Dr Alan Chin Yew Liang
Dr Alan Chin is a family physician who graduated in NUS in 1982 (Update 16 Apr 2009, Article has been removed from sma.org.sg website. Click here for a screen shot of the article.). He is not a statistician. He is the person who helped in counting the votes.
He wrote 6 articles to Straits Times
1. Homosexuality: Neither a disease nor an immutable trait, ST Online Forum, May 8, 2007 Tuesday
2. Figures speak for themselves: Practising gays have higher risk of HIV, ST Online Forum, May 15, 2007 Tuesday
3. Aids and gays: A flawed response, ST Online Forum, May 28, 2007 Monday
4. Let’s conserve our marriage constitution as one between man and woman, ST Online Forum, July 16, 2007 Monday
5. Law and public education should go hand in hand in dealing with HIV, ST Online Forum, August 7, 2007 Tuesday
6. Beware the high-risk ‘gay lifestyle’, ST Forum, August 8, 2007 Wednesday
Homosexuality: Neither a disease nor an immutable trait
May 8, 2007 Tuesday
I WRITE with regard to the recent discussion on the issue of homosexuality. Homosexuality, until recently, was regarded as a disease.
A disease is defined as an impairment of health or condition of abnormal functioning.
Homosexuality certainly fits the definition of a disease as there is an increased mortality rate mainly from Aids; the life expectancy of a homosexual and bisexual male is up to 20 years shorter compared to a normal male (R.S. Hogg, et al, ‘Modelling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men’ International Journal of Epidemiology 1997).
There is also an increased morbidity rate, with a greater risk of suffering from sexually transmitted diseases, including Aids, and increased risk of psychiatric illnesses such as depression, suicides and drug abuse.
Simply put, being a homosexual (statistically speaking) puts one at risk of suffering from poor health and dying early.
In 1973, homosexuality was removed from the Diagnostic And Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) by the American Psychiatric Association (APA).
The question we have to ask is: How did this come about? One would think that the APA would not have taken such a step unless there was strong scientific evidence to justify such a move.
A review of the history of events shows that the decision was not based on scientific evidence, but in fact was the response of an organisation under siege by gay activists. Ronald Bayer’s book, Homosexuality And American Psychiatry: The Politics Of Diagnosis, documents the political nature of this battle over DSM.
Dr Bayer defends this move by APA, saying: ‘Psychiatry may, under certain circumstances, act upon society, using its cultural influences to challenge social values and practices.’
It is clear from this that the removal of homosexuality from DSM was a political settlement and not due to scientific evidence. Thus, homosexuality should still be regarded as a disease.
The question is, if homosexuality is a disease, can it be treated?
There have been numerous documented cases of people who have changed their sexual orientation.
Dr Robert Spitzer, who was very much involved in the 1973 removal of homosexuality from DSM, found in a 2001 study, that ‘there is evidence that change in sexual orientation following some form of reparative therapy does occur in some gay men and lesbians’.
It follows from this that homosexuality is neither a fixed trait nor is it immutable.
Figures speak for themselves: Practising gays have higher risk of HIV
May 15, 2007 Tuesday
I REFER to Mr Siew Meng Ee’s letter, ‘Doctor using selective material to justify own conclusion’ which was written in response to my letter, ‘Homosexuality: disease or immutable trait?’. I thank him for his views that he has expressed.
Let me clarify what I have written. It is true that not all people who contract Aids are homosexuals and not all homosexuals have Aids.
Let’s look at the statistics from the US’ Communicable Diseases Centre (CDC) - in the year 2005, there were 45,669 cases of newly-diagnosed Aids cases of which 18,938 were from male-to-male sexual contact.
This means that 41.5 per cent of cases of Aids were transmitted by male-to-male sexual contact.
The estimated number of cases diagnosed through 2005 (this means the number of people at the end of 2005 having HIV) is 988,376.
The estimated number of this same group of people having Aids through male-to-male sexual contact is 454,106. This means that of the 988,376 diagnosed cases of Aids in the US, 45.94 per cent of these cases were contracted through male-to-male sexual contact.
The number of homosexuals in the US has been estimated to be 2.8 per cent (’the most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the United States is the National Health and Social Life Survey which found that 2.8 per cent of the male, and 1.4 per cent of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual.
See Laumann, et al, The Social Organization of Sex: Sexual Practices in the United States (1994).
This amounts to nearly four million openly gay men and two million women who are identified as lesbian.
This means that 2.8 per cent of the population in the US accounts for 41.5 per cent of the new cases and of the number of HIV cases in the States, 2.8 per cent of the population accounts for the 45.94 per cent of the people having Aids. When relative risk is calculated, this means that a person who engages in male-to-male sexual contact has a 2,400 per cent higher chance of getting Aids.
If we look at the Singapore figures for 2005, 2.8 per cent of the population accounted for 31 per cent of the new cases of HIV infection, 2.8 per cent of the population accounted for 22 per cent of the number of people diagnosed with HIV.
I believe the figures speak for itself, that practising homosexuals have a far higher risk of HIV with its numerous complications and increased mortality.
There are two main reasons for this.
1) The rectum is physiologically unsuitable for anal intercourse. Its fragility leads to increased risks of trauma during anal intercourse, accounting for the increased risks of infection, both bacterial and viral including HIV.
2) Homosexuals are sexually more promiscuous.
A 1978 study found that 75 per cent of homosexual white males claimed to have 100 male sex partners, 15 per cent 100-249 male sex partners, 17 per cent 250-499 male sex partners, 15 per cent 500-999 male sex partners and 28 per cent more than 1,000 male sex partners (Alan P. Bell et al, Homosexuality: A Study of Diversity among Men & Women pg 308 Table 7. New York 1978).
In a local publication, People Like Us: Sexual Minorities In Singapore, gay activist Alex Au Wai Pang wrote frankly about homosexual sexual values being different from that of heterosexual males. Both of Mr Au’s articles in the book talk frankly about how many homosexuals are more promiscuous than their heterosexual counterparts.
With regard to whether homosexuals can change their sexual orientation, this is an issue that arouses the emotions of all concerned. As gay activists see it, if someone can change his or her sexual orientation, then homosexuality can be considered a lifestyle choice and thus does not qualify to be considered as a protected class under the law.
As why Dr Robert Spitzer’s study was quoted, some background information as how this study came about is useful. Dr Spitzer is one of the most renowned psychiatrists in the US, who is called the father of DSM.
In fact, he was one of the key psychiatrists in deciding that homosexuality should be removed from the DSM. However, in the early 2000s, during an APA meeting, Dr Spitzer met some picketers who claimed that they had changed their sexual orientation.
Intrigued, he decided to do a study as, at that time, his view was that homosexuals could not change their behaviour.
He genuinely wanted to know if some homosexual men and women could change from homosexual to heterosexual, and that he wanted science to guide him. Certainly, with more than 275 publications to his credit, this esteemed scientist at Columbia University was more than able to conduct such a study.
With the limitations that are inherent to all such studies, Dr Spitzer employed the best rigours available for such research protocols.
His sample size was larger than those in previous studies. He was very detailed in his assessment and carefully considered the affective components of the homosexual experience.
Any bias in interview coding was virtually eliminated by near-perfect interrater scores. He limited his pool of applicants to those reporting at least five years of sustained change from a homosexual to a heterosexual orientation.
His structured interview clearly described how the participants were evaluated. His entire set of data is available for scrutiny by other researchers.
If his study methods are considered flawed, then all the original research material used by APA to justify the original change in classification is also flawed using the same argument.
Dr Spitzer’s conclusions are simply this: Based on his study, there is evidence to suggest that some gay men and lesbians are not only able to change self-identity, but are also able to modify core features of sexual orientation, including fantasies.
His study was not designed to give the percentage of homosexuals that have changed. Dr Spitzer felt the percentage was low as it was difficult to find subjects willing to be interviewed.
One of the few rational, scientific commentaries on the Spitzer study was offered by Scott L. Hershberger. Dr Hershberger, a distinguished scholar and statistician, elected to respond in a Commentary to the Spitzer research (Hershberger’s article was published in the same issue of the Archives of Sexual Behavior as the Spitzer study was) by conducting a Guttman scalability analysis. This is a scalogram to determine whether or not reported changes occur in a cumulative, orderly fashion.
Dr Hershberger’s conclusion: ‘The orderly, law-like pattern of changes in homosexual sexual behaviour, homosexual self-identification, and homosexual attraction and fantasy observed in Dr Spitzer’s study is strong evidence that reparative therapy can assist individuals in changing their homosexual orientation to a heterosexual orientation.
‘Now it is up to those sceptical of reparative therapy to provide comparably strong evidence to support their position. In my opinion, they have yet to do so.’
The Schidlo and Schroeder study, funded by the National Lesbian & Gay Health Association, was originally titled ‘Homophobic Therapies: Documenting the Damage.’
The title was later changed to ‘Changing Sexual Orientation: Does Counseling Work?’ because they found that some people reported benefits to reorientation therapy including a change of sexual orientation. Biasness will be an issue as the aim of the National Lesbian & Gay Health Association is to prove that homosexuals are normal and healthy and reparative therapy is harmful.
There are thousands of testimonies of homosexuals who have changed their orientation. Even in Singapore there are testimonies of homosexuals who have changed their sexual orientation.
The point is that even if one person can change, then homosexuality is not an immutable trait and we should not deny anyone the right to change.
Aids and gays: A flawed response
May 28, 2007 Monday
I REFER to the letter written by Mr Wong Suan Yin, ‘Aids: Stop the spread of misinformation’.
The letter misrepresents what I have said. It is not true that I made the statement that homosexuality leads to the spread of Aids and therefore criminalising homosexual sex will prevent the spread of Aids.
My article only mentioned that there is an increased risk of homosexuals engaging in anal intercourse in contracting the HIV virus. The reasons given for this is that anal intercourse is inherently unhealthy and studies have shown that homosexuals are more promiscuous.
Mr Wong has missed the point made by me in the letter and has gone off tangent with his own argument.
Unfortunately his argument is flawed. Let me clarify.
HIV virus is spread in three main ways.
1. From mother to child during birth
2. Sexual contact during intercourse, oral, vaginal and anal
3. Via blood either through contaminated blood, contaminated blood products, contaminated donor organs, tattooing and intravenous drug abuse
According to WHO statistics, there is a higher incidence of HIV in women and children in Third World countries compared to the rest of the world.
It is just as true that in Singapore and in the United States, there is a high incidence of HIV among homosexual men who engage in anal sex.
How do we reconcile this? Obviously there must be environmental factors involved that lead to differences between the two. Unfortunately WHO statistics from most Third World countries do not show the mode of infection.
There are so many unanswered questions. We do not know how many of the mothers contracted HIV because of drug abuse or how many of their husbands were drug abusers.
