Goodbye conformityisdead! Hi everyone. Thank you for visiting my blog. I have moved!My blog can now be found on SingaporepoliticsA new look, a fresher perspective. !!Copyright © 2006 Union of Concerned Singaporeans, Inc. All rights reserved. Budget 2007: No Western-style welfare In his Chinese New Year message, PM Lee Hsien Loong urged Singaporeans to keep the family unit strong and healthyHe cited a disturbing trend: more elderly Singaporeans living on their ownPM Lee elaborated, "But young families must also stay in touch with ageing parents and visit them regularly or, better still, stay with them ...... No institution or old folks' home can replace the love and warmth of family members, nor can the government."Singapore must avoid the pitfalls of Western-style welfare, where generous state benefits for the jobless and elderly have weakened the family unit. With the provision of Western-style welfare, family members often feel little responsibility to care for one another. Have we asked ourselves why are Singaporeans not wiling to cater to the needs of their parents. Does this trend coincide with Singaporeans not willing to have more babies? I think maybe it is. Having one more elderly in a typical family unit of 4 persons means having an additional mouth to feed. With a rising cost of living (the monthly household expenditure has increased at a greater extent than the increase in personal monthly income), whereby everything around us seems to be rising in cost, it is no surprise Singaporeans are less willing to cater to their parents and having an additional child. In budget 2007, the government introduced the Senior Citizens Bonus. With an ageing population, how long can the government finance the Senior Citizen Bonus? The chances of Senior Citizen Bonus being a permanent feature of Singapore's society is very slim, since the government has made its stand vey clear. No Western-style welfare. But at the end of the day, when the family unit is unable to finance the needs of its elderly, the government has to come in and played its role. The following could well sum up the entire phenonmenon. "When I can't even feed my wife and children, how am I going to feed my father and mother? I don't even have enough money to put them up in an old folks' home. I think they have to stay out on their own. Occasionally, I will provide them with cash when the government gives me some money.My dad's CPF had been depleted financing for his home. He now no longer have much CPF left."Pardon the ignorance of a 21 year old youth, but I suppose some form of welfare to cushion the increasing cost of living will help. At the end of the day, looking after my parents is my own sacred responsibility. I should not push this responsibiity to the government. But a helping hand along the way will be appreciated. Copyright © 2006 Union of Concerned Singaporeans, Inc. All rights reserved. Budget 2007: More money for the government, less money for the needy In this Year of the Golden Pig, Singaporeans could hardly have asked for a more lavish lunar New Year present that what they got in the Budget presented in parliament by Second Finance Minister for Finance Tharmun Shanmugaratnam.Singaporeans couldn’t have asked for a more generous budget!Before Singaporeans get drowned in a chorus of praise and appreciation for the compassionate nature of the governement, I would also like to declare my support for the institutionalisation of workfare.The Workfare Income Supplement(WIS) provides help to self-reliant Singaporeans who may not be able to cope in today’s globalised world.However, before everyone starts jumping on the bandwagon hailing the budget as a generous budget with an eye for the future, I would like to damper Singaporeans’ festive mood and the “feel good feeling” hanging over our heads. (sorry for being a wet blanket)There was much hype prior to the announcement of this year’s budget, mainly because of PM Lee announcement that GST will be raised from 5% to 7%. The government’s justification for this increase lies in their determination to combat the problem of a widening income gap and an investment into the future. Fair enough argument? I believe Singaporeans are in general satisfied with this justification.2007: “Is is beter to take your medicine sooner or later to stretch it out? And do you want to take medicine once or two times? I prefer to take my medicine early.But I witness Singaporeans taking their medicine in 2004/5 and antibodies in 1994. Economy good raise GST, Economy bad also raise GST. There doesn’t seem to be any logic behind this.A closer look will tell us why. In 1994, the GST was introduced for the first time. Interestingly enough, it was a strategic move to shift our tax burden from direct taxation to indirect taxation. With this mind, the ruling government started cutting its corporate tax rate to its current rate of 18% and increase GST from 3% to 7%. It’s an ongoing long term policy move and the state of the economy only serve to justify the increase. (economy bad: must bite the bullet to restructure, economy good: better increase our resilience fast or we will lose the chance)Thus, I believe that the GST tax rate will eventually increase to a rate of 10 -12%. In fact, a 15% GST rate is not that impossible after all, if one takes into consideration the marcoeconomic objectives of the government.I forsee more misery and hardship for lower income Singaporeans! But hasn’t the government promised to help them in Budget’07. Come on. It’s worth noting that the Workfare Income Supplement scheme is a major policy change. For the first time, the state will be supplementing the market wages that low-wage workers receive. Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew is expecting Singapore’ income gap will narrow in the future.2015: Look here, Singaporeans, our income gap has narrowed significantly since 2007, when we boldly took the move to increase GST to 7%, and subsquently 10%. The time is right to increase the GST rate to 15%!. I prefer to take my medicine now.With an increase in GST from 5% to 7%, the Singapore government will be raking in $4.9billion worth of tax revenue. However only $200million will be spent on workfare. (4% of total tax revenues from GST!) Spending an additional $200 million on tops ups to post-secondary education accountis that much either. This speaks volume of their determination to establish workfare as a pillar of support and helping the poor to climb up the social ladder.Will $200million a year help solve the widening income gap phenonmenon in Singapore?In the first place, I believe the government has the capability to finance $200million of workfare on a yearly basis, with a tax rate of 5%.The government would not have to give out $530million worth of GST credits if GST rate has been kept at 5%. Maybe more money from the GST credits should be channelled to the Workfare Income Supplement. But wouldn't that isolate your middle ground and rich Singaporeans? (What's the use of giving $100 to the rich over four years?)It seems that the Singaporeans has forgot that with a cut in second-tier levy for foreign workers in manufacturing and services, the competitive edge is shifted from Singaporeans to foreign workers. Foreign workers are cheaper and Singaporeans will cost more due to an increase in employers’ CPF contribution rate and the demand for these workers will increase. What it mean is this. Singaporeans will find themselves out of a job and they no longer qualify for Workfare!In concluding his budget speech, Mr Tharmun describes the Singapore’s spirit – can do, will do, do well. In my view after looking at the budget, Singaporeans will do well and they can do well, but Singaporeans especially those from the lower-come will do well with much more help.The Singapore government has made the first step to help but there’s more they can do.What about me?, asked Mr Lim, in his 50s who is on Public Assistance Scheme. Amid so much fanfare, no workfare for me!Copyright © 2006 Union of Concerned Singaporeans, Inc. All rights reserved. How about 3 & 7 ? The article "5:7" by Mr Hri Kumar, MP for Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC on the p65 blog raises much questions and contradictions and I would hope to address them in the following article.I do not agree with Mr Kumar's view that increasing GST is the best way to raise funds to establish and support programs to grow our R & D capabilities and enhance Singapore's medical and research infrastructure, and to help the less fortunate and the elderly. It is just one of the many ways to raise funds and to proclaim that little specifics can be offered to alternative methods just goes to show that the government has not fully explored all the other viable alternatives.I would like to see the government raising the corporate tax rate by 1 or 2 percentage point. This may seems detrimental to Singapore's economic competitiveness but a closer look at it may provide us with a different picture to what the authorities and mainstream media would like us to perceive.An increase in 1 percentage point would generate four to five hundred million dollars which could be used to finance benefits such as the workfare bonus and cash handouts while maintaining a healthy tax revenues from the 5% GST rate.Is it wise to increase Singapore 's corporate tax rate or continue to wage a corporate tax "war" with Hong Kong?No, definitely not. Though Singapore 's corporate tax rate (20% with plans to lower it to 19%) is higher than Hong Kong's rate of 17.5% but the point is this. Even at a proposed rate of 21 – 22 %, Singapore 's corporate tax rate is among the lowest and most competitive in the Asia Pacific region. It can be noted that the corporate tax rate for Japan, India , China and South Korea , Taiwan is 40.66%, 33.66%, 33%, 27.5% and 25% respectively. The average tax rate for the Asia Pacific region is 30%,much higher than the proposed rate of 22% that Singapore could adopt.The fundamental fact is this. Even if Singapore increases its corporate tax rate to 22%, Singapore is still competitive and Singapore, in the words of Minister Mentor Lee, “can offers investors better returns than other places in the region.” Moreover, the Singapore government should consider increasing our income tax rate from 20% to 22% as well. This is a practical way whereby the well-to-do and successful can lend a helping hand to the poor and needy and to contribute towards building an inclusive society.Essentially, this is to take money from the rich and redistribute to the poor. Right now, with a possible increase of GST to 7%, the government is taking money from the poor and redistribute to the poor again. Is this a logical way to solve the problem of a growing income gap that Singapore is facing?Furthermore, with the numbers of millionaires in Singapore set to swell to 40,500 by 2009 from the current number of 28,200 in 2004. Furthermore, it is expected that by the year 2009, the number of individuals with liquid wealth of more than US$200,000 will increase to 272,800 individuals. Indeed, the potential to collect substantial tax revenues is certainly possible without any increase in current GST rate.In short, there are more than one viable alternative, other than an increase in GST rate which will allow the government to continue to finance R & D research and social programs.Moreover, it is just too superficial to assume that just because of a high income tax rate, the rich and wealthy in Singapore will leave and seek greener pastures elsewhere in the region. More often than not, political stability, national identity and belongingness have much more influence on an individual's willingness to entrench its roots here in Singapore.Looking at the Scandinvian countries of Sweden, Denmark and Norway, where there is a much higher income tax rate than Singapore, the rich and wealthy are still staying put because they see themselves playing an important role in the future development of the country. In this case, Mr Kumar's statement is regrettable as it tends to portray Singaporeans as materialistic, and quick to abandon the country once the going is tough.It is also worth noting that Mr Kumar mentions that other than raising the GST rate, there could be a possibility the government will deploy part of the income earned on the reserves. This suggestion that leveraging on the huge reserves to help the poor was labelled as a "time bomb" by Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen during the last elections.In the words of Minister Ng Eng Hen, this would potentially lead to "a tragic result if they implement these ideas." If that the case, why is the PAP government still considering to leverage on Singapore's national reserves to help the poor and needy?Another point is this. Singapore experienced healthy growth rate of 7.7% in 2006. and the STI index pass the 3,000 mark for the first time ever. All signs point to a booming economy. This means that the government would have enough funds to finance the workfare bonus that it wishes to implement. In that case, why is there still a need to increase the GST rate?I am convinced that youths today are not against raising the level of GST per se, but against the way and timing