PM Lee: 1-party good; too many parties spoil the democratic broth Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has said a two-party political model cannot work in Singapore… With his wisest words, he tell us that “it is not [PAP's] job to build up the opposition”… (see http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/390235/1/.html). I agree. PAP’s job is to be selfish and fend off any opposition parties that are trying to unseat it from prower. But notice that even as PM Lee mentioned the importance of good governance in a 1-party system as being more important than multi-party politics, he failed to mention that in multi-party systems, the opposition in parliament acts to check and balance the power of the ruling party. Therefore, it is our duty, as Singaporeans living in a democratic country, to use our 1-person-1-vote to vote in as many opposition MPs as we can, so that our parliament can have significant opposition members to check the power wielded by the PAP. If we don’t vote in enough opposition to parliament, it is truly our fault when PAP fails us and no one is there to stop them before the shit hits the fan…        Carry-over grudges between change-of-govts: The harder you persecute, the tougher the payback Taiwan’s former president Chen Shui-bian (pictured right) was formally detained Wednesday after a bid by prosecutors to take him into custody was approved by a court. A defiant Chen put his handcuffed hands in the air as he stepped out of the prosecutor’s office and shouted “political persecution” before getting into a waiting car (see http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/389229/1/.html) Isn’t political persecution fair game for those who have power over those who don’t? If you look here, the current President Ma Ying -jeou was alledgedly also persecuted in 2006 by the then President Chen for misuse of funds (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma_Ying-jeou). So now, President Ma is simply returning the ‘respect’ that ex-president Chen showed to him, right? Lessons for S’pore? I wonder how many of the current PAP stalwarts will scream ‘political persecution’ when arrested in the near future for alledged corruption by the Opposition who has just won a general election? Francis Seow’s book “Beyond suspicion” (see http://pseudonymity.wordpress.com/2007/01/11/francis-seows-new-book-on-singapore-judiciary/) claims that certian PAP big-wigs bought expensive private properties with cash as there were no signs of any bank loans taken; how could public servants accumulate millions of dollars, I wonder? I’m sure when they are arrested, the vanquished ex-ministers from the PAP would cry foul as loudly as they can; but as the saying in the playground goes “You should dole out only as much as you can take”. Retribution is a bitch, ain’t it?        Taking DBS’s lead, lets ‘retrench’ some Singapore Ministers! If you look here (http://www.cabinet.gov.sg/CabinetAppointments/index.htm), you can see the beaming smiles of all of our Singapore (male) ministers who draw a combined tens of millions in salary each year. I say that in these trying times, when money should be spent prudently (why else can you explain that St Nicholas Girls school got no funding to repair leaky damp classrooms?), we should turn to our Cabinet to take the lead in cost-cutting measures. Well, if our premier government-backed bank DBS can retrench 900 staff this early, so we should turn to our Cabinet to see if there’s any ‘wastage’. There are 20 Cabinet positions. If Singapore is indeed run like a ‘business’, than 20 executive directors seem too top-heavy, no?? Let’s dissect the numbers: 15 of these ministers have Ministry-based portfolios. Since these 15 ministers lead ministries, I suppose they can stay since their job-scopes are well-defined. The Prime Minister does not lead any ministries, but he is the head honcho, and I suppose he gets to stay also. But what about the 4 ministers without portfolios, but who draw a combined S$10,000,000+ per year of tax-payers’ money? Senior Minister Goh, Minister Mentor LKY, Ministers in the Primie Minister’s office Lim Boon Heng and Lim Swee Say do not seem to have any defined boundaries of work. SM and MM are always travelling; so they might as well be ‘Ambassadors at large’, which would be much cheaper than full Ministers. Lim and Lim are usually making statements on behalf of NTUC or on other local issues, so they might be cheaper as as CEO of these govt-linked agencies, rather than full ministers. In other governments, such ministers would be named unflatteringly as ‘Ministers without portfolio’ (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minister_without_portfolio), and wiki implies they are more appointees for political circumstances rather than practical day-to-day purposes. Let our Cabinet show us Singaporeans how to tighten our belts by leading the way through ministerial ‘retrenchments’. All ministers without portfolios should be immediately downgraded to lower-paying positions within ministries (either as Ambassadors at large or CEOs), so as to save millions each year. Imagine that; 4 ‘excess’ ministers’ salaries go on to pay for the power bills of the poorest 5% of Singaporeans! That’s true leadership Singaporeans can identify with!!        If DBS cuts its losses (by cutting staff), isn’t that a green-light for all to follow suit?? DBS, not only Singapore’s largest bank, but also Southeast Asia’s (and one of Asia’s larger banks) announced diving profits and retrenchments to the tune of 900 job or about 6% of its total workforce (see http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/388278/1/.html). If the largest, government -backed bank in Singapore is resorting to these early retrenchments in this our first/second quarter of recession, isn’t this giving the green light to much smaller companies to do the same, for the sake of the bottomline? If you work for an SME or MNC in Singapore, and is earning between $8-15,000 per month (and have airy-fairy titles like ‘Deputy Director of Innovation and Research OR Chief Creativity Officer), you better hope your Star Wars collection is accepted by our friendly neighbourhood pawnshop….        S’pore govt delays some public projects, but not spendings on HDB flats… National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan (pictured right) said: “There is no delay in our pulic housing… upgrading programme. [U]pgrading … is something our HDB residents are looking forward to. Lift upgrading, we’ve set a deadline for it. We’ve promised by 2014 that all the eligible flats will be upgraded.” (see http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/388236/1/.html) This assurance is despite the S’pore government announcing in July 2008 that over S$2 billion worth of public building projects will be delayed to ease pressures on the already inflated building costs (see http://internationalpropertyinvestment.com/singapore-property-construction-cost-crisis-means-delays-public-building-projects). Why then is the government delaying some urgent public projects (such as fixing leaking/overcrowded schools, or building more hospitals) but yet going full steam ahead with public housing improvements (see http://blueheeler.wordpress.com/2008/09/22/funding-f1-is-more-important-than-school-upgrading-have-big-business-glam-gone-to-spore-govts-head/)? Simple. With more people getting retrenched and/or becoming unemployable, the governemt knows that enhancing our HDB flats through upgrading/beautification would increase their values, giving home-owners the confidence in their homes as a ‘last-resort’ assurance. Let us not forget that the PAP is trying to win an election in 2010/2011 despite the ongoing slump. Watch out for more goodies (bribes) coming our way.        S’pore’s most intriguing court case since dangerous kangaroos were seen on t-shirts Let me cry a bit now: The case between a S’pore plaintiff (who happens to be the S’pore courts) accusing the Asian Wall Street Journal for ‘contempt’ of the Singapore courts is being heard by the S’pore court itself (see http://www.todayonline.com/articles/285360.asp). By making the case as a plaintiff, isn’t the S’pore court ALREADY indicating that its case is valid (i.e. AWSJ is in the wrong)? Where does Partiality/Impartiality lie in this case? It is like pondering if Osama, when captured and sent to USA, can get a fair trial in Washington with Georgie Bush as the presiding judge. If only kangaroos could talk…..