At age 80, can one contribute or hinder development ?
-
In the Sunday Times, 14 September 2003, it was reported that LKY said that " I'll be in Govt as long as I'm able
He will remain Senior Minister while he can still contribute and continue as an MP for as long as he is fit "
SM LKY also was reported to have said:
"He also acknowledged that he was slowing down with age and accumulating less first-hand knowledge for his 'data bank' than before. As a result, his involvement in immediate policy matters has declined."
In the year 2000, during his first visit to Malaysia after more then ten years, in an interview with the Malaysian New Straits Times on 13 August 2000, SM LKY responded to a question as to his retirement plans from the NST reporter, as follows:-
NST: Another thing _ and don't misunderstand me, I want you to continue as long as you want _ when do you plan to call it a day?
LKY: My thinking is simple. Since my stent (for the heart), I take everyday as a bonus. [color=red]The doctors showed me a 30 per cent blockage in another artery but they didn't want to touch it because it could make it worse.
NST: So, you will continue as long as you want?
LKY: As long as I have useful views to make to the PM and his Ministers.[/color]
With a known heart condition, and at the age of 80 years, why is SM LKY still hanging on to his seat in Government ?
Can Singapore continue to develop towards a more politically liberal society with him watching over the shoulders of any Prime Ministers ?
Can his own son, DPM LHL be his own man when his father is watching him ?
Will LHL have a free hand to run Singapore with a new vision, or will he be hamstrung by the filial obedience to a father's instruction ?
Should a law be introduced to prevent anyone passed 79 years to take Office in Government, but allowing a seat in Parliament ?
When so much has been said to push the First Generation of Political Leaders from holding offices in Government, and Parliamentary Seats - based on the reason of making room for a new generation of political leaders - it is surprising that SM should continue to hang on when he has seen and said that Singapore has shown that there are able leaders after his generation.
Quotes taken from following sites:
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/topstories/story/0,4386,209739,00.html?
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw00/000813ns.htm#call%20it%20a -
u better tone down on ur latent aggressiveness in your post
i find it too harsh...
well i dun agree with all of LKY's polcies but i recognise his contribution to singapore... definitely his opinions or POVs are essential to further development...
LHL definitely needs his father's experience. You see how G. Walker Bush consulted his father for his experience on dealing with Iraq... and was able to place trust in D. Rumsfeld... well simply becuase they did have experience and a old hand in this kind of things.
i doubt very much that now LKY is the sole voice in the Parliament since long ago... but i feel that since he feels like it... why not contribute your ideas...
and lastly since he's done so much for singapore... the very least she can do for him is to listen to his pontifications and plans and perhaps we can learn sumthing from it -
Harsh? You don't read the other forums on Singapore matters much do you?Originally posted by ntu slacker:u better tone down on ur latent aggressiveness in your post
i find it too harsh...
well i dun agree with all of LKY's polcies but i recognise his contribution to singapore... definitely his opinions or POVs are essential to further development...
LHL definitely needs his father's experience. You see how G. Walker Bush consulted his father for his experience on dealing with Iraq... and was able to place trust in D. Rumsfeld... well simply becuase they did have experience and a old hand in this kind of things.
i doubt very much that now LKY is the sole voice in the Parliament since long ago... but i feel that since he feels like it... why not contribute your ideas...
and lastly since he's done so much for singapore... the very least she can do for him is to listen to his pontifications and plans and perhaps we can learn sumthing from it
We can recognise his contributions to Singapore's economic development, without placing him upon a pedestal where he can do no wrong, and stay in power (in various forms) without retiring from the scene. What ever happened to fading away gracefully?
Placing faith in Rumsfeld? I think thats a bad example. Due in no small part to Rumsfelds bellicose opinions and misguided policies, the US has exhausted the goodwill and sympathy shown towards it by the world for Sept 11 and is now seen as an arrogant bully, while his insistence over lower troop levels needed to invade and occupy Iraq has led to insufficient manpower to cover the ground and has led to general lawlessness and seeming inability to decisively check the anti-American resistance.
As a father and mentor, you can guide and advise your descendants without holding on to any position in government. Bush senior didn't.
As for him doing so much for Singapore economically, we should judge a leader more by his achievements in recent times than by hanging on to his past faraway glories. History is full of leaders who did a lot of good initially but being stuck in their comfort zones, led their countries to trouble and ruin. We should take heed of that.
As for his political contributions, the less said the better... -
Shocking is my reaction that you can find my opening post to have a hint of " latent aggressiveness " .Originally posted by ntu slacker:u better tone down on ur latent aggressiveness in your post
i find it too harsh...
well i dun agree with all of LKY's polcies but i recognise his contribution to singapore... definitely his opinions or POVs are essential to further development...
LHL definitely needs his father's experience. You see how G. Walker Bush consulted his father for his experience on dealing with Iraq... and was able to place trust in D. Rumsfeld... well simply becuase they did have experience and a old hand in this kind of things.
i doubt very much that now LKY is the sole voice in the Parliament since long ago... but i feel that since he feels like it... why not contribute your ideas...
and lastly since he's done so much for singapore... the very least she can do for him is to listen to his pontifications and plans and perhaps we can learn sumthing from it
How did you get this feeling from a post that consist largely of two documented reports of LKY's statements ?
