MySingaporeNews

Chua Chin Leng蔡镇龍 aka redbean · at 10:57 am

I would not dare to attempt to write about what it is like as the least favourite child as in Nur Dianah Suhaimi's article. You need to be in that person's shoe to know and feel what it is like. It is good that on our 43rd birthday, we can talk about it in the mainstream paper. It was a very sensitive issue for the last four decades and we are loosening up a little and tipping our toes into this issue warily. There were stereotyping for sure. There were also genuine concerns and historical concerns. The inability to participate fully in all avenues and areas of a nation's development is very painful. And this is especially true for the Malay elite who think more and could rationalise more. Many questions were asked and many were unanswered, or difficult to answer, or poorly answered. National service, to don on the military uniform to serve the nation, a statement of loyalty and trust, cannot be dismissed lightly. To be left out of this process is a very difficult thing to accept and to many, unacceptable. And it is good that the Malay community want to serve and fighting for their right to serve the country in the most honourable way. Nur Dianah's father did not serve NS like any other Singaporeans. And this is bugging him and his family for being left out for no fault of his. And for those who are serving NS, but in the Police Force, the slight is also being felt. Could we come up with a better and more acceptable solution to this problem? We have made some inroads and some progress over the years, but not enough. Until the sense of being left out, being the least favourite child is removed, the solution or status quo is far from adequate. Now, with so many talents and so much being paid to these talents, this is an issue that is worthy to crack their talented minds instead of being stressed over mundane issues that no talents can also do better. We as a nation need to embrace every member of our citizenship equally as one of us. No buts. Don't ask me for solutions. I am not up to it and neither am I being paid for it. We need to help our Malay community to chase their aspirations like any other Singaporeans unhindered by any roadblocks.

Chua Chin Leng蔡镇龍 aka redbean · at 10:27 am

Two articles worthy to read appeared in today's Sunday Times. 'Time to tolerate political diversity' by Cherian George and 'Feeling like the least favourite child' by Nur Dianah Suhaimi. Both expressed an inner feeling of what things are and what were their aspirations of how things could be better from two groups of disfavoured children of paradise. Let me deal with Cherian's piece first and Nur Dianah's in another post. Cherian George dealt with three issues, political intolerance, lacking of civility in politics and passionate people wanting a better Singapore for all Singaporeans. We have seen the worst of political intolerance in our history and this intolerance is not going to go away. It may get worst. It is already in our blood. The victims were people who chose to take a different path, join a different political party and sing a different song. Even when they were doing all these legitimately, legally as far as our constitution and political system granted them, their fate was absymal. This is mixed with a high dosage of lacking in civility on both sides. Yes, both sides. None is better than the other as far as civility is concerned. And this has led to a point that good people would not join the alternative parties and neither will they want to be seen to be associated with the ruling party. As Cherian George put it, 'Nobody should be surprised when either bully talk by those with power or histrionics by those without leave the broad middle ground turned off....There is that well known fear of taking positions that can be construed as anti government. But there are also talented young people who feel embarrassed about joining the Government because their peers scorn such a path as lacking in idealism.' A kind of sell out of principles and idealism I supposed. Lately there have been many calls by well meaning Singaporeans in power or close to the power saying that Singaporeans must speak out fearlessly, with passion and sincerity. There is this belief, or new trend of thought, that being passionate and sincere is a licence to say speak freely. I hope this is real. Turning back to what Chua Lee Hoong wrote yesterday, that we are now unfurling our authoritarian flag unashammingly and with pride, would we see a meaningful change in our political culture and political system? Or we are seeing encouragement to stride proudly into the realms of authoritarianism? We should not be confused with having a tough govt making tough decisions for the good of the people and an authoritarian govt that runs a country for their own good. The two are not synonymous.

Chua Chin Leng蔡镇龍 aka redbean · at 10:18 am

Hsien Loong's National Day speech was devoted to three key areas, 1, create wealth, 2, create more babies, and 3, embrace the internet. No surprise that the internet is growing in importance here and around the world. It is instant information at 24/7 and unstoppable and very difficult to apply censorship other than blanketing the whole cyberspace. Over the last few days we are hearing internet and cyberspace everywhere and ST is going into cyberspace in a big way. Perhaps they are entering the arena for the purpose of educating and engaging the cyber citizens. Educate comes first, engaging is secondary. Cyber citizens can look forward for more free education from the professional journalists and the govt and will turn out wiser and more educated.

