After leaving Singapore, I've decided that I have no right to write about Singapore's political system, therefore, there have been nothing to write. But this is something that is not political, per se. And it really got on my nerves.
When the proposal was submitted to the Public Transport Council (PTC) in June, it was rejected because the fare proposed ($1.30 per trip) was not appropriate for a premium bus service, usually priced between $2 to $3 per trip.
Isn't the PTC suppose to be for the people? Isn't that what it is tauted by them (not that we believe them anyway)?
What the heck, if I want to sell my service for this amount, what right has the PTC to insist that I charge a higher price?
If the PTC says that they want to make all services the same. HELLO! Isn't Singapore suppose to be about market forces? Don't we remember how SingTel (during their monopoly) stated that they cannot bring down the cost of overseas calls, mobile phone plans, etc. What happened after M1 and StarHub were given the go ahead? Prices dropped. Isn't that what a free market force is for?
So now you know Singaporeans, PTC is for the "public" (who were know are not public because obscene profits is their goal not the people) transporters and not the people. So really, why bother having them around? To ensure that prices are not raised unfairly? We know how "fair" the PTC is to the public. To ensure that transport operators remain comparative? I don't see how having 2 transport companies dealing with totally different lines can count as competition. To ensure that public transport companies keep their promises? I don't see a change in anything even though we have had price hikes for the past 5 years or so.
So what is the PTC for... really. Can anyone enlightened me?
Take from Today
26 December 2007
ANG MO KIO MP'S PUSH FOR LITTLE GREEN BUSES PAYS OFF
Nazry Bahrawi
nazry@mediacorp.com.sg
THESE little green buses are on trial providing a shuttle service from the Yio Chu Kang MRT station and bus interchange to nearby private housing estates. Despite being concerned over profitability, the Singapore Mass Rapid Transit System (SMRT) Corporation launched the route yesterday.
The new service is the result of some prodding by Ms Lee Bee Wah, MP for Ang Mo Kio GRC and adviser of Nee Soon South grassroots organisations, who managed to convince the transportation company after months of discussions.
As a result, two green air-conditioned minibuses - which can seat 19 people - would now serve some 1,200 households in Springside, Hong Heng, Thong Soon Gardens and Springleaf estates, stopping at five pick-up points in these areas.
Residents there had in the past complained to Ms Lee about the lack of public transport to a nearby MRT station or bus interchange, especially useful to students and the elderly.
It has been an arduous journey. Ms Lee spent about one year trying to convince SBS Transit and SMRT of the need for such a service, but both were concerned about its feasibility.
While SBS Transit rejected the idea because it was "not viable", SMRT decided to give it a trial run after it conducted a feasibility study, said Ms Lee.
But that was not the only hurdle.
When the proposal was submitted to the Public Transport Council (PTC) in June, it was rejected because the fare proposed ($1.30 per trip) was not appropriate for a premium bus service, usually priced between $2 to $3 per trip.
"So I took another six months to talk to the PTC, Land Transport Authority and the Ministry of Transport. Eventually, I managed to get it approved last month," said Ms Lee, who added that she had even approached Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong for help.
Said SMRT's deputy chief executive officer Lee Seng Kee: "We made a projection and based on the population size, we believe that the $1.30 fare is feasible."
When asked what would happen if SMRT does not break even after three months, Mr Lee said: "We are prepared to extend for another four months. At the same time, the committee will talk to residents to use the service.
If that doesn't work, we would look at the numbers again."
Mr Wilson Zhuang, chairman of Springleaf Neighbourhood Committee, said the shuttle service would cut down travel to the nearest MRT by about 10 minutes.
Before the service, residents in the areas would take about 20 minutes to travel to Ang Mo Kio MRT station, which is further away, on bus 169, he said.
But another resident, a retiree in his 50s who declined to be named, said while he appreciate the effort by Ms Lee, he believed it would make better sense if the new shuttle service travels to Chong Pang town centre and Khatib MRT.
He said: "There is no market at Yio Chu Kang MRT station. Housewives would be happier if the service goes to Khatib MRT which is not only nearer but also has grocery shopping facilities."
28 December 2007
27 November 2007
Hope Concert 2007 in Singapore
Tickets at $28 and $68 (includes cocktail reception) can be purchased by sending an email to information@oursafehaven.com. Or click on the poster above to go to their website.
Please help a good cause.
25 October 2007
A beautiful blog entry
I just read a beautiful blog entry by a father of 2. This dad shows what it really means to be Singaporean and living the real Singapore dream, a multi-cultural society where justice and equality is for all.
The Irrational Section 377A
I'm sad. Sad that the country that I love, hates me in return for the service (NS and ICTs) I've given to her. I'm a criminal in the eyes of the law and the parliament. My hatred for the PAP has run it course and now I'm just sad.
Good bye, Singapore. We (my partner and I) have decided to divorce you since you hate us so much.
The Irrational Section 377A
I'm sad. Sad that the country that I love, hates me in return for the service (NS and ICTs) I've given to her. I'm a criminal in the eyes of the law and the parliament. My hatred for the PAP has run it course and now I'm just sad.
Good bye, Singapore. We (my partner and I) have decided to divorce you since you hate us so much.
23 October 2007
My predictions
I predict that S377A will be around for the next 50 years. It will survive even after Singapore dies.
I predict that Christians and Christianity will rule Singapore in the end and it will because a Christian country (where laws are biblically based) even though more than 60% of the population will not be Christian.
I predict that Singapore will fall into the same trap as USA now, where Church and State is not separated.
I predict that Singapore's economy will grow strong inspire of discrimination and injustices in the law.
I predict that as more Asian countries because more accepting of the GLBT community, we will leave Singapore and plant our roots overseas.
I predict that even if the whole of Asia (apart from the Muslim countries) allows same-sex unions, Singapore will still have S377A.
I predict that the PAP will never right this wrong because it will never effect Singapore economically.
I predict that even if 70% of the population is neutral (don't care one way or another) or pro-repeal S377A, the PAP will still site the usually,"Singapore is a conservative society..." and keep S377A.
I hope my predictions will never come true, but I'm really doubtful that Singapore will become any better for GLBTs, esp. when the gahmen panders to the fundamentalist christian minority, but having most of them (I think 50%) Christians does make one understand why.
I predict that Christians and Christianity will rule Singapore in the end and it will because a Christian country (where laws are biblically based) even though more than 60% of the population will not be Christian.
I predict that Singapore will fall into the same trap as USA now, where Church and State is not separated.
I predict that Singapore's economy will grow strong inspire of discrimination and injustices in the law.
I predict that as more Asian countries because more accepting of the GLBT community, we will leave Singapore and plant our roots overseas.
I predict that even if the whole of Asia (apart from the Muslim countries) allows same-sex unions, Singapore will still have S377A.
I predict that the PAP will never right this wrong because it will never effect Singapore economically.
I predict that even if 70% of the population is neutral (don't care one way or another) or pro-repeal S377A, the PAP will still site the usually,"Singapore is a conservative society..." and keep S377A.
I hope my predictions will never come true, but I'm really doubtful that Singapore will become any better for GLBTs, esp. when the gahmen panders to the fundamentalist christian minority, but having most of them (I think 50%) Christians does make one understand why.
18 October 2007
Let's make adultary illegal too
Sometimes I wonder how stupid the fundamentalist christians think we are. Just because you don't put your religious views into a letter, we don't know where you are coming from?
Take this letter from Renae. My rebuttal is in blue.
Today, Voices
18 October 2007
Most not for gay agenda
by Renae Sim Pei Pei
I AM concerned about the recent petition to Parliament to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code, which forbids men from having sex with each other in public or private.
I am not against homosexuals; I recognise that they are as human and Singaporean as I am. As citizens, they already enjoy the same rights as the others.
Does this sound familiar? Let me refresh your memory, "Love the sinner, hate the sin". Let me paraphares this, "I am not against homosexuals but I still want them to be criminals". Sound hypercritical?
And what about her fabulous statement, "they already enjoy the same rights as the others". Let me see, the rights that heterosexuals have that we don't
1) Get married
2) Have children (i.e. adopt as a couple)
3) Protected when your spouse dies
4) Being able to put your spouse's name as beneficiary on insurance forms
5) No security (financial or otherwise, i.e. we don't get our partner's CPF, pensions)
Does it look like we have the same rights! Furthermore, to add injury to insult, we have to serve the army, pay taxes AND considered criminals. Does that sound like we have the same rights?
But what they are pushing for now is the Singaporean majority's approval of their behaviour. It is clear the majority does not covet the agenda that gay activists are pushing for. If Parliament repeals Section 377A, we will be unwittingly consenting to such behaviour.
So not have S377A means the gahmen/Singapore is consenting to gay men having sex. So the gahmen/Singapore consents/condones extra marital affairs, pre-martial sex and how about the latest - anal and oral sex between heterosexual couples. These are all condoned by the gahmen/Singapore and I presume (using Renae's assumption) is actively promoting it too. So the gahmen is sending a message to Singaporeans that you should have extra martial affairs (because there is no law against it), that you should have pre-martial sex (because there is no law against it), that you should have oral and anal sex with your spouse (because there is no law against it). Gosh, as a fundamentalist christian, aren't you cringing? Now that you know our laws are for/condoning these things?
Health factors are another reason why Singapore must not repeal Section 377A. Studies in the United States, Australia and Cambodia have shown that men who have sex with men are most vulnerable to HIV.
This really takes the cake. Studies are now sighted. Let me just tell say this, men are going to have sex with other men REGARDLESS of S377A. Just because it is illegal is not going to stop men from having sex with men. Look at the statistics. Men who have sex exclusively with other men are still around, and it has not stopped nor will it every stop, regardless if S337A is there or not.
Studies have also shown that people with multiple sex partners have a higher chance of getting HIV. And it doesn't matter if you are gay or not. How about a law against having multiple sex partners? Yea, like that would put a stop to people having more than 1 sex partner.
Why not have a law that makes men who have foreskins criminals? Studies have shown that circumcised men are less venerable to HIV.
The problem with people like this is that they don't see the bigger picture. If S377A is so useful in preventing HIV transmission (because NO men is having sex with each other) then why is the HIV numbers of men who have sex exclusively with men (MSM) on the rise (which made the gahmen do a double take). If you use her logic, then HIV infection rates for MSM should have fallen or even become zero.
The problem with S377A is this, with it there, the gahmen cannot launch a campaign to educate MSM about the risk of unprotected sex. How can you campaign it when it is actually illegal in the first place. And this is the big problem. The HIV infection rates in Singapore are increasing (not only with MSM but everone) because our education about safer sex is so lacking. Not everyone in the world are like fundamentalist christians, who can withhold sex until marriage or even have sex with only their spouse. They believe the world is "clean and pure" as sex is the biggest taboo in the christian culture. Violence is okay but sex is BAD, BAD, BAD.
I am most unwilling to see society degenerate with the legal approval of homosexual behaviour and fully support the Government's decision to preserve the law.
Let we really see where she's coming from, typical fundamentalist answer. "Do not want to see society degrade...".
Just a note from history, when African-Americans were considered 2nd class citizens (very much like gays in Singapore now), when thinking people started to protest against their unfair treatment, the answers the fundamentalist christians gave were, yup you guessed it, "... do not want to see society degrade..."
Which brings be to the 2nd letter (see below), which is basically the same thing. This is getting so boring, every point that fundamentalist christians bring up have been rebutted and refuted by thinking people. Sad to say, like a broken record, they will keep repeating the same statements over and over again, even when more and more people stop believing in them.
And because they are so worried about morality of society, I'll like to propose the follow laws:
Pre-marital Sex
"Whoever voluntarily has gross indecency before they are married under the law, shell be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years"
Adultery
"Whoever voluntarily has gross indecency besides their spouse with any man or woman, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years"
Orgies (yes, heterosexuals do have orgies too)
"Whoever voluntarily has gross indecency with more than 1 man or woman at the same time, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years"
Toys
"Whoever voluntarily has gross indecency using sexual aids like toys, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years"
Masturbation
"Whoever voluntarily has gross indecency with themselves, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years"
I think with these extra laws to keep the morals of Singaporeans, Singapore will be the most moral and upright nation in the world.
Today, Voices
18 Octobel 2007
The measure of indecency
Charis Lee Ting Li
I refer to Felicia Tan Ying Yi's letter ("Teach youth the spirit of the law, not just its letter", Oct 17). Ms Tan talks about the importance of giving the youth the right tools and attitudes to help them make their own moral decisions, which I fully agree with.
However, I believe the most basic tools take the form of laws, which, beyond being a strict taskmaster, serve to reflect the consensus of the wider population.
Morality is not a black-and-white issue but if Section 377A prohibits "gross indecency", some sort of moral compass is needed here.
The problem is that not many people want to recognise that "gross indecency" is exactly what the term implies.
Take this letter from Renae. My rebuttal is in blue.
Today, Voices
18 October 2007
Most not for gay agenda
by Renae Sim Pei Pei
I AM concerned about the recent petition to Parliament to repeal Section 377A of the Penal Code, which forbids men from having sex with each other in public or private.
I am not against homosexuals; I recognise that they are as human and Singaporean as I am. As citizens, they already enjoy the same rights as the others.
Does this sound familiar? Let me refresh your memory, "Love the sinner, hate the sin". Let me paraphares this, "I am not against homosexuals but I still want them to be criminals". Sound hypercritical?
And what about her fabulous statement, "they already enjoy the same rights as the others". Let me see, the rights that heterosexuals have that we don't
1) Get married
2) Have children (i.e. adopt as a couple)
3) Protected when your spouse dies
4) Being able to put your spouse's name as beneficiary on insurance forms
5) No security (financial or otherwise, i.e. we don't get our partner's CPF, pensions)
Does it look like we have the same rights! Furthermore, to add injury to insult, we have to serve the army, pay taxes AND considered criminals. Does that sound like we have the same rights?
But what they are pushing for now is the Singaporean majority's approval of their behaviour. It is clear the majority does not covet the agenda that gay activists are pushing for. If Parliament repeals Section 377A, we will be unwittingly consenting to such behaviour.
So not have S377A means the gahmen/Singapore is consenting to gay men having sex. So the gahmen/Singapore consents/condones extra marital affairs, pre-martial sex and how about the latest - anal and oral sex between heterosexual couples. These are all condoned by the gahmen/Singapore and I presume (using Renae's assumption) is actively promoting it too. So the gahmen is sending a message to Singaporeans that you should have extra martial affairs (because there is no law against it), that you should have pre-martial sex (because there is no law against it), that you should have oral and anal sex with your spouse (because there is no law against it). Gosh, as a fundamentalist christian, aren't you cringing? Now that you know our laws are for/condoning these things?
Health factors are another reason why Singapore must not repeal Section 377A. Studies in the United States, Australia and Cambodia have shown that men who have sex with men are most vulnerable to HIV.
This really takes the cake. Studies are now sighted. Let me just tell say this, men are going to have sex with other men REGARDLESS of S377A. Just because it is illegal is not going to stop men from having sex with men. Look at the statistics. Men who have sex exclusively with other men are still around, and it has not stopped nor will it every stop, regardless if S337A is there or not.
Studies have also shown that people with multiple sex partners have a higher chance of getting HIV. And it doesn't matter if you are gay or not. How about a law against having multiple sex partners? Yea, like that would put a stop to people having more than 1 sex partner.
Why not have a law that makes men who have foreskins criminals? Studies have shown that circumcised men are less venerable to HIV.
The problem with people like this is that they don't see the bigger picture. If S377A is so useful in preventing HIV transmission (because NO men is having sex with each other) then why is the HIV numbers of men who have sex exclusively with men (MSM) on the rise (which made the gahmen do a double take). If you use her logic, then HIV infection rates for MSM should have fallen or even become zero.
The problem with S377A is this, with it there, the gahmen cannot launch a campaign to educate MSM about the risk of unprotected sex. How can you campaign it when it is actually illegal in the first place. And this is the big problem. The HIV infection rates in Singapore are increasing (not only with MSM but everone) because our education about safer sex is so lacking. Not everyone in the world are like fundamentalist christians, who can withhold sex until marriage or even have sex with only their spouse. They believe the world is "clean and pure" as sex is the biggest taboo in the christian culture. Violence is okay but sex is BAD, BAD, BAD.
I am most unwilling to see society degenerate with the legal approval of homosexual behaviour and fully support the Government's decision to preserve the law.
Let we really see where she's coming from, typical fundamentalist answer. "Do not want to see society degrade...".
Just a note from history, when African-Americans were considered 2nd class citizens (very much like gays in Singapore now), when thinking people started to protest against their unfair treatment, the answers the fundamentalist christians gave were, yup you guessed it, "... do not want to see society degrade..."
Which brings be to the 2nd letter (see below), which is basically the same thing. This is getting so boring, every point that fundamentalist christians bring up have been rebutted and refuted by thinking people. Sad to say, like a broken record, they will keep repeating the same statements over and over again, even when more and more people stop believing in them.