it will be implemented.I would like to see a flexible GST structure whereby both basic necessities and luxury goods will be taxed. However, all basic necessities will be taxed at a rate of 3% while keeping the tax rate for luxury items at a consistent rate of 7% as proposed by the government. Though Mr. Kumar's argument is that a multi-tier taxation system will create a huge bureaucracy which will cost more money to sustain, I am not convinced by this line of thought.In the first place, the entire apparatus of the government is a huge bureaucracy and it has been shown that with capable leadership, it can be cost-effective and efficient at the same time, while protecting the interests of our poor and needy.In order to cope with the possible fall in revenue that the government might face in implementing 2 different tax rates, I also would like to see the government raising the tax rate for cigarettes and alcohol consumption to offset the impact of implementing a 3% tax rate on basic necessities.Like Mr. Hri Kumar, I rather we do not run huge budget deficits to fund our R & D programs and finance our social policies and let our children worry about how to pay the debt. But I believed we can do that with a GST tax rate of 5% for the next 5 years.Copyright © 2006 Union of Concerned Singaporeans, Inc. All rights reserved. The Internet in Singapore politics today Today, technology and especially the internet is something that is indispensable to the young. From online forums, school portals to email communication, the internet is a tool that is consistently and expertly harnessed by youths. This brings us to the question of how politics can stay relevant to the young in the era of this new media.For once, the internet makes it easier for the young to express their ideas, views and opinions. It’s easy to handle, is not dependent on time and venue and thus makes it very enticing as a tool for political expression. In a generation which was brought up imbued with the concept of efficiency and effectiveness, the internet is the perfect platform from which the young can come into contact with politics. Moreover, the internet allows for and facilitates discussions and the exchanging of ideas among interested parties. This is done through Internet forums and school portals. In this case, shouldn’t the internet be aggressively manipulated by political parties to reach out to youths? Personally, I feel that such a view is too superficial and inadequate.Though forums and online portals make it easier for the exchanging of views among youths, it must be noted that such tools are unable to reach out to apathetic and disinterested parties. People who are interested in music will visit forums which discuss music and entertainment. Sports lovers will frequent forums, or even blogs with a sporting outlook and content. Likewise for politics, only youths who are interested in politics would bother to explore political forums, portals or even blogs online. In this sense, the internet thus poses an obstacle for political parties like the Workers’ Party to reach out to politically disinterested youths. Fundamentally, the Internet does not solve the problem of raising political awareness among youths in general.The Internet also leads to a false perception among the youths that they are contributing to their country by expressing their views and ideas online. To put it in another way, the Internet creates a façade that their ideas and views are being heard and considered by policymakers. For instance, i-speak, a blog by a 17-year-old college girl, Gayle Goh, who frequents events and talk-shows organised by the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports, is capturing a lot of media attention and publicity. Such blogs tend to reinforce the mindset among youths that the Internet is a feasible and convenient tool through which youths can voice their suggestions to the country and government.Personally, from my experiences of political activism, I realise that nothing beats a face-to-face engagement with the public, which allows one to get a feel of the problems and circumstances afflicting Singaporeans in general. On the ground is where you get the most exposure to youths, as you listen to the comments and opinions expressed by them. This gives you an inkling of what exactly are their thinking and mindset. Only then can you propose effective and creative ideas and suggestions to reach out to these youths.It’s through being a part of a credible political party like the Workers’ Party, that experiences on the ground can be translated into youthful and creative ideas which will be heard and, most importantly, implemented. A political party in this context provides countless avenues – such as forums or dialogue sessions – for concrete, feasible and creative ideas to be pondered, discussed and introduced.The youth wing of the Workers’ Party creates countless opportunities for youths to constantly interact with like-minded people, fostering the inception of various initiatives and ideas. Being in a youth wing allows for a pro-youth stance without asserting the main political stance of the mother party. This puts aside the formalities and practices prevalent in a political party, thereby encouraging the development of ideas and opinions crucial to assisting and raising political awareness among the youths in Singapore.In conclusion, the Internet is a viable tool for political communication and dialogue and it is a fundamental step in bringing youths from political obscurity into the political domain. However, this must be further complemented by active political participation in credible political parties or their youth wings. Such participation enhances and amplifies an individual’s little voice, lending credibility to his or her ideas. Most importantly, participation in a political party or its youth wing is the perfect launch pad for your ideas to take root and flourish.Copyright © 2006 Union of Concerned Singaporeans, Inc. All rights reserved. Youthful Perspectives on the Foreign Talent issue YOUTHFUL PERSPECTIVESDuring the National Day Rally Speech, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong talked about the need to augment the lack of manpower in the near and medium term due to the declining birth rate. There is now an urgent need to attract more Foreign Talent into Singapore.In the aftermath of this speech, views on this issue were wide-ranging and varied. However, the consistent stand is this: Singaporeans must come first.I decided to ask a 17-year-old polytechnic student from Temesek Polytechnic, Warren Elliot, and a 21-year-old Singapore Management University student, Tee Kian Hin, for their views on this raging issue.Bernard: Firstly, what is your stand on the Foreign Talent issue?Warren: My stand is a very neutral one. I think that foreign talent can help Singapore economically, socially and culturally. However, it should not be over-hyped. Over-stressing on the need for foreign talent can do damage to the social fabric in Singapore. For example, Singaporeans may feel like second class citizens instead of owners of the country.Kian Hin: I believe they are essential for the continuation of Singapore's prosperity and progress. In the age of globalisation, and especially given Singapore’s relatively small domestic market which relies heavily on exports, jobs can be easily move to countries which are more cost-effective. So we can't be too protective about the jobs available in Singapore, or else companies may relocate elsewhere, and even more jobs will be lost. This means local companies will be less able to compete in the global market.Bernard: Do you think it's necessary for the government to increase its emphasis on attracting Foreign Talent to Singapore?Warren: I believe they should increase the emphasis on attracting Foreign Talent in the industries or fields of work in which foreign talent is required. However, the government should try to avoid attracting foreign talent for jobs that can very well be done by the locals. They should protect the rights of the locals first.Kian Hin: Yes. There's nothing wrong with filling up these manpower 'gaps' with foreign talent. But the policy should not go overboard such that it endsup marginalising and discriminating against Singaporeans – who may be equally competent – in terms of income and opportunities. Otherwise, Singaporeans will be fed up and eventually leave.Bernard: What do you think is/are the reason/(s) behind this initiative of the government to attract more Foreign Talent to Singapore?Warren: I guess the government has three reasons for doing so. Firstly, it is to make up for the lack of talent or skills of our locals, which will help in boosting our economy. Basically, it is to make up for what we do not have.Secondly, it is to improve the workforce in Singapore as a whole. With the introduction of foreign talent, locals would feel insecure about their jobs and strive to improve themselves in order to keep up with the competition. As a result, many of them would strive to upgrade themselves, so as to be better equipped to take on the competition and fight for the jobs they want or already have.Thirdly, the government wants Singapore to be a more cosmopolitan and vibrant city. With an influx of foreign talent, there would be added diversity and vibrancy to our already colourful country, thereby enhancing our social and cultural heritage.Kian Hin: It was implemented in order to ensure the quality and quantity of our workforce, so that high-value industries could be set up in Singapore. This would, in turn, ensure that talented Singaporeans could continue to work here, rather than go overseas to achieve their goals.Bernard: Personally, how do you think the 2-child policy has fared since its introduction?Warren: Initially, the 2-child policy or “stop at 2” policy was a booming success and many households started practicing family planning and population growth stabilised. However, it was so successful that now, people are stopping at one or not even considering having children or getting married for that matter until a much later age.No one policy can last for long periods of time. The current world we are living in is ever-changing and if you don't change along with it, you will lag behind. The government has introduced many bonuses and incentives to encourage more births in Singapore, but only time will tell whether it is a success.Kian Hin: I simply think that people should have the right to have as many babies as they are able and willing to. I think the 2-child policy was more of adeprivation of human rights rather than an issue of having any positive or negative economic benefits. By the same token, people should also have the right to decide if they want fewer babies, or not at all.Bernard: Do you think that attracting more Foreign Talent into Singapore can solve Singapore's declining birth rate?Warren: It will not solve the problem but it could alleviate the situation. A declining birth rate is Singapore's problem and outsiders should not be brought in for the sole purpose of solving it. We might as well go to the orphanages in third-world countries and conduct a pre-citizenship tests on the infants to see if they qualify for the competitive Singapore society; we would be doing charity at the same time, killing two birds with one stone! But seriously, if Singapore is attractive enough to make the expatriates stay and reproduce here, then it will help to arrest our declining birth rates. So let’s all smile and welcome them, and hopefully make them stay Kian Hin: No. A declining birth rate is an inevitable consequence of an increasingly affluent society. It is a common trend in many developed countries.Bernard: Do you believe that Foreign Talent will deprive Singaporeans of jobs and what do you think the government should do to minimise the impact of Foreign Talent on Singaporeans and their livelihood?Warren: I do not believe that foreign talent will actually deprive Singaporeans of jobs for the simple reason that there are so many jobs available and it is also partly because locals do not have the necessary skills to keep up with the industry’s needs. However, as mentioned before, the government should only attract foreign talent for areas in which they are needed, and not for every field of work.If the situation gets too grave, which I seriously doubt it will, the government could either have compulsory upgrading courses so that locals can keep up with the expatriates, or impose a cap on the number foreigners who can work in certain industries.Kian Hin: No. As I said, industries these days are very mobile and hence the best talents (local or otherwise) should be welcome to take on jobs that need their expertise, so that such industries can come to, or remain in Singapore. Otherwise, companies may relocate to places which can provide them the skilled manpower they need. I believe the greater problem in Singapore is the welfare of the lower-income group. Competing with foreign talent is generally more of a concern for those with higher education and earning power.Bernard: What do you suggest a multi-cultural, multi racial society like Singapore should do to integrate Foreign Talent into the body