(they would surely voice their envy as to how this case takes their catchphrase to a higher, more ethereal, level).        How seriously does Singapore take our President Nathan??? Ask our Straits Times… When the country’s President go on an offical visit to another country, I’m pretty sure it should be front page news. Asking a Filipino colleague, he said that not only would the pro-Arroyo papers in Manila put her overseas visit on the front pages, so would the anti-Arroyo papers (albeit with a smaller photo). Go pick up the Straits Times today. Turn to not page 3, or 8, or even 12. President Nathan’s state visit to Kuwait is covered on page A18, sharing space with equally important news of Australia opening up its domestic airspace, and Heathrow getting a new runway. Imagine if you are a Kuwaiti who had just lavished on our President a grand welcome. Then you pick up the Singapore Straits Times today and wonder if Kuwait had just over-extended its welcome to a President whose country’s main newspaper reported the visit as if it was a non-event….. Since the seat of Singapore’s President is QUITE powerful (for instance, the President can effectively freeze government spendings and chose not to appoint certain Ministers even though recommended by the Prime Minsiter, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Singapore), perhaps our boys in white, through the Straits Times, is sidelining the President on purpose, just in case he pulls an Ong-Teng-Cheong on them (who chastised the PAP government for witholding info on our reserves).        Our history is expendable: historic Singapore River flows no more, thanks to the Marina Barrage! All the media talk about the new Marina Barrage as if it’s the new best thing since sliced bread (see http://www.pub.gov.sg/Marina/Pages/default.aspx for info on this concrete monstrosity). To me, the Marina Barrage has effectively KILLED the Singapore river. The Singapore is a tidal estuary that ebbs and flows with the tides of the sea. But with the barrage separating the sea water from the fresh water, the Singapore river is no longer a flowing river. Not only that, the river’s entire ecosystem will change from a salt-water one to a fresh water one. In school, I learnt that the Singapore River was more than a stinky green drain full of sewerage. It was up this river that Raffles supposedly paddled up and spyed that this little island had potential. It was around this river that the first signs of Singapore as a thriving city sprang up. And for generations, traders and migrants to Singapore sailed up this river to set foot on this their new home. Indeed, the godowns and shophouses that line the river remind us oif the days gone by when Singapore was struggling to be successful. Through this Singapore river flowed (but was still slowing until a few days ago) not just the pulse of a nation, but was also a physical testament of a natural phenomena in Singapore that had witnessed our birth and growth. So by choking off the Singapore River with the Marina Barrage, I am going to accuse our dear PAP of killing the ’spirit’ of this river. Maybe that’s why our media has only good things to say about a downtown freshwater lake that doubles as a glorified waterski park…        ST reports about ‘Duxton vice’ but I see no signs of vice in the story! Look at today’s ST Home section. The frontpage story screams ‘Duxton Vice’. As far as I can see, the reporters did not cover any vice-like activities at all. Some skimpily dressed Filipina girls frequent pubs at Duxton. Does not sound like vice. Some residents said the women would call out “hello darling. come in and have fun…”. Does not sound like vice. The ‘undercover reporters’ went into a pub and noticed that a mug of beer costs $50. Yes that’s a bit steep, but it still does not sound like vice. In the pub, they reported that ‘there was hugging, some pecks on the cheeks, and hands sometimes disappeared under skimpy clothing’. Naughty, but still not vice. What are the reporters trying to prove? That hanky-panky goes on in Duxton between men who pay obscene amounts for beer and sexily dressed foreign women??? Come one lah, this happens almost every night in most nightspots in Singapore….. What ‘vice’ do the reporters think they found?  I wonder in this day and age, why are we Singaporeans still so prudish? As Singaporeans earned more disposable income, one of the things they spent on is ’sex’ lah. Pure and simple. All these goody-2-shoes Sinagporeans who complain about ‘vice’ (i.e. prostitution I suppose) have no idea that it is really their husbands, their sons, their relatives, their teachers, their hawkers, their neighbours, who go and pay money to these girls in exchange for a bit-of-alright. Outside of our little cramped 3-bedroom apartments, we all need to seek some excitement, right? And we better get much more openminded about vice quicker, because when the casinos open (bringing along the easter European prostitutes, the loansharks, the high-end recreation drug pushers etc), the last thing on the mind of prudish Singaporeans would be the cute Filipina girls at Duxton and the pek-pek kut-kut China girls at Geylang.        Move over ‘kiasu’, because ‘chow-kuan’ is kicking your ass! If I spoke to 100 Singaporeans today, people like you and I from all walks of life, I’m pretty sure that I’ll find 75 out of the 100 will complain about the PAP like it is a persistent foot-root. “Taxes too high”. “Why increase power tarifff now?”. “Pay themselves too much!”. Now, if I had interviewed only taxi-drivers, 101 out of the 100 would’ve compained about the PAP as if they are ticks that have infested their armpits or something. So, if 70%+ (or much higher) of Singaporeans complain about the PAP, then how come they still win with 66.6% of the votes? Shouldn’t it be more like only 40 out of 100 complain about the PAP, while 60%+ sing their praises??? You know why? Because Singaporeans are CHOW-KUAN (which I think is more appropriate than ‘kiasu’ as our national trademark). What is chow-kuan? You know when your neighbour above drips water onto your drying clothes but complains when his neighbour does the same to him? You know when you are parked in a narrow lot and this car comes later and parks so close to your driver’s side that you had to get in from your passenger’s side? You know when people who can afford the better things in life choose to queue at the polyclinic or fly budget, and then STIll complain about the wait and poor service? You know the people who have the money to invest in high-risk bank products who keep quite when they make money but complain like hell when they lose? You know the people who despite all their complaints STILL vote for the PAP because they see money in upgraded flats and new S’pore shares? That’s chow-kuan, or Hokkien for “bad pattern”, meaning the kind of people who think for themselves only and would do stuff that pisses people off, but complain like hell when the same is done to them. Chow-kuan is way better than kiasu to describe Singaporeans, yes?        SM Goh says S’pore needs policies that favour citizens in the face of foreign talent. What about our employment policies then?? Senior Minister says “countries with foreign manpower need policies that favour citizens” (see http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/384649/1/.html). “Examples of these policies include how only Singaporeans get significant subsidies for healthcare and public housing” The best policies that favour citizens should be those that keep them employable/employed, vis-a-vis the competition from foreigners seeking the same limited pool of jobs. How does Singapore fare in this area of ensuring Singaporeans are employable/employed? 1. To employ a Singaporean today, a Sinagpore company needs to pay not only his salary, but also another 10%+ of it into his CPF account (see http://mycpf.cpf.gov.sg/Employers/Gen-Info/cpf-Contri/ContriRa.htm). Foreigners emplyed by that same company not only does not have to contribute CPF from his own salary (meaning the foreigner has more take-home-pay than his SIngaporean colleague), the company does not need to pay any cash into his CPF account (see http://mycpf.cpf.gov.sg/CPF/Templates/SubPage_Template.aspx?NRMODE=Published&NRORIGINALURL=%2fEmployers%2fGen-Info%2fHB-FAQ%2fEmployer%2ehtm&NRNODEGUID=%7bF066A170-D0F4-4DBA-85A4-FF4CE38A20B6%7d&NRCACHEHINT=Guest#N1c). Does this not seem a bit cheaper to hire a foreigner than a local? 