Chua Chin Leng蔡镇龍 aka redbean · at 9:53 am

The Singapore model for economic development and authoritarianism is The Model for the world to emulate. This is the first time some one so close to the establishment actually, formally, admitted the term authoritarianism as an intrinsic element of our political system. There is no denial and no need for denial any more. We are a good and successful authoritarian state. This is the gist of Chua Lee Hoong's article in the ST and a must read for National Day. And who can speak for us more authoritatively than a westerner by the name of John Kampfner, a British journalist writing for The Guardian. We have our endorsement from the liberal western world than this model might not be a bad thing. This is what Kampfner said, 'The model for this is Singapore, where repression is highly selective. It is confined to those who take a conscious decision openly to challenge the authorities. If you do not, you enjoy freedom to travel, to live more or less as you wish, and - perhaps most important - to make money....' The strength of this system is economic freedom, to be rich, to chase your material wealth and dream, and to enjoy your rich life freely. The only condition is not to challenge the authority. Repression against those who challenge the authority is the right of those in authority, and justified. Are Singaporeans really accepting this precept and willing to go down this path? Political challenge or offering an alternative political solution, an alternative team to run the country, cannot be a crime in any sense. In fact providing an alternative political solution must be enshrined into our system to encourage good people to challenge the system for the betterment of people and nation. But once we accept the precept that all political challenge can be lawfully and rightfully repressed or suppressed, we are in for a very dangerous slide down to a dictatorship or an authoritarian state. Is that what we want? Some may argue, like Chua Lee Hoong, that we are already an authoritarian state and we are progressing very well. The world is looking up to us as The Model for economic growth and uplifting the livelihood of the people. We are on the right path. Really? How much is Chua Lee Hoong's position of an authoritarian state a reflection of the thinking of the political elite? Is this her position or the position of the elite and they are giving notice to the Singaporeans, that this is the real stuff and this is what we gonna be? In a separate article Tommy Koh wrote about the role of the legal profession and urged them to be passionate for justice and against injustice. If we are to accept repression against political challengers, do we need to consider or think about justice and injustice? Is political repression an injustice to be fought against?

