A Quitter's Glory!
A family I love left Singapore because they have the alternative of not taking the crap dishes out by the PAP government. When members of the family were called "quitters" by SM Goh Chok Tong, you can imagine their happiness and lightheartedness when they found out that the daughter of GCT is a quitter too - another "fair weather Singaporean", lamented GCT!
Wu Chia-ching, a 20-year-old Taiwanese has just become a Singapore PR who may become a Singapore citizen soon. Said Cuesports Singapore's vice-president Ivan Lim: 'He is not just here to win medals. We want him to be involved with the schools and be a role model for younger players.'[Link]
Role Model?
1. Yes, work hard, be the best that you can be and make Singapore proud! . . . OR . . .
2. Work hard, be the best that you can be and sell (pimp) your birthright and nationality to the highest bidder?
No, I have nothing against Wu Chia-ching and I respect his decision. What eats me is in Singapore's relentless chase for fame and glory, we are selling our core values and principles as in (2). Have we lost our soul?
Maybe I'm an old fogey whose value is out of sync but to buy a foreigner and to piss off Taiwan (a friendly neighbour who allows us their land for our military training) is a little too much to bear. "Ghee Kee" - roughly translated from Hokkien: "Loyalty" or "You don't play out or screw up your ally (brother)" is missing big time here!
So what's loyalty to Singapore worth?
Squat, a load of crap or the colour of money like what we pay the ministers?
The cheek to make a song and dance out of hustling a pool talent from a friendly country on the front page of ST shows what kind of a cuntry we have become.
The role model bit is just too hard to swallow.
Yes, as each day passes, Singapore is becoming more a cuntry than a nation.
Yes, buy and sell.
Break the bank for the glory-maker and let the unproductive (used to be nation builders) rot and die (preferably in JB).
Prosecute and prostitute!
Majulah Singapura!
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25527.1
Monday, March 30, 2009
Singapore's Shame 1 - Political Culture
Singapore's Shame (Chapter 1 - Political Culture)
By Dr James Gomez, Author, Self-Censorship: Singapore’s Shame
In political science, the term “political culture” has largely been understood as involving the norms, beliefs, values, sentiments and understandings that support a people’s perception of modalities of power and authority within a particular political system.
It is seen as setting theunrecorded ground rules as to how the political process will be played out (Pye, 1995). A particular political culture is assumed to arise as a result of historical development, contributing to the reproduction of the system or the processes that support such a culture.
There is an elite culture that operates among the leadership and its allies of a polity while a mass culture, which is less sophisticated but not very different from the top,operates among the people. Often the operation of political culture has been considered within the confines of the nation-state.
In contemporary times with the advent of the internet, globalization and the movement of labourand capital across continents, the production and maintenance of political culture also includes those who are accepted and expelled from theparameters of the nation-state as part of migration and immigration process.
“Political culture” shapes “political behaviour”, that is, patterns of political participation. It dictates and determines the political preferences of individuals in a system. In Singapore, it explains why people (both local and foreign) are willing to conform and engage only in politically sanctioned behaviour.
This holds true of not only Singapore citizens but also foreigners who take up citizenship and work rights opportunities in Singapore. Political culture and behaviour also seeks to explain individual or collective participation as well as non-participation in the political process. For instance, it can explain why in the Republic, with its limited political participation, there is little that falls outside of “approved” channels.
At the same time to also shed light on the reasons many Singapore citizens migrate and some why foreigners resident eventually move out or not continue their employment in the city-state. The net result is that the constraints on political participation have led to the rise of a dominant apathy in Singapore. But I do concede that in the last ten years there has been some movement towards political participation via online expressions with some of it spilling over into the offline world. However, the number of actors initiating such activities remains small but it contributes to the growing tensions with the dominant political culture.
Intertwined with political culture is “political attitude,” which marks the persistent psychological orientations and belief that underpin political opinions and voting patterns of the citizenry. It explains why citizens and foreigners alike residing in Singapore do not generally condone alternative political expression, why the ruling PAP is viewed as the only legitimate or “safe” choice, or why there is a general lack of ability to imagine a non-PAP government.
It accounts for the climate of fear surrounding opposition politics, political oriented civil society groups and individuals as well as acts of civil disobedience. Collectively, political “behaviour”and “attitudes” are part a complex interactive system that contribute to the production, re-production and operation of a political culture in a given society.
In the Singapore this is largely a politically self-censorial one. Although the whole notion of political culture (Almond Powell 1966; Almond and Verba 1988; Pye l995) has been made problematic with the post-modernist deconstruction of essentialisms, the debate within cultural studies is an ongoing one.
In this respect, political culture, behaviour and attitudes can be debated and meaningfully used to explain the phenomenon of politicalculture in Singapore. They are all aspects of the same thing. Still, the scientific recording of political culture is often raised as an issue, complicated by philosophical questions concern over what is scientific as well as the subjective nature of the topic.
Culture, which is marked by the uncertainties of human behaviour, is a difficult phenomenon to record through quantitative methods such as surveys and other quasi-quantitative procedures. Interpretative analysis by those knowledgeable of certain countries, the people and the system has beenrecognized as a helpful way to bridge this impasse.
Given the difficulties in methodology, in my first discussion of self-censorship ten years ago I modestly build on the limited works that have attempted to describe and record this phenomenon without actually employing a formal quantitative social science means.
