Singapore: A strange brew Singapore has been listed alongside cities in America and Europe as one of the “top (ten) cities” to visit in 2010 by Lonely Planet – an internationally acclaimed travel guide.The publication “The Best in Travel 2010″ is Lonely Planet’s fifth annual collection of best places to go and best things to do in the year ahead. Published this week”, it asks its readers to “ditch the image of Singapore as a dull, sterile Utopia – (to) scratch the surface and…discover a strange brew of Chinese, Malay, Indian and Western cultures, a rich social stew that’s anything but boring”.The Online Citizen asked Singapore Tourism Board (STB) how STB felt about Singapore being listed alongside other vibrant cities like Istanbul (Turkey), Vancouver (Canada), Charleston (USA) and Kyoto (Japan) and if this listing will help to bring in more visitors to Singapore.Mr Chang Chee Pey, STB’s Director of Brand Management responded to TOC’s questions saying, “To be named one of the top ten cities to visit in 2010 by reputed travel guru Lonely Planet is telling of Singapore growing into a global city with a variety of world class tourism offerings. The Singapore Tourism Board (STB) hopes this will encourage more potential visitors to come experience Singapore for themselves, especially in 2010, when Singapore will host mega events such as the Singapore 2010 Youth Olympic Games and the FORUMLA ONE SINGAPORE GRAND PRIX, and celebrate the opening of integrated resorts Resorts World Sentosa and Marina Bay SandsTM.”The cities in the Lonely Planet’s top ten besides Singapore are: Cuenca (Ecuador), Sarajevo (Bosnia & Hercegovina), Abu Dhabi (United Arab Emirates), Kyoto (Japan), Lecce (Italy), Cork (Ireland), Vancouver (Canada), Istanbul (Turkey), and Charleston (USA). If this listing will entice more tourists to visit Singapore, it will surely bring much cheer to the economy of Singapore, which is already showing signs of picking-up. World Day Against the Death Penalty 2009 – A Singapore Forum Editing: Andrew LohPhotography: Jeremy PhilemonThe Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Campaign, commemorated World Day Against the Death Penalty by organising a forum on 10 October 2009, and calling on the Singapore government to join 139 states throughout the world that have ceased executions in law or practice. The campaigners also used the event to plead for clemency for Yong Vui Kong, a 21-year-old Malaysian who has been sentenced to death for drug trafficking. He was 19 when he was caught for the offence in June 2007.Mr Alfian Sa’at moderated the forum and Mr Seelan Palay, an artist and activist, kick-started the forum by presenting case studies of people who have been executed in Singapore. He emphasised the point that Singapore is estimated to have one of the highest per capita execution rates in the world.Mr M Ravi spoke next and said that a mandatory death sentence is a cruel and inhumane punishment because even if the defendant’s lawyer is able to adduce fresh evidence or canvass a new argument which has merits, the court system in Singapore, does not have the power to re-open a case where an appeal had already been heard and dismissed by the Court of Appeal. Mr Ravi mentioned that in one particular case, when he asked the Chief Justice if the public prosecutor was “still maintaining that an innocent man be hanged because of procedure”, the Chief Justice answered, “Yes, the answer is yes”. He said that this clearly shows that there is a serious defect in our legal system. Ms Agnes Chia, a social worker, said that the core values of social work are the dignity and worth of individuals and unconditional positive regard for people, regardless of life situations. Social work believes that people have “an innate ability to change”, because an individual's behaviour affects and is affected by his or her social environment. Many in the forum applauded when Ms Chia said she hopes that more social workers in Singapore will speak up and advocate the abolishment of death penalty in Singapore.Ms Braema Mathi a human rights activist and the president of MARUAH (Singapore Working Group for an ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism), emphasised the fact that these individuals have committed a “blunder” and that this should not be ignored. However, they should be given the opportunity to be rehabilitated; and that the mandatory death penalty makes this impossible. Activist and social commentator, Mr Alex Au, summed up the forum and said that abolishment of the death penalty is a battle between ideas and values. That “the other side” believes in the idea that death is an appropriate penalty for those who commit certain crimes, irrespective of what scientific statistics might say, and over the value that every life is dignified. He encouraged everyone present to “talk to people about [the] death penalty”, to “go out and tell stories” and to “convince the other side”.The forum was then opened to the floor for comments and questions. The brother of Yong Vui Kong took the opportunity to apologise to the people of Singapore for the crime his brother has committed. He revealed that his mother, who is suffering from severe depression, is kept from receiving the news that his brother faces the death penalty. He also pleaded with the President of Singapore to grant clemency to his brother.After some very touching comments and questions from the floor, the forum ended with a call for those present to sign the petition urging the President of Singapore to grant clemency to Yong Vui Kong. Killed in your nameMy heart goes out to the family of Yong Vui Kong and his family.  He was in the prime of his youth (19), when he was caught for the offence of drug-trafficking.  An age when you think that you are invincible, an age where you are most subjected to peer-pressure, and an age where many costly mistakes are made.  And to deprive a mother of the knowledge that her son is facing impending death, to me is crueller than the noose of the hangman.  But in the case of Vui Kong’s mother, it is probably in her best interest right now for the news to be kept from her.I support the abolishment of the mandatory death penalty and support the call for the Courts in Singapore to be granted revisionary powers over all cases which carry the death penalty.I agree with Mr Au that the people, who believe in this cause, should talk to people about the death penalty and “go out and tell a story”; because stories have the power to change ideas. But unfortunately, the people on “the other side” are the majority who support the death penalty for various reasons, whether it be for deterrence, retribution, or for law and order purposes. It will be very difficult for elected legislators to push for the abolishment of the mandatory death sentence even if they personally believe in it, as they are but the representatives of the majority who support capital punishment. So, tell stories we must, especially to our children, as they are tomorrow's citizens, politicians, defendants, judges and lawyers and the world’s future is in their hands.  It is also important who tells the story.  The story must be told not just by the elites and the activists, but it must be told by the converts and the common man. In telling the story, the story-teller must not trivialise the offense committed as a mistake or ‘blunder’, for the fact is, it is something graver than a mere blunder – it is a crime. The story-teller must be able to answer queries and criticisms like who determines if the offender has an “innate ability to change”? In the meantime, as the rest of Singapore winds down to enjoy the long weekend, the person on the death-row goes into high anxiety as he does not know if it will be his last weekend; for in Singapore, the hangings take place on the Friday, and he is given four days notice of his execution on the Monday. And what is worse is he will never touch his loved even one last time, before he is executed by the state on  behalf of the citizens – he is killed in your name. -----------------------------Volunteers from Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Campaign will be on standby with the petition at Hanis Cafe at the Central Library (the one closest to Bugis MRT) from 2pm to 6pm on this Saturday, October 17, 2009.  