP or the WP have done a better job over the last 5 years.

By having stability in the current GRC system, it meant that the current political parties can start preparing for the next general election, and not worry about last minute changes to their party tactics and strategies. For example, at the last election, in terms of resources and party strategies, the Workers' Party was caught off guard by the sudden inclusion of serangoon gardens into Ajunied GRC at the last election.

If the PAP have done what they are supposed to over a period of 5 years, they have nothing to fear. The electorate, which is increasingly educated and street-smart will reward the party who have been consistently at work in their respective wards, by giving them their all important vote.

In the case of Chua Chu Kang and Nee Soon East, where there is a relatively strong opposition presence in the form of seasoned politicians like Steve Chia and Dr Poh Lee Guan, did the PAP lose their seat even though there were no boundary changes to both single member constituency?

The answer is NO ! On the contrary, both Mr Gan Kim Yong and Associate Professor Ho Peng Kee coasted to victories with 60.4% ad 68.7% of the valid votes respectively.

So why is the PAP fearful and consistently re-shaping the electoral map time and again? (All the talk about population shifts being the catalyst for the repeated changes in the arrangement of the electoral boundaries is flawed and doesn't stand up to close scrutiny.)

From the above discussion, it can be seen that the author sees no basis for the PAP government to keep shifting and bending the rules to fit their agendas. Being a 1st world government, allowing for fair and honest play should be one of their top priority for them. By constantly resorting to changing the electoral map just goes to show how 1st world our ruling government actually is. The PAP has always been synonymous with the tag of being a clean, fair, honest, efficient and popular instiution. In this case, the author would like to put this to the ruling PAP government: Live up to what you stand for, stand up and face the competition head on.

P.S. This appeal is in no sense an endorsement by the author of the current GRC system. The author still believes in the abolition of the current GRC system and the subsequently establishment of Single-Member Wards

NO TO NCMP !

2006-05-09T19:09:00.000+08:00

To the Workers' Party,

The author would like to urge the Workers' Party not to appoint any candidates from the defeated Aljunied GRC team to assume the post of NCMP.

Though the Workers' Party Aljunied GRC team was the highest loser in the 2006 General Elections, the author believed the Workers' Party should and must uphold their stand which was stated down very clearly in their manifesto; You Have a Choice.

This is what was stated down very clearly in the manifesto:

1. Parliament shall consist only of members elected by the people in free and fair elections. Parliament is a representative microcosm of Singapore society by way of gender, race and religion.

2. The office of Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) should be abolished. No one should be allowed to vote on legislation without any mandate from the people.

Thus, in this case, neither Goh Meng Seng, James Gomez, Sylvia Lim, Mohd Rahizan Yaacob or Tan Wui-Hua should accept the post of the next NCMP.

During the election period, the Workers' Party campaigned on the platform of accountability, a 1st World opposition and choice. By nominating any of the losing candidate in the Aljunied GRC team, it raises questions about the accountability and sincerity of the manifesto, which constitues a large part of its views, ideas and opinions. This give little credibility to the party in its claim towards striving to become a 1st World opposition.

The system of a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament(NCMP) is an attempt by the ruling PAP government to create a mirage in the eyes of Singaporeans that it welcomes and support opposition views in parliament. This system was created artifically to account for the lack of opposition MPs in parliament.

The Workers' Party realised the flaws within this system and had strongly voice this out in its manifesto. Thus, by partipating in the defective system, it is an open endorsement of the policy of the government, which goes against its initial stand. That is wrong !

Do not misplace the trust that Singaporeans had in the Workers' Party. They are the sole reason for the 13.6% increase in support for the party in the 2006 GE.

Once again, the author recommend that the Workers' Party decline the invitation of the elections department to name a NCMP for the next parliament. The credibility and image of the Workers' Party and the opposition in general is on the line !

That sucide squad that survives !

2006-05-07T18:09:00.000+08:00

At one end is the PAP team led by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and comprising of Inderjit Singh, Balaji Sadasivan, Wee Siew Kim, Lam Pin Min and Lee Bee Wah.

At the other corner, 6 young candidates from the Workers's Party were busily submitting their own death sentences. These 6 kamikazas are Yaw Shin Leong, Glenda Han, Abdul Salim, Melvin Tan, Gopal Krishnan, Lee Wai Leng with an average age of 32.5.

This was the shake-up for Ang Mo Kio on Nomination Day on 27 April. The PAP team was expected to romp to an overwhelming victory over the upstarts from the WP.

However, when the polling results for Ang Mo Kio GRC were announced yesterday, the PM could very well had a shock of his political career. The PAP team led by PM Lee Hsien Loong only managed to poll 66.1% of the 146,059 valid votes casts. These meant that a substantial number of votes comprising 49, 468 of the valid votes went to the WP. The author deems this result as a coup for the Workers' Party.

It worth noting that the PM's support of 66.1% at Ang Mo Kio is even lower than the national average of 66.6% of the valid votes cast.

What was more shocking was the fact that despite a complete media blanket on the entire WP team contesting Ang Mo Kio GRC during the 9 days of campagning, the WP team could still polled in 33.9% of the total valid votes.

According to the PM, the percentages really reflect the logo of the WP more than the individuals. That was his reason why the 6 upstarts from the WP did so well.

Is that really the case?

The fact remains, 1 in 3 constituents and residents in Ang Mo Kio voiced themselves out in a loud and clear mannner, that the PAP have not done enough to make the life of Singaporeans better. This is significant !

Moreover, the suicide team from the WP achieved what it had set out to do in the first place.

1. To allow the 6 candidates to gain the experience and exposure.

2. To allow the former residents of Cheng San GRC to have a chance to vote since 1997.

3. To make sure that PM Lee is not a Walkover Prime Minister.

In a nutshell, it can be concluded that the WP team achieved not only its initial objectives but achieved even much more. The long-term branding, attention and publicity the WP is getting from this coup far exceed the impact of the actual results itself. This would only serve to attract more people to join its ranks, thus aiding in its renewal process. This in turn meant that at the next election in 2011, the WP could even be able to put up even more impressive, credible candidates; candidates who are more than qualified academically, sincere, passionate, honest and have the interests of Singaporeans at heart.

In this case, Singapore politics stand to be the biggest winner.

The author urge the PAP government to look at this result in Ang Mo Kio GRC seriously. This result could very well meant something inherently wrong with the PAP adminstration in the eye of Singaporeans; in its vision, aspirations for Singapore, and its support rate among the all Singaporeans, especially the young voters.

Is this the first serious sign of the lid of a boiling cauldron of disatisfaction with the PAP government opening up?

All in all, Kudos to the Workers' Party ! Their share of the valid votes increased 13.6% from the last election.

First hand Polling Results : Part 2

2006-05-07T17:33:00.000+08:00

The above article is adapted from e pur si muove. Kudos to the author of this partcular weblog for his effort !

In fact, i did fairly well for the prediction part. I thought i screwed it all up.

May 6, 2006
Blog Pundits and the 2006 Singapore General Elections

The elections are over, the results tallied, every last ‘i’ dotted and ‘t’ dashed.

Surely every blogger’s burning question is, now, how well did the Singapore blogosphere do on the predictions front?

Since I promised to stay away until the elections were over, I will now contribute my little bit by attempting to answer the previous question. I ran some searches on Google, Technorati, and within my own blogroll and uncovered five blogs which publicly announced their predictions for the elections. After a little number-crunching (explained in full detail at the end), here are some concrete numbers.

Data
Everyone loves a graph, so here is a graph summarizing my data set:

Analyses and details follow.

Rankings of Blog predictions

sgelection06.djourne.net (96.0% accuracy)
sembawang-voter.blogspot.com (92.0% accuracy)
conformityisdead.blogspot.com (90.3% accuracy)
singaporegovt.blogspot.com (87.8% accuracy)
sha0x.blogspot.com (86.0% accuracy)
Everyone in Singapore loves rankings, so here are my rankings for blog pundit accuracy. Congratulations to the crew at Singapore, Ink. for the most accurate (if most incomplete) elections predictions!

Again, I’m sure I missed out other blogs. Feel free to let me know if you know of any.

Top 3 least accurately predicted wards

Sembawang (22.2% rms deviation)
Macpherson (20.3% rms deviation)
Potong Pasir (20.1% rms deviation)
Unsurprisingly, this correlates well with highly-contested districts with strong opposition presence. I don’t quite understand Macpherson, though. Did I miss something happening here?

Top 3 most accurately predicted wards

Choa Chu Kang (6.1% rms deviation)
Jalan Besar (8.2% rms deviation)
Aljunied (9.8% rms deviation)
Can I take the contrapostive of the previous statement and therefore say that these must therefore be the most boring districts? Surely not; Aljunied seemed to have been a big campaigning hotspot. Maybe what this means is that the results of campaigning in these districts were most accurately reflected in the perspectives of individual bloggers.

Methodology
Here’s the nitty-gritty of what I did.

I used a variant of the least-squares weighted sum of residues squared to compute the “goodness of fit” for each bloggers’ data set.

Some judgement was exercised in enumerating predictions when no specific numerical margins were predicted. “Too close to call” was analyzed as 50%, “Win by narrow margin” as 51%, and a plain “Win/lose” enumerated as 67%/33% respectively.