Instead, I collaboratively employed secondary sources, participant-observation and interpretative analysis to unpack this political feature. Ten years on as a Singapore watcher and participant, I reflect further on the initial analysis and bring into the discussion the post-internet environment and how it has come to bear on the political culture of self-censorship.
In this exercise to understand the dominant political culture in Singapore,one needs to distinguish censorship by the state from acts of individual self-censorship, and actions taken by individuals to censor others and plot the relationship between them.
The two are separate and different mechanisms. Thus, they require dissimilar tools of argumentation, even though the former may lead to the latter. In between the two are the normal and frequently agreed agents of socialisation that determine censorship bythe people. These are the family, school, the various para-political institutions, national service, the work place, the local mainstream media and sub-structures in society at large.
These institutions contribute to the formation of attitudes but, in a centralised state as Singapore, these are principally influenced by the political. Therefore, the fostering and operation of such attitudes must be understood as being derived, to some extent, from the political system. For instance, the state’s censorship of information through the decades has contributed to an inability of the people to formulate a sustained political critique or opinion, even if they want to.
The internet to some extent has mitigated this situation but the mainstream media still dominates the information landscape. The self-censorship that emerges as a result can be attributed to a lack of confidence or a perceived incompetence in political matters because of a critical lack of information.
Even more importantly, it can be argued that phenomenon of self-censorship is one of the tools the PAP indirectly uses to maintain its political hold over the republic and itspeople. This is what I demarcate, describe and evaluate when I scrutinise the issue of political culture in Singapore: it is the in-built political self-checking system among the citizenry and foreigners that helps the ruling party less visibly maintain its grip on power.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25426.1
By Dr James Gomez, Author, Self-Censorship: Singapore’s Shame
In political science, the term “political culture” has largely been understood as involving the norms, beliefs, values, sentiments and understandings that support a people’s perception of modalities of power and authority within a particular political system.
It is seen as setting theunrecorded ground rules as to how the political process will be played out (Pye, 1995). A particular political culture is assumed to arise as a result of historical development, contributing to the reproduction of the system or the processes that support such a culture.
There is an elite culture that operates among the leadership and its allies of a polity while a mass culture, which is less sophisticated but not very different from the top,operates among the people. Often the operation of political culture has been considered within the confines of the nation-state.
In contemporary times with the advent of the internet, globalization and the movement of labourand capital across continents, the production and maintenance of political culture also includes those who are accepted and expelled from theparameters of the nation-state as part of migration and immigration process.
“Political culture” shapes “political behaviour”, that is, patterns of political participation. It dictates and determines the political preferences of individuals in a system. In Singapore, it explains why people (both local and foreign) are willing to conform and engage only in politically sanctioned behaviour.
This holds true of not only Singapore citizens but also foreigners who take up citizenship and work rights opportunities in Singapore. Political culture and behaviour also seeks to explain individual or collective participation as well as non-participation in the political process. For instance, it can explain why in the Republic, with its limited political participation, there is little that falls outside of “approved” channels.
At the same time to also shed light on the reasons many Singapore citizens migrate and some why foreigners resident eventually move out or not continue their employment in the city-state. The net result is that the constraints on political participation have led to the rise of a dominant apathy in Singapore. But I do concede that in the last ten years there has been some movement towards political participation via online expressions with some of it spilling over into the offline world. However, the number of actors initiating such activities remains small but it contributes to the growing tensions with the dominant political culture.
Intertwined with political culture is “political attitude,” which marks the persistent psychological orientations and belief that underpin political opinions and voting patterns of the citizenry. It explains why citizens and foreigners alike residing in Singapore do not generally condone alternative political expression, why the ruling PAP is viewed as the only legitimate or “safe” choice, or why there is a general lack of ability to imagine a non-PAP government.
It accounts for the climate of fear surrounding opposition politics, political oriented civil society groups and individuals as well as acts of civil disobedience. Collectively, political “behaviour”and “attitudes” are part a complex interactive system that contribute to the production, re-production and operation of a political culture in a given society.
In the Singapore this is largely a politically self-censorial one. Although the whole notion of political culture (Almond Powell 1966; Almond and Verba 1988; Pye l995) has been made problematic with the post-modernist deconstruction of essentialisms, the debate within cultural studies is an ongoing one.
In this respect, political culture, behaviour and attitudes can be debated and meaningfully used to explain the phenomenon of politicalculture in Singapore. They are all aspects of the same thing. Still, the scientific recording of political culture is often raised as an issue, complicated by philosophical questions concern over what is scientific as well as the subjective nature of the topic.
Culture, which is marked by the uncertainties of human behaviour, is a difficult phenomenon to record through quantitative methods such as surveys and other quasi-quantitative procedures. Interpretative analysis by those knowledgeable of certain countries, the people and the system has beenrecognized as a helpful way to bridge this impasse.
Given the difficulties in methodology, in my first discussion of self-censorship ten years ago I modestly build on the limited works that have attempted to describe and record this phenomenon without actually employing a formal quantitative social science means.
Instead, I collaboratively employed secondary sources, participant-observation and interpretative analysis to unpack this political feature. Ten years on as a Singapore watcher and participant, I reflect further on the initial analysis and bring into the discussion the post-internet environment and how it has come to bear on the political culture of self-censorship.
In this exercise to understand the dominant political culture in Singapore,one needs to distinguish censorship by the state from acts of individual self-censorship, and actions taken by individuals to censor others and plot the relationship between them.