And because they are so worried about morality of society, I'll like to propose the follow laws:
Pre-marital Sex
"Whoever voluntarily has gross indecency before they are married under the law, shell be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years"
Adultery
"Whoever voluntarily has gross indecency besides their spouse with any man or woman, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years"
Orgies (yes, heterosexuals do have orgies too)
"Whoever voluntarily has gross indecency with more than 1 man or woman at the same time, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years"
Toys
"Whoever voluntarily has gross indecency using sexual aids like toys, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years"
Masturbation
"Whoever voluntarily has gross indecency with themselves, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years"
I think with these extra laws to keep the morals of Singaporeans, Singapore will be the most moral and upright nation in the world.
Today, Voices
18 Octobel 2007
The measure of indecency
Charis Lee Ting Li
I refer to Felicia Tan Ying Yi's letter ("Teach youth the spirit of the law, not just its letter", Oct 17). Ms Tan talks about the importance of giving the youth the right tools and attitudes to help them make their own moral decisions, which I fully agree with.
However, I believe the most basic tools take the form of laws, which, beyond being a strict taskmaster, serve to reflect the consensus of the wider population.
Morality is not a black-and-white issue but if Section 377A prohibits "gross indecency", some sort of moral compass is needed here.
The problem is that not many people want to recognise that "gross indecency" is exactly what the term implies.
26 September 2007
Now even vegetarians and cat lovers are "contrary to public interest"!
Do you find this amazing? Do you find this ridiculous? Do you find that the police have no other reasons in their thick skull but "contrary to public interest" therefore have to be banned?
I was reading the article and was so stunned when I read this line
The groups included the Vegetarian Society, the Cat Welfare Society and
two gay support groups Pelangi Pride Centre and Women Who Love Women.
"(We) informed the organisers of our position of not allowing outdoor
events assessed to be contrary to public interest," the police
spokesperson added.
Now their position on the gay support groups is legendary so that comes as no surprise but vegetarians and cat lovers? It seems that now any civil society group can be banned from having a booth or whatever using the legendary phrase "contrary to public interest". I bet you if it was a booth for the ruling party or the YPAP, it wouldn't be "contrary to public interest" because only non-PAP stuff is "contrary to public interest".
And I can bet you that if a lot of noise is made about this issue, the police will issue another statement saying that it was because of safety or traffic problems or whatever in other to "explain" themselves. It is amazing I find that they couldn't give the real reason (we don't want gay groups to have booths to "promote" their cause and since we cannot just ban them, we ban all). Or even a plausible excuse (it wouldn't be real but at least plausible). If these are the "top brains" the PAP is trying to woe into civil service with money......
Today
26 September 2007
A CHANGE OF SCENE
-----------------
Substation event gets police nod after civil society groups excluded
Zul Othman
zul@mediacorp.com.sg
THE police have turned down a request by The Substation to organise an
outdoor flea market that would have included booths run by 19 civil
society groups.
The flea market was supposed to be part of a six-hour event, The Tunnel
Party, last Saturday to mark the 17th anniversary of The Substation,
Singapore's first independent, non-profit, multi-disciplinary arts centre
founded by late theatre doyen Kuo Pao Kun.
It was to have been held next to the Fort Canning Tunnel and also feature
music and arts shows.
A police spokesperson said: "In the Substation's initial application for
the event, the police noted it would include outdoor booths for civil
society groups to promote their cause."
The groups included the Vegetarian Society, the Cat Welfare Society and
two gay support groups Pelangi Pride Centre and Women Who Love Women.
"(We) informed the organisers of our position of not allowing outdoor
events assessed to be contrary to public interest," the police
spokesperson added.
Rather than call off the show, the organisers decided to rebrand it as the
SeptFest Gig and moved it to the pavement area behind the Singapore
Management University (SMU) School of Law and School of Accountancy.
The change was met with approval by the authorities.
The organisers "have done away with the outdoor booths for civil society
groups. As such, the police have approved the application for SeptFest",
said the police spokesperson.
The SeptFest Gig had some 23 outdoor booths, ranging from flea markets
vendors to stalls peddling homemade jewellery. It attracted some 700
visitors.
The Substation's artistic co-director Lee Weng Choy told Today "it was
important for us to continue with the event because we see it as part of
a large process".
The group deems such events as important because if these gatherings are
successful, it said, it sets a positive precedent for engagement between
the arts, civil society and the authorities.
Mr Lee said: "Some of our stakeholders, such as the bands, the commercial
flea market groups and the public, might lose faith in The Substation if
we cancelled an event again."
Last year, the police turned down its application to close down Armenian
Street for a street party, also a collaboration with artists, arts groups
and civil society groups.
I was reading the article and was so stunned when I read this line
The groups included the Vegetarian Society, the Cat Welfare Society and
two gay support groups Pelangi Pride Centre and Women Who Love Women.
"(We) informed the organisers of our position of not allowing outdoor
events assessed to be contrary to public interest," the police
spokesperson added.
Now their position on the gay support groups is legendary so that comes as no surprise but vegetarians and cat lovers? It seems that now any civil society group can be banned from having a booth or whatever using the legendary phrase "contrary to public interest". I bet you if it was a booth for the ruling party or the YPAP, it wouldn't be "contrary to public interest" because only non-PAP stuff is "contrary to public interest".
And I can bet you that if a lot of noise is made about this issue, the police will issue another statement saying that it was because of safety or traffic problems or whatever in other to "explain" themselves. It is amazing I find that they couldn't give the real reason (we don't want gay groups to have booths to "promote" their cause and since we cannot just ban them, we ban all). Or even a plausible excuse (it wouldn't be real but at least plausible). If these are the "top brains" the PAP is trying to woe into civil service with money......
Today
26 September 2007
A CHANGE OF SCENE
-----------------
Substation event gets police nod after civil society groups excluded
Zul Othman
zul@mediacorp.com.sg
THE police have turned down a request by The Substation to organise an
outdoor flea market that would have included booths run by 19 civil
society groups.
The flea market was supposed to be part of a six-hour event, The Tunnel
Party, last Saturday to mark the 17th anniversary of The Substation,
Singapore's first independent, non-profit, multi-disciplinary arts centre
founded by late theatre doyen Kuo Pao Kun.
It was to have been held next to the Fort Canning Tunnel and also feature
music and arts shows.
A police spokesperson said: "In the Substation's initial application for
the event, the police noted it would include outdoor booths for civil
society groups to promote their cause."
The groups included the Vegetarian Society, the Cat Welfare Society and
two gay support groups Pelangi Pride Centre and Women Who Love Women.
"(We) informed the organisers of our position of not allowing outdoor
events assessed to be contrary to public interest," the police
spokesperson added.
Rather than call off the show, the organisers decided to rebrand it as the
SeptFest Gig and moved it to the pavement area behind the Singapore
Management University (SMU) School of Law and School of Accountancy.
The change was met with approval by the authorities.
The organisers "have done away with the outdoor booths for civil society
groups. As such, the police have approved the application for SeptFest",
said the police spokesperson.
The SeptFest Gig had some 23 outdoor booths, ranging from flea markets
vendors to stalls peddling homemade jewellery. It attracted some 700
visitors.
The Substation's artistic co-director Lee Weng Choy told Today "it was
important for us to continue with the event because we see it as part of
a large process".
The group deems such events as important because if these gatherings are
successful, it said, it sets a positive precedent for engagement between
the arts, civil society and the authorities.
Mr Lee said: "Some of our stakeholders, such as the bands, the commercial
flea market groups and the public, might lose faith in The Substation if
we cancelled an event again."
Last year, the police turned down its application to close down Armenian
Street for a street party, also a collaboration with artists, arts groups
and civil society groups.
24 September 2007
Back with bad news
I just got back from a nice vacation with T. And read that S377A is still around. Am I surprised? No. Is it typical? Yes. Do I want to comment on it and on PM Lee's remarks about it? No. I have said all that I can say. Since the PAP doesn't care two hoots about anything else except their re-election possibilities (amongst other things), there will be no change until their "iron rice bowl" is threatened. That is something I believe will never happen (and they know it too). Maybe I'm being too pessimistic but then again, having a sword of Damocles on me is not something that will make me have any feelings towards the PAP or have any positive things to say about Singapore in general, so pessimism it is. And so far (since I've started this blog), the PAP has never failed to re-enforce my pessimism.
As all have been said, the PAP is always pro-money. Any decision they make, if it doesn't involve money, would not be taken seriously and thus they would used the typical replies that "Singapore is not ready for it".
Do I really care? Not anymore. I'm just glad that I can live in a country where I'm not treated any differently in the eyes of the law (regardless conservative/fundamentalist attitudes) as over here, the individual rights is as important as communal rights.
Good bye Singapore. I'll never be part of you every again.
As all have been said, the PAP is always pro-money. Any decision they make, if it doesn't involve money, would not be taken seriously and thus they would used the typical replies that "Singapore is not ready for it".
Do I really care? Not anymore. I'm just glad that I can live in a country where I'm not treated any differently in the eyes of the law (regardless conservative/fundamentalist attitudes) as over here, the individual rights is as important as communal rights.
Good bye Singapore. I'll never be part of you every again.
11 September 2007
Bus fares to go up by 1 to 2 cents from Oct 1
There is nothing to say. All have been said. Another nail in the poor's coffin. Nice "compensation" that MRT fares will not increase.
I somehow feel that the older generation are continually being penalised for being old. For any old person not working, they are seeing their retirement funds decreasing each year, especially in 2007, this year of "plenty". Money that could have lasted them for 10 years can maybe last them for 7 years now. You'll be damned if you ever grow old in Singapore.
I'm so happy that the gahmen cares.
Straits Times 11 Sep 2007
Bus fares to go up by 1 to 2 cents from Oct 1
By Christopher Tan
BUS fares will go up by one to two cents from Oct 1, the Public Transport Council announced on Tuesday.
But there will be no increase in train fares.
Senior citizen concessionary EZ -Link bus fares, which are flat fares pegged to the lowest adult EZ-Link fare band will also increase by 2 cents, up from the current 65 cents.
However, because they are flat fares, the same 67 cents fare will apply regardless of the distance travelled.
'The PTC has to strike a balance between safeguarding commuters' interests and ensuring the financial viability of the public transport operators so that they can continue to improve their services over time and sustain their capital investments,' Chairman of the PTC Gerard Ee said.
The Council said in August that transport operators SBS Transit and SMRT Corp had applied for fare increases - an annual revision exercise governed by a set formula.
This year, the formula caps fare rises at 1.8 per cent - or around three cents per ride.
The last fare increase was in October last year, when costs went up by one to three cents per ride.
Back then, the operators blamed high costs - in particular the high price of fuel and manpower - for the need to raise their fares. They are citing the same reasons this time.
SBS Transit, part of the ComfortDelGro group, for instance, said their costs have gone up significantly.
"Energy costs, for example, rose by 20 per cent or $20.3 million last year - having already increased by 41.2 per cent in 2005," SBS Transit spokesman Tammy Tan said.
"Manpower costs, the company's largest cost component, also increased by about $12.1 million during the year."
SBS also pointed out that it had invested heavily in buses as well as commuter services.
It spent $135 million on new buses in the past two years. And it has rolled out an online bus arrival system, which helps commuters to plan their journeys better.
Lower SMRT earnings
SMRT pointed out that the increase in the goods and services tax as well as the 1.5 percentage point rise in employers' CPF contributions will pull down its earnings by about $11 million a year.
It said the fare increase, if kept to this year's cap of 1.8 per cent, would only partially offset the company's total cost increases.
SBS is proposing to keep children and school student fares as well as concession pass charges unchanged.
SMRT has also said it will not raise fares for children and students, and all bus cash fares.
SMRT is also waiving any increase to the first fare band of its MRT single-trip ticket, which costs 90 cents. It added that it would extend its senior citizen concession hours to match SBS'.
Schemes to help the poor
Both operators said they would come up with schemes to help the poor cope with any fare rise.
'We have tried to keep fare increase small for as many commuters as possible but we know that any fare increase, no matter how small, would still be felt by commuters, especially tho se from needy families,
'Those who need additional help will receive help from the Government?s Public Transport Fund. The public transport four operators will also chip in towards public transport vouchers to help low-income families cope with the fare increase,' Mr Ee said.
The Consumers Association of Singapore (Case) is not entirely convinced that a fare hike is in order.
Case executive director Seah Seng Choon has pointed out that transport companies are enjoying "good returns." For instance, SMRT achieved a 39 per cent rise in net earnings to $37.94 million in the first quarter.
"'With such significant increase in net earnings, commuters would certainly expect it to show clear justifications for any need to hike fares at this point in time,' he said.
I somehow feel that the older generation are continually being penalised for being old. For any old person not working, they are seeing their retirement funds decreasing each year, especially in 2007, this year of "plenty". Money that could have lasted them for 10 years can maybe last them for 7 years now. You'll be damned if you ever grow old in Singapore.
I'm so happy that the gahmen cares.
Straits Times 11 Sep 2007
Bus fares to go up by 1 to 2 cents from Oct 1
By Christopher Tan
BUS fares will go up by one to two cents from Oct 1, the Public Transport Council announced on Tuesday.
But there will be no increase in train fares.
Senior citizen concessionary EZ -Link bus fares, which are flat fares pegged to the lowest adult EZ-Link fare band will also increase by 2 cents, up from the current 65 cents.
However, because they are flat fares, the same 67 cents fare will apply regardless of the distance travelled.
'The PTC has to strike a balance between safeguarding commuters' interests and ensuring the financial viability of the public transport operators so that they can continue to improve their services over time and sustain their capital investments,' Chairman of the PTC Gerard Ee said.
The Council said in August that transport operators SBS Transit and SMRT Corp had applied for fare increases - an annual revision exercise governed by a set formula.
This year, the formula caps fare rises at 1.8 per cent - or around three cents per ride.
The last fare increase was in October last year, when costs went up by one to three cents per ride.
Back then, the operators blamed high costs - in particular the high price of fuel and manpower - for the need to raise their fares. They are citing the same reasons this time.
SBS Transit, part of the ComfortDelGro group, for instance, said their costs have gone up significantly.
"Energy costs, for example, rose by 20 per cent or $20.3 million last year - having already increased by 41.2 per cent in 2005," SBS Transit spokesman Tammy Tan said.
"Manpower costs, the company's largest cost component, also increased by about $12.1 million during the year."
SBS also pointed out that it had invested heavily in buses as well as commuter services.
It spent $135 million on new buses in the past two years. And it has rolled out an online bus arrival system, which helps commuters to plan their journeys better.
Lower SMRT earnings
SMRT pointed out that the increase in the goods and services tax as well as the 1.5 percentage point rise in employers' CPF contributions will pull down its earnings by about $11 million a year.
It said the fare increase, if kept to this year's cap of 1.8 per cent, would only partially offset the company's total cost increases.
SBS is proposing to keep children and school student fares as well as concession pass charges unchanged.
SMRT has also said it will not raise fares for children and students, and all bus cash fares.
SMRT is also waiving any increase to the first fare band of its MRT single-trip ticket, which costs 90 cents. It added that it would extend its senior citizen concession hours to match SBS'.
Schemes to help the poor
Both operators said they would come up with schemes to help the poor cope with any fare rise.
'We have tried to keep fare increase small for as many commuters as possible but we know that any fare increase, no matter how small, would still be felt by commuters, especially tho se from needy families,
'Those who need additional help will receive help from the Government?s Public Transport Fund. The public transport four operators will also chip in towards public transport vouchers to help low-income families cope with the fare increase,' Mr Ee said.
The Consumers Association of Singapore (Case) is not entirely convinced that a fare hike is in order.
Case executive director Seah Seng Choon has pointed out that transport companies are enjoying "good returns." For instance, SMRT achieved a 39 per cent rise in net earnings to $37.94 million in the first quarter.
"'With such significant increase in net earnings, commuters would certainly expect it to show clear justifications for any need to hike fares at this point in time,' he said.
28 August 2007
Surprise, surprise... NOT!
Are we actually surprised that this is happening (article by bernama.com, the article has been reproduced below)? It seems that any activity that is not PAP based is considered to have the potential for public disorder and mischief, and may disrupt community life.
And how about this line Ho said the East Coast Park was a recreational park for Singaporeans and their families and not meant to be used by a political party to promote its cause. Doesn't this sound familiar? I wonder where I've read it before.
Pink Picnic
It has come to our attention that People Like Us is planning to hold a series of events under the banner of Indignation 2007. Two of the events - a picnic on 9 August 2007 and a 5 km-run on 11 August 2007 - will be held in the Singapore Botanic Gardens.
As the events are advertised, they are considered organised gatherings. Permission from the National Parks Board will be required to hold them in our parks and gardens.
We have considered the matter carefully, and regret to inform you that the Board cannot allow you to hold your events at the Singapore Botanic Gardens. The Singapore Botanic Gardens is a premier botanical institution. We do not want it to be used as a venue for interest groups to politicise their cause. For that matter, it is our policy to keep such activities out of our parks and gardens.
