Useless rantings of a few disgruntled S'poreans...

When a strongman leaves ...

2008-07-26T12:12:00.002+08:00

From Today:
When a strongman leaves ...

IT IS not uncommon for countries that appeared after the fall of colonialism, and which started out with democratic ideals embedded in their Constitutions, to nevertheless evolve successively towards an authoritarian style of government and nation-building.

In Malaysia’s case, this process culminated in the22-year-long period under Dr Mahathir Mohamad (picture). There was, therefore, great optimism and even greater relief in the air when this “strongman” figure, perhaps to his everlasting credit, actually retired in October 2003. Such politicians tend to stay in power until they expire.

It was thus at such a historical point in history thatMr Abdullah Badawi stepped onto centre stage, and became the country’s fifth Prime Minister. The hopes of Malaysian society at that time were so high, and so desperate, that the only leader who could take full advantage of the social dynamics released byDr Mahathir’s retirement was one who promised far-reaching reforms.

There was no room for more “strongman politics”, only room for the rectification of the damage done by the foregoing authoritarianism. Despite the same party and the same coalition remaining in power,Dr Mahathir’s successor had to be one who was responsive to the citizens demands, and who realised that the alternative to Mahathirism was healthy institutions.

Mr Abdullah knew this well enough to make all the right moves in the first months of his mandate. Calling on Malaysians “to work with me”, he stopped mega-projects, began cutting down on the budget deficit, started corruption proceedings against certain individuals and founded institutions to promote “integrity”.

As a result, Mr Abdullah enjoyed the highest level of popularity in Malaysian history in 2004 and his critics kept silent, purportedly to give him a chance to show his worth. The only way for Dr Mahathir’s successor to retain legitimacy was to live up to the expectations that Mr Abdullah himself had formulated.

But in the long run, he failed to deliver. In dismal disappointment, voters decided to punish him, his party and the ruling coalition during the March 8 general elections.

Cautious comparisons to the fate of other polities may be useful. Taiwan comes to mind. Mr Chiang Ching-kuo, who governed the island for over a decade after his father Chiang Kai-shek died in 1976, decided in 1987 to dismantle the tottering system that the Kuomintang had harshly put in place in 1949. The island left authoritarianism behind and became a democracy, leading subsequently to loss of power by the dominant party.

This is one success story where the successor to a strongman politician finally realises the historical limitations of the system and the party, and “executes a coup d’etat on himself”, as it were, and allows a more dynamic system to take its place, even to the transitional detriment of the party itself.

A good example of a failed succession to a strongman politician is Yugoslavia, where Marshall Josip Broz Tito was in power from 1945 to 1980. After his death in 1980, increasing ethnic rivalry and struggles for power in the region led finally to genocide and to the bloody break-up of the republic into several smaller states.

In Malaysia’s case, the historical role of Premier Abdullah was the difficult one of honestly realising the untenability of the system, and of healing the institutions whose integrity had been badly undermined during the Mahathir years. He had to execute a coup d’etat on himself, as it were.

This he failed to do, largely because that would have meant him allowing changes that would have been transitionally detrimental to the dominant party, the United Malays National Organisation (Umno).

Mr Abdullah had not been rebuilding institutions quickly enough or seriously enough and at the same time, he was certainly not a strongman either. Not knowing what to make of this lack of direction, voters overcame their normal fear of radical change and attempted to kick his administration out.

The situation after March 8 is a much more complicated one. What Mr Abdullah had failed to do, others will now try to do in their own way. And because Umno would not allow the required changes, it is now being forced to transform itself.

Mr Abdullah’s second mandate is therefore essentially different from his first. Umno’s dominance is basically broken; the coalition that had exhibited such hubris before the elections is now in disarray and riddled with distrust; and state level politics is now pluralistic and competitive in nature.

What the federal government failed to do, the state governments under opposition parties are now committed to doing. The political contentions from now on will be about what institutions should be built or rebuilt, and the order in which this should happen.

On that front, the weakness of the alternative coalition — the Pakatan Rakyat — lies in the potential conflict between the Parti Islam SeMalaysia (PAS) that wants a more Islamist society and the Democratic Action Party (DAP) that champions secularism. Mr Anwar Ibrahim’s Parti Keadilan Rakyat risks being caught in the middle.

Mr Abdullah and Umno’s weakness is basically their inability to change, especially while under challenge. The many years in dominance has stiffened them, there is too much face to be lost and new ways of thought have yet to permeate the party.

The wind is blowing against him and the party and the fear is that, whatever policies they may think up from here on are done for the sake of their staying in power and not for the sake of the future strength and stability of the country.

The writer is a Fellow at the Institute of South-east Asian Studies. He is the author of Lost in Transition: Malaysia under Abdullah (SIRD and Iseas 2008).

A Rallying Cry From Atheists

2008-03-16T21:48:00.003+08:00

Written by my atheist friends from a local Singapore Atheist Group, Atheisthaven:

Atheism is an abject failure.

As atheists we are in a unique situation. While we are ostracized,
marginalized, persecuted, prosecuted, abused and generally deprived of
our rights by unsympathetic regimes and autocratic systems in the real
world, it is in cyberspace where we can express ourselves freely to
some substantial degree. It is in this virtual realm that we dare
challenge theists and other proponents of illogicality and come away
truly victorious.

However, these victories, impressive as they are, cannot but feel
hollow. For all the reasoning and logic which made us, dare I say it,
ubermensch, we are unable to demonstrate our superiority where it
really matters. Dawkins and Hitchens might have made the world stand
up in recognition of the fallacies of religion, but is this
proliferation of truth and rationality changing the way people really
behave?

Sadly, the answer is no. Superstition still holds sway. To many,
atheism is a passing fad. People remain attached to their cherished
beliefs. After all, knowing the truth does not equate its acceptance.
Not only do people want to believe in something, they need to feel
wanted. Religion provides a very strong support in satisfying this
emotional need, as evident by the number of support groups, cell
groups, social and community structures the religious have put
together to bind its adherents.

It must be intoxicating knowing that `Someone' will always love you.
That `Someone' will look after you in every situation and never falter
in His efforts. To have this preposterous notion `validated' by your
fellow humans who actually help you in times of difficulties while the
`Someone' never makes an appearance must seem an affirmation to the
desperate. What religion does so effectively is to make each and
everyone of its followers feel special. Logic goes out of the window
in the face of this compelling emotional assault. It is an irony,
considering that rationality is painted over by a very real human need
which in turn is satisfied by an illusion instead.

This is where atheism fails so miserably. Atheists do not help each
other just because they believe in the same creed. The theists,
however, do so because their doctrine specifically wills it. For all
our arguments and justifications we do not deign to help one another
because we take the point of `not giving a damn about God' one step
further to include ourselves. I see friends who are Christians support
each other within their own church and cell groups. What do I see when
I look upon my fellow atheists?

Theist : 1 Atheist : 0.

Our endless debates with theists achieve little. We are wasting
precious time trying to convince people who do not want to be
convinced. People would rather live a happier life believing in a lie
than accept things as they really are and being less happy as a
result. Reading about the articles atheists post on the Internet makes
me think that all these well-meaning writers want are to amass as many
hits for their sites and to comment favorably on each other's writings
in the hope that the praised party, overjoyed at being appreciated,
would return the favor. We hide behind monikers like `infidel' and
`heretic', perhaps to impart some perceived quality in our cause, but
we do not back our words with concrete action. I have more respect for
the religious folk (the non-violent ones) who preach their gospel and
live their life accordingly than for self-proclaimed atheists who
cannot even be bothered to scrap their addled brains off the computer
screen to think: I am an atheist. What does this mean? What do I do?

Atheism is on precarious ground in this respect. And it is time to
stop the rot.

We must acknowledge that we are on our own. We have no god(s), no
temples, no institutions and nothing to rely upon. Social structure
and cultural norms, influenced to some extent by religion does not
give the atheist credence. In many parts of the world, atheism is
punishable by stoning. In more civilized climates, a priest who
incites violence against non-believers is at the most given a slap on
the wrist – he might even be lauded for his sense of justice. But an
atheist who gives credible reasons for his rejection of religion, and
quotes from reliable sources – he is making `seditious' remarks and
persecuted for being `anti-religion' . It is obscene. You can say that
people are treated equally in these modern times, but you cannot deny
that some are more equal than others.

In view of the many difficulties atheists face, I propose we take care
of our own. And we can do this through support groups.

A support group need not have a club-house or a fixed physical
location where members can convene. We can host a bulletin board
(forum) in cyberspace, much like what Atheisthaven is doing. However,
instead of `ghost members' and people who pack only rhetoric and
little else, such a group must consist of dedicated individuals who
genuinely want to make a difference. While we do not restrict the
membership to atheists (the non-religious, freethinkers, agnostics,
even Buddhists - especially those leaning towards a philosophical
bent may join), members must be committed. As this commitment takes
the form of certain obligations, we want positive individuals who
truly believe in improving themselves and others. Atheism by its own
nature, promotes self-reliance and an internal locus of control. All
efforts should have an egalitarian spirit in its core, mutual aid as
its strength, and self-actualization its ultimate goal.

This is strictly an informal group. No membership fee is required. We
only ask that members make an effort to know each other and to
interact, preferably face-to-face. This fosters cohesiveness which is
very important because people tend to help their own friends than
relative strangers.

What form should this aid take? At the most basic level, information
exchange. People who have questions can post them on the group site,
and those with the answers can promptly reply. Questions can range
from anything – potential job openings, which university to choose,
even where to get the best bargains! At a deeper level, members can
work on some task together or maybe enjoy a little soiree.

While we encourage members to look after each other's interests, we do
not look kindly to people who join for ulterior motives. This is not a
MLM (multi-level- marketing) scam, nor is it a dating agency. Promoting
any political agenda is also a no-no. In a nutshell, the group is
similar to a normal theist cell group, minus the praying and speaking
in tongues. Think of it as a secular social network, where normal
people (without a faith) make friends and chill out.

We must succeed in this endeavor. If sodden theists can organize
themselves, it would be a crying shame if intelligent atheists cannot
even produce a similar response. The time has passed for talking. Let
us show people that we are capable of doing great things, even without
divine edicts… because In Humanity We Trust.

Liu Weixian and Liang Xianghong
- 14/03/2008

School Principal Bans Non-Halal Food In School Canteen; Students to Eat Halal Pork Instead?

2008-03-13T15:52:00.001+08:00

Food, Glorious Food: Unfortunately, Religion Loves To Bastardize It

More often than not, Religion loves to enforce its culinary rules upon the secular masses: Hindus, for example, don't eat beef (Sacred cows, according to Mark Twain, do make the best burger), Muslims and Jews frown upon pork as if it is some form of a horror freak show (Quite frankly, I think pork is divine!), and Buddhists just about avoid all forms of meat altogether, preferring to adhere to a strict, miserable diet of leaves and shoots (yes, kind of like a panda bear, minus the dark rings around the eyes).

As far as living things go, the need to feed is a definite given: We need food for sustenance, and some of us, including myself, are food connoisseurs who are not exactly biased about the food we eat, as long as it is edible, succulent and delectable. Nonetheless, I, as well as most secular people, understand that some facets of society love to apply their religious prejudices against certain food sources, and no, we are not usually inclined to debunk their myths and prejudices (Other than a snide remark here and there), unless, of course, some insipid moron decides to apply his religiously-slanted palates upon the common masses, as this addle-brained principal of a government school in Singapore surely did.

School's 'halal zone' ruling causes stir
Parents upset; MOE says school's decision wrong; principal reverses his position By Sandra Davie, Education Correspondent
Feb 5, 2008

A PRIMARY school in Jurong West that upset non-Muslim parents by insisting that only halal food could be eaten or taken into its canteen will now overturn its policy.

The Ministry of Education (MOE) told The Straits Times yesterday that Boon Lay Garden Primary had made a mistake, and would let its pupils' parents know.

In a letter to all parents last Friday, principal Wan Imran Woojdy said that since the school canteen had been certified halal, children would not be allowed to bring non-halal food onto the premises.

The school security guard and discipline master had also been checking lunch boxes since last week to ensure pupils complied.

About 20 per cent of the school's 1,700 pupils are Muslims.

Halal refers to what is permissible for consumption by Muslims. A product is not halal if it contains, for example, pork or alcohol, both forbidden to Muslims. Boon Lay Garden Primary's move to declare its canteen a halal zone left some non-Muslim parents unhappy.

Three who spoke to The Straits Times said they did not mind that the school canteen sold only halal food, but they felt the ban on taking in non-halal food amounted to discrimination.

Madam Esther Chia, 36, who has two daughters in the school, said one of them resorted to hiding a pork floss bun in her pocket last week to avoid being caught for flouting the new rule.

Another parent, Mr Edward Ang, said: 'I have nothing against the school stalls selling only halal food, but they shouldn't restrict kids from eating non-halal food.'

When contacted earlier yesterday, principal Imran said the rule forbidding non-halal food in the canteen had been in place since 2002, when all eight food stalls were certified halal by the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (Muis).

He said that the school decided to enforce the rule as it had a new canteen contractor and had to get recertified by Muis.

'We decided to make the whole canteen halal to provide a common eating space for all our children, whatever their race,' he said.

Enforcing Bigotry In The School Canteen

When religious people keep whining about why us secular folks often complain and scoff against their religions, such an incident are stark reminders that if ordinary folks don't wake up and smell the coffee, all too often, religious zealots (And sadly, this time round, it is a school principal) will sneak through just about every tiny crook and cranny to impose their religious laws upon the secularity of government institutions.

In this case, virtually every stall in this particular government school has pandered to the demands of a distinct, Muslim minority by getting their food certified as "halal". While I doubt this has anything to do with political or religious pressuring from school authorities (This, I suspect, is one of the ways stall vendors can earn more money by catering to Muslim children), the principal has nonetheless made use of this paradigm shift to enforce his Syariah-inspired diet upon all and sundry.

And yes, like our good old parochial government, he has the temerity to enforce a ban on non-halal food, a-la "banning the chewing gum" style that has made us the butt of all American jokes: Open your bag kiddo.....holy shit, what the hell is this? Barbecued pork? Be prepared to roast in Allah's hell, kiddo! God hates pork!

By insisting on halal-only food in a school canteen, what kind of a message is the school board sending to the kids? That we are a bigoted Islamic country, where women cannot even be seen in the public eye without a head-to-toe burkha, and crimes are punishable by stoning and amputation? Or is this yet another sinister campaign to sneak more Islamic "values" into our secular system?

Thank goodness, then, that the parents of these kids were disgruntled enough to complain to the Ministry of Education about this errant, bigoted principal. Goodness knows what would happen if they didn't complain: The principal might insist on applying the customary "stoning the disobedient children" on disobedient students.

Halal Pork?

If school authorities in Singapore persist on applying Syariah laws in school canteens, perhaps I might offer a brilliant suggestion for these beleaguered kids who, like me, have a penchant for good ole bacon:

Goodness Me! Its Halal Pork!!!

Remove those stickers from the halal food shelves that sell halal food, and stick them to their pork-filled food packages. That might just elude the nosy school disciple master, or that zanny fundie school principal, from denying the right to eat pork (As if these authorities even have the right to pry into the lunch boxes of kids in the first place!).

-“Pork - no animal is more used for nourishment and none more indispensable in the kitchen; employed either fresh or salt, all is useful, even to its bristles and its blood; it is the superfluous riches of the farmer, and helps to pay the rent of the cottager.”

Alexis Soyer 19th century French chef.

The Dreadfulness of Death & The Unhealthy Expectation of An Afterlife

2008-03-12T18:50:00.000+08:00

Like any other species on this planet, human beings are ardent survivors in a challenging environment. Evolution has bestowed upon us the gift of a more exceptional brain than our primate counterparts, allowing us to break away from most of the trials and tribulations which almost every species on Earth has to contend with: Without our superior technology, Man will most likely be at the mercy of ferocious beasts (and they still do: occasionally, and sometimes quite often, stories of humans being bitten and eaten by animals remind us that without our fancy blink-blinks and weaponry, we are as vulnerable as suckling babies) in the natural environment.

Because of our inane sophistry, most of us live in relative safety and comfort: Our homes protect us from the savage elements of Mother Nature. City dwellers purchase their food from the supermarkets, much of it derived from agriculture and farming, hence negating the need to hunt for food. We are insulated from pretty much the worst whims of Mother Nature, and in that respect Man has more or less detached himself from Nature and her food chain.

This detachment, it seems, has become etched into our human consciousness over the sands of time: As an almost separate entity (At least we like to think of it along this superior train of thought), human beings have become obsessed with achieving a higher form of consciousness, or truth, if you will. We start to question and reason within and without, something which lower orders of animals, preoccupied with the more mundane affairs pertaining to life and death, couldn't have done. Our technologies and advancements derived from our ingenuity and civilized way of life began to give way to human ego: Since we are so god-damned special and high-strung, couldn't it be possible, that perhaps, we can completely escape the ignominous fate that hangs upon every living creature and organism, the very ominous clouds of impending doom which we call Death?

Religion, Death & The Afterlife

Death's Advocate: The Grim Reaper

Death is defined as the cessation of life: Quite clearly, death is comparable to a full-stop in a single sentence. A single sentence will still resume after a comma, which represents a single pause, but a full stop spells the inevitable end. Death works the same way: When life ceases to continue, death becomes the inevitable end to life. From the tiniest of microbes to living human beings, death is an inescapable fate of living things.

And it is this end that as a species, humans seem to have trouble grasping, perhaps out of an understandable fear of death, or the implication of the human ego. As superior creatures on this Earthly domain, we like to think that we can somehow transcend death, even if it means believing in a more superior deity who shows an affable affinity and love for us. In order to vindicate this incredulous idea, we devise religions crisscrossing every culture on this planet, with their elaborate rituals and dogma, so as to give a legitimate front to the absurd idea that death is not the omega of life.

It is with this unhealthy obsession and fear of death that religion exploits to the fullest: Heaven becomes an utopia of eternal enjoyment, as contrasted by the dichotomy of hell's searing inferno.

An Unhealthy Fear of Death & The Obsession of the Afterlife

To be brutally honest, every sane person & sane creature harbors some form of fear towards the spectra of death. An animal which is dead can no longer propagate its genes, much less enjoy the fruits of it's labor. In short, a healthy fear of death is a good sign: It simply translates into some form of awareness or defense against external threats, & it is with this in mind that fear becomes an extremely viable tool for survival.

Yet, like almost every other genetic traits or memes, there is a downside to an overdose: The idea that death renders life finite becomes so preposterous to a mind that is closed to the possibility of death, that we begin to let our imaginations take root, instead of searching for new frontiers such as medicine to prolong life and eradicate disease instead.

Cue religion. With its army of charlatans, soothsayers and doom sayers, Religion feasts upon Gullibility, which in turn is a bastard child of Fear, the pantheons of deities begin to manifest itself, dominating our psyches with fairy tales and searing our consciousness with unhappy delusions and trepidations of an afterlife in eternal abyss, all of which are undue punishments pandered out by the respective religions to buy allegiance into their expanding flock.

If a person becomes unduly besotted with the afterlife, then the person ceases to regard this life with due reverence: After all, why be caught up with the mundane affairs of mere mortals, when I shall be able to inherit an eternal body (or soul) which will allow me to live for an eternity? If one is to believe in the rewards of eternal bliss, the tawdriness of a mortal life seems to pale in comparison with such a wondrous utopia of eternal, heavenly bliss.

The Dangers of Believing In An Afterlife

It is with this notion and unfounded triviality towards the only life we are supposed to expect, that terrorists and crooks who don the sacred beliefs of their respective Gods have been able to kill with almost wild abandon, with no regards to the lives they take (infidels, are, after all, unworthy of any redemption) as well as theirs.

Ask any hardcore terrorist who is about to blow himself up with a self-attached bomb in a civilian-crowded bus, albeit a Jewish one, and the expected answer will be the sight of 72, glistening hymens belonging to the God-bestowed virgins in paradise. The most abhorrent and horrendous of ideas, martyrdom is nonetheless a powerful tool for people to willingly blow themselves up, along with their enemies, into smithereens, and one can hardly be expected to carry out such acts of self-immolation without invoking some form of reward in the afterlife.

Accepting The Inevitable & Striving For Emancipation

If anything else, history has shown us that most, if not all ideas borne out of fear are usually poor concepts which are detrimental to society in general.

While death is an unpleasant fact of life, we should not expect to live beyond this ultimate threshold, anymore than a person should expect to survive a fall off the edge of the cliff and still emerge unscathed.

Rather than become transfixed with the prospect of an eternal life, medical science and technology should be harnessed to prolong life as well as enhancing the quality of life.

With this rational realization in mind, we will be better equipped to live this life to the fullest: There is but one life, live it, and live it well. Be nice to your loved ones, and they will be nice to you. There is nothing intrinsically difficult about such ideals that we need to invoke some deity to teach us to learn such social behavior. We are, after all superior creatures, and that itself should give us the impetus to live a emancipated life without any unnecessary delusions and unfounded fears about the supernatural.

"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."

-Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), in 1787 letter to his nephew

China Health Minister: Healthcare system should not be directed by the market

2008-01-04T01:07:00.000+08:00

Change China to Singapore and this article will be a direct rebuttal to S'pore government's effort to commercialize and semi-privatize our healthcare system.

中国卫生部长：　医疗卫生体制不应以市场为导向

沈泽玮（整理）

　　（北京综合讯）中国的医疗业不能由市场力量来支配，因为这将导致资源分配不均、社会不公，广大贫困农村居民的福利往往被忽视。

　　路透社报道，中国卫生部部长陈竺和党组书记高强在最新一期的中共党刊《求是》杂志上发表联名文章，指出医疗卫生体制不应以市场为导向。相反地，政府应该在医疗卫生领域投入更多资金，医疗卫生业的改革也应由政府主导。

　　报道说，自从中国政府在30年前启动经济改革后，原本从人出生到死都照顾到的福利制度被肢解，使数以百万计未能从经济发展中获益的民众陷入巨大困境，看病或住院的费用，很多人负担不起。

　　看病难加上医疗体系的腐败，形成了社会不稳定的因素。

　　报道指出，世界卫生组织总干事陈冯富珍去年下半年表示，虽然收入上升，但中国部分农村居民的健康逐步恶化，商业化的医疗体系使医药费大涨，大大加重了农村居民的负担。

　　陈竺和高强在《求是》杂志上发表的文章就指出，改革开放以来，中国医疗卫生事业发展取得了巨大成就，国民的健康水平显著提高，但也出现了“一些突出的矛盾和问题”。

　　文章说：“这些矛盾和问题的产生与我们对于卫生事业的发展存在一些模糊认识有着密切的联系。”

　　文章指出，“模糊认识”包括，“对医疗卫生事业的基础性地位认识不足，忽视了政府对于保障人人享有基本医疗卫生服务的主导作用”，“认为在社会主义市场经济条件下，应该建立以市场为导向的医疗卫生体制，靠市场解决群众的看病就医问题，把经济体制改革的经验照搬到卫生领域”。

　　文章同时指，在卫生领域实行承包、分成，不但淡化了医疗卫生事业的公益性质，也强化了追求经济利益的倾向，加重了群众的负担。

此外，在强调经济效益的同时，也忽视了社会效益和公平原则，导致优质卫生资源过多流向大城市和大医院，造成资源配置严重失衡。

　　不过，路透社报道指，陈竺和高强并没有完全排除市场力量在医疗改革中所可能发挥的作用。两人在文章中表示，政府欢迎发展商业健康保险，以减轻医疗卫生体系的负担。两人也称，鼓励国内外社会资金依法创办医疗机构，不过并未说明细节。

　　另据中新网报道，陈竺和高强在文章中提出，将实施“健康中国2020”战略，到2020年建立起比较完善的基本医疗卫生制度，让全民健康水平接近中等发达国家。

　　报道说，“健康中国2020”战略是从现在起到2020年的卫生发展中长期规划，实现以“健康促小康”、以“小康保健康”的重要战略，实现人人享有基本医疗卫生服务的目标。

　　这一战略会分三步走：第一步到2010年，初步建立覆盖城乡居民的基本医疗卫生制度框架；第二步到2015年，使中国医疗卫生服务和保健水平位于发展中国家的前列；第三步到2020年，建立起比较完善、覆盖城乡居民的基本医疗卫生制度，全民健康水平接近中等发达国家。

Facts on the ground more eloquent than statistics: Ngiam

2007-12-10T10:52:00.000+08:00

Facts on the ground more eloquent than statistics: Ngiam

Loh Chee Kong
cheekong@mediacorp.com.sg

MORE than four decades ago, former top civil servant Ngiam Tong Dow — then a young public officer in the Finance Ministry — was tagging along with former Deputy Prime Minister Dr Goh Keng Swee at a high-level United Nations meeting in Thailand.

After dinner one day during the discussion at the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East, the minister insisted that a bemused Mr Ngiam follow him on an evening walk through the streets of Bangkok.

"After sweating up and down the hot and dusty pavements of the street in front of our hotel, I plucked up enough courage to ask Dr Goh what was the purpose of the exercise," said Mr Ngiam last Saturday at the National University of Singapore's Economics Alumni inaugural annual dinner. The event was attended by about 100 alumni from various years.

As it turned out, Dr Goh — widely regarded as Singapore's economic wizard — wanted to see "whether the shops were well stocked" in order to satisfy himself with the economic statistics put forth by the Bank of Thailand.

Mr Ngiam, now 70, also recalled how Dr Albert Winsemius, Singapore's first economics adviser, got his grandson to plot the changes in the number of job advertisements in the newspaper.

The chart his grandson produced "told him far more about the state of the Singapore economy than all the economic statistics I dutifully sent him each month", said Mr Ngiam.

Mr Ngiam was underlining the pitfalls of over-reliance on economic statistics without reality checks, especially in today's age of super-computers.

Another potential trap is how Singapore's "robust brand" of economics could turn out to be myopic, said Mr Ngiam.

Questioning the Monetary Authority of Singapore's use of the exchange rate as the key monetary policy instrument — while eschewing the interest rate as a tool — Mr Ngiam said that long-term growth could only be sustained by increases in productivity.

While wages here have skyrocketed in the last few months, economists have expressed concern over the sluggish growth in productivity.

Describing the Republic's productivity performance as "mediocre", Mr Ngiam pointed out how Singapore's Gross Domestic Product has expanded "largely on infusions of foreign labour".

Said Mr Ngiam: "MAS' catchphrase in its half-yearly review is that it will allow a modest appreciation of the Singapore dollar over time. Such a policy stance is realistic only if there is steady increase in our productivity growth."

And such shortsightedness has come back to haunt Singapore in some instances, Mr Ngiam added.

For example, the ongoing retrofitting of lifts to stop on every floor in HDB blocks is costing the Government "much more" than the intended "marginal" savings when it decided in the early years that the lifts should stop on alternate floors.

And even the top brains can sometimes be wrong — as evidenced by the "great MRT debate" of the mid-1970s, said Mr Ngiam.

Back then, a "powerful" team of Harvard economists assembled by the Finance Ministry had argued for an all-bus transport network instead of a bus-rail mass rapid transit system.

Dr Goh also argued that an all-bus system would be less risky than the $5 billion MRT system as the bus fleets "can expand incrementally bus by bus".

"It was a disruptive piece of reasoning," said Mr Ngiam, who had argued for a rail-based network on the basis that it would provide access to the whole island and push up property prices.

"The increase in the collection of property taxes would probably pay for the total cost of $5 billion to build the initial system," said Mr Ngiam, who added that the Government's final decision to build the MRT has been vindicated.

Reiterating that population issues are the most pressing concerns, cutting across the social, economic and political spheres, Mr Ngiam said he feared that "the tipping point of procreation has been reached" and falling birth rates "cannot be easily reversed".

While he confessed that he was "not clued up enough" to have a complete understanding of the current population policy, Mr Ngiam repeated his concern — which he first made in a People's Action Party newsletter last month — that Singapore should not be obsessed with bumping up the population for economic purposes, given the advances in technology and education standards.

Said Mr Ngiam: "The civil service is more adept at achieving quantitative than qualitative targets. Topping up our population en masse with immigrants may well create a population base larger than what our economy can sustain."

If you are a "nobody", you "will go hungry".

2007-12-06T01:32:00.000+08:00

Check out this article Mr Balakrishnan, I think what you meant is that if you are a "nobody", you "will go hungry"

Nobody will go hungry: Balakrishnan

Plans for CCCs to get more funds to help the needy

Sheralyn Tay
sheralyn@mediacorp.com.sg

MORE MONEY for the needy, whenever and wherever it is needed.

And towards that end, the Government is considering an injection of funds into the Citizens Consultative Councils (CCCs), following a review.

This is in a bid to ensure that no Singaporean is left behind even as the cost of living inevitably creeps upward, said Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) Dr Vivian Balakrishnan at a community dialogue session yesterday.

The candid discussion — which followed a ministerial walkabout at Changi-Simei — saw, unsurprisingly, many residents highlighting the issue of rising costs.

Acknowledging their concerns, Dr Balakrishnan reassured them that his ministry was monitoring the situation closely and was planning a review of community-level funding. "What we are thinking of right now is to make sure that grassroots organisations, in particular the CCCs, will have sufficient funds so that they can roll out additional assistance programmes," he said.

This can be in the form of more outreach programmes or vouchers for food and cash, Dr Balakrishnan added, saying that "this will make sure that we can give the assurance that nobody will go hungry".

Plans for the funding review are at "formulation stage" and more details will be shared at the next Budget session, he added.

Dr Balakrishnan also noted that the number of appeals to Community Development Councils and CCCs have gone down overall partly due to the buoyant economy, but he also said that some segments do not benefit from the upswing.

Currently, each of the 84 CCCs gets an average of about $42,000 a year and this is usually enough, he said, but a review would help ensure that funds are available should the need arise. This would especially be the case for CCCs with a larger pool of needy residents, such as Kreta Ayer, which has a disproportionate share of elderly and low-income residents.

Another area of focus is to ensure that children are not denied educational opportunities because their families cannot afford it, said Dr Balakrishnan. "In that area I am prepared to be more generous and to make sure that whatever happens with inflation or the economic front, that these children have optimal social environments in which to grow up in."

With the good economy and unemployment at a record low, Dr Balakrishnan said it was timely to ensure these social safety nets are in place so that society can withstand the pressures caused by rising costs and other challenges.

He also said that Commcare Call — a universal helpline service announced by MCYS Minister of State Mrs Yu-Foo Yee-Shoon earlier this year — would be set up to offer assistance for those who do not know where to go for help.

The toll-free 24-hour number, 1800-222-0000, which is now being tested, will go "live" next month and will be an integrated system — connected to all the relevant community agencies and organisations — to make sure that appropriate help is delivered in a timely and customised way, said Dr Balakrishnan.

These moves are to signal that his ministry "can and will do more" to ensure that help is "flexible, responsive and available", he said.

Ultimately though, he noted, it is cooperation from all sides — the Government, grassroots organisations and citizens — that will ensure that no one falls through the cracks.

Speakers Cornered - Complete video now unleashed

2007-12-04T08:05:00.000+08:00

By Martyn See

We can barely stay afloat, say low-income folk

2007-12-02T14:40:00.000+08:00

Singapore is in Golden Age, but Golden Age for Whom?

Definitely not for Mr Sim...

