The call for allowing more foreigners into this island has not subsided,
instead in some corners the voice is getting louder. We must aspire to
be a global and cosmopolitan city, with the best of the rest of the
world coming here to give it the buzz. Sounds pretty exciting and
positive huh, a vibrant and rich city with a rich blend of culture and
lifestyle from people all over. In big countries, the rich city is like a
centre or heart of the country, a nucleus of sort. In our case, we will
be a global city and also a global country, as the country is in the
city or the city the country.
Now what is left of the country for the people? Where is the place for
the citizens, or what is in it for the people when the city/country
becomes homes to foreigners?
Many of these advocates for a cosmopolitan city of foreigners are just
talking through their asses. There must be an optimum or desirable
percentage of foreigners to keep a city vibrant without the citizens
losing their place or right of existence. The percentage of foreigners
could vary for cities in big countries to those in small countries and
to those where the city is the country itself. A city like New York or
London could have a bigger proportion of foreigners and still would not
lose its perspective and place as a part of the USA or UK. A city in a
small country with a relatively smaller population would be hard pushed
to have a big foreign population without undermining the interests and
character of the country. A city like Singapore, which in all sense a
city country, would be under great pressure to have 50% or 60% of its
population made up of foreigners. Pushing this limit to 70% or more is
critical and could put the citizen’s interest in jeopardy. Where are we
now? State secret?
What is the desirable or optimal percentage of foreigners should this
city state allow in to be comfortable socially, politically and with no
compromise to our sense of security? Have we already long exceeded our
comfort zone and should be culling the foreigners now instead of
foolishly and unthinkingly asking for more foreigners to be let in?
Though there are some quarters internally that are rooting for more
foreigners, the call for the incessant influx of foreigners is mostly
from foreigners themselves. They have no vested interests as citizens of
the city state and what is good to them is not necessary good for the
citizens and worse, often bad, very bad for the citizens.
When the tea cup is full, it is silly to keep filling it up. We are
already overpopulated for our own comfort except for the views of people
who think it is good and desirable to live like mice in a small
enclosed space. We have also exceeded the safe or comfort zone in the
percentage of foreigners vis a vis our citizens. We are already a
minority in our own country. Is that not scary? The citizens must have
the final say on this.
In whose benefits are the calls for more foreigners into our city home?
Is it for the general good of citizens, for the good of a small group
of citizens, or for the good of foreigners? The people, non citizens, or
citizens who treat this city state as a hotel, will be all for more
foreigners. They have no stake or interest in the well being of the
citizens except for themselves and their short sighted immediate comfort
and good. The citizens’ interests can be sacrificed or ignored.
Please, the tea cup is overflowing. Unless we have a bigger cup, a
swimming pool, talk some sense and spare a thought for the citizens that
are being squeezed out of their island city state. Foreigners should
stop prescribing what they think is good for Singaporeans. We know what
is good or bad for us.
8/14/2013
8/13/2013
Rumour of early snap election
There are some noises that an early poll could be called judging from
the visits by ministers to residents. I can’t confirm this but are there
reasons for an early premature poll? It is something that would be
frown upon as a waste of money and time of the people when the last GE
was slightly more than two years back. The calling for a snap poll must
need a very good reason to do so. And looking at the sentiments today
and the revelations of so many flaws in the system, it cannot be a good
time for the PAP right now. Unless my perception is wrong and the PAP
thinks that the ground is sweet again. Who knows?
There could be a few reasons for the PAP to want to call an early election. LKY is looking more like a physical burden to himself and to his constituency, and it is best to remove the obvious and put in a younger MP to do what an MP is supposed to do. It is also a good time for him to take a really good rest, to reminisce and romanticise his youth, and to bask under the glory before it is gone.
It would also be an opportune time to retire all the oldies in the team and bring in a few more eager beavers as several of the dropped ministers are just waiting to be released to the private sector to make their millions. It is agonizing to see them sitting at the back rows in Parliament and trying to bear with the new faces and their out of depth speeches. It is time to set free the tortoises, turtles and birds for them to lead their lives anew, like an act of acquiring merits in Buddhism.