We seek your cooperation in this matter.
Read the full article Picking on a picnic
The Pink Run
He soon went back to the script and said that he had to inform me that the Pink Run would be against the law -- something about the Miscellaneous Offences Act, to which I replied (to the effect of), "Why are you telling me? I am not the organiser."
Read the full article Police declare joggers an "illegal assembly"
It seems we are not the only one that gets the "not meant to be used by a political party to promote its cause" treatment.
So people remember PAP based programs and activities "promote social well-being and a sense of community". Non-PAP based programs and activities "are used by political parties/special interest groups to promote their cause" and "have the potential to disrupt community and family life". What was it that George Orwell wrote... 4 legs good, 2 legs bad? As it is known, only the PAP can be non-partisan (as we can see from the 3 examples above) and all others are always partisan (a good example is mr brown's article on "S'poreans are fed, up with progress!" and the PAP's reaction to it)
It is all so clear to me now.
Bernama.com
27 August 2007
Singapore Police Reject Permit For Opposition Party's Cycling Event
By Jackson Sawatan
SINGAPORE, Aug 27 (Bernama) -- Plans by Singapore's main opposition party, the Workers' Party, to hold a cycling event in conjunction with its 50th anniversary, hit a dead end after its application for a police permit was rejected.
The mass cycling event was to be held on Sept 9 at the East Coast Park, a popular beachside park located along the east coast highway here.
Party chairman Sylvia Lim raised a question over the issue in Parliament today and was told that such activities "have the potential for public disorder and mischief, and may disrupt community life."
"Police requirement is that such party activities be held indoors or within stadiums, so that any law and order problems will be contained. This policy applies to all political parties," Senior Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs Ho Peng Kee said in reply to Lim's question.
Ho said the East Coast Park was a recreational park for Singaporeans and their families and not meant to be used by a political party to promote its cause.
The Workers' Party was set up in 1957 by David Marshall, the first chief minister of Singapore.
It has two representatives in the Singapore parliament, namely its secretary-general, Low Thia Khiang who is MP for Hougang and Lim as the non-constituency member of parliament (NCMP).
NCMPs are appointed from among the best performing opposition losers in a general election.
-- BERNAMA
And how about this line Ho said the East Coast Park was a recreational park for Singaporeans and their families and not meant to be used by a political party to promote its cause. Doesn't this sound familiar? I wonder where I've read it before.
Pink Picnic
It has come to our attention that People Like Us is planning to hold a series of events under the banner of Indignation 2007. Two of the events - a picnic on 9 August 2007 and a 5 km-run on 11 August 2007 - will be held in the Singapore Botanic Gardens.
As the events are advertised, they are considered organised gatherings. Permission from the National Parks Board will be required to hold them in our parks and gardens.
We have considered the matter carefully, and regret to inform you that the Board cannot allow you to hold your events at the Singapore Botanic Gardens. The Singapore Botanic Gardens is a premier botanical institution. We do not want it to be used as a venue for interest groups to politicise their cause. For that matter, it is our policy to keep such activities out of our parks and gardens.
We seek your cooperation in this matter.
Read the full article Picking on a picnic
The Pink Run
He soon went back to the script and said that he had to inform me that the Pink Run would be against the law -- something about the Miscellaneous Offences Act, to which I replied (to the effect of), "Why are you telling me? I am not the organiser."
Read the full article Police declare joggers an "illegal assembly"
It seems we are not the only one that gets the "not meant to be used by a political party to promote its cause" treatment.
So people remember PAP based programs and activities "promote social well-being and a sense of community". Non-PAP based programs and activities "are used by political parties/special interest groups to promote their cause" and "have the potential to disrupt community and family life". What was it that George Orwell wrote... 4 legs good, 2 legs bad? As it is known, only the PAP can be non-partisan (as we can see from the 3 examples above) and all others are always partisan (a good example is mr brown's article on "S'poreans are fed, up with progress!" and the PAP's reaction to it)
It is all so clear to me now.
Bernama.com
27 August 2007
Singapore Police Reject Permit For Opposition Party's Cycling Event
By Jackson Sawatan
SINGAPORE, Aug 27 (Bernama) -- Plans by Singapore's main opposition party, the Workers' Party, to hold a cycling event in conjunction with its 50th anniversary, hit a dead end after its application for a police permit was rejected.
The mass cycling event was to be held on Sept 9 at the East Coast Park, a popular beachside park located along the east coast highway here.
Party chairman Sylvia Lim raised a question over the issue in Parliament today and was told that such activities "have the potential for public disorder and mischief, and may disrupt community life."
"Police requirement is that such party activities be held indoors or within stadiums, so that any law and order problems will be contained. This policy applies to all political parties," Senior Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs Ho Peng Kee said in reply to Lim's question.
Ho said the East Coast Park was a recreational park for Singaporeans and their families and not meant to be used by a political party to promote its cause.
The Workers' Party was set up in 1957 by David Marshall, the first chief minister of Singapore.
It has two representatives in the Singapore parliament, namely its secretary-general, Low Thia Khiang who is MP for Hougang and Lim as the non-constituency member of parliament (NCMP).
NCMPs are appointed from among the best performing opposition losers in a general election.
-- BERNAMA
23 August 2007
Laughing Stock
IndigNation has been over for a week and I think it is time for me to get off my lazy chair and write about it.
Well, I wasn't there and what I know is from reports from the organisers and new papers around the world.
IndigNation this year has been a big controversy. There have been things that were banned because they are either "promoting a homosexual lifestyle" (what the fuck is a homosexual lifestyle, can some heterosexual who uses this pharse explain it to me!) or "for having some political agenda".
I wouldn't write much about it because I think yawningbread covers it very well.
My kissing project, part 3
Bark and crumble
Picking on a picnic
Police declare joggers an "illegal assembly"
One thing I'd like to know are these "bannings" because the current gahmen/cabinate wanted it banned or it is the various mindless government agencies censoring it because they "think" (gosh what a funny thing to say, government agencies thinking) the gahmen/Singaporeans want it banned. Or can it be the vocal fundamentalist christian minority who cased the bannings to happen? We would never really know.
With every banning, international newspapers (e.g. yahoo news and Internation Herald Tribune, I think even the Wall Street Journal picked up on 1 story) picked it up. Not putting Singapore in a good light. This really contrast PM Lee's "we need to have an all inclusive society"
There are two ways for the gahmen to go with this. To totally ban everything GLBT and GLBT related (including all books and shows), which of course will not go down well with other developed nations, making Singapore look more like a nanny/police state and shows that the gahmen is really paying lip service when they say they are not homophobic (and if they can pay lip service to their own citizens what more the rest of the world). The other is to let it be within limits (but what are the limits? I mean judge it this way, if the heterosexuals can do it, then we should be allowed to, that is my "within limits").
What the gahmen is thinking of doing is really anyone's guess but for the GLBT population in Singapore, I really hope that the gahmen really starts opening up and respect it's GLBT members as real human beings and real citizens of a country that they love.
Well, I wasn't there and what I know is from reports from the organisers and new papers around the world.
IndigNation this year has been a big controversy. There have been things that were banned because they are either "promoting a homosexual lifestyle" (what the fuck is a homosexual lifestyle, can some heterosexual who uses this pharse explain it to me!) or "for having some political agenda".
I wouldn't write much about it because I think yawningbread covers it very well.
My kissing project, part 3
Bark and crumble
Picking on a picnic
Police declare joggers an "illegal assembly"
One thing I'd like to know are these "bannings" because the current gahmen/cabinate wanted it banned or it is the various mindless government agencies censoring it because they "think" (gosh what a funny thing to say, government agencies thinking) the gahmen/Singaporeans want it banned. Or can it be the vocal fundamentalist christian minority who cased the bannings to happen? We would never really know.
With every banning, international newspapers (e.g. yahoo news and Internation Herald Tribune, I think even the Wall Street Journal picked up on 1 story) picked it up. Not putting Singapore in a good light. This really contrast PM Lee's "we need to have an all inclusive society"
There are two ways for the gahmen to go with this. To totally ban everything GLBT and GLBT related (including all books and shows), which of course will not go down well with other developed nations, making Singapore look more like a nanny/police state and shows that the gahmen is really paying lip service when they say they are not homophobic (and if they can pay lip service to their own citizens what more the rest of the world). The other is to let it be within limits (but what are the limits? I mean judge it this way, if the heterosexuals can do it, then we should be allowed to, that is my "within limits").
What the gahmen is thinking of doing is really anyone's guess but for the GLBT population in Singapore, I really hope that the gahmen really starts opening up and respect it's GLBT members as real human beings and real citizens of a country that they love.
09 August 2007
Put away the flags
As today is National Day. I put up an article by Howard Zinn, it has as much relevance to us as it does to USA.
Let us remember and rejoice in all the hikes that have happened and the hike that is to come. Let us remember and rejoice that there are people in our population who cannot survive on the the pay they get and our gahmen is not lifting a finger to help them. Let us remember and rejoice in a ruling party that believes it is the best and thus deserve to give itself a huge pay increase.
Most of all, let us remember and rejoice that life in Singapore is getting more and more difficult because it is due to our fault and the ruling party is forever held blameless.
Yes, let us remember and rejoice.
Singapore 42nd National Day Parade
National Day Parade 2007
Put away the flags
by Howard Zinn
On this July 4, we would do well to renounce nationalism and all its symbols: its flags, its pledges of allegiance, its anthems, its insistence in song that God must single out America to be blessed.
Is not nationalism -- that devotion to a flag, an anthem, a boundary so fierce it engenders mass murder -- one of the great evils of our time, along with racism, along with religious hatred?
These ways of thinking -- cultivated, nurtured, indoctrinated from childhood on -- have been useful to those in power, and deadly for those out of power.
National spirit can be benign in a country that is small and lacking both in military power and a hunger for expansion (Switzerland, Norway, Costa Rica and many more). But in a nation like ours -- huge, possessing thousands of weapons of mass destruction -- what might have been harmless pride becomes an arrogant nationalism dangerous to others and to ourselves.
Our citizenry has been brought up to see our nation as different from others, an exception in the world, uniquely moral, expanding into other lands in order to bring civilization, liberty, democracy.
That self-deception started early.
When the first English settlers moved into Indian land in Massachusetts Bay and were resisted, the violence escalated into war with the Pequot Indians. The killing of Indians was seen as approved by God, the taking of land as commanded by the Bible. The Puritans cited one of the Psalms, which says: "Ask of me, and I shall give thee, the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the Earth for thy possession."
When the English set fire to a Pequot village and massacred men, women and children, the Puritan theologian Cotton Mather said: "It was supposed that no less than 600 Pequot souls were brought down to hell that day."
On the eve of the Mexican War, an American journalist declared it our "Manifest Destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence." After the invasion of Mexico began, The New York Herald announced: "We believe it is a part of our destiny to civilize that beautiful country."
It was always supposedly for benign purposes that our country went to war.
We invaded Cuba in 1898 to liberate the Cubans, and went to war in the Philippines shortly after, as President McKinley put it, "to civilize and Christianize" the Filipino people.
As our armies were committing massacres in the Philippines (at least 600,000 Filipinos died in a few years of conflict), Elihu Root, our secretary of war, was saying: "The American soldier is different from all other soldiers of all other countries since the war began. He is the advance guard of liberty and justice, of law and order, and of peace and happiness."
We see in Iraq that our soldiers are not different. They have, perhaps against their better nature, killed thousands of Iraq civilians. And some soldiers have shown themselves capable of brutality, of torture.
Yet they are victims, too, of our government's lies.
How many times have we heard President Bush tell the troops that if they die, if they return without arms or legs, or blinded, it is for "liberty," for "democracy"?
One of the effects of nationalist thinking is a loss of a sense of proportion. The killing of 2,300 people at Pearl Harbor becomes the justification for killing 240,000 in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The killing of 3,000 people on Sept. 11 becomes the justification for killing tens of thousands of people in Afghanistan and Iraq.
And nationalism is given a special virulence when it is said to be blessed by Providence. Today we have a president, invading two countries in four years, who announced on the campaign trail in 2004 that God speaks through him.
We need to refute the idea that our nation is different from, morally superior to, the other imperial powers of world history.
We need to assert our allegiance to the human race, and not to any one nation.
Howard Zinn, a World War II bombardier, is the author of the best-
selling "A People's History of the United States" (Perennial Classics, 2003, latest edition). This piece was distributed by the Progressive Media Project in 2006.
Let us remember and rejoice in all the hikes that have happened and the hike that is to come. Let us remember and rejoice that there are people in our population who cannot survive on the the pay they get and our gahmen is not lifting a finger to help them. Let us remember and rejoice in a ruling party that believes it is the best and thus deserve to give itself a huge pay increase.
Most of all, let us remember and rejoice that life in Singapore is getting more and more difficult because it is due to our fault and the ruling party is forever held blameless.
Yes, let us remember and rejoice.
Singapore 42nd National Day Parade
National Day Parade 2007
Put away the flags
by Howard Zinn
On this July 4, we would do well to renounce nationalism and all its symbols: its flags, its pledges of allegiance, its anthems, its insistence in song that God must single out America to be blessed.
Is not nationalism -- that devotion to a flag, an anthem, a boundary so fierce it engenders mass murder -- one of the great evils of our time, along with racism, along with religious hatred?
These ways of thinking -- cultivated, nurtured, indoctrinated from childhood on -- have been useful to those in power, and deadly for those out of power.
National spirit can be benign in a country that is small and lacking both in military power and a hunger for expansion (Switzerland, Norway, Costa Rica and many more). But in a nation like ours -- huge, possessing thousands of weapons of mass destruction -- what might have been harmless pride becomes an arrogant nationalism dangerous to others and to ourselves.
Our citizenry has been brought up to see our nation as different from others, an exception in the world, uniquely moral, expanding into other lands in order to bring civilization, liberty, democracy.
That self-deception started early.
When the first English settlers moved into Indian land in Massachusetts Bay and were resisted, the violence escalated into war with the Pequot Indians. The killing of Indians was seen as approved by God, the taking of land as commanded by the Bible. The Puritans cited one of the Psalms, which says: "Ask of me, and I shall give thee, the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the Earth for thy possession."
When the English set fire to a Pequot village and massacred men, women and children, the Puritan theologian Cotton Mather said: "It was supposed that no less than 600 Pequot souls were brought down to hell that day."
On the eve of the Mexican War, an American journalist declared it our "Manifest Destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence." After the invasion of Mexico began, The New York Herald announced: "We believe it is a part of our destiny to civilize that beautiful country."
It was always supposedly for benign purposes that our country went to war.
We invaded Cuba in 1898 to liberate the Cubans, and went to war in the Philippines shortly after, as President McKinley put it, "to civilize and Christianize" the Filipino people.
As our armies were committing massacres in the Philippines (at least 600,000 Filipinos died in a few years of conflict), Elihu Root, our secretary of war, was saying: "The American soldier is different from all other soldiers of all other countries since the war began. He is the advance guard of liberty and justice, of law and order, and of peace and happiness."
We see in Iraq that our soldiers are not different. They have, perhaps against their better nature, killed thousands of Iraq civilians. And some soldiers have shown themselves capable of brutality, of torture.
Yet they are victims, too, of our government's lies.
How many times have we heard President Bush tell the troops that if they die, if they return without arms or legs, or blinded, it is for "liberty," for "democracy"?
One of the effects of nationalist thinking is a loss of a sense of proportion. The killing of 2,300 people at Pearl Harbor becomes the justification for killing 240,000 in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The killing of 3,000 people on Sept. 11 becomes the justification for killing tens of thousands of people in Afghanistan and Iraq.
And nationalism is given a special virulence when it is said to be blessed by Providence. Today we have a president, invading two countries in four years, who announced on the campaign trail in 2004 that God speaks through him.
We need to refute the idea that our nation is different from, morally superior to, the other imperial powers of world history.
We need to assert our allegiance to the human race, and not to any one nation.
Howard Zinn, a World War II bombardier, is the author of the best-
selling "A People's History of the United States" (Perennial Classics, 2003, latest edition). This piece was distributed by the Progressive Media Project in 2006.
03 August 2007
Haves and have-nots
I find this article really full of irony (but I'll just pick on one).
Don't you just love this paragraph "Dr Hew also pointed out another economic challenge - the wide income gap between the haves and have-nots in Asean.".
Maybe it is just me? But as my dead maternal grandmother would say, "Tidy up your own home first before you tidy up somebody's home."
Today 02 August 2007
TOUGH CHALLENGES AHEAD FOR S'PORE'S STEWARDSHIP OF ASEAN
--------------------------------------------------------
Nazry Bahrawi
nazry@mediacorp.com.sg
A KEY task for Singapore as Asean's new chairman is to help the grouping meet its deadline of setting up an economic community by 2015.
Singapore's challenge is to ensure that member countries live up to their commitment to implement economic integration initiatives, said Dr Denis Hew of the Institute of South-east Asian Studies (Iseas).
