Gallery 01: Minibond rally at Hong Lim Park, 22 August 2009 From our Correspondent Over 300 Singaporeans turned up at Hong Lim Park to sign a petition to request for the Prime Minister to intervene on their behalfs and to express their displeasure against the authorities for the settlement they have received. minibond0801.jpg ◄ Back Next ► Picture 1 of 20 Minibond rally: ‘Justice for Hong Kong, Wayang for Singapore’ Reporting on site from Hong Lim Park, 5.45pm Over 300 Singaporeans turned up at Hong Lim Park to sign a petition to the Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to intervene personally in the protracted minibond fiasco. Holding placards with the words “Give us Hong Kong settlement!”, “Justice for Hong Kong, Wayang for Singapore!” and “Where is justice?”, Singaporeans expressed their dissatisfaction at the authorities for not doing enough to help them. Despite finding the financial institutions guilty of mis-selling the minibonds and imposing a period of ban from sale of such products ranging from 6 to 24 months, MAS did not exert further pressure on the FIs to compensate the investors. Before he commenced his speech, Mr Tan Kin Lian led the crowd to a recitation of the National Pledge. He then asked if there is really “justice and equality” in the minibond saga. Mr Tan said that contrary to popular belief, many elderly and uneducated investors did not receive any compensation from the FIs as their investment exceeds $50,000. Many have their lifelong savings wiped out with nowhere to seek redress after their cases are being closed by FIDREC. Their predicament is in stark contrast to Hong Kong, where the investors are offered between 60 to 70% compensation by the FIs. Mr Tan Kin Lian had started an online petition to request the Prime Minister to intervene. More than 700 have signed the petition. Many investors were doubtful about the usefulness of the petition. Mr Tan had started 4 petitions last year and none has received a reply from the authorities. The difference in the settlement in Singapore and Hong Kong is another testimony of the civil rights the Hong Kong people enjoyed. Though Hong Kong is nominally under Communist rule, its people have more political rights than Singaporeans. Hong Kongers are allowed to protest freely in the streets against the FIs which exerts political pressure on the Hong Kong politicians to fight on their behalfs. On the other hand, there is no opposition in Singapore to speak of. Other than Mr Tan Kin Lian, the MPs, both from the ruling party and opposition are nowhere to be found. With no political pressure on them to act, the government is unlikely to offend the FIs by forcing them to grant compensation to the minibond victims. MORE TO COME: 1. 2 galleries of over 40 photos. 2. Mr Tan Kin Lian’s speech in Mandarin and English. Citizens cry out against rising HDB prices From our Correspondent The rising prices of new and resale HDB flats has led to an outcry from citizens for government intervention. Since the first quarter of 2007, the HDB resale price index has increased 35.3 per cent and is now at a record high. The recent launch of Punggol Residences by HDB also fetch record prices for 4 and 5 room flats in the vicinity.  In spite of the relentless price increase, the government remains adamant that HDB flats are affordable. The Senior Minister of state for National Development Grace Fu even commended on the rise in asset value as “healthy” as flat owners now earn more from sale of their flats. In an article titled “Squeezed even harder”, Chew “urge the Government to reconsider the income ceiling of $8,000 as a criterion to be eligible for the Central Provident Fund (CPF) housing grant, which has been in place since 1994.” (read letter here)  He proposed a series of measures to help the “sandwich” population such as increasing the income ceiling of $8,000 and the supply of new public housing. His thoughts were echoed by Mr Trevor Tan who wrote: “Two failings come to mind - that public housing has become too correlated to the private market, and that HDB has not regulated its supply in line with immigration and demographic trends.” The prices of new HDB flats are pegged to around 70% of the prices of resale flats in the same precinct. Resale flats remain in demand despite the price increase in recent years due to the influx of immigrants. This explains its paradoxical rise when the private property market is going downhill. 85% of Singaporeans live in public housing built by the government. Though they were meant to be cheap and affordable to the masses, price hikes in the last decade has kept them increasingly out of reach to the lower income group. For the price of a 3 room HDB flat, one is able buy a bungalow in Johor just cross the Causeway. Singapore’s Loan Sharking Problem By Ben Bland from Asia Sentinel When the Singapore police nailed four suspected members of a loan-sharking syndicate on July 21, they seized the usual paraphernalia: mobile phones and prepaid SIM cards and the time-honored tools of intimidation such as paint to be splashed on the doors of bad debtors and superglue to lock them inside their apartments. But while loan sharks – or Ah Longs as they are known – have long been a ubiquitous presence on Singapore’s sprawling public housing estates, this gang is one of a growing number taking bully-boy tactics to the next level. One of the members, according to the police, had been sending bullets to borrowers in an attempt to scare them into paying up. The syndicate, which police said was responsible for more than 600 harassment cases, were said to have also been terrorizing the wider community by starting fires outside the apartments of bad debtors. Cynthia Phua, an MP from the ruling People’s Action Party, told local media in a recent interview that the level of harassment in her constituency in eastern Singapore has surged. “It is also more violent,” she said. “We are seeing things we did not see before, like petrol bombs and innocent neighbors being harassed.” In a city-state that proudly boasts one of the lowest crime rates in Asia, such violence was once rare. But, worryingly for the government and the vast majority of the population who live in the public housing estates, it is becoming increasingly widespread as the economic crisis forces more people to turn to loan sharks. Although overall crime fell slightly in the first half of the year, the number of reported cases of loan sharking and harassment more than doubled to 9,395, according to the Singapore Police Force. The number of people arrested for such offences doubled to 417, with a sharp rise in the number of young people getting involved in loan shark gangs. One in five of those arrested for loan sharking and intimidation was aged 19 or under, compared with just one in 10 in the first half of last year. The police are particularly concerned about the increasing involvement of teenagers, acknowledging that it has become one of their “key crime concerns” this year. While Singapore’s loan sharks rarely resort to the sort of extreme tactics practiced by their counterparts in Macau and Hong Kong – kidnapping and sometimes murder, or pouring petrol under the door of someone in arrears and lighting it - they are well-versed in the language of intimidation and fear. The Singapore Ah Longs spray graffiti on the walls of common areas identifying bad debtors, threaten their family members and vandalize their cars and apartments. Although they target the debtors and their families, they spread fear throughout the community, not least because the junior loan shark runners often go after the wrong people. The government has blamed this crime wave on the deteriorating economic climate in which gross domestic product fell by 9.5 percent in the first quarter of 2009 and 3.5 percent in the second. The tough times for the loan sharks’ prey, the police say, are exacerbated by the fact that many of the younger debtors end up joining the syndicates as runners when they can’t afford to repay their loans. And the terms are steep, normally a usurious 40-50 percent per month if the luckless borrowers can meet the agreed payments, i.e., if they borrow S$800, they pay back $1,200 after five weeks. They are the lucky ones. Defaulters are met by a demand that the borrower pay the full amount as a penalty charge. The annual rate can thus easily top 1,000 percent. Earlier this year, Wong Kan Seng, the minister for home affairs, said he was considering making it a criminal offense to borrow from unlicensed money-lenders. However, social workers and organizations that help victims of loan shark harassment are largely opposed to this approach, insisting that it would criminalize the desperate and the needy, who only borrow from Ah Longs because they have no other sources of credit, and drive the problem further underground. “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. Reverend Tan Lye Keng, who runs the One Hope Centre, a Christian organization that helps gambling addicts and loan shark victims, points out that most people only seek outside assistance when the intimidation and fear reaches a tipping point. “Being chased by loan sharks is a very traumatic experience and many people come to us in a hopeless state, feeling they have no way out,” he says. “But we try to instill hope and let them see that they can have a future. The proposed legislation to criminalize borrowing from loan sharks may lead to more suicides and more people joining loan sharks gangs as a runner.” 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. While some Singaporeans borrow from loans sharks to fund new businesses or tide them over in a tough month, many also get into debt because of gambling. Around 90 percent of the harassment victims who seek help from the One Hope Centre are in trouble because of gambling debts. Reverend Tan has found that they key to resolving the problem is not fighting the loan sharks but negotiating with them on behalf of his clients in order agree on a mutually-acceptable repayment plan. “Some are quite understanding and sympathetic because they feel they’re running a business, even if it’s illegal,” he says. “We’re not seeking to combat the loan sharks, but to provide hope amidst hopelessness and assistance to deal with gambling and loan-shark problems, enabling individuals and families to resume normal life.” The Singapore Police Force declined to comment on the loan shark issue and the proposed new law, claiming that Asia Sentinel was “not an accredited publication in Singapore,” although the author is fully-accredited as a foreign correspondent by the government. Source: Asia Sentinel Government backs away from proposed changes to property tax laws From our Correspondent Succumbing to public pressure, the government has aborted a proposed change to the tax laws dealing with gains made from property sales. The public consultation process for the proposal attracted 64 responses with 60 opposing the change. Under the proposal, an individual who sells a property would be taxed on the profit if he had sold another property within the preceding four years. Touted as a measure to curb speculation in the property market, the announcement of the news led to a two day slump in property stocks. In a statement yesterday, MOF said there was feedback that the proposed change ‘could bias purchase decisions towards investing in one bigger property, rather than numerous smaller properties’. The scrapping of the proposed changes means the prevailing tax regime remains in place. The government has already earned considerable profits from the stamp duties collected from property transactions as well as levy from resale of HDB flats. Capital gains from property sales remain untaxed though Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore assesses a small number of individuals who makes regular property transactions each year. The Singapore property market has made a remarkable recovery since hitting a low at the beginning of the year. Prices are now comparable to the peak in 2007. Mass market homes have led the way with a recent project in Ang Mo Kio fetching prices at above $1,000 psf which is unsustainable according to most analysts. Despite the high prices, Singaporeans are still flocking to new launches. For many HDB upgraders, the desire to live in a condominium overrides all other monetary concerns. Shame on you, young bloggers IT IRKS me that young people blog negatively about the Singapore Government. They live in an era where there is peace and harmony, they have a roof over their heads, plenty to eat and so much to enjoy. There is a need to realise that all these good things do not come naturally. Someone has to do the job and we are fortunate to have a sound and honest government to take care of this place we call our home. We live in a small place with no natural resources but we have done well. We have good infrastructure, a clean environment, a safe place and the list goes on. Our children are free to roam the streets and return home safely. We cannot take all that we enjoy now for granted. The Government took great pains to mould this tiny island into a place of wonder. There is no one policy that suits everyone. It is not possible to please everyone all the time. We may not always benefit from some of the policies implemented but we should be happy that others do. Life was a struggle before but after years of persistent hard work and thrift, we managed. I travelled quite a bit but whenever I looked around, I could not help but feel blessed that I have a home called Singapore. This is only possible because we have a government that cares to make this a better place. The question often asked is, ‘What can the Government do for me?’, but shouldn’t it be, ‘What can I do for my country?’ I am grateful to the Government, which has done a great job, and in particular Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, who has gone through so many trials and tribulations. Even now, at his age, he has not stopped caring about Singapore. My heartfelt thanks to MM Lee and I wish him happiness and health. Juliet Chua (Ms) Source: ST Forum EDITORS’ NOTE: Ms Chua should be asking why young people blog negatively about the government when they are living in an era of “peace and harmony”. If the government is really that good, why is it receiving so much criticism online? Ms Chua is one of the many brainwashed Singaporeans who think they are being “patriotic” by defending the regime, but is in fact doing Singapore a great disservice. It’s time MM Lee retires gracefully and return the power to the people so that we can open the account books of GIC and Temasek and find out what exactly went wrong. By publishing such a one-sided, biased and baseless article, the Straits Times has demonstrated its lack of ideas to counter the fast rising anti-establishment sentiment among young Singaporeans. 信约是个什么东西？ What is a Pledge? 作者:冀居·谢 去了一个萧锦鸿来了一个维斯瓦（Viswa Sadasivan），使我想起孙文的名言：“世界潮流浩浩荡荡，顺之则昌，逆之则亡。”他所指的潮流就是民主政治 (democracy)。