Abolish SM, MM and Minister in PMO positions
The recent expansion of the cabinet with the addition of one more Senior Minister and Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office simply beggars belief. As Wayangparty wrote earlier, why does Singapore need 2 deputy prime ministers, 2 senior ministers, 1 minister mentor, and 3 ministers in the prime minister’s office?
1. Senior Minister
The plain fact is that this position was created solely for Mr Lee Kuan Yew to occupy after leaving office in 1990. Apparently he thought (and still thinks) that he is so valuable that he must remain in the government to oversee his successors.
I cannot find a single official description for this job. What does a “Senior Minister” really do? The government has claimed that the office holder has plenty of experience and is an advisor to the current leadership. But why can’t Mr Goh Chok Tong and Mr Jayakumar offer their “valuable” advice free of charge? Why must we pay $3,043,300 each for this extra advice that no Singaporean asked for in the first place?
2. Minister Mentor
This is the most ridiculous position in the government. This position was created so that Mr Lee Kuan Yew can still remain in government even after vacating the Senior Minister seat for Mr Goh Chok Tong. The MM commands a salary almost the equivalent of the PM. So who is ruling the country, the MM or the PM?
Who is the Minister Mentor supposed to mentor? I also cannot find any official job description. I only see Mr Lee Kuan Yew giving talks and travelling the world at taxpayers’ expense to have photo opportunities with foreign leaders. Then why do we pay the foreign minister $1,593,500 for?
Singaporeans are wasting $3,043,300 on a power-hungry man’s personal vanity project so that he has an audience to give nonsense predictions about a “golden age” or “first world government”. Mr Lee Kuan Yew should just retire and leave the running of the government to the present leaders.
3. Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office
There are 2 (soon to be 3) ministers in the prime minister’s office, Lim Boon Heng and Lim Swee Say. Lim Boon Heng has been in office since 1993. He is also in charge of aging issues. But isn’t the health minister being paid his $1,593,500 to handle that?
Lim Swee Say has absolutely no duties specified at all. He also “happens” to be the NTUC Secretary-General at the same time. So why is he holding a political appointment when he is contributing nothing politically? Are we paying him $1,593,500 to boast that he “feels rich” each time he gets his monthly CPF statement? We don’t, especially since we don’t get it every month.
With 2 redundant ministers already “shaking leg”, we are going to have a third one with the latest appointment of Mrs Lim Hwee Hua. PM Lee has been stressing that she is the first female full minister, something that we should be proud of. But what is she supposed to do? So far, there has been no information on what her duties exactly are.
The Prime Minister’s Office is self-explanatory. It should only contain the Prime Minister, not other ministers sucking millions for doing absolutely nothing.
There are also other unnecessary and wasteful positions such as “Minister of State” and “Senior Minister of State”. I think Singapore is small enough for a single minister to take charge of a portfolio.
When we abolish the positions of “Senior Minister”, “Minister Mentor”, “Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office”, “Minister of State” and “Senior Minister of State, we will reduce the size of the cabinet and save millions to help our poor.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25517.1
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Mourning 25 years of the demise of a free and independent press
Mourning 25 years of the demise of a free and independent press
It is an occasion of double joy for SPH today. A new corporate logo was unveiled in conjunction with its 25th anniversary celebrations.
I can’t help wondering how much the re-design of the same name cost the shareholders which brought up to mind the $400,000 of taxpayers’ monies spent by Mah Bow Tan to rename ‘Marina Bay’ back to its original moniker in 2005 (read news report here)
The event was hosted by ex-DPM Tony Tan in presence of the President S R Nathan and PAP ministers Dr Lee Boon Yang and Mr Lui Tuck Yew.
A beaming S R Nathan recalled his experience during his stint with SPH:
‘When I accepted the job of heading Straits Times Press,…… the then Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, told me: ‘Nathan, I’m giving you The Straits Times. It has something like 150 years of history. It is like a bowl of china. You break it, I can piece it together again, but it will never be the same. Try not to. I am proud to say that the bowl that was handed to me and passed on to successor leaders of SPH remains unbroken - in fact it has achieved a better glow with successive years. ‘ (read full article here)
Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels would be proud of Lee Kuan Yew if he is alive. Nazi propaganda lasted no more than a decade. The PAP myth is going into its 50th anniversary and still going strong.
How can the ‘bowl’ of SPH be broken when it enjoys a 100% monopoly and is owned 100% by the government? Other than North Korea, China and Myanmar, I cannot think of any other country where its print media is completely under the thumb of the government.
SPH was formed on Aug 4, 1984 through a merger of three organisations - the Straits Times Press group, the Singapore News and Publications Limited and Times Publishing Berhad which was later de-merged from SPH in 1988. The merger brought together the English, Malay and Chinese newspapers under one roof. SPH later also bought Tamil Murasu Pte Ltd. (read article here)
1984 marked the official demise of a free and independent press in Singapore though the nail was hit into its coffin way back in 1975 with the introduction of the Newspaper and Printing Act to control the ownership of news printing firms.
SPH has indeed served its master well by churning out daily doses of state propaganda to justify the PAP’s many flawed policies and repressive measures to stifle civil society and the opposition.
Unfortunately, its “success” has become a tragedy for many Singaporeans who were brought up believing every single word published by the print media to hold it as the gospel truth while it is nothing more than just plain propaganda to serve the narrow partisan interests of the PAP.
25 years of state-sanctioned indoctrination has created an unthinking, subservient and apathetic citizenry who is contented to leave the running of the country entirely to the government without asking questions.
Few people from my generation actually bother to read up on current affairs, let alone spot the glaring inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the media reports and to challenge the nonsense spewed out from the mouths of our highly paid self acclaimed “talented” PAP leaders.
This is what 25 years of relentless PAP propaganda dispensed through its propaganda mouthpiece has done to our minds. And that is why the PAP is unable to recruit first rate talents into the government and has to content itself with paying obscence salaries to keep second rate talents within its ranks.
In a country where the boundaries between the state and the party are blurred, what works for the party often has disastrous consequences for the state.