We do not know how many of their husbands had intercourse with high-risk individuals. We do not know the incidence of bisexual men who are married.
In some African cultures, bisexual behaviour is rampant. Culturally, in some countries, young men are sent by their fathers to prostitutes for their first sexual experience.
Some studies have shown that the incidence of HIV among young children is higher than that of mothers in Africa. This implies that children are getting HIV from sources other than their mothers. Contaminated needles? Contaminated dental equipment?
How many adults are infected through contaminated medical equipment due to poor health care? All these cultural, social and environmental factors affect the behaviour and sexual practices of individuals and therefore account for the different figures seen in different countries.
We cannot apply these figures to the situation in Singapore because the environment is different.
Let me illustrate with an example.
We know that poverty leading to malnutrition and starvation is statistically one of the leading causes of death among children in the world. Obviously it is illogical to put all our resources in eradicating malnutrition and starvation to lower the death rate of children in Singapore. This will not help at all as it is not a leading cause of death in Singapore.
Similarly for the case of HIV infection, we have to look at the local context, what the local statistics are and what the risk factors for our population are. As I have previously stated, our local statistics and those of the US show that the group with the highest risk of being infected by the HIV virus is that of individuals who indulge in anal intercourse.
Currently anal intercourse is a criminal offence. The argument put forward that decriminalisation will make it easier to educate those who engage in such practices and lower the risk of HIV needs to be examined carefully.
As a doctor I wrote in to highlight the public health issues involved in this matter. As for public policy issues, this is not an appropriate forum. Parliament will consider all these issues in due course.
Let’s conserve our marriage constitution as one between man and woman
July 16, 2007 Monday
I WRITE in response to Mr Janadas Devan’s article, ‘Can mum, mum and kids make a family?’ (ST, July 7) and Dr George D. Bishop’s letter, ‘Special-needs kids thrive, thanks to mum and mum’ (ST, July 11).
The main thrust of their letters are that lesbians and homosexuals can and are a normal family unit and can take care of children just as well as any other family unit and thus should be allowed to get married and be one.
The basic building block of society has always been the family which is defined as a married father and mother with children. Without strong family units, society will be fraught with problems. Our Prime Minister has rightly stated that the family unit is the core of our Singapore society.
Now homosexuals and lesbians want to redefine ‘marriage’ and ‘family’. Why so? There is an inherent need for them to be accepted by society that their sexual behaviour is not abnormal but just a variation of normal sexual activity.
Do we want a Singapore where same-sex marriage prevails? If so, one might ask why not incorporate the following as diverse families.
1. two brothers;
2. two sisters
3. a brother and sister (case in German courts)
4. a man and a horse (film ‘Zoo’ shown in Sundance Film Festival - bestiality)
5. why not a combination of three or more?
6. why bother have a marriage or a family?
All these questions are not too remote; because those pursuing a perverted lifestyle must have the endorsement of society to secure their very identity, and the only way to achieve this is to go down the slippery road to establish that perversion is normal like incest is normal; bestiality is normal.
It is an issue of self-autonomy. Self is god. The point made is not academic but it has already happened and will continue to happen. This may be seen in the case of the four legislators in Massachusetts who followed up ‘their success at legalising homosexual unions by pushing for softening laws against other forms of sexual deviance’ including bestiality viz reducing the penalty to a fine (See First Comes Gay Marriage then comes Bestiality in Massachusetts http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/nov/05111703.html )
The four Democrat legislators ‘are all vocal supporters of abortion, homosexual unions, and are all endorsed by all three of Massachusetts’ gay lobby groups. Family lobbyists opposed to the re-definition of marriage were frequently ridiculed for their warnings that dissolving the natural basis of marriage in law would end with legalising and normalising a host of sexual perversions, including incest and bestiality. The case of the Massachusetts legislators is in point.
Following this, ‘the media has quickly picked up on the trend of acceptance for any and all sorts of conditions that before the 1960’s sexual revolution and the politicising of the psychiatric profession, were universally recognised as serious psychological disorders. New terminology has been established, calling those persons interested in having sexual relations with animals, ‘zoophiles’ or ‘zoos’ for short, and a campaign has been discretely under way for some time to reduce the public ’stigma’ against ‘zoos’.
We, in Singapore, want to conserve our marriage institution as one between a man and a woman so that the needs of our children for a father and a mother are catered for. We abhor any regression into perversity which, as history has shown, has led into the decline and fall of a society.
Law and public education should go hand in hand in dealing with HIV
August 7, 2007 Tuesday
I WRITE in response to the letter by Mr Paul Toh, ‘ ‘Bug chasers’ or ‘gift givers’ will not be let off lightly by the gay community’ (ST, Aug 2),
His statement that because of our laws, especially Penal Code Section 377A, the message of ’safe sex’ cannot be effectively communicated to those at risk is flawed.
Take the example of heroin drug abuse; laws prohibit its use. Using the same line of argument as Mr Toh’s, it would then not be possible to effectively communicate the message ‘Do not use drugs’.
However, the message against drug abuse has been effectively communicated to all segments of society. Everyone knows that it is wrong to use drugs and if you are caught you will be punished.
In the United States, 99 per cent of the population understands that you can get HIV through unprotected sex. In the United States’ CDC Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report, June 24, 2005, Issue, a study of 1,767 MSM men showed that one in four men had HIV. The number of MSM men getting HIV continues to rise despite all efforts.
This shows that education and awareness of HIV by itself cannot bring down the infection rates of HIV. If it were so, then data from the US should show falling rates of infection rather than rising rates.
An example of the inadequacy of public education and awareness alone is the phenomenon of ‘bug chasing’ and ‘gift giving’ at ‘bug parties’.
This reckless behaviour is found among men who engage in anal penetrative coitus. Men, who knowing that they have HIV, yet still engage in unprotected anal penetrative coitus. This practice of having deliberate unprotected anal sex has the potential to cause widespread HIV infection. These men know that it is wrong and yet persist in doing it.
The number of MSM men having HIV in Singapore is about 1 in 20. It is still unacceptably high. However, compared to the US, we have a five times lower rate of infection.
It is our society’s stance against such immoral and socially irresponsible behaviour and our laws, especially Penal Code Section 377A, that account for this difference.
Evidence in point:
1) Some time ago, the then Senior Minister of State for Health, Dr S. Balaji, stated that the relaxation of our laws against ‘gay’ events led to a spike in the number of HIV cases among MSM men from 2003 to 2004.
2) We have the lowest rate of heroin and drug abuse in the world because of our strict laws and tough stance against drug abusers.
Sometimes tough love is needed for those who, despite their being aware of their irresponsible and reckless behaviour, do not want to change.
The law and public education should go hand in hand in dealing with this scourge of HIV.
Beware the high-risk ‘gay lifestyle’
August 8, 2007 Wednesday
IN THE article, ‘Most with Aids virus don’t know they have it’ (ST, July 18), Senior Minister of State Balaji Sadasivan announced that a study of 3,000 blood samples in government hospitals showed that 1 in 350 samples was positive for the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) which causes Aids. The male to female ratio of these cases was 15:1.
What conclusions can we draw?
The 15:1 ratio means that the HIV epidemic is still confined mainly to the high-risk groups (concentrated epidemic) and has not spread to the general population (generalised epidemic). If it were already in the general population, the ratio would be much closer to 1:1.
Therefore we still have time to do something before the situation gets worse.
Who constitutes these high-risk groups?
Data released by the Ministry of Health on HIV last year showed two groups of men were responsible for approximately 83 per cent of HIV cases.
53 per cent of the cases were men who contracted HIV via unprotected high-risk heterosexual sex. This group was infected overseas or by local unlicensed prostitutes; our licensed prostitutes are screened for HIV.
30 per cent of the cases comprised men having sex with men (MSM). Based on the prevalence of 2.8 per cent of men being homosexual or bisexual, there are about 67,000 men in Singapore who engage in MSM.
I highlight this second high-risk group as it is a matter of public interest and concern, given the ongoing debate on the review of the Penal Code relating to Section 377A.
Extrapolating from the infection rate of 1 in 350 and 15:1 ratio of males to females, the conclusion is that among men who indulge in MSM, about one in 20 has HIV and does not know it.
This means that someone who indulges in MSM and has 20 sexual partners would have exposed himself to HIV.
A survey conducted in the United States has shown that 75 per cent of homosexual men have more than 100 sexual partners and 28 per cent of them have more than 1,000 partners.
I feel that not enough has been done to warn our youth that leading a ‘gay lifestyle’ is not cool. On the contrary, it is very unhealthy. There is a very high risk of contracting not only HIV but also a slew of other sexually transmitted diseases.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27360.1
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Kenneth Jeyaretnam, Obama and Eric Hobsbawm
Kenneth Jeyaretnam, Obama and Eric Hobsbawm
I was surprised to learn Singapore does not have a minimum wage for workers.
The late Singapore opposition politician JB Jeyaretnam's son, Kenneth Jeyaretnam, a British-educated hedge fund manager who has joined his father's Reform Party, made an important point to The Online Citizen.
“Generally I think that the government focuses too much on GDP growth for its own sake where it should be focussing on things like GDP growth per capita and the incomes of ordinary Singaporeans,” he told the Singapore blog.
Whether the government focuses too much on GDP per se is open to question.
But it's true GDP growth is not an accurate measure of people's wellbeing.
It's possible for a country to have high GDP and a large low-income group at the same time. China is the most obvious example, the third largest economy in the world, but with a per capita GDP of less than $6,000 in terms of purchasing power parity. Singapore's per capita GDP is nearly nine times more.
However, the income gap is increasing in Singapore, according to the official Statistics Singapore:
"The Gini coefficient, which is a summary measure of income inequality, increased from 0.472 in 2006 to 0.485 in 2007."
That means Singapore has a greater income gap than Britain and America, which have Gini coefficients of 0.35 and 0.45 respectively, leave alone Scandinavia, France, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Austria and the Netherlands – countries with Gini coefficients ranging between 0.25 and 0.3, according to a UN-Habitat report.
The Singapore government is trying to help the people cope with the recession. So are governments in other countries – and for a very good reason. A country's economy depends on all its people.
It's interesting what Kenneth Jeyaretnam had to say about "GDP growth per capita and the incomes of ordinary Singaporeans".
He may sound a bit like his father.
But President Barack Obama also expressed a similar view in his inaugural address:
The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on the ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart -- not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.
As did the British historian Eric Hobsbawm in the Guardian two days ago:
Look at London. Of course it matters to all of us that London's economy flourishes. But the test of the enormous wealth generated in patches of the capital is not that it contributed 20%-30% to Britain's GDP but how it affects the lives of the millions who live and work there. What kind of lives are available to them? Can they afford to live there? If they can't, it is not compensation that London is also a paradise for the ultra-rich. Can they get decently paid jobs or jobs at all? If they can't, don't brag about all those Michelin-starred restaurants and their self-dramatising chefs. Or schooling for children? Inadequate schools are not offset by the fact that London universities could field a football team of Nobel prize winners.