Then there are some that are seen more like burdens to the team than assets and it is best to release them as well before they do more harm and damages.
But these are still not good enough reasons to risk an early poll. In a time like this when there are obvious anger and unhappiness over so many outstanding issues, unless something can be done to take away the sting, to make the people happy again with a battery of populist policies or handouts, no way will there be an early poll.
Ya, maybe this will be the key for a surprise poll. Christmas may come early, snow in June, and Hsien Loong could act as the lovable Santa Claus with bags of goodies for everyone, to lift away the dark clouds and brighten up the sky. Without a slew of positive policies that are people centric, that would benefit the people substantially and not just feeling good for the moment, a snap poll is definitely out of question.
Now let’s watch what Hsien Loong is going to say and do in his National Day Rally for a clue to substantiate this rumour. Please don’t accuse me of spreading this rumour. It is something that I heard on the ground. And it is something to think about and talk about.
There could be a few reasons for the PAP to want to call an early election. LKY is looking more like a physical burden to himself and to his constituency, and it is best to remove the obvious and put in a younger MP to do what an MP is supposed to do. It is also a good time for him to take a really good rest, to reminisce and romanticise his youth, and to bask under the glory before it is gone.
It would also be an opportune time to retire all the oldies in the team and bring in a few more eager beavers as several of the dropped ministers are just waiting to be released to the private sector to make their millions. It is agonizing to see them sitting at the back rows in Parliament and trying to bear with the new faces and their out of depth speeches. It is time to set free the tortoises, turtles and birds for them to lead their lives anew, like an act of acquiring merits in Buddhism.
Then there are some that are seen more like burdens to the team than assets and it is best to release them as well before they do more harm and damages.
But these are still not good enough reasons to risk an early poll. In a time like this when there are obvious anger and unhappiness over so many outstanding issues, unless something can be done to take away the sting, to make the people happy again with a battery of populist policies or handouts, no way will there be an early poll.
Ya, maybe this will be the key for a surprise poll. Christmas may come early, snow in June, and Hsien Loong could act as the lovable Santa Claus with bags of goodies for everyone, to lift away the dark clouds and brighten up the sky. Without a slew of positive policies that are people centric, that would benefit the people substantially and not just feeling good for the moment, a snap poll is definitely out of question.
Now let’s watch what Hsien Loong is going to say and do in his National Day Rally for a clue to substantiate this rumour. Please don’t accuse me of spreading this rumour. It is something that I heard on the ground. And it is something to think about and talk about.
How to keep the public service corruption free?
Actually there are a hundred and one things to do to keep corruption in
govt services in check. We have the world’s most effective corruption
prevention formula that may seemingly be legalising corruption by paying
out front so that there is no more temptation to want to take more to
risk losing everything. This formula would have removed a large chunk of
those that may be tempted to corrupt, leaving only a smaller number of
potential rogues in the system.
Next, our civil service was not born yesterday. It has been in operation for more than 48 years, even in colonial times, with well tested systems in place. And these systems and procedures have been constantly refined and improved to tighten up the loose ends over the years. By now, anything that can be tightened or enhanced to prevent corruption must have been worked into the system with tomes of manuals on operating procedures. It is unlikely that a mosquito could fly through the layers of mazes set up by the ministries to keep the mosquito out of the system. We have a very robust system of checks and controls. Believe me it is true.
To add to the checks and control there is the annual audit team to comb through the activities to make sure that all is in order. And the latest audit did reveal quite a number of lapses. And this is good as any discovery will mean that things can be captured and rectified.
And there is the fear CPIB to cast its shadow over anyone thinking crooked. This could be the last barrier to keep corruption out. If this fails, that nothing can hold anymore.
Chee Hean has replied to Low Thia Khiang’s queries on the recent spate of corruption involving senior govt officials, the reason for failure is never about the system but about the slack in maintaining and upholding the system. There seems to be an inability to follow standard and approved procedures or deliberately violated to abet corruption, or simply negligent on the part of the officers or their superiors. The flaws seemed to be the ease in circumventing a robust and tight systems of checks and controls. Why?