To the PAP, having the media under its absolute control is a necessity for them to ride roughshod over a politically naive electorate so as to force unpalatable policies down our throat again, again and again.
Over the years, our basic human rights have been raped repeatedly without any protests. Foreigners are allowed to stampede all over the locals to steal their rice bowls with impunity; GST was raised to 3, 5 and then 7% to “help the poor”. New HDB flats are pegged to the value of resale flats when it is supposedly to be a low cost affordable public housing. CPF withdrawal limits are raised from 55 to 62 and in time to come, perhaps 85. PAP ministers lavished themselves with exorbitant salaries when our income gap between the poor and the rich is one of the highest amongst first world economies. A significant chunk of our reserves accumulated over the years were lost in less than a year and still nobody is held accountable. These are just a few of the many instances where the PAP has taken us for granted without having to pay any political price.
In other developed Asian countries like Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea, their media will rise up in arms to serve as the voice of the people to protest against the government. Here in Singapore, the mainstream media is an accomplice to the PAP to preserve its political hegemony.
David Marshall is indeed spot on in calling the Straits Times journalists “poor prostitutes and running dogs of the PAP”. Not all the SPH journalists are to blame. Some genuinely have a conscience and committment to their professional ethics, but they have little room to manoeuvre when the senior editors are all henchmen of the PAP. Not surprisingly, a few SPH editors were “promoted” to PAP MPs after years of “dedicated service” to the party, Seng Han Thong and Irene Ng being cases in point.
Without a free and independent press to act as an 4th pillar of the state, Singapore’s future is very grim. We have little choice but to swim or sink with the PAP. If they sink, we will go down together with them because there is nobody else outside the system who can replace them.
SPH is the biggest stumbling block to the emergence of a credible alternative party in Singapore to check on the PAP. In almost every general elections, the SPH spin doctors were called upon to demolish the opposition when they should be focusing on critical issues of national importance.
In 2006, we saw how the media conducted a 7 day smear campaign against Workers’ Party candidate James Gomez for a trivial mistake. In 2001, it was Dr Chee Soon Juan. In 1997, it was Tang Liang Hong who was demonized as a Chinese chauvinist and in 1991, Jufrie Mahmood was attacked unfairly as a Malay chauvinist.
SPH’s timely interference had made that extra difference in saving the skin of the the PAP in closely contested constituencies. Jufrie Mahmood won 49.1% of the valid votes in Eunos GRC while JBJ and Tang won 45.3% in Cheng San GRC.
What if Singaporeans have voted 5 opposition MPs into Parliament in 1997? Will we continue to be subjugated by the PAP in our very own land of birth? Can we not find out the answers to the amount of reserves we have now? That is why the PAP doesn’t want to have “real” opposition in Parliament to make them accountable to the people and this is why SPH needs to be chaired by an ex-PAP minister to this very day.
While SPH and the PAP celebrates 25 years of overwhelming success in state-sponsored thought control, let us, as one of the few who have managed to escape relatively unscathed from its omnipresent influence, mourn the demise of a free and independent press.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25516.1
It is an occasion of double joy for SPH today. A new corporate logo was unveiled in conjunction with its 25th anniversary celebrations.
I can’t help wondering how much the re-design of the same name cost the shareholders which brought up to mind the $400,000 of taxpayers’ monies spent by Mah Bow Tan to rename ‘Marina Bay’ back to its original moniker in 2005 (read news report here)
The event was hosted by ex-DPM Tony Tan in presence of the President S R Nathan and PAP ministers Dr Lee Boon Yang and Mr Lui Tuck Yew.
A beaming S R Nathan recalled his experience during his stint with SPH:
‘When I accepted the job of heading Straits Times Press,…… the then Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, told me: ‘Nathan, I’m giving you The Straits Times. It has something like 150 years of history. It is like a bowl of china. You break it, I can piece it together again, but it will never be the same. Try not to. I am proud to say that the bowl that was handed to me and passed on to successor leaders of SPH remains unbroken - in fact it has achieved a better glow with successive years. ‘ (read full article here)
Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels would be proud of Lee Kuan Yew if he is alive. Nazi propaganda lasted no more than a decade. The PAP myth is going into its 50th anniversary and still going strong.
How can the ‘bowl’ of SPH be broken when it enjoys a 100% monopoly and is owned 100% by the government? Other than North Korea, China and Myanmar, I cannot think of any other country where its print media is completely under the thumb of the government.
SPH was formed on Aug 4, 1984 through a merger of three organisations - the Straits Times Press group, the Singapore News and Publications Limited and Times Publishing Berhad which was later de-merged from SPH in 1988. The merger brought together the English, Malay and Chinese newspapers under one roof. SPH later also bought Tamil Murasu Pte Ltd. (read article here)
1984 marked the official demise of a free and independent press in Singapore though the nail was hit into its coffin way back in 1975 with the introduction of the Newspaper and Printing Act to control the ownership of news printing firms.
SPH has indeed served its master well by churning out daily doses of state propaganda to justify the PAP’s many flawed policies and repressive measures to stifle civil society and the opposition.
Unfortunately, its “success” has become a tragedy for many Singaporeans who were brought up believing every single word published by the print media to hold it as the gospel truth while it is nothing more than just plain propaganda to serve the narrow partisan interests of the PAP.
25 years of state-sanctioned indoctrination has created an unthinking, subservient and apathetic citizenry who is contented to leave the running of the country entirely to the government without asking questions.
Few people from my generation actually bother to read up on current affairs, let alone spot the glaring inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the media reports and to challenge the nonsense spewed out from the mouths of our highly paid self acclaimed “talented” PAP leaders.
This is what 25 years of relentless PAP propaganda dispensed through its propaganda mouthpiece has done to our minds. And that is why the PAP is unable to recruit first rate talents into the government and has to content itself with paying obscence salaries to keep second rate talents within its ranks.
In a country where the boundaries between the state and the party are blurred, what works for the party often has disastrous consequences for the state.
