Regarding Jackson Diehl’s June 24 op-ed column, “An F in academic freedom”:

Mr. Diehl’s labeling of Singapore as an “autocracy” is supercilious. There are different forms of democracy all over the world, shaped by each nation’s history, traditions and ethnic and religious mixes. Since its independence, Singapore has had regular, free and fair general elections with high turnout rates. Ultimately, it is the very essence of democracy for the citizens of each country, and their elected governments, to determine where to strike the balance between social harmony and the preservation of individual rights.

There were many comments made in response to my letter (“Shouldn’t top doctors charge top dollar?”; last Thursday).

I had merely pointed out the difficult questions surrounding a fee guideline for doctors. I have never favoured a free-market system in medicine because in matters of sickness or threat of death, the patient can hardly be considered a truly free and independent buyer.

The reliance on market forces to control demand for medical services will cause disadvantaged groups such as the elderly, disabled people and the poor to be deprived of health care.

As far back as 1982, I wrote to say that “if society wants good, caring and ethical doctors, medical care must not become a product for sale. To regard medical care as a saleable commodity is to invite escalation of the cost of health care and the promotion of illness rather than health” (“A good doctor does not advertise”; June 22, 1982).

As long as we look on health care as an industry, we will have problems controlling the cost because the demand is insatiable and the market very imperfect. Moreover, once health care becomes a commodity, it must be mined, bought and sold.

Cold market policies will fill society with hungry and greedy people trying to plunder what they can. In the end, we will have people tearing away at society without thought of protecting it.

In the mid-1990s, the Government noted that after many years of growth and prosperity, the values of Singapore had changed.

It was afraid that highly educated workers were becoming scarce and their incomes were rising sharply in many countries. If we kept executive incomes low, Singapore would lose talent. Thus the need to pay top money for top talent.

Together with the aim of turning Singapore into a medical hub and medicine into an industry, we have a prescription for the commercialisation of medical care.

Thus, it is no surprise to see our society becoming selfish, greedy and materialistic.

Wealth becomes a way to gain respect, even in the medical profession.

To me, only a national health-care plan, and not a free market or fee guideline, can make health care universal, affordable and sustainable for Singaporeans.

Dr Wong Wee Nam

* Dr Wong Wee Nam (MBBS 1972, Singapore) is a general practitioner. He has contributed numerous articles on social and political issues for various publications and has given numerous talks on politics. In 1997, he contested the general election on a National Solidarity Party ticket in the Hong Kah GRC. The letter first appeared in ST Forum (9 Jul).

High public debts mean the government borrows and owes people’s money, in particular CPF members. The government says we do not have net debt and our assets are well in excess of liabilities.
http://www.gov.sg/government/web/content/govsg/classic/factually/Factual...

Then, why should we worry? Investment risks and returns have to be considered. This is the same things and same warning that we receive for high private debts. MAS and ministers are warning Singaporeans about the danger of property crash and the possible higher interest rate.

The government says we should not worry about internal debts as Singapore does not borrow money in the international markets, like other countries. Is this true? Foreign debts are more critical than internal (domestic) debts. This is like saying you borrow money from your parents, brothers, sisters, uncles or aunties and you have no worry. These relatives will not chase you for money. This must be a wonderfully world! Or perhaps, you have a sugar daddy!

So, according to MAS, we should not worry so much about the internal debts as outsiders will not chase us for money like the loan sharks. Is the government saying CPF members will not chase and cannot chase them for money? CPF members are sugar daddies too!

There is always a debate how big is our reserve and its actual values. It is so complicated that it would need 50 man-years to calculate. This was first known in the 1990s. By now, with Asian financial crisis, world financial crisis and increasing complexity and sophistication of world financial markets, it may now need 100 years to produce the reserve figure.

Internal debts have no risk?

Just look at this classic case, the government issues S$ bonds and CPF Board buys the S$ bond. CPF Board needs to pay interest 2.5% or 4% per year to members. The government takes away the CPF money and asks Temasek and GIC to invest. Of course, they have to invest all over the world to make higher returns so that CPF board is able to pay back the principals and interests to members.

The problem is there are risks involved be it investment risks for bad decisions or foreign exchange risks. Another risk is putting more money into the reserve and the investment may not necessary yield more positive returns.

The recent announced Temasek Review shows an increasing shareholder equity but with a stagnant net profits to equity holders. Who are the equity holders, the government and behind the government the people of Singapore. In the past 10 years, we are putting more money as equity in Temasek but we see stagnant return of profits.

Temasek Holdings has increasing shareholder equity and stagnant net profits.

.

You can present the above (same) statistics in the following way:

Upward movement of shareholder equity and a side-way movement of profit

The blue line shows the shareholder equity and the red line shows the profit for equity holder from 2004 to 2103. If this trend continues, whatever amount of equity the government injects into Temasek Holdings, the profit will be a side-way straight line hovering around S$11 billion plus or minus .

As a main source of internal debts and government borrowings, CPF members will have to worry whether they can continue to play the sugar daddies. Just like the private debts, the banks will check on you. Why are you borrowing more money and still paying the same installment amount? Needless to say, all your relatives are getting worry, worry about the internal and domestic debts.

Of course, banks will do the opposite – cut your borrowings and ask for early payments. Banks are not sugar daddies. Then you tell the banks my business portfolio is getting bigger and bigger, like what Temasek said from S$ 354 million in 1974 to S$215 billion in 2013. Then the banks comments that you are using my money to balloon your portfolio of which there are even bigger, higher and more complicated risks. You may have a lot of inventory, a lot of account receivables, and a lot of doubtful debts……..The banks finally say they are unable to assess the assets values and the risks involved.

Even professionals like banks have difficulties in assessing the risks and the values, how about relatives who give private loans to the family borrowers. This is the situation of the CPF members. Many CPF members do not have financial knowledge, not to mention the sophisticated modern and advanced international finance.

