Dendrobium Thein Sein? Give me a break!
On 18 Mar 2009, it was reported in the Straits Times that Myanmar Prime Minister, General Thein Sein, came to Singapore for a 2-day official visit.
Engaging the military junta of Myanmar has proven to be a tough act for Asean since Aung San Suu Kyi was placed under house arrest in 1989. Naming an orchid after a member of this ruthless regime is even a harder act to fathom.
Flowers are powerful symbols of love, peace, remembrance and appreciation; almost everything the junta is not associated with!
The military rulers of Myanmar refused to give up power peacefully in the 1990 General Election, led a bloody crackdown on unarmed monks in 2007, and delayed aids to survivors of last year's deadly Cyclone Nargis.
Engaging a despotic regime in a talk is good enough but to go the length and 'appease' such mean and heartless leaders is just too much for me to swallow. Can anyone imagine a flower named after leaders like Hilter? For that, the Botanic Garden scores a perfect 10 on 'dumb things to name an orchid after'.
And to the civil servant who suggested this act to honour the General, please google the web for news on Aung San Suu kyi, Myanmar monks, and victims of Cyclone Nargis. Then take a look in the mirror and tell yourself you have done the right thing. Can you do that with a straight face?
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25315.1
Friday, March 27, 2009
Tibet as 'Hell on Earth'
Tibet as 'Hell on Earth'
by Elliot Sperling
Posted March 27, 2009
The month of March has turned into a field of contention in a struggle for the ownership of Tibet’s historical memory. Tibetans claim March 10, the day the 1959 Tibetan uprising erupted in Lhasa, as a national day, and this year China has been forced to take drastic measures to contain any hint of it. At the same time, China has staked out a new holiday in order to commemorate the suppression of that same uprising: March 28 is henceforth to be “Serfs Emancipation Day.” There is nothing subtle about all this—China is quite determined to dominate the Tibetan historical view, whether or not coercion or even force is necessary.
On one level, the new holiday symbolizes the return of 1959 and the Tibetan uprising. In 1981, when discussions between the Dalai Lama’s representatives and the Chinese government were only beginning, no less a figure than Communist Party General Secretary Hu Yaobang asserted to the Dalai Lama’s brother, Gyalo Thondup, that “There should be no more quibbling about past history, namely the events of 1959. Let us disregard and forget this.” Subsequently, China did take 1959 off the table in talks with the Dalai Lama’s representatives. But now, in the clearest indication yet that those talks are at a dead-end—the last round, in November, ended humiliatingly for the Tibetans—China has brought 1959 back into play on its terms. Hence the renewed emphasis on marking 1959 as the year of liberation for Tibet’s brutally oppressed serfs.
There’s no doubt that Tibet’s traditional society was hierarchical and backwards, replete with aristocratic estates and a bound peasantry. And there’s no doubt that Tibetans, whether in exile or in Tibet voice no desire to restore such a society. Many Tibetans will readily admit that the social structure was highly inegalitarian. But it was hardly the cartoonish, cruel “Hell-on-Earth” that Chinese propaganda has portrayed it to be. Lost in most discussions is an understanding that Tibet’s demographic circumstances (a small population in a relatively large land area) served to mitigate the extent of exploitation. The situation was quite the reverse of China’s in the early 20th century, where far too little land for the large population allowed for severe exploitation by landowners. China’s categorization of Tibetan society as feudal (technically, a problematic characterization) obscures the fact that this socially backwards society, lacking the population pressures found elsewhere, simply didn’t break down as it ought to have and continued functioning smoothly into the 20th century. Inegalitarian? Yes. Sometimes harsh? Yes. But Hell-on-Earth for the vast majority of Tibetans? No. Traditional Tibetan society was not without its cruelties (the punishments visited on some political victims were indeed brutal), but seen proportionally, they paled in comparison to what transpired in China in the same period. In modern times mass flight from Tibet actually only happened after Tibet’s annexation to the People’s Republic of China.
Tellingly, China often illustrates its Hell-on-Earth thesis with photographs and anecdotes derived from rather biased British imperial accounts of Tibet. That one might use such materials to create a similar narrative of decadent Chinese barbarism is no small irony; and such assertions can indeed be found in literature from the age of imperialism. A further irony is that for Tibetans today there is probably no period that registers in the historical memory as cruelly and as savagely as the one that started with democratic reforms in the 1950s (outside the present TAR) and continued through the depths of the Cultural Revolution. When the Dalai Lama’s first representatives returned to tour Tibet in 1979 cadres in Lhasa, believing their own propaganda, lectured the city’s residents about not venting anger at the visiting representatives of the cruel feudal past. What actually transpired was caught on film by the delegation and is still striking to watch: thousands of Tibetans descended on them in the center of Lhasa, recounting amidst tears how awful their lives had become in the intervening 20 years. These scenes stunned China’s leadership and for some, at least, made clear the depths to which Tibetan society had sunk since the era of “Feudal Serfdom.”
