hsien loong's national day speech

A little light moment to remember. The most animate moment when he mentioned the name of Lim Kim San, he instinctively looked skyward to see if Kim San was there looking at him. I don't think he choreographed that. And anyone want to buy him mee siam, please don't. Mee siam apparently is not his favourite food. He didn't know that 'hum' do not go with mee siam. Now what is interesting in his speech, things that forumers will want to know? He spent quite a bit of time talking about the digital age and cyberspace. He discussed about how and why they did that to Mr Brown and the need to engage the people in cyberspace. He came out really fired up about this. But this is an area that he wants to do something differently but did not know how. This is best described by him quoting Deng Xiaoping, groping for rocks, one at a time while crossing a river. A case of wanting to let go, to engage the people but not having a formula to do it. Much as he wanted to talk to the people, or for his ministers/ministries to talk to the people, the big stick is still in his hand. He invited criticisms, and even talking about debate. But would there be any debate? In his view there was debate in Mr Brown's case when MICA responded. If that was the kind of debate that we are going to see, then one can expect nothing new. He talked about the new digital age and how to respond to this new challenge. But would the ministers/ministries think they are up to it to debate or discuss an issue over cyberspace? So far only one senior officer from the Foreign Ministry had the confidence to respond by writing back to Gayle Goh in her blog. Would there be more to follow suit and talk to the people instead of talking down to the people, or using the big stick? We will have to wait and see how they go about groping around, and carrying a big stick.

open jobs to foreigners selectively

Mr Lee added that Singapore has to educate the young to higher standards so that they can move up the value chain and do higher end and more difficult jobs. At the same time, the government will continue to invest in new schools to develop talent. These are the basics that are needed for Singapore to continually adjust and grow, MM Lee said. But Mr Lee warned that the government cannot stop the worldwide trend of lower wage increases for the lower income group, thus the urgency to learn new skills. To move ahead and compete, Mr Lee felt that the services sector is the sure sector, which cannot be "migrated so easily" or outsourced. The above was an extract of LKY's National Day Dinner speech at Tanjong Pagar. LKY said that the service sector is one area that cannot be outsourced or migrated easily. This means that this sector will still be a reserve for Singaporeans if they want them. To take this further, there are many services and industries that need not be opened up to foreigners. And such industries and services should be identified and their job opportunities be Singaporeans preferred. In our attempt to open the country, there is no need to open up everything, including our backside. Some parts must still be covered. We have protected the political system, the legal system, some sectors of the civil service like defence and home affairs etc, we can do more. There are many areas in the private sectors that need not be given away so freely and easily. There is a need to be a little street smart while we open up. Or Singaporeans will end up begging the foreigners to have mercy and not to compete with them for jobs. Opening up is a good thing to attract more foreign talents. But it should not be done foolishly.

reinventing singapore

After 41 years as a new nation, we celebrate national day again and again while others celebrate independence day. Our independence was handed to us on a platter, not on a pool of blood of independence fighters. We have grown from about 1 million people to 4 million, including all the residents, PRs and guest workers. It is quite a strange feeling to count the guests and PRs as part of our population. And we are aiming for 8 millions despite the dwindling fertility rate. And projections claimed that only 1.5 million Singaporeans will be left in the not too distant future at the rate we are going. This would mean that Singaporeans will be a minority in this island which they called home. Assuming that this will be the case, lesser indigenous and organic growth but with an influx of foreigners who are happy to be just permanent residents as they get better privileges than the citizens, would the island then really resembles what we have heard very often, a hotel? And if this is the nature of things to come, maybe we should think about reinventing Singapore into a global city without citizens. Everyone is a guest. Everyone is a PR. Then we can change our status from the Republic of Singapore to PR Singapore. Not People's Republic of Singapore, but Permanent Residence's Singapore. We can declare ourselves something like a neutral piece of land like Switzerland and get a guarantee from the United Nations and all the big powers to safeguard our neutrality. Then we can disband all the expensive and cumbersome defence infrastructure and national service. We will be the shining example of a country without borders. Anyone can come and go as they please. And no citizens to curse and swear about being at a disadvantage in their home country. Everyone is equal, just a PR. No more Singaporeans, just citizens of the world.

followup of andy ho's quality reporting

I was reading this article on students agents by Melissa Sim in the Sunday Times. Despite the fact that she had been told that her numbers were wrong, she still put it into print, claiming that students agents earned a hefty commission of between $2000 to $8000! And she was told that she must know what constitutes that $8000. The number is nonsensical if it is just commission for bringing a student here and help him enrolled into a school. No student would pay that kind of money just for that. The more likely figure is between $800 to $2000, depending on the complexity of the case. But $8000 is not uncommon for foreign agents in China, Korea or Vietnam to charge their clients as there are many domestic regulations and systems to get by, including paying off certain people. The impression given by Melissa Sim is that it is a 'low startup costs and about $100 million up for grabs...' What her article implies is that these are sheeps with plenty of money to be milked by the agents. But when you read her comments further, her evidence did not point to anyone paying that kind of money to their agents. Even a student who paid $2000 were unhappy about it. Where would anyone pay $8000? Other than the unscrupulous who would take the commission and run, many agents have to sweat it out and play parents to the students, especially the younger ones for 4 to 6 years when they are here, running and fetching them around to do domestic chores and worrying for their safety. It is hell of a responsibility to take a child into their care when their parents are thousands of kilometers away and have laid full trust that the agent will look after their children, responsibly. And she mentioned about the Association of Consultants for International Students(Singapore) or ACISS which was set up specifically by the agents and related industry players to self regulate and ensure professionalism and reliability of the service providers. The responsibilities are huge and the service providers knew that they have to provide a service that commensurates with the commissions they are getting, and to make sure that their care are safe and sound. It is no joke should an accident happen or the child is hurt in anyway. For $2000 and a responsibility that can stretch for several years, only the uninformed will think that it is good money. Perhaps in the eyes of this reporter, once the commission is in the pocket, it is time to disappear. I post this to show the quality of reporting and the amount of homework done by a mainstream journalist as claimed by Andy Ho. Factual and accurate reporting!

corporate watchdog!

Many of us are privy to many wrongdoings in the corporate world. Some were first hand information and some from hear says that were mostly truth. It is not uncommon to see hotshot and prominent honchos and CEOs indulging in sleazy deals, unethical and immoral practices at the expense of organisations and employees. I have heard of employees being held at ransom, treated like chattels, exploited and abused by the management they trusted. Some were used for horse tradings, some threatened and prevented from leaving the organisation, or if they leave, obstacles were placed along their path. All these wrongdoings have not been exposed for many reasons. And many at the lower end of the pecking order do not have the resources, money or intellect to take on the bigshot culprits who could drag them to court. And these people would lose by default as they would not be able to engage a legal counsel to bring the culprit to justice. They just cannot afford the legal fee. The internet forum will be a good place to expose such wrong doings to give warnings to those wrongdoers that their wrongdoings did not go unnoticed. Just to mention them here without identifying them or the organisations will suffice to put notice that their game is up. I hope forumers can contribute to this thread with their own encounters. And if this thread proves popular, I will stick it up as a permanent feature here.