Declining wages of Singaporeans and the continued denial of PAP leaders

OPINION

It is an open secret among Singaporeans that life has been getting tougher for them in the last few years. Their wages have either decreased or remained stagnant and even for those who had a modest pay rise, they are grossly insufficient to cover the rampant inflation which hit a record 6 percent in 2008.

A comprehensive study “Prices and Earnings” conducted by UBS last year revealed that Singaporeans have the lowest wages and domestic purchasing power among th Asian tigers. In fact, Singapore has a standard of living comparable to Russia than to Switzerland whose standard of living was promised by a former Prime Minister a decade ago.

According to UBS, the average Singaporean experienced an 8 percent drop in gross wages between 2006 and 2009 as compared to the more than 50 percent hike in the salaries of PAP ministers during the same period of time.

Naturally, when one belongs to the top 1 percent of the earners in Singapore, it is easy to overlook the common folks struggling to get by in their daily lives.

Obviously Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam was ignorant of the UBS report when he made the most unbelievable and audacious claim that foreign workers helped to increase the wages of Singaporeans:

“The healthy growth of wages for low wage families from 2006 to 2008 corresponded with the period when the foreign workforce was growing most rapidly…….It was how we were able to offset the decline in wages for our lower-income group that had taken place in the first part of the decade,” he added.

[Source: Straits Times, 3 March 2010]

The discrepancy in the fitures can be explained by an error in the statistics used by Mr Tharman as pointed out by economist Kenneth Jeyaretnam from the Reform Party:

“The majority of these new residents did not have dependents (hence the much faster rise in the resident labour force than the resident population) and all of them would have had jobs so the proportion of working adults in the average resident household would have risen. As a result we would have seen an increase in real median income per household member without any real increase in the median incomes of Singaporean citizens who were already here before this period began, i.e., the majority of us. Another reason why the Minister’s figure is misleading is that it excludes households consisting solely of non-working persons over 60.”

[Source: Reform Party: A complacent Budget]

Another PAP MP Halimah Yacob cast doubts on the results of the UBS study in Parliament and claimed that “anecdotal evidence” showed that there is a “significant” jump of about 20 percent in wages over the same period of time.

“The discrepancy could have come from the limited sample of firms in the UBS study. The study’s figures do not give statistical averages as it covered only a few companies for each profession and city,” she suggested.

[Source: Straits Times, 9 March 2010]

It appears that both Mr Tharman and Madam Halimah have not checked the facts with their fellow colleague Manpower Minister Gan Kim Yong which must have embarrassed them greatly when the Labor Report published this Monday had proven them wrong beyond any reasonable doubt:

“Nominal earnings decreased over the year by 1.6% in the fourth quarter of 2009, easing from the 3.0% decline in the preceding quarter. Earnings in 2009 declined by 2.6%, after rising by 5.4% in 2008. After adjusting for inflation (2009: 0.6%, 2008: 6.6%), the decline in real earnings was 3.2% in 2009, deeper than the contraction of 1.2% in 2008.”

[Source: Ministry of Manpower]

The decline in wages in hardly surprising given the increased competition that Singaporeans have to face from cheap foreign workers which the PAP has let in indiscriminately.

A recent Wall Street Journal editorial reported the relentless influx of foreigners into Singapore over the last few years had depressed the wages of ordinary Singaporeans, increased the cost of living, especially that of public housing, decreased labor productivity and led to an overall decline in the standard of living.

One reader who graduated last year with an Engineering degree from NTU told us that he is still looking for a job.

“I have sent my resumes to countless companies, both local and MNCs and only a handful got back to me. They offer a basic salary ranging from between $1,500 and $2,000 which is completely unacceptable as I still have to repay my study loans. Others coughed at my NS obligations which need me to be away for up to four weeks a year. One HR manager told me bluntly to ‘take it or leave it’ as she can easily find a China or Indian engineer to fill the positions for less pay than I am requesting easily. These companies have no problems fulfilling the dependency ratio quota for foreign workers as they will help the new foreign workers apply for Singapore PR almost immediately after they are hired,” he said.

In other countries, jobs like engineering are reserved only for locals, but over here, the PAP expects Singaporeans to compete directly with cheap foreign engineers while remaining “cheaper, faster and better” at the same time.

The PAP’s addiction to foreigners is understandable at it “kills two birds with one stone”:

1. Foreigners help keep labor costs down thereby increasing GDP growth artificially. A certain percentage of the PAP ministers’ multi-million salaries is pegged to GDP growth figures – the higher the percentage growth, the more money they bring home.

2. The foreigners provide a ready pool of potential new citizens whose increasing numbers will help to shore up the PAP’s flagging support among native Singaporeans.

How can Singaporeans ever trust the PAP to manage the economy when its MPs and ministers are still living in a state of denial? Does it make any sense that while the salaries of Singaporeans have decreased by 3.2 percent, the PAP ministers will be getting a hefty 8.8 percent pay hike at the same time? Is this a government for the people or for a small group of self-serving elites only?

It is time for Singaporeans to realize that there will be no economic rights without political rights and unless Singaporeans stand up and fight for their rights, they will always remain as slaves to the despotic PAP regime, waiting for the crumbs left over by them rather than to partake and enjoy the fruits gained by the nation’s economic growth.