The test of a progressive policy is not private but public, not just rising income and consumption for individuals, but widening the opportunities and what Amartya Sen calls the "capabilities" of all through collective action.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26619.1
I was surprised to learn Singapore does not have a minimum wage for workers.
The late Singapore opposition politician JB Jeyaretnam's son, Kenneth Jeyaretnam, a British-educated hedge fund manager who has joined his father's Reform Party, made an important point to The Online Citizen.
“Generally I think that the government focuses too much on GDP growth for its own sake where it should be focussing on things like GDP growth per capita and the incomes of ordinary Singaporeans,” he told the Singapore blog.
Whether the government focuses too much on GDP per se is open to question.
But it's true GDP growth is not an accurate measure of people's wellbeing.
It's possible for a country to have high GDP and a large low-income group at the same time. China is the most obvious example, the third largest economy in the world, but with a per capita GDP of less than $6,000 in terms of purchasing power parity. Singapore's per capita GDP is nearly nine times more.
However, the income gap is increasing in Singapore, according to the official Statistics Singapore:
"The Gini coefficient, which is a summary measure of income inequality, increased from 0.472 in 2006 to 0.485 in 2007."
That means Singapore has a greater income gap than Britain and America, which have Gini coefficients of 0.35 and 0.45 respectively, leave alone Scandinavia, France, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Austria and the Netherlands – countries with Gini coefficients ranging between 0.25 and 0.3, according to a UN-Habitat report.
The Singapore government is trying to help the people cope with the recession. So are governments in other countries – and for a very good reason. A country's economy depends on all its people.
It's interesting what Kenneth Jeyaretnam had to say about "GDP growth per capita and the incomes of ordinary Singaporeans".
He may sound a bit like his father.
But President Barack Obama also expressed a similar view in his inaugural address:
The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on the ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart -- not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.
As did the British historian Eric Hobsbawm in the Guardian two days ago:
Look at London. Of course it matters to all of us that London's economy flourishes. But the test of the enormous wealth generated in patches of the capital is not that it contributed 20%-30% to Britain's GDP but how it affects the lives of the millions who live and work there. What kind of lives are available to them? Can they afford to live there? If they can't, it is not compensation that London is also a paradise for the ultra-rich. Can they get decently paid jobs or jobs at all? If they can't, don't brag about all those Michelin-starred restaurants and their self-dramatising chefs. Or schooling for children? Inadequate schools are not offset by the fact that London universities could field a football team of Nobel prize winners.
The test of a progressive policy is not private but public, not just rising income and consumption for individuals, but widening the opportunities and what Amartya Sen calls the "capabilities" of all through collective action.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26619.1
Without elites, we will all go hungry?
Why the elites have to keep telling us without them, we will all go hungry, so forget about 1st world rights!
At first, the message forwarded seems innocuous enough –sensible even in its carriage of though as it goes on to highlight some well established motifs – we are small country; and like small fries in a pond; it pays to get along with the big fishes; otherwise things just doesn’t come around – but where the message in my humble opinion degenerates into plain back slapping endorsement of the status quo ante is when lashings of, “we are so good in what we do; even the Chinese have seen the wisdom of learning from us” – “if good wins over evil; then we need to sacrifice our sense and sensibilities on the altar of necessity” – “good life doesn’t come for free; it comes with a price; and we would do well to dig into our pockets,” begin to filter through.
Am I imagining it? You know what I am going to give Ah Pek Lee the benefit of the doubt; I don’t doubt for one moment; I could have very well confected all these Da Vinci code connotations – so its best if you do me the courtesy of re-reading what he said and judge for yourself whether I am spot on or just making a mountain out of an imaginary mole hill.
Besides this essay this isn’t about what Ah Pek Lee said; rather why and how do elites go about the business of mythologizing their existence? – why for example do they keep telling us without them, we are all going to be toast? Why do they keep repeating the trite warning – if good is going to win over evil, then it always has to come at a heavy price – and no matter what the sacrifice it’s worth paying it – including set aside all our illusions that we could for moment even have real “rights.” Instead of the zoo keeping variety that we have to settle.
Now if you really want to know why elites say the things they regularly do - then you need to suspend disbelief long enough to consider how most of our perceptions in life may be shaped by myths rather than fact.
Don’t believe me? Then just take a look at how myth making is so often pursued unabashedly, even against the face of incontrovertible evidence – like how the MSM keeps trying to sell themselves as the next best thing since sliced bread as the one and only reliable purveyor of the truth. Never mind that our beloved rag languishes somewhere below the Timbuktu daily post – in the land of mirror mirror on the wall, who is the fairest of them all - self praise is always good to go 24/7.
But why is cult of mirror mirror on the wall, who is the fairest of them all so corrosive? In what way does the myth making machine work against society? Some may chide me for being defeatist or even overtly critical; after all, lets say a kid with carrot fingers tells you his dream is to play Rachmaninoff to a packed audience in Carnegie hall – what would you say to him?
My answer is, I dunno – all I know whatever response it is; it pays to be measured and this may mean sticking as astudiously to the truth as possible - no one denies a bit of myth making can motivate and even edify encouraging others to strive towards excellence. I know this only too well; it doesn’t always pay to be brutally honest, not if the truth disables and demoralizes – only my point is; if the myth making is taken too far, it can lead to complacency or worse still a false sense of confidence – that incidentally, is how the world tripped and promptly broke it’s neck in this recent global economic meltdown – now if you really want to understand the global financial crisis; believe me - you don’t even need to do know what are sub primes, derivatives, CDO’s and the rest of those gobble d guck like inverse repayment and equity based costing regressions.
Believe me, you could just as well throw all this out of the window and wipe the board clean and start with this ONE assumption - at the center of the anatomy of disaster that made possible failure on such a grand scale there had to be a Rolls Royce myth making machine (in some cases it may embody the persona of larger than life persona like Bernie Madoff; or even take the form of a century old firm like Lehman Bros) – the whole idea of a machine that can always be relied on perpetuate the good life that so many people bought lock, stock and barrel into – and what was it? It’s only this: house prices will always go up and up and up / and there is no end to good times – and for a very long time, that myth even turned out to be a self fulfilling prophecy as when so many people buy into a myth; its even conceivable they may even have the power to inadvertently shape their version of reality – but a failing that is common to every myth is it cannot be sustained in perpetuity; that’s to say at some point intervening events will cause it to become so unhinged from reality that the whole edifice just comes crashing down – it matters little whether it’s the myth of the cult of the sword that Samurai once ritualized to perpetuate their class politics by imposing a country band on gun powder – at some point, a boatful of brigands are going to show up bearing muskets and when that happens it’s just going to be a be a game leveler; or as the Ottomans say, “hark-met-ther,” when the armies of Sulaiman came across cross bow for the first time to turn back their siege machines – that in the nutshell is how the world suddenly found itself knee deep in shit.
That’s has to be a sobering thought; one that should prompt us all to ask whether it’s even wise for us to keep the myth making machine of mirror mirror on the wall, who is the fairest of them – if we are really serious about the whole business of craving out competitive advantage after the dust has settled on the global economic carnage – its something to consider very seriously; when you consider the last time someone looked at a mirror – she ended up as an old witch peddling poison apples – like I said, it’s a fools game, that we can ill afford in such testing times.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26614.1
Widjaja family visit Prof Chan’s condo
Widjaja family visit Prof Chan’s condo
Sunday, 12 April 2009
Choo Zheng Xi & Deborah Choo
Desperate for information on the circumstances surrounding their son’s death, David Widjaja’s family arrived in Singapore on Wednesday hoping to meet with Professor Chan Kap Lup. The Professor was David’s mentor at the Nanyang Technological University who was allegedly stabbed by David before the latter fell to his death on March 2.
On Friday, David Widjaja’s parents, brother and an uncle paid a surprise visit to Professor Chan Kap Lup’s home, accompanied by several members of the Indonesian press.
The group arrived at the professor’s condominium in the afternoon at about 3.30pm, hoping to meet with the professor to ask him about what had taken place on March 2 at his office in NTU which led to the alleged stabbing and David’s death.
Affixed to the top right corner of the entrance outside Professor Chan’s house was a small CCTV camera. William rang the doorbell and the family waited expectantly. They were answered with silence.
It was the second time that the family of David Widjaja was in Singapore. The family’s first visit was on March 3 – the day after the stabbing incident.
Expressing his disappointment, William Widjaja, David’s brother, told TOC outside Professor Chan’s house that all he wants is clarity on what took place in the professor’s office on March 2. “I just want to ask him what exactly happened in the room”, said David’s father.
In an interview with TOC earlier in the day, the family said they had also planned to meet several of David’s friends, NTU President Dr. Su Guaning, the police and the press.
David’s relationship with his friends were very good, his father said. “It’s impossible that he committed suicide by jumping down a building and he wouldn’t use a knife to stab anyone,” he insisted. “Definitely, he won’t.”
“We want to find proof that David did not commit suicide”, said William.
Earlier, they told TOC that they were paying the Straits Times office in Toa Payoh a visit as well. William said the purpose was to “clarify” certain reports carried by the local media which they felt were “misleading”. These included assertions by the media that David Widjaja had stabbed the professor, slit his own wrists, and committed suicide by jumping to his death. ”The police are still investigating this case and the results [have not been] released yet,” explained William. “So how can the media report that David stabbed the professor, slit his wrists and committed suicide?” Asked if they were considering taking legal actions against the Singapore media, William said they were not and only wanted to clarify some “wrong statements in the Singapore media.”
The family feels that many questions are still unanswered. Having received the autopsy report via the mail on April 4 from NTU, they were puzzled at why the autopsy was not sent directly to them. Asked if they had authorised NTU to collect the report on their behalf, William said, “We didn’t.” His father also insisted that the family did not give any such authorisation.
“The police only told us when they would be giving us the autopsy report,” said David’s father. “They said it would take one month.” He explained that the report should have been passed to the Indonesian embassy in Singapore and the embassy would then be the one which passes it to the family. “It is strange why the autopsy report was given by the police to NTU and not the Indonesian embassy,” said William. They were told by experts in Indonesia that the report would have to be “legalised” first by the embassy before it could be given to the family.
They have sent the autopsy report to medical experts in Indonesia. “The report mostly contained medical terms. Thus, we will seek professional help to decipher them,” William had told The Jakarta Post. The results are yet to be released.
William mentioned that his cousin knew a friend in NTU who told him that there was an Iranian girl who witnessed David’s fall, and that the family would like to get in touch with her but have so far not been able to. William, however, said they did not know if the story was true. They are also appealing for eyewitnesses to step forward and contact them.