Team Hope I had a hand in putting this together: That baffling reply – and the opposition’s silence The reply of Mr Chee Keng Chye, Deputy Director (Upgrading Programmes Management) Housing and Development Board (HDB) and Mr Sanjay Devmurari, Deputy Director (Corporate Communications), People’s Association(PA), in response to Mr Muhammad Yusuf Osman’s letter is baffling.Their reply said that it is the “Government’s practice to implement its national programmes for residents through advisers to grassroots organisations who are appointed by the Government to gather feedback from residents”. The issue they skirted around was that 82 of the 84 appointed grassroots advisers are elected Members of Parliament (MP) who belong to the People’s Action Party.If it is indeed government practice to implement national programmes for residents through advisers to grassroots organisations, then they should change their policy to appoint elected MPs as grassroots advisers (even if they are opposition MPs), or hold separate elections for the proper election of grassroots advisers by residents.To suggest that all grassroots advisers “regularly engage the local residents to understand their needs and concerns” is almost tantamount to the HDB and the People’s Association campaigning for the PAP’s Mr Eric Low and Mr Sitoh Yi Pin.Mr Low slapped a fee on his previously free health-screening programme, stopped his Meet-The-People sessions and the free breakfast service for the needy immediately after losing the last general elections; while Mr Sitoh’s right hand man, when commenting on the lack of community outreach events after the last general elections said, “So far, there’s been nothing. There is also nothing planned”.Both Mr Low’s and Mr Sitoh’s reactions immediately after the elections does seem vengeful, if not at least bitter; and certainly not one of understanding the needs and concerns of the residents.What is even more baffling is the deafening silence of the opposition MPs in the two wards, Mr Low Thia Khiang and Mr Chiam See Tong.  How do they feel about being identified merely as Town Council chairmen? Are they displeased that the announcement was not made to them first and/or through them to their constituents? They cannot continue to hide behind a theory that the media is biased against them, for the media of today is diverse and include not just the mainstream media but also the many bloggers whose reach is growing day by day online.-------------Mr Low Thia Khiang, Secretary General of the Workers' Party and Member of Parliament for Hougang has since given a robust reply to HDB and PA on this issue: "No basis for MP not to announce lift upgrading" Revisit the Policy and Practice "All things being equal, we have always put the PAP wards first”, National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan again reiterated the illogical reasoning to bring upgrading efforts to People’s Action Party (PAP) wards first, as the majority in those wards voted for the policy when they voted for the party in the General Elections.The PAP policy of giving priority to PAP constituencies in the matter of upgrading of HDB estates is an extremely divisive one, for it discriminates and denies the privileges of the tax-payer, between colleagues, friends and even family members who live in a PAP ward and the opposition ward. The reasoning employed to bring the Main Upgrading Programme (MUP), or Interim Upgrading Programme (IUP), or Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP), last to opposition held wards, if applied logically across all the policies initiated by the PAP over the years, will be disastrous. Could you imagine constituents in opposition held wards not being eligible for GST offset packages because that policy is initiated by the ruling party; or that opposition held wards will not be a part of Integrated Land Use Planning because these are policies crafted by the Ministry of the ruling party? Member of Parliament (MP) Mr Chiam See Tong appealed in parliament in January 2008 that, “It is very unfair of the Government to discriminate against Potong Pasir. Potong Pasir for the last 20 years has been completely deprived of any upgrading benefits. Millions of dollars have been spent, but Potong Pasir has not benefited even one cent of those funds spent on upgrading public flats. Are Potong Pasir residents not Singapore citizens? Don’t they pay income tax, don’t their sons do National Service? The Government should use public funds fairly for the benefit of all constituencies including the Opposition ones.”His appeal appeals to logic because upgrading of HDB estates is done with public money, and therefore should be applied fairly and equally for ALL Singaporeans, not just those living in PAP constituencies; and it should be prioritised according to needs and not according to whether a certain area has voted for a particular political party. Mr Mah’s argument that it is the practice for the grassroots advisors to announce upgrading programmes in constituencies is archaic, if not illogical. The grassroots advisors in 82 of the 84 constituencies are elected Members of Parliament for their particular constituency. This argument makes it clear that even if grassroots organisations profess to be apolitical, they are all administratively linked to the PAP and that these are therefore para-political organisations. Opposition parties like the Workers’ Party, which has set up an educational trust to award bursaries to the needy constituents of Hougang, also carry out grassroots level work and have Constituency Committees. But these are not recognised as grassroots organisations by the ruling party and so are not eligible for state fund, which is so very essential for the development of administrative competence of any grassroots organisation. The 'practice' as articulated by Mr Mah can only be valid if grassroots organisations are democratised and become an independent political or even a true apolitical space. In the absence of this, the Housing and Development Board and/or the Ministry of National Development, should have released the news of upgrading in opposition held constituencies to their respective MPs as they are the only true representative of the people in their constituency. Spillovers of tolerance We talk of tolerance as if it is a good thing. When compared against intolerance, of course it is! But what does tolerance really mean? It means to put up with or tolerate someone who is different from you. While it may be good to put up with someone who is different, tolerance isn’t all that helpful when it comes to the development of positive relationships. For this, we have to move beyond tolerance to acceptance.Fear is the greatest enemy of acceptance. Many fear that acceptance means having to agree with the behaviour or culture of another – it does not. Someone can be accepted without the other agreeing, understanding or celebrating their behaviour. Most of all tolerance stands for judgement, while acceptance is about love.Tolerance is about artificially creating a ‘culture of niceness’. Tolerance creates a breed of people who are nice on the surface, but beneath the surface may lay deep prejudices, stereotypes and biases, all only waiting to explode at the slightest provocation. Acceptance on the other hand, is a ‘heart thing’ – where one is nice to people who are different because their heart lines-up with it.The Prime Minister of Singapore urging all groups to exercise restraint and tolerance in his National Day message said that for Singaporeans to live together peacefully, “we need good sense and tolerance from all sides”. But after 44 years of being an independent nation and with tolerance being preached from the highest office of the nation for a period longer than that, have we truly evolved at least into a tolerant nation?Tolerance of cell-group members, who sing loudly next door, tolerance of the fragrance of incense which invades your home, tolerance of consuming halal and non-halal food at the same table because there is no more sitting space in the hawker centre, are all but only instances of tolerance of common space; not even tolerance of beliefs.Member of Parliament, Mr Michael Palmer said recently at a dialogue, “Tolerance evokes a situation where you don’t talk about it. You bottle it up, suck it in, even if you are not very happy with it.”Do all Chinese eat everything? Do all Indians ‘smell’ because of the gingelly oil they apply on their heads? Do all gays have multiple sexual partners? Tolerance only reinforces such prejudices; and what’s worst, forces the people carrying such misperceptions to remain silent and not discuss openly if their bias is right or wrong. The end result – it gets transmitted from one generation to another.Tolerance like all things bottled-up and sucked-in has got a tendency to leak out from time to time. Ken Lim, one of the judges of the Singapore Idol, riled the Indian community recently when he dismissed a wannabe Singapore Idol, Malaque Mahdaly as “that was amateurish, it lacks quality, but you’ll make a good Vasantham star”.A group of teenagers, decided to do a Malaque recently and posted their video on Youtube (the video on Youtube was removed and republished under a different moniker). Unfortunately all the teenagers featured in the video were Chinese. The posters ethnicity did not go unnoticed and has evoked ‘spillovers’ of tolerance in the comments to this video, from some in the Indian community, which are acerbic.Perhaps the ad for the Vasantham Star was so unprofessionally made that it was waiting to be spoofed. But what gave the idea to these young people that Indian stars sang while running around coconut trees? Old Bollywood and Kollywood movies? For Bollywood and Kollywood, stars do not run around trees while they sing in the new movies. Movies like Unnaipol Oruvan, a Kamal Hassan-Mohanlal starrer, does not even have songs, and are so professionally produced that it looks like a Hollywood movie. Was the idea that Indian stars sang while running around trees communicated to these young ones by their elders and they bought the stereotype wholesale without even bothering to get their facts straight?At the end of the day, all of us should be laughing at this ’spoof’ if we looked at it as Singaporeans mocking/spoofing