Chua Chin Leng蔡镇龍 aka redbean · at 9:54 am

The word 'independence' is a smear word in the history of colonised people. Independence from who or from what? If the land is yours, if you are the owners of the land, what independence, but independence from the colonial masters who came and took the land from you. You lost ownership of your land and your rights as an independent people. You became a subject of a colonial power. All the properties and land now belonged to the masters. They came and they took, including you. The only people who fought bravely for their land and their rights as a people were the Red Indians. They fought with bows and arrows against rifles and bullets. They were decimated. But they were willing to die for their land and the rights to be what they were. No one was going to take away their land and properties unless over their dead bodies. Millions of dead Red Indian bodies were strewn across the prairies. There are so few left of them today that the World Wild Life Protection Fund should rightly put them on the endangered species to be protected. The Africans were in a poorer state when the colonialists arrived. They did not know much about being a nation or a country. All tribes, and primitive weapons for hunting, worst than the arrows of the Red Indians. And they were easy meat. Hunted down like animals and shipped as beast of burdens. They called them slaves then, to work for a paltry 3 meals and in chains. No rights, no freedom. They don't even own their bodies or their children or spouses. All owned by the colonial masters. The Indians in India were far better developed. They had empires and kingdoms before. But they could not fight the power of new military weapons. Many chose to serve the colonial masters and be part of the empire. The pockets of resistance were too weak and disorganised to mean anything. Came Malaya, in a period of village chiefs. The only fighting weapons were the krises and spears, maybe some blowpipes. But as small groups of fishing villages, they were easily rounded up, a little carrot and stick, and all was peaceful with the colonial masters in full control and owning everything. Singapore was created as a trading post by the colonial masters. It grew and became their administrative headquarters. We became part of the Straits Settlement which included Penang and Malacca. Then came self rule in 1959. David Marshall and Lim Yew Hock were involved in political and administrative fights to win back some rights to govern ourselves. History helped us in our next phase of development when the British Empire was crumbling and they found it necessary to grant independence to their colonies but retaining authority and privileges to trade and administration. We became part of Malaysia in 1963 and then full independence in 1965. Finally, we owned the land we lived in, we became citizens with full rights to properties and liberty. Yes we became independent and owned everything here. There were some legal and political struggles, not the kind like fighting a war of independence when many were killed or ended up as martyrs. We were literally given our independence on a silver plate. Maybe we have got our independence too easily. So it is easier to give it away or share it with the world. Everyone is welcome to be a citizen. And everything can be sold for a price. Just name your price and we can negotiate. Will we sell everything we owned for some fiat currency? Would we sell our rights as a country, our people's rights as citizens for money? Will we eventually lose everything or sold out everything that has a monetary value on it? What is a country or nation when we don't own anything any more? What is a country or nation when no one feels any attachment to anything here? What is, if no one thinks it is worth fighting for, or a better option is an exit to another country, emigration? What is a citizen when anything of value is own by foreigners? And to make matter worst, we either have to pay dearly to enjoy or visit them or be excluded completely, because we are not a member or cannot afford to become a member, in our own country? It is not too far fetch to imagine that Sentosa or Orchard Road will no longer be freely accessible to the citizens unless they can afford a ransom for it. The trend of losing the rights to our land and properties, to the right of sight and smell, and even free air, is growing. If and when everything is sold, what are we as citizens of this land? We are 43 in a week's time. What will things be when we are 53, 63 or 100? Will we be citizens in name only but serving new economic colonial masters that own all our land and things on the land one day? Will the word independence takes on a new meaning some time in the future?

Chua Chin Leng蔡镇龍 aka redbean · at 9:50 am

Yes, and it seems legal, technically. I am sure many of you have received unsolicited credit cards and given lines of credit. When the cards plus all the terms arrived, you will find that you will have to pay an annual fee. Sometimes they called, and I politely told them that all my credit cards are free. If they are giving them free to me, I will keep them. If not they can cancel the cards and facilities. Now this practice is getting more arrogant. They just send the package to you, And they bill you if you did not call them to reject them. The onus is now upon the recipients to call and act on something he does not ask for. Now he has to take the trouble to make those nonsensical calls to a phone machine and to wait for several minutes, pressing stupid numbers to get through. And you don't normally get through on the first attempt but after several attempts. I just received another card, with lines of credit, with cheque books, and of course with an annual fee. I conveniently threw everything into the rubbish chute. I am waiting for the bank to call me for payment of annual fees. You can expect what I am going to show them. Is there any law that I can go to for redress against such extortionist acts? The banks may even use their legal muscle to threaten small people like us for not paying. What is this country turning into? Oh, and I remember sometimes back a big shot banker was complaining about unethical practices in the industry. Is this unethical practice?

Chua Chin Leng蔡镇龍 aka redbean · at 9:34 am

Salimudin was jobless and penniless and was a petty thief. That was his life offering. He offered a part of his liver for a sum of $44k in a illegal organ transplant. The operation did not pose a risk to his health if done professionally. This is reported in the Sunday Times today. He has since bought a house and live with his family, including two children, respectfully. He also bought a 5,000 sq meter oil palm plantation. He is a little rich plantation owner now, and life is comfortable. Is he exploited? The picture of him and his beautiful family flashing their happy smiles say it all. He is a very happy man. If there is no change in the current thinking to consider legalising organ trading, I doubt his case would stand a chance to be aired. It would likely be forgotten, better not to talk about things that the conventional wisdom is against. The mass hysteria being stirred up can end with people being burnt on the stakes. Now we will probably see more stories from the dark side, which actually becomes brighter because of organ transplant. But Salimudin was a lucky one. He did not get cheated by the parties in between. With organ trading being illegal, many could be cheated and there is no redress. That can become more tragic when he gets only a pittance and the middle men took the king's ransom. And both illegal donors and illegal recipients can be found guilty by the court of law and punished. Tang Wee Sung paid $300k and is facing criminal charges. His potential donor have been jailed and fined. And yes, some will enjoy discussing about it as a matter of ethics and morals while people are desperately trying to keep themselves alive or dying. And people like Salimudin will still be prowling the night as petty thieves.

