Ladies and Gentlemen,
I have been reading Singapore's state controlled newspaper's online edition, the Straits Times from my office in Fremont, Northern California, outside San Francisco as you know. The newspapers daily come up with new laws, new policies and new agendas of this one party state Singapore. Today, it is the changes in the CPF. Yesterday it was a Malaysian born Chinese MP in Lee Kuan Yew's office scolding the Mainland Chinese table tennis coach in Singapore. Also there was the news of the police recruiting another 1500, I assume poorly educated individuals, to join the police force to stop anyone engaging in peaceful protests. A few days ago, there was the news report of Singapore London Day where many thousands of Singaporeans assembled in London to pay tribute to Singapore and its greatness. In fact there was probably a handful of Singapore government workers in London who were asked to pose for the picture in the newspaper, and the rest were merely passers by who took the opportunity to grab some free food displayed in a public park in London!
And as a matter of fact, no one cares. You can write in your papers that Singapore has sent a man to Mars but it would not raise an eyebrow, I tell you that. This is what always happens in dictatorships. The government has instilled so much fear in the people that it is dangerous to raise any opinions, unless it is accepted by the government. So why take the risk of saying anything or doing anything. Just go about your business and let the state controlled press say whatever they want. It wouldn't make a difference one bit either way anyway. Your opinions as citizens is inconsequential to the leader and his scholar elite ministers. Just keep your mouth shut and do as you are told. If not, Judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean will be deployed to order you pay Lee Kuan Yew $400,000.00 for defaming the leader, just as Dr. Chee had to suffer.
And if this is the sort of country that can compete in the global market place, you might as well try to convince me that pigs can fly.
The supreme leader of Singapore Lee Kuan Yew is 87 years old. His handpicked former Kempetai Japanese Military Police employee of 1942 to 1945, SR Nathan, the President is 89 years old. The leader's son, whom he placed as Prime Minister does not inspire any confidence in anyone. All the rest of his Cabinet and government are minions running about waiting for the next order from the leader. Or singing praises to him as the occasion warrants. This whole scenario does not instill any confidence in anyone. The 86 year old leader may die soon. His son, the Prime Minister is useless. When that happens your Singapore dollar and the monetary reserves if there are any left will disappear into thin air.
If I can bet on it, you should do this before it is too late. Take your families and your money out to stable and respected countries such as Australia and other democracies. Singapore is a one party dictatorship where the leader steals your money to the tune of $3.7 million dollars a year and calls it a salary. And if you question it, he will send you to jail.
You are a slave in Singapore. Get out of it.
Gopalan Nair
39737 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite A1
Fremont, CA 94538, USA
Tel: 510 657 6107
Fax: 510 657 6914
Email: nair.gopalan@yahoo.com
Blog: http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/
Your letters are welcome. We reserve the right to publish your letters. Please Email your letters to nair.gopalan@yahoo.com And if you like what I write, please tell your friends. You will be helping democracy by distributing this widely. This blog not only gives information, it dispels government propaganda put out by this dictatorial regime.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
57 comments:
"Singapore is a one party dictatorship where the leader steals your money to the tune of $3.7 million dollars a year and calls it a salary. And if you question it, he will send you to jail."
VERY VERY WELL SAID INDEED!
WE ARE ALL JUST ROBOTS! WORKING FOR THEM ! NO LIFE AT ALL! ALL FULL OF ENEMIES IN S'PORE!
The supreme leader of Singapore Lee Kuan Yew is 87 years old. His handpicked former Kempetai Japanese Military Police employee of 1942 to 1945, SR Nathan, the President is 89 years old. The leader's son, whom he placed as Prime Minister does not inspire any confidence in anyone. All the rest of his Cabinet and government are minions running about waiting for----- their next salary pay day!!!!
So old yet getting such high salaries!
So many people in their 40s/50s no jobs and suffering????? What contradictions??? Throw Lee Regime out!
"Switched Off" - population- people a just fed up with life in Singapore!
No ...sorry no life here! JUst hell!!!!
will heed your advice and get out of Singapore next year....to Taiwan
to hell with PAP!
actually the president is 85 years old this year. not 89 as you say.
My dream is to see the day LKY dies and the moment in the air. I want to see his funeral.
Another dream would be to see him seeing that his country is being taken over. But that would be dreaming too much. Most probably Singapore will only change once he's gone.
Haha!
Kuala Lumpur: The pressure is coming from the Barisan Nasional as well as civil liberties groups, as the government seeks to fulfill its pledge of revamping one of its most controversial and hated laws.
In Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew too used the Internal Security Act (abbreviation, ISA) to imprison his political opponents.
CHIA Thye Poh, a willowy, softly spoken, 57-year-old bachelor, for the past 32 years has been branded by the government a violent communist revolutionary and a threat to national security.
‘The best years of my life were taken away just like that without a charge or trial,’ says Mr Chia, having had his right to talk to the press finally restored. Tears swell in his eyes as he contemplates his lost chance of marrying and raising a family.
For 19 years, the government gave no explanation for Mr Chia's detention.
February 2, 1963, was the day that changed his life. The Singapore government, headed by a then more youthful Lee Kwan Yew, carried out the arrest of about 100 political activists fearful of a communist insurgency.
Mr Chia recalls things differently. He claims he ran into trouble with the authorities after Singapore's then Prime Minister Mr Lee and his ruling People's Action Party (PAP) suddenly announced Singapore's split from the Malaya Federation in 1965. ‘The separation was never discussed in parliament. There was no referendum.
Chandra Muzaffar, a political science professor at the University of Malaya, says: ‘It is a damning indictment on the Singapore Government to have held a chap for all those years and then when finally releasing him issues all those restrictions. It was such an inhuman thing to do to incarcerate him for so long.’
From the very beginning if they had found I had done anything wrong they should have charged me in court and offered me a chance to defend myself.’
Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng explained to parliament in July that trials of Communist Party members used to be impossible because the party intimidated and liquidated witnesses who gave evidence in court.
While in detention, his captors are said to have taunted Mr Chia by driving him around the city-state showing him how fast Singapore was developing. Just sign this little piece of paper, they said, and you can be part of these exciting new developments.
When he refused, Mr Chia claims he was told he could rot in jail.
His first action after restrictions were lifted on Friday was to issue a stern public statement condemning the ISA and demanding its repeal.
On several occasions, Lee Kuan Yew proudly defended himself that he was merely using a law set by the British. If he is wrong, Britain must be wrong.
Wait a minute. The British colonial master sets this law to imprison its colonial slaves without trial. The British used it to suppress its colonial slaves who are demanding independence from the British rule. We can understand, the British might have not been treating its colonial slaves well for centuries. That is history.
However, the situation is different in Singapore. Lee Kuan Yew chased the British away from the island of Singapore in 1963 and merged it with Malaysia. In 1966 he broke away from Malaysia and almost immediately, he applied the ISA to imprison Chia Thye Poh and a bunch of other MPs who did not agreed with him.
In less than 2 years Lee Kuan Yew showed his true color of another Napoleon Bonaparte – the Pig who drove Mr. Jones, the owner of Manor Farm out of the farm. Soon after he became the master of Singapore, he used it to imprison fellow citizens of Singapore. He will continue to use it to imprison anyone who dares to challenge his tyrannical leadership. He will not abolish it.
Please read the book, ‘Animal Farm’ by George Orwell. Napoleon the Pig is a tyrant. By the way, before you can read this book, Lee Kuan Yew would have banned it and burned every copy of it in the like of Qin Shih Huang, the tyrannical ruler of the Qin dynasty which collapsed 3 years after his dead.
On May 6, 2009, The New Paper reported: “Now she has a home – cancer patient who stayed under the Nicoll Highway bridge placed in welfare home by Joanne Hor Peixin, newsroom intern.
She now has a place she can call home. Miss Goh Jade Choo, 34, who can’t speak and hear and has breast cancer, had been living under a bridge at the Nicoll Highway next to Kallang River.
She and her neighbor of six years, Mr. Kamsani, 58, have been housed in a welfare home by the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS).
An MCYS spokesman said that the ministry has housed both Miss Goh and Mr. Kamsani temporarily in a welfare home. He did not say when they were moved and delined to name the home they were sent to.
The New Paper reported last Thursday that Miss Goh and Mr. Kamsani and another man had opted to live under Nicoll Highway rather than seek help.