CPF members are forced to be sugar daddies by law. And there is only one hope that the government is doing the right thing. Same thing for our reserve, Singaporeans have to trust the government to do the right thing.

Right politics

Right thing means right politics.

The right politics unfortunately is to make people trust the institutions handling CPF monies and the reserve. Right politics and right economics are how to convince people and gain public confidence in the administration of public money – CPF and reserve.

However, to the PAP, right politics is to continue giving more equity to them to invest without questions, just like the sugar daddies.

Unfortunately, majority of Singaporeans are not rich enough to be sugar daddies. The reality of right politics to them is to have an open, transparent, fair and equal disclosure of public finance. This is the basic principle of right politics.

If citizens do not trust you anymore, then the answer is simple – wrong politics.

So, who is at the right side of the right politics – the PAP government or the people?

Piji Tailai

*The writer blogs at http://pijitailai.blogspot.ca/

Vivian Balakrishnan says politics is a contest for power. Where did he get that idea? 

For him to define politics as such shows up the fundamental belief and principal of the PAP as a party whose fundamental raison d'etre is the aggrandizement of power over the people.

This is in contrast to democratic politics which is predicated on the return of power to the people and a check on the ever present potential of tyranny by the ruling class.

At the level of the polity, politics is as its Greek root implies, "for, of or relating to the people". It is about the how of organizing a community of people - an issue discussed extensively by Aristotle. 

What Vivian Balakrishnan was probably referring to could be international politics, more specifically the realist (Hobbesian) or neo-realist (Kenneth Waltz) views. Both versions see international politics as essentially a contest for power where States are discrete persons striving for supremacy over each other. 

But such a view is premised on the fact that State actors have no interpersonal relationships and treats each other with enmity with self-preservation as the sacrosanct objective.

So is this what Vivian Balakrishnan is thinking? That the Government, the people and the non-ruling political parties are inherently in distrust of and in a perennial contest for power with each other

Furthermore where politics is seen as a contest for power, there can arguably be no "clean" politics unlike what Vivian claims, because it will engender money and pork barrel politics as power takes precedence over people's welfare.

So we come back to the question on why Vivian defined politics as the contest for power:

1. Was he regurgitating from a poor script written by his inexperienced underling?

Or

2. Is it a case of him lacking an adequate understanding of politics?

Or perhaps...

3. Maybe he really believes that politics is essentially a contest for power which is consistent with the PAP's modus operandus and historical record...

The Alternative View

[Source: www.fb.com/photo.php?fbid=546545105406826&set=a.360220640705941.85354.35...

Jose Raymond | Executive Director, Singapore Environment Council

The Singapore Environment Council (SEC) shares Ms Rachel Wong’s concern, in “Tougher measures needed to curtail use of plastic bags” (July 8), about the long-term sustainability of plastic bag use.

We agree that it is important to eliminate the wasteful use and improper disposal of plastic bags here. A few retailers, such as IKEA and some eco-stores, have implemented such strategies and have seen a significant drop in the number of plastic bags given to consumers each year.

While charging for plastic bags, which is a practice in many countries and legislated by law, may reduce the overall use of plastic bags in Singapore, we also recognise the need for a solution that is environmentally sustainable, economically viable, culturally appropriate and socially inclusive.

A blanket nationwide strategy such as implementing a charge for plastic bags may impose an additional burden on the household budgets of low-income groups, or ignore the fact that most households legitimately require a certain number of plastic bags for the hygienic disposal of garbage.

Additionally, placing a levy on plastic bags may not take into account wider issues, such as a pervasive culture of consumerism, the convenience barrier to changing behavioural practices and the overall waste management infrastructure here.

We agree with Ms Wong that people need to be aware of the reasons to reduce the use of plastic bags.

To arrive at a solution that takes these daily realities into account, the SEC has embarked on a research project to gain a comprehensive and culturally-relevant overview of the behavioural, economic and environmental dimensions of plastic bag use in Singapore.

Involving surveys of over 2,500 participants, focus group discussions with retailers and members of the public and interviews with environmental and economic experts, this research will be incorporated into a White Paper that proposes possible long-term solutions to this issue.

The results and recommendations of the White Paper will be ready in September.

*Article first appeared on TodayOnline Forums

“Politics is a contest for power but the key principle when you have power is, don’t take advantage of people under your charge, and always be honest and upfront with them.” The problem with this sentence is that the speaker misses his own message.

For a guy who talks so much about power, he should recognise the demise of his own. Thanks to the careless choice of words in his Facebook post about the haze that triggered the megaphone politics, heavy weight Ng Eng Hen had to be roped in to handle the sensitive issue. His own role was diminished to one of messenger boy, carrying a big white envelope to soothe ruffled feathers.

As for being upfront and honest, we still don’t know what went into the $79.8 million “Other Costs” accounting entry of the bloated $387 million YOG budget. That’s enough money for a couple of houses at Sentosa Cove. And while he gave away free condoms for the foreign athletes, we had to pay $2.25 for a N95 mask.

Who can forget the gutter politics during the watershed election of 2011?  Thankfully, Vincent Wijeysingha’s open declaration of his sexuality has put spade to Balakrishnan’s shameful innuendos.

While he’s busy wallowing in dirt, another has died of dengue fever, the fourth Singaporean victim, a Chinese male who lived in the Tanglin Halt area. Five dengue related deaths on our shores, if you count the Indonesian. Clearly, his priority is misplaced.

There’s only one way to put him out of his misery. Have him repeat his charges outside of parliament house, where he’s protected by parliamentary privilege. Calling people liars, when he himself is so generous with half truths, is tantamount to libel and defamation. And he had to pick a fight with an ex-cop and practising lawyer. That’s gotta be real dumb.

Tattler

*The writer blogs at http://singaporedesk.blogspot.com

No time to create a full post about Yaacob’s critcism of online rumors. So here’s some quick comments about the incredible logic adopted by certain online commentators.