It’s hardly likely that most Tibetans, after all these decades, are ready to buy into the government-enforced description of their past; such ham-handed actions may well make many view the past as far rosier than it actually was. It is also unlikely to win over large foreign audiences beyond those who already are, or would like to be, convinced. Most likely, it will simply reinforce a Chinese sense of a mission civilatrice in Tibet. The colonial thinking and arrogance inherent in such missions when entertained by European powers in the past is obvious. And it is precisely the kind of attitude that will likely exacerbate friction in Tibet and—justifiably—lead Tibetans to view China’s presence in their land as of a sort with the colonialism of other nations.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26732.1
by Elliot Sperling
Posted March 27, 2009
The month of March has turned into a field of contention in a struggle for the ownership of Tibet’s historical memory. Tibetans claim March 10, the day the 1959 Tibetan uprising erupted in Lhasa, as a national day, and this year China has been forced to take drastic measures to contain any hint of it. At the same time, China has staked out a new holiday in order to commemorate the suppression of that same uprising: March 28 is henceforth to be “Serfs Emancipation Day.” There is nothing subtle about all this—China is quite determined to dominate the Tibetan historical view, whether or not coercion or even force is necessary.
On one level, the new holiday symbolizes the return of 1959 and the Tibetan uprising. In 1981, when discussions between the Dalai Lama’s representatives and the Chinese government were only beginning, no less a figure than Communist Party General Secretary Hu Yaobang asserted to the Dalai Lama’s brother, Gyalo Thondup, that “There should be no more quibbling about past history, namely the events of 1959. Let us disregard and forget this.” Subsequently, China did take 1959 off the table in talks with the Dalai Lama’s representatives. But now, in the clearest indication yet that those talks are at a dead-end—the last round, in November, ended humiliatingly for the Tibetans—China has brought 1959 back into play on its terms. Hence the renewed emphasis on marking 1959 as the year of liberation for Tibet’s brutally oppressed serfs.
There’s no doubt that Tibet’s traditional society was hierarchical and backwards, replete with aristocratic estates and a bound peasantry. And there’s no doubt that Tibetans, whether in exile or in Tibet voice no desire to restore such a society. Many Tibetans will readily admit that the social structure was highly inegalitarian. But it was hardly the cartoonish, cruel “Hell-on-Earth” that Chinese propaganda has portrayed it to be. Lost in most discussions is an understanding that Tibet’s demographic circumstances (a small population in a relatively large land area) served to mitigate the extent of exploitation. The situation was quite the reverse of China’s in the early 20th century, where far too little land for the large population allowed for severe exploitation by landowners. China’s categorization of Tibetan society as feudal (technically, a problematic characterization) obscures the fact that this socially backwards society, lacking the population pressures found elsewhere, simply didn’t break down as it ought to have and continued functioning smoothly into the 20th century. Inegalitarian? Yes. Sometimes harsh? Yes. But Hell-on-Earth for the vast majority of Tibetans? No. Traditional Tibetan society was not without its cruelties (the punishments visited on some political victims were indeed brutal), but seen proportionally, they paled in comparison to what transpired in China in the same period. In modern times mass flight from Tibet actually only happened after Tibet’s annexation to the People’s Republic of China.
Tellingly, China often illustrates its Hell-on-Earth thesis with photographs and anecdotes derived from rather biased British imperial accounts of Tibet. That one might use such materials to create a similar narrative of decadent Chinese barbarism is no small irony; and such assertions can indeed be found in literature from the age of imperialism. A further irony is that for Tibetans today there is probably no period that registers in the historical memory as cruelly and as savagely as the one that started with democratic reforms in the 1950s (outside the present TAR) and continued through the depths of the Cultural Revolution. When the Dalai Lama’s first representatives returned to tour Tibet in 1979 cadres in Lhasa, believing their own propaganda, lectured the city’s residents about not venting anger at the visiting representatives of the cruel feudal past. What actually transpired was caught on film by the delegation and is still striking to watch: thousands of Tibetans descended on them in the center of Lhasa, recounting amidst tears how awful their lives had become in the intervening 20 years. These scenes stunned China’s leadership and for some, at least, made clear the depths to which Tibetan society had sunk since the era of “Feudal Serfdom.”
