WP Youth Wing: YouthQuake 4 THE EVOLVING ROLE OF WOMEN IN SINGAPOREThe Workers' Party Youth Wing takes great pleasure in inviting you to participate in an upcoming public forum as part of the YouthQuake Forum Series. This series is into its fourth installment.The topic for this session focuses on how youth can propose and carry forward a refreshing new approach to women issues in Singapore.YouthQuake offers an excellent opportunity for Singapore youth to exchange ideas and experiences and we are confident that the forum topic will stimulate participants to debate and discuss. We thus encourage you not to miss such an occasion where you can keep pace with the pulse of today's youth in a pleasant and stimulating atmosphere and experience the dynamic nature of youth-centric issues.The details of the YouthQuake forum are as follows:Date: 16th August 2008 (Saturday)Time: 1430 hrs - 1630 hrsVenue: 216-G Syed Alwi Road #02-03 Singapore 207799The speakers for this event are:Dana Lam-TeoDana will be providing an overview on the story of feminism and a history of women's activism and achievements in Singapore since independence in 1965 and how the role of women in Singapore society has evolved over the decades. She will also be touching on what the women's movement is all about and why is it relevant today. Looking ahead, Dana will conclude by speaking on certain issues that she believes will be most relevant to AWARE in the current internet age.She was the tenth president of the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE), from 1999 – 2001, and a member of The Working Committee 2 (TWC2), currently registered as Transient Workers Count Too.A graduate of the former University of Singapore and the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT), she is an ex-journalist and is now focusing on writing and the arts. Other than getting away with not displaying parking coupons she has been a good citizen most of her life. She is a mother to two grown-up children.Lee Li LianLi Lian believes that no women in Singapore should be taking on the burden of single motherhood willingly and single-handedly. Her presentation entitled "The predicament of a single-mother in Singapore" shall illustrate how the stigma of being a single mother still exists in Singapore society and why we should accept single-motherhood as a respectable part of our society. She will also propose some recommendations on how the government can provide a better support network for them.She is currently a trainer with a private institution and has been actively involved in both industrial and financial sales for the past 6 years. She graduated from Ngee Ann Polytechnic in 1999 where she majored in Business Studies and went on to pursue a Bachelor's Degree with Curtin University of Technology in Australia majoring in Sales & Marketing.From her years of sales experience, she had gained good communication, interpersonal and persuasive skills. She was both a polling and a counting agent for the Workers' Party during GE 2006. In June that year, she joined as a member and in August 2006, she was subsequently elected as a WP Youth Wing Executive Council Member. The message that she wants to bring across to everyone is: "Until you spread your wings, you'll have no idea how far you can fly".She enjoys singing and making DIY fashion accessories in her past-time. She has been a faithful supporter of Liverpool Football Club since the early 90s.Koh Kai LinKai Lin's presentation entitled, "1.29 to 2.1" is a reflection on boosting the birth rate among young women in Singapore and why financial incentives unveiled in recent years to encourage married Singaporeans to have more babies have failed to significantly cure Singapore's baby blues. She will be offering creative and radical measures aimed at boosting Singapore's flagging birth rate. What exactly works best for young women in the local context will also be discussed.She describes herself as an expressive and self-motivated young Singaporean. A staunch defender of rights and a problem-solver, she enjoys reading, fashion and music in her free time.A graduate from the Singapore Institute of Management with a Bachelor of Business (Marketing), she is currently earning her keep as an account servicing executive at Vintedge Pte Ltd. A person who is deeply enthusiastic about her Christian faith, she is at this moment undergoing training at City Harvest Bible Training Center, School of Theology. Her favourite bible verse is 2 Corinthians 4:8. In her opinion, understanding women is an art.Selene Cheng Ai LinThe working women in Singapore has to grapple daily with the ideals and responsibilities imposed on them by the nation, society, family and the organisations they work for. Selene will be examining the roles of working women in a globalised economy and will offer suggestions on how businesses and the government can go about creating flexible work opportunities for women.She is sub-editor and member of the editorial team at The Online Citizen, an online portal which endeavours to reflect the views and opinions of ordinary Singaporeans. In the day, she works as an editor at an oil and gas consulting firm.She graduated from the National University of Singapore with a Bachelor of Arts in English Literature in 2006. An introverted thinker who likes to read, write, do craftwork, and watch movies, she also shares great interest in civil society and political activism.At heart, she is a person who enjoys curling up with a good book by the HDB window. Her personal blog is at http://randomcharacter.blogspot.com.In order to assist us in the organisation of this forum, kindly confirm your attendance with the WP Youth Wing at "youthwing@wp.sg" by 14th August 2008 (Thursday).We look forward to see you help create a stir through YouthQuake!What people say about YouthQuake..."A nice session for me to hear from fellow youths on their concerns on transportation, which also helps me to explore my views about what Singapore, can do in this area."- Chan Joy Seng"It's a forum that forces us to think through issues and to be clear of what we stand for; or at least leaves food for thoughts."- Anne Tan"YouthQuake has shown that young Singaporeans are concerned about issues facing our country, are not afraid to speak up and that they are ready to make use of alternative platforms to do so."- Andrew Loh"YouthQuake is not about the magnitude it reads on the Richter scale, but on how far the tremors generated may eventually spread!"- Ong Tiong Ling"YouthQuake has provided me with a lot of insights and thoughts on the various issues presented. I didn't realized how little I know about energy and oil until YouthQuake 3."- Aaron Peng"In YouthQuake, the 3 speakers outline the discussion. Things get interesting when the floor table questions and starts the discussion, showing the variety of opinions out there. YouthQuake wouldn't be the same without the floor."- Ang Y STaken from http://www.wp.sg/youth/?p=43 The vacant seat poser Deepest condolences to the family of the late Dr Ong Chit Chung, Member of Parliament for Jurong GRC.Now that the funeral is over, I may, with due consideration of respect, touch on this issue.A seat among the five in Jurong GRC, namely the Bukit Batok division, which Dr Ong was overseeing, has been vacated as a result.The next question that comes to the minds of some people is if a by-election will be held.In fact, calls have started coming from various quarters - in the internet, among coffee shop dialogues and most prominently from J B Jeyaretnam, secretary-general of the Reform Party in a press statement (summarily relayed in the Straits Times on 22 July 2008).And these aren't the first occurrences in the event of a vacated seat in a GRC.The last time the same happened was on 2 June 1999 when People's Action Party MP for Jalan Besar GRC, Choo Wee Khiang, resigned his MP seat after facing court charges and was later convicted, vacating the division of Whampoa.No by-election was held.The PAP government turned down those calls back then, giving its reasons.If pressed upon, they would probably reiterate the same reasons again this time.Let us examine the laws that stipulate the conditions for having or not having to conduct a by-election, be it whether they are "PAP laws" or "Singapore laws", "fair laws" or "unfair laws".Under the Parliamentary Elections Act (Part 3, Chapter 24, Section 2A) it states:"In respect of any group representation constituency, no writ shall be issued under subsection (1) for an election to fill any vacancy unless all the Members for that constituency have vacated next their seats in Parliament. [10/88]"In the Singapore Constitution (Part 6, Chapter 49, Section 1):"Whenever the seat of a Member, not being a non-constituency Member, has become vacant for any reason other than a dissolution of Parliament, the vacancy shall be filled by election in the manner provided by or under any law relating to Parliamentary elections for the time being in force."Certainly, the Act denotes no need to conduct a by-election and while the Constitution seemingly spells otherwise, it leaves an empty plate to the Act.Therefore, establishing a precedent to hold a by-election in the event of one or more, but not all, vacancies within a GRC requires foremost an amendment to the Act and perhaps the Constitution as well.The PAP, which dominates Parliament with the power to amend laws, isn't known to be particularly diligent to enacting electoral changes that will create a more vibrant political atmosphere.However, it ought to be a very categorical assumption that opposition parties and people who believe in a more politically democratic Singapore would agree with the necessity of a by-election despite the law.Those who call for the dissolution of the remaining GRC slate to hold a by-election in Jurong GRC may have got their sums wrong if they are the same who believe a single seat is "easier” for the opposition to clinch a victory.The idea that came to my mind was to carve out Bukit Batok division within Jurong GRC into a single member constituency and holding a by-election for it.Doing so is also in line with most opposition parties' stances, notably the Workers' Party in its 2006 general election manifesto, of abolishing GRCs and keeping to SMCs.This was also expressed in the Reform Party statement and hence, is nothing new.What is a new call that I wish to supplement to the above, which does not require a change to any existing law and will similarly not be heeded but nevertheless, is that at the next general election due in 2011, all GRCs should cut its number of seats by one.Since the PAP has disclosed that its remaining MPs in Jurong GRC are able to cover for the late Dr Ong, it probably indicates that they have more capacity for load.Presently, there are 84 seats and 14 GRCs and this proposal will see a reduction of 14 seats, tallying a total of 70 seats.This is in tandem with my personal belief that there are too many MPs for a small country like Singapore.Finally, I disagree with the writer of the letter to the ST Forum published on 23 July 2008 (JBJ must be careful if he wishes to espouse Singapore's cause) Alvin Tan that Jeyaretnam's call came too early after the demise of Dr Ong and was hence, "somewhat inappropriate”.The wake of the late Dr Ong ended last Friday and I don't need anyone or any entity needs to wait for months or years down the road to articulate his, her or its position on the vacant seat poser. Ministerial salary debate revisited - Part 2 Below are my personal opinions on the ministerial salary debate in Parliament on 9 April 2007 between Workers' Party Member of Parliament Low Thia Khiang and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, reprised in the first part (http://melvintansg.blogspot.com/2008/07/ministerial-salary-debate-revisited.html).For a start, I differ otherwise from the Deputy Speaker, Mr Matthias Yao, and find that Mr Low has sufficiently responded to MM Lee's clarifications.MM Lee had asked if the three countries raised as examples by Mr Low emulated Singapore's economic achievements; Mr Low's reply was obviously yes because these countries are also first world countries according to the definition of the United Nations, albeit having different conditions.MM Lee next asked if they did so with a population as miniature as Singapore, a point Mr Low had earlier addressed and acknowledged that their conditions are different but they were, nonetheless, first world countries.To be fair to MM Lee, Mr Low did not dwell into more specifically on whether he felt the three countries could have succeeded had they boasted a small population akin to Singapore's.However, I recall, during an interview with correspondents of Singapore Press Holdings for the book "The Man and His Ideas" in 1998, MM Lee had also indirectly attributed Singapore's small population to the PAP government's success.Under the chapter "Can the Singapore system be replicated elsewhere?" in page 98 of the book, he expressed that Singapore's small talent pool allowed the PAP to successfully monopolise it resulting in the opposition's inability to draw an equally competent team, thus facilitating Singapore to have a strong government.During the 2006 general election, Lee Hsien Loong also said that the PAP has been able to govern effectively because of a strong mandate given to it and if there were presence of more opposition, he would have to spend time "fixing" them instead of concentrating on national affairs.Well, if there is no large population and talent pool to muster a formidable opposition and "impede" the PAP government's administration, I wonder why Singapore's population size becomes an issue to MM Lee now.To continue, if MM Lee was of the opinion that Mr Low was not "comparing apples with apples", no one should not make comparisons with any countries at all, which the former has been seen to be doing on several occasions; after all, no two countries in the world are exactly the same.MM Lee also failed to counter Mr Low's question on why Singapore had wanted to emulate Switzerland's standard of living years ago if the latter was not a worthy model.Summarising this, I perceive that Mr Low had adequately answered all of MM Lee's clarifications save for one while MM Lee didn't even hit on a single one of Mr Low's questions.I also disagree with MM Lee that the bloc of European countries is what keeps every one of them going because, should most countries in Europe perform drastically, the consequences on the minority of progressing countries will be direr.And if the success of European countries was due to the advantage of bloc, why have Southeast Asian countries not been able to do the same?On several occasions previously, MM Lee said that Southeast Asian countries were too diverse in cultural backgrounds to amalgamate their national apparatuses.I deduce that not all European countries share very close cultural semblances but in any case, why are Middle East countries, located close to Europe and primarily comprise Arab cultures, not able to mold into a bloc?Also, it was a rather odd remark of MM Lee to assert that a better standard of government could lift Finland, Denmark and Switzerland from First World countries to superpowers because whether it is with the PAP or the system it has established, these countries are neither likely to become superpowers nor will Singapore become one.Realistically, a crucial factor a country needs to become a superpower is land size and even that may not be enough for it to become one; the United States of America and China are each about 9.6 million kilometres-square while none of the four countries are anything above 50,000 kilometres-square.As for Ms Irene Ng, I am unsure where she obtained the figures of Finland's unemployment rate of 17% but perhaps she has her sources that I have personally not come across.Taking the year-ended 2006 as the debate was in 2007, Finland's unemployment rate is 8.4%, based on "Index Mundi" (http://www.indexmundi.com/finland/unemployment_rate.html), which draws its data from the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/).Further statistics from "Index Mundi" have also not cited Finland as having 17% unemployment rate in any of its past years but again, perhaps Ms Ng has her sources I have not come across.There are often doubts in the mind of some as to how reliable international statistics are but from the same information supply, Singapore's unemployment rate as at 2007 stands at 3.1%, which is the same figure as the one provided by the Singapore's Department of Statistics (http://www.singstat.gov.sg/stats/keyind.html).Hence, it safe to assume that the CIA World Factbook extracts its figures from the Singapore DOS.As one can discern, 3.1% is not as far-off to 8.4% as compared to 17%.Ms Ng also omitted to mention the other two cases-in-point by Mr Low, which are noteworthy because, referring back to "Index Mundi", Denmark's unemployment rate in 2006 was 5.7%, lower than Finland's.Switzerland's unemployment rate, at 3.8%, is even more negligibly different from Singapore's.Even more noteworthy is that all three countries have narrowed the gap between themselves and Singapore by 2007, at 7%, 3.8% and 3.3% respectively, while Singapore maintained its unemployment rate of 3.1%.Yet, these countries do not pay their cabinet ministers sky-high salaries in order to achieve their levels of employment.In addition, unemployment rates only tell half the story - or less.Going back to the data source by "Index Mundi", for the year-ended 2007, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam have unemployment rates within the range of 2% to 2.5%; they are neither First World countries nor have highly-paid ministers.The kind of wages citizens earn is also important.If every corporate entity paid no more than $500 to its managers and senior executives, it could save a lot of money, hire more people and Singapore could have 100% employment.In Singapore, wages of the middle-class and bottom-rung workers have remained stagnant for the last 10 years, admitted the PAP government itself, while living costs have since escalated... but before I digress too far, that is another a debate, for another day. Ministerial salary debate revisited - Part 1 When the umpteenth debate on ministerial salaries took place in Parliament in April last year, it sparked an exchange between Workers' Party secretary-general and Hougang Member of Parliament Low Thia Khiang and Minister Mentor in the Prime Minister's Office Lee Kuan Yew.Not many people should have read the complete details of the exchange but presumably only the news reports in the local media, myself included.Only when the WP provided a link to a webpage in the online Hansard upon responding to a couple of questions by surgeon and renowned blogger Dr Huang Shoou Chyuan on 11 July 2008 (http://nofearsingapore.blogspot.com/2008/07/questions-for-workers-party.html), of which one was its stance on ministerial salaries, I managed to peruse the full dialogue, word-by-word, for the first time (http://www.parliament.gov.sg/reports/public/hansard/title/20070409/20070409_S0005_T0001.html).Indeed, the online Hansard is a useful tool for those who do not wish to rely merely on the mainstream media for information on Parliamentary proceedings.Following is the extract of the exchange between Mr Low, MM Lee and PAP MP for Tampines GRC Irene Ng on 9 April 2007, which starts after Mr Low has completed delivering his speech.The Deputy Speaker chairing the session was MacPherson MP Mr Matthias Yao.MM Lee: A point of clarification, Sir. The Member has compared Singapore against Switzerland, Denmark and Finland. Can I ask him if he considers Singapore's population to resource ratio equal to Denmark, Switzerland and Finland?Second, have they brought the standard of living of their people up, multi-fold times, from third-world to first-world in one generation? To maintain that quality of government both in the political leadership that sets the tone for the whole civil service and for the whole country, can you get a Swiss-type government, Finnish-type government or a Danish government to bring about the results that Singapore has brought about in their own countries, let alone bringing them and their systems into Singapore? Please explain.Mr Low: Sir, I have to admit that these are the reports that I got from the United Nations. They have put up these reports. I believe that, based on the reports of what they have assessed today, they are not lousier than Singapore, in terms of living standards or the performance of the government. They have different conditions from us, but I gather that when we move forward, we are also emulating the standard of living of Switzerland. Are we not?MM Lee: The Member has not answered my question. Is he saying that we are comparing apples with apples? Is he saying that the system of government in Finland, Denmark and Switzerland can bring them from First World to a superpower? Can they do that? Does he realise that Singapore's GDP is only one-third of its external trade - that our external trade is three and a half times that of our GDP, higher than Hong Kong, by three times. And that if this economy ever falters, it is the end of Singapore and its First World status.Denmark, Switzerland and Finland are part of Europe. They can fail and they are still caught in a European situation. If we fail here, we fall back to a South East Asian situation. Just look around you.Mr Low: Sir, is the Minister Mentor saying that without paying such a high salary, we are bound to fail? Even if we pay top-earner salaries, I do not think the present Government can bring Singapore to superpower status.MM Lee: I am putting a simple question and ask for his clarification. He has compared Singapore as if it were a Denmark, a Switzerland or a Finland. Their system, their governments, never produced the kind of transformation that we have had, and their system and their governments have a broader base, and can afford a mediocre government.The Singapore base is less than 700 square kilometres. When we started, it was less than 600 square kilometres. Could the system in Denmark, Switzerland or Finland produce a transformation as in Singapore?Mr Low: Sir, on what basis does Minister Mentor think that if the system in Denmark and Switzerland is put in Singapore it will not be able to transform Singapore into what we are today? I want to know what is the basis. I have no claim that it will happen. But I would like to know, from the wisdom of Minister Mentor, why he thinks that it will not happen.Deputy Speaker: Mr Low, I do not think that you can see the clarification of Minister Mentor! Mr Lee.MM Lee: I would like the Member to explain why he thinks Singapore is comparable to Denmark, Switzerland and Finland. Look at the size of the country, the location of the country, the resources of each country and the history of its people. Then look at Singapore, its size, its history and the nature of its population.To make the transformation from what we were in 1959 or 1965, whichever the starting point, to what we are requires an extraordinary government with extraordinary government officers to support it, to bring to where it is.If we go back to an ordinary system that exists around us, then we will go down to those levels. It is as simple as that. There is no guarantee that Singapore with less than 700 square kilometres can maintain this position.Deputy Speaker: Ms Irene Ng, do you have a clarification?Ms Ng: Sir, a point of clarification for Mr Low. Mr Low seems to have a very rosy view of the system in Denmark, Finland and Switzerland. I wonder whether he is aware that in Finland, the unemployment rate is 17% compared to our unemployment rate. And at their recent election, the Prime Minister of Finland won the election only by a very narrow margin and is now forced to negotiate a four-party coalition, and might change his policies. Is this the type of Singapore that he wants - with a high unemployment rate?Mr Low: As far as I am aware, based on the report that I have looked at, which was published by the United Nations, these are the comparisons. Are they that bad? They are not Third World countries.PAP MP for Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC, Ms Josephine Teo, was then asked to carry out her speech, which contained jibes on Mr Low's points, and the latter continued with his clarifications in Mandarin when she had finished.Mr Low: Mr Deputy Speaker, can I clarify what the Member has talked about? In Mandarin, Sir.Mrs Josephine Teo said that I had mentioned during the General Election that the Ministers' salaries should be pegged to the lowest 20% of the workers. But I did not mention it in my speech just now. Most importantly, it is now that the Ministers' salaries are pegged to the top 48th earners in the private sector. This has always been the concept. So, a very important point is that the Ministers occasionally may forget that there are some people who are in the very low-income group - they are the poor people. It is for this reason that I mentioned during the General Election that Ministers' salary should be linked or pegged to the lowest 20% income group. Maybe you multiply it by 100 times, is that considered high enough and, if it is not enough, then how much more do we need, maybe an astronomical figure?The second point that I would like to clarify is that she said that we must have high salaries so that we can have a clean and honest government. But I would like to tell her, if a person is greedy, no matter how high the salary is, he will not be satisfied. So can high salary ensure a clean and honest government? This is still a controversial question. Thirdly, I want to clarify that she said that the PAP can be ruling for a long period of time because the Ministers have high salaries, all the civil servants are highly paid, so they are all very clean. But I think the reasons for ruling over a long period of time should be more than this. It includes, for example, during the General Election, amend the General Elections rules ---Deputy Speaker: Mr Low, those are not points of clarifications.Mr Low: Thank you, Sir.The next segment shall comprise my personal views on the debate. Right time for the right words *Faint*This was the first reaction after reading a letter by Syu Ying Kwok in the Straits Times Forum section on 8 July 2008, who extolled Singapore's achievements.Syu (not sure if that's a man or lady by the name) also disagreed with Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's optimism that Singapore could be "unscrambled in five years", expressing that it could be faster, which in reality served to exemplify the latter's and the PAP government's governing capacity.However, these raptures didn't cause the fainting spell.Of all things, he or she singled out opposition candidate of three general elections, Tan Lead Shake, ostensibly portraying him as a candidate of little credentials and abilities.Now, he or she is apparently aware that tragic events had befallen Lead Shake's family, as the letter had a mention of it.I wonder if he or she could imagine a person in