Logic 1: If I post something that exposes the truth, I trumpet the power of free speech at spreading the truth.

Logic 2:If I post something that is wrong or if I reported something out of context, I can say that I am “merely repeating what others have said”, and “As a blogger I can only comment on what I know”.

Logic 3:If I post something with innuendo that can be interpreted in the wrong manner, I will simply say that I am reporting the facts as I understood it. Any subtle message or (mis)-interpretation is entirely the fault of the reader.

Ergo. Logic 4: No need to take responsibility for what I write. Heads I win, Tails you lose.

Sgthinker

* The author blogs at sgthinker.wordpress.com

Police found the bodies of two men, believed to be a Chinese father-and-son pair, in two separate places in the Kovan area on Wednesday.

The authorities received a call about the incident at around 3.40pm, and are investigating if the deaths are indeed related.

The body of a man, believed to be in his 40s, was found outside Kovan train station.

It was the end point of a trail of blood which started from around 14J Hillside Drive, where the other body of a man in his 70s was found.

Those in the area told Channel NewsAsia that a car was supposedly involved in the incident, and that the man in his 40s was apparently dragged by the vehicle.

"I saw the Traffic Police blocking the road...they said I can't enter this way...I have to make another round. My friend then told me that there was an accident along Hillside Drive...I heard there's a commotion, then a car was reversing," said Muhammad Hafiz, a volunteer at a mosque in Kovan.

Police are appealing for information from witnesses who may have seen a silver Toyota Camry at the incident scene with the number plate SGM14J.

Source: Channel News Asia

Hi everyone. In one of my recent articles, I started a conversation with one of my readers Chee Ming on the topic of teaching in Singapore and he explained to me why he didn't want to become a teacher in Singapore. Given that both my parents are retired teachers and have spent a life time teaching in Singapore (without ever questioning the system, as you would expect), Chee Ming sheds some light as to why some young and intelligent Singaporeans are put off teaching as a career in Singapore. It's a shame as I feel that Chee Ming sounds like the kind of person who would make a brilliant teacher - but here's our conversation reproduced here so it may reach a wider audience and I invite others, particularly teachers, to comment please. Let's try to help Chee Ming.

Are bright young Singaporeans put off entering teaching?

Chee Ming: If I want to go to UK to teach Mandarin, do I qualify? I do have a degree in Chinese Language and Literature but it's from, sigh x infinite, SIM.

Limpeh: Hi there. Let me explain this to you step by step. 

Step 1: You need a teaching qualification - teaching is a skilled profession, it is not sufficient to be a fluent Mandarin speaker with a degree in Chinese language/literature.

Step 2: You need teaching experience. So I hope you've been teaching Chinese for a while in Singapore.

Step 3: Once you've done steps 1 + 2, then you can hunt for a job and start applying for teaching positions in London (or wherever in the UK) as a Chinese teacher.

Step 4: You then need to receive a job offer from a company (say a language school or university) who are willing to hire you as a teacher and sponsor your work permit.

Step 5: Your employer will then sort out your work permit for you and once that's settled, then you can start work. 

 

How far down the process are you at the moment? Have you done steps 1 + 2? 

By that token, where your degree is from doesn't matter... As long as you have a valid teacher's training qualification in Singapore, then that's good enough for you to qualify. Here's the warning I would give you though: the demand for Chinese teachers isn't great - most people are shying away from Chinese because it is very difficult and very few people are trying to learn it. There is a growing number of young children who are subjected to it say at the age of 7 or 8 at school as an after school thing, ie. 4 x 60 mins a week. That's because the parents are saying, "I can't learn Chinese, I'm too old and it's too hard, but if my child starts very young, maybe s/he won't realize just how bloody hard it is and have an attitude problem." That's where the bulk of the work Chinese teachers are at the moment - teaching young kids, rather than adults. Just thought I'd warn you in case you wanted to teach adults. 

Chee Ming: No. I have not done step 1 + 2. Reason? I remember a conversation with my sister, who is a primary teacher, a while ago. Here's how it goes:

Me: Sis, ask you something.

Sis: Shoot.

Me: What's the size of our class today?

Sis: About 35 - 40

Me: What's your class size when you are in primary school?

Sis: About 35 - 40

Me: I thought they are intending to lower the teacher to student ratio? Why so long liao, ratio still the same?

Sis: (Awkward silence for 5 seconds) It's like that one lah...

There we go. After this conversation, I totally gave up on MOE and hence, the teaching qualification. Since there's no 1, how to have 2?

 

Limpeh: Sorry, you need to consider getting 1 (ie. qualify as a teacher in Singapore) then if you wish to go down the path of becoming a teacher - you can't really get around it I'm afraid. The UK's doors are opened to skilled migrants and teachers are indeed skilled migrants. 

Ironically, where you got your first degree from is irrelevant, as long as you have a valid teacher's training qualification and Singapore is probably the cheapest place for you to do it right now (unless you wanna go get it in somewhere like China - I don't know anything about it ...) but given that you intend to teach Mandarin in and English-speaking environment, I can't think of a better place than Singapore for you. 

Why does a big class size put you off?

Chee Ming: Why does big class size put me off? I kapo your bell curve for a while. (See graphic below.)

 

If the class consist of students from the right end of the bell curve, whether it's by nature (天生丽质难自弃) or nurture (well, 勤能补拙), yes, class size is not an issue. What happen if the class consist of student from the wrong end of the bell curve? If you have 40 students, chances are, you will have 35 different problems (some students have the same problem). How does a teacher cater for all students within the limited time? Of course, educators can adopt a "Too bad you sux" attitude, let the students become nobodies, then proclaim that they leave nobody behind, literally. Singapore education system doesn't really cater well for students who can't catch up (I must clarify, NOT all school adopt the "Too bad you sux" approach).