It’s hardly likely that most Tibetans, after all these decades, are ready to buy into the government-enforced description of their past; such ham-handed actions may well make many view the past as far rosier than it actually was. It is also unlikely to win over large foreign audiences beyond those who already are, or would like to be, convinced. Most likely, it will simply reinforce a Chinese sense of a mission civilatrice in Tibet. The colonial thinking and arrogance inherent in such missions when entertained by European powers in the past is obvious. And it is precisely the kind of attitude that will likely exacerbate friction in Tibet and—justifiably—lead Tibetans to view China’s presence in their land as of a sort with the colonialism of other nations.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26732.1
PM Lee pays tribute to Dr Lee Boon Yang
PM Lee pays tribute to Dr Lee Boon Yang
By Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 27 March 2009 1737 hrs
 | ||||||
 Dr Lee Boon Yang (file pic) | ||||||
SINGAPORE: Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on Friday paid tribute to Dr Lee Boon Yang, who will relinquish his position as Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts and retire from the government with effect from April 1.
In a three-page letter addressed to Dr Lee, the Prime Minister thanked him for his 24 years of service and contributions to the government and the nation.
PM Lee said Dr Lee has had a "challenging and distinguished career", having taken on various positions in the government. "In all these appointments, you applied yourself, mastered your responsibilities, and brought your experience, judgement and practical sense to bear.
"Your ministries were not only competently run, but broke new ground dealing with fresh problems and emerging opportunities. More broadly, the Cabinet has benefited from your steady and sound counsel.
"I would like to record my gratitude for all that you have done in your varied responsibilities in government. Singapore depends on men like you with integrity and ability, who commit themselves to serve the country and their fellow citizens.
"You can be justly proud that your efforts have helped create the Singapore that we all live in and enjoy today."
Dr Lee began his career as a veterinary surgeon and took his first step into politics when he was elected Member of Parliament (MP) for Jalan Besar constituency.
Subsequently, Dr Lee served in various ministries, including the Ministries of Environment, Communications and Information, Finance and Home Affairs. He also served as Minister in the Prime Minister's Office in 1991, before taking on the post of Minister for Labour in 1992 (redesignated Minister for Manpower in 1998).
In Dr Lee’s 11 years as Manpower Minister, the Prime Minister said Dr Lee ably led the ministry to respond to the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997, as well as the post 9-11 recession in 2001.
In particular, the CPF contribution rates cut he implemented in 1999 was critical to Singapore's recovery from the Asian economic crisis.
PM Lee said Dr Lee worked closely with employers and unions to maintain and strengthen the tripartite relationship through those difficult times, and this close partnership has remained a unique pillar of Singapore's socio-economic stability and an enduring source of the country's competitiveness.
Dr Lee became the Defence Minister in 1994, while concurrently holding the post of the Labour Minister. While helming the Defence Ministry, Dr Lee helped build up Singapore's defence science capabilities by encouraging the Singapore Armed Forces to exploit technology. He also initiated research and development tie-ups with foreign defence science institutes.
Dr Lee was appointed the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts in 2003, where he significantly promoted the growth of the country's telecommunications industry and supported the provision of a nation-wide Wireless Network.
He also oversaw the liberalisation of Singapore's media industry, as well as the relaxation of rules on Party Political Films to allow wider political participation and expression.
PM Lee also thanked Dr Lee for having "significantly enhanced the vibrancy of (Singapore's) arts and cultural scene".
Under Dr Lee's six-year watch, the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts (MICA) launched many initiatives, including the Peranakan Museum, the 8Q SAM contemporary art gallery, the Singapore Biennale, the School of the Arts, and the Heritage Industry Incentive Programme.
Commenting on his retirement, Dr Lee thanked PM Lee for allowing him to retire at this juncture and said it is necessary and timely to make way for a younger leader to take the helm at the Ministry.
He said the new Cabinet appointments will forge a stronger team to lead Singapore.
He also said he is gratified by the growing vibrancy in the arts and heritage sectors, and the implementation of the next generation national broadband network for ultra high speed broadband services, which is a major investment with powerful catalytic impact on the economy and society.
Recalling difficult moments of his time in the government, Dr Lee said raising the retirement age from 55 to 62 when he was Manpower Minister was tough as it involved tweaking contribution to the Central Provident Fund (CPF).