LIVING ON PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, Mr Sim Boon Choon, 68, keeps his lights switched off in his one-room flat at night and has stopped eating out for all his meals to save money. But even then, he runs out of cash before the month is up. -- ST PHOTO: WANG HUI FEN

According to Eagle2004,

The theory of Marxism considers capitalism as exploitation of the working
class i.e. proletariat, by the capitalists i.e. bourgeoisie, who control the means of production.

How does this exploitation happen? The working class, have no choice except to find work to survive, since they have no ownership of the factors of production.

The proletariat become the workers for the capitalist, slave for him & produce goods/services. Whatever they produce is the property of the capitalist, who sells them, & gets a certain amount of money in exchange.

A part of the wealth produced is used to pay the workers' salaries, & the surplus i.e extra becomes the capitalist's profit. As such, the capitalist earns money from the work of his staff (without doing any actual work himself).

Those who actually do the work, do not enjoy the rewards, & that is exploitation in teh eyes of the Marxists. They argue that capitalists make their money by exploiting the working classes.

Sounds familiar? Most of us are the mere cogs in the giant machinery of S'pore Inc.

Dec 2, 2007

We can barely stay afloat, say low-income folk

Some MPs and social workers say pleas for financial aid from poorer residents are growing louder and more frequent with the rising cost of living
By Jamie Ee Wen Wei and Nur Dianah Suhaimi

ADMINISTRATIVE assistant Noor Zeen earns $1,350 a month and has not paid her utility bills for the past four months.

Prices of everyday goods have gone up and she finds that she no longer earns enough to cover household expenses.

The 28-year-old divorcee said her monthly utility bill alone has gone up by at least $20. The breadwinner in her family, she lives in a four-room flat in Hougang with her mother, her eight-year-old son and her late aunt's two children.

Cash-strapped and with unpaid utility bills of about $600, Madam Noor asked her MP, Madam Cynthia Phua (Aljunied GRC), for financial help last week.

After the soft-spoken woman poured out her financial woes, Madam Phua put her on short-term financial assistance that will provide her with $200 for the next three months.

The economy may be buoyant, but low-wage earners such as Madam Noor have been telling MPs and social workers that they can barely stay afloat because the cost of living has been going up.

These workers say that their wages are not rising as fast as inflation.

In October, inflation rose to a 16-year high of 3.6 per cent. Two months ago, prices of food staples such as bread and noodles went up by 20 per cent. Soaring oil prices have also driven up pump prices and electricity tariffs.

Median monthly starting pay for cleaners and labourers has in fact fallen by nearly one-third, from $860 to $600, between 1996 and last year.

=> And PAP still want to import more so-called FTs to depress their wages?!

Twelve MPs and social workers interviewed said pleas for financial help from residents are growing louder but most could not give figures.

In Jalan Besar GRC, MP Lily Neo said she sees about 60 hard-luck cases a week at her Meet-the-People sessions. In the past, she saw about 40 cases.

She said: 'Each week, I find myself busier and busier, staying longer and longer, because there are so many people asking for financial help.''

Madam Halimah Yacob, an MP for Jurong GRC, said some of the low-income residents are holding two jobs and doing overtime, yet they still ask for rations of basic items such as cooking oil and Milo because they do not earn enough to feed their families.

=> Having job and earning a living is 2 different things, ok! Not able to survive financially while doing 2 jobs and OT shows us clearly just how well our current system is working for the locals.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad (Hong Kah GRC) observed that those on financial aid schemes are showing up more often at Meet-the-People Sessions.

'They used to come once every three months. Now, some come back every couple of weeks to ask for food and utility vouchers,' he said, because their cash is running out faster.

Mr Charles Chong (Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC) said he was even told off by a retiree who had asked for financial aid.

The elderly man told the MP: 'I'm retired, in my 60s, have no job and living off my savings. But GST is up, food prices are up, inflation is up. The only thing that has not gone up is the banks' interest rates!'

Mr Sim Boon Choon, 68, is in the same boat as the retiree. He tries to stretch every cent of the $290 in public assistance that he receives every month.

A loaf of bread now costs 20 cents more and the price of a packet of 20 Milo sachets is up by 40 cents. Even chicken rice and kway teow soup at the hawker centre cost 50 cents more.

To save money, he has stopped eating out for all his meals. Dinner is a simple meal of bread and Milo. To save electricity, the bachelor does not switch on the lights in his one-room Telok Blangah flat.

Even then, he finds himself running out of money before the month is up. 'I'm already very thrifty but the money is still not enough,' he said in Hokkien.

In March, public welfare recipients such as Mr Sim had their monthly allowance raised from $260 to $290 to offset the impact of the GST hike and rising cost of living.

But social workers said the $30 increment is not enough, given that inflation has risen so high.

=> That is not what our Minister Vivian Balakrishnan thinks. Check out his exchange with Miss Lily Neo on Public Welfare.

Ms Grace Lee, centre director of Care Corner Family Service Centre (Toa Payoh), said the centre has been receiving more requests for the monthly free food packages of rice, instant noodles and canned food.

At least 100 packages are handed out, compared to 80 a few months back.

Over at the Care Corner Seniors Activity Centre in Toa Payoh, programme executive Lim Siew Eng said the elderly poor who show up for free daily lunches are asking for larger portions to take home for dinner. A typical lunch consists of rice, mixed vegetables and meat.

MP Cynthia Phua said she has been advising the elderly in her ward to rent out the rooms in their flats to generate income.

She said: 'A can of luncheon meat used to cost $1.30. Now it's $2.50. Not everyone can afford that, especially the elderly who are not working and depending on handouts.'

MPs said that they try not to give cash to residents seeking aid because they cannot ensure that the money is spent on food. They prefer to give food vouchers.

While utility, service and conservancy rebates, and Workfare payouts have helped, the MPs hope that the Government would come up with schemes which help those without income cope with the rising cost of living.

Pasir Ris-Punggol's Mr Chong said: 'The current schemes that we have, such as Workfare, help those who work. But for the elderly who are retired and sickly, we need to find new schemes for them.'

The Government has said that it will not keep prices artificially low by controlling price increases to help people cope with the rising cost of living. Its aim is to get the basics right - housing, jobs and affordable necessities.

It also tops up the wages of low-income workers through Workfare and gives various cash handouts and rebates. A total of 2.4 million Singaporeans are eligible for $650 million in GST credits and senior citizens' bonuses this year.

It is not just the low income who are feeling the pinch. Mayor for Central Singapore district, Mr Zainudin Nordin, said families living in four- and five-room flats are trying to downgrade to smaller flats because they cannot afford the cash portion of their mortgage.

He said: 'These families find that they need that few hundred dollars for other necessities now that prices have gone up. They can't afford to put aside any cash for housing.'

For housewife Norliza Maidin, 40, the rising cost of living could not have come at a worse time.

Her husband was retrenched from his warehouse supervisor job last year and now earns $1,500 - $500 less than his previous pay.

The couple have two sons -- aged five and one - and Madam Norliza's elderly mother lives with them in a four-room flat in Jurong.

Madam Norliza limits the family's electricity usage to $3 a day, chooses the cheapest fish and buys the cheapest groceries.

But she still finds herself with no savings at the end of the month. Sometimes, she has to borrow money from friends.

After being out of the workforce for five years, she is back in the job market because she wants to supplement her husband's income.

'I want to save for a rainy day. And buy better food for my children, such as salmon and not just selar,' she said.

With inflation expected to go up to 4.5 per cent next year, MPs such as Madam Phua think that the number of financial aid requests they are receiving is only the tip of the iceberg.

She said: 'I believe more will ask for financial help. This is just the beginning.'

jamieee@sph.com.sg

ndianah@sph.com.sg

Will local politics change?

2007-12-02T01:01:00.000+08:00

Will local politics change?
In the end, it is the economics that will dictate

Loh Chee Kong
cheekong@mediacorp.com.sg

THE year is 2030. Now, imagine a Singapore with no Group Representative Constituencies (GRC), no defamation suits, no one-dominant party and personality.

This is what the young people who attended a session three weeks ago with Dr Vivian Balakrishnan seem to want. And the youngest Minister in the Cabinet seems prepared for such a scenario.

=> Shouldn't that be the way all along?!

"I'm not so obsessed with whether or not the PAP wins elections, what I am more interested in is the quality of candidates," said Dr Balakrishnan, Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports, dismissing the suggestion that the People's Action Party (PAP) was fixated with one-party rule.

In fact, from a "purely national point of view", he felt that youth should even take up opposition politics if they do not want to join the PAP.

=> Then end the media control now! We all saw just how bias the media is during the GE2006.

Responding to a comment on how the ruling party and the opposition trip over themselves in claiming credit for improvement works in opposition wards, the Minister also urged the youth to look beyond the political "wayang".

"The PAP plays games, the opposition plays games … while all these games go on, make sure nobody loses out.

=> By denying lift upgrades to Potong Pasir, one of the oldest estate in S'pore, S'poreans are already losing out. Who is Mr Balakrishnan trying to kid?

"My point is not that we will not change. We will change but make sure that even as we change, that we understand the consequences … and are prepared," added Dr Balakrishnan, who reiterated that Singapore's political stability is a cornerstone of its success.

For a party that has forged a formidable reputation for the way it crushes political opponents, Dr Balakrishnan's words would get the optimist excited.

They would, at the very least, imply a tacit acceptance by the PAP that there is space for opposition politics.

Not so fast, said a political analyst, who applauded Dr Balakrishnan's "good statesmanship" in answering the way he did. But that is not the way the PAP "runs or plans things", she added.

"They play to win. If out of enlightened self-interest, the PAP changes the rules of the game then we have a whole new ball game," said the analyst.

Sceptics could even interpret Dr Balakrishan's answers as a clear slight on the quality of the opposition and how it would stay that way. And that if Singaporeans want more opposition in Parliament and more relaxed rules on public speaking, they have to be prepared for political instability and loss of foreign investments.

=> This is the most nonsensical argument I ever heard. In what way having a democratic political system will undermine political stability and lead to loss of foreign investment?! Is North Korea and Mainland China more stable and richer than South Korea and Japan?!

But the giveaway was this comment by Dr Balakrishnan: "Can we afford not to change? If the change is necessary for our survival or prosperity, then we must."

The political landscape is set for changes, if, and only if, the PAP Government sees their necessity in sustaining and promoting economic growth — not social progress.

Never mind if it means losing a few seats to the opposition as long as it serves the economic objectives. Never mind political diversity, it's the dollars and cents that matter.

But therein lies the conundrum. While economic and social objectives can be neatly compartmentalised in the early days of nation building, they become increasingly intertwined and untidy as a society matures.

From the 1960s to the 1990s, most Singaporeans had little choice but to stay and build up the Republic's economy.

Today, people uproot themselves to other countries when they disagree with Government policies or feel left out of the political process.

Which is why Singapore's political system has few options but to progress.

First, the playing field has to be level — a perception that is certainly lost on Singaporeans.

While politics is a dirty game everywhere, it has to appear to be fair and just.

The security sweeps — Operation Coldstore in 1963 and Operation Spectrum in the 1987 — against alleged communist movements had set back the two strongest opposition parties, the Barisan Socialis and the Workers Party, of the respective periods, albeit if it was an unintended outcome.

And while rules of the game apply equally to all, the opposition parties are still playing catch up while stuck in a vicious cycle: They cannot attract better candidates unless they make inroads into the government and vice versa.

While the elected presidency, in principle, guards against a rogue government by holding the key to the national reserves, hurdles must be put in place to prevent inept politicians from entering Parliament in the first place.

=> (S)elected Presidency you mean. How many time did we voted for our president since Mr Ong Teng Chong left the post?! How many times did our president Nathan report to us, Singaporean citizens, on the current status of out national reserves? ZERO! ZILCH! To be frank the president might not even know what he is guarding... Read this to find out more about Mr Ong presidency.

But such safeguards should be in the form of an independent media, strong civil society movement and Singaporeans' own critical thinking, not artificial barriers such as election deposits, the GRC system or the threat of defamation lawsuits.

While the GRC system was established with the stated intent of ensuring minority representation, it has inadvertently become an impediment not just for opposition parties but crucially, for aspiring independent politicians, who do not want to be tied down by the baggage of existing parties.

=> BULLSHIT! Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong already tell the whole of Singapore that the GRC system is meant for smoothing PAP's newcomers' path into the parliament.

It has also deterred political competition by cutting off smaller political parties, while allowing larger ones to consolidate themselves.

In the 1984 elections (the last General Election before the GRC system was introduced), candidates from nine political parties and three independent candidates contested the polls.

In the 2006 GE, candidates contested under four party banners and there were zero independent candidates.

Given such statistics, it is not difficult to draw a link between these artificial hurdles and why fewer young Singaporeans are willing to enter politics — when their choice is limited to joining the PAP to have a more than half chance of winning.

By Dr Balakrishnan's own admission, "politics in 2030 cannot be politics in the 1960s".

"In 2030, if you are the Prime Minister, do you think you would have the same authority, overarching stature of someone like our Minister Mentor Lee (Kuan Yew)?" he added.

The days of personality-driven politics are long gone and future electoral battles would be about national policies as much as local politics. Opposition politicians banking on fiery rhetoric should be advised to back it up with sound policy alternatives.

The implications of a "collegiate" type of leadership, as Dr Balakrishnan put it, point to a more effective consultation process both within and without the government.

When no one person wields an inordinate amount of influence, diversity of views would flourish but it also makes it harder to push through policies — an argument that the PAP has made in support of one-party rule.

But while efficiency could be increasingly compromised, effectiveness need not. And that can only be ensured when there is a healthy process of political debate and consensus building, where opposing voices are satisfied that they have been heard even if the final decision goes against them.

The Government's aggressive drive for new citizens would pose political ramifications in time to come.

While these citizens would want to preserve the state of affairs that attracted them here in the first place, they are also the ones who would not be tied down by historical baggage when the situation turns for the worse.

In other words, in the event of a national crisis, new citizens would be the quickest to vote the government out, while Singapore-born voters bank their faith on the PAP's track record.

Which is why the PAP may find it worth its while to lose a few seats in the future — if only to keep an increasingly sophisticated electorate happy.

More FTs in Singapore.

2007-12-02T00:56:00.000+08:00

Workers better enjoy the boom time now, it is not going last.

Government eases regulations on hiring foreign workers
By Asha Popatlal, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 28 November 2007 2306 hrs

SINGAPORE: The government is easing regulations across the board on the hiring of foreign workers, in view of a tight labour market.

The overall unemployment rate fell to 1.7 percent in September this year – the lowest in almost a decade. The Manpower Ministry (MOM) said far more jobs are being created than locals can fill.

Amidst this tight labour market, companies said they have been finding it increasingly difficult to employ workers, especially locals.

That is why MOM is introducing a slew of measures to ease regulations on the hiring of foreign workers across all levels.

With growing industry demand for mid-skilled, mid-level foreign workers, the quota of S-pass holders will be increased from 15 percent to 25 percent from January next year.

To ease the manpower pressure in the booming Construction, Process and Marine sectors, MOM will raise the dependency ratio for the Construction and Process sectors from 1 local worker : 5 foreign workers, to 1 local worker : 7 foreign workers from 1 January 2008.

It will also reduce the work experience requirement for workers in Construction from four to two years from next March, and raise the dependency ratio for the Marine sector from 1 local worker : 3 foreign workers, to 1 local worker : 5 foreign workers from 1 January.

As the Manufacturing and Services sectors also expect to enjoy high growth, they will be allowed a higher proportion of foreign workers in their workforce as well.

For Manufacturing, the ratio will be increased to 6.5 foreign workers for every 10 Singaporeans hired, and for Services, that figure is 5 foreign workers to 10 locals.

Refinements will also be made to the Personalised Employment Pass. Launched earlier this year, this scheme helps professionals to continue working in Singapore as it is tied to an individual's merits rather than a specific employer.

Announcing the changes at an event on Wednesday evening, Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen explained why they were necessary.

He said: "There isn't an inexhaustible supply of local workers and it has slowed down this year to about 2 percent. In the World Competitiveness Yearbook for 2007 released earlier this year, Singapore emerged as having the most competitive labour market.

"One of the underlying factors is that companies here have access to the manpower that they need. Indeed, this must be a key concern for any company operating here, especially in the current tight labour market."

Industry players welcome the moves to ease the labour market.

Dr Robert Yap, YCH Group, said: "I'm sure this is something that's good for the industry. Our labour situation is getting very tight. With this tightness, you see job-hopping and all that, so it's affecting people like us who are entrepreneurs trying to build an organisation."

- CNA/so

Temasek, a reality check

2007-11-24T12:17:00.000+08:00

Temasek, a reality check

ADRIAN TAN

TEMASEK'S ongoing investment woes over its stakes in Indonesia's two biggest mobile telcos bring to mind some simple, eternal facts of corporate life.

First, investing abroad has always carried the risk that assets can be seized by foreign governments.

HSBC and Jardines lost control of their Chinese assets in 1949 when communists came to power in the mainland. In the 1960s, the Australian government forced mining firms to "Australianise" their shareholdings, upsetting the then predominantly British shareholders.

And just last year, energy companies operating in Venezuela and Bolivia had to accept new and less advantageous contracts to avoid cancellation. Shell and BP, too, have had their share of problems — in Russia.

Second, investments in banking and telecommunications (two of Temasek's favourite sectors) have three major weaknesses. Value in these sectors can be easily destroyed by government action or inaction. Both sectors are highly regulated because most governments regard them as "strategic industries". Nationalists are also sensitive to foreigners owning big stakes in these sectors.

The controversies surrounding Temasek's acquisition of Shin Corp — the telco once controlled by the Thaksin family — and the two investments in Indonesia's Telkomsel and Indosat, illustrate these weaknesses vividly.

And it is difficult to exit major investments in these sectors. Whatever the law may say, any sale must have the blessing of the host government. If Temasek wants to cash in on the huge returns it has made from its 6-per-cent stake in China Construction Bank or its 5-per-cent stake in Bank of China, potential buyers would want the assurance that any sale was acceptable to the Chinese authorities.

Third, most countries, developed and developing, have a history of economic nationalism. Who can blame Asian nations for being afraid of foreign investors?

India, Indonesia and South Korea were colonies of Britain, the Netherlands and Japan respectively for almost half of the 20th century, and in the first two instances, the whole of the 19th century. The British and French interfered extensively in Thailand while China was bullied and occupied by the Western powers and Japan.

And don't forget that the British and Dutch began as traders before becoming colonisers.

Incidentally, Britain and Australia, at least on the surface, seem to be the only two countries which are not too worried about foreigners owning major stakes in "commanding heights" companies. British ports, airports, power stations, water utilities and financial institutions are owned by foreigners.

The British appear to have adopted this attitude: If foreigners are prepared to pay huge sums for assets that cannot be moved, the locals should take the money and invest it elsewhere.

And if the foreigners have overpaid — as some analysts believed was the case in the purchase of the British Airport Authority, where the winning consortium, which included the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation, paid £10.3 billion ($30.6 billion) — and are having operational and funding problems, that's their problem.

So, sceptical of foreign investors in general, many people in these nationalistic countries are naturally concerned when a firm owned by a foreign government invests in their country.

They tend to project their personal and historical experiences and prejudices onto the investing firm — and that is their governments interfere in state-owned and private businesses.

For example, China, India and Indonesia have forced banks to lend liberally to state-owned companies; while the South Korean government once directed Korean banks to lend money to privately-owned conglomerates to help them expand overseas. Profits are secondary. National, political or strategic considerations are more important.

So, even though Brand Singapore has a reputation for straight-talking and honesty, a statement like, "all the companies in our portfolio are independently managed with responsibilities to their respective board and shareholders", would be met with a shrug or a wink — "they would say this, wouldn't they?" Anyway, governments and policies can change.

Next, good governance — political or corporate — is rare outside the developed world. We forget this at our peril.

Last week's Weekend Xtra on the Indosat/Telkomsel case describes the alleged skulduggery that seems to be going on in the background — of inconvenient evidence being ignored and of prejudgment of the case.

It doesn't reflect well on Indonesia's investment climate; but to be fair to Indonesia, there are countries where worse things are alleged to have happened.

Finally, don't expect gratitude, especially if one makes money. Temasek itself and its 56-per-cent owned subsidiary SingTel made major telecom investments in Indonesia when other investors didn't want to know about the country.

One could be forgiven for thinking that Indonesian nationalists should be grateful that firms from an Asean neighbour bought these assets, not some insensitive investor from a Western country with a history of exploiting the "natives".

Incidentally, Temasek's problems over Shin Corp and Indosat/Telkomsel reflect difficulties Asean could face in plans for an integrated economy.

If Thailand and Indonesia, two of the more developed Asean economies, have problems in accepting investments in their telco sectors from a fellow founding Asean neighbour, what chance of success in other areas like aviation, financial services and logistics?

Adrian Tan is a freelance financial writer.
ADRIAN TAN

Is the detention of Chee Siok Chin and John Tan lawful?

2007-11-23T22:08:00.000+08:00

Protest by Burmese against ASEAN closing its eyes on the injustices happening in Burma

Police detain Singaporeans when they are unable say which law they break (Part 1)

Police detain Singaporeans when they are unable say which law they break (Part 2)

Which side is right?

The Police or Miss Chee & Mr Tan?

Judge for yourself after watching the videos.

===========================================================
Chee Siok Chin writes to Wong Kan Seng
Singapore Democrats
21 Nov 07

21 November 2007

Mr. Wong Kan Seng
Minister for Home Affairs
New Phoenix Park, 28 Irrawaddy Road
Singapore 329560
wong_kan_seng@mha.gov.sg

Dear sir,

I would like to refer you to the incident that occurred on 20 November 2007 along Orange Grove Road when Mr John Tan and I were illegally detained by the police.

The intent of this letter is not to inform you of the incident as I am certain you have been quite thoroughly apprised. Instead I would like to seek several clarifications from you as the Minister for Home Affairs.

Although Mr Tan and I were told that we were in a Protected Area, at no time did the police say that we were trespassing or forbidden to be in the vicinity. None of the police officers were able to cite any law that prohibited us from going to the Shangri-la Hotel.

What right did the police have to stop Mr Tan and I from going towards the Shangri-la Hotel after having been told that we were going there for a meal?

When asked if we had committed any offence and if we were being arrested, we were categorically told “no” to both questions. That being the case, what right did the police have in man-handling and forcing us into a vehicle?

If the vehicle belonged to the Singapore Police Force, why was it unmarked?

Was it legal for the police to take us to a place against our will when we had not committed any offence?

What right did the police have in not only harassing but manhandling Mr Tan and me?

What right did the police have in forcefully taking us away to a place when we were not under arrest?

In addition to this, Mr Tan was prevented from leaving the police vehicle when we were brought to Orchard Hotel? The police had restrained him and he had to physically struggle with the officers to get out of the van. Is this not a form of physical abuse?

The actions of the police in the mentioned incident is a grave violation of our constitutional rights, individual liberties and personal security.

How can it be said that the Singapore is built on the rule of law when those of us living in this country can be subjected to such arbitrary, illegitimate and physical actions by the police?

I look forward to your clarifications.

Sincerely,

Chee Siok Chin

Cracks in society are showing

2007-11-17T12:14:00.001+08:00

The big question is who caused it and what is done to minimize it!

Cracks in society are showing
SM Goh raises concern as foreign talent stats hit new high

Loh Chee Kong
cheekong@mediacorp.com.sg

WITH the number of new citizens and PRs expected to outstrip last year's record figure of 70,500, cracks are already appearing not just between different ethnic groups, but also within races.

This sobering observation came from Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, who was speaking at the 10th anniversary of the Community Development Councils (CDCs) on Friday, as he outlined the challenges facing them.

Mr Goh related how there are already signs of Singaporeans lowering their trust towards one another.

At his annual reception in his Marine Parade constituency for new citizens and PRs, Mr Goh noticed how "the new residents did not mix easily with Singaporeans" and Singaporeans, in turn, "tended to leave them alone".

And within the Chinese and Indian communities, crevices are deepening.

Said Mr Goh: "In terms of accent, culture and habit, Chinese Singaporeans are different from their PRC counterparts. As for Indians, I have heard that the Indians from India tend to bring their caste culture with them, and that some of them sometimes come across as sikit atas (slight air of superiority) to our local Indians.

"On the other hand, some Indian Singaporeans also display the same attitude towards the many low-skilled workers from India."

Citing the studies of Harvard University political science dean Robert Putnam, Mr Goh said that the phenomenon of "hunkering down" takes place as a society becomes more diverse and multi-cultural. Left unchecked, it would reduce social solidarity and erode community trust. For example, people will have a lower likelihood of giving to charity or volunteering.

And as Singapore must continue to open its doors to new immigrants to boost its population and economy, Mr Goh hopes the CDCs would "find ways to bond new Singaporeans and PRs to our people".

He also identified two other social divides that must be bridged: That between less well-off and more successful Singaporeans, and also the gap between the elderly and the young.

Said Mr Goh: "We must involve more successful Singaporeans in a concerted community effort to help the poor and the dysfunctional families."

Likewise, Singaporeans have a critical role to play to help senior citizens lead active lives.

Apart from employers, the mindset of Singaporeans towards their elderly parents must also change.

He added: "Children sometimes discourage their own elderly parents from leading active lives … . In truth, the 60-year-old of today is very different from the 60-year-old of 20 years ago."

Mapping out the priorities for the CDCs, Mr Goh said they must enlarge the common space which brings together Singaporeans and immigrants.

On top of intra-group bonding within faith-based organisations or various professional and interest groups, the CDCs have to "encourage inter-mingling" between the disparate groups.

CDCs should also engage in "preventive intervention", instead of providing "downstream pain relief".

One positive example is the Home Ownership Plus Education programme, which helps families become self-reliant through housing and training grants, as well as education bursaries for their children to help them break out of the poverty cycle.

Likewise, efforts to promote active ageing should begin before retirement, said Mr Goh.

While there are existing programmes to address these social divides, Mr Goh called on the CDCs to do so "holistically".

Otherwise, he said, Singapore's social unity would be "eroded gradually and imperceptibly but with long-term implications on the harmony of our society".

Singapore's economic boom widens income gap

2007-11-14T12:14:00.000+08:00

Singapore's economic boom widens income gap
By Melanie Lee

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Carol John, 27, doesn't own a bed. Every night she sleeps on thin mattresses which she shares with her three young children. Outside her one-room flat, a smell of sewage lingers in the common corridor.

Just a few kilometers away, on Singapore's Sentosa island, Madhupati Singhania relaxes on his $435,000 yacht berthed at the city-state's swanky One 15 Marina Club.

Income inequality is nothing new in free-market Singapore, but two years of blistering economic growth and a government policy of attracting wealthy expatriates have created a new class of super-rich, while a string of price increases for everything from bread to bus fares have made life harder for the poor.

"I can't save anything, it's so difficult for me," John told Reuters. John, who is unemployed, relies on her husband's S$600 (US$420) monthly salary and a S$100 government handout.

"We don't benefit at all from the economy. As far as I know, my husband's pay hasn't gone up," she said.

Singapore's economy is firing on all cylinders, with a booming construction sector, record tourist arrivals and a fast-growing financial sector all contributing to a gross domestic product set to grow nearly 8 percent in 2007.

But the rising tide is not lifting every boat.

The proportion of Singapore residents earning less than S$1,000 ($690) a month rose to 18 percent last year, from 16 percent in 2002, central bank data released late last month show.

At the same time, the proportion of those earning S$8,000 and above rose from 4.7 percent to 6 percent in the same period.

"When a country becomes richer, you tend to see a widening of income inequality. Over the last few years it has been worse," said econometrics professor Anthony Tay at SMU university.

Despite sporting a first-world GDP per capita of $29,000 -- second only to Japan in Asia -- Singapore has an income inequality profile more in line with third-world countries.

Singapore's Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality, has worsened from 42.5 in 1998 to 47.2 in 2006, and is now in league with the Philippines (46.1) and Guatemala (48.3), and worse than China (44.7), data from Singapore's Household Survey and the World Bank show.

Other wealthy Asian nations such as Japan, Korea and Taiwan have more European-style Ginis of 24.9, 31.6 and 32.6.

FAST CARS, BIG BOATS

CIMB-GK Research economist Song Seng Wun believes that growth itself partly explains the widening income gap.

"In an environment where growth is huge, there are lots of opportunities for risk takers, and inevitably, you will get this widening (of the income gap)," he said, adding that those in stable jobs will also benefit, but to a lesser extent.

Opportunity is what attracted Singhania to Singapore. He intends to buy a new 47-foot yacht for $1.3 million.

"You've got everything you want in Singapore. You want to buy a fast car, you want to buy a big boat, you want to buy an aeroplane, whatever you need, you can get in this country."

Singhania, who runs a business consultancy firm, was originally from Mumbai but decided to move to Singapore and become a Singapore citizen, citing its first-world comforts.

The Asian Development Bank blames the widening income gap in Singapore and many other Asia countries partly on globalization, which it said favors the well-educated, and recommended policies to create more equal opportunities and wealth.

Singapore's government has made the reduction of the income gap a priority, but argues welfare should not be a crutch, and rules out unemployment benefits or a minimum wage.

While the ruling People's Action Party is in no danger of losing its stranglehold on parliament, the growing income disparity has hurt its credibility.

"There is definitely envy, but this is not enough for civil disturbance," said sociologist Ho Kong Chong at NUS university.

"These emotions of despair and desperation are missing in Singapore because of the government's housing policy and transfer payments," Ho said.

Singapore's extensive housing program provides owner-financed flats in government-built blocks and the state also provides modest income supplements to those in low-income jobs, although there are no unemployment benefits.

Carol John, who left school when she was 15, does not know much about support schemes. "In the years to come, I'll just leave it in God's hands, whatever he gives me, I'll take it."

($1=1.448 Singapore Dollar), ($1=.6894 Euro)

(Editing by Geert De Clercq and Jacqueline Wong)

CPI set to hit high of 5% in first half of 2008, says Lim Hng Kiang

2007-11-13T19:12:00.000+08:00

CPI set to hit high of 5% in first half of 2008, says Lim Hng Kiang
By Hoe Yeen Nie, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 12 November 2007 2136 hrs

SINGAPORE: Minister for Trade and Industry Lim Hng Kiang told Parliament on Monday that the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is set to reach a high of five percent in the first half of next year, though prices are likely to ease afterwards.

He explained that prices have gone up because oil prices have doubled since the start of the year, and the one-off hike in Goods and Services Tax (GST) in July also contributed to the rising inflation.

But the CPI, which measures inflation at the consumer level, is expected to go down to three per cent in the second half of 2008, Mr Lim said.

Another factor driving inflation has been the disruptions in the supply of food items such as vegetables and diary products from Australia, Malaysia and Indonesia.

Mr Lim said: "Diversifying our food supply sources is one way we can reduce our vulnerability to such supply disruptions and maintain more stable food prices.

"AVA (Agri-Food & Veterinary Authority) will continue to step up efforts to this end. However, diversification cannot protect us against a worldwide increase in food prices, as is happening now."

When MP Halimah Yacob asked what the government has done to ease the inflationary impact on Singaporeans, Mr Lim pointed to measures such as the GST Offset Package, which is expected to cost the government S$4 billion over five years.

The government's exchange rate policies have also helped minimise the impact of inflation from other countries.

But Ang Mo Kio GRC Inderjit Singh asked: "Does the minister see any impact on our competitiveness here as far as businesses are concerned?"