The prediction percentages were subtracted from the actual voting percentages as reported on the Wikipedia article. The difference was weighted by multiplying with the number of registered voters in each ward to get weighted residuals. (This means that getting the percentage right for larger districts would count more strongly.) The weighted residuals were squared, summed up. The number thus obtained was divided by the number of districts predicted minus two, and finally square-rooted to get the root mean square deviation per ward (D).

To get the accuracy figure, I worked out the average number voters of per ward (75,809) and then computed the fractional rms deviation by dividing D by 75,809. Subtracting the fraction from one and converting it into a percentage finally gives the quantity I called the accuracy.

Clearly this is but one of several statistics I could have used. If anyone has a better idea, I can run the numbers and see how that changes.

First-hand Polling results

2006-05-06T13:43:00.000+08:00

Here's an attempt by the author to predict the results for the 2006 Singapore General Elections

Six Member GRCs

1. Ang Mo Kio (No. of voters: 159,872) - PAP wins by 70% to 30%

2. Pasir Ris-Punggol (No. of voters: 178, 443) - PAP wins by 77% to 23%

3. Sembawang (No. of voters: 184,804) - PAP trounces SDP by 85% to 15%

Five-Member GRCs

1. Aljunied (No. of voters: 145,141) - WP wins narrowly

2. East Coast (No. of voters: 116, 653) - PAP wins by 65% to 35%)

3. Jalan Besar (No. of voters: 93,025) - PAP wins 76% to 24%

4. Tampines (No. of voters: 126, 163) - PAP wins 78% to 22%

Single-Member Constituency

1. Bukit Panjang (No. of voters: 30,452) - PAP wins 80% to 20%

2. Chua Chu Kang (No. of voters: 24,975) - PAP wins 55% to 45%

3. Hougang (No. of voters: 23,759) - WP wins 60% to 40%

4. Joo Chiat (No. of voters: 21,858) - PAP wins 75% to 25%

5. MacPherson (No. of voters: 21,041) - PAP wins 84% to 16%

6. Nee Soon Central (No. of voters: 23,152) - PAP wins 75% to 25%

7. Nee Soon East (No. of votes: 32,586) - PAP wins 65% to 35%

8. Potong Pasir (No. of voters: 15,888) - PAP wins 55% to 45%

9. Yio Chu Kang (No. of voters: 25,072) - PAP wins 75% to 25%

Do note that is only a forecast of the polling results and is not a true reflection of the actual results which is subsquently going to be announced today from 10p.m onwards.

From 9pm, MediaCorp Radio will also have updates every 15 minutes with on-location reports on 938LIVE, Capital 95.8 and Warna 94.2.

Do catch the results live from 10p.m on CNA, Channel 5, Channel 8.

The TODAY newspaper will publish a special Sunday edition, which will be available at selected MRT and all 7-Eleven stores.

Net surfers can also check updates online at Channelnewsasia and TodayOnline

Stay Tuned !

Poor foresight of the PAP?!

2006-05-06T13:06:00.000+08:00

In an article published in the Straits Times today (060506), the PAP candidate for Potong Pasir, Mr Sitoh Yih Pin, rebutted the incumbent, Mr Chiam See Tong, saying that it was just not possible for Mr Chiam to have enough funds to upgrade lifts in all the blocks in Potong Pasir SMC.

SM Goh Chok Tong who have been tasked to win back Potong Pasir, further urged the voters to vote for the PAP. "If the residents voted for the PAP, they would get new lifts under the Lift Upgrading Programme, and government funds from taxes would cover 90% of the cost."

The battle for the single seat of Potong Pasir over the past 9 days seems to hinges on one particular issue; Lift Upgrading. Once again like the last election in 2001, the message of the PAP to the residents of Potong Pasir is simple - Vote PAP or you can forget about any development in your living enviroment for the next 5 years.

However, it must be noted that in the first place, who was responsible for lifts not stopping on every level in an HDB block?

I believed everyone knows the answer. In this case, why is the PAP government repeatedly using lift upgrading as an election incentive? Doesn't they realised that past inexperience of the HDB have led to the deficiency in the blocks that 85% of Singaporeans live in?

Thus, personally, the author strongly believed that no matter who is going to win Potong Pasir; be it the PAP or the opposition, the next government, which is most probably going to be formed by the PAP team led by PM Lee Hsien Loong, is to release much needed funds required for lift upgrading to the relevant MPs in Potong Pasir and Hougang.

The next government has the duty and obligation to rectify this mistake caused by poor foresight of past PAP governments with regard to housing policies, in particular, lifts not stopping on every level. The next goverment MUST make sure that all blocks in Singapore have a lift that stop at every level, no matter which constituency the residents are living in.

To put it in the words of PM Lee Heisn Loong, "I will do more to take care of your needs and to take care of those who are in trouble"

In that case, making sure that all Singaporeans get to enjoy lifts stopping at every level is a good way to start.

Bread and Butter issues !

2006-05-02T21:42:00.000+08:00

At the rallies over the last 4 days, the Workers' Party have been touching on serious and important issues such as health care, eduation and transport, concerning Singaporeans and is not distracted by the pork-barrel politics and the James Gomez issue which is forcefuly being played up by the PAP.

Health care Cost

1. Given our superb port & air facilities, develop Singapore as a manufauture and distribution hub for medical drugs. (lower cost as less money is spent on shipping medicine from place to place)

2. Remove GST for medicine and medical related charges

3. For chronic illnesses such as diabetes, high blood pressure & depression, the government should use its powers to negotiate a cost based pricing strategy that is beneficial for Singaporeans. It appears that the tender system is used for buying medicine. The tender should also includes medication for distribution by private practice doctors. This will help private doctors lower their costs to you, the patient.

4. Recall the privatization of Medishield to keep the cost of health insurance manageable. The government has a social responsibility to its citizens.

5. The Government should establish contracts for medicine researched with Singaporean funds to be distributed in Singapore on a cost only model. Ask for a steep discount from patent royalties with the drug companies that research and manufacture these medicines using our money.

Education Policies

1. Remove the barriers of entry to higher education and allow anyone who feels that she or he can benefit from a University level or Polytechnic level course be allowed to sign up for one.

2. Build 2 or 3 more universities in Singapore(If we reduce the number of countryclubs and golf courses we have, i think this above proposal is feasible)

3. University fees should be capped and similar subsidies be given to existing and incoming students.

Transport Costs

1. Nationalise and subsidize our public transport system.

2. Remove barriers to competition within the transport sector and allow prices to fluctuate according to the forces of demand and supply.

3. Dissolved the Public Transport Council and all public transport services should be brought under a National Transportation Council which will oversee and provide universal transport service to all (refer to WP's manifesto chapter 8)

To the People's Action Party:

The author sincerely ask the PAP to stop the politics of distraction and approach, address this election in a professional and correct manner. Start addressing the needs of Singaporeans; bread and butter issues, and stop harping on the James Gomez incident, liftupgrading programmes, SDP's lawsuits with the PM and MM, progress package and their past achievements.

The people of Singapore would like to hear about concrete ideas and proposals to address the issues of their daily lives. In the words of the PAP, "staying together, moving ahead". The author and all Singaporeans would want to know how are they going to achieve this vision for Singapore. (elaborate on their own manifesto and stopping doing all they can to slam the manifestos and ideas of the opposition)

Bring out your election ideas and proposals and allow the people of Singapore to decide as to which party best serve their interests and which is capable enough to alleviate the pressing bread and better issues facing all Singaporeans.

Yours Sincerely,
A Young Concerned Singaporean

Gomez-Gate !

2006-05-01T12:50:00.000+08:00

"I have a statement to read. I refer to my claim for the submission of my application for a minority certificate at Elections Department on 26 April 2006. I wish to confirm I did not submit the said application on 24 April 2006 due to distractions caused by the busy schedule leading up to Nomination Day. Please accept my sincere apologies if my actions on 26 April 2006 caused any distress or confusion to the staff or the Elections Department. I thank you,"

As stated in this statement, James Gomez of the Workers'Party admitted that he had made a mistake and apologised for it. The interesting thing is, why is the PAP harping on this issue(James Gomez failure to submit for the application for the minority certificate)?

DPM Wong Kan Seng, Defense Minister Teo Chee Hean and subseqently Foreign Minister George Yeo wants more answers from James Gomez on the minorities certificate saga and claims that the apology by James Gomez did not sufficiently address the issue.

The People's Action Party (PAP) has even thrown a poser to the Workers' Party. Will it withdraw Mr James Gomez as a candidate and make a public apology? This must be done in order to uphold accountability and honesty. He went on to question the WP on whether does it still intends to uphold the high standards that it has set for itself and for politics in Singapore.

In the author's opinion, the PAP is making a big issue out of such a minor issue. Basically, what's the intention of the PAP and the media in playing such a minor issue? Doesn't the PAP have more urgent and crucial issues to address ranging from increasing cost of living, rising medical costs, foreign policies etc?

The answer to this is a simple one. The PAP is unable to find any fault with the WP's candidates running for Aljunied GRC. In terms of credibility, walking the ground, qualifications, sincerity, passion, the PAP could not find any fault with this current slate of candidates that is fighting for every vote in Aljuned GRC. Thus, it was inevitable that the PAP had to play up the James Gomez issue.

I hereby urge the PAP and the media to end this insignificat saga and move on. James Goez had apologised. Let's focus on more important issues which is going to have much more impact on Singaporeans for the next 5 years.