bereavement under the most unfortunate circumstances, separated from his spouse who was suspect and having the local media tailgating him and his family all around for a few days, rummaging through the ST and see that he have been taken to task over a topic that isn't even related to him.This is neither election time, nor is Lead Shake a Member of Parliament, least of all one who failed enough to fit into Syu's grand scheme of arguments.There are more than enough opposition politicians in Singapore history for Syu to take his or her pick on, never mind if it is somebody not "prominent" enough to serve his or her agenda.To be fair, I believe The Online Citizen got it wrong when they asserted that the letter linked the dreadful events surrounding Lead Shake to his credibility as a person; this was not the message I got from reading the contents.On the other hand, TOC is correct to say that the ST editors have to take a fair share of the responsibility - or irresponsibility - for that matter.There's a right time to say or write the right things and the snide remarks in the letter couldn't have come at a worse time. HDB 'suffocates' residents If (1) is a fire hazard, what about(2), (3) and (4)?While HDB flat buyers may feel "suffocated" by rising property prices, the word has practically taken on a literal meaning in this instance.In the Straits Times of 7 July 2008, the HDB reportedly sealed up the air vents of one-room flats in nine blocks in Toa Payoh last month ("Residents unhappy about sealed air vents in corridors").Such vents are commonly seen in many old one- and some two-room flat models.Last year, two of the soon-to-be-demolished blocks in Hougang that were one-room flats also had their air vents blocked up and the same may have happened in other estates.The reason?To prevent fire spreading from an ablaze unit to other units through the corridor.In that case, HDB should also cement up the windows of all three-, four-, five-room and executive units in Singapore that faces corridors, which are bigger, contain more oxygen over the interior and, thus, allow fire to trek out more easily.As if the air vents are not already much constricted, plugging them up totally will, without unaffected doubt, cause residents of these one-room homes to feel warmer and more suffocated.These small dwellings do not have windows for their halls unlike their bigger versions for ventilation purposes, which was why they were built for the latter in the first place.Ironically, for being among the oldest model of residential buildings HDB erected, some even before Singapore's independence, these one-room units had never been fire hazards for the last 50-over years.If the problem was owing to the non-closeable nature of the air vents, the HDB should have added flappable coverings or something else rather than resolve the problem in a cost-effective but uncompassionate way.Residents interviewed said they were not consulted on the move to seal their air vents.One wouldn't think this could come from an oft self-proclaimed "consultative" PAP government. WP Youth Wing: YouthQuake 3 THE ENVIRONMENT - HAS SINGAPORE DONE ENOUGH?How would an environmentally-savvy Singapore look like?Is the Singapore youth prepared for a world where oil prices continue to climb at unprecedented rates?The Workers' Party Youth Wing takes great pleasure in inviting you to participate in an upcoming public forum as part of the YouthQuake Forum Series. If you have something to say about the environment and if you think that youth in Singapore should stand up and speak boldly on issues that affect the environment in Singapore, this upcoming YouthQuake forum is tailored for you!We encourage you not to miss such an occasion where you can keep pace with the pulse of today's youth in a pleasant and stimulating atmosphere and experience the dynamic nature of green issues.The details of the YouthQuake forum are as follows:Date: 13th July 2008 (Sunday)Time: 1500 hrs - 1700 hrsVenue: 216-G Syed Alwi Road #02-03 Singapore 207799The speakers for this event are:Nathaniel KohNathaniel's presentation, entitled "Inspiring the Next Generation", shall illustrate how youths can and have started to play a role in nurturing an environmentally-friendly world. He will also propose some recommendations on how certain policies can help shape new "green" habits.He is currently a third year student in Singapore Management University (SMU) pursuing a Bachelor of Science (Information Systems Management) with a second major in Political Science. In 2003, he graduated from Temasek Polytechnic with a Diploma in Information Technology specialising in Object-Oriented Technologies.In September 2007, Nathaniel was elected as a student leader to the executive committee of the SMU Students' Association, and in January 2008, he began his one-year term of office as its Honorary Finance Secretary. Since 2000, he has been an active member of Toastmasters International, a world-wide organisation dedicated to helping people improve their communication and leadership abilities.In January 2007, he attained the title of "Distinguished Toastmaster", which is the highest recognition awarded in the organisation. He has also served in various leadership capacities namely, Division Governor, Area Governor, Club President, and Club Vice-President for Education.Low Ee MienEe Mien's topic will be "Singapore's Energy Future". Energy is the driving force that powers society. The subject of energy in the Singapore context will be covered, how it relates to rising crude oil prices and escalating petrol and electricity bills. The supply and demand situation will be discussed, including Peak Oil, what it is, how Singapore will be affected by it, and what Singapore can do to secure its energy future.He is an R&D software engineer with Savi Technology, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin. In his spare time, he is also a fund manager for a private investment fund, blogger, peak-oiler, and climate change activist.His blog, which is syndicated by various blogging networks and receives thousands of hits per day, is at http://www.post1.net/lowem.Wilson AngWilson believes that the only way to create a better planet for human survivability is for every individual to take responsibility of their own action by being more conscious about the choices in their daily consumption habits. He will be speaking on how we can all consume more responsibly.He is the founder and President of the Environment Challenge Organisation (Singapore), also known as ECO Singapore, a non-profit, non-government organization that aims to establish a voluntary environmental movement, thereby creating opportunities for active involvement by Singaporean youths, instilling a sense of commitment and awareness of environmental issues and global hazards.By providing youths a holistic approach towards environmental issues, ECO Singapore's mission is to encourage youths to take initiative and choose to live environmentally sustainable lifestyles.Wilson is a recipient of the NEA Ecofriend award 2007 in the NGO and Grassroots Volunteers category. His life mission is "to create and maintain a sustainable lifestyle and culture".In order to assist us in the organisation of this forum, kindly confirm your attendance with the WP Youth Wing at "youthwing@wp.sg" by 10th July 2008 (Thursday).We look forward to see you help create a stir through YouthQuake!Taken from http://www.wp.sg/youth/?p=41 New blood and news glut After the Workers' Party Organising Members' Conference - a biennial affair - on 29 June 2008, the party now has its post-General Election 2006 batch of recruits represented in its Central Executive Council for the first time.Congratulations to WP comrades Koh Choong Yong, Lee Li Lian and Png Eng Huat - two men and a lady.Choong Yong, 35, and Li Lian, 29, both in the WP Youth Wing's Executive Committee and are bloggers as well, joined after the GE; the latter assisted the WP's East Coast GRC team as a polling and counting agent.Eng Huat, 47, joined the WP before the GE campaign and was a valuable backstage helper; he is also an avid writer of letters to the press, many of which are archived in this very weblog (http://melvintansg.blogspot.com/search/label/Png%20Eng%20Huat).Having worked with them and aside the administrative functions they have been tasked upon as Webmaster, Deputy Treasurer and Deputy Webmaster respectively, they are all proven effective organisers.Most importantly for leadership, all three share common traits of reliability, objectivity and humility.Covering of the event of the WP's OMC by the local English media took place in three news reports, two in TODAY and one in Straits Times.The ST report on 2 July 2008, three days after the OMC, gave me another one of those memorable moments of news glut, overwhelmed by hilarity.Penned by Sue-Ann Chia and Jeremy Au Yong, they wrote that the three new faces "was fewer than the seven introduced in July 2006, who replaced half the CEC".Wonder if they were expecting that out of the WP's CEC of 14, seven should be replaced once every two years, which they acknowledged was "half the CEC".This means that the WP could have a 100% turnover every four years.How exciting.Perhaps they should suggest to the PAP government's cabinet to try that.I believe a number of netizens would anticipate the retirement of Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew or the departure of Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng within four years.Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's term hits the fourth year next month, having taken office in August 2004.The two journalists could try sounding the bell that his time is up.By the way, a friend shared a joke that escaped ISA detainee Mas Selamat Kastari probably fled the country using his son's passport and had discovered the "way" before the gaps closed following Mr Ang Heng Soon's encounter.Lastly, with sobriety, my sympathies go out to a friend in the National Solidarity Party, Tan Lead Shake, over the tragic events in his family. One year all it takes to ruin Singapore No need for five years.Just one year could ruin Singapore - if a dominant incumbent ruling party turns rogue in a time of the future.This is a rejoinder to Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's comments at a forum in Shangri-La Hotel on 25 June 2008 that it would take five years for Singapore to be ruined if the opposition obtained power through the polls through what he termed as a "freak election result".However, I feel if a new government formed from the opposition could indeed to ruin Singapore in five years, a rogue ruling party could do so in two.And a dominant rogue one with no opposition as a check-and-balance being part of the system could do so in one year - or less.Objectively speaking, the present PAP government is far from being "rogue" under the past and present three prime ministers still in cabinet, despite their imperfection.Nevertheless, there is not telling what will happen beyond three more prime ministers, estimated in about 50 years down the road.In my view, the time it takes for a non-PAP entity to finally form the government is about as distant as the PAP turning "rogue".Chances are that neither scenario would occur in within two or three general elections.Hence, before that happens, the opposition should be allowed by the electorate to build up gradually rather than allow the PAP to maintain its prevailing toehold.Between five years to "ruin" Singapore and one year, there is an undoubted choice.Despite so, Singapore could avoid both outcomes with an electoral mandate of up to 65% versus 35% in Parliament for any two political parties.Parliament is the bastion of power for political parties as it determines via the electorate route as to which forms the government and by how much a majority.With that, the victor extends its tentacles to the other spheres of the nation, such as ministries, the civil service, corporations, unions, the media and the people.A future rogue incumbent familiar with the operation of these facets has a higher likelihood of ruining Singapore faster than an opposition who does not.For one, the former is more prone to the full cooperation of the civil service than the latter and could go the way of the rogue incumbent.I am sure MM Lee knows "how we got here" and "how we can unscramble it" but by the time a rogue incumbent enters the field, he and even I may no longer be in this world.At the least, he acknowledged that with an incompetent government, a succeeding benevolent government could still pick up the pieces, although it would be "difficult".With the potential damage caused by a future rogue incumbent, there may not even be pieces left to pick up.Hopefully, by then, Singapore will not need Malaysia or Thailand to hoist up the entire island. Embracing the 'differences' of the opposition The first reaction that struck me when I read the Straits Times Insight report "4 schools of opposition politics" (Sat, 14 Jun 2008) was, "Schools? What schools?"A Workers' Party friend joked that the featured four - Chiam See Tong (Singapore People's Party), Low Thia Khiang (WP), Chee Soon Juan (Singapore Democratic Party) and J B Jeyaretnam (upcoming Reform Party) - belonged to different schools, i.e. Canterbury University (New Zealand), Nanyang University (Singapore), University of Georgia (USA) and University College London (UK) respectively.What then also struck me was the fact that current WP Secretary-general Low is the only one amongst the names who had never graduated from an overseas