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?
30 June 2007
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.'
04 March 2007
Arrogance
Oh my god! What I was thinking really came true!
During the past couple of months, when Indonesia was stopping the sale of sand to us, lots of people have speculated why. Their speculation seems rather logical but I had another idea and this letter to the Jakarta Post really proves it.
I thought that maybe, just maybe, Singapore has become too arrogant and Indonesia is tired of it and is basically reacting to it.
Our arrogance to think that we are better then any of our neighbours just because we are "richer" than them. We have this idea (even my parents do) that just because we have the money, we don't have rely on any 1 country for resources, i.e. we can find other sources because "we rich enough to buy it".
Being out of the country, I have seen this arrogance more and more, sometimes, even our gahmen shows it (like the comment MM Lee made about Malaysia and Indonesia).
The thing Singaporeans have to remember, that we rely on both Malaysia and Indonesia (and even Thailand for that matter) for a lot of things. And they too rely on us. It is a co-dependence that we have. Nobody is better than the other.
This letter to the Jakarta Post really smacks of arrogance, of "we are so much better than you" and that "Indonesia depends on Singapore", not the other way around.
Jakarta Post
04 March 2007
Singapore vs Indonesia
I'm a Singaporean trying to share with you a personal opinion on the recent issue about the sand export ban and Singapore looking down on Indonesia; the sort of things said by the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P).
Well, I'm not going to say much about the sand export ban, but have something to say on the issue of Singapore being too proud and belittling Indonesia.
Let's face it my friends, it is normally those who have an inferiority complex that would feel this way! On the other hand, I'm sure you don't need to be highly educated to be grateful for the fact that Singapore has helped Indonesia, so much so that I would have thought the resources rendered to you could have better used to serve our own people!
No doubt Singapore is tiny, but don't you feel ashamed that Indonesia, being so big, always needs our help?
Last but not least, I think you should appreciate that you are dealing with a government who does thing so gentlemanly; they are very much scholastic, unlike the governments of other nations.
Somehow, I think this whole incident is an insult to the spirit of ASEAN.
BERNARD LIM
Singapore
During the past couple of months, when Indonesia was stopping the sale of sand to us, lots of people have speculated why. Their speculation seems rather logical but I had another idea and this letter to the Jakarta Post really proves it.
I thought that maybe, just maybe, Singapore has become too arrogant and Indonesia is tired of it and is basically reacting to it.
Our arrogance to think that we are better then any of our neighbours just because we are "richer" than them. We have this idea (even my parents do) that just because we have the money, we don't have rely on any 1 country for resources, i.e. we can find other sources because "we rich enough to buy it".
Being out of the country, I have seen this arrogance more and more, sometimes, even our gahmen shows it (like the comment MM Lee made about Malaysia and Indonesia).
The thing Singaporeans have to remember, that we rely on both Malaysia and Indonesia (and even Thailand for that matter) for a lot of things. And they too rely on us. It is a co-dependence that we have. Nobody is better than the other.
This letter to the Jakarta Post really smacks of arrogance, of "we are so much better than you" and that "Indonesia depends on Singapore", not the other way around.
Jakarta Post
04 March 2007
Singapore vs Indonesia
I'm a Singaporean trying to share with you a personal opinion on the recent issue about the sand export ban and Singapore looking down on Indonesia; the sort of things said by the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P).
Well, I'm not going to say much about the sand export ban, but have something to say on the issue of Singapore being too proud and belittling Indonesia.
Let's face it my friends, it is normally those who have an inferiority complex that would feel this way! On the other hand, I'm sure you don't need to be highly educated to be grateful for the fact that Singapore has helped Indonesia, so much so that I would have thought the resources rendered to you could have better used to serve our own people!
No doubt Singapore is tiny, but don't you feel ashamed that Indonesia, being so big, always needs our help?
Last but not least, I think you should appreciate that you are dealing with a government who does thing so gentlemanly; they are very much scholastic, unlike the governments of other nations.
Somehow, I think this whole incident is an insult to the spirit of ASEAN.
BERNARD LIM
Singapore
07 February 2007
The raise and fall of my blog
It has been so long since I've written, gosh my last entry was in November.
It has been a really busy time. I was out of Australia for most of December and a little bit of January. For work as well as play.
Had a lovely time with T in Singapore. Really felt that we have grown closer during my short trip back. Our relationship has stagnated when we were apart and now having been back (even though it was a short time), it has continued and progressed. So it is so great!
After I was back, I didn't get bitten by the writing bug and have been really lazy. So nothing at all, even though there were a lot of issues that I really was rather passionate about. Not only about the gay issues but also about censorship and the sand issue with Indonesia.