politic of Singapore?Warren: Well, we should do what we have been doing since our independence. Since we are a multi-cultural and multi racial society, why should we treat foreign talents from a different cultural or racial background differently? We should just continue what we have been doing and treat them with respect and tolerate them for who they are. World Peace!Kian Hin: Be open-minded and open-hearted. Be fair and respectful to each individual. Basically, we have to continue what we have achieved in the past inpreserving racial harmony. However, we must guard against succumbing to the fallacy that foreigners MUST be more talented than Singaporeans - because it's definitely not true.Bernard: With the influx of Foreign Talent into Singapore, what type of a society do you envision Singapore to be in 20 years time?Warren: I would envision Singapore to be a vibrant, diverse, and global city. Ok, that's too clichéd. Well, I hope it would be much more “user-friendly”. I picture the streets filled with busy people (both locals and foreigners) rushing to get from one place to another, with sky-scrapers surrounding the CBD and cars jamming up the roads. (Well, I hope we have ariel modes of transport by then.) Singapore would be a very successful city economically and socially, and we will be known in every single part of the world.Kian Hin: A cosmopolitan city, full of vibrancy. But this largely depends on whether the government is willing to open up and tolerate new – albeit more controversial and 'less politically-correct' – ideas and opinions, and not continue behaving like a nanny.Brief Introduction of our youths:Warren Elliot (left pic) is turning 17 this year and is currently pursing the Diploma in Leisure and Resort Management at Temasek Polytechnic. He says: “I am not a very political person, more of a “kaypo” gossiper; so I really hope my answers are relevant to the questions!”Kian Hin (in red) is 21 years old this year and is currently studying at the Singapore Management University. In his free time, he likes to play the piano, take some photographs and is an ardent football fan. The above article can be found in the current issue (07/01) of the Hammer Copyright © 2006 Union of Concerned Singaporeans, Inc. All rights reserved. Power to the PAP ! ! Under Singapore’s system of parliamentary democracy, it’s “winner takes all”. For example, in a Group Representation Constituency (GRC) of 5 candidates, the winning party will have all five of its candidates fast-tracked into power. In the recently concluded 2006 Singapore General Election, this form of parliamentary democracy had served the PAP well, sending 82 out of 84 candidates into parliament.This sort of results obtained under a GRC system over the last few elections has created an impression in the psyche of Singaporeans and foreigners alike that the PAP seems invincible. Is that the case? What makes the PAP looks so invincible?First, the structure of the electoral system makes the PAP looks invincible.If Singapore was under a system of proportional representation, the PAP would not have looked so invincible. A proportional representation is a method of voting by which political parties are given legislative representation in proportion to their popular vote. Given 66.6% of the popular votes, the PAP would have obtained only 56 seats in parliament, leaving the remaining 28 seats to the rest of the parties, with the Workers’ Party garnering 13 seats, nearly half of the 28 opposition seats available.The point is this: One of the reasons behind the PAP’s impressive electoral fruits in parliament is the inner mechanisms of the GRC system.Let’s examine the effect of such an electoral system. A GRC system makes the PAP’s victory look impressive and overwhelming, creating a perception among the electorate that the Pro-Singapore Alternatives, no matter how credible and capable their candidates are, stands no chance at all against any GRC team helmed by a Cabinet Minister. This, in the long-run develops a mind-set within the electorate that they should only look at the PAP and nothing beyond. This certainly impedes the rise of any Pro-Singapore Alternatives parties in the formation of an alternative government.Group Representation Constituencies should be abolished, as it dilutes the individual voter’s voice. Instead, elections should be run on single seats. We should also explore the implementation of a Mixed Member Proportional Representation System as practiced in New Zealand.Election deposits too, contribute to the political apathy of most Singaporeans, increasing the sense of PAP’s invincibility. In order to run for election, one has to put down $13,000 in order to qualify as a candidate. This creates an impression, especially among the youths, that politics is only reserved for the elite and the rich. Subsequently, this kills off any budding interest that a young Singaporean might have in participating in the democratic process.Moreover, there is a lingering and prevailing fear among Singaporeans about participating in politics, especially if you are on the wrong side of the ruling party.At the basic level, Singaporeans are worried because they have never experienced a government without the PAP. They do not know what to expect if the PAP is not in power and this psyche among Singaporeans actually serves to benefit the ruling party in any tough contests, as shown in Aljunied GRC in GE2006. If the PAP were to lose in Aljunied, it means the departure of George Yeo, a foreign minister and a heavyweight in the cabinet.Notwithstanding the PAP’s ‘scare tactics’ over the years, more often than not, opposition candidates bore the brunt of the PAP’s libel suits. From J.B Jeyaretnam in 1991 and 1997 to Tang Liang Hong in 1997, the PAP has successfully made Singaporeans adopt a subconscious stance against opposition politics. There’s only one side to be on – the side of the PAP.Thus, the inherent mechanisms built into the electoral system, coupled with apathy and fear among Singaporeans, have made an opposition victory very unlikely, reinforcing the invincibility of the PAP.However, given what the PAP has at its calling; i.e. financial resources, manpower, and grassroots mobilisation, there is no reason why the PAP should fail to complete a sweep of all the seats in parliament.Despite this un-level playing field that the Pro-Singapore Alternatives faced, the Workers’ Party at the last managed to retain the Single-Member seat of Hougang with an increased majority of 7%. The Aljunied team managed a credible showing of 43% against the PAP team led by Foreign Minister George Yeo. Even more surprising was the fact that the “suicide squad” won 33.9% of the valid votes deep in the “lion’s den”, Ang Mo Kio GRC.However the reality remains that the Workers’ Party only won 1 seat compared to the 13 seats that the party could have won under a proportional representation system.In essence, it is the presence of these artificial constitutional barriers put up by the PAP, coupled with the implanting of fear within the electorate, that buttresses the ruling party in power long enough for them to produce an impressive track record. In reality, the PAP isn’t that invincible after all.Copyright © 2006 Union of Concerned Singaporeans, Inc. All rights reserved. Biggest Cover-up in Singapore ? ? Jurong Island Theft: 100kg of Jet fuel additive STOLEN ! I was shocked to see this piece of news in The New Paper (29th December 2006). It is reported that thieves had made off with 100kg of Stadis 450, a jet fuel additive. Stadis 450 is classified as a flammable liquid and hazardous material. The New paper understands that the jet fuel additive was left in six sealed pails which later went missing. I was even more surprised to read that the jet fuel additive has been missing ever since 4th December 2006. The police was subsquently informed of the theft two days later, on the 6th.According to the Phillipine Daily Inquirer, the incident was serious enough for Singapore authorities to alert a bomb data centre in the Philippines.Mr Joe Moreira, a security and explosive consultant, doubts that the fuel additive will be a threat. He said, “Jet fuel furns quickly in the air and you can’t sustain it for long. You need diesel to sustain the fire. So, you’ll be wasting jet fuel on a bomb.”“Being flammable, the additive can be used as fuel oil together with an improvised explosive device for incendiary effect,” the Singapore police said.According to the Philippine Inquirer, "The Singapore police have alerted their counterparts in the Philippines about the disappearance of six pails of jet fuel weighing about 100 kilograms from an oil storage facility in the city-state, which they said could be used as a component for explosives, an alert bulletin obtained by the Inquirer said.The bulletin came as Metro Manila police were recently placed on full alert in the run-up to the sixth anniversary of the Rizal Day bombings. "I believed there remains of questions left unanswered that the Singapore authorities need to address. I strongly believed that Singaporeans need to know what exactly happened, what the authorities is doing to track down the stolen fuel, what it intends to do to prevent such similar incidents from happening again.Personally, I would like to put forward the above few questions.1. Why wasn’t Singaporeans informed of the theft until exactly more than three weeks later?Why was it that the Singapore media only got to know about the theft through a foreign source?On top of that, why wasn’t there any statement made by the Ministry of Home Affairs at the point of the theft?2. How did the entire theft happen in spite of the tight security on Jurong Island? How can someone go in past all the access controls, and come out with stolen goods? (Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, security on Jurong Island has been stepped up and it has also been gazetted a Protected Area. Armed soldiers and police officers are involved in its security. In November 2003, the chemical hub opened a new security checkpoint featuring X-ray scanners to detect explosives and weapons, as well as three-tier vehicle barriers to bar intrusions. On top of all that, visitors must exchange their identity cards for a pass and all incoming vehicles are searched before being allowed entry).3. If it is proven that there is a lapse in security on Jurong island, who is going to be held accountable?4. More significantly, if the100kg of jet fuel is made into a bomb with diesel and is made to be detonated during the year-end countdown parties at Marina Bay, Vivo City, Siloso Beach, Expo, National Museum, Who is going to take responsibility for the enormous death toll and subsquently, economic and social damages.I’m not trying to make a fuss here. I’m just concerned about the authorities’ attempt to hide information from the people. The authorities should alert the people once any breach of security or terror threat is discovered. At least, Singaporeans would not take their peace for granted. Despite all these, why is there still a media blackout on this theft, insignificant it may seem. So does this mean that in future, the authorities would only inform the people once a bomb had went off, or people are killed? I guess it’s a national security issue, thus it should remain secret. Is that the logic of the authorities?I need answers from the top authorities now and when the investigations are done.This is my country, my home. I do not want anything to happen to it and I placed my confidence in the security apparatus to ensure that such incidents do not happen again. However, in future, I would like to see a transparent and open attitude towards such breach of security issues. I believed that Singaporeans has the right to know about this. It’s an issue of national interest and by informing Singaporeans, each and every citizen can play its small part in helping to locate the stolen fuels if it is found lying around in our malls, transport systems and even our own neighbourhood.Right now, many Singaporeans are still unaware of the theft, not to mention how Stadis 450 look like. Stadis 450 ? What is that ?Copyright © 2006 Union of Concerned Singaporeans, Inc. All rights reserved. A "Homing" Instinct requires a fundamental shift in mentality In an article in the Lianhe Zaobao (Wednesday, December 27th, 2006), author 吴俊刚 reiterated the same point that I made; that renaming streets, buildings, stadiums or even park after the founding fathers of modern Singapore is nothing but a name and a detached image. "虽然这是很多国家的做法，但是我觉得，我们并没有必要有样学样。殖民地时代留下来的许多用人名命名的街道，对今人而言其实已经没什么意义，就单纯是一条路或是一座桥的名称而已，刻意去改动它们，只有给受影响的居民带来不便。可以想象，今天如果我们用一些人名给一些街道、建筑命名，若干年后，也会同样失去意义。[. . .]道路也好，地铁站也好，公园也好，建筑物也好，都不是“永垂不朽”的东西；任何一个国家的政治情况，也不是永久不变的。许多前殖民地在独立后，受民族主义热潮的冲击，总是免不了要想尽办法，抹除殖民时代留下的各种痕迹，包括街道名、地名、建筑物名等等。然而，在民族情绪沉淀之后，政治上不了轨道，民生没有任何改善，甚或战祸频仍，民不聊生，这一切政治动作也都变得毫无意义."Of the same view is the fact that more should be done to educate our population on our past, either through physical descriptions or making our past alive in books. "正如前面谈到的，文字的记载和叙述比命名更加重要。譬如，要使后人认识林金山对公共组屋的贡献，最好的做法是建屋局大厦内开辟一个历史长廊或历史馆，追溯建屋局的发展史。这样就可以图文并茂地把历史纪录下来，也可以让历史活起来，让学校组团参观，让学生接受鲜活的历史教育。"