However, the good economic performance of Asean member nations will make it easier for the Republic to push for an economic agenda.
CIMB-GK Research regional economist Song Seng Wun said: "The timing is apt. Singapore may be able to nudge member countries towards reducing trade barriers further or integrating an economic community."
Dr Hew also pointed out another economic challenge - the wide income gap between the haves and have-nots in Asean.
He believes Singapore can help less-developed countries like Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam with their economic reform measures.
While analysts generally agree that Singapore, as Asean chairman, can chart the course in the areas of finance and economy, the Republic may face challenges that are more difficult to overcome on other fronts.
One issue it must tread carefully on is Myanmar, said research fellow Dr Hiro Katsumata from the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS).
He said: "If Asean pushes too hard, Myanmar will walk away from the association. It should be noted that Asean needs Myanmar, as much as Myanmar needs Asean. The unity of the association is very important for all the members."
Singapore may also need to tackle a perceived "image problem" to play its role as chairman more effectively.
Mr Song said: "Perhaps, our bureaucrats are seen to be following too much by the book. We are seen as too strict rather than able to take a more flexible approach. To overcome this, we have to hang up the suits and learn to party."
Don't you just love this paragraph "Dr Hew also pointed out another economic challenge - the wide income gap between the haves and have-nots in Asean.".
Maybe it is just me? But as my dead maternal grandmother would say, "Tidy up your own home first before you tidy up somebody's home."
Today 02 August 2007
TOUGH CHALLENGES AHEAD FOR S'PORE'S STEWARDSHIP OF ASEAN
--------------------------------------------------------
Nazry Bahrawi
nazry@mediacorp.com.sg
A KEY task for Singapore as Asean's new chairman is to help the grouping meet its deadline of setting up an economic community by 2015.
Singapore's challenge is to ensure that member countries live up to their commitment to implement economic integration initiatives, said Dr Denis Hew of the Institute of South-east Asian Studies (Iseas).
However, the good economic performance of Asean member nations will make it easier for the Republic to push for an economic agenda.
CIMB-GK Research regional economist Song Seng Wun said: "The timing is apt. Singapore may be able to nudge member countries towards reducing trade barriers further or integrating an economic community."
Dr Hew also pointed out another economic challenge - the wide income gap between the haves and have-nots in Asean.
He believes Singapore can help less-developed countries like Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam with their economic reform measures.
While analysts generally agree that Singapore, as Asean chairman, can chart the course in the areas of finance and economy, the Republic may face challenges that are more difficult to overcome on other fronts.
One issue it must tread carefully on is Myanmar, said research fellow Dr Hiro Katsumata from the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS).
He said: "If Asean pushes too hard, Myanmar will walk away from the association. It should be noted that Asean needs Myanmar, as much as Myanmar needs Asean. The unity of the association is very important for all the members."
Singapore may also need to tackle a perceived "image problem" to play its role as chairman more effectively.
Mr Song said: "Perhaps, our bureaucrats are seen to be following too much by the book. We are seen as too strict rather than able to take a more flexible approach. To overcome this, we have to hang up the suits and learn to party."
02 August 2007
I don't think we are homophobic
"I don't think we are homophobic" Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said.
The government is not homophobic, the Prime Minister says
Does this statement correlate with the article in the International Herald Tribune?
International Herald Tribune
Singapore bans photo exhibition on gays, lesbians kissing
The Associated Press
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
SINGAPORE: Singapore's censors have banned an exhibition of photographs depicting gay men and women kissing, a gay rights activist said Wednesday, calling the move "absurd."
The city-state's Media Development Authority denied the exhibition's organizers a license on the grounds that the photographs "promote a homosexual lifestyle," Alex Au, founder of a Singapore gay rights group, People Like Us, told The Associated Press.
The exhibition, entitled "Kissing," is a selection of 80 posed shots of same-sex kissing between fully clothed models, said Au, who shot the photographs.
"Kissing" was canceled after organizers received a letter from the Media Development Authority on Monday saying it was rejecting their application for a license to hold the exhibition, Au said.
The media regulator confirmed in an e-mailed statement it rejected Au's application for a license to hold the exhibition.
"Presently, homosexual content is allowed in the appropriate context but it should not be of a promotional or exploitative nature," Amy Tsang, deputy director of media content, said in the statement.
"The proposed exhibition ... which focuses mainly on homosexual kissing is deemed to promote a homosexual lifestyle, and cannot be allowed."
Tsang said, however, that authorities have previously allowed "brief same-sex kissing" in stage plays and adult-rated films.
The exhibition was part of "Indignation," a two-week gay pride series of forums, film screenings, lectures and other events that was scheduled to start later Wednesday.
"It's absurd to think that gay people do not also kiss, and that representation of such a reality would be subversive," Au said. "There is a very stereotypical representation of gays and lesbians as deviants and I think it is important to correct the stereotype."
Au added that in place of the canceled exhibition, organizers have planned a talk to be accompanied by a slideshow of the photographs. Indoor gatherings do not require police permits.
Under Singapore law, gay sex is deemed "an act of gross indecency," punishable by a maximum of two years in jail. Authorities have banned gay festivals and censored gay films, saying homosexuality should not be advocated as a lifestyle choice. Despite the official ban on gay sex, there have been few prosecutions.
___
On the Net:
"Indignation," Singapore gay pride series: http://www.plu.sg/indignation/
The government is not homophobic, the Prime Minister says
Does this statement correlate with the article in the International Herald Tribune?
International Herald Tribune
Singapore bans photo exhibition on gays, lesbians kissing
The Associated Press
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
SINGAPORE: Singapore's censors have banned an exhibition of photographs depicting gay men and women kissing, a gay rights activist said Wednesday, calling the move "absurd."
The city-state's Media Development Authority denied the exhibition's organizers a license on the grounds that the photographs "promote a homosexual lifestyle," Alex Au, founder of a Singapore gay rights group, People Like Us, told The Associated Press.
The exhibition, entitled "Kissing," is a selection of 80 posed shots of same-sex kissing between fully clothed models, said Au, who shot the photographs.
"Kissing" was canceled after organizers received a letter from the Media Development Authority on Monday saying it was rejecting their application for a license to hold the exhibition, Au said.
The media regulator confirmed in an e-mailed statement it rejected Au's application for a license to hold the exhibition.
"Presently, homosexual content is allowed in the appropriate context but it should not be of a promotional or exploitative nature," Amy Tsang, deputy director of media content, said in the statement.
"The proposed exhibition ... which focuses mainly on homosexual kissing is deemed to promote a homosexual lifestyle, and cannot be allowed."
Tsang said, however, that authorities have previously allowed "brief same-sex kissing" in stage plays and adult-rated films.
The exhibition was part of "Indignation," a two-week gay pride series of forums, film screenings, lectures and other events that was scheduled to start later Wednesday.
"It's absurd to think that gay people do not also kiss, and that representation of such a reality would be subversive," Au said. "There is a very stereotypical representation of gays and lesbians as deviants and I think it is important to correct the stereotype."
Au added that in place of the canceled exhibition, organizers have planned a talk to be accompanied by a slideshow of the photographs. Indoor gatherings do not require police permits.
Under Singapore law, gay sex is deemed "an act of gross indecency," punishable by a maximum of two years in jail. Authorities have banned gay festivals and censored gay films, saying homosexuality should not be advocated as a lifestyle choice. Despite the official ban on gay sex, there have been few prosecutions.
___
On the Net:
"Indignation," Singapore gay pride series: http://www.plu.sg/indignation/
The year of plenty...... increases
Can I say I'm really surprised? Can any of us say that? Justification - oil, labour, etc. prices have gone up. Isn't that the same reasons they gave every year that they want to increase the price? Compare this to - "We need to increase the pay of ____ because there have been a wage freeze for xx years", "we need this amount to attract the brightest" (no prizes for guessing who are the ones that said that).
Notice one thing, that whenever there is an increase in something (GST, salary, fares, etc.), the gahmen is always there to justify it with the "justifications" above. Those are the root of the arguments and everything else is based on it.
The only exception from this is wage increase for us peons. Whenever the argument turns to us, the reason why our pay is low is because of market forces, not skilled workforce c.p. "we need to increase the ___ salaries because they 'deserve' it" (wait, where is the market force argument?), "we need it to attract good people" (good in whose eyes? and can't we say we need to attract good people to the workforce too? hmmm...)
The online citizen has a great article about the fare hikes and it seems that for the past 6 (2000 - 2006) years, fares have increased 5 times, with a very big increase in the net profit of the various companies.
I'm not holding my breath for the outcome?
Add this to the list of increases this year
Taken from Today 01 August 2007
TICKET TO HIKE, PLEASE
----------------------
PTC urged to review fare increase proposals critically
Leong Wee Keat
weekeat@mediacorp.com.sg
Come October, a bus or train trip could cost 1 to 3 cents more on average. Both public transport operators have applied to the Public Transport Council (PTC) for a fare increase.
While no details were given of the proposals submitted yesterday, SBS Transit and SMRT must keep the hikes capped at 1.8 per cent of current fares, as dictated by the PTC's formula.
Both operators cite growing costs as the reason for asking for a fare hike (see box) - though SMRT said the maximum allowed adjustment would only partially mitigate increases in energy costs.
At the same time, the operators are proposing that children, student and concession fares remain unchanged. SMRT added, it would not hike cash fares for adult, child and senior citizens on its buses, and may extend senior citizens' travel concessions during weekday evening peak hours.
Still, the proposed fare increases were criticised by commuters Today spoke to. Auditor Lim Wen Yu said: "Besides service reliability, you need low fares to attract people to switch to public transport."
Public relations consultant Lionnel Lim wondered why fare hikes were being mooted when both operators have been posting profits. "Even a 1-cent increase would hurt the pockets of the lower income," he said.
SBS Transit said it would consider schemes to help this group offset the hike, while SMRT will extend help through the Public Transport Fund.
In the first quarter of this year, SBS Transit posted operating profits of $16.4 million and SMRT Group's bus and rail businesses recorded operating profits of $32.4 million.
While the company remains profitable, SBS Transit said: "A fare adjustment is necessary to ensure that it continues to earn sufficient money to be able to invest in its business, so as to improve its services to serve commuters better."
Mr Cedric Foo, chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee for transport, urged the PTC to look at the proposed adjustments "critically" - especially at both operators' returns on capital employed and productivity.
Mr Foo told Today: "It is clear that fuel and manpower costs have gone up. But have they gone up to such an extent to dilute the return on capital, as to warrant an increase at this point?"
"If they are found to be affecting returns to a great extent, then the operators would have reasonable cause (to apply for a proposed fare hike)."
Results of the PTC's deliberations may be out next month.
Notice one thing, that whenever there is an increase in something (GST, salary, fares, etc.), the gahmen is always there to justify it with the "justifications" above. Those are the root of the arguments and everything else is based on it.
The only exception from this is wage increase for us peons. Whenever the argument turns to us, the reason why our pay is low is because of market forces, not skilled workforce c.p. "we need to increase the ___ salaries because they 'deserve' it" (wait, where is the market force argument?), "we need it to attract good people" (good in whose eyes? and can't we say we need to attract good people to the workforce too? hmmm...)
The online citizen has a great article about the fare hikes and it seems that for the past 6 (2000 - 2006) years, fares have increased 5 times, with a very big increase in the net profit of the various companies.
I'm not holding my breath for the outcome?
Add this to the list of increases this year
Taken from Today 01 August 2007
TICKET TO HIKE, PLEASE
----------------------
PTC urged to review fare increase proposals critically
Leong Wee Keat
weekeat@mediacorp.com.sg
Come October, a bus or train trip could cost 1 to 3 cents more on average. Both public transport operators have applied to the Public Transport Council (PTC) for a fare increase.
While no details were given of the proposals submitted yesterday, SBS Transit and SMRT must keep the hikes capped at 1.8 per cent of current fares, as dictated by the PTC's formula.
Both operators cite growing costs as the reason for asking for a fare hike (see box) - though SMRT said the maximum allowed adjustment would only partially mitigate increases in energy costs.
At the same time, the operators are proposing that children, student and concession fares remain unchanged. SMRT added, it would not hike cash fares for adult, child and senior citizens on its buses, and may extend senior citizens' travel concessions during weekday evening peak hours.
Still, the proposed fare increases were criticised by commuters Today spoke to. Auditor Lim Wen Yu said: "Besides service reliability, you need low fares to attract people to switch to public transport."
Public relations consultant Lionnel Lim wondered why fare hikes were being mooted when both operators have been posting profits. "Even a 1-cent increase would hurt the pockets of the lower income," he said.
SBS Transit said it would consider schemes to help this group offset the hike, while SMRT will extend help through the Public Transport Fund.
In the first quarter of this year, SBS Transit posted operating profits of $16.4 million and SMRT Group's bus and rail businesses recorded operating profits of $32.4 million.
While the company remains profitable, SBS Transit said: "A fare adjustment is necessary to ensure that it continues to earn sufficient money to be able to invest in its business, so as to improve its services to serve commuters better."
Mr Cedric Foo, chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee for transport, urged the PTC to look at the proposed adjustments "critically" - especially at both operators' returns on capital employed and productivity.
Mr Foo told Today: "It is clear that fuel and manpower costs have gone up. But have they gone up to such an extent to dilute the return on capital, as to warrant an increase at this point?"
"If they are found to be affecting returns to a great extent, then the operators would have reasonable cause (to apply for a proposed fare hike)."
Results of the PTC's deliberations may be out next month.
30 June 2007
It is only 3%
I wonder how many of us remember the time when GST was first implemented in Singapore. It was 1 April 1994, yup April's fool, what jokers the gahmen was! At that time, income tax was decreased and doing the calculations back then, you could actually save money if you are not the type that eats at restaurants or buy expensive things often. Most people didn't kick up a full because, I think, our income tax was lowered quite a lot and the fact that we can have more in our savings. And through the mainstream media, we "believed" it was the best thing for us. It might have been back than.
Forward to this year (2007), tomorrow GST is further increased 2% to 7% with no decrease in our income tax or any other thing for that matter. Increase in GST, bus fares, hospital fees, housing, water, electricity... and we are suppose to save for our retirement! What a joke. And to add insult to injury, we have to retire later in order to save enough for retirement and CPF is decreased if we work pass the age of 55 (correct me if I'm wrong).
Do we still remember in 1994, the gahmen stated, it was only 3% now they say it is ONLY 2% more. The same way they stated that bus fares would increase only 2 cents in 2005. The same way their salary increase is ONLY "0.13% of the gahmen's total expenditure or 0.022% of Singapore's GDP" as stated by MM Lee (See They'll never listen will they news paper article) ("Only" seems to be a favourate word of our gahmen). I can bet you if we were give the same type of increase as our ministers (plus pensions, where appropriate) we would not complain about any hikes would we?
Forward to this year (2007), tomorrow GST is further increased 2% to 7% with no decrease in our income tax or any other thing for that matter. Increase in GST, bus fares, hospital fees, housing, water, electricity... and we are suppose to save for our retirement! What a joke. And to add insult to injury, we have to retire later in order to save enough for retirement and CPF is decreased if we work pass the age of 55 (correct me if I'm wrong).
Do we still remember in 1994, the gahmen stated, it was only 3% now they say it is ONLY 2% more. The same way they stated that bus fares would increase only 2 cents in 2005. The same way their salary increase is ONLY "0.13% of the gahmen's total expenditure or 0.022% of Singapore's GDP" as stated by MM Lee (See They'll never listen will they news paper article) ("Only" seems to be a favourate word of our gahmen). I can bet you if we were give the same type of increase as our ministers (plus pensions, where appropriate) we would not complain about any hikes would we?
28 June 2007
ST supports it reporters?
My only comment to this.
Yea, riiiiight! I so believe you. With the Mainstream media in the pockets of the gahmen, you think they'll still "back reporters who do not reveal sources" if the gahmen breaths down their necks?
Today 28 June 2007
SOURCE OF SUPPORT
-----------------
ST says it will back reporters who do not reveal sources
Ansley Ng
ansley@mediacorp.com.sg
THE Straits Times would have given full support to the reporter who
revealed his source to a court even if the journalist had decided not to
obey the court order and risk going to prison, the newspaper's editor Han
Fook Kwang told media professionals last night.
"If he decides not to disclose the source and will face the full
consequence of the court, we will support him, " said Mr Han at a
Singapore Press Club event. "We will support him legally, financially and
professionally. I think it is a reasonable position for any newspaper to
take."
Mr Han was referring to ST reporter Arthur Poon, who was ordered by a
court to reveal a source in a story last November. Mr Poon, together with
The Business Times reporter Wee Li-En and Reuters reporter Mia Shanley,
was served court papers by two rival broking firms for revealing
confidential information involving the sum of an out-of-court settlement.
After initially resisting, the ST and BT reporters disclosed their
respective sources to the High Court, with both pointed to Huntington
Communications, a public relations firm acting for one of the broking
company.
