escape from paradise
-
CenturionMBT. I trust that you received my message concerning the banning of Escape from Paradise, and that I have clarified the facts for you. The book has been banned. We have received direct communication from Helen Yeo, and the book has been removed from NLB.
Best regards,
John
http://www.escapefromparadise.com -
Come on lah, just look at their objectives and you know which is more pro
SDP
____________________________________________________-
SDP's 5-Point Economic Plan For Singapore
Local as well as international experts are saying that SingaporeÂ’s economy cannot continue to grow under the present set of PAP policies of depending so heavily on MNCs and GLCs. The present recession is a manifestation of the economic direction taken by the PAP. To alleviate the problems that confront the economy, the SDP proposes two sets of solutions for the immediate term (next 1-2 years) and the longer-term (within the next 5 years).
Immediate Term
Many Singaporeans have been retrenched or have seen their wages cut because of the recession. Under the present system these workers have little financial protection when they are retrenched. Adding to the worsening situation is the PAP's ill-conceived foreign talent policy. To remedy the situation, the SDP proposes:
• A minimum wage policy. The DOS has reported that while Singapore's GDP per capita income is $23,000, its wage structure is closer to that of the Third World. Such an economic arrangement is not good for long-term growth. Ensuring a minimum wage for the lowest of the low-skilled employee guarantees that prosperity is shared by all. Legislation is needed to prevent Singaporean workers from being exploited and ensure that employees be paid fair wages for their work commensurate with the cost of living. For a start, the minimum wage should be set at $5 per hour.
• Retrenchment entitlements. Presently when a worker gets retrenched, he or she is left out in the cold with no financial protection. This cause severe strain on the entire family with serious social repercussions. Under the SDP proposal, the Government will pay all retrenched workers their full salary for the first six months. This amount would be reduced to 75 percent during the next six months, and further reduced to 50 percent in the third six months. Each worker will be allowed to reject only up to three job offers in the one-and-a-half years following which the retrenchment entitlement ceases. Such a scheme will provide workers a cushion when they are retrenched while at the same time encourage them to seek employment.
• Singaporeans First Policy. The PAP's foreign talent policy adds to the burden of Singaporeans by indiscriminately allowing foreigners to seek employment here. The SDP will push for a Singaporeans First Policy, which will insist that employers retrench foreign workers first and only lay off Singaporean workers as a last resort. In addition such a policy will require the Government and employers to employ foreigners only if locals cannot be found for the job. This will ensure that only qualified foreigners will be allowed into Singapore.
Longer-term
To ensure long-term, sustainable economic growth, the SDP proposes the following:
• Scale back GLCs. Pretend as they might, GLCs cannot provide, much less sustain, economic development in Singapore. They must be dismantled and, in their place, local private companies must be allowed to surface and be given the chance to compete internationally, with the government playing only a supporting role. The SDP advocates that, with the exception of PSA and SIA, the Government privatises all other GLCs within the next five years. Every year the PAP drags its feet is every year Singapore loses its ability to compete at the international level.
• Protect local companies from MNCs. If Singapore is going to assist local private companies in becoming more competitive it must wean itself away from dependence on MNCs. Many countries have strengthened their economies without the MNC crutch. Asia abounds with examples, including Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. Where MNCs are permitted in these countries, they are also given attractive financial incentives. These incentives are, however, clearly spelled out, as are agreements as to what and how technology transfer is to take place. Today Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan boast corporations that have become world-beaters in technology and innovation. In Singapore, however, reliance on MNCs has consigned the people to an economic system that breeds more model employees than visionary entrepreneurs. This means that Singapore will forever be at the mercy of foreign investors on the lookout for cheaper wages.
_____________________________________________________
You judge for yourself.By ousting the MNC. what would happen to Singapore?Imagine the government under the SDP booting out the shell and Bp petroleum in tuas in an attempt to "Protect local companies "
We need those foreign investments.Thus his plans are fudlementally flawed. -
• A minimum wage policy. The DOS has reported that while Singapore's GDP per capita income is $23,000, its wage structure is closer to that of the Third World. Such an economic arrangement is not good for long-term growth. Ensuring a minimum wage for the lowest of the low-skilled employee guarantees that prosperity is shared by all. Legislation is needed to prevent Singaporean workers from being exploited and ensure that employees be paid fair wages for their work commensurate with the cost of living. For a start, the minimum wage should be set at $5 per hour.
i don't think thats accurate. already, plants are moving out because wage costs are too high. my experience with JIT manufacturers tell me that they could get the same amount of labout for less than 1/2 the price in cheaper locations... like china.
the quality of the labour however, is another issue. thats why i think the gov'ts policy of encouraging value added industries is not too far off the mark. one strength remains a well educated work force.