The causes of all the corruption cases are nothing sophisticated and bizarre that cannot be prevented. What could be the main contributor to the rise in corruption is lack of accountability. No heads will roll or at most a slap on the wrist would be considered the gravest punishment. How then could discipline and abiding to proper procedures be enforced when there is no fear factor? How would anyone not be tempted to take risk when the consequences are as good as no consequences?
A simple recommendation to ensure compliance to procedures is to make the officer directly accountable for his action. There can be flexibility for the officers on the ground to make exceptions but the officer must be directly responsible for his actions and be punished duly for not observing approved procedures or approving to override standard procedures. He decides and if things fall apart, his head rolls. Who ever authorises such actions, and if it leads to abuses or corruption in the system or process, shall be punished accordingly. And the minimum punishment could be demotion or if worse, dismissal and facing prosecution. When officers know that they will have to own up for their decisions, they will take more care to protect themselves and in the things they decide or approve.
The heads of dept, division or ministries must be the one ultimately responsible for the infringements and corruption appropriate to the authority he is bestowed with. When accountability and responsibility are well defined, the officers responsible would have to be very careful of their own actions and discretions. Without the will to punish anyone appropriately for corruption, it is only an open invitation for the officers to corrupt.
No matter how robust and well designed the checks and control systems are, without the will to enforce and take violators to task, it is as good as a system full of holes.
Next, our civil service was not born yesterday. It has been in operation for more than 48 years, even in colonial times, with well tested systems in place. And these systems and procedures have been constantly refined and improved to tighten up the loose ends over the years. By now, anything that can be tightened or enhanced to prevent corruption must have been worked into the system with tomes of manuals on operating procedures. It is unlikely that a mosquito could fly through the layers of mazes set up by the ministries to keep the mosquito out of the system. We have a very robust system of checks and controls. Believe me it is true.
To add to the checks and control there is the annual audit team to comb through the activities to make sure that all is in order. And the latest audit did reveal quite a number of lapses. And this is good as any discovery will mean that things can be captured and rectified.
And there is the fear CPIB to cast its shadow over anyone thinking crooked. This could be the last barrier to keep corruption out. If this fails, that nothing can hold anymore.
Chee Hean has replied to Low Thia Khiang’s queries on the recent spate of corruption involving senior govt officials, the reason for failure is never about the system but about the slack in maintaining and upholding the system. There seems to be an inability to follow standard and approved procedures or deliberately violated to abet corruption, or simply negligent on the part of the officers or their superiors. The flaws seemed to be the ease in circumventing a robust and tight systems of checks and controls. Why?
The causes of all the corruption cases are nothing sophisticated and bizarre that cannot be prevented. What could be the main contributor to the rise in corruption is lack of accountability. No heads will roll or at most a slap on the wrist would be considered the gravest punishment. How then could discipline and abiding to proper procedures be enforced when there is no fear factor? How would anyone not be tempted to take risk when the consequences are as good as no consequences?
A simple recommendation to ensure compliance to procedures is to make the officer directly accountable for his action. There can be flexibility for the officers on the ground to make exceptions but the officer must be directly responsible for his actions and be punished duly for not observing approved procedures or approving to override standard procedures. He decides and if things fall apart, his head rolls. Who ever authorises such actions, and if it leads to abuses or corruption in the system or process, shall be punished accordingly. And the minimum punishment could be demotion or if worse, dismissal and facing prosecution. When officers know that they will have to own up for their decisions, they will take more care to protect themselves and in the things they decide or approve.
The heads of dept, division or ministries must be the one ultimately responsible for the infringements and corruption appropriate to the authority he is bestowed with. When accountability and responsibility are well defined, the officers responsible would have to be very careful of their own actions and discretions. Without the will to punish anyone appropriately for corruption, it is only an open invitation for the officers to corrupt.
No matter how robust and well designed the checks and control systems are, without the will to enforce and take violators to task, it is as good as a system full of holes.
8/12/2013
Han Hui Hui, a brave young lass taking on the Govt
Below is an extract of a post by Han Hui Hui, a 21 year old who received
a letter from Allen and Gledhill, threatening to sue her for defaming
the Council for Private Education (CPE). She had problem finding someone
to defend her and finally ended up with Singapore’s Number One Human
Rights lawyer M Ravi coming to her defence..