The family returns to Indonesia on Sunday morning.
As of now, TOC has not been able to contact NTU because of the holiday. A separate notification will be put up once we have managed to contact NTU.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26612.1
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Goh Chok Tong: Hygiene is gracious act
April 11, 2009
Hygiene is gracious act
 |  | Goh Chok Tong (left) urged Singaporeans to view hygiene as part of gracious behaviour. -- ST PHOTO: SAMUEL HE |
THE recent food poisoning incident at the Geylang Serai market shows how poor hygiene can have a wide impact on public health, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong said on Saturday.
He urged Singaporeans to view hygiene as part of gracious behaviour, during a community event to welcome new residents of his Marine Parade GRC.
'If you have poor hygiene in public places, littering, food all over the place, rats running around the market, that's very ungracious behaviour,' he said.
Mr Goh also extended his condolences to the families of the two women who died after eating rojak from a stall in the Geylang Serai temporary market, in what is possibly Singapore's worst case of mass food poisoning. The market is located in Marine Parade GRC.
Some 150 people also fell ill and four are still in hospital. Mr Goh said he hoped they would recover quickly.
He said the incident suggested something was amiss but stressed that Members of Parliament for the area were quick to respond and were not absent, as some rumours had it.
Dr Ong Seh Hong, the MP in charge of the Kampong Ubi-Kembangan ward where the temporary market stands, was at the site 'very early on' after news of the food poisoning broke, Mr Goh said.
'He also visited the family of the deceased, who happened to be a constituent in the GRC,' he said, referring to Madam Aminah Samijo who died on Monday.
'But it's off the news, because you don't expect people to follow you when you pay your respects to the family.'
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26592.1
MM Lee: China learns from Singapore
| OUR PLACE IN THE WORLD | |||||
| |||||
| |||||
| HOW does a country, Lilliputian in size and stature, rub shoulders with the big boys - and survive and thrive? Yesterday, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew spoke about the essence of Singapore's foreign policy from independence till now in a talk organised by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Diplomatic Academy. It was about pride of place despite geography, size, and having 'independence thrust upon Singapore'. And it is about planning and being prepared for opportunity and adversity.
BEING PREPARED TO SURVIVE the upheavals of a globalised world, Singapore must walk a tightrope. 'A small country must seek a maximum number of friends, while maintaining the freedom to be itself as a sovereign and independent nation,' said MM Lee. But who befriends a small country that performs no vital or irreplaceable functions in the international system? 'Friendship, in international relations, is not a function of goodwill or personal affection,' said MM Lee. 'We must make ourselves relevant so that other countries have an interest in our continued survival and prosperity as a sovereign and independent nation.' To do this, Singapore must stay competitive by attracting foreign investments and produce goods and services useful to the world. At the same time, it must strengthen its national consciousness. It won't be easy, when globalisation is tearing apart at the very notion of nationhood. 'A country like America has over 200 years of history to bond its citizens,' said MM Lee. 'We have only 40 years.' The post-Cold War world remains in flux, and every country is in the midst of transiting to a different global order, said MM Lee. 'A mood for more regulations and control prevails in many economies. This could slide into protectionism,' said MM Lee. Amid the uncertainty, Singapore will have to swiftly adjust its policies in a pragmatic and clinical manner. 'We have to live with the world as it is, not as we wish it should be,' said MM Lee. 'We must remain nimble to seize opportunities that come with changing circumstances, or to get out of harm's way.'
MANAGING PREJUDICE PREJUDICE, not necessarily our own, may strain Singapore's future relationships with its neighbours. While Singapore is a multi-racial meritocracy, our neighbours organise their societies on the supremacy of indigenous peoples, for example Malaysia's bumiputras and Indonesia's pribumis. 'Though our neighbours have accepted us as a sovereign and independent nation, they have a tendency to externalise towards us their internal anxieties and angst against their own minorities,' said MM Lee. 'This is unlikely to go away.' Time has healed some of the strained relations of the past but historical baggage is easier to discard. 'Political and social systems, we cannot change so easily,' said MM Lee. Still, Asean is more robust today than when it was formed in 1967. It has been 'an exception among Third World regional organisations' because its members focused on development instead of out-doing one another, said MM Lee. Asean countries must work together to thrive in the future. At the same time, Singapore must differentiate itself to compete and survive, all the while maintaining harmonious relationships with its neighbours. 'This is a perennial foreign policy challenge,' said MM Lee.
TAKING PRIDE AN AWAKENING dragon, sceptical but curious of a little dot's success, came a-knocking - and left seduced. In the 1960s and 1970s, Singapore was criticised by China as a lackey of American imperialists. Closer to home, the China-backed Malayan Communist Party (MCP) refused to recognise Singapore's independence. But all this changed when former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping visited Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur and Singapore in November 1978. 'He personally saw that China had fallen behind these supposedly backward cities,' said MM Lee. From then on, Mr Deng started keeping tabs on developments in Singapore. He liked what he saw. When former deputy prime minister Dr Goh Keng Swee retired in 1985, he was invited to be economic adviser to the state council on the development of China's coastal areas and tourism. A few years later, during a 1992 tour of southern China, Mr Deng held Singapore up as an example, saying: 'There is good social order in Singapore. They govern the place with discipline. We should draw from their experience, and do even better than them.' Later that year, vice-minister of propaganda Xu Weicheng led a delegation to Singapore. They stayed for 10 days. That marked the beginning. Since 1996, Singapore has trained more than 16,000 Chinese officials. 'China, a huge nation with an ancient history, was willing to learn from a tiny city-state,' said MM Lee. |
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26582.1
Bold gesture from the government needed in this time of crisis
Bold gesture from the government needed in this time of crisis
Saturday, 11 April 2009
The government has done little to indicate that it is willing to share the pain with those who have been affected by the crisis, beyond token cuts in public sector salaries.
It’s time to re-visit this issue.
After some $100 billion* in losses at the two state investment and holding companies, one would have thought a little belt tightening would be in order. Alas, there is little sign of any.
Singapore’s leaders would do well to take a leaf out of Barack Obama’s book and cap top salaries in the government at $500,000.
Singapore is facing its worst economic crisis in 44 years of independence. With external trade at 185% of GDP** and the rest of the world (notably the key US market) reeling from the biggest financial blitz in 80 years, there is unlikely to be a quick fix solution to the country’s economic woes. Economists debate whether the recovery will be ‘U shaped’ or ‘L shaped’ and how long the recession will last.
These are all, at this point in time, in the nature of best guesses or, to put it a little more unkindly, cases of ‘the blind leading the blind’. From all indications, the US has a long way to go, first to understand the nature of the toxic assets on the books of its financial institutions and then to begin to unravel them. How far down the spiral will go or how long it will take is moot at this point.
A cold hard look
With Singapore heavily dependent upon the US and no other markets available to take up the slack, and with no domestic market to speak of, it has little choice but to ride out the typhoon and hope when it passes and the waters calm down, that the ship of state is still upright and watertight. The government has been prudent in the past but, as the Minister Mentor has pointed out on many occasions, it takes just a few years of recklessness or adversity for the fat to be wiped out. It is time to trim the sails.
Let’s take a cold hard look at the situation. The GDP grew 1.1% in 2008. The forecast for the drop in GDP in 2009 ranges from 5 to 8% with the possibility that recovery may not start until late 2010 or even 2011. Even after the US economy stabilizes, chances are there will be a new mood of prudence in household savings, so it is unlikely the US will buy as much from abroad as it did in the past: at least until a new economic cycle begins which could be years away.
This means in 2009 alone between $12 billion and $20 billion of domestic economic activity could be wiped out. Market capitalization of listed companies will be severely eroded and, according to Credit Suisse, some 300,000 jobs might be lost (most affected would be the 1 million or so foreigners currently living in Singapore). An exodus of workers out of the country would mean, immediately, an easing of the property rental market, followed, in all likelihood, by a sharp drop in property values (some estimates forecast drops of up to 40%).
In February 2009 alone Total Trade and the Index of Industrial Production dropped by over 22% each as compared with February 2008. Alarming indeed.
Government sharing the pain?
Against this backdrop, nothing short of a war plan will do. Yet, the government has done little to indicate that it is willing to share the pain with those who have been affected by the crisis, beyond token cuts in public sector salaries.
Recent announcements by the Public Service Division (PSD) indicate that salaries of ministers and top civil servants will drop by some 12 to 20% in 2009 compared with the previous year. Although seemingly impressive in percentage terms, it will still leave gross salaries of some $3.1 million for the President (previously over $3.5 million) and $3 million for the Prime Minister. By comparison, the President of the US takes home US$400,000 or about S$600,000. The ministerial grade or Staff Grade 1 (MR4) pay will remain in excess of $1.5 million and the entry level Superscale Grade (SR9) to the civil service salary will be over $350,000. Allowances for each Member of Parliament will be in the region of $190,000 even after the cuts announced recently.
Even taking ministerial and top civil service salaries at the baseline of $1.5 million, the difference between the ‘top’ and ‘bottom’ in Singapore society is about 30 times. By comparison, the difference between the top and bottom in developed societies, such as the Scandinavian countries, is about 3 times. As Singapore aspires to first world status, it is imperative that it does more to push up remuneration levels at the bottom and hold those at the top. The example can, obviously, be set by the government, not only as the largest employer but as the Confucian father figure it has often made itself out to be.
A government austerity drive needed
Moreover, with some 66,000 employees in the civil service alone (not counting statutory boards and the armed forces) the practical benefits of an austerity drive would be considerable. The government’s total wage bill for the civil service for 2009 is estimated at over $5 billion (again, excluding the stat boards and SAF). It would be reasonable to assume that a fair amount of savings could be wrung out of it (every 20% of savings knocks off $1 billion), thus reducing the need to dip into the piggy bank to the extent the government proposes ($4.9 billion of past reserves are to be drawn down).
The Jobs Credit scheme which will absorb the bulk of the draw down of past reserves ($4.5 billion to be precise) is unlikely to be successful. Companies in many sectors of the economy are likely to see drops in revenue of over 12% of payroll value, which is the amount of subsidy being offered by the government (up to the first $2,500 of salary for each employee on its rolls). Consequently, the government will either be forced to go back to the President to ask for more funds to be unlocked or to let companies sink or swim on their own (the US government is already into its third round of funding). Neither option is very palatable.
It is time the government demonstrated some solidarity with the people and some originality and imagination in tackling the crisis. Unlike leaders of other countries such as Barack Obama and Gordon Brown (who are paid much less than our leaders), the Prime Minister has not been seen to be leading from the front. We have not heard from him as to what austerity measures he proposes to take or where he thinks he can squeeze savings out of the government budget. It is not enough for him to say he is donating his own salary increases to charity for five years. That does not give him the moral high ground. He must do more.
