NDP Rally Speech Mosh Pit
-
Its the time of the year again for the Sunday gong jiao way session. Well, since this is not a GE year, can expect NOT to have NSS-type goodies flung at us ppl. Rather than talk about the Rally speech AFTER Sunday, TVD has opened the NDP Rally Speech Mosh Pit at www.thevoiddeck.org for all Internet political analysts to give their ten dollars worth of what the Rally speech should REALLLLY focus on. Other than wage cuts, accepting second degree citizenship status, needing to want to retrain, to love Singapore ... all of which have been repeated until tao tia, what can the MIW offer us for REAL? What should the speech be about? Call for ideas! lai lai lai
Darkness Imprisoning Me
All That I See
Absolute Horror
I Cannot Live
I Cannot Die
Trapped in Myself
Body My Holding Cell
LauLee Has Taken My Sight
Taken My Speech
Taken My Hearing
Taken My Arms
Taken My Legs
Taken My Soul
Left Me With Life In Hell
Metallica in angry days -
The Straits Times has been known to be used by the Government to prepare the ground before action is taken - (if we read the Government's habit of preparing the ground before the release of any statistic or data - see the recent reply from Minister Lim Hng Kiang posted in "One set of data - Two Interpretations" ) .
Read the following article that has compared PM Goh as a "silver backed" gorilla leader of a pack of gorillas that continuously seek directions and security from its leader:
Are Singaporeans similar to this species of apes ?
INSIGHT: Workers need protection, not just direction
By Chua Mui Hoong
THINKING ALOUD
GORILLAS in Central Africa live in small bands that revolve around a dominant male called a silverback because of the silver hair on his back and neck.
The silverback provides the focal point that keeps others in line when the group forages for food. He travels in front, and protects the group from predators. In times of distress, others look to him.
Human societies are of course far more complex than gorilla communities. But the basic primate need for direction, protection and a sense of order cuts across species.
In Singapore, these are unsettling times for all. Workers face job loss and wage cuts. An impending 'retuning' of the Central Provident Fund rates is likely. Wage reform means some workers will end up with less pay.
For companies and employers in Singapore, the environment is also unsettling, as the entry of India and China into the global market system brings in new, low-cost, medium-skill competitors.
In these times, people look to leaders for direction, order and protection.
Singapore's leaders do provide a clear sense of the first two. Those who follow public discussions on economic restructuring know the direction ahead: To get more jobs, Singapore needs more flexible labour markets and workers need to retrain.
The message has been driven home. The results are not in yet, but there is a sense of coherence in the restructuring that is under way.
Each major group - workers, unions, employers, government officials - knows its part in the overall scheme of things, and leaders in each of these groups understand, at least at the conceptual level, what needs to be done.
The trouble is that the changes necessary require more than just leaders to make the changes.
The real work of change is adaptive, requiring individuals involved to change the way they live and work and understand the world.
To do so, people need to buy into the vision articulated by leaders. But to buy into the vision, they need first of all to feel secure and protected in the group.
Imagine the silverback telling his band of gorillas: 'We need to get to a new feeding ground. This area is now too arid for our food.
'I don't know where the new ground is, except that it's in this general direction and that we will get there. The journey will be long and hard. Some of us will end up worse off. Some may even die on the journey. We'll face many dangers along the way.'
Gorillas will clamour: Do we really need a new ground? Can't we make do with what we have?
The Singaporean equivalent: What's wrong with the past high-wage, high-growth strategy? Why can't Singapore continue with its exports-led model of growth? Why must companies retrench when they're still profitable? Why don't we all just settle for being less profitable, less attractive as an investment destination, a less dynamic economy?
If gorillas overcome this first resistance, and see that they do need a new feeding ground, their next concerns will be: Where are we going and how do you know that's the right place?
The Singaporean equivalent: Must we restructure the economy? Do wages really have to be made more flexible? Must we retune the CPF? What's the assurance that after all the pain of the journey, there'll be a new and better feeding ground at the end of it?
On this, the People's Action Party government has a sterling track record and will be able to command the trust of people that indeed there'll be a fresh, more abundant feeding ground ahead.
After buying into this vision of a brighter future, gorillas will want to know: What are you, silverback, doing to protect us on the journey? What do you mean, some of us may die, when it's your job to protect us? Why should we agree to go on the journey in the first place, unless you can guarantee our security?
The Singaporean equivalent: Okay, we realise we may need to make all those changes. But those changes are painful and come at a cost. What are you doing to cushion us from the pain?
