Chee Soon Juan - A time to Chee

How shall I write a piece on Chee Soon Juan without being seen as biased, partial or stereotyping or unthinking? If I say he is good, some quarters would be frowning. If I say he is NG, would I be doing justice to this man?

Everyone has an impression on Chee Soon Juan, mostly negative. The reason, they read the media and listen to the official news. Has there been anything written or spoken on Chee Soon Juan that is good or fair comment on this man? People who made a judgement on a person like Chee based on what they read about him in the media must seriously do some thinking and ask themselves what really happened and was he that bad a guy? And there are many questions to be asked as to why he has such a bad public image for so long, as an aspiring politician. He is so brash, he is so disrespectful, he is…. but that was 20 years ago.

Look across the causeway and look at Anwar Ibrahim. This one was imprisoned, tarred and feathered, charged for sodomy and all the hideous things that his political opponents could think of to fix him. The big difference, though some of the charges were really very serious, is that the Malaysian public are more sophisticated than the daft Sinkies. They do not believe everything that is published in the media and definitely would not believe the bad things the politicians said about Anwar. They are thinking and will challenge the official truth. They believe that those who cast stones at Anwar were many times worst than Anwar. Do the Sinkies bother to think and challenge the official truth on what Chee Soon Juan is all about?

Historically, many politicians found themselves on the wrong side of the political equation and were condemned or imprisoned for political crimes or for being politically incorrect. We have many that were detained for half of their lives without trial. Were they really bad people or simply politicians of the wrong camp? And there were many infamous personalities that have to seek the safety of foreign shores, never to return home.

On the international scene, there are great names like Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi and Deng Xiaoping. All were once on the wrong side of the political divide. They came back, rehabilitated, and rose to become very good leaders in their countries. If the opportunities were not given to these politicians, they would have ended in the dark corners of history, might even die in prison, for political crimes or just being on the wrong side.

Are Sinkies wise enough, mature enough, to do their own thinking, to make their own judgement on what is a good man or a bad person? Chee Soon Juan is definitely not an immortal, but an ordinary man. He would have all the flaws like you and me. Only immortals are flawless, mind you. All men have flaws, only discovered or exposed or the time is not ripe yet. Do not take anyone at face value. Do not make a judgement on another man by what others make out of him. Do your own thinking, and it is very easy. Scrutinise the facts, the intents and the truths imposed on your thinking. Be a bit cynical and critical and be a bit smart for your own good.

Is Chee Soon Juan what he is made out to be? Would he make a good politician to serve the people, speak up and stand up for the people? A good politician is one that serves your interest, not his own interest, not one that ignores your interest. A good politician is one that listens to you, not to himself.

Is it time for Chee? Is there room in Parliament for Chee?

Kopi Level - Red

10 reasons and 10 rebuttals on high ministerial salaries

Below are the 10 reasons put up by Roy Ngerng on the govt’s justifications for high ministerial salaries that Roy called 10 logical fallacies. I will attempt to rebut what Roy wrote in defence of the high salaries and hope my explanations are logical. And I think the IB will not attack me for writing this piece. I will want to clarify here that they are my versions and not PAP’s versions and I have not been commissioned to reply on their behalf. I just hope that my reasonings would make good sense.
 

1.      Why would the government fight to pay the highest salaries to themselves in the world but would not fight for the wages of Singaporeans, and would allow Singaporeans to earn the lowest wages among the high-income countries?

RB: If the govt does not fight to pay themselves, who else would fight for them? Tiok boh?  If Singaporeans would to fight to pay them high salaries then they would not need to fight for themselves right? And Singaporeans are earning the lowest wages because of competition. This one can’t be helped or Singaporeans would not even have jobs if they don’t accept low salaries. It is a global market, people can come in freely to replace Singaporeans. Heard of boh cheng hu?

2.      The government says that we need to pay them high salaries so that they won’t be corrupt. But they would pay Singaporeans low wages. If Singaporeans do not need to earn high wages, yet we can be honest, doesn’t that mean that there’s no need to pay the government such high salaries?

RB: Corruption at govt level is very serious as a lot of money will be involved. The higher in the govt the bigger will be the corruption. So very important to make sure ministers are not corrupt or tempted. This kind of super logic only can be found in Sinkieland. Singaporeans not earning high wages corrupt or not corrupt not important. At those low levels how much can they corrupt? How much is a Brompton bicycle cost. Peanuts right? They will be more interested in blowjobs than money. So no big problem.