a Singaporean show; instead, it has now turned ugly – the Chinese mocking the Indians. Strip away the ethnic undertones and this is nothing more than harmless tomfoolery.More than forty years of talk about tolerance is enough. It has only created people who hide behind a veneer – that they have the capacity of putting up with other people’s differences; but without re-visiting their own presumptions. There is an imperative need for Singapore to move beyond tolerance – to acceptance. And this is no highfalutin ideal. Does God Exist? This video which has been circulating at least since 2004 and claims that Albert Einstein humiliated his atheist professor by using the "Evil is the absence of God" argument on him is malicious, because it is untrue. Arguably well edited, this video was probably created to lobby the re-introduction of prayer into the American public schools.Although the fact remains that Einstein was born Jewish but stopped believing in God when he was 12, most people would probably have believed that Einstein did have the conversation with the professor because the video is so professionally made. People should check for the authenticity of all information, no matter how professionally made they look, for substantiation and accuracy.This video which purports to serve God has actually done Him great dis-service by presenting an untrue incident as truth. Does God Exist? This video which has been circulating at least since 2004 and claims that Albert Einstein humiliated his atheist professor by using the "Evil is the absence of God" argument on him is malicious, because it is untrue. Arguably well edited, this video was probably created to lobby the re-introduction of prayer into the American public schools.Although the fact remains that Einstein was born Jewish but stopped believing in God when he was 12, most people would probably have believed that Einstein did have the conversation with the professor because the video is so professionally made. People should check for the authenticity of all information, no matter how professionally made they look, for substantiation and accuracy.This video which purports to serve God has actually done Him great dis-service by presenting an untrue incident as truth. Passion And Patriotism (PAP) “It is difficult for him not to interfere,” said Mr Goh Chok Tong as he took over from Mr Lee Kuan Yew as the Prime Minister of Singapore in 1990. Whether one likes him or not, no one can deny that this Cambridge-trained barrister who has promised to get up even from his sick bed or while being lowered into his grave, if he feels something is wrong with Singapore, has left an indelible mark in the modern history of Singapore.A Stroll down Memory LaneMr Lee probably was politically awakened while he worked as a clerk and later as a cable editor at a Japanese propaganda agency during World War II. In his late 20s, Mr Lee joined Laycock & Ong and he campaigned for his boss John Laycock, a Singapore Progressive Party leader, in 1951. During this period, he became increasingly involved in a number of left-wing cases.Whatever his detractors may say, there is no denying that if there is one quality this man had, it is the one called passion – Passion with a capital P.Mr Lee never charged for the legal services he provided the unions. Former Straits Times news editor Felix Abisheganaden, who was acquainted with Mr Lee in the 1950s and 1960s, noted that he hardly ever charged the unions for his work. “You can never say that he was ever in his life after any kind of financial gain – never, never, never.” His stint in London, his involvement in the Malayan Forum and the influence of the British Labour Party had taught him that he had to be pro-labour and build his network power base through the trade unions. Right from the start, noted former People’s Action Party (PAP) chairman Toh Chin Chye, “It was the unions that provided the mass base. Lee Kuan Yew was the legal advisor, so he had a mass base.”It was but the passion of Mr Lee and the team he led (with the likes of Mr Toh Chin Chye, Mr S Rajaratnam, Mr Goh Keng Swee and Mr S Devan Nair), which enabled PAP to sweep the 1959 general elections. It was his passion which persuaded the Malayan premier and leader of the Alliance Party, to include Singapore in the merger. It was his passion which caused him to campaign for a ‘Malaysian Malaysia’; and again, it was Mr Lee passion which was the major reason for the separation of Singapore from Malaysia.“The ousting of Singapore, despite what history books might say, are anything but cordial,” says Mr M.G.G. Pillai in his article “Did Lee Kuan Yew want Singapore ejected from Malaysia?” Mr Pillai writes that Mr Lee then being in his 40s was brash. This prompted Tunku Abdul Rahman to condition that if Singapore were to remain a part of Malaysia, Mr Lee had got to get out of the picture. That was a condition which was too unacceptable to consider, even for an impassioned Mr Lee.Maybe it was the ouster of Singapore from Malaysia which kindled Mr Lee to prove that Singapore could not only survive without Malaysia, but could also do better than Malaysia. Perhaps Mr Lee envisioned Singapore to be him and him to be Singapore; and driven by Napoleon Complex Mr Lee strived to keep Singapore ‘up there’, whatever the cause was. It’s highly possible that he had something to prove to those who ‘pooh-poohed’ his ideal of a ‘Malaysian Malaysia’.The PresentFast forward to the year 2009 and we find a Mr Lee who is still impassioned about Singapore. Recently he found it necessary to “bring the House back to earth” for their highfalutin idea that the Singapore National Pledge was an ideal. It was an aspiration he said – not an ideal. Never mind that the pledge is neither an ideal nor an aspiration, but a promise; “Nobody can speak with the knowledge that I have”, he said.But what Mr Lee failed to realise was that the Nominated Member of Parliament, who tabled a motion calling for the House to reaffirm its commitment to the principles enshrined in the Singapore National Pledge, was actually echoing the call Mr Lee Kuan Yew made decades ago; only this time for a ‘Singaporean Singapore’. Did the ouster from Malaysia turn this man into a convert of cold-eyed pragmatism, which prescribes that there are no ideals except the ideal of pragmatism?From his days as a cable editor of the Japanese propaganda machine, through his years as an agitator for independence from Britain, to the merger and (soon after) ouster from Malaysia; from his time spent talking to the Americans during the Vietnam years to his role as a confidant of China’s leadership, Mr Lee has seen it all. And more importantly, he has raised a generation of pragmatists.But in a rapidly changing world, pragmatism does not fire the imagination of many, especially the young. Singapore craves for a leader with the “bring back to earth” kind of charisma that Mr Lee possesses; but charisma which is tempered with humanity. Pragmatism sadly can never breed such a leader.Mr Pillai argues in his article that “Singapore will eventually have to merge with Malaysia, but as an adjunct of Johore”, when Johor stops supplying water to Singapore. Perhaps we need problems of such magnitude to throw up true patriots like our founding fathers – patriots like Mr Lee Kuan Yew.Happy birthday Mr Lee Kuan Yew. Passion And Patriotism (PAP) “It is difficult for him not to interfere,” said Mr Goh Chok Tong as he took over from Mr Lee Kuan Yew as the Prime Minister of Singapore in 1990. Whether one likes him or not, no one can deny that this Cambridge-trained barrister who has promised to get up even from his sick bed or while being lowered into his grave, if he feels something is wrong with Singapore, has left an indelible mark in the modern history of Singapore.A Stroll down Memory LaneMr Lee probably was politically awakened while he worked as a clerk and later as a cable editor at a Japanese propaganda agency during World War II. In his late 20s, Mr Lee joined Laycock & Ong and he campaigned for his boss John Laycock, a Singapore Progressive Party leader, in 1951. During this period, he became increasingly involved in a number of left-wing cases.Whatever his detractors may say, there is no denying that if there is one quality this man had, it is the one called passion – Passion with a capital P.Mr Lee never charged for the legal services he provided the unions. Former Straits Times news editor Felix Abisheganaden, who was acquainted with Mr Lee in the 1950s and 1960s, noted that he hardly ever charged the unions for his work. “You can never say that he was ever in his life after any kind of financial gain – never, never, never.” His stint in London, his involvement in the Malayan Forum and the influence of the British Labour Party had taught him that he had to be pro-labour and build his network power base through the trade unions. Right from the start, noted former People’s Action Party (PAP) chairman Toh Chin Chye, “It was the unions that provided the mass base. Lee Kuan Yew was the legal advisor, so he had a mass base.”It was but the passion of Mr Lee and the team he led (with the likes of Mr Toh Chin Chye, Mr S Rajaratnam, Mr Goh Keng Swee and Mr S Devan Nair), which enabled PAP to sweep the 1959 general elections. It was his passion which persuaded the Malayan premier and leader of the Alliance Party, to include Singapore in the merger. It was his passion which caused him to campaign for a ‘Malaysian Malaysia’; and again, it was Mr Lee passion which was the major reason for the separation of Singapore from Malaysia.