the current wage of staff in manufacturing is ABOVE $5/hour.• Retrenchment entitlements. Presently when a worker gets retrenched, he or she is left out in the cold with no financial protection. This cause severe strain on the entire family with serious social repercussions. Under the SDP proposal, the Government will pay all retrenched workers their full salary for the first six months. This amount would be reduced to 75 percent during the next six months, and further reduced to 50 percent in the third six months. Each worker will be allowed to reject only up to three job offers in the one-and-a-half years following which the retrenchment entitlement ceases. Such a scheme will provide workers a cushion when they are retrenched while at the same time encourage them to seek employment.
while i agree that this is a rather good idea, it must be seen in the light of other countries' success in implementing such policies.
europe for instance: the welfare state has proved parasitical and gave people a dis-incentive to work cos they get paid more if they don't work. the cost is also disproportionately passed on to working individuals that disposable income significantly decreases.
the PAP approach however, is too stone hearted. people who needs help should be offered help rather than discouraged from it for fear of promoting a crutch mentality.
but then again, how can we balance this?• Singaporeans First Policy. The PAP's foreign talent policy adds to the burden of Singaporeans by indiscriminately allowing foreigners to seek employment here. The SDP will push for a Singaporeans First Policy, which will insist that employers retrench foreign workers first and only lay off Singaporean workers as a last resort. In addition such a policy will require the Government and employers to employ foreigners only if locals cannot be found for the job. This will ensure that only qualified foreigners will be allowed into Singapore.
i don't believe in stopping something that cannot be stopped. the whole world is reducing barriers to foreign workers and they wanna erect them? please...
it'll just drive MNCs elsewhere with a more liberal immigration policy. and what Sg needs, is direct investments to pull ourselves out of this hole.
here's an opinion. a tad bit controversial and strictly my own:
Sg doesn't need a radical change in gov't. more opposition presence is needed to present more diverse views and the opposition needs the experience in parliament to grow stronger and more savvy.
only then might we consider different gov't. suddenly shifting the balance of power in the opposition's favour might not actually get us the gov't we want or need.
democracy requires one to vote with our head, not our heart. -
quote:
[i don't think thats accurate. already, plants are moving out because wage costs are too high. my experience with JIT manufacturers tell me that they could get the same amount of labout for less than 1/2 the price in cheaper locations... like china.]
Is there any way to make Singaporean worker cheaper? -
would you work for less pay???Originally posted by want to know:quote:
[i don't think thats accurate. already, plants are moving out because wage costs are too high. my experience with JIT manufacturers tell me that they could get the same amount of labout for less than 1/2 the price in cheaper locations... like china.]
Is there any way to make Singaporean worker cheaper?
u could abolish cpf but that would lead to a whole new set of problems... how are people gonna pay for their hdb flats? would they make and save enough money for their retirement? would private insurance be sufficient? is the people willing to accept the responsibility of taking care of themselves in their old age?
the government could subsidise some goods and make things cheaper than they actually are thereby justifying wage cuts... i.e. petroleum, rice, fresh food items, diary products.
but thats ultimately artificial, very expensive and unsustainable. who's gonna pay for it? its going to come from higher income tax and other tariffs... it would make Sg less competitive.
u could just slash wages and let people crash and burn... but thats gonna cause social problems and the reduced consumer spending is going to crash the domestic retail economy...
i'm being simplistic of course... i'm no economists
but i do know that there's no such thing as a fool proof plan once it comes to tinkering with something as fragile and unpredictable as the economy and the people. -
Quote
Originally posted by CX on 9 November 2002
“u bore me. u just keep harping on the same point.
yes, i know how the PAP came into power and stayed in power. i don't need a crash course on that.
u can't change that. they're already entrenched. complaining and bitterness won't help.”
I am sorry if what is written bores you, but it is your prerogative to be bored in any manner that comes your way; suffice to say that I have accepted reality as it is, and have learnt to live within the frameworks by ignoring the situation as matters stand.
There are too many Singaporeans who bitch and gripe, and would not even dare put in writing their honest thoughts in a public forum; when someone gutsy enough put themselves up for election, arm chair critics will find every fault – from the mundane to the ridiculous.
Quote:
”i do not think that chee has been slimed by sph any more than he has let himself be slimed.”
Nothing in my postings have suggested that SPH has slimed Dr Chee; but it was mentioned that SPH and SBC were mobilized to give full play on segments of various incidents to denigrate Dr Chee over a period of at least a week or more.
Nothing much was telecasted about the rally speeches from the SDP, except for some short edited excerpts of disjointed speeches.
Quote:
”i distincty remember last year's election fiasco. i happened to be having dinner at hougang that night. the coffeshop was showing the news and there was chee screaming his head off at the PM...
the table next to me (consisting of retirees and 30-40 somethings chugging beer) cheered at the outburst... then sank into a more private conversation about how absolutely "KAM LAN" that outburst was cos he's just gonna get sued again.
it doesn't take very astute political observers and very sophisticated sense of hindsight to tell that this man is not weighing the consequences of his actions.”