To the PAP, having the media under its absolute control is a necessity for them to ride roughshod over a politically naive electorate so as to force unpalatable policies down our throat again, again and again.
Over the years, our basic human rights have been raped repeatedly without any protests. Foreigners are allowed to stampede all over the locals to steal their rice bowls with impunity; GST was raised to 3, 5 and then 7% to “help the poor”. New HDB flats are pegged to the value of resale flats when it is supposedly to be a low cost affordable public housing. CPF withdrawal limits are raised from 55 to 62 and in time to come, perhaps 85. PAP ministers lavished themselves with exorbitant salaries when our income gap between the poor and the rich is one of the highest amongst first world economies. A significant chunk of our reserves accumulated over the years were lost in less than a year and still nobody is held accountable. These are just a few of the many instances where the PAP has taken us for granted without having to pay any political price.
In other developed Asian countries like Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea, their media will rise up in arms to serve as the voice of the people to protest against the government. Here in Singapore, the mainstream media is an accomplice to the PAP to preserve its political hegemony.
David Marshall is indeed spot on in calling the Straits Times journalists “poor prostitutes and running dogs of the PAP”. Not all the SPH journalists are to blame. Some genuinely have a conscience and committment to their professional ethics, but they have little room to manoeuvre when the senior editors are all henchmen of the PAP. Not surprisingly, a few SPH editors were “promoted” to PAP MPs after years of “dedicated service” to the party, Seng Han Thong and Irene Ng being cases in point.
Without a free and independent press to act as an 4th pillar of the state, Singapore’s future is very grim. We have little choice but to swim or sink with the PAP. If they sink, we will go down together with them because there is nobody else outside the system who can replace them.
SPH is the biggest stumbling block to the emergence of a credible alternative party in Singapore to check on the PAP. In almost every general elections, the SPH spin doctors were called upon to demolish the opposition when they should be focusing on critical issues of national importance.
In 2006, we saw how the media conducted a 7 day smear campaign against Workers’ Party candidate James Gomez for a trivial mistake. In 2001, it was Dr Chee Soon Juan. In 1997, it was Tang Liang Hong who was demonized as a Chinese chauvinist and in 1991, Jufrie Mahmood was attacked unfairly as a Malay chauvinist.
SPH’s timely interference had made that extra difference in saving the skin of the the PAP in closely contested constituencies. Jufrie Mahmood won 49.1% of the valid votes in Eunos GRC while JBJ and Tang won 45.3% in Cheng San GRC.
What if Singaporeans have voted 5 opposition MPs into Parliament in 1997? Will we continue to be subjugated by the PAP in our very own land of birth? Can we not find out the answers to the amount of reserves we have now? That is why the PAP doesn’t want to have “real” opposition in Parliament to make them accountable to the people and this is why SPH needs to be chaired by an ex-PAP minister to this very day.
While SPH and the PAP celebrates 25 years of overwhelming success in state-sponsored thought control, let us, as one of the few who have managed to escape relatively unscathed from its omnipresent influence, mourn the demise of a free and independent press.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25516.1
Cabinet “reshuffle”: Is it for self-renewal or self-preservation?
Cabinet “reshuffle”: Is it for self-renewal or self-preservation?
Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has described his recent Cabinet reshuffle as another step in the long process of self-renewal. (read article here)
Mr Lee added that there is no change in the total number of office holders in this reshuffle and he is keeping some of the older ministers to help out so that they can provide experience and advice, while younger ministers drive policies.
If this was indeed Mr Lee’s original intention, then he had misrepresented himself for choosing the wrong word to describe the reshuffle as keeping 2 ex-Prime Ministers and 1 ex-Deputy Prime Minister in an already bloated cabinet can hardly be considered as ”self-renewal”.
Mr Lee Hsien Loong has been the Prime Minister for 6 years. During his first speech as Prime Minister, he promised to build an “inclusive” society for all Singaporeans. He has failed to live up to his promise. Our income gap has widened under his watch. Political is dissent is clamped down harshly through a series of draconian laws. Singapore society is less free than before and citizens have few avenues of expression other than the internet.
It was also during Mr Lee’s reign that the ministers’ salaries are jacked up by more than 80% to peg it to the private sector much to the chagrin and dismay of ordinary Singaporeans who are struggling to make ends meet. In spite of earning 5 times more than United States President Barack Obama, Singapore became the first Asian country to enter into recession. Both our Sovereign Wealth Funds suffer disastrous losses and the culprits have yet to be called to answered for their mistakes.
Given the dismal performance of Mr Lee, he ought to offer to step down by the next election if not now and hand over the reins of government to another leader who has the capability and vision to bring the nation forward. We are in urgent need of a change in direction and a rethink of the usual tried and tested methods of governance.
The global financial crisis has exposed the flaws of the American economy and its renumeration system for Wall Street financiers whose unbridled greed brought the entire world down to its knees. We cannot afford to continue chasing after GDP growths and other economic indicators while neglecting the development of our precious human capital.
It is common in modern democracies to see changes in government every couple of years. The Americans change their President every four or eight years. The Labor Party of the United Kingdom has been in power for over a decade and they are about to be booted out soon if the latest poll ratings of their popularity are accurate.
Singapore needs a real change in its current leadership if not an outright change in government. Since the PAP has monopolized the majority of the talents found in Singapore, we can only place our hopes on an internal change to give us a leader who is brave enough to do away with the obsolete “mandarinate” system of Lee Kuan Yew and restore real democracy based on the principles of responsibility, accountability and transparency in the way the Singapore government operates.
Lee Kuan Yew has often used the threat of political upheavals and economic ruins to dissuade Singaporeans from voting for the opposition. In reality, Singapore is the only country in the region which can survive a change in the political status quo and emerge from it stronger because we are such docile, pragmatic and peace-loving people.
Since the opposition is far too weak to mount a serious challenge to the PAP, its only fear lies in a schism within the echelon of the leadership. As long Lee Kuan Yew is still around, the PAP will remain united in one monolithic entity. It is therefore imperative for the Prime Minister to put in place a 4th generation of leaders who believe in his father’s system of governance and willing to run the country using his doctrine which explains why he is taking a long time to deliberate over the personnel to put in positions of power and influence.