But hey that has passed and we cannot live in the past. So I'll forget about it and just continue from where I've stopped. So starting from this month, I just hope that I'll be able to write again. Even though it is just for me and maybe T.
It has been a really busy time. I was out of Australia for most of December and a little bit of January. For work as well as play.
Had a lovely time with T in Singapore. Really felt that we have grown closer during my short trip back. Our relationship has stagnated when we were apart and now having been back (even though it was a short time), it has continued and progressed. So it is so great!
After I was back, I didn't get bitten by the writing bug and have been really lazy. So nothing at all, even though there were a lot of issues that I really was rather passionate about. Not only about the gay issues but also about censorship and the sand issue with Indonesia.
But hey that has passed and we cannot live in the past. So I'll forget about it and just continue from where I've stopped. So starting from this month, I just hope that I'll be able to write again. Even though it is just for me and maybe T.
15 November 2006
Self-serving gahmen
I'm so proud of our opposition. In today's Today on the topic of upgrading Mr. Low, Hougang MP said
"The surpluses are generated by the PAP and the people have no part in it?" he asked. "And don't forget, the people in Potong Pasir and Hougang also pay taxes and the Goods and Services Tax. Your justification's logic is selfish and partisan."
This is so true and so right. This has been what people in Singapore have been talking about. The money the gahmen gets, comes from everyone, not just the PAP wards.
But of course, typical PAP answer is given.
"If you go on the Workers' Party's platform, you are not going to have enough money for upgrading, education, healthcare, and so on. When you vote for the PAP, you are not just voting for the goodies, for the package. You are also voting for all the parts of the package that comes together," he said.
I know a lot of people who would agree to this (my dad included) but the problem is this, the opposition cannot offer things like upgrading and such because the money is controlled by the PAP. People continue to vote in Mr. Chiam and Mr. Low because they listen and care (things the PAP doesn't do).
Do you wonder after things like this, why these people from the opposition ward vote for the opposition at increasing rates each year?
"The surpluses are generated by the PAP and the people have no part in it?" he asked. "And don't forget, the people in Potong Pasir and Hougang also pay taxes and the Goods and Services Tax. Your justification's logic is selfish and partisan."
This is so true and so right. This has been what people in Singapore have been talking about. The money the gahmen gets, comes from everyone, not just the PAP wards.
But of course, typical PAP answer is given.
"If you go on the Workers' Party's platform, you are not going to have enough money for upgrading, education, healthcare, and so on. When you vote for the PAP, you are not just voting for the goodies, for the package. You are also voting for all the parts of the package that comes together," he said.
I know a lot of people who would agree to this (my dad included) but the problem is this, the opposition cannot offer things like upgrading and such because the money is controlled by the PAP. People continue to vote in Mr. Chiam and Mr. Low because they listen and care (things the PAP doesn't do).
Do you wonder after things like this, why these people from the opposition ward vote for the opposition at increasing rates each year?
12 November 2006
Character Assassination
In USA and in Australia (I have no idea about the other countries), it seems that if you cannot think of good things to say about yourself and your party, be it in terms of policies or positions in issues, you just say bad things about your opponents.
This is the dirty politics that both countries are doing, USA much worse than Australia. The USA media uses the word "character assassination" to describe this.
The sad part is the a lot of people actually believe this character assassination and say that a candidate is bad because he smoked pot in college or he was a womaniser. They don't look at the issues and figure out if this person is the best candidate for this position at a particular point in time. People can never be the best candidate for all times.
Think about this, if I can destroy my opponent's credibility and with a gullible population, why would I bother talking about solutions to problems or policies to implement? It is so much easier to just say a person is bad, liar, cheat... because there is nobody in this world that doesn't have skeletons in their closets and it is so much easier to dig them out than think of good solutions to real problems.
So it would seem that character assassination is here to stay, unless the voting population start taking notice of the candidates and what they and their party stand for and figure out what they themselves want. Then character assassination will have no hold. But sad to say, people are still swayed more by a person's "character" than they are about the issues at hand and the candidate/party's solution.
Are we any better?
This is the dirty politics that both countries are doing, USA much worse than Australia. The USA media uses the word "character assassination" to describe this.
The sad part is the a lot of people actually believe this character assassination and say that a candidate is bad because he smoked pot in college or he was a womaniser. They don't look at the issues and figure out if this person is the best candidate for this position at a particular point in time. People can never be the best candidate for all times.