We want job protection for Singaporeans. We want unions to prevent companies from retrenching. We want you to promise to keep costs of Housing Board flats, bus and train fares and health-care costs down. If you don't promise us these, we won't go along.
This dramatisation of the gorilla-Singapore conflict is not meant to be frivolous or disrespectful. It aims to throw into sharper relief the underlying conflict that has emerged in public discussion about economic and wage restructuring.
The silverback and other leaders know what needs to be done. But the change that is needed requires effort from every single one in the team: every gorilla must go on the journey.
Contrast this with the situation if the silverback were to say: 'This feeding ground is getting fallow. But I have the solution: I know a place where I can get a magic fertiliser that will turn this ground into a fertile feeding ground again.'
This requires no change from others: the leader diagnoses the problem and provides the solution.
Harvard leadership guru Ronald Heifetz distinguishes between technical leadership where the leader provides the answer, and adaptive leadership, where the leader has to mobilise everyone to make the change.
Adaptive leadership requires more than just the ability to diagnose the problem and point to the solution. It requires leaders to regulate the level of distress felt by those undergoing change and to respect their pain.
Prof Heifetz wrote: 'The pains of change deserve respect. People can only sustain so much loss at any one time. Leadership demands respect for people's basic need for direction, protection and order in times of distress. Leadership requires compassion for the distress of adaptive change, both because compassion is its own value, and because it can improve one's sense of timing. Knowing how hard to push and when to let up are central to leadership.'
In today's context, workers are feeling real pain and anxieties. They are adjusting as best they can. People like computer operator Katherine Chow (on facing page) are tightening their belts in case they're laid off. This newspaper has featured graduates who became hawkers or waiters because white-collar jobs are scarce, and twenty-somethings reconciled to a decade of slow growth.
Leaders must and can do more to acknowledge the pain felt and give people a sense of protection and security. Without giving false cheer, they must instil confidence.
More effort must be put into creating systems that protect people while change is under way.
Even as ministers talk about wage reform, which gives relief to employers, workers want social reform, which will mend the existing glaring holes in the social safety net and help them through periods of unemployment.
To help workers focus on the journey to the new feeding ground, leaders have to meet workers' emotional need for protection.
It may well be that no leader can guarantee security against global economic realities. In that case, workers need to feel a sense of confidence that they can make it.
When the nation listens to Singapore's silverback - Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong - deliver his National Day Rally speech tomorrow, it will be looking not only for a sense of direction and order, but also to feel secure and protected.
The writer is a senior correspondent on The Straits Times Political Desk. -
Yeah...workers of Singapore due to the current and continuing economic downturn since 2001 or so....we have to keep our cost down and blah blah blah and more blah....!
Workers wage expected for more cut and cut.....?
but minister wages freeze !!!!!!!!!!!!
Transportation raised????? Electricity bills raised????housing cost remains?????and so on ...so on...!?????
Workers thought , when we are paid highly to do the work we should do it to the best we can or get busted for not doing up to expectation. Ministers are elected and paid but this is the kind of answers and treatment our workers get ????? Forget it Mr Ministers....no thanks for your effort. -
Hmmm... Govt. complains that Singapore workers very ex, equal to 3 malaysian workers, 5 thais and 20 indians... so must reduce costs to keep up.
I wonder if it ever occured to them that our PM gets paied 2 times as much as the american president... hmmmphzzz... -
To be frank, I dun really like the notion of having the CPF rates cut further as mentioned in the NDP rally speech.
However, I also believe that I would further dislike the notion of being out of a job, and having lesser jobs around me over the former alternative.
The rational of the CPF cuts actually reflects the most basic fundamental of economics, and which is in the eyes of foreign investors, cost is and will forever be an elastic factor of consideration.
Although the amounts of saving will be reduced by a relatively significant sum, the painful cut however, will serve to draw in more foreign investors from all over the globe.
Aidded by the achievement of more FTAs than compared to decade ago, SG is now offering a far greater and more attractive deal for evaluating firms to contemplate upon us as their next best choice of investure.
However, we must also realize that the strong SGD trend may not e exactly what these contemplating investers would like to see, since a strong SGD will inevitable make exports more expensive as compared to other lower cost centres around in the region.
Faced on one hand where the strength of the dollar would actually constitute as a push factor to potential investors, but yet faced with an equally pressing circumstance to not weaken the dollar ( since that would in fact, richochet out more shock into our system ), the next best approach would hence be to operate on the next biggest operating cost component, and which is the wages and salaries.