 

The UBS Series:

>> Part 1: Singapore has lowest wages and domestic purchasing power among Asian Tigers

>> Part 2: Moving towards a Russian standard of living

>> Part 3: Why Singaporeans are paupers in a first world economy

 

Related articles:

>> Halimah Yacob refutes UBS study findings

>> Halimah Yacob: Productivity drive will be derailed if foreign worker challenge not addressed 

>> Exposing the six major flaws in the PAP’s immigration policies

>> Wong Kan Seng promises to tighten immigration policies

>> SM Goh: Foreign workers numbers may still rise

>> Malaysian car mechanic applying for Singapore citizenship

>> PAP launches Singapore Citizenship Journey to help new citizens integrate

>> Compulsory for new citizens to attend “sharing sessions” with grassroots leaders

>> Wong Kan Seng urged Singaporeans to be more tolerant of foreign workers

>> Tharman: Foreign workers increase income of low-income families

>> Sylvia Lim: Pace and influx of foreigners over last few years is wrong

>> Amy Khor urges Singaporeans to welcome foreigners

>> PAP MP wants more money to be spent to make new citizens feel welcomed in Singapore

>> Shanmugam: Foreigners generate jobs for Singaporeans

>> Vivian happy there are 4,500 new citizens serving as grassroots leaders

>> Cosmetic changes made to immigration policy

>> SM Goh: New immigrants needed to make up population shortfall

>> PAP ministers hailed contributions of foreigners

>> SM Goh expressed support for Zhang Yuanyuan

>> State media: citizens have more rights over PRs

>> Zhang Yuanyuan got her Singapore PR in only 2 months

>> Official reply from government on the Zhang Yuanyuan fiasco

>> Singapore PRC PR proclaimed loyalty to China publicly

>> PRC resident hung China flag to celebrate its National Day

>> PRC student in Singapore wants more scholarships for foreigners

>> PRC prostitutes solicit for customers on Singapore’s cyberspace

>> ERA: 40 per cent of resale flats buyers are PRs

 

EDITORS’ NOTE:

If you like our work and would like to support us, please transfer your donations via paypal to our account (temasekreview@gmail.com). Any amount will be greatly appreciated! Alternatively, you can also help boost our advertising revenue by clicking on the ads displayed. Thank you!

Be a fan of our facebook here

Join our tweet at: http://www.twitter.com/temasekreview

Why are surveys and rankings about Singapore always spectacular?

By Hurr Riyahi

Singapore is one place, probably the only place, I have seen whereby the survey or ranking information of practically anything is always spectacular.

There is hardly a time you can find Straits Times publishing any results of surveys or rankings which shows any imperfections in the Singapore system.

If one takes a look at the reports put out by government ministries, statutory boards, government linked agencies etc, you will find a same trend.

This then makes the average Singaporean believe that there are far fewer imperfections in the Singapore system than any other system in the world. But why is survey or ranking information in Singapore always so spectacular?

To illustrate I will use a recent Channel News Asia article which claim that a HDB survey found that elderly Singaporeans have sufficient income for daily expenses. http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1043152/1/.html

1) Response Rate

This is the first question to ask about any survey. In the case of the HDB survey, one should ask how many elderly Singaporeans were invited and how many eventually responded.

The minimum response rates that a survey should have vary but for a survey like this, you need to have sent several thousand invitations and have received at least 60%-70% response.

In many Singapore surveys the invitation numbers are low and more importantly the response rate is often less than 50%. Using the replies from less than half the number of people invited to participate in a survey, one can easily find spectacular findings which will then hold no value or meaning.

In some types of surveys, 40%-50% response rate is still acceptable but given Singapore’s small size and other factors, there should be very few surveys for which we can accept 40%-50% response rate.

In the HDB survey, 80% said they have sufficient income for daily needs, 97% are satisfied with their flats and more than 80% are proud of their homes. Such high proportions are likely due to low response rate.

If only 200 people responded out of 1000 invitations, its more likely that you get 160 (80%)  people giving positive responses. If instead 600 people had responded, it will be less likely for you to get 480 (80%) positive replies.

This is assuming all the people who responded answered all the questions in both situations. In reality, that is not the case which then actually will push up or pull down the rates extremely when few people respond to a questions.

In fact the high 90% rates mentioned in HDB report suggest that extremely few people answered those questions. Imagine 200 people responded out of 1000 invitations. When only 30 answer a question, its easy to get a 27 Yes (90%). But if 600 people responded and only 100 answered a question, its unlikely to expect a 90 Yes (90%).

2) Pathetic sampling

Singapore surveys rarely meets the standards of sampling needs. Often the sampling is pathetic. In the HBD survey they claim 8 out 10 elderly Singaporeans have sufficient income for daily expenses.

In surveys like this, the people conducting the survey should know beforehand that the lower income are likely to be underrepresented in the survey. That is because they are working long hours that they dont have time for this, their literacy maybe low and they dont understand it, they maybe sick and are unable to spend their effort on it, they are lonely and care less for it etc etc.

Hence if you end up sampling the more affluent elderly Singaporeans you end up with such spectacular results. Combined with the earlier case of low response rate and poor sampling, one will get spectacular findings.

3) Selecting those who can make the results spectacular

Another way to get spectacular findings is through flawed selection criteria. For instance the findings claim elderly Singaporeans having sufficient income for daily expenses. But those selected for the survey is elderly in whose household they or their spouse is the head. This is silly. The survey must include all elderly Singaporeans.

4) Mixing up terms

The HDB survey findings is about income. Yet they cite savings and CPF savings as source of income. An income is amount of money one receives for labour, services, sale of goods or from investment. The interest from savings is income. Savings itself is not income. So by wrongly including these, the income is inflated. What the reality could really be is that majority of elderly Singaporeans are not having sufficient income and are relying on personal and CPF savings.

5) Omitting findings that are not sexy

One of the most hilarious things about Singapore survey findings is that there is hardly much findings reported. Having spent such a large amount of money doing a survey, it is a waste if the survey can only yield that single one line of finding or a few.