看来官委议员制度接下来应该还有很多微调和改革的空间。 维斯瓦的动议设计得十分狡黠，就刚巧在国庆之后，高调宣读信约之余温尚未散去，人们发现原来执政党并不能够根据信约的原则来治国，很好笑，是不是？ 黄永宏说：词藻优美的歌词或信约不足以确保国家生存繁荣。李资政说破给大家听：拉惹勒南和他共同撰写并修改的信约，原来是一个平等主义的画饼。他认为平等 原则并非现实也不实际。既然如此，政府早该丢弃这个骗人的信约，为什么还要大家在国庆日庄严宣誓呢？害得李慧玲的老爸老妈都受骗。 李光耀说：“信约是什么？是种意识形态（ideology）吗？不是，那是个抱负（aspiration）。我们可能实现吗？我不知道，但我们必须一直努力尝试。我们是个国家吗？是转变中的。” 根据马克思主义者对意识形态的定义，我们的信约绝对是意识形态，因为它符合这个：由社会中的统治阶级对所有社会成员提出的一组观念（a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society）。李资政说的“抱负”，是一项长期并最终要实现的东西，但是国民信约如同早报报人所理解的那样，那是我们在“起跑点”时唬人的东西，是出 于政治考虑的建国理念，是件旧包袱。加上部长所说的为了继续繁荣富强而不能够去实践，那么这个抱负根本没有动机和理由要国人去信守，是个虚无缥缈，浮在云 端的东西，李光耀要把“国会带回现实”（bring the House back to earth），是不是再一次骗人了呢？维斯瓦这招“以子之矛攻子之盾”简直太绝了！咱们的两位资深反对党议员，等着领退休金，什么事都不干了，嘘！ 那我们退而求其次，不当信约是意识形态，就当它是个盟誓好了。当年刘邦打败秦朝，因为秦朝太多严刑峻法，为了与民休养生息，刘邦只和灞上的父老约法三章： 杀人者要处死，伤人者要抵罪，盗窃者也要被判有罪，如此而已。但是接着下来，汉朝统治天下的时候，约法三章应该有个时效，过期了就失效。还是继续告诉人 民，国家只和他们约法三章，实际上什么法都进来，那就是欺骗人民了。 盟誓也未必是抱负，因为盟誓有时为了一己之私，是个临时的苟合：为了实现XX之幸福，共同努力。它也可以是非道德的，如《投名状》最著名的信约：“抢钱、抢粮、抢娘们！”只要目的达到，大家以后发财立品，过去的荒唐事也就别提了。 陈振泉在参与辩论时指出，维斯瓦忽视了政府政策所附带的责任与义务。因为一个负责任的政府在制定政策时，必然是以顾及人民的利益为出发点。这么说来，如果 我们根据信约的内容来制定政策，反而会伤害人民的利益！？拉惹勒南误国误民，罪该万死。周殊钦说：“陈振泉把国会带回现实中的一席演讲，立时把我的思绪从 天花板上拉回到现实世界。就在我‘脚踏实地’地离开记者席之前，就听到议事大厅里传来赞赏陈振泉令人信服演讲的零星掌声。我在想，其实议员们给他的掌声可 以更热烈、更响亮些。”——这马屁准准拍在屁股上，因为看法和李资政不相伯仲。 他们可以相信李显龙在国庆群众大会充满隐喻地说我们种族和谐伊甸园已经成立——“不要走、不要走，杀很大！”，却认为维斯瓦的“公正平等”提议不切实际？ 更甚的是，强烈要求实践“信约精神”倒成了里通外国的洋奴，因为要把西方的那一套搬进国情特殊的新加坡。请问部长先生，信约是谁写的？ “65后”hiphop议员柏默说：“事实上，维斯瓦先生今天能够不畏后果，站在这里畅所欲言，就否定了所谓‘恐惧氛围’或‘担心报复心理’的存在。而我 的反驳，也是民主进程的体现。”—— 他忘了那是议员的特权，一般人是享受不到的。当年惹耶勒南就是太享受这个特权，使到执政党在86年8月通过“国会（特权、豁免和权力）法修正案”，亦可谑 称为“惹耶勒南修正案”，专门用来对付敢严词批评的反对党议员。还有执政党国会领袖马宝山近年进行的国会发言程序和时间的改革，官位越大发言时间越长和更 自由，都在在使到国会有他讲没你讲（早报也不让维斯瓦的完整言论和读者见面）。维斯瓦先生不知要轮到什么时候，才可以进行反驳？极有可能这个处女秀也成了 他的天鹅之歌了。 Lead poisoning scare spreads to central China Medical authorities in central China have discovered more than 1,300 cases of suspected lead poisoning in children, state media said Thursday, in the second such incident this month. Authorities in the city of Wugang in Hunan province have shut down a smelting plant and detained two of the company’s executives on suspicion of “causing severe environmental pollution”, the Xinhua news agency said. Locals had complained of large amounts of thick smoke and dust coming out of the Wugang Manganese Smelting Plant since it began operations in May last year, it said. A total of 1,354 children — or about 70 percent of those under the age of 14 that lived in four villages near the smelter — were found to have levels of lead in their blood that exceed safety standards, the report said. Seventeen of the most severely affected have been hospitalised. A primary school, a middle school and a kindergarten are located within a 500-metre (1,650-foot) radius of the plant, which was shut down last week, it added. Provincial medical teams were conducting secondary tests to confirm the initial results. So far, they have found 45 cases in which lead levels exceeded 200 milligrams per litre, it said. Lead levels of between zero and 100 milligrams are considered normal. A reading of more than 200 milligrams is considered hazardous, with children more vulnerable to lead poisoning which can harm the nervous system. The Wugang incident comes on the heels of another case in northern Shaanxi province, where more than 850 children have been affected by lead poisoning caused by pollution from a smelting plant, according to Xinhua. More than 170 children in Shaanxi’s Changqing township were hospitalised, the agency said. On Monday, villagers stormed the Shaanxi smelter, smashing trucks in anger at the case. The plant has also been shut down. China’s rapid industrialisation has led to widespread environmental damage over the last 30 years, with the nation boasting some of the world’s worst water and air pollution. Source: AFP Teo Ser Luck: online space “abuzz” with PAP and YPAP websites From our Correspondent In a letter published in the Straits Times Forum on 21 August 2009, YPAP Chairman Teo Ser Luck said that “only about three years ago, political engagement in Singapore was largely through traditional media. There was a dearth of online engagement.” (read article here) Then he boasted that “three years on, the online space is abuzz with the People’s Action Party’s main and youth wing websites” to create the false impression that the PAP has been a trailblazer in online political discourse. Nothing can be further from the truth. Though political engagement in Singapore was minimal three years ago, there is a REACH portal for Singaporeans to provide their feedback online to the government. There were active discussions and debates in many forums such as CNA, hardwarezone and sammyboy.com. The PAP had admitted sending in “agents” to rebuke some anti-government comments posted on these discussion boards. Let us examine Mr Teo’s claim that the PAP websites are now “dominant” in cyberspace by comparing their respective traffic rankings in Singapore to ours and the average amount of time each user spent on it, according to web traffic company, Alexa.com, the lower the ranking, the higher the traffic: Temasek Review: 1,832 (5.4 min/day) [Note: the above ranking is a gross underestimate as domain name was registered only a month ago] Main PAP website (www.pap.org.sg): 7,665 (1.9 min/day) Young PAP website (www.youngpap.org.sg): 36,912 (1.8 min/day) p65 blog (www.p65.sg): 20,934 (1.4 min/day) As we can see from the above figure, Temasek Review is one of the top two socio-political sites in Singapore with a traffic ranking far ahead of the PAP websites. A reader spent an average of 5.4 minutes a day reading our site compared to less than 2 minutes on each of the PAP sites. Mr Teo should be ashamed of himself that his three PAP sites have achieved nothing in terms of engaging the youth after three years of efforts, not forgetting the amount of resources used. The PAP websites are unlikely to go afar in Singapore’s cyberspace because the main reason why netizens turn to online news is that they are sick and tired of the endless state propaganda churning out by the mainstream media daily. Cyberspace is the last bastion of freedom of speech in Singapore where citizens can voice out their dissatisfaction and disgruntlement against the regime openly and fearlessly, unmoderated and uncensored. Mr Teo can continue to pat on his back and pretend that with the recent “revamp” of the sites to “host a repository of political articles and interactive platforms for anyone keen to keep abreast of political developments of the party.”, the PAP has entered the digital age. Figures do not lie. After three years, the three PAP sites have barely grown and they will continue to stagnate in the near future given its monotonous and lacklustre content. Singapore now a more expensive place than Hong Kong From our Correspondent Singapore is now ranked the second most expensive place in Asia after Tokyo with Hong Kong in third position. In UBS’ Prices and Earnings 2009 study released on Thursday, Singapore is ranked 24th globally, in a comparison of living costs in 73 cities around the world. The study was based on data collected between March and April this year. It found that while Tokyo is a more expensive place than Singapore, its employees are paid more than two times the salaries of those in Singapore. The relentless influx of foreigners is one key reason for the high inflation rate which hit a record high of 6.7% last year. Besides competing with the locals for the limited jobs available, foreigners also help to depress their wages. The median wage of the lower income group has declined during the last decade which has witnessed robust GDP growth. The high cost of living is a primary concern of most Singaporeans, but was not even addressed by the Prime Minister during his National Day Rally. The Good and Service Tax (GST) was raised to 7%  in 2006 to “help the poor”, according to the Prime Minister then. The Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office Lim Hwee Hua is adamant that there will be no GST cuts even if the economy were to worsen subsequently. Ordinary Singaporeans will again bear the brunt of the inflation, with price increases noted in living necessities, public transport, services and public housing. The government has done little to alleviate the concerns on the ground other than reassuring the populace of the many schemes available to help them. However, one must be reduced to almost “destitute” status to qualify for cash handouts from the state. The middle class, which earns between $2,000 and $5,000 monthly will have to tighten their belts in anticipation for further hike in prices in the months ahead. A Canadian and ex-Singaporean speaks By Wing Lee Cheong Mr. Brooks’ second letter published in ST reiterate that Singaporeans should be grateful for what they have. He cited more examples of the failed Canadian welfare system as compared to the successful welfare system that Singaporeans are enjoying but have taken for granted. Again I am embarrassed by a fellow Canadian who misrepresented his own country. It is easy to verify what Mr. Brooks had said through the Canadian High Commission or Amnesty International. Canada may not have a perfect welfare system but having lived and worked in several countries myself, I must say that Canada is as good as anyone could wish for. When I immigrated to Canada, I bought three cars for the price of one in Singapore and a 4,000 sq. ft house for the price of a 5-room HDB apartment. A similar house in Singapore would have cost S$2 million. For me, the savings on the purchase of the house and cars could pay my income tax for the rest of my life. Yes, the Canadian taxes are high but the citizens are well treated. Contrary to what Mr. Brooks claimed, all my three children graduated from reputable universities in Canada without any problem. My children’s university education did not cost me much as my children were able to obtain grants and student loans to pay for their university fees. They took part-time jobs to supplement their pocket money. Every child in Canada gets free education from kindergarten to Grade 12, the equivalent of junior college in Singapore. Most schools are within walking distance from home. Free transportation is provided for students living farther away.  Each child gets C$250 a month as “milk” allowance until 18 years of age. However this benefit may have been rescinded. Contrary to what Mr. Brooks claimed, all my three children graduated from reputable universities in Canada without any problem. My children’s university education did not cost me much as my children were able to obtain grants and student loans to pay for their university fees. They took part-time jobs to supplement their pocket money. The greatest joy for parents is to see the happiness expressed in their children’s eyes when they play in the beautiful parks during the summers, springs and autumns and snow in the winters.  The satisfaction is more than money can buy. This is in contrast to the daily intensive tuition that Singapore children are subjected to. Mr. Brooks’ assertion that many bright Canadian children are denied the opportunity to attend universities in Canada but could obtain full scholarships in Singapore is untrue. In fact it is the other way around. My niece who could not get into Singapore University, was admitted into a reputable American University. She finished her Masters, secured a good job and sadly did not return to Singapore. In Canada, senior citizens are well respected and treated. Seniors travel free on public transport, i.e. the MRT, bus and ferry rides, from Mondays to Thursdays. They get discount for  weekend travel, food and most purchases. They are entitled to old age pension and workman pension when they reach the age of 65. The combined income from these two pensions is about C$1,000 to C$2,000 or  more a month. Seniors get subsidies for housing.  Seniors can study in reputable universities and get a degree by paying a token fee of less than C$100 per semester. When I was diagnosed with kidney failure, it cost the Canadian Healthcare C$80,000 a year for dialysis and medical treatments to keep me alive. I paid C$90 a month for healthcare insurance that covers both my wife and I. The Canadian healthcare pays for all hospital expenses including medications. It was free for me. When I travel overseas, my dialysis  and medical expenses are reimbursed by Canadian healthcare up to the amount it costs in Canada. The homeless issue was greatly exaggerated by Mr. Brooks. This issue is universal and every country has its fair share of homeless people including Singapore.  In Canada, most of the homeless people are there by choice because of their drug addiction. No amount of government assistance can help pay for their expensive habit.  In Singapore, most of the homeless people are there because of economic reasons. They are either without pension and too old to get a job or abandoned by their children. For Mr. Eric Brooks to say that Canada has a failed welfare system is unfair and biased. Check with the Canada High Commission and verify what I said. SM Goh Chok Tong can call us quitters and losers because he cannot see beyond his comfort zone. He has no worries. His job is secured for life and is paying him by the millions. It is little wonder that his wife said that $500,000 a year salary is peanuts. If he could only spend one day outside his comfort zone and live like an ordinary Singaporean drawing less than $2,000 a month with the anxiety of losing his job, the burden of getting his children through the fiercely competitive education system, the stress of living in a materialistic environment and the uncertainty of having a dignified retirement, SM Goh may then understand the plight of the ordinary citizens. It is easy for him to pass judgement when he already has everything. Patriotism and gratitude require reciprocity. If a citizen feels unwanted and treated without respect, it is no shame for the outcast to seek greener pasture and realize his potential elsewhere. It would be naive to expect the outcast to be patriotic and risk his life to protect a privileged group who continue to reward themselves unchallenged by the millions. My decision to immigrate was not politically motivated. It was based solely on the future of my family. I have three children when the Singapore government’s strict policy then was, “Two is enough”. As for education, I was expelled from school at secondary two. I obtained an “O” level and a certificate from Singapore Vocational Institute (fore-runner of ITE)  through evening classes. In a highly competitive society like Singapore where you are judged by academic excellence and materialistic possessions, my credentials would be sneered at. I would most likely be a minimum wage worker, praying not to get sick when I am old and retired. The lifestyle difference between a typical Singaporean and a Canadian is that a Singaporean spends his life making a living, whereas a Canadian lives his life. Regardless of all the negative misinformation that Mr. Eric Brooks has said