I have read the article by AWARE, and both the articles in the links (One by Fitri, and the other by Nicholas). This is just my humble opinion after reading. Let me being:

First of all, I was greatly shocked by the article. It struck me as an article with points contaminated by shallow judgments. Being a known establishment in Singapore, I was exceptionally surprised at the contents of that article.

I agree with them that the stanza of the song (Purple Light) being labeled as abusive language. Following that, they explained how they got wind from some of the men at their workshop pertaining to this part of the song, and subsequently sending a letter to MINDEF notifying them of this issue. MINDEF then step in to halt the singing of the lyrics.

However, this is where everything starts to go wrong. The article went on to describe how they were abused verbally on Facebook, and even listed out the various abuses they cleverly picked to form sentences which explicitly make them look like they are the better-cultured (meaning better arguments) here even though a simple “We were criticized vehemently on Facebook” would suffice. Look, internet is a double-edged sword. People post mere words that don’t physically harm anybody, and hiding behind the screen with a keyboard, they are allowed to exaggerate their angst with extreme vulgarities and uncouth language without being scared of a confrontation. This will not be the case ultimately if they are talking face-to-face with AWARE. Honestly, that whole paragraph gives me the impression that the writer is just venting HER egoistic frustration caused by all these abusers in a formal article. Come on, even Youtubers suffer abuses and they get over it knowing that it is inevitable in the web’s humungous world.

The next sentence confused me. In fact, the last sentence, “....with my rifle, and my buddy and me”, isn’t literal. The sentence is just there because every stanza of Purple Light ends with that sentence and the main message is whatever that is before the sentence. In the case, it is the booking out, the girlfriend cheating, the killing of the man she cheated with and the raping of the girlfriend. I smiled, knowing that the writer is obviously inexperienced and sour.

Personally, I have never been comfortable singing that raping part too. I’d prefer slap, beat or kill. Nonetheless, I am aware the WORLDDOESN’T REVOVLE AROUND ME, and so I often go silent for that particular word.

Moving on, the article brought out main points from the criticisms.

I agree with the first point. Yes, the song is not original and I can see AWARE isn’t clamping down on the whole song and its history.

Second point: The fact that AWARE did not pick on the phrase “kill the man” which promotes violence and taking of lives under the influence of anger, proves that AWARE is bias and is not standing at a neutral point of view. Take note of the way the article immediately defended with a vain argument - that AWARE only sides the female population. If AWARE is a morally-righteous organization with a goal for the betterment of Singapore’s society, shouldn’t they dedicate a few words to the violence behind killing of people as well?

The second part, when being asked about sexual assault against men, the article took the neutral point of view in a flash, quoting “regardless of the gender(s) of the victim or perpetrator”. This shows that they are not ready at all to stand up for male victims. Why? As long as you are a male, you will be looked upon with a crooked eye by AWARE. (Just like racism)

Point three is the sole point that I agree with. Frankly, yes, joking about it all the time across the entire military organization may evidently make the action a potential reaction when someone does cheat on somebody. Nobody can safely promise that they are in control when extreme anger takes over the mind. Read the point in the article to know more.

Forth point: “Because AWARE doesn’t serve NS” is a petty way for saying “AWARE doesn’t know what it is like inside and thus is in no place to comment on the way of living of the NSFs and men.” To this, they immediately hid behind the NSmen who initiated this topic. Also, if National Service does have that big of an impact on people’s lives, theoretically, shouldn’t we observe an increase in the amount of rape cases after the invention of such lyrics? Why wait until now if that is the case? Now this point is built on pure assumption and zero studies. Just another shallow way of an attempt to defend themselves.

The next two sub-points are entirely irrelevant to the topic, and brought up by Facebook comments which I have no idea why. Thus, I, with agreement, will not go into it further.

The fifth point explains the motto of AWARE, to which I am not going to comment.

I am going to say this before the conclusion. The writer is of this article is a female, and I am quite sure about this assumption. The reason is that her points are all acceptable, but the way she elaborated on most of the points shows that she is undoubtedly unknowledgeable of the National Service and she is uninformed of the situation and the things guys and some girls are doing to defend Singapore and deter foreign hostility. Thus, she is in no position to debate about this. I very much prefer the way Fitri wrote his thoughts on this matter. AWARE should be more practical and sensible when they want to publish an article in their defense. Also, since AWARE is an organization that fights for women’s rights in situations where they are abused or discriminated. On that, this means that AWARE is supposed to be morally-upright and neutral when dealing with situations. I don’t see it in this article.

I will end off with my opinion on point six. You know why people “spent so much time writing over 700 comments on Facebook” just to criticize you? Well, let me give you a clue. Is it because YOU’RE AN ORGANISATION, AND YOU’VE JUST DID SOMETHING THAT AFFECTED SERVERAL HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF LIVES. What is 700 compared to the aforementioned number? Did you spend any effort to grasp the entire situation completely before shooting a letter to MINDEF? Even if you say yes, I highly suspect it.

Women say it is impossible for men to understand women. So men stopped trying. Women cannot understand men too, but they think they can. Now somebody is trying to intrude a man’s world, and men still don’t understand women. Ladies and Gentlemen, be AWARE.

David

TRS Contributor

Related:

AWARE Singapore: The perplexing case of Purple Light

Purple Light, rape, and the real reason men are angry with Aware

8 REASONS WHY IT’S OKAY FOR NATIONAL SERVICE MEN TO SING ABOUT RAPE

I refer to "CPF Can No Longer Be Used to Pay HDB Flat After You Turn 55?".