I hope I can interpret this correctly, but to me, the decision to have the CPF rates cut and enforced with a ranged system is really meant to provide this trade-off.
Though painful and not easily adaptable by many in the short term, this painful measure will however, slowly evolve eventually into a very major and critical supporting infrastructure for the local economic scene, and serve the people well with its role as a better 'shock-absorber', in additional to the saving feature that the system is currently fulfilling. -
...and not to mention does a lot lessOriginally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:I wonder if it ever occured to them that our PM gets paied 2 times as much as the american president... hmmmphzzz...
The question is, why are we still stuck at the mentality of having to compete with countries like India and China for jobs. Haven't we developed beyond that point already?
And I'll have to disagree with Neo here, cutting the employers CPF contribution by 6% (or 10%) will not turn things around and make Singapore a low-cost haven for investors overnight. I don't have the full statistics, but I think that employers contributions fo CPF would account for a less than significant portion of the cost of doing business in SG. This CPF cut is only a way to bleed Singaporeans instead of the government's coffers in a futile attempt to lower costs.
Finally, a point that I and others have made and will continue to make. It is untenable to continue cut wages, CPF and business costs by hitting the workers in the pocket, while the cost of living does not go down accordingly (in fact it is rising even as wages are falling) -
S'pore needs more than just CPF cuts: analysts
http://business-times.asia1.com.sg/sub/latest/story/0,4574,91420,00.html?
SINGAPORE - A plan to cut company contributions to Singapore's state-run pension fund should slow down retrenchments and boost corporate savings, but more cost-reducing measures are needed to sharpen the Republic's competitive edge, analysts said on Tuesday.
The struggling property sector, once a pillar of the local economy, is expected bear the brunt of the proposed changes to the Central Provident Fund (CPF), which Singaporeans use to fund home purchases, they said.
Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong in a speech to the nation on Sunday said the government has no choice but to push for CPF reforms in order to save jobs as the country faces a mounting challenge from countries manufacturing the same products at cheaper costs.
The proposals, including a cut in the amount companies are legally required to contribute to the CPF for each employee, is expected to be tabled for debate when parliament sits on August 28.
Touching the CPF has always been an emotional issue for Singaporeans because the fund -- whose three million members had a combined balance of more than US$55 billion (S$96.2 billion) at the end of 2002 -- is the cornerstone of the so-called nanny state's social compact with its citizens
CPF funds are used to buy homes as well as pay for medical bills and children's education, with enough money left for retirement. Part of one's CPF savings can also be put into approved investment schemes like unit trusts.
But current contributions totalling 36 per cent of a worker's monthly salary -- 16 percent from the employer and 20 per cent from the employee -- has also helped make the cost of doing business in Singapore higher and if left unchanged could divert investors to other countries.
The government wants to cut the total package to as low as 30 per cent.
Paul Schymyck, an economist with research house IDEAglobal, said the proposed pension cuts could help companies go slow on job layoffs and boost corporate earnings.
However, this would not be enough to make Singapore competitive in terms of costs.
'At the end of the day, no matter how much you cut the CPF, your wage cost here will remain higher than China and India,' he told AFP.
Mr Schymyck said corporate taxes which have earlier been reduced to 20 per cent remain high.
Other costs such as transportation, consumer taxes which are to be raised to five per cent next year from the current four per cent, and industrial land rentals are higher compared to neighbouring countries.
'I think they should address the entire cost structure,' he said.
Mr Goh in his speech made a stark illustration, saying that for every manufacturing worker hired in Singapore, a company could employ three in Malaysia, eight in Thailand, 13 in China and 18 in India.
The Singapore Manufacturers' Federation described the proposed cuts as an 'important step in the right direction,' but said it hoped the government 'will implement more measures in the near term to reduce business costs further.'
It said rents, taxes, and administration or service fees paid to government agencies form a 'large portion' of business costs here.
Kenny Yap, executive chairman of ornamental fish exporter Quian Hu Corp who welcomed the proposed cuts, said his company employs more than 100 staff in Singapore and 300 in China, but its wage cost is 20 per cent lower in China.
'I think it has come to a point where the people have to decide for themselves how much they want to save rather than rely on a government structure to do that,' he said.
Low Ping Yee, an economist with United Overseas Bank, said the proposed cuts should ease retrenchments but would not result in new hirings.
'But what it signals to investors is that our wage system is becoming more flexible and that will make it more attractive for foreign investors over the long term.'