After all, schools and teacher have KPIs (which are quantifiable factors, like how many students pass their exams) to keep up with, which is tied to how much bonus they will get, which also affects the chances of them getting a higher pay rise or that very elusive promotion (I mean, how many HODs are there in a school?).

So naturally, the more ambitious (and tend to be better) teachers will go "Jesus, Buddha, Ti Gong, I promise to be a good person. Bo bi bo bi, please give me a good class" and chances are, they will get what they want (because HODs sees them as good future leaders and wants to nurture them). While that leaves those "Aiyah, good students bad students also like that, I take salary niah" teachers to take up the not-so-brilliant class (Not saying these teachers are bad, they are probably not as good). This eventually leads to the good gets better and the bad got worse.

 

Anyway, the conversation with my sis is NOT really about class size. It's about how promises were made and delivered. It had been advertised that teacher-to-student ratio are to be reduced, teacher-to-student ratio are to be reduced, but when it's time for a small examination (like the short conversation with my sister), they failed quite spectacularly. If the boss can fail that way, it can only mean 1) the boss lied (can't resist not to insert meme, inserts the "Blueberry man" meme); 2) the boss is incompetent; 3) both 1 and 2, an incompetent liar. It boils down to this question, would you work for such a boss?

Limpeh: Hi Chee Ming, I see what you mean. This is very interesting for me as my parents are retired teachers who have spent a lifetime teaching in Singapore. They got by, were happy enough with it but I think part of that comes with the fact that they are not the kind of people to question the system - the less questions you ask, the happier you are because you can then occupy your mind with happy thoughts on other things in life that are good (as opposed to your large class sizes...) I also have an old friend from Singapore who became a teacher (he had a teaching scholarship in fact) and he eventually left teaching after he served his bond and he told me the way the MOE treated him was pretty awful (long story, maybe I'd share it for another time...) You know, surprisingly, he never mentioned anything but large class sizes - he had other awful, terrible things to complain about, bigger fish to fry! 

 

If teaching is indeed your calling, then it is a shame that the system is putting you off to this extent. The thing is that in a place like Singapore, there's really no other way to get around the MOE thingy - even teachers who operate in the private tuition business often gain kudos for having once worked within the system, though some who are more specialist (eg. French for A levels for example) manage to by-pass that. Maybe if you can find your niche (Chinese for Angmoh kia who has attitude problem when it comes to Mandarin ...???) then you can bypass the system? It is about thinking outside the box at this stage for you - let's try to find some innovative ideas for you.

Chee Ming: Actually hor, there's a way to get to Stage 1. Just take the teaching diploma as a private candidate. Doing that will incur a 17k school fee. Well, there's one cool thing about doing that. You can taunt your classmates for a year (the NIE diploma last a year) as you do not need to serve the 3-years bond which they must to serve, unless they say, "limpeh wu lui to break bond." But spending 17k for a bragging right for a year? Bloody not worth it

[Below is an excellent summary done by Roy from TheHeartTruths.com for those of you who do not wish to watch the 36 minutes video of the parliament debate between Minister Vivian, MP Sylvia Lim & MP Low Thia Khiang.]

This was what really happened at the parliamentary debate between Environment and Water Resources Minister Vivian Balakrishnan, Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol-East Town Council (AHPETC) Chairperson Sylvia Lim and Worker’s Party chief Low Thia Kiang.

Vivian started off trying to shorten the given names of others.

He said that he didn’t want to impose on the public but this debate would go on for the next 35 minutes, with him giving some of the longest speeches and reading out long emails.

He said that this is a matter of integrity.

He said that Sylvia and Pritam were untruthful.

Sylvia reaffirmed that the AHPETC had not asked the hawkers to pay extra for the cleaning of the high areas of hawker centres.

She reminded Vivian not to confuse the issue of area cleaning with the cleaning of high areas.

Vivian looked uneasy.

He looked down nervously.

Sylvia reminded Vivian that the issue started with Vivian’s own ministry.

Vivian said that this is about integrity (for the second time), and tried to pin the blame on Mr Tai, the property manager of FM Solutions and Services Pte Ltd, the contractor for the cleaning services. Vivian read out some emails which he claimed that Mr Tai had asked the hawkers to pay extra.

Sylvia said that Vivian had distorted the facts of the emails and that Mr Tai had not asked the hawkers to pay extra.

Vivian went back to his point again – and asked if Mr Tai had asked for extra money to clean high areas.

Sylvia said no.

Vivian brought out a stack of information which he claimed is evidence. Sylvia asked him to point out where in the stack it had said that Mr Tai had asked the hawkers to pay extra.

This was what Vivian then said. Nothing about the hawkers needing to pay extra.

And again, he asked if Mr Tai had asked the hawkers to pay extra.

Sylvia said no again.

Sylvia then went on and asked why Vivian had evaded answering the questions that she had posed.

Vivian brushed all her questions off.

Sylvia looked on flabbergasted.

Yet, Vivian asked again if Mr Tai had asked for more money. This man just doesn’t know how to take no for an answer.

And again. He simply cannot handle rejection.

Now, this is getting really painful.

Vivian said that Sylvia is untruthful, yet again. And wants her to answer his questions, but doesn’t want to answer her questions.

Sylvia said no again – Mr Tai did not ask for extra money.

Mr Low brings the question back and said that the issue arose from a difference in understanding between annual cleaning and spring cleaning.

He has a full audience.

Mr Low reiterated that AHPETC had never asked for extra money.

Finally, Mr Low came out with a solution.

Vivian jumps onto the bandwagon.

He said something out of the blue.

Mr Low gives up trying to make sense to him.

Sylvia wonders why logic doesn’t work on him.

Vivian asked whether Mr Tai asked for extra money again. This man has major problems understanding, “No”.

Vivian gives a lesson on clean politics.

Mr Low is unamused. He doesn’t hide it.