In a speech by Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, at the 50th Anniversary of Tanjong Katong Secondary School, he said, “The Government is partly to blame for this state of affairs. The leaders did not believe in glorifying their place in history. They did not name streets, MRT stations, buildings, stadiums and parks after their colleagues who had departed. I think we should do so from now on so that Singaporeans can remember the pioneers, philanthropists, social workers, leaders and others who had made a difference to the lives of Singaporeans. This will make the history of our nation alive for Singaporeans.”Are we seeing a dawn of new street names like Kuan Yew Road, Keng Swee Street or Chin Chye Avenue? Personally, I was quite surprised that Genting Highlands won the bid for the Sentosa IR. The Singapore Government had the perfect opportunity to name an entire resort after our First Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew. Remember the bid by the 8th Wonder: Harry’s Island? I guess in this case, as what SM Goh had perceived, MM Lee did not believe in glorifying his place in history.But I can't help but disagree with SM Goh. Our leaders are not glorifying themselves. Indeed, I see it as a flawed statement made by our senior minister. Can you really believe that the SM actually said all these?Their presence and "airtime" is everywhere. To name a few1. Major bookstores like Kinokuniya and Borders2. School textbooks & Case studies and even in GCE Cambridege examinations and last but not least, The Straits Times (the State Times?)As if these are not sufficient for them. Now they want a monopoly over our streets !How about asking the URA to consider my proposal?Thia Khiang Street?See Tong Terrace?Chin Siong Ave ?Siew Choh Drive?Underlying this statement made by the Senior Minister, it truly reflected a lack of national identity/ a national understanding of our past, and probably a lack of a sense of belonging to the little red dot.Mr Ngiam Tong Dow in his book “A Mandarin and the making of Public Policy – Reflections by Ngiam Tong Dow” sums up this lack of a national heartware perfectly.“Out of sheer necessity, we concentrated on the economic imperatives in education. Efficiency rather tha effetiveness, was the name of the game. Along the way, we also lost some of our cultural roots and ethnic instincts. […]Today, we cannot go back to the status quo ante, to what was before. It will be pointless to restore dialect programmes back into our airwaves. The gerneration of grandparents today so not speak any dialect at all, having grown up under the non-dialect regime. What can be done?A back of the envelope solution might be to encourage our English-speaking to read Chinese history, literature, and even poetry, in English to enthuse their grandchildren about their Chinese heritage.It is not only Chinese culture that has been affected….[E]ven in English speaking schools, technical education was preferred over subjects such as literature and history.With the neglect of English literature, yong Singaporeans do not have enough command of English to absorb the essence of western culture. Instead, Hollywood is their western cultural diet.[…]In education, as in any field of human endeavour, we have to face reality. Our single-minded pursuit of economic prosperity has brought us to a crossroads. In a knowledge based global economy, inputs of land, labour, and captial are necessary, but not sufficient for growth and prospertiy. We have to learn to apply knowledge creatively.”All in all, my take is this. The Singapore Government’s relentless pursuit of Sciences and Maths, due to economic necessity has led to a neglect among our citizens, an appetite for humanities like history and literature. This is especially so in today's secondary schools where humanities subjects such as history and literature are omitted from the school curriculum.In light of this, what can our government, agencies and even individuals do to cultivate a “homing” instinct among our citizens?“Singapore’s founding fathers will be the stars of an exhibition to be unveiled on National Day next year.The exhibitions will showcase the contributions of the first post-independence Cabinet, which laid the foundations for Singapore’s success.The project is one of four slated to be unvelied next year as part of the national effort to ensure their legacies continue to be remembered and that Singapore’s past remains alive among Singaporeans today.”The Straits Times: “Contributions of founding fathers to be showcased” (Friday December 22, 2006)Thus, I applaud this move by the National Heritage Board, through books and exhibitions, to ensure that Singapore’s past is not forgotten by our future generations and swept aside by the forces of globalisationHowever, I would like to suggest some ways that the government should consider in trying to build up a national belongingness and identity among our citizenry.A. Ensure that humanities especially modules on Singapore’s political, social and economic history is being taught to every single citizen from the age of 7 to 18. An important point to note is this. Singapore’s history must be related to our students in a just and neutral point of view, taking into account not only the PAP’s perspective on Singapore’s political and economic history, but from every single contributor to our past. Every single student will be given bonusus or exemptions for university admissions to encourage students to excel in their comprehension of Singapore’s political, social and economic history or humanities subjects in general.B. All forms of literature on Singapore’s political, economic and social history must be sold in all major bookstores. Today, we are seeing only limited literature on these areas, usually favourable to the ruling party. Books such as Lim Chin Siong’s Comet in the Sky, and various publications by Think Centre are not being displayed or sold in major bookstores.C. Allow political clubs and/or associations to flourish in schools. This is to encourage the exchange of ideas and the formulation of an “homing instinct” For example in France, French students are encouraged to enter universities or colleges. Some emerge as Socialists and others as Conservatives. Yet, at the end of the day, when the chips are down, they considered themselves to be Frenchmen. This is the sort of a Singapore society that I am looking forward to: political but not totally partisan; and at the end of the day, when the crunch comes, will stand side by side, and fight for Singapore. In this case, political clubs and associations thus played an important role in the initial butressing and exchange of ideas, opinions and viewpoints. D. Ensuring all forms of participation in politics, economy, and society to be made available to all, not only the elites. The reason is this. Goh Chok Tong and his colleagues should just look inside the home to find the answers. Where the family feels warmth and a sense of ownership, its members will always come home. Where the home is cold, and the patriarchial authoritarian father beats his children often, the kids will run away from home and find comfort somewhere else. If a home makes certain members of the family feel more important than the others, more capable than the other siblings, the siblings who are ignored and dismissed as useless and pathetic will more likely end up in the Boys Home. By allowing all Singaporeans to be able to particiapte in nation building, it entrenches a “homing” instinct, knowing full well that everyone has a stake in the country. It’s as simple as that.• From the political perspective, I would briefly suggest that elections be made fair and just. The mainstream media should be liberalised to allow for a wide exchange of political viewpoints, especially from the opposition perspective and possibly considering lowering voting age to 18.In any case, feeling at home has nothing to do with the naming of the streets/places. We have to face that fact that even after millions of dollars are being thrown into the branding of the Merlion, one does not feel that he/she is a Singaporean just because there is a Merlion sitting at the mouth of Singapore river. Naming streets, buildings and such will have the same result - it is just a name and a detached image.One calls Singapore home because the loved ones, family and friends live here, and whatever fate that Singapore face as a nation is faced by all who are rooted here. There's no need for any abstract speculation as to why people just dont feel rooted enough to this country. Everyone, especially the policymakers must recognised that the country of Singapore is larger than the PAP (PAP Updated: December 27th, 2006 @ 13 35 hrs.Copyright © 2006 Union of Concerned Singaporeans, Inc. All rights reserved. Frozen Government Fees WP Youth Wing Policy Statement22 Dec 2006Half Frozen Half HelpfulThe article "Govt to freeze fees for one year after GST hike" (ST 1 December 2006) gave much hope for the people that costs will remain affordable. The first paragraph of the article wrote:"ALL government fees will stay frozen and not be raised for one year when the goods and services tax (GST) goes up from 5 to 7 percent"These hopes were changed when the article "Government spells out fees to be frozen" (ST 13 December 2006) produced non-exhaustive lists of inclusions and exclusions to the fee freeze.The Workers' Party Youth Wing would like to express its disappointment with the government having failed to take into account the need to freeze fees for basic amenities such as transport, utilities fees and polytechnic and university fees.With the hike in GST from 5 - 7%, Singaporeans will be hard hit by an increase in their daily costs of living. Transport(16.7%), fuel & utilities (4.5%) and health care (5.3%) account for a total of 26.5% of the basket of Consumer Price Index (CPI) goods revised in 2004. This would account for a hike in inflation rates in the near future. If any offset in GST were to occur, these mentioned areas would provide a distinct impact on Singaporeans.At the same time, radio/TV license, registration fees for passports, birth certificates and driving license, marriage registration fees are not significantly represented in the CPI. More often than not, the latter expenses are either annual or one-time payments with only a nominal impact on the lives of most Singaporeans.The 13 Dec ST article also wrote "Fees not set by the Government are excluded from the list as any changes are determined by market or other forces". As far as the Workers' Party Youth Wing understands, public transport fees are approved by the Public Transport Council, road taxes decided by LTA, electricity tariffs are approved by the Energy Market Authority and polytechnics are Statutory Boards of the Government. However, it appears that these items were specifically excluded from the list of fee freezes.Interestingly enough, The Workers' Party Youth Wing would like to point out that students in polytechnic and universities are already paying higher transport fees as compared to students from primary & secondary schools, Millennia Institute, junior colleges and the Institute of Technical Education. Coupled with this is the possibility of an impending increase in polytechnic and universities fees as has been historically demonstrated. The Workers' Party Youth Wing would like to see more in the budget by way of assurance that education remains foremost in the minds of polytechnic and university students instead of worrying about where the fare for the next bus or MRT ride is going to come from.工人党青年团想要指出一个非常有趣的现象。相比之下，就读于理工学院和大专学府的莘莘学子们所缴付的车资费和小学生，中学生，初院生， 工艺教育学院生远远大不相同。此外，这些莘莘学子们还得担忧明年消费税上涨之后，学费相对调高的可能性。因此，工人党青年团促请政府体恤他们的困境，在明年财政年度财政预案中给予工院和大学生们适当的帮助与津贴。 由此一来，工院和大学生们就能更专心学业，再也不需要为每天的车资费发愁。The Workers' Party Youth Wing welcomes the Government's announced commitment not to add to inflation at the time of the GST increase. To really achieve this goal, items for public transport fees, water & electricity and tertiary education fees should be included in the list of fee freezes. These items would provide more tangible help to the people.Copyright © 2006 Union of Concerned Singaporeans, Inc. All rights reserved. Singapore Youth Parliament In order to ensure greater participation among Singaporean youths, I would like to propose the establishment of a Singapore Youth Parliament (SYP) , on top and above the lowering of the voting age from 21 to 18.The Singapore Youth Parliament is a democratically elected youth organisation consisting of elected members aged between 14 and 25.