 Actually what really happens is that the study does yield other findings but are not shared with the public as they show the imperfections in the system. Likewise we only see the spectacular findings of rankings. The other findings are omitted. But it is these findings which really are required to be shared with the public so that the cracks in the system can be rectified. 

A young girl who continually choose only  to keep looking at her glamour studio photos to judge her beauty even when she reaches retirement age, will never be able to do anything about her ugly wrinkles and will be instead be growing uglier by the day.

 

Other articles by Hurr Riyahi:

>> PAP’s model: Starting ahead and finishing last

>> What is the PAP’s long term economic vision?

>> Security threat posed by foreigners versus Muslims

>> How often is there tolerance in Singapore or Malaysia

Comparison of LIVE parliamentary debates of 5 countries and the “wayang” in the Singapore Parliament

OPINION

When one pay top salaries, one don’t expect to get monkeys. The PAP has always boasted that it has the BEST ministers and MPs in the whole world and that’s why Singaporeans need to pay them out of the world salaries to “retain” their services. If this is indeed so, then we should be expecting a first world parliament, but this is not the case.

In other countries, parliamentary debates are conducted LIVE on TV for the nation to see. MPs pose their questions directly and the ministers are supposed to answer them right on the spot. That is the standard practice everywhere else.

In Singapore, our MPs are paid a monthly allowance of $13,000 and even then, they are unable to speak LIVE in Parliament such that all their questions and answers are SCRIPTED. Not only that, some MPs still got the cheek to complain that the pace of Parliament is too “fast” for them or find lame excuses to defend their poor oratory skills like one new MP who claimed that “not everybody can speak as well as Lee Kuan Yew.”

This is the Parliament we have in Singapore – no LIVE coverage, only segments are shown on the state TV and even then, one Deputy Prime Minister was caught napping when the other was speaking:

Let us compare the above with the LIVE parliamentary debates in five countries which have similar parliamentary systems as ours – United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Malaysia and Hong Kong:

1.  United Kingdom:

Watch opposition leader David Cameron shred the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown into pieces in one of the spectacular moments of the questioning in the House of Commons on issues of election and inheritance tax in 2007. Cameron would probably be bankrupted or detained under the ISA had he tried to embarrass the Singapore Prime Minister like this.

 

2. Australia:

Australia’s Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was embarrassed by opposition leader Peter Costello when asked about the income tax thresholds and rates during the PM’s question and answer session in 2007

3. Canada:

The Canadian House of Commons voted to adopt a recommendation which, if implemented, would make it possible for U.S. Iraq War resisters to obtain Permanent Resident status in Canada during a LIVE parliamentary session in 2008.

4. Malaysia:

Opposition parliamentarians walked out of the Dewan Rakyat in protest against Finance Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s refusal to entertain questions during his winding-up of the Budget 2009 Bill debates. Najib, who told the House that questions would be answered at the end of his speech, did not allow the numerous attempts for clarification.

5. Hong Kong:

The Chief Executive’s Question and Answer Session on 15 January 2009 which was marked by a protest at the beginning by an opposition lawmaker. Chief Executive Donald Tsang did not evict the troublemaker and gracefully accepted whatever was passed to him.

PAP MPs should watch more parliamentary debates from other democratic states to realize what a disgrace they have become. Do they have any sense of shame at all? Instead of speaking up for the people, they frittered their time discussing non-issues like the number of steps on an overhead bridge, food museums, triumph bras, frog tales, hairdos and other nonsense.

By conducting such a farce, the PAP is insulting the parliamentary system which Singapore inherited from the British. Parliament is an august chamber for MPs to discuss, debate and deliberate on major national policies and not a tea session or a time to take an afternoon nap.

It is a time where the Prime Minister and his cabinet are taken to task, held accountable for their words and actions and grilled by the MPs. This is what parliamentary debates are about! Not a “wayang” to rubber-stamp the decisions already made beforehand by senior leaders of the PAP!

In 2006, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said that if there were 10 or more opposition MPs in Parliament, he would have to spend all his time “fixing” them. This is not democracy, but tyranny!

If the PAP is unable to adhere to simple basic democratic principles of governance, then it might as well cut the pretence and do away with Parliament altogether, outlaw all other political parties and set up a National People Congress like China in place of it.

In fact, the Singapore “Parliament” is all but in name only. Like China’s NPC, the decisions on major national policies are all already made behind closed doors by the senior leaders and the delegates are there to “ratify” their decisions to add a veneer of legitimacy to them.

This is the pathetic state our “Parliament” has become after fifty years of uninterrupted PAP rule. So what if we have a dozen more NCMPs or NMPs in Parliament to provide “alternative” views? Will it make any difference? The key decision-makers still lie in the hands of a few persons or one single person who simply refuse to fade away.

No matter how the PAP and the state media tried to window-dress it, the bitter truth is – Singapore has a near totalitarian form of government, not too much different from Nazi Germany, Stalin’s Soviet Union or Kim Jong IL’s North Korea – they too have their own “Parliaments” filled with powerless MPs who are there to just to make up the numbers.

 

Read also:

1. Why do we need so many PAP MPs in Parliament?

2. Why PAP MPs are no more but a “wayang” in Parliament

3. 10 most unforgettable quotes by PAP MPs in the recent parliamentary debates

4. PAP MPs complain that recent parliamentary “debates” are too fast

 

We all know the ending of these fascist states and sad to say, Singapore is heading the same way too.

Why do we need so many PAP strawberries MPs in Parliament?

OPINION

The recent parliamentary “debates” showcased the utter stupidity, incompetence and impotence of the PAP MPs to the whole of Singapore such that even the spin doctors of the Straits Times are having a hard time trying to polish up their embattled public image.