Mr Lim replied: "We are tracking our competitiveness position very closely and so far we are in quite a good position for several reasons... even though (our inflation rate is) higher than what we've been experiencing, it's still lower than other countries...

"Second, even though wages have gone up last year and particularly the first three quarters of this year... (over) the last five, six or seven years (they did not go up) so rapidly."

Mr Lim added that the higher inflation should also be viewed against the backdrop of rapid economic growth rates since 2003, so it should not be surprising to see inflation rise above the "unusually low levels" seen over the last few years. - CNA/ac

Talent, not numbers

2007-11-12T13:04:00.000+08:00

Talent, not numbers

Ngiam questions need to boost S'pore's population

Loh Chee Kong
cheekong@mediacorp.com.sg

IF former Permanent Secretary Ngiam Tong Dow had his way, Singapore would think twice before beefing up its population to 6.5 million people.

In a candid interview in the People's Action Party's latest Petir newsletter, Mr Ngiam — while stressing that "my role is to give an alternative, not an opposing view, to government policies" — questions the rationale behind the new target. Singapore doesn't need numbers, it needs talent, he said.

Pointing out that managing the population is the main challenge facing Singapore, the 70-year-old said: "If we do it wrongly, it will change our economic and social system."

Some 40 years ago, while serving on the Economic Development Board (EDB), he and others had studied the question of an "optimum size" for an industrial country.

Said Mr Ngiam: "We looked at successful small countries such as Sweden, Norway and Israel. They each had a population of six million. So we said Singapore needed to have six million people."

But given the technological advances and rising educational levels, Singapore "no longer needs numbers now but more quality", he added.

Mr Ngiam said he was told that the number "was based on Gross Domestic Product growth of six per cent a year".

"A back-of-the-envelope calculation would show this comprises a 2-per-cent increase in population and 4-per-cent growth in productivity. But if we can increase our productivity by more than 4 per cent, we can still have 6-per-cent growth, but with fewer people who are highly productive."

He stressed the need to appeal to people's hearts. "Otherwise ... Singapore will become just a six-star hotel where guests stay in good times and flee when times are bad. We will never become a nation," he said.

His vision: Set up a think tank to "think strategically" on top of tactics such as dual-citizenship and a more broadly-defined concept of National Service. "For instance, a foreign Singaporean living overseas should have no voting rights and less national service obligations."

The Government could even invite former citizens for "a month-long holiday" to advise policymakers on areas in which they have specialist knowledge. Said Mr Ngiam: "Do you know Chinese Nobel Prize winners are invited to China to teach for three months?"

"Our population policy should be more emotional ... You don't say to Singaporeans who are no longer citizens, 'You come back, we have a job for you'. You say, 'What about contributing your knowledge to Singapore? Better still, you want a job, we give you a job'."

Jump in number of new PRs, citizens

2007-11-09T20:09:00.000+08:00

Judging from the numbers the percentage of S'porean citizens out of the total population in Singapore is definitely below 70% now.

Jump in number of new PRs, citizens
Record number likely this year; upswing will help tackle population problem
By Li Xueying

THE number of foreigners becoming either Singapore citizens or permanent residents will likely hit a new record this year.

And the upswing will go some way in tackling Singapore's population problem, a key long-term challenge.

About 7,300 Singapore citizenships were granted in the first half of this year, Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng told The Straits Times.

If the trend continues, Singapore will have 14,600 new citizens this year.

The figure is about 10 per cent higher than the record 13,200 citizenships granted last year. In 2005, 12,900 citizenships were given.

These numbers are a big jump from the typical tally of 8,000 becoming citizens annually in the previous four years.

More foreigners are also seeking the benefits of permanent residence. Some 46,900 of them were granted PR status in the first nine months of this year, compared to 57,300 for all of last year.

With falling birth rates and an ageing population, Singapore has been trying to attract foreigners to settle here.

As chairman of the National Population Committee, Mr Wong has been tasked with tackling the problem.

He said the new immigrants hail predominantly from South-east Asia, as well as South and East Asia, an 'understandable' pattern as they tend to share similar linguistic and cultural backgrounds with Singaporeans.

One such new citizen is former Chinese national Wang Jie, 43, who took up citizenship this year, together with her university lecturer husband and their 17-year-old son.

The main draw for them: Singapore's education system.

'My son's studies have improved since we came here because the teachers are much better,' said Madam Wang.

She is also getting a second wind in her career as a Chinese language tutor thanks to strong demand. 'I even have plans to open my own tuition centre,' she said.

The new citizens and PRs add to a pool of Singapore residents whose number stands at 3.68 million as of June. This is out of a total population of 4.68 million.

The remaining one million foreigners include 756,000 who are working. There are 110,000 here on an Employment Pass or S-Pass, and 646,000 on Work Permits.

While the newcomers add to the much-needed population numbers, social stresses have also resulted.

For instance, property agents have noted the formation of ethnic enclaves in certain housing estates. Singaporeans have also complained about competition for jobs.

But Mr Wong said Singaporeans should recognise that immigrants are part of a diverse workforce that will enhance Singapore's standing in the global economy.

'Our challenge is not the number of jobs available; it is that we do not have enough people to match the current rate of job creation,' he added, pointing to full employment numbers here.

On whether more could be done to inculcate in foreigners the ways of Singapore, he said he believed Singaporeans generally welcomed them. 'While there is no need to pretend that there are no differences between new immigrants and native Singaporeans, we should recognise that and accept that integration takes time and effort.'

He cited ongoing outreach efforts by schools, grassroots groups and expatriate bodies but added that there was also 'only so much the Government can do on its own'.

'Integration is a dynamic process that requires sustained efforts across all segments of society,' he said.

Sociologist Tan Ern Ser is sanguine about the challenges of integration. 'My sense is there is already a process of self-selection in that only those who could adapt and integrate would choose to settle down in Singapore.'

WP 50th Anniversary Dinner Speeches

2007-11-04T16:01:00.000+08:00

Mr Low WP 50th Anniversary Dinner Speech - Chinese

Mr Low WP 50th Anniversary Dinner Speech - English

Ms Lim WP 50th Anniversary Dinner Speech

WP 50th Anniversary Dinner

工人党50周年庆专访

2007-11-01T09:36:00.000+08:00

工人党创党50周年

周柏荣（摄）

刘程强：苦干和实干更重要

专业人才并非最佳从政人才

专业人才并非最佳的从政人才，而人数的多寡，也不是决定一个政党能否壮大的关键因素。工人党注重的是责任感、使命感和党员的参与。

　　工人党秘书长刘程强（51岁）认为从政讲求的是苦干和实干，因此心态很重要。

　　“我要做的一个基本判断是：专才肯定就是很好的政治人才吗？我们的衡量标准是这些要来参政的人，一是否有诚意；二是否肯做；三是思想是不是理智，能够中肯地看待问题，能够看到全局，看到国家的利益。”

　　他透露工人党现有的新党员平均年龄约30岁，因此是支年轻的团队。他们来自不同阶层，都有诚意，肯苦干，个人素质和教育水平相当不错，

　　“工人党的原则是只要行动党政府的政策同人民的利益没有冲突，而我们也觉得有关的政策对国家的长远发展是有利的，都不会反对。例如我们公开支持政府所宣布的就业入息补助计划，就是一个例子。”

　　同时，他也认为当反对党提出反对执政党的意见时，并不意味着它们也必须同时提出替代方案。

“基本上，如果我们能够提出解决方案，那是最好的。但是这谈何容易。行动党有全体公务员，包括顶尖的奖学金得主替它出谋划策，我们没有。我们的资源有限。”

　　他说：“我认为提出替代政策也应该是政府的工作。他们应该提出不同的替代政策让人民选择，而不是只有一个。一个民主政府，基本上都会提供替代的选择。”

　　刘程强指出，工人党的目标是希望成为一个受人尊重和有信誉的政党。

　　“我们眼前的目标是拓展党务，希望能够争取更多选民的支持，能在选举时取得突破，尤其是在集选区方面的突破。同时，也希望工人党能在新加坡的民主进程方面扮演一定的角色，使到新加坡的民主更具竞争性。”

　　他说，成为替代政府是每个政党的目标，但在他担任秘书长任内，工人党不会去追求实现这个目标。

　　“我不认为工人党在近期内能达到挑战人民行动党政府的水准，而成为替代政府是个很长远的目标。每个政党都希望成为替代政党，最终争取执政，但这对我来讲，还很遥远，必须一步一步去做。（估计需要多久？）我看20年吧。”

　　他也提到实现成为替代政府的先决条件是工人党必须能顺利发展起来，没有其他的突变干扰。

　　“要知道，反对党政治的突变性是很大的。”

　　在现阶段，他形容工人党是在蜕变之中。

　　“自从2001年大选之后，人们对工人党的印象同以往已有很大的不同，我们基本上成功更新了领导层，党内也呈现欣欣向荣的气象。”

他提到很多选民都对工人党有所期待，希望它能扮演有效制衡政府的角色。这令他和党员感到高兴，同时也感受到压力。他坦言现在是工人党的扎根期，往后需要全党上下加紧努力，使它快速壮大起来。

　　他表示对工人党现有的发展感到满意，也注意到加入的新人的态度都很积极，肯在基层苦干，这一点令他感到鼓舞。现在一部分工人党员还自发参与志愿工作，帮忙社会较不幸的一群，而他个人也非常鼓励他们这么做。

　　“一个政党必须扎根于社会，人民参政其实是推动整个社会向上发展的动力。从亲身参与社会工作，你才真正了解一些下层民众和不幸的一群的情况，知道他们的需要。同时，这也可以强化自己对政治的责任感。”

　　刘程强说：“政治不是长篇大论的政策演讲和大谈特谈政治理想，真正的政治需要落实于人民的生活，而一个政策的错误、一个国家方向的乖离正道，后果是人民的生活受到影响，这是个很大的责任。不是说了就算了的。”

　　刘程强是在1981年加入工人党，跟随当时的秘书长惹耶勒南到选区走动，开始基层工作。1988年初试啼声，到中峇鲁集选区竞选，结果落选。但是他并不气馁，在1991年转战后港区，以52.8％得票率击败原议员陈原生，过后在1997年、2001年和2006年三度蝉联。尤其是在去年大选，获得约 62.7％得票率，是历年来最佳表现。

　　他自出道以来，给人的印象有如“潮州怒汉”，有话直说，敢怒敢言。在这次访谈中，记者却发现他性情温和、想法理智，并且深思熟虑。他在政治上不仅成熟了，也展现了身为一名反对党领袖应有的务实态度和信心。

　　他在2001年当选秘书长。工人党在他掌舵之下，领导层顺利更新，六年多来变化很大。老一辈要员愿让位给年轻人，以党的前途和团结为先，这一点也令党内外人士对这个老牌政党刮目相看。

工人党“坚持走自己的路”

　　工人党作为第一大反对党，向来给人“独来独往”的印象。它往后也会这么“独来独往”吗。

　　刘程强说：“工人党从1957年存在到今天，是很不容易的，所以它本身也形成了自己的一股意志力，即使在党的生存受到威胁时，工人党都没有选择同其他政党合并求存。”

　　他认为这就是工人党50年来所建立起来的文化，也是党内全体上下所凝聚起来的一股精神和意志力，因此是它的一大特色。

　　“我们的党员对党有股强烈的认同感，工人党多年的发展和渊源，传到今天变成了党的一种传统，也成了工人党的一种精神。”

　　他表示这样的传统，即使在去年大选后有百多名新党员加入，也没出现改变。不过，他深信工人党坚持独立和走自己的路的特性，不会阻碍它的壮大。

　　“壮大不等于需要跟其他政党合并，党的精神并没有排他性，我们欢迎任何人加入工人党，而包容是工人党的价值观之一。所以我们欢迎不同思维、不同看法的人加入。”

　　刘程强说，工人党目前同各政党的关系良好，向来也愿意同任何政党合作，只要能促进新加坡的民主进程，使国家更有保障，就不会排除合作的可能性。

　　记者问他，工人党身为第一大反对党，今后将如何扮演和发挥领导或推动者的角色，协助壮大反对党的声势？他答说个别政党都有它们要走的路线，也有各自的领导方式和目标，他因此尊重各党的发展方式。

　　“至于工人党，虽然实力加强不少，但并不值得我们自我恭贺，因为比起行动党，我们的实力还很薄弱。论后勤及所能动员的人手方面，还是微不足道的。”

　　对反对党阵营多年来处于积弱的状态，刘程强也有不少的感触。

　　他说：“新加坡的选民都希望国家能走向世界级的民主，好像其他民主国家一样，有个制衡的制度，在竞选时也有所选择。但是很多时候，我想很多人都在心痛，因为恨子不成材，眼见反对党没有办法好好的建立起声望，能够取信于民，能够为新加坡的民主进程扮演一定的角色，以此作出贡献。”

刘程强与工人党的未来动向

大选是否走出后港？

　　“哈哈，大选到了你就知道了。我曾经公开表示过，我并不排除参加集选区竞选的可能性，不过是在什么时候？会不会在下届大选？到时就有揭晓，不必急着说。你（指记者）希望看到这样的局面吗？”

　　记者问：“如果有人走出来，至少说明反对党对此是认真的。你在后港16年，詹时中在波东巴西23年了，如果资深的反对党议员讲了，却没人走出来，选民会以为你们只是说说而已。当然风险代价很高，单选区比较容易管理，走出去的风险很大，集选区竞选失败了，可能整个都没有了。你会想要走出去吗？”

　　刘程强答：“时间到了，你就知道了。我不是卖关子，时间到了，你就知道了嘛。”

谁是工人党接班人？

　　“工人党今年庆祝创党50周年，希望在60年党庆的时候，会有新的秘书长。”

　　记者问：“你心目中的接班人是谁？”

　　刘程强答：“不只是我心目中的接班人，这名接班人还必须受到党内同志的认可和支持。不是我认可就可以了。”

　　记者问：“现任党主席林瑞莲是适合的人选吗？”

　　他答说：“那要由党里面的同志们决定，不是由我来决定。”

没有邀行动党出席党庆晚宴

　　工人党庆祝成立50周年的晚宴，广邀各政党派代表出席，包括前秘书长惹耶勒南。不过，它这次却没有邀请人民行动党派人出席。

　　对此，刘程强说：“上次庆祝40周年党庆的时候，我们有邀请行动党派人出席，不过他们回复说谢谢邀请，但无法出席。所以，我觉得还是不要为难人家，今年就没有发出邀请。”

　　至于其他各政党，他说都有受邀。

出版50周年纪念特刊

　　工人党将在11月3日为创党50周年举办盛大晚宴，到时也将出版50周年纪念刊。

　　刘程强受访时说：“我们感激过去所有在各方面给予工人党支持的选民，因为有他们的支持，工人党才能够生存到今天。这次配合党庆出版50周年特刊的原因，也就是要让人们知道工人党的发展历程。”

　　他说，50年的历史，中间的起起落落、波涛汹涌，不是三言两语能够说得清楚的。

　　“我们希望通过发售特刊，让关心我们的支持者了解工人党，也希望这份特刊能够为新加坡政治史做点滴的记录。”

　　这本纪念特刊共印1000本，将在党庆晚宴上发售，每本售价14元。

　　据刘程强透露，党史的研究和资料搜集，全交给专人处理，但主要的编务工作是由党内要员负责，包括定稿部分。特刊主要谈历届大选，并记录过去工人党的参选、参政的过程和党内的风波。

工人党的领导制度

　　“我们采取集体领导制，比如党内分别成立不同地区的委员会，有个别的主席，他们都有领导权。又比如青年团团长，他也有一定的领导权力。自从当上秘书长后，我的角色从来没有变过，我认为我的任务是推动整个党的发展，我应该扮演所谓的催化剂角色。”

加入反对党要有怎样的态度

　　“从政是个人的意愿，是个人的一种选择。过去，从政当然有很大的压迫感和一些恐惧吧，因为整个政治文化跟今天很不一样。我们现在的政治文化还开放了不少吧，也好了不少。有的话，可能是心理的问题吧。我认为真正要从政的人，不会因为恐惧而却步，最重要的是你是否有决心、有意愿，愿意牺牲个人时间。从政很多时候是吃力不讨好的工作，你面向大众，没有办法让每个人满意，只能尽你所能、问心无愧，做自己该做的事。”

华文华语应普及化

也要照顾到深度

　　刘程强出身华校，认为华文华语应该普及化，但也要照顾到语文深度的问题。

　　“我觉得在语文教育方面还必须多加注意。在开始的阶段，必须让它普遍化，让大家都能接受。所以，当局对华文的程度要求不高，使华语能普及化，能够至少扎一点根，我想这个政策没有错，但不能让这个政策如此长期下去。”

　　他认为接下来一定要做到深化华文的程度，这样才能真正的扎根，保留华人的传统。

　　“要不然华语会变成另一种方言，你会讲，却不会阅读，而这个‘方言’不久后也会消失，因为你没有文化的根基，只有语，没有文。”

　　所以，他说：“我们必须保留华人文化的传统和根。现在的情况是很多人也许连华文都不懂，如果这样长久下去，真的会给人讲中，印证新加坡人是banana，外面虽是黄的，里面却是白的，因为已经失去文化的传统。这是未来的隐忧。”

工人党创党50周年　世界级的国家　不一定就有世界级政府

蔡添成　游润恬

　　1997年的亚洲金融风暴，让新加坡经历了好几个艰难的年头。类似的危机是否会重演，是工人党秘书长刘程强所担心的问题。

　　他说：“我对新加坡的经济发展最感到担忧的是再次发生如1997年的亚洲金融危机。我认为下一次金融危机可能发生在中国，如果蔓延开来的话，会影响全球经济，新加坡将受到打击。”

　　他如此担心，是因为看到目前金融业对经济的影响很大。

　　“新加坡非常注重金融业的发展，而中国现在是亚洲经济的龙头，世界各国都看好它，把资金投在那里。不要忘记，中国在金融和银行业方面的机制还不是很完善，而现在正开放市场，如果有问题发生了，对我们一定会有影响。”

　　不过，他也认为新加坡的经济基础稳固，经济也走向多元化，已相当成功地分散了经济风险，不像以前过于注重制造业，当时只要相关的领域出问题，新加坡就立刻会受影响。”

　　他觉得新加坡要在长远的将来继续保持竞争力，就需要发展新的具高增长潜能的工业，并在这些领域居于领先地位。

　　“比如瑞典的造船业、军事工业和电信业，如手机都是世界著名的，只有这样，我们的经济才有保障。”

　　那新加坡距离这个水平还有多远呢？刘程强回答说：“我们还差得很远。我看到政府已在慢慢扩展经济的范围，加强科研的起步发展，现在包括药剂业和生命科学还只是起步阶段。我们其实可以考虑朝机器人工业、能源工业，甚至核能工业进军。”

　　基本上，他对新加坡的前途是乐观的。

　　“我觉得新加坡能发展成一个世界级的国家，不止是在经济上，在政治和社会制度方面，我们都有这样的基础和条件。只是说我们该如何进一步加强，让每个新加坡人都同心协力地朝向这个目标前进。”

　　他希望看到的世界级政府，是一个开放、包容，不以经济挂帅，而是能从经济原则和角度看政策，也能从感性方面看国家的发展。

　　记者问他既然认为新加坡可成为世界级国家，却又认为新加坡没有出现世界级的政府，两者似乎自相矛盾，因为没有世界级政府，如何打造出世界级的国家？

　　对此，他解释说：“世界级的国家不一定就会有世界级的政府，而自认为有世界级政府的国家，也不一定就是世界级的国家。一旦自称是世界级的政府出了问题，一国就可以迅速沦为无等级的国家。”

　　刘程强对新加坡虽已独立42年，但国人的国家认同感还不深这一点也感到担心，认为这同政府的政策有很大的关系。

　　“比如最近辩论公积金问题时，就有人说‘倒不如把公积金拿出来，移民算了’。国家认同感是一种感觉，也就是说无论情况怎样，我生于斯、死于斯。我觉得新加坡还没有达到这样的一种感性，这同政府向来的政策有关。国民要培养对国家的归属感，政府的政策是一个关键性的因素。”

　　他表示自己曾同一些外国人交谈，这些人虽然在外国工作，但都会选择回返祖国。因为他们知道回国有政府照顾，个人福利有保障，但新加坡却不是如此。

　　“这里是自己照顾自己，你死你的事，很多新加坡人就有这样的感觉。我可以理解行动党把所谓福利制度和福利国视为洪水猛兽，但我们的政策里面还是应该多注入一些人情味和体谅，使人民有归属感。这是我们可以改变的地方。”

　　他继续说：“要不然，人们会说，a city of opportunity，有机会嘛，没机会我就不要留在这里啦。这样，新加坡还能够维持100年吗？凭这样的一种心态、一种政策的延伸，你还能继续吸引外来移民吗？按现在的这种政策的功利心态走下去，我不晓得以后会变成什么样子。”

支持反恐政策但不愿政府权力过度扩张

　　刘程强表示支持新加坡的国防与反恐政策，但不愿意看到政府因此而权力过度扩张。

　　工人党在其政治纲领中说，建立国防力量和展开全面防卫是有必要的，也是保障国家安全的重要举措。他们因此支持反恐，建议政府应推行五年预算制，让武装部队能进行长期的发展策划，不过却强调在不危及国防安全的情况下，所有的国防开支都应保持透明度。

　　他受访时说：“为了国家安全，当然需要反恐，但也不能为了反恐，而使政府拥有太大的权力。”

　　例如最近在国会获得通过，已成为法令的两项修正法案，就引起他的关注。一是修正后的新加坡武装部队法令，允许国防部长授权执行安全任务的武装部队人员在任何武装部队设施附近的范围内行使执法权，拥有逮捕、搜寻、没收和进行交通管制的权力，包括有权截停、扣押或搜寻可疑的船只和飞机，并控制航行。不过，他们逮捕可疑分子之后，职责就算完成，交由警方接手处理对嫌犯的调查和提控程序。

　　工人党主席、非选区议员林瑞莲当时在国会上表达了她担心法案赋予国防部长太大的权力，不仅有违宪法，也可能导致军人政变的发生。

　　另一是今年八月在国会三读通过的私人保安业法令。它不但规定私家侦探和保安人员必须向警方申请执业执照，才能正式执业，也规定私家侦探在对政治人物、外国使节人员及面对安全威胁的场所展开任何监视行动之前，必须获得警方的批准。

　　副总理兼内政部长黄根成当时在国会上指出，国内外的经验都显示保安人员在防范恐怖袭击和加强社会安全方面，扮演着重要的角色，政府也有必要制订完善的私人保安业管理架构，以确保这个行业的水平和素质，让它在协助反恐方面，发挥更大作用。

　　刘程强却表示法令赋予部长太大的权力，难保不会出问题。

　　“如果落在居心不良的人手中，就有可能被滥用。虽然我们要反恐，但同时也应考虑到基本的民权不能被剥夺。你必须有一些防御性的条例来制止这种情况发生。”

“这次的公积金改革对年长国人不公平”

　　刘程强反对政府延迟提取公积金最低存款年龄，因为这让年长国人没有选择的余地，只有继续工作，这对他们不公平。

　　他今年九月在国会上针对公积金改革课题发言时指出，工人党支持政府逐步提高退休年龄，却认为退休年龄和提取公积金最低存款的年龄必须“脱钩”，因此建议政府设立一个长寿基金，每个月发放生活费给年满85岁，生活有困难的老年人，以让这些长寿的国人能够安享晚年。

　　他受访时认为这次的公积金改革，对国人很不公平。

　　“提取公积金最低存款的年龄一调高，很多人会觉得很没有意思。一些人甚至动了移民的念头，反正只要我选择移民，就可以早点把公积金拿出来。如果我整天没有办法把公积金拿出来，退休也退休得很辛苦，虽然寿命长，但总不能这样一直拼下去嘛。”

　　他说：“我想62岁应该是让国人可以决定到底要不要退休的年龄。不然，政府整天改来改去，哪一天又可能改到70岁还是更高。这样下去，人们是没有安全感的。”

　　他认为延长退休年龄没有问题，甚至可以定在80岁，但一定要让人们有生活的条件。

　　“政府这样做，好比在逼人家做工。而且你不要忘记，年纪大了，不是这么容易找到工作的。最近就有个选民来找我，他今年约60岁，要做工却找不到工作。他还有公积金，却担心公积金用完之后该怎么办。”

　　记者问他：“政府目前正大力推动让年长工人重新受雇，你认为办得到吗？”

　　他答说：“这要看经济情况，不是看政府。如果经济不好，你去办给我看啦。（你认为接下来经济会好吗？）我希望会好，不好就jiat lat（吃力）了。”

教育制度已有很大改变

　　刘程强曾在1982年至1986年于培道中学教书，虽然早就不执教鞭了，但他对教育课题还是很关心。

　　他觉得我国的教育制度经过改革之后，虽已进步了许多，却还是大有改善的余地。因为现有的制度还是偏重考试和成绩，学生的课业压力还是很大。

　　记者问他现有的教育制度具有怎样的特征？他答说：“五花八门。我觉得不是一件坏事，也就是说学生可以选择自己要走的路。虽然整体上我们还是没有办法跳出框框，还是太过注重考试和成绩。”

　　他指出，现在教育部已经改变学校排名的方式和重点，但从教育的角度来看，这种排名制度会造成良性竞争还是恶性竞争，仍具有争议。

　　“它会不会造成一些学校在竞争之下变成失去焦点，这可就见仁见智了。我觉得应该废除排名制度，因为坏处多过好处。”

　　回顾当年当教师和现在作为教育体系以外的旁观者来比较，他感觉到整个教育制度已有很大的改变。

　　“以前的制度非常有约束性，还有分流，现在不一定。以前从理工学院不能进入大学，现在从工艺教育学院也可以进入大学。这是个好的改变。学生能够通过不同的途径去继续升学，因此有所选择。”

　　他说，时代已经改变，一定要给学生另一次机会。

　　“如果他这次不行的话，你不能够以他一次的考试定终身。考试成绩只代表一个人能力的一部分，并不代表一个人。”

　　他说：“我以前教过的学生，他们现在的成就不会输给聪明的学生，甚至比他们还好。可能在学术上没有成就，但在生意上却做得不错啊。你说他们笨？你说他们是slow learner？过去的教育制度‘牺牲’了很多人，我们不应走回老路。”

“公共住屋政策有两大问题”

　　刘程强关注公共住屋价格上涨，认为这会造成年轻一代往后负债越来越重。他也从租赁组屋谈到下层民众的生活，认为政府在制定组屋租金方面，可以考虑按个别申请者的收入细分，以尽量减轻低收入者的金钱负担。

　　他在访谈中表示深觉公共住屋政策有两大问题，一是把部分新组屋交给私人发展商去兴建，这样组屋的价格肯定节节上升，年轻人的负债会越来越重。如果再有一次类似九七的金融危机，问题就大了。

　　他也担心一旦组屋价格上涨，维修费也会水涨船高，市镇理事会的杂费肯定要相应调高。

　　最近有私人发展商设计的组屋获奖，是否说明高素质的公共住屋是物有所值的？对此，他说：“这是一种商业化的包装，我们不需要紧跟商业化或世界的潮流，应该比较切合实际，使生活的费用不要太高。如果为了表面的美观，最后变成推高价格，以后年轻一代买屋子，要负债多久？这是个问题。”

　　那组屋价格明显上涨，资产增值不是给大家带来好处吗？他倒不这么认为。

　　“我不希望组屋价格涨得太高，因为这对大家都没有好处。当然，一般人可能觉得很不错啊，我的组屋可以卖五六十万元，但你不要忘了，你只有一间组屋而已，你卖了还不是得买，还不是一样贵？”

　　另一个令刘程强关心的是租赁组屋问题。

　　按照建屋局现有的规定，租金分成两种，一是按家庭收入不满800元，另一是家庭收入介于801元至1500元之间。以一房式组屋为例，第一次申请租赁组屋者，前者的每月租金是26元至33元，后者是90元至123元，最大差距达90元。对此，他就提到最近的一个个案。

　　“这名租户的薪水是830元，只是比800元的收入顶限多了区区30元，但租金却上调多了几倍。”

　　因此，他认为当局应以渐进的方式去制定租赁组屋的租金，按收入的多少细分，然后逐步调高。

　　他也留意到现在房地产市场一片大好，组屋的租金一直在涨。当局规定人们在卖了房地产之后，在两年半内是不能申请租政府组屋的，但是由于有些人在这段期间不容易找地方住，当局应该考虑放宽限制去协助他们。

　　“如果叫你去租私人住宅，租金很高。我觉得政府可以考虑放宽限制，根据家庭收入的多寡来制定不同数额的租金。”

PM Lee says he want to introduce Means Testing in Singapore hospital!

2007-10-30T17:28:00.000+08:00

Singapore is all about $.

Got $ kill people also can get medical care, if no $ then should not "heedlessly prolong" their lives.

I already had my say on this issue of means testing.

I OPPOSE means testing for healthcare.

I do not want Singapore's medical system turning into an American one. Look here, here and here to see what other Singaporeans have to say about how our healthcare system is being Americanized.

I also think that PAP are being misleading to Singaporeans during the GE2006.

I urge all S'poreans to take watch the video below by Tony Benn and register your opinion at the CNA's opinion poll (left hand side).

PM Lee suggests hospitals implement means testing to help the poor
By S Ramesh, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 29 October 2007 1926 hrs

SINGAPORE : Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has suggested that hospitals implement means testing to help the lower income group.

This is to determine how much patients should be subsidised, based on their means.

Mr Lee said this is a sensitive issue and the Health Ministry (MOH) will be consulting unions on this.

He was addressing over 1,000 unionists at the NTUC Delegates conference on Monday.

Good and affordable healthcare has been one important issue facing Singaporeans.

While many initiatives are being rolled out to address this, PM Lee told unionists that subsidies will still be needed to help the lower income.

To ensure that subsidies are given only to those who need them most, hospitals may need to implement means testing.

PM Lee said: "It's not easy to do; it's a very sensitive (issue) and the Ministry of Health is studying this carefully. The idea is there, but how do we implement it fairly and simply without making hospital care unaffordable for the middle income group.

"Once MOH has some firmer ideas, (Health Minister) Khaw Boon Wan and his team will consult the unions on what to do and how to go about doing this."

Mr Lee assured the labour movement that the government will always keep in close touch with the unions on all major issues.

Going forward, he said the government must now make sure that workers benefit from the growth and vitality of the economy. But the government cannot assume this would come about automatically. And in some cases, some special attention or action would be required.

Special attention to the economy has helped it grow 7.6 percent in the first half of the year, according to Mr Lee.

For the whole year, growth could possibly hit the top end of the government's forecast of 7-8 percent. But the current turbulence in global financial markets remains a risk factor.

Turning to the booming property market in Singapore, both in the prime office space and residential segments, Mr Lee noted that the Urban Redevelopment Authority has withdrawn the Deferred Payment Scheme for property purchases last Friday.

"This step will help to dampen excessive speculation and to inject some reality into the market. But more fundamental than the ups and downs of the property cycle, the government is committed to keeping housing affordable for Singaporeans," said the Prime Minister.

Mr Lee assured them that the government will continue to monitor trends closely and take further action if necessary. The aim is to make sure that the property market stays in balance over the long term.