Kim Eng Securities said the proposed cuts 'should help reduce the economy's cost structure and help accelerate the nascent economic recovery,' but is likely to dampen consumption demand in the short term. -
During the 1998 crisis, the IMF prescribed some medicine for the stricken ASEAN economies. Thailand took its advice while Malaysia took other methods. Both the IMF way and Malaysia's way worked. Now both countries are the leading growth rates in SEA.
The underlying reasons is that both ways worked because it improved the confidence of the people.
Whatever solution our government tries will not work if it does not improve the confidence of the people. See Japan. 10 years in recession. The people have no faith in whatever the government there does.
We are in a similar problem. No matter what the government does, we will not have faith in its solution. The problem is that we either feel its too little, too late, or its not the root of the problem we are addressing.
I feel that we MUST address the root of the problem. Why is singapore in deep shit
Is it something we are doing or is it external factors? Are there solutions or should we just ride the tide? -
In reply to ViperÂ’s post, Viper is absolutely correct to say that the CPF cuts, if materialized, will not be of great help to the domestic economic scene immediately.
And with reference to my earlier post, I had never tried to paint a rosy picture on a miraculous 180 degree turnabout for gloomy cast that we are currently being stuck with.
What I was attempting to communicate, was only that the talked about CPF System change into a ranged and tiered concept as in contrast from itÂ’s current fixed mode, will be a helpful hand to the economy should we face further storms down the lane, and which we inevitably will.
To debate more deeply into the crux of the CPF issue, it is paramount that we must understand clearly on what, where and exactly how the pre-mentioned potential changes to CPF system will be of benefit to us.
If you were to throw away the false appearance of that mere single percentage numeric figure cut for just a second, you will come to understand that the real hip and critical element that the Government may be truly interested to introduce, is to allow more autonomous power and space into the hands of corporations here, to better self regulate, strategize and maneuver themselves in accordance to the changes that they face faster.
Whatever the percentage that might be announced, be it a numeric decline for the near future, or a well deserved increase for the potential goods years ahead, this is but only a figure.
That numeric percentage at best, serves only the purpose as a scratch does, when the body feels an itch.
The cause of the itch however, will nevertheless continue to remain unless the real and actual cause is being single out and taken care of.
The truth power that will propel the under consideration change proposal to the CPF system may in future, come from that flexible element by companies, to self determine on the percentage range of employer CPF contributions to contribute.
And before anyone decides to jump the gun right now over the issue of whom may then, be the potential vindicator to safeguard the public against potential abuses, the chances are, you can expect the MOM or NWC to not just sit down in there and twiddle thumbs should such episodes really arise.
To rely entirely on the government for a new percentage figure time after time and round after round of economic battering, that is neither a constructive protocol that we should endorse, nor be proud of.
If our generation were to merely follow thru with this old ‘chain of command’ reliance, and to continue on with this precedence, then we will only remain trapped within a third grade management capability zone as compared to the rest of the global management forerunners.
After all, Survival comes not from being strong or establish alone.
Survival comes rather, from a more complex combinative of being all; strong, speedy and of relevant adaptation to the both immediate and obscure surroundings. -
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw03/030818cs.htm
Dr Chee's response to PM Goh's speech
Singaporeans asked to sacrifice again for the PAP
Chee Soon Juan
Secretary General
Singapore Democratic Party
August 18, 2003
SINGAPORE
THE Prime MinisterÂ’s National Day Rally speech is long on jingoism but way short of solutions for a troubled nation. In a country where the highest point is less than 600 feet (183m) , Mr Goh Chok TongÂ’s evocation of hills and valleys, like his other rhetoric, is sorely out of place. It is symptomatic of how out of touch with reality the PAP is of the depressing situation in the street.
His speech is just another leaf taken from Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s book – the tried and tested formula of frightening Singaporeans into rallying behind the PAP. He dwells at length of SARS and tells Singaporeans that the “threat is still not over”. He plays on the fears of terrorism and that the danger still “lurking”. He warns about international competition and the migration of jobs if Singaporeans don’t accept wage cuts.
In reality Mr Goh Chok Tong has presided over years of economic decline, and is unable and unwilling to institute badly needed political-economic reforms that will make Singapore competitive, vibrant and free.