When Singaporeans are fretting over increased competition from foreign workers, increased cost of living, sky-rocketing HDB flat prices, an uncertain future and dwindling CPF savings, PAP MPs are busy scratching the backs of one another in Parliament on hairdos, triumph bras, frog tales, food museums and more ways to make the foreigners happy in Singapore!

Some are caught sleeping on camera like the Minister in charge of productivity Teo Chee Hean and of all people, the Speaker of Parliament Mr Abdullah Tarmugi himself.

One reader who attended the parliamentary proceedings last week wrote:

“I attended the parliamentary proceedings last Tuesday. The speaker was too rigid in the time allocation for the various ministries and as a result limited the follow-up exchanges between the MPs and ministers. The Speaker Abdullah Tarmugi was very sleepy on that day.. and had to be woken up by the clerk after Hawazi Daipi (Parliamentary Secretary for MOH) finished his reply! He took some time to realise where he was and to choose the MPs for the follow-up questions.”

No wonder there are no more LIVE coverage of parliamentary “debates” and the speeches are all scripted and prepared beforehand. The MPs send their questions to the various ministers who will prepare the answers to be read out during parliament. Even secondary school students can do better than them.

Why not do away with the “wayang” and have the ministers replied directly to the MPs in writing then? That will save Singapore taxpayers quite alot of money.

For a small country of 5 million people or 3.6 million citizens, Singapore has an unusually large number of MPs or 1 MP per 42,857 citizens.

Do we really need so many MPs? Let us compare the size of our parliament with other Asian democracies:

1. Malaysia:

Number of elected MPs: 222 in Dewan Rakyat

Population (2009): 27 million.

MP to citizen ratio: 1 per 121,621

Monthly allowance of MP: S$2,500

2. Japan:

Number of MPs: 480 in House of Representatives

Population: 127 million.

MP to citizen ratio: 1 per 264,583

3. South Korea:

Number of MPs: 290 in National Assembly

Population: 49.5 million.

MP to citizen ratio: 1 per 170,689

4. Republic of China (Taiwan)

Number of MPs: 113 in Legislative Yuan

Population: 22.9 million.

MP to citizen ratio: 1 per 202,654

5. Thailand

Number of MPs: 480 in National Assembly

Population: 62 million

MP to citizen ratio: 1 per 129,167

6. Indonesia

Number of MPs: 690 in People’s Consultative Assembly

Population: 238 million

MP to citizen ratio: 1 per 344,928

[Source: Wikipedia]

As we can see from the above estimated figures, Singapore has the highest MP to citizen ratio among democratic states in Asia.

Why do we need so many MPs to govern a small island only 700 plus square kilometers in size with only 3.6 million citizens?

If we apply the MP to citizen ratio of Malaysia here, only 30 MPs are needed in Singapore.

Our MPs are doing less work than MPs of other countries and yet they are more highly paid. Are they less capable and efficient than their counterparts elsewhere?

PAP MPs are getting the best deal in the world for the following reasons:

1. They are paid $13,000 for a part-time job on top of their full-time jobs and multiple directorships on the boards of various companies. The monthly median salary of an average Singaporean is only $2,600 in 2009.

2. Other than the weekly Meet-the-People sessions which they frequently delegate to grassroots leaders to manage, PAP MPs do not have to travel very often or far to meet their constituents. Lim Kit Siang, the Malaysian MP for Ipoh has to deal with a population of nearly 100,000 on top of commuting frequently between Ipoh, Kuala Lumpur and Penang where he lives.

3. The ministers and MPs of other democracies are often grilled by the opposition lawmakers to the extent that fights even break out sometimes. There is literally no opposition in Parliament to challenge the PAP MPs who are so bored that they are often caught yawning or sleeping in Parliament after apple-polishing one another! It was reported that one former PAP MP Davinder Singh made less than 10 speeches during his 18 years in Parliament!

Since the PAP MPs keep exhorting Singaporeans to be “cheaper, faster and better”, why can’t they walk their talk and show us how to be “cheaper, faster and better” themselves first?

We propose that the number of seats in Parliament to be halved from the present 84 to 42 and the monthly allowance of MPs to be decreased by more than 75 percent to $3,000.

At present, the MP allowances cost Singaporeans $1,092,000 million dollars monthly.

Under our proposed scheme, it will cost only $126,000 which will save us $966,000 monthly or $11.6 million dollars a year.

The extra savings can then be channeled to the Public Assistance (PA) scheme to increase its monthly allowance and coverage to help more needy and destitute Singaporeans.

MPs are supposed to serve the interests of the people and to speak up for them in Parliament. They should not make a profit or living out of it, not when their allowances are funded by taxpayers’ monies.

The PAP needs to use such high pay to entice talented people to join them because few Singaporeans are interested to be involved in politics due to the repressive political climate in Singapore.

Under a completely open, fair and liberal political system, there will be no shortage of capable Singaporeans stepping forward to volunteer their services to the nation. No real talented person or leader will be keen to become a “yes-man” in service of the PAP regime.

Without any genuine debates in Parliament, the Singapore parliamentary system is becoming a farce and laughing stock to the rest of the world.

The major policy decisions are often made behind closed doors by senior leaders of the PAP after which they are put to a vote in Parliament which will always go through since PAP controls 82 out of 84 seats.

It is therefore apt to describe Singapore’s Parliament as a rubber-stamped Parliament which makes one wonder if we are living in a modern democracy or an one-party totalitarian state.

Singaporeans have been paying for this grand “wayang” for the last 50 years. Are you still willling to put up with it in the future?