Think about this, if I can destroy my opponent's credibility and with a gullible population, why would I bother talking about solutions to problems or policies to implement? It is so much easier to just say a person is bad, liar, cheat... because there is nobody in this world that doesn't have skeletons in their closets and it is so much easier to dig them out than think of good solutions to real problems.
So it would seem that character assassination is here to stay, unless the voting population start taking notice of the candidates and what they and their party stand for and figure out what they themselves want. Then character assassination will have no hold. But sad to say, people are still swayed more by a person's "character" than they are about the issues at hand and the candidate/party's solution.
Are we any better?
11 November 2006
Thorn in my side
I hate the PAP so much now that it has gone overboard. I can't believe a beautiful country like Singapore will ultimately be destroyed by the very people that say they want to help/save it.
We are digging our own grave by allowing the gahmen to do whatever it wants. For them to control everything, from our right to peacefully protest to the silencing anything and everything that doesn't agree with them and their fascist thinking.
I love my country so much but I really hate to see it getting raped over and over again by people who just want to be in power forever. Thinking that they, as gods, are the only thing for Singapore any other form of government is, as they say, "not right for Singapore".
These amendments to the penal code of Singapore is further evidence that the gahmen just wants to please enough people to stay in power, they are not looking out for the good of all or even for the protecting of minorities who are already marginalised by society and law. Harassment by the police (which we all know protects the rights of the gahmen and not the rights of the citizens) of gay-friendly venues is common place. The recent IndigNation launch party is a good example of this (Political apoplexy and police priorities)
There is a lot of fear in the gahmen, fear that Singaporeans will start voting the opposition. Fear that even with media censorship, the good the opposition is doing and has done will come to light. Fear that Singaporeans will start seeing Singapore as Singapore and the gahmen as the gahmen.
I can't remember who said it but this guy (or gal) said that a government that fears its own replacement will seek to control, in order for them to stay in power. How true these words are.
Ever since graduation, I have noticed more and more the lip service the PAP pays to us. It is lip service because from PM Goh's time until now, we have heard that Singapore has to open up, to be more inclusive, but it has never happened. Tokens have been thrown to us but nothing concrete has been done. Our media is still controlled, we cannot talk bad about the gahmen or anything about their policies or we'll be silenced (the mr. brown incident). We cannot talk about our concerns if we don't have any solutions to the problem. In other words, "shut up and just do what we say".
I am getting so tired of this, so tired that I have to learn to love my country. Something that comes naturally to most people, we in Singapore have to learn. Why do we have to learn? Most Singaporeans equate the gahmen with Singapore and that is not right. My proof? Well you'll realise that when you speak against the gahmen, the pro-PAP people would state, "if you so unhappy get out, migrate." What has my hatred for the PAP anything to do with Singapore?
During this current administration in USA (the Bush administration) most USA citizens hate their government, hate George Bush (his approval ratings are below 40%) but they love their country, even when they argue with people they disagree with, nobody tells them to leave the country because in USA, they know it is the difference that matters, in bringing differences to light, we learn and grow and understand. Notice the difference between them and Singapore. Singaporeans tend to have the idea that if you love the country you love the gahmen and vice versa and with the gahmen's help, we believe that disagreements and differences in opinions is bad for the country.
I am the type of person that the gahmen would just hate to have in the country. Not because I can be like Dr. Chee and risk everything for his belief but that I can express my dissatisfaction about the gahmen to everyone I know. Like our taxi drivers. As the saying goes, there is no smoke without fire.
We are digging our own grave by allowing the gahmen to do whatever it wants. For them to control everything, from our right to peacefully protest to the silencing anything and everything that doesn't agree with them and their fascist thinking.
I love my country so much but I really hate to see it getting raped over and over again by people who just want to be in power forever. Thinking that they, as gods, are the only thing for Singapore any other form of government is, as they say, "not right for Singapore".
These amendments to the penal code of Singapore is further evidence that the gahmen just wants to please enough people to stay in power, they are not looking out for the good of all or even for the protecting of minorities who are already marginalised by society and law. Harassment by the police (which we all know protects the rights of the gahmen and not the rights of the citizens) of gay-friendly venues is common place. The recent IndigNation launch party is a good example of this (Political apoplexy and police priorities)
There is a lot of fear in the gahmen, fear that Singaporeans will start voting the opposition. Fear that even with media censorship, the good the opposition is doing and has done will come to light. Fear that Singaporeans will start seeing Singapore as Singapore and the gahmen as the gahmen.
I can't remember who said it but this guy (or gal) said that a government that fears its own replacement will seek to control, in order for them to stay in power. How true these words are.