university.Coming back to the point.All four men once headed or are presently heading the two opposition parties of WP (Jeyaretnam, Low) and SDP (Chiam, Chee) but the preceding elders broke away to form their own (RP and SPP).At the start of the article, the writer suggested that the transition of leadership of both were nothing more than "smooth" as each successor "took a leaf" from the other's predecessor.This may neither be entirely accurate, nor entirely inaccurate.A conclusion that can be drawn is that most new opposition entrants would take stock of, among others, parliamentary presence a criteria for selecting the political party to join.In this instance, Low joined the WP in 1981 when it was the only party with a seat Parliament, the same year Jeyaretnam won it, and Chee the SDP in 1992, a year after it became the main opposition party with three seats.The approach of the party may take a back seat, being susceptible to changes by either the present leadership through moving with the times or a new leadership.Had Low had joined the SDP under Chiam's helm and Chee the WP under Jeyaretnam's, the outcome today would have not been the same for sure although no one can perfectly predict how the exact cards will be displayed.However, it is presumptuous to conclude that this hypothetical scenario would naturally churn out a "smooth" succession process.For one, Chiam and Jeyaretnam are nearing or past eighty yet by staying on at the rudder of their respective vehicles, would result in deputising roles for the other two.Indeed, both Low and Chee were assistant secretary-generals to the two former secretary-generals, stopping short of the final advancement albeit without non-awkwardness thereafter.Based on occurrences in the Parliament gallery, even Chiam and Low do not cut complete, concerted synergy as much as they don't skirmish except against People's Action Party MPs.When Chiam, as the chairman of the Singapore Democratic Alliance umbrella in 2001 invited all opposition parties to join it, it was no surprise that the Chee-led SDP declined but the WP with Low also did not accept the proposal.Ten years earlier, opposition unity was hardly part of Chiam's agenda when he was the SDP chief and it showed when he sent a team comprising Chee into the Marine Parade GRC by-election held primarily for Jeyaretnam, cumulating a mild dispute with Low in favour of the latter.Ditto for the other case.The Open Singapore Centre, a non-governmental organisation founded and spearheaded by both Jeyaretnam and Chee, lasted a few months and faded away, largely triggered by directional and structural divergences.When J B Jeyaretnam was discharged from bankruptcy recently, he preferred to form his own party rather than join the SDP.But the biggest difference said to be between the two was that Jeyaretnam appears steadfast in the belief of getting elected into Parliament whereas Chee has dismissed it as a route to progress the national status.Before continuing, the above are not criticisms of any person or entity but observations and attempts have been made to depict the events as fairly as possible.All being expressed, such "differences" do give the people more choices.The "differences" are not only at a superficial level but by also looking at the variance between the four party's manifestos (with the exception of the RP which will likely be mapped on the WP's earlier manifestos).For those who argue that the "disunity" in the opposition camp (rather than the "quality" its candidates) is what keeps them away from supporting the latter, another alternative perception that can correct this is that this is the beauty of "diversity" and all the more gives them an incentive to participate in opposition parties.After all, this manifestation of "four schools" exemplifies more choices instead of the "only one choice" mantra provided by the "PAP kindergarten" that treats its citizens like children, such as the lame justifications against ministerial responsibility over Mas Selamat's escape or "trash index" idea of a PAP town council. Voters can embrace 'differences' of the opposition The first reaction that struck me when I read the Straits Times Insight report "4 schools of opposition politics" (Sat, 14 Jun 2008) was, "Schools? What schools?"A Workers' Party friend joked that the featured four - Chiam See Tong (Singapore People's Party), Low Thia Khiang (Workers' Party), Chee Soon Juan (Singapore Democratic Party) and J B Jeyaretnam (upcoming Reform Party) - belonged to different schools, i.e. Canterbury University (New Zealand), Nanyang University (Singapore), University of Georgia (USA) and University College London (UK).Also struck me was the fact that WP Secretary-general Low is the only one among the names who never graduated from an overseas university.MORE COMING SOON... The other way around Malaysian judge's "boot camp" allegation may hurt Malaysia's opposition more than its governmentTop: PM Mahathir Mohamad and DPM Anwar Ibrahim hoisting the UMNO flag during those daysBottom left: Opposition leader Anwar speaking at a joint PKR-DAP rallyBottom right: "Ordinary citizen" Mahathir and the government are now at loggerheadsEver since the Malaysian general election results this year saw the near-emergence of a two-party system, the political scene across the causeway has been heating up.First, it was the pressure on Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi to resign over the slash in majority of the Barisan Nasional (BN).There was speculation that at least one of his detractors within the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) would contest for the post of party president, currently held by him, at the party's upcoming general assembly.Then, came the resignation of former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who led Malaysia between 1981 and 2003, from the UMNO over PM Abdullah's refusal to step down.Next, there were calls to release the five Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) members detained under the Internal Security Act in December 2007 - chorused even by the leader BN component Malaysian Indian Congress president Samy Vellu, who lost his seat in the election.Announcements by de facto leader of the opposition and the Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), Anwar Ibrahim, that enough BN MPs will defect to allow the opposition alliance Pakatan Rakyat to form the government, also raised eyebrows.The new state government in Penang, now controlled by the Democratic Action Party (DAP) and led by new Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng, said that discrepancies had been spotted in the coffers.Another controversy now erupts just as the Malaysian judiciary is set to loosen itself from a once-dominant government's influence.Justice Ian Chin, Malaysia's longest-serving high court judge, made the claim during a trial to hear a dispute over election results in Sarawak that Dr Mahathir sent judges who did not deliver verdicts in favour of the government to a "boot camp" when he was PM and the former himself was an inductee for five days.This allegation appeared to shock other members of the judiciary who expressed they had never encountered this "boot camp".While Justice Chin justified issuing this statement based on that Dr Mahathir's ruling BN was still in power, this latest startling disclosure may hardly have an impact on the latter.For one, Dr Mahathir is now an independent government and ruling coalition critic.Hence, if there were conspiracy theorists viewing that the saga was designed to discredit the government, it could be the other way around and have more negative implications on those outside it, or worse, on the Malaysia opposition.This is because time phase of which this purportedly occurred when Dr Mahathir was PM - in 1997 - also heralded opposition leader Anwar's tenure as a deputy prime minister.Already, Dr Mahathir is embroiled in another judiciary-related storm that he, along with five other high-profile individuals, interfered and fixed the appointments of judges after a video clip featuring prominent lawyer V. K. Lingam found its way into the public eye.Meanwhile, Anwar has responded to interviews that he had never recalled chancing upon this "boot camp".DAP national chairman and MP Karpal Singh has lodged a police report against Dr Mahathir over the matter but ironically, if he did not realise, the possible bearing on the symbolic head of the opposition Pakatan Rakyat umbrella, of which his DAP, the PKR and another - PAS - are component parties of.He also called for the issue to be debated in Malaysia's parliament but those he seeks to grill could strategically disassociate themselves from any involvement.The bottom line is, the whole incident could turn out have little to do with PM Abdullah or his government. WP Youth Wing: YouthQuake II The Workers' Party Youth Wing takes great pleasure in inviting you to participate in an upcoming public forum as part of the YouthQuake Forum series.This forum series is into its second installment. The topic for this session focuses on how youth can propose and carry forward a refreshing new approach to transportation issues in Singapore.YouthQuake offers an excellent opportunity for Singapore youth to exchange ideas and experiences and we are confident that the forum topic will stimulate participants to debate and discuss.We thus encourage you not to miss such an occasion where you can keep pace with the pulse of today's youth in a pleasant and stimulating atmosphere and experience the dynamic nature of youth-centric issues.The details of the YouthQuake forum are as follows:Date: 7th June 2008 (Saturday)Time: 1400 hrs - 1600 hrs (please be seated by 1345 hrs)Venue: 216-G Syed Alwi Road #02-03 Singapore 207799The speakers for this event will be:Jamilah binte Md Lutfi LimJamilah, 20, will be speaking on the need for a National Public Transportation Concession Card for Singapore students up till the end of their tertiary studies.She is a graduate from Republic Polytechnic and an expressive and politically inclined youth. Her interest in politics started back in 2001, when she was exposed to the darker side of humanity, oddly captivated by the fall of the twin towers. This prompted her to immerse herself with the (then) current affairs.As she grew older, she got addicted to Philosophy as a discipline. In her free time, she likes to participate in online gaming.Living in Malaysia and traveling to Singapore daily, she is able to provide a unique perspective on Singapore politics and society vis-à-vis Malaysia’s political and social fabric.Kelvin QueeHis topic will be "Taking a closer look at Singapore's public transportation network".Kelvin is currently a final year student pursuing accountancy in Nanyang Technological University (NTU).While not balancing the books, he ventures into the Arts and Technology. He is a keen organiser and has organised a series of multi-disciplinary conferences (InteresThink.com) and a social entrepreneurship program (SYINCubate).Currently, he is running a start-up specializing in measuring opinion and influence on the Internet. More information about Kelvin can be found on his personal portal @ http://kquee.com/blog/.Alvinder SinghAlvinder, 22, will be sharing his thoughts on the viability of youth embracing a one-car policy and integrating public transportation into the daily living of a young Singaporean.He describes himself as someone who is really dynamic, often seen scaling walls, running marathons and discovering new lands. His peers have known him as an inquisitive and adventurous individual.During his national service days, he was in the ground logistics squadron and is currently an intern with Sembawang Marine Offshore Engineering. He conducts elaborate scientific experiments during his breaks and occasionally swims across the Singapore Strait.Alvinder will soon be embarking on a community project in India for 10 months. He holds to the belief that each individual is responsible for his or her community and no contribution is too small to make.In order to assist us in the organisation of this forum, kindly confirm your attendance with the WP Youth Wing at "youthwing@wp.sg" by 5th June 2008 (Thursday).Taken from http://www.wp.sg/youth/?p=35 Don't dismiss seat-belt subsidy idea for the needy Letter by Png Eng Huat to The Straits Times ForumI REFER to the reports, "Seat belts compulsory for new minibuses" last Sunday and "Ministry clarifies on school bus fare subsidy" on Monday.The Transport Ministry should not be so quick to discount the idea of giving specific assistance to needy families to cope with any increase in bus fares following the new seat-belt rule for minibuses. The ministry has implied that existing help schemes like Growth Dividends, GST credits and Workfare Income Supplement are substantial enough to help low-income families cope with such unexpected cost pressures.However, the world has changed much since these help schemes were introduced. Surely, the Government did not formulate these benefits on the basis that oil prices would hit US$127 (S$174) a barrel, inflation would reach a 26-year high of 6.7 per cent, and food prices would spike at such an unprecedented rate.The severity of the current economic crisis has even prompted the National Wages Council to recommend a one-off "inflation" bonus to help workers deal with rising costs.A $250 annual GST credit can probably offset only a fraction of what it was originally slated to do because the inflation on the ground is a lot higher than the official rate.In addition, oil at US$150 a barrel may