As any housewife will tell you, when faced with shrinking income, the prudent thing to do is to cut your expenses – sharply and swiftly.
A public servant’s role is fundamentally different from that of an executive in the private sector. The basic premise that their salaries should be linked to those of the top earners in the private sector is flawed and, arguably, self-serving. Many of these high earners in the private sector (eg bankers) are in second or third generation family businesses built up painstakingly over decades or are in large multi-national corporations with global empires backed by enormous capital.
The concept of Ministers as ‘managers’ of the Singapore economy is also flawed for reasons I shall discuss in a separate article. At this time I would merely submit that we do not need highly paid ‘rocket scientists’ (who would have been powerless to prevent the global meltdown, anyway) to run the government. Integrity, honesty, drive, administrative ability, common sense and the skill to communicate with people would appear to be the key attributes needed.
In this time of crisis, the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression, it is expected that the government will make a bold gesture. If not the people will speak, when they get the opportunity.
—–
* Assuming total combined assets of $400 billion between Temasek Holdings and GIC and erosion of some 33% in keeping with general decline in global asset values over the past year
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26568.1
Saturday, 11 April 2009
The government has done little to indicate that it is willing to share the pain with those who have been affected by the crisis, beyond token cuts in public sector salaries.
It’s time to re-visit this issue.
After some $100 billion* in losses at the two state investment and holding companies, one would have thought a little belt tightening would be in order. Alas, there is little sign of any.
Singapore’s leaders would do well to take a leaf out of Barack Obama’s book and cap top salaries in the government at $500,000.
Singapore is facing its worst economic crisis in 44 years of independence. With external trade at 185% of GDP** and the rest of the world (notably the key US market) reeling from the biggest financial blitz in 80 years, there is unlikely to be a quick fix solution to the country’s economic woes. Economists debate whether the recovery will be ‘U shaped’ or ‘L shaped’ and how long the recession will last.
These are all, at this point in time, in the nature of best guesses or, to put it a little more unkindly, cases of ‘the blind leading the blind’. From all indications, the US has a long way to go, first to understand the nature of the toxic assets on the books of its financial institutions and then to begin to unravel them. How far down the spiral will go or how long it will take is moot at this point.
A cold hard look
With Singapore heavily dependent upon the US and no other markets available to take up the slack, and with no domestic market to speak of, it has little choice but to ride out the typhoon and hope when it passes and the waters calm down, that the ship of state is still upright and watertight. The government has been prudent in the past but, as the Minister Mentor has pointed out on many occasions, it takes just a few years of recklessness or adversity for the fat to be wiped out. It is time to trim the sails.
Let’s take a cold hard look at the situation. The GDP grew 1.1% in 2008. The forecast for the drop in GDP in 2009 ranges from 5 to 8% with the possibility that recovery may not start until late 2010 or even 2011. Even after the US economy stabilizes, chances are there will be a new mood of prudence in household savings, so it is unlikely the US will buy as much from abroad as it did in the past: at least until a new economic cycle begins which could be years away.
This means in 2009 alone between $12 billion and $20 billion of domestic economic activity could be wiped out. Market capitalization of listed companies will be severely eroded and, according to Credit Suisse, some 300,000 jobs might be lost (most affected would be the 1 million or so foreigners currently living in Singapore). An exodus of workers out of the country would mean, immediately, an easing of the property rental market, followed, in all likelihood, by a sharp drop in property values (some estimates forecast drops of up to 40%).
In February 2009 alone Total Trade and the Index of Industrial Production dropped by over 22% each as compared with February 2008. Alarming indeed.
Government sharing the pain?
Against this backdrop, nothing short of a war plan will do. Yet, the government has done little to indicate that it is willing to share the pain with those who have been affected by the crisis, beyond token cuts in public sector salaries.
Recent announcements by the Public Service Division (PSD) indicate that salaries of ministers and top civil servants will drop by some 12 to 20% in 2009 compared with the previous year. Although seemingly impressive in percentage terms, it will still leave gross salaries of some $3.1 million for the President (previously over $3.5 million) and $3 million for the Prime Minister. By comparison, the President of the US takes home US$400,000 or about S$600,000. The ministerial grade or Staff Grade 1 (MR4) pay will remain in excess of $1.5 million and the entry level Superscale Grade (SR9) to the civil service salary will be over $350,000. Allowances for each Member of Parliament will be in the region of $190,000 even after the cuts announced recently.
Even taking ministerial and top civil service salaries at the baseline of $1.5 million, the difference between the ‘top’ and ‘bottom’ in Singapore society is about 30 times. By comparison, the difference between the top and bottom in developed societies, such as the Scandinavian countries, is about 3 times. As Singapore aspires to first world status, it is imperative that it does more to push up remuneration levels at the bottom and hold those at the top. The example can, obviously, be set by the government, not only as the largest employer but as the Confucian father figure it has often made itself out to be.
A government austerity drive needed
Moreover, with some 66,000 employees in the civil service alone (not counting statutory boards and the armed forces) the practical benefits of an austerity drive would be considerable. The government’s total wage bill for the civil service for 2009 is estimated at over $5 billion (again, excluding the stat boards and SAF). It would be reasonable to assume that a fair amount of savings could be wrung out of it (every 20% of savings knocks off $1 billion), thus reducing the need to dip into the piggy bank to the extent the government proposes ($4.9 billion of past reserves are to be drawn down).
The Jobs Credit scheme which will absorb the bulk of the draw down of past reserves ($4.5 billion to be precise) is unlikely to be successful. Companies in many sectors of the economy are likely to see drops in revenue of over 12% of payroll value, which is the amount of subsidy being offered by the government (up to the first $2,500 of salary for each employee on its rolls). Consequently, the government will either be forced to go back to the President to ask for more funds to be unlocked or to let companies sink or swim on their own (the US government is already into its third round of funding). Neither option is very palatable.
It is time the government demonstrated some solidarity with the people and some originality and imagination in tackling the crisis. Unlike leaders of other countries such as Barack Obama and Gordon Brown (who are paid much less than our leaders), the Prime Minister has not been seen to be leading from the front. We have not heard from him as to what austerity measures he proposes to take or where he thinks he can squeeze savings out of the government budget. It is not enough for him to say he is donating his own salary increases to charity for five years. That does not give him the moral high ground. He must do more.
As any housewife will tell you, when faced with shrinking income, the prudent thing to do is to cut your expenses – sharply and swiftly.
A public servant’s role is fundamentally different from that of an executive in the private sector. The basic premise that their salaries should be linked to those of the top earners in the private sector is flawed and, arguably, self-serving. Many of these high earners in the private sector (eg bankers) are in second or third generation family businesses built up painstakingly over decades or are in large multi-national corporations with global empires backed by enormous capital.
The concept of Ministers as ‘managers’ of the Singapore economy is also flawed for reasons I shall discuss in a separate article. At this time I would merely submit that we do not need highly paid ‘rocket scientists’ (who would have been powerless to prevent the global meltdown, anyway) to run the government. Integrity, honesty, drive, administrative ability, common sense and the skill to communicate with people would appear to be the key attributes needed.
In this time of crisis, the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression, it is expected that the government will make a bold gesture. If not the people will speak, when they get the opportunity.
—–
* Assuming total combined assets of $400 billion between Temasek Holdings and GIC and erosion of some 33% in keeping with general decline in global asset values over the past year
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26568.1
Interview: Kenneth Jeyaretnam’s debut
Interview: Kenneth Jeyaretnam’s debut
Saturday, 11 April 2009
Darren Boon
Same goals as JBJ but “I’m my own man”
Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam, the scion of the late politician J.B. Jeyaretnam, has joined and been co-opted into the CEC of the Reform Party. In an interview with The Online Citizen (TOC), the younger Mr Jeyaretnam, an economist by training, expressed his wish that the Reform Party would field him as a candidate in the next general elections.
In the interview, Mr Jeyaretnam appeared hesitant to discuss his policies concretely: “It’s too early to advocate specific policies…I don’t really want to talk about those at the moment.”
However, he tells TOC: “Generally I think that the government focuses too much on GDP growth for its own sake where it should be focussing on things like GDP growth per capita and the incomes of ordinary Singaporeans.”
“I think that the country as a whole has too high a savings rate. And we need to increase domestic consumption. Excess savings…this is a global problem but I think Singapore is a particularly acute case because personal consumption is 40 per cent of GDP whereas I think in the U.S, it’s about 70 per cent,” he added.
Mr Jeyaretnam also sees a problem for the ‘less-well educated’ and the ‘less-skilled sections’ of the workforce. He highlights the problem of the non-existence of a minimum wage and the few or no restrictions on the mobility of labour coming from abroad. As such, he states that “wages are always under pressure for the less well-off sections of the population”.
He remained coy when asked to divulge further details although he signalled his intention to address these issues in the coming weeks. He said, “We’re still in the process of drafting a manifesto for the Reform Party.”
Politics and the family
Mr Jeyaretnam admits to his reluctance in pursuing a career in politics despite his late father’s urging over the last 10 to 15 years, and when he initially returned to Singapore.
The catalyst for his change of heart was the passing of his father, and on the requests of many people asking him to stand to “fill the void”. He feels that joining the Reform Party is the “most honourable thing to do” since his father set it up, but more so because he agrees with the “concept of reform”.
“I like the name of the party,” he said. “It’s a new party so it’s still at a formative stage…and I think the idea of reform, the idea of a political party promoting reform in Singapore is good.”
As for his political aspirations, Mr Jeyaretnam hopes that his entry into politics would be able “show that economic prosperity and human rights and individual freedom are not incompatible” with one another. He also hopes to dismiss the fear in the hearts of people of what might happen in joining the opposition. Not looking towards reaping huge financial rewards in joining politics, he hopes to contribute to improving the welfare of ordinary Singaporeans.
He credits his father for breaking the monopoly of the PAP when he stood and won in the Anson constituency twice, and for raising awareness amongst the people on their rights as citizens.
In perhaps what is a preview of the younger Mr Jeyaretnam’s challenge to craft his own political persona, one could sense he was trying to strike a delicate balance between carrying on his father’s legacy and staking out his own positions.
Mr Jeyaretnam made a distinction between him and his late father’s policies: “That was 25 years ago, and even then I disagreed with many of his…I suppose…my father wasn’t an economist so you know…I’m my own man…and obviously I’ll have policies that I would advocate.”
“But obviously I have the same goals with regards to individual freedom and human rights and with regards to economic issues, I probably would see things differently from him…to some extent.”
Mr Jeyaretnam, who is married and has a 12-year old son, said that his wife and family are supportive of his decision to enter politics. He would not comment on what his brother, Philip Jeyaretnam, thought of his decision to join The Reform Party, though.