2. When a company hires one Singaporean, one less person is in the workforce competing for jobs. But when a company hires a foreigner, he gets to bring his spouse, who later can also get a job in Singapore (see http://www.rikvin.com/Singapore-Employment-Pass-Visa-Employment-Entrepass.html). Hiring one foriegner adds another one to compete in our job market? 3. Do you know most companies pay foreigners (of a senior level) a relocation allowance to come to SIngapore for the job? The allowance typicaly includes airfares not just for the employed, but also his family, and frieght for his belongings. And as if our companies are not already generous enough, the govt kindly lets these families claim the allowances as tax deductibles (see http://www.iras.gov.sg/irasHome/page.aspx?id=1198). Do you know a company can spend $15,000 to $25,000 for these allowances per foreign employee (http://www.contactsingapore.sg/home/index.php/eng/employers/information_for_employers/further_tax_deduction) ? So SM Goh is saying that the above CPF rules, spouse entitlements, and tax-breaks somehow “favour [Singapore] citizens”? How about looking at what Australia has done to “favour” its citizens with regard to foreign labour. If you look here (http://adm.monash.edu/workplace-policy/employment/recruitment-appointment/recruitment/market-testing.html), it clearly states that: Under the Employer Nomination Scheme, where an employer nominates to sponsor an individual in their employment, the employer should show that they have been unable to find an Australian citizen or resident who is suitable for the appointment. They must provide evidence of having tested the Australian labour market within the six months immediately prior to lodging a nomination with DIMA. The employer should have tested the labour market in at least two of the following ways: advertising in professional or trade journals and, where appropriate, the internet lodging the position as a vacancy with a ‘job placement’ service provider receiving advice from a recognised professional or industrial body acceptable to the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) on the availability of specialist skills advertising in a Saturday and a weekday edition of both a metropolitan (The Age) and a national (The Australian) daily newspaper (a total of four separate advertisements) The advertisements must accurately reflect the duties of the position, salary and other benefits offered as described in the nomination form. They must be prominently displayed so as to attract a maximum response. Employers should give details of unsuccessful Australian applicants and why they were not selected to DIMA. In short, a company in Australia must first try to hire an Australian resident to fill the post, failing which only then can they look to employ a foreigner. The company has to justify its actions to the Dept of Immigration and Citizenship, before a foreigner can be hired. Now, that’s what I call policies that will ensure Singaporeans do not get edged out of their own home job-market in the face of increasing foreign migrants.  Does SM Goh care to comment? No point giving Singaporeans subsidies in housing and healthcare IF Singaporeans cannot get a decent job to pay for these in the first place, correct?        Yippee!!! Singapore no longer has ‘no resources’! From time before the dinosaur, I was bombarded with the addage “Singapore has NO resources”. We were told that unlike our neighbours who have oil, gas, palm and pineapples coming out of their orifices, Singapore alas had nothing. Perhaps that was a way to strike fear into us so that we will work hard, place our trust in the government’s hands and be good little citizens. Then a bit later on, there was a slight shift in focus, and the powers that be told us that “Singapore had NO resources, except our human resources”. But then again, the old saying that ‘Singapore has nothing’ is a habit that dies hard. As recently as a few months ago, our distinguished foreign minister George Yeo (who won in Aljunied GRC with a slim margin) said “We have very little land, we have no resources yet despite all these, we have been able to scratch out a living for ourselves….” (see http://app.mfa.gov.sg/2006/press/view_press.asp?post_id=3845). But I think the last word on our resources (or the lack of) lies with our prime minister. In an official speech read out in parliament yesterday (see http://www.channelnewsasia.com/annex/PM’s%20NIR%20speech.pdf), Point 3 states that “Our reserves are a major resource for Singapore“. So in my lifetime, we have gone from ‘no’ resources, to humans as resource, to money as resource. I can read much more into this shift of rhetoric than as just a simple change of words. First, Singapore had nothing, and therefore we had nothing to lose if we tried and failed. Then as we began to do well as a nation, the government shifted their emphasis to praise Singaporeans as the bedrock of our foundation; hence, human resources (i.e. Singaporeans) rose to the forefront as the worker ants that kept growing this economy. Now that there is talk that Singaporeans are only about 60%+ of the total population on this island, and the ongoing debates about foreigners competing for local jobs, does the rise of ‘money’ as a national resource mean that Singaporeans’ status as a resource has diminished? Increasingly, the argument that Singapore is run like a large profit-oriented company (where profit is valued above staff) is harder and harder to refute. I hope that Singaporeans will always be our number one resource; money as a resource is ‘renewable’ (you lose it, you can make it back) but Singaporeans are not ‘renewable’. Just for the sake of growing our nest-egg, I hope that this country does not go the way of the city of Dubai, where the local-foreigner ratio is about 15%-85% (see http://www-scf.usc.edu/~jhorowit/profile.htm). While I am keeping track as to how ‘money’ is taking central stage in Singaporean politics, economics, society…etc, I keep an eye too on how each Singaporean is being moved about on this already overcrowded chessboard.          Headline: “Foreign workers live at sea; (Wannabe) Middle-class Singaporeans rejoice!” http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/383928/1/.html reported that “very large floating structures that can literally support cities on water” so as to create more space in Singapore. “One company is even exploring the idea of floating dormitories for foreign workers.” Mini Environment Service Pte Ltd’s director of business development, A Mohamed Ali ”does not see housing foreign workers off-shore as being segregation between such workers and Singaporeans”. If the design and the facilities are good, it won’t be stigmatised that way and the motivation is not really to ship anyone out; it is to find an alternative. There is a need to find an alternative.”  What better alternative for S’poreans like those in Serangoon Gardens (those who can’t be bothered to clear their foodcourt tables or sweep their own streets, because the invisible foreigners will do the job) who can’t stand to live near these foreigners! With these floating ‘townships’ (to borrow a phrase from Minister George Yeo), our underpaid foreign workers can slog themselves silly on land, but disappear to their out-at-sea-out-of-sight accommodations at night and during public holidays! Tres perfect! But back to something a bit more serious, did the article actually report A Mohamed Ali’s reaction as ”does not see housing foreign workers off-shore as being segregation between such workers and Singaporeans”??? Prisons like Alcatraz and Robben Island are built on off-shore islands PRECISELY because they effectively segregate prisoners and non-prisoners, silly!        