IT TOOKS THE LEES AND PAP 30YEARS TO DESTORY J B JEYARETNAM
-
continuation:
Will it be an endless and useless exercise to argue about the productive output that is measurable between the Investment Banker and PM LHL ?
You say a high wage is corruption? A top-rated Investment Banker draws as much and he only handles companies and finances. A Minister like LHL makes decisions for the entire country. The matter is not the money but the influence that money brings. Just look at the States, Japan or Korea, where being a politician is an expensive occupation. We pay our politicians well so that they can make unbiased decisions for Singaporeans, rather than focus on interest groups who can line their pockets.
Should we pay Goh Keng Swee or Lim Kim San more than LKY - as all in the LKY Cabinet know that LKY is a 'dreamer' with his vision, while Goh Keng Swee and Lim Kim San is able to translate their 'dreams into actions' ?
Salaries should be commensurate with the standards paid in the society.
Will you pay a Chinese worker in Guangzhou the same salary of a Singapore Worker ?
What is the cost of living - and the standard of living - in Singapore ?
Should it not be the wages of the Singapore Leaders be commensurate with that of the Singapore Cost and Standard of Living ?
If by increasing the monetary remuneration of the Ministerial salary is to prevent corruption, does it not feed into the MONEYTHEISTIC FRENZY that was the hallmark of the Singapore worker in the 1980s - which required the current restructuring of wages ?
Are we implying that other National Government Leaders - who are paid less than our Singaporean Elitist Leaderships - are more susceptible to corruption ?
By the way, you will be surprised that the annual performance of a SINGLE US Private Corporation can be larger than the Singapore Economy - do the Singapore Leadership deserve to be paid such high salaries that are equal to that of the US Corporate Leader ?
Our current lopsided ageing issue is due largely to the Family Policies of the 1960s and 1970s.
Again, you blame the entire aging issue on the government campaigns? Then why aren't their current campaigns and incentives for rearing a family successful? They expending the same effort and money as before? An affluent society, especially one where the gap between rich and poor is not as exaggerated as America, always faces a slow down in population. Look at Europe, Japan, Korea, et all.
Having created the issue, can we turn the clock back - where all things are equal ? Can all things be back to its original state or at least part of its original state in which the Cost of Living be brought back to the 1960 or 1970s, or even 1980s - as a start ?
Can we compare our affluence to that of the Americans in the USA, or the Europeans in the Euro Community ?
Can we be more affluent than the Malaysians despite the Exchange Rate differences, and despite ourselves being paid higher salaries ?
Are our higher salaries negated by the high costs of living ?
A Malaysian Executive paid RM50,000 could probably stretch his salary to buy a bungalow house (at about the same price that we pay a 5-room HDB); and spend on monthly food for a family of five at HALF the amount that we pay for ours; and with enough left to send two kids to an overseas tertiary institution.
Can this number be a majority from a population of 4.5 million, of which 3,091,857 are in the age group of between 15 - 65 years (male and females included) - CIA Factbook; and which only 94% of 1.22 Million eligible voters cast their ballots in ONLY the Contested Wards ?
66.6%, 60%... Correct me if I am wrong but is that still not a majority? And is the PAP to be blamed if there is no opposition in most districts? Do you want them to create opposition against themselves?
What about the balance number of Singaporeans from a total of 2,157,660 eligible voters ?
Can there be an indicator of overwhelming support when the reputation of LHL being the anchor to his GRC Team resulted in a loss of 33.87% of the ballots to an unknown team of NEWBIES from the Workers' Party, with his own results being lower then what he received in the 2001 Election ?
Can there be overwhelming support when the electorates from two hotly contested constituencies of Hougang and Potong Pasir even rejected the offers of multi-million dollar upgrades, only to cast their votes for the Alternative Parties ?
Yes, the PAP is to be blamed for the non-participation of the Alternative Parties in those Constituencies that experienced a Walk-over.
Why should the PAP raise the fees for all participants to stand for Election ?
Why should the PAP prevent large amounts of private anonymous donation to Political Parties ?
Why should the PAP continuously change the boundaries of the constituencies ?
Why should the PAP increase the GRC beyond the original 3 member team ?
Why is the PAP given priority treatment from Government Agencies in all HDB estates to have their branch political offices for PAP Members of Parliament ?