This is not self-renewal, but self-preservation. Will Lee Kuan Yew want to see his legacy being dismantled from top to bottom by his son’s successor after he is gone just like how the Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi did to his precedessor Mahathir? His son was put in place precisely to ensure continuity in his policies.
In the first major resuffle of the cabinet in the late 1980s before Goh Chok Tong became Prime Minister, many first-generation leaders were either retired voluntarily or forced out by Lee Kuan Yew so as to put the second-generation of leaders handpicked by him firmly in control of the government while he remained in the cabinet as Senior Minister to supervise and monitor his successor.
The second generation of leaders should have been retired years ago after Goh Chok Tong stepped down to make way for the fourth generation. Why are Goh Chok Tong, Wong Kan Seng and Jayakumar still holding senior positions within the cabinet?
It is likely that Lee Kuan Yew does not yet have full trust and confidence in the fourth generation of leaders. Dr Ng Eng Hen is always his blue-eyed boy, but his popularity and support within the PAP itself remains a suspect. Both Dr Vivian Balakrishnan and Tharman were mavericks in their youthful days. Who can forget Vivian’s explosive expletive against Lee Kuan Yew’s failed ‘graduate mother’ scheme when he was the President of NUSSU and Tharman’s visit to exiled student leader Tan Wah Piow in London?
Though they have appeared to follow his instructions and exhortations so far, who knows if they may revert back to their “rebellious” old selves after he is gone? All Singapore needs is one Gorbachev or Badawi to completely destroy Lee Kuan Yew’s “mandarinate” system and restore democracy to the nation.
The PAP should trust itself to win in a free and fair election solely on merits without any gerrymandering or character assassinations. It can well afford 5, 10 or 15 opposition MPs in Parliament to challenge them without resorting to dirty tricks to “fix” them.
Why then is Lee Kuan Yew so adamant at keeping the opposition at bay, especially genuine opposition leaders like JBJ and Chee Soon Juan who dares to confront them heads on? Because all you need is to have one “troublemaker” in Parliament to ask sensitive and difficult questions and you will lose whatever credibility you have in an instance.
Singapore’s fourth Prime Minister is already in the present cabinet. Mr Lee Hsien Loong made a freudian slip when he remarked during the interview that the PAP needs two general elections at the very least to groom a leader. He will be almost 70 years old after the next two elections. Can he or Singapore wait that long?
Among the PAP’s current crop of leaders, the potential candidates to take over Mr Lee are Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean, Education Minister Dr Ng Eng Hen, Finance Minister Tharman and Community, Youth and Sports Minister Dr Vivian Balakrishnan.
Both Lees have not made up their minds. Who can they trust most to preserve their legacy and to protect their interests after they have left the scene? Mr Lee Hsien Loong can always “retire” to become a Senior Minister like his predecessors, but his clout is considerably less compared to the senior Lee.
What if the new Prime Minister decides to pander to populist sentiment and enact a “Freedom of Information Act” which will reveal the extent of GIC and Temasek’s losses? What will future generations of Singaporeans think of their founding father?
The next Prime Minister of Singapore, whoever he or she is, should feel free to expunge remnants of Lee’s influence completely from the government, civil service and judiciary and relegate it to the history books for our children and grandchildren to judge for themselves the merits and faults of Lee Kuan Yew.
Is he truly Singapore’s savior or a hero turned villian during his later years? Will there be Singapore without Lee or is there no Lee without Singapore? Nobody is irreplaceable in Singapore. Prime Ministers can come and go, but our Constitution, our Pledge and our People will remain forever on this land we call home.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25515.1
Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has described his recent Cabinet reshuffle as another step in the long process of self-renewal. (read article here)
Mr Lee added that there is no change in the total number of office holders in this reshuffle and he is keeping some of the older ministers to help out so that they can provide experience and advice, while younger ministers drive policies.
If this was indeed Mr Lee’s original intention, then he had misrepresented himself for choosing the wrong word to describe the reshuffle as keeping 2 ex-Prime Ministers and 1 ex-Deputy Prime Minister in an already bloated cabinet can hardly be considered as ”self-renewal”.
Mr Lee Hsien Loong has been the Prime Minister for 6 years. During his first speech as Prime Minister, he promised to build an “inclusive” society for all Singaporeans. He has failed to live up to his promise. Our income gap has widened under his watch. Political is dissent is clamped down harshly through a series of draconian laws. Singapore society is less free than before and citizens have few avenues of expression other than the internet.
It was also during Mr Lee’s reign that the ministers’ salaries are jacked up by more than 80% to peg it to the private sector much to the chagrin and dismay of ordinary Singaporeans who are struggling to make ends meet. In spite of earning 5 times more than United States President Barack Obama, Singapore became the first Asian country to enter into recession. Both our Sovereign Wealth Funds suffer disastrous losses and the culprits have yet to be called to answered for their mistakes.
Given the dismal performance of Mr Lee, he ought to offer to step down by the next election if not now and hand over the reins of government to another leader who has the capability and vision to bring the nation forward. We are in urgent need of a change in direction and a rethink of the usual tried and tested methods of governance.
The global financial crisis has exposed the flaws of the American economy and its renumeration system for Wall Street financiers whose unbridled greed brought the entire world down to its knees. We cannot afford to continue chasing after GDP growths and other economic indicators while neglecting the development of our precious human capital.
It is common in modern democracies to see changes in government every couple of years. The Americans change their President every four or eight years. The Labor Party of the United Kingdom has been in power for over a decade and they are about to be booted out soon if the latest poll ratings of their popularity are accurate.
Singapore needs a real change in its current leadership if not an outright change in government. Since the PAP has monopolized the majority of the talents found in Singapore, we can only place our hopes on an internal change to give us a leader who is brave enough to do away with the obsolete “mandarinate” system of Lee Kuan Yew and restore real democracy based on the principles of responsibility, accountability and transparency in the way the Singapore government operates.