There are more then one way to look at the TV shots of Dr Chee “screaming his head off at the PM”.
In a crowded market place, with both sides attracting attention, it is perhaps only normal that Dr Chee would have to shout louder his message in order to grab the attention away from the PM.
It was unfortunate that Dr Chee’s facial expressions did not portray him in too much of a photogenic manner; and showed him to be “SCREAMING”.
About being “KAM LAN”, the expression was also levelled at A/Prof Ho in his battleground, when he had negatively stated his objections towards the Opposition candidate effort at a temple; and subsequently, he had also made similar move too when he realized that his statements were off the mark and had offended some of the folks there.
Nearly every Singaporean Citizen who has the guts to put themselves up in every election has been labeled this derogatory term of being “KAM LAN”, so what is new ?
Quote:
”Atobe,
be objective. i'm no big fan of SPH publications. and SPH did not slime him the day after that outburst. it was reported, refuted and rebutted by the PM and the whole thing was phrased in rather calm and detached language.
the point is, people were already laughing their heads off at his stupidity hours after the outburst (and hougang is no PAP stronghold).”
I guess we share the same common ground with regards to SPH, but read my earlier paragraph above on this matter.
The “SHOUTING” or “SCREAMING” was quite insignificant even by the PM’s reaction; and it was not until the SM who decided that the questions raised by Dr Chee had a more significant impact that this matter became serious.
The entire issue was not about the “SHOUTING” or “SCREAMING” – the real issue was the credibility of the Question which remains unanswered to this day; and it had touched a raw nerve on a subject of the day that concerns the manner in which GIC funds are being managed.
A mundane and highly publicise issue of Dr Chee's supposed derogatory behaviours towards the PM, and the import of the Question has suggested misconduct by the Government, has now taken prime time space; while the Question that was raised by Dr Chee has become insignificant amidst the prime time show of prosecuting Dr Chee and making him sweat.
Was there a "smoking gun" ? -
Quote:
Originally posted by CenturionMBT on 9 November 2002
“You judge for yourself.By ousting the MNC. what would happen to Singapore? Imagine the government under the SDP booting out the shell and Bp petroleum in tuas in an attempt to "Protect local companies "
We need those foreign investments.Thus his plans are fudlementally flawed.”
I am not so sure if you have deliberately read the text “out of context”.
Out of curiosity of this person, I have also read a few of Dr CheeÂ’s books and some of his ideas do make some sense.
By his writing, he feels that MNC exist in Singapore largely to tap on the low wages, stable (i.e. predictable unchanging Govt, obedient workers, no strikes, law and order), and a good infrastructural environment that SGP has been able to offer the MNCÂ’s to make profit for their shareholders.
However, he feels that the return to SGP is negligible when compared to the huge profits that the MNC reap; and the costs that has been incurred to allow such MNCs to operate in SGP.
It is not SHELL or BP that Dr Chee has referred to, in his SELECTIVE categorizing of MNCÂ’s, but he had aimed his sight at MNCÂ’s such as Texas Instrument, SEAGATE, and the likes which exploit the SGP environment mentioned; and when the crunch comes, they will be the first one to pull out, as the GovernmentÂ’s aim of higher technology and higher wages is in total conflict with the operating requirements of such MNCs.
Recent retrenchment did not come from SHELL or BP, but as Dr Chee had indicated in his book, it had come from SEAGATE, Texas Instruments, and similar MNC's. -
Quote:
Originally posted by CX on 9 November 2002
“i don't think thats accurate. already, plants are moving out because wage costs are too high. my experience with JIT manufacturers tell me that they could get the same amount of labout for less than 1/2 the price in cheaper locations... like china.
the quality of the labour however, is another issue. thats why i think the gov'ts policy of encouraging value added industries is not too far off the mark. one strength remains a well educated work force.
the current wage of staff in manufacturing is ABOVE $5/hour.”
While the GDP per capita income of Singapore is listed as at $23,000, making Singaporeans comparable or similar to First World Countries, in reality the number of Singaporeans - (who are struggling with their current wage levels to make ends meet) - certainly make the majority of Singaporeans earning Third World wages in an environment that bears First World costs.
There are more Singaporeans living in 2-room, 3-room, 4-room HDB homes, then there are Singaporeans living in Private Housing estates and Condominiums - with 90 percent of Singaporeans being officially recorded as living in HDB homes.
Those who live in 2-room flats are the worst off, followed by those living in 3-room and then the 4-room units..
Using HDB housing criteria for those allowed to buy such units, one can immediately ascertain the size and the wage levels of the number of Singaporeans who are earning wages similar to Third World levels.