 

Read also:

1. Why PAP MPs are no more but a “wayang” in Parliament

2. 10 most unforgettable quotes by PAP MPs in the recent parliamentary debates

3. PAP MPs complain that recent parliamentary “debates” are too fast

PAP MP Lim Biow Chuan’s clarification to irate female netizen about his “misquoted” comments on the Jack Neo sex scandal

Background:

Below is reply from PAP MP Lim Biow Chuan to a female netizen Jessica Tan who posted on his Facebook questioning his remarks made in Shin Min Daily last week on the Jack Neo scandal.

MP Lim was quoted as saying:

“Over the years, to me, Jack Neo is a good son, father and also a good husband. Since he is remorseful over this incident, he should be forgiven. Actually, a man who has good career development would find such scenarios unavoidable,” 

His comments sparked a massive outcry in cyberspace, prompting him to post a clarification on his Facebook and STOMP a day later that he had been “misquoted” by the journalist

————————————————————————————————

Subject: MP Lim BC’s reply on JN’s affair

Lim Bc    March 16 at 12:07am

Thanks Jessica for writing to me. Please allow me to clarify. My remarks were misquoted by the reporter from Shin Min.

For your information, the interview was done by the reporter in Mandarin and I replied part in Mandarin and part in English (as my Mandarin was not very good).

It started with the reporter asking whether I think Jack Neo ought to be forgiven. My reply was that it was not my business but if he had apologised to the wife and his wife had forgiven him, the rest of us should also forgive. The
intention was to be pro-family and promote reconciliation and forgiveness.

The reporter next asked me what was my impression of Jack Neo. My reply was that I don’t know him personally but I have heard that he was a good father, a filial son and a good husband.

The reporter did not quote the full remarks that I made during the interview. In all likelihood, the reporter did not get the essence of what I said or misunderstood my Mandarin. Her question to me in Mandarin was whether I thought that a man with such good career development would find such a scenario unavoidable.

I repeated her question in Mandarin; and replied in part Mandarin and English that if a person who had attain such a good career with such status and influence had succumbed to temptation, it is so sad and pitiful (hanyu pinyin is ‘kexi’).

I have spoken to her to clarify since and Shin Min had also carried another report with my full remarks stated on 9 March 2010.

I do not agree with the behaviour of Mr Jack Neo and am of the view that it is clearly wrong. However, as a Christian leader and an MP, I do not feel that we should simply condemn the man for his misconduct.

If he has acknowledged that he had erred in his ways and is prepared to change, we should do what we can to promote healing and reconciliation amongst all the parties involved. For the family to break up because of the affair, it would hurt his wife and children as much as it would hurt Mr Jack Neo.

At the time when I made the 1st comment, I did not know that the circumstances would become so complicating as the report only said that Jack Neo had an affair with his colleague and that his wife had forgiven him.

Lim Biow Chuan

[Source: Lim Biow Chuan's Facebook]

The Somnolent Deputy Prime Minister

By Yoong Siew Wah

Can you imagine anything more clownish than a deputy prime minister snoozing away during a speech by his fellow- DPM Wong Kan Seng in Parliament? DPM Teo Chee Hean was caught by camera.

We have just witnessed a clownish spectacle of the minister and secretary- general of the NTUC who said in Parliament that he was deaf to the criticisms of an opposition MP and we are now presented with the comical spectacle of a deputy prime minister snoozzing while Parliament was in session.

If Mr. Wong Kan Seng’s discourse can induce somnolence in Mr. Teo Chee Hean, he can certainly apply for a patent for insomnia cure.

DPM Teo Chee Hean has been given wide publicity as the man of the moment appointed by the Prime Minister to improve national productivity. With his somnolent performance in Parliament, do Singaporeans really believe that he has the right credentials for the important task.

When he can snooze off during a Parliamentary session, what is there to give the public the confidence that he will stay alert in his productivity job. As he is also the Defence Minister, is he setting a good example to his soldiers? If any soldier is caught sleeping on his job, how is he going to discipline the soldier? There will definitely be double standards in punishment meted out to the offending soldier.

It may be argued that there may be extenuating circumstances in DPM Teo’s case, as some ministers and government MPs found sleeping during Parliamentary sessions is sometimes a common sight, but a deputy prime minister is not a ordinary mortal. He is next in line to the prime minister and acts for the latter in his absence. Can you imagine the prime minister being caught snoozing in Parliament? There will be mayhem which will lead to further deterioration of confidence in the government.

Maybe in the eyes of the government DPM Teo Chee Hean is a minister of sterling character. With his fat obscene pay of $3 million a year he is expected to give a sterling performance rather than be caught sleeping on the job. He is in charge of our Army, Navy and Air Force and these forces look up to him for sterling leadership. Good leaders learn from their mistakes and improve on them. Let us hope that DPM will learn from his experience.

We may not see the end of such comic operas. It may be appropriate to conclude with a famous saying of the Chinese philosopher Confucius: I do not wish to see it any more. (wu bu yu guan zhi yi)

 

About the Author:

Mr Yoong is the former director of Singapore’s Internal Security Department from 1971 – 1974. He blogs here

A rebuttal to Tharman’s claims that Singapore’s economic growth benefits all citizens

Dear Mr Tharman,
 
I refer to your Budget speech as reported by Straits Times on 6 Mar 2010.
 
You highlighted the impressive growth in Singaporeans’ incomes from 2005 to 2008.  But the explosion in HDB and property prices from 2006 to 2009 is even more impressive.  Thus, Singaporeans who bought their first homes during this bubbly period would have found their income growth more than wiped out by the spike in property prices. 

While their income growth is measured in terms of hundreds of dollars, the extra burden they have to pay for inflated property prices is measured in terms of hundreds of thousands of dollars.  It will take perhaps 20 years for the extra income to pay for the extra increase in housing prices.  Any Singaporean caught in this situation would rather have given up the income increase in exchange for a reversion to old property prices.
 