Lim Swee Say says it again: I’m a millionaire, but I’m still glad that I got $ in CPF…. You know things are getting bad financially when PAP sends out Lim Swee Say to address the public about the recession. NTUC’s secretary-general Lim has the grassroots ‘touch’; his Singlish accent and man-on-the-street looks makes him more acceptable to the uncles-&-aunties than the polished English accents of Tharman and Hsien Loong. So, reported in http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/382080/1/.html, NTUC’s secretary-general Lim says that “Every month, when I receive my CPF statement, I feel so rich and the best part is, I know the CPF money won’t run away. CPF will still be around for a long, long time to come… Not only is it earning good interest, my capital is protected.” I suppose NTUC’s secretary-general Lim is trying to tell people that CPF is still the best place for our govt to keep our money, seeing how banks are closing and investment instruments are dropping like flies. But, how rich is NTUC’s secretary-general Lim’s CPF account? If you go here http://www.cpf.gov.sg/cpf_info/Online/Contri.asp?prof, you’ll get to CPF’s online contribution calculator. Even if you put in the NTUC’s secretary-general’s salary as $150,000 per month (an under estimation, I’m sure), his monthly contribution will only be $900/month taken out of his $150,000. No matter how rich the NTUC’s secretary-general’s CPF account is, it’s no match for his salary. Anyway, with millions of dollars of disposable income, who needs a CPF account to fall back on??? Dear PAP ministers, S’poreans will suffer, but please don’t tell us that you ‘understand’ our pain. Because with million-dollar salaries, you make it worse every time you tell us S’poreans that you ‘empathise’ with our situation. So, just how out of touch is the PAP to send a millionaire to tell us S’poreans that he’s glad of his CPF savings? What’s Lim Swee Say going to do with his CPF money anyway? Buy a puny HDB flat or fund his children’s university education locally???        Channelnewsasia’s news bias: A private book-launch of an ex-minister is newsworthy?? That S’pore politicians should be in the news for political current affairs is only fair. Other then political reasons, perhaps politicians should get into the news only when they die, or fall ill, or get into trouble with the law. So what is reported here reeks of some biased reporting in our dear CNA website: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/379919/1/.html. Ex-minister Yeo Ning Hong launched a new book on dieting written under the name Dr Adrian Yeo (I didn’t know that Ning Hong had a hip name!), titled “T.H.E. A2z Diet: Dieting made as simple as possble”. Not only is Adrian an ex-minister, his book has nothing to do with politics. So why in the world is CNA publicising what is a private venture on the ex-minister’s part? Surely CNA’s website has precious little space to publicise news that tantamounts to advertisement for book-sales that would likely line the pocket of ex-minister Adrian, right? Or is it the case that newsworthy events in S’pore on 2 Oct were so DULL that thye used his book-launch to pad up the items? Looking at CNA-website S’pore news index for the morning of 3 Oct and comparing it to other S’pore news printed in the ‘Home’ page of the Straits Times broadsheet, I can see that the following newsworthy items are missing in the former: 1. Monetary Authority of Singapore wants some financial products to be sold more transparently. 2. Airforce trainee Ricky Liu who died in service last week ruled to have died from heatstroke. 3. Colourful lawyer Ravi unwanted by his client halfway through the case. 4. Some police officers assualted by man while on duty. 5. A man charged with calling Prime Minister’s Office and reporting bomb hoaxes. I dare say that any item from 1-5 is more newsworthy and altruistic for CNA website to report on, rather than giving publicity to a private book launch of an ex-minister. But then again (smacking myself hard), remember who’s the daddy of most of Singapore’s media?        S’pore’s speech to UN on the independent variables of ‘good governance’ and ‘democratic governance’ Tiny Singapore addressed the 63rd Session of the UN General Assembly yesterday. Minister George Yeo (remember, he’s the one in Aljunied GRC that almost didn’t win the last election? see http://blueheeler.wordpress.com/2007/11/11/talk-is-cheap-when-you-havent-lost-since-the-start-isnt-it/) made the speech, which is available in full here: http://www.un.org/ga/63/generaldebate/pdf/singapor_en.pdf. In point 17, our Minister said “…the key to a country’s development is its own good governance”. In point 21, he noted that rather than ‘democracy’ being a criteria for progress, it is an ‘effective government’ that is more important. Rather than citing Singapore as an example (which would be too crass, no?), Minister Yeo mentioned China (and the recent Olympics) in point 19 as an example of a country with ‘good governance and the right policies’. In point 20, he quickly cites India as another example. But as a lesson for Singapore, I ask if it is really true that ‘good governance’ that is more important than ‘democracy’? Yes, China may have put on a spectacular Olympics, but you can argue that it is ‘forceful governance’ (rather than a good one) that ensured that the show went on smoothly. Remember that months before the event, news leaked out of China about how the authorities were acquiring private land for sports venues aggressively (see http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2008/07/16/as_olympics_near_many_chinese_homes_face_wrecking_ball/)? Or how the internet, so vital to communication and the spirit of free-information during the Olympics was partly censored by China (see http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10002097-93.html)? Or how China brutally supressed Tibetan demonstrators in the lead up to the Olympics (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/18/AR2008031802706.html)? In my view, while a strong central government indeed did allow China to sieve through the chaos to ensure a splendid Olympics, at what cost was this games to the thousands of poor Chinese people who became homeless after their homes were forcefully repossessed, or the thousands of Tibetans who live in fear of their oppressive Han overseers who didn’t want protests during the Games, or the thousands of innocent Chinese babies who are suffering because reported here (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24415721-7582,00.html), the Chinese government surpressed news of the tainted milk in July 2008 so as not to derail the Olympics? Yes, we can see that with a ’strong government’, such as a central communist one in China, can indeed muster national resources to achieve big things. But is a strong government like China an ‘effective government’ when it comes to accountability? Well, in a system where ordinary citizens cannot excercise their right to choose who represents them in government, these citizens are subjected to both the effects of ‘good governance’ (such as the international glory brought to China by organising a showy Olympics) and ‘bad governance’ (such as the ability of the Chinese government to stay in power despite negligence over the milk scandal that is killing innocent children). Of course we know that Minister Yeo did not make the speech to specifically praise China. He made the speech to remind rich, powerful western states not to impose their ‘democracy or nothing’ credo on the rest of the world, including Singapore. He plainly argues that whatever you lable a government, as long it delivers to its citizens, it should be regarded as a ‘good government’. In the case of Singapore, I think Minister Yeo is also telling us disgruntled ‘western-influenced’ citizens to enjoy the progress brought about by the PAP and close one eye to the discrepancies perpetuated by the PAP (remember how some S’pore politicians on bicycles are more equal than others on similar vehicles??). I for one am all for the ‘democracy or nothing’ for Singapore. For too long, in exchange for monetary rewards, we have turned a blind eye to the imbalances in our system. We have vested too much power in one party so much so that now that party is doing its best to streamline our choices at the ballot box. I am greedy: I want good governanc AND for the citizens of Singapore to have viable choices at the ballot box. A flashy China Olympics should not form the basis for our Singapore government to tell us that a benevolent government is paramount to that of a democratic one. If I feel that the ruling party has not been up to sratch during its 5-year term, I want to have opposition candidates to vote for that have not been ‘fixed’ by that ruling party. Heck, the ‘good governance’ of the North Korea dictatorship routinely organises the most spectacular Arirang mass displays in the world (see http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WDQ/is_/ai_86028203) despite poverty, famine and global sanctions (their resourcefulness is impressive, huh?), so I wonder why our Minister George Yeo failed to mention this shining example in his speech?        