Ms Shanley, however, held on. At a court hearing on May 17, High Court
judge Justice Andrew Ang agreed with the broking firm's lawyers and
ordered Ms Shanley to reveal her source. The reporter appealed to the
Court of Appeal - Singapore's highest court - but was ordered to reveal
her source. She did so only after her source gave her permission.
In an ST report on the case in late May, Mr Han was quoted as saying: "It
has been our long-standing policy that we will not disclose until we are
compelled to do so by the court and we have no further recourse.
We
fought all the way until the court ordered us to disclose our sources."
At the talk last night, Mr Han said that despite the "setback", ST would
continue to "vigorously resist" attempts to make its reporters reveal
their sources.
Other speakers at last night's forum included senior lawyer Peter Low,
Nanyang Technological University (NTU) media academic Dr Ang Peng Hwa and
ST's former editor-in-chief, Mr Peter Lim.
Speaking to an audience made up mostly of journalism and public relations
professionals, the four men provided different views on the issue of
source confidentiality from the legal and journalistic perspective. Citing
examples in countries such as Australia, the United Kingdom and the United
States, Mr Low said that cases in these countries were generally not
treated differently from what a Singaporean court would do.
"The court has the discretion on whether or not to make the reporter
disclose the source of the information," he said.
The kind of confidentiality a journalist has with his source is like the
one shared by doctors with their patients, or lawyers with their clients,
said Dr Ang, Dean of NTU's Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and
Information. "The journalistic privilege is not an absolute right; it is a
balance" he added.
Veteran newsman Mr Lim, who headed ST for about 20 years, echoed Mr Han's
points when asked by a member of the audience what advice he would have
given Mr Poon had he been in charge. "As the editor, I can't offer to go
to jail for him," he said. "It's up to you. If you go to jail, we'll look
after you."
Yea, riiiiight! I so believe you. With the Mainstream media in the pockets of the gahmen, you think they'll still "back reporters who do not reveal sources" if the gahmen breaths down their necks?
Today 28 June 2007
SOURCE OF SUPPORT
-----------------
ST says it will back reporters who do not reveal sources
Ansley Ng
ansley@mediacorp.com.sg
THE Straits Times would have given full support to the reporter who
revealed his source to a court even if the journalist had decided not to
obey the court order and risk going to prison, the newspaper's editor Han
Fook Kwang told media professionals last night.
"If he decides not to disclose the source and will face the full
consequence of the court, we will support him, " said Mr Han at a
Singapore Press Club event. "We will support him legally, financially and
professionally. I think it is a reasonable position for any newspaper to
take."
Mr Han was referring to ST reporter Arthur Poon, who was ordered by a
court to reveal a source in a story last November. Mr Poon, together with
The Business Times reporter Wee Li-En and Reuters reporter Mia Shanley,
was served court papers by two rival broking firms for revealing
confidential information involving the sum of an out-of-court settlement.
After initially resisting, the ST and BT reporters disclosed their
respective sources to the High Court, with both pointed to Huntington
Communications, a public relations firm acting for one of the broking
company.
Ms Shanley, however, held on. At a court hearing on May 17, High Court
judge Justice Andrew Ang agreed with the broking firm's lawyers and
ordered Ms Shanley to reveal her source. The reporter appealed to the
Court of Appeal - Singapore's highest court - but was ordered to reveal
her source. She did so only after her source gave her permission.
In an ST report on the case in late May, Mr Han was quoted as saying: "It
has been our long-standing policy that we will not disclose until we are
compelled to do so by the court and we have no further recourse.
We
fought all the way until the court ordered us to disclose our sources."
At the talk last night, Mr Han said that despite the "setback", ST would
continue to "vigorously resist" attempts to make its reporters reveal
their sources.
Other speakers at last night's forum included senior lawyer Peter Low,
Nanyang Technological University (NTU) media academic Dr Ang Peng Hwa and
ST's former editor-in-chief, Mr Peter Lim.
Speaking to an audience made up mostly of journalism and public relations
professionals, the four men provided different views on the issue of
source confidentiality from the legal and journalistic perspective. Citing
examples in countries such as Australia, the United Kingdom and the United
States, Mr Low said that cases in these countries were generally not
treated differently from what a Singaporean court would do.
"The court has the discretion on whether or not to make the reporter
disclose the source of the information," he said.
The kind of confidentiality a journalist has with his source is like the
one shared by doctors with their patients, or lawyers with their clients,
said Dr Ang, Dean of NTU's Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and
Information. "The journalistic privilege is not an absolute right; it is a
balance" he added.
Veteran newsman Mr Lim, who headed ST for about 20 years, echoed Mr Han's
points when asked by a member of the audience what advice he would have
given Mr Poon had he been in charge. "As the editor, I can't offer to go
to jail for him," he said. "It's up to you. If you go to jail, we'll look
after you."
21 June 2007
The best is yet to come
Coming in to work today, I just realised that July is almost upon us. I need to take this opportunity to document the things our caring gahmen has done to help the citizens.
July 2007 will be remembered in Singapore as the best month ever in our history. Let me recount the things that are going to happen.
1) GST increase (which means everything will increase)
2) NETS increase (which means things have to increase, esp. for small shop owners. Can we blame them?)
3) Electricity increase (can we do without power?)
3) Cable increase (this one, can don't want)
4) Ministers' pay increase (we got say mah?)
And this is the perfect timing too, because our economy is booming and things are really great.
But wait, we seem to have forgotten about the people who didn't get a 60% pay increase. What was the increase in pay of the average Singaporean? 4.2% in 2006. And in 2006 we had the public transport fare increase. From then until now, we had postal increase and polyclinic price increase.
(Am I the only one that realised these increases are happening after the 2006 elections and the beginning of the 5 year term? After this, you'll not see any increase or things happening that can antagonise the people for the next 2-3 years. Doesn't take a genius to guess why. Sometimes I think that we are really stupid, not just uninformed)
How far can that 4.2% go? Lots of Singaporeans (accountants, economist, etc.) have done the math and concluded that even with the increase, the net take home pay of the average Singapore will not cover the increase in everything. This is already before July arrives, after July, the net take home pay of the average Singapore is going to be even less.
It is nice to know the economy is booming (as told by our state controlled main stream media) but how many Singaporeans are actually reaping the benefits of this boom? It would seem that for most people, their net cash flow will decrease even with their increase in pay. And don't get me started on the "hand-out" the gahmen is giving to "soften" the blow. Anyone with primary school math knowledge will realise that the amount given cannot cover the increase in GST for 1 year!
Are we Singaporeans so blind that we cannot see the facts that are laid in front of us. Even the most hard-lined Republicans in US, can see that the current government is not working for the good for the country. Hence, the elections last year showed it. When will we learn that having a single party system is not good for us (or any developed country for that matter) , contrary to what our gahmen tries to tell us.
But I do realise that my rants are going to fall on deaf ears because most Singaporeans are to frightened that if the PAP is not the gahmen anymore, Singapore will be totally destroyed. All companies will immediately pack up and go. Our buildings will immediately turn old and collapse. Our stock market will plunge, thus making our money as strong as Indonesia's. And immediately, we'll revert to a 3rd world country and Singapore will look like a slum in Africa. In fact, if the PAP is not the gahmen anymore, Singapore will immediately look like it has been struck by an atomic bomb and our economy will look like that too.
Are we really so blind as to think that it is only the gahmen that makes the economy boom? Are we so stupid as to think that the part we play is small compared to the gahmen's? We are Singapore, the gahmen doesn't make Singapore Singapore. Listen and take note people, without us the Singapore is NOTHING.
July 2007 will be remembered in Singapore as the best month ever in our history. Let me recount the things that are going to happen.
1) GST increase (which means everything will increase)
2) NETS increase (which means things have to increase, esp. for small shop owners. Can we blame them?)
3) Electricity increase (can we do without power?)
3) Cable increase (this one, can don't want)
4) Ministers' pay increase (we got say mah?)
And this is the perfect timing too, because our economy is booming and things are really great.
But wait, we seem to have forgotten about the people who didn't get a 60% pay increase. What was the increase in pay of the average Singaporean? 4.2% in 2006. And in 2006 we had the public transport fare increase. From then until now, we had postal increase and polyclinic price increase.
(Am I the only one that realised these increases are happening after the 2006 elections and the beginning of the 5 year term? After this, you'll not see any increase or things happening that can antagonise the people for the next 2-3 years. Doesn't take a genius to guess why. Sometimes I think that we are really stupid, not just uninformed)
How far can that 4.2% go? Lots of Singaporeans (accountants, economist, etc.) have done the math and concluded that even with the increase, the net take home pay of the average Singapore will not cover the increase in everything. This is already before July arrives, after July, the net take home pay of the average Singapore is going to be even less.
It is nice to know the economy is booming (as told by our state controlled main stream media) but how many Singaporeans are actually reaping the benefits of this boom? It would seem that for most people, their net cash flow will decrease even with their increase in pay. And don't get me started on the "hand-out" the gahmen is giving to "soften" the blow. Anyone with primary school math knowledge will realise that the amount given cannot cover the increase in GST for 1 year!
Are we Singaporeans so blind that we cannot see the facts that are laid in front of us. Even the most hard-lined Republicans in US, can see that the current government is not working for the good for the country. Hence, the elections last year showed it. When will we learn that having a single party system is not good for us (or any developed country for that matter) , contrary to what our gahmen tries to tell us.
But I do realise that my rants are going to fall on deaf ears because most Singaporeans are to frightened that if the PAP is not the gahmen anymore, Singapore will be totally destroyed. All companies will immediately pack up and go. Our buildings will immediately turn old and collapse. Our stock market will plunge, thus making our money as strong as Indonesia's. And immediately, we'll revert to a 3rd world country and Singapore will look like a slum in Africa. In fact, if the PAP is not the gahmen anymore, Singapore will immediately look like it has been struck by an atomic bomb and our economy will look like that too.
Are we really so blind as to think that it is only the gahmen that makes the economy boom? Are we so stupid as to think that the part we play is small compared to the gahmen's? We are Singapore, the gahmen doesn't make Singapore Singapore. Listen and take note people, without us the Singapore is NOTHING.
24 May 2007
Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian
It is just so true. :)
10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.
9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.
7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!
6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.
4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."
3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.
2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.
10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.
9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.
7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!
6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.
4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."
3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.
2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.
23 May 2007
Mouth Diarrhoea
Our million dollar ministers are sometimes so stupid. I will now proceed to tear apart the points that Mr. Lui stated.
"If Minister of State for Education Lui Tuck Yew has his way, there will be no changes to Section 377A of the Penal Code, which makes homosexual acts a crime here. "I'm not ready to move, and I don't think a major section of society is ready to move," he said."
"The Government will move at the pace at which society "allows us to move", RAdm Lui said."
Did society allow the casinos? Did society allow "Crazy Horse"? Did society allow the R(A) rating? Going by his premise it would seem that society allowed the above 3 things even though "majority" of Singaporeans didn't want it, one must not forget we are a "conservative" society. This is the same thing as the "majority" of Singaporeans don't want to remove S377A from the books. It would seem that heterosexuals having oral and anal sex is acceptable to "majority of Singaporeans" (plans to remove S377) and yet not homosexuals. It would seem that heterosexuality is more superior than homosexuality.
"In response, RAdm Lui said: "Yes, there will be different tension points, maybe what some would characterise conservatives versus liberals. We can't be stiff-necked. We need to be open to ideas but we have to come to our conclusions through the framework in Singapore. That's why it's important to have our own deep convictions and beliefs." "
Let us look at their beliefs.
1) Welfare is a vulgar word. We shouldn't have it because it would make people have crutch mentality.
2) If we don't pay people this amount, then we cannot get good people into politics.
3) Debate over a $30 increase was part of the parliamentary proceedings and yet increasing the pay of ministers was not part of a debate, as Ms. Sylvia Lim said (and I parapharse), "... no vote will be taken. Not one thing said by any MP will change the decision of the government." So there was actually no debate and as most of us would say, what is the point of even "discussing" it in parliament?
Sylvia Lim's statement on the Ministerial pay"
4) The increase in public transport fares (or adjustment as it is known) is due to the rising cost of oil and other things. Do we see prices dropping of oil becomes cheaper? So the millions earned by the public transport vendors is never enough (net profit was 54.55 million in 2006).
Oh now I get it, the belief that homosexuality is a sin condemned by Christians and even though our constitution says every one is equal under the eyes of the law, some people are just more equal than others.
"4 legs good, 2 legs better"
Can we say, "White Horse"? Even though the official statement is there isn't any all of us who have gone through the army know better.
Who are they actually trying to bluff?
While acknowledging Mr Lee's comments on the possible genetics of homosexuality, RAdm Lui said he does not subscribe to the theory that it is a "medical condition".
The same way a lot of fundamentalist Christians in America don't believe global warming is happening even though all scientific articles and peer reviews say it is.
The same way a lot of fundamentalist Christians in America don't believe in evolution because the bible says so even though all scientific articles and peer reviews say it is.
The same way a lot of fundamentalist Christians in America don't believe that homosexuality is biological NOT MEDICAL even though all scientific articles and peer reviews say it is.
The same way a lot of... you get the picture.
Sometimes you wonder how long people can keep their heads in the sand (or ass) before they actually start thinking.
"Do you excuse paedophiles or psychopaths because of a medical condition?" he asked.
No because pedophilia and murder is NOT a victimless crime. Or stalkers for that matter. Or even causing grievous hurt. These are crimes that have VICTIMS! Mr. million-dollar-a-year-because-you-are-the-best man, please put your brain into gear before moving your mouth.
The best thing is this, homosexuality is NOT medical condition but a biological one. Both paedophilia and psychopathy are medical conditions.
He is also not swayed by arguments that homosexuality does not affect others in society, that it is just between two people. "There can be lots of relationships, like between a person and an animal, or a person and another person, but which is incestuous. There are norms in society."
Let me paraphrase this weird and incoherent statement of his.
Bullshit that homosexuality doesn't affect others in society, that it is between 2 people. Incest and bestiality. There are social norms.
WHAT? HUH? If anyone can understand this, please tell me. What has incest and bestiality got to do with this? Number 1, there is NO law against incest. Number 2, bestiality in NOT a victimless crime.
Gosh, does he really understand what's he saying?
I'm not against people who think homosexuality is wrong (the way I not being green is wrong), I mean if you say, "I think homosexuality is wrong and that is my opinion". I can accept it in fact I'd applaud it. Everyone is different and everyone is entitled to their own opinion but to use illogical statements to justify your opinion... especially when illogical statements can be crushed by logical ones. And from last I checked, we live in a logical world.
Furthermore, to justify why we have to retain S377A because of these illogical factors and "conservatism" is discrimination in its purest form. It would seem that in the Singapore context, not everyone is equal, even though it states in our constitution article 12(1) "All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law". So we homosexuals are NOT equal before the law and are NOT entitled to the equal protection of the law. Maybe we should change the constitution instead?
Taken from Today 23 May 2007
Minister says he is 'not ready to move' on homosexuality
Derrick A Paulo
derrick@mediacorp.com.sg
If Minister of State for Education Lui Tuck Yew has his way, there will be no changes to Section 377A of the Penal Code, which makes homosexual acts a crime here. "I'm not ready to move, and I don't think a major section of society is ready to move," he said.
Rear-Admiral (NS) Lui gave his personal views yesterday at a dialogue session for the annual Pre University Seminar at the Nanyang Technological University. The issue cropped up when a student asked RAdm Lui how the Government will reconcile "ideas and ideologies" that will be increasingly in conflict as Singapore "opens up to the world and becomes more liberal". She was referring to Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's comments at a forum last month in which he said the Government is not the moral police on the homosexuality issue.
In response, RAdm Lui said: "Yes, there will be different tension points, maybe what some would characterise conservatives versus liberals. We can't be stiff-necked. We need to be open to ideas but we have to come to our conclusions through the framework in Singapore. That's why it's important to have our own deep convictions and beliefs."
While acknowledging Mr Lee's comments on the possible genetics of homosexuality, RAdm Lui said he does not subscribe to the theory that it is a "medical condition".
"Do you excuse paedophiles or psychopaths because of a medical condition?" he asked.
He is also not swayed by arguments that homosexuality does not affect others in society, that it is just between two people. "There can be lots of relationships, like between a person and an animal, or a person and another person, but which is incestuous. There are norms in society."
The Government will move at the pace at which society "allows us to move", RAdm Lui said.
"If Minister of State for Education Lui Tuck Yew has his way, there will be no changes to Section 377A of the Penal Code, which makes homosexual acts a crime here. "I'm not ready to move, and I don't think a major section of society is ready to move," he said."
"The Government will move at the pace at which society "allows us to move", RAdm Lui said."
Did society allow the casinos? Did society allow "Crazy Horse"? Did society allow the R(A) rating? Going by his premise it would seem that society allowed the above 3 things even though "majority" of Singaporeans didn't want it, one must not forget we are a "conservative" society. This is the same thing as the "majority" of Singaporeans don't want to remove S377A from the books. It would seem that heterosexuals having oral and anal sex is acceptable to "majority of Singaporeans" (plans to remove S377) and yet not homosexuals. It would seem that heterosexuality is more superior than homosexuality.