not be a far-fetched prediction anymore.How far can a needy family stretch or juggle these benefits to meet unexpected cost pressures?I am sure the Transport Ministry, with its vast resources, can come up with a win-win arrangement to ensure school bus operators do not pass on the cost of retrofitting seat belts to needy families.Png Eng HuatAbout the author: Png Eng Huat is avid writer of letters on policy issues to local newspaper columns. Presently helping out in grassroots and welfare work of Hougang constituency, he received his education in USA and graduated with a degree before coming back to Singapore.ST, Jan 31, 2008Helping the needy not just about financial aidI REFER to the letter by Mr Png Eng Huat, "Don't make needy seek aid from multiple sources" (ST, Jan 29).Helping the needy is not just about giving them a sum of money to solve all their problems. This is because their needs typically extend beyond just financial assistance.Solving a needy person's problems requires him and his family to exercise personal and family responsibility.It requires the involvement of the many strands of our social safety net, which include community groups such as voluntary welfare organisations and grassroots organisations.The active care and concern shown by the community as well as professional interventions by social workers complement government assistance, and help the needy to overcome their difficulties. This "Many Helping Hands" approach has served us well all these years.Public assistance (PA) recipients receive three types of assistance. In addition to the monthly PA allowance, they hold a PA Card which makes them eligible for free medical treatment and heavily subsidised rental housing. They also receive utilities and services and conservancy charges rebates.Together, this should be sufficient to maintain a basic standard of living for most PA recipients.On top of this, PA recipients also receive extensive community support, such as befriending programmes, daily activities at senior activity centres, food rations, free meals, hongbao, and cash allowances.My ministry carries out regular reviews of the PA scheme, and will ensure that the provisions of the scheme remain appropriate in today's context.A needy person only needs to approach his Community Development Council, grassroots leaders or family service centres for help. He can also call ComCare Call on 1800-222 0000.Just as a patient need only let his doctor know what his symptoms are, it is not necessary for a needy person to ask for any specific scheme. The agency he approaches will help him to apply for the relevant assistance.Our social safety net is robust. The Government has the necessary assistance schemes in place, and the community actively supplements these with various programmes.For those who are truly unable to cope on their own, there are always the welfare homes that will provide shelter and food. No one needs to go hungry in Singapore. Kevin ShumDirector (ComCare and Social Support Division)Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports More and more enigmatic Anything related to the methodologies of the People's Action Party (PAP) governance is showing increasing signs of enigma.As if government policies are not complicated enough, the PAP-managed Aljunied Town Council introduces the idea of a "trash index" to deter litterbugs through higher service and conservancy (S & C) charges for dirtiest precincts.How in the world is such a policy going to be implemented?Count the number of tissue crumples and charge constituents $5 per piece?Sweep up the trash to determine how much floor space it takes up and bill $10 per square foot?Or consolidate it by void decks and weigh the damage by $20 per kilogram?Thank you for the creativity but I believe Singaporeans would not wish to pay the government higher salaries to think of new ways to make more money from them.And when more money is made, the government shows them the budget surpluses to justify its pay increases for its "ingenious" ideas and return to the drawing board for more "concoctions".It becomes a vicious cycle.Perhaps, in order to save on conservancy charges, residents of Aljunied GRC may have to "triple up", as if they do not have their own jobs already.They need to double up as police to catch litterbugs and then triple up as cleaners to avoid being taxed with higher costs.Personally, I am glad coordinating chairman of PAP town councils Dr Teo Ho Pin did not share the jest zest of Aljunied Town Council chairman Mdm Cynthia Phua.The Straits Times (Mon, 5 May 2008) dubbed this idea "the first of its kind in Singapore".First of its kind in the world, more likely.Trash the idea, please. That 'foreign object' Why a PAP MP couldn't fathom a Workers' Party statementThe Workers' Party of Singapore (WP) issued a press release on May Day 2008, signed off by organising secretary Yaw Shin Leong, calling for, in short, the interests of Singapore workers be paid attention to.The next day, People's Action Party (PAP) Member of Parliament for Yio Chu Kang SMC Seng Han Thong, who is also National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) assistant secretary-general, challenged the WP-managed Hougang Town Council (HGTC) not to hire foreigners.With due respect, the bigger challenge was to reckon how any statement could be misinterpreted to great lengths by a labour movement leader.Nothing in the statement suggested that the Singapore government should ban foreign workers or that WP did not welcome them.The WP, as far as I know, has never showed signs of xenophobia, Mr Seng.Given that the word "socialism" is enshrined in the WP's constitution, doesn't that make it a left-wing party rather than a right-wing one like Australia's One Nation Party?Since this is a challenge to stretch our imaginations, could I throw back a personal challenge to the PAP government and the NTUC to have employment only for foreigners and none for Singaporeans?Or perhaps, how about steering Singapore to become another Israel and subsequently demarcate Sentosa as the world's second Gaza Strip or West Bank?Indeed, the HGTC does not have foreign workers - but that is not the point.The point is, your foreign policy, PAP, your foreign policy.The WP is not the government and cannot administer the number of foreign workers entering the country.Everyone is aware that every country on this globe has non-citizens living in it, even closed-door ones like Cuba and North Korea.At the same time, governments implement certain criteria to limit these numbers.Singapore appears to have very lag hurdles and this is what I believe the WP is in object to.To put it in deeper perspective, even if the HGTC were to employ foreigners, it was the PAP government that let them into Singapore.Apparently, this was not understood the first time; hence the WP responded to Mr Seng with a second statement, again by Mr Yaw, reiterating its stand again.This was misunderstood once again and taken to be "a shift its position on the issue on foreigners" and the HGTC "should offer all of its work to Singaporeans and not allow its contractors to employ foreigners", according to the PAP MP.Ahem... weren't you the one who said that the HGTC should not hire foreigners and were shown it was the case, Mr Seng?Now, he extends his challenge to the contractors engaged by the HGTC.What about the idea of HGTC decreeing that Hougang constituents cannot hire foreign maids?Intriguing enough to score two misses but remarkable when the same repeated point is missed twice.Firstly, the HGTC management must be flattered to know that there are people who think they have superhuman abilities to control who their contractors can and should employ.Mr Seng did have a spot on - that foreigners are breaking the rice bowls of Singaporean workers.However, Singaporeans' rice bowls do not have to be protected by zero foreigners, Mr Seng.All that needs are lesser foreigners - and that is the point.Having 10% foreign workers and having 30% foreign workers are two different scenarios, Mr Seng.Hopefully, the WP does not need to issue a third statement.Otherwise, the continuation of rebuttals by the ruling PAP may sound more and more foreign to more and more Singaporeans. Singapore press, international rankings The verdict is out for the Singapore press again.Based on the latest "Global Press Freedom Rankings", a publication released by Freedom House, for its cover of the year 2007, the Singapore press remains stuck at the mid-hundred range among nearly 200 countries ranked annually.One can surmise that this will probably be the status quo for a long time until there is a change of government.Freedom House is a non-profit organisation that promotes democracy, political and economic freedom around the world.Founded in 1941 by Anna Eleanor Roosevelt, wife of 32nd United States president Franklin Delano Roosevelt, it is concerned with mounting threats to peace and democracy and opposes tyrannical rule, dictatorships and totalitarian regimes in the world.It also runs another publication - its flagship publication - "Freedom in the World".According to Freedom House, the Singapore press has been "awarded" 153th place, an improvement of one space up from 154th last year and as a first-world country, shares the same slot with third-world ones like Iraq and Gabon.Here is how the Singapore press fared under its microscope for previous years:FREEDOM HOUSE[www.freedomhouse.org]Global Press Freedom Rankings: Singapore2007Ranking: 154 out of 195Category: Free / Partly Free / Not FreeSame Rankings: Afghanistan, Djibouti, Gabon2006Ranking: 148 out of 194Category: Free / Partly Free / Not FreeSame Rankings: NIL2005Ranking: 139 out of 194Category: Free / Partly Free / Not FreeSame Rankings: Angola, Bhutan, Gabon, Haiti2004Ranking: 135 out of 193Category: Free / Partly Free / Not FreeSame Rankings: Armenia, Central African Republic, Maldives, Mauritania2003Ranking: 61 - 70 out of 100Category: Free / Partly Free / Not FreeSame Rankings: 27 countries2002Ranking: 61 - 75 out of 100Category: Free / Partly Free / Not FreeSame Rankings: 32 countriesNotably, apart from the little recent rise, the Singapore press' ranking has dipped over the past five years.Its status has also consistently fallen into the category of "Not Free" among three categories that include "Free" and "Partly Free".If the topmost and foot categories were simultaneous with the identifications of "first-world" and "third-world" respectively, it is safe to conclude that Singapore has "third-world press freedoms".With a "first-world government" in Singapore, or so-claimed by the PAP, it is remarkable that press freedoms here cannot achieve the "second-world" tag of "Partly Free", which would be more deserving of a ruling party that prides itself in having elections yet turn up a single-dominant-party result.Not only so, it is 21st among 40 countries with press freedoms categorised "Not Free" - right at the centre.Another international organisation that conducts such similar rankings exercise is the Reporters without Borders (RWB).Registered in France as a non-profit entity, it highlights mistreatment and torture of journalists and media assistants persecuted while in the course of carrying out their job and has consultancy status with the United Nations.Let's take a look at the RWB's past years' rankings of the Singapore press:REPORTERS WITHOUT BORDERS[www.rsf.org]Worldwide Press Freedom Index: Singapore2007: 141 out of 1692006: 146 out of 1682005: 140 out of 1672004: 147 out of 1672003: 144 out of 1662002: Not availableAccording to this one, Singapore's press freedom rankings have been fluctuating but is also positioned rather modestly.Taking a closer look, it is placed at the bottom 20% tier every year among countries ranked.First-world countries usually possess first-world press freedoms.Even many third-world countries have it.Singapore certainly enjoys this rare, dubious honour of being "first-world" while having "third-world press freedoms".Time to shape up? 