And now the second part. 'Payrise is not an entitlement.'

And now the second part. 'Payrise is not an entitlement.' The way the proposed payrise is put forward, it is like an entitlement. As long as the top eight income earners in the formula made a killing, the ministers should also be entitled to a killing. Logical? Should we ask what are they doing, what have they contributed, what are their achievements? And forget about the last 40 years of achievements. Some of them were probably kids when all the hard work were put in to build the strong foundation for what Singapore is today. What are their contributions for the present Singapore? The other issue is the portfolios they are holding, or without portfolio. Some are shouldering very heavy responsibilities, some very little. Some looking after the welfare of kids, sports, some looking after the elderly, some looking after the economy, the safety and security of the people and country. Should all be paid in millions? We need to need to look at the jobs, the responsibilities and the contributions, current contributions, to pay them accordingly. Past contributions have already been paid, and continuously being paid in the form of pension. They should be paid by their own performance and not the performance of the top eight high earners. The pay of ministers is from public money and needs to be accounted for prudently.

ungrateful singaporeans

Let me post two opposing views on this hot potato. I will title this first part 'The ungrateful Singaporeans.' It is quite distressing really, for our ministers to come up in the open to ask for a payrise for themselves. The payrise for ministers should be pushed by the Singaporeans for all the great work the ministers have done for Singapore. Over the last 40 years, the ministers have worked so hard to bring Singapore from a struggling small sea port to a first world city. Now that is achievement and hard work, brain work. They deserve every penny we pay them and more. They deserve to be paid more. And they are the best talents that Singapore has produced. So logically they must be paid the highest salaries as the rest in the private sector are second to them. They did not want to be politicians. They were called to be politicians against their wills. Otherwise they will be the captains of the industries and be in the top positions of all the professions in the private sector. And they wear so many hats. Everyone of them wears probably more than 20 hats, and all for the people and country. Can't the people appreciate that? And for doing so, they work at least 18 hours a day. Who else would want to work in this way, no day and no night? Then the big sacrifice, they have very little time for their own families. Their children very likely see them less than the people. Their time are public time. What is more amazing is that having made it in life, all of them have a big fat account in the bank and do not need to work any more, they refuse to retire and smell the roses and play with their grand children. They still come forward to slog for the people and nation when they don't have to. And the people are so ungrateful, criticising them and calling them names. Just remember, we have a clean, competent, conscientious, committed and corruption free govt because of all these great men that stepped out to serve. Pay them what they should be getting.

myanmar sand, a friend indeed

In politics you do not know who is your friend. Your best friend, the so called friends, could turn out to be your enemy. And the countries that you least expect will be there with open arms to help you when you needed help badly. In the past we have Israel to help us during the difficult formative years. Today, under pressure from ungrateful friends, we have Myanmar offering us all the help that we needed most. We should welcome this friend with open arms. And best, we can terminate all our needs for sand and granite from Indonesia. Make it a clean and final decision. We should impose a ban on importing sand and granite from Indonesia.