The two are separate and different mechanisms. Thus, they require dissimilar tools of argumentation, even though the former may lead to the latter. In between the two are the normal and frequently agreed agents of socialisation that determine censorship bythe people. These are the family, school, the various para-political institutions, national service, the work place, the local mainstream media and sub-structures in society at large.
These institutions contribute to the formation of attitudes but, in a centralised state as Singapore, these are principally influenced by the political. Therefore, the fostering and operation of such attitudes must be understood as being derived, to some extent, from the political system. For instance, the state’s censorship of information through the decades has contributed to an inability of the people to formulate a sustained political critique or opinion, even if they want to.
The internet to some extent has mitigated this situation but the mainstream media still dominates the information landscape. The self-censorship that emerges as a result can be attributed to a lack of confidence or a perceived incompetence in political matters because of a critical lack of information.
Even more importantly, it can be argued that phenomenon of self-censorship is one of the tools the PAP indirectly uses to maintain its political hold over the republic and itspeople. This is what I demarcate, describe and evaluate when I scrutinise the issue of political culture in Singapore: it is the in-built political self-checking system among the citizenry and foreigners that helps the ruling party less visibly maintain its grip on power.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25426.1
Top Heavy Management
Top Heavy Management
Singapore's Prime Minister had a pretty busy week last week playing musical chairs. The cabinate saw a reshuffle in which the Defense Minister was promoted to Deputy Prime Minister and three up and a deputy prime minister was moved up to becoming Senior Minsiter in the Prime Minister's Office. Further to that, an additional minister was added to the Prime Minister's office (The local media had a field day making the most of the fact that is the first woman in history to make it to full minister). In addition to that, another former navy man was made the Minister in charge of - Information, Communications and the Arts. Singapore, a land of 4.6 million not only has the highest paid government ministers in the world but also the most top-heavy government. As of writing, we have 1 Prime Minsiter, 1 Minister Mentor, 2 Senior Ministers and 3 Ministers in the Prime Minister's Office - all this in addition to the Ministers who have a Ministry to run.
One has to wonder why the Singapore government has decided to add on a few extra C-level executives when every other organisation in the world is shedding management? Is there a method in this apprent maddness? Well, you can't discount the Singapore government from making a bet that proves to be right. The very idea of an indepdepdent Singapore is thanks to a contrarian bet. Nobody said we could make it and we did (did we have a choice?) So, does the Singapore government know something that the rest of the world does not when it comes to increasing top-level management?
This does not make economic sense. Our Ministers do not come cheap but this argument is easily countered by the fact that we need to pay top-dollar to the get the top brains. I can see how this works when we talk about the various ministers running ministries. The Singapore government is by most standards highly clean, efficient and effective in what it does and it benefits the majority of the citizens. Having said that, it does not explain why we need another three ministers to be sitting in the Prime Ministers office. One arguement is that these Ministers do run "Special Projects," such aging. Then, if that's the case, why don't we just give them a title that matches or perhaps assign the portfolio to a Minsiter in charge of a ministry. Yes, it would be hard work but anyone ambitious enough to be a minister will surely be glad for the chance to take on more responsability.
This leads to the Minister Mentor and two Senior Ministers. What exactly are these jobs and how do they benefit the running of the government? These jobs are effectively consultant positions. The Minister Mentor as the name implies exist to "Mentor" the rest of the cabinate, while the Senior Minister as the name implies is the most "Senior" of all the Ministers. However, neither the senior or minister mentor have executive control - that remains the job of the Prime Minister.
The theory is that senior and minister mentors provide "Guidence" and lend their "Experience" to the Prime Minsiter of the day. So far, the system has worked. Senior Minsiter Goh Chok Tong in particular has been in asset to the Prime Minister in areas like opening Saudi Arabia and running relations with the Islamic world. But what of Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and why do we need Professor Jayakumar as another Senior Minister? Both men have served Singapore with distinction but are they in danger of overstaying their welcome?
Look at Minister Mentor Lee. As far as Singapore is concerned, Lee Kuan Yew has created a miracle. The nation owes its very existence and prosperity to him. Having said of all of that, what exactly is his value to the nation by continuing to stay in the cabinate. In Singapore Mr Lee will remain exceedingly powerful and that power comes merely from being who he is. In theory, Mr Lee is hanging on in the cabinate because he's supposed to provide wisdom and experience to the rest of the Minsiters. Surely Mr Lee is capable of doing that without being in the cabinate. All he has to do is to give lectures and write books and Singapore will notice. As things stand, there's an arguement that Mr Lee's continued presence in the cabinate harms the Prime Minister - it provides the impression that the Prime Minister takes orders from him - hence Mr Lee has to tell the world that "I am NO LONGER in CHARGE." Nearly two decades in since he stepped down from the Prime Minsitership, the question remains in Singapore - can Singapore go on without Mr Lee?
Both the Prime Minsiter and Minister Mentor should take a lesson from the late Deng Xiaopeng and his relationship with former Chinese President Jiang Zemin. Mr Deng was regarded as the most powerful man in China right til the day he died. Yet, the only title he held was "President of the Bridge Club," and allowed President Jiang to run the show. So, when Mr Deng died, it was ...a non-event. China did not fall appart as many pessemist were suggesting. This is a lesson both Mr Lee's could do well to follow - The Elder will secure his legacy while the younger will be allowed to form his. In the mean time, the elder can continue to wield quite influence by his mere presence and as the younger Mr Lee's father.