"In response, RAdm Lui said: "Yes, there will be different tension points, maybe what some would characterise conservatives versus liberals. We can't be stiff-necked. We need to be open to ideas but we have to come to our conclusions through the framework in Singapore. That's why it's important to have our own deep convictions and beliefs." "
Let us look at their beliefs.
1) Welfare is a vulgar word. We shouldn't have it because it would make people have crutch mentality.
2) If we don't pay people this amount, then we cannot get good people into politics.
3) Debate over a $30 increase was part of the parliamentary proceedings and yet increasing the pay of ministers was not part of a debate, as Ms. Sylvia Lim said (and I parapharse), "... no vote will be taken. Not one thing said by any MP will change the decision of the government." So there was actually no debate and as most of us would say, what is the point of even "discussing" it in parliament?
Sylvia Lim's statement on the Ministerial pay"
4) The increase in public transport fares (or adjustment as it is known) is due to the rising cost of oil and other things. Do we see prices dropping of oil becomes cheaper? So the millions earned by the public transport vendors is never enough (net profit was 54.55 million in 2006).
Oh now I get it, the belief that homosexuality is a sin condemned by Christians and even though our constitution says every one is equal under the eyes of the law, some people are just more equal than others.
"4 legs good, 2 legs better"
Can we say, "White Horse"? Even though the official statement is there isn't any all of us who have gone through the army know better.
Who are they actually trying to bluff?
While acknowledging Mr Lee's comments on the possible genetics of homosexuality, RAdm Lui said he does not subscribe to the theory that it is a "medical condition".
The same way a lot of fundamentalist Christians in America don't believe global warming is happening even though all scientific articles and peer reviews say it is.
The same way a lot of fundamentalist Christians in America don't believe in evolution because the bible says so even though all scientific articles and peer reviews say it is.
The same way a lot of fundamentalist Christians in America don't believe that homosexuality is biological NOT MEDICAL even though all scientific articles and peer reviews say it is.
The same way a lot of... you get the picture.
Sometimes you wonder how long people can keep their heads in the sand (or ass) before they actually start thinking.
"Do you excuse paedophiles or psychopaths because of a medical condition?" he asked.
No because pedophilia and murder is NOT a victimless crime. Or stalkers for that matter. Or even causing grievous hurt. These are crimes that have VICTIMS! Mr. million-dollar-a-year-because-you-are-the-best man, please put your brain into gear before moving your mouth.
The best thing is this, homosexuality is NOT medical condition but a biological one. Both paedophilia and psychopathy are medical conditions.
He is also not swayed by arguments that homosexuality does not affect others in society, that it is just between two people. "There can be lots of relationships, like between a person and an animal, or a person and another person, but which is incestuous. There are norms in society."
Let me paraphrase this weird and incoherent statement of his.
Bullshit that homosexuality doesn't affect others in society, that it is between 2 people. Incest and bestiality. There are social norms.
WHAT? HUH? If anyone can understand this, please tell me. What has incest and bestiality got to do with this? Number 1, there is NO law against incest. Number 2, bestiality in NOT a victimless crime.
Gosh, does he really understand what's he saying?
I'm not against people who think homosexuality is wrong (the way I not being green is wrong), I mean if you say, "I think homosexuality is wrong and that is my opinion". I can accept it in fact I'd applaud it. Everyone is different and everyone is entitled to their own opinion but to use illogical statements to justify your opinion... especially when illogical statements can be crushed by logical ones. And from last I checked, we live in a logical world.
Furthermore, to justify why we have to retain S377A because of these illogical factors and "conservatism" is discrimination in its purest form. It would seem that in the Singapore context, not everyone is equal, even though it states in our constitution article 12(1) "All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law". So we homosexuals are NOT equal before the law and are NOT entitled to the equal protection of the law. Maybe we should change the constitution instead?
Taken from Today 23 May 2007
Minister says he is 'not ready to move' on homosexuality
Derrick A Paulo
derrick@mediacorp.com.sg
If Minister of State for Education Lui Tuck Yew has his way, there will be no changes to Section 377A of the Penal Code, which makes homosexual acts a crime here. "I'm not ready to move, and I don't think a major section of society is ready to move," he said.
Rear-Admiral (NS) Lui gave his personal views yesterday at a dialogue session for the annual Pre University Seminar at the Nanyang Technological University. The issue cropped up when a student asked RAdm Lui how the Government will reconcile "ideas and ideologies" that will be increasingly in conflict as Singapore "opens up to the world and becomes more liberal". She was referring to Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's comments at a forum last month in which he said the Government is not the moral police on the homosexuality issue.
In response, RAdm Lui said: "Yes, there will be different tension points, maybe what some would characterise conservatives versus liberals. We can't be stiff-necked. We need to be open to ideas but we have to come to our conclusions through the framework in Singapore. That's why it's important to have our own deep convictions and beliefs."
While acknowledging Mr Lee's comments on the possible genetics of homosexuality, RAdm Lui said he does not subscribe to the theory that it is a "medical condition".
"Do you excuse paedophiles or psychopaths because of a medical condition?" he asked.
He is also not swayed by arguments that homosexuality does not affect others in society, that it is just between two people. "There can be lots of relationships, like between a person and an animal, or a person and another person, but which is incestuous. There are norms in society."
The Government will move at the pace at which society "allows us to move", RAdm Lui said.
12 April 2007
What great PR skills!
I hope that Singaporeans will not be stupid enough to believe in this PR stunt. Knowing full well that if he doesn't do something to appease the people, in the next elections, things will go very wrong for the PAP (which most of us think, will go very right for Singapore).
Wouldn't it have been easier to just give that increment amount to charity in the first place? Oh yea, you can't do that. If you do that, you can't show that you are a wonderfully generous and caring person. I mean, it is so much easier to show that you are kind and compassionate when you give away your own money (money which you don't need) then if you just put it in the Singapore budget for charity.
But I really doubt Singaporeans will be smart enough to see through this. I really doubt that anything will change in the next elections because for a very simple reason, we are not only stupid but very gullible and the gahmen knows which buttons to press so that we'll vote them in again.
So after the PAP comes into power again in 2011, this will once again happen. We stupid peons will rave and rant about they wanting to increase their pay to 4.5 million, and after they do that, a great PR stunt (like this one) will be done again and we stupid peons will forget everything and believe in the love and compassion of our PM and ministers. And we'll vote them in again.
As my friend believes, we'll never learn.
Further reads:
PM Lee's Sacrifice | New Direction in the Justifications
Today
12 April 2007
THE BUCK STOPS HERE
-------------------
Decision to hike ministerial pay was 'most difficult', but a necessary one to make: PM
Lee U-Wen
u-wen@mediacorp.com.sg
BY PRIME Minister Lee Hsien Loong's own admission, this is not the best of times for the Government to be grappling with an issue as sensitive as a pay hike for ministers and civil servants. Certainly not when the income gap in Singapore is seen to be widening, and not everyone is enjoying the benefits of the returning good times. In fact, some speakers during the three-day parliamentary debate on the issue even wondered whether Mr Lee and his ministers had undermined their moral authority to govern by giving themselves such large pay increases.
So, when Mr Lee took the floor yesterday to wrap up the debate, he decided to address just such concerns: Minutes into his two-hour long speech, Mr Lee said he would freeze his pre-increment salary of $2.5 million for the next five years, promising to donate any increase in pay to charity.
That means a donation of at least $3 million, or a minimum of $600,000 in each of the five years. Under the phased pay revisions announced on Monday, Mr Lee will draw a salary of $3.1 million this year, a 25.5-per-cent jump from what he drew last year.
The Prime Minister said he did not expect other ministers to follow his lead.
"I'm the one carrying the ultimate responsibility ... I know that ministers and MPs already support various worthy causes, but it should not be an ostentatious display of how self-sacrificing they are. That is a private matter for them to decide at their own discretion," said Mr Lee.
While his decision is likely to win applause from many, one MP asked whether some Singaporeans may view it negatively.
Madam Ho Geok Choo (West Coast GRC) said: "I fear that there may be people out there who take his magnanimous gesture as a retreat and a face-saving admission that the policy (on ministers' salaries) is flawed."
Responding, Mr Lee reiterated that it was his personal choice.
In his speech, Mr Lee said he agreed with MPs who had argued that joining the public service required "sacrifice and selflessness".
Still, he added, choosing the right people for the job was "not an auction" to show who was willing to make the bigger financial sacrifice.
In a speech that was at times emotional and peppered with anecdotes from
his own 23-year career in politics, Mr Lee spoke about his fears of
Singapore getting a corrupt premier in the future.
"I'm worried about somebody wanting to be Prime Minister, hoping to be
paid not a single cent but still collect $400 million - under the table
..
"We don't expect ministers to earn as much as top earners in the private
sector, but it must not be too far out of line with what is earned
outside," said Mr Lee, who also shared with the House that he turned 55
this year and has drawn his CPF.
On the timing of the pay hikes - less than three months before the Goods
& Services Tax will be raised by 2 percentage points to 7 per cent - Mr
Lee conceded that the timing could have been better.
But then again, he said, there is "no good time". The last major salary
revision was seven years ago, and there was a growing "urgency" to close
the gap on the private sector benchmarks in order to ensure that the
public sector would continue to attract, and retain, top talent.
"Politically, this is the most difficult decision for me to take ... It
was Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew who
encouraged me to do it. They know the importance of having good ministers
to help them with their work."
Mr Lee also touched on the link made by many MPs between ministerial
salaries and public assistance payouts for poorer Singaporeans.
"When you make such comparisons, the problem can become very emotional ...
General welfare is something we can promise, it's very easy and popular.
It's like having a God of Fortune giving out money and everyone is happy.
You don't need very capable ministers to do that," he said.
However, if the Government were to tread down this path, it would suffer
"long-term repercussions", he said. "The wiser approach is to grow the
economy, and use the fruits of growth to implement policies that truly
improve the lives of the poor."
Mr Lee also paid tribute to 94 MPs in the House, whose monthly allowances
have each been raised from $11,900 to $13,200. He said the lawmakers here
compare well with parliaments in other countries.
And while Mr Lee had said the buck stops with him when it comes to
donating his salary increment, one MP - Dr Lily Neo (Jalan Besar GRC) -
announced at the end of the session that she would follow his lead.
Wouldn't it have been easier to just give that increment amount to charity in the first place? Oh yea, you can't do that. If you do that, you can't show that you are a wonderfully generous and caring person. I mean, it is so much easier to show that you are kind and compassionate when you give away your own money (money which you don't need) then if you just put it in the Singapore budget for charity.
But I really doubt Singaporeans will be smart enough to see through this. I really doubt that anything will change in the next elections because for a very simple reason, we are not only stupid but very gullible and the gahmen knows which buttons to press so that we'll vote them in again.
So after the PAP comes into power again in 2011, this will once again happen. We stupid peons will rave and rant about they wanting to increase their pay to 4.5 million, and after they do that, a great PR stunt (like this one) will be done again and we stupid peons will forget everything and believe in the love and compassion of our PM and ministers. And we'll vote them in again.
As my friend believes, we'll never learn.
Further reads:
PM Lee's Sacrifice | New Direction in the Justifications
Today
12 April 2007
THE BUCK STOPS HERE
-------------------
Decision to hike ministerial pay was 'most difficult', but a necessary one to make: PM
Lee U-Wen
u-wen@mediacorp.com.sg
BY PRIME Minister Lee Hsien Loong's own admission, this is not the best of times for the Government to be grappling with an issue as sensitive as a pay hike for ministers and civil servants. Certainly not when the income gap in Singapore is seen to be widening, and not everyone is enjoying the benefits of the returning good times. In fact, some speakers during the three-day parliamentary debate on the issue even wondered whether Mr Lee and his ministers had undermined their moral authority to govern by giving themselves such large pay increases.
So, when Mr Lee took the floor yesterday to wrap up the debate, he decided to address just such concerns: Minutes into his two-hour long speech, Mr Lee said he would freeze his pre-increment salary of $2.5 million for the next five years, promising to donate any increase in pay to charity.
That means a donation of at least $3 million, or a minimum of $600,000 in each of the five years. Under the phased pay revisions announced on Monday, Mr Lee will draw a salary of $3.1 million this year, a 25.5-per-cent jump from what he drew last year.
The Prime Minister said he did not expect other ministers to follow his lead.
"I'm the one carrying the ultimate responsibility ... I know that ministers and MPs already support various worthy causes, but it should not be an ostentatious display of how self-sacrificing they are. That is a private matter for them to decide at their own discretion," said Mr Lee.
While his decision is likely to win applause from many, one MP asked whether some Singaporeans may view it negatively.
Madam Ho Geok Choo (West Coast GRC) said: "I fear that there may be people out there who take his magnanimous gesture as a retreat and a face-saving admission that the policy (on ministers' salaries) is flawed."
Responding, Mr Lee reiterated that it was his personal choice.
In his speech, Mr Lee said he agreed with MPs who had argued that joining the public service required "sacrifice and selflessness".
Still, he added, choosing the right people for the job was "not an auction" to show who was willing to make the bigger financial sacrifice.
In a speech that was at times emotional and peppered with anecdotes from
his own 23-year career in politics, Mr Lee spoke about his fears of
Singapore getting a corrupt premier in the future.
"I'm worried about somebody wanting to be Prime Minister, hoping to be
paid not a single cent but still collect $400 million - under the table
..
"We don't expect ministers to earn as much as top earners in the private
sector, but it must not be too far out of line with what is earned
outside," said Mr Lee, who also shared with the House that he turned 55
this year and has drawn his CPF.
On the timing of the pay hikes - less than three months before the Goods
& Services Tax will be raised by 2 percentage points to 7 per cent - Mr
Lee conceded that the timing could have been better.
But then again, he said, there is "no good time". The last major salary
revision was seven years ago, and there was a growing "urgency" to close
the gap on the private sector benchmarks in order to ensure that the
public sector would continue to attract, and retain, top talent.
"Politically, this is the most difficult decision for me to take ... It
was Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew who
encouraged me to do it. They know the importance of having good ministers
to help them with their work."
Mr Lee also touched on the link made by many MPs between ministerial
salaries and public assistance payouts for poorer Singaporeans.
"When you make such comparisons, the problem can become very emotional ...
General welfare is something we can promise, it's very easy and popular.
It's like having a God of Fortune giving out money and everyone is happy.
You don't need very capable ministers to do that," he said.
However, if the Government were to tread down this path, it would suffer
"long-term repercussions", he said. "The wiser approach is to grow the
economy, and use the fruits of growth to implement policies that truly
improve the lives of the poor."
Mr Lee also paid tribute to 94 MPs in the House, whose monthly allowances
have each been raised from $11,900 to $13,200. He said the lawmakers here
compare well with parliaments in other countries.
And while Mr Lee had said the buck stops with him when it comes to
donating his salary increment, one MP - Dr Lily Neo (Jalan Besar GRC) -
announced at the end of the session that she would follow his lead.
05 April 2007
Be mindful of the affective gap
I think this article by Catherine Lim is worth noting and "archiving". It basically embodies what we mere peons think. Not as if it is going to make any difference in the outcome.
It is taken from the Straits Times (free internet edition) on 5 April 2007.
April 5, 2007
MINISTERIAL PAY:
I HAVE followed with intense interest the current debate on increasing ministerial salaries to match those of the highest earners in the private sector. And I have noted the impassioned arguments from both sides: the Government insisting on its necessity if top talent is to be recruited to ensure good leadership, and the public expressing its reservations, doubts and unhappiness.
I would like to go beyond the emotion and the rhetoric, and see the issue in the larger context of the PAP model of governance, in particular its special brand of pragmatism in solving problems. It is a hard-boiled pragmatism which even the severest critic will concede has contributed greatly to the Singapore success story. And one which, paradoxically, even the strongest supporter will concede is liable to harden into inflexibility.
In the case of ministerial salaries, the PAP leaders' thinking seems to have gone along these lines: Singapore needs a good, strong government if it is to prosper or even survive. Hence, it needs to recruit top talent. Since there is competition for this from the private sector, it has to offer equally attractive salaries. It has to act quickly and decisively, otherwise the country will face a serious crisis of leadership, which can occur in three increasingly dangerous stages:
# Talented people will not be attracted to government service.
# Even if they are, they will soon be enticed away by the private sector.
# But even if they are not enticed away, they will resort to corruption as compensation for their inadequate salaries, and thus bring ruin to society.
Rounding up the austere dialectic is the urgent plea to doubting Singaporeans: Do you want Singapore to go the way of corrupt societies?
I would like to point out, respectfully, a basic flaw in this rationale. In keeping with the overall, hard-nosed realpolitik that has characterised PAP rule, it fails to take into account the affective factor that is present in any relationship, whether between individuals or ruler and ruled.