Thus, while you happily trumpet the 20% growth in median income over the last decade, do not forget the concomittant increase of nearly 30% in our property prices as well.  Furthermore, your use of resident unemployment rate obfuscates the real matter of concern which is that of Singaporean unemployment rate.
 
You said it was necessary for businesses to obtain more workers in the second half of the decade so that they could expand quickly to take advantage of the favourable external environment.  However, why didn’t the government adopt the productivity initiatives it is taking now in the first half of the decade so that by the time the favourable second half of the decade came, businesses could expand just as quickly albeit with much less workers?
 
Even if we were to contend that there is a need to obtain more workers, where is the evidence of the plans to accommodate those extra workers?  The frantic building of more infrastructure, more accommodation and sudden rule changes appear knee jerk in reaction to the sudden massive influx with no evidence of forward, methodical planning.  MM Lee’s proud assertion of a forward looking government is sadly missing.
 
You said it is important for us to capture significant opportunities that do not come every year.  That makes us look like primitive hunter gatherers who make the best of whatever comes our way but who have yet to discover agriculture and animal husbandry as the means to secure a steadier supply of food.
 
Therefore, despite your claim that our strategy is not wrong headed, many things have indeed gone wrong with our strategy which necessitates the changes we are embarking on now.
 
You said we needed those workers to build properties, flats, MRTs, and to serve as nurses and bus drivers.  But had we embarked on the productivity ethos much earlier, we may not have needed so many workers as we have now and consequently we may not have needed to build that many properties, flats, MRTs or have so many nurses and bus drivers as we are having now.
 
You said Singapore cannot grow slowly to reduce inequality.  But the issue at hand isn’t about growing slowly but how we grow.  Clearly, our tectonic shift towards productivity growth isn’t about slow growth.  Yet it is fundamentally different from growth by simply adding more people.  The question really is which method is more desirable and will reduce inequality more?  It seems that our primitive pursuit of growth at all costs hasn’t been the wisest of strategies and that we have not been doing what is best to reduce inequality.
 
 
Thank you
 
 
Ng Kok Lim

How George Yeo got the spurs stuck in his ass by buddy Jack Neo

OPINION

The recent Jack Neo sex scandal which has gripped the attention of the entire nation has claimed another victim as part of “collateral damage” – Foreign Minister George Yeo who made an incredible blunder by calling on Singaporeans to “rally” around Jack Neo on his blog immediately in the aftermath of the saga.

Some Singaporeans have been wondering why Foreign Minister George Yeo would have jumped so quickly to express his support for the disgraced movie director after his affair with a 22 year old model Wendy Chong was leaked to the press.

Writing on his blog, George Yeo revealed that Jack Neo had called him in person last Saturday to inform him of the affair before the scandal erupted.

Now, Mr George Yeo is the Foreign Minister of Singapore. Jack Neo would not have his contact number unless they are close friends with one another.

In his article “Rallying around Jack Neo and his family” posted on blogkaki.sg, George Yeo pledged his full support for Jack Neo and his family:

It is highly unusual for a Foreign Minister of a country to call on its citizens to rally around an adulterer, to put it bluntly. Why should Singaporeans rally around a serial sex predator which reportedly made sexual advances even to young teenage girls?

With his status and influence in society, George Yeo’s open support of Jack Neo appeared to portray the latter as a victim and swing public sympathy to his side.

What about Wendy Chong and the other women who were sexually exploited by Jack Neo to satisfy his perverted animal desires? Are they deserving of any less support from George Yeo?

It turns out that George Yeo has known Jack Neo for long time and both of them have developed such cosy ties with each other that George Yeo even invited Jack Neo to start a blog – “blogkaki” together with him.

According to information posted on blogkaki, it was “first mooted early this year when George Yeo discussed with Jack Neo the idea of blogging together.”

“George had known Jack since Liang Po Po days in the 90’s.  For some time, Jack had told George that he would be happy to help him in whatever way he could. Both of them felt it would be interesting to provide social commentary on Singapore society from different perspectives,” it added.

It is understandable that being a man himself, George Yeo will naturally empathize with his buddy Jack Neo, but being a political figure and leader of Singapore, George Yeo should be more careful of his words and selective of who he should show his empathy to, even when he is a fellow PAP member.

Netizens are quick to contrast his immediate response in support of Jack Neo to his insensitive remarks made in two earlier instances:

1. A young lady posted on his Facebook seeking help for a molest case to which George Yeo gave a curt reply: “Please go and see your MP.”

2. After two months of silence on the tragic road traffic accident implicating a Romanian diplomat, he told the media: “What happened was very bad.”

George Yeo first entered politics in September 1988 where he stood against Ashleigh Seow in Aljunied GRC. Ashleigh Seow’s father, Francis Seow, stood in Eunos GRC under the old WP in that same General Election.

During the election, three news sheets produced by the PAP were circulated to Eunos residents revealing Francis Seow’s extramarital affair and condemning him for it. George Yeo did not utter a single word against the PAP’s crass tactics to smear the character of Francis Seow who eventually lost the election by a whisker of votes.

It appears that George Yeo has two different sets of moral compass – one for PAP members and another for ordinary Singaporeans. In his eyes, some adulterous relationships are more “acceptable” and deserving of public “support” after all.

Why PAP MPs are no more but a “wayang” in Parliament

By Richard Lu

I refer to Miss Chua Mui Hoong’s article ‘No wayang – MPs serve as early warning system’ filed under ‘From the Gallery’ section of the Straits Times of 12 March, 2010. 

This article is a shaggy dog story.  In it Miss Chua says “MPs play a valuable role in the political process, often as an early warning system on issues simmering on the ground but not yet on the national radar.”

I beg to differ.