MCYS officers conduct regular patrols to pick up destitute persons in response to feedback on its hotline.
So TNP readers were touched by Miss Goh’s situation. Despite her physical disabilities and breast cancer, she did not seek outside help. She earned $200 a month as a toilet cleaner.
However, she flirted with danger with danger every night when she slept on a narrow ledge next to the river. One wrong turn and she would end up in the water.
After the first report was published, The New Paper returned to Nicoll Highway last Thursday and asked Mr. Kamsani if Miss Goh would be better off in a home.
He said she could have a tough time adjusting as she had never lived at a welfare home before.”
What happened to the third man? Was he dead? Why there is no mentioned of him?
In this entire episode, it is obviously clear the Singapore government does not care about the destitute at all. Why would I make such a conclusion?
One, living under the bridge for 6 years and nobody notices it until a nosey reporter wrote about her.
Two, the Social Welfare workers only bother to move her and Kamsani to the home temporary. They could not care less for the third man.
Three, Lee Kuan Yew is too busy chairing over more than $500 billion in GIC and do not have the time to think about the poor. Take just one percent of it to feed and to house the destitute. There will be no one living under the bridge.
However, he is too busy counting money. He said, “All these S$500 billion are my money.”
Do not expect a single cent of kindness from a miser. You just look into his face and stared at him squarely. Can you see his nostrils? You can’t. In Chinese physiognomy (or face reading), “A person whom you can’t see his nostrils, is an extreme miser.”
Well, you don’t need a physiognomy to tell you that. He could not even allow a single voice of opposition in his Parliament. This is absolute proof that his tolerance level - zero. There is no kindness in his heart. He is the devil – a Satan reincarnation.
He is a tyrant who rules the island with an iron hand since 1963.
On May 6, 2009, The New Paper splashed on its front page : “Meet-the-people session rage: Teen arrested. Angry at MP, Boy slams chair.” by Ng Tze Yong, tzeyong@sph.com.sg.
A youth with low IQ has been arrested by police after flying into a rage at a Meet-the-people session (MPS), upset at what he felt was his MP’s cold-shoulder treatment of his mother’s financial plight.
The 17-year-old boy hoisted an aluminium foldable chair over his head and slammed it against a glass door seconds after walking out of MP Cynthia Phua’s Serangoon North office with his mother.
The boy, who has been released on bail, has been told to report back to the police on 12 May, where he may be charged with committing a rash act.
The offence carries a jail term of up to six months and a fine of up to $2,500.
This is the third incident in recent months involving MP’s and their constituencies.
In Jan, MP Seng Han Tong was allegedly set on fire by a 70-year-old former cabby. Ong Kah Chua allegedly poured thinner on Mr. Seng and set him alight at a grassroots event at Yio Chua Kang Community Club. Mr. Seng, 59, suffered 15 per cent burns over his body, and had to be warded in hospital for almost a month as well as undergo several skin grafts.
In Mar, a rag-and-bone man was jailed for six months for threatening to cause harm to MP Denise Phua. Ng Kim Ngweng, 49, called a public hotline and threatened to hurt Ms. Phua on 12 Jan, a day after MP Seng was set on fire. Speaking in Mandarin to the customer service officer of Reaching Everyone for Active Citizenry @ Home (REACH), Ng utters words intended to cause alarm to Ms. Phua, and also referred to her autistic son. He was apparently upset that Ms. Phua had not done enough to help him with his financial problems.
The boy and his mother, 53 are familiar faces to the grassroots volunteers at the MPS. The unwed mother with Primary 6 education gets by with a $400 monthly salary as a part-time cleaner. He attended a special school and suffers from thalassemia, a blood disorder that renders him weak and sickly.
The mother said that things went from bad to worse in November 2004 when the boy’s father disappeared and stopped paying the $300 monthly maintenance due to her. As a result she visited the MPS about once a month for the past few years to request for various kinds of financial aids.
January this year saw a crisis unfold in their lives, when the mother broke her wrist fter falling off chair while cleaning a fan. She hasn’t worked since.
She said the HDB was then in the middle of repossessing her flat and giving her a rental unit, but she was unable to pay the $138 in rental deposit and stamp duty.
So last Monday, she went to the office block at Block 125, Serangoon Ave 1, where MP Lim Hwee Hua holds her MPS, hoping to have her sign an appeal letter to HDB. But that day, Mrs. Lim, who is also a minister in the Prime Minister’s Office, was abroad. Fellow Aljunied GRC MP Cynthia Phua stood in for her.
The mother’s request was granted – Madam Phua signed the letter – but mother and son left fuming, claiming that Madam Phua had put them down.
She claimed that shortly after they had entered the office, Madam Phua asked her son a series of questions:
“She asked him, ‘Who are you? What are you doing? Why aren’t you working?’ ” she claimed.
The mother said she wanted to explain her son’s condition, but wasn’t given a chance.
“I felt like we were being scolded,” she said.
The meeting ended after two or three minutes, she said.
As they were walking out, the son snapped.
His outburst with a chair – two blows against the glass door, which didn’t break – was “strong enough to get someone killed”, said the Serangoon PAP branch secretary, Mr. Poon Mun Wai.”
Idiot! Lee Kuan Yew. This is what the Chinese scholar wrote, 民怨太深。是改朝换代的时候了。大家一起去造反。Which means, ‘The people are so badly oppressed that it is time to change the dynasty. Let’s rebel.’
Sylvia Lim – chairman of Workers’ Party wrote in Hammer issue no. 0901: In 1986, the government decided that it is not happy with the way the Law Society had conducted itself; that is, having Francis Seow as its President, and actively campaigning against restrictions on the foreign press.
So it decided to amend the Legal Profession Act to place conditions on who could run for office in the Law Society. Selected committee proceedings were held and televised. One by one, the lawyers in the Law society council were grilled on national television about how they were not fit to hold office. Detentions under Internal Security Act of alleged Marxist conspirators followed soon after.
At about the same time, Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam, or JBJ was being convicted of an offence involving a donor’s cheque to him. He entered Queenstown remand Prison to serve a prison sentence.
He appealed against his disqualifications to the Privy Council in London. In the course of their judgment, the Law Lords in London observed that JBJ’s conviction was wrong and that he had suffered a “grievous injustice”. This was basically brushed aside by the authorities.
Nearly ten years later, campaigning began for the General Elections held in Jan 1997. Tang Liang Hong had teamed up with JBJ to contest Chengsan GRC. On New Year’s Day 1997, JBJ stood at WP rally stage at Yio Chu Kang stadium and said that he had with him Tang’s police reports against “Goh Chok Tong and his people”. For that statement, 8 legal suits were commenced in the High Court against JBJ.
As the months passed, JBJ had to pay all sorts of damages, or face bankruptcy. Indeed, JBJ seemed to be regularly saddled with big amount to pay, at one point about half a million.”
Goh Chok Tong could have simply told the voters that there wasn’t such a police report. There is no need to filed 8 legal suits to prove that JBJ said something that is not the truth. The PAP is obviously using the defamation suit to silent every single alternative voice by driving them bankrupt.
In the ‘Animal Farm’, the animals discovered that a commandment has changed from how they remember it. The words "without cause" are added to the Sixth Commandment, which originally was "No animal shall kill another." It now becomes “No animal shall be killed without cause”.
The 8 legal suits were made into a ‘cause’ to bankrupt JBJ.
Fellow Singaporeans may not understand that true leadership involves the people and works for the people and not against its people.
The PAP leaders do not understand that “Leadership is an opportunity to serve. It is not a trumpet call to self-importance.” But they championed their self-importance. They said they felt hurt by the defamation.
Yet, PM Lee Hsien Loong has the cheek to say, “The country is much better off with one dominant party, as long as the PAP provides clean and good government.”
A good government shall never turn against its own citizens. However, the blatant act of suing JBJ is putting self-importance above the people.
This is a quote from Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the United States of America: “No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent.”
Did the people of Singapore give consent to Lee Kuan Yew to bankrupt JBJ?
Here are three quotes by Thomas Jefferson, the 3rd President of the United States of America.
1. “When a man assumes a public trust he should consider himself a public property.”
2. “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.”