‘On 19th April, I went to the high court to seek declaration that CPE being a government body does not have the rights to sue or threaten to sue Singaporeans for defamation.
I’m now seeking protection against this defamation suit via the constitution and the ordinary laws of the land. This lawsuit is not for anyone but for everyone, for the entire Singapore population, for the sake of our freedom of speech.
I took up this case not because I’m against the government but because of the love for our country, the need to protect human rights, our constitutional rights, our freedom of speech, our basic citizens’ rights.
Who does the CPE reports to? The ministry of education.
Who does MOE reports to? The parliament.
Who pays them their salary? Us, we the taxpayers.
How can they use our money to sue us for defamation?
The attorney general’s chamber is now involved as well.
The fact that AGC, the government is being involved further shows that our stand that the CPE a government body under Ministry of education does not have the right to sue for defamation. If public bodies funded by the public, can sue for defamation this will result in a stifling of criticisms, or genuine grievances, especially from those who do not have such an amount of resources.
How can they use their public fund to sue us? We should not allow public bodies to use lawsuits to silence criticisms against them. Why is the government going against our most creative cartoonist Mr Leslie Chew? Did any of his work Demon-cratic caused violence or people to have inability to pay their bills or be forced to leave the country?
We need to build a stronger and more inclusive Singapore so can we have our freedom of speech to hear the voice of everyone?
So our constitutional rights must be upheld against being sued for defamation by public bodies. Statutory board being a governmental body does not have the rights to sue or threaten to sue Singaporeans. I can forget about this case, I can forget about this lawsuit, I don’t have to fight this lawsuit. But I want to protect the rights of all other Singaporeans out there. Should we fight for our constitutional rights and the future of Singaporeans?’
More info of the court application: http://statboard-suecitizen.blogspot.sg/. To lend her a helping hand financially for this high court application, you can donate to her POSB Savings account number 279-12328-0.
‘On 19th April, I went to the high court to seek declaration that CPE being a government body does not have the rights to sue or threaten to sue Singaporeans for defamation.
I’m now seeking protection against this defamation suit via the constitution and the ordinary laws of the land. This lawsuit is not for anyone but for everyone, for the entire Singapore population, for the sake of our freedom of speech.
I took up this case not because I’m against the government but because of the love for our country, the need to protect human rights, our constitutional rights, our freedom of speech, our basic citizens’ rights.
Who does the CPE reports to? The ministry of education.
Who does MOE reports to? The parliament.
Who pays them their salary? Us, we the taxpayers.
How can they use our money to sue us for defamation?
The attorney general’s chamber is now involved as well.
The fact that AGC, the government is being involved further shows that our stand that the CPE a government body under Ministry of education does not have the right to sue for defamation. If public bodies funded by the public, can sue for defamation this will result in a stifling of criticisms, or genuine grievances, especially from those who do not have such an amount of resources.
How can they use their public fund to sue us? We should not allow public bodies to use lawsuits to silence criticisms against them. Why is the government going against our most creative cartoonist Mr Leslie Chew? Did any of his work Demon-cratic caused violence or people to have inability to pay their bills or be forced to leave the country?
We need to build a stronger and more inclusive Singapore so can we have our freedom of speech to hear the voice of everyone?
So our constitutional rights must be upheld against being sued for defamation by public bodies. Statutory board being a governmental body does not have the rights to sue or threaten to sue Singaporeans. I can forget about this case, I can forget about this lawsuit, I don’t have to fight this lawsuit. But I want to protect the rights of all other Singaporeans out there. Should we fight for our constitutional rights and the future of Singaporeans?’
More info of the court application: http://statboard-suecitizen.blogspot.sg/. To lend her a helping hand financially for this high court application, you can donate to her POSB Savings account number 279-12328-0.
47,000 voices heard in National Conversation
47,000 people of all walks of life and ages participated in the National
Conversation that was conducted over one year. Thanks to these 47,000
people, the concerns and worries of the people are now heard by the
Govt. This is quite an achievement as the same concerns and worries were
all over the place over so many years, especially in the internet and
even in Reach, but somehow they were not heard or no one took much
interest in them.