The questions posed would have been asked in any polling exercise in the market place to gauge consumers' needs and reaction to a product.
Harsh by what or whose standards ?
Has the thin skin sensitivity of the Political Leaders also affected their avid worshippers too ? -
it's called paranoia. there're people that're still afraid of men in white knocking on their doors in the middle of the night for sneezing the wrong way.
-
An article that was first researched and written by a Singaporean, and printed in the Sydney Morning Herald on 22 November 2002.
Why Lee Kuan Yew's world view is out of date
-----------------------------------------------------
Sydney Morning Herald.
November 22, 2000
Singapore is a modern, sophisticated city state with a booming economy but its political system needs a drastic overhaul, writes Lily Zubaidah Rahim.
FEW authoritarian leaders have been willing to gracefully relinquish the reigns of power. This reluctance has been reinforced by the experiences of former leaders who have endured legal challenges, ridicule and worse. Out of power, their diminishing number of friends among Western leaders are belatedly embarrassed by the less than salutary company they used to keep.
Enter Singapore's irrepressible Lee Kuan Yew. Although never tainted with the odium of a Marcos or a Soeharto, the former prime minister of the one-party dominant state has long been a critic of liberal democracy and vociferous champion of Asian values. After relinquishing the prime ministership in 1990, the cabinet position of Senior Minister was created to ensure his political longevity.
As Senior Minister, Lee is well positioned to ensure that the political ground rules and the direction of public policy do not stray too far from the fundamentals set by him as prime minister over the previous two decades. Lee's fundamentals include the minimisation of state welfare spending, maintaining the numerical dominance of the Chinese community, sustaining a formidable military establishment that is technologically second to none in South-East Asia, maintaining the political hegemony of the People's Action Party (PAP) and its corporatist relations with pivotal groups in civil society.
Paternalistically cautioning Singaporeans of his political immortality lest they drift too far into the fanciful realms of overturning the PAP's fundamentals, Lee warned in the late 1980s: "Those of you who believe that when I have left the government as prime minister that I have gone into permanent retirement should have their heads examined."
Observers of Indonesian politics are aware that some of Soeharto's advisers were tinkering with Lee's ingenious model for ensuring political longevity many years before his ouster. However, adopting the Lee model would not have saved Soeharto due to his inability to fulfil a key prerequisite: widespread public and market perception of passing the leadership baton with a robust economy in place.
In Malaysia, to the north of Singapore, recent statements made by senior politicians of the ruling United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) suggest that the Lee model is being seriously considered to allow the Prime Minister, Dr Mahathir, to eventually leave the position without fear of retribution, stemming from the handling of former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim's sacking and subsequent conviction. If adopted, the Lee model is unlikely to succeed in Malaysia because of the dynamics within UMNO, distinguishing it from the highly centralised and controlled, technocrat-led PAP in Singapore. Furthermore, despite Mahathir's economic achievements, his standing within the party and particularly within the Malay community has been marred by his vindictive humiliation of Anwar. In traditional Malay political culture, a leader may undermine and marginalise his or her political enemy, but never in an overtly humiliating manner.
In Singapore, the humiliation suffered by the more adversarial opposition politicians and former PAP leaders, who have dared to transgress the parameters of the politically permissible, is very much a part of the political culture. They have been soundly humiliated by the casting of aspersions on their personalities and private lives and through lawsuits which have left many financially and professionally ruined. The risky nature of venturing into opposition politics has been clearly conveyed to Singaporeans.
Lee is in Australia to promote the second volume of his memoir, From Third World to First. It has been applauded particularly by the more conservative politicians and academics from the "realist" school of international relations. Not surprisingly, a doyen of this school, Henry Kissinger, has contributed a foreword. Typical of their beliefs is a reliance on a strong military capability. Alarmingly, Singapore's continued arms build-up and joint military research and arms production with Israel have assisted in fuelling regional insecurity and precipitating an arms race. In the arguably more complicated post-Cold War environment of international and regional politics, Lee's appraisal of international politics may be somewhat outdated.
Generally received with circumspection, particularly in the more democratic East Asian nations, the warm response accorded to Lee by various quarters in the West is all the more remarkable. No doubt the projection of Singapore as a modern, secular, industrialised nation with a GNP per capita figure that has long surpassed nations like Australia and Britain, and its energetic promotion of trade liberalisation, has won Lee and the PAP government considerable admiration. At a time when the regional economic crisis has sapped the enthusiasm by the less industrialised nations for trade liberalism, Singapore's support for the free-trade agenda of the WTO, ASEAN Free Trade Area and APEC has remained unshakable.
Singapore's free trade agreement with Australia is in tandem with other bilateral free-trade agreements it has signed with Mexico, New Zealand, South Korea, the United States, Canada and Japan. By blending these bilateral trade agreements into larger regional trade accords, the Singapore government hopes to accelerate the process of trade liberalisation. Singapore has also proven to be a reliable champion of Australia's interests within ASEAN.