So much is said about Mr Lee and the need for him to follow the examples of other great CEOs who have gone to pasture and left their companies to carry on. So what about Professor Jeyakumar? Why do we need another senior minister, particularly one who has never been prime minsister? Could it be anything to do with the fact that the good professor comes from an ethnic minority? If it were, it would be shame. The last thing the ethnic miniroties need is another token with little real influence and little real necessity. Ethnic minorities control significant ministries - Finance, Law and the Environment and Water Resources. Do we need a senior minister to oversee these Ministers? The last time anyone checked, the respective ministers were doing quite well without anyone to look over their shoulder. Surely Professor Jeyakumar could serve the nation more effectively (a nation he has served exceedingly well) by sharing his experiences from the sidelines?
We live in age where we try not to create work for the sake of it. It's an inefficient thing to do and yet, it seems to me that we are creating high-level jobs for the sake of it. People like Minister Mentor Lee and Senior Minister Jayakumar can continue to add value to the nation without being in cabinate. If they don't volunteer to do it, the Prime Minister should persuade them that this is the best course of action.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25525.1
Singapore's Prime Minister had a pretty busy week last week playing musical chairs. The cabinate saw a reshuffle in which the Defense Minister was promoted to Deputy Prime Minister and three up and a deputy prime minister was moved up to becoming Senior Minsiter in the Prime Minister's Office. Further to that, an additional minister was added to the Prime Minister's office (The local media had a field day making the most of the fact that is the first woman in history to make it to full minister). In addition to that, another former navy man was made the Minister in charge of - Information, Communications and the Arts. Singapore, a land of 4.6 million not only has the highest paid government ministers in the world but also the most top-heavy government. As of writing, we have 1 Prime Minsiter, 1 Minister Mentor, 2 Senior Ministers and 3 Ministers in the Prime Minister's Office - all this in addition to the Ministers who have a Ministry to run.
One has to wonder why the Singapore government has decided to add on a few extra C-level executives when every other organisation in the world is shedding management? Is there a method in this apprent maddness? Well, you can't discount the Singapore government from making a bet that proves to be right. The very idea of an indepdepdent Singapore is thanks to a contrarian bet. Nobody said we could make it and we did (did we have a choice?) So, does the Singapore government know something that the rest of the world does not when it comes to increasing top-level management?
This does not make economic sense. Our Ministers do not come cheap but this argument is easily countered by the fact that we need to pay top-dollar to the get the top brains. I can see how this works when we talk about the various ministers running ministries. The Singapore government is by most standards highly clean, efficient and effective in what it does and it benefits the majority of the citizens. Having said that, it does not explain why we need another three ministers to be sitting in the Prime Ministers office. One arguement is that these Ministers do run "Special Projects," such aging. Then, if that's the case, why don't we just give them a title that matches or perhaps assign the portfolio to a Minsiter in charge of a ministry. Yes, it would be hard work but anyone ambitious enough to be a minister will surely be glad for the chance to take on more responsability.
This leads to the Minister Mentor and two Senior Ministers. What exactly are these jobs and how do they benefit the running of the government? These jobs are effectively consultant positions. The Minister Mentor as the name implies exist to "Mentor" the rest of the cabinate, while the Senior Minister as the name implies is the most "Senior" of all the Ministers. However, neither the senior or minister mentor have executive control - that remains the job of the Prime Minister.
The theory is that senior and minister mentors provide "Guidence" and lend their "Experience" to the Prime Minsiter of the day. So far, the system has worked. Senior Minsiter Goh Chok Tong in particular has been in asset to the Prime Minister in areas like opening Saudi Arabia and running relations with the Islamic world. But what of Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and why do we need Professor Jayakumar as another Senior Minister? Both men have served Singapore with distinction but are they in danger of overstaying their welcome?
Look at Minister Mentor Lee. As far as Singapore is concerned, Lee Kuan Yew has created a miracle. The nation owes its very existence and prosperity to him. Having said of all of that, what exactly is his value to the nation by continuing to stay in the cabinate. In Singapore Mr Lee will remain exceedingly powerful and that power comes merely from being who he is. In theory, Mr Lee is hanging on in the cabinate because he's supposed to provide wisdom and experience to the rest of the Minsiters. Surely Mr Lee is capable of doing that without being in the cabinate. All he has to do is to give lectures and write books and Singapore will notice. As things stand, there's an arguement that Mr Lee's continued presence in the cabinate harms the Prime Minister - it provides the impression that the Prime Minister takes orders from him - hence Mr Lee has to tell the world that "I am NO LONGER in CHARGE." Nearly two decades in since he stepped down from the Prime Minsitership, the question remains in Singapore - can Singapore go on without Mr Lee?
Both the Prime Minsiter and Minister Mentor should take a lesson from the late Deng Xiaopeng and his relationship with former Chinese President Jiang Zemin. Mr Deng was regarded as the most powerful man in China right til the day he died. Yet, the only title he held was "President of the Bridge Club," and allowed President Jiang to run the show. So, when Mr Deng died, it was ...a non-event. China did not fall appart as many pessemist were suggesting. This is a lesson both Mr Lee's could do well to follow - The Elder will secure his legacy while the younger will be allowed to form his. In the mean time, the elder can continue to wield quite influence by his mere presence and as the younger Mr Lee's father.