Hsien Loong is now going to address the concerns in his National Rally Speech and there are high expectations that things will happen with some major changes in the Govt’s thinking and policies. It can only be good for the people as changes cannot be for the worse.
The good thing about the Natcon, despite spending one year and 47,000 people to confirm the obvious is that more people are starting to think country and people and their own well being. And since it is the Gov’t’s initiative, with so much manpower, money and resources committed, something positive has to be done to make it meaningful and money well spent. The Govt also needs to show to the 47,000 people that it is listening and sincere in wanting to change to improve the lot of the people. It is also an important shift in Govt attitude towards a people up policies and a move away from the top down policies of the past. It is also important that the Govt should be seen to do what it preaches, this time listening to the people and trying to meet the aspiration of the people and not the agenda of the Govt or not what the Govt thinks is good for the people.
Now everyone is waiting for the fine details to see how far and accommodating the Govt is towards endearing to the people.
Hsien Loong is now going to address the concerns in his National Rally Speech and there are high expectations that things will happen with some major changes in the Govt’s thinking and policies. It can only be good for the people as changes cannot be for the worse.
The good thing about the Natcon, despite spending one year and 47,000 people to confirm the obvious is that more people are starting to think country and people and their own well being. And since it is the Gov’t’s initiative, with so much manpower, money and resources committed, something positive has to be done to make it meaningful and money well spent. The Govt also needs to show to the 47,000 people that it is listening and sincere in wanting to change to improve the lot of the people. It is also an important shift in Govt attitude towards a people up policies and a move away from the top down policies of the past. It is also important that the Govt should be seen to do what it preaches, this time listening to the people and trying to meet the aspiration of the people and not the agenda of the Govt or not what the Govt thinks is good for the people.
Now everyone is waiting for the fine details to see how far and accommodating the Govt is towards endearing to the people.
Policy changes coming up
Heng Swee Kiat was reported to have said that more policy changes are in the card in Hsien Loong’s National Day Rally speech next week. The key areas expecting major changes are Housing, health care and education. Nothing was mentioned on the influx of foreigners and the loss of jobs to foreigners due to discrimination? I do hope Hsien Loong will take a personal interest in this and put his weight behind Chuan Jin to give him more clout and confidence to deal with foreigners and foreign companies practising discrimination against Singaporeans.
Boon Wan has solved some of the more urgent issues of insufficient housing supply with his ramping exercise. The backlog of enforced demand due to bad policies should have ease somewhat. Now we will have to see what changes the Govt will come up with. Will there be a fundamental policy shift to ensure that ALL Sinkies be allowed to buy his homes direct from the HDB and to do away with all the silly and stupid Sinkie discriminating policies of the past? Will Sinkies be allowed to be prudent like Boon Wan has said, not to over commit in buying properties beyond their means and be allowed to buy properties/HDB flats that suit their needs and not the size of their income? Would Sinkies be allowed to buy smaller flats if they so desired without being forced by the Govt to buy bigger flats and compromise on their retirement savings just because the Govt think it must be like dat?
The exhorbitant medical care cost must be brought down, at least in govt hospitals, and that they are not allowed to charge like private hospitals just because they are now called privatised. Govt privatised hospitals are built using public funds and have a duty to serve the people and not merely profits. Many senior citizens are waiting to be bankrupt by high medical bills.
Would there be a comprehensive medical insurance scheme for the senior citizens that will minimise the amount they have to pay in govt hospitals or for the govt to fully pay for the medical premiums of those above 65 or 70 and above? The thinking behind medical policy needs a thorough relook as the population ages as the cost is running to frightening and unaffordable level. To what extent is the Govt responsible to the elderly for their medical care and medical bills?
The slippery education policy, the cost and how many to be educated to tertiary level and whether the Govt is seriously looking at a paradigm shift, to educate Sinkies to be crane drivers and hawkers is something mesmerising and truly innovative to watch.
More important is the population size and the size of foreigners in the country. Is the 6.9m a forgone conclusion and the people must accept it with no exceptions or changes? Will foreigners still be allowed to dominate our employment scene, to kick the citizens aside, especially the PMETs and to rule over Sinkies?