If the James Gomez issue is an issue of accountability, how about PM Lee's slapping fiasco in front of the MPs, Lim Hng Khiang and Dr Khaw Boon Wan's handling of the NKF issue and even Tharman Shanmugaratnam's breaching of the official secrets act? When would it be an appropriate time to properly address these issues to all Singaporeans?

This episode only serve to hightlight the fact that Singapore needs a external system of checks and balances. The Government is made up of humans and humans have weaknesses, and that's the reason why Singaporeans cannot afford to issue the Government a "blank cheque" in the coming polls. "Let the WP have a chance to check the Government, to tell the People's Action Party (PAP) that they had better do the job properly or come election time, the people will hold them accountable," said Low Thia Khiang.

To put it in the words of PM Lee Hsien Loong, "Best thing is just to come clean and tell Singaporeans what happened", James Gomez had already done that. What about the PAP?

The waiting continues . . . . . . .

2006-04-15T23:25:00.000+08:00

During a walkabout on March 26, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong stated very clearly to the media that he is concerned that the residents living in Hougang and Potong Pasir will lose out on upgrading if they do not vote for the People’s Action Party and its candidates.

The issue of upgrading has persistently surfaced during periods leading to General Elections especially in opposition-controlled Hougang and Potong Pasir.

The PAP dangles the carrot of upgrading programmes in front of the voters of Hougang and Potong Pasir, promising the voters over there of upgrading projects in the event that PAP candidates are voted into office and using the stick to caution the residents in Hougang and Potong Pasir of the consequences of a continued opposition presence in the both single-member constituencies.

This is exemplified by a report in the local media on a speech made by the Senior Minister at a community dinner on 9 April 2006 where he says he might consider giving residents of Realty Park in Hougang upgrading, if 60% or more than 60% of the residents there voted for the PAP’s candidate, Eric Low.

Speaking to reporters after he mingled with 100 of the estate’s residents at a community dinner, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, who has been charged with helping PAP candidate Eric Low win back the ward, said residents told him it was not fair if they supported the PAP but lost out on goodies, if the ruling party lost the ward.

Said Mr Goh: “They raised an interesting point. Supposing this place supports Eric Low. Not just 50 per cent (but) 60 per cent and above and the constituency is not won back by the PAP. Why should they be punished?”

In short, the PAP is punishing voters who voted the opposition into power, punishing voters for not accepting the incentives for voting PAP. In this case, the PAP has to give precedence to constituencies who voted PAP when considering the priority and allocation of funds for any upgrading programmes. In the words of the Minister Mentor, the residents of Hougang and Potong Pasir have to face the fact that they have to wait for their turn at the end of the queue.

A reasonable enough argument by MM Lee. Every government that comes to power will always reward its supporters and make sure that they fulfill their election promises to these people who brought them to power in the first place.

However, this above policy of the PAP have resulted in creating “estates of the 1950s” in Hougang and Potong Pasir. Whose fault is it? The PAP attributed such a predicament to the voters of Hougang and Potong for not choosing PAP candidates. Thus, the voters there have to live with the consequences of having an opposition MP in their ward.

Is it really the fault of the voters or is it the responsibility of the ruling government voted into power for the next 5 years to ensure that all residential blocks in Singapore are upgraded?

As long as the PAP does not reclaim power in the 2 opposition controlled wards, the author can foresee the same scenario propping up election after election. The PAP will come along and asked the people in Hougang and Potong Pasir to vote for their respective PAP candidates in order to enjoy substantial upgrading to their living environment, while the rest of Singapore continues to bulldoze ahead in their respective upgrading agendas. In order not to be left out in such incentives, you got to vote PAP or you will risking losing the bulk of the benefits assigned to Singaporeans elsewhere.

The residents of Potong Pasir have been waiting for 25 years for substantial upgrading to be done to their housing estates and the people in Hougang have been living in a “1950s estates” for the past 15 years.

With due respect to the Minister Mentor, the author would love to pose this question to the Minister Mentor, what is the current queue number for the voters living in Potong Pasir and Hougang? Is it still at number 22 and 23 respectively? When will their turn comes? These people have been waiting for the past 25 years.

The waiting continues…..

Open and Inclusive society

2006-04-04T22:29:00.000+08:00

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong once told all Singaporeans to be open and inclusive.

What does open and inclusive means in his context? hmmm.. interesting ..

The author will embark on a simple interpretation of the words of the Prime Minister.

According to the Times-Chambers pocket dictionary:

Open means "uncovered, not blocked; free for all to enter."

Inclusive bears the meaning of "including everything mentioned"

Herald-ing a new era of freedom and expressiveness in Singapore going by the exact definition of PM's words

As our government is alot more wiser than the people and their perceived understanding of issues, it will be too myopic to take the words of the dictionary @ face value. Thus, the author will interpret the PM words in the following way:

All Singaporeans should and/or must be open(free for all forms of control to enter) to the scrutiny of the government and any opinion must be inclusive of whatever is mentioned by the government.

Any other different interpretation of the PM's words? Do feel free to share it with me. I gladly welcome them !

Our same old beloved Government

2006-04-03T23:16:00.000+08:00

"The government's view is that people can have diverse views, but should not hide behind the anonymity of the internet, to manipulate public opinion"

So declares the government for explaining its stand against podcasting during elections - What's new ! Definitely a no-no !

The government has spoken, we should not hide behind the veil of the internet, behind annoymity.

Does that mean the government is finally willing to allow our citizens to voice out their diverse views in the open, put it up for debate?

ah-ha, glimpse of a truly democratic government?

I daringly put this across to the government. Is the government bold enough to cope with the public backlash, yet at the same time, respect any opinion(pro and anti-government) put across by the public, in the event of an open society equipped with the tools of freedom of speech and expression?

I doubt so. Let's bounce back to reality then as "infant" Singaporeans are so so used to.

Dr Balaji added in his speech that individual bloggers can discuss politics, but have to register with the Media Development Agency if they persistently promote political views.

P.S. PHEW! The author has chomp a place @ MDA so late in the day. No Podcasting allowed during the elections

A pseudo-opposition in parliament?

2006-04-01T22:31:00.000+08:00

In an apparent attempt by SM Goh Chok Tong to wrest back the opposition held single ward of Hougang and Potong Pasir, he promised to lift the party whip for PAP candidates Eric Low and Sitoh Yih Pin respectively. This privilege will be bestowed on them if they manage to capture Hougang and/or Potong Pasir for the PAP. This above statement was retracted by SM Goh the following day when he visited Potong Pasir.

This brings me to the question and the main issue in this essay: Why is there a need for a pseudo-opposition when there is real opposition around?

Let us look at the why is there a need for an opposition presence in parliament.

1. No political system or dominant party is perfect, and thus requires other systems to complement, balance and keep it in check.

2. It is delusional to believe that the PAP aligned in vision, values and ideals can represent the majority perfectly.

3. The opposition puts much-needed pressure on the government to respond to the people’s needs and opinion - the populace has differing needs and opinion and the opposition makes sure that the differing needs and opinions of the people are being heard and taken seriously.

As it can be seen, it is important for an opposition presence in parliament and a pseudo-opposition actually hinders the inherent purpose for a real opposition presence in parliament.

1. The pseudo-opposition does put pressure on the government to listen to the views of the populace provided the needs and opinions of the people do not breach the official stand of the dominant party.

2. The pseudo-opposition will eventually be pressured to toe the official line of the ruling party. Pseudo-opposition MPs will have to abandon their conscience and vote according to the official line. This is as good as having no opposition in parliament.

3. A pseudo-opposition pays lip-service to effective and efficient debate in parliament and democracy in general.

“Voters don't want pseudo opposition, they want the genuine stuff”, so said Mr. Chiam See Tong, secretary-general of the Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA) at a recent NUS political forum.

However, the author will leave the reader with the eventual decision as to whether is there a need for a pseudo-opposition over an actual opposition. Given the fact that in recent years, the Whip has not been lifted even for controversial issues such as whether casinos should be allowed in Singapore, despite appeals from PAP MPs, it is very questionable as to what impact that a pseudo-opposition can make in parliament, contrary to what SM Goh had in mind when he mentions lifting the party whip for Eric Low and Sitoh Yih Pin.

A Contradicting Senior Minister?

I say NO TO CCTV on Buses

2006-03-31T14:29:00.000+08:00

I have set up an online petition to voice out my displeasure that the LTA intends to install CCTV cameras on all buses in the near future. For anyone who wants to have a say in this issue, do visit the URL listed below:

NO TO CCTV ON BUSES

Extracted from the petition:
"This very initiative infringes on our privacy and our personal freedom. This is as good as telling all Singaporeans that the moment you stepped out of your house, the government is watching you and knows what you are doing and how you are behaving."

The issue of intergrity with regard to online petitions:

Despite the success of online petitions, they do tend to lack credibility. The ease with which a person can apply for multiple e-mail addresses under fake names gives an online signature less weight than an ink-and-paper one.

I'm aware that not every signature might be genuine.

But it ust be noted that false signatures would be a problem with a traditional petition as well. There's no stopping anyone from signing multiple times.

In the instance of The Families Against the Casino Threat in Singapore, (Facts) was cautious about not taking the signatures on its petition at face value. Unlike the NKF's, its petition required the signatory to put down the number of his identity card as well.