“The ousting of Singapore, despite what history books might say, are anything but cordial,” says Mr M.G.G. Pillai in his article “Did Lee Kuan Yew want Singapore ejected from Malaysia?” Mr Pillai writes that Mr Lee then being in his 40s was brash. This prompted Tunku Abdul Rahman to condition that if Singapore were to remain a part of Malaysia, Mr Lee had got to get out of the picture. That was a condition which was too unacceptable to consider, even for an impassioned Mr Lee.Maybe it was the ouster of Singapore from Malaysia which kindled Mr Lee to prove that Singapore could not only survive without Malaysia, but could also do better than Malaysia. Perhaps Mr Lee envisioned Singapore to be him and him to be Singapore; and driven by Napoleon Complex Mr Lee strived to keep Singapore ‘up there’, whatever the cause was. It’s highly possible that he had something to prove to those who ‘pooh-poohed’ his ideal of a ‘Malaysian Malaysia’.The PresentFast forward to the year 2009 and we find a Mr Lee who is still impassioned about Singapore. Recently he found it necessary to “bring the House back to earth” for their highfalutin idea that the Singapore National Pledge was an ideal. It was an aspiration he said – not an ideal. Never mind that the pledge is neither an ideal nor an aspiration, but a promise; “Nobody can speak with the knowledge that I have”, he said.But what Mr Lee failed to realise was that the Nominated Member of Parliament, who tabled a motion calling for the House to reaffirm its commitment to the principles enshrined in the Singapore National Pledge, was actually echoing the call Mr Lee Kuan Yew made decades ago; only this time for a ‘Singaporean Singapore’. Did the ouster from Malaysia turn this man into a convert of cold-eyed pragmatism, which prescribes that there are no ideals except the ideal of pragmatism?From his days as a cable editor of the Japanese propaganda machine, through his years as an agitator for independence from Britain, to the merger and (soon after) ouster from Malaysia; from his time spent talking to the Americans during the Vietnam years to his role as a confidant of China’s leadership, Mr Lee has seen it all. And more importantly, he has raised a generation of pragmatists.But in a rapidly changing world, pragmatism does not fire the imagination of many, especially the young. Singapore craves for a leader with the “bring back to earth” kind of charisma that Mr Lee possesses; but charisma which is tempered with humanity. Pragmatism sadly can never breed such a leader.Mr Pillai argues in his article that “Singapore will eventually have to merge with Malaysia, but as an adjunct of Johore”, when Johor stops supplying water to Singapore. Perhaps we need problems of such magnitude to throw up true patriots like our founding fathers – patriots like Mr Lee Kuan Yew.Happy birthday Mr Lee Kuan Yew. The global loan shark OVER ninety countries comprising more than half the world’s population have lived directly under International Monetary Fund (IMF) imposed conditions. In other words, the IMF has had a tremendous impact on billions of people around the world. But how well has the IMF performed in improving the lives of the people in these countries?Founded at the end of World War II to promote global economic stability, the IMF keeps watch on the currency, trade and economic policies of its 184-member nations and makes nonbinding recommendations for improvement. The fund also provides low-cost loans to countries in financial need on the condition that borrowers undertake economic policy changes like adjusting their balance of payments or reducing inflation.One might think that after the IMF is done with these countries, they would be less in debt than before the IMF got to them in the first place. It is disconcerting to learn, that in the seven years after the IMF sanctioned ‘stabilisation’ programme, Sudan’s debt increased from 2 billion US dollars to 13 billion US dollars. (See: The New Scientist: Third World Debt)In other words Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) countries like Sudan, after cutting all of their basic programs, were more in debt than when the IMF got to them in the first place. Does that sound like a successful loan program? It certainly does sounds like a successful loan-sharking program. (See: IMF and World Bank: Global Loan Sharks and the Media)In 2008 the IMF was suddenly called back into action after years of declining relevance when financial crises began to swamp struggling countries. The fund brokered rescue packages for Pakistan, Iceland, Hungary and Ukraine; moves that thrust it into the thick of a global crisis after a frustrating period in which it was a bystander.However, in keeping with its tradition, IMF continues to make crisis loans with heavy conditionality that may adversely affect HIPC. For example, its loan to Pakistan came with a condition to raise interest rates and electricity tariffs before the end of 2008. These conditions will have enormous financial and social consequences for the poor in Pakistan, and frighteningly exacerbate income disparity.Of course the new IMF loan agreements have clauses about strengthening social safety nets and maintaining or increasing spending on social protection, which is an improvement from the way the IMF, approached social protection in the Asian financial crisis in the late 1990s. But as recessions in the borrowing countries deepen, meeting strict spending limits in IMF programmes may be difficult without cuts to public services and social protection.Another controversy IMF courts are with its loans to Sri Lanka. IMF officials justify the loans by saying that Sri Lanka is facing a financial collapse because its reserves are totally drying up. That $3.5b which it had in reserves has depleted to nearly $1b; enough to cover a dangerously low 4-week period. But Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch, in urging Britain and the United States of America not to approve the loan says, “Sri Lanka is in a fiscal mess in good part because it massively overspent on this war”.Despite opposition from several countries, including the United States of America, Britain, Germany, France and Argentina, IMF approved a massive US$2.6 billion loan to Sri Lanka in July 2009, saying that it has noted the human rights violations and to impose conditions on the improvement of human rights to the loan, is but a concern of the western nations.In fact, IMF vehemently states that human rights advocates “should not expect the IMF to impose human rights conditions on its assistance to member countries”. What IMF has failed to realise is that human rights is not a just a concern of western nations, it a fundamental human norm, which cannot and should not be ignored by international financial institutions such as the IMF.Singapore which has been a contributor to IMF’s loan programmes since 1998, quadrupling its lending to IMF recently to US$1.5. This credit by Singapore to IMF will go into a New Arrangement to Borrow Scheme (NAB) which deals with “situations that may threaten the stability of the global financial system”.Hopefully countries like Pakistan will not become more indebted in a decade by participating in such programmes of IMF. Hopefully Singapore has not unwittingly become a ‘syndicate’ of global loan sharks like the IMF. The global loan shark OVER ninety countries comprising more than half the world’s population have lived directly under International Monetary Fund (IMF) imposed conditions. In other words, the IMF has had a tremendous impact on billions of people around the world. But how well has the IMF performed in improving the lives of the people in these countries?Founded at the end of World War II to promote global economic stability, the IMF keeps watch on the currency, trade and economic policies of its 184-member nations and makes nonbinding recommendations for improvement. The fund also provides low-cost loans to countries in financial need on the condition that borrowers undertake economic policy changes like adjusting their balance of payments or reducing inflation.One might think that after the IMF is done with these countries, they would be less in debt than before the IMF got to them in the first place. It is disconcerting to learn, that in the seven years after the IMF sanctioned ‘stabilisation’ programme, Sudan’s debt increased from 2 billion US dollars to 13 billion US dollars. (See: The New Scientist: Third World Debt)In other words Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) countries like Sudan, after cutting all of their basic programs, were more in debt than when the IMF got to them in the first place. Does that sound like a successful loan program? It certainly does sounds like a successful loan-sharking program. (See: IMF and World Bank: Global Loan Sharks and the Media)In 2008 the IMF was suddenly called back into action after years of declining relevance when financial crises began to swamp struggling countries. The fund brokered rescue packages for Pakistan, Iceland, Hungary