about Canada, I am deeply beholden to Canada who has given me my self-respect, dignity and a chance to realize my potential. Most of all, a bright future for my children. Herein, lies my gratitude. Thank you, Canada. Yours truly,   Wing Lee Cheong North Vancouver, BC, Canada Email: retiredwing@gmail.com Cell: 778-229-8780 PS For those who alleged that I am a fictitious character, you can find me on the front page of the latest issue of The Kidney Foundation of Canada at the following link (click Latest Edition: kidney News, Vol.13, issue 1 Summer 2009): www.kidney.bc.ca/home/publications/index.html#kidneynews   Related articles: >> Canadian PR drew online flak >> A rebuttal to Eric Brooks Sweta Agarwal’s Facebook and her husband’s webpage exposed by netizens From our Correspondent The ongoing debate on the benefits of being a PR versus a citizen in ST discussion board has turned ugly with one netizen digging out Sweta Agarwal’s Facebook account: http://www.facebook.com/people/Sweta-Agarwal/788752441 And that of her husband website: http://www.asagarwal.com/ Most netizens are appalled at the arrogance and impetulance displayed by Ms Agarwal in her second letter in which she insisted on her right as a PR for being given equal benefits in education as citizens. The anger of netizens were compounded by comments posted by a moniker “Sweta Agarwal” though her identity cannot be independently verified. She wrote: “To all those who ask me to go back to India, my answer is SORRY NO. Why should i go back? . My husband is a computer engineer and singapore needs such foreign talents. He guides and teaches his inferiors in office who are singaporeans. I insist I want best education for my daughter. In the fast develoing world, to talk about citizeh, PR etc is non-sense. These are talk of losers and incompetent people. I will go back to India when singapore becomes rotten in future. So we wont take citizenship here. We have the support of Mr. Lee Kwan Yew, who is a visionary and stateman.” Racial slurs are also being uttered by netizens contemptuous of Ms Agarwal’s perceived callousness. Wrote Regina: “I totally agree with both of you, these North India Hindis are big big time Pariahs , their nose is always in the air and will always take advantages and abuses the privileges accorded to them especially in US, Canada and UK. Not much our locals can do about it and have to live with it, our gahmen is aware of it and are happy to have more such FT like Sweta Agarwal.” Bangali added: “Stupid stupid Mrs Agarwal. Dun understand logic? You stay Singapore or India now? You want good and cheap education for your daughter and want the govt to give your precious daughter the best school and want cheap some more, where to get? Sg govt aredi good enuf, give ur husband good job, now you want to snatch place for your precious daughter! Shame on you! I guess you better wipe your backside now and retreat back to your own homeland! You are a disgrace to India!!!!!! You want cheap, you want good, what else? If your husband so capable ask him send your precious daughter to international school la! So STUPID.” Others castigated her for wanting to enjoy the same rights as citizens. Wrote yiplaiyee: “Dear Mrs Agarwal, If I were a PR in India and I have a kid and, you are a citizen there, but my kid get priority over your kid in getting a place in the primary school in India, how would you feel? It’s this feeling that my fellow citizens and myself are feeling that makes our blood boil, understand? It’s not about us being demanding lot. It’s just the opposite. Every citizen in any country in the world would expect priority over the PR, is that too much to ask for? I can understand your concern over your child’s education. Who doesn’t want their child to have the best education in the world, right? Same goes for the citizens here. But if every other PR also gets priority over the citizen in getting a place in the school, where do we draw the line? There’s no end in sight. So I hope you understand that the govt should give priority to its citizens over PRs in certain areas like places for primary schools and so on and so forth. You as a citizen of India would also expect your own govt to do the same, isn’t it?” Added Doublecrossed: “Mrs Agarwal, I totally agree with you that OUR children should have the best education that they can get. so like every else, on the notion that no differences between CITIZENs and PRs. Would it not be the case as “LIKE EVERYONE ELSE” we all go through the same process?. I am BAFFLED by your insistence that your child SHOULD be the 1st in line for the better schools over others. This being the case, why “LIKE EVERYONE ELSE”. Also, you have an option that we sgreans don’t get. That is you can enrol your child into the INTERNATIONAL SCHOOLS, that are in abundance here in SG, unless you admit that you can’t afford. If so, than you or your husband would be at BEST the “so, so FT only”. So this being the case, why don’t you just SHUT UP and join the Q. If not then PACKED UP and be on your way. WHO’s STOPPING YOU ?” karaokeking simply asked her to get lost: “To those who challenge the beech to be take up citizenship: We need foreign trash like her to get lost, not stay on as citizens! If she could afford it, her kid would be in an international school, not fighting for a place in local schools, so we know at what class of “talent” she really is. It’s our govt’s fault putting the “talent” concept into their big heads. Who wants to have babies when the competition with foreign trash starts at five!” Judging from the massive outpouring of grievances by Singaporeans against foreigners, it appears that the issue of foreign workers is becoming a sore point among many citizens, which is not detected by a government becoming out of touch with the real sentiments on the ground.   Selected comments taken from: ST Discussion Board UBS agrees to turn 4,450 account names over to IRS Swiss banking giant UBS AG agreed Wednesday to turn over to the IRS the details of 4,450 accounts suspected of holding undeclared assets by American customers, piercing Switzerland’s long-standing tradition of banking secrecy. IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman said the accounts held $18 billion in assets at one time. Many have since been closed, he said. The deal will give the Internal Revenue Service thousands of long-sought account names, Shulman said, and is expected to provide even more UBS clients who voluntarily disclose their financial details to the agency. UBS has an estimated 52,000 accounts of U.S. customers. The IRS chief said the 4,450 accounts being relinquished to the agency were the ones most suspected of containing undeclared assets. “I believe this agreement gives us what we wanted — access to information about those UBS accountholders most likely to have been involved in offshore tax evasion,” Shulman said. He said that other account holders appear to be in compliance with U.S. tax laws. The two sides told a federal judge last week they had reached a tentative agreement, but the details were not released until Wednesday. Account holders will be notified before their names are released to the IRS. The names will first go to the Swiss Federal Tax Administration. Account holders will then be able to appeal their release to the IRS before Switzerland’s Federal Administrative Court. The process is expected to take several months, IRS officials said. Shulman said the Swiss government has assured U.S. authorities that the release of the names conforms with both Swiss banking laws and the tax treaty signed by both countries. Shulman said the IRS reserves the right to resume its legal fight if any of the names are withheld. “This issue is not going away, and people hiding assets and income offshore will find themselves increasingly at risk due to our efforts in this area,” Shulman said. UBS shares were down 2.1 percent at 16.55 Swiss francs ($15.51) on the Zurich exchange. The Swiss Bankers Association issued a statement in support of the agreement. “The out-of-court agreement avoids a prolonged legal battle that would have had an uncertain outcome and UBS can now continue with its consolidation process in an atmosphere free of this legal uncertainty,” the association said. Swiss Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf told a news conference in the capital of Bern that the deal lifts the threat of criminal prosecution against UBS, which could have endangered the bank’s very existence and dealt a severe blow to the Alpine nation’s economy. “There was no alternative to this solution,” she said. Asked if other Swiss banks could be targeted for future prosecution in the United States, she said: “We don’t expect this to be the case.” UBS Chairman Kaspar Villiger said, “I am confident that the agreement will allow the bank to continue moving forward to rebuild its reputation through solid performance and client service.” The case — and other U.S. efforts to go after international tax dodgers — already has a lot of wealthy Americans with offshore accounts nervously running to their tax advisers — and the Internal Revenue Service. Tax advisers at several U.S. firms said they are seeing many more customers with undeclared assets seeking information about their legal options. The IRS long has had a policy that certain tax evaders who come forward before they are contacted by the agency usually can avoid jail time as long as they agree to pay back taxes, interest and hefty penalties. Drug dealers and money launderers need not apply. But if the money was earned legally, tax evaders can usually avoid criminal prosecution. In March, the IRS began a six-month amnesty program that sweetened the offer with reduced penalties for people with undeclared assets. Shulman said the response has been unprecedented, though he declined to say how many people have applied. Shulman said UBS customers are free to take advantage of the program as long as they come forward before Sept. 23 — and before the IRS receives their name from UBS. “The letter they receive from the bank will not disqualify them from coming forward to the IRS under our voluntary disclosure program,” Shulman said. “But once the Swiss government sends us the name, all bets are off.” Shulman said the IRS already is using the program to get information from account holders about other banks and financial advisers who have helped them evade U.S. taxes. “You can expect us to continue to be aggressive,” he said. Source: AP Japan’s opposition could win by a landslide: media Japan’s opposition Democratic Party may be headed for a landslide election victory, trouncing the conservative party that has ruled for most of the past half-century, a leading newspaper said on Thursday. The Democrats could win 300 of the 480 seats in parliament’s lower house while the long-ruling Liberal Democrats may see their strength halved to around 150 seats, said the Asahi newspaper, based on a detailed survey of electoral districts ahead of the August 30 poll. But the paper also said around 30 to 40 percent of voters in its survey of electoral districts had not revealed how they would vote while 25 percent might change their minds, so results could shift significantly in the final days. Opinion polls have consistently shown the Democrats well ahead of the business-friendly Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), raising the prospect the LDP — whose once-mighty political machine has been weakened by social and economic changes — will lose power for only the second time in its 54-year history. Democratic Party leader Yukio Hatoyama, now looking likely to become the next prime minister, has pledged to put more money into consumers’ hands to revive the economy, hold off on raising the 5 percent sales tax for four years and adopt a diplomatic stance less subservient to top security ally the United States. A solid Democratic Party victory would end a deadlock in parliament, where the party and its allies already control the less powerful upper chamber. A clear result would cheer financial markets as it would smooth policy-making as Japan shakes off a recession. “The best scenario for the stock market would be where the Democratic Party scores a landslide victory and sets up a strong government, sparking hopes that Japan might change,” said Mitsushige Akino, chief fund manager at Ichiyoshi Investment Management Co Ltd. BIG SPENDING PLANS The Nikkei average climbed from Wednesday’s three-week closing low, although financial markets were more focused on a rebound in Chinese shares and a surge in crude oil prices than on the election outlook. “Whether the Democrats win or the LDP wins, you’re still likely to have an accommodative monetary policy and the deficit’s still likely to grow due to stimulus plans,” said Nagayuki Yamagishi, a strategist at Mitsubishi UFJ Securities. “On the other hand, if the Democrats do win and it becomes a situation like (U.S. President Barack) Obama and Congress, it could be good in terms of getting policies passed.” Some market participants worry, however, that ambitious Democrat spending plans would inflate already sky-high public debt and push up long-term interest rates. The Asahi said its survey showed the LDP, which had 300 seats ahead of the election, could be halved in strength in the powerful lower house, while its junior partner the New Komeito party was likely to stay at somewhere around 31 seats. “If this trend continues, I think the results will be close to the Asahi’s prediction,” said Keio University professor Yasunori Sone. “Maybe not 300 seats (for the Democrats) but around 270 … It would be hard for the LDP to turn it around.”  