1) Retirement Account will 'automatically' be created when you turn 55.

If you fail to meet your Minimum Sum of $148,000, all the money from Ordinary Account and Special Account will be transferred to Retirement Account.

Even if you are working at age 55, every cent will go to Retirement Account and not your Ordinary Account.

2) If you fail to hit Minimum Sum and you wish to sell your flat after 55, cash component will be returned to CPF to meet your Minimum Sum.

3) All the booby traps has been made known on HDB. Click on http://www.hdb.gov.sg/fi10/fi10326p.nsf/w/AheadBefore55UnderstandtheCPFRules?OpenDocument

This episode illustrates why it's so important to have good calibre opposition candidates to block these unfriendly policies that hurt us. Having 10 opposition candidates to oppose and ask questions in Parliament just isn't enough.

We definitely need more to have more voting bloc power in GE2016 and to pry open their account books in the name of good corporate governance.

CJ
TRS Contributor

AWARE’s intervention to ban Purple Light has been a double edge sword, including widespread criticisms.

Last week Women Rights organization AWARE had reported that a popular army song Purple Light has been banned after writing a letter to MINDEF. The matter was eventually clarified by MINDEF that the song has not been banned but the original lyrics have been restored.

The move was met with much positivity and support from a notable lot. However what was revolting was the flood of misogynistic and sexist comments against AWARE for interfering in the internal affairs of MINDEF. AWARE is a non-profit organization, a member of civil society who actively engages with the government. Since the 1980s, AWARE has published books, reports and held discussions with statutory bodies to elevate and strive for gender equality. In 2003 the restriction on female intakes in NUS’s medical faculty was lifted after AWARE made the efforts for it. Either the public is oblivious of AWARE’s long-term efforts to empower women or sexism is still deeply embedded in Singapore’s culture.

Some of the less denigrating comments were ‘it is just a song, men will not around raping’. This is a slippery slope which will lead to a cultural legitimization of rape. Rape jokes are not harmless. It offends any victim of rape or sexual assault. Rape was also used as an instrument of war in Bosnia by the Serbian army. It is perverse that some have conveniently trivialized rape and simply do not understand the power of normalization. Another point of contention was raised is that women do not serve national service. Thus men should have their own way even if it perpetuates sexism. Two years of compulsory national service and falling behind women and foreigners is a huge sacrifice. However it does not give them the prerogative to use the military as a breeding ground of misogyny and sexism. Women deserve to have equal rights, respect and dignity even though they do not do National Service.

This Purple Light saga has revealed much of our society’s mindset and deep-seated hatred for AWARE. AWARE had subsequently posted a less controversial article on the dangers of plastic surgery. Predictably it was condemned and mocked by the many. The response clearly shows that advocacy groups like AWARE have a long way to go in combating stereotypes and prevailing attitudes that undermine the efforts of women.

The list is not exhaustive. What should be exhaustive is society’s silence on crude misogyny and relentless chauvinism. Yes Singapore is not an institutional patriarchy. However the patriarchal mindset is still detrimental to both men and women. It has negative effects on society and makes no sense to future growth. Sexism and misogyny has no room in the modern century. Until we do not raise our voices and work towards correcting these myopic attitudes, social justice and equality will never be achieved.

Roshni Kapur

TRS Contributor

【英兰妮：头巾事件的讨论须考虑我国种族融合】#1
 【哈里古玛批评工人党 争议性课题立场模糊】#2

In the year 2005, PM Lee in his National Day Rally speech, showed two video clips “Tao Gay Not Enough”, and “Tao Gay Never Enough” (http://bit.ly/Ibqw4j), to make a point. Did it resonate with the people? One commenter responding to PM Lee’s speech then said:

“Frankly speaking, the clips…were rather boring, and they ain’t as funny as to excite even a twitch on my face. Till now, I am still mystified as to why the people in the audience guffawed. The airconditioning must be pumping in laughing gas the whole time. That probably explains why PM Lee laughed so much, albeit alone, during his speech. Wonder if the PM’s aides adviced him that while jokes are good to have in a speech, the jokes must, first and foremost, be FUNNY!!!…They should have chosen a Rojak stall setting with peanuts as part of the title. The clip should be titled “Peanuts Not Enough”.I would definitely ask for an extra helping of peanuts on my rojak. Guess the government is out of them this year. So, they only have tou gay.” (http://bit.ly/18hhy02)

Then in the 2006 Rally, possibly in response to mrbrown‘s Bak Chor Mee Man podcast (http://bit.ly/1d9jUC3), Mr Lee said, “You put out a funny podcast, you talk about bak chor mee. I will say mee siam mai harm. Then we compete. Then what will I do? I will hire Jack Neo to be my National Day Rally adviser. It’ll be a fun time, we will enjoy thoroughly, go home totally entertained.” (http://bit.ly/1injNCO)

What’s the response?

“this morning i order mee siam mai hum tio lecturing by the hawker auntie.” (http://bit.ly/1fNVUlr)

From Lim Swee Say’s warning of a Rojak Government if members of the opposition are voted in, to Chan Chun Sing’s Chye Tow Kuay, in explaining why money should not be the bugbear to deter capable people from coming to serve in the Government, the PAP leaders have failed miserably in using food analogies to convey a message to the general public.

Now they are trying again with kueh lapis; to say that they’ll prefer layers of help and not a single poverty line. Do you think that this kuey example is going to resonate with the common man?

With such bad precedents, I had thought that they’d have given up trying to make a point using food oredi. But well, what do I know?