Ever since graduation, I have noticed more and more the lip service the PAP pays to us. It is lip service because from PM Goh's time until now, we have heard that Singapore has to open up, to be more inclusive, but it has never happened. Tokens have been thrown to us but nothing concrete has been done. Our media is still controlled, we cannot talk bad about the gahmen or anything about their policies or we'll be silenced (the mr. brown incident). We cannot talk about our concerns if we don't have any solutions to the problem. In other words, "shut up and just do what we say".
I am getting so tired of this, so tired that I have to learn to love my country. Something that comes naturally to most people, we in Singapore have to learn. Why do we have to learn? Most Singaporeans equate the gahmen with Singapore and that is not right. My proof? Well you'll realise that when you speak against the gahmen, the pro-PAP people would state, "if you so unhappy get out, migrate." What has my hatred for the PAP anything to do with Singapore?
During this current administration in USA (the Bush administration) most USA citizens hate their government, hate George Bush (his approval ratings are below 40%) but they love their country, even when they argue with people they disagree with, nobody tells them to leave the country because in USA, they know it is the difference that matters, in bringing differences to light, we learn and grow and understand. Notice the difference between them and Singapore. Singaporeans tend to have the idea that if you love the country you love the gahmen and vice versa and with the gahmen's help, we believe that disagreements and differences in opinions is bad for the country.
I am the type of person that the gahmen would just hate to have in the country. Not because I can be like Dr. Chee and risk everything for his belief but that I can express my dissatisfaction about the gahmen to everyone I know. Like our taxi drivers. As the saying goes, there is no smoke without fire.
09 November 2006
Will still be a criminal
I am pissed.
Very pissed at the PAP (who is the gahmen) for not wanting to change, for using 3rd world notions to govern a 1st world country, to treat all of us as fools and idiots.
I'm am still a criminal after they amend the law. It is suppose to be decided by parliament in the few months but knowing the gahmen is self-serving and closed minded and most importantly homophobic, the amendment will go through without any problems. So sex between gay men will still be considered illegal but anal/oral sex between straight couples is okay. This shows that discrimination against any citizen is okay. This is so true, they allow discrimination again the old, the poor, the uneducated, the handicap... so what's new? Well, the discrimination against those people are not written in law, whereas discrimination again gay men is.
The gahmen says because Singapore is still conservative even though they are quick to add that consenting gay men have never been prosecuted under the law from having sex. SO WHY THE FUCK DO WE KEEP IT?
To think that we who sacrificed our time in NS and ICT will still be criminals. No matter how they try to say that they are not homophobic. Allowing gay men/lesbians hold top offices in the civil sector doesn't make you less homophobic (how many are anyway? 1 or 2). It just makes the gahmen a hypocrite, a white-washed wall. But then again what is new. the gahmen has always been a hypocrite.
GLBTs exist in all facets of the working environment. We are doctors, engineers, nurses, IT professionals, lecturers, CEOs, etc. To make us all remain as criminals really sucks big time. This really shows the narrow-mindedness of the gahmen and the fact that their opening up is totally NATO.
Conservative, oh please. With STD rates going up for straight teens, I really wonder who this monster "conservative" is. The one that keeps appearing when they want to keep their own self-serving agenda.
So why would I want to return to Sg? Even if I return, why would I want to be Singaporean? Why would I want to be Singaporean if I'm going to be a criminal in the country I was born and raised? Why would I want to be a criminal even though I have not done anything wrong but because of some individuals, who pretend to be open minded when they are not, who decided that I am a criminal.
Why would GLBTs want to still be in Singapore or return to "contribute to society" when time and time again, the gahmen shows that we are not welcomed and not wanted.
I am pissed.
And it seems, I'm not the only one.
MHA is disappointing
Pseudo repeal under cover of smoke?
Partial decriminalisation is not good enough
Media release: Government should repeal both Sections 377 and 377A of the Penal Code
Minority Report
Very pissed at the PAP (who is the gahmen) for not wanting to change, for using 3rd world notions to govern a 1st world country, to treat all of us as fools and idiots.
I'm am still a criminal after they amend the law. It is suppose to be decided by parliament in the few months but knowing the gahmen is self-serving and closed minded and most importantly homophobic, the amendment will go through without any problems. So sex between gay men will still be considered illegal but anal/oral sex between straight couples is okay. This shows that discrimination against any citizen is okay. This is so true, they allow discrimination again the old, the poor, the uneducated, the handicap... so what's new? Well, the discrimination against those people are not written in law, whereas discrimination again gay men is.
The gahmen says because Singapore is still conservative even though they are quick to add that consenting gay men have never been prosecuted under the law from having sex. SO WHY THE FUCK DO WE KEEP IT?