“The SingaporeYouth Parliament aims to be an effective, open, honest, inclusive and broad-minded voice for Singapore’s young people.”Main Aims of the Youth Parliament1. To offer young people in Singapore a collective national youth voice.2. To make a difference in society by increasing young people’s participation.3. To promote a positive image of young people4. To connect the processes of policy making and development with young people5. To be an independent and youth-led organisation free from influence, where young people can give their views to policy makers without hindrance, fear or barriers. The work of the SYP is centred around involving young people in the decision-making process, particularly in consulting with young people and campaigning for these views to be adopted by the relevant decision-makers. Copyright © 2006 Union of Concerned Singaporeans, Inc. All rights reserved. Too young to vote? Personally, I proposed that the voting age for Singaporeans to be lowered to 18 years of age. In this preliminary analysis, let me propose a few reasons why.1. Male Singaporeans enlist into the Singapore Armed Forces at the age of 18. If young men at the age of 18 are required to serve, represent and possibly die for their country, why is it that the constitution are so skeptical of their judgements when it comes to matters of the state, in particularly electoral reforms.2. Young Singaporeans can start pursing a life of choice and freedom at the age of 18. For instance, they have the freedom to choose whether to smoke, to drive, to club, to committ a crime and suffer the maximum punishment and exposure for their acts. In this case, why is it that young men upon the age of 18 cannot have the choice to choose who their representatives in parliament will be.3. Politics is all about me and you. By lowering the voting age to 18, it helps to politicise the population and better create a sense of belonging to the country. This is because, with the right to vote, it's as good as empowering young men with the choice and decision to vote for policies and individuals who can best represent their interests. This will further entrench their roots into Singapore. Now that the are entasked with this heavy responsibility, they will now participate more actively in building a better future for themselves.While it may be argue that young people are seen as rash and irresponsible in their voting patterns, I think that if given the chance, young people are far more intelligent, far more responsible, and far more mature than we give them credit for.While it may be true that Singapore youths lack the "political acumen", it must be noted that with much political education in school and much political participation in schools, it will only be a matter of time that they are trained in electoral discipline. This particular skill in political education wil stay with them forever. Thus, in a sense, it can again be seen as a worthwhile investment in our young.I will like to point out that by the time I turned 18, I could recognise that I am part of a community and I have to work together as a group of people in a community, whether that community is a school, a marketplace or even a country. By 18, I really can understand my obligations to the community. I'm confident that many more young people like me are mature enough to want to exercise their vote. In this case, what's stopping us from being more actively involved is the constitution which has since 1965, only allowed Singaporeans above the age of 21 to vote.In essence, an adult is a person who has attained the age of maturity as specified by law.That's when the law recognises that you are entitled, in law, to have control over your own body, your decisions and your actions. This is where the OB markers lies.Who is an adult? Someone who is 18 or someone who is 21? Copyright © 2006 Union of Concerned Singaporeans, Inc. All rights reserved. The future of opposition There are about 23 registered political parties in Singapore, of which as of 2006, there are about 4 prominent political organizations in Singapore. They are namely the People’s Action Party, the Workers’ Party, the Singapore Democratic Alliance (Singapore People’s Party, National Solidarity Party, Pertubuhan Kebangsaan Melayu Singapura, Singapore Justice Party) and the Singapore Democratic Party. Essentially, these 4 political parties are the most active and recognized political associations in Singapore.In the immediate aftermath of the 2006 GE, led by the success of the Workers’ Party, the opposition parties were back in the limelight, A similar phenomenon was also seen in the aftermath of the 1991 General elections, when the SDP won 4 seats in Parliament.In fact, I would like to suggest that the 2006 GE was a political reawakening of sorts for much of the Singapore populace. However, this issue is not the focus of this article. With the “success” of the opposition, especially The Workers' Party, what is in store for the opposition and its sympathizers in the run up to the next elections, most possibly to be held as early as 2009?While the Worker’s Party was gaining a lot of attention and seeing an increased number of memberships and a continued process of political renewal in its leadership ranks, the other political parties were relatively quiet and muted. The SDA was rocked by the leadership tussle in one of its alliance partners; the PKMS. The leadership of the SDP was subsequently charged in courts for various confrontations with the ruling party. However, this is not to suggest that only the WP is working hard while the rest are idling around. Certainly, it would not be fair to accuse that the SDA and the SDP is taking a backseat and waiting for the next elections. A look at the websites of the NSP and the SPP would show that the SDA is still aggressively working the ground in constituencies that it had contested in the last GE; namely Jalan Besar GRC and Tampines GRC. The same can also be said of the Workers’ Party as well.An article in the Chinese mainstream newspaper caught my attention today.成员党马民机构因党争闹上法庭 民联动向令反对党人关注.Essentially, the writer was contemplating about the future of the SDA and the impact on the political makeup in the opposition should the SDA breaks up. Interestingly enough, there was even mention of a possible alliance between the NSP and the WP."团结党和工人党这几年关系融洽，党要之间彼此都很熟络。据党内人士观察，以两党的交情，如果团结党因同民联的发展理念不同而出走，最有可能及最务实的做法是同工人党结成联盟，以在四五年后举行的大选中形成选战的重心。团结党目前除了定期在星期天走访选区之外，接下来也会大力招募新党员，并且计划在明年一月把现有的党总部搬迁到惹兰勿刹，同工人党的赛阿威路总部距离不到一公里。"In fact, with the PKMS going to court over its leadership battle, the SDA was unable to carry out its new election of its CEC, slated to be held later this year. It must be noted that the WP renew its senior leadership ranks just 2 months after the euphoria of the general elections. Again, I am not questioning the commitment and determination of the SDA in its renewal process.From my perspective, I would firstly like to express my disappointment at this unfortunate episode in the senior ranks in the PKMS. But I harbour hopes that this will only be a minor hiccup in the renewal process within the SDA. My stand is this. The political renewal of any opposition party is a major and inevitable phenomenon in Singapore politics as the baton is gradually being passed from pre-65s to the post 65ersRight now, I would like to urge Mr Chiam See Tong to relinquish his position as secretary general in the SDA executive committee and to allow the younger leaders in the SDA to take over. This is not a sign of disrespect and any indication of his loss of support within the party. This move is necessary as it is of utmost importance that young and capable leaders in the party gained maximum exposure to the grassroots and public before the next elections come by.I would like to warn that if Mr Chiam holds on to power in the SDA, there could be major repercussions to future of the opposition in Singapore. Foremost, the SDA might break up and members would become disillusioned and join other political parties, thus sideling and weakening the position of Mr Chiam in his possible re-election bid in the next election. On top of that, any move to prevent political renewal would mean a step backward for opposition politics in general, dismantling the efforts and headways that the opposition had made in the last elections. It must be noted that when up against a powerful and resourceful opponent in the PAP, nothing should be spared to put up a strong, credible opposition in sync with the aspirations of the Singapore populace which is increasingly younger and more vibrant.Be it the PAP, WP, SDA or even the SDP, the crucial thing is this. Every party that is interested in making a change in Singapore must continue to stay relevant to the electorate and continuously seek to improve, innovate and incorporate new ideas and platforms into the party. The Singapore electorate is particularly a pragmatic, choosy and fickle-minded lot. Serving the interests of all Singaporeans must be the objective of any political party in Singapore and the SDA must not have this liberty to hijack the renewal and eventual politicization of Singapore politics, which is finally at its crossroads after 41 years of PAP’s rule and structure. Copyright © 2006 Union of Concerned Singaporeans, Inc. All rights reserved. Days of Being Wild Latest Update: 11th December 2006 21 52 hrsDays of being Wild is now available in all major bookstores ! ! !Days of being Wild Press Release (PDF format)Last Thursday, I attended a book launch organised by ethos books. The book is entitled "Days of being Wild", a publication depicting the 2006 GE from the opposition perspective. Here are some of the pics, courtesy of TheOnlineCitizen A Poem by Ong Ah BeeRecently, my white MP,Kok on my door, and very keh kiSay "I've worked so hard, so vote for me, Or rubbish won't be cleared in your vicinity"I said "Dear MP of my GRC, Dun remember u, so please pardon me.I only saw you on TV,Dozing off and jiak liao bee . . .Last GE I voted for thee,2% up in GST.Cut CPF and up utility,Are still very clear in my memory.5 years later, then you come to me,Fresh from your slumber of ivory.Say that only you can help meEscape from a life of poverty.Just take a drive on CTE,Count the number of all the gantriesOr squeeze a ride on the MRT,That has not been cleared for ye . . .My life since the last GE,Has been doubtful though I voted P@P.If I vote the same for your spending spreeI can expect the same misery.So this time round, I vote for somebody Who will kachiao you to productivity . . .Forms fill wrong, no big deal to me,If there's someone to speak up for Ah Bee . . .So dear MP of GRC,If life no improve, vote you cho simi . . .This following poem can be found in "Days of Being Wild"More infomation on the book launchStraits Times' reporting on this eventCopyright © 2006 Union of Concerned Singaporeans, Inc. All rights reserved. "New" Progress package In school this semester, I am required to assist a golfing firm in its marketing campaign for its golf resort in Pulau Ubin as part of my assessment for the marketing module. After much discussion with my group, we decided to segment the population according to their income levels and we are targeting the rich and affluent.Similarly, the Singapore Tourism Board announces details for the development of the Southern Islands and is seeking request-for-concepts as early as next March.The Southern islands – Kusu, St John’s. the Sisters’ Islands, Kias, Lazarus and Seringar – draw at least 100,000 visitors a year and have been said to have the potential to be similar to Italy’s Isle of Capri, a marine village, or Dubai’s The Palm island, a development for the ultra wealthy.On top of this next mega-tourism project, Sentosa looks set to have a new resort hotel with a beach front as well.While there have been arguments along the line of environment and heritage, I would like to look at this issue from a totally different angle.It is said that when there’s a demand, there will be a supply. And in this case, there is an increasing demand for products servicing the rich and famous in Singapore. As of 2004, there were 202,500 individuals with liquid wealth of more than US$200,000 each. This figure is expected to increase to 272,800 individuals by 2009, growing annually by 6.4%.According to the latest World Wealth Report by Cap Gemini and Merrill Lynch, the number of millionaires in Singapore - defined as having liquid assets of US$1 million - grew by 22.4% over the past year to hit some 55,000. The Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore puts the number of people here earning over $1 million in taxable income at 1,724 – a 15% increase compared to the previous financial yearIn fact, high-end properties such as The Sail@Marina Bay, Sentosa Cove and St Regis Residences – which don’t go for any less than $1,000 per sq ft – aren’t the only objects of desire to sell out like hot cakes.Luxury cars like Lamborghini and Ferraris have seen brisk sales with 21 units and 32 units sold respectively this year.Furthermore, fine dining clubs like The China Club has seen membership revenue increase by 85% over the past year, with average therespending per client up by 30%.My point is this. Singapore has seen remarkable economic progress and this has allowed many Singaporeans to alleviate itself away from the poverty cycle in a span of a generation. While there are a lot of rich people here, there are also some poor people around us, and I am particularly worried about this burgeoning income gap between the rich and the poor."We will be starting on a wrong footing if we proceed on the premise that thus far nothing has been done to help our low-income, the poor and the elderly. In fact, through the Progress Package, ComCare Fund, workfare bonus and other initiatives, the Government has spent billions of dollars to help needy Singaporeans. With the many-helping-hands approach, the labour movement too