Ravi Philemon

* This article was first published in Ravi Philemon’s blog at http://www.raviphilemon.net. He is a member of NSP.

This new Master Plan is called a draft Master Plan. Well, it is the new Master Plan for the next 10 to 15 years, or between 2023 to 2028. Would it make any difference if it is a draft or not a draft plan? At 4 persons per new homes, this plan can comfortably accommodate another 2 million residents.

The PWP of 6.9m is for year 2030 and for an increase in population from 5.3m, or an increase of 1.6m in 17 years time. So the two plans seem to be complementary to each other. Some may want to quibble why 7.4m (5.4m +2m) in 2028 and not 6.9m in 2030? Let’s not split hair (or split cables) over such a small discrepancy.

Many Sinkies must be salivating at this prospect, looking forward to such great places to live and play. And being public housing, they will definitely be sold at a discount from market prices, or with a generous dose of subsidies. The future is surely looking so rosy. Boon Wan is planning well ahead.

Let me make a guesstimate of the prices of HDB flats in Holland V in year 2023. If the price is going to double in ten years, each unit of a 4rm flat should easily be around $1.2m at least, conservatively. But not to worry, the income of Sinkies should also be double or triple by then, so these flats would definitely be affordable, or the govt will make them affordable.

I can only dream, for by then I dunno where would I be. The fortunate young Sinkies would be the future proud owners of these dream homes and living a great life, gracious living among 7m people.

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean

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

<Image Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/pseudo-life/7090440467/>

I refer to the TRS article "LOCAL MALAY UNHAPPY WITH THE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MALAY IN THE SAF".

What does it mean by "pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion, to build a democratic society, based on justice and equality"?

When I was in BMT, my company had really outstanding malay muslim soldiers who were all-rounder and great leaders. They did well in their IPPT, SIT test and received great feedback from the peer appraisal. The best recruit being a Chinese could have been easily explained, but it was hard for me to understand why (for my platoon) only the Chinese and Indians made it to OCS and the Malays were all posted to SISPEC when they were clearly more outstanding than us in all aspect. I was disappointed but I couldn't care much because I was happy that I was in OCS.

Then, when i was in OCS, the thought came back to me again as i was indenting food for my company one day. During BMT, we had to always pay attention to how many non-muslims and how many muslims are there when we indent food. I looked around, there were no muslims in my company. There were some in other companies, but it definitely doesn't reflect the composition of our population. At that point of time I didn't think too much of it, because frankly as a Chinese, I don't really care because it's not me who's discriminated against. 

When I was training in Air Force as a trainee, the thought came back to me again. At SAFTI, there was a muslim food corner. There wasn't any at the Air Force School. Again, I didn't really care but I was starting to feel disgusted at how we are discriminating our muslim friends. I had classmates in JC who shared that they were really disappointed that they couldn't pass the test to be a pilot. Some of them were told that they failed the test, some were told that they were rejected because they failed the security clearance.

There was once when the Chief of Air Force came for a visit to conduct a forum and we were told that we could ask him questions. Our instructors wanted to be sure that our questions were appropriate, so they requested that we had to submit our questions to them for vetting before they could be approved for asking.

I thought if I asked "why are there no muslim in the Air Force", it might be a little too harsh, so i rephrased a bit, it was "why are there so little muslims in the Air Force". The instructor read it and returned it back to me, saying that it was too sensitive and told me to ask something else. He said "we all know why. it's better not to ask ". So my question became "so what's next for RSAF". I never got to asked the CAF.

I went to another instructor with the same question, she was the strict and law-by-law kind, so i thought she could give me a proper explanation. Her reply was "what do you mean by there are no muslims? there is one pilot who is muslim. check your facts first before you say such things, you will get into trouble for saying things like that" Ok, so there is one muslim pilot in the entire Air Force, that just confirmed that there is discrimination.

Every time I recite the national pledge, I wonder why are we saying it when we don't even mean it. Regardless of race, language or religion? Based on justice and equality?

We have been extremely lucky that our muslim friends have been really tolerant and have not reacted badly to this issue, but who knows what might happen in the future? This is like a time bomb that may explode any time. If there are people who can "make mountains out of molehills" out of Purple Light and dirty ceilings, imagine the potential of this issue.

Ethnicity is poison. Let's just remove our ethnicity from our IC and just call ourselves Singaporeans.

Anonymous (Scared of ISA)

TRS contributor

I fail to see the reason for The Straits Times to have seen it fit to publish the article (“Religious fire pit used for barbecues’’; Oct 22). Is The Straits Times trying to stoke religious tensions? The matter could simply have been a misunderstanding. Perhaps the people who mis-used the pit did not know that it is a religious fire pit; many non-Taoists would not know either.

In my view, the article contributed towards xenophobia and sparked the usual backlash against the presence of foreigners judging from the posts responding to the article when it appeared online.

As a highly-respected newspaper, The Straits Times should not be contributing to xenophobia and intolerance with such articles that are designed to have the public think that “foreigners’ are disrespecting Singapore and Singaporeans. Singapore's success rests on the fact that people from different races, religions and cultures can live together peacefully. Perhaps, The Straits Times is of the view that it was merely reporting the news. I view the article’s publication differently - that it will upset some readers who will target their displeasure at foreigners here. 

The article assumes that the barbecue was the work of foreigners. For all one knows, it could well have been a Singaporean who did not see the harm in using the pit for non-religious reasons.