Roy

*The author blogs at www.TheHeartTruths.com

Dear Singaporeans, I need your help. Should I move to Singapore?

Before I go into detail about why I want to move to YOUR country or why I need your help, here’s a bit about me.

I’m a 29 yr old male, white and English. Yes I know that you would consider me British and I am, it’s what my
passport says, but I identify myself as English. I am proud of my heritage, just as I would be if I was Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish and I would still be British. It’s a small thing, but none the less important to me.

I imagine that you are already thinking, over privileged Ang Mo, wants to come to my home and take my job, but I assure you that is not it. For starters, I’m not over privileged at all, in fact, in my country I am the under privileged. I come from a poor working class background, raised by a single parent and university was never an option for me. I have no qualifications, passed that of compulsory education and no trust fund, everything I have, I have earned solely on the merit of my personal achievements.

I don’t want to deceive you, I do well financially. Now. I worked and still work very, very hard for what I have and I have sacrificed more than I could tell you to get here. I use my now “privileged” situation to help many of my friends and I consider it a duty to those I care about.

Despite my lack of qualifications, I am still more capable of what I do, than anyone can hope to be educated in. Experience at doing my job, still means more than someone who, in theory, has been taught to do it.

In the past 2 years or so, I have had the pleasure of travelling to Singapore many times, I have worked with and now for, a company that has a regional office at Changi airport. I’ve made friends with residents, both born citizens and PR’s and more recently fallen in love with someone who lives there and all (including Singaporeans) encourage me to move there.

It’s not just the personal relationships I have, that make Singapore appealing, it’s also the little things. Many things, from the economy and job market, to the side of the road you drive and the plug sockets. Yes, I love the fact we use the same plug sockets to power our electronics. 

My personal opinions/feelings aside, I feel an overwhelming responsibly, as someone who has earned the ability to consider moving abroad for a better opportunity and quality of living, to take that chance, but there is one thing stopping me. Singaporeans.

I ask you to consider the following similarities in our worlds. We both live on islands, with strong economies and multi-cultural societies. Everyone around us, wants to move here and benefit from our way of living. 

But as a diligent follower of Singapore culture and politics, there is the undeniable fact, that most  Singaporeans have had enough of immigrants. You publically dislike anyone foreign that comes to your country for a better life.

Anyone from FT’s and PRC’s, to those genuinely immigrating to become a part of your society.

Whilst I can empathise with your position, I can’t agree with it. I too see the influx of foreigners to my country, seeking the opportunity of a better life and the result can mean less jobs or lower income for British people.

But I do not begrudge anyone the right to a better life. In most cases, people uproot their entire lives and families to make a move to the UK and that deserves nothing less than my admiration.

I love SG and I want to become a contributing member of its society.

So

Dear Singaporeans, I need your help.
Should I move to Singapore?

Last Avalonian

Contributions

To leave a message to the author of this article, leave a comment below.

Take a look at the above video. Absolutely atrocious.

This gutter politician has the cheek to advise Worker’s party chief Low Thia Kiang who won 1 GRC and 2 SMCs on survival politics.

The last time we saw such a freak show was when Lee Kuan Yew cried on TV in the 1950s. But unlike that era, people aren’t easily fooled by such shows. People are more aware and knowledgeable now.

Vivian has neither accounted for the YOG sending nor the NEA handling of the haze and yet he advises opposition members of parliament. What a joke! Do you want such a gutter poltician representing you in parliament?

First Principle: Politicians/Bureaucrats are rightly called “Public SERVANTS” — as they are PAID by the People to SERVE the People. As such, Public SERVANTS are BEHOLDEN to the People (and NOT the other way round as in Singapore, where Singaporeans are made to be beholden to the Almighty Arrogant PAP Govt!)

Second Principle: Public SERVANTS have NO RIGHT whatsoever going around EXPECTING or DEMANDING or worst, BEATING* respect out of the People.

So, like it or not, they must jolly well:

First, SHOW RESPECT for the People and their concerns/feedback, and
Next, EARN RESPECT from the People through appropriate WORDS (what they say) and ACTIONS (what they do).

Third Principle: The People (as Political MASTER & Pay MASTER) have EVERY RIGHT to comment (and also criticise) the words/actions of Public SERVANTS.

This is a well-known Management Principle:

IF YOU CANNOT TAKE THE HEAT (i.e. stand up or answer to criticisms), THEN GET OUT OF THE KITCHEN (i.e. do the honorable thing in stepping down from public office — as NO MAN IS INDISPENSABLE, not even Lee Kuan Yew!)

Fourth Principle: TALK IS CHEAP. Public SERVANTS must WALK THE TALK (i.e. practise what they preach) in order to earn the respect, trust and votes of the People.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! WAKE UP YOUR BLOODY IDEAS! (National Service popular phrase)

We are “really fed-up to our eyeballs” and “definitely sick and tired” of the unbecoming/unprofessional political behaviour of the BRAZENLY Arrogant & INCREDIBLY Incompetent PAP Govt!

BOW TO THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE (who are seeking urgently-needed Political CHANGE & Political REFORM).

Xposed

When I first suggested the idea that all the staff in the childcare should be sacked, I thought I was over reacting and a bit harsh. Now with more cases of abuses being revealed, with more children having scratches and signs of abuses on their bodies and with a child having nightmare and unable to sleep, my call is not overreacting.

If Yusuf’s case has not surfaced, the poor children would continue to be in living hell, being bullied and abused daily. I really feel very sorry for the children there, daily being harassed by their caregivers without anyone having a clue of what was going on and with all the staff keeping quiet about it. It is not a childcare but a horror chamber.

At least two parents have made police reports of their children being abused in the same centre. And you have jokers saying that it was not abuse but mishandling. And you have asses who could not differentiate between disciplinary actions or the normal knocks and tumbles of children. Even disciplinary action is uncalled for at such tender age. How many of the children really know what they are doing and that their behavior is unacceptable and deserved to be punished?