Quote:
“while i agree that this is a rather good idea, it must be seen in the light of other countries' success in implementing such policies.
europe for instance: the welfare state has proved parasitical and gave people a dis-incentive to work cos they get paid more if they don't work. the cost is also disproportionately passed on to working individuals that disposable income significantly decreases.
the PAP approach however, is too stone hearted. people who needs help should be offered help rather than discouraged from it for fear of promoting a crutch mentality.
but then again, how can we balance this?”
Wage costs in SGP are too high for a variety of reason.
The “wage burden” on entrepreneurs besides coming largely from providing for the “Welfare of the Workers” in the form of CPF contributions - (that forms 20 percent of monthly wages at its peak); there are also required payment for Workmen’s Compensation schemes, and payment into the Skills Development Fund for workers with wages below $1,000 – (which end up in the NTUC coffers, when no upgrading training is approved by the SDF Approval Board).
The Retrenchment Benefit as proposed by the SDP is not suggesting a Welfare State to be created – as described in your post that referred to what is being practiced in Europe.
Currently, retrenched workers that are over 40 to 50 years of age are having serious difficulties of looking for alternative jobs – for a variety of reasons i.e. fussy workers (too far, too menial, too uninteresting, too low wages, etc); and also fussy employers (too over qualified, too old, too feeble, etc).
These workers need help in the immediate term, as a sudden TOTAL LOSS of monthly income for a prolonged period can only cause disruption to a family, which may affect the next generation of workers who may have to drop out of school, as a result of the bread winner not able to afford the school program of activities.
The SDP ideas of supporting retrenched workers do merit consideration – as it proposes a Benefit Scheme that help a retrenched worker in the immediate term, and discourages the worker from long term dependency on the Scheme.
However, politics prevent honesty to be expressed, and SDPÂ’s ideas are thus considered idealistic.
Quote:
“i don't believe in stopping something that cannot be stopped. the whole world is reducing barriers to foreign workers and they wanna erect them? please...
it'll just drive MNCs elsewhere with a more liberal immigration policy. and what Sg needs, is direct investments to pull ourselves out of this hole.
here's an opinion. a tad bit controversial and strictly my own:
Sg doesn't need a radical change in gov't. more opposition presence is needed to present more diverse views and the opposition needs the experience in parliament to grow stronger and more savvy.
only then might we consider different gov't. suddenly shifting the balance of power in the opposition's favour might not actually get us the gov't we want or need.”
While the worldwide trend of the mobility of Professionals is an established fact, we should still consider the protection of Singaporeans First - especially when there are available talents and qualified Singaporeans for the same job.
This is similar to the Immigration Policy as practiced by Australia, most European Countries, Japan, Korea, and most Latin American Countries.
We have in Singapore, in some local Hotels, an Expatriate Director being employed – who will then bring his own expatriate “kaki” from previous country of employment.
One can find in some local hotels, an expatriate employed for a common low level positions such as F+B Manager, Restaurant Manager, Executive Chef, and even as a Housekeeper – at similar wages paid to a local, but with added allowances for lodging (and at times tax payment by the Employer).
While we have many Managers who have been retrenched from other Industries, and while we encourage them to work in the Hotel Sector, these retrenched Managers are expected to take on the job of a Room Service Worker, Housekeeping Staff – at either a lower Supervisory or Worker level.
Their qualification, experience and skill as a trained Manager is passed over in favor of an Expatriate Manager.
Should we not put SINGAPOREAN first under such circumstances, instead of lambasting the retrenched Singapore Workers for being choosy, and not being tolerant towards a changed work environment?
This apply to the Banking, Finance, and Insurance Sectors as well, where a large number of Expatriates are allowed to be employed at the expense of some other Singaporeans - whose qualifications and experience can be enhanced with new training to slot them into jobs that are of equal intellectual and responsibility challenging.
Quote
”democracy requires one to vote with our head, not our heart.”
I will subscribe to this, provided that democracy is actually practiced that allow the Head to be educated with unfettered and un-doctored information in an open and transparent manner. -
Wow,
take a break of one day from SGforums for exams, and come back to find all my points being spelled out.
Thanks for the eloquent post Atobe, you've said all that I've wanted to say.
The only part I've disagreed with is the SDP formula for retrenchment benefit. Full pay for the first 6 months is too generous, and should take into account that almost always, retrenchment of workers will have retrenchment benefits. I would suggest a formula of 50% pay for the 1st 6 months followed by 35% for the next 6.
Agree with your point that all to frequently, the PAP, with the complicity of the media, allow real issues to become trivialised. A good example is the recent debate on bar-top dancing. The original issue was on greater individual responsibilites and freedom of expression, with bar top dancing cited as an example.Over time, this degenerated into debate on bar-top dancing alone, side-tracking from the big picture. And of course, we all know what came out of it...