Before they sent the petition to President S.R. Nathan, they deleted names without proper identification numbers and contact details. The final petition consisted of more than 19,500 names.

Indeed, it is easy for someone with computer programming knowledge to generate multiple entries on a petition, said Mr Bok Hai Suan of NCS Pte Ltd.

Explained the director of corporate information systems: 'It is easy to write a computer program to mimic the data entry sequence in online petitions as the screen is usually quite simple and straightforward, and it is meant to be that way. The program can generate as many entries as it wants.'

However, creators of petitions who want to maintain the inte-grity of petitions could try various means of thwarting hackers, such as asking for additional information.

'If the site asks for additional information, such as the identity card number and postal code, it will make it a bit more difficult to fake signatories,' said Mr Bok.

'But it is still possible to do it,'' he cautioned.

Ultimately, it's 'the rough numbers that count.

I don't think the exact number is important. The important thing is that it gives an idea of the interest. A certain percentage of a petition will be true: A petition doesn't just get a lot of votes if no one is interested.

Associate Professor Randolph Kluver, executive director of the Singapore Internet Research Centre said: 'You can't make an insignificant issue significant by using technology. In the case of the NKF online petition, it was the importance of the issue that got people's attention.

'People are drawn into action when they see their own values being undermined.'

Opposition in Singapore: Have you ever even taken a look at them?

2006-03-25T16:39:00.000+08:00

The author would like the reader to close his/her eyes for a minute and think of the following question?

What will come to your mind when someone mentions the opposition in Singapore to you?

1. Potong Pasir and Hougang

2. The different opposition political parties (WP, SDA, SDP, SPP) and the various opposition politicians namely Chiam See Tong, Chee Soon Juan, Low Thia Khiang. Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam

3. Defeats at every General Election

4. A bunch of troublemakers and a group of less than qualified Singaporeans running for a seat in Parliament.

I guess the above are some of the impression that Singaporeans have when the word “opposition” is mentioned to them.

Are these some of your sentiments? Maybe? Maybe not?

However, I believed many people will agree with the author that the word “opposition” in Singapore seems to go hands-in-hands (intrinsically-linked) with libel suits, Fines (not excluding jail terms), bankruptcy and even exiles.

Thus, Singaporeans, especially the young, should stay away from the opposition or even not have anything to do them. (This is what the author was taught to do growing up in a pro-PAP family). If you want to join politics, there’s always the PAP around.

However, the author at the tender age of 20 decides to throw all these things aside, enter the fray and allowed himself to be subjected to the baptism of fire in what most deemed as the continued and constant losing battle of the opposition with the ruling party. Why is this so?

The common reaction from people who comes to know the author will tend to ask him this, Why are you so silly? Do you have nothing better to do?

The author will now gives his reason behind this decision of his.

1. The author is disappointed and saddened by the political apathy of most Singaporeans and seeks to address this pressing issue.

2. The author yearns to do something for his people in order improve their lives in Singapore.

3. The opposition provides the author with a platform to volunteer his services to help the people and serve them within his capacity.

4. The author loves to interact with people.

One may argue that the author should join the PAP in order to fulfill such aspirations of his. The PAP has the money and resources for the author to address pressing issues of the people. Why still join the opposition?

However, only the opposition will, for the benefit of the people initiate and purpose changes from the outside in accordance to the wishes, demands and situations of the populace. Changes coming from within the PAP are not in tandem in addressing the problems and sentiments of Singaporeans. (Picture an hourglass and how slowly the sand is flowing and the point will present itself much more clearer)

Basically, the PAP is too slow with the pace for pressing changes which will alleviate the sufferings of the people.

When called upon, the opposition will always be there to “whip the PAP’s backside and tone down their ego” to make sure that they are constantly moving in accordance to the needs of the people; the very ones that voted them to power in the first place.

On top of that, the author believed and respected the democratic process and the author hopes for the emergence of a two-party system in Singapore. Only under such a political system can Singapore be assured of a truly democratic society as well as more checks and balances for an accountable and transparent government.

Thus, to conclude, every Singaporean should cast their perceived mindsets of the opposition in Singapore aside and make themselves available to cater to the needs of the people. There is no room for only a dominant party in Singapore. The need for opposition in Singapore is valid, relevant and important to Singapore and its budding democratic process. Before one even discredit the opposition, the author urges everyone to look at things in perspective and examine the works and contributions of the opposition, ever since Singapore’s independence in 1965, to Singapore, its people and her democratic process.

P.S. If you are still thinking of doing something worthwhile and valuable to Singapore, why wait; approach any opposition parties in Singapore!

PAP's major election offensive

2006-03-24T15:40:00.000+08:00

It was announced on 19 March by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and subsequently confirmed by Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong that he is appointed by the Prime Minister to help win back the two opposition wards of Hougang and Potong Pasir in the next General Election.

SM Goh to help PAP candidates win back Hougang, Potong Pasir seats

SM Goh's hoofbeats on opposition turf

Mr. Goh says his role will be to advise, coach and help the PAP candidates in Hougang and Potong Pasir refine their fighting strategies in the elections.

In his speech to the media, Mr. Goh says: "I am not too concerned over the candidates. I am concerned over the interest of the residents. So I want to find out from Eric Low and Sitoh Yih Pin, and of course through the visits down to Hougang and Potong Pasir, what are the needs of the residents, what problems do they have, what are their hopes, what facilities do they need, what amenities can we give them? "Then having size up their interests above all else, I shall work out some strategies with Sitoh Yih Pin and Eric Low to see how we can win back the two wards."

Ever since then, it has been hailed a smart tactical move by the Prime Minister by political observers. However, one has to question the intentions and underlying motivations of PM Lee. The author will now examine the likely reasons behind the Prime Minister’s tactical move.

Firstly, opposition’s rule in Hougang and Potong Pasir is entrenched.

Hougang has been under the stewardship of Workers’ Party secretary-general Low Thia Khiang ever since 1991 and Chiam See Tong has been an MP of Potong Pasir since 1984; a staggering 22 years.

The PAP requires a heavyweight to wrest the wards of Hougang and Potong Pasir away from the opposition. Thus, the task ahead is huge.

Seetoh Yih Pin: All out for Potong Pasir

However, after a relatively good showing by the PAP in Hougang and especially in Potong Pasir, where the PAP candidate, Sitoh Yih Pin lost by a mere 751 votes to the incumbent in 2001, the current PAP leadership helmed by PM Lee, believed that the “chikus” are now right for the picking.

Plans for Hougang SMC

Thus, by sending SM Goh into the fray, the PAP feels that they have someone with the reputation and calibre and the quality to re-claim the 2 opposition wards.

This issue could be looked at in another perspective.
PM Lee is frustrated at the continued stranglehold of Hougang and Potong Pasir by the opposition.

In the aftermath of the 2001 election, the then Deputy Prime Minister, spoke of the opposition as being lucky in their win in Hougang and Potong Pasir. He stated that Eric Low and Sitoh Yih Pin had given Low Thia Khiang and Chiam See Tong respectively a real run of the money.

Thus, this time round, the move by the PM Lee to appoint to spearhead the challenge to re-claim the opposition wards is a final throw of the dice by the Prime Minister. This move can also be interpreted as throwing the ball into the opposition’s court and seeing how the opposition would react to such a move by the Prime Minister.

Chiam See Tong dismisses PAP's plan to recapture opposition wards

Workers' Party chief confident of retaining his seat

The Prime Minister intend to use the influence of SM Goh to divert the Workers’ Party attention away from Aljunied GRC.

2006: WP Vs PAP ? Will it be like Cheng San in 1997?

It is widely known that The Workers' Party is interested in contesting Aljunied GRC in the coming election. Political insiders likened the impending battle in Aljunied to the battle in Cheng San GRC in 1997, Eunos in 1991 and Braddell-Heights in 1984.

Impending battle @ Cheng San after Nomination Day in 1997

The opposition posed a credible and big threat to PAP’s rule in Aljunied and things could very well against the ruling party come polling day. Furthermore, The Workers' Party have been working the ground ever since the last elections and some believed that they stand a good chance in Aljunied in the coming elections.

Thus, SM Goh(whose own Marine Parade GRC is not likely to be contested) plays the role of diverting the resources and focus of The Workers' Party from Aljunied GRC to protecting and retaining the single member seat of Hougang which the Prime Minister believed is dear and precious to The Workers' Party and will be defended at all costs. Under such circumstances, The Workers' Party will inevitably change their game-plan and give Hougang much more attention than before.

However, it must be noted that Hougang has always been a keenly-contested ward in recent elections. And the opposition have coped well in the face of challenging on many fronts in the past. Thus, the introduction of SM Goh will not add undue pressure onto The Workers' Party into changing its tactics in favour of Hougang.

However, the author believed that the underlying reason behind this tactical move by PM Lee is to deflect the possible loss of Hougang and Potong Pasir to the Senior Minister.

As this is PM Lee first election since being appointed Prime Minister, the results are especially crucial to him and the party. Do note that this is the first time that he is seeking a mandate from the people for him to carry the country forward. And any winning margin of less than 70% could mean a less than acceptable result for the PAP.

Thus, if the PAP were to lose again in Hougang and Potong Pasir in this election, in turn affecting the overall winning margin, the normal accusatory finger will be pointed at SM Goh and not PM Lee.

The purpose of the SM is clear. The SM is to advise, coach and refine the fighting strategies of the PAP’s candidates. A gigantic responsibility indeed and greater the blame no doubt.