Why is the PAP allowed to operate PAP Kindergarten that allow them to project their politically influenced social programs throughout the year ?
Should we not blame the PAP for all these petty actions that is designed to prevent the Alternative Parties from surviving and gaining support ?
We do not expect PAP to create an opposition to challenge them, but allow a level playing field for Singaporeans to have a choice in the event that the PAP should fail one day - as happened in the dominating ONE PARTY states in East Europe, Latin Americas and Africa.
Do we need to be like these countries ? -
Originally posted by Atobe:Can this be said of Singapore, where the POWER OF ONE has placed their own clones to oversee the operations of each and every Public Institutions ?
Well, indeed, we need someone who has a strong leadership to oversee the whole operation of every development phrase in Singapore, rather than a weak minded and near sighted vision who can only see the present future.
According to LHL, I remembered he said he need a strong government in order to earn the trust to secure more investors to Singapore.
At a personal level, if you insist on experience to take on the job, how did you first get your job without any experience - except for a paper graduation certificate?
If no one believe in you, would you have got your job, with some guidance and direction that allow you to perform and show your true abilities?
Every employer tends to choose their best candidates for the job. Likewise, a experienced person will stand a higher chance as compare to a new freshly graduates, especially when it comes to a higher position, which involves higher risk and uncertainty.
At times, a new fresh graduate may start at a lower level and cultivate new capabilities as he goes along, but these takes times.
Can Singapore continue into the next phase of development, if we are afraid to move into the unknown with an open and alert mind?
In fact, I believe many Singaporean entrepreneurs have risk their stake to step into land of china and many of them actually got killed, but there have also been a number of successful cases.
From the past 10 years, I can feel there are significance changes within Singapore and its external boundary. one typical example of privatisation has Singapore Linked companies to expand oversea, which I believe it helps to bring more investment and income to the country.
Singapore can continue to next phrase of development with the aid of transformational leader in order to drive us ahead of uncertainty.
For your information, 'Profits and Privatisation' will always go-hand-in-hand otherwise China will not attempt to unload all the State run companies that have been money losing enterprises and require annual state subsidies.
Privatisation will lead to greater efficiency and higher level of accountability and transparency.
I strongly agree we strong privatisation our government linked companies in order to create to new competition for better efficiency and higher standards. -
Dup Post
-
Are foreign investors looking for a strong government or an effectively efficient government ?Originally posted by babymac13:Can this be said of Singapore, where the POWER OF ONE has placed their own clones to oversee the operations of each and every Public Institutions ?
Well, indeed, we need someone who has a strong leadership to oversee the whole operation of every development phrase in Singapore, rather than a weak minded and near sighted vision who can only see the present future.
According to LHL, I remembered he said he need a strong government in order to earn the trust to secure more investors to Singapore.
What is the purpose of a strong government except to have an iron grip hold over the Citizenry, and allow the strong government to do as they please with impunity ?
A government that is benevolent, yet efficiently effective make for a prospering and creative environment may even be more attractive to foreign investors.
Such a government can foster the growth of a gracious and industrious community that has incentive to excel, be creative, positive in outlook, and entrepreneurial.
This potential Singaporean society can be compared to the existing environment where the FORTY YEAR OLD strong government has resulted in a 'NANNY STATE' that is constantly prodding Singaporean to excel, to be creative, to be entrepreneurial, and created new labels of quitters and stayers.
If every employer is only prepared to employ experienced personnel, and will not accept inexperienced candidates, where will all freshies gain experience in their relevant fields of interests or specialisation ?
At a personal level, if you insist on experience to take on the job, how did you first get your job without any experience - except for a paper graduation certificate?
If no one believe in you, would you have got your job, with some guidance and direction that allow you to perform and show your true abilities?
Every employer tends to choose their best candidates for the job. Likewise, a experienced person will stand a higher chance as compare to a new freshly graduates, especially when it comes to a higher position, which involves higher risk and uncertainty.
At times, a new fresh graduate may start at a lower level and cultivate new capabilities as he goes along, but these takes times.
Singaporeans have got to learn to be DARING and TAKE RISKS - a theme that is constantly prodded by the POWER OF ONE - and this should include the courage to take risks with NEW PERSONALITIES.