Dr Lee, who has just become a grandfather, said he looks forward to spending more time with his family after his retirement, but will continue to serve as MP for Jalan Besar GRC.
Dr Lee will be succeeded by Rear-Admiral (NS) Lui Tuck Yew, who is currently the Senior Minister of State for MICA.
- CNA/yb
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25301.1
Singapore among nations on tax havens “blacklist”?
Singapore among nations on tax havens “blacklist”? No such list, says OECD
Friday, 27 March 2009
Darren Boon
In response to a media enquiry from The Online Citizen, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has dispelled talk of a blacklist of non-cooperative tax centres. There had been speculation that Singapore was among one of the countries on the list.
Mr Nicolas Bray, Head of Media and Public Affairs & Communications of the OECD, told The Online Citizen: “There is no new ‘OECD list’ of tax havens and we are not quoting any specific number of tax havens.”
In the OECD’s “2007 Offshore Tax Evasion: The Role of Exchange of Information” report, it warned of the directing of tax evasion from one country to that of an offshore centre such as Singapore.
The report had stated that Singapore has “used the fact that it is not on the OECD list of tax havens and has restrictive exchange of information provisions in its tax treaties to market itself as the ultimate secrecy jurisdiction”.
It cautioned that such secrecy jurisdictions may facilitate tax evasion by other countries’ residents.
A list of uncooperative tax havens does exist although it dates back to 2005. There are currently three countries on the list – Andorra, Liechtenstein and Monaco.
Mr Bray clarified that the list media reports had referred to was actually an information table that provides information on jurisdictions that currently do not conform to the internationally agreed standards of transparency and information.
Mr Bray also stated that other jurisdictions are also on the table in addition to Andorra, Liechtenstein and Monaco although he added that while some jurisdictions have signalled their intention to change, some had not made any formal announcement.
He did not, however, dispel the future possibility of a “blacklist”. “The information that was provided by the OECD to the G-20 and the various announcements that have been made will be taken into account,” Mr Bray explained. He was referring to countries and jurisdictions that currently do not make available banking information for tax purposes. This contravenes international standards established between the OECD and other countries, and approved by G-20 finance ministers and a relevant UN committee. “The G-20 governments will decide what they wish to do regarding any possible lists,” Mr Bray said.
“The information that I refer to is a snapshot of the present – where intentions have not yet been transformed into reality,” My Bray added.
The G-20, made up of a group of major industrialised countries, will examine a proposal to blacklist certain countries at a summit meeting in London on April 2.
Meanwhile, the OECD has welcomed Singapore’s moves to endorse the OECD’s standard of exchange of information by dismantling domestic hurdles to information exchange.
The Online Citizen is currently awaiting a response from the Ministry of Finance on this matter.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25189.1
Friday, 27 March 2009
Darren Boon
In response to a media enquiry from The Online Citizen, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has dispelled talk of a blacklist of non-cooperative tax centres. There had been speculation that Singapore was among one of the countries on the list.
Mr Nicolas Bray, Head of Media and Public Affairs & Communications of the OECD, told The Online Citizen: “There is no new ‘OECD list’ of tax havens and we are not quoting any specific number of tax havens.”
In the OECD’s “2007 Offshore Tax Evasion: The Role of Exchange of Information” report, it warned of the directing of tax evasion from one country to that of an offshore centre such as Singapore.
The report had stated that Singapore has “used the fact that it is not on the OECD list of tax havens and has restrictive exchange of information provisions in its tax treaties to market itself as the ultimate secrecy jurisdiction”.
It cautioned that such secrecy jurisdictions may facilitate tax evasion by other countries’ residents.
A list of uncooperative tax havens does exist although it dates back to 2005. There are currently three countries on the list – Andorra, Liechtenstein and Monaco.
Mr Bray clarified that the list media reports had referred to was actually an information table that provides information on jurisdictions that currently do not conform to the internationally agreed standards of transparency and information.
Mr Bray also stated that other jurisdictions are also on the table in addition to Andorra, Liechtenstein and Monaco although he added that while some jurisdictions have signalled their intention to change, some had not made any formal announcement.
He did not, however, dispel the future possibility of a “blacklist”. “The information that was provided by the OECD to the G-20 and the various announcements that have been made will be taken into account,” Mr Bray explained. He was referring to countries and jurisdictions that currently do not make available banking information for tax purposes. This contravenes international standards established between the OECD and other countries, and approved by G-20 finance ministers and a relevant UN committee. “The G-20 governments will decide what they wish to do regarding any possible lists,” Mr Bray said.