3. “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”
Lee Kuan Yew does these three things without any sense of shame. They are:
1. He does not consider himself a public property;
2. He pursue his self-importance and forces people of good conscience to remain silent to his tyrannical evil deeds;
3. He drives fear in the people in his governance in order to achieve tyranny.
The SEC is reviewing how Citigroup accounted for certain off-balance-sheet transactions that are at the heart of a banking-industry rescue plan. The review is looking at whether Citigroup appropriately accounted for $80 billion in structured investment vehicles, or SIVs, these people said. SIVs are off-balance-sheet entities that have invested heavily in mortgage-backed securities.
It is a no-brainer that there must be something to hide.
Quite naturally, Charles Prince, Citigroup’s CEO and all CEOs openly feels there is no need to refrain from using off-balance sheet accounting to hide undesirable transactions that will negatively impact its bottom line.
In the case of the PAP-led Singapore, the reverse happened. The off-balance sheet items are not used to hide losses but the obscene sum of money it robs from its citizens every year.
This is an annex to the expenditure estimates for 2008 broken down by program details by head of expenditure. They are:
A: Civil List for the President of the Republic of Singapore
B: Attorney-General’s chambers
C: Auditor-General Office
D: Cabinet Office
E: Judicature
F: Parliament
G: Presidential Councils
H: Public Service Commission
I: Ministry of Development, Youth and Sports
J: Ministry of Defence
K: Ministry of Education
L: Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources
M: Ministry of Finance
N: Ministry of foreign affairs
O: Ministry of Health
P: Ministry of Home affairs
Q: Ministry of Information, Communications and Arts
R: Ministry of Law
S: Ministry of Manpower
T: Ministry of National development
U: Prime Minister Office
V: Ministry of Trade and Industry
W: Ministry of Transport
Y: Public Debt
Z: Finance Transfers
Assume from head A to Y, the estimated numbers are the true expenditures. What about Head Z: Finance transfers. What are they?
The Mission Statement for the finance transfers is to make appropriations to a total of 24 funds.
Let’s assumed they are all expended out on the financial year-ending date. There is yet an interesting difference between the budgeted total receipts and total outlays.
The total receipt estimated for year 2008 reported in the 2008 annual budget was $59,207,725,000. The total actual budgeted outlay for the year 2008 reported in the 2008 annual budget was $57,604,592,300. Let’s ignore the $1.6 billion as margin or error.
The total budgeted expenditure for year 2008 reported in the 2008 annual budget is $37,454,899,000.
The difference between the estimated total outlay and total budgeted expenditure was accounted for by the following two items. They are:
1) Other Consolidated Fund Outlays at $13,220,204,200.
2) Other Development Fund Outlays at $ 6,929,669,100.
The sum of these two outlays equals $20,149,873,300. Would the Finance Minister explain what these two outlays are?
In terms of financial engineering (or I prefer to call it, financial manipulations) these two outlays are used to hide the excess of total receipts over the total expenditures. Excess receipts certainly must have come from the people of Singapore.
In other words, for a total receipt of $57.60 billion, the government squirrels away $20.15 billion into its hidden accounts. That is about 35% ($20.15 billion divided by $57.60 billion).
Every year multiple tens of billion dollars were squirreled away from the people. Don’t you think this is akin to robbing its citizens?
Why use the word, 'robbing'?
All governments try hard to balance their annual budget. Some years they are negative. Other years they are positive. In the longer run, it is almost balanced.
In Singapore, every year is positive balance to the tune of $20 billion. Lee Kuan Yew - the extreme miser, keeps counting another $20 billion to my coffer and say, "These are all my money. I am not going to give a single cent back to the citizens of Singapore."
Well, how do you explain the $500 billion in GIC? Over 25 years of robbing its people.
On June 3, 2005, Leong Sze Hian wrote to The Straits Times on the title: ‘Treat patients based on needs, not ability to pay’: “I refer to the article, 'Going paperless slashes waiting time at skin centre' (ST, May 30).
It was reported that keeping medical records electronically saved the National Skin Centre $237,000 in labor costs at the end of the year, and cut patients' waiting time.
I also refer to media reports that said two hospitals here retrenched 108 workers, presumably to cut costs.
When you go to a hospital to seek treatment for a dental problem, you may be told that as it is not something which warrants immediate attention, you may have to wait for up to nine months if you pay subsidized fees.
However, if you opt to pay the non-subsidized rate, you can be treated immediately.
The same goes for eye operations.
As the question of whether an ailment is serious enough to require treatment sooner rather than later is sometimes subjective, patients who do not want to take a chance may opt to pay the full rate.
Those who cannot afford or do not wish to pay the full rate may risk a deterioration in their condition. In nine months a small cavity could have blown up into a total decay of the root canal of the tooth.
As a matter of principle, should the priority of treatment not be based on one's health condition, rather than ability to pay more?
Is this fair to the poor and less economically well-off?
Hypothetically, if one's health condition worsens and irreversible damage is done because of the delay in treatment, would the Health Ministry care a damn for your health? It says unfeelingly, 'You deserve it because you can’t pay the full fee.' ”
But wait a minute. Who sets the health-care cost? Who sets the rapid rise in the doctors and medical staff salary? Who raises the fee for all kind of procedures? And to make thing worse, the above rapid rise in health-care cost and medical staff salary is happening at the same time the Health Ministry is cutting down on its annual budget for health-care and pushing on the responsibility to foot for a higher and higher proportion of the health-care cost to the patients. The poor will definitely can’t pay and wait for their teeth to rot, their kidneys to deteriorate to total failure.
The truth to my argument lies in this statement.
The Department of Statistics” (DOS) “Singapore, 1965 - 1995 Statistical Highlights: A Review of 30 Years’ Development”:
“Government Operating Expenditure on Health as a Per Cent of Total Government Operating Expenditure”, declined from 9.5 per cent in 1970 to 7.8 per cent in 1980, 6.5 per cent in 1990 and the figure for 2005 was 6.3 per cent.
Can the MOH, please publish these figures?
1) Its total annual expenditure on health-care since 1984 in $$$
2) A percentage of this above annual expenditure on health-care as a percentage of the GDP since 1984 (Not a percent of the Total Government Operating Expenditure)
3) Plot the above data in two charts in comparison with US, Japan, OECD and some of the larger countries.
Fellow citizens, MOH will never publish these figures, stupid. Or rather, I am stupid to ask that these figures to be published.
Do you know there is a secretive plot by the PAP-led government to systematically increase health-care costs in order to shift the public health-care cost to the individual Singaporean?
Case 1:
On June 3, 2006, Leong Sze Hian Paper wrote to The Straits Times, title, ‘Spend more on health care to help the poor’: “Health-care spending of the lowest 20 per cent of households by income had the highest increase of 81 per cent among all items of expenditure from 1998 to 2004.
According to the World Health Organisation's (WHO) World Health Report 2004, Singapore's per capita government expenditure on health, at an average exchange rate, fell gradually from US$365 (S$577) in 1997 to US$274 in 2001.
The WHO Report 2005 showed that Singapore's general government expenditure on health - as a percentage of total expenditure on health (the sum total paid by both the government and the individual out of his own pocket) - declined gradually from 41.6 percent to 30.9 per cent from 1998 to 2002.
General government expenditure on health as a percentage of total government expenditure also dropped from 8.7 to 5.9 per cent for the same period.
We should spend more on health care to help the poor.”
This single piece of data: ‘the government expenditure on health as a percentage of total expenditure on health drastically from 41.6 percent (1998) to 30.9 per cent (2002)’ is crystal clear enough to prove the point that the PAP-led government had systematically increased health-care costs in order to shift the public health-care cost to the individual Singaporean. When the government pays less at 30.9 per cent, the individual Singaporean has to pay more at 69.1 percent of the total health-care cost.
Before the year 1984 (when the Medisave plan was introduced) the percentage should be much higher than 41.6%. Just ask the Ministry of Health to produce this piece of data. I am stupid to ask anyway. It will never publish this piece of information.
Case2:
On May 1, 2007, Leong Sze Hian wrote to The Straits Times, title, ‘Why the surge in fee for Yellow Fever jab?’: “I went to the Travellers' Health and Vaccination Clinic at Tan Tock Seng Hospital for a Yellow Fever vaccination recently. The charge was $130.20, compared to just $15 for the same vaccination I had at the same clinic 10 years ago. This is an increase of 768 per cent or a 24 per cent compounded increase per annum.
The clinic was furnished lavishly with leather sofas, leather chairs, paintings on the walls, flowers in vases, etc, like a five-star hotel.