Lee's political longevity has allowed him to assume the role of a cultural filter and diplomatic bridge between East and West. However, some words of caution for those from the West hoping to understand East Asia through the lens of Lee, who represents the East Asia of the past. Most of the more industrialised societies of East Asia have begun to move away from Singapore's authoritarian political structures towards greater pluralism. Singapore may be economically First World but its political system is more akin to authoritarian Third World nations. Paradoxically, Lee and the PAP Government are fast developing a reputation as political recalcitrants and regional laggards.
Lily Zubaidah Rahim, the author of The Singapore Dilemma (OUP Press, 1998 ) , lectures at Sydney University's School of Economics and Political Science.
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw00/001122sm.htm -
Just a note to make.
I don't think it has ever got to do with his age. As long as he still can contribute goodness, he can still offer his services. -
......" goodness, " ?Originally posted by Parka: Just a note to make.
I don't think it has ever got to do with his age. As long as he still can contribute goodness, he can still offer his services.
Is " goodness " practised in the Singapore political scene ?
Singapore has attained First World Status but its foundation is not rock solid, as its Political System still remain that of a Third World.
There are flaws in the manner that Singapore is being managed, with one of the biggest flaw being the Singapore National Reserves that rightfully belong to Singaporeans. -
Singapore and Hongkong are both small in size, and both having a largely cosmopolitan population that are open and dependent on the World for a living.
Yet Hongkong thrives up till this day, without any paternalistic figure such as LKY.
Singapore and Hongkong have different political systems and each is attempting to solve near similar recessionary problems caused by the same set of external economic problems:
From a report printed in the South China Morning Post on 6 June 2001, the following will be interesting alternatives to a referenced article from DPM LHL on the same subject.
Lion City runs out of excuses for secrecy
South China Morning Post
June 6, 2001
By SIMON PRITCHARD
THE SECRECY for secrecy's sake?
The retention of information is a defining characteristic of big-brother bureaucracies and know-better elitists everywhere. Favourite excuses for crimping public view of economic data include national security and the public interest.
More often, these mask inefficiency and outright coercion.
Socialist states were heavily information retentive and paid the price in economic efficiency, as poor-performing companies are reliable cover-up merchants. But drawing a line between public interest and data voyeurism is no easy task.
Singapore, a capitalist metropolis in socialist drag, offers an interesting case in point.
Recently, it chose to loosen up and go with the market-economy flow. That has seen public utilities partially privatised, regulation loosened and less moral hectoring by a government wanting to encourage a free-thinking, "knowledge-based" future.
This has not been easy. High-cost Singapore is heavily exposed to the global electronics slump and is seeing foreign companies exit to cheaper locations. This cyclical downturn has hit economic growth hard and, arguably, portends a deeper malaise in the city's statist development track. The general public suspects trouble ahead and is politely asking for greater economic transparency. The official response last week was a resolute refusal.
Central to Singapore's planned economy is the state's ability to capture an astonishingly high share of private-sector savings, which are invested by government agencies such as the Government Investment Corporation (GIC). These surpluses are the result of taxation, forced social-security payments and sterilised foreign-exchange reserves.
In recent weeks, Singapore's letter-to-the-editor writers have called for greater transparency in GIC's holdings and performance. In response to an opposition parliamentarian's calls to open the books, Lee Hsien Loong, the Deputy Prime Minister and chairman of the Monetary Authority of Singapore, fired back: "It [the Government] does not stand up and say, 'Here are all the things; here are all the data; here are my national secrets; here are my defence secrets; here are my foreign-policy moves; and here are my innermost reserves'."
The performance was vintage. Asked to cast light on the public-asset accounts, he invoked the mantle of defender against barbarian hordes. In short, he engaged in absurd exaggeration.
Last week at a press conference, Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew was queried on the same topic by the South China Morning Post's Southeast Asian correspondent. Mr Lee was equally firm in rebutting disclosure. The following day, a Straits Times columnist inveighed against the Post's question to Mr Lee, invoking racist language and arguing that secrecy at GIC was a matter of national interest.
The average Singaporean - like his counterpart anywhere - cares little about such details of governance. But he does worry when he cannot fund his retirement and suspects his savings have been squandered. That might sound harsh, as Singapore has clearly done more right than wrong. Its economic success is real, even if civil liberties have been abused.
Yet the call for greater disclosure comes at a time when the deferred costs of Singapore's planned economy are coming home to roost.
GIC is a government fund manager with a reported US$100 billion (about HK$780 billion) under its charge. Among other things, it manages part of the country's US$80 billion foreign-exchange reserves. Its operations are secretive and its accounts are not disclosed.
Other than revealing a basic asset allocation among equities, bonds and cash, little is revealed. Performance is monitored by a council of government insiders.