CX and CenturionMBT, theres nothing wrong with establishing a Singaporeans First policy. Nobody is calling for a "Foreigners Out" campaign, neither do we want to keep globalistion out of Singapore. We realise the importance of foreign contributions to our economy, and we should welcome real foreign talent who bring skills that are not available in Singapore. What worries me is the over-reliance on so-called "talents" which are nothing but cheaper labour thats edging Singaporeans from jobs. -
Back when this thread began, it was about the book, Escape from Paradise, and more specifically perhaps the page at http://www.escapefromparadise.com/NewFiles/bc.html] referring to the unilateral banning of the book by Helen Yeo, wife of Yeo Cheow Tong.
In the greater scheme of things, the fact that this book was banned is a small matter. However through this small incident, Singapore is needlessly making a bad name for itself. (Although an American, I am very pro-Singapore, even pro LKY.)
Another unnecessary (and much more important) incident which will have a negative impact on Singapore is the imprisoning of Chee Soon Juan. Although I do not agree with Chee's politics, I disagree with his imprisonment. Even for diplomatic reasons Chee should not have been imprisoned. It makes a bad impression on Singapore, and can cause potential economic damage.
Any foreigner who reads Chee's letter written from prison will draw from it a very negative picture of Singapore, and a picture which is largely undeserved.
You be the judge. Here is the text of Chee's letter, which I received on 14 November:
Dear friends and supporters,
This is just a note to thank all of you for your support and help over the last few weeks while I was in prison. I am doing well although I have lost some weight as I was ill for the initial part of my incarceration. I want to give you a glimpse of prison life in Singapore and to highlight some deep concerns I have about the justice system here.
I shared a tiny cell (6ft by 15 ft) with two other inmates and a toilet bowl, the squatting kind. I ate and slept – at nose level – the entire 5 weeks beside a latrine. I was fortunate as other cells had four inmates crammed into an even smaller cell. The cell is completely bare except for a small window near the ceiling, which allows natural light into room; an awning covers the window so that one cannot see the sky. The wardens peer into the cell through a tiny slit on the solid metallic door, which entombs the cell.
WeÂ’re given a straw mat to sleep on the concrete floor (there are no bunk beds like you see on TV) and a plastic box containing two small blankets, toothbrush and toothpaste, soap, toilet paper, a small pail, a drinking mug, and a face towel. Water is provided during meal times. Because of the heat and humidity, inmates flush the toilets and use their pails to collect extra water for washing, cooling down and even drinking.
There is “yard time” an hour a day for exercise and showers. We’re locked in for the rest of the 23 hours. Breakfast is brought in at about eight, lunch at noon and dinner between 3 and 4 o’clock in the afternoon. The meals are adequate except that by nightfall inmates get hungry because dinner is eaten so early.
I spent a couple of nights in the sick bay when I was ill. The “beds” have no mattresses, just a metal plate with holes throughout on which you tried your best to make yourself comfortable. Our ankles are chained to the bed-post. Some prisoners even had both ankles and a wrist cuffed to the bed-frame.
At night if one needs to answer the call of nature, one is given a small pail to urinate into. With one ankle chained to the bed, it takes some skill (and not a little bit of contortion) to manoeuvre into a position where you could bring the bucket onto the bed and kneel over it to ease yourself.
In prison, minutes seem like hours and hours like days. You long to be free and be with family and friends again. DonÂ’t get me wrong, I am not complaining. I accept willingly the punishment because in doing so, I want to demonstrate the nature of the ruling party in Singapore and seek to help it mend its undemocratic ways.
While I donÂ’t have complaints, I do, however, have major concerns:
Hundreds of prisoners comprising men from China, Thailand, Indonesia, Burma, South Asia, etc. who are caught for overstaying in Singapore after their work visas have expired. I witnessed what seemed like an endless row of new inmates all squatting, head shorn and clutching their straw mats and plastic boxes, waiting to be introduced to their cells.
They all looked bewildered and terrified. Why wouldnÂ’t they? A minimum of three strokes of the rotan awaited them (the number depended on how long they overstayed in the country). Caning in Singapore is a barbaric act where trained personnel (some say the caners are trained exponents of the martial arts) slash a six-foot long, one-inch thick cane, across the hapless victimsÂ’ buttocks. The individualÂ’s ankles are strapped onto a heavy, metal frame and they bend forward where their wrists are similarly locked, with only their naked backsides exposed.
I was told by some of the inmates that the screams of the victims after each stroke of the whip makes one lose all appetite for food. The cane breaks skin and draws blood. Doctors are on hand to administer treatment and to assess if the individual can take more punishment. A maximum of 24 strokes is the legal limit and only males below 50 years of age can be whipped.
I shared my first night (inmates are rotated in different cells on a regular basis) with a 45-year-old guy from China. His face turned ashen when he told me of his impending ordeal under the rotan. My heart sank further when he told me that many men in his plight leave their countries out of desperation in search of a livelihood. Many are not aware of mandatory caning rule in Singapore.