Lee Kuan Yew has often used the threat of political upheavals and economic ruins to dissuade Singaporeans from voting for the opposition. In reality, Singapore is the only country in the region which can survive a change in the political status quo and emerge from it stronger because we are such docile, pragmatic and peace-loving people.
Since the opposition is far too weak to mount a serious challenge to the PAP, its only fear lies in a schism within the echelon of the leadership. As long Lee Kuan Yew is still around, the PAP will remain united in one monolithic entity. It is therefore imperative for the Prime Minister to put in place a 4th generation of leaders who believe in his father’s system of governance and willing to run the country using his doctrine which explains why he is taking a long time to deliberate over the personnel to put in positions of power and influence.
This is not self-renewal, but self-preservation. Will Lee Kuan Yew want to see his legacy being dismantled from top to bottom by his son’s successor after he is gone just like how the Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi did to his precedessor Mahathir? His son was put in place precisely to ensure continuity in his policies.
In the first major resuffle of the cabinet in the late 1980s before Goh Chok Tong became Prime Minister, many first-generation leaders were either retired voluntarily or forced out by Lee Kuan Yew so as to put the second-generation of leaders handpicked by him firmly in control of the government while he remained in the cabinet as Senior Minister to supervise and monitor his successor.
The second generation of leaders should have been retired years ago after Goh Chok Tong stepped down to make way for the fourth generation. Why are Goh Chok Tong, Wong Kan Seng and Jayakumar still holding senior positions within the cabinet?
It is likely that Lee Kuan Yew does not yet have full trust and confidence in the fourth generation of leaders. Dr Ng Eng Hen is always his blue-eyed boy, but his popularity and support within the PAP itself remains a suspect. Both Dr Vivian Balakrishnan and Tharman were mavericks in their youthful days. Who can forget Vivian’s explosive expletive against Lee Kuan Yew’s failed ‘graduate mother’ scheme when he was the President of NUSSU and Tharman’s visit to exiled student leader Tan Wah Piow in London?
Though they have appeared to follow his instructions and exhortations so far, who knows if they may revert back to their “rebellious” old selves after he is gone? All Singapore needs is one Gorbachev or Badawi to completely destroy Lee Kuan Yew’s “mandarinate” system and restore democracy to the nation.
The PAP should trust itself to win in a free and fair election solely on merits without any gerrymandering or character assassinations. It can well afford 5, 10 or 15 opposition MPs in Parliament to challenge them without resorting to dirty tricks to “fix” them.
Why then is Lee Kuan Yew so adamant at keeping the opposition at bay, especially genuine opposition leaders like JBJ and Chee Soon Juan who dares to confront them heads on? Because all you need is to have one “troublemaker” in Parliament to ask sensitive and difficult questions and you will lose whatever credibility you have in an instance.
Singapore’s fourth Prime Minister is already in the present cabinet. Mr Lee Hsien Loong made a freudian slip when he remarked during the interview that the PAP needs two general elections at the very least to groom a leader. He will be almost 70 years old after the next two elections. Can he or Singapore wait that long?
Among the PAP’s current crop of leaders, the potential candidates to take over Mr Lee are Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean, Education Minister Dr Ng Eng Hen, Finance Minister Tharman and Community, Youth and Sports Minister Dr Vivian Balakrishnan.
Both Lees have not made up their minds. Who can they trust most to preserve their legacy and to protect their interests after they have left the scene? Mr Lee Hsien Loong can always “retire” to become a Senior Minister like his predecessors, but his clout is considerably less compared to the senior Lee.
What if the new Prime Minister decides to pander to populist sentiment and enact a “Freedom of Information Act” which will reveal the extent of GIC and Temasek’s losses? What will future generations of Singaporeans think of their founding father?
The next Prime Minister of Singapore, whoever he or she is, should feel free to expunge remnants of Lee’s influence completely from the government, civil service and judiciary and relegate it to the history books for our children and grandchildren to judge for themselves the merits and faults of Lee Kuan Yew.
Is he truly Singapore’s savior or a hero turned villian during his later years? Will there be Singapore without Lee or is there no Lee without Singapore? Nobody is irreplaceable in Singapore. Prime Ministers can come and go, but our Constitution, our Pledge and our People will remain forever on this land we call home.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25515.1
SPH has become an important part of Singapore's nation-building
SPH has become an important part of Singapore's nation-building
by
S. R. Nathan
March 31st, 2009
Speech by President S R Nathan at Singapore Press Holdings 25th anniversary celebrations and launch of its new logo, 30 March 2009, SPH News Centre.
This commemoration of the SPH Group’s 25th Anniversary marks a special moment for SPH, beyond its 25 years. As a merged group, SPH may be only 25 years old, but its flagship newspapers have a far longer history than independent Singapore itself. Not many newspapers in the world can claim a 164-year history. In fact, SPH newspapers have tracked closely our Nation’s history and generations of Singaporeans have grown up with SPH’s stable of English Language, Chinese, Malay, Tamil and other newspapers.
Through the lens of SPH, the news, stories and commentaries that its newspapers and publications bring across in the different languages have enabled our people to keep abreast of the happenings in Singapore and around the world. You have become an important part of our effort at nation-building, helping us in forging a Singaporean identity and reminding us of happenings abroad.
SPH’s multi-lingual capability is an important asset that you must continue to enhance so as to reach out not only to our multi-lingual and multi-racial population but also to readers beyond our shores. Often, your news and stories become conversation pieces amongst people of different races and different places, which help promote bonds among our people and others.
I have been fortunate to have been personally involved in the SPH, following its merger 25 years ago, on 4th August 1984. I was then the Executive Chairman of Straits Times Press – a role I continued to play until 1988. At the time of the emergence of SPH there were many concerns about the new company, not only among the staff but also the general public alike. Would the newspapers be able to compete with each other now that they were under the same management? Would they be able to keep their own independence and identity, yet at the same time, share a common bond and company culture? Those were some of the questions asked. Despite such doubts and the odds, SPH emerged a successful and stronger media organization, meeting all the challenges head-on.