'It's a volunteer job, stupid' The local media appears to be pretty engrossed with the succession plans of Chiam See Tong, opposition Member of Parliament (PM) for Potong Pasir for 24 years.Chiam, who has held onto his seat in six general elections since his first victory in 1984, is the chairman of the three-party Singapore Democratic Alliance (SDA) and secretary-general of the Singapore People's Party (SPP), SDA's leader party.The other two parties are the Singapore Justice Party and the Malay-based PKMS.He also co-founded the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) in 1980 and three of his six parliamentary bids were solicited under the SDP ticket until his departure from the party under unfortunate circumstances.His once-led main opposition party, with three Parliament seats in tow and an abundant membership, is now two small ones and between them, only one seat held by him under his present vehicle.All this no thanks to, apart from irreconcilable differences, the local media's concentrated spins.Now, the press wants to press Chiam, 73, about his successor at both party as well as ward levels, running stories and interviews on several occasions, the latest being the Sunday Times feature dated 27 April 2008, "State of Chiam's health not a worry for many", as if alluding his due for retirement.They should shift their focus on Minister Mentor and former Prime Minister (PM) Lee Kuan Yew instead, who remains 20 years after the last of his old-guard colleagues from the first cabinet retired in the eighties.The present third-generation PAP leadership says the ruling party is now entering its fourth generation and renewing while they are gradually replaced - and there is someone from the first generation.Comparing a minister at 36 and 85 years old now and an MP at 49 and 73 years old now, who would one impress to have overstayed longer?Chiam's age leaves him at most on par with the second-generation PAP of Senior Minister and another former PM Goh Chok Tong, 67.This is not to express that in opposition politics, one can cut that much slack but it is not an issue worth this much scrutiny either.Truly, does the ilk we have in the reporting confines naively think that grooming a successor, where Singapore opposition politics is concerned, is an enviable task?Unlike the salaried, and highly salaried to add, PAP ministers, the inheritance of Chiam's legacy is purely voluntary despite entailing heavy responsibilities.Even if one were to raise the point that Chiam receives an allowance as an MP, his potential successor understudying him does not.Ministers of state, on the other hand, are buffered by comfortable wages while learning the ropes before they proceed up into the cabinet ministerial level.Moreover, his legatee is not privy to an absolute guarantee of being elected and the electorate, traditionally giving the PAP more benefit of doubt, makes the undertaking of the former a graver gamble than PAP candidates.To paraphrase the famous jingle "It's the economy, stupid" that arose in 1992 from the Bush-versus-Clinton US presidential election campaign, this one's for the local media: "It's a volunteer job, stupid". WP Youth Wing: YouthQuake Announcement at request of The WP Youth WingThe Workers' Party Youth Wing is pleased to invite you to participate in the first of our YouthQuake Forums and partake in a discussion on how youths in Singapore can be encouraged to adopt and carry forward a refreshing new agenda on voting age.This forum session seeks to educate, empower and unite young people to bring youth-centric issues into the forefront of public discourse. It aims to provide an opportunity for youths to share their insights and opinions on promoting a vote @ 18 agenda in Singapore.The first YouthQuake Forum will be held on:Date: 3rd May 2008 (Saturday)Time: 1400 hrs - 1600 hrs (please be seated by 1345 hrs)Venue: 216-G Syed Alwi Road #02-03 Singapore 207799The three speakers for this event are:Choo Zheng XiZheng Xi will be speaking on the pros and cons of a vote @ 18 agenda.He is a second-year student at the NUS Law Faculty and was the youngest speaker to make his case at the Speakers' Corner, taking to the soapbox in 2000 at the age of 14. His activism has since refined but he is no less passionate about youth involvement in the public sphere. He organised the Myanmar Peace Awareness Day on all local campuses on August 2007. This involved public forums, red ribbon and armband distribution and public petition signing.He is also the owner and Editor of theonlinecitizen.com, a local online news and social commentary website with an established readership. He is currently involved in a blogger's project to craft a position paper on deregulation to be submitted to the government. He looks forward to a day when youth involvement in public discourse will be the norm rather than the exception.Bernadette TanBernadette says, "A vote @ 18 agenda is more than a political issue. It's a core social issue." She is 17 this year.Formerly from Methodist Girls' School (MGS), she is currently in her first year at Anglo-Chinese Junior College (ACJC). In MGS, she represented the school in a variety of debating competitions. Now in ACJC, she has continued her career as an orator, having already represented the school in the National Forensics League, an American oratory competition.She is the eldest daughter of Eric Tan, a WP East Coast GRC candidate in the 2006 General Election.Anne Tan(Bernadette's younger sister, she is speaking on Bernadette's behalf as the latter has some unforeseen last-minute commitments.)Anne is 17 this year. Formerly from Methodist Girls School (MGS), she is currently in her first year at Anglo-Chinese Junior College (ACJC).In MGS, she represented the school in a variety of debating competitions. Now in ACJC, she has continued her career as a debater and has already represented ACJC at the National Debating Championship.She is the second daughter of Eric Tan, the WP East Coast GRC candidate in 2006.Khairulanwar ZainiKhairulanwar will be touching on the double standards adopted in Singapore of doing national service @ 18 while voting @ 21.He is willingly defending the nation although he would be glad to be deprived of the honour for the next remaining ten months. He remains a silent sideline observer of the socio-political landscape in Singapore, sporadically becoming outraged at certain political developments and even more sporadically writes about opposition development at http://burningrepublicstate.wordpress.com/.A liberal at heart, he awaits the day a Singaporean politician will campaign on themes of hope and love.We look forward to seeing you create a stir at YouthQuake!Taken from http://www.wp.sg/youth/?p=36 Not taking heat, so take heed Two days ago in Parliament, Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng released a ministerial statement on the Committee of Inquiry's (COI) findings surrounding Internal Security Act (ISA) detainee Mas Selamat Kastari's escape from the Whitley Detention Centre.About time it came.Mas Selamat, 47, who was suspected of being part of a terrorist movement and placed under preventive detention since March 2006, took flight two years later on 27 February 2008, nearly two months ago.On to the COI report, one point in its five-page executive summary does not add up.There does not appear to be any tap in the cubicle where the two urinals were; in fact, the second guard was standing next to the only washbasin featured in the pictorials disclosed in local newspapers.Where did the sound of gushing water come from?Or was it the sound of water flowing within the rampart of one of the urinals after flushing?Whatever the case, this is a question that can be asked again in the next course.Apart from the above, everything else appears to be coherent, never mind that a particular entity, unable to differentiate between 11 minutes and 49 seconds and supports invasions of prisoners' privacies, poses a contrary response.Yesterday, it was Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's turn to address the issue.Not unpredictably, he rejected the calls made by some Singaporeans for Minister Wong to take responsibility for the security oversight and step down.He expressed that "ministers should not be automatically removed or punished just because a lapse has occurred down the line", saying this was "an easy way out for ministers and leaders to... resign to appease an angry public" but "will not fundamentally solve the problem".In my view, PM Lee failed to see one point: Singapore ministers are the highest paid in the world.Logically speaking, the echelon of accountability has to be higher in tandem, no?In others countries where ministers do not receive astronomical salaries like their Singapore counterparts, they have been seen to step down even for mistakes they were not directly involved in or did not concern national interests.Few examples, in Asia alone, are:1) Japan PM Shinzo Abe resigning over his party's dipped electoral performance.2) Thailand finance minister Pridiyathorn Devakula resigning over widespread criticisms that his policies dismayed foreign investors.3) East Timor PM resigning over violence that erupted in the capital of Dili.4) Malaysia health minister Chua Soi Lek resigning over a sex tape.The PM should also note that the Mas Selamat incident has not been the only blunder on the part of officials related to the Ministry of Home Affairs.Took Leng How, the infamous murderer of eight-year-old Huang Na, managed to walk past the Singapore Customs unfettered and undetected.They also came too late to prevent former National Kidney Foundation Chairman Richard Yong from leaving Singapore to Hong Kong, before he was extradited back by the Hong Kong police.Now that Minister Wong stays put and the PM has not agreed to the suggestion of a minister to take the heat, a stand the rest of the cabinet would probably echo, the task of "sending off" Minister Wong has to be the voters.The people have a choice to send him a signal if he faces a contest at the next general election (GE), or if he continues with a walkover streak like in the past five GEs (he had faced contest only in his first GE in 1984 in Kuo Chuan SMC out of the six he participated in), his other cabinet colleagues.In the meantime, it is perhaps time for interested citizens to consider changing the call to: Minister Wong should take a pay cut.Like, a big pay cut.One proposal is for him to take a pay cut of 90% with effect from this month - April 2008 - the beginning of a financial year of Singapore government.As Deputy Prime Minister, he should be drawing about $2.4 million per year.The aggregate of a 90% salary dock would equate to about $240,000 per year or $20,000 per month, maintaining adequate for comfort, nonetheless.In addition, his performance bonus for the financial year ending 31 March 2008 should be fully forfeited, since Mas Selamat's exodus was in this period.Should this idea be taken up, the government, the PAP, its sympathisers and grassroots hands in Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC will keep his presence while the dissatisfaction of those against high ministerial salaries, the PAP in anything or supporters of opposition parties may be allayed to at least a little extent.Will they take this heed for a pay cut if taking the heat to resign does not seem to be as easy as "the easy way out" said? The PAP's new 100 The ruling People's Action Party (PAP) has identified about a hundred potential candidates to be fielded in the next general election (GE) due in 2011.This, according to minister and PAP's recruitment co-ordinator Dr Ng Eng Hen but he was non-committal when asked if Singapore's fourth prime minister (PM) will be among them.Based on various interviews with PM Lee Hsien Loong and several ministers, the PAP's search for Singapore's next PM appears to be moving up to the "red" levels.Political observers may discern why.PM Lee is 56 years old.He became PM at 52.Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore's first PM at 36, stepped down when he was 67.Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, his successor who became PM at 49, gave way to PM Lee when he was 63.MM Lee handed the position over to person 18 years younger than him, a time length enough to hold four GEs.SM Goh handed over to a person 13 years younger, time enough for three GEs.PM Lee's successor needs to be at the very least ten years younger in about ten years' time, in order for the PAP to avoid the prospect of a very short-term PM.However, difficult to believe as it may, there is no one in his present cabinet of the "suitable" age.Among 19 full ministers and acting ministers excluding him, only five or merely nearly one quarter are younger than him - and none by at least ten years.Environment and Water Resources Minister Dr Yaacob Ibrahim is only a year younger.The youngest ministers are Dr Vivian Balakrishnan and Gan Kim Yong, both seven years his junior.The last two are Raymond Lim and Tharman Shanmugaratnam, who are five years behind.Handing over the reins to even one of these four means the successor would have only about two GEs before the hunt for the fifth PM will be on again.Hence, these interviews could be a "rally call" to the talents they deem to join them.To digress a little, "anti-PAP" netizens probably can rest assured that virtually all of their most "hated" ministers are not eligible to become PM, as it is unlikely for a PAP PM to hand over to someone older.As for the PAP ministers of state, only three heralded a "fast climb" and were appointed into their office within two years after the 2006 GE - and all fulfill the age criteria.They are Grace Fu (42), Lee Yi Shyan (44) and RAdm (NS) Lui Tuck Yew (44).One would expect the future PM not to be "stuck" in a minister of state or backbench post for more than three years.Both PM Lee and his predecessor SM Goh became a full minister three years upon joining politics.Should none of the four become full minister by 2009, it will be unlikely they will be the "shortlist" ones for PM.Therefore, from the PAP's point of view, the matter of the fourth PM among the 100 is too important to be an uncertainty.Rather, in a "by-hook-or-by-crook" situation, the future PM has to be from the new batch - or the ruling party could face a leadership crisis.Now, the next question is, why is it that despite the top national post being the highest paid one in the world, no one wants the job?If Singapore had legislation as seen in the United States where the president can only sit through up to two four-year terms, wouldn't the PAP or Singapore - depending on which one sees the problem belonging to - be in trouble?There wouldn't be enough different talents to fill those shoes every eight years.PAP sympathisers may put forth that the PM of Singapore plays a more critical role than the president of US as the former is a small country without natural resources and with a smaller population, it would comprise a smaller pool of talent.Is this argument a valid one?As mentioned previously, other reasons for this have to be involved, since US is also a country where the people are generally