“The information that I refer to is a snapshot of the present – where intentions have not yet been transformed into reality,” My Bray added.
The G-20, made up of a group of major industrialised countries, will examine a proposal to blacklist certain countries at a summit meeting in London on April 2.
Meanwhile, the OECD has welcomed Singapore’s moves to endorse the OECD’s standard of exchange of information by dismantling domestic hurdles to information exchange.
The Online Citizen is currently awaiting a response from the Ministry of Finance on this matter.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25189.1
Beyond dialects and languages
Beyond dialects and languages
Friday, 27 March 2009
Kelvin Teo
So the dust has now settled over Minister Mentor Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s provocative call to chinese Singaporeans to focus on learning mandarin instead of their dialects. From a personal perspective, I didn’t find Mr Lee’s call surprising, given the fact that he has always championed Singapore’s role as the gateway to China. There have been exhaustive discussions on the domestic cultural impact of Mr Lee’s remark but little attention is paid to the political economy beyond the dialects and languages.
Geopolitical shift towards East Asia
As the fallout from the current global credit crisis continues, there has been some talk of America losing its superpower status as it reels from a double whammy - the collapse of its financial system and the overstretching of its military in Iraq and Afghanistan. And naysayers have further rubbed salt into the wound by predicting that the US dollar will lose its world currency status. The writing is already on the wall when OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) countries started dumping the dollars. Iran transacts in Euros with Venezuela following suit. And after the dollars hit its lowest against the yen, the likelihood of the former being knocked off its pedestal seems closer to reality.
There could be a shift in the balance of world power, a transition from one dominant entity to a few powerful entities. The BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) nations seem the likely candidates. China is poised to overtake America in terms of GDP by 2040. For ASEAN nations, trading volume with China is set to rise with the establishment of the ASEAN-China Free Trade Area by 2010. The value of ASEAN-China trade was forecasted to hit $200 billion in 2008.
The Kra Canal Project, which is the planned waterway link between the Indian ocean and the South China sea and cutting across the Isthmus of Kra is in its revival stage. The Chinese will be providing assistance for the project, and it is a move to increase Chinese commercial and military presence within Southeast Asia, particularly in facilitating trade and enhance Chinese energy security. So the geopolitics shift and anticipation of increased trade links with China within the region might make learning mandarin an attractive postposition, no? Perhaps, there is use for learning mandarin after all. However, wouldn’t it seem a little premature to place the learning of our dialects into the backburner?
Mandarin alone offers no comparative advantage
Cantonese speakers amongst us might have a strong case for argument here. Cantonese makes up 15% of the Singaporean chinese population. Cantonese is spoken as a medium of communication in Guangzhou, a major business centre in China. And it will come in useful when interacting with business people from Hong Kong too. However, it is a fallacy to think that being chinese and able to speak mandarin would eventually lead to a comparative advantage. The failure of the Suzhou Industrial Park (SIP) serves as an important reminder to all of us.
SIP was initially conceived to the epitome of Singapore-style Industrial Township - a showcase of Singapore’s way of managing an industrial set-up. That wasn’t to be, and Singapore transferred a major part of SIP’s ownership back to the Chinese. What happened was that SIP was outgunned and outfoxed by the Suzhou New District, despite the former enjoying advantages ranging from initial political support from the Chinese Communist Party to freedom over planning and land use. The experiment to clone Singapore in China failed. Thus, what the SIP failure has taught us is that common language is no substitute for the appreciation of local political, social and economic culture. While learning the language or dialect involved in trade communications is important, but the key to survival is to be able to adapt to the prevailing business conditions.
Keeping Singaporeans at home
Last but not least, the very notion of home is increasingly diluted in Singapore. The Asia Research Centre of Murdoch University reported in December 2007 that 53% of Singaporean teens would consider emigration to greener pastures. Singapore’s outflow of 26.11 emigrants per 1000 citizens is ranked 2nd highest in the world, after Timor Leste. Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng also publicly acknowledged that Singaporean applications for overseas residency have already exceeded 1000 per month since 2007.
While many have attributed the emigration trend to better economic opportunities abroad, there are other push factors in Singapore that contributed to it. The growing disconnect between Singaporeans and their social environment, the OB markers keeping Singaporeans from taking ownership of their own identity in Singapore are among the push factors. Dialects play an important role in not only building a strong sense of identity towards one’s community, but also encourage Singaporeans to take pride of our own cultural diversity. If we cannot be proud of our own cultures, why would we even hold allegiance to this country by staking our individual economic futures here?