Our short conversation ended when he lay back on his mat and stared blankly at the ceiling. I then thought of Michael Fay, the American teenager who was caned by the Singapore government for vandalising (spray-painting) cars. The situation then caused a furore in the United States. It was over one individual. But now, only silence greet the thousands who have been whipped, and continue to be whipped, for their “criminal” acts. The pain is just as excruciating for Fay as it is for these overstayers. The only difference is the colour of their skin.
I also saw a couple of inmates who were imprisoned under the Criminal Law Temporary Provisions Act, a law that empowers the government to detain a suspect when it is unable to secure a conviction in open court. The detention order is signed by the minister and is valid for a period of two years. It is also renewable so that a suspect can be detained indefinitely, much like the Internal Security Act used for the ruling partyÂ’s opponents.
“Dr Chee, I want to commit suicide,” one of the detainees whispered to me when I paused outside his cell. “I can’t take it. I don’t know when I am going to be released and I can’t get a trial.” He, like the rest of his fellow criminal law detainees, is kept singly in isolation cells.
If my imprisonment can bring the international spotlight to bear on the economic, social, and political injustice that prevails in Singapore, then every minute that I spent in jail was worth it. If pressure can be brought to bear on the Singapore government by our friends in democratic countries and international organisations, and so doing help us in our struggle for freedom, human rights and democracy, then I would without a momentÂ’s hesitation step into that cell again.
But change must ultimately come from us Singaporeans. And if we, by daring greatly, attempt to restore justice and democracy to our country, our current sacrifices would more than compensate for our future successes. For success will come, it is only a question of when and how.
Once again, I thank you all for your support and concern. I am well. Unfortunately, it is democracy in Singapore that is not.
Sincerely yours,
Chee Soon Juan -
It is shocking that despite Singapore claiming to have attained First World Standards of Living, the treatment of its citizens - whether as "free" men and women, or as "incarcerated" prisoners - are below the standards of those referred to as the "First World".
Are our Prisons Cells complying with the minimum standards that are stipulated by any rules and regulations of which Singapore is signatory to ?
Can our laws (concerning the fair treatment of Singaporeans aspiring to be politicians) stand up to International Standards of Legal Scrutiny ?
With the Triad Societies largely beaten to the ground, and the Singapore Police paranoid grip on every aspect of social life in Singapore, why are we still holding individuals incarcerated without charges ?
Will any innocent Singaporeans ever get caught in such a legal tangle with the law, and unable to gain any access to be heard by a group of people that dare to stand to be independent ?
Is this the Singapore that we all should aspire to work towards to for the benefit of some few individuals who are holding all the reins to political power ?
This is shocking reading. -
Singapore is a member of the United Nations, for the sake of self-preservation in this world where "Big Fish eat Small Fish, and Small Fish eats Prawns".
Being a member of the United Nations, it does not subscribe totally to the standards of the UN, and makes selective participation or involvement in the activities of the other UN Sub-Organisations that does not interferes in the Politics or Political Life of Singapore.
Whether the Singapore Prison conditions comply with the minimum standards as set out by any World Body may not be important.
However, the standard of conduct which the Ruling Party that forms the Government of Singapore should be subject to an International Standard of Governmental Responsibility towards the Citizens.
The excuse of "picking the best" from others, and leaving out the "Bad Practises" (for the Ruling Party ?), is merely political - as can be seen in Singapore today.
With no HONEST check and balance to challenge policies and the law, mistakes in policies and hurried legislations passed are ignored, with consequences only realised over time - (Family Planning Policies, Education Policies, GIC Losses, GLC's weaknesses, etc).
With the entire Government System - Political, Security, Judicial, Social, Cultural - all in the hands of One Ruling Party that "listens" to the "advice" of One Strong Personality, it makes the system weak to survive the test of time when no suitable 'Strong Personality' should appear on the Singapore Scene in the future.
If the Opposition should throw up a "Strong Personality" that can lead Singapore out of the economic quagmire that it is experiencing now, can the Government Machinery in its present form stay neutral, and be obedient servants to work under a new leader ?
Or is the present system designed to lead to chaotic rebellion and secrecy to hamper the effectiveness of a new Opposition Led Government - as had happened in Taiwan ?
Or should we have a neutral Government System such as that of the United Kingdom, or the Germans, or French, in which the Government machineries will serve any Political Party that comes into power through the ballot box.
Has the present Ruling Party in Singapore, that forms the Government, exercised its responsibility towards the Citizens, to prevent such a chaos from happening, or does it only believe that such a scenario can never happen as it will be a Ruling Party in perpetuity ? -
On Dec 1, 2002, a front page article about Escape from Paradise appeared in Singapore's daily newspaper, Today, writing that the book "was a classic riches to rags story...the family had donated over US$100 million to build schools and hospitals."