The six years that I spent at Straits Times Press and also in SPH were a unique experience for me - coming as I did from the Civil Service. When I accepted the job of heading Straits Times Press, I had no prior experience with the workings of newsrooms and other aspects of the production and distribution of newspapers. The day before I started work, the then Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, told me: “Nathan, I’m giving you The Straits Times. It has something like 150 years of history. It is like a bowl of china. You break it, I can piece it together again, but it will never be the same. Try not to.” I am proud to say that the bowl that was handed to me and passed on to successor leaders of SPH remains unbroken – in fact it has achieved a better glow with successive years.
In 25 years, SPH has made a name for itself as a leading media group and an authority on news and information in the ASEAN and the greater China region. It offers high quality content not only through the print media, but through online and mobile platforms as well. All this could not have been achieved without the people who toil to produce its publications. They worked day and night gathering and printing the stories that filled the newspapers and daily columns. Among them, we must include the printers and distributors who made sure of the timeliness of the publications and their distribution to anxiously awaiting readers. Working together, knowing that news gets old in a fast changing world, and despite competition from technology and competing new products, all in the SPH team continue with equal determination each day to see that we can read their newspapers with our breakfast. This tribute must apply to all who are part of SPH today but also of its past. For they too toiled notwithstanding the daily pressures on their time and energy.
The production of the daily copy, especially at the editorial management level, involves the making of judgments on news and views to be carried in the columns each day. They face each day’s uncertainty not knowing whether their judgment will stand or fall in the eyes of their readers, newsmakers, board and the authorities. Yet all toil with a devotion to the service of their newspapers and a preparedness to stay and produce the daily newspaper each day, notwithstanding the gripes, grouses and brickbats they may have to face.
The SPH now faces a new climate of the publishing industry, with competition from the electronic media and its wider critical reading public; their new lifestyles, preoccupations and demands. I am confident SPH with its 25 years of track record is well equipped to succeed in this new climate.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25601.1
by
S. R. Nathan
March 31st, 2009
Speech by President S R Nathan at Singapore Press Holdings 25th anniversary celebrations and launch of its new logo, 30 March 2009, SPH News Centre.
This commemoration of the SPH Group’s 25th Anniversary marks a special moment for SPH, beyond its 25 years. As a merged group, SPH may be only 25 years old, but its flagship newspapers have a far longer history than independent Singapore itself. Not many newspapers in the world can claim a 164-year history. In fact, SPH newspapers have tracked closely our Nation’s history and generations of Singaporeans have grown up with SPH’s stable of English Language, Chinese, Malay, Tamil and other newspapers.
Through the lens of SPH, the news, stories and commentaries that its newspapers and publications bring across in the different languages have enabled our people to keep abreast of the happenings in Singapore and around the world. You have become an important part of our effort at nation-building, helping us in forging a Singaporean identity and reminding us of happenings abroad.
SPH’s multi-lingual capability is an important asset that you must continue to enhance so as to reach out not only to our multi-lingual and multi-racial population but also to readers beyond our shores. Often, your news and stories become conversation pieces amongst people of different races and different places, which help promote bonds among our people and others.
I have been fortunate to have been personally involved in the SPH, following its merger 25 years ago, on 4th August 1984. I was then the Executive Chairman of Straits Times Press – a role I continued to play until 1988. At the time of the emergence of SPH there were many concerns about the new company, not only among the staff but also the general public alike. Would the newspapers be able to compete with each other now that they were under the same management? Would they be able to keep their own independence and identity, yet at the same time, share a common bond and company culture? Those were some of the questions asked. Despite such doubts and the odds, SPH emerged a successful and stronger media organization, meeting all the challenges head-on.
The six years that I spent at Straits Times Press and also in SPH were a unique experience for me - coming as I did from the Civil Service. When I accepted the job of heading Straits Times Press, I had no prior experience with the workings of newsrooms and other aspects of the production and distribution of newspapers. The day before I started work, the then Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, told me: “Nathan, I’m giving you The Straits Times. It has something like 150 years of history. It is like a bowl of china. You break it, I can piece it together again, but it will never be the same. Try not to.” I am proud to say that the bowl that was handed to me and passed on to successor leaders of SPH remains unbroken – in fact it has achieved a better glow with successive years.
In 25 years, SPH has made a name for itself as a leading media group and an authority on news and information in the ASEAN and the greater China region. It offers high quality content not only through the print media, but through online and mobile platforms as well. All this could not have been achieved without the people who toil to produce its publications. They worked day and night gathering and printing the stories that filled the newspapers and daily columns. Among them, we must include the printers and distributors who made sure of the timeliness of the publications and their distribution to anxiously awaiting readers. Working together, knowing that news gets old in a fast changing world, and despite competition from technology and competing new products, all in the SPH team continue with equal determination each day to see that we can read their newspapers with our breakfast. This tribute must apply to all who are part of SPH today but also of its past. For they too toiled notwithstanding the daily pressures on their time and energy.
The production of the daily copy, especially at the editorial management level, involves the making of judgments on news and views to be carried in the columns each day. They face each day’s uncertainty not knowing whether their judgment will stand or fall in the eyes of their readers, newsmakers, board and the authorities. Yet all toil with a devotion to the service of their newspapers and a preparedness to stay and produce the daily newspaper each day, notwithstanding the gripes, grouses and brickbats they may have to face.
The SPH now faces a new climate of the publishing industry, with competition from the electronic media and its wider critical reading public; their new lifestyles, preoccupations and demands. I am confident SPH with its 25 years of track record is well equipped to succeed in this new climate.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25601.1
Why the matrix will not tolerate total creativity
Why the matrix will not tolerate total creativity
SINGAPORE - The ones in charge of Singapore have lamented the lack of creativity amongst Singaporeans. However, the more optimistic ones would like to believe that creativity amongst Singaporeans is in its latent phase. I happen to believe in the latter. Be that as it may, creative learning is now in fashion as our educators now see fit that our students should be equipped with skills to think creatively.