3.      If we are paid low wages, does that mean Singaporeans are a dishonest lot? If we are not, then can the government earn lower salaries and still be honest?

RB. See answers above. The assumption is that everyone can be tempted to be corrupt. Only how much to corrupt and the price to prevent corruption. It is all about the temptation of man. And political leaders are only man, not immortals. Oops.

4.      If we have to pay the government such high salaries so that they can honest, doesn’t that mean they are corrupt in the first place?

RB: See answers above.

5.      If we need to pay the government high salaries so that they are willing to do the work, shouldn’t we fire them and bring in someone who’s willing to be honest and do the work at lower salaries?

RB: The problem is that you cannot find such talented people in the whole world that could be contented with a few millions dollars and would not be corrupt. Paying a few millions and have no corruption is really very cheap.

6.      If the government wants us to pay them high salaries to improve their performance, but the income inequality and poverty in Singapore has now become the highest among the developed countries, and Singaporeans earn the lowest wages and have the lowest purchasing power among the developed countries, doesn’t that mean that the government hasn’t improved Singapore? If so, shouldn’t we pay the government much lower salaries or shouldn’t the government step down?

RB: Depending on who you are, at least 60% of the Singaporeans have seen their lives improved. It is not possible to improve the lives of everyone right? And some Singaporeans are just not good enough, have skills mismatched, or some working for fun or for dignity. Money is not important to them. Didn’t you see the old uncles and aunties so happy and so proud of their jobs in the foodcourts and hawker centres? They are going to work till they die, happily.

Cannot pay the govt lower salaries or they will be corrupt or worse, they may resigned, then no talented people will step up to run the country. Cannot ask them to sacrifice too much.  Like that damn jialat you know. They will all go back to work in the private sector to earn more millions.

7.      If the government is willing to keep themselves on the highest salaries in the world, even as Singaporeans have been earning the lowest wages among the high-income countries for many years now, shouldn’t the government also reduce their salaries in the face of the stagnating wages among Singaporeans? If the government is not willing to do so, doesn’t that mean that they are being dishonest?

RB: Cannot reason like that one. Top talents must use top talent logic and no talent must use no talent logic. Just imagine if we remove this govt, there will be no more talent left in the island. This is the best team that can be found, A Team. And cannot accuse them of being dishonest, these are the most honest and honourable people, self sacrificing leaders that money can buy. Or you want to leave the country to Team B to run or the no talent opposition parties to run? All the talents available in the island are in the govt. Other places cannot find, got no more talents to find.

8.      If the heads of the Nordic countries can earn $300,000 and are able to turn their countries into one of the most equal in the world, where their citizens are able to earn one of the highest wages and have one of the highest purchasing power and happiness in the world, then why are we paying the Singapore prime minister 7 times more to create the most unequal society among the developed countries, where we earn the lowest wages among the high-income countries?

RB: You want to live in the Nordic country or you want to live in the most expensive city in the world where every one out of two person is a millionaire? You want to be millionaire or not? Income inequalities in a capitalist economy is normal. Can’t be helped. This is progress.

9.      If the government wants us to pay them high salaries so that they are able to be honest and perform, but if they have proven themselves to be dishonest and unable to perform, doesn’t that mean that we should reduce their salaries drastically or fire them?

RB: Where, where got govt not performing? Where got govt dishonest? No right? So second part of question irrelevant. We have the best performing govt that is the envy of the world.

10.  If they do not want to return us our money, what are they doing with our money?

RB: Return what money? You mean your CPF money? They are safe in the CPF. The govt are not touching your money. Can you prove that the govt is touching or ‘doing with’ your money? No proof cannot anyhow claim lah.

Are my answers sensible, logical and reasonable?

Kopi Level - Green

China Russian conducting war games in East China Sea

China and Russia have announced they will conduct a naval war game near the disputed islands of Diaoyu/Senkaku. This will be held in August and more exercises are being planned. China should just announced that the exercise is to simulate the capture of islands and no need to be shy about it.

China and Russia should also plan to hold joint exercises with the North Koreans in the sea around Korea. There is no reason why the Americans can conduct military exercises all year round and China and Russian refraining from doing so. The Americans have made their intention very clear about what the Asian pivot means. They are the global gangsters and wanting to rule over the countries in Asia.