Dr AYSHA REEMA MUHUSIN

Our CPF system is a social security net. It is a system of forced saving. The history of such systems is simple and understandable. With a largely uneducated population, it was wise to organize some form of of forced saving to make sure that all citizens had some savings when they are too old to work anymore- something which (the then)common folk might not be able to adequately plan for. After all. It was a social service.

I am smart enough to Save/ Invest myself

There always are some ‘really smart’ people who probably would have done more productive things if they were given fluid access to their CPF (like investing for higher returns, successful start-ups ect.). However, the problem has been (and still is) that how are we going to determine who we should trust to plan their savings by themselves? Should we use education level? Should we administer a nationwide IQ test?

What happens if we lose our CPF monies?

Okay, let’s say the government allows us to access our CPF monies fluidly. Then some Singaporeans gamble all their money away, or lose ll their money in investments. Or he just doesn’t save enough. What happens to this Singaporean when he is old and has no savings? Since he chose to spend all his money without saving, does this mean he now deserves to be old and poor with absolutely no money? Do you think as society, we will accept it? The liberals obviously won’t, and thy’d still expect the rest of the responsible tax payers to ‘pay for their upkeep’. This is just going to cost the rest of us more money/ higher taxes,

Why the 4% interest?

This is probably the most iffy part of our CPF system. First, we must understand that the CPF is probably the most safe you can keep your money as it is guaranteed by the state. Banks can go bankrupt. It is much harder for a state to ‘go bankrupt’. So on that note, if we view the CPF from this angle, then the interest rates we should expect (from a service point of view) would be lower than a banks interest rate a fixed deposit for about 40 years (Retirement account). This would probably turn out to be lower than 1%.

But of course we know banks use our savings to invest and make good money from it. That’s how they pay rental for all their outlets and pay their staff well ect. The global average return for hedge funds last year was 6.2%. We also know that our government is very good at investing, we get returns that rival the world’s leading hedge funds. In 2012, Temasek reported an return of 11%. (S&P 500 returned 13%). Do take note that hedge funds can actually lose money. You have to spend a lot of money hiring really good and smart investment bankers to ‘ensure success’.

Now if our government were to truly be altruistic, after paying the investment bankers (which is about 2% out of the 11%, the rest of the profit would be returned to us. However, this rate would fluctuate year on year.

But our government does not do this for a number of reasons. But mainly, it’s because of insurance Remember that our CPF monies are gurarenteed by the state. As such, the state needs to take protective measures to ‘guarentee’ our money. As such it needs to save some of the profits for a rainy day. What ifi invesments(overall) make a loss next year?

Anyway, I think the lower interest rates helps in ‘returning wealth to the poor’. Think about it, the rich who have a lot of money in their CPF will not get the much higher returns. Instead the money earned from investing will go to the governments central fund which will be used on social assistance ect.

Conclusion

CPF is a neccesary evil to make sure even the ‘dumbest Singaporean’ has some savings. The only way to safely do away with such a compulsory system is if we agree as a society to 1. Set up a metric/ exam to judge whether someone is smart enough to handle his own money and 2. We accept that if individuals choose to opt out of the CPF system, and waste their money, they deserve to end up as beggars on the streets with absolutely no money at all.

As for the interest rates, I personally do want them to be higher, and I guess it’s something we can lobby for. But we must also be willing to accept more risks as with higher interest rates, comes less ‘emergency monies’.

SG Bangla

TRS Contributor

Editor's Note: Or we can just have a good and feasible pension scheme that give the retirees a small sum of money every month for them to survive. What do you think?

AWARENESS seems to be growing among People’s Action Party members that standing under the PAP banner in 2016 election and beyond will not guarantee victory.

This is unlike the past when being named a PAP candidate was like being given a free admission ticket into Parliament.

With the PAP votes dropping to only 60% in 2011 (opposition: 40%), the impact on politics is significant.

This does not spell an imminent end of the party, which has ruled Singapore for nearly 50 years. It will likely continue to govern – albeit with reduced majority – for a couple more elections.

However, PAP representatives appear to have increasingly accepted the new reality that future elections will be very different from those of the past.

It may result in the following:

> Large-scale walkovers will be a thing of the past; so will easy victories just because candidates stand under the PAP flag;

> PAP candidates will have to rely more on their own vote-winning capabilities to win hearts and minds instead of depending on the pull of the party;

> Unlike in the past, the career of a PAP politician will depend more on his own ability rather than decided by the PAP leadership; and

> Even the idea of “a strong anchor” (usually a minister) propelling a team of candidates to win a group constituency will appear unreliable.

For most battle-hardened parties, with the resources and history of the PAP, this may not be a major problem. But for the top-down party here, it could be tough for the following reasons.

First, many of its MPs have little real political campaigning experience having won by being “helicoptered” into Parliament with little opposition.

Expecting them to develop a taste or talent to campaign with humility can be a tough proposition. Some have found it disdainful moving around the marketplaces or knocking on doors to appeal for votes.

In any society, not just Singapore, it is hard to find scholars who understand the common-folks and service their needs.

In recent months a few PAP politicians were perceived to have been trying to strike out individually to win the public relations battle on their own, half way to the next election.

In their quest they have the help of the pro-government press which the opposition does not often get.

Recently, two PAP backbenchers trotted up apartment blocks floor-by-floor to look for litterbugs who threw down a used diaper and a sanitary pad from their windows.

The MP sleuths went on their personal hunts at different parts of the city, trying to ferret out a growing menace in over-crowded Singapore.

As a result the government is considering tougher littering laws.