This factor comprises that special constellation of emotions, moods, attitudes and ideals which somehow elude being quantified and reduced to monetary terms. I first analysed its role in the relationship between the PAP Government and the people over a decade ago in a political commentary titled The Great Affective Divide, noting the emergence of a serious emotional estrangement despite the country's stability and prosperity.
Subsequently, I variously described the conflict in terms of the people's wish to see a greater role for Heart as opposed to Head, EQ as opposed to IQ, Heartware as opposed to Hardware, etc.
The policy regarding ministerial salaries illustrates this conflict. Its definition of the talent that is eagerly sought as ministerial material does not appear to take into account attributes beyond those of intellect. It assumes that what is good for the corporate world must be good for government, and that therefore there is a common target of talent out there, which both will compete fiercely for.
But in reality, the commonality of talent is only in those attributes of mind and personality such as great intelligence, far-sightedness, boldness of vision, creativity, determination of purpose, etc, that are the hallmarks of today's high achiever. Beyond this overlap, the emotional aspect comes into play.
And here, there is a dramatic parting of ways. For while the ideal political leader is imbued with nobility of purpose and altruistic instincts, the ideal CEO is impelled by the very opposite - raw ambition and ruthless drive. The first set of qualities is desirable for a life of public service; the second would be disastrous.
Indeed, a brilliant achiever without the high purpose of service to others would be the worst possible ministerial material. To see a potential prime minister as no different from a potential top lawyer, and likely to be enticed by the same stupendous salary, would be to blur the lines between two very different domains.
Next, the rationale goes against the very spirit of the social contract that it is supposed to protect. There is a compact, largely implicit, that governs the government-people relationship in every mature society in the free world, and it has as much to do with what is felt deeply in the heart as with what is worked out logically in the head.
By this compact, political leadership is less a salaried job and more a vocation, with all that this implies of selflessness and sacrifice on the part of the leaders, and trust, respect and regard on the part of the people. It is this reciprocity that defines a social compact and confers upon it a sort of sacrosanct quality. The ultimate reward for the leaders, whether or not they consciously seek it, is a revered place in the nation's history, in the hearts and minds of future generations. Hence, material reward is only secondary.
Nevertheless, no Singaporean with any practical sense of the real world would want to see a minister denied a salary commensurate with his status and dignity, or living less well than any prosperous Singaporean. If the average Singaporean still aspires to the famous '5Cs' representing the good life, he is only too happy to see a minister already well in possession of these.
But, at the same time, no Singaporean would expect a minister to feel disgruntled if he is paid less than the top CEO. If the disgruntlement actually causes him to leave his job, then he was not cut out for public office in the first place. Thus, to offer him a matching salary to enable him to stay would be to demean that office.
There is clearly a need to balance material needs and public service. The balance, in the view of many Singaporeans, has already been achieved with the existing ministerial salaries, if benchmarked against those of high-earners across a broad range of professions, and also against the salaries of ministers in countries such as Sweden and New Zealand, consistently ranked among the foremost, corruption-free democracies in the world.
The policy of increasing ministerial salaries may have the effect of upsetting this balance and, more seriously, doing away altogether with the compact of trust and respect. It will create a new affective divide, or reinforce any existing one, between the government and the people, and reduce their relationship to a purely impersonal business contract.
Even in a society often described as aggressively materialistic and coldly efficient, there are, fortunately, Singaporeans who believe idealism has a place, and that the fire, passion and commitment of the Old Guard, who saw Singapore through the difficult early years with little hope of financial reward, are still alive in some young Singaporeans.
The policy on ministerial salaries will, at the least, breed weary resignation in Singaporeans: What's the use of giving one's views at all? And, at the worst, give rise to toxic cynicism: What's the use of teaching our young such values as caring and selflessness and sacrifice if each carries a price tag?
Catherine Lim is a freelance writer.
It is taken from the Straits Times (free internet edition) on 5 April 2007.
April 5, 2007
MINISTERIAL PAY:
Be mindful of the affective gap
By Catherine Lim, For The Straits Times
I HAVE followed with intense interest the current debate on increasing ministerial salaries to match those of the highest earners in the private sector. And I have noted the impassioned arguments from both sides: the Government insisting on its necessity if top talent is to be recruited to ensure good leadership, and the public expressing its reservations, doubts and unhappiness.
I would like to go beyond the emotion and the rhetoric, and see the issue in the larger context of the PAP model of governance, in particular its special brand of pragmatism in solving problems. It is a hard-boiled pragmatism which even the severest critic will concede has contributed greatly to the Singapore success story. And one which, paradoxically, even the strongest supporter will concede is liable to harden into inflexibility.
In the case of ministerial salaries, the PAP leaders' thinking seems to have gone along these lines: Singapore needs a good, strong government if it is to prosper or even survive. Hence, it needs to recruit top talent. Since there is competition for this from the private sector, it has to offer equally attractive salaries. It has to act quickly and decisively, otherwise the country will face a serious crisis of leadership, which can occur in three increasingly dangerous stages:
# Talented people will not be attracted to government service.
# Even if they are, they will soon be enticed away by the private sector.
# But even if they are not enticed away, they will resort to corruption as compensation for their inadequate salaries, and thus bring ruin to society.
Rounding up the austere dialectic is the urgent plea to doubting Singaporeans: Do you want Singapore to go the way of corrupt societies?
I would like to point out, respectfully, a basic flaw in this rationale. In keeping with the overall, hard-nosed realpolitik that has characterised PAP rule, it fails to take into account the affective factor that is present in any relationship, whether between individuals or ruler and ruled.
This factor comprises that special constellation of emotions, moods, attitudes and ideals which somehow elude being quantified and reduced to monetary terms. I first analysed its role in the relationship between the PAP Government and the people over a decade ago in a political commentary titled The Great Affective Divide, noting the emergence of a serious emotional estrangement despite the country's stability and prosperity.
Subsequently, I variously described the conflict in terms of the people's wish to see a greater role for Heart as opposed to Head, EQ as opposed to IQ, Heartware as opposed to Hardware, etc.
The policy regarding ministerial salaries illustrates this conflict. Its definition of the talent that is eagerly sought as ministerial material does not appear to take into account attributes beyond those of intellect. It assumes that what is good for the corporate world must be good for government, and that therefore there is a common target of talent out there, which both will compete fiercely for.
But in reality, the commonality of talent is only in those attributes of mind and personality such as great intelligence, far-sightedness, boldness of vision, creativity, determination of purpose, etc, that are the hallmarks of today's high achiever. Beyond this overlap, the emotional aspect comes into play.
And here, there is a dramatic parting of ways. For while the ideal political leader is imbued with nobility of purpose and altruistic instincts, the ideal CEO is impelled by the very opposite - raw ambition and ruthless drive. The first set of qualities is desirable for a life of public service; the second would be disastrous.
Indeed, a brilliant achiever without the high purpose of service to others would be the worst possible ministerial material. To see a potential prime minister as no different from a potential top lawyer, and likely to be enticed by the same stupendous salary, would be to blur the lines between two very different domains.
Next, the rationale goes against the very spirit of the social contract that it is supposed to protect. There is a compact, largely implicit, that governs the government-people relationship in every mature society in the free world, and it has as much to do with what is felt deeply in the heart as with what is worked out logically in the head.
By this compact, political leadership is less a salaried job and more a vocation, with all that this implies of selflessness and sacrifice on the part of the leaders, and trust, respect and regard on the part of the people. It is this reciprocity that defines a social compact and confers upon it a sort of sacrosanct quality. The ultimate reward for the leaders, whether or not they consciously seek it, is a revered place in the nation's history, in the hearts and minds of future generations. Hence, material reward is only secondary.
Nevertheless, no Singaporean with any practical sense of the real world would want to see a minister denied a salary commensurate with his status and dignity, or living less well than any prosperous Singaporean. If the average Singaporean still aspires to the famous '5Cs' representing the good life, he is only too happy to see a minister already well in possession of these.
But, at the same time, no Singaporean would expect a minister to feel disgruntled if he is paid less than the top CEO. If the disgruntlement actually causes him to leave his job, then he was not cut out for public office in the first place. Thus, to offer him a matching salary to enable him to stay would be to demean that office.
There is clearly a need to balance material needs and public service. The balance, in the view of many Singaporeans, has already been achieved with the existing ministerial salaries, if benchmarked against those of high-earners across a broad range of professions, and also against the salaries of ministers in countries such as Sweden and New Zealand, consistently ranked among the foremost, corruption-free democracies in the world.
The policy of increasing ministerial salaries may have the effect of upsetting this balance and, more seriously, doing away altogether with the compact of trust and respect. It will create a new affective divide, or reinforce any existing one, between the government and the people, and reduce their relationship to a purely impersonal business contract.
Even in a society often described as aggressively materialistic and coldly efficient, there are, fortunately, Singaporeans who believe idealism has a place, and that the fire, passion and commitment of the Old Guard, who saw Singapore through the difficult early years with little hope of financial reward, are still alive in some young Singaporeans.
The policy on ministerial salaries will, at the least, breed weary resignation in Singaporeans: What's the use of giving one's views at all? And, at the worst, give rise to toxic cynicism: What's the use of teaching our young such values as caring and selflessness and sacrifice if each carries a price tag?
Catherine Lim is a freelance writer.
They'll never listen will they?
MM Lee today spoke up about the pay hike and using the same old (over played) reasons of it. Yes, we know we need "top talent" to lead the country (of course it depends on what "top talent" really means). Yes, we know that Singapore cannot afford to slide ever, or we'll never crawl up again. Yes, the PAP is the best gahmen on the face of this planet. Yes, the ministers sacrifice a lot to "serve" our country therefore we must compensate them...
We all know the tune. We all can sing it before the first note is even played.
The problem is this, the people are not fed-up or angry about the pay hike per se, they are pissed that there was so much controversy in the GST hike and "workfare" for the people. It would seems that just to get a $30 increase for the poorest people in Singapore, there was such a huge debate about not becoming a "welfare" state (which by the way, in the PAP dictionary is a vulgar word, welfare I mean not state). and it was a miserable $30. And yet, here we have MM stating the increase in ministers' salary is only "0.13% of the gahmen's total expenditure or 0.022% of Singapore's GDP" (Singapore's 2005 GDP $110.6 billion, not sure if it is SGD or USD but I'll use SGD). This means that ministers' salary is $2.4 billion a year (I don't think this takes their pension into account).
$2.4 billion, 0.022% of GDP. How many percent of our GDP is used to help the bottom 10% of the population? Why is it helping people who are in the runt is such a terrible thing and yet giving ministers a $1 million increase is okay? Why is this, that is so wrong morally and goes against Confucius teachings is acceptable in Singapore but really not acceptable to other first world countries?
And the way the ministers put it, we, the peons, have no part to play in the building of Singapore into what it is today. It is all through the blood and sweat (and don't forget sacrifices) of the gahmen only. We, the peons, just sat back and twiddled our thumbs.
Further reads :-
Where’s the check and balance in deciding minsterial salary?
Singapore's 'fat cat' ministers to get fatter
Paternal Nanny: Justifications and the Perpetuation of Paternalism
Today
05 April 2007
A QUESTION OF DOLLARS AND SENSE
-------------------------------
MM Lee: 'Sense of proportion' needed over ministers' pay
Lee U-Wen
u-wen@mediacorp.com.sg
TAKE a step back and look at the bigger picture, as Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew would have Singaporeans do.
To an average family earning, say, $1,500 a month, a minister's annual salary - $1.2 million at entry level - might seem "astronomical".
But what if that paycheque comes with the responsibility for running a $210-billion economy?
Here is another comparison to put things into perspective. Political appointment-holders - from parliamentary secretaries to ministers - take
home $46 million in total a year.
A mind-boggling sum? But it makes up just 0.13 per cent of total Government expenditure, or 0.022 per cent of Singapore's Gross Domestic Product.
On the other hand, if this $46 million was cut to, say, $26 million, the country would save $20 million - but at the risk of jeopardising people's jobs, homes, assets and security.
Speaking for the first time on the issue since Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean last month raised the need for a pay revision, Mr Lee warned of the risk of talented Singaporeans shying away from the public sector, and a disastrous "revolving door" style of government where its top leaders step down every five years.
A country's strong foundation, he said, has to be built on people that stay in the job long enough to gain sufficient experience and become capable ministers.
"This is a system we worked out, it is above board, it's working. If you are going to quarrel about $46 million - up or down another $10 to $20 million - I say you don't have a sense of proportion," he said.
He added: "The cure for all this talk is a really good dose of incompetent government."
Mr Lee - who mooted the idea of formal private sector benchmarks for ministerial salaries in January 1994 - made these comments to the Singapore media in Sydney yesterday, ahead of the civil service pay review in Parliament on Monday.
Noting that his own annual income of $2.7 million was a "fraction" of what the top manager in the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation earns, he said: "For people like me in Government, to deal with the money which we have accumulated by the sweat of our brow over the last 40 years, you have to pay the market rate - or the man will up the stakes and join Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers or Goldman Sachs.
"You would have an incompetent man and you would have lost money by the billions."
Asked if political leaders should be ready to sacrifice for the good of the people, the Minister Mentor called it an admirable sentiment.
But he highlighted the difficulty of persuading private sector achievers to sacrifice their lucrative salaries to join politics, "with no guarantee of success". He cited how Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen, a successful cancer surgeon earning $4.5 million, gave up private practice in 2001 for a job that paid $600,000.
Dr Balaji Sadasivan, now Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, and for Information, Communication and the Arts, was a top neurosurgeon "who took a chance".
Said Mr Lee: "When he was not made a minister in the selection process, (then-Prime Minister) Goh Chok Tong asked if he would like to go back to private practice. He said: 'No, I will do this.'"
Moving on to examples from the sports world, the Minister Mentor spoke of how top tennis players and famous footballers such as Ronaldo and Zinedine Zidane were paid handsomely for their talent. That, he said, was the key to producing champions.
"It's a competitive world in which we live, and if we can't compete we are not going to live well," he said.
We all know the tune. We all can sing it before the first note is even played.
The problem is this, the people are not fed-up or angry about the pay hike per se, they are pissed that there was so much controversy in the GST hike and "workfare" for the people. It would seems that just to get a $30 increase for the poorest people in Singapore, there was such a huge debate about not becoming a "welfare" state (which by the way, in the PAP dictionary is a vulgar word, welfare I mean not state). and it was a miserable $30. And yet, here we have MM stating the increase in ministers' salary is only "0.13% of the gahmen's total expenditure or 0.022% of Singapore's GDP" (Singapore's 2005 GDP $110.6 billion, not sure if it is SGD or USD but I'll use SGD). This means that ministers' salary is $2.4 billion a year (I don't think this takes their pension into account).
$2.4 billion, 0.022% of GDP. How many percent of our GDP is used to help the bottom 10% of the population? Why is it helping people who are in the runt is such a terrible thing and yet giving ministers a $1 million increase is okay? Why is this, that is so wrong morally and goes against Confucius teachings is acceptable in Singapore but really not acceptable to other first world countries?
And the way the ministers put it, we, the peons, have no part to play in the building of Singapore into what it is today. It is all through the blood and sweat (and don't forget sacrifices) of the gahmen only. We, the peons, just sat back and twiddled our thumbs.
Further reads :-
Where’s the check and balance in deciding minsterial salary?
Singapore's 'fat cat' ministers to get fatter
Paternal Nanny: Justifications and the Perpetuation of Paternalism
Today
05 April 2007
A QUESTION OF DOLLARS AND SENSE
-------------------------------
MM Lee: 'Sense of proportion' needed over ministers' pay
Lee U-Wen
u-wen@mediacorp.com.sg
TAKE a step back and look at the bigger picture, as Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew would have Singaporeans do.
To an average family earning, say, $1,500 a month, a minister's annual salary - $1.2 million at entry level - might seem "astronomical".
But what if that paycheque comes with the responsibility for running a $210-billion economy?
Here is another comparison to put things into perspective. Political appointment-holders - from parliamentary secretaries to ministers - take
home $46 million in total a year.
A mind-boggling sum? But it makes up just 0.13 per cent of total Government expenditure, or 0.022 per cent of Singapore's Gross Domestic Product.
On the other hand, if this $46 million was cut to, say, $26 million, the country would save $20 million - but at the risk of jeopardising people's jobs, homes, assets and security.
Speaking for the first time on the issue since Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean last month raised the need for a pay revision, Mr Lee warned of the risk of talented Singaporeans shying away from the public sector, and a disastrous "revolving door" style of government where its top leaders step down every five years.
A country's strong foundation, he said, has to be built on people that stay in the job long enough to gain sufficient experience and become capable ministers.
"This is a system we worked out, it is above board, it's working. If you are going to quarrel about $46 million - up or down another $10 to $20 million - I say you don't have a sense of proportion," he said.
He added: "The cure for all this talk is a really good dose of incompetent government."