Chua Chin Leng蔡镇龍 aka redbean · at 9:12 am

9 candidates will stand for the Indonesian Presidential election. We can't find even one willing to stand unless the ruling party nominates him. And the restrictive rule that one must be an elite before one can even qualify further removes a large number of good candidates. The Indonesian do have their rules governing eligibility, like being a member of a political party and with a 15% representation in Parliament. Another built in barrier favouring the ruling party. What is important is that there is no dearth of qualified and respectable candidates offering themselves to the people. In our case, even without the elitist ruling, not many will want to stand. Some misfits may stand up. But we cannot simply dismiss the intelligence of the people to vote for a freak. Let's have more trust in a people that is well educated, well informed and good enough to be comparable to a first world country. And Chok Tong was talking about tweaking the system to make it more relevant. The question is that why is the current system unable to throw up more good people in politics and the presidency? Is the system accommodative or seen as hostile to political participation? Obviously the latter, given the lack of participation and only participates when invited. If the system is allowed to continue without any serious changes, what will happen is that no good people will want to come out voluntarily. And those who come out will join the opposition and probability have a kind of attitude that the ruling party fears most. A recklessness or do or die attitude, bring down the system before the system brings them down. The divide will grow and becomes irreconcilable. And things will naturally gets more vicious and unrestrained, for the good of neither side. We are seeing this happening. Why would good and decent people want to get involve in politics when their little indiscretion could suddenly be a national issue? Things like putting a ball point pen from the office in his bag and use to sign his personal cheques as well. Or his little relaxation in a spa in Bintan suddenly floated in the rumour mill. Or worst things could even happen. Chok Tong talked about a system that would throw up good leaders in both the ruling party and the opposition. Is our system doing that? Looking at the opposition camp, we know that it is definitely not. Looking at the ruling party, it is apparent that they are scrapping at the bottom of the barrel. Other than the key appointment holders, let's face it, ...I shall save my comments as they are not very flattering. We need a system that promotes healthy participation from good people in politics. We need to accept and listen to alternative views and grow with them. There seems to be some changes in this line of thought in the ruling party, with more conciliatory messages for a better opposition. Would it turn into a reality or just a red herring? Under the present system and political climate, it is near impossible to have good people forming their own political parties to provide a decent alternative to the ruling party. They won't. The rules of the game is stacked against one side and the price for participation can be untold misery, when the opposition becomes a real potential to win an election. No one knows what will come out when the gloves are off. Can we really move forward and evolve into something healthier?

Chua Chin Leng蔡镇龍 aka redbean · at 9:10 am

Why is the govt struggling with the baby problem? Our baby growth rate may be lower, but why is there a need for more babies? We are not producing enough babies to keep the pyramid game going? Or is it that we are still chasing the 6.5 mil target? More incentives and more money will be considered to make parents start to reproduce again. The question is, reproduce for what? To keep the economy going, to keep the social and family structure viable? To keep the main core of the population local Singaporeans? Having more babies should not be just a simple case of economic consideration. It used to be a natural thing, get married and keep mating and producing babies. Today, having babies bring along a life long series of problems of maintenance and making sure that the babies are going to get a reasonable life when they grow up. The rich have accumulated wealth, bought houses in advance, to make sure that their progeny will have a comfortable life. What about the poor who are struggling to even feed themselves? Is it responsible to ask them to go ahead and produce recklessly without much thought of their children's well being? Many from the lower income homes will grow up handicap, unable to compete with the more materially well endowed children. Many will start life with a ball chained to their legs. Is this a good thing, producing cannon fodders? What about a promising future, a brighter future of hope and happiness? Many at the lower rungs of society will only continue to perpetuate their pathetic life of deprivation by bringing more children into this competitive and highly stressed country. It is very difficult for them to break free from the poverty trap they are in. If they so choose to have a couple of children, that is a choice that they have made for themselves in their given circumstances. But to push that choice into a non thinking quest just to produce more cogs for the economy, that may be quite tragic. We have done it for many years. Instant trees, instant population, and why not instant babies? Are we having second thoughts on the consequences of having instant babies that may lead to more instant problems when they grow up? Would such questions be unnecessary as we claimed that we are all migrants and having more migrants is only a natural thing, a good thing? We can have a more migrant and vibrant people in the future. And they shall be the new Singaporeans and they shall decide what kind of Singapore they want. No need to sweat the small stuff and coming out with more and more costly options. We have created a system that technically is fair to all but in reality put those in the lower income group in a very disadvantageous position. Why are we making things so hard, so expensive to raise a family by pushing up cost of living without a second thought of how it will impact the people and change their lives and expectations? Did someone say we create our own problems only to find superficial solutions for them?