Khaw Boon Wan: a magician with his words… http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/378922/1/.html reported that Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan (picture taken from this morning’s CNA website) is studying how to reimburse those who donate their organs to non-related patients. In other words, the willing donor of organs may get some material and/or monetary benefits for their ‘donation’. Reading his body language in the attached photo, you can see that with his arm crossed over his chest, the Minister is showing a classic ‘defensive’ pose. According to http://members.aol.com/nonverbal2/armcross.htm ”the gesture may reveal acute nervousness or chronic anxiety”  or “presents a guard-like stance, suggestive of arrogance, disliking, or disagreement”. Why so defensive Minister Khaw? Is is because you said before that “the [organ] trade, motivated by financial transactions, is definitely wrong, morally and legally”?? (see http://www.pap.org.sg/articleview.php?id=3459&mode=&cid=23). But nevermind Minister Khaw, you are nothing but consistent. You stoutly defended NKF and Durai early on in the NKF saga, even though they were later found to be guilty of financial wrongdoings (see http://www.geraldtan.com/medaffairs/misc-nkf.html#B1). You (and your party) promised in the general election of 2001 that new hospital in the north would be ready by March 2009 (see http://www.geraldtan.com/medaffairs/hospitals-jgh_ngh_ygh.html#1), but this was recently pushed back to 2015 because of inflation (see http://www.straitstimes.com/Free/Story/STIStory_183164.html). Japan’s new Transport Minister quit after 4 days in office because of ‘a series of contentious remarks’ (see http://www.iht.com/articles/reuters/2008/09/28/asia/OUKWD-UK-JAPAN-POLITICS.php). Using Japan as a benchmark of a progressive Asian democracy, how many flip-flops does a Singapore Minister have to do before we can decide that he is not a man of his words???        Rich/poor divide in S’pore: Wealthy politicians helping to raise peanuts!!! Each Singapore MP gets a monthly allowance in excess of S$13,000 (see http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/biz/archives/2007/04/10/2003356070). With most of our MPs holding full-time jobs as doctors, lawyers, mayors…etc, this means that they are each earning in excess of $20,000 a month, and many would be earning much more than that. http://www.todayonline.com/articles/278065.asp reported that “SINGAPORE’S first Women Against Cancer campaign has a target — to raise $100,000. And lending their weight to this cause are 10 female Members of Parliament (MPs), some of whom have been brushed by the disease in one way or another”. Let me get it straight…. 10 female MPs getting altogether more than S$1.3 million in MP’s allowance yearly, have combined their political influence to raise a MISERABLE $100,000? Don’t get me wrong. Our MPs raising money for charity is good. But 10 RICH MPs with access not only to their own cash, but also to wealthy millionaire politicians and business people, are aiming to use their positions to raise the paltry sum of S$100,000???? What a joke! Why waste all that gala/publicity money just to raise $100k??? Why don’t each of the 10 bleeding-heart MPs simply donate $10k from their tax-payer-funded allowances and call it a day?           The strongest men in Singapore politics just got stronger: LEEders win defamation case against FEER in S’pore court         Reported in http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/377956/1/.html, “The Singapore High Court has held that the publisher and editor of the Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER) had defamed Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew in an article two years ago…. In his judgment, Justice Woo Bih Lih found that the words used in the article published in July 2006 meant that the two leaders were unfit for office as they were corrupt.” I attach the said article below, in hope of finding the bits that are ‘defamatory’ to our dear Leaders (which I have underlined):         Singapore’s ‘Martyr,’ Chee Soon Juan by Hugo Restall Striding into the Chinese restaurant of Singapore’s historic Fullerton Hotel, Chee Soon Juan hardly looks like a dangerous revolutionary. Casually dressed in a blue shirt with a gold pen clipped to the pocket, he could pass as just another mild-mannered, apolitical Singaporean. Smiling, he courteously apologizes for being late—even though it is only two minutes after the appointed time. Nevertheless, according to prosecutors, this same man is not only a criminal, but a repeat offender. The opposition party leader has just come from a pre-trial conference at the courthouse, where he faces eight counts of speaking in public without a permit. He has already served numerous prison terms for this and other political offenses, including eight days in March for denying the independence of the judiciary. He expects to go to jail again later this year. Mr. Chee does not seem too perturbed about this, but it drives Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong up the wall. Asked about his government’s persecution of the opposition during a trip to New Zealand last month, Mr. Lee launched into a tirade of abuse against Mr. Chee. “He’s a liar, he’s a cheat, he’s deceitful, he’s confrontational, it’s a destructive form of politics designed not to win elections in Singapore but to impress foreign supporters and make himself out to be a martyr,” Mr. Lee ranted. “He’s deliberately going against the rules because he says, ‘I’m like Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi. I want to be a martyr.’” Coming at the end of a trip in which the prime minister essentially got a free ride on human rights from his hosts—New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark didn’t even raise the issue—this outburst showed a lack of self-control and acumen. Former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, the man who many believe still runs Singapore and who is the current prime minister’s father, has said much the same things about Mr. Chee—“a political gangster, a liar and a cheat”—but that was at home, and in the heat of an election campaign. Mr. Chee smiles when it’s suggested that he must be doing something right. “Every time he says something stupid like that, I think to myself, the worst thing to happen would be to be ignored. That would mean we’re not making any headway,” he agrees. But one charge made by the government does stick: Mr. Chee is not terribly concerned about election results. Which is just as well, because his Singapore Democratic Party did not do very well in the May 6 polls. It would be foolish, he suggests, for an opposition party in Singapore to pin its hopes on gaining one, or perhaps two, seats in parliament. He is aiming for a much bigger goal: bringing down the city-state’s one-party system of government. His weapon is a campaign of civil disobedience against laws designed to curtail democratic freedoms. “You don’t vote out a dictatorship,” he says. “And basically that’s what Singapore is, albeit a very sophisticated one. It’s not possible for us to effect change just through the ballot box. They’ve got control of everything else around us.” Instead what’s needed is a coalition of civil society and political society coming together and demanding change—a color revolution for Singapore. So far Mr. Chee doesn’t seem to be getting much, if any traction. While many Singaporeans don’t particularly like the PAP’s arrogant style of government, the ruling party has succeeded in depoliticizing the population to the extent that anybody who presses them to take action to make a change is regarded with resentment. And in a climate of fear—Mr. Chee lost his job as a psychology lecturer at the national university soon after entering opposition politics—a reluctance to get involved is hardly surprising. Why is all this oppression necessary in a peaceful and prosperous country like Singapore where citizens otherwise enjoy so many freedoms? Mr. Chee has his own theory that the answer lies with strongman Lee Kuan Yew himself: “Why is he still so afraid? I honestly think that through the years he has accumulated enough skeletons in his closet that he knows that when he