Mr Lee also stressed that Singapore is successful only after difficult adjustments over the years.

He said: "Because we have taken these steps, each one difficult but each one necessary, we have moved forward together. We have stayed competitive, stayed ahead of other countries, our neighbours and we have prospered.

"Why have we been able to make these changes? It's not that other countries don't know they are necessary, but we have moved one step faster than others. And one major reason we have been able to do this is because of the strong support of the labour movement."

With the government, workers and employers working together as a winning formula, Mr Lee stressed that Singapore must keep on adjusting and adapting in order to stay ahead. - CNA /ls

民主是一种“秩序”

2007-10-30T13:18:00.000+08:00

This article is not about Singapore, but it fully rebut people who use Taiwan as an excuse to refute the desirability of Democracy.

民主是一种“秩序”

　　周柳明

　　今年，世界各地都在为08年这个选举大年热身。而台湾，自然是最热闹的一个地方。

　　这个充满话题的小岛，总能在不经意间聚敛起整个中国乃至全球范围的目光。这不仅仅因为它是华人世界唯一成功实践了民主政治的地区，更为重要的是，它将民主政治下的权力博弈和政党纷争肆意地推向了极点。其政治议坛的喧嚣和繁杂，无论是民主国家还是专制政权都为之感叹。

　　我们不能否认台湾作为一个实践民主政治桥头堡的伟大意义，它为华人世界追求民主精神和民主制度树立了新的标杆。无论是它在成功导入民主机制后给政治所带来的活力和张力以及对周围地区特别是中国大陆所产生的吸引与诱惑，还是西方社会把它作为亚洲少有的民主试验田而进行的一系列小心呵护和细致观察，它带来的影响已经远远超出了我们华人圈，辐射到了世界上每一个推动民主化进程的国家和地区。

　　然而，既然作为民主推行的一种尝试，台湾政治的感性与狂躁也把民主政治所特有的负面性展露得一览无余。政治人物操纵民粹的力量，将选举这一实践民主的工具的功能无限量放大，并将夹杂着诸多个人恩怨的政治情绪成功地移植到激进的支持者身上，利用意识形态的纷争借力打力以求达到自己独特的政治目的。这本身就是民主的硬伤，也成了敌视民主的人攻击和反对民主政治的借口。

　　然而这绝非民主之错，更非制度之错。从任何角度去理解，民主本身所带有的负面性相对其进步性而言都是微不足道的。在我看来，民主从本质上来讲乃是一种秩序。任何国家和地区一旦被纳入民主体制的范畴，其政治体系乃至整个社会机制就会在这种秩序下正常且良好的运转。但这只是一种理想化状态，因为并不是所有的地区和文化都能顺理成章地服从这种秩序。当优化的民主体制突然被推及至一个地区，其阶段性的不适必然会通过各种形式表现出来，如对民主的曲解，对权力的滥用，对自由的模糊，对政治的迷恋等等，即一种表象的无序和混乱，一如今日之台湾。

　　英美成熟的民主政治如金字塔般稳固地矗立在世界的两端，为无数人所仰视，它是历经了几百年的发展方有今日之成果。这种完善且成熟化的体制能把民主的秩序完全彻底地表达，无论是本质还是表象都是一种井然的秩序，一种“有序中的有序”。民众的理性和冷静，政客的良知和责任，权力的制约和平衡，对立中的妥协，沟通中的协商，少数服从多数的原则，多数尊重少数的姿态等，这应该是民主发展的方向。但这一过程尚需两个条件：一是时间的积累；二是依靠自身的张力不断进行的自我调整。

　　台湾民主制度的真正引入不过十余年的时间，其对民主概念的接受和对民主制度的实践还远远不成熟，因此在表象上的无序和混论也就在意料之中。这不能被看作是民主失败的特例，更不能成为反对民主的借口和托词。正如前文所提到的，民主本质上是一种秩序，只是台湾现有的民主发展程度不能像英美体制那般将这种秩序完全彻底地表达，它在表象上是一种“无序和混论”。但是，这种“无序和混乱”是建立在“有序”的基础之上的，是一种“无序中的有序”。民主体制的导入和确立已经确保这种秩序的存在并将日渐成为台湾民主政治的主导。

　　第一，选举这一法制化的工具，已经成为了全社会默认的准则。

　　选举是民主社会一个最重要的特征，是实践民主最具体、最有效的形式。台湾是将选举这一工具运用得最彻底的地区之一，大大小小的选举不仅组合了各级的政治人物，更排列了社会的政治秩序。纵然选举的过程并不那么干净和自然，但选举这一基本模式已经没有人能够撼动。

　　第二，司法权的相对独立，与行政权、立法权的制约和平衡依然存在。

　　司法权在民主制度中扮演的是一个极其重要的角色。台湾政坛朝野的二元对立让本应独立于立法行政之外的司法在夹缝中遭到了诸多的非议。其实，在朝野恶斗政党纷争的大环境下，台湾的司法依旧保持了相对的独立性，只是这种独立性往往因为朝野双方的无端指责而被曲解。无论是总统因机要案险被起诉，还是国民党前主席马英九因特别费被法院判决无罪，司法的步伐并没有跟在当权者的背后亦步亦趋。当然，我们不敢奢求司法绝对的公正和公平，但是司法界所秉持的“不分颜色，只看案情”的立场还是让人对司法保留了很多的希望。

　　第三，媒介高举“新闻自由”的旗帜，保持了高度的公信力。

　　“新闻自由”是民主社会的一个重要特征，更是“第四权力”所能够发挥最大监督作用的保障。台湾的媒体不仅数量庞多，且相对较独立，能够针对热点和焦点事件迅速作出反映，报道及时，评论大胆，特别是独立于政党派别之外的部分政治评论员更是深受民众的喜爱。台湾政坛的很多重大事件（比如轰动一时的赵建铭股票内线交易案）都是经过媒体的曝光才浮出水面的，媒体的独立和舆论的民主给了当权者莫大的压力。在台湾，媒体的力量看似社会秩序的“破坏者”，实质上是民主秩序的重建者和维护者。

　　第四，军队在形式上的中立和对政治的不介入态度。

　　军方不介入政治，实现军队国家化是民主制度落实的前提之一。台湾的军方在选举中的中立姿态及其对选举结果的不干涉，有效地维持和保护了来之不易的民主秩序，这是民主迈向成熟和完善的必经阶段。

　　第五，理性的中间选民将成为决定选举结果的重要力量。

　　按照台湾目前的选民结构分布，蓝绿的基本盘各约为选民总数的三分之一，双方力量势均力敌。而决定选举结果的就是这些没有明显政治偏向色彩的约占总数三分之一的中间选民。他们是有文化、有独立判断能力的一类人，对政坛现状日趋厌恶和不满。因此，他们将抛开传统的意识形态和政治偏好，依靠自己的思考和判断来决定自己的选择。台湾的选举将会越来越倚重理性的中间选民的投票，他们将在不知不觉中改变着这种无序的状态，用温和而理性的力量慢慢融解台北政坛的恶斗和纷争。

Not treating Burmese murderous Junta is against Hippocratic Oath, but making sick S'poreans accept earlier death due to cost issues is not!

2007-10-06T01:32:00.000+08:00

Wow! Our PM Lee had came up with a ingenious argument to defend the govt on why they should let the Burmese Junta to come to Singapore for medical treatment.

According to PM Lee, it is against the Hippocratic Oath to bar the murderous generals from seeking medical treatment in Singapore!

Here is what is reported by CNA:

Mr Lee also responded to a question on whether Singapore should prevent members of the Myanmar government from coming to Singapore for medical treatment.

He said: "I think we have to decide whether we're trying to influence the policy of a government or whether you want to do petty indignities to individuals, which is really against human nature.

"Somebody who is sick, he wants to come to Singapore, he needs treatment and you're telling me that I shouldn't treat him because he is not a good man? It goes against the Hippocratic oath of doctors."

How noble PM Lee is!

If that is the case Osama Bin Laden should come to Singapore for medical treatment if he is sick, after all our govt already said that it is against the Hippocratic Oath if we don't treat him!

But wait... What should I make of this statement by PM Lee?

The practice of medicine has its limits. It takes wisdom to know these limits and the true needs of the dying. Heedless pursuit of “pure” medicine to prolong life, without regard to cost or the wishes of the patients, cannot be sustained in the long term, not even in the wealthiest countries. This is a serious problem plaguing the US healthcare system today. Alas fixing it is politically difficult. We must not get into such a situation.

PM Lee is telling the doctors that S'pore doctors that they should NOT heedlessly prolong life of Singaporeans "without regard to cost"!

Is PM Lee saying that Singaporean patients should NOT be treated when it is too costly to keep them alive?

Well, at least one of his minister had made his position clear.

I regret making the decision because, in the end, the baby continued to be in intensive care, and KKH now runs up a total bill of more than $300,000

- Lim Hng Kiang, regretting the decision to save a baby's life because KKH ran up a $300,000 bill

How is that for Hippocratic Oath!

Perhaps to PM Lee this Oath only applies to the rich people, evil or not, who can afford the medical treatment.

Singaporean patients who have problem paying for their medical bill will just have to accept their fate.

No wonder so many Singaporeans say that one "can die but cannot be sick in Singapore."

Uniquely Singapore indeed.

Sanctions against Myanmar will be counter-productive: PM Lee
By Wong Siew Ying, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 05 October 2007 2045 hrs

SINGAPORE: Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has said that sanctions against Myanmar will be counter-productive.

He also stressed that ASEAN alone cannot solve the problem in Myanmar, and called on the international community to weigh in as well.

Mr Lee said this in an interview with the CNN, which was aired on Friday evening.

He was responding to the presenter who asked if ASEAN could do more besides issuing strong statements against the unrest in Myanmar.

ASEAN has to take a clear stand on Myanmar because what happens there affects the group's reputation, said PM Lee.

What ASEAN wishes to see is developments that will lead progressively to a Myanmar government that has more legitimacy at home and greater acceptance internationally, added Mr Lee.

But ASEAN, he stressed, does not have the leverage to solve the problems in Myanmar.

Mr Lee also explained why economic sanctions against the military-ruled country may not be productive.

He said: "First of all, this is a country which wants to isolate itself from the world, so they are not afraid of you cutting them off.

"Secondly, if you want to have sanctions, it cannot just be Singapore or even ASEAN, but all of the countries in the world have to do that, and that includes the Western countries, investors in Myanmar and its neighbours like China with big stake in Myanmar.

"And thirdly, if you do have sanction and it worked, I think the people who will be hurt by the sanctions will not be the regime or the SPDC (State Peace and Development Council), the government, but the people of Myanmar, so it will be counter productive."

Mr Lee added that the United Nations will play an important role, and the recent visit to Myanmar by UN special envoy Ibrahim Gambari is the first step to improving the situation there.

Mr Lee also responded to a question on whether Singapore should prevent members of the Myanmar government from coming to Singapore for medical treatment.

He said: "I think we have to decide whether we're trying to influence the policy of a government or whether you want to do petty indignities to individuals, which is really against human nature.

"Somebody who is sick, he wants to come to Singapore, he needs treatment and you're telling me that I shouldn't treat him because he is not a good man? It goes against the Hippocratic oath of doctors."

Separately, Mr Lee spoke on the phone with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Friday.

The UN chief invited Singapore, in its capacity as the current ASEAN chair, to make a statement at a UN Security Council meeting on developments in Myanmar.

PM Lee told Mr Ban that he has written to China, India and Japan to work together with ASEAN and the UN to help the parties in Myanmar find a way towards national reconciliation. - CNA/ir

ACCEPTANCE SPEECH BY PRIME MINISTER LEE HSIEN LOONG FOR THE CONFERMENT OF HONORARY FELLOWSHIP BY THE ACADEMY OF MEDICINE, 19 JULY 2007, 6.45PM RAFFLES CITY CONVENTION CENTRE

Professor Ho Lai Yun, Master of Academy of Medicine Singapore,

Distinguished guests,

Ladies and Gentlemen

1. I am honoured to accept the honorary fellowship from the Academy of Medicine. I am also happy to join you tonight for your Golden Jubilee, and for the 41st Singapore-Malaysia Congress of Medicine. I understand that members of the Hong Kong Medical Academy are here as well for the Congress. To all our foreign guests, let me extend a very warm welcome to Singapore.

2. Healthcare in Singapore has come a long way since the Academy was founded. Half a century ago, we were struggling to keep malnutrition and infectious diseases under control. Today, Singaporeans enjoy standards of healthcare equal to or exceeding the advanced countries. Internationally, Singapore healthcare stands for quality and ethical practice. The growing numbers of foreign patients who seek advanced medical treatments in Singapore each year is testimony to this.

3. We owe this position to past generations of doctors who served with compassion, humility and high ideals. Indeed, Singapore is fortunate to have had a pioneering batch of doctors deeply steeped in the ethics and values of medicine. Professors Ransome, Sheares, Seah Cheng Siang, S S Ratnam – they, together with many others, served selflessly with the single purpose of providing the best possible care for their patients, whether rich or poor. They inspired subsequent generations to aspire to the highest standards of professional excellence.

4. We must cherish and build on this precious legacy. This is particularly so because moving forward, our healthcare system faces some daunting challenges.

5. One challenge is the rapidly growing demand for healthcare services. Ours is one of the fastest ageing populations in the world. On current demographic trends, the number of Singaporeans aged 65 years and above will double in 15 years. Older people are hospitalised more often, and each time stay in hospital longer on average. Our public hospitals already run at near capacity. The existing infrastructure clearly will be inadequate to meet the needs of this surge in elderly numbers, plus the steady growth of our overall population year by year.

6. The Government is investing to expand the capacity of our healthcare system. The Khoo Teck Puat Hospital in Yishun is already under construction, and should be completed by 2010. MOH has begun planning for another hospital in the Western part of Singapore. We will also reserve several sites scattered across the island, so that new hospitals can be built when the population and patient load builds up.

7. But building hard infrastructure is the easier part. We also need to train and recruit the people – doctors, nurses, other healthcare workers – to staff the new institutions and make them work. Without them, quality of care will be compromised, and we will fall short of the high standards that Singaporeans have rightly come to expect.

8. The numbers involved are large. MOH, for example, projects that we will need to recruit over 2,000 more doctors by 2015. Given our small local talent pool and competing needs from other sectors in the economy, there are limits to how far we can expand the local supply. It will not be a simple matter of just investing more money to train more Singaporeans to become doctors or healthcare workers. We have been raising the intake of medical students each year, but this will not be enough. Increasingly, we will have to recruit medical talent from abroad. We must be open minded in accepting such imported talent, while maintaining medical standards and helping foreign trained doctors to adapt to conditions in Singapore.

9. While we will invest more in healthcare, it is even more important to get the economics of healthcare right. Countries all over the world have taken different approaches. Their experience shows that more resources do not necessarily improve healthcare outcomes. The reality is that demand for healthcare is unlimited and has to be rationed. Some countries have gone for free healthcare at point of use, only to face the intractable challenges of meeting insatiable demand and curbing abuse while keeping high standards of healthcare. Problems are compounded as populations age and vast amounts of high-tech resources are marshalled to manage the last few weeks of the terminally ill, delivering poor quality of life to the patients at very high cost to society.

10. The practice of medicine has its limits. It takes wisdom to know these limits and the true needs of the dying. Heedless pursuit of “pure” medicine to prolong life, without regard to cost or the wishes of the patients, cannot be sustained in the long term, not even in the wealthiest countries. This is a serious problem plaguing the US healthcare system today. Alas fixing it is politically difficult. We must not get into such a situation.

11. Singapore has opted for pricing and co-payment to bring market forces into play, minimise waste of resources, and incentivise efficient delivery of healthcare. MOH has been pushing for greater transparency, publishing information on bill sizes of hospitals and encouraging hospitals to track and publish clinical quality indicators. This will enable patients to make more informed choices and the market to function better.

12. Our system relies on compulsory savings through Medisave and risk-pooling through MediShield, a medical insurance scheme to cover large hospital bills. Medifund provides the final safety net. This approach has helped us avoid the problems experienced elsewhere and contain national healthcare expenditure, yet with very good outcomes. But managing healthcare cost escalation requires continuous effort, particularly with the ageing population. We must keep on identifying better ways to keep Singaporeans healthy and help those with chronic diseases to manage their illness, so as to avoid future complications. We need to maintain our market-based system, while exploring new and creative approaches to improve it.

13. This includes exploiting IT to the full. The National Healthcare Group, for example, has introduced tele-radiology at its polyclinics, where x-ray images are sent to Bangalore to be read. As a result, prices have been reduced and turnaround time has been cut dramatically from 2 – 3 days previously to an hour or less. Increased competition has also led to local radiologists charging less for x-rays and reporting the results faster. Patients benefit all round, saving money and time as they no longer need to make return trips for their results.

14. We must press on with such initiatives. There are other applications of telemedicine, such as tele-pathology, where technology has advanced to a stage where it makes economic sense and improves the quality of care, while assuring patient safety. Complete computerisation of hospital information systems is an ideal goal which is still some way away. These changes may be unsettling for incumbent practitioners. But the response cannot be to dig-in and resist. Just like in other industries, incumbents must look for new niche areas on the value chain, where our more advanced capabilities and recognised quality standards justify our higher costs.

15. Finally, we must not lose sight of the core values which underpin and provide the moral compass for our healthcare community. Senior members of the community must lead by example, teaching and mentoring their younger colleagues. Financial incentives play a role, and successful specialists can do very well, particularly in the private sector. There is nothing wrong in this. But values built up over many years, such as caring and compassionate service to patients and striving for the highest standards of professional excellence, must never be diluted or lost in the midst of change. Senior doctors must pass them on to the younger generation of doctors, so that they will in time produce a new generation like Gordon Ransome, Seah Cheng Siang and the other pioneers. This is perhaps the most fundamental challenge of all for the medical profession.

16. The Academy of Medicine is committed to advancing the art and science of medicine in Singapore, and promoting and maintaining the highest professional standards of competence and ethical integrity. It plays a leadership role in keeping the profession true to its mission of providing the highest quality of patient care in Singapore. I am confident that you will draw upon the rich values that have guided your profession through the years, to guide your way forward.

17. I congratulate you on the 50th Golden Anniversary of your Academy, and wish all participants of this Congress a fruitful and productive meeting.

Statistics show annuities' risk-pooling model may disadvantage poor old-old

2007-10-05T05:31:00.000+08:00

The numbers tell the story

Statistics show annuities' risk-pooling model may disadvantage poor old-old

Letter from Dr Vincent Chia Wei Meng

I refer to the compulsory annuity scheme. I would like to point out that there is good statistical evidence to support a strong correlation between socio-economic status and life expectancy in developed countries. As such, the compulsory annuity scheme should take this fact into consideration.

It is well-known among sociologists and epidemiologists that social class or socio-economic status is a prominent life expectancy indicator, and is assessed through occupation, income, housing or educational level.

We can begin by looking at epidemiological data from the United States. From the paper published last year by Gopal K Singh and Mohammad Siahpush in the International Journal of Epidemiology, entitled Widening Socioeconomic Inequalities in US Life Expectancy, 1980–2000, it is clear that life expectancy for less-deprived groups is notably higher than that for more-deprived groups.

An extract states: "Those in less-deprived groups experienced a longer life expectancy at each age than their counterparts in more-deprived groups. Between 1980 and 1982, the overall life expectancy at birth was 2.8 years longer for the least-deprived group than for the most-deprived group (75.8 years versus 73.0). By the 1998 to 2000 period, the absolute difference in life expectancy at birth increased to 4.5 years (79.2 years vs 74.7)."

Singh and Siahpush concluded that: "Between 1980 and 2000, those in higher socio-economic groups experienced larger gains in life expectancy than those in more-deprived groups, contributing to the widening gap."

Thus, there is not only a greater life expectancy for those with a higher socio- economic status but the gap in life expectancy between the higher and lower socio-economic groups is progressively widening.

Not surprisingly, we see a similar trend in the United Kingdom. A paper by its Office for National Statistics (ONS) gives figures on trends in life expectancy by social class in England and Wales between 1972 and 2001.

The data shows that while life expectancy at birth for both the higher and lower social classes have improved, it is evident that life expectancy at birth for those from a higher social class is significantly better than those from the other end of the spectrum. There is likewise an increasing gap in life expectancy between the two classes.

Apart from life expectancy, it is interesting to note that socio-economic status is an important determinant of disability among older Asians. The effect of socio-economic characteristics is also strongest when predicting perceived health. According to the National University of Singapore's Department of Sociology and the Asia Research Institute, sociologists have discovered that perception of income adequacy is the most important predictor of health.

Closer to home, The Old-Old in Singapore, a paper published by Ang Seow Long and Edmond Lee from the Singapore Department of Statistics, suggests a similar link between socio-economic status and life expectancy.

The old-old refers to those 85 years and above. If the home of an old-old Singaporean is any indication of his socio-economic status, then it is significant that in 1999, 43.5 per cent of the old-old live in HDB four-room or larger flats. In comparison, 29.1 per cent of old-old Singaporeans live in HDB three-room flats, while the remaining 11 per cent live in HDB one- or two-room flats.

In other words, a large proportion of those who live to 85 years and beyond do not live in one- or two-room flats. Close to half of them, in fact, live in four-room or larger flats.

If it is true that a majority of the old-old are from higher socio-economic groups, there might be a weakness in the compulsory annuity scheme. As it works on the principle of risk pooling, CPF members who die early may not live to see the benefits of the scheme. In fact, their premiums may go towards paying the annuity payouts of other members.

We must ensure that lower socio-economic groups are not unduly burdened with the care of old-old from higher socio-economic sectors. Only then can the annuity scheme be of greater aid to those old-old Singaporeans who are truly in need of such payouts.

S'pore and Burma: Web of cash, power and cronies

2007-09-30T19:07:00.000+08:00

From The Age.

Web of cash, power and cronies

Eric Ellis
September 29, 2007

SINGAPORE isn't just skilled at mandatory executions of drug traffickers, running an excellent airport and selling cameras on Orchard Road. It also does a useful trade keeping Burma's military rulers and their cronies afloat.

Much attention is placed on China and its coming hosting of the Olympic Games as a diplomatic pressure point on the rampant Burmese junta. But there is a group of government businessmen-technocrats in Singapore who will also be closely monitoring the brutality in Rangoon. And, were they so inclined, their influence could go a long way to limiting the misery being inflicted on Burma's 54 million people.

Collectively known as "Singapore Inc", they gather around the $A150 billion state-owned investment house Temasek Holdings, controlled by a member of the ruling Lee family.

With an estimated $A3 billion staked in the country (and a more than $20 billion stake in Australia), Singapore Inc companies have been some of the biggest investors in and supporters of Burma's military junta — this while its Government, on the rare times it is asked, suggests a softly-softly diplomatic approach towards the junta.

When it comes to Burma, Singapore pockets the high morals it likes to wave at the West elsewhere. Singapore's one-time head of foreign trade once said as his country was building links with Burma in the mid-1990s: "While the other countries are ignoring it, it's a good time for us to go in … you get better deals, and you're more appreciated … Singapore's position is not to judge them and take a judgemental moral high ground."

But by providing Burma's pariah junta with the crucial equipment mostly denied by Western sanctions, Singapore has helped keep the junta and its cronies afloat for 20 years, since the last time the generals killed the citizens they are supposed to protect.

Withdraw that financial support and Burma's junta would be substantially weakened, perhaps even fail. But after two decades of profitable business with the trigger-happy generals and their cronies, that's about the last thing Singapore is likely to do. There's too much money to be made.

Hotels, airlines, military materiel and training, crowd control equipment and sophisticated telecoms-monitoring devices for its secret police — Singapore is manager and supplier to the junta, and the "cronified" economy it controls.

It's impossible to spend any time in Burma and not make the junta richer, thanks to Singapore suppliers' contracts with the tourism industry. Singapore's hospitals also keep Burma's leaders alive — 74-year-old junta leader Than Shwe has been getting his intestinal cancer treated in a Singapore government hospital, protected by Singapore security. Singapore's boutiques keep junta wives and families cloaked in Armani, and its banks help launder their money and that of Burma's crony drug lords.

Much of Singapore's activity in Burma has been documented by an analyst working in Prime Minister John Howard's direct chain of command, in the Office of National Assessments. Andrew Selth is recognised as an authority on the Burmese military. Now a research fellow at Queensland's Griffith University, Mr Selth has written extensively on how close Singapore is to the junta.

Often writing as "William Ashton" in the authoritative Jane's Intelligence Review, Mr Selth has described in various articles how Singapore has sent the junta guns, rockets, armoured personnel carriers and grenade launchers, some of it trans-shipped from stocks seized by Israel from Palestinians in southern Lebanon.

Singaporean companies have provided computers and networking equipment for Burma's defence ministry and army, while upgrading the bunkered junta's ability to network with regional commanders — so crucial as protesting monks take to the streets of 20 Burmese cities, causing major logistical headaches for the Tatmadaw, the Burmese military.

"Singapore cares little about human rights, in particular the plight of the ethnic and religious minorities in Burma," Mr Selth writes.

"Having developed one of the region's most advanced armed forces and defence industrial support bases, Singapore is in a good position to offer Burma a number of inducements which other ASEAN (Association of South-East Asian Nations) countries would find hard to match."

Singapore's Foreign Minister, George Yeo, is the current chairman of ASEAN.

Mr Selth says Singapore also provided the equipment for a "cyber war centre" to monitor dissident activity while training Burma's secret police, whose sole job seems to be ensuring pro-democracy groups are crushed.

Monitoring dissidents is an area where Singapore has particular expertise. After almost five decades in power, the Lee family-controlled People's Action Party ranks behind only the communists of China, Cuba and North Korea in leadership longevity, skilled in neutralising opposition.

"This centre is reported to be closely involved in the monitoring and recording of foreign and domestic telecommunications, including the satellite telephone conversations of Burmese opposition groups," Mr Selth writes.

Singapore Government companies, such as leading arms supplier Singapore Technologies, dominate the communications and military sector in Singapore. "It is highly unlikely," Mr Selth writes, "that any of these arms shipments to Burma could have been made without the knowledge and support of the Singapore Government."

He notes that Singapore's ambassadors to Burma have included a former senior Singapore armed forces officer, and a past director of Singapore's defence-oriented Joint Intelligence Directorate, people with a military background rather than professional diplomats.

He writes that after the 1988 crackdown, when the junta killed 3000 protesters, "the first country to come to the regime's rescue was in fact Singapore".

When I interviewed Singapore Technologies chief executive Peter Seah at his office in Singapore, I asked about the scale model of an armoured personnel carrier made by his company on his office table. He said ST sold the vehicles "only to allies".

Does that include Burma, I asked, given that Singapore controversially helped sponsor the military regime into ASEAN?

Mr Seah was non-specific: "We only sell to allies and we make sure they are responsible." He didn't say how. ST and Temasek don't respond to questions about their activities in Burma.

Singapore is so close to Burma that one of its diplomats there wrote a handbook for its business people there. Matthew Sim's Myanmar on my Mind is full of useful tips for Singaporean business people in Burma. "A little money goes a long way in greasing the wheels of productivity," he writes.

A chapter headed "Committing Manslaughter when Driving" describes the appropriate action if a Singaporean businessman accidentally kills a Burmese pedestrian. "Firstly, the international businessman could give the family of the deceased some money as compensation and dissuade them from pressing charges. Secondly, he could pay a Myanmar citizen to take the blame by declaring that he was the driver in the fatal accident. An international businessman should not make the mistake of trying to argue his case in a court of law when it comes to a fatal accident, even if he is in the right."

Mr Sim says many successful Myanmar businessmen have opened shell companies in Singapore "with little or no staff, used to keep funds overseas". The companies are used to keep business deals outside the control of Burma's central bank, enabling Singaporeans and others to transact with Burma in Singapore.

He may be referring to junta cronies such as Tay Za and the drug lord Lo Hsing Han. Lo is an ethnic Chinese, from Burma's traditionally Chinese-populated and opium-rich Kokang region in the country's east, bordering China. He controls a massive heroin empire, and one of Burma's biggest companies, Asia World, which the US Drug Enforcement Agency describes as a front for his drug-trafficking. Asia World controls toll roads, industrial parks and trading companies. Singapore is the Lo family's crucial window to the world, as it controls a number of companies there. His son Steven, who has been denied a visa to the US because of his links to the drug trade, married a Singaporean, Cecilia Ng, and the two reportedly control Singapore-based trading house Kokang Singapore.

A former assistant secretary of state for the US Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, Robert Gelbard, has said that half Singapore's investment in Burma has "been tied to the family of narco-trafficker Lo Hsing Han".

Tay Za, who is romantically linked to a daughter of junta leader Than Shwe, is also well known in Singapore. He was prominent in the Singapore media last year, toasting the launch of his airline Air Bagan with the head of Singapore's aviation authority. Dissident groups say the trade-off for Tay Za's government business contracts in Burma is to fund junta leaders' medical trips to Singapore.

Eric Ellis is an Australian journalist and correspondent in South-East Asia.

Sylvia Lim on CPF

2007-09-20T00:07:00.000+08:00

NMP Mr Siew Kum Hong on CPF

2007-09-19T23:35:00.000+08:00

NMP SKH: "This week, it is a compulsory annuity. But if we take that first step, will it prove to be a slippery slope of encroachment onto CPF members’ rights? What will it be next week, next year, next decade? An increase in the annuity amount? Some other compulsory scheme?

We really do need to have a thorough debate on what it means to be a CPF member. Do CPF funds belong to CPF members individually, and what rights do they have in determining how it is spent?"

Transcript.

Mr Low Thia Khiang views on CPF issues.

2007-09-19T01:00:00.000+08:00

LTK: “想不到在现今的世界，死不了而长寿也是一种罪过，还得被政府强逼购买年金。”

Lim Chin Siong: A comet in our sky

2007-09-06T03:22:00.000+08:00

Educated yourself on the life story of one of the most influential person in modern Singapore history, Lim Chin Siong.

Lim Chin Siong vs Lee Kuan Yew: The true and shocking history

Introduction
Part I: Our man
Part II: Get him!
Part III: The end of Lim Chin Siong
Part IV (final): What they teach in school

CPF is our freaking $!!!! We demand Transparency & Accountabilty NOW!!!!

2007-08-23T17:03:00.000+08:00

CNA:

Draw-down age for CPF minimum sum to be raised progressively to 65
By Valarie Tan, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 19 August 2007 2334 hrs

SINGAPORE : The government is taking more steps to ensure that Singaporeans have enough CPF savings for their old age.

It is raising the draw-down age for the minimum sum from 62 to 65.

This was announced by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in his National Day Rally speech on Sunday.

Currently, Singaporeans who have turned 62 can start withdrawing their CPF minimum sum and enjoy a S$790 monthly payout for the next 20 years.

This will change in five years (in 2012) when the new "Draw-Down Age", or DDA, is progressively raised to 65.

The first to be affected will be those aged 56 or 57 by the end of 2007.

They will have to wait one year longer - till they are 63 - before they can tap into their CPF minimum sum.

Those 54 or 55 this year will have to wait two years longer - till they're 64 while those between 49 and 53 can only withdraw the minimum sum when they hit 65 - the new DDA.

=> How much longer do they want to deny S'poreans of their hard earn monies?!?!