and Ukraine; moves that thrust it into the thick of a global crisis after a frustrating period in which it was a bystander.However, in keeping with its tradition, IMF continues to make crisis loans with heavy conditionality that may adversely affect HIPC. For example, its loan to Pakistan came with a condition to raise interest rates and electricity tariffs before the end of 2008. These conditions will have enormous financial and social consequences for the poor in Pakistan, and frighteningly exacerbate income disparity.Of course the new IMF loan agreements have clauses about strengthening social safety nets and maintaining or increasing spending on social protection, which is an improvement from the way the IMF, approached social protection in the Asian financial crisis in the late 1990s. But as recessions in the borrowing countries deepen, meeting strict spending limits in IMF programmes may be difficult without cuts to public services and social protection.Another controversy IMF courts are with its loans to Sri Lanka. IMF officials justify the loans by saying that Sri Lanka is facing a financial collapse because its reserves are totally drying up. That $3.5b which it had in reserves has depleted to nearly $1b; enough to cover a dangerously low 4-week period. But Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch, in urging Britain and the United States of America not to approve the loan says, “Sri Lanka is in a fiscal mess in good part because it massively overspent on this war”.Despite opposition from several countries, including the United States of America, Britain, Germany, France and Argentina, IMF approved a massive US$2.6 billion loan to Sri Lanka in July 2009, saying that it has noted the human rights violations and to impose conditions on the improvement of human rights to the loan, is but a concern of the western nations.In fact, IMF vehemently states that human rights advocates “should not expect the IMF to impose human rights conditions on its assistance to member countries”. What IMF has failed to realise is that human rights is not a just a concern of western nations, it a fundamental human norm, which cannot and should not be ignored by international financial institutions such as the IMF.Singapore which has been a contributor to IMF’s loan programmes since 1998, quadrupling its lending to IMF recently to US$1.5. This credit by Singapore to IMF will go into a New Arrangement to Borrow Scheme (NAB) which deals with “situations that may threaten the stability of the global financial system”.Hopefully countries like Pakistan will not become more indebted in a decade by participating in such programmes of IMF. Hopefully Singapore has not unwittingly become a ‘syndicate’ of global loan sharks like the IMF. 'Adversaries' are patriots as well The article “Media must stay balanced”, by Clarissa Oon has a tagline, “This can help in battling the influence of online media that are biased, says minister”. The minister, RADM (NS) Lui Tuck Yew despite being relieved from the Armed Forces, does not seem to have relieved himself from it, for he still continues to speak about ‘battle’ and ‘adversarial’. Fang Shihan rightly says in The Online Citizen, “As the former Chief of the Republic of Singapore Navy (RSN), Minister Lui displays the temperament of one who only knows of control and battle, not cooperation”. And is there such a thing as ‘objective’, ‘unbiased’ news reporting? Even the main stream media is guilty of being biased - biased towards the establishment.The minister then went on to cite a recent video of an elderly Singaporean woman who makes a living by collecting and selling scrap cardboard, saying that the clip was flagged by bloggers as evidence that Singapore did not take sufficient care of its poor and elderly; but these commentators 'did not mention she had a three-room flat that was fully paid for, and that she has five children but did not want to rely on them to support her'. What Mr. Lui fails to realise is that in a country like Singapore, where so much of distrust is perpetrated by the government (even by the Ministry of Information, Communication and the Arts) against the new media, it is next to impossible for the bloggers to get information like that. It is not that the bloggers ‘did not mention’, the bloggers did not know. So, how did the government and the main stream media react when the blogosphere was spreading such ‘misinformation’? Keep quiet and pretend that you never heard or saw anything, only to talk about it at a dialogue session meant to praise the ‘credibility’ of the main stream media? The Acting Minister also went on to say that the main stream media should not become “adversarial or one-sided like some socio-political blogs”. I mean, what’s wrong in being adversarial? It is important first to understand the ‘adversarial’ role bloggers play. Are these adversaries the adversaries of the nation? Or are these ‘adversaries’ so very crucial to the state for they identify the vulnerabilities which lie within, which may be exploited by the true enemies of the nation. That all bloggers are adversaries is but a myth.‘Adversaries’ are patriots as well! The Acting Minister of Information, Communication and the Arts, should not have drawn the battle-lines for the main stream media to alienate people who are on the same side – the people from the blogosphere. 'Adversaries' are patriots as well The article “Media must stay balanced”, by Clarissa Oon has a tagline, “This can help in battling the influence of online media that are biased, says minister”. The minister, RADM (NS) Lui Tuck Yew despite being relieved from the Armed Forces, does not seem to have relieved himself from it, for he still continues to speak about ‘battle’ and ‘adversarial’. Fang Shihan rightly says in The Online Citizen, “As the former Chief of the Republic of Singapore Navy (RSN), Minister Lui displays the temperament of one who only knows of control and battle, not cooperation”. And is there such a thing as ‘objective’, ‘unbiased’ news reporting? Even the main stream media is guilty of being biased - biased towards the establishment.The minister then went on to cite a recent video of an elderly Singaporean woman who makes a living by collecting and selling scrap cardboard, saying that the clip was flagged by bloggers as evidence that Singapore did not take sufficient care of its poor and elderly; but these commentators 'did not mention she had a three-room flat that was fully paid for, and that she has five children but did not want to rely on them to support her'. What Mr. Lui fails to realise is that in a country like Singapore, where so much of distrust is perpetrated by the government (even by the Ministry of Information, Communication and the Arts) against the new media, it is next to impossible for the bloggers to get information like that. It is not that the bloggers ‘did not mention’, the bloggers did not know. So, how did the government and the main stream media react when the blogosphere was spreading such ‘misinformation’? Keep quiet and pretend that you never heard or saw anything, only to talk about it at a dialogue session meant to praise the ‘credibility’ of the main stream media? The Acting Minister also went on to say that the main stream media should not become “adversarial or one-sided like some socio-political blogs”. I mean, what’s wrong in being adversarial? It is important first to understand the ‘adversarial’ role bloggers play. Are these adversaries the adversaries of the nation? Or are these ‘adversaries’ so very crucial to the state for they identify the vulnerabilities which lie within, which may be exploited by the true enemies of the nation. That all bloggers are adversaries is but a myth.‘Adversaries’ are patriots as well! The Acting Minister of Information, Communication and the Arts, should not have drawn the battle-lines for the main stream media to alienate people who are on the same side – the people from the blogosphere. Laughing all the way to the bank National Development Minister when asked about the rising HDB prices, says, "Flat prices would probably go up, they will go up by 1 per cent, 2 per cent, or whatever. They will just keep on going up if the economy recovers as people expect, and if confidence returns, but affordability will always be there."With the Singapore economy still expected to shrink by 3.6 per cent and expectations of downside risks from labour market globally, should not have the National Development Minister brought those that are driving the HDB prices pinnacle high "back to earth"? Is the supposed profit margin of 143 per cent too high a price to have spoken the truth? Laughing all the way to the bank National Development Minister when asked about the rising HDB prices, says, "Flat prices would probably go up, they will go up by 1 per cent, 2 per cent, or whatever. They will just keep on going up if the economy recovers as people expect, and if confidence returns, but affordability will always be there."With the Singapore economy still expected to shrink by 3.6 per cent and expectations of downside risks from labour market globally, should not have the National Development Minister brought those that are driving the HDB prices pinnacle high "back to earth"? Is the supposed profit margin of 143 per