Experts note, however, that predictions are complicated by Japan’s electoral system in which 300 lower house seats are from winner-take-all, single member districts and the rest from multiple-seat proportional representation blocks in which voters cast ballots for a party. The Asahi’s prediction, based on surveys of half of the 300 single-seat districts, broadly matches opinion polls showing the LDP in deep trouble nationally. KOIZUMI RESIGNED TO CHANGE The Democrats and two small allies won control of the upper house in 2007, enabling them to stall bills and creating a policy deadlock as Japan struggles with deep-seated problems due to its shrinking, aging population and the global financial crisis. Popular former leader Junichiro Koizumi led the LDP to a huge victory in 2005 on a platform pledging market-friendly reforms. But the party’s support slid as his two successors each quit after less than a year and incumbent Prime Minister Taro Aso came under fire for a series of gaffes and policy flip-flops. Koizumi admitted the LDP faced a tough fight this time. “Unless something big happens, it’s possible that we’ll see a change in government,” Koizumi, who is retiring from parliament, was quoted by the Yomiuri newspaper as saying on Wednesday. “It’s not bad to be the opposition party from time to time.” Aso has been stressing the success of the LDP’s economic stimulus packages in helping Japan weather the global financial crisis and attacking the Democrats as weak on security policy and irresponsible on financial issues. But analysts said news on Monday that Japan’s economy returned to growth in the second quarter would probably do little to rescue the LDP, even though the figures marked the end of the country’s longest recession since World War Two. Source: Reuters Ho Ching now the 5th most powerful woman thanks to… From our Correspondent The beleaguered wife of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Ho Ching, may not be generally well liked in Singapore after losing state reserves in excess of billion of dollars, but that has little bearing on her international rankings. Ho Ching has moved up the rankings in Forbes magazine’s sixth annual list of the world’s most powerful women. Ms Ho rose to fifth place from eighth last year, pipping a selection of high-fliers such as United States First Lady Michelle Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, both of whom did not make it to the top 30. German Chancellor Angela again topped the list of the world’s 100 most powerful women for the fourth year running, with the magazine highlighting her role as leader of the huge German economy and her likely re-election in September. While the German Chancellor has to fought hard to secure her position, Ms Ho Ching was “appointed” to her post. Whoever makes the decision remains a mystery. Furthermore, she is immune to criticism in Singapore as recent events has shown. Despite her controversial performance as Temasek’s CEO, its Board of Director has decided to re-appoint her to the post after the abrupt departure of CEO-designate Chip Goodyear under mysterious circumstances. Goodyear allegedly left because of “strategic differences” with the Board. However, Finance Minister Tharman refused to reveal what these differences are in Parliament as doing so will not serve any “strategic purpose”. Founded in 1974, Temasek Holdings, which derived its funds from yearly budget surpluses, has grown to become one of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world. In February 2009, Ms Ho revealed that the portfolio of Temasek has slumped by more than 31% as a result of the global financial crisis, triggering a public furore. Despite mounting public pressure for Temasek to release its accounts, Mr Tharman refused to do so on “strategic grounds” and defended its performance on the basis of its “long term” perspective. Ms Ho Ching is not only the 5th most powerful woman in the world. She is perhaps the most powerful woman in Singapore - an “untouchable”. Sweta Agarwal proud to be Indian citizen and to have PR status in Singapore From our Correspondent The man, or rather, the lady at the center of the controversy, Ms Swetal Agarwal has replied. (read article here) In a letter to the Straits Times Forum on 20 August 2009, Ms Swetal Agarwal wrote that she is happy being a PR though she does not get equal benefits in housing and other aspects. However, she was adamant that her child get the best education in Singapore: “But where our children are concerned, we just want them to have the best education possible and I think we are not asking much…….where schooling is concerned, ‘every child has the right to get the best education possible’.” Ms Swetal Agarwal did not explain why she did not choose to take up Singapore citizenship after living here for 6 years. “About living here for six years and not taking citizenship, I think this is a very personal choice.”, she wrote. Unfortunately, many Singapore citizens do not enjoy the luxury of ‘personal choice’ as Ms Swetal. They are stuck with the citizenship with nowhere to go. On the other hand, Ms Swetal can always choose to return to India where the cost of living is much lower. Ms Swetal is not alone. There many Malaysian and Chinese PRs who refuse to become Singapore new citizens in order to enjoy the “best of both worlds”. They earn decent salaries in Singapore which when converted to their native currencies, will enable them to retire comfortably in their homelands. Therefore, many do not see their future in Singapore. Ms Swetal ended her letter by proclaiming her loyalty to India: “I am proud to be a citizen of my country and have PR status in Singapore.” Many Singaporeans would be envious of her position. How nice it is to be a Singapore citizen and a Australian or Canadian PR at the same time. In the meanwhile, the furore over foreigners being “given a free meal” continues unabated with one Singaporean calling on the government to start new citizens on ‘quasi-national service’. (read letter here) Bryan Tan wrote of his suggestion: “Besides being seen to contribute to society, they can also integrate into society faster by interacting with people at various levels. By serving in hospitals or charities, they will gain an instant insight into cultural and religious aspects of the community of which they will become part.” While Singapore men spent two years of the best years of their lives in the army, it seems a “good deal” for the new citizens to do contribute to Singapore by serving in civilian institutions. The question is: does the government have any political will or courage to implement it?   Related articles: >> PRs get equal chance in Primary 1 registration >> MM Lee defends need for foreign talent >> PRC student supports government’s plan for more foreign scholars High cost of HDB flats a key reason for failure of Baby bonus to boost birth rate By Jeremy Koh (Guest Columnist) and Eugene Yeo (Consultant Editor) In a Straits Times report, it was reported that the Baby Bonus introduced by the government has failed to boost the flagging birth rate despite the increment last year. (read article here) $230 million was given out by the Government in baby bonus payments last year, up from $55 million just five years earlier. But there was no corresponding increase in the number of Singaporean babies born. The Baby Bonus Scheme aims to encourage Singaporean couples to have babies by easing the financial burden on parents. A reason commonly cited for the unwillingness of Singaporeans to have children is the high cost of living, especially that of housing. The price of HDB resale flats and that of new flats whose prices are pegged to it have risen dramatically in recent years. Data from the Housing and Development Board showed the resale price index rising 1.4 per cent from the previous quarter to 140.2 in Q2. This is the highest level seen since 1990. Over 85% of Singaporeans living in public housing built by the HDB. Though it is meant to affordable to the masses, the relentless price hike have squeezed some Singaporeans out of the market, especially young couples who are first-time genuine home-buyers. Last month, HDB launched a premium project offering 769 new flats in Punggol. It offers 615 four-roomers and 154 five-room flats in a central location just five minutes from Punggol MRT station. Four-room flats of 91 to 96 sq m are going for $264,000 to $322,000, while five-roomers of 114 sq m are on sale from $344,000 to $409,000. The CPF housing grant and the HDB housing loan are two schemes that have helped maintain the affordability. The combined income ceiling of $8,000 a month to be eligible for the schemes has been in place since 1994. Since then, the HDB resale price index has gone up by a staggering 190 per cent. The CPF Housing Grant Scheme is a housing subsidy provided by the Singapore Government to assist Singapore Citizens to own a HDB flat at a cheaper rate, or we call it a HDB subsidy. The grant can range from S$30,000 to S$40,000, however there is a catch ( or in fact many catches!), if you had obtained the grant when you purchase your flat, you will be required to pay a resale levey when you sell it. This resale level can be as high as S$50,000 for Executive flat and you need to occupy the flat for 5 years before you could purchase another flat directly from HDB. Even with a $30,000 housing grant, a young couple buying a new 4-room flat at $250,000 will still have to fork out $220,000 which amounts to a monthly loan of between $800 to $1,200 a month payable over a thirty year period depending on the type of interest scheme. For a resale HDB flat in a prime area like Bishan, the price ranges from $350,000 to $400,000. The monthly installments will be between $1,100 and $1,400. The median pay of the average Singapore worker is about $3,440 a month and it has stagnated over the last few years. (source: http://www.worldsalaries.org/singapore.shtml) After the compulsory deduction of 20% to CPF, the take home pay is only $2,750. The Singapore worker will be left between $1,500 and $2,000 after paying for the mortage loan. It will be very tough for one to start a family with such a pay. Of course the above calculations are just gross estimates and the government should be in a better position to shed more light on the affordability of HDB flats. However, till now, ministers such as Mah Bow Tan and Lim Hwee Hua remain adamant that HDB flats remains “affordable” to the majority of Singaporeans. It defies common logic for the government to peg HDB flats to that of the private property market which is extremely volatile and inflationary in the last few years with the influx of foreigners buying up properties in Singapore. About 70% of the buyers of private properties are foreigners. Throughout these years, it is not known if the government has made any “profit” from the construction and sale of HDB flats. What is the price of the land? A significant proportion of the land in Singapore is owned by a government-linked company, Singapore Land Limited. What is the cost of building each HDB unit? What is the difference, (if any), between the construction cost and sale price and where does it go to? The government has refrained from answering these legitimate questions on the mind of Singaporeans for the past two decades, preferring to congratulate itself for raising the home ownership of Singaporeans to more than 95%. Though technically, 95% of Singaporeans “own” their HDB flats, they are merely renting it from the government for a maximum period of 99 years since it is a leasehold and not freehold project. Freehold properties usually command a higher price than leasehold ones in the same vicinity by 10 to 20%. The reason why HDB flats are commanding such a high valuation is that shelter over one’s head is a basic necessity. Unlike in Malaysia, Hong Kong, Taiwan or China, where one can pack up and live in the countryside, there is nowhere to go in Singapore. In other words, prices of HDB flats will continue to climb unless the government step in and modulate its mode of valuation because there is always a ready market for it. The influx of foreigners and PRs have also helped to artificially inflate the price of HDB flats. Singaporeans may have “double” or even “tripled” the value of their HDB flats in the last ten years, but don’t forget after making a profit from the sale of their properties, they still have to pay for another new flat at a higher price with the unwanted effect of plunging Singaporeans further and further into debt. According to an AXA study done last year, it is estimated that for the average Singaporean, CPF savings will provide only a quarter of the funds he or she will need in old age which defeats its original purpose of being a retirement fund for Singaporeansn when it was first formulated in 1967.(source: Asiaone) With no social safety net to speak of, Singaporeans face a grim and uncertain future, especially those from the middle and lower income group. The middle class will be more severely squeezed as they do not qualify for any government subsidies. The “sandwiched” generation - those with children and aged parents to take of, may find life a continuous struggle to earn enough money to keep afloat. It is not easy to bring up a child. Not only must one ensure he/she is well fed and clothed, time and resources have to be expended to educate them so that they will become well-behaved, productive and useful citizens to the nation. With so many tasks to juggle at the same time, it is no wonder that Singaporeans are opting to have a smaller family, if any at all. The government should look at and deal with the root cause of the problem rather than giving cash handouts which does little to ameliorate the difficulties faced by Singaporeans trying to start a family. It has been 15 years since the HDB since the HDB housing grant was first introduced. Given the different set of circumstances we are in now, perhaps it is time to re-evaluate the scheme. For a start, the cost price of new HDB flats should be pegged not at two-thirds of reslae flats in the vicinity, but at the median pay of the Singapore worker, e.g. 5 times for 4-room flats and 6 times for 5-room flats which work to about a price of $170,000 and $204,000 respectively. With the decrease in the prices of new flats, the resale market will gradually be cooled and fall to more sustainable levels. The $8,000 ceiling for the grant’s qualification should be increased to $12,000 or more and the housing grant raised to between $50,000 and $70,000. Though the government may made a “loss” in doing so, it owes the citizens who voted for it a duty of care. Besides, even at much “knocked-down” prices, HDB may still able to make a hefty “profit”. How much money did the government gain from the sale of HDB flats, the levies earned from resale flats and the CPF contributions of Singaporeans after all these years? Are they used to finance the investments made by Temasek and GIC? Till today, these figures remain enshrouded in a cloak of secrecy. Boosting the birth rates of Singaporeans will reduce our dependence on foreigners who now made up almost a third of the population. Reducing the pressure on Singaporeans will lead to a happier citizenry and increase our domestic consumption, thereby decreasing on reliance on foreign exports. A fundamental shift in the government’s mindset and policy is needed to reverse our flagging birth rates. As history has already shown, giving cash handouts in the form of Baby bonus and recruiting foreigners en masse will not solve the root of the problem.   