The general public suspects reserves might have been wasted following the post-1997 Asian crisis. A secret S$17 billion (about HK$73 billion) loan to Indonesia, made in 1998, was publicly revealed only after former Indonesian president Suharto blurted out the fact of its existence to foreign journalists. In another case, there has been scant disclosure of losses on a failed investment park in Suzhou, China, which has been largely swept under the carpet. Meaningful disclosure, such as it is, occurs when required by regulators in foreign jurisdictions.
Of immediate concern to most Singaporeans is the state of their Central Provident Fund (CPF) accounts. An average of 30 per cent to 40 per cent of total wages have been forcibly extracted into government-administered coffers over the past few decades, but the average CPF account holder has sufficient money to fund just a few years of retirement at the average wage.
There are two reasons for this. First, individuals can draw down their CPF accounts to fund housing purchases and other social needs, such as health care. Second, balances kept to fund retirement - about S$90 billion at present - yielded a real return of zero between 1987 and 1997, according to Mukul Asher, a National University of Singapore economics professor who is a world expert in the field. Last year, an International Monetary Fund report called for radical reform of Singapore's CPF system.
Last week, Senior Minister Lee was at pains to stress that GIC fund managers did not manage CPF funds[/color]. That surprised academics in the field, who have long ssumed CPF funds and fiscal reserves are essentially interchangeable because both are invested in government-linked companies and schemes. The point is the strategic fog maintained around economic data makes it impossible to verify such statements and, more importantly, to monitor the Government's performance record.
Extract savings on cheap terms and force-feed a planned industrial economy, and unsurprisingly, growth is achieved. This was the basis of criticism in the mid-1990s - based on Singapore's awful total factor productivity - of the city's growth track. Far from being dispelled, such criticism is only reinforced by unnecessary secrecy about data which, if made available for examination, could provide a more complete picture of economic performance.
Hong Kong resembles Singapore in having substantial reserves confiscated from the private sector. To date, these have been managed in a relatively transparent manner.
Encouragingly, the SAR Government has agreed to put its own accounts on a fully transparent accrual basis. The Government also faces pressure to give back some of its surplus through public expenditure .
There are valuable arguments either way for fiscal largesse. Whatever is decided in Hong Kong, Singapore offers a salutory lesson in how not to manage public assets. The city's refusal to open government accounts to scrutiny seems less a matter of national security than of concern that transparency would reveal the Government's investment performance for all to see.
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw01/010606sc.htm
Related Reference:
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw01/010516a3.htm -
Singapore and Hongkong are both small in size, and both having a largely cosmopolitan population that are open and dependent on the World for a living.
Different story, Hongkong could easily rely on the trade of its hinterland - China, a luxury Singapore never had.
Yet Hongkong thrives up till this day, without any paternalistic figure such as LKY.
And Hongkong never had to deal with hostile neighbours, the Chinese didn't care because they would have gotten it back by 1997. No one in the region would want to threaten the British occupying it or even interested in the concept. They won't even need a paternalistic figure.
Singapore is an all different ball game, surrounded by countries who felt the large Chinese population here is an affront to their dignity in its early days and would have liked nothing but to see the little island nation crumble. Not to mention since the British were pulling out, investors no longer felt assured their investments would have been protected in a country with such hostile surroundings.
Personally i like LKY for the way his mind works, a rarity of politicians globally. But i do not neccesarily agree that at his age he should have stayed in politics, any fool could tell you that to allow the old to remain in power indefinitely would stagnate the progress of the country.
Yes, i do agree the media currently is too conversative, only chosing to display articles that are pro government or airing interviews that show their interviewees agreeing with what the government did.(Come on, 4.5 percent of the working population think that way? highly unlikely.) I do not trust the numbers that the government sources have given either, it's too easily manipulatable(sp? XD).
But, would we have gone so far without LKY? I think it's highly unlikely. -
-
In the name of renewal and fresh ideas, a policy of musical chairs is instituted with the PAPs scholars in the civil service and armed forces, deliberately or inadvertently creating a "cover-your-ass-and-you'll move up the ladder" culture where mediocrity is rewarded and creativity and can-do attitudes are frowned upon.
However, at the very top, in the elite among the elite are, the exact opposite is practiced.
Double standards and a serious contradiction. -
Hi Stevenson101, great to see your post again.
While Hong Kong may be close to China, and it may serve as Hong Kong’s hinterland, I doubt very much if the trade figures between the two “countries” amount to a large portion of Hong Kong’s annual economic performance.
Similarly, Singapore’s “hinterland” is the regional countries around it, with Singapore being the main “entrepot” serving this entire region since the founding by Raffles. Singapore's trade figures with the region is not as significant as its figures with the regions beyond South-east Asia.
Hong Kong links to the World is largely similar to Singapore, which became more essential when the political pressures onto the economic world forced Singapore to leap frog over the heads of the immediate region, and linked Singapore to the World Economic Grid. Likewise, Hong Kong had been doing the same since its founding by the British.
When the British pulled out, there were different type of uncertainties felt by the locals associated with the British Military(whose concerns were more to do about the future of their rice bowls), and those not economically associated in the activities of the British Military and employed by the local and foreign factory owners (concerns more with political and security arrangements).