PM Lee said: "I know this is not so popular. But we have no choice. People are living longer, we have to work longer. And we have to start drawing on the reserves later. Therefore we have to start moving now. Not move all the way now. But we have to start moving now. And we will get there in good time."

And the prime minister has promised something extra for older workers who are affected by the change.

These will come in the form of Deferment Bonuses into their CPF retirement accounts.

Details will be announced later.

But just delaying the withdrawal age is not enough to cover older Singaporeans who are living longer than expected.

So the government has decided to make annuities compulsory for Singaporeans aged 50 and below.

=> WTF! We can get the annuities only after 85 leh! What makes you think that we can all live beyond 85 for a long time?! If only 85 then we can claim, it is no longer "年金" (annuities) liao! It is "白金" ($ you give to relatives of dead person during funeral)!

CPF members are currently allowed to convert their minimum sums to annuities with an insurance company and then get monthly payouts for the rest of their lives.

But the voluntary scheme has not been popular.

=> KNN. Already know S'poreans don't want this scheme liao you still want to shaft it down our throat?!?

Mr Lee said: "It's partly because Singaporeans don't understand annuities, don't understand why they need them. It's also because frankly speaking, the returns haven't been very attractive. The costs have been high. But despite these limitations, we do need annuities as part of our old age planning."

Details on the CPF changes will be spelt out when Parliament sits next month. - CNA/ch

From Sammyboy Alfresco Coffee shop:

makapa:

SINGAPORE : Interest rates for the CPF Special, Medisave and Retirement Accounts will be re-pegged to an appropriate long-term bond rate.

Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen said more details on this will be worked out and announced next month.

He said the new rates will be lower initially than the current rate of 4 percent but it should do better than 4 percent over time.

But as the rates will be pegged to the market, fluctuations can be expected.

=> Why not peg it to the S & P return, which is at 11.9% pa, CCB Bargain Hen?

Dr Ng was speaking at a news conference to explain the initiatives announced by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong at the National Day Rally.

Giving more details on the compulsory annuities, Dr Ng said only part of the minimum sum from the CPF will be set aside for it.

A major portion of the minimum sum will still be for the members to withdraw when they reach the draw-down age.

Dr Ng said this is to ensure that members are covered even after the age of 85.

He said the aim is to achieve a subsistence payout first - of possibly between S$250 and S$300 per month.

=> Worse than NS pay! WTF! $250 in x years = $2.50 in today's value!

NS Song

2007-08-10T18:31:00.000+08:00

You dun have to agree with it, but it is really entertaining!

Nation Builders - A new video by Martyn See

2007-08-10T03:18:00.000+08:00

As the commentator go on and on about remembering the hardwork of our pioneers, this is the reality that many of our elderly are facing.

The wealth generated by Singapore's much-touted economic success story has not benefited everyone, least of all its senior citizens, a.k.a. the nation builders. Filmed on the streets and back-alleys of downtown Singapore in July 2007, this video does not contain any enactments or acting. Directed, shot and edited by Martyn See. Running time : 14 minutes.

Better red than dead

2007-08-08T03:02:00.000+08:00

Better red than dead
Healthcare pressures may cause the trend towards free-market capitalism to reverse, with a large chunk of the economy reverting to a socialist system.

Kenneth Rogoff
August 5, 2007 9:00 AM

Will the inexorable rise in medical costs around the world someday pose a major challenge to contemporary capitalism? I submit that in the not-so-distant future, moral, social, and political support for capitalism will be severely tested as would-be egalitarian health systems face ever-rising costs.

Rising incomes, population ageing, and new technologies for extending and enhancing life, have caused health costs to rise 3.5% faster than overall income for many decades now in the United States. Some leading economists project that health expenditures, which already constitute 16% of the US economy, will rise to 30% of GDP by 2030, and perhaps approach 50% later in the century. Other rich and middle-income countries, although typically spending only half what the US does today, won't lag far behind.

Countries in Europe and elsewhere have shielded their citizens from a part of this rise by piggybacking on US technological advances. Ultimately, though, they face the same upward cost pressures.

Hasn't the start of the 21st century marked the death of all other ideologies, with China's raw capitalism putting pressure on gentler forms in Europe and elsewhere? The problem is that attitudes towards healthcare are fundamentally different.

Many societies view healthcare as a right, not a luxury. When medical expenses constituted only a small percentage of income, as was typically the case 50 years ago, an egalitarian approach to healthcare was a small extravagance. The direct and indirect costs were relatively minor and affordable.

But as health expenses start taking up a third of national income, healthcare socialism starts becoming just plain Marxism: to each according to his needs. Even China's authoritarian capitalism will someday feel the pressure, as its rural populations, who currently have little access to doctors or hospitals, eventually explode with discontent.

One often hears about rising healthcare costs in the context of future government budget projections, with old-age health costs expected to dominate growth in government expenditures in coming years. But a careful look at the projections by, say, the US Congressional Budget Office, show that the aging of our societies is only a part of the problem, and not the larger part. The real issue is whether societies are willing to provide elderly people with equal access to ever newer and improved medical techniques.

A change on the horizon that will exacerbate current frictions is the growing importance of individualised health care. For most of modern history, relatively inexpensive public health precautions, such as providing clean drinking water and routine vaccinations, have been the main factor pushing up life expectancy. Public health measures have trumped the importance of individual care.

But today, the balance is shifting. Heart operations are already a major factor in extending life in many rich countries. Sophisticated x-ray diagnostic techniques such as CT scans make it possible to detect many cancers at a treatable stage.

Some drug researchers predict that with continuing advances in understanding the human genome, doctors may eventually be able to predict illnesses 15-20 years in advance, and begin prophylactic treatment immediately. (With some experts predicting that individuals will routinely live beyond 110-115 years by mid-century, one might wonder what all this will do to other social conventions such as marriage, but I will leave this thought to another day.)

In addition to reducing mortality, new medical techniques can also have a huge effect on the quality of life. Roughly 250,000 hip replacements are performed in the US each year. Under-60 patients are becoming more important as newer artificial joints prove their capacity to withstand more active lifestyles.

At $6,000, the average cost of a hip replacement is only a thousandth the cost of what it supposedly took to implant a bionic arm, eye, and two legs on the fictional The Six Million Dollar Man in the popular mid-1970's TV show. Of course, hip replacement patients don't get superhuman speed, strength, and vision - at least not yet. If Tour de France officials think they have big problems now with steroids, just wait 10 years.

In principle, greater use of market mechanisms to allocate health care can slow or even temporarily reverse the rise in healthcare costs. But improved efficiency has its limits. Ultimately, the evidence suggests that societies spend ever-larger fractions of their income on health over time, in contrast to food expenditures, for example, which fall as countries become wealthier.

Spending pressures, in turn, lead to acceleration of innovation. This raises long-term wellbeing all around, but exacerbates short-term inequalities and frictions.

I am not arguing against healthcare capitalism, but warning that support will become fragile, far more so than for, say, globalisation nowadays. Most countries rely far too much on command and control, and provide far too few incentives for patients and providers to make efficient choices. Nevertheless, it remains to be seen whether healthcare pressures will ultimately cause the current trend towards free (and freer) market capitalism to reverse, with a very large chunk of the economy reverting to a more socialist system. Some societies might decide that it is better to be red than dead.

In cooperation with Project Syndicate, 2007.

Temasek reports 29% drop in profits.

2007-08-03T02:23:00.000+08:00

Mdm Ho Ching, wife of our PM, has been in charge of Temasek Holdings since 1 May 2002. From my memories, Temasek Holdings hasn't been performing very well in recent years...

It would be really interesting if someone can do a report on the performance of Temasek Holdings' investment for the period that Mdm Ho Ching is in charge. I would really like to know how did Temasek Holdings' performed when she is at the helm.

Temasek reports 29% drop in profits due to fewer transactions
By Yvonne Cheong, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 02 August 2007 1758 hrs

SINGAPORE: Singapore investment firm Temasek Holdings has reported a 29 per cent drop in full-year earnings.

Net profit for the financial year ended in March amounted to S$9.1 billion or US$6 billion.

The value of its portfolio stood at S$164 billion, which was 27% higher than the previous year.

This is the first time that its portfolio has breached the US$100 billion mark.

Temasek also said that it made new investments of nearly S$16 billion in the last financial year.

It also divested assets worth more than S$5 billion.

Although its net profit declined by 29% on year, Temasek said the numbers were still strong.

"We achieved profits of about S$9 billion, lower than the year before. That reflects the number of transactions that we did last year. It reflects our cautious outlook of the market during the year, but we're happy to see that the S$9 billion remains our second highest ever profit number for Temasek," said Ng Yat Chung, Temasek's managing director for portfolio management.

The drop in net profit was partly due to an impairment charge on Temasek's stake in the Thai telecoms group Shin Corp.

"We have made accounting impairment to our investment in Shin. I'd like to point out that we're a long-term investor. We're still optimistic about the medium-term outlook for the Thai economy and we believe the business in Shin, the fundamentals, are sound. So I think we look to the company to grow the business and generate healthy returns for us," said Mr Ng.

Temasek did not reveal the size of the Shin Corp impairment, but overall, Temasek booked a loss of S$830 million from its associated companies, which include Shin Corp.

Temasek said its investment outlook remains one of caution in light of medium-term geo-economic risks and signs of volatile market conditions.

But it said it is concerned about the calls for more protectionism in Europe and the US towards sovereign wealth funds.

Temasek said it hoped to distinguish itself by being transparent.

Mr Ng said: "We believe that the free flow of investments across countries is beneficial to economies and to consumers. We'd be very disappointed, I think, if the current debate on sovereign wealth funds eventually leads to imposition of protectionist measures against free flow of investments."

Temasek has been looking for investment opportunities outside Singapore.

It recently bought a 2.1% stake in Barclays Bank.

It has also bought an additional 1% stake in Standard Chartered Bank, raising its shareholding to 14%.

"We find Stanchart interesting because it has a strong reach in Asia, and that fits in well with our investment themes when we focus on growth opportunities in Asia," said Mr Ng.

In terms of returns, Temasek reported a one-year total shareholder return by market value of 27%. - CNA/ir

Singapore Stumbles
By Eric Ellis
March 15, 2006: 5:05 PM EST

(FORTUNE Magazine) - Is Ho Ching losing her touch? That's what some are asking about Temasek Holdings' formidable chief executive after a string of embarrassing setbacks.

In February the Singapore government investment agency's wholly owned PSA was trumped by Dubai's deep-pocket sheikhs, who outbid it for Britain's port operator, P&O. Temasek walked away with a $50 million profit on its stake, but it was cold comfort for losing the chance to become the world's No. 1 port operator (though subsequent challenges could yet undo the Dubai deal).

Then Temasek's $1.9 billion purchase of Thailand's Shin Corp., owned by Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's family, filled Bangkok's streets with protest. Thais are grumpy that Thaksin paid no tax on his windfall and that he sold strategic assets to a foreign-government-owned agency.

"Temasek underestimated the political fallout," says Thitinan Pongsudhirak, a professor at Bangkok's Chulalongkorn University. "The deal has not been transparent. Whether they like it or not, Temasek has made itself a player in Thai politics, and that puts its investment at risk."

Temasek is also under fire in Jakarta, where politicians want the group it to unwind its investment in communications giant Indosat. With another Temasek-owned company, SingTel (Research), owning a half stake in competing mobile operator Telkomsel, they fret about Singaporean domination of Indonesia's phone market. That was after the Indian government denied Temasek approval to buy into mobile operator Idea Cellular, India's fifth-largest, because SingTel already owns part of Bharti, the No. 1 operator.

Temasek's problem--and advantage--is that it is 100% owned by Singapore's Ministry of Finance. Its board is studded with bureaucrats and businessmen. Its $80 billion portfolio includes majority stakes in most of the city-state's leading companies, including Singapore Airlines (Research) and defense contractor Singapore Technologies. CEO Ho is the wife of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, who is also Finance Minister.

With that pedigree, it is little wonder Temasek gets its calls returned. But it also makes it a magnet for controversy across Asia, where the trend is for governments to get out of business. Even in Singapore some consider Temasek too powerful. "Singapore would be better served," says Manu Bhaskaran, CEO of Centennial Asia Advisors, a Singapore economic-risk consultancy, "with companies in the hands of an array of private-sector shareholders."

Some of Temasek's investments are proving troublesome on the financial as well as the political front. Fiber-optic cable operator Global Crossing (Research), in which Temasek took a 62% stake in 2003, lost $336 million in 2004 and another $278 million in the first nine months of last year. In February, the Temasek-controlled DBS Bank took a $700 million writedown on its Hong Kong operation, the former Dao Heng Bank, which it bought in 2001 for $5.4 billion, a price it said then was fully valued. And Temasek's 60%-owned wafer business, Chartered Semiconductor (Research), although poised for a turnaround, has had losses of more than $1 billion since 2001. Chartered shares have lost 90% of their value since 1999, an affront to Ho's mantra that Temasek is a value investor.

To be sure, market leaders like Singapore Airlines and SingTel are stellar performers, helping bring Temasek profits of $4.7 billion on revenue of $42.2 billion for the past fiscal year. But some, like Steve Chia, a member of Singapore's Parliament, don't think that's good enough. Chia described Temasek's shareholder return of 1% annually over the past five years as "poor," compared with the Singapore Straits Times Index's 2.7% gain over the same period.

Temasek, which declined to make Ho or any other executives available for comment, has maintained that it is simply a benign investor and that there's no government involvement in its dealmaking. Perhaps. But that's not how others see it. "We hear a lot from Singaporeans about transparency and what integrity they have in business," says Thitinan, the Thai professor, of the Shin Corp. deal. "But I'm afraid that by their own standards, Temasek has failed the test."

A SERIES OF SETBACKS HAS RAISED QUESTIONS ABOUT HO'S STRATEGY.

Ho Ching: Can she fix Singapore Inc?
shes the ultimate insider, but putting her in charge of Temasek Holdings might make sense, says Michael Shari, Business Week.
June 18, 2002

Singapore -- Now to observers of Singapore politics and business, Temasek Holdings Ltd has long represented everything that's right, and wrong, about the prosperous city-state.

The government controls Temasek, which in turn controls some 40 companies, from shipbuilders to banks to chipmakers. Honest bureaucrats toil at Temasek companies, doing their best for Singapore Inc.

But the state's heavy hand stifles entrepreneurial drive and prevents much-needed restructuring.

Critics have long said that what Temasek needs is a new boss who'll shake things up, break the mold, and push Singapore out of its slump.

Well, Temasek has its new boss--but to cynics, the choice is a classic case of Singapore patronage.

On May 1, 49-year-old Ho Ching was named executive director of Temasek Holdings. Ho, now responsible for the biggest corporate remake in Singapore history, is the daughter-in-law of Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew and the wife of his son, Finance Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

It's no surprise that critics wonder if Ho is right for the job. While she would not comment for this article, other members of the Singapore elite acknowledge that her appointment is a public- relations issue.

"It is awkward. We know that," Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong told Business Week on May 29. "There is some conflict of interest, but you know, we work for the larger good."

Strange as it may sound, an appointment that looks like nepotism might make sense. Ho Ching's defenders say her marriage to Finance Minister Lee means she has the clout to prevail.

The Stanford-educated Ho also has long experience in the state-led sector. For nearly five years, she ran Singapore Technologies Ltd, a defence contractor that is 100 percent owned by Temasek and makes everything from computer chips to rifles.

For the most part, her stewardship of ST was praised. "I got her not because of her political connections," says Temasek Chairman S. Dhanabalan, the man who hired Ho for her new position, "but because of her competence and record."

In fact, thanks to those political connections, Ho almost didn't get the job. When Dhanabalan first offered her the post back in August, her husband, says Goh, made it clear that he was uncomfortable with the situation.

After all, Ho would have reported directly to him. So Temasek management was "reconstituted" to provide a "buffer" between Ho and Lee, says Goh.

Meanwhile, she stepped down as CEO of ST so she wouldn't report to herself. Now Ho is resigning from the boards of seven other state-led corporations.

So, can Singapore Inc. fix Singapore Inc.?

Many analysts insist that only an outsider can break up the cozy corporate culture of patronage widely blamed for the lethargy of the so-called government-linked companies (GLCs).

Critics note that Temasek directors sit on the boards of corporations Temasek owns, and that the board members of those GLCs sit on the boards of other GLCs.

Moreover, most GLC execs, while highly trained and dedicated, have spent their careers toiling at state-controlled companies, earning them the sobriquet "hothouse flowers."

The solution, say critics, is for an outside investor to take a stake in Temasek, whose 13 top companies posted combined revenues in 2001 of $30 billion.

But a US equity fund manager in Singapore says no one "is in enough pain here to want to do that."

The Singapore government clearly believes a foreigner would lack the political power to enact changes.

That's why it has turned to a member of the Lee family. "Putting in Ho Ching is a smart move," says one Singapore banker. "When you have the kind of clout she has, you can get a lot done without worrying about other variables."

Singapore companies are long overdue for a shakeup, especially given the economy's fragile state.

After all, according to the US State Department, the GLCs account for 60 percent of the economy (though the Singapore government insists it's more like 13 percent.)

By and large, the GLCs are underperforming the private sector and the stock market.

And while most are meeting Temasek's target of a 12 percent return on equity (ROE) or better, critics say that's because many of the GLCs enjoy what amounts to a domestic monopoly. For example, the Port of Singapore Authority is the sole port operator.

Moreover, analysts argue that applying a profitability measure as broad as ROE is meaningless to a conglomerate like SembCorp Industries, which is owned by Temasek and has diverse businesses, ranging from a zoo-management company to an Internet service provider.

The only way to get an accurate picture, they say, would be to break the conglomerate into core businesses and apply industry- specific measures to each of them.

What should Ho do first?

Analysts believe she should complete planned restructuring tasks. One is the clumsily executed merger between DBS Bank and PosBank, which resulted in dual networks of branches and ATMs.

Another is to force the merger of shipyards owned by SembCorp Industries and Keppel Corp., a process halted after arguments over pricing.

And, say analysts, Ho should lean on SembCorp to spin off such subsidiaries as SembCorp Logistics, SembCorp Engineering, and Pacific Internet, a process halted in 2000 when they failed to fetch expected prices.

More difficult, perhaps, will be changing Singapore Inc.'s corporate culture from one that puts a premium on loyalty and political service to a more free-wheeling ethos.

In particular, observers would like Ho to trim corporate boards of dozens of civil servants, military officers, and members of parliament.

The big question is whether Ho has the management talent to get the job done.

Some contend that being CEO of Singapore Technologies is not like running a real company because it uses Defence Ministry research labs, saving on what would otherwise be huge research and development costs.

And Ho's performance at ST was called into question in parliament following the 1997 collapse of Micropolis, a subsidiary that made high-end disk drives. Its failure cost Temasek $340 million.

Dhanabalan insists Ho was right to shutter Micropolis and cut its losses.

For his part, Goh defends not only Ho but the entire Lee family on grounds that Singapore's talent pool is too small and the family's academic record too impressive not to employ them in key positions.

"It is an exceptional family," says Goh. "Do we discriminate against them just because they're related?"

And therein lies the crux of the debate. No one disputes the achievements of Singapore's First Family.

Under Lee senior, the city- state rose from an impoverished swamp to become a prosperous First World city.

And yet, more recently the government has struggled and largely failed to bring the forces of the free market to bear on the nation's state-controlled companies.

Ho Ching may be the right person to sort out Singapore Inc. But it remains to be seen if she can make the corporate bureaucrats under her hew to her will.

BusinessWeek

Hospital bills up 10% to 30% across all ward classes!

2007-07-26T00:25:00.000+08:00

This is crazy. The Ministry of Health had already known that the average hospital bills for the class C wards had increased by nearly 30%, they still want to implement means testing on Singaporeans who wanted to stay in class C wards?!

Now, who wouldn't want to stay in better wards when they are suffering for serious illnesses like cancer if he or she can afford it?

The only reason why more and more Singaporeans are choosing to stay in class C wards for serious illness is because they are increasingly unable to afford stay in better class of wards!

And now instead of thinking of ways to reduce the medical burdens of Singaporeans, our dear govt wanted to means test Singaporeans?

Don't tell me that there isn't enough money for an ESSENTIAL NEED when they had just raised BOTH GST and their own salaries!

Add on:

I would like more Singaporeans to watch this video and think about the points Tony Benn made.

Hospital bills up 10% to 30% across all ward classes
By Tan Hui Leng, TODAY | Posted: 25 July 2007 1100 hrs

AVERAGE public hospital bills have increased across all ward classes from 2005 to 2006, with the hikes ranging from 10 to 30 per cent.

The Ministry of Health's (MOH) data showed that the average bill size for a class C ward cost $1,112 last year — up 29.6 per cent from $858 the year before.

As for B2 class wards, it went up 17.4 per cent from $1,094 to $1,284.

The higher ward classes of B1 and A registered smaller hikes of 16.7 and 10.3 per cent respectively.

The B1 wards increased from $2,736 to $3,193 and the A wards went up from $3,473 to $3,830.

An MOH spokeswoman attributed the big C-class increases to the inclusion of Intensive Care Unit patients in last year's data, medical inflation and the fact that more patients with complex medical conditions chose to be admitted to C class wards.

In the C class wards, which are 80-per-cent subsidised, 1 per cent of patients paid $9,071 or more — even higher than their counterparts in the B2-class wards, who paid $8,813 or more.

Speaking at the opening of the Wonca (World Organization of Family Doctors) World Conference yesterday, Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan described hospital bills here as "relatively inexpensive" for the high medical standards patients are getting.

With Medisave and MediShield, almost all patients can afford these bills, Mr Khaw added.

"The Ministry will continue to manage medical inflation without compromising the quality of patient care," said the MOH spokeswoman. "We will use market forces, where appropriate, to manage medical costs — for example, through publishing bill sizes and quality indicators.

She added: "This will allow Singaporeans to make informed choices on where to seek treatment and provide transparent benchmarks on the comparative efficiency of healthcare providers." - TODAY/ra

Taiwanese on Singapore

2007-07-23T16:03:00.000+08:00

By: decentguy1

If you can understand Mandarin/Hokkien, this is a very brilliant discussion about Singapore. Although I have no liking for the pan-Green faction, I agree with their comments totally.

Interview Transcripts: Atheism, & What It Means To Be An Atheist In Singapore

2007-07-18T03:48:00.001+08:00

In my previous post, I mentioned that I had the ignominious honour of being interviewed by a Straits Times journalist (Straits Times is a national, major newspaper in Singapore), who, upon chancing upon my post with regards to the issue of interfaith dialogues, decided to conduct a email interview, with what I presume as a further query with regards to the atheistic point of view.

Transcripts of the interview was sent to me on the 3rd of July, and my reply was sent out on the following day.

While I was hoping that the interview would be published (knowing full well the conservative nature of Straits Times, I was expecting a watered-down version of it), but the latest word I have received was that the journalist concerned, Ms Li (I shall not divulge the full name. For those who are infinitely curious, leave a note in my email or this blog's comments) seems to be occupied with her work.

So, without further ado, the transcripts, as follows. My replies, in red:

1) As an atheist, do you feel marginalised in Singapore? Why/why not? If so, do you have any specific examples?

With regards to feeling marginalized, I feel that much of what has been said and touched on about faith is mostly centered on two or three faiths, namely Catholicism, Christianity and its related denominations, and most important of all, Islam.

Take the latest issue on interfaith dialogues. We have imams, priests, reverends and even the odd Confucian scholar who gets invited. But no one, none from the scholastic circles, such as historians, scientists and the like, gets invited to such talks, much less atheists.

What is it about religion that allows them this privilege to get a piece of the limelight and spread their propaganda in such a manner? Are we saying that, short of discussing each other's religion, people from the various religions can't really communicate beyond mere religion? Or are atheists and other members of the free thought community so highly ostracized that we aren't even allowed a whiff of these bunch of self-appraised folks?

Dialogues are a good thing, but dialogues such as these are much political tools fabricated by people who wish to glamorize religion and portray a falsified unified front of various religious views.

2) Do you feel that because of the sensitivity of religious issues and the emphasis on inter-religious harmony in Singapore, you do not have freedom of expression, when it comes to airing your views?

I think a few years back, two young people or teenagers were arrested and charged with the Sedition Act, one for slandering Islam and the other for drawing Jesus-zombies munching cute little babies.

To talk about freedom of speech in Singapore is pretty much like playing Russian roulette: You can heap as much vitriol as you want, but once you bothered some higher-ups, get prepared to be slapped with ignominous charges, such as the ISA (Internal Security Act) and the Sedition Act.

3) Do you think that atheism is a faith in itself? And should it be accorded the same "respect" that other religions have?

Atheism, by its very definition (Atheist from the Greek word, atheos: A, without, theos, God), refers to a negative position of non-belief. An atheist, in essence, is a person who does not believe in God due to the absence of proof (To some atheists, it means observable, empirical proof).

Faith requires an element of belief. In the case of faith, it is more aptly described as "Belief in things unseen", which really boils down to blind belief.

If anything, atheism is the exact polemic of faith: One is an atheist because one sees no proof to validate the claim, while a person who dwells in faith believes because he or she has subjected to himself or herself a creed irregardless of evidence.

As for the question of respect, I feel that we should respect everybody who is generally law-abiding. The case of the gay movement (which I did wrote on my blog), for example, is one that deserves respect, because gays have long been marginalized and in a way, segregated from the majority heterosexuals because of this misguided notion that sex outside the realms of procreation is an abominal sin, a view justified and mortified by the biblical code of stoning gays to death.

Just as law-abiding gays deserve respect, recognition and dare I say, the rights to marriage, atheists deserve to have their voices and views heard. Unfortunately in Singapore, the religious right has mostly reserved for themselves the right to be heard, and many times, their views are highly eschewed by their belief systems. For example, one would not expect a priest to extol the virtues of condoms and other contraceptives, despite the devastating effects of AIDS and other sexual diseases. To the priest, sex for pleasure is a sin, regardless of the outcome.

4) Do you think that atheists should be allowed to set up an organisation to propagate their views, such as Christians have church organisations, Muslims Islam organisations and Buddhists Buddhist organisations to propagate their tenets? Why/why not? How do you think the society and the Government will react?

I feel that the atheist community in Singapore is too small at the moment: Unlike the American Atheists (AA), atheists here are mainly closeted and disjointed, so no, at the moment, atheists should simply focus on getting out of the closet, which itself is a difficult thing to do, especially for those who are stuck in very strict, fundamentalist sects like I was in the past.

If an atheist organization were to exist here, I cannot really fathom the framework which we should go about in setting up such an organization. Religion in Singapore is something that is held in excessive awe and respect, even rationalized in the form of moderate belief systems. If the organization seeks to be just a freethought organization, then I would feel that there is no need for an atheist organization, or for myself to joing one. An active atheist organization that is highly vocal against religious irrationality may be too hot a potato for a distinctively conservative and highly cautious society here in Singapore.

5) Do you think that a Singaporean atheist would be allowed to write a book like that of Richard Dawkins' or Christopher Hitchens'?

The problem here in Singapore, I suspect, is that in higher academic circles here, is that any academic must be strictly neutral, or at worst, slightly sympathetic of religiosity in order to continue their research here.

That aside, most publishers in Singapore would baulk at publishing such controversial material here. If there is even an outside bet that one could actually sneak past such works, I would gladly be the first one to try.

6) Do you feel that there are increasing tensions between those who are religious, and those who are secular, within Singapore? Some will call you a "secularist fundamentalist". Do you agree with such a label?

One of my earliest blog posts (still there, but I have abandoned it) was about this pastor in a megachurch who actually proclaimed that "the red colour of the Singapore flag symbolizes the blood of Christ".

I had attended that service on the behest of a friend,and was profoundly shocked to hear this lie being spoken life in front of 20,000 church members.

While it is too early to say whether the secularity of our nation is under threat, I think there are people in Singapore who definitely enjoy the idea that the tenets of our Constitution is somehow aligned with the Ten Commandments, even if it clearly isn't.

At present, I do not detect this threat in the Parliament. To me, the status quo quo of "Equal playing ground" still holds true up to a point, and I for one would definitely not want to see our nation turn into a fascist theocracy.

The final question with regards to "secular fundamentalist" was left out, because I find that such a term is indeed a grave insult to rational people, religious or otherwise, who do not seek to widen the religious scope towards the secular sector, be it in government institutions or even to the tenets of government.

Frankly, I doubt this interview would ever be published in our closeted media, and hence I have decided to publish this without the permission of the journalist.

In concluding this article, I urge all Singaporeans to speak up in the face of religious domination within our media. We must find a voice in a society that continuously trumpets the need for religious reconciliation, without sparing a thought for the 13%-15% of us who refuse to be part of this hypocrisy of grovelling towards religious moderates who, ironically are the major source of inspiration for fundamentalists and their dastardly plans of terror and extremism.

The Invisible Atheists of Singapore?

2007-07-15T13:58:00.000+08:00

I must admit: in recent weeks, I have been thoroughly frustrated (to put it mildly) by the hypocrisy that has surrounded the recent rise of Atheism brought about by the meteoric rise of Richard Dawkins and other prominent atheist authors.

In response to this trend, the local media in Singapore has decided to entrench itself with the religious right. This pro-right stance is so pervasive that much of the opinions from the pro-left are either ignored, or moderated to a point that they do not offend "religious sensitivities". Our pro-religious Ministry of Home Affairs has actively supported inter-faith dialogues that effectively cater to the major official religions, effectively ignoring the non-religious communities altogether. Everyone in Singapore is either religious to the hilt, or are merely non-Singaporeans to begin with.

In short, atheists and the non-religious do not exist within the Singaporean clique.

According to this article, written by Today, atheists do not even feature in the sectarian landscape. No atheists. No infidels. Period.

Excerpts From Today Online
Tug of War for America's Soul
14th July 2007
By Tiffany Tan

A wave of secularisation is again sweeping through industrialised nations, but will it come around to our corner of the world? Even though Singapore is on the same economic development scale as secular Western countries, experts say atheism in the city-state is a distant possibility. In a study, Dr Pereira discovered that Singaporeans value religiosity and it is "deeply embedded in society".

For some religious leaders, atheism is no reason to lose sleep over.

"If there is a war, it has been going on for the last 300 years and atheism is clearly not winning," said Dr Simon Chan, a professor of systematic theology at Singapore's Trinity Theological College.

"Previous generations of atheists had been no less vehement and hopeful, but a vast majority of the world's population are too incurably religious to be bought over."

A distant possibility??? For the love of Zeus, I don't know where these journalists got their facts from, but just for the sake of "objective journalism", we shall take a sneak peek into a population consensus report taken in the year 2000 (Link here).

According to the report, 340,094 Singaporeans have no religious affiliation, out of a population of 2,494,630. The minimum age group of this consensus was in the 15-19 category, so we can safely surmise that no kids were involved, which would have muddled up the numbers and give the religious ranks a higher boost in numbers.

With these figures, one can assume that at least 13% of Singaporeans do not subscribe to any religion. Unfortunately, there is no way to break the figures down further into atheists, agnostics, deists and other non-religious affiliates, but surely, there ought to be atheists amongst them?

Quite contrary to the news article, religion has not been "embedded deeply" into the fabric of society. Considering that there were only 9733 Sikhs reported by the consensus, the non-religious community occupies a sizable chuck across the sectarian board.