So much is said about Mr Lee and the need for him to follow the examples of other great CEOs who have gone to pasture and left their companies to carry on. So what about Professor Jeyakumar? Why do we need another senior minister, particularly one who has never been prime minsister? Could it be anything to do with the fact that the good professor comes from an ethnic minority? If it were, it would be shame. The last thing the ethnic miniroties need is another token with little real influence and little real necessity. Ethnic minorities control significant ministries - Finance, Law and the Environment and Water Resources. Do we need a senior minister to oversee these Ministers? The last time anyone checked, the respective ministers were doing quite well without anyone to look over their shoulder. Surely Professor Jeyakumar could serve the nation more effectively (a nation he has served exceedingly well) by sharing his experiences from the sidelines?
We live in age where we try not to create work for the sake of it. It's an inefficient thing to do and yet, it seems to me that we are creating high-level jobs for the sake of it. People like Minister Mentor Lee and Senior Minister Jayakumar can continue to add value to the nation without being in cabinate. If they don't volunteer to do it, the Prime Minister should persuade them that this is the best course of action.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25525.1
Reaching the needy? More publicity needed
Reaching the needy? More publicity needed
Monday, 30 March 2009
Leong Sze Hian
The media recently reported that those seeking financial assistance at the five Community Development Councils (CDCs) have increased by about 40 per cent. Comcare also dished out financial assistance to about 24,000 needy families, a 4 per cent increase compared to the same period in 2007.
The numbers are a little confusing. Do they refer to the 24,000 needy families for the whole of last year as reported in Parliament in February, or the 23,500 for the last six months of last year as reported now in March?
Since there were 40,681 applications for the various Comcare financial assistance schemes last year, does it mean that about 16,681 applications were unsuccessful? (Straits Times) (See chart below).
The ministry should perhaps tell us how many of the 24,000 needy families were new applications approved in the year - and how many were existing cases being given assistance since 2007?
In this connection, the latest data shows that there were 3,483 applications for the month of January 2009, compared to 2,470 in October 2008.
In reply to a question in the March parliamentary session, it was disclosed that about 50 per cent of applications for Public Assistance under the Public Assistance Scheme were rejected.
From data provided, it would seem that the amount spent on public assistance was $50 million.
This would mean that, for the 24,000 families, the average amount received per needy family per month was about $174.
According to the Department of Statistics data, the per capita household monthly income of the bottom 10 per cent of employed households was only $340. This 10 per cent constitutes an estimated 100,000 households. The 24,000 families under the Comcare scheme seem to be quite small in comparison.
Moreover, there may also be some unemployed households who may also need financial assistance. There were 73,200 unemployed residents in December 2008 and about 80,000 retiree households.
I think the Minister of State for Community Development, Youth and Sports, may have hit it right on the nail when she remarked that many may not be aware of Comcare’s financial assistance schemes.
Only about $1.57 million of the $6.25 million budgeted for the Comcare CCC Fund has been given out after nine months. (See chart below) Also only 31 per cent of the previous year’s budgeted amount was disbursed (”The needy still lack awareness of help schemes, CNA, Feb 3).
The above $1.57 million disbursed for the nine months from April to December 2008 was despite the substantial increase in Comcare funds. “Between July and December 2008, ComCare gave out 67 per cent more from its Citizens’ Consultative Committee-ComCare Fund,” a report by Channelnewsasia said. “That is almost $400,000 more than the same period in 2007.” (CNA, Mar 21).
I think the Comcare needy versus the demographic needy statistics, may indicate a need for the awareness of Comcare schemes to be made more widely known to needy Singaporeans.
I often see advertisements in the media encouraging Singaporeans to top-up their CPF, the importance of family ties, go for re-training under SPUR or PSP, etc.
Why not advertise about Comcare too?
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25521.1
Workers’ Party hit by latest spate of resignations
Workers’ Party hit by latest spate of resignations
Four party cadres, including two candidates from GE 2006, resigned in the past one week but renewal process is on track, says Organizing Secretary
“Salim has the idealism and passion to pursue what he feels strongly about,” said Mr Yaw Shin Leong, the Workers’ Party Organising Secretary and Mr Salim’s team leader in Ang Mo Kio GRC in the last elections. “I wish him well.”
27 year old Mr Abdul Salim Harun’s resignation from the Workers’ Party is not totally unexpected. Rumours had been going around about his wish to leave the party since last year. His presence at the Singapore Democratic Party’s Hong Lim Park protest, during the IMF/World Bank meeting in September 2006, was believed to have raised some eyebrows within the party.
While his resignation may not affect the party significantly, observers have noted that it might put a spanner in the works for the party’s rejuvenation process, especially since his is not the only resignation since GE 2006. Mr Chia Ti Lik and Mr Goh Meng Seng, both in their 30s and who had been members of the party’s previous Central Executive Committee (CEC), have also since resigned.
When the party elected its new CEC after the elections in 2006, it was touted as a rejuvenation. Party secretary general, Mr Low Thia Khiang, was reported to be “very pleased” with the new and younger CEC. 9 out of the 15 members were below the age of 40 then. “The process of renewal is on track,” Mr Low said to the Straits Times.
