Singapore Government doesn't need advice
-
Uniqueness of perfection that sits to our north:
Business Day, Michael Backman, July 17, 2008
The International Bar Association has found that, when it comes to criticism, Singapore is in no need.
A REPORT released last week, Prosperity versus Individual Rights? Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law in Singapore, published by the International Bar Association, provides a fair and balanced account of how Singapore's Government really operates.
It lists 18 recommendations for Singapore to strengthen its rule of law and to better promote a civil society. They are all reasonable, as is the analysis on which they are based.
But of course the Singapore Government doesn't think so. Even though the IBA provided the Singapore Government with a draft of the report, allowed it to comment and then inserted the Government's views in the final report, the Government still managed to diss the report by the end of last week, just as it disses everything remotely critical. Singapore's Government is unique among governments around the world: it doesn't need advice.
The report chronicles how human rights are constrained by the Singapore Government and how freedom of speech is in the hands of the police.
It lists the media restrictions that ensure the media does not monitor the Government but is more its mouthpiece.
It describes the restrictions on the right to assemble. One bizarre practice highlighted is the constitutional requirement for members of parliament to resign if expelled from their elective party, thereby ensuring that elected members do only what their party rather than their constituents or even their conscience tells them. Another aspect mentioned is the cowing of the Singapore Law Society so that even this channel for independent comment on laws and proposed laws has been neutered. Many questions about the independence of the judiciary are raised too.
Singapore's Ministry of Law described the report's observation that Singapore's judges seemed professional in commercial cases but exhibited bias in cases involving Government ministers as "absurd" and "unsubstantiated". In actual fact, the 77-page report makes a very good case for bias. It is the ministry's rebuttal that lacks substantiation.
The report chronicles how defamation actions brought against opposition figures by Government ministers have bankrupted them, thus rendering them ineligible to sit in Parliament. That undischarged bankrupts should not sit in Parliament is not the issue. The Australian constitution has a similar provision. What is problematic is how defamation actions seem to be used specifically to target opposition figures to bankrupt them to ensure they then cannot sit in Parliament.
Of course, opposition figures in Singapore must be guarded in their public utterances as they well know the consequences of a slip-up. But the trouble is, when opposition figures give the ruling PAP (party) an inch in this regard, the PAP leaders gleefully grab a mile. Ministers lack the generosity of spirit that government politicians exhibit in other modern countries in this regard. In local parlance, they have shown themselves to be "kiasu" (literally, afraid to lose).
Examples abound. Former attorney-general Francis Seow cites in his book Beyond Suspicion? The Singapore Judiciary (2006) Devan Nair, a former president of Singapore. Nair describes how Lee Kuan Yew fumed after opposition figure J.B. Jeyaratnam had been returned to Parliament in the 1981 elections. "I will make him crawl on his bended knees and beg for mercy," Lee is purported to have said.
Race-based riots — 58 and 44 years ago — are used to justify many of the Government's controls, when in fact Singaporeans today have been gutted of passion. They have been supplanted by consumerism and materialism — safe refuges in the face of a Government intolerant of dissent. Today, the only thing likely to lead to anything approaching a riot is a half-price sale for Chanel handbags.
The report says Singapore's economic development is impressive but not unique. Australia has six Singapores dotted around its coasts. Each of these cities has been built without the media and political restrictions that Singapore's Government feels are needed even though each Australian city has a population far more ethnically diverse than Singapore's.
Singapore's leaders like to describe their country as a small island with no resources. It magnifies their achievement. But Singapore's economic hinterland are Malaysia and Indonesia — it sits bang in the middle of a sea of resources.
It draws on these resources just as Melbourne draws on the resources of the rest of Victoria.
Perhaps the most important aspect of Singapore's development has been the virtual elimination of corruption. There are those who claim that corruption is integral to Asian culture and therefore unavoidable. Singapore shows such commentators and, more importantly, the rest of Asia, that being Asian is no excuse for corruption.
Time and time again, Singapore's leaders argue that those who want to comment on politics and even policy should form their own political party and stand for election. All others are required to shut up. Singapore's leaders cocoon themselves against challenge and seem affronted by scrutiny. It's as if they haven't done a good job in building Singapore. But they have, and that is the frustration. Why must they act as if they haven't?
As you read through the measured paragraphs of the IBA report, you can almost feel the pleading; the advice to a friend: "you're wealthy, you're educated, you're like us now. Take that final step — join us — the community of civil, prosperous societies. Do it, before you embarrass yourself more." But this friend is too proud to listen.