To think that we who sacrificed our time in NS and ICT will still be criminals. No matter how they try to say that they are not homophobic. Allowing gay men/lesbians hold top offices in the civil sector doesn't make you less homophobic (how many are anyway? 1 or 2). It just makes the gahmen a hypocrite, a white-washed wall. But then again what is new. the gahmen has always been a hypocrite.
GLBTs exist in all facets of the working environment. We are doctors, engineers, nurses, IT professionals, lecturers, CEOs, etc. To make us all remain as criminals really sucks big time. This really shows the narrow-mindedness of the gahmen and the fact that their opening up is totally NATO.
Conservative, oh please. With STD rates going up for straight teens, I really wonder who this monster "conservative" is. The one that keeps appearing when they want to keep their own self-serving agenda.
So why would I want to return to Sg? Even if I return, why would I want to be Singaporean? Why would I want to be Singaporean if I'm going to be a criminal in the country I was born and raised? Why would I want to be a criminal even though I have not done anything wrong but because of some individuals, who pretend to be open minded when they are not, who decided that I am a criminal.
Why would GLBTs want to still be in Singapore or return to "contribute to society" when time and time again, the gahmen shows that we are not welcomed and not wanted.
I am pissed.
And it seems, I'm not the only one.
MHA is disappointing
Pseudo repeal under cover of smoke?
Partial decriminalisation is not good enough
Media release: Government should repeal both Sections 377 and 377A of the Penal Code
Minority Report
03 November 2006
Despotism
Despotism is defined by
wikipedia as "a form of government by a single authority, either an individual or tightly knit group, which rules with absolute political power". You can read the whole entry here
dictionary.com as
1. the rule of a despot; the exercise of absolute authority.
2. absolute power or control; tyranny.
3. an absolute or autocratic government.
4. a country ruled by a despot.
Why am I writing about despotism. Well, besides bringing a point across I wanted to talk slightly about history.
Germany went from a democratic country to a despotic one, all by the 'power' of 1 man, and WWII was born.
What has this got to do with Singapore, with Singapore being so small? Well, nothing really but you can gather from history a despotic societies, it usually starts off as democratic but slowly, more power is given to the government or 1 person or a small group of people and then rights and freedoms are slowly taken away from the people.
The changes are so small, that nobody notices them it first, then one day, they realised that they are not in a democratic society anymore.
Europe is frightened of that happening again that lots of checks and balances are in place (like transparency in the government, information about things the government does can be asked for and given, where everything the government does can be questioned by the people). These things were almost destroyed in USA during the Bush administration and if you have kept up with USA politics, you'll see how frightening it can be. E.g. People have been detained in jails (with no legal recourse) and tortured, the press was being suppressed, citizens couldn't get information from the government when they request for them...... This is only the tip of the iceberg and this happened within 6 years.
Having elections does not a democratic country make.
wikipedia as "a form of government by a single authority, either an individual or tightly knit group, which rules with absolute political power". You can read the whole entry here
dictionary.com as
1. the rule of a despot; the exercise of absolute authority.
2. absolute power or control; tyranny.
3. an absolute or autocratic government.
4. a country ruled by a despot.
Why am I writing about despotism. Well, besides bringing a point across I wanted to talk slightly about history.
Germany went from a democratic country to a despotic one, all by the 'power' of 1 man, and WWII was born.
What has this got to do with Singapore, with Singapore being so small? Well, nothing really but you can gather from history a despotic societies, it usually starts off as democratic but slowly, more power is given to the government or 1 person or a small group of people and then rights and freedoms are slowly taken away from the people.
The changes are so small, that nobody notices them it first, then one day, they realised that they are not in a democratic society anymore.
Europe is frightened of that happening again that lots of checks and balances are in place (like transparency in the government, information about things the government does can be asked for and given, where everything the government does can be questioned by the people). These things were almost destroyed in USA during the Bush administration and if you have kept up with USA politics, you'll see how frightening it can be. E.g. People have been detained in jails (with no legal recourse) and tortured, the press was being suppressed, citizens couldn't get information from the government when they request for them...... This is only the tip of the iceberg and this happened within 6 years.
Having elections does not a democratic country make.
31 October 2006
LKY apology
This is an interesting phrase that has been coined in Singapore, an LKY apology. I have read this phrase quite a number of times in a blogs, comments and forums. It seems that Singaporeans (at least the ones that read and participant in blogs and online discussions) are using this as an apology that wasn't.