“You know my brother is his own man. When we meet, we normally discuss family things. I never discuss politics with him or his career, so you know I wouldn’t discuss mine,” he said.
“I love my brother. He is my little brother and I love him, and I’m proud of his achievements,” he added.
Meanwhile, Mr Jeyaretnam says there’s a lot of work for him to do, going forward. “I must be humble,” he said.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26567.1
Saturday, 11 April 2009
Darren Boon
Same goals as JBJ but “I’m my own man”
Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam, the scion of the late politician J.B. Jeyaretnam, has joined and been co-opted into the CEC of the Reform Party. In an interview with The Online Citizen (TOC), the younger Mr Jeyaretnam, an economist by training, expressed his wish that the Reform Party would field him as a candidate in the next general elections.
In the interview, Mr Jeyaretnam appeared hesitant to discuss his policies concretely: “It’s too early to advocate specific policies…I don’t really want to talk about those at the moment.”
However, he tells TOC: “Generally I think that the government focuses too much on GDP growth for its own sake where it should be focussing on things like GDP growth per capita and the incomes of ordinary Singaporeans.”
“I think that the country as a whole has too high a savings rate. And we need to increase domestic consumption. Excess savings…this is a global problem but I think Singapore is a particularly acute case because personal consumption is 40 per cent of GDP whereas I think in the U.S, it’s about 70 per cent,” he added.
Mr Jeyaretnam also sees a problem for the ‘less-well educated’ and the ‘less-skilled sections’ of the workforce. He highlights the problem of the non-existence of a minimum wage and the few or no restrictions on the mobility of labour coming from abroad. As such, he states that “wages are always under pressure for the less well-off sections of the population”.
He remained coy when asked to divulge further details although he signalled his intention to address these issues in the coming weeks. He said, “We’re still in the process of drafting a manifesto for the Reform Party.”
Politics and the family
Mr Jeyaretnam admits to his reluctance in pursuing a career in politics despite his late father’s urging over the last 10 to 15 years, and when he initially returned to Singapore.
The catalyst for his change of heart was the passing of his father, and on the requests of many people asking him to stand to “fill the void”. He feels that joining the Reform Party is the “most honourable thing to do” since his father set it up, but more so because he agrees with the “concept of reform”.
“I like the name of the party,” he said. “It’s a new party so it’s still at a formative stage…and I think the idea of reform, the idea of a political party promoting reform in Singapore is good.”
As for his political aspirations, Mr Jeyaretnam hopes that his entry into politics would be able “show that economic prosperity and human rights and individual freedom are not incompatible” with one another. He also hopes to dismiss the fear in the hearts of people of what might happen in joining the opposition. Not looking towards reaping huge financial rewards in joining politics, he hopes to contribute to improving the welfare of ordinary Singaporeans.
He credits his father for breaking the monopoly of the PAP when he stood and won in the Anson constituency twice, and for raising awareness amongst the people on their rights as citizens.
In perhaps what is a preview of the younger Mr Jeyaretnam’s challenge to craft his own political persona, one could sense he was trying to strike a delicate balance between carrying on his father’s legacy and staking out his own positions.
Mr Jeyaretnam made a distinction between him and his late father’s policies: “That was 25 years ago, and even then I disagreed with many of his…I suppose…my father wasn’t an economist so you know…I’m my own man…and obviously I’ll have policies that I would advocate.”
“But obviously I have the same goals with regards to individual freedom and human rights and with regards to economic issues, I probably would see things differently from him…to some extent.”
Mr Jeyaretnam, who is married and has a 12-year old son, said that his wife and family are supportive of his decision to enter politics. He would not comment on what his brother, Philip Jeyaretnam, thought of his decision to join The Reform Party, though.
“You know my brother is his own man. When we meet, we normally discuss family things. I never discuss politics with him or his career, so you know I wouldn’t discuss mine,” he said.
“I love my brother. He is my little brother and I love him, and I’m proud of his achievements,” he added.
Meanwhile, Mr Jeyaretnam says there’s a lot of work for him to do, going forward. “I must be humble,” he said.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26567.1
A military presence in enterprise development
A military presence in enterprise development
SINGAPORE - What do SPRING Singapore (Standards, Productivity and Innovation Board) and A*STAR (Agency for Science, Technology and Research) have in common? Their leaders are alumni of our military. Mr Philip Yeo, the previous chairman for A*STAR served as a Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Defense. Now, he is at SPRING Singapore. His successor at A*STAR, Mr Lim Chuan Poh, a retired Lieutenant-General, was formerly the Chief of Defense Force.
Thus, it is not uncommon for retiring military leaders to be posted to positions within our government ministeries and statutory boards. The question is if such a practice is ever sound?
The main worry is that such military personels having been in the military for the most part of their lives may lack the necessary industrial experience. And this is reflected in the feedback by recruitment agencies on the non-attractiveness of scholars who serve in the military for their entire career.
Ideally, the head of a research agency should have relevant Research and Development background in addition to industrial experience. Indeed, it is a worrying trend for a research agency like A*STAR to adhere to a narrow set of criteria in nurturing potential R and D talents.
Bloggers who engaged Mr Philip Yeo during his rare venture into the blogosphere have tenuously pointed out the fact that a 3.8 GPA or first class honors is not sufficient to determine the ability of a budding researcher. In addition, others have also pointed out that the current A*STAR policy of funding PhD studies is out of touch with the reality of how PhD programs are run in academic and research institutions. The fact remains that it is easy to get into any PhD program with decent grades and external sources of funding. The equation changes completely when the candidate requires funding from the institutions that he is applying to. Thus, wouldn’t requiring A*STAR scholars to secure some sort of funding from the institutions they are applying to save a substantial amount of tax payer’s money?
The lack of experience aside, another source of concern is that these former military men may transplant their bureacratic practices into their new organizations, which are supposingly centres of innovation. Innovation and bureacratic control are like oil and water, running contrary to each other. The progress of these organizations will inevitably be stymied by the bureaucracy.
The civil service adopted the an old practice that has been discarded by Shell Petroleum - the Current Estimated Potential (CEP). A military leader who is an SAF overseas scholar would definitely have a high CEP. Thus, one really wonders if the same CEP is used in deciding where to post these leaders after they retire from the military.
If CEP is used in determining the posting, such a practice is indeed flawed. After all, CEP is based on performance in a battery of tests a student takes when he is in high school, and his performance while in service. But CEP cannot determine the ability of a scholar to successfully manage an organization that is totally different from the one he used to work in.
In the face of the fact that people with necessary experience and expertise are needed to manage government bodies charged with R and D and innovation, one questions the wisdom of bringing in former military scholars to lead such bodies. Is there a dearth of truly qualified leaders in Singapore? Or the government merely prefers one of its own to lead? Another pertinent question to ask is - is such a posting scheme a form of reward for the loyalty of these military leaders?
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26725.1
SINGAPORE - What do SPRING Singapore (Standards, Productivity and Innovation Board) and A*STAR (Agency for Science, Technology and Research) have in common? Their leaders are alumni of our military. Mr Philip Yeo, the previous chairman for A*STAR served as a Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Defense. Now, he is at SPRING Singapore. His successor at A*STAR, Mr Lim Chuan Poh, a retired Lieutenant-General, was formerly the Chief of Defense Force.
Thus, it is not uncommon for retiring military leaders to be posted to positions within our government ministeries and statutory boards. The question is if such a practice is ever sound?
The main worry is that such military personels having been in the military for the most part of their lives may lack the necessary industrial experience. And this is reflected in the feedback by recruitment agencies on the non-attractiveness of scholars who serve in the military for their entire career.
Ideally, the head of a research agency should have relevant Research and Development background in addition to industrial experience. Indeed, it is a worrying trend for a research agency like A*STAR to adhere to a narrow set of criteria in nurturing potential R and D talents.
Bloggers who engaged Mr Philip Yeo during his rare venture into the blogosphere have tenuously pointed out the fact that a 3.8 GPA or first class honors is not sufficient to determine the ability of a budding researcher. In addition, others have also pointed out that the current A*STAR policy of funding PhD studies is out of touch with the reality of how PhD programs are run in academic and research institutions. The fact remains that it is easy to get into any PhD program with decent grades and external sources of funding. The equation changes completely when the candidate requires funding from the institutions that he is applying to. Thus, wouldn’t requiring A*STAR scholars to secure some sort of funding from the institutions they are applying to save a substantial amount of tax payer’s money?
The lack of experience aside, another source of concern is that these former military men may transplant their bureacratic practices into their new organizations, which are supposingly centres of innovation. Innovation and bureacratic control are like oil and water, running contrary to each other. The progress of these organizations will inevitably be stymied by the bureaucracy.
The civil service adopted the an old practice that has been discarded by Shell Petroleum - the Current Estimated Potential (CEP). A military leader who is an SAF overseas scholar would definitely have a high CEP. Thus, one really wonders if the same CEP is used in deciding where to post these leaders after they retire from the military.
If CEP is used in determining the posting, such a practice is indeed flawed. After all, CEP is based on performance in a battery of tests a student takes when he is in high school, and his performance while in service. But CEP cannot determine the ability of a scholar to successfully manage an organization that is totally different from the one he used to work in.
In the face of the fact that people with necessary experience and expertise are needed to manage government bodies charged with R and D and innovation, one questions the wisdom of bringing in former military scholars to lead such bodies. Is there a dearth of truly qualified leaders in Singapore? Or the government merely prefers one of its own to lead? Another pertinent question to ask is - is such a posting scheme a form of reward for the loyalty of these military leaders?
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26725.1
Mind wars: PAP blogs back
Saturday April 11, 2009
Mind wars: PAP blogs back
BY SEAH CHIANG NEE
THIS fast growing city is set to become an even more exciting place. The location to watch is the blogosphere, which will become a new political arena after the Government launches a web offensive within the next few weeks to retake lost ground.
Exactly what it will do is not clear, but it will probably centre on the use of various forums and chat-sites to put across its views in a place that has been dominated by critics. An existing popular website will be revamped to feature a “no-holds-barred” forum and articles written by activists.
The battle lines are being formed on both sides.
It will herald a new era of diversity – or even divisiveness – in Singapore, where already a third of its 4.68 million people are foreigners who arrived with their own array of languages and cultures.
I do not see an “anything goes” website for free political discussions – if it happens - not having a spreading impact on the mainstream media.
It could result eventually in a freer atmosphere for the pro-government newspapers, which are globally ranked very poorly for credibility.
“It will no longer make sense to ban the press from reporting on issues that are freely talked about even on government websites,” rationalised a retired journalist.
“If that happens, the double standard will for sure kill off the newspapers,” he added.