a young malaysian talent in the making

Malaysia Its Singaporean inferiority complex We seem to be obsessed with Singapore; why do we live in our neighbour's shadow? Klang blogger johnleemk Mar 23, 2007 Malaysians have this odd obsession with Singapore. While reading Malaysia Today a few days ago, I scrolled past several pieces with only half a dozen comments, down to a piece posted around the same time with over 50 comments. Its subject? Singapore. The only things that can get more controversy are, I think, race, religion and sex (not necessarily in that order). But why are Malaysians so pathetically insecure that we live virtually in the shadow of our southern neighbour? Why is it that nearly every political debate has to include some reference to Singapore? What makes this neighbour of ours so special? Historically speaking, it's probably the fact that Singapore was considered an integral part of the country until after World War II, when the Malayan Union failed to include it. Afterwards came a painful merger between an independent Malaya with Singapore and the former British colonies of Sabah and Sarawak. Then two years later came an even more painful separation between Singapore and Malaysia. To that, I think, a lot of our insecurities can be traced. Since separation, Singapore has moved forward much more than Malaysia, joining the ranks of developed countries and overshadowing Malaysia. Even today, the one thing people tend to credit ex-Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad most for seems to be for taking Malaysia out of Singapore's shadow. (This seems to be patently untrue, though; when I tell Americans I'm from Malaysia, they get confused until I tell them we're just north of Singapore.) Thanks to this, whenever Singapore gets brought up in casual conversation, things can get heated — and often political. Almost everyone seems to have an opinion about Singapore, and a rather strongly-held one, too. Generally, these strong-held opinions fall into one of two categories. The first is one extremely enamoured with Singapore. The people who fall under this category often tend to be non-Malays, especially Chinese, who look up to Singapore as a model for meritocracy, and an oasis of good governance in a desert of administrative inefficiency. The other category is for opinions which are diametrically opposite. These opinions often are held by Malays upset with what they perceive to be the injustices of a country where minorities are implicitly discriminated against, where the country is not really much more free or much less corrupt than Malaysia, and where the stuck-up Chinese majority continually thumbs its nose at its neighbours across the Straits of Tebrau. As usual, I think the truth lies somewhere between these two extremes. But that's a subject for another day. For the time being, what we are concerned with is the apparent inferiority complex Malaysians have with Singapore, to the point that half the country appears to long to ape the island republic's every move, while the other half refuses to do anything that might be seen as learning from the island republic's lessons — both for the sake of menegakkan maruah Malaysia (loosely translated, standing up for the honour of Malaysia). I think that, in the end, it all comes down to two things: race. No, there's no mistake — I mean "race" as in "ethnicity" and "race" as in "competition". When it comes to the first issue of race, Malaysians can't help but feel terribly strongly about our relationship with Singapore. Malaysia has had pro-Malay policies in place from the time of the British colonial era, while Singapore refused to bow to Malay demands for greater Malay hegemony, with the end result of separation. When it comes to the second issue of race, in almost every sphere of competition, Singapore has us beat flat. Whether it's tourism, biotechnology, industry, prestige, the exchange rate, net immigration — we're on the mat, begging for mercy, and Singapore is kicking the hell out of us. It's hard not to feel touchy and inferior about this desolate rock we had the temerity to kick out 40 years ago. During the administration (or maybe regime would be a better word) of Mahathir, the relationship between the Malaysian and Singaporean governments was probably at an all-time low. It was even worse than at the time of separation — indeed, part of the reason Malaysia and Singapore separated was because Tunku Abdul Rahman, our PM at the time, thought he could get along better with Lee Kuan Yew as a neighbour rather than a rebelling local statesman. Since then, things have improved. There have been changes in heads of government on both sides of the causeway, and there's cause for optimism at the elite level. But at the grassroots level — in the mamaks and in the kopitiams — it seems that controversy about the Malaysia-Singapore relationship is more alive than ever. Malaysians have yet to release themselves from the grip of this inferiority complex. When we stop thinking about political questions in terms of "What would Singapore do?" and then decide to do as they would do (or, in the case of the contrarians, precisely what Singapore would not do), and reason without reference to that neighbour down south, then maybe we'll have made some progress to actually beating Singapore in some race. But of course, it's doubtful that this will happen. Malaysia's relationship with Singapore is much like a relationship between two bitter exes — they can't stand to see each other, but bitch about the other at every opportunity they get. Until we escape this bitterness, we will remain as politically immature as a nation as we were at independence. (John Lee Ming Keong is a 16-year-old living in a suburb of the Klang Valley in Selangor, Malaysia.) I copy the above from littlespeck.com. This young man, John Lee Ming Keong, I must say that I am terribly impressed by his maturity in thoughts and his ability to express so well, in English, a foreign language. I think he will soon be offered a scholarship to study in Singapore. For his tender age, the intelligence level is evident.

hurry, property prices shooting up!

Boomtown Charlie, Property prices on the rise Everyone in the business is using his loud hailer shouting that property prices are shooting to the sky. Quick, quick, go out and grab one before it is too late. My rich neighbour already bought 4 properties, one for son, one for daughter and two for suckers. Where are the suckers coming from? Most heartlanders have one or two children who would probably inherit the little flat they have bought. The rich, like my neighbour, have already bought all they wanted, and in excess, and waiting. Sure there will be a few young couples who have made it and wanted a place of their own. And these will have to play catch up if they can afford it. But many young people will not have enough, with the kind of pay they are getting, to buy those skyrocketing price private properties. Where is the demand coming from? Maybe some foreigners going for the top end. What about the general market, the HDB market? Is there really a demand to chase prices up? The memory of the balloon bursting is still deeply etched in the minds of many who have been made bankrupt. Bang, bang, bang, propery prices going up!