What do I mean? Well, to know what this means you have to read Mr Lee Kuan Yew's apology to the PM of Malaysia. When he made a the comment "Lee told a public forum two weeks ago that Malaysia and Indonesia, Singapore's predominantly Muslim neighbours, had "systematically marginalised" their Chinese minorities."
As you would know, this is not PC and it doesn't ease relations between Malaysia, Indonesia with Singapore. I really wonder what prompted him to make those remarks because when he speaks he doesn't speak as an individual, he's speaking as a minister of Singapore, a representative of Singapore. What can be worse? But I digress.
If you read the article below (MM Lee writes to Abdullah about those dialogue remarks) you'll realise that Mr Lee never apologised for making those remarks. He didn't apologise for saying something that he shouldn't say. He's apologising for making them (Malaysians and their government) feel uncomfortable (upset). This is akin to telling a person is useless, a cheat or liar and then saying, "I'm sorry that you feel hurt by my remarks but I'm right".
Then recently there was a saga about an 18 year old girl who wrote flaming remarks about a 35 year old man. There was an uproar in cyberspace. I have placed a link to The Intelligent Singapore which has a number of links to the original letter by the 35 year old and the 18 year old and blogs.
The Wee Shu Min Affair
If you read the apology of Mr Wee (Ms Wee's father, who is the Member of Parliament of Ang Mo Kio), you'll realised that he didn't apologise for the elitist remarks his daughter made. Thus, an LKY apology. Apologies that are not.
Saying sorry-the LKY style
Today online
3 October 2006
MM LEE WRITES TO ABDULLAH ABOUT THOSE DIALOGUE REMARKS
(Last week, Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi sought to find out why Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew had made certain remarks recently about the state of ethnic Chinese in Malaysia. Yesterday, Mr Lee wrote back to Mr Abdullah, explaining both the context and the reasoning behind what he had said. The following is the text of his letter.)
Dear Prime Minister,
Thank you for your letter of 25 September 2006.
I made the remarks in a free-flowing dialogue session with former US Secretary of Treasury Larry Summers before many foreign delegates attending the IMF/WB meeting.
To put what Reuters reported into context, I set out the transcript of the relevant passage:
"Let me sum it up nicely, why you must have a government in Singapore which is really firm, stout-hearted, subtle and resolute. My neighbours both have problems with their Chinese. They are successful, they are hardworking and, therefore, they are systematically marginalised, even in education. There are quotas to prevent you. So, you've got to make money to go abroad or go to one of the private universities which are being set up. And they want Singapore, to put it simply, to be like their Chinese, compliant. So, every time, we say 'No' to some scheme to knock down the Causeway and build a bridge, he says, 'Oh, you're not cooperative, you're only thinking of yourself'. For no rhyme or reason, we knock down a causeway, nearly 100 years old, which served us well. He wants to build a bridge because it looks pretty and he says ships will sail and his containers can move from the East Coast to the West Coast via this. But we saw no ... So, we said, "All right, if you give us commensurate benefits, we'll agree". But you need a government who'll be able to, not only have the gumption, but the skill to say 'No' in a very quiet, polite way that doesn't provoke them into doing something silly."
On the bridge and the half bridge to remove the Causeway, you made the position of your government clear that Malaysia respects legally binding agreements and acts in accordance with international law. This made unnecessary a reference to ITLOS and the International Court of Justice that would otherwise have been unavoidable. This respect for the law is the basis for sound long-term relations between us.
I was explaining to a liberal audience of westerners who wanted to see a stronger opposition in Singapore why Singapore needs a strong majority government, not a weak coalition that will hamper us in defending our national interests.
Singapore needs a strong government to maintain good relations with Indonesia and Malaysia, and to interact with Indonesian and Malaysian politicians who consider Singapore to be Chinese, and expect Singapore to be 'sensitive' and comply with their requests.
On numerous occasions UMNO leaders, including Dr Mahathir and many others, have publicly warned Malaysian Malays that if they ever lose power, they risk the same fate as Malays in Singapore, whom they allege are marginalised and discriminated against. And from time to time when Malaysian politicians attack Singapore fiercely over some bilateral issue, some of them tell us privately that we should just accept this as part of Malaysian politics and not react to these attacks.
Singapore understands the reality of Malaysian politics. We have never protested at these attacks on our multi-racial system or our policies, except to clarify our own position when necessary. But we have to explain to our people the root cause of these difficulties in our bilateral relations. Otherwise Singaporeans will believe that their own government is doing wrong, either to our own people or to Malaysia.
As for the international audience, with so many foreign embassy staff and foreign correspondents reporting on Singapore and Malaysia, plus tens of thousands of expatriate businessmen working in our two countries, these people will come to their own judgement of the true position regardless of what I say.