Cutting through all the hype, the Government’s prescription is more of the same: Singapore workers need to cut wages and tighten their belts even more. With unemployment at an all-time high, retrenchment expected to continue unabated, record number of bankruptcies occurring, the ailing property sector unable to recover, divorces and mental breakdowns on the increase, and living cost jacked up by the recent spate of price hikes, it seems surreal that the prime minister is asking – no, telling – Singaporeans that they need to sacrifice some more. This is especially galling given that he and his ministers enjoy a more than opulent lifestyle with the kind of salaries they pay themselves.
The Government has painted SingaporeÂ’s economy into a corner and is now advocating that the workersÂ’ CPF be cut yet again, blithely ignoring the fact that many Singaporeans depend on their CPF contributions to help pay the mortgage on their homes.
The PAP refuses to accept that continuing to cut wages of workers is a dead-end street as far as helping to revive the economy is concerned, not to mention the effect that such cuts will have on consumer spending. Without a system where the people can hold the PAP accountable for its actions and to make it find honest-to-goodness solutions, the Government will not hesitate to put wages on the chopping block each and every time the economy goes south.
The tragedy about all this is that, with the kind of political system that we have, Singaporeans are unable to genuinely express their views at elections. As long as the people are held captive to the political process, the PAP will continue to make Singaporeans pay for its ill-conceived policies.
Mr Goh’s parting words, “My heart is with you”, smell and taste like raw fish left out in the sun. He had said, “Your worries are mine too” at a National Day Rally two years ago. Months later the Government increased the GST, utility rates, car park fees, bus and MRT fares. In fact, the PAP loudly promised Singaporeans “More Good Years” if they voted for it in the 1990s. The question is just screaming to be asked: Where are the good years?
[/url] -
Made an earlier typing omission error in my second post above.
The mistake has been retified as underlined. Sorry for the incovenience caused. -
Originally posted by Viper52:
that isn't a response. That a review of PM Goh's speech. While I agree the this year National Day speech offered nothing concrete for SIngaporeans, the 'response' from Dr Chee was similarly flawed. Basically, we need new politicians in Singapore. . .
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw03/030818cs.htm
[b]Dr Chee's response to PM Goh's speech
Singaporeans asked to sacrifice again for the PAP
Chee Soon Juan
Secretary General
Singapore Democratic Party
August 18, 2003
SINGAPORE
THE Prime MinisterÂ’s National Day Rally speech is long on jingoism but way short of solutions for a troubled nation. In a country where the highest point is less than 600 feet (183m) , Mr Goh Chok TongÂ’s evocation of hills and ......
[/url][/b] -
Laser, I've read your posts in other topics calling for new politicians in Singapore with squeaky clean records, but IMO there are flaws in that line of thought:Originally posted by laser51088:Basically, we need new politicians in Singapore. . .
- Who can claim that he is so squeaky clean as to have ABSOLUTELY no skeletons in his closet?
- Even if someone IS squeaky clean, how can we be sure that the gov't, with its stranglehold of the local media, will not destroy your reputation, and not give you a chance to respond? Face it, despite the alternative viewpoints on the Net, the majority of internet-savvy Singaporeans still depend on ST and CNA etc for their news.
- At the very least, how will you get a platform to air your views? For example, how often have you heard about WPs Sylvia Lim after the wide coverage she got after being elected as WPs Chairman? They called it a new dawn for the Opposition, but like many before it, the media made sure it was another false dawn. The fact is that as an oppostion politician in Singapore, no matter how good you are, you get as much coverage as the government wants to give you.
In short, changing the politicians is only part of the solution, like I've always said, the playing field must be more level before anything can really change. -
Great post Viper52, you are 100 percent correct.
For POLITICS to happen - as intended in the true sense and spirit of the word - it must involve the CITIZENs' active participation.
Before the Citizens can participate, the Government and its various arms of public security should not be paranoid that public participation will and must necessarily result in violence - hence, no Citizens' participation will be tolerated, for the sake of Public Safety and Security.
For POLITICS to happen, the Government must respect that there are multi-facetted views, philosophies, principles, beliefs, preferences, ideologies, methods, and eccentricities.
Such diverse and varied views (and so on and so forth) must all be accomodated; and there cannot be the interests of the majority taking precedence that crush the interests of the minority; or for the sake of the majority, it is expedient to forgo the interests of the minority.
The Government must accept that the Opposition has the Right to exist, and to hold on to their own alternative views.
Although the Government is not obliged to see the growth of the Opposition, it is the Government's duty to ensure that the environment is clear of ALL obstructions for the sustenance of ALTERNATIVE VIEWS - so as to allow vibrancy to occur that can only benefit everyone.
When vibrancy or life in POLITICS is dead, it will be like a life form without the soul.