has done its part to help our low-income workers. This year alone, NTUC distributed $6.4 million in the form of hardship grants, transport vouchers, Fairprice vouchers, Family Recreation Fund and through the Back-to-School programme as well as through bursaries and scholarships."Mdm Halimah Yacob, MP for Hong Kah GRC, speaking in Parliament, 8th November 2006.I fully support the fact that the government has been reluctant to institutionalise a welfare system into our social politic. However, there must be an institutional way to help our poor. At the moment, we are only seeing consistent and repetitive one-time handouts especially during times of economic growth. This has also resulted in Singaporeans being used to receiving yearly monetary rewards.I believed that this will reduce the resilience of Singaporeans when the country faces a crisis. We are told that as long as we swallow the bitter pills and take the plunge to boldly cuts our cost and restructure our economy, we will be fine. There will be light at the end of tunnel. What happened if our economy plunges into a recession? It doesn’t matter as Singaporeans are already so used to receiving their share of the nation wealth year-in-year-out. When that comes, the government rationale of economic restructuring might not be that appealing to Singaporeans anymore.In that case, there is a need to institutionalise our “progress package” for our lower-income families. Here is what I recommend:We should set up a totally new government ministry with its own budget to directly tackle the needs of our poor. A cabinet minister should be appointed so that the poor will have its needs directly addressed to the Prime Minister. In this way, this will reduce the impression that the poor and disadvantaged are being marginalised.This ministry for the poor and disadvantaged will set and oversee policies (to be revised)likea. GST for basic necessities will be set at 3% - four percentage points lower than the approved tax rate. The implementation and enforcement of such a tax policy will be overseen by this particular ministry. b. A better definition of the lower income and the middle income. More often than not, the people found at the lower spectrum of the middle income category suffered more from the increase in the cost of living. c. Education costs must be addressed. School fees should be waiver until the college level. Subsidies should be given to ensure that each child’s expenses on education, from school books to stationary are being well taken care of. d. GST on health cost expenses should be waiver.While these recommendations required that huge amount of government expenditure are required, but the government should see it as a moral crusade and take this heavy burden upon its shoulders. In the first place, these people gave them the mandate and confidence so that their needs will be addressed. From their perspective, the PAP government is the best people to help. In this case, its more than a moral crusade, the government need to ensure that the poor are not left behind by society.In the words of Mr Low Thia Khiang, secretary general of the Workers’ Party and MP for Hougang SMC at the recent parliamentary sitting:“I feel that the transition into a globalised economy and the Government’s determination to maintain its principle of a low tax regime, the uneven distribution of wealth and the widening income gap will become an insurmountable social problem in future. The Government should help the low-income people as soon as possible to correct the mechanism that causes the anomaly in the distribution of the fruits of our economic development, and incorporate the appropriate measures into our social safety net structure.”There’s no time to lose. It’s now or never. Copyright © 2006 Union of Concerned Singaporeans, Inc. All rights reserved. I am Singapura Cartoon Version of "We live in Singapura"Copyright © 2006 Union of Concerned Singaporeans, Inc. All rights reserved. Sadly, we have no ideas How many times have you heard these remarks?"We can't do that.""Your idea is stupid. Don't waste our time.""It does not make any sense.""We already know that. Don't reinvent the wheel."Ever since 1959, the PAP has one way or the other employed the tactic of rooting out the creativity juices of Singaporeans or denying Singaporeans the opportunity to really voice out their opinions. This has subtly created a sense of fear among the populace of speaking up against the administration and its policies.Why fear? Fear is paralysing.The fear of being judged, looking stupid, being wrong or feeling like a failure can take away all your creativity energy and conviction.The PAP feel threatened by new ideas. They tend to promote an environment in which Singaporeans do their jobs and nothing more. This atomsphere hinders creativity and induces fear in Singaporeans, thereby hampering the chances of the opposition to grow and diversify.What is stopping Singaporeans to voice out?1. No sense of personal responsibility - I don't feel responsible/ rooted to the future of Singapore2. Fear - If I contribute new ideas, people might think I am a troublemaker.3. The usual soultions - PAP has always delivered what it promises, thus I should adopt a conventional approach in solving problems.4. Narrow-minded peer acceptance - The people around me are not open to new/ wild ideas.5. Red tape - I don't bring up my ideas because my ideas would violate the PAP's policies and procedures.6. Bipolar thinking - I look at 2 alternatives. I thrive in terms of an 'either-or' solution.What I think the PAP should do. The PAP should lighten up and give Singaporeans the green light to do the same. It does not follow that just because the issue discussed is important, everyone needs to be serious and obeyed the rules. A little bit of humour and flexibility goes a long way.The PAP leadership should adopt the corporate mantra from the highest echleon to the lowest in tha party: "I am open minded. I have good ideas. I am a creative problem solver. I want to break boundaries."They should change their established ways of thinking and allow flashes of inspiration to come. Like any new skill and effort, becoming more creative takes time and effort. The same applies for creating a politically conscious population.This is what I would suggest to the PAP. 1. Liberalise the mainstream media. Allow ideas and opposing viewpoints to flourish.2. Allow schools to form political clubs and associations where the interests of the school populace is fought and national issues debated. Political organisations should be allowed entry into educational institutions.3. Lower Voting age to 18. (Singapore is one of the only few countries where the legal voting age is fixed at 21)4. Membership age to join any political party should be lowered to 15.Political consciousness and awareness and eventually politcal creativity is not just the domain of a talented few. It can be fostered and revived. You just need to start working on it right now. But the fundamental obstacle is this: Singapore still lacked a just and magnanimous ruling party. Elitism more than anything else I suppose.Copyright © 2006 Union of Concerned Singaporeans, Inc. All rights reserved. Goods & Services Tax Updated: December 27, 2006 20 08 hrsGoods & Services TaxI am committed to seeing a flexible GST policy, whereby each citizen will contribute accordingly to their level of prosperity and progress in society.I recognize the intrinsic problems faced by the Singapore society in the next 10 to 30 years, of which the yawning income gap between the rich and the poor and an aging population are of my top priorities.Thus, from my perspective, the implementation of GST is a sound one as it provides the government with the financial resources to strengthen the existing social welfare programmes already in place, thereby enhancing the social safety nets to assist the low-income groups, with the intention to close the widening income gap.Furthermore, financial resources are needed to conduct medical research and development, to build health care infrastructures, and to finance the increasingly costly medical bills of Singaporeans.In the light of all these, it is crucial that the government receives healthy levels of revenues through the implementation of GST.I support the notion of implementing a GST policy with a rate of between 3 to 10% and reject the call to abolish/ waiver GST on basic necessities. Basic necessities as well as luxury items should be taxed.However, I beg to differ from the government proposal to keep GST at 7% across the board.My BeliefsGoods and Services Tax tend to be regressive in nature, more so if the bulk of the indirect taxes are on basic necessities. This will adversely affect the attempt to redistribute income more equally between the rich and the poor. However, if indirect taxes are imposed substantially on luxuries goods or goods which constitute more of a want than a need, then they are progressive in nature.Increases to the Goods and Services Tax may be inflationary as well. They add on to the prices of goods and services, which may then spark off a wage spiral, and hence cost-push inflation. In the light of rising international oil prices, this will increase the financial burden on the lower-income groups, further eroding their spending power and subsequently affecting their standard of living.Moreover, as the Singapore population ages, fewer people will be working to support an increasingly aging population. To reduce the tax burden of the working adults, a flexible indirect tax system is required.Social safety nets and/ or welfare programmes aren’t really effective in assisting the lower-income groups on a permanent basis. More often than not, it is the lower-income groups that are bearing a large proportion of the tax burden.My Proposals1. To adopt a flexible GST structure. I propose a tax structure whereby both basic necessities and luxury goods will be taxed.2. I, however propose that all basic necessities will be taxed at a rate of 3% while keeping the tax rate for luxury items at a consistent rate of 7% as proposed by the government.3. What constituted a basic necessity and what does not will be determined by a special panel made up of government ministers, representatives from the various political parties, welfare help-groups, and more importantly, the general public.4. In order to cope with the possible fall in revenue that the government might face in implementing 2 different tax rates, I also would like to see the government raising the tax rate for cigarettes and alcohol consumption to offset the impact of implementing a 3% tax rate on basic necessities.5. This is in line with the inclusive society that the government has in mind as such a flexible tax structure alleviates the burden of the lower-income groups on a daily basis and at the same time, providing increased financial resources to assist the lower-income groups, thereby, reducing the widening income gap in Singapore society. More importantly, it provides an effective, feasible and long term solution to the income gap problem faced by the Singapore society.6. All in all, each citizen contributes to the national coffers on a fair, equal and distributive basis, according to their financial status and needs in the economy.Articles online:2 GST rates are better than oneProgressive GST anyone? Copyright © 2006 Union of Concerned Singaporeans, Inc. All rights reserved. What's the real story? I chanced upon the entry on Singapore Alternatives( http://singaporealternatives.blogspot.com/ ) . Singapore Alternatives happens to be Goh Meng Seng's own personal Blog. I thought there was a need to made known his opinion exposing the fallacies in the Sunday Times Report on both his resignation & Mr Chia Ti Lik's resignation from the Workers' Party.