comfortable.Another new angle can be examined - the absence of rotation.Alone, in the tenure of MM Lee was PM that spanned 31 years from 1959 to 1990 saw nine US presidents over the same period.In a time of 31 years, many potential Singapore PMs would have come and gone, those that the PAP failed to catch.Perhaps it is time for all, government, opposition and the people, to consider the idea of limiting the term of the PM position to a maximum of two or three GE terms. One biggest meal What's the most you remember having eaten in one single meal?As a teenager, I had quite a voracious appetite despite my gaunt frame.Once, during my secondary school days, there was this BBQ I helped co-organise.I remember "walloping" two plates of fried rice, more than 20 chicken wings, more than 100 satay sticks, about 30 fish balls and at least seven other items that night, including stingray meat and sweet potatoes.Till today, I can't figure how I could stomach that much.These days, whenever at BBQs, I stick largely to beer and smoke.On another occasion - just after completing secondary school education - I went with a couple of friends to a Mongolian buffet restaurant at Park Mall.I remember making about 11 trips up and down the buffet table and cook corner, with a plate full of food each time until my friends got worried.Years ago in a previous employment where I had just started work, my department manager of a tall, broad physique (and is a well-known personality in the finance industry) requested my help to get him two Whopper meals from Burger King at lunchtime.Naturally, I impressed they were for him and some other colleague, perhaps the deputy manager.Apparently, it was not the case - he ate both meals himself. Adventures in a food street A food reporter was tasked to write an article on any stall in a particular food street and went down to survey.He strolled along until arriving at one mixed food stall where there was a small crowd gathering around it. Curious, he joined in and saw this cook who was displaying his culinary skills in a spectacular manner. He flipped a fish half-a-metre high from a spatula in his left hand and caught the fish on a plate in his right hand.Next, he spun the plate around his finger before tossing it onto a table with his customer without it breaking. The audience were impressed and applauded every time he finished a stunt.The report saw this was and was impressed. He decided to order some dishes and found it didn't taste too bad. While eating, the memory of the cook's performance was still fresh in his mind and he also found the stall number - 8008 - easy to remember.After he finished his food and interviewed the cook, he left. As he continued, he saw a middle-aged man running another mixed food stall. The stall, number 5711, looked normal like the other stalls and he did not pay much attention except noting that this stall also had a sizeable queue.When he returned to office, he started on the draft and came up with the headline "Best Food Stall in Food Street". On second thoughts, to attract readers' attention, he added the word "Real" to make it "Real Best Food Stall in Food Street".Two days later, the reporter was summoned by the editor. Apparently, the magazine received complaints from members of the public, taking issue with the article's headline. According to them, who were regular patrons of the food street, stall 5711 was the one that sold tastier food.The reporter was taken aback by the unexpected negative response. He suddenly remembered stall 5711 being the only other mixed food stall in the food street. He decided to check it out and drove down again during lunchtime.There, the reporter immediately headed to stall 5711 and queued up for a while before getting his food. He picked up a piece of chicken and put it into his mouth. A pleasant feeling engulfed his taste buds. "Wow!" he thought. The chicken melted smoothly in his mouth. He tried out the fish. "Wow!" he thought again. The fish was the best he had eaten in his life. The reporter realised that the complaints were valid indeed.From then on, the reporter became a regular patron of 5711 for its food but every time, would choose to sit near stall 8008 to watch the cook's stunts as he ate. He realised some time later that there were others who did the same. However, he would occasionally packet some food from stall 8008 just to support the performer's stall and help keep it alive.He also made friends with many regular customers of 5711 who had been eating its food for years. On the other hand, he realised that 8008 did not have many customers who returned more than once or for long to make friends with.Moral of the story:Food cooked through stunt performances may not taste better. Our 'brain drain' terrain A collection of questions came to mind when reading excerpts of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's interview with the Straits Times yesterday (Mon, 7 Jan 2008) on Singapore's brain drain.For the first time, as far as recalled, the "brain drain" problem was in blatant context to political renewal, in contrast to retention of homegrown talents for economic advantage in previous times.Is politics the reason for "brain drain"?In the interview, PM Lee commented that "brain drain" affects political renewal.In the first place, was political inertia the reason for "brain drain"?If so, the chicken may have to be placed before the egg instead of the egg before the chicken.Politically speaking, there is validity in claims that the more politically "neutered" a nation, the less the people feel rooted to their country.This could be because the less citizens see themselves as a stimulus in a bigger process, no matter how little, or have the ability to improve the status quo, the less they feel an affective motivation to do so.Perhaps, it is time that mindset changes are due.The ruling party's leaders and members should accept political renewal as a process for various political contenders, although not expected of them to facilitate but at the same time not hinder.Yes, which means political renewal in the Workers' Party, the SDA, the NSP or others ought to become a module of the PAP's political renewal jargon.What matters is that Singapore benefits, not the PAP.In return, more electoral choices and opportunities will be created and harvested, leading to a more politicised (but not over-politicised) citizenry voluntary to embark the political journey, notwithstanding the tribulations that come with public life.However, the buck does not stop there and a minuscule dash of politicising the people should not end with mere electoral participation.Steps should be taken to reduce the red tape within the public service as much further more as possible, which still exists and reduces flexibility of decision-makers.Next, avenues for political participation should be further broadened and generally, no one would disagree that there is much more room to as much as it entails responsibility.This includes civil activism and political advertising and not making political parties exceptions.Civil movements have been known to be breeding and training platforms for the aspirations of future politicians.Examples of former role-players in non-governmental organisations entering politics are Workers' Party candidate James Gomez, who once headed the Think Centre, and PAP minister Raymond Lim who was an office-bearer in the now-defunct The Roundtable.Is progress the reason for "brain drain"?The term "progress" refers to progress for a pool of individuals whom the PAP believes became successful under the system they established and wants to rope them in.Under this governance, they became well-to-do and are able to send their children off shores to pursue an education, of which many did not return.The fact that a chunk of them have decided not to the buffer-up this same system they were beneficiaries of by contributing to the political-electoral process raises eyebrows.Ironically, the opportunity to an overseas stint others could only dream of exposed them to environments and prospects they deemed more apt for themselves and settled for, in addition to discerning that the present mode will be kept by a dominant PAP they do not need to interfere in.Is reward not addressing "brain drain"?Pay well to attract talent.This was the PAP's toed line every time it raised ministers' salaries, on more than four counts in the last ten years, generating a controversy and debate each time.And the pros and cons of this approach have been overwhelming debated at all four corners over the same period.On the other hand, PM Lee's reply appears to be a tacit admission that high pay have failed to arrest this problem.Hence, the only other conclusion is, there has to be something else.According to Workers' Party Secretary-General and Hougang MP Low Thia Khiang in 2007, who should agree that other factors had been at play, ex-civil servants who left found their jobs "not the best fit" or "were drawn by the different challenges and new experiences, more so than by the money".He expressed that "the earlier the government comes to terms with this, the better for the people of Singapore".Is foreign talent (or "talent") not addressing "brain drain"?Singapore, not unlike other countries, has been admitting foreign talent or "talent" (depending on how one qualifies another) for a time.Back in 1999, during the economic downturn, now-retired PAP MP for Ayer Rajah, Dr Tan Cheng Bock, brought this topic into the parliamentary limelight.He had called for the government to stem the tide of foreigners entering the country as more retrenchments surfaced and professionals began to lose their jobs in a shrinking labour market, a call supported by opposition MP Chiam See Tong.The question is, should Singaporeans have ministers who are not Singaporeans?Will loyalties and hence, security, be compromised?Or compromise more the ambitions of those local who have them?What if the foreign talents "imported" in by the PAP government were not talents?How would they perform as ministers?At the end of the day, the rummage for good fourth-generation ministers encompass extrinsic factors and if the PAP maintains its intrinsic outlook, the snag becomes a bigger hit than what it could have been. One old saying One old saying often turns out to be true... never judge a book by its cover.Take the recently-concluded Taiwan presidential election for example.This saw a straight contest between two candidates from the two majority parties, Ma Ying-jeou of the Kuomintang (KMT) and Frank Hsieh Chang-ting of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).At 57, the charismatic Ma possesses a youthful, exuberant and striking disposition, and speaks very fluent English; he was also KMT chairman at one point of time.In 1998, he even unseated then-mayor of Taipei, Chen Shui-bian, despite the latter's high approval ratings, and replaced him as new mayor (Chen later became Taiwan's president).On the other hand, Hsieh is chiefly less imposing in appearance and spoke coarsely.Bespectacled and stubby, he is 61 years old and four years Ma's senior but looks much older; formerly Taiwan's premier until DPP's election losses in 2005, he previously served as Kaohsiung mayor.At one point, it was even reported that Hsieh had to stand on a wooden box to match Ma's height when the televised debates between the two candidates kicked off.However, when the exchanges started to roll, the quick-witted Hsieh proved to be a heavy mantle for the mild-mannered Ma.Although the glimpses of the debates I caught were little, I gathered that Hsieh had delivered a handful of more painful, vote-gaining blows to Ma than the reverse.By a time later, I had the opinion that while Ma's ultimate triumph seemed certain, Hsieh would not fare too badly with a disadvantage of about 40% to 60%.Initial opinion polls drew results in the range of about 75% for Ma against 25% for Hsieh.As polling day drew close, the balance shifted towards 65% against 35%.Indeed, the results after polling were within my estimation and slightly narrower than what I had expected.The popular Ma walked away with a below-expected 58% of the votes while his opponent garnered nearly 42%; nevertheless, bringing the country's top seat back to the KMT again after eight years.Although the margin is the widest in two presidential elections, past candidates Chen and KMT's Lien Chan were of relatively equal "weight".Those also marked new eras for an opposition party coming into power, in which such situations often saw victors emerge by a mere safe whisker.Also, looking back at Taiwan's elections history brings to mind the larger landslides won by former long-time dignitary Lee Teng-hui, who never failed to maintain a lead of at least 30% over other contestants.Personally, I think Hsieh did well to progressively inch the gap closer and gave his opponent a good fight, despite the "Ma appeal" and the DPP marred by several years of poor-performing governance under President Chen. Same action, different reaction One afternoon, it was pouring very heavily and an old man was struggling to prevent the umbrella in his hands from succumbing to the strong winds while he walked.Next to the pavement he was walking on was a wide monsoon drain with brimming water torrents.Along the way, the old man saw a lady who was facing the same challenge and moreover, was holding onto the hand of a little boy.Suddenly, the boy slipped and fell into the monsoon drain.The lady started screaming, "Save my son! Please! Somebody help!"A young man saw this and jumped into the drain in an attempt to save