-
Foreigners have hit the nail on the head on the governance of Singapore by the ruling party. Let the world see the true colour of the current ruling party of Singapore. It is a joke, first class world joke. "First world" government creating first class world joke.
-
That is due to the arrogance of Lee Kuan Yew.
Win too many elections. Get cocky.
He needs to be taught a lesson by the opposition, that bastard.
-
I would not put much store in what Michael Backman has to say. Go and read a few of his articles. He praises Malaysia for the same things that he criticises Singapore for. there was once an article about a corrupt Indonesian businessman and it came out like it was Singapore's fault that the businessman was corrupt! I can't remember any of his articles but I remember he writes with venom about Singapore. Each and every time. Wonder if he ever thrown out of Singapore or visa denied or jilted by Singapore Girl or what?!!
-
Be objective, don't use "yi gen zu gan da fan zhen quan ren". What he stated in the articles are facts. Which part of the article are not true?
-
I do not speak Mandarin so I do not know what you are trying to say with your Mandarin words in an English forum. Michael Backman has many things to say about the Singapore Government as unique this and unique that ... really, only the Singapore Government is like this? His own bleedy Government not like this?
-
Originally posted by adetet:
I do not speak Mandarin so I do not know what you are trying to say with your Mandarin words in an English forum.
Michael Backman has many things to say about the Singapore Government as unique this and unique that … really, only the Singapore Government is like this? His own bleedy Government not like this?
Please be honest, did you edit the title of this thread? -
huh? How can I edit it when its your post. Only you can edit. I guess the moderators may be able to edit it too. But other forumers for sure can't edit your posts.
-
Dear all who read this thread, the original title of this thread is "Singapore Government" and someone has changed/edited it to "Singapore Government doesn't need advice".
-
Originally posted by Fantagf:
Dear all who read this thread, the original title of this thread is "Singapore Government" and someone has changed/edited it to "Singapore Government doesn't need advice".
U just got shafted in the ass.
-
Fantagf, someone is out to "fix" you.
Beware.
-
Why one couple is resettling in Sweden 
I REFER to Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's suggestion in last Thursday's report that Singapore emulate Sweden's strategy in improving birth rates ('Taking a leaf from Sweden's book to boost birth rate').
I am a Singaporean married to a Swede. However, within a year, we will leave Singapore to live in Sweden. My husband has persuaded me that Singapore is not the place to live and have a quality life, including having our first child. I am convinced even though I have good work opportunities here. The higher cost of living and stressful environment have taken a toll on us.
The Government fails to help couples like us in many ways. First, as middle-class people, we have not been helped in any way to buy our first home, even though we are as good if not better taxpayers than younger couples. Couples like us cannot buy an HDB flat because our income exceeds the cap at our age. My husband is above 35 and I am well into my 30s. We are penalised for getting married in our 30s and cannot enjoy the grants given to young couples buying HDB flats. Resale flats are well beyond our means, with high valuation which means a bigger debt should we buy our first home in Singapore. Young couples can buy a five-room flat for $250,000, including grants, while we have to pay at least $400,000, without any grant.
With such a debt, it is discouraging to have children as that will add a further burden, with childcare costs here topping $1,000 a month. We do not believe in hiring a maid to look after children. As a result, we now live in a rented apartment and will not have children until we move to Sweden.
On top of that, my husband would like to spend time looking after our baby, but he is not entitled to paternity leave here. His employer, a Singapore company, does not promote it. With longer hours in this rat-race society, how can couples enjoy bedtime intimacy?
In Sweden, the scenario is different. Employers are understanding and allow employees to take time off to collect their children from childcare. Flexi work hours are common and the government gives grants to encourage new families to procreate. Higher tax rates are offset by returns from the goverment, such as child allowances and free childcare.
We have decided our first baby will have a Swedish passport, and not a Singapore one.
Heng Siew Cheng (Ms)
-
PAP regime knows all of the above.
But they fuck care.
-
They care but putting more public money into their own pockets is the overiding consideration for them, not the welfare of the people and in fact, more stress the better if that leads to the despots making more money.
-
More stress no time to think about politics.
PAP regime happy.
No one to oppose them.
-
Recent scandal cases has distracted me from thinking and focusing on existing problems / discussions like
1. MAS SELAMAT BIN KASTARI - MIA , no clue where is he?
2. Quality of Life - less want babies or fear their child will be too stressed or too costly (time , energy) to bring up a child.