Will Mr Salim’s leaving signal further resignations from the party, especially of younger members who might be unhappy with the party’s non-vocal stand? Mr Chia had cited his “frustration” with the party as a reason for his resignation. Mr Goh explained that he left the WP because of “misinformation” put out by the Today newspaper which reported that he had allegedly made a threat against an Internet forummer. He resigned because the report had done damage to “WP’s public image”, he said. (Link) However, it is believed that he too was unhappy with the party. Three more party cadres have also resigned in the past one week, including Mr Salim’s running mate in Ang Mo Kio GRC, Ms Lee Wai Leng.
Part of the process?
The leadership may, however, see such resignations as “norming processes”, as party chairman Ms Sylvia Lim had said when Mr Chia resigned in November 2006. (Link)
Mr Yaw also does not see Mr Salim’s resignation as any kind of setback for the rejuvenation process. “The renewal process was set in motion since 2001,” he said. “[These] resignations won’t set back the process,” he added.
Agreeing with Mr Yaw is Mr Tan Kian Hwee, also a member of the Ang Mo Kio team in 2006. “Resignations have occurred in every party including the PAP - even in the period from 2006 until the present,” he said. “An organisation would be seriously problematic if the ‘loss’ outstrips the ‘gain’, which I do not see [in] the WP’s case.”
Mr Salim himself seems to agree. He told The Online Citizen (TOC) that his resignation “will not affect the party in one way or another.”
Half of the party’s current CEC is below the age of 40, with three new faces in Mr Koh Choong Yong, Ms Lilian Lee and 47-year old Mr Png Eng Huat. Mr Salim was not a member of the current CEC.
The bad news for the party, however, may be the negative publicity these resignations may give – especially when the next general elections is rumoured to be around the corner. After all, resignations of younger members, who are naturally the next generation of leaders for the party, perhaps indicate a restlessness within the organization. The leadership will have to pay more attention to the aspirations of these members if more resignations are to be prevented.
Mr Tan is of the view that the WP, like any other organization, has to consistently reflect on where it can improve. He said, however, that “this would be more in its approach and policy.” He also feels that it is both its leaders and members together that have to remain relevant to the public.
“Personally, I don’t agree that a party’s leadership needs to meet its members’ expectations in areas where it does not meet the people’s expectations,” he added.
Outreach expanding online
Mr Yaw is confident that the party’s plans are in place. “There are people joining the party, and our groundwork continues as we are going about house-to-house visits” he explained. He added that he was heartened that new members have chosen to enter the party even during the “lull periods” between elections.
Mr Yaw also cited the WP’s outreach efforts online, which include Twitter and Facebook. He also noted that “the WP has the largest amount of leadership figures who blog amongst the alternative parties”. He pointed to a new WP online initiative called Hammersspeed which aggregates all articles relating to the WP. [Correction, 31 March 09: The WP has clarified that these online sites are not official party websites.]
The Workers Party was the best-performing opposition party in the last elections. It scored 43.9 per cent in Aljunied GRC and is generally seen as the opposition party with the best hope of breaking the People’s Action Party’s (PAP) monopoly on GRCs.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25520.1
Four party cadres, including two candidates from GE 2006, resigned in the past one week but renewal process is on track, says Organizing Secretary
“Salim has the idealism and passion to pursue what he feels strongly about,” said Mr Yaw Shin Leong, the Workers’ Party Organising Secretary and Mr Salim’s team leader in Ang Mo Kio GRC in the last elections. “I wish him well.”
27 year old Mr Abdul Salim Harun’s resignation from the Workers’ Party is not totally unexpected. Rumours had been going around about his wish to leave the party since last year. His presence at the Singapore Democratic Party’s Hong Lim Park protest, during the IMF/World Bank meeting in September 2006, was believed to have raised some eyebrows within the party.
While his resignation may not affect the party significantly, observers have noted that it might put a spanner in the works for the party’s rejuvenation process, especially since his is not the only resignation since GE 2006. Mr Chia Ti Lik and Mr Goh Meng Seng, both in their 30s and who had been members of the party’s previous Central Executive Committee (CEC), have also since resigned.
When the party elected its new CEC after the elections in 2006, it was touted as a rejuvenation. Party secretary general, Mr Low Thia Khiang, was reported to be “very pleased” with the new and younger CEC. 9 out of the 15 members were below the age of 40 then. “The process of renewal is on track,” Mr Low said to the Straits Times.
Will Mr Salim’s leaving signal further resignations from the party, especially of younger members who might be unhappy with the party’s non-vocal stand? Mr Chia had cited his “frustration” with the party as a reason for his resignation. Mr Goh explained that he left the WP because of “misinformation” put out by the Today newspaper which reported that he had allegedly made a threat against an Internet forummer. He resigned because the report had done damage to “WP’s public image”, he said. (Link) However, it is believed that he too was unhappy with the party. Three more party cadres have also resigned in the past one week, including Mr Salim’s running mate in Ang Mo Kio GRC, Ms Lee Wai Leng.
Part of the process?
The leadership may, however, see such resignations as “norming processes”, as party chairman Ms Sylvia Lim had said when Mr Chia resigned in November 2006. (Link)
Mr Yaw also does not see Mr Salim’s resignation as any kind of setback for the rejuvenation process. “The renewal process was set in motion since 2001,” he said. “[These] resignations won’t set back the process,” he added.