The same vaccination costs about HK$200 (S$39), A$50 (S$63) and 35 Euros (S$72) in Hong Kong, Australia and Ireland, respectively. Why has the cost of vaccination increased by so much over the last 10 years, when inflation in Singapore was less than 2 per cent per annum?”
When the government is the monopoly in providing this health-care service, do you think it has a moral ethics to keep price low or affordable to the average people? You are stupid if you were to think so. Like all businessmen do, it says, “Money in your pocket is not for you to keep. It is for LKY.”
The government is only interested in shifting the public health-care cost to the individual Singaporean continuously increases the health-care cost. Yes, this is a good way to rob you and me. Well, you might as well say, ‘This is day-light robbery.’
However, you can’t say the PAP-led government is a robber because you, the citizen of Singapore had given it the right to enforce or impose all kind of fees through your votes during the general elections. You have yourself to blame for the ever increasing health-care cost inflation.
This is a quote from Thomas Jefferson, the 3th President of the United States of America: “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”
There will be no happiness for you and me who in the first place, had allowed the PAP regime to continuously rob us of our labors.
After Hong Kong was handed back to China in 1997, Tung Chee Hwa was appointed the Governor of Hong Kong. In one of his speeches he mentioned, in admiration, how he wished that Hong Kong could be governed like Singapore. He said that Singapore’s government is clean and honest and its citizens are fully supportive. The PAP-led Singapore’s government is definitely an extremely good one.
Tung Chee Hwa must apologize to the people of Hong Kong for having made this statement. He has to eat manure in order to cover up the foul smell from his mouth.
There are two easy indicators to look at to determine how much support a government has from its citizens, namely honesty and deception. The Singapore government is indisputably the most honest government in the world. This is because of its smooth, shining façade makes it stands tall among many other governments that corrupt.
Though the question of “Did the Singapore government lie to us?” does not even pop up in people’s heads, this government is the greatest liar of all time in human history.
In reality, the PAP-led government is one of the best regimes that craftily exploited the manipulation of financial information to mislead its people that it is honest and does not lie.
On February 28, 2009, Alvin Foo, markets correspondent, reported in The Straits Times online edition: THE Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) has increased its stake in US banking giant Citigroup from what was potentially 4 per cent to 11.1 per cent.
The increase, which makes GIC the second largest shareholder in the bank after the United States government, came after it decided last night to convert its US$6.88 billion (S$10.6 billion) investment in preferred shares of the bank to common shares.
The closely watched move followed a day of dramatic developments for the beleaguered bank which began when the US government made the first move to convert up to US$25 billion of its own preferred shares to common shares, raising its stake to as much as 36 per cent.
The US government's move was conditional on Citigroup getting other major preferred shareholders to do the same. The bank also agreed to reconstitute its board. CEO Vikram Pandit will stay on.
For GIC, the conversion will mean exchanging its preferred shares for ordinary shares at a much lower price of US$3.25 per share than its original investment in January last year.
The preferred shares were then convertible at US$26.35 per share. This translated roughly to a 4 per cent stake at the time, if the shares were fully converted.
Alvin Foo’s beautiful headline: “GIC raises Citigroup stake to 11.1 percent” is definitely a false statement.
Without putting an additional single cent and also not doing anything, how can The Straits Times reports, ‘GIC raises Citigroup stake to 11.1 percent’?
The cold hard fact is GIC converted from preferred into common shares at $3.25 after Citigroup suspended dividend on all preferred shares and the US government's move (to convert up to US$25 billion of its own preferred shares to common shares) was conditional on Citigroup getting other major preferred shareholders to do the same.
Which means if GIC does not want to convert its preferred shares, the US government will not do the same. Then all the US$6.88 billion (S$10.6 billion) investment in Citigroup preferred shares will be zero where Citigroup has no choice but to declare bankruptcy.
ST reported market value of shares as US$5.21 billion (using February 26, 2009 closing price of $2.46). Last night, February 27, 2009, Citigroup shares closed $1.50 (down 39%), so the current market value of shares is US$3.18 billion.
GIC lost $2 billion within 24 hours of its conversion. Will there be more dilution to come?
All in all, the investment in Citigroup had turned bad from preferred shares to common stocks in Citigroup that are now worth US$3.7 billion less.
Therefore, there is nothing for the people of Singapore to feel good about this investment. It was a bad investment call and it is just bad, bad and bad.
Mind you, there is another bigger investment by GIC in UBS at US9.75 billion for convertible notes that pay an annual return of 9% before their conversion into ordinary shares two years after the date of issue. It is too early to say what the residual value of the convertible notes will be when due some time in February 2010.
Meanwhile, the following news should give you a good idea this investment is really bad, bad and bad.
UBS has also been struggling to recover from the US subprime home loan crisis and the ensuing fallout, which led it to post an annual loss of US$17 billion for 2008, the largest in Swiss corporate history.
Do we need a Squealer, the pig to manipulate the language used in the newspapers to excuse, justify, and extol all of Lee Kuan Yew's actions?
Nobody else understood Gopalan Nair’s message below better than Lee Kuan Yew. This is precisely the reason he demolished all the ‘sort of creditable’ oppositions and continues his dictatorial rule for 4 decades. He too, understood very well, “Human by nature would like to find someone to bear the full responsibility for his own failures, irrespective whether he knew it was he himself who has the full responsibility to make it right.”
Gopalan wrote in his blog: “The blame for the present politically hapless state of the average Singaporean lies on the opposition politicians. By claiming to be opposition politicians fighting for the cause of democracy, they owed a responsibility to the people to act in whatever manner necessary to prevent Lee and his PAP from destroying all vestiges of democracy and replacing it with absolute dictatorial rule.
Today Singapore is a complete dictatorship. There is no longer rule of law. The courts are beholden only to Lee and his PAP. The media is nothing more than a government propaganda sheet. The Civil Service is no longer independent having been completely politicized and act only to protect and further the interests, not of the people, but Lee and his Party members.
In sum total, Singapore which once had free people; today has only slaves. There are slaves of the Lee Administration, who live daily in fear. Meanwhile, the people fear him for his defamation suits that in every case, bankrupted the victims.
JB Jeyaretnam has suffered a lot at the hands of Lee and his government without let up. We admire JB Jeyaretnma's courage. But what is the point of just having courage? The bottom line is that JBJ has failed, completely failed to bring about democracy. And he must take responsibility for this.
If I were a Singaporean, how does JBJ's sufferings benefit me in any way. What I want is my freedom. By JBJ suffering at the hands of Lee, I am not getting any freedom.
And it is not only JB Jeyaretnam who is responsible for this pathetic state of affairs in Singapore. Since being elected to the Parliament, Loh Thia Khiang, Chiam See Tong and Sylvia Lim are equally responsible.”
Gopalan’s words represent almost every single Singaporeans who are renowned for a uniquely Singaporean culture: ‘Kiasuism”. Here are the two key characteristics of kiasuism.
One, grab it, only if it requires minimal or no effort. This is an extension of the principle of ‘work smart’ – just do the obvious right thing.
Two, if it involves hard work or risk, let somebody else do it. Who would dare to stand up to Lee Kuan Yew and face his defamation suit? Absolutely, zero. Many, many more Singaporeans emigrated, leaving behind a shrinking population.
Lee and his lackeys know very well the value of the kiasu culture to the sustenance of his tyrannical rule. They even sang words of praise for kiasu, kiasi (afraid to die) and kia chenghu (afraid of the government) as a great virtue during the National Day celebration.
This is a quote by Thomas Jefferson, the 3rd President of the United States of America: “Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.”
How aptly it describes the Singapore culture of ‘kiasuism”.
Here comes Lee Kuan Yew, happily capitalizes on our kiasuism.
Ha! Ha! Who to blame for us, being his slaves?
What is defamation?
Any lawyer will tell you that such a statement, even if made, is clearly not defamatory since it is covered by the privilege of public interest and statements or comments about a government official who is a public figure is not defamatory.
In Singapore, as we all know, judges, registrars in all the courts in Singapore are beholden to the Lee Administration. Any judge wanting his promotions and looking forward to a peaceful and successful career in the Singapore Bench will have to bury this sad truth.
This is a quote from Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the United States of America: “I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends.”
Pardon me, “Will Lee Kuan Yew ever understands this quote?”
Does Satan ever have friends?
Lee Kuan Yew is all out to bring down anyone who slighted his rule. So does his son.
Sadly, defamation suit by a public figure shall stay.