Chua Chin Leng蔡镇龍 aka redbean · at 11:11 am

Below is an extract of a ST report that ERPs are well received and motorists are happy with their brightly coloured designs. I think they could make motorists happier by giving them a cup of free ice cream or coffee every time they pass through gantry. That will be great service! And the motorists will all be talking about how good the ice cream or coffee was, and how thoughtful. "MOTORISTS are giving the thumbs up to ERP charges - at least the way the amount payable is displayed on gantries. Snazzy colourful icons of vehicles and the amount motorists have to pay at various times are now revealed brightly in a panel at the top of the gantry. First unveiled on July 7 when five gantries downtown became operational, the new-style display has since been set up on 40 of 65 gantries in use. By Nov 3, the panels, each costing about $65,000, will be on 70 gantries. This is when five more gantries will come onstream in places like Commonwealth Avenue, Jalan Bukit Merah and Alexandra Road."

Chua Chin Leng蔡镇龍 aka redbean · at 11:00 am

During the days of western colonialism, things were cheap. Cheap labour, cheap land, and low tariffs or no tariffs. The British came and just take over Africa, India and Malaya, including Singapore and many Indonesian islands. And they plant rubber trees on them, mining tin etc. No land cost to talk about. Then they imported indenture labour cheaply from India and China. No need to pay for work permits, maid licence, levies etc. And their import and export to their colonies around the world, tax free also, or very low taxes. A world economic systems built under the same principles of the colonialists must be a god sent solution to the worlds problems. There will be no inflation as all the costs of production will be very low. Instead of planting rubber trees on colonised land, they can opt for palm plantations. But better still, build high rise and high end residences for the rich. And they can sell them cheaper if they want to, as the land is free. Or they can maintain market prices and reap in obscene profits. And some land or sea are rich in oil. And labour must also be must cheaper as colonised people cannot bargain nor have they any rights or be protected by labour law. The wages can be suppressed and kept very low. Looking at all the advantageous of colonialism, it looks very attractive for the 21st century!