Moreover, PM Lee has stated clearly he wants a clean sweep of all the seats contested.
"We want to win. This is not masak-masak"

Thus, in the case of not being able to achieve this election target of his, SM Goh will thus be seen as the primary reason behind the PM’s loss.

As shown in the above discussion, it is clearly evident that there’s no doubt the tactical soundness of PM Lee move to appoint the Senior Minister to spearhead the ruling party’s charge into the opposition’s territories. However, doubts do lingered as to the real intention of the Prime Minister. As is shown, the author believed the underlying motivation is to create a subtle screen to deflect a possible loss again to the opposition, thus protecting the credibility and integrity of the Prime Minister’s new government. Do note the dynamics and unique circumstances behind the coming elections, calling for such a tactical move by the Prime Minister.

New Initiative

2006-03-20T12:23:00.000+08:00

Union of Concerned Singaporeans

Hi everyone. This is Jiaxi, Bernard here. I am forming a Political Union bridging students from the different tertiary institutions in Singapore.

This political society is based from Temesek Polytechnic.

What’s its all about?

• It’s a forum whereby young Singaporeans like you and me voice our diverse opinions on issues affecting all Singaporeans.
• A tool to help raise the political awareness among the young in Singapore.
• It’s not affiliated to any political party in Singapore.
• It’s non-partisan.
• Voluntary

What we mainly do:

1. Write articles to be published in our very own monthly newsletter.
2. Debate issues concerning Singaporeans using blogs, internet forums.
3. Public speaking in schools.

Who? Dynamic young Singaporeans from the age of 17 to 25

1. who are interested in political, social, economic issues affecting Singapore.
2. who are willing to take a small step forward to serve Singaporeans from all walks of life.
3. who are looking to volunteer themselves for a good cause.
4. who are from the different races in Singapore. All races are welcome.
5. who are willing to question the known establishment; not anti-establishment though.

If you belonged to any of the category mentioned above, I would like you to join me.

How to contact me?

• Hp: 96788872
• Email/msn: cyberkia@hotmail.com
• Online blog: www.conformityisdead.blogspot.com

I’m currently looking for like-minded people to join me in this endeavor.

What are you waiting for? Join me now. Membership is free.

PAP's broken promises

2006-03-18T22:37:00.000+08:00

Here are some of the many promises that the PAP broke upon coming to power.

Caution: Viewed them according to your own discretion.

Shared prosperity a cornerstone of the PAP's economic policy?

During elections:

"Shared prosperity will remain a cornerstone of our New Singapore."
- PM Goh Chok Tong, Straits Times, Oct 20, 2001

After elections:

"A Department of Statistics (DOS) report last year showed income inequality has crept up over the years. Overall, average monthly incomes have risen: from $3,076 in 1990 to $4,943 in 2000. But incomes at the top rose, while incomes at the bottom declined. In 2000, incomes for the top 10 per cent of resident households grew 8.8 per cent, while incomes for the bottom 10 per cent of wage-earning households shrank 13.6 per cent. This shrinkage would have been even greater - 54.1 per cent - if households with no wage earners had been included. The Gini coefficient - which measures income disparity in a society - hovered around 0.44 in the 1990s, but expanded to 0.481 in 2000, showing a rising income gap."
- Chua Mui Hoong, political columnist, Straits Times, Aug 4, 2003

"If we want to have successful entrepreneurs, Singaporeans have to accept a greater income disparity between the successful and the not so successful."
- SM Lee Kuan Yew, Ho Rih Hwa public lecture, Feb 5, 2002

Choose PAP and Singapore will grow, prosper and becomes stronger?

During elections:

"Choose wrongly, and Singapore will be weaker. People will start writing new reports about us, about how, after all, we are just a flash in the pan."
- DPM Lee Hsien Loong, Straits Times, Oct 22, 2001

After elections:

"Singapore is Asia's weakest economy: Barclays." - AFP, Jun 18, 2002

"Singapore among Asia's laggards as recession deepens." - Bloomberg, Jan 2 ,2002

"Glory of Singapore fades into the past." - Age, Melbourne, Jan 24 ,2002

"Singapore is trying to halt slippage." - New York Times, Apr 30, 2002

"In Singapore: Government squanders savings." - New Zealand Herald, May 18, 2002

"Economic doubts dog Singapore." - Financial Times, Aug 27, 2002

"Singapore faces jobless surge." - BBC, Sept 13, 2002

"Singapore concedes economy weakening, delays pension repairs." - AFP, Nov 17, 2002

"Whither Singapore Inc?" - Economist, Nov 28, 2002

"Singapore economy to remain sluggish" - Financial Times, Jan 3, 2003

"Singapore economy stagnates, recession risks loom." - Reuters, Apr 10, 2003

"Bad debts up as Singapore falters." - Reuters, Jul 31, 2003

The PAP is a government that leads?

During elections:

"You look at all the countries around us...Currencies collapsed, property prices ces collapsed, unemployment, economies slowing down, riots, clashes between people. Singapore did not go through that mangle. Why? Because in Singapore, we had a competent government in charge, anticipating events."
- SM Lee Kuan Yew on the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, Straits Times, Nov 1 2003

After elections:

"In a global economy, we are not trendsetters. We follow what others do."
- Minister and labour chief Lim Boon Heng, Straits Times, Jul 2003

"Data released by the Ministry of Manpower last week was by far the bleakest to date. Eight straight quarters of job losses and a staggering 24,800 jobs wiped out over the April to June period - more in a single quarter than in all of 1998, the peak of Asia's infamous financial crisis."
- The Edge, Aug 4, 2003

"Singaporeans are also the most pessimistic about their future income. In the Asia-Pacific region, only the Japanese are less confident than Singaporeans about the outlook for regular income. These are among the findings of MasterCard International's latest biannual survey of consumer confidence in 13 markets around the region."
- The Edge, Aug 4, 2003

Unite behind PAP for a secure future and a better life?

During elections:

"A people united - Secure Future, Better Life."
- PAP election manifesto

"Vote for my PAP team. a people united behind a good government is your best guarantee of a secure future and a better life."
- PM Goh Chok Tong, Straits Times, Oct 28, 2001

After elections:

"Bankruptcy cases at 17 year high."
- Straits Times, Jan 8, 2003

"Family violence on the rise, and counselors attribute it to the stress of job losses due to the economic downturn."
- Straits Times, Jan 28, 2002

"During the Asian Financial Crisis, 27,000 jobs were lost. That year the number of marital splits jumped by 16 per cent to 5,651. Last year a record number of 5,825 marriages ended in divorces and annulments - up sharply from 2,111 cases in 1982."
- Straits Times, Jun 8, 2003

"Hit by slowdown, young working adults are vulnerable to suicidal thoughts. More are calling SOS hotline for help...there were 361 suicides last year, nearly 17% more than 1999."
- Straits Times, June 15, 2003

PM Goh shows more understanding towards our concerns?

During elections:

"Will you keep your job? Can your families cope with school expenses, medical bills, rent and utilities charges? I understand your worries."
- PM Goh Chok Tong, Straits Times, Oct 28, 2001 (A week earlier, Goh had said he understood our “concerns.” See posting on 19 Jul 2005 below. Concerns and worries come thick and fast before elections to the PAP; what happens after elections is another matter.)

After elections:

"A growing number of Singapore children are not being sent to school because their cash-strapped parents claim they cannot afford to pay for education. Ministry figures show 1921 children did not register for Primary 1 classes in 1999, up 244 on 1997 figures. "
- Reuters, Mar 3, 2002

"More parents seeking help to pay school fees."
- Straits Times Jun 17, 2002

"About 10,000 students received financial help from the Ministry of Education in the first six months of this year, almost three times that for the whole of 1999. The Starits Times School Pocket Money Fund, which gives students $30 or $50 a month, is also helping 2,000 more students this year, nearly 40 per cent more than last year's 5,500."
- Straits Times, Aug 11, 2003

"Thousands can't pay utility bills, many face power cut."
- Straits Times, Apr 12, 2003

"Desperation is forcing some people to ask for personal loans on the internet ... they are asking strangers for anything between $500 and $30,000."
- Straits Times, Apr 14, 2002

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs?

During elections:

"SDP's plan 'causes higher unemployment.'"
- George Yeo in Straits Times, Oct 29, 2001

"Top task for PM - to save and create jobs. There is one thing on Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong's mind these days : jobs, jobs, jobs."
- Straits Times, Oct 26, 2001

After elections:

"Numbers for the first three months indicate that unemployment - now at a 15 year high - will get worse before it improves."
- Straits Times, May 1 2002

"Gone forever: 42,000 jobs in Singapore. Why: high costs here; the recession; business restructuring."
- Straits Times, June 17 2002

"The proportion of Singaporeans who are unemployed for at least 6 months is the worst in 10 years."
- Straits Times, Sept 15 2002

"Fewer jobs as gloom hits economy. 84,300 people could not find jobs last month."
- Straits Times, Nov 1 2002

"By year end, unemployment should rise to 5.5 per cent ... a recent MOM survey says that three in 10 of the jobless are sole breadwinners which means more than 30,000 families could be living off retrenchment benefits, savings and any odd jobs they can snag."
- Straits Times, Nov 23, 2002

Compassion government?