My wife is a Vietnamese. We got married in 2008. On her first trip back to Hanoi since marriage, we took a taxi ride from Jurong West to Changi airport during the morning peak hours.
She asked, “What does ERP on the sign board mean?”
The taxi driver replied, “Everyday Robs People.”
Seeing that my wife was a little stunt, I explained, “ERP to a taxi driver is ‘Everyday Robs People’. This is because upon passing through the gantry, a sum of money will be deducted from the cash card of the taxi driver. Of course, this ERP charge is added onto the total bill of the taxi fare which the passenger has to pay. Technically, it is correct. It robs every passenger who passed through the gantry during peak hours.
The government who set up this gantry to collect money called it, ‘Electronic Road Pricing’. Whatever it calls it, at the end of the day, it robs people of money. This is an undeniable fact.”
She inquisitively asked, “What do the government do with this toll money?”
I replied, “It just goes to the government coffer. Most of the money goes to the Singapore Government Investment Corporation (abbreviation, GIC) and Temasek Holdings. The rest of the investments even the President of Singapore could not account for them.”
On February 9, 2009, Thanong Khanthong of The Nation wrote: “GIC started the crisis (July 2008) with roughly Singapore $550 billion in reserves. My estimate is that it has lost about $190-$200 billion of that, leaving it with about $350 billion left. This amount is equivalent to 200 per cent of Singapore gross domestic product.”
Singapore had a population of 4.84 million in 2008, including about one million foreigners who work in the country and their families. Divide $550 billion by 3.84 million citizen produces a quotient of $143,229 per capita. That means throughout the 43 years of the PAP-rule, the government of Singapore had robbed its citizens of a sum not less than $143,229 and transfers it to GIC. (Temasek Holdings has $185 billion as of October 2008. This amount is equivalent to another $48,177 per capita.)
The combined amount of money squirreled away to these two corporations is $191,406 per capita. Add on the government investments in many government-linked companies and many other vehicles that are unknown to its citizens, the PAP-led government indeed is the greatest robber on Earth.
Yet, umpteen times, the three Prime Ministers at various times told the Singapore citizens that it is necessary to have such large holdings of foreign reserves to ensure a stable currency exchange rate and what’s not. Of course, it will never say, this kind of reserves is obscene robbery of the people’s money.
This is a quote from Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the United States of America: “Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure.”
Indeed. President George Bush Junior started the Iraq war to eliminate Saddam Hussein. His popularity shot up to >70%.
Whether you know it or not, this is the saddest quote for all Singaporeans. With a slight twist of the above quote by Abraham Lincoln, “Allow the Prime Minister to invade your pockets, whenever he shall deem it necessary to take money, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose - and you allow him to rob you at pleasure.”
Indeed too, Lee Kuan Yew has been happily counting his $550 billions in GIC, $185 billions in Temasek Holdings, and etc. you and I have allow him to enjoy his pleasure of robbing you and me.
It is the situation of: “A winner takes it all”. We are all losers.
‘The rich gets richer; the poor, poorer’ is a fact supported by concrete statistics. The Gini coefficient – a measure of income distribution of between zero and one – increased from 0.468 in 2005 to 0.472 in 2006 for Singapore. The income gap is widening.
Now, I am going to share with you why this hypothesis is a reality.
On February 23, 2007, Leong Sze Hian wrote: “I refer to the article, 'Singapore gearing up for 6.5m population' (ST, Feb 10). According to the MOM Report on Labour Force in Singapore 2006, which covers the period 1991-2006, the number of unemployed for residents (Singaporeans and PRs) was 28,000 in 1991 and 69,600 last year.
While the resident labor force increased by 27 per cent for the 15-year period from 1.373 million to 1.737 million, unemployed residents increased by 149 per cent from 28,000 to 69,600. This means that the resident workforce increased by 1.6 per cent per annum, while unemployed residents increased by 6.3 per cent per annum.
'Although the median gross monthly income of full-time employed residents has grown 2.9 per cent a year in the past decade to $2,040 as of June 2006', the number of part-timers has more than doubled over the decade from 51,400 to 112,300, expanding their share of employment from 3.5 per cent to 6.3 per cent.
The median monthly income for all employed residents (full-time and part-time) stagnated at $2,000 for the years 2001 to 2004.
This means that income grew by only $40 from 2001 to 2006 or 0.4 per cent per annum. Income growth may have been negative, after adjusting for inflation for the last five years.
The median monthly income for part-timers is still the same at $500 compared to 10 years ago. In view of the 118 per cent increase in part-timers for the last decade from 51,400 to 112,300, more residents are working for an income of $500 that has not changed for 10 years.”
Stagnation in wage is considered not too bad if inflation rate is low or close to zero. Earning the same income for ten years, the poor indeed, is getting poorer and poorer every year in net purchasing parity.
On June 27, 2006, Leong Sze Hian further wrote to The Business Times, title, ‘More healthcare subsidies needed’: “The lowest 20 per cent of households by income was further hit by the decline in average monthly household income of this group by 3.2 per cent a year from 1998 to 2003.”
Do you think the Prime Minister, his cabinet ministers and the top civil servants care about the situation of stagnation in the median gross monthly income of full-time employed residents or the decreasing wages of the low-income group? Not a damn!
Why?
Their salary is tied to the performance of the average of the income of the fourth placing among the four professions (Lawyers, Accountants, Doctors and Architects) who are all businessmen. All they care is to ensure the entire government machinery is geared towards making it extremely possible for these businessmen to make as much money as possible.
No wonder Singapore ranked 105th in the world for income equality.
All three Prime Minister of Singapore do not care a damn about these. All they care about is GDP and to make more money for themselves. On the contrary, the truth is the lower income group had been seeing their income stagnant and eroded by the core inflation.
All three Prime Ministers say, “Ignore the Gini’s coefficient and just be transparent about the GDP growth figure. All other statistics are not supposed to be transparent and be included into my annual report card.”
Pick up “Animal Farm” by George Orwell. Squealer manipulates the language to excuse, justify, and extol all of Napoleon's actions. Squealer justifies the pigs' monopolization of resources and spreads false statistics pointing to the farm's success. Squealer uses statistics to convince the animals that life is getting better and better. Most of the animals have only dim memories of life before the revolution; therefore, they are convinced.
On March 19, 2005, Leong Sze Hian wrote to The Straits Times on title, ‘Individuals paying more for top grade health-care?’: “According to the 2004 report of the World Health Organisation (WHO), Singapore's per capita government expenditure on health at average exchange rates has been falling gradually, from US$365 in 1997 to US$274 in 2001.
Since the WHO has ranked Singapore sixth out of 119 countries and the top in Asia for overall health-system performance, how do we reconcile and explain Singapore's relatively low 101st out of 191 ranking for 'fairness of financing' in health-care?”
On March 26, 2005, Karen Tan (Ms) Director, Corporate Communications, Ministry of Health Paper explained: “A more accurate measure of the Government's share of medical cost is what we provide in health-care subsidies. This has been increasing steadily, from $560 million in FY1997, to $850 million in FY2000, and $1.3 billion in FY2004.
A total of 70 per cent of Singapore's government health expenditure goes to subsidies to help Singaporeans pay for their hospital and polyclinic treatments, nursing home fees and so on.”
That means a mere 30% of Singapore’s government health expenditure goes directly into paying for health-care cost and remaining 70% goes to subsidies.
Why not just remove the subsidies. How?
Had anyone asked where does the increase in health-care cost go to? Who is pocketing this money? Of course, the government hospitals are charging the medical fees for all the services they provide to the patients. The more money these public hospitals collected, the lesser the amount of money the Health Ministry has to allocate to the budget of these public hospitals.
Every year, the government openly declares that the health-care cost is increasing. Did it say, every single cent of the incremental rise in health-care costs goes back to the coffer of the government?
Please tell us, the citizens of Singaporean that the jack up in the health-care cost goes back directly into the government coffer. It is as good as day-light robbery – by the PAP government.
Would Ms. Karen Tan, please produce the set of data showing the increasing trend of total sum of money collected by the public hospitals and compare this trend to the increasing trend of total amount of health-care subsidies since year 1984.
This explains Singapore's per capita government expenditure on health-care at average exchange rates has been falling gradually, from US$365 in 1997 to US$274 in 2001 and Singapore's 101st (out of 191) ranking for 'fairness of financing' in health-care, as reported by the WHO.