is gone, his son and the generations after him will have a price to pay. If we had parliamentary debates where the opposition could pry and ask questions, I think he is actually afraid of something like that.” That raises the question of whether Singapore deserves its reputation for squeaky-clean government. A scandal involving the country’s biggest charity, the National Kidney Foundation, erupted in 2004 when it turned out that its Chief Executive T.T. Durai was not only drawing a $357,000 annual salary, but the charity was paying for his first-class flights, maintenance on his Mercedes, and gold-plated fixtures in his private office bathroom. The scandal was a gift for the opposition, which naturally raised questions about why the government didn’t do a better job of supervising the highly secretive NKF, whose patron was the wife of former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong (she called Mr. Durai’s salary “peanuts”). But it had wider implications too. The government controls huge pools of public money in the Central Provident Fund and the Government of Singapore Investment Corp., both of which are highly nontransparent. It also controls spending on the public housing most Singaporeans live in, and openly uses the funds for refurbishing apartment blocks as a bribe for districts that vote for the ruling party. Singaporeans have no way of knowing whether officials are abusing their trust as Mr. Durai did. It gets worse. Mr. Durai’s abuses only came to light because he sued the Straits Times newspaper for libel over an article detailing some of his perks. Why was Mr. Durai so confident he could win a libel suit when the allegations against him were true? Because he had done it before. The NKF won a libel case in 1998 against defendants who alleged it had paid for first-class flights for Mr. Durai. This time, however, he was up against a major bulwark of the regime, Singapore Press Holdings; its lawyers uncovered the truth. Singaporean officials have a remarkable record of success in winning libel suits against their critics. The question then is, how many other libel suits have Singapore’s great and good wrongly won, resulting in the cover-up of real misdeeds? And are libel suits deliberately used as a tool to suppress questioning voices? The bottling up of dissent conceals pressures and prevents conflicts from being resolved. For instance, extreme sensitivity over the issue of race relations means that the persistence of discrimination is a taboo topic. Yet according to Mr. Chee it is a problem that should be debated so that it can be better resolved. “The harder they press now, the stronger will be the reaction when he’s no longer around,” he says of Lee Kuan Yew. The paternalism of the PAP also rankles, especially since foreigners get more consideration than locals. The World Bank and International Monetary Fund will hold their annual meeting in Singapore this fall, and have been trying to convince the authorities to allow the usual demonstrations to take place. The likely result is that international NGO groups will be given a designated area to scream and shout. “So we have a situation here where locals don’t have the right to protest in their own country, while foreigners are able to do that,” Mr. Chee marvels. Likewise, Singaporeans can’t organize freely into unions to negotiate wages; instead a National Wages Council sets salaries with input from the corporate sector, including foreign chambers of commerce. All these tensions will erupt when strongman Lee Kuan Yew dies. Mr. Chee notes that the ruling party is so insecure that Singapore’s founder has been unable to step back from front-line politics. The PAP still needs the fear he inspires in order to keep the population in line. Power may have officially passed to his son, Lee Hsien Loong, but even supporters privately admit that the new prime minister doesn’t inspire confidence. During the election, Prime Minister Lee made what should have been a routine attack on multiparty democracy: “Suppose you had 10, 15, 20 opposition members in parliament. Instead of spending my time thinking what is the right policy for Singapore, I’m going to spend all my time thinking what’s the right way to fix them, to buy my supporters’ votes, how can I solve this week’s problem and forget about next year’s challenges?” But of course the ominous phrases “buy votes” and “fix them” stuck out. That is the kind of mistake, Mr. Chee suggests, Lee Sr. would not make. “He’s got a kind of intelligence that would serve you very well when you put a problem in front of him,” he says of the prime minister. “But when it comes to administration or political leadership, when you really need to be media savvy and motivate people, I think he is very lacking in that area. And his father senses it as well.” However, the elder Mr. Lee’s death—he is now 82—is a necessary but not sufficient condition for change. Another big factor is how civil society is able to use new technologies to bypass PAP control over information and free speech. The government has tried to stifle political filmmaking, blogging and podcasting. Singapore Rebel, a 2004 film about Mr. Chee by independent artist Martyn See, was banned but is widely available on the Internet. Meanwhile, pressure for Singapore to remain competitive in the region has sparked debate about the government’s dominant role in the economy. Can a top-down approach promote creativity and independent thinking? The need for transparency and accountability also means that Singapore will have to change. That is the source of Mr. Chee’s optimism in the face of all his setbacks: “I realize that Singapore is not at that level yet. But we’ve got to start somewhere. And I’m prepared to see this out, in the sense that in the next five, 10, 15 years, time is on our side. We need to continue to organize and educate and encourage. And it will come.” He doesn’t dwell on his personal tribulations, but mentions in passing selling his self-published books on the street. That is his primary source of income to feed his family, along with the occasional grant. As to the charge of wanting to be a martyr, once he started dissenting, he found it impossible to stop in good conscience. “The more you got involved, the more you found out what they’re capable of, it steels you, so you say, ‘No, I will not back down.’ It makes you more determined.” Perhaps it’s in his genes. One of Mr. Chee’s daughters is old enough that she had to be told that her father was going to prison. She stood up before her class and announced, “My papa is in jail, but he didn’t do anything wrong. People have just been unfair to him.”           Based on what I’ve read (but I am not a lawyer), I cannot for the life of me find which parts of the article insinuated that the “two leaders were unfit for office as they were corrupt” as mentioned by the judge. The article does say that LKY “has accumulated enough skeletons in his closet “. But these ’skeletons’ can specifically be corruption (real or false), OR a multitude of other non-illegal things (perhaps something silly like he takes long naps or swims or golfs during office hours) or something like that. It does mention that our government didn’t supervise NKF well, but that is hardly an accusation that our 2 leaders are corrupt. Perhaps the most damning statement in the article is: ”The question then is, how many other libel suits have Singapore’s great and good wrongly won, resulting in the cover-up of real misdeeds?”. This I think directly implies that some Singaporean leaders may have done something wrong, but when they bring the cases against the slimers, our courts awarded most of these cases to our leaders, thereby poo-pooing the accusations. But then again, this I feel is a different statement than the judge saying that “the words used in the article published in July 2006 meant that the two leaders were unfit for office as they were corrupt.” As mentioned in my other posts (here http://blueheeler.wordpress.com/2006/11/20/every-dog-has-its-day-in-court/ and here http://blueheeler.wordpress.com/2006/10/10/seek-justice-wherever-it-may-be-heard/), I wonder what the outcome would have been like if the Lees had wanted to clear their names earlier and fought their cases in FEER’s bases or Hong Kong or USA? Would their judges there, like the one in Singapore, find that “the words used in the article published in July 2006 meant that the two leaders were unfit for office as they were corrupt.”