3. Transport hikes : ERP (already implemented hikes and more gantries) & public transport (may hike again?)
4. Sub-Prime effect on funds and investment giants. Any losses? how much?
5. Etc.
Anyway, if all give advise to them (eg. via feedback channel , online forums, polls, etc), then Opposition may not have anything left to contribute, as all possible solutions would have been suggested to them.
Not sure if this is a valid point?
-
--------------- "
As you read through the measured paragraphs of the IBA report, you can almost feel the pleading; the advice to a friend: "you're wealthy, you're educated, you're like us now. Take that final step — join us — the community of civil, prosperous societies. Do it, before you embarrass yourself more." But this friend is too proud to listen.
--------------- "
The last paragraph of that Michael Beckman article is showing very clearly the essence of what is wrong with his thinking.
Some people are so convinced that they are better, that they are more enlightened, that they are more civilized, so much so that their mind cannot conceive, and cannot fathom, that their lecturing and preaching is not only uninvted and unsolicited, it is plain rude, arrogant, condescending, and not to mention misguided.
When will they wake up and stop believing in the superiority of their system and trying to spread and preach it like a zealous evangelist?
Those people always believe that their civilization and ideology is the benchmark, the gold standard, the ultimate destination. Everyone must be having some deficiency of some sort if they are different.
The last paragraph is very telling and very classical and typical. It has been noted time and again by observers and those unfortunate enough to be at the receiving end of their incessant preaching and beckoning to 'come join us at the table'.
Meat Pao.
-
You hit the nail on the head on exactly what you said in your post about PAP. All you said in your post perfectly describes PAP and nobody else. PAP fits the bill base on all that you listed in your post.
-
Originally posted by Meat Pao:
--------------- "
As you read through the measured paragraphs of the IBA report, you can almost feel the pleading; the advice to a friend: "you're wealthy, you're educated, you're like us now. Take that final step — join us — the community of civil, prosperous societies. Do it, before you embarrass yourself more." But this friend is too proud to listen.
--------------- "
The last paragraph of that Michael Beckman article is showing very clearly the essence of what is wrong with his thinking.
Some people are so convinced that they are better, that they are more enlightened, that they are more civilized, so much so that their mind cannot conceive, and cannot fathom, that their lecturing and preaching is not only uninvted and unsolicited, it is plain rude, arrogant, condescending, and not to mention misguided.
When will they wake up and stop believing in the superiority of their system and trying to spread and preach it like a zealous evangelist?
Those people always believe that their civilization and ideology is the benchmark, the gold standard, the ultimate destination. Everyone must be having some deficiency of some sort if they are different.
The last paragraph is very telling and very classical and typical. It has been noted time and again by observers and those unfortunate enough to be at the receiving end of their incessant preaching and beckoning to 'come join us at the table'.
Meat Pao.
You hit the nail on the head on exactly what you said in your post about PAP. All you said in your post perfectly describes PAP and nobody else. PAP fits the bill base on all that you listed in your post.
-
Some people are so convinced that they are better, that they are more enlightened, that they are more civilized, so much so that their mind cannot conceive, and cannot fathom, that their lecturing and preaching is not only uninvted and unsolicited, it is plain rude, arrogant, condescending, and not to mention misguided.
When will they wake up and stop believing in the superiority of their system and trying to spread and preach it like a zealous evangelist?
Those people always believe that their civilization and ideology is the benchmark, the gold standard, the ultimate destination. Everyone must be having some deficiency of some sort if they are different.
I agree with Meat Pao's comments on PAP regime.
-
Originally posted by Gutentaginator:
Recent scandal cases has distracted me from thinking and focusing on existing problems / discussions like
1. MAS SELAMAT BIN KASTARI - MIA , no clue where is he?
2. Quality of Life - less want babies or fear their child will be too stressed or too costly (time , energy) to bring up a child.
3. Transport hikes : ERP (already implemented hikes and more gantries) & public transport (may hike again?)
4. Sub-Prime effect on funds and investment giants. Any losses? how much?
5. Etc.
Anyway, if all give advise to them (eg. via feedback channel , online forums, polls, etc), then Opposition may not have anything left to contribute, as all possible solutions would have been suggested to them.
Not sure if this is a valid point?
Oppositions are not given equal opportunities as PAP. On TV, LKY said no such thing as fair play for oppositions. With this point, I don't understand why there are people who are so harsh and have unrealistic expectations of the oppositions.