It is obvious that the difference is quite marked between the two groups in Singapore Society.
Those already employed in the “Civilian Sector” were only nervous about the future political and security arrangements only, as Singapore was already kicked out of Malaysia, and the early security arrangement with Malaysia, was that both had depended on UK for military defense.
The Politicians of early Singapore were economic “green horns” and were not looked up very much by the local business community during Singapore’s early politics.
Just as Singapore is presently moving into a transitory phase of economic problems – (that have been referred as being similar to the days experienced when UK announced its military withdrawal from the Far East) – our Political Leaders are groping around in the dark, experimenting with hopeful CPF cuts to revive the economy.
However, in the Private World of Commerce and Industry, the Tai Pans have already foreseen the economic numbers and have already made their moves five years ago. Some have reinvested elsewhere, others have retrenched and retooled, more have redirected resources to other growth areas.
The worlds of politics and commerce work at different pace.
LKY has admitted that he is only the Point Man in his team of First Generation Leaders, and will obviously take the spotlight in guiding his “platoon” safely through a war zone, and getting it out of several “skirmish and ambushes”.
However, the Point Man alone does not win the war alone, and had the backing of the fire power and survival will of the entire “Platoon personnel, Rear Forces, Upper Echelon and Reserves Forces”.
From the manner in which political transition is formulated, and the manner in which political power is held, there seems to imply that Singapore has become the real estate of the First Family. No other Singaporean seems to be capable, suitable, trustworthy enough, to take on the positions that are occupied by the “Family” and “close or distant Relations”.
The ever growing concern is that when LKY is no longer around, can the supposed safeguards that are in the hands of the “First Family” remain intact to serve its original intended and declared purpose ? Will the system be abused to stifle the ability of any Government formed by any other Party ? Will such a system serve Singaporeans, who vote another Party to form the Government ?
At 80, LKYÂ’s declared continuation to be in politics has made headlines worldwide, from Beijing to New York, Tokyo to New Delhi, and across Europe.
Does it serve Singapore well ? If he should suddenly depart from the life of Singapore, will that not prove to be a greater shock and create another crisis of confidence again ?
If the system is already said to be working well, and “capable” leaders are already at the helm, why should LKY continue with his political participation in the forefront of Singapore’s politics ?
Just as GCT "needed" LKY’s “advise” to deal with the Opposition, and prodded into taking tough and severe legal reaction to bankrupt any Opposition, LKY’s continued existence is to protect LHL from any possible unruly behavior from within the Party, or externally from local Opposition and from Other Countries.
Is this good for politics in Singapore in the Twenty First Century ? -
Atobe, Viper52, and all other critics.It is simple to criticise.But it is difficult to provide a solution.Don't just troubleshoot without a solution ok?If you think you are able, go and run for the elections and provide solutions that are better than the cutrrent ones now.
-
Is it truly so easy to criticize the Government in the political environment that we find ourselves in ?Originally posted by CenturionMBT:Atobe, Viper52, and all other critics.It is simple to criticise.But it is difficult to provide a solution.Don't just troubleshoot without a solution ok?If you think you are able, go and run for the elections and provide solutions that are better than the cutrrent ones now.
We are reaching the outer limits of the OB Markers for all we know, and the sledgehammer could easily fall on our heads at any moment.
The fact that the weaknesses in the present system have been highlighted in our postings, already would have shown the solution staring from the screen - if we fathom the postings a little deeper.
It is easier to criticize the critics - whose fingers are at the keyboard - then it is of our Government, who holds the sledgehammer. -
The Politics, as well as the political system of a country, affect every aspect of an ordinary citizen's lives, from the social to economic. So pray tell, why should ordinary citizens have to be involved in the political machinery of a country, to attain the right to participate? Why should politics be left to the politicians and the politicians only? Do not just echo the party line Centurion, you're too smart for that.Originally posted by CenturionMBT:Atobe, Viper52, and all other critics.It is simple to criticise.But it is difficult to provide a solution.Don't just troubleshoot without a solution ok?If you think you are able, go and run for the elections and provide solutions that are better than the cutrrent ones now.
As Atobe has said, the solutions are there already, in the case of Singapore its just a matter of admitting the problems and there and applying the solution to it.
Something a little hard to do from an ivory tower. -
Ok, so give me a solution on your criticisms then. You don't need to be in a political party to give solutions.Troubleshooting is simple.Solutions are difficult. Give a solution before you criticise.
-
Actually, Atobe has answered that question before in this threadOriginally posted by CenturionMBT:Ok, so give me a solution on your criticisms then. You don't need to be in a political party to give solutions.Troubleshooting is simple.Solutions are difficult. Give a solution before you criticise.
Trouble-shooting the SG Inc: What would you do?Originally posted by Atobe
Firstly, sack the Pharoah and all in his cabinet, who are over paid and only know how to blame the world events for all our woes, and then have the audacity to ask what we should be doing when all the trouble-shooting did not give any accurate picture.