During elections:

"Build compassionate meritocracy : PM"
- Straits Times, Oct 27 2001

After elections:

"CDCs are not welfare agencies: PM"
- Straits Times, Jan 6, 2002

"If these patients want to treat hospitals like a hotel, then they'll have to be charged hotel rates."
- Minister Lim Hng Kiang, Straits Times, March 1,2002, on cutting off subsidies for hospital overstayers who "are likely to be older than 60, with no income, or are from families with incomes below $1000."

"I regret making the decision because, in the end, the baby continued to be in intensive care, and KKH now runs a bill of more than $300,000."
- Lim Hng Kiang on how he regretted intervening to admit a premature baby into KKH, Straits Times, May 21, 2002

"Family bathes in public toilet because the water supply has been reduced to a trickle and the electricity disconnected. 'I have no money even to buy candles.'"
- Retrenched worker Mdm Dilaram, Straits Times, Apr 12, 2003

"Power supply is not a welfare organisation."
- DPM Lee Hsien Loong, Straits Times, Mar 13, 2003

"More than 3000 Singaporeans have applied for a government assistance scheme in the first two weeks of the year ...but no one has qualified."
- Straits Times, Jan 26, 2003

PM Goh understands our concerns?

During elections:

"I know you are worried about your job and your family's future. I understand your concerns.”
- PM Goh Chok Tong, Straits Times, Oct 20, 2001

After Elections:

“Layoffs not all bad. If there are no retrenchments at all, then I worry for Singapore.”
- PM Goh Chok Tong, Mar 22, 2003

PAP=Pay and Pay?

During elections:

"What it means is that government will have to tax and tax and you will have to pay and pay. If you don't want a Pay and Pay government, better don't vote for the opposition. Vote for the PAP."
- DPM Lee Hsien Loong rebutting opposition's economic proposals, Straits Times, Oct 29 2001

After elections:

"This is the medicine, take it."
- DPM Lee Hsien Loong on the GST hike, CNA, May 15, 2002

PM Goh wanted alternatives?

During elections:

“I would want to form an alternative policies group in Parliament, comprising 20 PAP MPs. These 20 PAP MPs will be free to vote in accordance with what they think of a particular policy.

After elections:

In other words, the whip for them will be lifted. This is not playing politics, this is something which I think is worthwhile doing."
- PM Goh Chok Tong, Straits Times, Nov 3, 2001

"If you sing Jailhouse Rock with your electric guitar when others are playing Beethoven, you are out of order. The whip must be used on you."
- PM Goh Chok Tong in report "Not in people's interest to lift whip", Straits Times, Apr 6, 2002

As it can be seen from the various broke promises above, it is clearly evident that the PAP is not as credible as they say they are. Contrary to media reports in the Straits Times, where the PAP is being potrayed as the most effective, efficient and accountable government, the broken promises that you have just read only serves to illustrate the point that the Singapore system desperately needs someone to check on the government. Furthermore, one should read the Straits Times with a certain skepticism with regard to political reporting and analysis. The best alternative to solve the above predicament is to vote in opposition parties into parliament so as to serve as checks and balances to the ruling party and to expose the faults of the government to the people who voted them into office in the first place, so as to enable these voters to make an informed decision in the next elections.

Power lies in the hands of you and me !

2006-02-26T16:46:00.000+08:00

"Why is it that you always voted for the PAP?", Bernard asked Jonash*

*Jonash is a regular in the Singapore Armed Forces.

Jonash replied with a fearful tone, "Isn't it obvious, there's no way i CAN vote for the opposition namely the Workers' Party(WP), the Singapore Democratic Alliance(SDA) or even the Singapore Democratic Party(SDP)?

Bernard was perplexed. He probed Jonash for the reason. "How come?"

Jonash answered me in a hush-hush tone, "The PAP knows who i vote for, especially
if i voted for the opposition. This will affect my career advancement in the SAF!"

He continued, "My constituency will not be upgraded, the PAP will neglect the welfare of opposition voters. Look at Hougang and Potong Pasir and the point is crystal-clear."

"What bullshit! This is utter rubbish." The PAP doesn't know who you vote for. It's impossible for them to know anything at all" Bernard rebuked.

"Why is that so?" Let me explain why.

On polling day itself, representatives from the various political parties will appoint polling agents to be stationed at the respective polling stations to watch the entire process of voting from 8a.m to 8p.m. Any discrepancies will be promptly reported to the Presiding Officer.

The polling agents will accompany the votes to the counting centres, which is usually the same place as the polling centre where counting agents will witness the unloading of the ballot boxes and witness the vote counting.

All counted votes of the various political parties will be bundled up in stacks of 100 and put back into the original ballot box, whereby it will be sealed by a security seal and countersigned by the counting agents. All discrepancies, if any, will be immedietely reported to the Returning Officer.

The counting agents will then accompany the ballot boxes, after everything is being finalised and checked, to the High Court and placed in a vault to be locked up for 6 months. There's only one key to the vault and only the High Court Judge will hold on to it.

After 6 months, representatives from the political parties involved will be invited to witness the destruction of the all the ballot boxes.

You will be wondering by now as to why i'm writing all this. The reason is very simple. My intention is to alter the mindsets of Singaporeans; educated or not, that every vote being cast is secret. There's a prevalent preception among housewives, civil servants, and even top-level professionals that the PAP can trace your vote and determine who you vote for. Do note that this is a fallacy.

The reason why the election comission have to take down the particulars; i.e. NRIC and address, of every voter is to trace who did not vote since voting is compulsory under the law. It's not to find out who voted for the opposition. Now, do you see the point? The serial number behind every ballot sheet serves the same purpose too.

The secrecy of our vote is enshrined in the Constitution. This will have the effect of assuring Singaporeans that the vote that they hold in their hands is very very powerful. It will determine the entire outcome of the polls. The PAP will not be able to manipulate or influence the entire voting process at all . In this case, the voters will be able to reason rationally the policies of the various parties and come to a conclusion as to which party is better without any mental or psychological block within their mindset.

In conculsion, power lies in the hands of you and me. It's up to us to determine the composition of the next government and its subsquent policies for the next 5 years. "He who domiates over you has only one body, two eyes, two hands, no more than is possessed by the least." Thus, do not connive with the thief to plunder you, do not be the accomplices of the murderer who kills you and lastly do not be a traitor to yourself.

Do spread the message and explain to the people around you that their all empowering vote is secret and do not be afraid to vote for the opposition !

WP Vs PAP

2006-01-29T00:22:00.000+08:00

Looks like the next General Elections(GE) is around the corner with the Workers' Party launching its election manifesto: You have a Choice.

Immediately after the launch, the PAP went on the offensive and rebuke the 4 main points in the manifesto namely,

1. The abolition of ethnic quota for housing

2. Doing away with the elected presidency

3. Eliminating Residents' Committees and Citizens' Consultative Committees

4. Abolishing GRCs.

Are you wondering why did the PAP went on an immediate offensive against the Workers' Party?

Workers' Party Manifesto 2006 - Response to Ministers' Remarks

Why was the WP's response to the issue only available on their website and why was it not even covered on Channelnewsasia(CNA)?

The reason is very simple: The PAP views the WP as its greatest threat to its goal towards complete and total domination of the parliament.

Though Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong admitted to the media that winning back the parliament seat in Hougang and Potong Pasir is not the topmost priority for the PAP in this coming GE, I got this feeling that the PAP wants the parliament seat of Hougang and Potang Pasir back desperately,. This is especially so after narrow victories for the opposition candidates last time round.

By winning back these the 2 seats in Hougang and Potong Pasir, the PAP will see them grabbing all the seats in the parliament and this would keep out the WP's Chairman Low Thia Khiang whom the PAP view as a troublemaker in parliament.

If this would to happen, the basic checks and balances in parliament will be lost for the upcoming five years. The PAP would drool at this prospect!

In short, The PAP sees the Workers' Party as a very credible threat in the next coming election and failure to act early might see the Workers' Party gaining more seats in the next election. The attempt to rebuke the WP's manifesto is a subtle admission by the PAP that it fears the growing strength of the Workers' Party.

Our very own identity?

2006-01-21T19:18:00.000+08:00

I refer to an article in the Straits Times today(Saturday January 21 2006) on MM Lee's concerns about loss of our national identity. In it, MM Lee feared that if more Singaporeans worked abroad and their children forget their roots, there will be "no Singapore node to send them out". " They dissolve and disappear and there is no Singapore...

With regard to this issue, i beg to differ. With due respect to our Minister Mentor, i will rebuke his views and present my very own views on our national identity.

In the 1st place, why is the Minister Mentor talking about a Singapore identity when the 3rd generation of Singaporeans does not even have a national identity??

That's the basis behind my opposition to his comments.

Let me state a few examples over the years to bring across the point that young Singaporeans lack a national self identity.

1. The breaking of government bonds by our very own scholars.

2. The reluctance to sing our national athemn and recite our national pledge during our school days.

3. Ignorance of our young in their understanding our our nation's history, politics, society.

4. A Singaporean male's reluctance to serve national service(In the 1st place, there won't be any debate with regard to draft doggers and AWOL personnel if Singaporans have a strong national identity).
- more often than not, somehow or another, any serviceman who have served in the SAF will definitely know friends or people who had attempted AWOL before and this speaks volume of the level of committment of our servicemen.