Mr Lee - who mooted the idea of formal private sector benchmarks for ministerial salaries in January 1994 - made these comments to the Singapore media in Sydney yesterday, ahead of the civil service pay review in Parliament on Monday.
Noting that his own annual income of $2.7 million was a "fraction" of what the top manager in the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation earns, he said: "For people like me in Government, to deal with the money which we have accumulated by the sweat of our brow over the last 40 years, you have to pay the market rate - or the man will up the stakes and join Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers or Goldman Sachs.
"You would have an incompetent man and you would have lost money by the billions."
Asked if political leaders should be ready to sacrifice for the good of the people, the Minister Mentor called it an admirable sentiment.
But he highlighted the difficulty of persuading private sector achievers to sacrifice their lucrative salaries to join politics, "with no guarantee of success". He cited how Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen, a successful cancer surgeon earning $4.5 million, gave up private practice in 2001 for a job that paid $600,000.
Dr Balaji Sadasivan, now Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, and for Information, Communication and the Arts, was a top neurosurgeon "who took a chance".
Said Mr Lee: "When he was not made a minister in the selection process, (then-Prime Minister) Goh Chok Tong asked if he would like to go back to private practice. He said: 'No, I will do this.'"
Moving on to examples from the sports world, the Minister Mentor spoke of how top tennis players and famous footballers such as Ronaldo and Zinedine Zidane were paid handsomely for their talent. That, he said, was the key to producing champions.
"It's a competitive world in which we live, and if we can't compete we are not going to live well," he said.
04 April 2007
Least we forget
Let us recap what happened after the 2006 elections.
1) Public transport hike
2) GST increase by 2% (disguised as money to help the poor)
3) Continue stagnation/regrassion of pay for the lower/middle income households (even if they have an increase, the average Singaporean's pay didn't increase enough to cover all the other increases)
Nice to know that everything is going up except the take home pay of the average Singaporean. So the amount of money you'll have to spend on necessities goes up but you pay either didn't go up as much or is the same or even worse decreased.
And to add injury to insult
4) Increase in ministers pay by $1 million
Need I say more and about how "caring/ compassionate" the budget is.
Furthermore, Ministers get pensions too.
So our not only have money that they can never finish using but also are set for life, while most of us have to plan for retirement.
1) Public transport hike
2) GST increase by 2% (disguised as money to help the poor)
3) Continue stagnation/regrassion of pay for the lower/middle income households (even if they have an increase, the average Singaporean's pay didn't increase enough to cover all the other increases)
Nice to know that everything is going up except the take home pay of the average Singaporean. So the amount of money you'll have to spend on necessities goes up but you pay either didn't go up as much or is the same or even worse decreased.
And to add injury to insult
4) Increase in ministers pay by $1 million
Need I say more and about how "caring/ compassionate" the budget is.
Furthermore, Ministers get pensions too.
So our not only have money that they can never finish using but also are set for life, while most of us have to plan for retirement.
14 March 2007
Nostalgia
I was listening to Dave Koz's Cheng Fu (The Dance Alubm) last night. I actually wasn't really playing the album, iTunes was on shuffle mode.
I find this song by Dave Koz very beautiful and romantic. When I close my eyes all I see is T and I holding each other. In the dark, in my room, listening to this song, it just makes me realise how much I miss him and how much I love him, even though he sometimes irritates the hell out of me. But then again, what couple don't have their quarrels.
I realised how safe I feel when I'm in his arms. I realise how much I trust him.
T, my life partner, I love you. :*
I find this song by Dave Koz very beautiful and romantic. When I close my eyes all I see is T and I holding each other. In the dark, in my room, listening to this song, it just makes me realise how much I miss him and how much I love him, even though he sometimes irritates the hell out of me. But then again, what couple don't have their quarrels.
I realised how safe I feel when I'm in his arms. I realise how much I trust him.
T, my life partner, I love you. :*
13 March 2007
Crap from Christians again (what's new?)
Note: I'm using the general term Christian to mean all followers of Jesus Christ, be they Catholics or Protestants. I know a lot of people think that only Protestants are Christians but by definition it is not.
Christian's don't want truth, they just want their version of the truth. And what more, their version of the truth is the right one (ordained by God herself) and everyone has to subscribe to it, regardless of whether you believe in the Christian God or not.
To shut yourself off like that is no more healthy than a person who believes everything he/she reads or sees (especially in Sg's main stream media) without processing all information that you have and come to your own conclusions.
The Christian's have gone so far as to enact a law (or is it an amendment) to force the park rangers at the grand canyon to NOT say that it took millions of years to form because according to the bible, the earth is only thousands of years old.
So who, we who don't subscribe to stupidity (or Christianity, same difference actually), do we believe, the people who proclaimed that the bible is the end all be all and it explains everything and anything under the sun or people who actually do research on stuff like this. Fair enough the researches don't always get thing right but if you have 100 researchers doing the same type of work and 95 of them say that this is correct and the other 5 say it isn't, who would you believe?
Christian arrogance is really amazing especially when they try to reason out the world in black and white when we living in the real world (Christians don't live in the real world, they are very much like the Muslim extremist) know that most things in this world are grey (or multi-coloured as some of my friends would say) very few (if any) things are black and white. And yet, to Christians, it is so, this is black and that is while, clear cut, no 2 ways about it. Nice to know that the world is so simple. We, living in the real world, must be really stupid to not have known that or even perceived it.
Why am I writing this, well it is just a statement for what the NCCS wrote about the Penal Code. Christ taught love and compassion. Christian Churches in the world teaches hate and intolerance. Which incidentally is exactly what the Pharisees during Jesus' time taught. Talk about white washed walls!
I totally believe that Christians are no different from Pharisees. Let's start calling a spade a spade and not hide behind the framework of love and compassion (whatever your Christian definition is).
further reads: Criminalise lesbianism, say Church leaders
Logic isn't really a Christian's strong point.
P.S. If you are angry from reading this, then you are exactly what I've described about a typical Christian. If you are not, then thank God for some thinking Christians.
------
Penal Code: Proposed changes
'relevant and compassionate'
-- says National Council of Churches of Singapore
THE National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) is of the view that generally speaking, the proposed amendments to the Penal Code (PC) are relevant, timely, compassionate and appear well thought through.
In presenting this feedback, the NCCS is mindful of the role of governing authorities and the Scriptural injunction to Christians on their attitude towards the higher powers (Romans 13:1).
Additionally, in making these comments, the NCCS is aware anecdotally that there are other individuals or groups in society that intend to give appropriate feedback to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on some of the proposed amendments to the PC from other perspectives (e.g. criminal justice viewpoints) and may proffer analysis of both the underlying policies of the Government and the legal wording.
Therefore, the NCCS confined itself only to the proposed amendments that are likely to be of concern to Christian churches, groups and individuals in Singapore.
In this regard, the NCCS gave three feedback points:
'(a) the proposed section 298A PC ("Promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion or race, and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony"). An issue that arises for consideration (quite apart from the legal issue of what is the mens rea [i.e. blameworthy state of mind] involved in this intended offence) is what scenarios are envisaged by the Government as constituting: -
(i) words/signs/visible representations that "[promote] disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious … groups or communities" or
(ii) acts that are "prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious … groups or communities … which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity"
The deeper or underlying issue is how these intended PC offences correlate with fundamental rights enshrined in Article 15(1) of the Constitution safeguarding the freedom of religion (i.e. the right to profess, practise and propagate one's religion). Will a Christian who shares his/her faith to a non-Christian trigger off the commission of a criminal offence under this section? This issue may not be unique to Christians alone. It may also impact on devotees of other "missionary" religions such as Islam.
Other examples come to mind. If a Christian narrates his testimony of conversion in his web log or personal website and makes reference to how he failed to find fulfilment and meaning in his former religion and only found the same in Christ, could that constitute promoting disharmony or feelings of ill-will (even if it does not meet the conceivably higher threshold of promoting enmity or hatred) between different religious groups/communities?
Assuming that we have a situation of a Muslim convert that wishes to be baptised in a local church … could the act of baptism performed by the pastor be prejudicial to the maintenance of religious harmony and likely to disturb the public tranquillity?
In this regard, it is interesting to note that the language in the proposed section 298A PC is similar to section 8(1) of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (Cap 167A) ("MRHA"). That section allows the Government to make a restraining order against religious leaders where the Minister is satisfied that that person has committed/is attempting to commit acts that cause "feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different religious groups". As far as we know, no restraining order has been made under the MRHA since that legislation was enacted. However, the present statutory changes envisaged to the PC elevate the commission of such acts to a criminal offence. The danger with this is the possible subjectivity and arbitrariness of the judgment which may be made about which acts transgress the boundaries and which do not. The uncertainty is unsatisfactory.
To remedy the same, one view is that the Government should insert some illustrations and explanatory notes to this statutory provision to clarify what constitutes an offence under this new section and what does not. This approach adheres to the scheme of the PC as originally codified. This will enable the parameters of the criminal offence concerned to be spelt out clearly.
The problem with the approach in the preceding paragraph, however, is that illustrations are not exhaustive. Much will turn on the context and circumstances of the words/acts concerned and an objective analysis of the same. In line with this, the alternative approach to that in the preceding paragraph is therefore to leave it to the courts to be the final arbiters in determining whether a contravention of intended section 298 has taken place or not.
(b) The Explanatory Notes to the Proposed Amendments issued by the MHA state that "The Public Prosecutor is aware that some offenders are of low IQ or mentally deficient. They take this into account in deciding whether or not to charge the offender." This approach by the Public Prosecutor demonstrates compassion towards low IQ offenders and the NCCS commends the same. The question is whether, given the variety of conditions that exist within the spectrum of mental illness, the statutory general exception for unsoundness of mind (section 84 PC) should be amended substantively to reflect the same. This contrasts with the present approach of leaving the same for prosecutorial discretion.
(c) We are aware that the proposed amendment to delete section 377 PC but on the other hand retaining section 377A PC may be controversial in some quarters. Nevertheless, we consider homosexual acts to be sinful, abhorrent and deviant, whether consensual or not. The NCCS commends the Government on taking a clear, unequivocal and bold stand of neither encouraging nor endorsing a homosexual lifestyle and opposing the presentation of the same as part of a mainstream way of life. At the same time, we do not condemn homosexuals as the Bible calls us to hate the sin but love the sinner. Given that section 377A PC criminalises homosexuality whether done private or publicly, we are of the view that a similar prohibition ought to be enacted in respect of lesbianism, considering that lesbianism (like homosexuality) is also abhorrent and deviant, whether consensual or not.'
Christian's don't want truth, they just want their version of the truth. And what more, their version of the truth is the right one (ordained by God herself) and everyone has to subscribe to it, regardless of whether you believe in the Christian God or not.
To shut yourself off like that is no more healthy than a person who believes everything he/she reads or sees (especially in Sg's main stream media) without processing all information that you have and come to your own conclusions.
The Christian's have gone so far as to enact a law (or is it an amendment) to force the park rangers at the grand canyon to NOT say that it took millions of years to form because according to the bible, the earth is only thousands of years old.
So who, we who don't subscribe to stupidity (or Christianity, same difference actually), do we believe, the people who proclaimed that the bible is the end all be all and it explains everything and anything under the sun or people who actually do research on stuff like this. Fair enough the researches don't always get thing right but if you have 100 researchers doing the same type of work and 95 of them say that this is correct and the other 5 say it isn't, who would you believe?
Christian arrogance is really amazing especially when they try to reason out the world in black and white when we living in the real world (Christians don't live in the real world, they are very much like the Muslim extremist) know that most things in this world are grey (or multi-coloured as some of my friends would say) very few (if any) things are black and white. And yet, to Christians, it is so, this is black and that is while, clear cut, no 2 ways about it. Nice to know that the world is so simple. We, living in the real world, must be really stupid to not have known that or even perceived it.
Why am I writing this, well it is just a statement for what the NCCS wrote about the Penal Code. Christ taught love and compassion. Christian Churches in the world teaches hate and intolerance. Which incidentally is exactly what the Pharisees during Jesus' time taught. Talk about white washed walls!
I totally believe that Christians are no different from Pharisees. Let's start calling a spade a spade and not hide behind the framework of love and compassion (whatever your Christian definition is).
further reads: Criminalise lesbianism, say Church leaders
Logic isn't really a Christian's strong point.
P.S. If you are angry from reading this, then you are exactly what I've described about a typical Christian. If you are not, then thank God for some thinking Christians.
------
Penal Code: Proposed changes
'relevant and compassionate'
-- says National Council of Churches of Singapore
THE National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) is of the view that generally speaking, the proposed amendments to the Penal Code (PC) are relevant, timely, compassionate and appear well thought through.
In presenting this feedback, the NCCS is mindful of the role of governing authorities and the Scriptural injunction to Christians on their attitude towards the higher powers (Romans 13:1).
Additionally, in making these comments, the NCCS is aware anecdotally that there are other individuals or groups in society that intend to give appropriate feedback to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on some of the proposed amendments to the PC from other perspectives (e.g. criminal justice viewpoints) and may proffer analysis of both the underlying policies of the Government and the legal wording.
Therefore, the NCCS confined itself only to the proposed amendments that are likely to be of concern to Christian churches, groups and individuals in Singapore.
In this regard, the NCCS gave three feedback points:
'(a) the proposed section 298A PC ("Promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion or race, and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony"). An issue that arises for consideration (quite apart from the legal issue of what is the mens rea [i.e. blameworthy state of mind] involved in this intended offence) is what scenarios are envisaged by the Government as constituting: -
(i) words/signs/visible representations that "[promote] disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious … groups or communities" or
(ii) acts that are "prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious … groups or communities … which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity"
The deeper or underlying issue is how these intended PC offences correlate with fundamental rights enshrined in Article 15(1) of the Constitution safeguarding the freedom of religion (i.e. the right to profess, practise and propagate one's religion). Will a Christian who shares his/her faith to a non-Christian trigger off the commission of a criminal offence under this section? This issue may not be unique to Christians alone. It may also impact on devotees of other "missionary" religions such as Islam.
Other examples come to mind. If a Christian narrates his testimony of conversion in his web log or personal website and makes reference to how he failed to find fulfilment and meaning in his former religion and only found the same in Christ, could that constitute promoting disharmony or feelings of ill-will (even if it does not meet the conceivably higher threshold of promoting enmity or hatred) between different religious groups/communities?
Assuming that we have a situation of a Muslim convert that wishes to be baptised in a local church … could the act of baptism performed by the pastor be prejudicial to the maintenance of religious harmony and likely to disturb the public tranquillity?
In this regard, it is interesting to note that the language in the proposed section 298A PC is similar to section 8(1) of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (Cap 167A) ("MRHA"). That section allows the Government to make a restraining order against religious leaders where the Minister is satisfied that that person has committed/is attempting to commit acts that cause "feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different religious groups". As far as we know, no restraining order has been made under the MRHA since that legislation was enacted. However, the present statutory changes envisaged to the PC elevate the commission of such acts to a criminal offence. The danger with this is the possible subjectivity and arbitrariness of the judgment which may be made about which acts transgress the boundaries and which do not. The uncertainty is unsatisfactory.
To remedy the same, one view is that the Government should insert some illustrations and explanatory notes to this statutory provision to clarify what constitutes an offence under this new section and what does not. This approach adheres to the scheme of the PC as originally codified. This will enable the parameters of the criminal offence concerned to be spelt out clearly.
The problem with the approach in the preceding paragraph, however, is that illustrations are not exhaustive. Much will turn on the context and circumstances of the words/acts concerned and an objective analysis of the same. In line with this, the alternative approach to that in the preceding paragraph is therefore to leave it to the courts to be the final arbiters in determining whether a contravention of intended section 298 has taken place or not.
(b) The Explanatory Notes to the Proposed Amendments issued by the MHA state that "The Public Prosecutor is aware that some offenders are of low IQ or mentally deficient. They take this into account in deciding whether or not to charge the offender." This approach by the Public Prosecutor demonstrates compassion towards low IQ offenders and the NCCS commends the same. The question is whether, given the variety of conditions that exist within the spectrum of mental illness, the statutory general exception for unsoundness of mind (section 84 PC) should be amended substantively to reflect the same. This contrasts with the present approach of leaving the same for prosecutorial discretion.
(c) We are aware that the proposed amendment to delete section 377 PC but on the other hand retaining section 377A PC may be controversial in some quarters. Nevertheless, we consider homosexual acts to be sinful, abhorrent and deviant, whether consensual or not. The NCCS commends the Government on taking a clear, unequivocal and bold stand of neither encouraging nor endorsing a homosexual lifestyle and opposing the presentation of the same as part of a mainstream way of life. At the same time, we do not condemn homosexuals as the Bible calls us to hate the sin but love the sinner. Given that section 377A PC criminalises homosexuality whether done private or publicly, we are of the view that a similar prohibition ought to be enacted in respect of lesbianism, considering that lesbianism (like homosexuality) is also abhorrent and deviant, whether consensual or not.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