The school administration must do a thorough investigation, review all the video recordings to get to the bottom of the problem. How painful it is to subject the children to such terrifying experience? The children need to be counseled and helped to forget this dreadful experience to grow up as healthy and well adjusted children. Hopefully the scar will go away fast. The whole thing is so sickening.

When so many cases of abuses are being reported, it only shows that Yusuf is not an isolated case and it did not happen overnight but could be ongoing for too long. Sack everyone of them for allowing the torture chamber to go on for so long and to put so many vulnerable children through such an ordeal. Every child will be adversely affected psychologically seeing how their playmates are being harassed and beaten daily.

Can you believe that this is happening in our neighbourhood? And no one seems to be concerned about the harm done to the children except their parents.

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean

*The writer blogs at http://mysingaporenews.blogspot.com

The alleged child abuse incident in a childcare centre ("Teacher held after video shows 'abuse' of boy, 3"; Monday), coupled with recent reports of misdemeanours committed by educators, raises questions over the training of teachers.

Teachers should not only be competent in the subjects they teach and have good pedagogical skills, but also respect the code of ethics that educators ought to uphold.

Most training curricula for teachers lack formal and systematic modules that instruct them on ethics, and how to deal with students or control their emotions in a stressful classroom environment.

The authorities should address this problem by making it mandatory for ethics and anger management to be core modules in teacher training programmes.

Teacher training institutes should focus on imparting the right values and attitudes to educators such that these become second nature to them.

Teachers are important role models for their students.

Most educators here fulfil this role. However, it is worrying to see an increasing number of bad apples spoiling the barrel and bringing the noble vocation into disrepute.

Ng Qi Siang

Vivian attempted to cloud the AHPTC saga by refusing to acknowledge that his argument was out of context. The first point he needed to address before he spews more irrelevant garbage is to bring himself into the context of how the saga started. He has to ask himself whether he was honestly barking up the wrong tree or he had actually resorted to misleading the public by insisting that the spring cleaning was meant to include the cleaning of the high ceilings. All other questions he may have revolve around this key point.

If the spring cleaning was not meant to include the cleaning of the ceiling, which Sylvia Lim had been explaining was the case, then all these talks about getting the hawkers to pay for the cleaning of the high ceiling become moot. Unfortunately, this is the only straw that Vivian is hoping to build his case upon.

This is a dangerous personality trait of this blundering man. Was he also hard on hearing when he was put in charge of the YOG? Was it the same attitude that saw him miscalculate the budget by million miles?

He had better go examine his own integrity before he goes about questioning the integrity of others. In case he or the State Press had missed what Sylvia Lim had explained in Parliament, below are the two key points which were conveniently excluded from the print press ad well as the video footage showing a seemingly confused WP chief, Mr Low TK. 

The exchanges between Vivian and Sylvia before Low TK stood up to speak, omitted all of Sylvia's retorts. Singaporeans have witnessed a blatant disregard of the responsibility the state press has in bringing truthful and credible news to the people. If there is any bigger liar in this episode, it would be the state press. So much for all these talks about integrity. It's more like synchronized tango between the PAP and the State Press.

Sylvia's parliamentary retort here: ...

Secondly, Minister makes a lot of substance over certain e-mails that our Property Manager Mr Tai may have sent to the hawkers about spring cleaning. But does he not agree that spring cleaning, and the annual cleaning of high areas, are not the same thing. And his e-mails, as far as I recall the Minister talking, were referring to spring cleaning as such and not the annual cleaning of high areas.

14 Third point is that the annual obligation of the Town Councils to clean the high areas of hawker centres –I don’t think any goes as far as to dictate the dates of these annual cleanings. There is no law requiring the annual cleanings to coincide with the spring cleanings as such and during our Town Council’s discussions with NEA, we are given to understand that NEA was open to us having alternative dates for the cleaning of the high areas. So does he not agree that really, annual cleaning and spring cleaning need not coincide?

The Alternative View

Dear Foreigners living in Singapore,

Firstly, let me say welcome to Singapore.

Well much has been said lately in the media about Foreign Billionaires living it up in Singapore. Now whether you are in Singapore to butter your own bread further, escape from taxes in your home country or to take advantage of our ridiculous immigration system, that is not my concern. But the security that you so enjoy in Singapore IS my concern. I’m sure by now you are all already impressed by what Singapore has to offer to Foreigners like yourself. Safe streets, low crime and a safe environment to bring up a family (and maybe perhaps also the opportunity to show-off your wealth and lavish lifestyle unabashedly without being targeted).

But let me make it clear. This security that you enjoy is not free and does not come easily. Unlike your country of origin, Singapore does not have a highly paid professional army. It is largely made up of part-time conscripts of ordinary Singaporean men like myself. Hundreds of thousands of ordinary Singaporean men like myself shed blood, sweat and tears and some even have lost their lives just to provide this security. We serve 2 years compulsory full-time National Service at a salary that is worse than what a cleaner gets in Singapore. Then during our Reservist tenure of 10 to 20 years, in addition to the long hours we work in our daily jobs just to make a decent living, we still have to endure all kinds of burdens like annual training camps, compulsory annual physical fitness tests and the dreaded after-work remedial training sessions. We have enough on our plate already.

So I’m not sure what the Singapore Government has told you, because in times of trouble and strife, will Singaporean NSmen like myself lay my life on the line to protect Foreigners, like you and your family living here in Singapore? I’m afraid that’s a BIG NO! Why should we? Sorry but you and your family are on your own! I will only fight to protect my fellow Singaporeans. No more no less.

So before the bombs start dropping on your houses or when the riots engulf your street, I would suggest you either hire a private army (I’m sure you can afford one) or have some plane tickets on standby for your family to escape. Or you and your family might want to try hiding under your kitchen sink. Nobody is going to help you. Definitely not me!