Why is this so ? I will now offer 2 main reasons behind this phenomenon which will threaten our nation's very own existence and survival if this blatant lack of national self identity is not stemned out.

a. Our government's flawed education curriculum.

Ever since independence, our leaders realised that in order for our citizens to survive and compete with the international community, our students must be equip with the necessary skills required; and this means the active pursuit of the sciences and mathematics. Over the years, this have led to the neglience of the arts and humanities. The introduction of national education in the mid 1990s is a subtle admission by the PAP government that it had failed to cultivate a sense of national identity and awareness among our students. This in large provides one of the main reason behind this faltering ignorance among our young.

b. The confortable environment that our young have been brought up in

The third generation of Singapreans(citizens born after the year 1980) have never been through the toil and hardship of nation building. The moment they arrived in this island, everything have been "catered" for them; from infrastructure to their daily lives. In a sense, they have failed to experience the actual process of starting the process of nation building from scratch. They indulge in the successes of this island-state and more often than not, take our successes for granted. Thus, this has over the years created a vacuum into our young's identity development. This is totally different from our parents who aappreciate the fruits of their labour and fighting for what they called home.

In short, our young do not have a national self identity, contrary to the views of MM Lee. This is a serious problem and it must be eradicated with vigour and determination or else Singapore faced dissolution and collapse in the event of a national crisis, in which Singaporeans will flee at the smell of any danger.

A Singaporean?

2005-12-28T22:19:00.000+08:00

"Water is a Singaporean's life, education is his wings, and conformity is his soul"

The Leader
281205
2222 hrs

In that case, what's lacking in a Singaporean?

National Identity
Political interest
Tenacity in adversity

Unfair politics.

2005-12-25T21:39:00.000+08:00

Politics in Singapore is unfair and this is mainly due to the the system in which candidates are elected into government once every 5 years.

The PAP government must immediately abolished the system of Group Representation Constituencies(GRCs).

Map of Tyranny ~ !

Singapore is a de-facto one party state because the PAP is able to manipulate the formation of a GRC in is favour. Under a system of a GRC, there is no way the opposition can hope to win seats. This is most prevalent in the 2001 General Elections(GE). 10 out of 14 GRCs were uncontested and 50 candidates returned unopposed to power.(Note: total of 84 seats in parliament), thus making the PAP the majority party even before the elections had even began. 66.8% of eligible votes belonged in walkover constituencies. This is as good as not calling for an election. In a democracy, the people are free to make their own choices and decisions. However, in the case of politics in Singapore, Singaporeans are deprived of this right subtlely.

Another question in which i would daringly posed to the current PAP government is this. How capable are all the 5 candidates that the PAP field in a GRC? There is without a doubt that at least 2 out of the 5 candidates are of a high calibre, based on the fact that they are cabinet ministers and secretaries of states. However, question marks lie over the remaining three candidates. More often than not, they get elected into parliament not based on merit, managment skills or their capabilities, but because the electorate voted for the cabinet minister and the remaining three happened to be there to make up the numbers as required in a GRC.

Even, in power, these "low profile" member of parliaments(MPs) are often over-shadowed by the more senior members in parliament, thus, the electorate would never really know how capable these people are and, was it wise to hand them power in the 1st place.

According to the government, the purpose of forming GRCs lie in the fact that GRCs represent the interests of both the majority and minority social groups within each local community on the island that forms the constituency. Their purpose is to co-ordinate the provision of major services for the combined small estates for better efficiency, and so to overcome the difficulties experienced when smaller electoral constituencies seek to run their own town administrations with more limited resources. The official justification for GRCs is to allow minority representation, as a GRC must contain a certain number of minority race members.

Fair enough argument there by the government but i seek to propose a new arrangement in the poltical structure of electioneering in Singapore, which not only maintain those objectives but also increase competition among candidates.

The PAP government should divide the GRCs into 5 equal proportions, under which one candidate from the government would contest one-on-one with a candidate from the opposition. This mean every candidate would have to battle it out with opposition candidates individually. In this case, the opposition stands a better chance in the elections, but more significantly, there is now a level playing field from which the oppostion could contest.

The PAP could argue that by dividing up the GRC proportionally, the size of the electorate would be greatly reduced that voting becomes insignificant. Interestingly enough, if one were to divide up Jalan Besar GRC(smallest GRC with 92,361 eligible voters), it would still be bigger than the single-member constituency of Potong Pasir with 15,954 eligible voters. So, i see no reason why GRC could not be split up in a proportionate manner.

Moreover, it must also be enforced by law that one of the 5 candidates should be from a minority race. And the overall party that wins in the division would recommend a candidate to the Prime Minister for a cabinet post. Every division should also be overlook by a cabinet minister and all the 5 candidates would have to report to him/her. Under such a revamped system, each elected candidate would have no reason to fail in the running of the Single-Member Ward(SMW) or risked being 'dethroned" in the next coming election.

If it so happens that one of the candidate that the PAP fields lost out to the opposition, then the PAP can do an internal scrutiny looking into why there lost out in that paricular ward. This would only serves to improves and motivates the PAP's rank and file. This applies to the oppostion as well.

As such, it can be seen that a SMW do fulfill the goals that the GRCs serve to achieve in a fair, competitive and free manner and it's high time that the system of a GRC be scraped.

I hereby posed this to the PAP government: Take up the challenge and abolised all 14 GRCs and allowed all capable and aspiring candidates to fight it out without any subtle intervention.

WELCOME !

A terrorist attack on Singapore soil !

2005-12-16T21:37:00.000+08:00

What will happened if a bomb would to go off during the station's peak hour ?

I have been wanting to write this for some time and a trip down Orchard Road today convinced me that it's necessary for me to bring this to the attention of anyone concerned with the security and safety of Singapore and Singaoporeans alike.

Imagine that you are a member of Al-Qaeda/Jemaah Islamiyah, where would you choose in order to inflict a significant and deadly blow to Singapore?

1. The crossjunction in front of Paragon

2. Orchard Train Station

3. Crossjunction facing Wheellock Place

Potential and likely target for the terroists ~!

Why is that so?

1. A terrorist have the intent of infliciting maximum human casulties and injuries and these 3 strategic locations mentioned see tens of thousands of people everyday especially on weekends.

2. The number of foreginers thronging these streets

3. Maximum economic damage - A sudden collapse of our economy is very well on the cards!

4. It's pure value and significance(kinda of like Bali Island resort is to Indonesia

My tool of destruction will be a car fitted with tonnes of TNT and the bomb would go off just as the traffic lights turn red when travellers are about to cross the streets.

Just imgaine the extent of the destruction caused ! No one will be able to stand guard and prevent against this form of attack .

While the Singapore focus its attention on military bases, airbases, jurong island, Changi airport, we should not let our guard down in places such as Orchard Road - Singapore's prime shopping lane.

Singapore cannot afford to have any bombs going off on our soil. Our social fabric, religious harmony, economy prosperity and even political stability is on the line!

A mismangement of the crisis could very well heralded a new form of government in Singapore and the government's legitimacy will be lost. No matter how efficient and uncorrupted the PAP is, one mistake and the popularity and success of the ruling party over the past 40 over years will go up in smoke together with Orchard Road in the event of a terror attack!

However, I would like to raise a point for all Singaporeans to ponder about. How resilient will Singaporeans be in the aftermath of a terror attack?

Freedom of speech and expression in Singapore.

2005-12-10T17:43:00.000+08:00

In his recent interview with the Minister Mentor of Singapore, Simon Elegant & Micheal Elliott, both of them concluded by saying that "Lee's little nation is a testimony to what hard work and discipline can do to improve lives. That, perhaps, is legacy enough. But what a place in history there would be for Lee if his successors prove that Singapore can marry continued economic prosperity to a more open, tolerant, creative, and, yes, messy society—and hence create a new miracle, from which other nations, bigger, more powerful and more potentially frightening than Singapore, could one day learn anew."

"Lee Kuan Yew embodies a uniquely Asian approach to governance that has often been at odds with the democratic principles espoused by many Western politicians. For decades, he has spoken in favor of what has come to be termed "Asian values" (he prefers "Confucian values"), a political philosophy that might be loosely summed up as respect for authority and order, while putting the good of society above that of the individual. His criticisms have focused on the excesses of unfettered democracy—particularly freedom of speech—and the impact they have on the search for economic growth."

This brings me to the issue of how extensive are Singaporeans allowed to voice their views openly, freely and without any fear of persecution.?

Let's turn out attention to the Speakers' corner. When it was 1st set up by the existing government to allow Singaporeans to speak out on any issues, the government would somehow or other expect no dissenting voices from the public with regard to political freedom and expression, notwithstanding the traitor Chee Sonn Juan. It's worth mentioning that one has to report to the police what he/she is gonna say before being granted permission to do so. Where's the freedom in this case? I term the above scenario, censorsed democracy .

Singaporeans are full of ideas, creativity and would love to freely express themselves on any issues or topics, but sadly any issues with regard to race(the racist bloggers), politics, foreign affairs is taboo !

The PAP government should not restrict our desires to speak out; esp. on political reforms, why?

1. The public exchange of ideas with the government serves the purpose of highighting any deficiencies that the existing government have and this would in turn aid the government to initiate changes to improve the current situation.