As usual, my conspiracy theorist friend came up with his own theory on why the Singapore matrix will not tolerate total creativity. According to him, the matrix is well aware of the plus side of allowing total creativity that includes technological progress and innovation in many fields, all of which have been proven successful time and time again in liberal first world nations. However, if total creativity is allowed, the matrix runs the risk of becoming irrelevant.
You see, the matrix thrives on maximum authority over the people. By allowing total creativity would be akin to letting a whole gang of Neos trotting freely inside it, and this is not what it wants. Creative people have a familiar trait - challenging authority. However, creativity is not about challenging authority only. The challenge part is the first step. The next step is the synthesis of an elegant alternative or solution that improves on the pre-existing condition.
Now, the matrix is allowing some form of creativity, albeit in a limited form. One can be creative in a number of fields, for instance, the sciences, engineering, music (not anti-establishment types) and any other areas that the matrix deems safe and beneficial to it. And the matrix still sees it fit to take charge in certain creative ventures.
However, the matrix is well aware that creative thinkers even in the so-called beneficial fields can be a threat to it. Robert Oppenheimer, the great american theoretical physicist, might have been Mr Chia Thye Poh’s prison mate. After all, the former was a keen of supporter of social reforms, which were alleged to be a hotbed for communist ideas. Richard Feynman, another great american Nobel prize winning theoretical physicist would have been a good candidate to be charged with violation of the Official Secrets Act. He has a penchant for picking locks and gaining access to highly classified government documents, and did it time and time again at Los Alomos .
Due to the perceived “lack” of creative talents, the matrix decided that the best move is to hire some foreign talents. And it’s a decent move from the matrix’s standpoint because the foreigners can benefit the former in a prescribed way. And if these foreigners prove pesky for its liking, they can always be deported.
And of course, entities (political opposition) deemed to be of a high threat will be isolated in maximum security and high biohazard safety level confinement, and with difficult-to-break iron shackles too. Little leeway for creativity is allowed except for that between the confinements of the 2 by 2 cell. Access to the other humans (masses) within the matrix is limited because of restrictions (read limitations of Film Act and limited mainstream media exposure).
If these high threat entities are allowed to flourished in an environment that allows total creativity, they may just come up with a system that surpasses that of the Matrix’s, making the latter irrelevant. Hence, this is not desired. Come what may, such entities must always be shackled and be deprived of breathing space to exercise maximum creativity.
The matrix has to do everything in its power to function in perpetuity. The people must remain subserviant to the matrix because they are its life force. And the matrix will go all out to achieve this no matter what. Thus, said my friend.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25670.1
SINGAPORE - The ones in charge of Singapore have lamented the lack of creativity amongst Singaporeans. However, the more optimistic ones would like to believe that creativity amongst Singaporeans is in its latent phase. I happen to believe in the latter. Be that as it may, creative learning is now in fashion as our educators now see fit that our students should be equipped with skills to think creatively.
As usual, my conspiracy theorist friend came up with his own theory on why the Singapore matrix will not tolerate total creativity. According to him, the matrix is well aware of the plus side of allowing total creativity that includes technological progress and innovation in many fields, all of which have been proven successful time and time again in liberal first world nations. However, if total creativity is allowed, the matrix runs the risk of becoming irrelevant.
You see, the matrix thrives on maximum authority over the people. By allowing total creativity would be akin to letting a whole gang of Neos trotting freely inside it, and this is not what it wants. Creative people have a familiar trait - challenging authority. However, creativity is not about challenging authority only. The challenge part is the first step. The next step is the synthesis of an elegant alternative or solution that improves on the pre-existing condition.
Now, the matrix is allowing some form of creativity, albeit in a limited form. One can be creative in a number of fields, for instance, the sciences, engineering, music (not anti-establishment types) and any other areas that the matrix deems safe and beneficial to it. And the matrix still sees it fit to take charge in certain creative ventures.
However, the matrix is well aware that creative thinkers even in the so-called beneficial fields can be a threat to it. Robert Oppenheimer, the great american theoretical physicist, might have been Mr Chia Thye Poh’s prison mate. After all, the former was a keen of supporter of social reforms, which were alleged to be a hotbed for communist ideas. Richard Feynman, another great american Nobel prize winning theoretical physicist would have been a good candidate to be charged with violation of the Official Secrets Act. He has a penchant for picking locks and gaining access to highly classified government documents, and did it time and time again at Los Alomos .
Due to the perceived “lack” of creative talents, the matrix decided that the best move is to hire some foreign talents. And it’s a decent move from the matrix’s standpoint because the foreigners can benefit the former in a prescribed way. And if these foreigners prove pesky for its liking, they can always be deported.
And of course, entities (political opposition) deemed to be of a high threat will be isolated in maximum security and high biohazard safety level confinement, and with difficult-to-break iron shackles too. Little leeway for creativity is allowed except for that between the confinements of the 2 by 2 cell. Access to the other humans (masses) within the matrix is limited because of restrictions (read limitations of Film Act and limited mainstream media exposure).
If these high threat entities are allowed to flourished in an environment that allows total creativity, they may just come up with a system that surpasses that of the Matrix’s, making the latter irrelevant. Hence, this is not desired. Come what may, such entities must always be shackled and be deprived of breathing space to exercise maximum creativity.
The matrix has to do everything in its power to function in perpetuity. The people must remain subserviant to the matrix because they are its life force. And the matrix will go all out to achieve this no matter what. Thus, said my friend.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25670.1
Minority Report
Minority Report
Two apparently unrelated events happened these few days. Underneath the events, however, was the crucial issue of Malay representation and engagement by Singapore political parties.
Abdul Salim Harun, who contested in Ang Mo Kio GRC the last GE, resigned from the Workers’ Party. He was the most prominent Malay community representative in the WP in 2006, and that party’s attempt to challenge the PAP’s dominance in fielding Malay candidates. His resignation was “not unexpected” as he was supposedly open to a more aggressive advocacy, something contrary to WP’s centralist inclinations.
