Third WP candidate from GE 2006 resigns from party
Monday, 30 March 2009
Mr Abdul Salim, 27, a member of the Workers’ Party’s team which contested Ang Mo Kio GRC in the last elections, has tendered his resignation from the party.
He is the third WP candidate from General Elections 2006 to resign from the party after the elections. The other two were Mr Chia Ti Lik and Mr Goh Meng Seng. Mr Goh is now with the National Solidarity Party (NSP).
Speaking to The Online Citizen, Mr Salim, who handed in his resignation to party secretary general Mr Low Thia Khiang on Sunday, said “there were some issues” he had with the WP but declined to elaborate. He joined the WP in 2005. He also declined to confirm rumours that he might be joining the NSP. “I am keeping my options open”, he said when asked if he would contest the next elections. “Nothing is being confirmed,” he added. Several WP members which TOC spoke to were unaware of Mr Salim’s resignation.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25428.1
Monday, March 30, 2009
Is Mr Khaw Boon Wan really misunderstood?
Is Mr Khaw Boon Wan really misunderstood?
During the Parliamentary sittings on 9 and 10 February 2009, Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan caused a storm when he allegedly said that Singaporeans should consider sending their elderly parents to retire in JB nursing homes if they cannot afford Singapore’s nursing homes.
Following the negative response from the ground, Mr Khaw Boon Wan changed tack and claimed that his words were “twisted”.
Did the media misrepresent Mr Khaw or did we misunderstood his intention?
Let us revisit the Parliamentary records of his speech in the two days and the Straits report report a later. We leave you to judge for yourselves:
Mr Khaw Boon Wan, 9 February 2009:
“We discussed earlier about lower cost possibilities in the neighbouring region, especially Johor Bahru. Let me talk about my day trip during the Chinese New Year to Johor Bahru. I visited one site where a Singaporean investor is going to put up 200-bed nursing home. I asked him, “How much would you be spending on your capex (capital expenditure)?” It is mind-boggling, the construction cost and land cost are so low, that my cost of just putting up a polyclinic is probably more than his cost of putting up a 200-bed nursing home. So the cost of keeping a resident in a private nursing home in Singapore can easily pay 2.5 months of nursing home care in JB. If the connection is easy and if there is any urgent problem, you can always ambulance in the elderly to Singapore. The family members can get to visit the elderly on weekends. As this nursing home’s CEO told me, even in Singapore, when they put the elderly in the nursing home, they also only visit them once a week over the weekends. Of course, many visit daily but quite a significant percentage just visit on the weekends. So, what is the difference with putting them in JB?
Source: Hansard
Mr Khaw Boon Wan in response to Ms Sylvia Lim, 10 February 2009 :
On the nursing home in Johor, I mentioned it in passing because I made a trip there. Actually my main purpose was to look at the hospital because Members have asked me to consider the possibility of Medisave to be used for hospitals there. I used the opportunity to look at the Iskandar Malaysia region; I have not been to that part of Johor for many years and wanted to see how the development is shaping up there. It was a very pleasant trip. I went by the Tuas Second Link, then from west to east to Pasir Gudang, ended up with a nice seafood and cheap lunch near Pasir Gudang and came back through the new CIQ Checkpoint to our Causeway. At the Iskandar Malaysia region, I also took a look at the site where I heard they have investment from a medical school from England which is coming to set up. I also went to take a look at the Legoland theme park where the land is being prepared. Sorry, for digressing.
But many Singaporeans, including many residents in my constituency, go to Johor very regularly, top up their car, which many do, and also to have a nice seafood meal at much cheaper prices. I think these are natural activities, and that is part and parcel of globalisation. In fact, this is not even globalisation; this is regionalisation, and there is nothing wrong with that. Consumers are free to choose. I know many go over to the pharmacy there to get cheaper drugs. It is not our fault. The pharmaceutical companies have a way of setting prices: Third World, they set lower prices; First World, like Singapore, they set higher prices. By allowing the flexibility of consumers walking over the Causeway, they benefit. I do not think we should constrain them from doing so. Our cost will always be higher because our wages are different. Nurses are paid very differently here compared to Johor and ditto for doctors; likewise construction cost.
I just want to point out to Singaporeans that there are options like these. In fact, it is already happening. This free flow of patients across borders, so much so that there is a term called “medical tourism”. Singaporeans go to Bangkok, I know, for lasik, and vice versa. Americans come here. Russians come here. Singaporeans go to Penang and Malacca. I think we should allow that. In any case, how can we prevent it? We cannot prevent it. But in fact, by keeping the borders “open”, it puts some competitive pressure on our local providers which eventually will be good for our own consumers. Because if they price themselves too high, the patients will start going across the Causeway and they lose customers.
Source: Hansard
Mr Khaw Boon Wan in response to Mr Low Thia Kiang, 10 February 2009 :
So no, I am not saying that if you are poor, I will put you in an ambulance, send you across the Causeway to Johor nursing home. That is not what I said and please do not twist my words. But what I am saying is for those in the middle-income group, you have choices, you are paying out of your own pocket, you decide. Do you want to have a seafood meal in Singapore or you want to have a family reunion in JB, it is up to you, this is your own choice. Do you want to fill your car tank in Singapore or you want to drive across and have a haircut, that is up to you. You are spending your own money. And I am just sharing with Singaporeans that there are alternatives of that kind. But for low-income Singaporeans, we look after and heavily subsidise them. There is no need for them to walk across, because they enjoy a heavy subsidy here. They have to pay unsubsidised rate in JB. It will be more expensive than what they can receive in Singapore. So that is the way we do our systems and I hope to get the Member’s support for it as well.
Straits Times report, 11 February 2009:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25427.3
A Quitter's Glory!
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)