We should give opportunity to those - who are untested - based on their known talents and abilities, see-able enthusiasm and positive attitudes, and acheivable goals and programs.
Singaporeans have got to learn to continue with life with each failure; and not be held back from making further decisions thereafter.
Can Singapore continue into the next phase of development, if we are afraid to move into the unknown with an open and alert mind?
In fact, I believe many Singaporean entrepreneurs have risk their stake to step into land of china and many of them actually got killed, but there have also been a number of successful cases.
From the past 10 years, I can feel there are significance changes within Singapore and its external boundary. one typical example of privatisation has Singapore Linked companies to expand oversea, which I believe it helps to bring more investment and income to the country.
Singapore can continue to next phrase of development with the aid of transformational leader in order to drive us ahead of uncertainty.
Life long road is filled with pitfalls, and the road is never smooth.
We got to learn to be alert to all the different pitfalls, and be diligent in putting our full attention to the details of the tasks taken - so as to minimise the dangers and risks that we may encounter
We need to also the continued diligence being applied during the period after the decision has been taken; and NOT TAKE FOR GRANTED that the system will function by itself after our decision is made.
We should not approach our tasks with a 'kiasu' attitude, and neither should we adopt a 'gung-ho Rambo' charge into new fields of opportunity.
We should avoid a situation where we behave like innocent and gullible virgins, constantly needing guidance and directions for fear of walking down the wrong path.
Diligent and intelligent assessment of all areas affecting our objectives should be clearly understood, decision made from there on - based on our resources and willingness to accept the level of risks that we knowingly can be exposed to.
This is applicable in all our decisions, whether to choose an alternative Political Leadership (when given the opportunity); or deciding when given any opportunities to invest in foreign countries. -
Should we pay Goh Keng Swee or Lim Kim San more than LKY - as all in the LKY Cabinet know that LKY is a 'dreamer' with his vision, while Goh Keng Swee and Lim Kim San is able to translate their 'dreams into actions' ?
I think very few people would characterize LKY as a dreamer and not a doer. The two other politicians while respectable, go nowhere close to the former in terms of what they have done for Singapore. I feel that you would have to agree with that.
Will you pay a Chinese worker in Guangzhou the same salary of a Singapore Worker ?
No and thank god for that since I wouldn't want to be getting the wages of a GuangZhou worker. I still don't follow your line of reasoning here. Again, as asked previously, are you insisting for a lower wage rate?
Are we implying that other National Government Leaders - who are paid less than our Singaporean Elitist Leaderships - are more susceptible to corruption ?
Yes. A definite yes. And I'll state it once more for emphasis: YES
By the way, you will be surprised that the annual performance of a SINGLE US Private Corporation can be larger than the Singapore Economy - do the Singapore Leadership deserve to be paid such high salaries that are equal to that of the US Corporate Leader ?
Very, very few companies do have control of more finances than Singapore, bearing in mind our vast reserves and annual GDP. We are not a third world economy due to the vision of certain individuals [hint, hint]. And I doubt any company executive is reponsible for over 3 million individuals.
Our current lopsided ageing issue is due largely to the Family Policies of the 1960s and 1970s.
Again as stated previously, you equate all blame to the government. An aging population is an inevitable byproduct of increasing affluence.
Can we compare our affluence to that of the Americans in the USA, or the Europeans in the Euro Community ?
Definitely yes. The discrepancy between the haves and have-nots are also much less severe than the US.
A Malaysian Executive paid RM50,000 could probably stretch his salary to buy a bungalow house (at about the same price that we pay a 5-room HDB); and spend on monthly food for a family of five at HALF the amount that we pay for ours; and with enough left to send two kids to an overseas tertiary institution.
I would debate your statistics. In the US tertiary institutes at least, you will find a much higher representation of Singaporean students rather than Malaysian students. RM50,000 is a real stretch for affording two kids overseas, unless you're talking about somewhere other than Australia, US, Canada, or the UK. -
yet another civil servant shows his leg.
-
This potential Singaporean society can be compared to the existing environment where the FORTY YEAR OLD strong government has resulted in a 'NANNY STATE' that is constantly prodding Singaporean to excel, to be creative, to be entrepreneurial, and created new labels of quitters and stayers.
And you find this offensive that the government wants us to strive for the best?