And then there is the "vehement" culture of atheists. Of course, we are riff-ruffs of the sort that really do speak out against religious abuse, but hey, we aren't the ones strapping bombs and flying planes to skyscrapers for the sake of paradise and some 72 virgins (I am sure most atheists like sex, but we are not delirious enough to believe in bullshit of this nature), or for any particular father figure in the sky.

Not a good word, it seems, can be said about atheism. If this article is to be taken as gospel truth, then atheists are no more than invisible shrews, so to speak, good only for spewing vitriol at our persecuted religious counterparts.

Ignoring the Non-Religious Community In Singapore

But why are we, the non-religious sector, constantly ignored by the mass media? Are they trying to tell us that we do not belong here, or that we are, at least in the metaphorical sense, "expendable"???

On a more personal note, I have had an email interview with an ST journalist, who has somehow stumbled on one of my articles regarding interfaith dialogue. While she did not promise to mention about it from her political correspondence desk, I doubt she will ever publish it (again, to my frustration) because of the anti-religious nature of my replies.

Perhaps it is time for the atheist community in Singapore to rally together and break this religious monopoly within the ranks of the mass media. Only then, will our voices be heard by those who will spare no afford to undermine the interests of the non-religious community.

If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people.

2007-07-13T11:58:00.000+08:00

If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people.

Former UK MP and Minister, Tony Benn

If we can find S$10.58 billion this year for buying weapons and training army, why is that when come to finding money for healthcare the only solution from the PAP govt is to means-test Singaporeans patients in C-class wards?
at82

Big Ideas That Changed The World : Democracy-Tony Benn

2007-07-13T05:14:00.000+08:00

Part 1

Part2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

1987 Marxist Plot revisited

2007-07-12T02:29:00.001+08:00

From ST:

It is very interesting ST chose not mention the fact that many of the ppl arrested under Operation Spectrum were actually volunteering at Workers' Party, helping Mr JBJ with his political activities.

In fact Mr Francis Seow, a former Solicitor General of Singapore, was arrested and detained for 72 days without trial under ISA, when he tried visit one of the alleged "Marxist Conspirators", whom is Mr Seow's former student.

If I am not wrong, the reason for arresting him was that Mr Seow was somehow an agent for USA.

Mr Seow went on to take part in the 1988 GE in Eunos GRC under Workers' Party banner, securing 49.11% of the votes.

At least one of the detainees,Tang Fong Har, were also allegedly tortured by ISD while under detention.

http://www.singapore-window.org/tfhmemo.htm
http://www.jamesgomeznews.com/article.php?AID=27&Page=1
http://www.wp.sg/party/history/1987_1990.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Seow

ISA ARRESTS
The legacy of 1987
This year marks the 20th anniversary of the arrest of 22 Singaporeans under the Internal Security Act for their involvement in an alleged Marxist conspiracy. LYDIA LIM and LI XUEYING look back at this episode in Singapore's history and its impact on the intersection between religion and politics

ISA DETAINEE: Vincent Cheng in a televised confession in 1987 about wanting to set up 'a classless society' in Singapore.

THE press statement contained skeletal information. There were only names, and no details of age, sex or occupation. From it, the public was to learn that 16 people had been arrested under the Internal Security Act (ISA).

As reporters fanned out to attach faces to the names on the list that evening of May 21, 1987, the Law Society confirmed that one of its council members was among the 16 held. The society, already gripped by a series of altercations with the Government the previous year, met for yet another emergency meeting that night.

More arrests followed. On June 20, another six people joined the original 16 in detention.

This time, at least one of them was prepared.

When the fateful knock on his door came in the dead of the night, he took a shower and put on a suit and tie so that he would not look dishevelled when the police photograph was snapped. When the detainees' headshots were released to the media, his would be the only one wearing a ready smile.

However, nothing could conceal the seriousness of the affair. It was the biggest ISA swoop for more than a decade, and would not be surpassed in scale until the terrorism-related arrests post-Sept 11.

Through a series of statements and television interviews, the 22 men and women were presented to a stunned public as members of a Marxist conspiracy out to topple the Government by illegal means.

The spectre of communism was nothing new to Singapore, but the profile of the detainees was seen as unusual: They were mostly English-educated professionals; four worked full time for social organisations under the Catholic Church. These were not Singaporeans influenced by Chinese communism, but by the leftist liberation theology that had been gaining ground within the worldwide Catholic Church.

Aged 18 to 40, the individuals were detained without trial for between one month and three years at Whitley detention centre. The last was freed on June19, 1990.

At the time, the affair was stunning, complete with official revelations that one of the conspirators visited a training camp of Tamil Tiger guerillas, confessions broadcast on national television and condemnations by international human rights groups.

Twenty years since the arrests, the shock and trauma have been all but forgotten. Even a visit to the Internal Security Department's Heritage Centre, which relives earlier security swoops, will not unearth anything about 1987.

The intervening years have shed little or no additional light on the affair, with no new documents having been released.

The former detainees themselves seem equally reluctant to reopen the issue. It is understood that one group met some months back and, anticipating media attention in this anniversary year, agreed not to grant interviews.

A handful of them live and work overseas. Most chose to remain in Singapore after their release. None is engaged in political or civil society activism. A number of them have successful careers in the private sector, and two have retired.

Two former detainees did agree to speak with Insight on condition of anonymity and a third gave a short e-mail reply.

The first two showed no obvious rancour and even laughed as they recalled how officers from the Internal Security Department (ISD) banged on their doors in the early hours of the morning 20 years ago, changing their lives forever.

When described as a Marxist conspiracy, the affair seems almost quaint in hindsight.

The post-1987 years witnessed the implosion of communism as an alternative ideology. Communist literature is now available here and even former members of the Malayan Communist Party have been on occasion granted special permission by the Government to re-enter the country.

Time appears to have healed the psychological wounds and neutered the radical left, perhaps explaining why the anniversary of the arrests has been a virtual non-event.

Civil society

YET, 1987 may have cast longer shadows and caused deeper political changes than most people assume.

Although the Government described its swoop as anti-Marxist, many critics read it as a much broader clampdown on political activism - and therefore as relevant today as it was 20 years ago.

These alternative interpretations are still being debated. On Internet forums these past months there have been a few fierce exchanges, with some praising the Government for being 'proactive' in putting down a genuine security threat, while others portray the Marxist spectre as a 'bogeyman' conjured up to justify crushing any potential political challenge.

What is not in doubt is that many of those who were arrested were doing social work to help the poor and migrant workers, in organisations linked to the Catholic Church. Their ultimate goals, however, were a matter of dispute.

The official account stated that the detainees had infiltrated these various social organisations as part of a clandestine operation aimed at overthrowing the Government through illegal means.

In a televised confession, detainee Vincent Cheng said that he and former student leader and fugitive Tan Wah Piow, based in Britain, wanted to establish a broad base of groups to oppose the Government using violent means, if peaceful ways did not work out. The aim: to set up 'a classless society' in Singapore.

He used the Church because it provided 'ready cover' for his activities.

After their release, however, nine of the detainees retracted their confessions and denied the Government's allegations.

In April 1988, they issued a joint statement saying that they had, through legitimate means, 'advocated more democracy, less elitism, protection of individual freedoms and civil rights, greater concern for the poor and the less privileged and less interference in the private lives of citizens'.

Eight of those who signed the statement were re-arrested and detained for a second time. The ninth was out of the country and did not return.

What followed was a recanting by the eight of the charges of ill-treatment. Nineteen of the 22 detainees also made statutory declarations reaffirming their involvement in the conspiracy.

Many Singaporeans found it hard to reconcile their image of radical communists, like those of the 1950s or 1960s, with this crowd, several of whom were English-educated graduates who were economically well-off and had along the way developed what appeared to be a social conscience.

This uncertainty was even expressed by Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam when he was interviewed upon his induction into politics in 2001.

'Although I had no access to state intelligence, from what I knew of them, most were social activists but not out to subvert the system,' said Mr Tharman, who is now Education Minister.

In London, he had been part of a study group led by lawyer Tan Wah Piow - the former dissident student leader named by Vincent Cheng and accused by the Government of being the offsite 'mastermind of the communist conspiracy' days after the first arrests in 1987.

The detainees included friends of Mr Tharman, who himself was questioned for a week by the ISD.

Since many civil society types saw the detainees as fired-up do-gooders not very different from themselves, the arrests were interpreted by critics as a warning against activism of any kind.

The Government's later encouragement of active citizenship had to contend with this deeply-held perception, especially in areas perceived to be politically sensitive - such as foreign workers' rights.

Today, TWC2 (Transient Workers Count Too) and other groups speak up openly for migrant workers. Several of the 1987 detainees had taken up this same cause.

Ms Braema Mathi, former president of TWC2, says it has had to work at exorcising the ghost of 1987 along the way.

'What got ingrained was the power of the state and the instruments that the state could use. What we embraced was fear. This kind of thing takes a lot of time to shed,' she says.

Says Think Centre president Sinapan Samydorai: 'If the intention was to break the backbone of a social awakening of people who could become politically active, then I think they - more or less - achieved it.'

Others take a less bleak view. Mr Robert Kee, founder of Operation Hope Foundation and former president of the Community Outreach Services, the social outreach arm of the Methodist Church here, believes that 1987 had no impact on social activists such as himself, much less caused them to fear.

He believes the Government had done the right thing.

'It's a matter of trust, we have to trust the Government to do the right thing. Some people are quite easily misled. You always find people who are attracted to certain causes for whatever reason.

'In this case, the detainees had not blown up anything. Prevention is always very boring.

'So, unfortunately for the Government, what it did was not appreciated.'

Religion and politics

THE events of 1987 had a tangible and lasting effect on the relationship between religion and politics in Singapore.

Indeed, one of the counter-conspiracy theories around is that this was the Government's real target - but since the Government could not be seen as attacking the Church, the 'Marxist' label would have to suffice.

Theories aside, the facts are that of the 22 detained, four worked full-time in organisations affiliated to the Catholic Church: the Justice and Peace Commission, the Geylang Catholic Welfare Centre, the Young Christian Workers' Movement and the Singapore Polytechnic Catholic Students' Society.

Others volunteered their time at these organisations, which were involved in causes such as the rights of workers, both local and foreign.

In the aftermath of the detentions, the Government showed clearly that it was more concerned about political activists' links to God than their links to the avowedly anti-religion Karl Marx. It tabled the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Bill, which - in addition to regulating aggressive proselytisation - banned the mixing of religion and politics.

In the Government's White Paper on the Bill, the ISD said the 1987 detainees had shown how religion could be used for subversive purposes. The ISD highlighted the activities of four Catholic priests who had 'ventured into social action and acted as a political pressure group'.

These were the same four priests who had led the Catholic organisations implicated in the alleged Marxist plot.

These priests had also published 'political booklets' that criticised the Government for 'emasculating the trade unions and enacting labour laws which curtailed the rights of workers', and made statements that 'agitated' against the ISA detentions, the ISD said.

The White Paper spelt out the Government's position that, in a multi-religious society like Singapore, religion and politics must be kept 'rigorously separated'.

The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA) became law in 1990.

With the Act in place, people who repeat the kinds of activity that the Catholic workers were accused of in the 1980s would not need to be detained under the ISA: The Act empowers the Minister for Home Affairs to issue restraining orders against preachers who engage in harmful conduct, which includes causing ill will between religious groups, promoting a political cause or exciting disaffection against the President or Government, under the guise of propagating or practising any religious belief.

Anyone who breaches a restraining order can be fined and jailed.

In February this year, Deputy Prime Minister and Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng informed Parliament that no restraining orders had been issued since 1990, although the ISD had on several occasions warned religious leaders against mixing religion with politics and putting down other faiths.

It would be unrealistic, however, to claim that the MRHA settled once and for all the age-old issue of how best to separate church and state.

Even during the debate on the Bill, religious leaders and several Members of Parliament voiced their concern that the faithful cannot be expected to keep their beliefs completely out of public life.

The Government itself has nuanced its position. With the means in place to discipline errant religious leaders through the MRHA, it was able to invite religious groups, along with other people-sector organisations, to help build a stronger civic society.

So it was that in 1991, then acting minister for information and the arts George Yeo acknowledged in a landmark speech the need to 'prune the banyan tree', an apt metaphor for the state to recede a little, to let civic organisations grow. The growth of groups of people invested emotionally in the country would help in transforming it from a hotel into a home, he said.

'What are these civic institutions?' asked Mr Yeo, who went on to list five major categories. Religion was one of the five.

'I would say that so long as we avoid extreme positions, civic activity organised around religious worship is a positive, not a negative, force,' he added.

Social organisations have proliferated over the past decade. Today, many social services are run by religious groups, and their leaders are actively consulted on relevant policies. Singapore is not a 'fundamentalist secular' state, as the religion scholar Karen Armstrong has put it - one that bans religion from public life.

But where exactly to draw the line between welcome engagement and questionable interference remains a much negotiated issue.

While there is broad agreement that religious groups should not be directly involved in elections and party politics, Singaporeans may differ in how much they are prepared to separate their spiritual from their day-to-day public lives.

Senior Parliamentary Secretary (Education) Masagos Zulkifli maintains that an attempt must be made to keep religion and politics separate, to avoid a descent into explosive confrontations.

He cites the example of compulsory education, which the Government introduced in 2002 to ensure a minimum level of mainstream education for all children here.

The madrasahs, or Islamic religious schools, and some members of the Muslim community reacted to the move but left it to their political and community leaders to engage the Government on the issue.

'Had this been also debated in the pulpits of mosques rather than the two-way engagement of the Government and the Muslim community leaders, it could have potentially further enraged and incited the Muslim public,' he says.

But religions such as Christianity and Islam have their own conceptions of what makes for a just society. Here is where clashes can arise between the teachings of these faiths and the policies that governments consider right and necessary.

As Catholic priest Father John Paul Tan explains: 'At times, in this goal of ensuring a just society, there might be different approaches and that is when a reason-based discourse is needed.'

Similarly, Imam Syed Hassan Alattas of Ba'alwi Mosque says Muslims have a duty to speak out against injustice.

'In Islam, you cannot be impartial. To say, 'I don't want to get involved', means I am letting injustice happen. That is wrong,' he says.

In her recent public lecture here, renowned scholar Armstrong noted that religion had a special responsibility to question political power when important principles were being violated.

Yet, it is when they get involved in such issues of social justice that preachers and religious groups are at greatest risk of being seen to be engaging in politics.

A new balance?

THE most profound effect of 1987 may have been to dampen overtly faith-based social activism.

Mrs Bridget Lew recalls that when she first began working with migrant workers 10 years ago, as chairman of a group under the Catholic Church, '1987 was like a ghost haunting many church workers'.

Her work was seen as politically sensitive and she found it difficult to express her views in public, she says.

In 2004, Mrs Lew left the church-run group to set up her own non-profit and secular outfit, Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics.

Mr Samydorai is another Catholic who has chosen the secular route to politics as a result of 1987. That year, he was president of the Young Christian Workers' Movement, one of the groups linked to the alleged Marxist plot. He left for Hong Kong a day before the second round of arrests.

Back in Singapore since 1999, he took on the role of president of the Think Centre, a political NGO, in May 2001.

Mr Shane Pereira, 29, believes that self-censorship set in as a result of 1987. He claims that the National University of Singapore Catholic Students' Society underwent a major shift in direction as a result. He was a member of its executive committee from 2000 to 2005.

'Pre-1987, they were more active, bringing up issues such as the concerns of poorer Singaporeans to the media,' he says.

'Now, we do not engage in any such activities, merely in faith-building for our members. The most 'civil society' thing we do is to visit old folks' homes, but we do not desire to lobby for better welfare,' he adds.

Others see no such obstacles. Says Buddhist youth leader Yap Ching Wi, 39: 'If you want to be active in the community or civil society, there are certainly risks involved, and you have to reckon with how the Government will feel.

'Following 1987, in the 1990s, we knew that if you mix social welfare and religion, it was a lethal combination. But it didn't turn me off because if something needs to be done, whether it's in correcting social injustice or whatever, it just needs to be done.'

Mr Mohamad Saiful Mohamad Anuar, 22, a youth leader at An-Nahdhah Mosque in Bishan, is among those at ease navigating the unclear lines overlapping religious and social activism.

He says he would like to see faith-based groups speak out more in areas where they see a need for social change, such as on the poor, homeless, and abortions.

As the Government encourages Singaporeans to participate more actively in shaping the society they live in, it has gradually opened up the space available to secular advocacy groups such as TWC2 and sought to engage them in their areas of expertise.

Where a consensus has yet to be forged is on the extent to which members of religious groups can engage in the same kind of activism, in line with the social teachings of their faiths.

The question is whether society is the poorer for failing to harness the energies of all its socially conscious citizens, whether their motivation springs from religious or secular sources.

Given that wars and revolutions have been fought through the centuries to redefine the relations between political and religious authorities, it is unlikely that Singapore has seen a final resolution to this eternal tension.

Seen in that light, the events of 1987 were a significant milestone, but not the end of the road.

Gays In the Animal Kingdom: Homosexually Not So "Unnatural" After All

2007-07-09T21:34:00.000+08:00

In a bid to somehow mask homophobia with a more "naturalistic" and "secular" reasoning, religious conservatives conclude, rather prematurely of course, that homosexuality is "unnatural", and that it somehow defiles the very laws of Nature which requires us to "go forth and multiply".

Because sodomy and lesbianism do not contribute to the procreation theme, homosexuality is somewhat perceived as an anomaly in Nature.

The concept of "unnatural" in this case may yet take another somewhat different twist.

Gay Penguins???

Roy & Silo

At New York’s Central City Zoo, in the penguin’s enclosure, are two cuddly penguins, Roy & Silo. They behave and resemble most penguins, except for one unique trait that binds both birds together: They are both gay!

Not only do the penguins nest together, they built their own nests, engage in sexual activities, and have acted as surrogate parents when an egg was placed in the nests by their handlers.

Homosexuality, once thought to be a product of man’s depraved sexual tendencies, has, it seems, unwittingly drawn gay animals into the spotlight.

Homosexuality in The Animal Kingdom

The idea that homosexuality is an abominable crime rests upon one religious dogma: The primary function of sex is not to partake in pleasure, but merely as a essential tool for procreation.

While humans are apt to observe this kind of archaic, convoluted protocol, animals, it seems, have no qualms with regards to humping each other whichever way they choose: Modern biologists have observed that at least 1,500 animals exhibit some form of gay behavior, with 500 species well documented to have performed "outrageous sodomy" in full view of the biologists.

Talk about hot monkey sex and animal gay porn....

Other species known to exhibit homosexual tendencies include:

Bisons: Giving a whole new meaning to "brokeback mountain".....

1. The American Bison: This stocky, well-built animal has long been known by native Red Indians to engage in mounting, and full anal penetration. Apparently, mounting of one female bison on another female counterpart is also common.

Baah......... (Translation: I am gay, I am gay, I am gay!!!)

2. At least 6-10% of male sheep engage in homosexual activities (makes one wonder where all the meat we get in supermarkets really do come from).

Birds of the "same feather" flock together.........

3.Pairs of male flamingos have also been witnessed raising eggs of female counterparts.

Homosexuality: A Genetic Anomaly, or a Case of Sacrificing for the Common Good?

Homosexuality seems to go against the very grain of evolution: If the genetically encoded goal of every animal is to ensure the survivability of its genes, why then, do some animals choose an act that, at first glance, seems to be the equivalent of an evolutionary dead end?

In scientific parlance, homosexuality does serve several purposes. In the case of the gay penguins, it may be that gay penguins like Roy and Silo may have somehow evolved to play the role as "male nannies" to help look after abandoned or lost eggs and chicks, which would surely help boost the survivability of chicks in the harsh environmental conditions in Antarctica.

Territorial aggression may also have a part to play. In the case of the flamingos, it may be that male flamingos hold larger territories than females: A pale of gay flamingos, followed by their heterosexual counterparts, may be boosted by a pair of alpha males, instead of just one alpha male. The presence of gay flamingos may also lessen the competition for mating partners amongst heterosexual males.

More importantly, homosexuality in herd animals may actually tone down and ease animistic aggressions amongst male animals, who may otherwise fight each other to the death in order to vie for the sexual services of their female cohorts.

Homosexuality: Not A Travesty Unto Nature

Contrary to popular opinion, gays are definitely not outcasts in Mother Nature's scheme of plans. Just as homosexuals play a positive role in the Animal Kingdom, gays can and will contribute to our society as well.

Rather than view homosexuals as travesties of Nature or some other bigoted religious mumbo-jumbos, the better, or should I say best, option is to regard gays as normal, healthy adults with a somewhat different take on sexual preferences.

After all, as the saying goes, one Man's meat is another Man's poison. So long as homosexuals practice consensual, adult relationships, there is no reason for anyone (Religious fundies included) to pry and poke his or her nose behind the doors of every locked bedroom.

Dr Chee's speech

2007-07-01T02:37:00.000+08:00

Cynicism and corruption

2007-06-02T15:51:00.000+08:00

I would just like to add that what PJ said would still be largely true if UK and most other western European countries are used as a comparison.

Are the judiciary corrupted in these countries?

Cynicism and corruption

Even Indian PM has talked about sorry state of judiciary there
k shanmugam

In his article "Of Champs, Chumps and Chimps" published in the May issue of the Law Gazette and which was reported in Today, Mr Philip Jeyaretnam, the president of the Law Society, has taken issue with Singapore's approach to public sector remuneration, and in particular the remuneration of judges.

Mr Jeyaretnam makes a number of points, including the following: That it is regrettable that Singapore has shifted from a system of rewarding "contribution to government" to a system where public sector salaries are correlated to private sector salaries; and that the very best of the high flyers in the private sector (whose incomes are considered for the public-private sector income correlation) may often owe their success to luck or an aura acquired as a result of market imperfections, rather than superior ability.

Mr Jeyaretnam makes his points elegantly. But the elegant language masks some fundamental flaws in reasoning.

Take his first point that Singapore has shifted from one system, which he refers to as "rewarding contribution to government", to another system, which can be referred to as "referencing public sector income to private sector income".

When one analyses the two (supposedly contrasting) "systems", one point emerges: the first concept ("rewarding contribution") is the objective to be achieved.

The second concept ("referencing public sector income to private sector income") is the method by which that objective is to be achieved. Mr Jeyaretnam has possibly confused the objective with the method of achieving that objective.

BASIC ERROR

And this basic error has (in my view) led Mr Jeyaretnam to posit the two concepts as being different approaches to compensation. And based on that erroneous premise, Mr Jeyaretnam makes his other points.

The question is not whether public servants need to be properly remunerated. Most sensible people accept that that should be done.

The real question is what amounts to "proper remuneration" and how that remuneration should be quantified. That is the question that many countries are faced with; and several take the politically easy way of not dealing with it and allow their public service to slowly atrophy.

The recent parliamentary debate in Singapore centred on that question. Mr Jeyaretnam does not himself clearly explain how he believes the "reward" for contribution to government should be quantified.

The only clues offered by him on this topic are first, a reference to how judges in India are remunerated, and second, his criticism of what he sees as the shift in values from service to an emphasis on financial remuneration, in Singapore.

As regards the first of these two points, it is not clear if Mr Jeyaretnam is seriously suggesting that the system of remuneration in place for the Indian judiciary is a model for Singapore to follow. It is difficult to believe that he is in fact suggesting that.

Post-independence, Indians were justifiably proud of the Indian judiciary. But neglect of basic service conditions by successive governments has affected that institution. The salaries of judges in India are now at unrealistically low levels.

For example, according to a December 2006 brochure on pay produced by the Indian government, a Chief Justice in a metropolis like New Delhi earned about $2,000 per month in 2005.

The consequences of the low official pay have been entirely predictable. It has resulted in widespread cynicism among Indians, about the Indian judiciary.

The system also suffers a backlog of thousands of cases that have been pending for years.

It is not for us to comment on the judiciary of another country. But it is relevant to note the views of serious and responsible people in India who have commented on the Indian judiciary. There are numerous studies and papers on the issues that affect the standing of the Indian judiciary. A quick search will throw up several of these.

The India Corruption Study to Improve Governance by the country's Centre for Media Studies in 2005 had the following statistics and conclusions: 80 per cent of the respondents to the study (who had interacted with the judiciary) believed that there was corruption in the judiciary: A bribe for a favourable judgment was on average about $85; total corruption in the judiciary was estimated at $1 billion; the judicial system was highly dilatory, expensive and beyond the reach of the common man; ordinary citizens found it hard to seek redress inter alia because of the corruption; and arrest warrants could be issued against anyone, by paying the officials.

It is instructive also to refer to the comments made by two of the highest office holders in India.

In 2002, Mr Sam Piroj Bharucha, when he was Chief Justice of India, was quoted by The Times of India as saying that up to 20 per cent of the Judges in India were corrupt.

And the Prime Minister of India, Dr Manmohan Singh, stated, as late as last year, that service conditions had to be improved in the judiciary "to be able to attract better talent" and that corruption in the judiciary had to be tackled.

To suggest that a country's judges are corrupt is to strike at the very heart and soul of the judicial system in that country. In fact, in common law jurisdictions, making such a statement would by itself attract severe punishment by the courts, because such statements, by impugning the judiciary, would lead to an erosion of public confidence.

IS INDIA THE BEST MODEL?

In India, it is an offence to allege that a judge is corrupt. (It is also an offence in Singapore). Thus, it would be unthinkable for anyone to accuse judges of being corrupt. Obviously the situation in India had gone well beyond that point, and has reached a stage where the Prime Minister and a Chief Justice themselves felt compelled to publicly state the unthinkable.

The point is not whether the judiciary was or is in fact corrupt. Rather, the point is that people appear to believe that it has become corrupt. A proud and distinguished institution in India has come to be perceived in this way because of official neglect of service conditions, resulting in low pay.

Government after government, did not ensure that judicial remuneration kept pace with social and economic developments; and there was a tolerance of corruption.

The result is that today the Indian judiciary is not the institution it once was. This has happened despite the fact that it had and continues to have many brilliant and gifted judges of unimpeachable character, who were and are prepared to do their duty, despite the low pay and poor service conditions.

Given the brilliance of lawyers in India, the Indian judicial system could have been among the finest in the Common Law world.

Given that this is the current reality of the Indian judicial system, it will be pure sophistry to suggest that Singapore should follow the Indian model of remunerating judges. It would be surprising if that is what Mr Jeyaretnam was suggesting.

That leaves one to wonder what point he was in fact making when he, in his article, referred (with some approval) to how Indian judges were remunerated and quoted the views of the unnamed daughter of an ex Supreme Court judge.

The second clue as to what Mr Jeyaretnam might be suggesting, as a way of remunerating public officers, is perhaps in the last paragraph of his article. He says that service and significance of contribution should themselves be valued rather than valuing success in monetary terms.

Most people will readily agree that service in the public sector should not be valued solely in monetary terms. But that does not detract from the point that public servants, including judges, should be properly remunerated.

Their remuneration must take into account the society they live in; the standard of living that they can reasonably aspire to (given that they would have the intellectual ability to succeed in the private sector); and the incomes their peers earn in the private sector. The salary that a society fixes for a judicial position is itself an indication of the esteem attached to that position.

In this context, it is very illustrative to note the views of Lord Philips of Worth Matravers, the current Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, about the remuneration of senior judicial officers in England and Wales.

In a letter written in October 2005 in the context of a major review of judicial salary structure in the UK, Lord Philips said: "The fact remains that the recruitment of sufficient candidates of appropriate calibre for the High Court Bench continues to present problems, particularly where candidates are sought from specialised areas of the law in which professional earnings are traditionally high …

"I am aware of at least three commercial practitioners who have in the recent past expressly declined an offer of appointment … On any showing, the gulf between pre-appointment and post-appointment earnings at High Court level remains dispiritingly large and the same is true at Senior Circuit judge level …

"We venture to suggest that most High Court judges are likely to be of a calibre that, had they pursued careers in the private commercial or industrial sector, they would unquestionably have commanded main board posts by the equivalent stage of their career.

"There is now real concern that removal or dilution of the perceived attraction of the judicial pension scheme will prove the last straw in the struggle to persuade practitioners to accept such a steep drop in income as is inevitably involved in appointment to a senior judicial post.

"Furthermore it must be remembered that the remuneration paid to the holders of public office contributes in part to the esteem in which that office is held. A post which is perceived to be seriously undervalued will in time lose its attraction amongst the most able candidates".

England has an incomparably long and rich legal tradition. English judges are held in the highest regard and esteem both within the UK and internationally. They are knighted when they become High Court judges.

The judicial appointment in England is seen and acknowledged as the capstone of a brilliant legal career. Yet, even in England, as Lord Philips comments, the "champions" who were in the highest paying sectors were becoming increasingly reluctant to accept judicial appointments because of the disparity in income.

Lord Philips is not the only Chief Justice of a major common law jurisdiction to have discussed the issue of judicial pay and the disparity of incomes when compared with the private sector.

In his 2006 year-end report on the Federal Judiciary, Chief Justice John Roberts of the United States referred to the low pay of American Federal Court judges, and he strongly criticised Congress for its inaction.

One of Chief Justice Roberts' main concerns was the fact that judicial salaries had fallen far below private sector salaries for lawyers.

STRIKING THE RIGHT BALANCE

He added that it changes the nature of the federal judiciary when judges are no longer drawn from among the best lawyers in the practising bar. He said that a pay rise would be unpopular but also pointed out that Congress had a duty, indeed a constitutional responsibility, to make a decision which even if unpopular, is necessary to promote the long term good.

The Chief Justice pointed out that if salaries were not competitive, the judiciary will not attract the right calibre of judges. The point is fairly straightforward. It is unrealistic to suggest that private sector remuneration would be irrelevant when the best in the private sector are asked to accept public appointments. The views expressed by the two Chief Justices show that we have to try and strike the right balance between valuing the contribution to society through public service, and paying reasonably for that service. It is instructive, in this respect to look at some real situations.

In 1990, our judges were paid a little less than about $500,000 per annum. If salaries had not been adjusted, that sum would be about 10 per cent of the income of the highest earners in the profession in 2005, according to the figures reported by the Auditor-General, and cited by Minister-in-Charge of the Civil Service Teo Chee Hean in Parliament on April 9.

Is that the right balance between what valuing service and paying an adequate remuneration?

If the judge's remuneration had remained at that level, then no amount of fancy verbiage will mask the fact that our society would be perceived as not valuing the contributions of judges.

Is it realistic to believe that the best in the profession can be persuaded to become judges on the reasoning (to use Mr Jeyaretnam's words) that they should be happy that their time on earth has been spent on service and should therefore accept a 90 per cent pay cut? There will be some who will do so. But there will also be others who may not be persuaded to do so, and it will not be unreasonable for them to decline to go into public service. Society will then be the poorer for it, because it would have failed to get enough of the best into public service.

After the latest salary revisions, it is likely that a High Court Judge in Singapore will earn less than 45 per cent of the 2005 median income of the highest earners in the profession. If 2006 incomes are considered then the percentage is likely to be lower. Does that suggest that we are moving to a system where only money is valued and service is disregarded?

It is true that if the correlation is made to the top earners in the legal profession, then it is likely that only some of those appointed as Judges will have to make a financial sacrifice. For others, it may represent a marginal change in income or an increase in income. But in my view, that situation is preferable to one where the salaries are so low that many of the highest earners may decline the appointment.