The article was truthful and well-written, mentioning that the book "was removed from bookshops because of legal complications." Today was unable to reveal that the legal complications came from Helen Yeo, because she is too big a fish to fry...for now.
Helen Yeo's correspondence proving her involvement is displayed on our website at
http://www.escapefromparadise.com/NewFiles/bc.html -
http://www.escapefromparadise.com/NewFiles/bc.htm
Available on Amazon -
The saga of "Escape from Paradise" continues with a new controversy - read from the following site:-
http://www.thinkcentre.org/article.cfm?ArticleID=2074
http://www.escapefromparadise.com/NewFiles/bc.html
http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/news_display.php?id=250 -
Won't say much, but England, Germany and French are far more older countries than us and politically more mature. With so much upheavals in their political history the governmental machinery is naturally more used to functioning regardless of political changes. They have several centuries to work out the bugs while the ancestors of Singaporeans only came here to work and escape the political intrigues of their host countries. They wanted nothing to do with politics.
We are still young and politically the population is still immature. We still need time to grow.
I've read LKY's memoirs, i don't find them biased. He stated the actual events and his opinions on them. I've never really liked the idea of one voice leading the country but at least he knows where we're supposed to go, compared to David Marshall. -
Your views on the state of politics in England, Germany and France is insightful, and I will agree with you that their respective population and political process have certainly evolved into a level of maturity that is to be admired for its tolerance towards alternative views, acceptance to the changes of political fortunes with good grace, and with institutions that independently protect the political process.
While Singapore has always prided itself as taking the “Best from the West and the East”, its selection process was more self-serving to the perpetuation of the political power of the Elected Political Party forming the Government of the day.
What took the European political process a few centuries to evolve, Singapore political process has reached to near “similar standards” in Governance of the people, but not in the political process.
The Singapore Citizens remained politically disenfranchised, and its present status have been deliberately preserved for the sake of the continued grip on political power by the present Ruling Political Party that has entrenched itself since 1950Â’s.
The early generations of Singapore, before the Japanese soldiers “liberated” Singapore, were certainly not interested in the politics of governance – with the exception of a few educated ones.
However, those “Asians” in Singapore who saw the Japanese Army defeating and then belittling the proud Caucasians Colonials Masters, also saw the awakening of their sense of controlling their own Political Future; and this fire had sparked during the days immediately after the end of WW2 in Europe and Asia.
With the declaration of independence in India, and followed by Indonesia, the eyes of Asia were roused from deep slumber. The generations from 1950Â’s onward can hardly be said to be disinterested in politics.
The apolitical attitude of Singaporean is largely advanced by the Ruling Party, by all kind of subtle, or overt, or high profile castigating actions against any prominent Singaporeans who dare to meet them head-on.
While David Marshall had the ability to impress in public speeches, he was not exactly a political “animal”, and is unsuited for a post to galvanize a disparate lot of people into a nation. He was unfortunate not to have capable people to support him.
The opposite was true for LKY and he had the support of his able and like-minded friends – Toh Chin Chye, Goh Keng Swee, Lim Kim San, Jek Yuen Tong, Othman Wok, just to name a few.
Politics require idealism, vision, leadership, and a "gift of the gap" to articulate clearly those ideals and visions.
However, this thread has to do with Singapore and the system that has evolved to allow aberrations in supposedly above board practices that form the core value of Singapore's reputation in supposedly high standards of Government.
What has been written by the authors of this book, if it is to be believed for the events printed, can only be described as shockingly revealing of the politics in Singapore. -
First to say how to make singapore cheaper for foreign investments.... There is very little one can do for it. The action tat gov is doing now is lower tax for foreign company thus cutting cost, but it doesn't seems very effective but tat is the best course of action. There is no solution for this as this is the fault of the economic world tat we r living in... there is a satuation point. They can prolong reaching that point by unfair measures tat exploit the poor countries while making the rich countries richer, however one fine day tat point will still be reached. Tat is why communists sounds so attractive to people in the past. Maxist is wrong about communist but he is right about our economy.
Then about policies in Singapore... I can only say my mum will rather I worked as a cleaner than be an opposition member. Why ? Because the gov is clamping so hard on oppositionto the point of perversity. Look at Potong Pasir, how many years have they gone into decay ? Gov don't give them upgrade, don't give them good infrastructure just because an opposition party win at tat location ? Is tat fair ? Did they not pay tax or live as Singaporean ? Why the discrimination ? Why, in every election, some opposition will certainly be sue and certainly lose the case and cetainly slap with a heavy fine or jail ? Why does PAP have the right to attack opposition character such as being chinese chauvinists while the opposition is accused of libel just for very mild statement.