Then Singapore’s Law Minister stepped into an unlikely dispute in which a woman put to sleep Tammy, a seven-month-old puppy, against the wishes of its former owner.

K. Shanmugam, who is also Foreign Minister, suggested that the re-homer get a lawyer to pursue the matter.

The adoption contract between the two women apparently stipulated that if there was any future problem, Tammy would be returned to the original owner.

Shanmugam, an animal lover, then recommended a lawyer who would do the work pro bono.

So why are these politicians acting more like social activists than hard-nosed members of a party whose founding leader was known to challenge foes to put on knuckle-dusters and meet him in a backstreet?

The actions may be an answer to the question: How are PAP representatives doing in preparation for the tough 2016 election that will likely also herald in the post-Lee era?

The biggest hurdle is regaining public trust.

Among the majority I have detected no special efforts at preparation.

However, the born politicians have apparently begun to do what comes naturally – implementing their personal election strategy without overly depending on the party.

Some are now trying to project a softer personal image to offset the PAP’s harder side. The hope is, of course, to convince voters they are approachable, not arrogant or elitist.

With a high tide of online criticism, however, something is easily overlooked by critics, and that is the ruling party is a historic organisation with vast resources.

Going into the future, it may have more inexperienced people lacking in articulating skills, but the party also retains a number of capable, dedicated politicians as well.

MPs like Amy Khor, a quiet champion of the poor, or Interjit Singh, who sometimes speaks bluntly even challenging party norms have built their base of admirers.

Given their difficulties, the works of several ministers are also beginning to gain recognition among fence-sitters.

They include Finance Minister, Tharman Shamugaratnam, Acting Manpower Minister, Tan Thuan Jin and National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan.

For the next battle may well be the PAP’s toughest.

Apart from the normal replacements, a large number of older politicians (who are now more or less passive Parliamentarians) are due for retirement.

Replacing so many experienced hands adds to the political uncertainty in the coming years.

Seah Chiang Nee 

*Article first appeared on http://www.thestar.com.my/Opinion/Columnists/Insight-Down-South.aspx?c={3054A244-0EAD-4847-A743-A2610B82E86B}

Yesterday (22 Nov), ST published a news article about some of the governments of OECD countries cutting back in their health spending (‘Drop in health spending for several rich countries: OECD’).

It reported that a third of the world’s 34 advanced economies cut their health spending between 2009 and 2011.

It said:

“Per capita spending on health fell in 11 of these countries, notably by 11.1 per cent in Greece and 6.6 per cent in Ireland, while growth in spending slowed in others, including Canada (0.8 per cent) and the United States (1.3 per cent).”

Only 2 of the OECD countries, Israel and South Korea, saw an acceleration in the growth of health spending, compared with the previous decade.

The news article was quoting from a new OECD report on healthcare, “Health at a Glance 2013“, which was published on 21 Nov. This report provides the latest comparable data on different aspects of the performance of health systems in OECD countries. The report also provides information on health status, the determinants of health, health care activities and health expenditure and financing in OECD countries.

However, examining the OECD report in detail, it was found that even after cuts in healthcare spending for some of these OECD countries, the governments of all OECD countries are still spending more as a percentage of public share in health spending compared to Singapore’s PAP government does.

Most of the OECD countries spent more than 50% in terms of share of public spending on healthcare in 2011. Only in Chile (45%), Mexico (47%) and the United States (49%) was the share of public spending on health below 50%. In these 3 countries, a great proportion of health spending was, therefore, financed privately.

Private financing of healthcare consists mainly of payments by households (either as standalone payments or as part of co-payment arrangements) as well as various forms of private health insurance.

On average, the share of public spending in healthcare for OECD countries was 72% in 2011. Private out-of-pocket payments was 20%. Private insurance took up 6% with others taking up 2%.

[Source]: OECD Health Report

In the case of Singapore, during a recent parliamentary debate on 12 Nov, Health Minister Gan Kim Yong assured that the government will do more to enlarge its share of healthcare cost from the current less than one-third to more than 40% (he did not give a time-frame to implement such an increase).

On the surface, it sounds as if Minister Gan has suddenly found his conscience to want to increase the government’s share of healthcare cost rapidly to more than 40%. However, comparing with the data from OECD countries above even using Gan’s 40% figure, the Singapore government is still very much less generous than others, preferring the citizens to bear more in healthcare either through out-of-pocket payments or buying more private insurance.

It is indeed hard to consider Singapore a first world country when its citizens are treated this way.
 

Richard Wan

*The author blogs at www.TREmeritus.com

A version of 30 August 2013 of the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) draft confirms previously expressed concerns that the negotiating parties are prepared to expand the reach of intellectual property rights to the detriment of consumer rights and data protection. The document was recently leaked and published by Wikileaks on 13 November 2013.

The secretly negotiated TPP IPR draft which was distributed among the Chief Negotiators by the USTR after the 19th Round of Negotiations at Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei, on 27 August 2013, includes granting more patents, creating IPR on data, extending the terms of patents and copyrights protection, expanding right holder privileges, increasing penalties for infringement, while limiting at the same time the space for exceptions in all types of intellectual property rights.

The US, as well as other countries, have defended the secrecy of the negotiations considering the government negotiators get enough advice from 700 corporate advisors cleared to see the text which actually is far from being reassuring having in mind corporate right holder lobbying pressures.