Secondly, get the Auditor-General and Accountant-General to swear loyalty and allegiance to Singapore and the Singapore Citizens - (and not to the Government who pay their salary) - this is to get them to perform conscienciously to get the true accounting of the assets and reserve of Singapore Inc.
Thirdly, listen to the second and third level management of every ministry, and get them to give their impressions as to what is wrong with their ministry, and listen to their honest solutions.
Fourthly, get the banks to ease up on the loans collection, rate of interest charged, and to be more flexible in granting loans to new start-up businesses; with the Singapore Treasury underwriting the Venture Capital to fledging Singapore new businesses - (so far it is all talk from the present Government, with frustrations from the SME and new start up continuing).
Fifthly, the Police Force and the entire Security Apparatus will have to be reviewed - with a view towards more liberal and less paranoid attitude towards Public Assembly.
Sixthly, the Justice Department will have to be revamped, with the help of independent outside legal expertise.
Seventh, the Education System will have to be revamped, with the early streaming of children during Primary Three to be abolished, and assessment to be made after Secondary ONE.
Free education until Secondary School, and a more relax environment for Political Conciousness to be developed during High School and University.
Eighth, Social and Cultural - a more liberal approach to allow for creativity in social and cultural inter-actions.
At least ONE Percent of annual surplus will be set aside for the benefit of the under-privilege and the aged.
Ninth, Tax on Income, Vehicles, and Domestic Consumption to be reviewed, with the objective of lowering the amount attributed to direct and indirect means.
Lower tax is possible with lesser Government interference in the life of all Singaporeans.
Tenth, without the Ruling Party in power, perhaps the positive findings of the Remaking of Singapore Committee can be fully reviewed and implemented - (instead of the empty lip service given by the Government to the objective of the Committee)
These are by no means comprehensive, but should form the basis of some discussion. -
And heres a couple of my own:Originally posted by CenturionMBT:Ok, so give me a solution on your criticisms then. You don't need to be in a political party to give solutions.Troubleshooting is simple.Solutions are difficult. Give a solution before you criticise.
Modify the Internal Security Act. Unlike others, I do not believe in dismantling it altogether. In my opinion it is a tool to fight threats to Singapore, NOT threats to the Ruling Party. Have the ISA overseen by a panel of member of the judiciary, lawyers and ordinary citizens (at least all of the last 2 groups must be WITHOUT any affiliation to ANY political party). And open all of its decisions regarding the detention of an individual open to public scrutiny with the publication in public domain full, unabridged reports of the panels decision. It'll take some reading to read all, but at the very least, it'll reassure some of the fears about the tranparency of the whole system
Modify the Elections Act. This is another point Atobe has made in the past and I fully agree with. Some points, again not exhaustive
- Set up a truly INDEPENDENT Elections Commission to oversee General Elections
- Allow the Elected President fulfil his stated role as one of the 2 Keys overseeing the Reserves.
- Extend the minimum campaigning period to at least 21 days from the present 9.
- Switch of a system of Proportional Representation for Parlimentary Elections
- Liberalise the media, with independent organisations being allowed to run their own media organisations with minimal (but present) independent watchdog oversight.
It'll dilute the power of the Ruling Party, but without the tilted playing field we have now, we can truly see what they are made of. Or are they afraid to find out?
Another positive effect it will have on Singaporeans as a whole would be to forment a sense of belonging and identity, as they would be able to feel like they have a say in their country's and their own future.
The fact that Singapore, despite its relative wealth, boasts one of the highest net migration rates in the world, along with polls suggesting a lot more would like to join them, speaks volumes about the above issue. -
Another one, the NTUC has to shake itself loose of its schizophrenia and decide if it wants to be a Trade Union, a commerical giant or a consumer watchdog.
One of Singapore's employers claiming to represent employees, and one of its biggest retailers and service providers claiming to represent consumers with its (hostile) takeover of CASE?
Too many conflicts of interest, even if we try to ignore human (and corporate) nature. -
Firstly, sack the Pharoah and all in his cabinet, who are over paid and only know how to blame the world events for all our woes, and then have the audacity to ask what we should be doing when all the trouble-shooting did not give any accurate picture.
Ok, i can't comment on all, but i think i will give out my honest feelings about some of your proposed changes.
Secondly, get the Auditor-General and Accountant-General to swear loyalty and allegiance to Singapore and the Singapore Citizens - (and not to the Government who pay their salary) - this is to get them to perform conscienciously to get the true accounting of the assets and reserve of Singapore Inc.
Thirdly, listen to the second and third level management of every ministry, and get them to give their impressions as to what is wrong with their ministry, and listen to their honest solutions.
Fourthly, get the banks to ease up on the loans collection, rate of interest charged, and to be more flexible in granting loans to new start-up businesses; with the Singapore Treasury underwriting the Venture Capital to fledging Singapore new businesses - (so far it is all talk from the present Government, with frustrations from the SME and new start up continuing).
Fifthly, the Police Force and the entire Security Apparatus will have to be reviewed - with a view towards more liberal and less paranoid attitude towards Public Assembly.