2. Singaporeans are sensible and independent enough to voice thier views in a responsible manner.

3. The PAP's hold on power is by far too complete(dictatorial?, nepotism?) to be toppled by just mere words.

4. By allowing Singaporeans to speak out freely will provides a sense of belonging to Singapore and what they hold dear and they see themselves very much involved in the process of nation-building.

The government risked creating a boiling cauldron where opposition and dissention threatens to boil over, putting in process a violent change of guard. In this worse case scenario, change will then become inevitable.

Much could be said on this issue, but if the government still do not believe in providing a platform for Singaporeasn to speak out on any particular issue, this could very well signal the death-knell of this regime that we termed as the People's Action Party.

I...

2005-12-07T21:28:00.000+08:00

The Straits Times, Sept 18, 1963

I, being a nationalist and political radical have these to propose:

1. Singapore should banned all Proton cars plying our roads.

2. Singaporeans should not be allowed Malaysians to study, marry, work in Singapore or even emigrate here.

3. All Singaporeans are strongly advised not to marry any Malaysians so as not to dilute our national stock.

4. All Malaysian products are forbidden to step foot in Singapore.

5. Singapore should stop all economic activities and/or investments in Malaysia though Malaysia has been Singapore’s No 1 trading partner since year 2000: We can do without their money!

6. Any form of unofficial communications with Malaysia or any of its citizens is prohibited!

7. The Singapore government should generously reward all sportsmen involved in defeating any Malaysian representatives.

Above are few of the recommendations that I have propose in order to avenge for our humiliation in 1963.

Singapore, unlike what then PM of Malaysia(Tengku Abdul Rahman) preceived, will never crawl back, pleading to be re-admitted to Malaysia.

The Straits Times, Aug 9, 1965

The entire 1963 fiasco is a slap in the face of all Singaporeans. .

Malaysia didn't expected us to perform better than them in so so many aspects from the economy, society to even our external relations with the world.

We no longer need their water; their form of repression and blackmail they exerted on Singapore.

Now it's payback time !

Sanctity of the Water Agreements and the Separation Agreements

Origins, Heritage, Culture...

2005-11-30T13:15:00.000+08:00

I am embarking on a project starting from this very day(301105) to make a small effort in preserving Singapore history, heritage and culture.

1. To preserve our heritage, monuments, culture in writing and pictorial before it disappeared all together.

2.To discover and explore unknown facts surrounding Singapore and its history and heritage.
3. To allow Singaporeans to better understand our history, heritage, and the process of nation-building

Origins of Street Names, Landmarks, Monuments, Historical Sites etc. and where are they now ?

Personnel that have contributed to Singapore;i.e. Governors, Businessmen, Philanthropists etc.

I'm currently looking for interested parties to join me in this endeavor and I would most appreciate anyone who has information, pictures, videos, books etc. that are related to the past or any other useful materials or personnels that would aid me in any way towards fulfilling this dream of mine..

For more information, kindly contact me (Bernard Chen Jiaxi) @ 96788872 or you can choose to email me @ cyberkia@hotmail.com.
Thank you very much.

Is war necessary ?

2005-11-27T19:15:00.000+08:00

Who is the Prime Minister of Singapore

Name the Education Minister of Singapore?

When was Singapore founded?

How old is Singapore?

Looks easy enough I guess, but I would not be surprised that Singapore youths could have diffculty answering such questions relating to the history and all the relevant on-goings in Singapore. Why is this the case?

The education system and the relevant curriculum that Singapore students are exposed to are not inclined towards "nationalising the masses". There's a lack of learning on the history, politics and national issues which constitutes a critical aspect of being a Singaporean. Education forms an important aspect of forging a national identity among Singapore youths.

1. Why were young German men willing to take the instructions of a maniac in the form of Adolf Hilter, and risk their young, precious life on the battlefield?

2. Why is it that Japanese soliders pledge their life to the Emperor and the success of Japan's war effort during the Second World War?

3. Why do Chinese still very much hate the Japanese?

In order to answer the above questions, one only have to look at what the respective governments do with education with the young. From a young age, they were taught to love their country, busk in the achievements of their nation. They were always being reminded of their history, heritage and knowledge of their nation which they hold dear. This is what the Singapore education system is sorely lacking.

Singaporeans, especially the young (3rd generation Singaporeans)lack a sense of national identity!

I propose a radical way to solve this serious problem that might in the long run threaten our very survivial; especially during times of a national crisis and/or diffculties which many Singapore youths are not accustomed to.

We need a war but we should not initiate one.

War is the best tool in the "nationalisation of the masses".

War will be the catalyst for our political and nationalistic awakening. War serves to transform the existing system of individualistic pursuits, uniting the entire population under one cause in the process; to rid our land of enemies and invaders. In short, War acts as a melting pot of regionalism from which a geniunely united Singapore could be forged.

Unless we revamp the education system with respect to nationalistic teachings or we risk having Singaporeans who might, at the end of the day, be shallow, ignorant and even naive.

Canada -- the Problematics of National Identity

Changing of the old guard ...

2005-11-27T11:40:00.000+08:00

Would there be any chance in the foreseeable future that there would be a change of government in Singapore? An examination of some key factors behind the fall of any politcal party would give us a clue to the sustainability of PAP’s rule in Singapore.

1. Disillusionment with the government.
It’s worth noting that any government must keep the faith of the people intact. The role of the government is a simple one: to ensure that there’s peace, progress, development, and the multiplying of wealth within the nation itself. (Bread and butter issues) Failure to do so would only incur the frustration, disillusionment of the masses and this would set the motion of change in place and the eventually downfall of the government is inevitable.

The Great Depression of 1929 made Hitler possible. Without the experience of poverty, the humiliation of Germany, and the upheaval of a total economic meltdown, Hitler would not have rose to power on a wave of popular discontent with the Weimar Republic led by Gustav Stresemann. The German people realized that the Weimar republic could not solve their problems and offer them what they needed, thus the look for an alternative began and ended with the election of Hitler into government. In short, the Weimar Republic had lost all forms of credibility in the eyes of the majority of Germans and it’s time to initiate changes.

Similarly, in Argentina in 2001, we see the effect of a disillusioned populace in initiating the changing of the guard not once but 4 times in a matter of months. The cause of the people’s grievances stemmed from the inability of the government to prevent Argentina from defaulting on its debts, leading eventually to an economic crisis. Confrontations between the police and citizens became a common sight, and fires were also set on Buenos Aires avenues. The violent protests of December 20 and 21, 2001 in Plaza de Mayo, where demonstrators clashed with the police, ended with several dead, and precipitated the fall of the government. President Fernando de la Rúa fled the Casa Rosada in a helicopter on December 21.

2. A Credible Opposition

Sometimes, the only way that there could be changes in the leadership of the nation depends on the opposition themselves. If the opposition is able to potray itself as being better than the ruling party and convince the masses that life would be better under the opposition, then in this case, the opposition stands a great chance in toppling the ruling party.

The way to go about doing this is to present sound arguments which question the ruling party’s ability to run the country. In such a scernario, the ruling party would be answerable to the people and failure to do so, would incur the warth of the people that brought them to power in the 1st place. A look at Thai Rak Thai led by Thaksin in the Thai parliamentary elections of 2001, PAS in Kelantan and Terengganu in the GE of 2001, the British Labour party in 2001, The Republicans led by Bush in 2000, and more recently in Poland this year would more than justify the fact that any party with capable, honest leaders, well-oiled politcal machinery and most important of all, a credible and justifiable challenge to the ruling party could derail the ruling party from power.

Why Thaksin succeeds?

3. Allegiance of the military
Mao Zedong once remarked, “ Power comes out of the barrel of the gun.”

For this instance, the facts will bring across the message that the military is the passport to power.

1936: Part of the army seizes control of parts of Spain commencing the Spanish Civil War. Later General Francisco Franco assumes control of the country.

1937: Brazilian president Getúlio Vargas, governating democratically until then, launches a self-coup and becomes the Dictator of Brazilian Estado Novo.

1943: Military coup in Argentina leads to the ascent of extremely popular President Juan Perón.

1958: Military coup in Pakistan. Army Chief and Defence Minister Gen. Ayub Khan overthrows the government of Iskander Mirza and becomes President after a winning a rigged referendum.

1973: Military coup in Chile. The democratically elected Marxist president Salvador Allende is replaced by the military dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet.

1999: Military coup in Pakistan. Army refuses to obey Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's government. General Pervez Musharraf becomes dictator (with the title "Chief Executive") and exiles Nawaz Sharif to Saudi Arabia.

2005: Military coup in Mauritania overthrows president Maaouya Ould Sid'Ahmed Taya, who came to power after a coup, in 1984.

Thus, in a nutshell, it is highly impossible that the PAP will lose power any time soon. Their stranghold on power would not be very much affected by the weak and ineffectual opposition in Singapore. As long as Singapore doesn't plunges into an unprecedented economic collapse (remember the PAP lost the most number of seats during the 1997 GE; the year of the Asian Financial crisis) where the livelihood of every Singaporeans is affected on a widespread and lasting scale, the PAP will contiune as the paramount and supreme leader of Singapore, unless of course the military decides to take things into thier own hands.

*The motion of a revolution is in place. A change is now very much inevitable !

One day, we will rise !

REvolution !

2005-11-26T00:39:00.000+08:00

Welcome to http://conformityisdead.blogspot.com. - The most radical political blog in Singapore.

The entire site is under heavy construction.

Appreciate your understanding in making this the most controvesial blog.