One can ask, why need opposition ? It is because absolute power corrupts absolutely. They can do something so incredibly unfair such as redraw the constituents map, set all the rules for election, changing the years people can go to vote, increase their OWN PAY etc. Wat makes u think they won't do something like doing something tat benefits themselves only or sacrificing singaporean for foreign companies ? Wat is the difference between British colony if tat is the case, seems policy is for their own private interest ? Anyway I can only say tat their high pay r considered LEGAL Corruption. Those tat joing political arena should have strong belief to improve life of people, not because they r motivated by high pay.
This is one improvement I can see for our gov is. Fight a fair battle. Stop all those 'I sue u, u sue me' kinda of monkey business. If u want to be a politician, u have to be criticised. Don't shows us wat a spoilt brat u r tat can't stand criticism. U can't force respect just by shutting our mouths.
About Chee jail business... I can only say tat jail is not a holiday chalet resort. However though sometimes silly as he seems, I have to say he has a strong morale courage to take up arms against gov. I have no such courage and hide behind a monitor secretly complaining about gov. -
I can also use the same reasoning to say where there is no opposition, the ruling party will start to turn on it self as soon as the old guard is gone. It is an inevitable change.
-
Politics in the First World countries will see an orderly transition of political leadership, from one generation to the next, in which the most able will be elected to represent the Political Party by all the Party Members.
In the Third World countries, two class of membership exist - the General Party Members and the Executive Party Members. The General Party Members do not participate in the selection of its leaders, which is the exclusive privilege of the Members of the Executive Committee.
Like the general population of the Third World Country, their intellectual ability to discern what is good for themselves is always doubted; therefore, like the general population, it is unlikely that the intellectual ability of General Party Members can discern which personality is good for the Party.
In the open society of the First World, the Political Leadership is subjected to the severe scrutiny of the people and the Press.
In the closed society of the Third World, the Political Leadership is answerable only to themselves, and will not tolerate themselves being subjected to any other authority - whether by the Citizens or much less by the Press.
Can Singapore afford to allow any unpheavals from the disorderly succession of power from within the strongest Political Party that has ruled Singapore for the last four decades ?
Can Singapore afford to see its Public Institutions and its National Reseves being politicized to the extent where any other Political Party that succeed in getting into Office will be paralyzed by a Civil Service that is not politically blind, and the National Reserves inaccessible to the next Government ? -
Can Singapore afford to have the fact that the Straits Times is politicised brought out in court, as the Straits Times is now threatening to sue me. If they dare to do so, I shall countersue them in the United States. The Straits Times has offices in the United States, and is subject to the courts of this country.
The facts of the issue, involving Dr. Goh Jin Hian, PM Goh's very successful son (at only 35) are at:
http://www.escapefromparadise.com/NewFiles/bc.html
and the correspondence with the Straits Times is at:
http://www.escapefromparadise.com/NewFiles/Goh.html
Comments on the affair by SDP...
http://www.singaporedemocrat.org/news_display.php?id=250
and by Feteha
http://www.fateha.com/cgi-bin/newspro/mediawatch/fullnews.cgi?newsid1053685909,48122,
Thanks for the support. -
lowering the standard of living?Originally posted by want to know:quote:
[i don't think thats accurate. already, plants are moving out because wage costs are too high. my experience with JIT manufacturers tell me that they could get the same amount of labout for less than 1/2 the price in cheaper locations... like china.]
Is there any way to make Singaporean worker cheaper?
lowering the land cost? -
how do you lower the standard of living?Originally posted by leilan84:lowering the standard of living?
lowering the land cost?
suddenly announce that everything in singapore should be 10% cheaper than usual?
property prices have been inflated for way too long, such that it has entrenched itself in our economy, with several companies holding on to properties as a cash reserve, bursting the balloon all of a sudden would not help the economy, it would kill it.
many people too believe that property prices are way overboard, but until a solution arrives to solve the problem of companies going bankrupt, we can't lower the prices yet. -
Yet at the same time how many companies are going belly up because of falling profits and high costs, the latter which is due to a not-significant part to inflated property prices (and hence inflated rental prices)?Originally posted by nismoS132:many people too believe that property prices are way overboard, but until a solution arrives to solve the problem of companies going bankrupt, we can't lower the prices yet.
Looks like we have arrived at a classic Catch-22 -
first, you'll take the GST out of the pictureOriginally posted by nismoS132:how do you lower the standard of living?
suddenly announce that everything in singapore should be 10% cheaper than usual?
property prices have been inflated for way too long, such that it has entrenched itself in our economy, with several companies holding on to properties as a cash reserve, bursting the balloon all of a sudden would not help the economy, it would kill it.
many people too believe that property prices are way overboard, but until a solution arrives to solve the problem of companies going bankrupt, we can't lower the prices yet.
den you review the land price....
easier said then be done
but that's provided that the PAP
is willing to lower their profits