 

ROLE OF MPs IN PARLIAMENT

The main functions of Parliament are lawmaking, controlling the nation’s finances, and ensuring ministerial accountability.  By and large, it is the cabinet ministers and the public servants who have direct responsibility for drafting new legislation.

MPs can influence the Government policy by participating in debates in the House and in the Committees where new legislations are being formulated and thereby contributing both substantively and fine-tuning amendments.  MPs sit in Committees where Government spending is discussed.  They also lobby the ministers.   MPs can also introduce ‘private members bills’. Opposition MPs use Question Time in the House to raise issues of concern and bring them to the attention of the public.

 

SINGAPORE MPs IN PARLIAMENT

MPs are the eyes and the ears of the people.  They are voted into Parliament for this purpose and more.  In Singapore, 82 of the 84 seats in Parliament belong to the PAP.   Because of their overwhelming majority in the House for such a long time – 51 years, the PAP MPs have gone ‘soft’ and lazy and are relatively ineffectual.  One only has to watch a session of a Parliamentary debate on TV to be convinced. 

The debates are basically dour and docile affairs presented without much detailed research and barest of details.  MPs cannot articulate and there is a distinct lack of flair, aplomb (lacking self-confidence) and passion.  The ‘cut and thrust’ of debate or ‘off the cuff’ rebuttals and ‘humoring’ of fellow Parliamentarians are largely absent.   Too gentlemanly.  

MPs rely heavily on their scripted text and reading.  Their ‘theatrics’ or ‘wayang’ – prepared questions and answers meant to praise or polish the ‘marbles’ of the ministers are too prevalent in these debates. But in the main, the abysmal quality of debates is reflective of the “poor quality” of the MPs’ persona (many having entered the House courtesy of the open “back door”).  

Like the quintessential or arch-type Singaporean, these PAP MPs too are afraid to speak up for fear of retribution (or being dropped) and always want someone else to lead.   Hence the “wayang” i.e. questions and answers prepared before hand as evidenced by the scripted text.

Maybe it is the “corruption” of the high MP allowances that keeps these PAP MPs in check – the pervasive “don’t rock the boat” and the “better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt” attitudes. 

In the last session, the PAP MPs raised mundane, unexciting and inconsequential issues like cyclists on the pavements, number of steps on overhead bridges (good God, she can count – and up to 67!) and lifts.  There was even a nonsensical question raised by a doctor MP asking the Minister of Health how he stays looking young.  If this doctor does not know, who would?   Many suspect he was merely “marble” polishing.

In the meantime, look at what had happened in Singapore under the MPs’ national radar that had escaped their attention entirely:

1.  PRs buying up HDB flats and prices going up to the detriment of Singaporeans;

2.  Foreigners imported in Singapore in such alarming numbers (3.6 million) and such fast rate;

3.  The fast tracking and making of PRs and citizens;

4.  Demand of private homes hitting the roof and these MPs still do not see the bubble being formed;

5.  Hospitals and hospices are inadequate;

6.  The productivity of the Singaporean workers has dropped and the MPs are not even aware;

7.  Older Singaporeans out of jobs due to cheaper, faster and better foreigners;

8.   The MRT & buses are choked ;

9.   Unsavory behavior of our foreign imports;

10.   Stagnant incomes, lower purchasing power, lower quality of life, etc.

The above are just some bread-and-butter issues tugging the heart-strings of Singaporeans that our MPs are so oblivious to.  It was left to the vigilant netizens who relentless pursued and cajoled the Government in their postings and the 2 vs. 82 opposition MPs who championed these concerns and raised them in Parliament. 

 

AN EXAMPLE OF THE PAP MP ROT

PAP’s Baey Yam Keng, a ‘back-door’ MP in MM Lee’s GRC, must surely take the cake.  In a ‘Meet The People’ session in his Tanjong Pagar constituency at the end of last month, Mr. Baey promised to raise residents’ concerns in Parliament to ‘change’ government policies.  Doesn’t he know that this is his basic and sacred duty as a MP?  Has he been sleeping all this while? 

He did stutter and splutter last week despite reading from a prepared scripted text.  And what of the ‘residents’ concerns’ did this joker raised in Parliament?  Setting up a food museum!  How does MM Lee tolerate such fools?  This Minister Mentor is surely not doing his job!  MM Lee is NOT even mentoring his charges in his own GRC.  Or rather, has he given up as a consequence such low quality inputs?   

Where then is the early warning system, Mui Hoong?  And look at what were also debated in Parliament recently:

a.   $10 million to help migrants integrate;

b.   Migrants need not perform NS or they may not want Singapore citizenships;

c.   Migrants to join People’s Association;

d.   Foreign workers are necessary for Singapore;

e.   HDB flats are affordable;

f.   Even Ministers asking Singaporeans to be “more realistic” over HDB flats and being tolerant to foreigners.

The old maxim “pay peanuts and get monkeys” is reversed here in the Singapore Parliament. Singaporeans pay TOP DOLLARS for monkey PAP MPs. 

 

FAILURE OF PAP MPs

May I ask Miss Chua Mui Hoong how then do these MPs play a valuable role in the political process and more importantly how do they justify their shameless monthly MP allowances? 

In 1990, the Nominated Member of Parliament scheme was introduced.   Wong Kan Seng, DPM and Minister for Home Affairs and the then-House Leader, gave a reason for the scheme – the performance of the opposition MPs (there were four at that time) had been disappointing.   But I suspect he too was of the opinion that the PAP MPs were as just as guilty of this fact.  

Save for the former PAP backbencher Dr, Tan Cheng Bock and now Mr. Inderjit Singh, most of the other PAP MPs must either be from the mute association or the deaf association. 