Although all of the TPP member countries are members of the WTO, which has its own extensive obligations on copyright, and the TRIPS has already expanded copyright coverage to software, providing extensive protections to performers, producers of and broadcasting organizations, the TPP contains its own detailed lists of obligations. In the TPP, the copyright provisions are meant to extend copyright terms beyond the life plus 50 years (as in Berne convention), create new exclusive rights, and provide specific instructions as to how copyright is to be managed in the digital environment.

The TPP leaked draft offers less space for exceptions than provided in the 2012 WIPO Beijing treaty, the 2013 WIPO Marrakesh treaty or the TRIPS Agreement. It also wants to stop any return to copyright systems requiring registration which has been suggested as a possibility to solve some of the issues occurring due to the copyright's automatic nature. Lately, copyright policy makers and scholars have reconsidered the positive results of the registration of works and other formalities, especially having in view the massive orphan works problems.

Also, TPP wants strong protection for DRM. The copyright section includes a log text on technical protection measures, especially on the creation of a separate cause of action for breaking technical protection measures, which would make it illegal to circumvent DRM even if it has been applied to materials that are in the public domain. The exemptions to the restrictions on breaking technical protection measures include “lawfully authorized activities carried out by government employees, agents, or contractors for the purpose of law enforcement, intelligence, essential security, or similar governmental purposes.”

Regarding damages for copyright infringement the draft uses the same phrasing used by ACTA: “In determining the amount of damages under paragraph 2, its judicial authorities shall have the authority to consider, inter alia, any legitimate measure of value the right holder submits, which may include lost profits, the value of the infringed goods or services measured by the market price, or the suggested retail price.”

Yet, the TPP negotiation has been more secretive than the ACTA negotiation, and the TPP leaked text is now much worse than the ACTA text.

"If instituted, the TPP’s intellectual property regime would trample over individual rights and free expression, as well as ride roughshod over the intellectual and creative commons. If you read, write, publish, think, listen, dance, sing or invent; if you farm or consume food; if you’re ill now or might one day be ill, the TPP has you in its crosshairs," said Julian Assange, the founder and editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks.

There is also some hope as the leaked text shows various areas, such as patents, medicines, copyright and digital rights, where parties have not come to terms and there is still time and room for countries to take positions in the public interest and in preserving consumer rights. So much the more now that the text is leaked to the public.

TPP IP Chapter Leaked, Confirming It's Worse Than ACTA (13.11.2013)
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131113/08405625230/tpp-ip-chapter-...

KEI analysis of Wikileaks leak of TPP IPR text, from August 30, 2013 (13.11.2013)
http://keionline.org/node/1825

Secret TPP treaty: Advanced Intellectual Property chapter for all 12 nations with negotiating positions - WikiLeaks release (13.11.2013)
http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/Wikileaks-secret-TPP-treaty-I...

WikiLeaks publishes secret draft chapter of Trans-Pacific Partnership (13.11.2013)
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/nov/13/wikileaks-trans-pacific-p...

TPP on Wikileaks
https://wikileaks.org/tpp/

With more eyeballs and participation on the internet, many Singaporeans are becoming politically aware of how our country is being managed, the ability to express, and exchange thoughts and ideas have moved away from the one-sided propaganda times. Many intelligent Singaporeans are writing articles and forming platforms for interactive dialogues.

The PAP will lose out because they are not able to give straight answers for fear of upsetting their masters and  salaries. Many times we look at them sitting up on stage and coming up with lip service, that leads us to conclude that these people are just performing a wayang show.

So year on year, lots of discussion surface on the internet and we all talk and exchange freely our views and plans for our country. This is good because we will now be leaving the PAP behind. They are more of a million dollar liability and dead weight that formulate discriminating policies against our citizens.

Think about it, the number of jobs that were given to foreigners when Singaporeans could do them, the years of industry knowledge taken away because you lose your edge when you are jobless, the financial stress of having to keep up with the ever increasing cost of living and medical bills etc.

Old Singaporeans, collecting cardboard and tin cans, cleaning tables, prefer to die because they have no money to see the doctor.

Who wants to live in a country under the PAP, with this kind of proven track record?

The PAP will never be able to engage in intellectual dialogue on live TV or webcast , because they know that any Singaporeans will put forward basic questions that will make them look foolish.

Now when we get half-baked answers, do we all not go onto the internet to exchange our views?

That is why the internet is best for individual representation and intelligence, and this coupled with the masses of intelligent dialogues will enable and empower Singaporeans to make wise choices before and during the elections.

Already, you can see many intelligent dialogues happening here on TRE, with many intelligent readers contributing. I dare say some are even better thinker than those PAP ministers (e.g. Disgrace Fu).

We need to use our brains if not “other people” will highjack it for a price (fear mongering and brainwashing) and they will make your brain do their bidding.

To breakaway, we need to scrutinize and question everything they say.

The internet is here to stay, keep the articles and comments coming for the growth and development of citizens and country!

Love your country and love your people, change begin with you, vote wisely in the coming next election!

Best regards,

Troy

This is what Patrick Daniel said in his article in the ST a few days’ back. I must say I agree with his assessment but for different reasons. Digital and social media have carved out a big chunk of the pie and readership from print media and this is a fact. The younger generations are more comfortable with digital media and will keep fleeing the ground with a balance that will tip in favour of digital media in the long run.

On the other hand, print media has its own turf that is cut out for it. In fact both have their own audience and it is only a matter of who gets a bigger slice of the pie. The development of the two media is diverging into one that is reporting on facts and events, thanks to the political leadership, and another into more opinionated discourses and very interactive in nature. Digital and social media are going to be very personal, very emotional and with a very high rate of participation by the readers. It is a two way affair while print media is just reporting. The readers just read what the reporters reported. The reporting role is still necessary for the full time reporters to go around gathering news to report on and being paid for it.