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25188.1
Friday, 27 March 2009
Kelvin Teo
So the dust has now settled over Minister Mentor Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s provocative call to chinese Singaporeans to focus on learning mandarin instead of their dialects. From a personal perspective, I didn’t find Mr Lee’s call surprising, given the fact that he has always championed Singapore’s role as the gateway to China. There have been exhaustive discussions on the domestic cultural impact of Mr Lee’s remark but little attention is paid to the political economy beyond the dialects and languages.
Geopolitical shift towards East Asia
As the fallout from the current global credit crisis continues, there has been some talk of America losing its superpower status as it reels from a double whammy - the collapse of its financial system and the overstretching of its military in Iraq and Afghanistan. And naysayers have further rubbed salt into the wound by predicting that the US dollar will lose its world currency status. The writing is already on the wall when OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) countries started dumping the dollars. Iran transacts in Euros with Venezuela following suit. And after the dollars hit its lowest against the yen, the likelihood of the former being knocked off its pedestal seems closer to reality.
There could be a shift in the balance of world power, a transition from one dominant entity to a few powerful entities. The BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) nations seem the likely candidates. China is poised to overtake America in terms of GDP by 2040. For ASEAN nations, trading volume with China is set to rise with the establishment of the ASEAN-China Free Trade Area by 2010. The value of ASEAN-China trade was forecasted to hit $200 billion in 2008.
The Kra Canal Project, which is the planned waterway link between the Indian ocean and the South China sea and cutting across the Isthmus of Kra is in its revival stage. The Chinese will be providing assistance for the project, and it is a move to increase Chinese commercial and military presence within Southeast Asia, particularly in facilitating trade and enhance Chinese energy security. So the geopolitics shift and anticipation of increased trade links with China within the region might make learning mandarin an attractive postposition, no? Perhaps, there is use for learning mandarin after all. However, wouldn’t it seem a little premature to place the learning of our dialects into the backburner?
Mandarin alone offers no comparative advantage
Cantonese speakers amongst us might have a strong case for argument here. Cantonese makes up 15% of the Singaporean chinese population. Cantonese is spoken as a medium of communication in Guangzhou, a major business centre in China. And it will come in useful when interacting with business people from Hong Kong too. However, it is a fallacy to think that being chinese and able to speak mandarin would eventually lead to a comparative advantage. The failure of the Suzhou Industrial Park (SIP) serves as an important reminder to all of us.
SIP was initially conceived to the epitome of Singapore-style Industrial Township - a showcase of Singapore’s way of managing an industrial set-up. That wasn’t to be, and Singapore transferred a major part of SIP’s ownership back to the Chinese. What happened was that SIP was outgunned and outfoxed by the Suzhou New District, despite the former enjoying advantages ranging from initial political support from the Chinese Communist Party to freedom over planning and land use. The experiment to clone Singapore in China failed. Thus, what the SIP failure has taught us is that common language is no substitute for the appreciation of local political, social and economic culture. While learning the language or dialect involved in trade communications is important, but the key to survival is to be able to adapt to the prevailing business conditions.
Keeping Singaporeans at home
Last but not least, the very notion of home is increasingly diluted in Singapore. The Asia Research Centre of Murdoch University reported in December 2007 that 53% of Singaporean teens would consider emigration to greener pastures. Singapore’s outflow of 26.11 emigrants per 1000 citizens is ranked 2nd highest in the world, after Timor Leste. Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng also publicly acknowledged that Singaporean applications for overseas residency have already exceeded 1000 per month since 2007.
While many have attributed the emigration trend to better economic opportunities abroad, there are other push factors in Singapore that contributed to it. The growing disconnect between Singaporeans and their social environment, the OB markers keeping Singaporeans from taking ownership of their own identity in Singapore are among the push factors. Dialects play an important role in not only building a strong sense of identity towards one’s community, but also encourage Singaporeans to take pride of our own cultural diversity. If we cannot be proud of our own cultures, why would we even hold allegiance to this country by staking our individual economic futures here?
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25188.1
SM Goh’s misdirected attack on the press
SM Goh’s misdirected attack on the press
Friday, 27 March 2009
Choo Zheng Xi / Editor-in-Chief
In an article in Monday’s Straits Times entitled, “Report Card on Class of 2006”, journalist Li Xueying previewed the newest batch of PAP MPs. One particular quote regarding the grassroots work of Member of Parliament in Marine Parade GRC, Dr Fatimah Lateef, (right) has been given undue national prominence, by none other than Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong himself.