Agreeing with Mr Yaw is Mr Tan Kian Hwee, also a member of the Ang Mo Kio team in 2006. “Resignations have occurred in every party including the PAP - even in the period from 2006 until the present,” he said. “An organisation would be seriously problematic if the ‘loss’ outstrips the ‘gain’, which I do not see [in] the WP’s case.”
Mr Salim himself seems to agree. He told The Online Citizen (TOC) that his resignation “will not affect the party in one way or another.”
Half of the party’s current CEC is below the age of 40, with three new faces in Mr Koh Choong Yong, Ms Lilian Lee and 47-year old Mr Png Eng Huat. Mr Salim was not a member of the current CEC.
The bad news for the party, however, may be the negative publicity these resignations may give – especially when the next general elections is rumoured to be around the corner. After all, resignations of younger members, who are naturally the next generation of leaders for the party, perhaps indicate a restlessness within the organization. The leadership will have to pay more attention to the aspirations of these members if more resignations are to be prevented.
Mr Tan is of the view that the WP, like any other organization, has to consistently reflect on where it can improve. He said, however, that “this would be more in its approach and policy.” He also feels that it is both its leaders and members together that have to remain relevant to the public.
“Personally, I don’t agree that a party’s leadership needs to meet its members’ expectations in areas where it does not meet the people’s expectations,” he added.
Outreach expanding online
Mr Yaw is confident that the party’s plans are in place. “There are people joining the party, and our groundwork continues as we are going about house-to-house visits” he explained. He added that he was heartened that new members have chosen to enter the party even during the “lull periods” between elections.
Mr Yaw also cited the WP’s outreach efforts online, which include Twitter and Facebook. He also noted that “the WP has the largest amount of leadership figures who blog amongst the alternative parties”. He pointed to a new WP online initiative called Hammersspeed which aggregates all articles relating to the WP. [Correction, 31 March 09: The WP has clarified that these online sites are not official party websites.]
The Workers Party was the best-performing opposition party in the last elections. It scored 43.9 per cent in Aljunied GRC and is generally seen as the opposition party with the best hope of breaking the People’s Action Party’s (PAP) monopoly on GRCs.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25520.1
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Employers still discriminating against older workers
Employers still discriminating against older workers
Sunday, 29 March 2009
Gilbert Goh
Having met more than a dozen unemployed Singaporeans either through my unemployment support site transitioning.org or my own personal contacts, I observed that there are two main issues that frustrate them.
One is the huge influx of foreigners into our labour force during the past few years and the other is the age bias in seeking employment that seems to have gotten worse recently.
A weekend visit to Han’s restaurant at Harbourfront shocked me as the four staff working there were all Filipinos. From the person that took my order to the cashier and chefs, they were all foreigners happily going about their jobs. The only thing that stood them out from the former Han’s staff that I had seen previously, was the age difference. All of them appeared to be in their twenties. I found myself paying for my order grudgingly.
Are mature Singaporeans not able to fill such positions even if they were much older and were a little slower? Must employers continue to fill in service positions with foreigners while claiming that locals refuse to work longer hours for miserable pay? Are all the employers’ complaints valid? I am sure that for every Singaporean’s refusal to work at such service jobs, there should be another who do not mind such work. This is especially so in this time of economic downturn. Let us not generalise and condemn the working attitude of Singaporeans just because of a few black sheep.
I share the sentiments of the unemployed on both concerns. At the age of 47, I too face mammoth pressure in securing employment in a hiring practice that borders on discriminatory.
Some employment agents have told me in private that employers continue to look at candidates below the age of 35 years old. Some unemployed who responded to advertisements for face to face interviews were often rejected when they revealed that their age is above 40.
If you called in a recruiter and said that you are 40 years old, they would reply that they want someone below 40 years old. If you called in and said that you are 38, they will reply that they prefer someone below 35 instead!
Our labour hiring laws do seem to allow such discriminatory employment practices to prevail. Amazingly, employers seem to get away with such archaic third-world hiring practices in a first world, developed country.
Many I spoke to lamented that they have nowhere to turn to now as they face massive obstacle in being rehired due to their age (40-50 years old). Many who are able are seriously considering the idea of applying for emigration to countries such as Australia or Canada - countries which have strong laws against age-bias hiring practices. I do not blame them for taking such a drastic move because if you cannot find employment in your own country, due to your age, then it makes sense to venture abroad where there is at least some legal protection against discriminatory hiring. The future does look bleak for those who are matured in age in Singapore.
The Aussies have very strong anti-discriminatory hiring practices. When a jobseeker send in his resume, he can choose not to accompany it with his address, race, gender, age, religion and photograph. The employers only decide to interview the candidate based on his working experience and qualification.
As Singapore continues to grabble with the severe downturn and an ageing workforce, let us hope that the government will tighten hiring practices so that our local workforce will be able to face the future with confidence and, most importantly, pride.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25376.1
Sunday, 29 March 2009
Gilbert Goh
Having met more than a dozen unemployed Singaporeans either through my unemployment support site transitioning.org or my own personal contacts, I observed that there are two main issues that frustrate them.
One is the huge influx of foreigners into our labour force during the past few years and the other is the age bias in seeking employment that seems to have gotten worse recently.
A weekend visit to Han’s restaurant at Harbourfront shocked me as the four staff working there were all Filipinos. From the person that took my order to the cashier and chefs, they were all foreigners happily going about their jobs. The only thing that stood them out from the former Han’s staff that I had seen previously, was the age difference. All of them appeared to be in their twenties. I found myself paying for my order grudgingly.