(What's the Story? November 12, 2006, Sunday). Once again we see the inaccurate and bias reporting of the mainstream media.What's the Story?I am amazed by the imagination that the reporters have when they write the "hot story" about Workers' Party with regards to Tilik's and my resignation. First of all, I must clarify again, two factual errors:1) The report suggested that Salim bought the 'cheng tng' for the SDP protestors:" Along with some other young WP members, he bought some cold cheng tng for Dr Chee and comrades, a gesture that was highlighted, with thanks, on the SDP website.The cheng tng overture received an icy reception from the WP leaders."As far as I know, it was Melvin Tan that bought the cheng tng, not Salim. I think ST reporters will have to keep up the 'high standards' that MM Lee has set for them, at least to be factually accurate in their reporting.2) Secondly, the article seems to indicate that my resignation got to do with:a) the internet guidelineb) the 'jockeying among young members' eyeing for the 'A' team.One of the reporter that I spoke to even ask me whether my resignation got to do with my move from NEAC (where the Aljunied GRC is included) to CAC. I hereby reiterate that my resignation is a simple resignation for a simple but important reason, accountability. It is on my own initiative to request a shift from NEAC to CAC for strategic and tactical reason that I am not going to reveal.Furthermore, I have resigned even before I know about the details of the internet guideline. Thus, it is impossible for me to make decision based on something that I was not even aware of in the first place!As far as I know, there are no signs of "jockeying" among young members for a bigger role within the party. In fact, most younger (in age) senior party members have decided to step down from positions in the Youth Wing willingly so to let young and new members to take up more responsiblities within the party. Melvin, Tilik, Shin Leong and I have voluntarily stepped down from Youth Wing positions and did not take part in the Youth Wing Council re-election process! Most importantly, we come to the same decision without even the need to consult each other! We are all very happy that the party has grown in strength and that there are many more people willing to take up our positions in the Youth Wing. We are not 'power crazy' at all but in fact, altruistic in all sense. We understand our visions, missions and roles very well.It is unfortunate that Tilik and I have decided to resign for two very different reasons. Some may think these are insignificant reasons or even "laughable", but to us, these are not small matters. It is a matter of principles and convictions. And to suggest that either Tilik or I resigned due to 'power struggle' would be grossly inappropriate and insulting to us. We have come a long way and decided to join Workers' Party when it was at its lowest point in recent history. It is definitely not power, fame nor any materialistic gains that motivated us to join Workers' Party at its weakest point. It is just pure passion, beliefs and convictions that bring us together in Workers' Party. If it is about power or better prospects of gaining power, fame or materialistic gains, we would not have chosen Workers' Party; Tilik would not have quitted PAP to join Workers' Party.We have come together, work together, trying our very best to develop and build up the party, right from its lowest point. I feel that it is really insulting to us for people even suggest that we resigned due to 'power struggle'. Ironically, this would be the most 'laughable' reason in our persepective!I would rather people see our reasons for resigning from Workers' Party mistakenly as 'trivial' or 'laughable' than being insulted in such crude way.Goh Meng SengCopyright © 2006 Union of Concerned Singaporeans, Inc. All rights reserved. Resignation of Chia Ti Lik from the WP CEC As we all now know, the Workers’ Party Central Executive Council (CEC) has just passed a new regulation curtailing CEC members’ Internet activities, prompting the resignation of Chia Ti Lik, the leader for the WP’s team for East Coast GRC during the last elections.This was what Mr Chia had to say about the new regulation passed by the CEC.“I think the party leadership is overly conservative. Some might say that it’s about being cautious. But I think sometimes you can be too cautious, shy away from important issues, and you don’t perform as an opposition should”He further argued, “The opposition at the moment does not live up to its role. It is too silent or too restrained in its criticism of the Government.”With all due respect to Mr Chia, I do not really agree with what he said.From my little knowledge of politics in Singapore, I would like to offer my 1 cent worth of opinion.I do not agree with the Mr Chia’s statement that the opposition shy away from important issues. Since the end of the elections in May, the Workers' Party had addressed at least 4 major issues affecting Singaporeans through its press releases. Notwithstanding that, the Workers’ Party, I believed had also voiced out strongly in the casino issue, issues on taxes, utilities, and even the political process.I can understand the cautious nature that the Workers’ Party is taking. Basically, the party is learning from past experiences encountered by the opposition. The PAP will pounce at any opportunity to discredit the opposition and make them look really awful in the eyes of the public. More often than not, the words and comments of opposition personalities have been taken out of context by the PAP, which in turn pave the way for the eventual demise of the opposition. Francis Seow in 1988, Tang Liang Hong in 1991, Ling How Doong during one of his parliament speeches, Chee Soon Juan and more recently James Gomez.Essentially, the leadership of the Workers’ Party is trying to prevent a repeat of what happened to the SDP in the aftermath of the 1991 elections. SDP was in a sense, quite similar to the WP in 1991. Riding on their successes during the ’91 elections, they became bold, too bold for the liking of the PAP, which eventually brought about their downfall ever since. Furthermore, with the internet emerging as a potent yet unknown political tool, every party including the Workers’ Party is still figuring out the correct and proper strategy to cope with the internet, so as to fully utilizing it to their advantage. I would not be surprised that the new regulations passed by the WP CEC are a temporary one. Even the ruling party is pouring in large sums of money to understand and research on the internet and its proper utilization.From this perspective, it can be seen that the party is outward looking, with an eye for the future, contrary to what Mr Chia said about the conservative nature of the leadership. Imagine this. If the WP were to allow its CEC members to freely voice out their opinions before they fully grasped the nature of the internet and the amount of harm it can do to the party as a whole, it will be too reckless on the part of the leadership, which might in turn, given all the institutional and structural obstacles placed by the PAP government, lead to the demise of the party with the most potential to brand itself as the alternative to the PAP.I thus applaud the Workers’ Party and its leadership for its foresight and humility in learning from past experiences. Essentially, the WP do not oppose for the sake of opposing. Rather, they seek to be relevant and constantly presenting their own point of view, but definitely not at the expense of their survival. Most definitely not at the expense of presenting Singaporeans with a credible and worthy alternative choice.Copyright © 2006 Union of Concerned Singaporeans, Inc. All rights reserved. WP Vs the Mass Media The Workers' Party was recently hit by the resignation of two members from the Central Executive Council (CEC), lawyer Chia Ti Lik & businessman Goh Meng Seng. Does it hint of trouble in the party?Since the end of the 2006 elections in May, the Workers’ Party has not managed to hit the headlines or at least the front page of the Straits Times until today. Lo and behold, the news on the resignation of the two CEC members took up one entire page of the Sunday Times today.What it goes to highlight is this. From my perspective, it highlights and reminded me once again of the extreme biasness of the government controlled print and broadcast media, essentially, the mass media. We could once again see from this little episode that the tentacles of the ruling government in the mass media are so prevalent and all-consuming.If one were to read the exclusive 1 page report on the WP today, it gives readers the impression that there is huge differences in opinions among the CEC members and more importantly, an ongoing power struggle within the party; jockeying for position among younger party members for bigger roles in the party’s activities and possibly future election lineups.The report will inevitably tarnish the image and credibility that the party has painstakingly built up during the course of the 2006 election. I quote from the Sunday Times, “During the election, the opposition party had impressed the public and observers with its discipline and unity”. The growing belief of a strong, honest, credible alternative party to the PAP is slowly emerging. Thus, it is of little wonder that any little issues within the party will be played up by the media. I see it as an attempt to derail all the positive publicity and political mileage that the Workers’ Party had gained in the aftermath of the 2006 elections.I would like to pose the following questions to the editors of the Straits Times.1. Why was a domestic issue within the WP given more attention than national issues? (Ms Sylvia Lim & Mr. Low Thia Khiang’s speech in parliament)2. From the website of the Workers’ Party, I understand that they are not lazing around after the elections, contrary to what the PAP would like us to believe. Usually there will be a public outreach at least once a week. In this case, why was there no single report on the weekly public outreach of the Workers’ Party?Surely, the Workers’ Party warrant more positive publicity that negative news?Surely, the Workers’ Party warrant equal coverage with the PAP, since the Workers’ Party is unofficially recognized as the largest and strongest opposition party in Singapore?That brings me to the 3rd question that I would like to pose to the editiors of ST. What is the hidden agenda behind this attention grabbing report?I do believe that Singaporeans like you and me know the answer to all my questions. I rest my case.Copyright © 2006 Union of Concerned Singaporeans, Inc. All rights reserved. 6ixth Photo Exhibition: Chiam See Tong's 6th Electoral VictoryVenue: The Substation Gallery, 45 Armenian StreetDate: 25 - 30 October 2006Opening Hours: 11 a.m. to 9 p.m.This is a photo exhibition on Chiam See Tong's 6th Electoral Win at Substation gallery from 24th -29th October. I got to know about this through from reading popagandhi & ~ a little fish finding her way in the world ~Chiam See Tong, one the most well-recognised and popular; i.e in Potong Pasir, politician and public figure in Singapore. Though I myself do not kinda agree with some of his erratic statements and policies, but I have to salute him for his courage in battling the entire PAP political machinery. It's never been more difficult being an opposition politician in a fear-ridden Singapore. And to think that he has survived waves after waves of onslaught from the PAP at every election and to emerge victorious is something to be noted.Do check out the exhibition if you are free. the map of where the exhibit is being held is below;Copyright © 2006 Union of Concerned Singaporeans, Inc. All rights reserved. Future of Singapore: Epsiode 4 (Do we have a Future?) Did i hear the wrong things or did i see it wrongly? I couldn't believe that anyone of any social position would have made such a childish, ridiculous remark. For one, I did not forsee it coming from not someone who had been through the Gifted Elite Program; one of Singapore's brightest prospect.Though, I got to admit that Ms Wee does indeed have a rather terrific command of the english language. I certainly pale in comparison with her in this aspect, but that's besides the point.More importantly, I was utterly disappointed, disillusioned and disgusted by Ms Wee's remark. Oh God, save me.I will now respond directly to her reply to a fellow blogger in the aftermath of the saga . . .******************************"i apologise if i have distressed you with my tendency to rant. while i will not dispute some of the points you make in response to what i have written, i would like to bring to your attention the fact that the post in question was never meant to be a cogent response to the specific points raised in derek wee’s article. it is, quite obviously, a rant in the heat of the moment. in addition, i don’t believe that my blog has the wide readership of derek wee’s, or even your own, and my intention was more to vent my own frustrations than public denouncement.i’d also like to clarify my use of the word “elite”. while i understand how misinterpretation may have arose, i intended to use it in irony, as a label that people assume i enjoy, and not one that i take particular pleasure in.finally, i admit that i was harsher than i should have been, although the the crux of my belief in self-improvement and self-determination has not changed. once again, i apologise if my words have unintentionally offended you - i was under the rather naive impression that nobody reads my blog."