What is the ideal percentage of foreigners for the island and should there be a need to obtain the consent of the Sinkies? Or should 77 MPs be allowed to decide the fate of this nation and its citizens without question?
What is going to happen to the Sinkies and the high cost of living?
8/11/2013
Kishore – Count our blessings
This is what Kishore said in his article on Saturday of the 48 years of
nation building and how successful we have become. We have a lot of
achievements, a lot of blessings and also the inevitable weaknesses due
to what we are. Every nation has the same two sides of the coin except
whether there are more blessings or more weaknesses. There is nothing to
be apologetic for praising the Govt for what we are today. The material
achievements are there for all to see, with warts and all. In many
things we have outdone many countries in many ways and yes, we are the
envy of many. We have our problems, still manageable and tolerable. But
small problems if not nip in the bud could easily snowball and a mole
hill can become a mountain if we are reckless and complacent.
Kishore ended his monologue with an invitation for rude comments to remind him of the obvious that he had missed out that could make this city continue to be great or starting a downward spiral to ignominy. What is so obvious that he is not seeing is perhaps something that is too close to him. He is after all the Dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy.
Singapore will miss the presence of a strong, robust and dynamic leader that allows it to punch above its weight. The answer is so obvious. For all our money and wealth, our infrastructure and system, they will be nothing without a strong leadership that is recognisable and well respected in the international arena. I don’t see anyone in that shoe anymore. There will be none for at least the next 20 or 30 years. We may be wealthy as a country, but we will not be able to impress or speak and be listened to. You need dynamism, charisma, wisdom and the acknowledgment from other leaders to be able to lead and be respected.
From the current slate, what we have is mediocrity. We will fade away and just be another rich kid in the neighbourhood and nothing else. Empty in the head but driving flashy cars and with some money to throw around at best. That is, provided we did not let the economy runs into a halt, that we did not let a nation in the making becomes a hotel with no ownership and everyone is ripping it apart for his/her immediate vested interests.
What else can be more obvious than a vacuum that cannot be filled for a long time to come? Do we have any leader that is respected, revered and thought highly of by world leaders in the immediate future? Do we have anyone who could look at the whole rather than bits and pieces and have the ability to piece everything together for the greater good of country and people? Or instead we have people who are running the ship aground?
What kind of future can there be when the best hope is to get views from the laymen and women, the aunties and uncles, to guide the country going forward when the million dollar talents have run out of ideas and knowing not where to go or what to do?
Would there be anyone be rude enough to tell Kishore the obvious?
Kishore ended his monologue with an invitation for rude comments to remind him of the obvious that he had missed out that could make this city continue to be great or starting a downward spiral to ignominy. What is so obvious that he is not seeing is perhaps something that is too close to him. He is after all the Dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy.
Singapore will miss the presence of a strong, robust and dynamic leader that allows it to punch above its weight. The answer is so obvious. For all our money and wealth, our infrastructure and system, they will be nothing without a strong leadership that is recognisable and well respected in the international arena. I don’t see anyone in that shoe anymore. There will be none for at least the next 20 or 30 years. We may be wealthy as a country, but we will not be able to impress or speak and be listened to. You need dynamism, charisma, wisdom and the acknowledgment from other leaders to be able to lead and be respected.
From the current slate, what we have is mediocrity. We will fade away and just be another rich kid in the neighbourhood and nothing else. Empty in the head but driving flashy cars and with some money to throw around at best. That is, provided we did not let the economy runs into a halt, that we did not let a nation in the making becomes a hotel with no ownership and everyone is ripping it apart for his/her immediate vested interests.
What else can be more obvious than a vacuum that cannot be filled for a long time to come? Do we have any leader that is respected, revered and thought highly of by world leaders in the immediate future? Do we have anyone who could look at the whole rather than bits and pieces and have the ability to piece everything together for the greater good of country and people? Or instead we have people who are running the ship aground?
What kind of future can there be when the best hope is to get views from the laymen and women, the aunties and uncles, to guide the country going forward when the million dollar talents have run out of ideas and knowing not where to go or what to do?
Would there be anyone be rude enough to tell Kishore the obvious?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)