Sixthly, the Justice Department will have to be revamped, with the help of independent outside legal expertise.
Seventh, the Education System will have to be revamped, with the early streaming of children during Primary Three to be abolished, and assessment to be made after Secondary ONE.
Free education until Secondary School, and a more relax environment for Political Conciousness to be developed during High School and University.
Eighth, Social and Cultural - a more liberal approach to allow for creativity in social and cultural inter-actions.
At least ONE Percent of annual surplus will be set aside for the benefit of the under-privilege and the aged.
Ninth, Tax on Income, Vehicles, and Domestic Consumption to be reviewed, with the objective of lowering the amount attributed to direct and indirect means.
Lower tax is possible with lesser Government interference in the life of all Singaporeans.
Tenth, without the Ruling Party in power, perhaps the positive findings of the Remaking of Singapore Committee can be fully reviewed and implemented - (instead of the empty lip service given by the Government to the objective of the Committee)
These are by no means comprehensive, but should form the basis of some discussion.
[/b]
/*Seventh, the Education System will have to be revamped, with the early streaming of children during Primary Three to be abolished, and assessment to be made after Secondary ONE.*/
We should implement streaming at primary 6, in conjunction with the psle.After which students are then put to schools that are suited to their different learning abilities.
If put at sec one, we have a problem.What is the criterial for primary school leavers to enter secondary school?
/*Fifthly, the Police Force and the entire Security Apparatus will have to be reviewed - with a view towards more liberal and less paranoid attitude towards Public Assembly. */
I believe the ISD should do what it needs to do, such as arresting internal threats, such as terrorist without trial.However, there are actions that i feel, is neccesary, such as keeping racial cohesion.We can't have political parties talking about some bullsh.t which could inevitably end up in violence. If one sheep starts walking the wrong direction, the rest of the herd will follow.We must correct them immediately before anything happens.However, they must not be a tool of any political party.Thankfully, i have not seen any sevear misuse of power yet.
/*At least ONE Percent of annual surplus will be set aside for the benefit of the under-privilege and the aged. */
This is not a very good solution.As you know, we are becoming an aging population, If we keep giving funds to the aged , it will tax the workning class.I rather that we educate the public to put aside some money every year, rather then we, trying to pay for them.trust me, Japan had implemented such a system, 30 years ago, when their population is growing, such a system could be implemented. However, now, the working class are burdened.I suggest that you think of an alternative system.
As for the rest rest, i can't comment because i don't know how to comment.So forgive me over that. -
Congratulations, CenturionMBT for your wonderful contribution, it is good that we can all make some effort - in each of our own ways - to improve our environment, even if it is within the confines of this sgForums.Originally posted by CenturionMBT:Ok, i can't comment on all, but i think i will give out my honest feelings about some of your proposed changes.
/*Seventh, the Education System will have to be revamped, with the early streaming of children during Primary Three to be abolished, and assessment to be made after Secondary ONE.*/
We should implement streaming at primary 6, in conjunction with the psle.After which students are then put to schools that are suited to their different learning abilities.
If put at sec one, we have a problem.What is the criterial for primary school leavers to enter secondary school?
/*Fifthly, the Police Force and the entire Security Apparatus will have to be reviewed - with a view towards more liberal and less paranoid attitude towards Public Assembly. */
I believe the ISD should do what it needs to do, such as arresting internal threats, such as terrorist without trial.However, there are actions that i feel, is neccesary, such as keeping racial cohesion.We can't have political parties talking about some bullsh.t which could inevitably end up in violence. If one sheep starts walking the wrong direction, the rest of the herd will follow.We must correct them immediately before anything happens.However, they must not be a tool of any political party.Thankfully, i have not seen any sevear misuse of power yet.
/*At least ONE Percent of annual surplus will be set aside for the benefit of the under-privilege and the aged. */
This is not a very good solution.As you know, we are becoming an aging population, If we keep giving funds to the aged , it will tax the workning class.I rather that we educate the public to put aside some money every year, rather then we, trying to pay for them.trust me, Japan had implemented such a system, 30 years ago, when their population is growing, such a system could be implemented. However, now, the working class are burdened.I suggest that you think of an alternative system.
As for the rest rest, i can't comment because i don't know how to comment.So forgive me over that.
Your opinions are very much respected, and while I do not wish to change your position, perhaps I can offer an alternative point of view concerning the ONE Percent of Annual Surplus for the sake of the Aged.
While I can accept your views concerning the responsibility of every individual to plan for one's retirements, you must appreciate that there remains a large group of elderly - at present - who have "missed the boat" in preparing for their retirement.
These are already in the age group of 65 years to 75 years, and from the various Charity Homes for the Aged, you will be surprised how many are actually placed in these Homes - which the Singapore Government DO NOT support in any way.
If you should visit the Charity Homes for the Aged, the majority of the Aged are from the lower income groups, in which almost everyone in the household has to eke out a meagre income to survive, with some having to take on extra second jobs.