On June 27, 2006, Leong Sze Hian further wrote to the Business Times: “With over three per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) spent on health-care, I understand that Singapore's healthcare spending over GDP is one of the lowest in the world.”
We, the citizens of Singapore do not welcome ‘Squealer(s)’ who trick us with the manipulations of data.
Ms. Karen Tan, can you produce the raw data for the total government health expenditure per capita from 1984 to 2008?
On May 24, 2007, Gopalan wrote on his blog: “I received this nice letter from Mr. Chew about why he is disillusioned with Lee Kuan Yew and his PAP government.
‘I enjoyed reading your blogs and totally enjoy your perspectives in the no bullshit way that you write. Too bad not many people dare to write this way for fear of lawsuits from that FamiLEE. I was never interested in politics but the recent events really left a bitter
taste in my mouth so I started a blog at http://singaporefuckup.blogspot.com/.
If you don't mind, I hope you can tell me a little about seeking political asylum in US. I want to do something for Singapore but I will like to find a way to protect my family too.”
Chew, let me use a Chinese phrase to describe a typical scene of a hooligan bullying the innocents. He proudly says, “谁敢在我的地盘里撒野？” means, ‘Who dares to make a mess in my territory?”
Zakir Hussain of The Straits Times, reported on March 14, 2009, published an article, ‘Govt to take WSJ editor to court for contempt’: “In the high Court yesterday, Justice Tay Yong Kwang granted an application by the Attorney-General to start proceedings against Ms. Melanie Kirkpatrick, the deputy editor of New York-based financial daily’s editorial page.
In court documents seen by The Straits Times, the Attorney-General’s chambers (AGC) said it was initiating proceedings against her for “actions which resulted in the publication and distribution” of articles that “contained passages that scandalize the Singapore judiciary”.
The articles were published in June and July last year in the editorials and opinion section of WSJ Asia – which is WSJ’s sister paper.
In the court documents, the AGC noted that the publisher informed it that Ms Kikpatrick supervised and had oversight of that section. It understood this to mean she had ultimate editorial responsibility for the section.”
To sue an American deputy editor, perhaps, who had not set her foot on Singapore soil shows how incorrigible Lee Kuan Yew is. His hooliganism of “谁敢在我的地盘里撒野？”had effectively made an American who has never been to his territory answerable to defend his tyrannical rule.
Lee Kuan Yew is not a true Chinese. He is a ‘banana’ who has yellow skin but white inside. If he is a Chinese, he should understand the art of war says, “将在外，君令有所不受”meaning, ‘A general who is leading the troop at the front line does not have to take the emperor’s orders.’ Ms. Kirkpatrick could not be dishing out instructions to the two editors who are stationed far away in Hong Kong.
On the following week, March 19, 2009 the High court in Singapore slapped S$10,000 fine on Ms Kirkpatrick for her absence for being contempt of the Singapore court. This is really laughable. When did the Singapore court have such an overwhelming power to have the jurisdiction over an American lady? I doubt the International Court of Justice have that power.
This is a quote from Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States of America: “Peace and friendship with all mankind is our wisest policy, and I wish we may be permitted to pursue it.”
Lee Kuan Yew does not pursue peace and friendship but tenaciously went ahead to destroy his friendship with every single one of the people of the United States of American. With that I predict: “Singapore is doomed.”
I would like to follow through on this libel suit against Ms. Kirkpatrick. Lee Kuan Yew is digging his own grave. Let him do it. He made this decision and he is the only free man in Singapore and of course, he can choose to do so, absolutely.
This is a quote from Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the United States of America: “How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.”
Lee Kuan Yew thinks that he has five legs and therefore, reins supreme, towering over President Obama, the 44th President of the United States of America. He has no respect for President Obama at all when he sued Ms. Kirkpatrick.
Snowball is Napoleon's rival. He wins over most animals, but is driven out of the farm by Napoleon. Snowball genuinely works for the good of the farm and devises plans to help the animals achieve their vision of an egalitarian utopia, but Napoleon and his dogs chase him from the farm, and Napoleon spreads rumors to make him seem evil and corrupt and that he had secretly sabotaged the animals' efforts to improve the farm.
Ong Teng Cheong's political career spanned 21 years. He was Member of Parliament, Cabinet Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, before he resigned to become the first Elected President of Singapore in 1993. Ong was talent spotted by the People's Action Party which fielded him in Kim Keat in the 1972 General Election. His first political appointment came just 3 years later when he was made Senior Minister of State for Communications. And it was as Communications Minister that Ong pushed for the development of the MRT system, the largest construction project in Singapore's history. His next challenge came on the labor front, when he became NTUC Secretary-General in 1983. As chairman of the People's Action Party (PAP) and secretary-general of the National Trades Union Congress, Ong was considered a firm Lee Kuan Yew loyalist.
Ong Teng Cheong was elected to the presidency in 1993. One of his first moves was to ask the civil service for a list of assets that the government had started off with. Six years later, one of his complaints at the end of his term of office in 1999, was that he never quite got a full accounting. Another of his complaints was that he was never given enough staff to check the numbers given to him.
Why? Why? Why?
There are only two possible reasons.
1) The government was either embarrassed they couldn't give an accounting, or
2) The amount of government asset is so huge as a result of robbing its citizens for four decades. If this number gets out it will cause a huge public outcry. Believe me, the total government assets is easily more than 10, 20, 30 times the $500 billion parked under GIC.
Ong Teng Cheong is the modern day, Snowball who genuinely worked for the good of Singapore. However, Lee Kuan Yew - Napoleon the Pig, did not even give him a state funeral when he passed away.
The Housing & Development Board (HDB) is Singapore's public housing authority and a statutory board under the Ministry of National Development. HDB was set up in 1960 to provide public housing.
Gradually, it became a push for home ownership at exorbitant value which the PAP-leadership aimed to tie down the people to maintain their citizenship and stop the mass migration to other countries in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. These people left because they were fed-up with the way how Lee Kuan Yew made use of defamation suits to silent the alternate voice.
The initial noble mission or the very basic reason why HDB was created was to provide AFFORDABLE PUBLIC HOUSING to Singaporeans – more so the lower income group was abandoned in order to cover up the negative impact of his damning defamation suits that continue up to today.
On November 9, 2005, Leong Sze Hian wrote to The Business Times, “The lower-income group may, in a sense, find themselves in a Catch-22 situation because when they retire or lose their jobs, they would not be able to realize the $100,000 or so average equity that homeowners are said to have in their homes unless they sell them - which means they would have nowhere to live.
Buying a smaller HDB flat may also be out, because $100,000 is not enough to buy the cheapest three-room flat, which costs about $150,000.”
In the first place, is there such a thing called, housing subsidy? How is housing subsidy defined?
For example:
1. Selling price of a 3-room flat is $150,000.
2. A low-income household can only afford to pay $100,000 after paying an amount of cash, CPF-money and borrowings from either HDB or the banks.
3. HDB provides the difference of $50,000 and it called it, public housing subsidy.
Let’s not question point 2 which says, the household can only afford to pay $100,000.
What about point 1; the selling price of the 3-room flat is $150,000? Who determines this selling price? HDB did. Since it monopolized the public housing development in Singapore, it can arbitrarily determine the selling price at, for example, $500,000? It can still collect the $100,000 payment and claims that it provided this household with a public housing subsidy of $400,000.
What is common between the sum of $50,000 and $400,000 public housing subsidy? Both are provided by HDB after minus from the selling price that it had arbitrarily set without any reference to the demand affordable by the buyers who can only afford the full payment of $100,000.
Really, it was created out of thin air. Why not sell the 3-room flat at $1.1 million, collect the $100,000 and claim the housing subsidy as a million dollars. Certainly a father who gave a million dollar to his young son who wanted to buy a flat is shown in a much better light than a father who gives $400,000 or $50,000 housing subsidy.
Hey! Hey! This is a pure manipulation of simple arithmetic’s.
A (selling price) – B (buyers affordability) = C (public housing subsidy)
If the bloody HDB officers or directors or Minister of National Development had done a good job in understanding the demand of public housing and subsequently offered a wide range of selling price to the public, the buyers would have been able to buy a 3-room flat in exact accordance with the amount of money he can afford, on the right hand-side of the equation, the value C, public housing subsidy equals to zero.
Please, the Minister of National Development, come out and tell the public that it is definitely NOT a case of the government putting money into the pocket of the people.