Related articles: >> Mass market buyers now inflating property prices by Jeremy Koh >> Record home sales: a boom or bomb in the making? by Jeremy Koh and Eugene Yeo >> Budget does not address long-term inadequacies in corporatist model by Jeremy Koh and Eugene Yeo NMP calls for “repoliticizing” of universities From our Correspondent Nominated member of Parliament Viswa Sadasivan has made a call for “repoliticizing” of universities during his 50-minute maiden speech in Parliament. He began by lamenting how beautifully crafted the National Pledge was, and said it was a waste that its meaning and power are not understood enough or reflected on. To ensure that the Pledge means more than just words for all citizens, Mr Sadasivan argued that Parliament should lead the way by ensuring that the tenets of the Pledge have primacy when considering national policies. He highlighted what he considered four key tenets: the idea of citizenship, inter-racial and religious unity, democracy and the balance between happiness and prosperity. Mr Sadasivan gave several suggestions on how national policies could be better aligned with these principles, one of which is to encourage political associations in universities - once a base of political interest and activism - and allow campus rallies to rouse the young from apathy. Student activism has long been non-existent in Singapore’s universities. Singapore undergraduates are more concerned about passing examinations and getting a job upon graduation than politics. Political activities are also explicitly banned on campus ground. Last year, NTU barred SDP members led by Dr Chee from fraternizing with its students. A letter written by a student on the matter was removed from the students’ newsletter just before publication. It is highly unlikely that the government will be receptive to Mr Sadasivan’s proposal to “repoliticize” Singapore’s universities. Universities have always been a hotbed for political activism and dissent worldwide and the ruling party is well aware of its potential threat to their continued hegemony. One of the harshest critic of MM Lee and the PAP in the 1970s is student leader Tan Wah Piow, then President of the University of Singapore Student Union. Tan was charged in 1974, together with two others, with rioting inside the premises of the Pioneer Industries Employees Union, a government-controlled trade union, even though he was nowhere near the office where he was supposed to have ‘broken some chairs’. Tan was sentenced to one year imprisonment and after his release in 1976, he fled to London via Johor Bahru. From then now, politicial activism simmered and eventually died down on the University of Singapore, which was the sole university then. Even if the government wants to “revive” the political “spirit” of the campuses, few students will dare to take the “bait” given its track record of harsh treatment dished out to political dissidents. The real “strategic purpose” of Tharman From our Correspondent Our Finance Minister Mr Tharman has been a very busy man this year, not on Budget matters, but to do fire-fighting for a government besieged with increasing demands for transparency from a sceptical public. First, he was confronted by MP Low Thia Kiang on the use of the “second key” by the President. He explained that not many questions were asked because “it is a system built on trust.” When quizzed about the performance of Temasek Holdings, he dismissed the significance of its losses on the basis that the investments are for the “long term“. Now, after spending 25 minutes in Parliament going around in circles, he still had not answered the key question asked by the MPs because “it will not serve any strategic purpose to do so.” Mr Tharman has indeed served his “strategic purpose” well by acting as a shield to block the arrows on behalf of his boss who was the preceding Finance Minister. Had he not relinquished his portfolio, he would be in an untenable position now having to face the embarassing mess behind by his wife. Mr Tharman should be commended for his “excellent” performance so far. He has proven himself to be capable of “blocking the arrows” for the “long term”. As such, Singaporeans should give up trying to obtain any answers from this man because according to him, “it is a system based on trust.” It will not serve any strategic purpose to ask any more questions. MM Lee’s gaffe on ExxonMobil From our Correspondent Undoubtably the most respected politician in Singapore, MM Lee’s words are regarded as the “gospel truth” by many Singaporeans. Now in his advanced age, MM Lee still hogged the headlines of the local papers. Last week, he gave his usual admonishment to Singaporeans to embrace foreigners. On 14 August, MM Lee predicted that Singapore will get “many” investments in an interview with TODAY: “He (MM Lee) recounted how the board members of ExxonMobil, who had been sceptical of a $4.5 billion investment in Jurong Island, flew here for a visit. After meeting with Mr Lee and the Prime Minister, they gave their go-ahead.” 4 days later, a “clarification” appears on page 29 of TODAY: “….ExxonMobil has clarified that the company’s decision to invest in a second petrochemical complex on Jurong Island was made in August 2007, before the board’s visit to Singapore in March this year.” Strangely enough, the mistake was not published in other major papers. There were no immediate press statements from the government either. What can possibly explain the discrepancy between MM Lee’s remarks and ExxonMobil’s explanation? Perhaps the journalist has misunderstood MM Lee (again). PhD holder now a taxi driver By Amresh Gunasingham from Straits Times COULD this be Singapore’s most well qualified taxi driver? Dr Cai Ming Jie became an SMRT cabby last November after spending 16 years as a researcher at the Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology (IMCB) of the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*Star). His career switch has become a talking point online after he started a blog earlier this year. Alongside his experiences as a cabby, he takes issue with the circumstances of his departure from IMCB last May. An SMRT spokesman confirmed that the former researcher is a driver with SMRT Taxis, but Dr Cai declined to add more beyond this: ‘All that needs to be said is on the blog online…It should be IMCB that needs to be asked questions, if any.’ The China-born Dr Cai, who became a Singapore citizen, obtained a PhD in molecular biology from Stanford University in 1990. The Straits Times learnt that he did a two-year postdoctoral fellowship after leaving Stanford at the University of Washington, under famed genetist Professor Lee Hartwell, who won a 2001 Nobel Prize in physiology. He joined IMCB two years later and worked as a principal investigator in the field of cell genetics up till his departure. A spokesman for A*Star, meanwhile, said renewal of all its researchers’ contracts is based on a number of factors, including the time taken to train PhD students, their performance and their contributions to the research institutes and the agency in general. Dr Cai’s work, like that of all A*Star researchers, was assessed by an external Scientific Advisory Board (SAB), which recommended his contract be terminated. The spokesman said IMCB had taken the additional step of having Dr Cai’s work assessed by three independent experts, ‘all of whom supported the SAB’s decision not to renew his contract’. He said the former researcher was given one year’s notice as well as advice and assistance to source for other prospects. Still, in spite of the submission of countless curriculum vitaes and applications to universities, government agencies and companies since he was told he would be let go in 2007, Dr Cai failed to get a successful response. Former colleagues feel his departure was unfortunate and a consequence of many factors. Having known him over the years, they say he is a reserved but bright scientist. Dr Cai was also an adjunct associate professor at the National University of Singapore’s (NUS’) biochemistry department, where he supervised students doing research in cell and molecular biology. This appointment ended last year, an NUS spokesman said. The former researcher now drives a four-year -old Toyota Crown. ‘At a time like this, the taxi business is probably the only business in Singapore that still actively recruits people,’ he said. In his latest entry, dated Monday, he revealed that he will focus on writing when his six-month contract at SMRT Taxis expires at the end of the month. ‘After that, I plan to change to a new taxi operator…and continue driving and writing stories that come along with it.’ Source: Straits Times ‘PRs versus Citizens’ debate rages on in cyberspace From our Correspondent The letter written by PR Ms Agarwal who threaten to leave Singapore if her children are not given equal chance in Primary 1 registration has continued to attract criticisms from Singaporeans with many describing her as an “obnoxious” PR and asking her to “bugger off” back to India. Wrote Ghostrider666: “Let’s not lose sight of the issue here. In this case, Ms Agrawal, the PR, is the person who has a lot to grumble about if her daughter fails to get into a Good school, …….Ms Agrawal is the one who says that she will ‘bugger off’ if her daughter can’t get into a GOOD school here. So, I say let her ‘bugger off’. We don’t care. It’s her wish.” Arthurl felt citizens are entitled to their priviledges and do not have to account to anybody: “Come off it Mrs Agarwal. All citizens of any countries have a right to their privileges and we do not owe you an explanation…..We do NOT owe you an explanation. If you are so adamant of your stand, make a U Turn and head back to where you came from and see what type of privilege you have in your own country. So do not try to assert your rights!” Many Singaporeans are outraged that PRs are enjoying almost the same benefits with them without the accompanying responsibilities. jpkyong wants the government to impose time-limit for PRs: “Corrective action by the Govt is long overdue. There should be a time-limit of 5 years for all PRs to take up citizenship or leave. All countries have this restriction except Singapore. Why are we allowing these free-loading foreign leeches to make suckers out of our people? Don’t we have any more self-respect as a nation?” jojo2008 wrote about his own personal experience of PRs “exploiting” the system for their benefit: “I have colleagues and friends who’s been working here for years, and exploit the PR system: - Indian national working here for more than 10 years become citizen, (Yes) to enjoy baby bonus and buy HDB while wife is a PR. - Malaysian couple run a successful (well known) business here becomes a citizen in order to buy HDB, meanwhile son (my friend who actually told me this), who’s had a singapore education since young, is not a citizen and does not see the need to, today has a business in johore but is actually living in singapore cos he’s clients are here. - Indonesian with a singapore education since young declares a income (from his “business”) whenever he needs to renew his PR status actually make money buying and selling condos here. - Australian colleague here for more than 10 years secured PR status as a form of security as it buys him time and allows him to hang around singapore should he loses his current job. There are quite a number of foreigners who’s doing just for this reason. And frankly, most of them are mid level managers whose jobs can easily be done by singaporeans. Unfortunately, these so call “foreign talents” already have their own network here, and any vacancies available are thus taken by them.” Some are peeved by the government’s pro-foreigner policy at the expense of the  interests of citizens: Wrote Trofeo: “Many other countries also adopt very open policies that allow foreigners into their country and workforce. But the difference between they way they have gone about it versus the way Singapore has gone about it is this- They are very clear about their priorities. They welcome foreigners but their citizens will always enjoy certain privileges and advantages over foreigners. For eg. before any company can hire a foreigner, they need to prove that they have taken the necessary measures to try and fill the position locally. Only then are they allowed to hire a foreigner. In Singapore, citizens and foreigners compete for jobs on a equal footing. Singaporean males may even be disadvantaged compared to their foreign counterparts because of their annual “downtime” due to their reservist obligations.” AbolishNs had a stunning revelation: “I served almost 20 yrs in grassroot org; I recently learnt that a 1st gen PR [ who didn't serve NS ] simply serve 12 mths in a Resident Committee - can register his eldest child during Phase 2B for pri sch of his choice. This is more priority than our ordinary NS Men’s child. I verified and confirmed this with People’s Assoc.” In spite of MM Lee’s exhortation to Singaporeans to accept and welcome foreigners with open arms as they are “vital” to our economy, many Singaporeans remained unconvinced. The rapid influx of foreigners into Singapore has changed the demographics of the population dramatically. Some of these newcomers are not able to speak a simple word of English. Repeated calls by the government to foreigners to “adapt” to the local culture has gone unheeded as enclaves began to emerge in the HDB heartlands. The government has even gone of its way to use taxpayers’ monies to organize events to make the PRs “feel at home”. With such a “caring” government, it is little wonder that most PRs will opt to remain as PRs for now since it doesn’t bring them additional benefit to become citizens. PRs are not eligible to vote to take part in elections. Then again, there are many citizens out there who have never even voted once in their lives.   