Yours Sincerely,

Singapore NSman

TRS Contributor

When are we going to start the real protest? When are we going to make an effective change?

When are we going to start doing real economic damage to the ones who have taken away our dreams, our livelihood & our savings?

When are we going to stop being confined to a 2 acre field right next to the bloody business district in order to voice our opinions & disagreements? When are we gonna stop giving them a chance to photograph us, document us & later round us up under some ISA law or the like?

You may laugh at my ideas & suggestions, saying i'm being too idealistic or impractical, but give my next statement a real thorough thought. "do you think if all those protests at honglim were of any use, our dear govt would have let us carry it through? Don't you think if they wanted to, they could simply deny a permit or do some other legislative or administrative barrier to the event?" do you think they would not have rounded up the 'ringleaders'& destroyed their lives just like so many others so have been forced to flee & escape their lawsuits, threats & bullying actions? Fun & games are over boys & girls. Time for the real action now.

SMRT

Feeder bus - when are enough of us going to walk out of the MRT station & make (no matter how small) a dent in their takings?

Rental shops - when are we going to make a conscious decision to not patronize the shops inside the MRTs& at the same time tell them to focus on maintaining those damned trains & tracks instead of just collecting rentals?

Delifrance - when are we gonna avoid places that belong under Saw PhaikHwa's care, stop  giving  her businesses our hard earned money & get her kicked out of her job, to tell her what we think of the way she handled our (yes, our) trains?

CPF

Why do you need to top up your account or your parents? Think carefully where the money actually goes to. Are you absolutely sure you are unable to pay for your needs without depending on CPF? or in the first place, whether you are getting a fair amount back?

House loans, can't we just live within our means?

Remember, you may think that buying all those condominiums & taking up all those loans may help to drive the economy but all you are doing eventually is to feed THEIR greed, THEIR profits, & line THEIR pockets (& their children's) while you slog & work yourselves to the bone to pay monthly debts.

NTUC

Union? A discount union?

Income - you've heard of how hardnosed they can be. Are they worth supporting?

Fairprice - do we really have no other choice? Do we need to buy everything from there? Are we able to spread out our purchases & get the best deals from everywhere? Excuse me? What did you say? By doing that we'll be depriving Singapore of jobs? Jobs mostly taken over by foreigners anyway who whorishly accept low pay & horrid working hours & conditions but register no NS reservist time?

Hired by short sighted managers who only see costs of now time & their own bottom line? What was that again? *insert smirk*

Scrutinize town council contracts & works done & question the work being done if your suspicions are aroused!

Find out & publicize businesses owned or managed by people like Mah Bow Tan & other ex PAP fellas who made our lives what they are now & for the piece de resistance, keep track on the children & grandchildren of the current ministers, then publish where they are working/ studying / businesses or corporations they are in & bring them down. Humiliate as much as possible by publishing all their mistakes & wrong doings, so that everyone will know.

We have to be united in doing this together.

The last thing we should do, is to leave them out in the cold, online. Turn our tracks cold online by disappearing from all of their online discourse. leave them to their mainstream papers to trumpet their own praise, in fact praise them to the hills to throw them even more, make the truly

Clueless ones think they're kings & deprive the cunning ones of intel. That way, when 2016 comes, they'll never know what hit them.

I'm sorry, what was that again? impossible to execute? too impracatical for the economy? not a win-win solution? and you think things will get better just by 'dialogue', 'consensus', whatever else that rubbish is? *insert eye-rolling*

Kevin James

Contributions 

Dear Editor,

I am writing to express my opinion of how MINDEF has handled my request for deferment from In-Camp Training (22 October – 2 November).

I joined a bank in March this year as a Relationship Manager. In this capacity, my performance is almost entirely judged based on my sales numbers. After joining, I was in mandatory training for 2 months, and a couple of weeks after while MAS processed my clearance. It was June before I started running for sales numbers.

While this industry is a cut-throat one, the team I was in was run with an even tighter noose – by August my line manager had already indicated it was vital that I delivered the sales numbers or I could come under the chop. Sales targets are measured monthly, quarterly and annually. My line manager felt that my ICT would be an obstacle, and requested that I apply for deferment. As such, I applied for deferment on 29 August, under the category of New Employment, taking in the account the criteria as set out by MINDEF:

NSman may be deferred from ICT if he satisfies all the following guidelines:

a. He has started on a new job less than 3 months before his national service call-up

b. His employer requests for the deferment

c. His national service call-up is more than 7 days’ duration.

Seemingly, I met all 3 criteria as

a. I started the job less than a month before my call-up

b. My line manager reqested for the deferment, and attached an official letter with my application

c. The call-up was _7 days

However, my application was declined in September. By this time, my line manager had tightened the noose again, and warned that if I could not deliver the performance in line with expectations by October, my position with the bank could be in jeopardy. I then submitted another application, together with another letter from my line manager that explained the situation quite explicitly. However, this application was declined again. I appealed against this, and again this was declined on 1 October. At this point, I was advised by my line manager that I should tender my resignation especially since I could not obtain a deferment from ICT, as this would severely hamper my ability to delivery sales for the month of October and November and therefore greatly affect the overall numbers for Quarter 4 as well as 2012.

And so, I tendered my resignation with the bank, with my last day of employment on 26 October. As the sole breadwinner in my family, you may imagine that this is extremely detrimental to my family and thus very crucial that I am able to obtain new employment ASAP. I then submitted another deferment application on 2 October so that I may be able to actively and urgently look for a new job, rather than be stuck in camp for 2 weeks, not being able to look for jobs, send out applications, response to calls from potential employers, check for emails from potential employers, or attend interviews if need be. This was again declined on 17 October. I immediately submitted an appeal, as well as wrote to my MP for assistance.