With everyone in the household having to work, how can they look after their older folks ?
Their meagre incomes that they have, will need to be contributed to the Charity Homes to allow these Homes to take in the Aged from their family - with medical attention and medication being minimally charged at a token sum.
Those who are in the early 50's would have been working since at least the last 30 years, and would have a substantial sum in their CPF, unless the bulk is spent on the HDB Flat - with the Government soaking up the money.
What about those in the early 50's that do not hold any steady jobs for the last 30 years ? There will be drop-outs in any society, do we leave them to fend for themselves in their old age ?
With pay cuts and CPF reductions, and tight job market, can Singaporeans still afford to look after the Aged in their family, let alone plan for their own retirement ?
If the Singapore Government continue to have a "Hands Off" approach and leave it entirely to Families and Charitable Association to look after the Aged in Singapore, can the Families and Charitable Association continue to perform a high standard of care to the Aged in the present Economic Situation ?
The ONE Percent of Annual Surplus is not intended to be disbursed on any individual basis - similar to the Singapore Shares - but to allow the Charitable Associations to be able to upgrade and improve their standards of services, amenities, and equipment to look after the Aged more effectively.
Such funds will allow the Charitable Homes to accept Aged from family hardship cases, that cannot afford to look after their Aged and work at the same time.
While the Ministers and Civil Service enjoy Annual Incomes that far exceed the Singapore Cost of Living, and more then necessary to maintain a Singapore Standard of Living, many Singapore Heartlanders are facing a hard times just to pay their mortgages, daily necessities, medical, education, transport, utilities and other Government Services - let alone plan for their Old Age. -
Originally posted by Atobe:Congratulations, CenturionMBT for your wonderful contribution, it is good that we can all make some effort - in each of our own ways - to improve our environment, even if it is within the confines of this sgForums.
Your opinions are very much respected, and while I do not wish to change your position, perhaps I can offer an alternative point of view concerning the ONE Percent of Annual Surplus for the sake of the Aged.
While I can accept your views concerning the responsibility of every individual to plan for one's retirements, you must appreciate that there remains a large group of elderly - at present - who have "missed the boat" in preparing for their retirement.
These are already in the age group of 65 years to 75 years, and from the various Charity Homes for the Aged, you will be surprised how many are actually placed in these Homes - which the Singapore Government DO NOT support in any way.
If you should visit the Charity Homes for the Aged, the majority of the Aged are from the lower income groups, in which almost everyone in the household has to eke out a meagre income to survive, with some having to take on extra second jobs.
With everyone in the household having to work, how can they look after their older folks ?
Their meagre incomes that they have, will need to be contributed to the Charity Homes to allow these Homes to take in the Aged from their family - with medical attention and medication being minimally charged at a token sum.
Those who are in the early 50's would have been working since at least the last 30 years, and would have a substantial sum in their CPF, unless the bulk is spent on the HDB Flat - with the Government soaking up the money.
What about those in the early 50's that do not hold any steady jobs for the last 30 years ? There will be drop-outs in any society, do we leave them to fend for themselves in their old age ?
With pay cuts and CPF reductions, and tight job market, can Singaporeans still afford to look after the Aged in their family, let alone plan for their own retirement ?
If the Singapore Government continue to have a "Hands Off" approach and leave it entirely to Families and Charitable Association to look after the Aged in Singapore, can the Families and Charitable Association to perform a high standard of care to the Aged in the present Economic Situation ?
The ONE Percent of Annual Surplus is not intended to be disbursed on any individual basis - similar to the Singapore Shares - but to allow the Charitable Associations to be able to upgrade and improve their standards of services, amenities, and equipment to look after the Aged more effectively.
Such funds will allow the Charitable Homes to accept Aged from family hardship cases, that cannot afford to look after their Aged and work at the same time.
While the Ministers enjoy an Annual Income that far exceed the Singapore Cost of Living, and more then necessary to maintain a Singapore Standard of Living, many Singapore Heartlanders are facing a hard times just to pay their mortgages - let alone plan for their Old Age.
i 1st gotta salute you for your very compassionate suggestion. indeed, Singapore's working population has moral obligation to take care of our own needy popn since no other country would..and those TCS/Singtel charity gimmicks are insufficient since i don't even know where the bulk of the donations disappear to 
..i rather give money to our needy than feed PAP fatter. -
But after this scheme is implemented, there are chances that more old folks would rush down to homes, either to relieve their children of their financial burden or to simply get an income without raising a finger.If that is a case, wouldn't the working people get bogged down with an extra burden?Besides, we have charity shows every year with collects up to 5 million annually.So itsn't this enough?
-
how about those govt-aided homes 'force' employers like fast-food outlets, 7-11 or petrol kiosks to employ them? anyway, even if they OT everday also need some financial assistance. they not like fit young tramps living off national treasury.Originally posted by CenturionMBT:But after this scheme is implemented, there are chances that more old folks would rush down to homes, either to relieve their children of their financial burden or to simply get an income without raising a finger.If that is a case, wouldn't the working people get bogged down with an extra burden?