Coming this year, the new strategy is symbolic. In June, the People’s Action Party (PAP) will reach a historic landmark - governing Singapore for 50 years. It is a record that few ruling parties in the world, where elections are held, can claim.
Winning the Internet war is crucial for the PAP’s survival. So far it has been losing it by default.
During the past decade, many young Singaporeans who believed the newspapers were a government mouthpiece spinning out propaganda have been turning to the web for information.
This rising number of cynical youths has, in effect, created a sub-community in Singapore society which has turned off reading newspapers or listening to what the political leaders say.
They spend a great deal of time communicating with each other, relying on and reinforcing each other’s online views.
For the ruling party, these are the lost sheep. They include many of the better-educated, the successful and professionals. Some are studying in – or have studied from – top universities abroad and could become future leaders. They make up a big part of the intellectuals.
“The PAP has to win back this sub-community of young people or lose the future,” said a business consultant. This new online strategy is part of that answer.
As many as two-thirds of Singaporeans in their 20s either blog or participate in online forums; blogging is also common among the 30s and 40s set.
While the PAP Youth Wing is responsible for spearheading the web offensive, it is the Ministry of Information and the Arts (MICA), that is the focal point.
How far will it allow the websites to go before censoring things?
During the early years, a perception about the Information Ministry’s work was that of a group of bureaucrats sitting around a table measuring - with a ruler - the amount of opposition newspaper coverage. There was, of course, more important work, but censorship was never far from its duties when then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew was ruling with a rigid force.
Whenever elections rolled around, word had it the bureaucrats were hard at work ensuring that opposition candidates did not get too much press coverage. If they did, the reporter or editor could get an earful of uncomplimentary remarks.
That was, of course, before Lee’s successors, including the present Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, began to soften the process – and, of course, before the Internet’s arrival.
Today the Ministry is still in the business of press censorship, but a schoolboy’s ruler is no longer needed. The new digital media can neither be measured nor controlled in the same manner.
On April 1, a 48-year-old former navy chief took over as Minister for Information and the Arts, a new job that could reshape how the post-Lee Kuan Yew government will bond with its citizens. For Mr Lui Tuck Yew, 48, the task is not an easy one. He could, for example, spoil the party by coming down hard whenever criticisms become too strong especially during campaigning.
The Net as a political tool is not only a problem for the ageing PAP leaders who know little about it, but also for those in the opposition as well. Apart from their own official websites, few of them – unlike the opposition in Malaysia – operate a site to talk with Singaporeans.
In fact, the Workers Party has even forbidden its executive committee members from using their party positions when posting messages for fear of being sued. So far the big bulk of the speaking out process has come mostly from bloggers and not the main opposition parties.
Will the PAP plan work? It depends on how free its own activists are allowed to talk about policies. The web is just another channel of communication.
“If it’s used to put out the same propaganda as in the controlled press, then it will fail,” said a critic. Others merely shrug it off. “Whatever politics is uttered on the Net, nothing will change in the real world.
“With all the uneven rules in place, only half the voters will have a chance to vote, the PAP will win another Parliament landslide – and people will go on condemning it,” the critic
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26565.1
Our bloated defence budget: What is the perceived threat?
Our bloated defence budget: What is the perceived threat?
While many prominent Singapore bloggers have written about the top civil servant who splurged on a cooking class in Paris and about the inadequacies of the 2009 budget in aiding the needy, none has complained about the 6% dollar increase in the 2009 defense budget to $11.447 billion, which is about 4.7% of 2007’s GDP of S$243.2 billion. The 2008 defence budget of S$10.8 billion is 4.4% of 2007 GDP, and with a nearly flat GDP growth for 2008, Singapore is actually committing more to defence.
| GDP Growth | Defence Budget (S$ BN) | Budget Growth | Remarks | |
| FY 2000 | 10.06% | 7.42 | -% | Actual Expenses |
| FY 2001 | -2.44% | 7.82 | 5.35% | Actual Expenses |
| FY 2002 | 4.18% | 8.2 | 4.91% | Actual Expenses |
| FY 2003 | 3.50% | 8.24 | 0.39% | Actual Expenses |
| FY 2004 | 8.99% | 8.62 | 4.66% | Actual Expenses |
| FY 2005 | 7.30% | 9.25 | 7.31% | Actual Expenses |
| FY 2006 | 8.17% | 9.63 | 4.11% | Actual Expenses |
| FY 2007 | 7.72% | 10.01 | 3.95% | Actual Expenses |
| FY 2008 | 3.98% | 10.8 | 7.89% | Approved Budget |
| FY 2009 | -???% | 11.45 | 6.02% | Approved Budget |
Source: Ministry of Finance
Why the increase in the defence budget?
To put things in perspective, let’s take a look at how much others spend on defence relative to their GDP. The US spends 4.06% of her GDP on defence but does not include the current war expenses in Afghanistan or Iraq. France spends 2.6% and most other western nations spend 2% or less. Singapore is ranked 20th with 4.5% (2005). It is interesting to note that the top 19 countries are mostly developing nations in trouble spots such as the middle east and Africa. India is a distant #66 with 2.5%. This does not imply that Singapore should follow “western standards” in planning defence budgetary layouts. It only indicates that the government of Singapore must perceive a threat in order to commit such a large proportion to defence in the midst of her worst economic crisis.
Thus, what is the perceived threat? Terrorism is the first obvious answer that comes to mind. The last known “terrorist attack” in Singapore occurred in 1991 with the hijack of Singapore Flight 117 that ended abruptly and violently for the hijackers. A few years ago, Singapore was also threatened with 9/11 style aircraft attacks and embassy bombings. In contrast, some European nations have suffered actual attacks, which includes the 2004 Madrid train bombings and 2005 London bombings. The most recent attack of significance took place in Mumbai claiming the first Singaporean casualty to international terrorism. With the exception of India where the jury is still out, there has been no increase in the following year’s defense budgets of the scale that we now see in Singapore.
In the official publication “Fight Against Terror”, the government claims that while “terrorism does not threaten the existence of Singapore as an independent nation, it has the capacity to inflict serious shocks on our economy and society, causing not only material and human damage, but also psychological injury. It also has the potential to pit different communities against each other, weakening multi-racial, multi-religious character of Singapore that is vital to our success.” (Pg 59). While prevention is the best cure, it must be noted however that there has been no historical precedence showing that foreign investment will flee a country without considering the national capacity to handle the crisis that might ensue. Neither is the strain on the social fabric a uniquely Singaporean phenomenon. On the contrary, many societies, even divided ones have historically shown resilience and cohesion against a common external threat. The nationalistic American rally post 9/11 is an example. Nearer to Singapore, the peace accord between the Indonesian government and the Free Aceh Rebels after the 2004 Tsunami provides further cause for optimism.
Although the SAF is a key player in counter terrorism, she is not the only player. Her counter terrorist efforts can also be described as incidental. Today, conscripts guard key civilian installations such as Jurong Island without imposing on the budget. The security of air and maritime lanes of communications is a daily job that preoccupies most air and naval forces regardless of terrorism activities although the level of activities and vigilance is possibly higher. Yet, these activities should have been accounted for in the years following the 9/11 attacks. It is also widely recognized that while military forces are important, police forces, national intelligence and non security organizations play equally if not greater roles in attack prevention and post attack rehabilitation. Yet, no similar increase in budgets is noted in other Singaporean ministries in the 2009 budget.
Thus, we can safely conclude that the terrorism is not the dominant factor in augmenting the defense budget in the midst of an economic crisis. The perceived threat has to be external.
What is the perceived threat?
The stated mission of the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) is for deterrence. And if deterrence is to fail, its mission is to achieve a swift and decisive victory.
The question that one should ask is, deterrence against who and achieve a swift and decisive victory against who? This may be an open secret but let’s go back to basic geopolitics to see which state actor could pose a threat to the security of Singapore.
At the global level, there are currently few countries that have the capability to project their forces to threaten Singapore. In this aspect, the US military is unparalleled. If the US wanted to, the SAF would be of little consequence. The fact that Singapore has extremely close military ties with the US and that all her fighter aircraft are American practically rules out this possibility.
China, while a military giant in her own right, does not have power projection capabilities yet. While she is planning to build her own aircraft carrier(s), her strategy is clearly aimed at containing the US. Her main territorial interest is still Taiwan and keeping the country intact, and preventing the secessionist states of Xinjiang and Tibet from breaking away. Without air support and with long communications line, it is not inconceivable for her to be defeated at sea. Furthermore, any seaborne invading force that approaches narrow straits of Malacca or the narrow waters east of Singapore is exposed to air, sea and land attack. Another option is for China to approach via the land route. In all the described scenarios, an attack by China on Singapore is tantamount to starting World War III. This would not happen without intervention from at least the US. Finally, there is no motive for China to attack the tiny island state thousands of kilometres away.
Russia while trying to re-assert her influence on her borders, is but a pale shadow of her former self, the great Soviet Union. Even at the height of her power, she did not have the capability of projection like the US. Today, she has neither the will, the desire nor the capacity to threaten Singapore.
If you look into India’s strategic outlook, you will find that her priorities are firstly to keep the country together and secondly to contain Pakistan and China. Although she is nuclear and has a formidable conventional force and a somewhat “blue water navy”, she faces immense challenges on any military adventure in south east asia.
Today’s Japan is pacifist, and her forces are not configured for force projection nor for offensive operations. Merely supplying the US forces with a single supply ship had to be debated in Parliament, which eventually led to the cancellation of the said mission.
With regards to the other regional states, most can be ruled out for reasons of distance, lack of military capacity, natural obstacles, or internal problems.
With that, we have only Indonesia and Malaysia, the two closest neighbours to Singapore. Indonesia, the largest Muslim democracy in the world today, is extremely weak militarily relative to her size. Her equipment is old and obsolete with the exception of a few recently bought Sukhois. To highlight the state of derelict, the four Sukhois that were bought in 2003 are inactive, did not have compatible communication systems, and lacked weapons. Furthermore, the Indonesian military is still configured for counter-insurgency and non-conventional operations rather than conventional major combat operations and reforms continue to be extremely slow.
Finally, we come to Malaysia. Separated by a narrow strait, Malaysia is a hot destination for Singaporeans looking for cheap food, thrills and beaches. The Malaysian Armed Forces (MAF) has an impressive order of battle. These include Sukhoi-30MKMs, MiG-29s, F-18s, PT-91 main battle tanks from Poland, Astros MLRS, Scorpene submarines, Leiku class frigates and so on and so forth. Furthermore, relations has not always been good between the two countries. Disagreements between the leaders of both countries with regards to the “Bumiputra” policies led to the ejection of Singapore from the Federation of Malaya in 1965 and several disputes have soured relations in more recent years although relations are currently good. Nonetheless, of all the countries mentioned, Malaysia represents the most likely threat perceived by Singapore leaders.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26563.1
“Lapses” getting to be common with the PAP
“Lapses” getting to be common with the PAP
SINGAPORE: The National Environment Agency (NEA) will step up its enforcement regime at hawker centres to ensure there are no more lapses in hygiene standards — which the Environment and Water Resources Minister Yaacob Ibrahim says can never be compromised.