him.He managed to lift the boy from the torrents to the safety of some passer-bys but as the currents were too strong, coupled with the man's weight, they were unable to pull him up and he was swept away.The old man remarked to himself, "What a brave lad! Let's hope he'll be all right; it'll be sad if such a good man loses his life."After watching the aftermath for a time, he continued his walk while the weather remained bad.Several steps later, the old man encountered another lady who was trying to tweak out something from her purse while desperately holding onto her umbrella.A coin emerged between her fingers but it unexpectedly dropped, rolled and plopped into the monsoon drain.She exclaimed, "There goes my one dollar!"Another young man who witnessed the incident jumped into the monsoon drain, intending to retrieve the coin for her.No only did he not succeed (the coin would have sunk to the bottom), he was swept away by the currents.The lady and some passer-bys looked in the direction of the drain, too stupefied by the man's action to think about saving him.The old man remarked to himself, "What a stupid lad! One dollar only what, risk losing his life for what?"Moral of the story:Two actions may be similar but it does not mean they will both be received with equal appreciation or opinion. Why S'poreans aren't bus captains Comments by Png Eng Huat to The Straits Times ForumFor some strange reason, this job pays only $5.33 an hour.MR PNG ENG HUAT, who argues that local bus operators will not need to hire bus drivers from China on the cheap if operators offer better working conditions to attract Singaporeans. An entry-level bus captain earns only $1,600 a month, works 10 to 12 hours a day, six days a week, without a fixed rest day. He must start at 4am for the morning shift, and goes home at 2am or later if he is on the night shift. The work is stressful because a momentary lapse can lead to potential loss of lives.For all that, Mr Png calculates, the job pays a paltry $5.33 an hour ($1,600 divided by 30 days and divided again by 10 hours per work shift).About the author: Png Eng Huat is avid writer of letters on policy issues to local newspaper columns. Presently helping out in grassroots and welfare work of Hougang constituency, he received his education in USA and graduated with a degree before coming back to Singapore. WP members visit Penang and DAP From 2 to 4 March 2008, members of the Workers' Party of Singapore visited Pulau Pinang to observe Malaysia for their 2008 General Election hustings.Organised by WP Youth Wing members Shaun Lee and myself, the trip took us to the Democratic Action Party's (DAP) Penang office at Jalan Talipon in Georgetown, as well as their rallies in the evening.The DAP is the main opposition party in Malaysia's Federal Parliament.For all of us, this was the first-time meeting with our opposition counterpart although not the first such unofficial group visit by WP members.In September 2006, WP Organising Secretary Yaw Shin Leong, Council Member Lee Wai Leng and other WP members dropped by DAP's headquarters in Petaling Jaya, Selangor for a two-day visit (1).DAP origins began in 1963 as the Malaysian headquarters of the Singapore-based PAP until 1965 when Singapore left the Federation to become independent.As the PAP no longer had legal status in Malaysia, remnant members of the Malaysia component re-registered the party with the Malaysian authorities as the DAP in 1966, now recognised as its founding year.The new party's logo was essentially the same as the PAP's except for the replacement of the red lightning with a red rocket.Not long later, then Singapore prime minister Lee Kuan Yew realised that the continued presence and participation in Malaysian politics by Devan Nair, its only Member in the Federal Parliament (Bangsar) and who later became President of Singapore, will cast a shadow over the relationship between the two countries.When his term ended, Devan Nair returned to Singapore, paving the way for Lim Kit Siang to take over as secretary-general.The latter held the post for 30 years and remains one of the most prominent opposition leaders in Malaysia and his son, Lim Guan Eng, is now the party's secretary-general.Candidates and members of the DAP cordially welcomed us to Malaysia and Penang and our stay as observers for the Malaysian GE.Despite their busy schedules, we met and spoke to several candidates including DAP Penang supremo Chow Kon Yeow (defending his Tanjong parliament seat awhile also running for the Padang Kota state seat) and renowned Malaysian blogger Jeff Ooi, who is contesting the parliamentary seat of Jelutong.We also met up with Liew Chin Tong (Bukit Bendera parliament seat), a personal friend whom I first got to know when he visited Singapore and the WP in 2006 and who is DAP's chief strategist for this GE, Ng Wei Aik (Komtar state seat) and Koay Teng Hai (Pulau Tikus state seat), all whom had met the WP's first group in 2006.Ng, who also happens to be political secretary to the secretary-general, told us that the candidates would be raising issues on the economy, specifically that of the rising cost of living, the need to reinvigorate the sluggish Penang economy, curb corruption and contain the spiralling crime rate.The recent internecine squabbles within the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition's Gerakan party over the Penang Chief Minister position has also emerged as a hot election topic.However, Ng said they would avoid racial and religious issues to as far as possible because, while those could win them votes, they were sensitive and could spark unrest.Koay is running against BN and Gerakan heavyweight Datuk Teng Hock Nan, widely-tipped to be the next Penang Chief Minister, in the state seat of Pulau Tikus.While publicly acknowledging that he faces an uphill battle to unseat Datuk Teng, he came across as a really sincere, hardworking, humble person destined for greater things.Not only is he capable of making fiery but credible speeches, he also understands the matters that are close to the hearts of the people, their needs and aspirations.He possesses a genuine touch for the common man and woman on the street and this might just be what it takes to tip the balance in his and the DAP's favour.At a rally at the Cheah Association, we encountered DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng, who arrived towards the end after hopping over another three rallies.He is running for both parliament (Air Puteh) and state (Bagan) seats in Penang and this will be his first general election since sitting out a five-year disqualification, which ended recently.It is understood that on 4 March 2008, Shin Leong also made a courtesy call to the DAP Perak chief Ngeh Koo Ham, who is defending in his Sitiawan state seat and fighting for the Beruas parliament seat (2).Like the DAP, the WP is a party of considerable historical background and the lacking number of seats both parties occupy in their parliaments hinder their ability to change policies.Nevertheless, with the odds stacked against them, such as "phantom voters" and the recent decision of the Electoral Commission to withdraw the use of indelible ink for the upcoming General Election in Malaysia, the use of "sweeteners" such as the announcement of mega infrastructural projects and upgrading-priority tactics in Singapore, both continue to participate in the electoral process of their respective countries by contesting elections while calling for improvements at the same time.For this trip, we learnt many aspects of campaigning, although not everything would be applicable in a Singapore election due to different legal structures on both sides of the causeway.References (from Yaw Shin Leong @ WP):(1) Visit to Malaysia Parliament HouseDinner with DAP Organising SecretaryVisit to DAP Headquarters(2) Courtesy Call to DAP Perak ChiefExclusive photos:A banner calling on voters to vote for DAP in both parliament and state levelThere are campaign trucks but also campaign cars such as this one, no longer seen in Singapore electionsKoay Teng Hai at the Cheah Association election rallyMany people, even those on their motorcycles, stopped by to greet Lim Guan Eng after the rallyLiew Chin Tong's election poster above Teng Hock Nan's… signifying DAP's triumph over BN A carpenter and a blacksmith A long time ago, in a northern province of China, a carpenter, being the only one in the village, was not only very proud of his choice of trade but also boasting and arrogant about it, although he often produced shoddy work, fleeced his customers and was rude to them.His immediate neighbour, a blacksmith, often became a subject of his taunts. There were 19 blacksmiths in the village, since this place has traditionally produced people in the blacksmith trade for decades, with the younger generation taking over the older.The carpenter, whose father was a blacksmith himself but he decided not to follow suit, made more money than even the highest-earning blacksmith in the village. What he did not know was that the blacksmith, whose father was similarly in the trade, had carpenter skills too but wanted to continue the family trade.One day, a good friend of the blacksmith needed to fix a leg of a table in his house. He happened to visit the blacksmith and told him about his table.The blacksmith suggested that he go to the carpenter to get it fixed. His friend, who knew and disliked the carpenter for his oft pokes at his blacksmith friend, commented, "Well, I would not go to him if I had a choice! Why don't you do it for me? I know you have carpenter skills."The blacksmith said, "Yes, but I don't have the tools (he chose not to buy them). He's the only carpenter officially in the trade around," and brought him to see the carpenter.When they met the carpenter and told him of the matter, the latter turned to the blacksmith and remarked, "See, he's your friend but in the end, you can't help him and I have to be the one to do so!"Seething, the blacksmith's friend remarked, "Well, you're the carpenter, not him. Why compare that way?"The carpenter retorted, "Well, you're his friend, not mine," before leaving with him to his house.A few months later, barbarians attacked China and war broke out. The emperor told the premier to summon about 20 of the best blacksmiths in the country to make weapons for the army. Having heard of the reputation of the blacksmiths in this village, the premier summoned all 19 of them.After the blacksmiths met the premier, the latter realised he had forgotten to summon carpenters to construct the weapon handles. The blacksmith whom had carpenter skills volunteered to make them.The entire project took about three months. When the time was up, the 19 blacksmiths returned to their village, each carrying with them their reward of a chest of gold that contained what the carpenter would take more than 10 years to earn.The blacksmith headed back to his shop and was welcomed by his good friend waiting there. The blacksmith happily showed the gold to his friend. From afar, the carpenter secretly watched them enviously as they cheered over it.The friend saw the carpenter peeking at them and yelled from afar, "If you could make weapons, you'll also have been rich like him!"Embarrassed, the carpenter told the friend, "Well, he's the blacksmith, not me. Why compare that way?"Moral of the story:Comparing apples and oranges is bad enough; however, there is even comparing apples and oranges on some days and same fruits on other days, whenever the occasion suits. Fishy! A famous restaurant chef had two disciples, one of them whom he favoured over the other because of something unrelated to cooking - their common interest for soccer, which he liked immensely and matches they watch from a TV in the kitchen.In fact, he disliked the other disciple because of his interest in tennis, which he intensely dislike but the former would switch to at times.One day, it was time for the chef to promote one of the two cooks to deputy chef and he decided to organise a contest between them. The topic of the test - steamed fish.Secretly, not being able to give hold on his biased emotions, he hoped to promote the cook who liked soccer as it would give them more opportunity to work together and discuss soccer.And so the two cooks started on to work and completed their tasks. However, a kitchen-helper mixed up the name labels of the two cooks, switching them by mistake.The cook who liked soccer suddenly remembered that he had forgotten to add one ingredient and did so, while the cook who liked tennis had already done so. Neither knew that the chef did not like the taste of this ingredient. And so, the fish of the cook who liked soccer ended up with too much of this ingredient.The chef entered the kitchen for food tasting and tried out the fish in front of the cook who liked tennis. Not bad, he thought, but he had made up his mind anyway. Without that ingredient, the fish tasted just superb to him. But he pretended to put up a solemn face, slightly shaking his head.Next, he went on to the fish in front of the cook who liked soccer. At the first taste, he choked and wanted to spit out what he ate but because of his plan to promote this cook and dreading a future of fighting over the TV with the other cook, he swallowed the morsel and smiled, saying "mmmmm!", with tears in his eyes.Later, he announced the results and his decision - the cook who liked soccer will be promoted to deputy chef.Moral of the story:With prejudice, everything against anything counts; what matters is not how the fish tastes but who likes the cook.