Some of the NMPs, Siew Kum Hong and Chia Shih Teck in particular provided spirited debates.  But alas, their terms were not extended leading one to enquire if the Government was sincere in wanting diverse views or once again merely paying lip service. 

Singaporeans are such simpletons and imbeciles that MPs can be easily milk them for their astronomical MP allowances and Ministerial pay!  It is just taking candies from babies.  And we will vote them in again come next election!  

Even Abe Lincoln would have approved of this:

“You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can fool Singaporeans all of the time.”

 

JOURNALISM IN SINGAPORE

Like Rachel Chang, Miss Chua Mui Hoong too is doing ‘her ‘wayang’ …….. playing the tune for their political master and employer.  Like good pets, they bark or bite when told to do so.  Journalism in Singapore is dead.

My recommendation for Rachel, Mui Hoong, Main Stream Media journalists, reporters and presenters, are to embrace these 2 aspects for good journalism – i.e. journalist skills and journalistic principles. 

a.   5 journalistic skills – curiosity, sense of adventure, need to share, joy of storytelling and making a difference.

b.   5 basic journalistic principles – accuracy, thoroughness, fairness, transparency, and independence.

Otherwise quit journalism.

 

CONCLUSION

Parliament is becoming a farce if not an outright “wayang” thanks to these non-performing, ineffectual and lackluster PAP MPs who are there simply as dummies to fill up the empty seats.

As PAP’s omnipresent octogenarian “Dear Leader’ Lee Kuan Yew puts it succinctly:

“To be the prime minister, you don’t have to know every instrument, but you got to recognise, ah, he’s a good violinist, he’ll be the first violinist, he’ll be the double bass. He will play the viola, he will have the trumpet, he will do the drums. Then you coordinate them and then you have great music. And if you already have a great orchestra, you can put a dummy there and you still got great music.”

[Source: Channel News Asia, 5 March 2008]

PAP MPs have failed miserably in their responsibilities to speak up for Singaporeans, let alone be an “early warning system.” They do not deserve a single cent of the $13,000 monthly MP allowance that taxpayers have been paying.

A real “wayang kulit” will be much worthwhile watching than the pathetic “wayang” these PAP MPs put up in Parliament to masequerade Singapore as a “democracy” to the world.

 

Read also:

10 most unforgettable quotes by PAP MPs in the recent parliamentary debates

 

Other articles by Richard Lu:

1. Independent judiciary in a liberal democracy

2. Why an independent judiciary is an important part of a liberal democracy

3. Advantages of an open and democratic society

Effective persons and their characteristics

Happy day to everyone,

In today’s information age, competitiveness is so great everywhere. In order to compete and survive, we need to be effective. What is the real meaning of effective?
Effective Person is one who always make more things happen with least resources, in the shortest possible time. Sounds like magic and could this be possible? This is possible because effective people are consistently seeking new means to do things better i.e. to be more effective and efficient that is their secret. To them, getting things done and accomplishing results are the proof of success. As such, they always stay focus at their end results and continue to explore new and better ways to deliver more outputs.

How are they different from others.? Effective people account for their own lives, and not to others. As such, they hold themselves accountable for their own actions and never give excuses for failure nor do they blame others. In doing so, they gain respect and admiration from others. Accepting responsibility demonstrates honesty, trustworthiness and courage. Their quality values naturally attract others who want to help them to succeed, which is a crucial necessity for consistent achievement.

On the other hand, people who deny responsibility often cannot see things as they really are and they refuse to admit their mistakes. Hence they cannot learn from their own mistakes and thus stunt further growth in their abilities.

Because of their open minded nature, they are eager to learn. They replace their flaw beliefs which hinder them from achieving their results effectively. These beliefs will be their rock, serving as foundation to build their plan and action to deliver more with less. They are more open to new concepts and ideas. Naturally, they will attract many trusted people to join them in incorporating new ways of doing things so as to achieve timely results. Here, we can see that change is a very natural thing in the eyes of effective people. They rather take the ride of the natural wave and not fight against it. Hence, they rather make necessary adjustments to gear themselves for new progress and continually look for faster and better means to get thing done.

To them, every issue has a solution. To be fruitful, they rather focus their attention, effort and time to seek improvement in every aspect to enhance their output. As such, they will keep themselves busy with activities that produce results.

They are results oriented people, who take ownership to get the task done. They are interested in result and not meaningless activity. They are “can do” people who initiates action speedily and make sensible decision to resolve issues. They are proactive people who seek solutions to rectify issues so as to improve further.

Another great characteristics of effective people is that they are always full of energy and enthusiasm. They consistently generate output that is much higher than reasonably expected of them. They have all the necessary key ingredients such as persistence, determination, will power, stamina to accomplish long term objectives. In short, they have passionate, convinced and convicted commitment to make their dreams into reality. They enjoy every task with self motivation and they are able to set priorities according to their ultimate objectives.
Effective people also have the necessary required competence to get things done appropriately. They are the people who constantly polish their skill and explore new means of getting their things done effectively and efficiently. They are also improvement oriented and always explore further to enhance their track records. They are the people who constantly discharge their tasks diligently with full responsibility consistently with their beliefs system. They do what they preach because they know that this is the only way that can produce long lasting results.

Now, the choice is at your court whether you choose to cultivate some of the above proven characteristics that I have learned from those great masters who have a great impact on my life.

Thanks for your precious time and I hope that your time is well spent.

James Oh

About the Author:

James Oh is an accountant by profession and he works as a Financial Controller for more than 10 years with several companies in Singapore and Malaysia. He is a full member of the Singapore Institute of Director and he also obtained a LLB (Law degree) from the University of London in 2003. He is happily married with 3 loving kids.

James blog at http://liftyouup.blogspot.com

Next Page »