Singaporeans should be daring and seek to be different, you won't find me arguing against that. But instead of blindly taking risks, especially when it comes to dismantling a government that has quite successfully guided Singapore through good times and bad, we should examine what onus is on ourselves to succeed in the global market rather than blaming all our problems on the government.
You say we should not foster a nanny state, yet your same arguments pin on the fact that we are "failing" because of the "government," and insist that by taking a radical step and changing our leaders, these new enlightened individuals would drag us out whatever economic disasters you believe we are currently facing. I say that the government has provided a fantastic infrastructure, a vibrant economic environment, affordable (not cheap) housing, and a meritocratic education system which allows all to excel under a level playing field. Sure, there are problems, but there is no perfect goverment in the world.
And here's the kicker. Look around. Malaysia, Indonesia, Taiwan, China, Japan, Korea... we could be doing worse. Alot worse. Some of these countries are experiencing economic revivals, but many analysts would agree that the success is inspite of rather than due to their governments. -
On the contrary, I will be joining the private sector in America in July of this year. I believe that government service pays too little.Originally posted by HENG@:yet another civil servant shows his leg. -
so u say. on the internet, its easy to make claims.Originally posted by kivichio:On the contrary, I will be joining the private sector in America in July of this year. I believe that government service pays too little. -
Indeed it is. Well, you'll just have to go on my word thenOriginally posted by HENG@:so u say. on the internet, its easy to make claims. 
But in a place where people claim they're "American" simply by using "yo, yo, yo" (another thread if you have no idea what I'm refering to... hilarious actually) I guess a certain level of skepticism is understandable.
But then again, it doesn't have anything to do with the points I have made I hope. -
personally i disagree with the points u made.Originally posted by kivichio:Indeed it is. Well, you'll just have to go on my word then But in a place where people claim they're "American" simply by using "yo, yo, yo" (another thread if you have no idea what I'm refering to... hilarious actually) I guess a certain level of skepticism is understandable.
But then again, it doesn't have anything to do with the points I have made I hope.
for eg, personally i don't think LKY has done a lot for sg, except to change it into his personal fiefdom. for that, i don't have anything to thank him for. It is people like Goh KS or Lim KS who have worked for the good of this nation with the starting objective of doing good for the nation, not one of personal gain.
other points i disagree with as well, but im rather hungry this evening, and more in the mood for popping out for a fish and chips than for debating. -
Well, enjoy your late night snack. I'm stuck waiting in a hotel public terminal waiting for my flight back to singapore tomorrow from another Asian country so I really have nothing better to do than to extoll the virtues of Singapore. I am a fervent PAP fan as you've guessed.Originally posted by HENG@:personally i disagree with the points u made.
for eg, personally i don't think LKY has done a lot for sg, except to change it into his personal fiefdom. for that, i don't have anything to thank him for. It is people like Goh KS or Lim KS who have worked for the good of this nation with the starting objective of doing good for the nation, not one of personal gain.
other points i disagree with as well, but im rather hungry this evening, and more in the mood for popping out for a fish and chips than for debating.
PS: Whats wrong with getting a little personal advancement while you work for the future of the country. I believe that as long as LKY works for the betterment of Singapore, he deserves every single cent and perk we give him. People who have accomplished alot less have been compensated far more handsomely. And as to the claim that LKY was not a central figure to Singapore's success, I'll ask this question: Who has been the dominant force in Singapore politics for the past few decades. Do you think it was natural for a small community like what Singapore was in the 70s to gain its current megalith status? -
to counter this, i will also ask u: who was the dominant force in German politics from the 1920s to the late 1930s that brought Germany from its lows after losing WWI to its powerful status before the start of WW2?Originally posted by kivichio:Well, enjoy your late night snack. I'm stuck waiting in a hotel public terminal waiting for my flight back to singapore tomorrow from another Asian country so I really have nothing better to do than to extoll the virtues of Singapore. I am a fervent PAP fan as you've guessed.
PS: Whats wrong with getting a little personal advancement while you work for the future of the country. I believe that as long as LKY works for the betterment of Singapore, he deserves every single cent and perk we give him. People who have accomplished alot less have been compensated far more handsomely. And as to the claim that LKY was not a central figure to Singapore's success, I'll ask this question: Who has been the dominant force in Singapore politics for the past few decades. Do you think it was natural for a small community like what Singapore was in the 70s to gain its current megalith status?