“Can never be compromised”, so says the Minister. But it has, and with serious consequences. Seems a very basic expectation, that consumers are safe from food contaminants. It is revolting to read how many rats were caught in the market, which seems to suggest that the market was in a condition of neglect for some time. Is this a result of the leadership of a mediocre minister?
Speaking at a lecture organised by Singapore Ministry of Foreign Affairs Diplomatic Academy, Minister Mentor said that “a mediocre PM and cabinet will decline our standing with other countries”. Perhaps the better ministers work on foreign policy matters. The mediocre ones work on domestic non-economic issues which consequently decline the government’s standing with the locals.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26613.1
Another case of food poisoning
12 suffer food poisoning after eating at same restaurant in Geylang
By Asha Popatlal, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 11 April 2009 2112 hrs
 | |||||||||||
| |||||||||||
|
SINGAPORE: There has been another case of mass food poisoning, also in the Geylang area.
The Health Ministry said it was notified on Saturday of 12 cases - all of whom ate at a steamboat restaurant BaShu RenJia at 233 Lorong 9, Geylang Road on Friday evening.
All were treated as outpatients. One patient who was supposed to be hospitalised went home to recuperate.
The ministry and the National Environment Agency (NEA) are investigating the incident.
Meanwhile, for the Geylang Serai rojak case, three patients are still recovering in hospital.
Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, speaking at a community event in Marine Parade, said three parties will have to play their part to prevent a recurrence of such a problem.
Welcoming new residents in his constituency, Mr Goh spoke about the need to build a more gracious society.
Using a slide show to explain inconsiderate behaviour, he pointed out how each person needs to play his part for more gracious living - even linking this to the recent outbreak of mass food poisoning in Geylang Serai.
"We all know that food establishments are very important for our own health. Most of us eat outside very regularly, so hygiene in public places like food stalls is very important," said Mr Goh.
The big question now, though, is how to prevent a recurrence of such an incident. For this, Mr Goh said three parties have to play their parts.
He said: "The government must have the responsibility of reinforcing measures to ensure that eating establishments outside are kept to a higher standard of cleanliness. We do this through measures, through regular inspections and enforce those measures on the people who sell us food."
The second group of people whom Mr Goh said have to play their part are hawkers and food handlers. They have to practise proper food hygiene.
One idea he suggested was the use of hand sanitisers used widely in hospitals.
Mr Goh suggested hawkers might want to use sanitisers regularly to keep their hands clean when handling food.
The third group of people whom Mr Goh said have a part to play in preventing food poisoning is the average Singaporean, who has to practise proper personal hygiene not just at home but also in public places.
- CNA/ir
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26611.1
Just admit you screwed up, Yaacob!
Just admit you screwed up, Yaacob!
One week after the mass food poisoning at Geylang Serai first broke out, Minister of Environment and Water Resources Dr Yaacob Ibrahim has finally spoken. (interestingly one day after I slammed him for “missing in action“)
‘What has happened is totally unacceptable. As far as I am concerned, it’s outrageous that this has happened, and we must make sure it doesn’t happen again” he thundered. (read article here)
Strong words indeed, Dr Yaacob, but where were you when the tragedy happened?
As the minister in charge of NEA, Dr Yaacob should be on the ground inspecting the premises and visiting the victims in the hospital on the very day itself if not the day after, but he was nowhere to be seen or heard.
Even if he is not available, the next highest official such as his Permanent Secretary Tan Yong Soon should have stepped forward to fill his shoes. Again, he wasn’t around. (or is he in Paris now for another cooking course?)
Such a delayed lacklustre response is completely unacceptable from the highest paid Environment Minister and Permanent Secretary in the world.
As expected, the state media moved in swiftly to do the damage control work for its political master by describing how on the ball the NEA is by beefing up cleanliness checks on all 109 hawker centres it manages and inspecting 3 other temporary markets.
Why put up a “wayang” now to exonerate itself from any responsibility when this preventable disaster would not have occurred if they had been more viligant on the ground? Has NEA been sleeping on its job?
What’s the point of inspecting the markets now only after two lives have been lost? It is obviously a publicity gimmick to restore public confidence in these eating outlets.
Dr Yaacob said the stepping up will ensure there are no hygiene lapses and that a ’sound regime’ was in place but it will continue to be reviewed.
The result of this “sound regime” is for all to see for themselves. Had it been adequate, how could it fail to detect the hygiene problem with the Indian rojak stall?
How can NEA continue to distance itself from the fiasco as if they are not at fault by shifting the blame to the temporary market’s management committee? How do they account the 61 rats which has been caught at the premises? Did they appear suddenly overnight from nowhere?
I concur with Mr Yaacob that what has happened is totally unacceptable and outrageous. It is unacceptable to have even one mortality from gastroenteritis in a developed country like Singapore and it will even be more outrageous if nobody is held responsible for it.
Sorry to be blunt here, but this is a big screw-up and there is no way Dr Yaacob can escape from it. Just admit it, Yaacob, you SCREWED UP! In other Asian democracies like Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, the minister in charge will probably issue a public apology before tendering his resignation. (In Japan, he may even commit harakiri in shame)
Fortunately for Dr Yaacob, he is in Singapore where the threshold for accountability is very much lower. He can take consolation from the example of his fellow colleague Wong Kan Seng who screwed up big time too and is allowed to get away pretty much unscathed.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26535.1
Singapore's Independence: What Was the Point?
Singapore's Independence: What Was the Point?
Bryan Caplan
In his From Third World to First, Lee Kuan Yew admits that his original political motivation was simply nationalism:
The Japanese occupation... aroused my nationalism and self-respect, and my resentment at being lorded over. My four years as a student in Britain after the war strengthened my determination to get rid of British rule.
I returned to Singapore in 1950, confident of my cause, but ignorant of the pitfalls and dangers that lay ahead. An anticolonial wave swept me and many others of my generation.
Nationalists normally buttress their arguments for independence by insisting that their "mother country" is holding them back. But at least by the late 60s, Lee explicitly rejected this view:
The accepted wisdom of development economists at the time was that MNCs [multi-national corporations] were exploiters of cheap land, labor, and raw materials. This "dependency school" of economists argued that MNCs continued the colonial pattern of exploitation that left the developing countries selling raw materials... Keng Swee and I were not impressed... If MNCs could give our workers employment and teach them technical and engineering skills and management know-how, we should bring in the MNCs.
Now you could say that Singapore's results are proof of the wisdom of Lee's quest for independence. But not so fast. Lee not only envies the success of Hong Kong under continued British rule; he seems to attribute its success to the weakness of democratic and nationalist checks upon its policies. Furthermore, Lee admits that his strategy of cooperation with the communists to overthrow British rule could easily have ended in disaster:
In retrospect, it was our good luck that Singapore did not come to greater harm from some of the high-risk policies and actions that we embarked on. We worked with the communists in a united front; we could have been chewed up and swallowed as happened to social democrats in Poland and Czechoslovakia after World War II.
Lee may be the father of independent Singapore; but his own account of the facts suggests that Singapore's economic miracle would have begun 10-15 years earlier if the nationalist movement had never existed. I have to ask, then: What was the whole point of Singaporean independence?
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26793.1
Bryan Caplan
In his From Third World to First, Lee Kuan Yew admits that his original political motivation was simply nationalism:
The Japanese occupation... aroused my nationalism and self-respect, and my resentment at being lorded over. My four years as a student in Britain after the war strengthened my determination to get rid of British rule.
I returned to Singapore in 1950, confident of my cause, but ignorant of the pitfalls and dangers that lay ahead. An anticolonial wave swept me and many others of my generation.
Nationalists normally buttress their arguments for independence by insisting that their "mother country" is holding them back. But at least by the late 60s, Lee explicitly rejected this view:
The accepted wisdom of development economists at the time was that MNCs [multi-national corporations] were exploiters of cheap land, labor, and raw materials. This "dependency school" of economists argued that MNCs continued the colonial pattern of exploitation that left the developing countries selling raw materials... Keng Swee and I were not impressed... If MNCs could give our workers employment and teach them technical and engineering skills and management know-how, we should bring in the MNCs.
Now you could say that Singapore's results are proof of the wisdom of Lee's quest for independence. But not so fast. Lee not only envies the success of Hong Kong under continued British rule; he seems to attribute its success to the weakness of democratic and nationalist checks upon its policies. Furthermore, Lee admits that his strategy of cooperation with the communists to overthrow British rule could easily have ended in disaster:
In retrospect, it was our good luck that Singapore did not come to greater harm from some of the high-risk policies and actions that we embarked on. We worked with the communists in a united front; we could have been chewed up and swallowed as happened to social democrats in Poland and Czechoslovakia after World War II.
Lee may be the father of independent Singapore; but his own account of the facts suggests that Singapore's economic miracle would have begun 10-15 years earlier if the nationalist movement had never existed. I have to ask, then: What was the whole point of Singaporean independence?
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26793.1
Aware takeover: great news!
The Straits Times’ rather convoluted account, by Wong Kim Hoh, of the rout of the Old Guard at Aware’s recent AGM published on Good Friday made me smile with evil glee.
Although one or two of my friends are card carrying members, including even working Aware’s hotline, I always thought it an organisation made up of the sort of Western educated Singaporean women of a certain social class whom I find particularly irksome.
U know, they bad mouth the Government at every turn, for sport or bravado and yet will smugly slip in somewhere how cosy they are with some of the powers that are. To me, this is the worst kind of showing off!
But back to Aware: if indeed there was a conspiracy to swoop on the dozing Old Guard and chuck them out of the ex-co, then I say good for the conspirators. And aw shucks to the Old Guard!
What made you think because you’ve been there X years gives you the right to be elected year in and out? And what sort of a commitment do the old members have that an ex-president could arrive so late that 100 others had signed in be4 her and she had the gall to be surprised!
The moral of the story is this: if those who founded Aware and those who have been nurturing the organisation for almost two decades really value their vehicle then they should treat it better.
Otherwise, it’s open season n country. Newcomers will snatch it from those caught napping in complacency. Whether for fun and games or with serious intent – the end result is that Aware will never be the same again.
Which may not be a minus in Aware’s case. Any change must be a change for the better, even if the conquerors turn out to be the mirror image of those they conquered.
At least they are fresh faces — not the same old-same old of those whom I shan’t name but anyone familiar with Aware would know whom I mean… and yes, I shall say it be4 anyone else does. I’m really mean when it comes to Aware.http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=28024.262
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)