EDITORS’ NOTE: Selected comments taken from ST Discussion Board Why should we be grateful to the present PAP? By Eugene Yeo, Consultant Editor “Gratitude to the PAP” is a recurring unspoken theme of every National Day. This year, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong spent almost 20 minutes of his National Day Rally showing clips of Singapore in the 1950s and 1960s to illustrate the tremendous progress we have made for the last 50 years (under the leadership of the PAP, of course). I concur with the Prime Minister. Every Singapore citizen owes a debt of gratitude, not to the present PAP, but to the PAP Old guards, such as Toh Chin Chye, Goh Keng Swee, S Rajaratnam, Lim Kim San, E W Barker and Ong Pang Boon who toiled selflessly with a pittance of pay to bring social stability and economic development to Singapore against all odds. I salute these men because during that time, Singapore is facing a very uncertain future. They could have easily left for greener pastures elsewhere instead of gambling their entire lives and fortunes on Singapore. These are men of ideals, principles and vision, who knows and understands the plight of the common men in the street and willing to serve without being paid millions of dollars. When S Rajaratnam passed away a few years ago, I wept, not because of his passing, but because so few young Singaporeans are aware of his contributions. We hardly heard of our pioneers these days in the papers. Toh Chin Chye got a rare mention last year when her daughter passed away. I have heard nothing about Goh Keng Swee. What happened to these leaders whom Singaporeans truly love and respect? Why are they not present at the National Day Parade or Rally? What do they think about the present government’s policies? Do they still care for the people of Singapore? Or are we going to hear about them again only when their photos appear in the Straits Times (you know what) page? It will be too little, too late. There is a Chinese saying: “When we drink the water, we should think of its source.” Singapore will not be what it is today without these great men and women, the giants of our time. Not only am I thankful to them, I love, respect and admire them sincerely and truthfully from the bottom of my heart. Armchair critics like me have always been dismissed by the establishment as an unwanted nuisance or as “bacteria” according to a SPH journalist. We are accused of being ungrateful, unpatriotic and even disloyal to our nation. I served two and half years of National Service during which I had a training-related accident which almost took my life. Have I contributed to my nation any less than those new citizens waving the Singapore flag sheepishly at the National Day Parade? Anybody who criticizes the government is considered anti-Singapore. Is it easier to be a critic or a yes-man? I have been doing “National Service” for Singapore in every single day of my life, be it eating, working or sleeping, I have been thinking, pondering and analyzing over these questions: What is wrong with my country? What are the problems besieging Singapore now? What does the future hold for us? Can we continue with such a system? Are my fellow citizens getting a fair deal from the government? If every Singapore man has the duty to bear arms to defend our nation, then it doesn’t make any sense for us not to be allowed to question decisions made by the government and to criticize them when the need arises. In fact, the real traitors of Singapore are not its critics, but those who worship the PAP blindly like God. Hitler’s Germany did not have a single critic. Neither does Stalin’s Soviet Union has. The only two places in this world which are completely devoid of critics now are Burma and North Korea. Now back to the original topic of showing gratitude to the PAP. Even if they deserve it, they can at most claim 40% of the credit for transforming Singapore from Third world to First. Who then deserves the rest? Your father, my grandmother, our forefathers and every ordinary citizen of Singapore who have contributed to the nation in one way or another. Shouldn’t we be grateful to them too? It is a fallacy that Singapore will not achieve its dizzy heights today without the PAP. Our economic success is remarkable, but it is definitely not a miracle as protrayed by certain quarters and now spinned into a myth in the national folklore. When Singapore achieved self-government in 1959, it was already a thriving regional commercial centre, a trading hub and an entrepot with one of the highest standard of living in Asia. Japan was still rebuilding after World War 2 while South Korea had not recovered completely from the devastation of the Korean War. In a way, Singapore is already one step ahead of its neighbors. We did not start way down below, but very near the top. How can the PAP possibly fail? The Straits of Malacca is the world’s busiest waterways. Over 70% of the world’s trade passes through it. Singapore is the only deep-water port in the entire Southeast Asia that can handle the bulk of this trade, no thanks to the British which has been building and expanding its port facilities for the last hundred years. Singapore is an oasis of peace saddled in an unstable region wrecked by ethnic strife and religious animosity. While Singapore has its fair share of riots, strikes and violence, the bulk of fighting under the Emergency took place in Peninsula Malaya and by 1955 after the Baling Talks in 1955, the situation was more or less under control. [Some may argue that without the PAP, Singapore will become a communist state. This is impossible for two reasons - the Britain and Malaysia will never allow it to happen and the "communist" leaders accused by the PAP such as Lim Chin Siong are more nationalist than Marxist as evident from archives released by London subsequently. We shall leave this to a future article] Our small size, though it deprives us of natural resources, was a blessing in disguise in another way as it made governance so much easier, enabling the government to remove the hooligans from the streets, construct public housing for every Singaporean, build sheltered walkways connecting every block and of course ensured that the rubbish is cleared on time. Try doing that in Malaysia, Indonesia or Thailand and see if the PAP is able to get anything done so quickly and efficiently. The British did not leave us improverished or in a mess like some of its other colonies in the Middle East. We inherit the British education system, civil service, judiciary and Westminister model of government (though it was not practised by the ruling party) from them. They are the ones who built Singapore from a fishing village into a major trading center of the world, not the PAP. The infrastructure they left behind formed the basis for our economic development. The British naval base was built at a staggering cost of 60 billion pounds and it was the largest dry dock in the world then. After the British departure in 1968, it was transformed into a successful ship-repairing and building venture by Swan Hunter which provided jobs for thousands of Singaporeans. Dr Albert Winsemius, a Dutch economist, produced the economic blueprint for Singapore when he advised the government to focus on labor-intensive and export-oriented industries such as electronics and manufacturing which created employment opportunities for young Singaporeans, enabling our economy to really take off. Yet, very few Singaporeans have heard about this great benefactor of Singapore, to whom we must express our gratitude too. Lastly, let us not forget the “quality” of our people if it is the right word to use. I am extremely proud of Singaporeans. Where else in the world can you find a people so honest, hardworking, disciplined, thrifty and obedient like us? We have one of the highest saving rates in the world. Otherwise, how can Temasek and GIC afford to splurge billions of dollars overseas? The Chinese, Hong Kongers and Taiwanese share the same characteristics as us too, but they are not that easy to “handle”. When ex-Hong Kong Chief Executive Tung Chee Hwa tried to make some amendments to the Basic Law, 500,000 Hong Kongers turned up in the streets a few days later hurling abuses and vulgarities at him and his family. Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou suffered a similiar fate too when he tried to move closer to China. 100,000 Taiwanese surrounded his government office in Taipei to protest against him “betraying” their interests. In Singapore, they will surely end up in jail if our jails are big enough to accommodate them in the first place. 44 years after achieving independence, we are on our own. We owe a debt of gratitude to the first generation of PAP leaders, but not to the present batch. If the PAP insists that we remembered their contributions forever, then we might as well extend our “gratitude” all the way back to the British with the founding of Singapore in 1819 by Sir Stamford Raffles. After all, without the British pouring in their nation’s resources to develop Singapore, you and I may still be ploughing the fields somewhere in China or India. It is time really to move on. Nostalgia and clinging to past achievements will not bring us anywhere. Rather than wasting time and energy to glorify the past, the PAP should do something more practical and meaningful: give due respect and honor to their founding members when they are still alive. Please lead by example and show us what “gratitude” is all about.   Other articles by Eugene Yeo: >> Singapore’s limit: an unthinking and unquestioning citizenry >> Debunking the “constructive opposition” illusion >> How Singapore manage to lose its opposition over the years Tharman refuses to answer questions on Goodyear’s exit From our Correspondent For the first time, Finance Minister Tharman found himself under a barrage of questions from his own PAP colleagues. MPs took turns to grill the Finance Minister on the abrupt departure of Temasek CEO-designate Chip Goodyear and its succession plans for the future. The issue has come under intense public scrutiny. Singaporeans are discomfited by ex-CEO Ho Ching taking over the organization again. Despite 25 minutes of questioning, Mr Tharman refused to bulge. His reason: disclosing the “strategic” differences behind Goodyear’s departure will serve no “strategic” purposes. ‘It is not sufficient that there be curiosity and interest (for information to be disclosed),’ he said, after Mr Low Thia Khiang, opposition MP for Hougang, asked if it was right for Temasek to keep Singaporeans in the dark. Mr Tharman pointed out that Temasek already makes more public disclosures on its investment performance and strategy than comparable organisations. What really mattered was its performance over the long-term, he stressed. When Temasek lost billions of dollars last year, Mr Tharman also defended it on the grounds of “long-term” performance. However, he did not specific a time-frame for it. To Mr Seah Kian Peng’s suggestion to impose a time line for a successor to be chosen, Mr Tharman replied that none would be imposed on the process which means that Ho Ching will probably be in charge for a “long time” to come. Founded in 1974 to manage Singapore’s reserves, Temasek Holdings has grown to become one of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world. Initially a conservative, domestic-based investor, Temasek under the leadership of Ho Ching was transformed into an “Asian investment company”. Her ill-timed, if not reckless forays into the financial market has been blamed for much of Temasek’s losses. The sale of Bank of America and Barclays shares at their record low price in March this year cost Temasek billions of dollars. Though it was apparent by then that the decision to do so was unwise, nobody dares to take the Temasek board to task including the Finance Minister, who is supposedly in charge of Temasek. With the Finance Ministry “washing their hands” off Temasek, it appears that it is now truly an “independent” commercial entity though it is funded entirely by taxpayers’ monies. Russia power plant accident kills 12, dozens missing A sudden flood at Russia’s largest hydroelectric plant killed at least 12 people and left dozens missing after a surge in water pressure ruptured pipes, officials said Tuesday. The accident Monday caused serious power disruption in Siberia, cutting off electricity to smelters of major Russian metals manufacturers UC Rusal and Evraz Group. It happened when a sudden increase of water pressure in pipes feeding a power unit caused the rupture at the Sayano-Shushenskaya plant in the Khakassia region. According to the latest toll given Tuesday by Russia’s Minister of Emergency Situations Sergei Shoigu, who was at the scene, 12 people were dead and 64 missing, Interfax news agency said. The plant’s chief engineer, Andrei Mitrofanov, told Itar-Tass that “around 300 people” would have been on the ground at the time of the accident. The power station is one of the most powerful in the world with a capacity of 6.4 million kilowatts an hour. The components were undergoing repairs when the accident occurred, causing a large portion of the power unit to break off and puncture the ceiling and wall, allowing water to pour in and flood the chamber. In a statement, the Kremlin said the accident was due to an unspecified “hydraulic impact” at the plant which forced the shutdown of all 10 of the station’s power units. President Dmitry Medvedev ordered Shoigu and Energy Minister Sergei Shmatko to fly to the scene and take personal control of the crisis, the Kremlin said. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin arrived Monday night at the headquarters of the national crisis management centre. Medvedev sent a message of condolences to employees of the plant. “We are going to look carefully into the causes of this catastrophe and provide all necessary assistance to the injured,” Medvedev said, according to the Kremlin press office. The accident sparked panic among nearby residents who feared the massive dam at the facility might collapse, but Shoigu said there was no threat to people downstream. “Towns and villages located downstream are not in danger,” Shoigu told reporters in Moscow. Andrei Klyuyev, an emergency situations ministry official at the site of the accident, 4,000 kilometres (2,500 miles) east of Moscow, said there were still dozens of people unaccounted for. Klyuyev said rescue divers had pulled out one person from a room underneath the plant’s turbine hall where there was apparently a cave-in and flooding but said many more could still be trapped. Russian television broadcast pictures showing pieces of concrete, cables and twisted metal pylons beneath the 245-metre high dam wall and the main turbine hall flooded with water and debris. The accident disrupted power supply to key smelters in the region including those of UC Rusal, Russia’s largest aluminium producer, and other enterprises. A Moscow-based spokeswoman for Rusal, which is controlled by billionaire businessman Oleg Deripaska, said however the operation of the smelters had not been seriously affected as power had been diverted from alternative sources. The company said in a statement later however that Deripaska had discussed with Shmatko the possibility of reducing output from UC Rusal to free up energy resources to ensure “stable functioning of the region”. “The situation has become extremely difficult following the accident,” the governor of the Tomsk region, Viktor Kress, told RIA Novosti. “It has left us down around 41 megawatts of power.” Russia’s financial regulators ordered the suspension of trading on both Moscow stock exchanges in shares of state-run RusHydro, the corporation that owns the affected hydroelectric station. Konstantin Reily, a utilities analyst at Finam, estimated that it might cost up to three billion dollars to replace the three damaged power units. “This is an extraordinary event. This is the first accident of such a scale at the Sayano-Shushenskaya hydroelectric plant,” he added. Rebuilding the plant would take “four years or more”, Vasily Zubakin, the acting chairman of RusHydro, told RIA Novosti. The mayor of the nearby town of Abakan, speaking to Echo of Moscow radio, said queues had begun forming outside bakeries and gas stations. The natural resources ministry said it was concerned by the environmental impact of the accident, saying an oil slick of more than 25 kilometres (15 miles) had spread along the Yenisei River. “According to preliminary data, transformer fluid has leaked from one of the hydroelectric station’s damaged units,” the ministry said in a statement. Source: AFP Former South Korean leader Kim Dae-jung dies Former President Kim Dae-jung, a giant in South Korea’s shift to democracy who won the 2000 Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to forge a reconciliation with