If u think any dominant force which can bring a country's status up is by default good, I think u're quite deluded. Then again, perhaps u and I have very different ideas of what constitutes a true beneficial leader. -
I'll go out on a limb and venture a guess.... Hitler?Originally posted by HENG@:to counter this, i will also ask u: who was the dominant force in German politics from the 1920s to the late 1930s that brought Germany from its lows after losing WWI to its powerful status before the start of WW2?
If u think any dominant force which can bring a country's status up is by default good, I think u're quite deluded. Then again, perhaps u and I have very different ideas of what constitutes a true beneficial leader.
Do you think its fair to compare LKY with the most notorious mass murderer in modern history? I'm at a loss at even how to respond to this statement.
I believe a beneficial leader is one who provides the conditions for a prosperous nation. You can provide the buildings, the funds, the education opportunities and the business incentives. The rest is up to the people. I am not a particular fan of any single form of government, be it socialist, 1 1/2 party dynamics, pure democracy or representation by majority. I support anything that works and the Singapore system has proven itself over the past thirty years.
PS: Quick supper, unless u're in the UK in which case, its dinner? -
Singapore all the way back to the 9th century, had always been a significant node in the global trade routes.Originally posted by kivichio:Well, enjoy your late night snack. I'm stuck waiting in a hotel public terminal waiting for my flight back to singapore tomorrow from another Asian country so I really have nothing better to do than to extoll the virtues of Singapore. I am a fervent PAP fan as you've guessed.
PS: Whats wrong with getting a little personal advancement while you work for the future of the country. I believe that as long as LKY works for the betterment of Singapore, he deserves every single cent and perk we give him. People who have accomplished alot less have been compensated far more handsomely. And as to the claim that LKY was not a central figure to Singapore's success, I'll ask this question: Who has been the dominant force in Singapore politics for the past few decades. Do you think it was natural for a small community like what Singapore was in the 70s to gain its current megalith status?
Don't come and preach the totality of one man as the sole reason for Singapore's rise. He is but one of many contributors to the Singapore story. -
And all you chaps who like to compare us to Thailand etc, why not up the ante and compare us with other 1st world nations? Sweden? Switzerland? Australia? Japan?
Can't do so because your arguments , shaped by case studies, will collapse eh? -
Why not. I don't think we would lose out in terms of comparison. Singapore has been stated as the Switzerland of Asia. Unfortunately, we don't have the billions upon billions of european and american wealth stashed in our banks. Yet without these resources, we have established low unemployment (yes despite retrenchment, our unemployment rate is still low) and nearly as high a standard of living.Originally posted by LazerLordz:And all you chaps who like to compare us to Thailand etc, why not up the ante and compare us with other 1st world nations? Sweden? Switzerland? Australia? Japan?
Can't do so because your arguments , shaped by case studies, will collapse eh?
Japan? The LDP? We started out learning from the Japanese, and i believe our political system has far outstripped it. Do you think the LDP has handled the problems of economic recession (only now recovering after 15 yrs of recession), the aging population, and even corruption? The Japanese government is the very definition of vested interest and pork barrel politics that Singapore has avoided.
Australia? Do we significantly lose out in comparison to our friends in the nearby continent? Sure many of us dream of living in down under, but the job market is just as tough there, unless you are looking at it as a destination for post-retirement bliss.
I have no idea on Sweden so I can't comment, but its great that you compare us to a country thats a neighbor to norway, which has a standard of living thats considered #1 in the world. -
And I'm sure Singapore has had a flourishing internal community since the 9th Century. India and China has great natural resources and manpower, yet mismanagement and poor political direction has led them to adopting 2nd or even 3rd tier positions in the global community for the past hundred years.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Singapore all the way back to the 9th century, had always been a significant node in the global trade routes.
Don't come and preach the totality of one man as the sole reason for Singapore's rise. He is but one of many contributors to the Singapore story.