I have not said anything more than what I have said many times before. In fact I have said less than what I had written in my memoirs published in 1998. I had no intention to meddle in your politics. Indeed I do not have the power to influence Malaysia's politics or to incite the feelings of the Chinese in Malaysia.
Since you took over as Prime Minister in November 2003, relations between our two countries have much improved. Singaporeans and, I believe, Malaysians too, appreciate this.
I am sorry that what I said has caused you a great deal of discomfort. After a decade of troubled relations with your predecessor, it is the last thing I wanted.
Yours sincerely,
Lee Kuan Yew
PS: The fact that you have written to me is now well publicised. As I have been asked about my reply, I will have to release my letter to the media after you have received it.
What do I mean? Well, to know what this means you have to read Mr Lee Kuan Yew's apology to the PM of Malaysia. When he made a the comment "Lee told a public forum two weeks ago that Malaysia and Indonesia, Singapore's predominantly Muslim neighbours, had "systematically marginalised" their Chinese minorities."
As you would know, this is not PC and it doesn't ease relations between Malaysia, Indonesia with Singapore. I really wonder what prompted him to make those remarks because when he speaks he doesn't speak as an individual, he's speaking as a minister of Singapore, a representative of Singapore. What can be worse? But I digress.
If you read the article below (MM Lee writes to Abdullah about those dialogue remarks) you'll realise that Mr Lee never apologised for making those remarks. He didn't apologise for saying something that he shouldn't say. He's apologising for making them (Malaysians and their government) feel uncomfortable (upset). This is akin to telling a person is useless, a cheat or liar and then saying, "I'm sorry that you feel hurt by my remarks but I'm right".
Then recently there was a saga about an 18 year old girl who wrote flaming remarks about a 35 year old man. There was an uproar in cyberspace. I have placed a link to The Intelligent Singapore which has a number of links to the original letter by the 35 year old and the 18 year old and blogs.
The Wee Shu Min Affair
If you read the apology of Mr Wee (Ms Wee's father, who is the Member of Parliament of Ang Mo Kio), you'll realised that he didn't apologise for the elitist remarks his daughter made. Thus, an LKY apology. Apologies that are not.
Saying sorry-the LKY style
Today online
3 October 2006
MM LEE WRITES TO ABDULLAH ABOUT THOSE DIALOGUE REMARKS
(Last week, Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi sought to find out why Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew had made certain remarks recently about the state of ethnic Chinese in Malaysia. Yesterday, Mr Lee wrote back to Mr Abdullah, explaining both the context and the reasoning behind what he had said. The following is the text of his letter.)
Dear Prime Minister,
Thank you for your letter of 25 September 2006.
I made the remarks in a free-flowing dialogue session with former US Secretary of Treasury Larry Summers before many foreign delegates attending the IMF/WB meeting.
To put what Reuters reported into context, I set out the transcript of the relevant passage:
"Let me sum it up nicely, why you must have a government in Singapore which is really firm, stout-hearted, subtle and resolute. My neighbours both have problems with their Chinese. They are successful, they are hardworking and, therefore, they are systematically marginalised, even in education. There are quotas to prevent you. So, you've got to make money to go abroad or go to one of the private universities which are being set up. And they want Singapore, to put it simply, to be like their Chinese, compliant. So, every time, we say 'No' to some scheme to knock down the Causeway and build a bridge, he says, 'Oh, you're not cooperative, you're only thinking of yourself'. For no rhyme or reason, we knock down a causeway, nearly 100 years old, which served us well. He wants to build a bridge because it looks pretty and he says ships will sail and his containers can move from the East Coast to the West Coast via this. But we saw no ... So, we said, "All right, if you give us commensurate benefits, we'll agree". But you need a government who'll be able to, not only have the gumption, but the skill to say 'No' in a very quiet, polite way that doesn't provoke them into doing something silly."
On the bridge and the half bridge to remove the Causeway, you made the position of your government clear that Malaysia respects legally binding agreements and acts in accordance with international law. This made unnecessary a reference to ITLOS and the International Court of Justice that would otherwise have been unavoidable. This respect for the law is the basis for sound long-term relations between us.
I was explaining to a liberal audience of westerners who wanted to see a stronger opposition in Singapore why Singapore needs a strong majority government, not a weak coalition that will hamper us in defending our national interests.
Singapore needs a strong government to maintain good relations with Indonesia and Malaysia, and to interact with Indonesian and Malaysian politicians who consider Singapore to be Chinese, and expect Singapore to be 'sensitive' and comply with their requests.