the prickly communist North, died on Tuesday at the age of 85. Kim, popularly known by his initials “DJ,” died of cardiac arrest brought on by massive organ failure. Staff at Yonsei Severance Hospital that has treated him since July 13, when he was admitted for pneumonia, did not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation to revive him. “We chose to let the deceased go in peace,” Yonsei hospital chief Park Chang-il told a news conference. News of his death brought an outpouring of condolences, including from those who disagreed with the liberal leader on how to deal with reclusive North Korea, which has for decades been a destabilizing factor for Asia’s fourth largest economy. “We lost a great political leader today. His accomplishments and aspirations to achieve democratization and inter-Korean reconciliation will long be remembered by the people,” conservative President Lee Myung-bak said in comments released by his office. The former political prisoner, once sentenced to death under one of the country’s early military rulers whom he relentlessly opposed, was elected South Korea’s president in December 1997 on his fourth attempt. It was the first time in the country that power had shifted from a ruling party president to one from the opposition and firmly established democracy in a country that had spent its early years under a succession of autocratic rulers. Kim was the architect of the “Sunshine Policy” of engaging communist North Korea which led to an unprecedented warming of ties between the foes. In the culmination of his efforts to improve relations with the North, Kim flew to Pyongyang in June 2000 for a historic summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. The meeting and his idea of prodding the North forward with the promise of incentives and reducing the strain of eventual unification through economic integration won Kim the Nobel prize. LIBERAL POLITICS His liberal politics and policy of rapprochement with the North was taken on by his successor Roh Moo-hyun who held a second summit with the North Korean leader Kim Jong-il in 2007. But in his final year, he watched as voters turned against a decade of liberal policies he had inaugurated by electing the conservative Lee, whose hard line toward the North saw relations plunge back into the freezer. And in May, Kim’s successor as president, Roh, committed suicide amid a graft probe. “This year has been especially hard for us as we have lost earlier in the year yet another political leader, former President Roh Moo-hyun. We feel as if we have lost both root and spirit of our democracy,” the opposition Democratic Party said. Analysts said Kim’s death may help bring the rival Korea’s back to dialogue, especially following conciliatory moves by the North in recent days that included a promise to reopen its border with the South, suggesting to some that tension may be subsiding. “DJ meant something to them and North Korea is likely to react and move in light of this news,” Koh Yu-hwan of Dongguk University in Seoul said. Yang Moo-jin of University of North Korean Studies said Pyongyang will likely send a delegation that could “turn around recent hardened conditions between North and South Korea.” At home, it was Kim’s life-long struggle against repressive authoritarian leaders that defined him and made his name a household word and inspiration for generations. A devout Catholic and an inspiring speaker in both Korean and English, he shuffled when he walked due to injuries suffered to his legs in an assassination attempt in the 1970s when a truck rammed his car off a road. Even as skepticism grew of Pyongyang’s intentions when it defied warnings and conducted its second nuclear test and a series of rocket launches, Kim told Reuters in one of his last interviews he was optimistic the North would eventually disarm. “Some people say North Korea has no intention of giving up its nuclear weapons, but that is not true,” he said on June 23. Source: Reuters PRs given equal chance in Primary 1 admission a sore point among Singaporeans From our Correspondent The equal chance granted to PRs in the Primary 1 admission exercise has become a contentious issue for Singaporeans again. It was sparked by a letter written by a Mr Eduard Tay to the Straits Times last Thursday about his son’s unsuccessful application for a place in a neighborhood school though he acknowledged that “his chances were poor, having to vie with children registered under Phase 1A, 2A1, 2A2, 2B and first-generation permanent residents’ (PRs) children under Phase 2C.” (read letter here) Mr Tay, who has completed his National Service, asked why these Phase 2C children are given an equal chance in Primary 1 registration. when first-generation PRs can choose not to do NS when they reach 18 by returning to their own country. His letter brought a swift rebuttal from a PR the very next day. Mrs Sweta Agarwal justified the equal chance given to PRs because they “pay taxes and abide by Singapore’s laws”.  She also issued a veiled threat that PRs may consider leaving Singapore if their children cannot get into the schools of their choice. Mrs Agarwal’s insensitive letter triggered a massive furore among Singaporeans. Mr Jimmy Loke replied a day letter castigating Mrs Agarwal for not taking up citizenship after a lengthy six years as a PR. “Mrs Agarwal has the option of returning to her country to find a good school for her daughter. Mr Tay’s child does not enjoy that luxury. As a Singaporean, Mr Tay served national service for 21/2 years and spent 13 more years as a reservist. Should any government not take care of its citizens first?”, he added. Mr Chia Kok Leong felt disappointed by her rationale. He wrote: “Paying taxes and working here for six years are commendable but instead of telling us what other value-added contributions she or her family would offer.” Ms Violet Koh asked the Education Ministry to give citzens priority in Primary 1 registration. “Why are Singaporeans and PRs in the same category when it comes to the Primary 1 registration process? When top schools are overwhelmed with applicants and places have to be decided by balloting, Singaporeans are not given priority.”, she asked. (read letter here) Mr Edwin Han mooted the suggestion of requiring long-term PRs to take up citizenship: “To the question asked by Mr Loke on why Mrs Agarwal has not taken up citizenship, I have this suggestion: Require all permanent residents (PRs) who have lived here for 10 years or more to apply for citizenship, and remove some or all privileges accorded to them should they fail to do so. This forces PRs to think carefully about whether they feel they belong in Singapore.” (read letter here) The rising number of foreigners in Singapore has become an important issue for many Singaporeans. MM Lee said recently defended the government’s pro-foreigner policy on the grounds that foreigners are “vital” to the economy. Despite widespread concerns, the fault line between foreigners and citizens was hardly mentioned by the Prime Minister during his National Day Rally. To add salt to the wound, citizens are asked to make foreigners “welcome”. The government even goes out of its way to organize events for foreigners, including a recent “amazing race”. All Singapore men have to serve two years of National Service and 13 years of reservist. They have to contribute 20% of their monthly income to CPF. PRs, on the other hand, do not have these burdens and they can always return to their homelands at anytime. Perhaps Ms Agarwal has been doing her calculations all along: that after her daughter completes secondary education here, she will go on to pursue her tertiary education elsewhere and the entire family will relocate. The government’s extreme “friendliness” towards foreigners is almost unheard of anywhere in the world. No wonder some Singaporeans are beginning to wonder if it would be better to be PR than a citizen.   Related articles: >> MM Lee defends need for foreign talent >> PRC student supports government’s plan for more foreign scholars >> PAP organizes ‘amazing race’ for PRs   EDITORS’ NOTE: Do you share the same frustration as Mr Eduard Tay? Should PRs be given equal chance as Singapore citizens in Primary 1 registration? Should PRs living in Singapore for more than 5 years be compelled to take up citizenship? Send us your views: temasekreview@gmail.com PM Lee’s National Day Rally: the key issues which he missed out From our Correspondent In his National Day rally, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong issued a rallying call for unity across different races and religions. (read article here) A large part of his speech in English was devoted to addressing the climate of rising religious fervour. He said that social cohesion was critical to Singapore’s long-term success, and singled out racial and religious divides as the ‘most visceral and dangerous fault line’, potentially worse than the rich-poor gap or any divide between Singaporeans and foreign residents. While nobody can deny the fact that racial and social stability is a cornerstone of Singapore’s continued prosperity, the Prime Minister is perhaps overly concerned about it at the expense of more pressing divides afflicting our nation today - namely that between the rich and poor and between citizens and foreigners. Racial and religious fault lines will always be present in a multi-racial society like Singapore. Though it can be managed to a certain extent by the state, it can never be eradicated completely. The government’s enlightened policy towards all Singaporeans regardless of race or religion since independence had led to mutual tolerance and respect between Singaporeans. We no longer see ourselves as Chinese from China, Malays from Malaysia or Indians from India but as citizens of Singapore. Unlike our neighboring countries, all races have equal chances in education, work and to succeed in life as long one is smart, capable and industrious enough. The communal riots in the 1960s are of the past and while it served as a useful reminder to the importance of racial harmony, it should no longer be evoked as a scare-mongering tactic to frighten or threaten the people. Singaporeans are pragmatic by nature. Though some may feel strongly about one’s faith, at the end of the day, they will be more concerned with earning enough money to feed themselves and families. Prime Minister Lee’s example of a conflict between a Chinese and Malay family over the use of a void deck is completely off the tangent. The issue has nothing to do with race and religion at all. In fact, the fault lies with the Town Council which should have informed the Chinese family that the premises has already been booked for a Malay wedding when the application was first made. (read article here) The Aware saga was used again to illustrate the inherent fault lines in our multi-religious society. On the contrary, the episode shows that Singaporeans are mature enough to deal with such differences in a civil, rational and reasonable manner. The Christian camp who took over Aware was ousted in the EGM. There were no social unrest. Sometimes it’s better to let the problem surface and sorted out rather than to allow it to fester underground. There will always be extremists and zealots in every religion, be it Buddhism, Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. The government should simply be an overall guardian instead of over-stretching itself to micromanage every isolated incident like the trivial “conflict” over the use of a HDB void deck. Besides, the government has control over almost all the major religious institutions in Singapore through which it can exert its influence. This perennial obsession with race and religion makes one wonder if it is another smoke-screen to divert attention from the real issues affecting the nation and the follies of the government. The most important issue on the minds of Singaporeans is how the government’s pro-foreigner policy is going to affect their livelihoods, as reflected in 70% of the questions asked by respondents calling in to 93.8 Live. There is no doubt that Singaporeans need foreign workers, but the question is, are we getting the real talents or the riff-rafts who end up displacing Singaporeans from their work? In the past, foreigners working in Singapore can be broadly divided into two categories: the skilled professionals employed in highly specialized industries and the low-skilled blue collar workers taking on jobs that Singaporeans are not keen to take such as construction. Nowadays, foreigners can be found literally everywhere. The clinic assistant of your nearby family clinic may be a Filipino. The waitress serving you at posh western restaurant in the city is most likely a PRC. Geylang is now a “Little China” with enterprising PRCs opening eateries, shopping marts and of course brothels there. Even the receptionists at POSB and Singpost are foreigners! With the exception of prostitution, which of these jobs can’t be taken up by Singaporeans? (though in recent years, there have been a rise in the number of Singaporean women doing “freelance” work including undergraduates) To compound matters, these foreigners can easily obtain PRs and citizenships which leads to a relentless rise in the cost of living, including public housing. As they do not have to serve National Service, our local-born Singaporean men are at a disadvantage because they have to be away for up to 28 days a year for reservist training. Are we competing with these new-comers on a fair and equal basis? The influx of cheap, foreign labor only helps to keep our GDP growth respectable, boost the profits of the major corporates and state-linked company and of course fatten the pockets of our ministers whose a segment of their salaries is pegged to the GDP. However, ordinary Singaporeans are not seeing the real benefit of the economy growth, especially the lower-income group whose pay has stagnated for the last decade. A company’s ultimate purpose is to generate as much profit as possible. Therefore, it is only reasonable and logical for them to employ foreigners to keep their labor cost down. A government’s role is to take care of the people who voted for them and not economic growth at all cost. What’s the point of having yearly GDP growth exceeding 5% when the people in the street are toiling like a dog day in and out just to feed themselves without having any savings left for their golden years? The second issue which the Prime Minister completely ignored is the rising prices of HDB flats, contributed partly by the influx of foreigners and the government’s policies. Public housing should be kept cheap and affordable by the masses and therefore its prices must be strictly controlled by the government instead of leaving it entirely to free market forces. A HDB flat is a necessity, not a luxury in Singapore. There will always be a demand for HDB flats. When we let in more buyers into the market, than demand is definitely only to increase in the