TRUST THE MARKET

That leaves me to deal with Mr Jeyaretnam's final point, that the market may be imperfect in selecting champions. Champions, in his view, become champions, because of luck and an aura of success. Perhaps so – market selection may be imperfect. And people on the rung below the champions may also feel (sometimes legitimately) that the market has been imperfect in selecting the champions. But on the whole there is a lot of sense in respecting the market's selections.

Lawyers, particularly commercial lawyers in Singapore, deal with sophisticated clients who often have large in house legal teams. When market selection takes place over a period of time, in a sophisticated legal environment, by knowledgeable clients, it is not only luck, chance and an aura that contribute to success.

Should we as a society seek to attract at least some of these "champions" into the public sector? The answer would appear to be obvious, from two perspectives (both of which were stated by Lord Philips in his letter, referred to earlier). If the most successful lawyers do not want to accept judicial appointments, then that would impact on the quality of the judiciary; and if judicial appointment is not valued by the best lawyers, over time, that appointment will be seriously undervalued.

It is difficult to overstate the importance of making sure that our judges are of the highest quality. Our High Court judges must be comparable in quality to those at the very top of the profession. The decisions of judges affect lives, liberty and commerce. Their decisions on commercial matters will have a huge impact on the business sector.

When MNCs invest billions in Singapore, they take into account the quality of the judicial system that is available. Judicial decisions that are not consonant with commercial trends will severely affect the business environment. A first rate judiciary is one of the key essentials for a commercial centre like Singapore to thrive.

We should therefore seek to attract the best lawyers onto the Bench by, inter alia, having sensible remuneration policies. That is preferable to questioning whether the market is an accurate guide as to who are the best lawyers and suggesting that it is not necessary to attract onto the Bench those lawyers.

Mr K Shanmugam is a Senior Counsel, a partner at law firm Allen & Gledhill and a PAP Member of Parliament.

Philip Jeyaretnam On “Champs, Chumps and Chimps”

2007-06-02T15:34:00.000+08:00

Law Soc on ‘champs, chumps and chimps’

TODAYonline, Friday • May 11, 2007

Derrick A Paulo
derrick@mediacorp.com.sg

THE recent debate over ministerial pay has left Law Society president Philip Jeyaretnam somewhat concerned whether private sector professionals, especially lawyers, will start viewing “national service” with disdain.

He’s not talking about the military kind, but the various unpaid posts that people take on for a public cause.

“Given the materialist spirit of the times, people urged to do their part by way of such ‘national service’ will be forgiven if they sometimes wonder whether they are being taken for chumps,” he wrote in his president’s message for the May edition of his society’s publication, the Law Gazette.

The principle of benchmarking ministers’ pay to what they would otherwise have earned in the public sector may be realistic and assists transparency by disassociating political office with hidden perks.

“But, it can hardly be doubted that one effect of the emphasis on money is to undercut volunteerism and the spirit of public service,” wrote Mr Jeyaretnam, who serves on three statutory boards.

Sharp words indeed from a man who once told this newspaper that he would “speak truth to power”.

In 1986, a certain Francis Seow — Law Society president then, Opposition figure in exile now — publicly opposed the Government on laws curbing foreign publications, a move which led to legislation limiting the Law Society’s ambit to comment.

However, as Mr Jeyaretnam told Today, his message “was very much for lawyers to reflect on and was not intended for the general public”.

He established how the ministerial pay issue has a bearing on the profession in his message, Of Champs, Chumps and Chimps, which can be found on the society’s website. ...

“The public is told that top lawyers earn astronomical amounts. And that top engineers earn much, much less. What will this mean to the image and standing of the two professions? For sure, the law faculties at (the local universities) will be even more oversubscribed than they are at present,” he wrote.

“It is unfortunate that the public may be getting a rather skewed idea of the two professions — there is much less of a gap once one looks below the rung of top earners.”

Given the hype generated, clients would be left wondering “how to square lawyers’ complaints about the very real squeeze on legal fees with the apparent exuberance of top lawyers’ pay”.

He added: “Will they understand that the headline numbers don’t tell the whole story?”

The only way to redress the “misleading glimpse of what it really means to be a lawyer (or doctor or accountant or engineer)”, he said, would be for the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore to reveal the average income levels at different stages of a legal, medical, accounting and engineering career.

Lawyer Gopalan Raman applauded Mr Jeyaretnam for “walking the tightrope” between two groups in the profession: “The big-time lawyers who work for corporate clients that can be money machines … the group that harkens after money, and smaller firms doddering between survival and failure.

“Philip has treated the latter kindly because he’s saying money isn’t the be all and end all.”

Lawyer Peter Cuthbert Low, who was Law Society president when a salary benchmark for ministers was first established in 1994, shared Mr Jeyaretnam’s concerns.

“I don’t want the kind of lawyers who come out of law school thinking: ‘Now, I want to make money’,” said Mr Low. “We have a long, proud tradition of public spiritedness.”

In his message, Mr Jeyaretnam also shared a lesson he learnt during an overseas trip.

“When I was in India last year, I asked the daughter of a former Supreme Court Judge whether there was any difficulty posed by the gap that exists there between judicial salaries and private sector salaries.

“She looked at me as if I was mad, and patiently, as if to a small child, explained the tremendous respect in which she and her family had been held.

“As far as she knew, no one turned down a higher court appointment, as the opportunity to make and interpret law authoritatively was of incalculable reward for anyone who loved law.”

=====================================================================
The full article can be found here.

Of Champs, Chumps and Chimps

What lawyers earn has been in the news of late. The focus has been on the top eight earners in the profession, who apparently earn substantially more than their counterparts in five other sectors. The context has been the financial sacrifices that government ministers have made in agreeing to become ministers, on the basis that if they had not done so they would have been top earners in the private sector.

The issue can be approached at three levels. First, there is principle. Second is mechanics, or structure. Third and finally, there is the impact of it all on social values.

At the level of principle is the shift from an attempt to reward contribution to government and country to an attempt to estimate what he or she would otherwise have earned in the private sector, what has been described as the opportunity cost of a public sector career choice. The reward for contribution method, still employed in many countries today, typically ensures that a government employee and his or her family are housed, chauffered, medically attended to and in due course pensioned in accordance with a scale that fits that person’s status. It is detached from the employment market, and indeed from the housing market, as the government holds a stock of prime housing that it recycles from generation to generation. It has the virtue of expressing society’s gratitude (coupled with a sense of what is enough to mark that gratitude), and explicitly matches status to office. Against it is the risk that society’s sense of enough may not match the ambition of talented people, and so the public sector will not attract sufficient talent.

When I was in India last year I asked the daughter of a former Supreme Court Judge whether there was any difficulty posed by the gap that exists there between judicial salaries and private sector salaries, say those of top senior advocates. She looked at me as if I was mad, and patiently as if to a small child explained the tremendous respect in which she and her family had been held, not to mention the lovely home in which she had grown up, although of course that home was passed on to another judge once her father retired. She went on to say that as far as she knew no one turned down a higher court appointment, as the opportunity to make and interpret law authoritatively was of incalculable reward for anyone who loved the law.

Singapore has long since moved away from a system based on valuing the contribution made and honouring the office for itself. The focus today is on trying to determine remuneration that, while not outpacing the private sector, does not fall too far short of top earners. The justification for it is precisely the fear that top talent will not join the public sector. That peanuts will attract only chimps. But as a method it is fraught with uncertainty. It is hard to put a value on the many differences between the two sectors – for example, the greater security and higher status of the public sector, the longer working hours and greater business stress of the private sector. Not to mention different pension rights, and the vast difference in consistency and longevity of earnings (lawyers’ earnings typically peak in their forties and early fifties and can then fall away quite sharply, and in any case fluctuate greatly from year to year). If a career in the public sector is perceived to be less risky and yet as rewarding, then the best and brightest (as the expression goes) will choose government over business, which may not after all be in the best interests of the nation.

Hard as it is to get the benchmark right in terms of career signals, it is harder still to convince people of its rightness. The market operates to reward disproportionately people who have been lucky, or have acquired the aura of a champion. Think of the huge gap in earning power between the top basketball players and the next rung – the difference in ability may be marginal at best. The same phenomenon occurs elsewhere, and certainly does in the legal profession. Yet some of the best judges in England, Australia and elsewhere have not been top earners in their previous incarnations as advocates or as solicitors, but have excelled as judges because of their combination of good minds and stout hearts.

In short, the opportunity cost method assumes or reflects an attitude that money is the common currency for all the choices one can make about one’s life. In its favour, this could be said to be just being realistic. Moreover, it assists transparency. Without comparable pay, the risk of hidden perks – ranging from the legitimate to the shady - associated with office is a real one. But it can hardly be doubted that one effect of the emphasis on money is to undercut volunteerism and the spirit of public service. It is a reductionist ethos that leaves little room for other motivations. One often hears the expression ‘national service’ to describe various unpaid posts that private sector individuals take on for a public cause, often specifically in aid of a government policy. Such work benefits us all. But, given the materialist spirit of the times, people urged to do their part by way of such ‘national service’ will be forgiven if they sometimes wonder whether they are being taken for chumps.

Unfortunately, there’s very little that the profession can do to change or even influence the terms of the debate. The public is told that top lawyers earn astronomical amounts. And that top engineers earn much, much less. What will this mean to the image and standing of the two professions? For sure, the law faculties at NUS and SMU will be even more oversubscribed than they are at present. And the engineering faculties will see a sharp drop off of applicants. It is unfortunate that the public may be getting a rather skewed idea of the two professions – there is much less of a gap once one looks below the rung of top earners. Expect clients too to wonder how to square lawyers’ complaints about the very real squeeze on legal fees with the apparent exuberance of top lawyers’ pay. Will they understand that the headline numbers don’t tell the whole story?

Perhaps the only way to redress what is probably a misleading glimpse of what it really means to be a lawyer (or doctor or accountant or engineer) would be for IRAS now to release figures showing what the average income levels are at different stages of a legal, medical, accounting and engineering career, including how they fluctuate, plateau and taper off.

But there seems no way to redress the underlying shift in how we count our time on earth – a shift from values of service and significance to emphasis on success measured in dollars and cents. But it is a terrible shame all the same. And whether the cause is hopeless or not, we should not succumb just yet. The profession still has plenty of room for socially aware, dedicated lawyers to make a mark, and earn a decent living in the process, as well as for the few financial champs. So long as one has enough to keep self and family in food, shelter, health and education, giving up billable hours for professional or social service is still a worthwhile endeavour.

Philip Jeyaretnam, SC
President
The Law Society of Singapore

On a wing and a prayer …

2007-05-29T00:06:00.001+08:00

I hope this isn't another disaster in the making...

Will China Eastern Airlines become the proverbial albatross round SIA's neck?

Prithpal Singh

If Singapore Airlines' track record of management and investment deals with other airlines is anything to go by, the sceptics among us are going to throw up their hands and say "here we go again".

SIA's many attempts to go global have been patchy at best: Its first known effort was a management contract with Air Lanka in the early 80s, meant to be converted into partial ownership eventually.

Unfortunately, SIA managers' working relationship with their Air Lanka counterparts turned sour and the contract was not renewed. Emirates later bought into Air Lanka.

In the 1990s, SIA had an-ill timed foray into India when it did a deal with the Tata group. The airline thought it had a blue chip partner, but it turned out that its partner had very little political clout.

The proposed partnership was countered by the full force of the collective political clout of India's first privately-owned airline, Jet Airways, and others in the industry. This effectively killed the deal.

SIA lost this one great window of opportunity to enter India's now booming aviation industry and has little hope of moving in there in the near future.

In New Zealand and Australia, SIA got a little further, taking a stake in Air New Zealand and Ansett Airways. Both ventures ended with SIA suffering a lot of red ink and a bruised ego.

For one of the world's most successful airlines having to beat a hasty retreat from a potentially lucrative market was truly a humbling lesson.

Then, there was the 49 per cent investment in Richard Branson's Virgin Atlantic. Instead of seizing a foothold for further expansion into the Americas, all SIA did was hand over a $1 billion war chest on a silver platter to Mr Branson. The British businessman used that money to set up Virgin Blue in Australia, an airline which has become so immensely successful that it eliminated any hope for SIA to successfully re-enter the Australian domestic market.

Perhaps, even more disastrously for SIA, Virgin Blue has now staked its claim on the transpacific route thus denting chances of SIA flying across the Pacific Ocean from Australia to the US for many years to come.

The optimists will say that these were in the past when SIA was still on a learning curve with foreign forays. They will say that with China Eastern it will be different. That SIA paid its expensive tuition fees and learnt the lessons, that the environment is more liberal, that China is a huge market and an early entry is a must.

Granted that it's difficult to ignore China in this day and age and that there are many opportunities and benefits to be reaped. But one must be mindful that this is not just any industry.

First, it's a very high profile industry which attracts lots of attention and is still highly regulated. And in China, an airline can very quickly become a focus of nationalistic emotion if the fires are stoked.

So, what steps can be taken to protect the investment? The other big question is why is SIA making this purchase? And does it really know what price it may have to pay eventually? Or is SIA prepared to make this foray at any cost, because it's China?

From the preliminary information available, it looks like SIA is just too anxious and overly eager to enter the China market. Many different approaches can be made but jumping into bed with a high profile and well established airline there raises a few red flags.

First, it's easy to get carried away by the "China-cannot-be-wrong" syndrome being manifested in the hype and euphoria of SIA's planned 25 per cent stake in China Eastern.

Any investor will tell you that taking a 25 per cent stake in an airline in China without taking some effective management control (unless one wishes to be a passive investor) is pure folly.

Presumably, SIA's involvement is not just the injection of funds. It's there to make that vital difference: That its involvement will provide much needed management expertise, improvement to product quality, know how, economies of scale to turn this loss-making airline into a profitable one. This is a very crucial point and SIA needs to reveal details of the extent of its involvement in managing the airline.

Second, China Eastern is Shanghai based, 20 years old and well established with 30,000 employees and an extensive domestic and international network boasting more than 100 aircraft.

It's no novice to the business and has an ingrained management style.

Recently, three senior managers were sacked for corruption. It can easily be seen that SIA's management culture is as different from China Eastern's as chalk is from cheese.

"Face" is a huge factor in China and the SIA's corporate style, a la efficiency-at-allcost style of SQ is not likely to sit well with the working culture of the Chinese even with the best of intentions on both sides.

And with such a high profile business as an airline and a management structure which has been in place there for sometime now, I foresee many issues which will sap SIA of its time, energy and resources while it tries to turn around the proverbial giant oil tanker in mid stream. It's the sort of thing that can derail the very best of plans and intentions.

Third, even with the supposed liberalisaton of the aviation industry worldwide, the pace is still slow and patchy.

In China, it's worse. Nobody really understands the complex aviation regulatory environment: It's in constant flux and as murky as the Yangtze River at low tide and as deceiving as any minefield.

Presumably SIA is buying into China Eastern to secure access to domestic air routes, gain market share and achieve more international traffic rights to grow quicker than it could organically. But this is where it could very well get unstuck.

Other Chinese carriers may cry foul due to China Eastern's partial foreign ownership and may put a cap on future expansion plans and traffic rights assignment.

Traffic rights belong to the government. What guarantee is there that after landing a stake, SIA will not get the short end of the stick when it comes to traffic rights as the other Chinese airlines lobby against it citing its partial foreign ownership.

There are indeed many questions which need to be answered. But most important of all is this: Does SIA really need to buy into a Chinese airline when it can instead start with a management contract for a number of years with the option to buy a stake later?

With SIA facing challenges like longer-range aircraft that can skip Singapore, bigger airlines being born out of mergers and posing a serious challenge to SIA and the rise of the mega cash-rich Middle East carriers, is this the best way forward for SIA?

Taking a stake in China Eastern, far from providing it the next wing to take it higher, could potentially become the proverbial albatross round SIA's neck distracting it from being what it's good at: Maintaining SIA's pride of place as the best and most profitable airline in the world.

It can only continue to do so by sticking to what it knows best and becoming an even better world airline. One would have thought that after so many unsuccessful attempts to go global, SIA would have learnt its lessons. But it seems it has not and is hoping it will get lucky this time round.

Prithpal Singh is an aviation, tourism, travel and hospitality veteran.

The flaw is no law

2007-05-16T03:20:00.000+08:00

Singapore News // Tuesday, May 15, 2007

The flaw is no law

Unlike legal codes, guidelines lack teeth to free workers from discrimination • News Comment
Derrick A Paulo
derrick@mediacorp.com.sg

When it comes to fighting labour discrimination, Singapore prefers to tread lightly.

The latest sequel to the trilogy on combating workplace discrimination — following the update of the 1999 guidelines on job advertisements, a code for responsible employment practices in 2002, and guidelines for pro-family practices in 2004 — is yet another set of guidelines.

Race, religion, gender and marital status are all "don'ts" for job application forms, according to guidelines issued two weeks ago by the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices. These, however, are only "practical" tips for bosses, as the alliance said. Once again, legislation will not be introduced.

But shouldn't it be introduced, in order to better deal with the problem of discrimination?

The planned Tripartite Centre for Fair Employment is designed to advise employers keen to adopt such practices — in other words, the converted. The same type of employers as the 420 so far, including 59 from the public sector, that have pledged to implement fair employment practices.

It is easy to preach to the converted. But what about the remaining 133,000 small and medium-sized enterprises?

While the 180 employment-related discrimination cases that the Manpower Ministry (MOM) received in the past three years is not an excessively large number in a labour force of more than 2 million, job discrimination appears to be on the rise.

The incidence of pregnant workers complaining of unfair dismissal has doubled since three years ago. In all probability, there is a fair number of silent sufferers out there who chose not to, or did not know how to, lodge a complaint.

A survey last year by global staffing solutions firm Kelly Services ranked Singapore one of the three countries, out of 28, with the highest rates of workplace discrimination. Two-thirds of the 1,500 respondents polled here complained of having experienced prejudice of some sort when applying for a job in the past five years. They cited age as the top factor (29 per cent).

Even if these are mere perceptions, the bulk of which an MOM investigation could well find to be unsubstantiated, they affect the sustainability of Singapore's social stability, which can only need more attention, especially since our population of 4.5 million is set to grow.

Singaporeans should not have to look at the job market — and their career prospects — through the lens of discrimination. When Singaporeans are sent the proper signals of assurance that there will be a fair deal at the workplace, foreigners are also more likely to get a warmer welcome and their contributions valued more.

If all the authorities do is exhort employers, promote programmes and set up one centre, their efforts can only go so far. Legislation can help, if we can be flexible, creative and selective.

During the Committee of Supply debate in March, Nominated Member of Parliament Eunice Olsen suggested using a voluntary compliance agreement (VCA) to change unfair hiring practices.

A VCA is a mechanism now used to tackle unfair trading practices under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act. When errant traders sign a VCA, they admit to carrying out unfair trading practices, agree to stop such practices, and make the necessary remedies to affected consumers.

Only refusal to do so or a breach of the VCA gives the Consumers Association of Singapore (Case) the option to seek a ruling from the courts. And penalties apply only when a company incurs the court's contempt by failing to adhere to its ruling.

Replace trader with employer, Case with MOM or an equal employment panel, and consumer with employee to get a helpful piece of legislation to fight job discrimination.

Current legislation, such as section 14 of the Employment Act and the Retirement Age Act, provides only avenues for workers to seek redress for unfair dismissal or job termination based on age, respectively.

The MOM can also take up cases to seek individual remedies, but this is certainly not the best way to empower a state to effect sustainable, long-term change.

An employment VCA will help. It is more likely to get employers with unfair practices to stick out like a sore thumb than if 0.003 per cent of companies — or more — pledge to be fair employers.

"This is about educating employers and having the teeth to back it up … And it is done without incurring frivolous legal claims, as only MOM, after a fair assessment, can take legal action," Ms Olsen said. She suggested homing in on hiring practices before deciding if the VCA is suitable for discrimination in training prospects, promotion benefits and retrenchment bias.

There was no reply to her suggestion. Instead, we were told about guidelines, the tripartite centre and pledges.

If such measures are enough to enact sustainable change, why do we not depend solely on persuasion, such as in intellectual property, to uphold IP protection? Why have coercive laws to deter infringements and piracy?

It is not about the numbers. The Government is drafting laws to make sex with minors overseas a prosecutable offence here, even though only three Singaporeans have been caught since 1994 for such acts.

The answer is simple. When applied to fair employment, not to legislate is to close an eye to discriminatory practices.

What's your view? Email us at
.
news@newstoday.com.sg

Are Morals Exclusive to Religious People?

2007-05-15T17:04:00.000+08:00

Do we really need religious texts to justify our moral code of conduct?

More often than not, Christians and other theists purport that religion provides a platform, or a moral standard, if you will, by which humans can behave in a decent manner. Without religious values, morals, as we understand, will decay, and social decay and utter rottenness would fester and erode society and civilization away, starting from the fringes.

Scary thought indeed, but on what basis do they justify such scary, fear-mongering predictions?

According to religious authorities, Man, it seems, is the only divine creature who has been bestowed with a conscience; a kind of a gauge, if you will, to associate with morals, the rights and the wrongs of every thought-provoking issue. Animals, they claim, cannot conform to moral quotes because of this rather mysterious instrument.

The virtuous chimp???

Science, however, is beginning to unravel the mysteries behind animal behavior. According to recent scientific studies, primates, too may well have developed a sense of morals too, and you bet they aren't worshipping any Roman or Hellenistic deity (Or maybe they do, but these chimps aren't telling. Tsk Tsk).

The Evolution of Morals

In scientific lingo, morality is defined not within the confines of some absolute values; rather, it is a set of rules, codified or otherwise, for which animals or man within a certain community live by, to breed harmony as well as avoid fighting amongst fellow members of a community. In short, species living together in groups have rules to restrain themselves for the better good of the group. Dr. de Waal, director of the Emory University, contends that all social animals have had to constrain or alter their behavior in various ways for group living to be worthwhile. These constraints, evident in monkeys and even more so in chimpanzees, are part of human inheritance, too, and in his view form the set of behaviors from which human morality has been shaped.

This is not to say that chimps are law abiding creatures in a human sort of way; the morality that apes abide by are simply unwritten laws passed down from generation to generation to keep their groups intact, reducing conflict and unnecessary squabbles that may threaten or break up their groups.

Examples of Primate Morality

In many ways, primate morals, especially chimpanzees, share a startling similarity with its homo sapient counterparts. For example, when two chimpanzees fight, the rest of the family members would invariably console the loser, indicating that some form of compassion must have been rendered on the part of the consolers. This type of humanoid behavior requires a certain empathy and self-awareness which may far surplus anything we know with regards to the animal kingdom.

Primates have also been observed to exercise a sense of reciprocity and fairness. They remember who did them favors and who did them wrong. Chimps are more likely to share food with those who have groomed them. The adage "one good turn deserves another", it seems, is not merely exclusive to Man alone.

This ability to gauge certain patterns of behavior, and the propensity to reciprocate to kindness, is indicative of the type of moral values that primates may have, and that we are only beginning to apprehend primate behavior from a wholly scientific point of view.

Social Order: Law of the Apes

Besides providing guidelines, adhering to moral standards goes a long way in ensuring social order. Humans enforce this form of moral-induced social order either through customs and traditions, or written, codified law.

While primates may not be as advanced, research into primate behavior reveals certain traits mirroring this phenomenon. Macaques and chimpanzees, for example, have a sense of social order and rules of expected behavior, mostly to do with the hierarchical natures of their societies, in which each member knows its own place. Young rhesus monkeys learn quickly how to behave, and occasionally get a finger or toe bitten off as punishment.

Are Morals Exclusive Only To Man?

Maybe some humans just can't behave with or without religions........

While science is beginning to compare and comprehend human concepts with animals, it is important to know that what may seem to be moralistic concepts exhibited by animals may be inherited survival instincts intended for the sole purpose of bettering their chances of survival in their respective communities.

Nonetheless, studies into animal morality seem to indicate that morals need not exist within the realms of religion and dogma. Rather, it is a compliance within a strict, patriachial social order that will bring about some form of a greater good within a community.

In the case of Man, we may have taken it a step too far (Or maybe we are too smart for our own good): Morality, it seems, has become synonymous with invisible deities and alpha males, which really isn't necessarily the case. If apes can behave without the need to cook up some non-existent, ridiculous deities, then we should look at ourselves in the mirror and seriously wonder whether we really are a higher order of species than mere apes.

The Untold Truths of National Service

2007-05-12T20:38:00.000+08:00

From Edmund Ng,

Lawrence Leow was a bright young kid. He was very active in school and was pretty diligent in his studies. He was studying in Anderson Junior College. Disaster struck when he was serving his National Service.

Lawrence had suffered heat stroke during his National Service. What happened next was a shock to many of his friends and family. Due to the heat stroke suffered during National Service training, Lawrence was paralyzed in most of his body. He also suffered inflammation and infection in his wind pipe. That resulted in having an operation to have a opening at his throat.

Lawrence could not eat on his own and had limited mobility. He could only type using a small digital pad or sms to communicate his thoughts. He was in no position to take care of himself. As he can't speak, he could only capture your attention by breathing deeply. Yes, it does sound like Darth Vader breathing with intensity.

I was concerned over his situation so I asked him whether Mindef offered any kind of assistance or compensation to him. I was told they are only paying him $500 a month plus a CSC card. In Lawrence's own words via sms to me, "The $500 is not even enough for me to hire a maid!".

This is sad as it adds on to Lawrence's family burden. During the free internet marketing workshop at HWA, it was his grandfather that had been wheelchairing him all the way from Bukit Batok to the HWA office at Balester. How many more are in the same predicament of Lawrence Leow?

Leong Sze Hian on Singapore's vital socio-economic indicators

2007-05-11T03:51:00.000+08:00

From Sammyboy,

Singapore has been voted as the top choice of location for expats in the world and also the best asian city in the 2007 Worldwide Quality of Living Survey by Mercer Human Resource Consulting. The Senior Minister has voiced his concerns about Singapore's brain-drain. So, why are Singaporeans leaving and may not be returning, when it is the best place in the world for expats to live and work, and the best for quality of life in Asia?

The answer may lie in some statistics for the last year or so.

The Dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy in his inaugural speech in the Distinguished Speakers Lecture series of the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SCCCI) on March 21, said that "it is quite puzzling that Singapore is still aspiring to be world class, when it has exceeded world-class standards in many areas" and cited "10 dimensions in which we have achieved or exceeded previous 'world-class' standards".

In the annals of corporate history, many once revered brand names have fallen by the wayside, because they failed to adequately, constantly and continually address their shortcomings, and internal and external criticisms. This failing may arguably be applied to the history of nations too.

In the context of his speech which was on building the Singapore brand and national branding, I think we may want to take a step backbards, and do some critical self-analysis of our current weaknesses, and try to improve on them. In our perhaps zealous attempts to become world-class in so many things, we may have paid insufficient attention to some 15 dimensions, which I shall describe below.

Singapore was ranked 130th out of 178 countries for Happiness, 40th out of 41 countries for Libido, 30th out of 35 countries for Courtesy, 5th in the world for Prisoners Per Capita, 105th in the world for Income Equality, 154th for Press Freedom by Freedom House, and 15th out of 16 countries in the Asia Democracy Index.

Dimensions relating to income:-

1. Income distribution continued to widen - the Gini coefficient increased from 0.468 to 0.472.

Percentage of employed households with household income from work below $ 1,000, increased from 5.4 to 5.7%. Average monthly income from work per household member among employed households was only $ 300 for the 1st to 10th decile, and $ 540 for the 11th to 20th decile. Average monthly income from work per household member among non-retiree households was only $ 160 for the 1st to 10th decile, and $ 470 for the 11th to 20th decile. With about over one million households, does it mean that about 90,000 non-retiree households are still surviving on only $ 160 average monthly income from work per household member?

The 1st to 10th decile among employed households had the lowest number of working persons at 1.28, supporting the highest number of average persons in the household of 3.92 persons. Generally, the larger the average household size, the lower were the average number of working persons. This trend persisted until the 70th percentile for average number of working persons.

Number of part-timers has more than doubled over the decade from 51,400 to 112,300 expanding their share of employment from 3.5% to 6.3%. The median monthly income for part-timers is still the same at $ 500 compared to 10 years ago. In view of the 118 per cent increase in part-timers for the last decade, does it mean that more residents are working for income of $ 500 that has not changed for 10 years?

Since "retiree households who had no income from work comprised 5% of all resident households in 2006", and "8.5% of resident households had 0 number of working persons", does it mean that 3.5% or about 37,000 households are not retired but have no income from work ? How many of these - about 37,000 households are living with no income from work, because they have sufficient funds to sustain themselves indefinitely or for a prolonged period of time?

Whilst the Resident labour force increased by 27 per cent for the last 15-year period from 1.373 to 1.737 million, Unemployed Residents increased by 149 per cent from 28,000 to 69,600. This means that the Resident labour force increased by 1.6 per cent per annum, and Unemployed Residents increased by 6.3 per cent per annum.

Dimemsions relating to expenditure:-

2. As at the end of last year, banks have repossessed 1,445 HDB flats financed with bank loans since the start of bank origination in January 2003. In recent months, the rate is about 60 cases a month. This means that 1.6 per cent of HDB flats on bank loans have been foreclosed. 7 per cent of the 89,000 HDB flats with bank loans which is about 6,230 HDB flat owners have not been able to pay for more than 3 months. Some of these may become foreclosures.

From 2002 to 2006, some 360 households voluntarily surrendered their flats after defaulting on their HDB concessionary loan repayments. HDB's annual report said that it provided financial assistance to 28,386 flat-owners in its last financial year, Does this mean that 28,386 flat-owners had difficulty paying their HDB concessionary loan monthly repayments or HDB rental?

In the HDB's last two offers of 2-room flats, about 42 per cent of the applicants were 55 years and older, and 56 per cent had household incomes of less than $ 1,000 a month.

3. According to the Yearbook of Statistics Singapore, water, electricity and gas tariffs increased by 8.6, 2.8, and 4.2% per annum from 1995 to 2005, against inflation of just 1%. The number of electricity accounts in arrears is about 3,600 and the number of Pay-As-You Use (PAYU) meters is about 12,500.

4. MediFund paid out $40m to 290,000 Medifund applications approved last year. Does this mean that the average Medifund payout per patient was about $138? According to the Ministry of Health's (MOH) web site, "for FY2001, a total of 157,190 Medifund applications were considered, of which 156,780 applications or 99.7% were approved, amounting to a total disbursement of $27.2m ". Does this means that the average Medifund payout per patient in 2001 was about $174?

Why is it that the average Medifund payout per patient has declined from $174 in 2001 to $138 last year, when as I understand it, the average costs of hospitalisation have gone up? According to MOH's "Affordability of Healthcare Data", the average hospital bill size for Class C was $858 and $495 at the 50th percentile. So, does this mean that some needy patients may still be financially stressed in having to pay the shortfall between their bill and the Medifund payout, by instalments to the hospital after their discharge?