cent too high a price to have spoken the truth? The Singapore Story – A failure of pragmatism The PAP’s brand of politics in choosing and championing pragmatism, has trumped and rendered obsolete all ideologies. But what good are the competencies and expertise of pragmatism, if it is not tempered with ideology?Ideology is not a bad word. Ideology is but the core fundamental beliefs and political principles which exist independent of considerations for competencies and expertise. For how can we assess political leaders based solely on technocratic effectiveness and expertise in crafting policies, which pragmatism prescribes, without regard to ideology?Just as it is possible to become too rigid and unyielding in upholding ideological beliefs by adhering excessively to principles without regard to consequences, it is equally possible to become so pragmatic that one operates without any core principles.The ruling PAP in engendering an overcompensating desire to rid ourselves of ideology in the name of pragmatism; have robbed Singaporeans and even most of our political leaders currently in Parliament from forming inalienable values and precepts, which are critical in the forging of a true nation.Read the rest of the article here: The Online Citizen The Singapore Story – A failure of pragmatism The PAP’s brand of politics in choosing and championing pragmatism, has trumped and rendered obsolete all ideologies. But what good are the competencies and expertise of pragmatism, if it is not tempered with ideology?Ideology is not a bad word. Ideology is but the core fundamental beliefs and political principles which exist independent of considerations for competencies and expertise. For how can we assess political leaders based solely on technocratic effectiveness and expertise in crafting policies, which pragmatism prescribes, without regard to ideology?Just as it is possible to become too rigid and unyielding in upholding ideological beliefs by adhering excessively to principles without regard to consequences, it is equally possible to become so pragmatic that one operates without any core principles.The ruling PAP in engendering an overcompensating desire to rid ourselves of ideology in the name of pragmatism; have robbed Singaporeans and even most of our political leaders currently in Parliament from forming inalienable values and precepts, which are critical in the forging of a true nation.Read the rest of the article here: The Online Citizen RP ND Message – The devil is in the details It is commendable that the secretary-general of RP (Reform Party) calls for “free compulsory education for at least up to secondary level”. However, he did not elaborate if it is for all Singaporeans that RP advocates this. Compulsory education is still not compulsory for children with special needs in modern Singapore, for example.Read the rest of the article here: The Online Citizen RP ND Message – The devil is in the details It is commendable that the secretary-general of RP (Reform Party) calls for “free compulsory education for at least up to secondary level”. However, he did not elaborate if it is for all Singaporeans that RP advocates this. Compulsory education is still not compulsory for children with special needs in modern Singapore, for example.Read the rest of the article here: The Online Citizen Singapore's Loan Sharking Problem "Most of the people who turn to loan sharks are from low-income families and they usually borrow small amounts like S$200 or S$300," explains Ravi Philemon, a voluntary social worker and the executive director of a charity for the mentally-disabled. "You shouldn't criminalize people who have no choice but to turn to the loan sharks to buy food and clothes for their families."Philemon argues that if the law is brought in it will stop victims of loan shark harassment from going to the police for fear that they themselves will be arrested. "This would reduce the number of people reporting loan shark harassment to the police but would not solve the basic problem," he adds.Philemon believes that the root cause of the problem is a lack of sources of unsecured credit for less well-off Singaporeans. He cites the case of one family that wanted to set up a food stall and had no other alternative than to borrow from a loan shark. When their business faced cash-flow problems, they defaulted on their repayments and the amount they owed spiraled from S$20,000 to S$90,000. They were eventually forced to sell their flat earlier this year and now live in a tent in Sembawang Park, on the northern coast of Singapore. "We need to make loans available to lower-income families and if the banks won't lend at the moment then the government should," he argues.As reported in the Asia Sentinel: Singapore's Loan Sharking Problem Singapore's Loan Sharking Problem "Most of the people who turn to loan sharks are from low-income families and they usually borrow small amounts like S$200 or S$300," explains Ravi Philemon, a voluntary social worker and the executive director of a charity for the mentally-disabled. "You shouldn't criminalize people who have no choice but to turn to the loan sharks to buy food and clothes for their families."Philemon argues that if the law is brought in it will stop victims of loan shark harassment from going to the police for fear that they themselves will be arrested. "This would reduce the number of people reporting loan shark harassment to the police but would not solve the basic problem," he adds.Philemon believes that the root cause of the problem is a lack of sources of unsecured credit for less well-off Singaporeans. He cites the case of one family that wanted to set up a food stall and had no other alternative than to borrow from a loan shark. When their business faced cash-flow problems, they defaulted on their repayments and the amount they owed spiraled from S$20,000 to S$90,000. They were eventually forced to sell their flat earlier this year and now live in a tent in Sembawang Park, on the northern coast of Singapore. "We need to make loans available to lower-income families and if the banks won't lend at the moment then the government should," he argues.As reported in the Asia Sentinel: Singapore's Loan Sharking Problem "Combating Financial Crisis May be Protracted" - says George Yeo Donaldson Tan a fellow writer at The Online Citizen says: "Fellow TOC writer Ravi Philemon was mentioned by Zhaobao. Since he can't read mandarin, I think I will do some goodwill to translate the article. This is a non-verbatim translation."Original: http://www.zaobao.com/special/us/pages10/fincrisis090802b.shtmlYOUTH DIALOGUE WITH GEORGE YEO: COMBATING THE FINANCIAL CRISIS MAY BE PROTRACTED2 August 2009. Lian He Zhao BaoThe world economic outlook remains bleak in the shadow of the global economic crisis. Singaporeans have to be mentally prepared for a potentially protracted economic crisis. In view of this, Minister for Foreign Affairs George Yeo said that the Government has adopted a conservative approach. Singapore needs to focus her energies on investing in education, maintaining an open economy and constantly searching for economic opportunities.George Yeo met 30 youths and students at a McDonald's branch along 21 Hougang Street. They discussed the impact of the economic climate on individuals and strategies on how to mitigate the impact. The discussion entailed the issue of race, foreign talent / workers, ASEAN integration and foreign policy. Although the future is uncertain, George Yeo believes that Singapore has potential."We are centrally located in a burgeoning Asian economy. Both India and China are experiencing large-scale infrastructure investment ... With exception to Singapore, Malaysia & Thailand, the Southeast Asian economy is also growing. We not only have an economic advantage, but also a cultural one because there is international optimism about the Singapore's prospects."This event is an initiative of the Youth Executive Committee of the Punggol Community Centre. George Yeo is the Aljunied GRC Member of Parliament. He is also the advisor to a grassroot organisation based in Bedok Reservoir. A spokesperson of the event organiser said that this event is meant to provide a relaxed environment for youths to exchange their concerns with the Minister.On the additional risks brought by the Singapore's open economy model, George Yeo said, "We have no choice." He also pointed out that Singapore has always been a trading centre since its inception by Sir Stamford Raffles. Trade today is 3 times the Gross National Product.Faced with the rise of China and India, Singapore should not be closing her doors. Quoting Shakespeare, George Yeo said we have to "embark on the white-water adventure and fly courageously in on the wave" [I don't know the original Shakespeare's quote] rather than seating on the fence. "It won't be easy, but in the end, it makes our lives better," said George Yeo.On competitive pressure exerted by foreign workers/talents on Singaporean workers, Blogger Ravi Philemon urged the Government to follow the example of Canada to legislate employers to prioritise the employment of Singaporean over non-Singaporeans.George Yeo responded that protection of Singaporeans' jobs must be measured such that it will not lead to overall loss of Singapore's competitiveness. He