LKY is not a one man show; Obviously he is not solely responsible for this great country. He did assemble the best minds for the job though. By having the best and brightest in the government, it allowed the PAP to quickly formulate strategy to guide Singapore. Not all their policies were appropriate but we have the benefit of perfect hindsight. Its much more difficult to do it in the now and present. Nevertheless, LKY did play a large role in the development of Singapore or do you question this point as well. -
why is it not fair? they both brought their countries to prominence. They both did so with a lot of personal reasons and gains as motivation. They are both men who dominte their country's political system. They're both authoritarian figures, their parties are totalitarian. The only difference is that Hitler has already been exposed as a monster, while the other hasn't. So no I don't think its very unfair to compare them. Its a very good demonstration of why anyone who brings their countries to eminence isn't automatically a beneficial leader.Originally posted by kivichio:I'll go out on a limb and venture a guess.... Hitler?
Do you think its fair to compare LKY with the most notorious mass murderer in modern history? I'm at a loss at even how to respond to this statement.
I believe a beneficial leader is one who provides the conditions for a prosperous nation. You can provide the buildings, the funds, the education opportunities and the business incentives. The rest is up to the people. I am not a particular fan of any single form of government, be it socialist, 1 1/2 party dynamics, pure democracy or representation by majority. I support anything that works and the Singapore system has proven itself over the past thirty years.
PS: Quick supper, unless u're in the UK in which case, its dinner?
In any case, what works for you doesn't work for others. As far as I'm concerned, looking at the way that Singapore's society has developed, I doubt it has proven itself at all. A nation of people who end up as unthinking clones, manufactured parts in a machine, like peasants in communist Soviet Union, instead of sentinent, thinking beings as befitting that of a truely enlightened and democratic society. As far as I'm concerned, the Singapore system has not proven itself over the past 30 years. If anything, it's only shown that the Singapore system is a killer of dreams, initiative and ambition, unless u belong to the ruling elite and their associates.
P.S. Yes it's dinner. Baking in the oven means I've got time to nip back for a quick read or 2, so its not a quick dinner. -
maybe in the early years, it was about having the best and brightest in the govt, and doing the best for sg. today, its about having the privileged and the connected, and keeping power within the party and family.Originally posted by kivichio:And I'm sure Singapore has had a flourishing internal community since the 9th Century. India and China has great natural resources and manpower, yet mismanagement and poor political direction has led them to adopting 2nd or even 3rd tier positions in the global community for the past hundred years.
LKY is not a one man show; Obviously he is not solely responsible for this great country. He did assemble the best minds for the job though. By having the best and brightest in the government, it allowed the PAP to quickly formulate strategy to guide Singapore. Not all their policies were appropriate but we have the benefit of perfect hindsight. Its much more difficult to do it in the now and present. Nevertheless, LKY did play a large role in the development of Singapore or do you question this point as well.
Anyways, no matter what u may say, that is the truth, and there are things u will never know about the party in your lifetime. -
Perhaps you are a bit overly dismissive. There are always two sides of the coin. Yes I admit that the Lees have had a stranglehold on Singapore politics. But as to the rest, let us just simply agree to disagree.
You see Singapore's institution as strangling the populace, I see it as a country where even those from the humblest backgrounds can aspire to join the elites through the education system and various scholarship boards. Many of those whom you termed as priviledged did not start out that way. Of course, being a white horse assures you a certain position in society, but those who succeed on their own merits are also given their place in the sun.
Perhaps it is a little presumptious of me to harp on the Singapore system when I'm leaving it, but in all honesty, I am not even a citizen of your esteemed country yet in my prolonged stay here I have learnt to respect its development and government. I fail to see why so many Singaporeans don't.
Sidenote: Just out of curiousity if you don't mind, do you intend to return to Singapore from the UK or do you intend to work there. I hope you don't mind the personal question, please feel free to ignore if you think I am overstepping my bounds. I'm just interested in the behavior of overseas Singaporeans. -
gam lan ah?Originally posted by kivichio:Perhaps you are a bit overly dismissive. There are always two sides of the coin. Yes I admit that the Lees have had a stranglehold on Singapore politics. But as to the rest, let us just simply agree to disagree.
You see Singapore's institution as strangling the populace, I see it as a country where even those from the humblest backgrounds can aspire to join the elites through the education system and various scholarship boards. Many of those whom you termed as priviledged did not start out that way. Of course, being a white horse assures you a certain position in society, but those who succeed on their own merits are also given their place in the sun.