Russia and China should make it equally clear to the Americans that they got the message loud and clear and will take the necessary actions and preparations to meet the American hegemonic intent. Running away and acting meek will only embolden the Americans and her allies like Japan and the Philippines. It is only a matter of time when a confrontation will result with the American camps becoming more provocative and raising tension in the region.

China and Russia should not limit their military exercises just in East Asia but should conduct some exercises in West Asia. That would make everyone more friendly and respectful. It is like gun ownership. When everyone walks around carrying a gun, everyone else would have to act more carefully and not to provoke the other. The South China Sea is also a good area for joint Russian China military exercises.

It is only war games!

Kopi Level - Green

They don’t come for your lunch

Neither did they come for your dinner. The foreigners are here, more than 2 million of them, working happily here and replacing the Sinkies in their jobs. Some poor Sinkies, highly qualified and experienced, are jobless or underemployed, and some simply ended up driving taxis, becoming first class cab drivers.
 
The foreigners did not come to take your lunch or dinner. They were invited here to do so. If we don’t invite them, there is no way for them to be here to take your lunch and dinner. It is more like we owe them a living. We need to take good care of them while their govts failed to do so. It is our responsibility to do so, even at the expense of our daft Sinkies.
 
Why are we doing this? It is for the good of the Sinkies of course. We bring them here to take our lunch and dinner and they in turn throw some crumbs for us.

Beware of TPP

Asian buyers need to be wary of TPP agreement
 
'Despite President Barack Obama’s charm offensive in the region, Pacific nations are well-advised to remain wary of the US government’s position on the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP).
 
If US trade negotiators got their way, the Pacific Rim would reap surprisingly few gains — but take on big risks. Until the United States starts to see Asia as a true trading partner, rather than a region to patronise, it is right to hold out on the TPP.…
 
In exchange for these small benefits, the US’s partners in Asia and Latin America have to take on big risks…the US is insisting that TPP partners surrender their right to regulate global finance.
 
Through its financial services and investment provisions, the TPP would allow Wall Street banks to move into TPP countries’ financial services sectors. To do what? If you can believe it, to push the very financial products that triggered the biggest global financial crisis since the Great Depression.
 
That is not progress. That’s regress, given what the world now knows about these often toxic instruments.
 
What is more, if US trade negotiators, acting at the behest of US industry, got their way, the deal would prohibit the ability of these banks to be regulated to prevent and mitigate a financial crisis. They would be “free” to recreate the mess all over again….
 
…the IMF expressed concern that agreements like the TPP “do not provide appropriate safeguards”….
 
What is perhaps most risky for the US’s TPP partners is that the foreign banks themselves will be able to directly sue governments for violations of the agreement….
It is in the well-understood self-interest of Chile, Malaysia and other TPP countries to continue to push back on Mr Obama’s proposals to de-regulate financial services and investment. It is also in the interest of financial prudence and international fairness.
 
In light of that, it is disconcerting to find a recent study which shows these nations have been able to safeguard the ability to regulate finance in treaties with trading blocs such as the EU and Canada and China, but that it is the US which is pushing back with great determination.
 
Thankfully, there are important voices in the US who are pushing President Obama to act with more prudence than the US financial industry wants him to do. Americans are also painfully aware that financial crises hurt US jobs and financial stability.
 
US Congressman Sander Levin and others have been pressuring the Obama administration to ensure that trade deals don’t trump regulating global finance. In 2011, over 250 economists from across the world urged Mr Obama to make trade deals consistent with financial reform as well…. ©2014 The Globalist'
 
Kevin P Gallagher is a professor of international relations at Boston University.
 
The above article is published in Bangkok Post. It highlights the dangerous proposals in the TPP and the unusually high risks for countries to go with the TPP. And an American professor is warning Asians to be wary of the US. Apparently some Asian govts are soooo happy with this TPP that they cannot see anything wrong with it. So this American professor must be crazy right?
 
Why are there govts so eager to sign this American proposal which is akin to signing a suicide pact? Is Singapore one of the eager beaver? This is going to be far more dangerous than signing the CECA. Before out govt sign this pact, does it have any responsibility to tell the people the pros and cons of this deal? Or would it be like the CECA and the AEC, the govt knows best. Trust the govt?