face of a limited supply of flats. It is inevitable that prices will rise. The Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office Lim Hwee Hua said that HDB flats remained affordable as not more than 30% of the monthly pay of Singaporeans are used to service the mortage loan. Of course everybody can “afford” a HDB flat because the banks offer loans of up to 80% and one need only put down a payment of a couple of thousands dollars, but has anybody  bothered to look at the plight of our citizens 10, 20 and 30 years down the road? Is it healthy for the nation to have more than half its population burdened with housing debts? Supposed a Singapore worker earning a median pay of $3,400 monthly uses 30% of it to service his housing loan and 20% for his CPF contribution, he will be left with only $1,700. A single person may well survive with this amount of money, but it is barely sufficient to raise a family in this present time and climate where the cost of living has sky-rocketed. Last year, our inflation rate hit a record of 6.7%. Assuming this faithful Singaporean who trusted the government entirely, slogging hard daily to earn a living and contribute to the economy, will he have any savings left for his own retirement when he grows old? Can he count on his children to support him then? Who is going to foot his hefty medical bills which remain “affordable” as claimed by the government? Singapore has no social safety net. Once your productive life has expired, you are as good as an invalid. The third issue which the Prime Minister failed to address is the gigantic losses suffered by Temasek and GIC. He should at least offer Singaporeans an apology. Temasek and GIC are not private companies. They are (supposedly) under the charge of the Ministry of Finance which answers to the Prime Minister. There’s no way Mr Lee can escape his responsibility even if he is not directly involved in the investments. How can a country which lost a few billion dollars of its reserves be so nonchalant about it? This is no small amount of money, enough to send a few countries into bankruptcy. How can our Prime Minister, as well as the other ministers pretend nothing has happened? Who is going to take the rap? Where is the accountability? Is there any transparency left in this government? It is true that the global economic crisis is something beyond our control. And it is not the intention of the directors at both SWFs to lose money, but how does it explain the fact that some SWFs like the China’s and Timor Leste’s still manage to make a profit and Abu Dhabi making a tidy profit of $2.5 billion pounds from its sale of Barclay shares while we lost $500 million pounds? We put our trust in the government to appoint the most talented and experienced people to manage our reserves. Now that we have incurred such tremendous losses, which can be put to much better use to help the poor and needy in Singapore, surely somebody must take the blame? Or are we responsible for the predicament we are in? The last, but most important point which the Prime Minister did not mention in his National Day Rally and one which most Singaporeans are not aware of is our obsolete one-party based political system - the greatest mortal danger to our nation, not race or religion. The government of Singapore is a democracy in name only, but not in practice. It does not even resembles a one-party authoritarian state like China, ruled by consensus amongs various centers of power, each providing a sort of check on each other. What we have today can be best described as a “mandarinate” system like the feudal dynasties of China, ruled by one single authority whose words are edicts to be obeyed by all. Democracy may not be a perfect system of government, but it is the least of all evils because it allows a free competition of ideas, civic participation and most importantly an institutionalized system of check and balance on the government. There is clear separation of powers between the executive and the legislative. It can be chaotic, inefficient and unproductive at times, but it is the only system which can build a society based on justice and equality. Under the present incumbent, which controls the police, media and the state bureaucrary, elections are nothing more than an exercise to legitimatize its “mandate” in the eyes of the international community, not that they care much about puny Singapore anyway. No opposition can ever hope to achieve a sizeable presence to deny the ruling party its customary two-third majority under the present system in the next 50 years because the system is designed as such to ensure, promote and perpetuate one-party rule, or a “strong” government according to the Prime Minister himself. After 44 years of independence, we are still ruled by an octagenarian who can never be wrong. Aren’t we pathetic? Some people in our country are more equal than others. No matter what mistakes they make, they do not have to pay for it and yet still able to command the respect, adoration and admiration of the people. Of course with our media putting even the Soviet Union’s Pravda or China’s Xinhua news agency to shame,  even the world’s greatest mass murderer like Mao Zedong can be transformed into a saint. Singapore’s system of government is poorly equipped for a future fraught with challenges and dangers. A society which does not tolerate alternative and dissenting views is one devoid of ideas, vibrancy and dynamicism. It may be useful to maintain social stability, but it can never inspire its people to take on the world to fulfil our nation’s potential. A people who is apathetic, cowardly and unthinking can only be followers and not leaders. What Singapore need are world-class thinkers, intellectuals and visionaries and unfortunately, they cannot exist in a closed society which does not foster freedom and independence of thought. More importantly, this system of government makes it easy for incompetent men to masquerade as ”leaders” when they are not to exploit the country for their own selfish gains and we will have no way to remove them through legal means. We are blessed that we have quite a number of decent men and women now in the government, but who can gurantee that we will not let in a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” in the future? There is a Chinese saying: “Human nature is hard to fathom”. All we need is one Yuan Shikai to destroy the entire nation. We cannot afford to take any chances. (Yuan Shikai was a Qing general responsible for bringing an end to the dynasty when he refused orders to fight the republican troops belonging to Sun Yat Sen and forced the young Emperor Puyi to abdicate) At this crucial juncture in our nation’s history, many questions remained unanswered and problems ignored by the establishment. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. When the government is “strong”, the people will inevitably end up weak, obedient and subservient, like a herd of blind sheep being chased around by the sheep-dog. The bitter truth we must face today is: Singaporeans are not the owners of their land of birth. We are no more than modern-day serfs toiling for the benefit of the aristocracy.   Related articles: >> Singapore’s limits: The curse of the GDP by Eugene Yeo >> Singapore’s limits: An unthinking and unquestioning ‘Confucian’ society by Eugene Yeo >> Do we know the real meaning behind the words of the National Pledge? by Eugene Yeo   EDITORS’ NOTE: [If you like our work and would like to support us, please transfer your donations via paypal to our account (temasekreview@gmail.com). Any amount will be greatly appreciated! Alternatively, you can also help boost our advertising revenue by clicking on the ads displayed. Thank you!] Stanford PhD graduate end up driving taxi for a living Probably the only taxi driver in this world with a PhD from Stanford and a proven track record of scientific accomplishments, I have been forced out of my research job at the height of my scientific career, and unable to find another one, for reasons I can only describe as something “uniquely Singapore”. As a result, I am driving taxi to make a living and writing these real life stories just to make the dull job a little more interesting. I hope that these stories are interesting to you too.   Since the takeover of leadership by some western “big shots” a few years ago, the Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology (IMCB) of ASTAR, Singapore, a place I have worked for 16 years as a PI (principal investigator), a place that was once flourishing, promising, and pleasant to work in, has been in a mess. Bestowed with the kind of power they had never seen before, these once reputable scientists turned everything in the institute upside down. The previous democratic and consensus-oriented management system that had worked well for more than a decade in the past was thrown out of window and replaced by one that was marked by domineering, manipulation, and incompetence. What they lacked in experience of management, adequate understanding of the institute, and proper respect for fellow scientists as their colleagues, they made up for in arrogance, prejudice, and naked muscle of political power. Some PIs were sent packing, and some were promoted, all up to the new leadership’s manipulative and twisted standards. Despite my considerable contribution to building up this place into what it is today, I was among the first few PIs to be told to go. My employment contract with IMCB was terminated by May, 2008, without any forms of compensation given. I was hence forced into a deeply difficult position. Becoming jobless at my age is perhaps the worst nightmare that can happen to any ordinary man, not to mention the loss of life-long career. Ever since I was informed of their decision sometime in 2007, when the economy was still booming, I had been trying hard to find a job. I had submitted countless CV and application letters to various places in Singapore including universities, government agencies, and private companies. Most of them, however, never responded. A couple of replies I did receive never materialized into anything positive. Later, the outburst of financial crisis world wide helped extinguish my last hope of finding a job anytime soon. By November 2008, I finally made a decision to become a taxi driver. At the time like this, the taxi business is probably the only business in Singapore that still actively recruits people. I signed up for a training course run by a government-linked transport company in November, with a course fee of nearly $280. On paper, the Express Taxi Driver’s Vocational License Course, or TDVL, is supposed to run six days a week, five hours a day. But in reality, the daily course never lasted longer than 3 hours. The whole purpose of the course was to help you pass the test and get the license. It was divided into five sections, Rules and regulations, Routes and landmarks, Names and locations of buildings, Defensive driving, and General paper, which included subjects such as highway codes, vehicle maintenance, healthy living, etc. The instructors were either veteran taxi drivers or representatives from government agencies such as Land Transport Authority (LTA). My class started on 1st of December, 2008, which consisted of more than 30 people. There were three classes running at the same time and all were about this size. The course was very easy. Every day, the instructors told us what to highlight on the manual and asked us to memorize them because these were the materials that were going to be tested. As long as you did that, it was impossible to fail the test. Even if you fail, you still have one year to take an unrestricted number of retest. With such ease, no wonder there are nearly 100,000 people possessing taxi driver’s license today in Singapore, almost 3 for every 100 Singapore citizens, children and infants included. By the end of February this year, I finally received my taxi driver’s license, and thus began my new taxi driver’s career. This blog records some of the events that I have experienced as a taxi driver. They are all actual events and are presented as truthfully as possible. Special precautions have been taken to avoid revealing any specific information which may help in any way the identification of the persons described in these events. The purpose of this blog is to provide readers with the first hand accounts of my experience of converting from a veteran scientist to a rookie taxi driver in today’s Singapore. The views and encounters described in this blog may be insignificant, isolated, or biased. Nevertheless, I am sure some readers will find this blog interesting and helpful in widening their general perspectives on Singapore. Finally, I want to thank my family for their trust and support, and for always being at my side to endure with me the trauma, the distress and the anxiety caused by my job loss. I also want to thank all of my customers, especially the ones who have shown their grace, kindness, and understanding to me when I made mistakes during my work. They are the important factor to encourage me to carry on. Source: http://taxidiary.blogspot.com/2009_04_01_archive.html 我不理会国庆日 Original Blog Written by Insanepoly HERE 国庆日来去匆匆，在我的日常生活上不留下一点痕迹。 我不庆祝国庆日。 我不悬挂国旗，我不观看游行，并且我不听那些编制的胡说歌曲例如《新加坡可依靠我》，《支持新加坡而站起来》(Stand up for Singapore) 的费话。我唯一庆祝的事是我不须在国庆日上班工作。实际上，国庆那天早晨，当我去健身室作体操时，我似乎是唯一的一个身穿黑色健身衣服的人，而其他人都穿了红色或白色的衣服。我没有故意穿着黑色衣服，但当我体会到我的衣服是唯一的黑色在那红色和白色的人海之中时，或许我无意之间表露了我不庆祝的真正心态。 我诚实地没有原因去庆祝。 庆祝什么东西呢？ 庆祝一个政党劫持了(hijacked)我的国家，它的机关和它所代表的一切？ 庆祝新加坡这个国家成为PAP这个政党，反过来这个政党成为政府，再反过来这政府成为了公务员机构。国家、政党、政府、公务员机构这四者之间的界线是那么混淆不清，因此令人不知道其中一者是从哪里开始和到哪里终止。 新加坡、人民行动党(PAP)、职总(NTUC)、人民协会(People’s Association)、建屋发展局(HDB)、军队(SAF)、新航(SIA)、新科技(ST)、政府投资公司(GIC)、公积金(CPF)、和它们之间的一切其他机构，只不过是一整体个体的引伸，而这整体个体志在控制了我们生活的每个环节，和要使我们变为活生生的电池向它作出贡献，和把这个国家变成为一间巨型的公司。 为以上的整体个体而庆祝？你是否讲笑呢？ 我转头到处所见的都是林林总总的令人感觉良好和听来悦耳的海报和横幅，叮嘱人们庆祝国庆日。在海报上国家部长和议员们向下对着我们仁慈地微笑，而人民的照片则方便地剪辑在部长和议员们的身旁，好象告诉我们所有人都是『同一群人民，同一个国家』。 国庆日和PAP日有什么区别呢？镇议会和基层组织所举起的那些海报和横幅与PAP在竞选时举起的那些竞选海报和横幅似乎相同。有谁真正知道有什么区别呢？ 我知道的唯一件事是政治领导人和我们人民之间的区别：一个机构两种等级的人。当我们设法竭力维持生计时，他们已经入息成千上万。当我们团结凝聚在一起时，他们的确向前进发了。『同一群人民、同一个国家』是为那些仍然相信这种胡说的儍瓜而说的。在吴作栋清楚地说明的未来各项挑战之中，并不包括收窄我国在所有发达国家之中的最坏的收入差距。这就是非常有力的证据。 新加坡可以依靠我吗？ 如果新加坡可以依靠我，反过来我能否依靠新加坡呢？当我贫穷和失业时，我能否依靠新加坡付钱保释我吗？当我患病和身无分文时，我可以依靠新加坡医治我吗？我可以依靠新加坡提供给我一个社会安全网吗？当我年老和独身时，我可以依靠新加坡吗？如果我在军训其间受到永久损伤，我可以依靠新加坡吗？ 我们一向相信当您达到退休之龄时您至少能依靠您的CPF。现在有谁可以知道将来是否如此呢？他们已经更改了法例，如果CPF变得破产，他们可以实际上不归还给您他们扣留着您的金钱，而且无需请求您的允许。因此身为新加坡人，除了我自己之外我还能真正地依靠谁呢。 支持新加坡而站起来？ 新加坡有否支持因银行售卖不安全金融产品而丢失了他们的毕生积蓄的那些人呢？ 新加坡有否支持因不良学店出售假文凭而受骗的那些人呢？新加坡有否支持因尽国防职责而失去他们生命的那些男性公民呢？在国庆日游行的声浪和喧哗之中，有没有为丧命的军人沈默一刻呢？新加坡有否支持那些不可能支持自己的人民呢？新加坡有否支持人民而反对运输公司不论经济好与坏年复一年地增加车费呢？ 我记得在庆祝国庆其间的某个环节，大家都站立起来和一起背诵新加坡的国家承诺。这些人民是否知道他们背诵的是什么，还是他们只是装模作样呢？您是否知道国家承诺的真实意思呢？ 我首先并不背诵国家承诺，因为背诵它会是向这虚伪行为作出默许的支持。『建造一个民主国家』？ 当我们追求民主之时，新加坡的民主正是遥不可得之物。 事实是在这世界上没什么东西比我想要庆祝国庆日更珍贵的，我能够骄傲地站起来和自称为新加坡人。 但是目前我不能如此庆祝。当新加坡仍然是个被囚禁的国家，并且人民的权利和公民自由仍然被剥夺之时，我不能庆祝国庆日。我不可以庆祝国庆日，直至新加坡已经被归还给它的正当拥有者：新加坡的人民。 如果某些笨蛋进入了您的房子并且窃取了您所有的财物，您肯定不可能庆祝这宗不幸之事。