Perhaps it is a little presumptious of me to harp on the Singapore system when I'm leaving it, but in all honesty, I am not even a citizen of your esteemed country yet in my prolonged stay here I have learnt to respect its development and government. I fail to see why so many Singaporeans don't.
Sidenote: Just out of curiousity if you don't mind, do you intend to return to Singapore from the UK or do you intend to work there. I hope you don't mind the personal question, please feel free to ignore if you think I am overstepping my bounds. I'm just interested in the behavior of overseas Singaporeans. -
ok loh. People say don't like then gam loh.Originally posted by vito_corleone:gam lan ah? I only offer different opinion but since anti pap crowd can't stand discussion then xian loh. -
Really? Are u sure? If u look back at those who "joined" the elites thru the education system and scholarship boards, u'll realise they didn't really come from humble backgrounds. And what about people who are from average backgrounds who do not want to go thru the education system and scholarship boards? Why must anyone join the elite only thru THEIR system? Why can't other people become an elite outside of the system? Why is the system so afraid and dismissive of people who HAVE risen up to their level outside the system? Why are people told they can ONLY rise thru the system? So are u sure those who succeed on their own merits are given their place in the sun?Originally posted by kivichio:You see Singapore's institution as strangling the populace, I see it as a country where even those from the humblest backgrounds can aspire to join the elites through the education system and various scholarship boards. Many of those whom you termed as priviledged did not start out that way. Of course, being a white horse assures you a certain position in society, but those who succeed on their own merits are also given their place in the sun.
Im not wrong when I say Singapore's system strangles the populace. If u're not "joining" the elite thru THEIR system, regardless of your background, you're dismissed and disregarded as a nobody. The only exception I can think of is Sim Wang Hoo. So u can only join the elite thru scholarly pursuits. What about other areas? Sports, arts, culture, music? No. They disregard you. U really want to tell me that the system does not suffocate the individual? U want a good example of this, just look at the thread about the violinist who's not allowed to defer to attend a prestigeous music college in the USA(which has said it is not willing to wait for him to finish his NS). Yea? Very good example of not allowing people to succeed except through their system. Worse still, there are many people willing to justify that decision with communist logic.
I'm saying all these, as someone who know many of these scholars well, who has relatives who are some of these scholars, and as someone who has relations to the ruling party by family. A lot of the things people are only starting to become unhappy with, I've known for years, which is why im vehemently against the current philosophy and policies of the ruling party.
Well if u're not even a citizen, and I'm assuming that means u weren't born here, its no surprise it seems so wonderful to u. If u're born here, its a curse. If u're not, hey Singapore loves foreign talent. No wonder u sing its praises. Try being born a citizen, and maybe u'll come to see why so many Singaporeans don't respect the system anymore.Originally posted by kivichio:Perhaps it is a little presumptious of me to harp on the Singapore system when I'm leaving it, but in all honesty, I am not even a citizen of your esteemed country yet in my prolonged stay here I have learnt to respect its development and government. I fail to see why so many Singaporeans don't.
Me? I'm definately not returning to Singapore, both for career reasons and personal reasons.Originally posted by kivichio:Sidenote: Just out of curiousity if you don't mind, do you intend to return to Singapore from the UK or do you intend to work there. I hope you don't mind the personal question, please feel free to ignore if you think I am overstepping my bounds. I'm just interested in the behavior of overseas Singaporeans.
Career-wise, there is no chance of employment in Singapore for anyone wishing to work in international motorsports. Even if they are now building a motorsport circuit, it would take years before truely international motorsports is sufficiently established in Singapore for employment to be viable. But in any case, that is fairly moot because UK is the home of international motorsport, and its wise to seek career opportunities there. Besides, I do have a list of companies I'd personally like to work for, and they're based in the UK.
Personal-wise, I do not like the conservative and discriminatory and detrimental attitude of society back home against people who are non-conformist, against the arts and the culture. If I ever choose to raise kids, its not the sort of place I'd want them to grow up in. I would gladly trade some safety for attitude and social open-ness. Besides, growing up in a place less "safe" would make one more street smart, and teach them to be more alert about their surroundings. -
When you make a place sterile, you kill yourself eventually, because you are not exposed to the rough and tumble of the world.
Look at the competitiveness of our GLCs abroad.. hogwash, the whole load of them.