In her article, Xueying wrote about the observation of an anonymous People’s Action Party (PAP) cadre:
“At the grassroots level, though, a party cadre observes that she (Dr Fatimah) has had some trouble connecting with the Chinese temples in her ward over issues such as the granting of permits for the holding of events like gods’ birthday celebrations.
‘This could be to the detriment of her standing with residents who are Buddhists or Taoists,’ he says.”
In comments to Channelnewsasia (CNA) on 26 March, SM Goh said:
“I do not like the inaccuracy because it suggested that a minority community MP, a Malay MP, could not reach out to the Chinese temple people, (and) the hint that maybe, she, as a Muslim, did not want to reach out to these people. That is the implication.”
He further went on to criticize the fact that the quote was anonymous:
“He said when someone is quoted on such a statement, the name must be given, because while the person may be giving his or her impression on the matter, there was also the likelihood that it was a mischievous observation.” (From CNA report)
Bullying the press
Source confidentiality is not inaccuracy. It is one tool journalists use to obtain information that may be of public interest: otherwise, the source in question might not speak at all. An inaccuracy would mean that the source in question was misquoted, or quoted grossly out of context.
It is understandable that Xueying would grant the source confidentiality at this source’s request: a party cadre is no ordinary grassroots member of the PAP. Cadres hold the right to vote for the Party’s Central Executive Committee (CEC). Source confidentiality does not mean a complete lack of journalistic accountability: Xueying has to account for the source’s identity and the quote’s veracity to her editor, and can be ordered to reveal the source in the event of a court case.
SM Goh’s use of the word “inaccuracy” unjustifiably puts the journalist’s professional credibility in question.
Contrary to criticism, such journalism needs to be encouraged. It is seldom that the public is privy to such frank comments about the PAP, and it is all the more impressive if the quote is obtained from no less than a PAP cadre. Reporters should not be bullied into shying away from obtaining sensitive quotes like these, and forced to write rosy reports about the PAP.
Scratching an open wound
SM Goh’s ire would be more constructively directed at the backbiting occurring in his grassroots organizations. The mischief he is imputing to the comment is no fault of the reporter: it was a quote sourced from a party cadre in his grassroots organization.
If this whole fracas is blown out of proportion, SM Goh would be firmly responsible for the fallout. What might have been an honest assessment of Dr Fatimah’s shortcomings has been given sinister undertones by SM Goh in his attempt to bully the press.
These dark imputations will now come home to roost where they belong: in his grassroots organization, not on the press.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25187.1
Friday, 27 March 2009
Choo Zheng Xi / Editor-in-Chief
In an article in Monday’s Straits Times entitled, “Report Card on Class of 2006”, journalist Li Xueying previewed the newest batch of PAP MPs. One particular quote regarding the grassroots work of Member of Parliament in Marine Parade GRC, Dr Fatimah Lateef, (right) has been given undue national prominence, by none other than Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong himself.
In her article, Xueying wrote about the observation of an anonymous People’s Action Party (PAP) cadre:
“At the grassroots level, though, a party cadre observes that she (Dr Fatimah) has had some trouble connecting with the Chinese temples in her ward over issues such as the granting of permits for the holding of events like gods’ birthday celebrations.
‘This could be to the detriment of her standing with residents who are Buddhists or Taoists,’ he says.”
In comments to Channelnewsasia (CNA) on 26 March, SM Goh said:
“I do not like the inaccuracy because it suggested that a minority community MP, a Malay MP, could not reach out to the Chinese temple people, (and) the hint that maybe, she, as a Muslim, did not want to reach out to these people. That is the implication.”
He further went on to criticize the fact that the quote was anonymous:
“He said when someone is quoted on such a statement, the name must be given, because while the person may be giving his or her impression on the matter, there was also the likelihood that it was a mischievous observation.” (From CNA report)
Bullying the press
Source confidentiality is not inaccuracy. It is one tool journalists use to obtain information that may be of public interest: otherwise, the source in question might not speak at all. An inaccuracy would mean that the source in question was misquoted, or quoted grossly out of context.
It is understandable that Xueying would grant the source confidentiality at this source’s request: a party cadre is no ordinary grassroots member of the PAP. Cadres hold the right to vote for the Party’s Central Executive Committee (CEC). Source confidentiality does not mean a complete lack of journalistic accountability: Xueying has to account for the source’s identity and the quote’s veracity to her editor, and can be ordered to reveal the source in the event of a court case.