also reiterated that non-native workers are not in Singapore to snatch the rice bowls of Singaporeans, but create new employment opportunities.On the issue of racial harmony, a secondary school teacher enquired if the Government has evaluated the effectiveness of its teaching policy to eliminate racial prejudice among students. George Yeo said that racial prejudice is not only difficult to eliminate, but it also exists in all societies. In his view, racism in Singapore is not serious. On the contrary, Singapore's multi-ethnic society provided a cultural basis to engage foreign culture. This is one of Singapore's unique advantages in the global economic environment.Several young people who participated in the dialogue felt that George Yeo only regurgitated the Government's position and that there is not much common ground. "Although the Minister is of sincere honest attitude, I do not expect any change arising from this dialogue," said Ravi Philemon.In response, George Yeo told the reporters, "The views of the two sides are not so divergent. The problems they raised are real and their concerns are reasonable. However, we need to adopt a balanced approach to examine these issues. This dialogue is an excellent learning process. Through the dialogue, I felt the vitality of youths and learned to understand their thoughts and beliefs." "Combating Financial Crisis May be Protracted" - says George Yeo Donaldson Tan a fellow writer at The Online Citizen says: "Fellow TOC writer Ravi Philemon was mentioned by Zhaobao. Since he can't read mandarin, I think I will do some goodwill to translate the article. This is a non-verbatim translation."Original: http://www.zaobao.com/special/us/pages10/fincrisis090802b.shtmlYOUTH DIALOGUE WITH GEORGE YEO: COMBATING THE FINANCIAL CRISIS MAY BE PROTRACTED2 August 2009. Lian He Zhao BaoThe world economic outlook remains bleak in the shadow of the global economic crisis. Singaporeans have to be mentally prepared for a potentially protracted economic crisis. In view of this, Minister for Foreign Affairs George Yeo said that the Government has adopted a conservative approach. Singapore needs to focus her energies on investing in education, maintaining an open economy and constantly searching for economic opportunities.George Yeo met 30 youths and students at a McDonald's branch along 21 Hougang Street. They discussed the impact of the economic climate on individuals and strategies on how to mitigate the impact. The discussion entailed the issue of race, foreign talent / workers, ASEAN integration and foreign policy. Although the future is uncertain, George Yeo believes that Singapore has potential."We are centrally located in a burgeoning Asian economy. Both India and China are experiencing large-scale infrastructure investment ... With exception to Singapore, Malaysia & Thailand, the Southeast Asian economy is also growing. We not only have an economic advantage, but also a cultural one because there is international optimism about the Singapore's prospects."This event is an initiative of the Youth Executive Committee of the Punggol Community Centre. George Yeo is the Aljunied GRC Member of Parliament. He is also the advisor to a grassroot organisation based in Bedok Reservoir. A spokesperson of the event organiser said that this event is meant to provide a relaxed environment for youths to exchange their concerns with the Minister.On the additional risks brought by the Singapore's open economy model, George Yeo said, "We have no choice." He also pointed out that Singapore has always been a trading centre since its inception by Sir Stamford Raffles. Trade today is 3 times the Gross National Product.Faced with the rise of China and India, Singapore should not be closing her doors. Quoting Shakespeare, George Yeo said we have to "embark on the white-water adventure and fly courageously in on the wave" [I don't know the original Shakespeare's quote] rather than seating on the fence. "It won't be easy, but in the end, it makes our lives better," said George Yeo.On competitive pressure exerted by foreign workers/talents on Singaporean workers, Blogger Ravi Philemon urged the Government to follow the example of Canada to legislate employers to prioritise the employment of Singaporean over non-Singaporeans.George Yeo responded that protection of Singaporeans' jobs must be measured such that it will not lead to overall loss of Singapore's competitiveness. He also reiterated that non-native workers are not in Singapore to snatch the rice bowls of Singaporeans, but create new employment opportunities.On the issue of racial harmony, a secondary school teacher enquired if the Government has evaluated the effectiveness of its teaching policy to eliminate racial prejudice among students. George Yeo said that racial prejudice is not only difficult to eliminate, but it also exists in all societies. In his view, racism in Singapore is not serious. On the contrary, Singapore's multi-ethnic society provided a cultural basis to engage foreign culture. This is one of Singapore's unique advantages in the global economic environment.Several young people who participated in the dialogue felt that George Yeo only regurgitated the Government's position and that there is not much common ground. "Although the Minister is of sincere honest attitude, I do not expect any change arising from this dialogue," said Ravi Philemon.In response, George Yeo told the reporters, "The views of the two sides are not so divergent. The problems they raised are real and their concerns are reasonable. However, we need to adopt a balanced approach to examine these issues. This dialogue is an excellent learning process. Through the dialogue, I felt the vitality of youths and learned to understand their thoughts and beliefs." Protect the Singaporean Worker Ravi Philemon urges the government to follow the example of Canada and create policies where the government will hire Singaporean first: ZAOBAO Protect the Singaporean Worker Ravi Philemon urges the government to follow the example of Canada and create policies where the government will hire Singaporean first: ZAOBAO We, the citizens of Singapore The mere thought of “We, the citizens of Singapore” paints a mental picture of strength in unity; and is truly empowering. But is true power merely an illusion for the ordinary Singaporean? Is true power reserved only for the select few?What is the privilege of being “we the citizen of Singapore” for the thousands who turn up at the free meal centres, only to be turned away? What is the value of being “we the citizen of Singapore” for the likes of Peter and Sarah, the “new poor” for whom even the basic needs of a home remain a distant dream? How many continue to live in darkness with water taps barely trickling because they could not pay the power companies? What is the point of being “we the citizen of Singapore” for them?For Sarah, a five-year old, whose pre-school education was disrupted because she could not pay the kindergarten fees, what is the use in being “we the citizen of Singapore”? For people like Rezal who might be made criminals because they want to ‘put bread on the table’ for their families, what does being “we the citizen of Singapore” hold? Why would the disabled like John and Ryan even identify themselves as “we the citizens of Singapore”, when they continue to remain at the mercy of transportation companies even for the basic right of affordable public transportation?No wonder most ordinary Singaporean suffer from anterograde amnesia in remembering that we are indeed the citizens of Singapore. Ms Veena Bharwani, reporting in an article titled “Will you take the pledge?” in the New Paper , says that “it was disappointing but not surprising” that in a street survey of 100 people to gauge how well a Singaporean between the ages of 20 and 70 would know the National Pledge, “41 did not know the pledge at all and another 24 stumbled on the words. Only 35 could recite it without stuttering”.Mr Craig Lim, a delegate from the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Singapore to the United Nations, said at the 63rd United Nations General Assembly:“The Government has continuously put in place policies that create an inclusive and harmonious environment. Every morning, across the country, school children recite the pledge that had been penned by one of our founding fathers, former Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Mr S Rajaratnam, with the lines, ‘We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion, to build a democratic society, based on justice and equality, so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation.’ This is not rhetoric, but a statement of intent that has contributed significantly to Singapore’s nation building process. The idea of equality, based on the concept of meritocracy, has been a key building block of Singapore’s society today.”But yet 65% of Singaporeans have seemingly forgotten the pledge which they had recited almost everyday, for at least 10 years of their lives from the ages of 6 to 16! It certainly looks like the pledge for these at least, is mere rhetoric. Have the people forgotten the social promise, the national pledge, because the government itself is amnesiac of its social responsibility – the social welfare of the ordinary Singaporean?There is no Department of Social Welfare in Singapore. Social Welfare was discarded for upstream measures and community development. And even the community development is mixed in with youth and sports. Words like “social welfare” and “welfarism” still remain dirty in Singapore; and the whole government propaganda machinery is unleashed against the development of a ‘welfare state’ and a ‘welfare mindset’. How can the needy remember the power of “we the citizens of Singapore”?School children seem to know what eludes the elites in government. Marcus Ho, Lek Kai Jie and Teo Yan Han of Hong Wen School recently said what the pledge meant to them. “We the citizens of Singapore pledge to help the needy…,” they said. “That no one should be left behind, that the sprinters should slow down for the stragglers, so that we all can move forward as one people, as ‘we the citizens of Singapore, into the new era.’”The late Mr J B Jeyaretnam, who has often stood up against the propaganda that “nothing is free in this world”, that “there is no free lunch, no handouts, no subsidies”; and for highlighting the widening gap between the “haves” and the “have-nots” in Singapore, as well as for advocating the government to lessen the inequalities between the rich and low-income Singaporeans, often said, “Power does not belong to the government. It belongs to the people. They delegate it to the government.”Mr Jeyaretnam, in believing in the power of “we the citizens of Singapore”, reiterated that social welfare is about fundamental rights. Dr Chee Soon Juan, in applying in court on 24 October 2008 to the trial judge to dismiss the charges brought against 17 activists for participating in a protest march in March 2008 said, “We are the citizens of Singapore and as citizens, we are guaranteed of our fundamental freedoms under Article 14 of our Constitution…”Is the unwritten social contract of “I give you prosperity while you give me your votes”, between the government and the ordinary Singaporean, lopsided? Mr Jacob George, a political activist, says in his blog, “Ever since the ruling party came to power in 1959, we the citizens of Singapore kept giving in till they climbed over our heads and lorded over us.”Mr Lucian Teo seems to aptly sum up in his blog how power could be devolved back to the people when he wrote, “We need to realise that we, the citizens of Singapore, are one united people. Our government – our representative servant-citizens – ought to help us see that we aren’t a flaccid, spineless people, even if it means we become less dependent on them.” We, the citizens of Singapore The mere thought of “We, the citizens of Singapore” paints a mental picture of strength in unity; and is truly empowering. But is true power merely an illusion for the ordinary Singaporean? Is true power reserved only for the select few?What is the privilege of being “we the citizen of Singapore” for the thousands who turn up at the free meal centres, only to be turned away? What is the value of being “we the citizen of Singapore” for the likes of Peter and Sarah, the “new poor” for whom even the basic needs of a home remain a distant dream? How many continue to live in darkness with water taps barely trickling because they could not pay the power companies? What is the point of being “we the citizen of Singapore” for them?For Sarah, a five-year old, whose pre-school education was disrupted because she could not pay the kindergarten fees, what is the use in being “we the citizen of Singapore”? For people like Rezal who might be made criminals because they want to ‘put bread on the table’ for their families, what does being “we the citizen of Singapore” hold? Why would the disabled like John and Ryan even identify themselves as “we the citizens of Singapore”, when they continue to remain at the mercy of transportation companies even for the basic right of affordable public transportation?No wonder most ordinary Singaporean suffer from anterograde amnesia in remembering that we are indeed the citizens of Singapore. Ms Veena Bharwani, reporting in an article titled “Will you take the pledge?” in the New Paper , says that “it was disappointing but not surprising” that in a street survey of 100 people to gauge how well a Singaporean between the ages of 20 and 70 would know the National Pledge, “41 did not know the pledge at all and another 24 stumbled on the words. Only 35 could recite it without stuttering”.Mr Craig Lim, a delegate from the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Singapore to the United Nations, said at the 63rd United Nations General Assembly:“The Government has continuously put in place policies that create an inclusive and harmonious environment. Every morning, across the country, school children recite the pledge that had been penned by one of our founding fathers, former Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Mr S Rajaratnam, with the lines, ‘We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion, to build a democratic society, based on justice and equality, so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation.’ This is not rhetoric, but a statement of intent that has contributed significantly to Singapore’s nation building process. The idea of equality, based on the concept of meritocracy, has been a key building block of Singapore’s society today.”But yet 65% of Singaporeans have seemingly forgotten the pledge which they had recited almost everyday, for at least 10 years of their lives from the ages of 6 to 16! It certainly looks like the pledge for these at least, is mere rhetoric. Have the people forgotten the social promise, the national pledge, because the government itself is amnesiac of its social responsibility – the social welfare of the ordinary Singaporean?There is no Department of Social Welfare in Singapore. Social Welfare was discarded for upstream measures and community development. And even the community development is mixed in with youth and sports. Words like “social welfare” and “welfarism” still remain dirty in Singapore; and the whole government propaganda machinery is unleashed against the development of a ‘welfare state’ and a ‘welfare mindset’. How can the needy remember the power of “we the citizens of Singapore”?School children seem to know what eludes the elites in government. Marcus Ho, Lek Kai Jie and Teo Yan Han of Hong Wen School recently said what the pledge meant to them. “We the citizens of Singapore pledge to help the needy…,” they said. “That no one should be left behind, that the sprinters should slow down for the stragglers, so that we all can move forward as one people, as ‘we the citizens of Singapore, into the new era.’”The late Mr J B Jeyaretnam, who has often stood up against the propaganda that “nothing is free in this world”, that “there is no free lunch, no handouts, no subsidies”; and for highlighting the widening gap between the “haves” and the “have-nots” in Singapore, as well as for advocating the government to lessen the inequalities between the rich and low-income Singaporeans, often said, “Power does not belong to the government. It belongs to the people. They delegate it to the government.”Mr Jeyaretnam, in believing in the power of “we the citizens of Singapore”, reiterated that social welfare is about fundamental rights. Dr Chee Soon Juan, in applying in court on 24 October 2008 to the trial judge to dismiss the charges brought against 17 activists for participating in a protest march in March 2008 said, “We are the citizens of Singapore and as citizens, we are guaranteed of our fundamental freedoms under Article 14 of our Constitution…”Is the unwritten social contract of “I give you prosperity while you give me your votes”, between the government and the ordinary Singaporean, lopsided? Mr Jacob George, a political activist, says in his blog, “Ever since the ruling party came to power in 1959, we the citizens of Singapore kept giving in till they climbed over our heads and lorded over us.”Mr Lucian Teo seems to aptly sum up in his blog how power could be devolved back to the people when he wrote, “We need to realise that we, the citizens of Singapore, are one united people. Our government – our representative servant-citizens – ought to help us see that we aren’t a flaccid, spineless people, even if it means we become less dependent on them.” George Yeo's Response to my Article on Facebook I wrote an article for The Online Citizen titled, "George Yeo's Meet the People Session at McDonald's", where mentioned Minister George Yeo's version of Burmese modern history. The article was picked up by John Moe, who wrote in to The Online Citizen that "George Yeo is Mistaken about Burma's History". Foreign Minister responds to my article and to John Moe on his Facebook Page and his response and subsequent comments are posted here. George Yeo's Response to my Article on Facebook I wrote an article for The Online Citizen titled, "George Yeo's Meet the People Session at McDonald's", where mentioned Minister George Yeo's version of Burmese modern history. The article was picked up by John Moe, who wrote in to The Online Citizen that "George Yeo is Mistaken about Burma's History". Foreign Minister responds to my article and to John Moe on his Facebook Page and his response and subsequent comments are posted here.