???        Funding F1 is more important than school upgrading: Have big business & glam gone to S’pore govt’s head? Reported here (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/377487/1/.html): “The Ministry of Education has put its schools upgrading scheme on hold, citing rising construction costs. Six schools have had their plans deferred for a year and no new projects have been announced for 2008. When asked if there were plans for 2009, a Ministry spokesman said it was too premature to decide. Water-logged walls and cramped classrooms are just some of the problems at CHIJ St Nicholas Girls’ School”. Fair enough…. in this era of rising construction costs and inflation, it kinda makes sense that some expensive construction projects (esp non-commercial ones) are put on hold. Even though I believe that our schools should be prioritised in this area, tight funding must dictate that a necessary delay takes place until costs come down. Enough of the rhetoric. Reported here http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/277395/1/.html, the F1 race “will cost about $150 million each year to stage… The Government has committed a grant of 60 per cent of this cost, or $90 million…”. So our govt, who claims that overcrowded schools with mouldy walls can’t be upgraded due to lack of funding, is shelling out $90,000,000 in cash for a race I’m sure not many S’poreans care about. Surely if our govt has $90million fcuking dollars to splash around, it can surely upgrade our schools, right? And don’t tell me that the F1 will bring in tourist receipts and may even be profitable. Much of the $90million of the govt’s money will not come back to the govt in the form of cash. Furthermore, there can be few things as profitable as educating our young ones well. But then again, from the govt’s point of view, a F1 race on the busy streets of S’pore propels us into instant international ‘cool-doom’, while new state-of-the-art classrooms will hardly make us sexy globally, correct?        NParks in-charge of Speaker’s Corner; or are the Police still in the act?? There was a transformation at our sleepy speaker’s corner recently. No, there are no throngs of people speaking there. But as mentioned here http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/371502/1/.html, all any speakers or demonstrators “need to do is register online at the National Parks Board website at www.nparks.gov.sg, which takes over the management of the Speakers’ Corner from the Police”. Before, there appeared to be a psychological barrier to speaking at the Corner as you’d not only need to get a police approval first, but that also the Police station stands in the Park itself. To me, this handing over of the registration to speak/demo to a benign Parks Board was our PAP’s attempt to lessen the ‘culture of fear’ in S’poreans with regard to speaking up in public, especially against govt policies. In the past, you had to apply for and get a Police approval; now, you only need to register with NParks online and it appears that an approval is not necessary or would be granted easily. However, today’s Straits Times reaffirmed the link between the Police and Speaker’s Corner, one which I thought had already been severed. An Indian man had wanted to speak about ‘Tamil’ language issues and had applied to NParks website. Instead of NParks ‘approving’ his right to speak, the Police was actually involved in telling this man that his topic had too much to do with ‘race’, which was one of the taboos not aloud to be mentioned at the Corner. So, the shift of speakers/demonstrators registering with the NParks instead of police was purely consmetic, as you can see from the above case. Whatever you request to speak/demo about through NParks website would inevitably also be scrutinised by the Police. I’m also sure that every recent speaker/demonstrator at the Corner were not put under scrutiny by friendly NParks’ rangers but by our oppressive boys in blues (or perhaps in plainsclothes).  PAP, alas, is still afraid of the power of free speech by Sinagporeans. With all the existing laws already in place against defamation and indeed sedition (ISA can lock us up for anything, remember?), why must our precious little Speaker’s Corner still be put under the bureaucratic microscope? And on a related matter, the Police should be upholding our Constitutional rights more than they should be following what PAP says right (recalling how the Police ‘approved’ PAP’s west coast park carnival and not WP’s event at east coast park).  PAP, perhaps you are slaughtering too few sacred cows a little too late to placate us impatient S’poreans satisfactorily??             S’pore govt u-turn about giving away money for free. A spade by any other name is still a spade…. Hugo Restall, who is with the Far Eastern Economic Review magazine, wrote this refreshing piece about Singapore recently, http://www.feer.com/essays/2008/september/pressure-builds-on-singapores-system. Restall is embroiled in a long-drawn out case brought against the FEER by the Lees of S’pore for, what else, defamation (see http://blueheeler.wordpress.com/2006/11/20/every-dog-has-its-day-in-court/). In the September 08 article, Restall said “Mr. Lee’s administration has found that the only way to defuse public dissatisfaction is to do something the PAP consistently condemned as the hallmark of Western democracies: Give away money. The government used to damn welfare as a dirty word, yet transfer spending is on the rise. This year, $2.1 billion in giveaways were planned. Then last month Mr. Lee announced a 50% increase, totaling $179.8 million, in utility rebates and “growth dividends”—cash payments to households that started in 2006.” Of course in defense of our pure benevolent system, the FEER also published (to its credit) a reply by Chen Hwai Liang, Press Secretary to the Singapore Prime Minister. Chen said “Mr. Restall is mistaken to view the government initiatives to help the poor as bowing towards the welfare systems that are “the hallmark of Western democracies. Our assistance schemes are structured to encourage individuals to do well through their own efforts. For example, the Workfare Income Supplement scheme requires low wage workers to stay in a job.” Chen is saying clearly that our govt’s giveaway of money to its citizens is not ‘welfare’ but incentive to help those who help themselves. It was just announced today that S’poreans will be getting info about their 2nd installment of their growth dividends in October 08 (see http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/375244/1/.html). I clicked on the website (http://www.growthdividends.gov.sg/) and it says “The scheme, announced in Budget 2008, is part of the Government’s move to share the nation’s surpluses with Singaporeans.” Does this scheme, like Chen says, “…encourage individuals to do well through their own efforts“? It seems like all I have to do is: Be a living Singapore citizen; and Be aged 21 or above in 2008; and Have signed up to receive your GST Credits to get the money (i.e. I must be an undead S’porean adult). In what way, pray tell, does the Growth Dividend money encourage me to do well through my own effort???? (But I do suppose that staying alive is indeed MY effort…..! Haha!) This Dividend seems to be what Restall calls the S’pore govt’s increasing efforts to ‘give away money’, which smacks of a ‘welfare’ system. I remember Lee Kuan Yew reminding S’poreans time and again that we cannot be like the welfare-oriented ‘west’ for fear that S’poreans will become lazy on handouts and lose our competitive edge. Now that S’pore seems to be well on the way of ‘giving away money’ to ordinary Singaporeans for doing ABSOLUTELY nothing (presumbably to offset the rising cost of living especially for lower-income groups, and presumbably to win goodwill for PAP), are we on the slippery slope downwards??? Is this a move by the PAP “the only way to defuse public dissatisfaction” as predicted by Restall, and overrides whatever negative things LKY had said about welfare? You the S’porean decide. You say potato, i say crap; a tale of 2 very different logos…..  