Chua Chin Leng蔡镇龍 aka redbean · at 10:17 am

Sunday is a good time to relax and ponder over things in a leisure pace. Time to take a look at issues that one tends to set aside in a fast pace lifestyle. Over the weeks we have talked and discussed about things and certain views need a little reflection when there is no pressure from time. There is one particular point that some bloggers like to point out whenever the CPF money issue is raised. To put it more correctly, our money in the CPF, not CPF money. Or to put it even more correctly, our money that does not seem to be our money as we no longer have any say in it or know when it will be returned to us, if it ever will. At this point in time, there seems to be some timeframe and formula for us to expect that one day some will be returned. But we cannot be very sure of this either. Some gods may discover that we may live till 100 years, and hold back the money till we reach 99. What particularly concerns me is that there is a view, often cited, that the reason for delaying the return of our hard earned money is because someone already have designs on it, to use it for his or her investment plans. And our CPF money is the most handy, with low interest rate and also the ability to delay repayment if the investments did not turn out right. Just push back the repayment to a latter date, or hopefully some may not live long enough to claim back their money. It becomes an endless source of fund. Is this view valid? I am sure no one has any proof that this is the case. But the people will have their own perception of things and will speculate whatever they want depending on how their minds play with their emotions. Would people do such a thing, I mean scheming to use the people's savings for their private thrill of investing or gambling? If hit the jackpot, claim all the credit and pay themselves crazy. If not, just delay payment for as long as possible? Assuming that this is possible? Is there any thing to change the minds of these people? Legislation is not an option. Public demonstration is also not good. Pleading, kpkb are about the only avenues left, but are totally ineffective. Can we call on god to deliver his justice for the disadvantaged people? I think highly successful people are never god fearing. Any signs of god fearing is only a show, to put the people's guard down. See, god fearing people are honest people, do no evil. People who are too successful have a tendency of self delusion. That it is their destiny to be god of the people, to decide the fate of the ruled. They have full control over the direction of the future, and they will do want they think best. And they are beyond reproach. Above law, beyond god, what else could man be made to watch their actions and be met with justice should they erred? The Buddhist has this concept of karma, and karma debt. It is like Newton's Third Law. Every action has a reaction. But it is just a belief, a philosophy of life. Do evil begets evil, do good begets goodness. In reality, there were some examples of bad people ended badly. But there were also many evidences of bad people, evil people, living a life of abundance, and enjoying their wickedness happily. For the meek and weak, they can only hope that something that will deliver justice to them will work. Only such untainted justice, above race, wealth, power or religion, can level the playing field and turn the table on the strong and mighty. The bigger the misdeed, the more people suffered, the greater the retribution. This could explain why royalties or rich landlords did not last forever. It is nice to think about an invisible hand or natural justice standing up there watching over human beans and will strike or reward appropriately. Then again, this is another opiate of the downtrodden. The victims of might and social injustice will dream of such dreams. But life goes on. The poor and weak will continue to be exploited and abused by the strong and powerful, as sure as the sun will rise.

Chua Chin Leng蔡镇龍 aka redbean · at 9:43 am

Have we progressed in the area of political development where the people feel more Singaporeans, more involved, more participatory, and feel more as owners of this island? Or are we still in the third world stage, where the people are still ignorant, illiterate, unthinking, wild and violent, bankrupt of ideas, naive fools? Or we have progressed to another plane, the ethereal plane of sheep, a sound proof plane? While we are seeing more people speaking out in the media forum, and more in cyberspace, we are also seeing fear resurfacing now and then. And for those who are talking, they are very guarded and fear treading on people's shoes, and watching the OB markers like hell. Can we blame them? How can we blame them when the official view is that if you want to talk politics, you better be a politician or join a political party. With such middle age mindset still existing in the minds of our veteran politicians and instant tree politicians, I don't think we are progressing at all. We are still Africans in our political make up. Or at best we are living in the days of the dynasties where authoritarianism is the only virtue in statecraft. Alvin Yeo is quoted in the ST as saying, '...political discourse should be carried out through the political process and through political parties, not societies or associations.' What is political discourse? HDB flat allocation is political discourse. Number of babies is political discourse. National Service is political discourse. Jobs and wages are also political discourse. What is not political discourse? Sex and drugs perhaps? I glance through the discussion on the role of the Law Society and the gag on their learned comments on political issues with a big yawn. Maybe we should define the law more clearly. Every profession can only comment on issues related to their specific expertise. The medical profession only on medical matters. Lawyers on legal matters, architects on bricks and mortars, and workers on how to get more pay rises. etc etc And politicians can comment on all matters as all matters are political matters. This must be the best part of this kind of thinking on division of roles and responsibilities. As all things can be seen from a political angle, the politician shall have the privilege to comment on all things. When will we grow up politically despite the world class education and first world economic status?

8/15/2008

8/14/2008

8/13/2008

8/12/2008

8/11/2008

8/10/2008

8/09/2008

8/08/2008

8/07/2008

8/06/2008

8/05/2008

8/04/2008

8/03/2008

8/02/2008

8/01/2008

7/31/2008

7/30/2008

7/29/2008

7/28/2008

7/27/2008

7/26/2008

7/25/2008

7/24/2008

7/23/2008

7/22/2008

7/21/2008

7/20/2008

7/19/2008