On numerous occasions UMNO leaders, including Dr Mahathir and many others, have publicly warned Malaysian Malays that if they ever lose power, they risk the same fate as Malays in Singapore, whom they allege are marginalised and discriminated against. And from time to time when Malaysian politicians attack Singapore fiercely over some bilateral issue, some of them tell us privately that we should just accept this as part of Malaysian politics and not react to these attacks.
Singapore understands the reality of Malaysian politics. We have never protested at these attacks on our multi-racial system or our policies, except to clarify our own position when necessary. But we have to explain to our people the root cause of these difficulties in our bilateral relations. Otherwise Singaporeans will believe that their own government is doing wrong, either to our own people or to Malaysia.
As for the international audience, with so many foreign embassy staff and foreign correspondents reporting on Singapore and Malaysia, plus tens of thousands of expatriate businessmen working in our two countries, these people will come to their own judgement of the true position regardless of what I say.
I have not said anything more than what I have said many times before. In fact I have said less than what I had written in my memoirs published in 1998. I had no intention to meddle in your politics. Indeed I do not have the power to influence Malaysia's politics or to incite the feelings of the Chinese in Malaysia.
Since you took over as Prime Minister in November 2003, relations between our two countries have much improved. Singaporeans and, I believe, Malaysians too, appreciate this.
I am sorry that what I said has caused you a great deal of discomfort. After a decade of troubled relations with your predecessor, it is the last thing I wanted.
Yours sincerely,
Lee Kuan Yew
PS: The fact that you have written to me is now well publicised. As I have been asked about my reply, I will have to release my letter to the media after you have received it.
07 October 2006
He's one to talk
It is amazing that PM Lee can even utter these words considering the fact that Sg isn't very democratic at all! At least in Thailand, they have freedom for expression and speech, even now with the so called coup. Do we have it here? So which country is more democratic?
The Nation
06 October 2006
Coup is a setback for country and democracy : Singapore
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said Friday that the power seizure on 19 September was "a setback for Thailand" and its democracy but expressed confidence that the new Thai Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont will live up to his responsibility.
"This is a setback for Thailand, which has been trying to establish a democratic system after a long series of seventeen coups since 1932," Lee said in his keynote speech to a group of journalists from Asia and Europe, in which he was explaining the political systems in Asia.
"But this time there was a political situation and in the end this is how Thailand had resolved it. We accept that. Is it good for Thailand, I think it is a setback for Thailand.
"Did they have to do it? Well, they have to judge," he said.
And instead of waiting for the verdict of voters, which would come with the scheduled election for November, said Lee, the military decided to remove Thaksin Shinawatra through a coup.
Lee said Thailand lacks firmly established democratic institutions and a tradition of civilian rule. However, Westernstyle liberal democracy is not necessary the answer either, according to the premier of the islandstate.
"But it is not a magic formula for success," he said adding that in Asia, Western democracy has not always delivered stable, legitimate and effective government.
Lee told The Nation that he has met the Surayud in the past expressed the wish to work with him. Both of them will be meeting in Nanning on 30-31 Oct to commemorate the 15th anniversary of Asean China summit.
Singapore was one of the first country to send a congratulatory letter to Surayud upon his appointment.
The Nation
06 October 2006
Coup is a setback for country and democracy : Singapore
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said Friday that the power seizure on 19 September was "a setback for Thailand" and its democracy but expressed confidence that the new Thai Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont will live up to his responsibility.
"This is a setback for Thailand, which has been trying to establish a democratic system after a long series of seventeen coups since 1932," Lee said in his keynote speech to a group of journalists from Asia and Europe, in which he was explaining the political systems in Asia.
"But this time there was a political situation and in the end this is how Thailand had resolved it. We accept that. Is it good for Thailand, I think it is a setback for Thailand.
"Did they have to do it? Well, they have to judge," he said.
And instead of waiting for the verdict of voters, which would come with the scheduled election for November, said Lee, the military decided to remove Thaksin Shinawatra through a coup.
Lee said Thailand lacks firmly established democratic institutions and a tradition of civilian rule. However, Westernstyle liberal democracy is not necessary the answer either, according to the premier of the islandstate.
"But it is not a magic formula for success," he said adding that in Asia, Western democracy has not always delivered stable, legitimate and effective government.
Lee told The Nation that he has met the Surayud in the past expressed the wish to work with him. Both of them will be meeting in Nanning on 30-31 Oct to commemorate the 15th anniversary of Asean China summit.
Singapore was one of the first country to send a congratulatory letter to Surayud upon his appointment.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