However, LKY has a whole bunch of Squealers who loves to use the crafty art of information manipulation to cheat the people into believing that you have the PAP-led government to thank for a roof over your head. Otherwise, you will be living on the street if not for the housing subsidy.
It is a terrible thing when a government turns its gun and cheats its own people. And outrageously, there is one and only Lee Kuan Yew who has the cheek in doing just that.
On February 10, 2009, Chen Shiyin and Jonathan Burgos (Bloomberg) wrote: “Temasek Holdings Pte’s investments shrank 31 percent in the eight months through Nov. 30 as the global stock-market slump eroded the value of companies from Barclays Plc to Merrill Lynch & Co.
The state-owned investment company’s assets were valued at S$127 billion, down from S$185 billion at the end of March last year, Lim Hwee Hua, senior minister of state with the finance ministry, said today.”
On February 9, 2009, Thanong Khanthong of The Nation wrote: “GIC started the crisis (July 2008) with roughly Singapore $550 billion in reserves. My estimate is that it has lost about $190-$200 billion of that, leaving it with about $350 billion left. This amount is equivalent to 200 per cent of Singapore gross domestic product.”
Temasek Holdings and GIC, just to mention two of the many investment vehicles of the Singapore government, in combine, lost about S$253 billion ($195 billion plus $58 billion) of the people’s money. It is about time for the PAP leadership to declare to its people that they have lost the mandate to continue to stuff more money into its coffer and therefore, shall stop robbing its citizens.
As the Chinese saying goes, “狗改不了吃屎” or the English equivalent, “a leopard never changes its spot.” It will continue to rob its citizen a dollar for every three dollars it collected as total receipt. Perhaps, it could staff away much more that 30% in order to quickly recover its colossal losses suffered during the 2008 financial tsunami.
About 20,000 households are said to be more than three months behind on their HDB mortgage repayments or utility bills. And the number of households three months or more in arrears on mortgage repayments reportedly rose almost 15 per cent from 2002 to 2003.
Pay-as-you-use meters will be introduced soon to make sure 'poorer' families don't have their electricity cut off. And about 15,000 households are said to be unable to pay their children's school fees.
Do you think there is any justification for the government to scurry away half a trillion dollars when tens of thousand of poor Singaporeans had to worry for foreclosure of their flats due to late mortgage repayments, electricity being cut off and unable to send their children to schools?
I read at http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com, an anonymous person wrote some complicated financial stuff about Keppel Land right issues. Though I do not understand, it is talking about a devious ploy by the government to rob the retail investors of billion of dollars.
Lee Kuan Yew is吃屎的狗. He is a dog who eats shits. He will never give up eating shits.
‘The rich gets richer; the poor, poorer’ is a fact supported by concrete statistics. The Gini coefficient – a measure of income distribution of between zero and one – increased from 0.468 in 2005 to 0.472 in 2006 for Singapore. The income gap is widening.
Now, I am going to share with you why this hypothesis is a reality. It is associated with how the PAP-led government had always been favoring the businessmen and ignored the plight of the majority of Singaporeans who are generally, employees.
On 27 March 2007, Leong Sze Hian wrote to the editor of Business Times: “I refer to the report, 'Govt must close pay gap to retain talent: PM Lee - Pay for staff Grade 1 has slipped to 55% of benchmark' (BT, March 23).
While it is important to retain talent, we may need to temper the focus on monetary rewards. Otherwise, we may inadvertently be setting an unhealthy example for Singaporeans in general and sending an undesirable message to our children - that money is everything.
In this connection, Singapore has been ranked 130th out of 178 countries for happiness, 40th out of 41 countries for libido, 30th out of 35 countries for courtesy, fifth in the world for prisoners per capita and 105th in the world for income equality.
Has our over-emphasis on monetary rewards led to us being unhappy because we spend too much time and effort chasing more and more things and money - at a cost of having little time or energy to have sex, an uncaring attitude towards others and an inclination to commit illegal acts to get rich quick, resulting in many offenders?
Recent remarks by the Dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy - that 'Singapore should stop trying so hard to be world class, simply because it already is' - may be instructive. We may need to pay more attention to trying to improve those 'soft' areas in which we are far from world class - like happiness, libido and courtesy.
Perpetuating the strategy of paying more and more to keep civil servants may be self-defeating. Perhaps we should shift some of the emphasis to the honor and duty of public service, contribution to our country and the pride and joy such service brings - which no amount of money can buy.
When all three PM tells GDP growth is the only performance indicator that the Prime Minister chooses to proudly present year after year, he and his cabinet ministers and senior officials are all blind to any area or potential for improvement in these soft areas - like happiness, libido and courtesy.
Since Singapore is already far behind the leaders where it has been ranked 130th out of 178 countries for happiness, 40th out of 41 countries for libido, 30th out of 35 countries for courtesy, fifth in the world for prisoners per capita and 105th in the world for income equality, the annual report cards presented by Lee Hsien Loong is all biased and crap.
This is a quote by Thomas Jefferson, the 3rd. President of the United States of America: “The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government.”
What is human life and happiness?
Look straight into Lee Kuan Yew’s face. Do you notice his two eye bags – the area directly below his eyes (In Chinese physiognomy, it is called 卧蚕pronounced as wo can). In this world you could hardly find another person with such large and bulging eye bags. It signifies an extremely ruthless slave-driver.
You can disagree with me that physiognomy is all nonsense. Throw me tons load of manure into my face.
However, you cannot deny these figures. Singapore is ranked:
1. 130th out of 178 countries for happiness,
2. 40th out of 41 countries for libido,
3. 30th out of 35 countries for courtesy,
4. 5th in the world for prisoners per capita,
5. 105th in the world for income equality.
Tell me who ever knocks off at 5:30 pm sharp? Yes, the government employees. Who else?
Medifund is an endowment fund set up by the Government to help needy Singaporeans who are unable to pay for their medical expenses. Medifund acts as a safety net for those who cannot afford the subsidized bill charges, despite Medisave and MediShield coverage. Set up in April 1993 with an initial capital of S$200 million, the Government will inject capital into the fund when budget surpluses are available. The Government utilises the interest income from the capital sum, which stands at S$1.66 billion (FY 2008), to help needy patients who have exhausted all other means to pay their medical bills.
Singaporeans who are in financial difficulties can approach the Medical Social Worker in the hospitals for assistance. They will assess your circumstances and recommend the appropriate financial assistance. Applications for Medifund can also be made through the Medical Social Worker.
In FY2001, about 157,200 Medifund applications were considered, 156,800 of which were approved. The amount of Medifund assistance amounted to S$27.2 million. Of this, 60.4% was given to assist Class B2 and C in-patients, 38.7% to assist subsidized outpatients and the remaining 0.9% was used by the Voluntary Welfare organizations.
On Friday, 28 December 2007, Leong Sze Hian wrote: “I also refer to the article “Record 301,000 needy patients get help from Medifund” (ST, Dec 4). The Medifund payout per patient was $132 and $136, for 2006 and 2005 respectively. The average payout per patient in 2001 was $174.
In addition the rejection rate for Medifund applicants increased 30-fold last year to 6,456, compared to only 210 rejections in 2005.
In my volunteer work doing financial counseling for needy Singaporeans, whenever I ask a medical social worker what is the criteria to qualify for Medifund, the answer I get is always, ‘it is confidential’. The answer is, ‘LKY is an extreme miser’.
I am also unable to find any information on the web sites of any government agency, or voluntary welfare organization.
Why is the Medifund criteria apparently kept a secret?”
A few years ago, I was out of job and sought the Social Medical Worker for downgrading from a Class-A patient to a subsidized patient. The Social Medical Worker asked me these three questions only.
Question 1: “What is your income?”
I replied, “Since I am out of job, my income is zero.”
Question 2: Is your wife working? How much is her income?
I replied: “We just divorced.”
Question 3: How many children do you have?
I replied: “One son. He lives with his mother.”
The Social Medical Worker looked at me, disappointed.
I asked: “What is the mean test?”
He replied: “The average income per person in a family is $450 per month.”
I asked: “How do you get that average income number?”
He showed me: “The first row asked for the total income in the family. The second row asked for the number of headcount in the family. Divide the total income by the number of headcount in the family to get the income per person. It is that simply.”
I asked the Social Medical Worker: “Why don’t you ask a third question, ‘How much debt do you have currently?’ You must net off from the total income to deduct the debt repayment schedule.”
The social Medical Worker stared at me but kept his mouth shut tight.