On 18 October, the MP for my constituency wrote that he had written to MINDEF with regards to my case. Today (19 October) I checked the NS.sg website and found that the status was still Pending Decision. The ICT starts on Monday, so there is no way MINDEF will revert before the deferment department do not work on weekends. I called the MINDEF hotline to enquire, and was informed that they have indeed received a note from an MP but the case was only opened at 4:00pm today. As such, I have heard nothing from MINDEF.

I have attached a log of my deferment applications lifted from NS.sg for your reference.

While I recognise the need for military defence and readiness, we are not full-time army personnel and we do possess a civilian life, with civilian ideals, and civilian families to feed. I have followed MINDEF guidelines for deferment applications, via correct and proper channels but have come up empty while my career and my family’s financial stability has been negatively impacted by the SAF’s insistence that I should not be granted a deferment from ICT. Perhaps if I was a key appointment holder within my reservist unit, there may be some justification in the seemingly imperativeness that I should be present at the ICT. However, I am far from that. I am not a specialist/officer, I have been permanently downgraded to PES C9L3 due to a slipped spinal disc condition and for the past few ICT’s, my function has been to assist the Quartermaster in collecting food rations from the cookhouse.

Your sincerely,

Lim Ek Kwang

Editor's Note:

A regular TRS reader wants to give Lim Ek Kwang the following advice.

Dear Singaporeans,

I am a PR and I have been studying for 8 years. This is solely a point of view from an average non-singaporean and I am open to all your comments or criticism.

Firstly, I am uncomfortable with the strong anti-foreigners vibe we have here. Look around us: we have Chinese, Indian, Malay and many other various races. Do not forget that once upon a time, all of your forefathers migrated from their homecountries: China, India, Malaysia, Indonesia,etc. In other words,you were all foreigners once. It is rather contradicting if you have so much hatred towards the current foreigners especially the PRC. So give a chance for them to migrate here peacefully because they are the forefathers of their next few generations just like how you are the next generations of our forefathers despite having an identity called Singaporean.

Despite the perks that we enjoy, foreigners and PRs also have to pay the price for living here. For foreigner students, they have to pay more than stunning school fees of 1k per month and PRs pay a few hundreds while Singaporeans only have to pay a small sum of less than 50bucks. Singaporeans also always have edusave to cover up for their school trips. Furthermore, working PRs also have to pay the same taxes as you. Going to the hot topic, PRs still have to serve NS just like the Singaporeans. Otherwise, our PR status will be revoked. For me, I have decided that I will serve NS as a return of favor and I will fight for this country if it is ever under attack. This sounds like a NATO and some of you might not believe but once again, you are entitled to your own opinions.

I am blessed and thankful to Singapore for giving me such a golden opportunity to study and live in. Let's work together towards a better future, a better solution, putting our differences aside. It does not matter whatever social problem we have. What matters is whether we are solving it instead of just talking about it. Just take a second to be in the shoes of the other party.

Greatest regards,

TRS reader

PM Lee is not fit to be PM if he is fixated on the survival of the PAP more than the problems Singaporeans are facing.

Someone posted a comment on PM Lee’s FB questioning whether the PM was more focused on matters concerning the PAP or on issues affecting Singaporeans. It got me thinking a step further on how true that sentiment could be. As i pondered, i began to feel a sense of fear, especially when i reflected on his recent dealings with the problems facing us in recent times, against his dealings with the opposition parties, and with his own party cadres.

The many key words being tossed about these days serve to question one another’s integrity, honesty and credibility. Where failings and shortcomings by governmental agencies and officials are concern, there are always that valid reason to bail each of them out. When there were no good reason, the PM would ask all to move on. Case close.

Numerous examples come to mind, the Brompton bikes, Aims, YOG, and that $8 heart bypass surgery to name a few. Did the PM ever once used grave words like “grave doubts” the way he used on the WP? Why didn’t he step forward to question Khaw Boon Wan on his publicly declared $8 surgery? Wasn’t there anything to trigger his mind that this was gravely doubtful? The YOG budget when first presented, why didn’t he question the minister in charge when the budget was later discovered to have missed the target by hundreds of millions? Did he show any grave doubt after that over the competency of that minister?

PM Lee cannot pretend not to know all these failings. Even if his advisers had been advising him otherwise, he cannot escape the fact that raw, blunt and direct sentiments have been expressed to him on a daily basis online.

It brings me to my main point. As a PM, his duty is towards ALL Singaporeans. This should and must be the first and foremost manta in his head. When the people around him talk to him, or give him advice, or share with him the situation on the ground etc etc, it is his duty to listen to both sides of the story and them make his own conclusion before deciding the course of action. This is what a true leader would do.

Unfortunately, we have a mediocre PM who tends to listen to only the side of the story he wants to hear, or the side that sucks up to him. Take the AHPETC for example; everyone can see it was a case of people hearing wrongly what the other was saying, or replying wrongly to what each individual had perceived was asked. In short, a clear case of misunderstanding. Both NEA and the WP had already closed the issue amicably.

Out of the blue, a short-circuited cowgirl who didn’t want to miss the opportunity to help his master with his Fixing Game, decided to empty her barrel at the back of the unsuspecting opponent. The PM got carried away with the fun, because together with his favourite bed partner, it was the opportune time to play the Fixing Game. By so doing, the watching masses, the citizens who were expecting parliament to make decisions to lighten their burdens, were left to watch the Fixing Game which have absolutely no bearing on what they were expecting parliament to produce.

This episode tells us that the PM is in no state of mind to help find solutions for the people’s daily living predicaments. The latest salvo from him and his office further impress on Singaporeans that the Fixing Game he is playing is more important than the Game Of Life And Death – where the lives of real Singaporeans in hardship are left to fend for themselves.

The PM is nothing but a PAP team leader. He is not fit to be a national leader if he does not start listening to the things he does not want to listen to.

The Alternative View

[source]: https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Alternative-View/358759327518739