******************************Do you think that by labeling your comments as "a rant in the heat of moment" will help to cover up your mistakes/ irresponsible remark?Where's the respect for the diversity of views made by different individuals?Where's the tolerance that you have shown for a different view proposed to you; a view that is potentially a total disagreement with your core values? In the first place, shoudn't respect, tolerance, diversity of views, human dignity be part of your value system? Though i do understand that we should give you the benefit of the doubt. As it was put across in http://mysingaporenews.blogspot.com/,"Before I proceed further, please forgive her. She is a child. She knows not what she was speaking. I will be really angry if that kind of views come from an adult or someone making policies and decisions affecting the people. What we see in her is the tip of a smelly iceberg. It transcends from the little spoilt brat that demands the maid to do everything for 'it' to the peanut people among the elite. Not all elite are in the same shitty mindset. Thank god."But this only superficially diminish your responsibility in this saga. I'm sure that you are much brighter, much more nimble in your ideas and strong in your arguments. The system has put its trust in you becuase you have proved yourself to possess capabilities much higher than the rest of us, including me. You are training for leadership and management positions in future. I'm sure such statements wasn't made in the heat of the moment. I 'm also sure that you fully understood the repercusions of your statements. You are old enough to make your own decisions and to plot your future. No excuse at all. Once again, I would like to question the effectiveness of the education system in Singapore? Are we giving up the nurturing of our student's moral values and upbringing for the sake of economic robustness. In fact, are we trying too hard to keep the Singapore economic machinery churning at the expense of Singaporeans' core values?I believed it's time that we re-examine the education system once again. we have to decentralised the system, from an elitist mindset and system to one where each work and study for the benefits of each other. Not forgetting the focus on generating a strong Singapore identity. (Who says that Singapore with its diverse races and cultures will be unable to develop and infuse a national culture in the body politic?)If a student from the GEP can make such a horrendous remark, maybe the system that breeds arrogance and superiority within a minority is starting to show signs of decay?More importantly, taxpayers out there are financing the education of such students who will in no time assume the title of a scholar. Why should Singaporeans finance the scholarships of these people? Is it really worth it ? I have expressed what I wanted to. I would like to hear from you. Do you agree with what I said? Or do you think that I have no basis for my words? Share it with me. I would like to know about your views on this saga.Copyright © 2006 Union of Concerned Singaporeans, Inc. All rights reserved. Future of Singapore: Epsiode 3 (Climax) Before we continue, I would like to give you a short introduction on Miss Wee, one of the brightest student in Singapore.Ms Wee shares the same surname as Derek. Her academic achievements are impressive. She was from the elite gifted program at RGS who went on to top Singapore in the GCE ‘O’-levels in 2004. She also won the Prime Minister’s Book Prize for purportedly being effectively bilingual in Chinese and English (even though she often expresses her disdain for the Chinese language). And she is fluent in French. Hers is a highly affluent and privileged background. And without doubt too, hers is the perfect pedigree for joining the ranks of the highest echelons of the government.From Ms Wee’s blog:http://www.suchvividnothing.blogspot.com/Thursday, October 19, 2006mom’s friend sent her some blog post by some bleeding stupid 40-year old singaporean called derek wee (WHY do all the idiots have my surname why?!) whining about how singapore is such an insecure place, how old ppl (ie, 40 and above) fear for their jobs, how the pool of foreign “talent” (dismissively chucked between inverted commas) is really a tsunami that will consume us all (no actually he didn’t say that, he probably said Fouren Talern Bery Bad.), how the reason why no one wants kids is that they’re a liability in this world of fragile ricebowls, how the government really needs to save us from inevitable doom but they aren’t because they are stick-shoved-up-ass elites who have no idea how the world works, yadayadayadayada.i am inclined - too much, perhaps - to dismiss such people as crackpots. stupid crackpots. the sadder class. too often singaporeans - both the neighborhood poor and the red-taloned socialites - kid themselves into believing that our society, like most others, is compartmentalized by breeding. ridiculous. we are a tyranny of the capable and the clever, and the only other class is the complement.sad derek attracted more than 50 comments praising him for his poignant views, joining him in a chorus of complaints that climax at the accusation of lack of press freedom because his all-too-true views had been rejected by the straits times forum. while i tend to gripe about how we only have one functioning newspaper too, i think the main reason for its lack of publication was that his incensed diatribe was written in pathetic little scraps that passed off as sentences, with poor spelling and no grammar.derek, derek, derek darling, how can you expect to have an iron ricebowl or a solid future if you cannot spell?if you’re not good enough, life will kick you in the balls. that’s just how things go. there’s no point in lambasting the government for making our society one that is, i quote, “far too survival of fittest”. it’s the same everywhere. yes discrimination exists, and it is sad, but most of the time if people would prefer hiring other people over you, it’s because they’re better. it’s so sad when people like old derek lament the kind of world that singapore will be if we make it so uncertain. go be friggin communist, if uncertainty of success offends you so much - you will certainly be poor and miserable. unless you are an arm-twisting commie bully, which, given your whiny middle-class undereducated penchant, i doubt.then again, it’s easy for me to say. my future isn’t certain but i guess right now it’s a lot brighter than most people’s. derek will read this and brand me as an 18-year old elite, one of the sinners who will inherit the country and run his stock to the gutter. go ahead. the world is about winners and losers. it’s only sad when people who could be winners are marginalised and oppressed. is dear derek starving? has dear derek been denied an education? has dear derek been forced into child prostitution? has dear derek had his clan massacred by the government?i should think not. dear derek is one of many wretched, undermotivated, overassuming leeches in our country, and in this world. one of those who would prefer to be unemployed and wax lyrical about how his myriad talents are being abandoned for the foreigner’s, instead of earning a decent, stable living as a sales assistant. it’s not even about being a road sweeper. these shitbags don’t want anything without “manager” and a name card.please, get out of my elite uncaring face.posted at 12:08 PM*******************************Disgusted and Disappointed ~ In the last Epsiode, I will provide my own personal opinion on the statements made by Ms Wee.Copyright © 2006 Union of Concerned Singaporeans, Inc. All rights reserved. Future of Singapore: Epsiode 2 (Lights on, Cameras Rolling) By Derek WeeOctober 12, 2006When I read the Straits Times article (dated 24 Sep) on PM Lee calling the young to be committed and make a difference to Singapore, I have so much thought about the issue.I am 35 years old, graduated from University and gainfully employed in a multinational company. But I cannot help but feel insecure over the future of Singapore. Lets face it, it’s not uncommon to hear, “when you are above 40, you are over the hill”.The government has been stressing on re-training, skills upgrading and re-adapt. The fact is, no matter how well qualified or adaptable one is, once you hit the magical 40, employers will say, “you are simply too old”.We have been focusing our resources and problem solving on low unskilled labour. But in reality, our managerial positions and skilled labour force are actually fast losing its competitiveness.I travel around the region frequently for the past 10 years. It didn’t take me long to realise how far our neighbours have come over the past decade.They have quality skilled workers, and are less expensive. When I work with them, their analytical skills are equally good, if not better than us.It’s not new anymore. Taxi drivers are fast becoming “too early to retire, too old to work” segment of the society. I like to talk to taxi drivers whenever I am heading for the airport.There was this driver. Eloquent and well read. He was an export manager for 12 years with an MNC. Retrenched at 40 years old. He had been searching for a job since his retrenchment.Although he was willing to lower his pay expectations, employers were not willing to lower their prejudice. He was deemed too old. I wouldn’t be surprised if we have another No. 1; having the most highly educated taxi drivers in the world.On PM Lee calling the young to be committed and make a difference. Look around us. How dedicated can we be to Singapore when we can visualise what’s in store for us after we turned 40? Then again, how committed are employers to us? But we can’t blame them. They have bottom lines & shareholders’ gain to answer to.Onus is really on the government to revamp the society. A society that is not a pressure cooker. A society that does not mirror so perfectly, what survival of the fittest is.But a society, where it’s people can be committed, do their best and not having to fear whether they will still wake up employed tomorrow. Sadly, Singapore does not offer such luxuries and security anymore.On the issue of babies. The government encourages us to pro-create. The next generation is essential in sustaining our competitive edge. Then again, the current market condition is such that our future has become uncertain. There is no more joy in having babies anymore; they have become more of a liability. It’s really a chicken and egg issue.Many of my peers, bright and well educated have packed up and left. It’s what MM Goh called “quitters”. It’s sad but true, Singapore no longer is a place where one can hope to work hard their lives and retire graciously. It’s really the push factor.A future is something we sweat it out, build and call our own. Unfortunately, people like me, mid 30’s going on 40’s, staying put by choice or otherwise, we can’t help but feel what lies ahead is really a gamble.To PM Lee and the Ministers, we are on a different platform. Until you truly understand our insecurity, the future of Singapore to me remains a question mark.All may seems calm and responsible till now; a concerned citizen voicing out his opinions on the PM's appeal to the young. However, what you are gonna see next in Epsiode 3 is the comments made by a student from the Gifted Elite Program (GEP) in RGS, now a student in RJC, a particular Miss Wee.Looking at her comments, I believed if her comments was made public, it is almost certain to create a huge huge wrangle and possibly a painful backlash.Copyright © 2006 Union of Concerned Singaporeans, Inc. All rights reserved. Future of Singapore: Epsiode 1 (Background to a saga) Below is a press report in the Straits Times on PM Lee Heisn Loong's appeal to the younger generation.The Straits Times, September 24, 2006PM to young: Help make S'pore betterBy Peh Shing HueiTHEY told Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong they wanted to engage the Government, to contribute and be heard.But the question that several young Singaporeans had at a dialogue with him yesterday was how. A youth parliament perhaps? Or internships with ministers, through blogs, or more such dialogues?Mr Lee listened intently, interacting with the 220 in the audience at the Supreme Court auditorium, and gave this assurance: His Government recognises and encourages them to be a part of the process here.What was important, he said, was not so much the medium used.'What you really need is also not just the medium but to be on the same wavelength as the young people, to know what the young people are concerned about and to be able to talk to them so that they connect, their concerns, their issues,' he said.He told the audience that included students, civil servants, representatives from the media, youth and voluntary organisations that their generation 'had been prepared to the best of our ability'.Picking up a point from one participant who noted a recent survey which said youths wanted to migrate, he said they must ask themselves about their obligations to Singapore.Reminding them of the seriousness of his pledge to engage them, he said: 'We're looking for a young generation to come along and take the team forward. And if you go to another country...will you be heard? What will be your impact on public life on the community in a country with a few hundred million people?'They must, instead, stay and make a difference.'If I say I don't like this, I'm fed up, let's go, I think that's a great pity. We would have lost somebody in whom we've put a lot of hope, and I think Singapore will be worse off.'But if we say this is not good, I'm going to make a nuisance of myself until I fix it, that's different. Then I think there's hope for Singapore. You stand your ground and you make it better.What is it you are unhappy with, let's get that changed...You must have the optimal degree of unhappiness - just right, and the conviction to make a change.What is to unfold next in epsiode 2, is a gentleman's (Mr Derek Wee) reply in the Straits Times Forum to the above appeal made by PM Lee, which was not published in the mainstream media. Copyright © 2006 Union of Concerned Singaporeans, Inc. All rights reserved.