On the other side of the field, Fatimah Lateef from Marine Parade GRC was depicted as one who could not connect with the temple elders in her ward. SM GOh Chok Tong felt that the Straits Times’ report on the new MPs and their weaknesses tarnished Fatimah’s image as an effective MP and he “disliked the inaccuracy“.
With Abdul gone from WP, the WP has to find a new poster boy to give the party a multi-racial image. Getting someone from the minority group is vital in a contest for any GRC. Parties like the WP already have a hard time in recruiting people as compared to the PAP and a Malay criterion in a candidate makes the recruitment all the more harder. The impact of Abdul’s resignation is not slight at all. The PAP’s problem is at a higher level. They always managed to recruit Malay professionals to stand for elections but now their issue to impress is whether these Malay professionals can rally the ground regardless if the constituents are non-Malay. The allegation that Fatimah could not engage temple elders is a politically dangerous doublewhammy. Fatimah could not only interact with the Chinese, she also could not connect with people from the temple. Goh Chok Tong and the PAP could not accept this insinuation.
WP will now double efforts to find a Malay Malay MP candidate. Similarly, PAP will now double efforts to make sure the new Malay and other minority MPs give the impression that they have good rapport with the constituents regardless of race, language religion.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25666.1
Improve the remuneration for local doctors instead of turning to foreign doctors
Improve the remuneration for local doctors instead of turning to foreign doctors
EDITORS’ NOTE: The writer is currently a General Practitioner in private practice. He wishes to remain anonymous.
I refer to the report on 30 March 2009 - “1,000 foreign-trained docs still not enough” (read article here). Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan revealed that the public healthcare sector needs to recruit a thousand more foreign doctors to filled the gaps and a third medical school may be needed in the future.
I beg to differ with Mr Khaw’s observation that there are insufficient doctors in Singapore. There are 250 graduates from NUS medical school every year. Less than half the number of doctors retire or close down their practices in the same period of time.
The shortage of doctors lies in the public sector especially in primary healthcare and less popular specialties like Geriatrics, Internal Medicine and Palliative Care.
Over half of our polyclinics are now staffed by foreign doctors who have communication problems with elderly patients. Very few local doctors wish to further their careers in the polyclinics and left for the private sector upon the completion of their bonds. Why is this so?
The monthly salary of a final year medical officer at a polyclinic is only S$5,000 plus compared to S$8,000 to S$9,000 in the private sector with less than half the workload. Even a part-time locum working only three days a week can chalk up the same amount.
An internal medicine trainee needs to spend a few years toiling in the public hospitals, but end up with a salary less than fellow GP colleagues outside. The attrition rate for internal medicine is probably one of the highest amongst all specialities. Many of my friends who were internal medicine trainees give up halfway due to work-related or family reasons and some already passed their MRCP examinations.
Though medicine is a holistic profession and financial renumeration should not be an overriding factor in determining the career paths of doctors, more can be done to ensure that local doctors are adequately rewarded for their contributions to public healthcare.
MOH has always argued against that an increase in salaries of healthcare workers will lead to higher healthcare costs for Singaporeans. We spent only 4% of our GDP on healthcare which is far less than most developed countries.
The government can well afford to spend more of our GDP on healthcare to improve working conditions of local doctors and nurses so as to keep more of them in the workforce. Why do we have so few local nurses in public hospitals? The starting pay for a staff nurse is only S$1,500 compared to about A$4,000 in Australia.
Though it is cheaper to employ foreign doctors, they are merely stop-gap measures which do not address the root cause of the problem.
With an aging population, we need more family physicians, geriatricians and palliative care specialists in the healthcare system to add more years of healthy life to Singaporeans.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25598.1
EDITORS’ NOTE: The writer is currently a General Practitioner in private practice. He wishes to remain anonymous.
I refer to the report on 30 March 2009 - “1,000 foreign-trained docs still not enough” (read article here). Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan revealed that the public healthcare sector needs to recruit a thousand more foreign doctors to filled the gaps and a third medical school may be needed in the future.
I beg to differ with Mr Khaw’s observation that there are insufficient doctors in Singapore. There are 250 graduates from NUS medical school every year. Less than half the number of doctors retire or close down their practices in the same period of time.
The shortage of doctors lies in the public sector especially in primary healthcare and less popular specialties like Geriatrics, Internal Medicine and Palliative Care.
Over half of our polyclinics are now staffed by foreign doctors who have communication problems with elderly patients. Very few local doctors wish to further their careers in the polyclinics and left for the private sector upon the completion of their bonds. Why is this so?
The monthly salary of a final year medical officer at a polyclinic is only S$5,000 plus compared to S$8,000 to S$9,000 in the private sector with less than half the workload. Even a part-time locum working only three days a week can chalk up the same amount.
An internal medicine trainee needs to spend a few years toiling in the public hospitals, but end up with a salary less than fellow GP colleagues outside. The attrition rate for internal medicine is probably one of the highest amongst all specialities. Many of my friends who were internal medicine trainees give up halfway due to work-related or family reasons and some already passed their MRCP examinations.
Though medicine is a holistic profession and financial renumeration should not be an overriding factor in determining the career paths of doctors, more can be done to ensure that local doctors are adequately rewarded for their contributions to public healthcare.
MOH has always argued against that an increase in salaries of healthcare workers will lead to higher healthcare costs for Singaporeans. We spent only 4% of our GDP on healthcare which is far less than most developed countries.
The government can well afford to spend more of our GDP on healthcare to improve working conditions of local doctors and nurses so as to keep more of them in the workforce. Why do we have so few local nurses in public hospitals? The starting pay for a staff nurse is only S$1,500 compared to about A$4,000 in Australia.
Though it is cheaper to employ foreign doctors, they are merely stop-gap measures which do not address the root cause of the problem.
With an aging population, we need more family physicians, geriatricians and palliative care specialists in the healthcare system to add more years of healthy life to Singaporeans.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25598.1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)