The ST and its stable of lesser news media are doing well. According to Patrick Daniel, it is all about a commanding brand. I wonder if the brand would still be that commanding when other brands are allowed to print and sell their news. Why are there no neutral or alternative brands? Search me? In a monopolistic environment, it is elementary to gain the biggest share if not all the share of the readership and can crow about it. Where are the competitors? What would be the fate of the ST media if there are competitors? Would ST be doomed?

The print media’s shelf life has been extended. It will continue to exist for a longer time. This is a truism as digital and social media have their own limitations. When the latter becomes full fledge media with their own professional reporters, the balance would be tipped further to favour digital media. For the time being, the ST stable of news media shall rule the waves as the only media available. Just like the other monopolistic services, not making money and maintaining the market share is simply idiotic.

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean

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

Dear The Real Singapore,

It was uncool to be a PAP supporter in JC. Whenever I declare my support for the ruling party, I get ridiculed, accused of being a bootlicker or cannot think independently from what our textbooks teach us.

Seriously, what is wrong with youths this days? In Mandarin, we have this proverb 饮水思源, translated to mean when you drink water, remember the source. The PAP brought Singapore from nothing to something other people from other countries admire in less than 50 years. I can hear the naysayers saying the PAP did not do that, the people did. I agree that Singaporeans did the hard work but I put it to you, without the PAP leading the way, would you have put in the hard work?

One famous phrase in comments is “I do not hate ____ but ____”. I also hear anti-PAP supporters and pro-opposition supporters say, “I do not hate the PAP but ____”

Fill in the blanks with

1. High Minister salaries
2. High foreign worker intake
3. Detaining and lawsuits against the opposition
4. GRCs
5. Low healthcare expenditure
6. Crowded trains that break down
7. Discrimination because of NS
8. High Defense spending

Seriously, Singaporeans are a bunch of complainers who do not appreciate what they have. All the problems above are actually small issues compared to other nations. Look at the corruption in Philippines over the aid issue, starvation and piracy in African nations and threat of war in the Korean peninsular. All are much bigger issues that we as Singaporeans don’t have to face.

Nevertheless, let me blow up the above issues and say why we are actually lucky the PAP government has already made the problem small enough. They could have been much worse.

In part 1 of this series, I will discuss why we need to pay top-dollar for our ministers.

I do not doubt the facts that our PM and his Cabinet are paid many times more than second or third on the leadership pay-scale list. I also acknowledge the fact that many Singaporeans are unhappy with these facts.

Our ministers’ salaries are largely pegged to the top earners in the private sector with a variable bonus scheme. These top-earners are usually top bankers, businessmen, engineers, doctors and lawyers. A “discount” is then applied to reflect the sacrifice of public office.

I argue that we are actually underpaying our ministers and other countries are in fact wrong. If CEOs running multi-million dollar corporations get paid a certain amount, I do not see why our leaders running a multi-billion dollar economy should be paid any less.

I can predict what detractors are going to say. Serving the people is a privilege and sacrifices have to be made to enter public office. What idealism!

You pay for what you get. Ever heard of, “you pay peanuts, you get monkeys”. You pay peanuts to office-holders, you can bet Singapore will fall down the corruption list. First, high salaries deter corruption. This example is clearly seen in developing countries like some of our neighbors where civil servants and politicians sometimes take bribes to supplement their meager incomes.

I would prefer a businessman, banker, lawyer, doctors or any other highly qualified people to run Singapore then any Tom, Dick and Harry.  These people have managed thousand-employee corporations for years, know our legal system inside out or have the brain capacity to get what they are today. Would you want somebody who wears slippers to register for elections to run the country? Even an opposition politician with a certain PhD was caught lying when he drank glucose water on his hunger strike.

We need to pay to get highly-qualified, honest, capable men and women who have proven their worth in the public, military or private sector to come and lead Singapore. Not people who can only open their mouths to spout human-rights ideas and write fanciful proposals. We need people of action, not paper tigers.

The hidden factor

In my previous article, I wrote about the fact that US President Obama is entitled to use 2 Boeing 747 Air Force One jets at his personal disposal. Let my give further examples, White House maintenance, Camp David, his Secret Service escorts, Marine One helicopters etc. Anyone wanna tabulate how much these benefits costs?

British MPs have hidden housing subsidies. Furthermore, the revolving door system is at work in the US and Europe where politicians enter the private sector after crafting legislation that favours the very companies they will retire in. Google Donald Rumsfeld for a start. US presidents are known to give speeches and write books that net them millions after they leave office.  Do you see that happening in Singapore?

I admit Lee Kuan Yew has wrote a few books but I doubt he gets millions in proceeds from them. Do you see our former leaders entering the private sector working for corporations against the people? Our politicians simply fade away for they well-deserved retirement.

The fact is Western politicians have many hidden benefits in office that make their pay seem lower in comparison. Many get cushy jobs after retirement from public office. Who knows, what corrupted legislation they have crafted? Do we want that system in Singapore?

In my concluding remarks, I have shown why the salary comparison that many anti-high-salary supporters used are in fact flawed for they fail to include all the hidden benefits that western politicians have. 