IS NOT THE SAME AS   , stupid Singaporeans!!! Police jutifies why PAP can cycle while WP couldn’t. Do they still think S’poreans are morons? DSP Paul Tay, Assistant Director (Media Relations) of the Singapore Police Force has provided a reason in ST Fourm as to why PAP’s west coast event was allowed, while WP’s east coast one wasn’t (see http://www.straitstimes.com/ST%2BForum/Story/STIStory_276601.html). According to Tay, “The [PAP] event on Aug 31 was very different“. How so? His points: 1) It was organised by the PAP Community Foundation, which is a registered charity and not a political party. (My point:Yeah right!!! So why is it called ‘PAP‘ Comm Foundation’ then??? If it’s not political, let’s change its name to ‘Asswipe Comm Foundation’ lah!) 2) The event was not assessed to have the potential for disorder and unruly behaviour. It was a carnival that involved children and families from various kindergartens and educational institutions. (My point: You mean the WP’s event was to be attended by gangsters and terrorists???) 3) The Prime Minister, as guest of honour, and a few other guests, made their entrance by cycling a short distance. (My point: You mean the proposed longer cycling route of the WP event was problematic???) 4) During the event, a sum of $664,000 (which had been raised earlier) was distributed to 17 charities, including Beyond Social Services, Children’s Aid Society and Chung Hwa Medical Institution. (My point: So, what does raising money have to do with an outdoor event being approved or not?????? Or is this a dubious statement to justify the benevolence of the PAP event?) What a valiant effort, Singapore police force! You have tried very hard to show that the PAP and WP events are fundamentally different, and that’s why you treated them differently. Alas, you failed miserably. You know deep in your heart that you are nothing but a pile of steaming hot bullshit. And why did Minister Ho Peng Kee send you, DSP Tay, to do his dirty work especially since he relished ridiculing the WP’s event in a televised Parliamentary sitting? Where is Minister Ho when his dark humor is needed????? And you PAP bootlickers who had read and re-read (and re-read it again) Tay’s reply before ‘approving’ it to be printed, you know that you may have the democratic majority needed to reign in this country, but you are running pretty damn low on moral authority… Minister George Yeo says “Townships in S’pore”. Have we learnt nothing from apartheid in South Africa?? Ah, a heavyweight has lent his bulk to the fight about whether a disused school in Serangoon Gardens should be turned into a dormitory for foreign workers. Foreign Minister George Yeo (right) is not just any minister, but the head of the Aljunied GRC of which Seragoon Gardens is a part of. To quote http://www.todayonline.com/articles/274673.asp, Minister Yeo said that the Ministry of National Devpt is ”seriously considering how to create townships for foreign workers which are sustainable and self-contained”. You see, from this statement alone, you know that the dorm is NOT going to be in SGdns anymore, because Minister Yeo has to be a crowd-pleaser MP since his GRC’s victory in 2006 was only about 56%, defeating narrowly the WP’s team which includes Sylvia Lim (who is current an NMP beacuse her team is the ‘best loser’ amongst the non-winning opposition candidates (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aljunied_Group_Representation_Constituency). But that Minister Yeo chose to call these proposed purpose-built accomm for foreign workers a TOWNSHIP is unfortunately. Historically, the word ‘township’ has a negative loaded meaning. A township “usually refers to the (often underdeveloped) urban living areas that, under South African Apartheid were reserved for non-whites (principally black Africans and coloureds but also working class Indians). Townships were usually built on the periphery of towns and cities”. Till today, townships created in apartheid South Africa are still problem-spots, leaving a messy legacy for the current democratic govt to clean up (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Township_(South_Africa) and http://www.straight.com/node/148143). Under South African apartheid townships were crime- and poverty-ridden slums where the undesirables (dark-skinned, poor, uneducated) of white society were forced to stay, separated from the Whites. In slums, most residents were caught up in a vicious cycle of poverty, poor-facilities, poor health, and violence. Lets see: South African townships were: 1) built in the fringes of urban areas, 2) for ‘dark-skinned, undesirable’ people, 3) heavily policed. I am sure that Minster Yeo’s townships would be: 1) built in the fringes of urban areas, 2) for ‘dark-skinned, undesirable’ people, 3) heavily policed. Minister George, what are you implying about wanting to put our foreign workers into townships? The similarities with his proposal to the one of the worst legacies of apartheid, racist, White South Africa are undeniable, and shocking. Dear Minister Yeo, beside a poor choice of vocab, the township-linked attitude of ’out of sight’ out of mind’ is NOT the way to treat the manual labour that makes our Singapore tick like clockwork; integration is. Is a good foreign worker one who doesn’t live next door? Serangoon Gardens thinks so… Reported in http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/373328/1/.html, “Residents of Serangoon Gardens are upset over news that a workers’ dormitory may be built at Burghley Drive where Serangoon Garden Technical School used to be located. Residents’ concerns include noise pollution, traffic congestion and the safety of residents – many of whom are retirees”. Does this stink of racism or not? Imagine if the old school is to make way for a new posh condominium. Would the residents still complain about traffic and congestion? Not likely, as a posh new condo would drive up the value of homes in Serg Gdns. Come on self-centred Singaporeans. We can’t shun menial jobs and favour foreigners doing them, but then dislike living near to these hardworking, lowly paid foreign workers. You can ignore the construction worker or the foodcourt cleaner, but they still have to live somewhere after work, right?  Before I get lambasted for double-standards, I live relatively close to a foreign workers’ dorm, and I have had no complaints at all. Go to hell you selfish, small-minded, frog-in-the-well, middle-class Singaporeans of Serangoon Gardens! KNNBCCB: PAP IS indeed ‘more equal’ than others! Oh… Just how short does PAP think that our memory is? Or just how dumb do they take us for?? Last year, there was rejection of a police permit to hold the Workers’ Party 50th Anniversary Cycling Event on 9 September 2007 at the East Coast Park. In parliament, Ms Sylvia Lim, on behalf of WP asked the govt to provide reasons for the rejection. Assoc Prof Ho Peng Kee said “…the reason why political parties are not allowed to organise outdoor activities has been explained in Parliament before. Police does not allow political parties to organise outdoor gatherings because such activities have the potential for public disorder and mischief, and may disrupt community life. Police’s requirement is that such party activities be held indoors or within stadiums, so that any law and order problems would be contained. This policy applies to all political parties. The Workers’ Party had applied to the Police to organise a mass cycling event to celebrate the party’s 50th anniversary at the East Coast Park. The East Coast Park is a recreational park for Singaporeans and their families. It is not meant to be used by a political party to promote its cause. Apart from displacing the usual recreational users of East Coast Park, it is an open area where there is greater potential for a breach of the peace, public disorder and unruly behaviour. As I have explained, Police takes a more cautious approach towards outdoor activities organized by political parties. In line with this approach, Police rejected Workers’ Party’s application. (see http://www.mha.gov.sg/news_details.aspx?nid=1102). So ok, WP’s cycling event was deemed too hazardous too be held outdoors. Whatever…. But look at the bloody ST newspaper frontpage this morning! LHL was photographed cycling, with a caption that reads: “Much to the delight of spectators, PM Lee and MPs like Seng Han Thong made their entrance on bicycles at the PAP CARNIVAL AT WEST COAST PARK yesterday….”. Some animals are indeed more equal than others, huh? May you double-talking, overpaid, contradictory, smug, take-us-for-granted good-for-nothings rot in hell, or where ever turds like you go to after you die a justifiably painful death…