Are mature Singaporeans not able to fill such positions even if they were much older and were a little slower? Must employers continue to fill in service positions with foreigners while claiming that locals refuse to work longer hours for miserable pay? Are all the employers’ complaints valid? I am sure that for every Singaporean’s refusal to work at such service jobs, there should be another who do not mind such work. This is especially so in this time of economic downturn. Let us not generalise and condemn the working attitude of Singaporeans just because of a few black sheep.
I share the sentiments of the unemployed on both concerns. At the age of 47, I too face mammoth pressure in securing employment in a hiring practice that borders on discriminatory.
Some employment agents have told me in private that employers continue to look at candidates below the age of 35 years old. Some unemployed who responded to advertisements for face to face interviews were often rejected when they revealed that their age is above 40.
If you called in a recruiter and said that you are 40 years old, they would reply that they want someone below 40 years old. If you called in and said that you are 38, they will reply that they prefer someone below 35 instead!
Our labour hiring laws do seem to allow such discriminatory employment practices to prevail. Amazingly, employers seem to get away with such archaic third-world hiring practices in a first world, developed country.
Many I spoke to lamented that they have nowhere to turn to now as they face massive obstacle in being rehired due to their age (40-50 years old). Many who are able are seriously considering the idea of applying for emigration to countries such as Australia or Canada - countries which have strong laws against age-bias hiring practices. I do not blame them for taking such a drastic move because if you cannot find employment in your own country, due to your age, then it makes sense to venture abroad where there is at least some legal protection against discriminatory hiring. The future does look bleak for those who are matured in age in Singapore.
The Aussies have very strong anti-discriminatory hiring practices. When a jobseeker send in his resume, he can choose not to accompany it with his address, race, gender, age, religion and photograph. The employers only decide to interview the candidate based on his working experience and qualification.
As Singapore continues to grabble with the severe downturn and an ageing workforce, let us hope that the government will tighten hiring practices so that our local workforce will be able to face the future with confidence and, most importantly, pride.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25376.1
Recent Cabinet Changes and Camelot
Recent Cabinet Changes and Camelot
Farquhar again demonstrated that he is one of the only three or four insightful writers in ground breaking The Online Citizen. He made a learned although not really revisionist version of succession and power play with regards to the latest Cabinet change. On April Fools' Day, Teo Chee Hean, Defence Minister, will also become the DPM. Nevertheless, it is not that simple in reading the tea leaves on succession.
Tradition and Succession
Traditionally and generally, the defence, education, foreign and home affair ministries are arguably the seats of those who have the political potential to achieve at least Deputy Prime Minister appointments.
Goh Chok Tong was the Minister of Defence before he became DPM and then PM. Lee Hsien Loong was also (second) Minister for Defence prior to becoming DPM and then PM. Before becoming DPM, Goh Keng Swee was from the Education Ministry. When Tony Tan became DPM, his last appointment was Minister for Education. Both S Jayakumar and S Rajaratnem headed the Foreign Ministry before becoming DPM. When Wong Kan Seng became a DPM, he was already steering the Home Affairs Ministry.
Despite being acting-PM when Lee Hsien Loong is out of Singapore, Teo Chee Hean would not become PM because his age is too close to the current PM. Once rumoured as a contender as the next PM, Ng Eng Hen, Minister for Education, might also be out of the race for PM as he was also born in the 1950s. Political pundits reminded all that the current and 3rd PM of Singapore earlier mused he wanted someone really younger to succeed him, bringing back the idea that a PM could even be someone in his 40s. Albeit under a different world and tribulations in 1965, Lee Kuan Yew was 42 when he became the PM of Singapore. That means the future PM is someone born in the 1960s possibly. With Singaporeans perceived by our own political leaders as racist implicitly and despite already having non-Chinese as the Elected President and head of state, and a DPM and thus second in command to the head of government, the PM for Singapore would still be Chinese supposedly.
Yet going against tradition, there is now the first female minister, Lim Hwee Hua, regardless if she is running her own ministry or not from April Fools' Day.
Reading Beyond Tokenism
Assuming this is more than political tokenism, it means a new age of king-making. Singapore is a parliamentary system and it is the party elected into power that chooses who would be PM, not the citizens per se. By keeping ethnic prejudices because of imagined voter preferences, the cabinet has tied its own hands especially if a next PM is one born in the 1960s. The party might decide to unfetter itself and consider a non-Chinese PM next. Furthermore, transcending sex bias in the choice of a minister could herald the commencement of the general eradication of old prejudices about where the DPM and PM could come from in terms of ministry background. The next PM might not necessarily have headed the defence, education, foreign or home affairs ministries.
The appointment of Teo Chee Hean shows that the current leadership is sticking to its traditional doctrine of electing DPMs and PMs with certain ministries as a career map for now. However, the appointment of Lim Hwee Hua on the other hand shows that the cabinet is at a crossroad. If a female minister can be appointed, it also perhaps portends that the cabinet is rethinking its whole cabinet line-up formula. Thus how a DPM first and consequently how a PM can be appointed and other old mindsets are being repacked.
Returning to king-making, it doesn't matter if he is a noble or not, as long as the One can pull the Sword out of the Stone. If that is the case, for example, Vivian Balakrishnan, is still in the game.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25365.2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)