Singapore is regularly ranked one of the best places for immigrants to work in or stay. We have safety, our banks respect your privacy and we have a stable political system. All because we have qualified people to steer Singapore to this very point where other citizens from other nations admire us. I put it to you, would you prefer to be born in Singapore or in any other ASEAN country? If you do not want Singapore, I’m sure there are millions who will die for a chance to trade places with you. That is the extent of our success that the 40% do not realise. I urge all of you, don’t kill the chicken that lays the golden eggs.

Thus my stand is that our PM and his cabinet deserve every cent they get. My only gripe is that they aren’t paid more. Look out for my next article.

Yours faithfully

Michelle Lee

*The writer blogs at http://balancingthesentiment.wordpress.com/

Dear The Real Singapore,

I refer to Nicole Seah's self reflection article: NICOLE SEAH: GROUND ZERO

If Nicole Seah need political agenda to work on, she can consider the following list:

1. HDB price had got beyond average Singapore income earner. Although KBW had illustrated an example, but what happened you got lay off, having children etc; that will make you short of money, a complete family size of two aged parent, two kids, housewife and only husband working, can he support?

2. Majority HDB flat size are designed for young couple, only a few for multi-generation family, worst if parent reach old age and need additional care, shuttle between family need a car and extra cash.

3. HDB always in noisy condition, wedding, funeral, function, renovation, burning joyspaper etc.

4. Heavy work load, traffic congestion, only civil servant able to reach home by 6pm on working day, most family in Singapore can not enjoy work and life. 

5. Many Singaporean work as Taxi driver because of no suitable job, but Taxi trade are full of stress and occupation hazard, at income of $1500 per month, an accident loss of $2000 will landed driver many months short of money. 

6. It is good to set up a web site that let unemployed people register, as opposition which show commitment to serve, let potential employer get contact for free, you will win their heart and vote. You also can open the same web site to let people to voice their work problem, help them to direct them to relevant government agency and help them to get answer from the agency too.

7. It is time to press for higher Tax for high incomer and lower tax for low incomer. At annual income of $250,000 no problem of paying more tax and have many choice of lifestyle, at annual income of $50,000 left little saving and any tax is a burden to them. Our official statistic always misleading, for average family income of $3900 figures, quite many blow that figures and about 30% of them earned few times higher than that. Since 80% of them stay at HDB, an official average income of HDB dweller will be more relevant.

Toh

TRS Contributor

Dear The Real Singapore,

A PAP IB run Facebook page chose to start the day darkly by capitalizing a opposition supporter Alfian Sa'at's comment which was meant as congratulatory. As a "mouthpiece" of the Superwhites, the page should well know what they did was despicable and not good at all for Singapore.

This is the original picture that was criticised:

First of all, we don't know what Alfian meant, the page did not go in depth on the historical reasons, but instead chose to exploit the comment, and used it to sow discord, already posts are popping up everywhere regarding this.

Secondly, Superwhites themselves carried out racist policies first, on Malays. Up till today, there are still no Malays in certain SAF units.

And LKY said the infamous "machine gun officer" quote which is racist, this is the exact quote:

"If, for instance, you put in a Malay officer who's very religious and who has family ties in Malaysia in charge of a machine-gun unit, that's a very tricky business.", LKY

Thirdly, Superwhites also carried out racist policies on the Chinese, by eradicating Chinese education and the closure of Nantah. They also removed the citizenship of Tan Lark Sye, and jailed many Chinese Middle School students. Superwhites feared Chinese education due to its dynamicism, which produced outstanding political activists who care for Singapore, like Lim Chin Siong and Chye Thai Poh.

Finally. we know Superwhites and UMNO are responsible for the communal riots, and not communists, and the detention without trial of many Opposition leaders, are wrong, as they are innocent. However Superwhites still refused to acknowledge this, but instead weaved a huge web of historical lies still being taught in our schools.

The conclusion which Singaporeans can arrive at is, Superwhites are very dirty especially when going to lose. :3

---

超级白的狗狗团队，在新加坡获得金马影展三个奖项的时候，选择攻击我国戏剧作家 Alfian Sa'at。

狗狗团队应该明白，他们已经不知不觉变成了超级白的”代言人“，而用这样的手段是卑鄙无耻的。

首先，单单看着一小段的评论，我们不知道 Alfian 的真正意思。超级白狗狗团队，选择不从历史以及文化角度来看待此事，

而肆意利用这段评论来挑拨马来人和华人之间的感情。在网路上已经有许多对于Alfian不利的标题，陆陆续续出来了。

第二点，是超级白先对马来同胞实行不公平的种族政策，LKY自己曾经说了这句遗臭万年的话：

“如果你让一位马来军官来管一支机关枪，而他是一个非常有信仰和在马来西亚有亲戚的人，这是非常难搞的题目”。

我们也知道在新加坡武装部队，某些特别部队里，没有马来人。

第三，超级白也对华人实行不公平的教育改革，这包括关闭南大，以及剥夺陈六使先生的公民权。许多受华文教育的学生也被监禁过。

超级白惧怕受过华文教育的学生，因为他们拥有大无畏的精神，热爱新加坡以及捍卫民主。华文教育培养了许许多多优秀的政治领袖。

超级白非常惧怕华文教育培养出像林清祥和谢太保这样的人才。

最后，我们今天也知道了，之前的种族暴乱，也是因为超级白和马国国阵的一己之私，而引发的，

并没有所谓的共产党。而事到如今，人事已非，我们的下一代，仍然学习着超级白所编造的假历史。

所以新加坡人得到的结论是，超级白在要输的时候，什么卑鄙无耻下三流的手段，都做得出来。 :3

Joe Tan

TRS Contributor