SM Goh’s use of the word “inaccuracy” unjustifiably puts the journalist’s professional credibility in question.
Contrary to criticism, such journalism needs to be encouraged. It is seldom that the public is privy to such frank comments about the PAP, and it is all the more impressive if the quote is obtained from no less than a PAP cadre. Reporters should not be bullied into shying away from obtaining sensitive quotes like these, and forced to write rosy reports about the PAP.
Scratching an open wound
SM Goh’s ire would be more constructively directed at the backbiting occurring in his grassroots organizations. The mischief he is imputing to the comment is no fault of the reporter: it was a quote sourced from a party cadre in his grassroots organization.
If this whole fracas is blown out of proportion, SM Goh would be firmly responsible for the fallout. What might have been an honest assessment of Dr Fatimah’s shortcomings has been given sinister undertones by SM Goh in his attempt to bully the press.
These dark imputations will now come home to roost where they belong: in his grassroots organization, not on the press.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25187.1
The Ugly Race Card
The Ugly Race Card
Apparently Geylang Serai has more than 100 clan associations, temples and civic organisations. So when some of them could not get a permit for their holding of events like gods’ birthday celebrations, they sought assistance from their Member of Parliament (MP). Land-use permits are issued by the Housing Board or the land office, a standard rubber stamping procedure in red tape.
So when the MP, in this case Dr Fatimah Lateef, did not produce the requisite piece of paper, the requestor can only conclude 1)she’s bloody useless; 2)she couldn’t be bothered; 3)she was bullshitting when she promised to “do her best to help.” After all, if the whole police force was mobilised over a phone call for fellow MP Denise Phua, including the assignment of personal protective escort, this permit request should have been a piece of cake. And if Fatimah did run into a roadblock with the HDB bureaucracy, she could have explained it better to the folks in her ward, and blame it on their (HDB/land office’s) complacency. But she obviously failed to do so, ergo, her “trouble connecting with management members of Chinese temples.”
Quixotically, like his wife’s red herring use of the word “peanuts”, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong is now waving the volatile racist card, an explosive exercise in multi-racial Singapore. For reasons best known to the man, Goh said:”..it suggested that a minority community MP, a Malay, could not reach out to the Chinese temple, peoples, (and) the hint that maybe she, as a Muslim, did not want to reach out…” Whoa, that’s two ethnic references in one sentence, enough already! When an MP can’t handle the clerical staff at HDB or the land office, that klutz deserves to be owned, regardless of race, language or religion.
But that’s not all. Goh is determined to go after the whistle blower of a PAP cadre, allegedly the source of leak about Fatimah’s troubles with her ward. Is the man acting out of insecurity, now that Prof S Jayakumar is also named Senior Minister? No wonder Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew once suggested he should go see a shrink.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25186.1
Apparently Geylang Serai has more than 100 clan associations, temples and civic organisations. So when some of them could not get a permit for their holding of events like gods’ birthday celebrations, they sought assistance from their Member of Parliament (MP). Land-use permits are issued by the Housing Board or the land office, a standard rubber stamping procedure in red tape.
So when the MP, in this case Dr Fatimah Lateef, did not produce the requisite piece of paper, the requestor can only conclude 1)she’s bloody useless; 2)she couldn’t be bothered; 3)she was bullshitting when she promised to “do her best to help.” After all, if the whole police force was mobilised over a phone call for fellow MP Denise Phua, including the assignment of personal protective escort, this permit request should have been a piece of cake. And if Fatimah did run into a roadblock with the HDB bureaucracy, she could have explained it better to the folks in her ward, and blame it on their (HDB/land office’s) complacency. But she obviously failed to do so, ergo, her “trouble connecting with management members of Chinese temples.”
Quixotically, like his wife’s red herring use of the word “peanuts”, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong is now waving the volatile racist card, an explosive exercise in multi-racial Singapore. For reasons best known to the man, Goh said:”..it suggested that a minority community MP, a Malay, could not reach out to the Chinese temple, peoples, (and) the hint that maybe she, as a Muslim, did not want to reach out…” Whoa, that’s two ethnic references in one sentence, enough already! When an MP can’t handle the clerical staff at HDB or the land office, that klutz deserves to be owned, regardless of race, language or religion.
But that’s not all. Goh is determined to go after the whistle blower of a PAP cadre, allegedly the source of leak about Fatimah’s troubles with her ward. Is the man acting out of insecurity, now that Prof S Jayakumar is also named Senior Minister? No wonder Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew once suggested he should go see a shrink.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25186.1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)