According to the MOH's web site, polyclinics "served about 100,000 dental patients". According to the DOS, there were about 104,900 households in the 0 to 10th decile with no income from work and about 104,900 households with average income of $1,180 in the 11th to 20th decile. Each visiting the public dental services once a year, would total about 377,640 dental attendances per year (assuming 3.6 average household number of persons x about 104,900 households with average income of $1,180 in the 11th to 20th decile, and that all the 0 income households are mostly retirees and others who can afford private dental care). How many can afford the private dental consultation rates starting from $45 compared to the polyclinics' rates from $12 to $20.50 for adult Singapore citizens, and from $6 to $10.50 for children and the elderly? Since the polyclinics only served about 100,000 attendances last year, and some went to private dentists under the Primary Care Partnership Scheme (PCPS) and about 3,000 under the Public Assistance (PA) scheme, where did the rest of the lower-income Singaporeans go to for dental treatment?

5. The Ministry of Education helped 35,000 school children in its Financial Assistance Scheme.

At the announcement of the setting up of the ComCare Fund on 19 January 2005, it was said that the five Community Development Councils (CDCs) handled 35,000 hardship cases in 2004, granting almost $ 40 million in assistance. Why is it that it would appear that about two years later, the amount of assistance given out has only increased by 70 per cent ($ 68 divided by $ 40 million), against an increase of 157 per cent in the number of needy families (90,000 divided by 35,000) ?

About 60,000 Singaporeans did not sign up for the Progress Package.

6. In 2005, the $4 million Public Transport Fund set up and funded by SMRT, SBS, Comcare Fund, the 5 CDCs, SLF and NTUC, received more than 92,000 applications for 80,000 vouchers worth $50 each. The funding organisations pitched in with the $600,000 needed to pay for the extra vouchers. The total of $4.6 million divided by $20 means that about 230,000 people received about $20 each to help pay for the transport fares increase in 2005. Even if we assume that all the about 104,900 households in the 0 to 10th decile with no income from work are retirees and others who can afford the fares increase, we are still missing about 147,640 (377,640 (3.6 persons x about 104,900 households with average income of $1,180 in the 11th to 20th decile) - 230,000). Does this mean that they did not apply for transport vouchers?

7. According to studies at the National University of Singapore, the average propensity to consume (APC) which is measured as the ratio of private consumption expenditures to GDP, has fallen steadily over time from 0.82 in 1960 to 0.43 in 2003.This has produced the lowest ratio of private consumption to output in the free world.

Dimensions relating to net worth:-

8. Household Net Worth increased by 3.8 per cent per annum from $ 548 to $ 660 billion from 2000 to 2005. However, after adjusting for inflation, CPF contributions and the interest on CPF balances, and cash savings and investments, does. it mean that household net worth may actually have declined?

65, 69 and about 75 per cent of CPFIS investors did not beat the 2.5 per cent interest on the CPF Ordinary Account for the first 9, 10, and 11 years of the scheme on a cumulative basis. What were the statistics after 12 and 13 years of the scheme ?

Other dimensions:-

9.Last year, there were 120,000 ex-offenders whose records were spent, 11,000 ex-offenders are being released every year, plus the current 14,453 prison population - how many ex-offenders in total are there in Singapore , since only those convicted of minor crimes and who remain crime-free for five years may have their records marked as spent and those convicted of serious offences and jailed for more than three months or fined more than $ 2,000 cannot have their records erased ? According to the World Prison Population List of King's College London International Centre for Prison Studies, the prison population rate (per 100,000 of national population) for Singapore, at 350, was the fifth highest in the world.

10. According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) World Economic Outlook Database September 2006, Singapore is ranked number one in the world for current account balance in percent of GDP ratio. Singapore's ratio of 28.5 in 2006, is more than double the second ranked country, Switzerland's ratio of 13.3. Singapore's US$132 (S$205) billion foreign reserves has been ranked number one in the world on a per capita basis.

11. According to a report on the "WELLBEING OF CHILDREN", "Children (under 14 years) who seek psychiatric counselling - 16,487 children sought psychiatric help at the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) in 2002. 2,485 of them were newcomers...(Source: The Straits Times, October 5, 2003)".

12. Only 1 per cent of patients in Class A or B1 wards who sought to downgrade were successful, according to a report in Parliament in April 2007.

13. According to the recruiting firm Hudson's survey published in May 2007, Singapore workers suffer the 2nd highest work-related stress in Asia, with 52% of employees reporting being stressed.

14. The British Council study on the walking speed of pedestrians published in May 2007, found that Singaporeans are the world's fastest walkers. The British Council said people's walking speed is a reliable measure of the pace of life in a city.

15. A 2007 survey of 15 industrialised countries including Australia, Canada, USA, Spain, Italy, Hong Kong and Japan, found that while Singaporeans are most active in saving up for retirement, they end up with one of the lowest retirement income levels. The study, conducted by the AXA Insurance Group, showed that the proportion of Singaporeans contributing to a savings plan, mainly through the CPF, outstripped that of other countries. Yet, among the 15 countries, the average retiree in Singapore has the lowest retirement income.

The Budget Debate is over. Like a company making its strategic plans and setting its goals for the future, perhaps we could look at some of the above statistics, with the view that some of them may be considered useful as benchmarks for measuring Singapore's progress and performance in the future.

Some of the above may also help some of us in thinking about what we hope to achieve and concerns to address for our future.

Leong Sze Hian

Decriminalizng Gay Sex: A Sign Of Eroding Social Values?

2007-05-10T17:25:00.000+08:00

Gay Pride: A Symbol of Emancipation for the Gay Community

In many countries (including many US states), sodomy involving consensual homosexual adults are outlawed, and it is quite astonishing to note that even in supposed secular countries such as Singapore, gay sex is being stigmatized as a criminal act. It seems that the law itself has placed upon the state the patriarchal right to dictate what goes on behind closed doors, and that sex outside the pro-life format is deemed as a perceived threat to members of the public.

Recently, in one of Singapore's major newspaper, The Straits Times, a rather homophobic professor (the straight laced types, no doubt), wrote about the dangers of legalizing gay sex (Gasp! How unholy!).

The whole issue, it seems, centres around a little-known legislation, otherwise known as Section 377A of the Penal Code ("Penal" here does not refer to the penis, even if this whole issue is exactly about that - the penis). According to the Code, it "prohibits the commission of gross indecency by one male person with another male person."

Below is the summary of points made by Yvonne, along with my rebuttal:

Excerpts from the Straits Time article, dated May 4 2007:

Decriminalizing homosexual acts would be an error

1. Firstly, the legal meaning of equality must be understood within its social context. Equality is not an absolute value. Extreme applications of equality impair community interests and violate the rights of others. Furthermore, the Constitution does not prohibit all forms of discrimination.

Rebuttal:
What Yvonne is implying here is that the Constitution of Singapore does allow for some forms of discrimination against......who? Besides gays (supposedly), are other minority groups supposed to be the target of discrimination by the Constitution? Are atheists, agnostics, gays, vegetarians and other minorities at risk of being targeted by the Constitution? If equality is not extended to everyone regardless of race, religion or creed, then what kind of equality are we talking about?

To even suggest that the Constitution promotes certain forms of bigotry, well, pardon me for saying this, is really tantamount to defecating and eating gourmet food in the restaurant both at the same time. Yes, it is disgusting and totally abhorrent, but that is exactly the point.

2. Like cases must be treated alike, but Parliament may enact measures which differentiate between different groups. The courts hold that such measures must satisfy two tests to be constitutionally valid. Firstly, the classification must have a rational basis. Secondly, the law must serve a legitimate purpose which is reasonably related to the basis for the classification.

Rebuttal:
Ah, rationale. I love rationality, so let us use this as a yardstick for her homophobic support for this "Penal" (Again, no deference to penis) code. Let's see: Two homosexuals contend that they would spending a wild night buggering each other, and basically have hot monkey sex. Are their actions bothering anyone? Hmm...... hell no.

Are they subjecting anyone to any grievous bodily harm? No again. Well ok, maybe some busybodies with nothing better to do will arm themselves with a pair of binoculars and spy these "obnoxious" buggers having a whale of a time, and just maybe they would be offended. Sure they would, but wouldn't the simple solution be to simply look away?

Since rationality can only be served to debunk such bigotry, wouldn't Yvonne require another form of yardstick to justify her convoluted opinions against the gay community? Something archaic.........something religious.......now you get the drift.

3. In constitutional terms, equality claims operate within a broader social context. Homosexuality is offensive to the majority of citizens. Allowing an aggressive homosexual rights agenda to dictate law reform ignores the nature of Singapore's multi-religious, multiracial community. Such an agenda would be divisive.

Rebuttal:
Oh, yes, this one's a better yardstick. So the majority of us are religious (albeit worshipping different deities, but hell, then we'd be all offensive to each other, right?), multi racial (What has race got to do with it???), and........yes, different. By virtue of this argument, Yvonne seems to argue that the majority of Singaporeans of every race and religion find homosexuality "offensive", but surely wouldn't that hatred unite Singaporeans, instead of being divisive? Clearly, our professor isn't as clear headed as one would expect from someone who "professes" to be a professor, but let's not get into ad hominems first.

4. Any argument to decriminalise homosexual sex must consider the harmful social consequences. For example, would affirming homosexual sexual practices serve the common good? It is a known medical fact that homosexual intercourse or sodomy is an inherently unhealthy act that carries higher risks of a number of sexually transmitted infections.

Ok, we all know that butt sex constitutes a risk factor when AIDS is concerned, but really, has Yvonne ever heard of this rather ingenious device known as condoms? Oh sure, condoms aren't 100% effective, but used correctly, condoms have been known and tested to be an extremely potent form of STD prevention.

Maybe she knows about condoms, it is just that her religious creed are aligned with those of the Vatican: Contraceptives are evil! No condoms, no birth controls, period. Damn, to think that we live in the 21st century! So, gay sex is a threat to public health, so we must ban them, right? Ok, let's see. Cigarettes cost billions of dollars worth of medical bills and is responsible for the highest numbers of deaths, so why aren't cigarettes banned? Hmm, maybe its just me, but countries, including Singapore, may find the tax money incurred from cigarettes too enticing a buck to pass up.

Shellfish and seafood have the nasty habit of passing to us incurable forms of hepatitis, so why are we not banning them?

More importantly, there are more heterosexuals with AIDS than homosexuals. Are we suggesting a ban on heterosexual sex as well?

The list goes on, but the point is this: Human liberty cannot be dispensed away with some frivolous health claims and some disillusioned forms of morality based solely on cultural and religious convictions.

5. Moreover, any reform to the Penal Code must preserve fundamental values which serve the public good, instead of abstract notions of equality or fashion.

Rebuttal:
Fundamentalist values indeed! Yvonne may have given us a glimpse of the kind of religious upbringing that she has been subjected to. For all the merry-go-rounds she has subjected to readers, this may be the most valid reason for he abject disapproval of gays: Religion.

Homophobia: A Case of Prejudice and Religious Bigotry

Like most hatreds directed against certain communities, such as Jews, gays, atheists and other minorities, homophobia has a lot to do with religious indoctrinated and perceived evils.

As minorities who practice behaviors that run smack against the grain of the common heterosexual varieties, their practices have long been branded as deviant and ungodly. The bible, in all its wisdom, has even decreed that gays are to be put to death.

In recent years, many theists and fundamentalists have also insisted that there is a high percentage of gays amongst those found guilty of paedophilia, even though there is no conclusive evidence to justify such an erroneous claim.

Personally, I am a heterosexual, but I really don't give a damn with regards to what people are doing in the privacy of their own homes, as long as you do not harm anyone with your actions.

As an atheist and a minority myself, I emphatize with what gays have to go through, because intolerance of this sort can act as a sort of catalyst to invite all kinds of hate groups in the name of religion that is similar to the culture backlash by Christian fundamentalists against atheists and other so-called "infidelic" creeds.

Fortunately, the Singapore government takes a neutral stance with regards to the gay community. As far as I am concerned, I haven't seen any lynchings, nor have I really read any news with regards to the mass convictions of gays for the mere act of committing gay sex.

Nonetheless, such discrimination are based on archaic and dogmatic reasons that do not adhere to any form of reason and logic. Homosexuals are not criminals, and to criminalize them with some stupid, irrelevant code of law is something that should be a thing of the past.

Should Kids Be Classified Under Religious Sects?

2007-05-10T03:19:00.001+08:00

When it comes to matters concerning religion, theists and religious groups tend to get away with many of our liberties, with blantant disregard to secular norms and human rights. Rationality and reason, it seems, are applicable to many issues, but when matters of religion are concerned, no amount of reasoning, it seems, can seep into the fabric of entrenched religious dogmas.

Altar boys of a Catholic Church: Catholic Children?

Muslim Children?

Or Just Simply Children?

The minds of children are, metaphorically speaking, untainted blank sheets of paper. They are not born with any inherent beliefs, nor do they have the slightest dogmatic thoughts of invisible deities. Because they are born as such, learning becomes paramount to their existence, for even in a civilized world, knowledge is necessary to keep the child away from harm's way, as well as equipping them with the basic necessary skills for communication and survival. Hence, the idea that children can be attached with any sort of religious identities is not only ludicrous, it inhibits and limits the child's niche to a very selective community.

Richard Dawkins, an eminent atheist and professor, opined that no sane parent would call their child a Tory child, a left-wing child or a liberal child, yet they have no qualms calling them Catholic, Protestant or Muslim children. Such a degree of biaseness, it seems, has nothing to do with the child's beliefs.

All too often, religion is forced and shoved down the throats of children who are barely old enough to discern and rationalize the tenets of various beliefs, and religious folks will tell you that indoctrinating young children is easiest, since their minds are the most pliable at ages below ten. As children, their minds are "programmed" by natural selection to take orders without question. This evolutionary trait of compliance, it seems, allows children to learn the necessary skills for survival within the shortest time frame.

Unfortunately, this very trait has become a form of exploitation by parents who unwittingly indoctrinate their children to obey their respective religions blindly, without seeking any forms of justification, logic and rationality behind their faiths.

By labelling kids in accordance to the religions of their parents, there is also this tendency to segregate these kids from other kids who do not share their parents' religious backgrounds and creeds. Children in a Catholic school, for example, would likely not mix around as much with Protestant children as their catholic counterparts.

Another form of segregation of a more sinister kind may be that parents tend to imprint on the impressionable minds of their children that their beliefs are right, and the rest are outright false, and those so-called "infidels" who do not believe in their exclusive religion would find themselves burning in the raging fires of hell. This abject exclusivity leads to condescension and leads to further arrogance and segregation, for the child who harbors such fire and brimestone beliefs will not see eye to eye with people, possibly showing scant (or worst, disdain) respect to people who do not share their creeds and beliefs. Chances are, such children will stick to their own niche, seldom or never venturing to mix around with friends outside their own little band of religious kids and folks.

While I am not suggesting that classifying kids in accordance to their respective faiths that they are brought up in constitute child abuse, it is important to realize that children are far to young to make up their minds with regards to certain creeds and philosophies, and to label them as religious only serves as just another dastardly means of segregating them from an ideological and religious level.

-"What can it mean to speak of a child's 'own' religion? Imagine a world in which it was normal to speak of a Keynesian child, a Hayekian child, or a Marxist child. Or imagine a proposal to pour government money into separate primary schools for Labour children, Tory children, LibDem children and Monster Raving Loony children? Everyone agrees that small children are too young to know whether they are Keynesian or Monetarist, Labour or Tory, too young to bear the burden of such labels. Why, then, is our entire society happy to slap a label like Catholic or Protestant, Muslim or Jew, on a tiny child? Isn't that, when you think about it, a kind of mental child abuse?"

-Richard Dawkins, "Imagine No Religion"

Solving The Baby Puzzle

2007-05-09T15:45:00.000+08:00

From Todayonline:

Wednesday, May 9, 2007

Solving The Baby Puzzle

Paulin Straughan

AS FERTILITY rates continue to fall in developed economies worldwide and governments struggle to design comprehensive pro-family packages to arrest these trends, it is critical that we identify the structural and cultural constraints modern economies pose to parenthood commitment.

Three main developments in recent history must be addressed in reviewing the issue of low birth rate: the change in women's social status, the increased demands of paid work, and the evolution of the sacred child ideology.

The social status of Singaporean women has continued to improve since the nation state obtained independence in 1965. Women were granted equal access to formal education, skills training — and paid work. The rise of the dual-income family has resulted in serious contradictions in the way family life can be lived. This, together with the continued devaluation of domestic work including child rearing, and the increase in demands of paid work, has made it increasingly difficult for young adults to embrace both work and family.

Work in contemporary economies has been restructured such that we now have to work longer hours and be flexible with when we can work as we now service a global, borderless economy that crosses multiple time zones. The performance-based system and a tendency towards contract work also keep employees always anxious about their job. How can we commit to long-term invests like marriage and parenthood when we are uncertain about the future?

And as we have fewer children, each child becomes more precious. As pregnancy becomes a more conscientious decision, parents are also mindful of their responsibility to the child. Contemporary parenthood demands intensive and expensive methodologies which require total commitment from the parents — particularly the mother. Concurrently, paid work calls for total commitment as well — and both require the players to be on call 24/7.

How can we realistically serve two such demanding masters? What can be done to alleviate the contradictions impact?

Given our very pragmatic outlook, it is no wonder that more young adults are delaying family formation in lieu of career advancement.

It is thus essential that we start to place value on child rearing and domestic work — by putting an economic value on commitment to family work, and not merely paying lip service and bestowing motherhood labels on how noble raising children is.

For parents, the time that is not spent at office work is presumably spent at home work. That work is currently invisible. A radical perspective is to pay the mother for her work at home as well. The question is, should the employer be paying, or should the government shoulder this?

We should also embrace policies that centre on a dual-income family, and not assume that there is always a full-time homemaker at home to weave the work-family interface.

Such a perspective would seriously re-look the ease with which employers can call on employees to take on overtime work or business travels. Work hours will be constructed around a typical schedule which facilitates family work — so that parents can be home when children are expected to be home. In short, we can no longer render domestic work as invisible.

But perhaps the most important constraint is that which we place on the expectations of children. Singapore parents see formal education as the most reliable means of upward social mobility, and we must review the demands we place on our children in the area of academic excellence.

For a shrinking young population, is it still necessary for children to go through so many levels of streaming? For example, if indeed the IB programme is deemed superior, why not let the entire cohort enjoy these instead of allocating limited places through streaming?

I understand the need for special streams to help those with learning disabilities stay in the formal education system — but I do question the need to segregate the average and above average from the "top".

Because of the competition to get into better schools, and the limited places available in such desired programmes, parents shoulder undue stress in their obsession with giving their young children a head start in life. Given the sustained low fertility rate we have suffered, each child is so very precious. Can we not afford to educate each of these children to the best of their potential?

These proposals may seem radical and discriminatory to those who are free from family responsibilities. But if we are serious about arresting the alarming demographic trends of delayed marriage, low fertility and a greying population, we must think out of the box.

A system that favours singlehood has resulted in family formation being relegated to the back burner. Increasingly, policies are governed by the principle that the family exists to service the needs of the economy. To revert the direct effects of such governance, we must be willing to reposition the family to the centre, and put the needs of the family first.

Is such a proposal that radical? After all, we are talking about the long-term social health of our society.

The government is now looking to boost existing measures to make Singapore a more pro-family place and perk up the birth rates. Any holistic review must tackle the root cause of the problem, and recognise that people find it hard to balance work and family and that it is impossible to serve two masters without any sacrifice.

The writer is a sociologist and the vice-dean of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, National University of Singapore. The views in the article are her personal views.

ERP rates at 5 gantries to go up from Monday

2007-05-01T21:04:00.000+08:00

GST increase liao now ERP!

Public transport will be next.

From ST:

ERP rates at 5 gantries to go up from Monday

FROM next Monday, using the Pan-Island Expressway (PIE) slip road into the Central Expressway (CTE) will cost car drivers $4.50 a pass between 8.30am and 9am.

The stretch of road was already Singapore's most expensive after the Land Transport Authority (LTA) upped the electronic road pricing (ERP) rates for cars to $4 just three months ago.

Drivers of heavy trucks and buses will incur a hefty $9 charge.

ERP rates at two other CTE gantries will also rise by 50 cents. The one north of Braddell Road will charge $2.50 between 8am and 9am, while the one south of it will charge $3.50.

This means someone living in northern estates like Sengkang, Yishun or Yio Chu Kang using the CTE during the morning peak could pay $6. Add another $2.50 if the drive continues into the Central Business District.

Warehouse manager Adrian Wang, 47, said he avoids the CTE 'because it is congested, and yet you have to pay'.

The Yishun resident said he takes the Mandai-Bukit Timah-Clementi route - which is longer, but free - to his workplace in Pasir Panjang.

Communications manager Diana Lee, 33, also avoids the CTE. The Hougang resident heads east to the Nicoll Highway to get to her Raffles Place office.

'Even when Nicoll Highway was closed for repairs, I used other roads,' Ms Lee said, adding that the CTE is 'too expensive and it's still jammed'.

Observers reckon that may change soon. Associate Professor K. Raguraman, a transport researcher at the National University of Singapore, said '$4.50 seems like a high sum to pay, especially in combination with other ERP charges along the way'.

He said the sum 'may just do the trick' in motivating motorists to change their travel patterns, or to use public transport.

The LTA is also raising the ERP rate for the Kallang Bahru gantry of the PIE by 50 cents to $1.50 between 8.30am and 9am. And it is extending the operation of the Bendemeer Road gantry by half an hour to 9.30am.

Ba Chor Mee podcast part 2

2007-04-24T01:48:00.000+08:00

From Aaron:

Go and download it to listen. Find out why the ba chor mee uncle raises his ba chor mee from $3 to $6 and listen to him justifying to his customers why he had to increase e.g. never increase since 1994, want good ba chor mee must pay more, and that the uncle could have sold chicken rice in another neighbourhood but sacrifice to sell ba chor mee instead. A hilarious parody of the whole furore over the ministerial pay hike issue.

If you think the original Ba Chor Mee podcast was good, this one is even better. DO NOT MISS IT. I vote for it to be the best podcast of the year. :)

Go download it from here.

CSJ: "The Singapore Success Story: A Fairytale by the PAP"

2007-04-18T19:37:00.000+08:00

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

More4 News item on banned film "Zahari's 17 Years" in Singapore.

2007-04-13T01:24:00.000+08:00

People who is interested in the documentary should check out google video. Do a search there and you will be surprised with what you can find ;)

Singapore PM in damage control on salary: analysts

2007-04-12T20:52:00.000+08:00

Thursday April 12, 3:56 PM
Singapore PM in damage control on salary: analysts

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's offer to freeze his salary for five years is an attempt to appease rare public fury over plans to boost the salaries of ministers and civil servants, analysts said Thursday.

The Singapore leader told parliament on Wednesday he would forego the salary hike which would give him an annual income of more than two million US dollars a year, up from the 1.62 million dollars he made last year.

He would donate the difference to "suitable good causes", he said.

"It looks like an indicator that he is trying to calm the public," said Sinapan Samydorai, president of the Think Centre human rights group.

"After all this noise, then you announce it, people will still be sceptical even though his intention may be good," he told AFP.

The prime minister's press secretary said Lee's decision to freeze his salary was not a response to opposition to the salary hike.

"The fact is it was a decision taken up front even before the announcements of pay revision," Chen Hwai Lian told AFP.

Lee's salary hike was part of a pay increase for cabinet ministers and civil servants announced on Monday.

His revised salary would be five times more than the 400,000 dollars paid to US President George W. Bush and more than eight times that of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who receives 240,000 dollars a year.

The pay increases provoked a rare outcry from normally reserved Singaporeans.

In a country where political rallies are banned without a permit and the media are closely linked with the government, many of the comments against the pay rise were posted on the Internet, where people can use pseudonyms.

"What a hypocrite our PM Lee is," said Annie, who was among a growing list of people to sign an online petition against the increments. More than 1,800 had signed by Thursday.

"One moment he wants to level up his and his ministers' pay, next moment he tries to be a good and caring person by donating his increment to charity for the next five years," Annie said.

Ministers' salaries are to be raised incrementally from 1.2 million dollars to 1.9 million dollars by the end of 2008.

"Him freezing his pay should be seen more as a gesture to control the damage," said Terence Chong, a fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore.

"He is trying to seize the moral high ground and also to deflect criticism that ministers lack the desire" to perform public service, he told AFP.

The move to increase ministerial pay comes amid a widening income gap and ahead of a hike in the goods and services tax by two percentage points to seven percent beginning in July.

"The reason why there is such dissatisfaction is because the hike has come at a strange time when the salaries of the average Singaporean seem to be stagnating and in some parts taking a dip," said Chong.

"Also, it comes at a time when there are reports of a wage gap between the rich and poor widening," he said.

Lee and senior ruling party leaders said high salaries, pegged to the pay of senior private sector employees, were necessary to attract the best people to government and prevent corruption.

Opposition politician Chee Soon Juan, of the Singapore Democratic Party, disagreed.

"It must never be forgotten that parliaments are institutions of service, not avarice," Chee said on his party's website.

"The pay hike was a colossal misstep on the part of the government ... The PM is obviously now trying to undo, or at least limit, the damage."

Singapore PM's salary stuns White House official

2007-04-11T22:12:00.000+08:00

APF:

Tue Apr 10, 6:50 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A senior White House official on Tuesday admitted he was floored by the news that Singapore's prime minister earned five times more than US President George W. Bush.

"I'm going to emigrate and run for office in Singapore," the official said on condition he be identified only as "a senior administration official who sits in disbelief after reading that story."

On Monday, the Singapore government had announced a fresh 25.5 percent pay hike for Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, boosting his salary to 2.05 million dollars per year.

Bush gets paid 400,000 dollars per year for doing his job, according to the White House.

Combined with personal investment income, he and his wife Laura reported 618,694 dollars in taxable income in the 2005 fiscal year. They had to pay 187,768 dollars in federal taxes.

But maybe Bush shouldn't feel so bad. The Singaporean's paycheck is eight times fatter than Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's.

LTK vs LKY

2007-04-10T16:05:00.001+08:00

HUAT AH!

2007-04-10T00:03:00.000+08:00

HAPPY FACES!

HUAT AH!

http://www.petitiononline.com/paypap1/petition.html

MINISTERIAL PAY AND PENSION

2007-04-05T19:04:00.000+08:00

From ST:

April 5, 2007
MINISTERIAL PAY AND PENSION
Max. pension: $176,500; Service tenure: 18 years

I REFER to the letters, 'Do ministers enjoy big pension after two terms?' (ST, March 31) by Miss Jolene Ong and 'Pay at 2/3 benchmark but remove pension' (ST, April 4) by Mr Chang Wei Meng.

Miss Ong asked if it was true that a minister was entitled to a lifetime pension of two thirds of his last-drawn salary and suggested that if this were so, ministers would be paid a 'handsome $792,000 per annum till the day they die'.

Mr Chang suggested the pension 'would work out to be about $10 million' and felt that the pension scheme 'seems to be an anachronism' when pay is measured against that in the private sector.

The Government has moved away from the pension scheme for the majority of civil servants since 1986. However, the pension scheme has been retained for the Administrative Service and the Intelligence Service where there is a strong reliance on the depth of expertise and length of experience for continuity of national policies.

For the same reason, the pension scheme has been retained for office holders, namely, Speaker, ministers, ministers of state, mayors, parliamentary secretaries and political secretaries, given their role in and impact on national policies, provided they serve long enough to qualify for a pension.

Both writers have grossly exaggerated the amounts. Ministers qualify for a pension if they serve a minimum of eight years, but the amount of pension varies with the length of service.

The maximum pension for a minister drawing a total annual salary of $1.2 million is $176,500 per annum (not $792,000), and to get that maximum pension the minister has to serve for 18 years. Pensions have been frozen since 1994, so that all salary revisions since then (and this one) will have no effect on pensions.

Ong Toon Hui (Ms)
Director
Leadership Development
Public Service Division
Prime Minister's Office

GST hike for S'poreans, Pay hike for millionaire Ministers.

2007-03-31T00:20:00.000+08:00

I received an email on the minister salary increase and I decided to expanded on it:

Now we know what is the real intention of the GST hike not only to "help the poor" but perhaps to also fund the Minister Pay hike.

Although the Ministers are already earning 1.2 million dollars per year, this is not mentioning the PENSION (not CPF hor) they are going to receive after they retire, they wanted to increase it to 2.2 million dollars per year.

The reasons?

It is not because they managed to improve living standards of poor and normal S'porean (income for many S'poreans had be stagnant for many years, can you remember when is your last pay hike?!?) but because PM Lee says that we should not expect the ministers to make "unreasonable financial sacrifices" given that the top professionals are paid more than them.

They say we should pay them well because it will ensure the govt stay "competent and honest".

Does that means that they will turn CORRUPTED and USELESS if they are paid less than 2.2million per year?

It is quite disgusting to hear the ministers saying that 1.2 million per year is not enough to keep them clean and motivated, while they say that if they increase the Public Assistance scheme (ONLY old, sick and disabled who can't work, have no one to depend on and have no $ to feed themselves can apply, so stop dreaming) pay out from $260/month to more than $290/month it will "erode the work ethic" of these people.

The ministers' decisions really reminds me of Ms Wee Shumin's infamous assertion that "if you’re not good enough, life will kick you in the balls. that’s just how things go" and like what Mr Wee Siew Kim (Ms Wee's dad and AMK GRC's MP) said, Singaporeans like Mr Tan Jee Suan should just face up to the "brutal truth".

The best thing we can do is to get out of their "elite uncaring face(s)".

The best is what some Young PAP office holders said when they defend the salary hike.

Miss Elaina Olivia Chong Vice Chairperson of Young PAP Women , said:

The life of a Minister is not attractive. How many are willing to sacrifice every evening either at Meet the People Sessions, chairing Review Committees and carrying another baby in a HDB kopitiam even on precious weekends?

A platoon with the acumen of Bill Gates, risk appetite of George Soros and the heart of Mother Theresa, I would think. And the compensation? Priceless. Haven’t we all heard this all too often, “Pay Peanuts Get Monkeys".

So we now know having to spend a weekend to carry babies in a HDB kopithiam is a waste of their "precious weekends".

No wonder I never seen them at kopithiams after the elections. 1.2 million per year of salary is obviously not enough for them to do such things, we must pay them more!

She even says that the ministers have the "acumen of Bill Gates, risk appetite of George Soros and the heart of Mother Theresa".

While whether the current ministers have the acumen of Bill Gates are debatable, it is certain that they have a risk appetite than is much more than George Soros.

How else would you explain the decision to approve Temasek Holdings' bid to buy Shin Corp , owned by Thaksin when the Thais are already mounting fierce protests against him for corruption?

It is also interesting to note that NO ONE is taking responsibility for the Shin corp fiasco in Thailand.

Any private sector CEO would be sacked immediately if they are involved in a fiasco of such magnitude, so where is the accountability?

So much for "Pay Peanuts Get Monkeys". Does anyone still remember TT Durai?

Another "honest mistake" I guess.

As for them having the heart of Mother Theresa, I really don't know how will she feels if she knew that the ministers who baulk at increasing PA scheme from $260/mon to more than $290/mon because they think that it would "erode the work ethic" of these people are being associated with her kindness.

What is even better is what Mr Nicholas Lazarus, a member of YPAP committee, said:

The question to be asked by the critics of their proposed pay increase is this- are you criticizing because you honestly do not believe that the Ministers are entitled to a pay increase or is it because you are simply ENVIOUS (emphasis mine)?

So PAP not only think that it is a chore for their ministers to carry babies during their "precious weekends", it also say we oppose the pay hike because we are JEALOUS of them!

What kind of mentality is that?!?

I rest my case.