I sarcastically said: “The entire Medifund scheme is a big bullshit. The government is not sincere at all in dishing out aids to the poor who cannot afford to pay the ever rising medical bills that the government can up the medical costs as it wished, by how much and when to up it.”
Do you know what Medifund is all about?
1) On one hand, the government is dishing small amount of Medifund to the poor.
2) On the other hand, MOH has been jacking up the health-care cost and raking in a lot of money like any other businesses.
Medisave, introduced in April 1984, is a national medical saving scheme which helps individuals put aside part of their income into their Medisave Accounts to meet their future personal or immediate family's hospitalization, day surgery and certain outpatient medical treatment expenses. This was an innovative scheme introduced by the PAP-led government.
Under the scheme, every employee contributes 6.5 to 9% (depending on age group) of his monthly salary to a personal Medisave account. The savings can be withdrawn to pay the hospital bills of the account holder and his immediate family members.
MOH explained, “Medisave is designed to help Singaporeans cope with their hospitalization expenses at the Class B2/C level. On average, Singaporeans have $13,600 in their Medisave accounts. This amount is sufficient for 13 Class C or 10 Class B2 hospitalizations. Coupled with MediShield, it should take care of most Singaporeans’ basic hospitalization needs.
But as we upgrade hospital services to meet rising expectations of patients and bring in new medical technology, costs will continue to increase. The demand on Medisave will therefore grow. We need to preserve our savings in Medisave for our old age, and whenever possible, work to increase these savings. That is also why we have to periodically adjust the Medisave Minimum Sum, currently set at $28,500, and the Medisave Contribution Ceiling currently set at $33,500.”
Let’s review this statement carefully: “But as we upgrade hospital services to meet rising expectations of patients and bring in new medical technology, costs will continue to increase.”
That means way back in 1984, the PAP-led government already knew that the medical cost will increase. It has the foresight that as the medical cost escalates and if the government does not do anything to pass the cost of medical services to the individual Singaporean, it will have to increase its annual budget to medical health care.
The Ministry of Health has an intention to increase the salary of the hospital staff in order to retain and attract the best doctors and the upgrading of the government hospitals and expansions to cover more medical specialization it can only mean one thing. The medical cost must go up, and up.
If the individual Singaporean cannot afford to pay out of their cash savings which the government thinks the general population will not be saving fast enough to defer future medical cost, it is difficult to increase the medication consultation fee and let the medical bill blows up to a level where the people can’t pay out of their normal cash savings.
So before the medical bills grow to cause an alarmingly large sum of medical outlay in the health-care budget because of increasing costs of providing the medical services, the PAP-led government innovatively created a Medisave account to force the general population to save for the rainy days when they fall sick or in need of medical treatment.
The general population was fooled into believing that to have a sum of money set aside in their Medisave account is prudent and honestly, every one of them should be bearing the medical cost without much help from the government.
According to the Ministry of Health (MOH), Department of Statistics” (DOS) “Singapore, 1965 - 1995 Statistical Highlights: A Review of 30 Years’ Development”:
“Government Operating Expenditure on Health as a Per Cent of Total Government Operating Expenditure”, declined from 9.5 per cent in 1970 to 7.8 per cent in 1980, 6.5 per cent in 1990 and the figure for 2005 was 6.3 per cent.
Personally, I am not against the setting up of the Medisave account. However, if the PAP-led government were to conspire to cut its annual budget for health-care and pass the bucks to the individual Singaporean, it will lead to a big problem for the lower income group. This Medisave scheme could turn out to be very devastating for the less fortunate.
On 27 March 2007, Leong Sze Hian wrote to the editor of Business Times: “I refer to the report, 'Govt must close pay gap to retain talent: PM Lee - Pay for staff Grade 1 has slipped to 55% of benchmark' (BT, March 23).
Perpetuating the strategy of paying more and more to keep civil servants may be self-defeating. Perhaps we should shift some of the emphasis to the honor and duty of public service, contribution to our country and the pride and joy such service brings - which no amount of money can buy.
If the most senior civil servants who are now earning $1.21 million a year need to be paid $2.2 million to want to stay, I think there may be something wrong with the values we are teaching in our schools, our homes and our society at large.
Furthermore, benchmarking pay to the top echelons of private sector professions may not be appropriate, because civil servants do not have to face market competition, technological obsolescence, shareholders, investors, etc.”
What all the three Prime Ministers of Singapore held back and did not want to tell fellow Singaporeans is the private sector professions that they benchmarked the salary for themselves and their positions as a Cabinet ministers and the rest of the super-scale government employees is not secure as in a government job.
That is, the top four income-earners in the four professions benchmarked are all businessmen and not a single one of them is an employee. They are subjected to the downward risks when business turns bad and bankruptcy is not a too distant possibly. However, as a government employee, you will not lose your job. There is no risk to your steady income from the already big fat salary.
Therefore, treating a Prime Minister’s job to that of a businessman is inappropriate to begin with. But that benchmark will give him and the rest of the top echelon in the government services the maximum salary to benchmark with. That justifies paying himself $3.2 millions annually and more than a million dollars to retain a civil servant.
But the Prime Minister will never tell you, “The same civil servant does not have the BALLS to quit and join the private sector or to kick start his own business.”
There are two types of conveyance fees handled by the HDB sales department. One, conveyance fee for sale of flat by the Housing and Development Board is based on the selling price of the flat. Two, conveyance fee for acting for buyer in the mortgage is based on the mortgage loan of the flat. The conveyance fee is a charge levied by a law firm to ensure all the documentations are proper and therefore, successful transaction of the sales and purchase of a flat.
Before the liberation of the HDB mortgage loan, all the conveyancing is monopolized by Lee & Lee, a law firm. Don’t tell me you don’t know who owns Lee & Lee.
The conveyance fee is computed over a graduated scale. The minimum conveyancing fee chargeable is $20.
Using a direct computation without the use of weighted by the number of different flat sizes, the average conveyancing fee is $250 one-way.
In 2000, HDB welcomed its 800,000th home owner celebrating the organization's 40th anniversary. Multiple 800,000 flats by $250 equals to $200 million in conveyancing fee.
Assume among the 800,000 flats were sold once (most HDB flats were sold to more than one owner) and the conveyance fee of $250 payable by both the buyers and sellers, the total conveyance fee is $400 millions.
By the year 2000, the most, extremely conservative estimate based on the above put $600 million worth of conveyancing fee collected by Lee & Lee. Of course, it could be many times that, perhaps, at least $3 billion – a guesstimate by many people on the streets of Singapore.
Corruption is essentially termed as an "impairment of integrity, virtue or moral principle; depravity, decay, and/or an inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means, a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct, and/or an agency or influence that corrupts."
I am not a lawyer and therefore, I would not want to mention anything about the superlative obscene $600 million (or $3 billion guesstimate) going to just one law firm that operates in a nation of merely a few million people.
Perhaps, this is the best example of Squealer in the ‘Animal farm’ would want to limit debates by making claims that the pigs need the extra luxury they are taking in order to function properly.
On Monday, 10 November 2008, Leong Sze Hian wrote: “I refer to media reports about Singaporeans who have been unable to get permission to marry foreigners, despite repeated appeals to the relevant authorities and their members of parliament (MPs).
Singaporeans with lower-income, lower education, or lower-skilled jobs, find it harder to get permission to marry foreigners.
For example, a Singaporean male sales manager in an electronics shop, age 44, earning $1,700 a month, was denied permission, with the reason that his income was deemed too low to support a family. Now, after more than 20 appeals to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), more than four years, a few MPs, the answer is still no despite his salary having gone up to $2,500 now.
I find it somewhat ironic that a Singaporean can go to a neighboring country like Vietnam, pay a few thousand dollars, and marry a bride whom he has met only a few days before.
In contrast, if he wants to marry a foreigner who has ever been to Singapore on a work permit or S-employment pass, he has to apply for permission.
Surely, a relationship of many years with a foreigner in Singapore, may be a more lasting and lovely one, than a ‘few days’ bride transaction.
Will such policies contribute to more marriage strife and increasing divorce rates? At the end of the day, it may be the children of such failed marriages, who may bear the brunt of the consequences.
There are also cases of Singaporeans who have to travel to foreign countries periodically to meet their foreign wives and children, because permission to marry was denied.
Some of these Singaporeans may decide to migrate eventually.
I find it somewhat contradictory that whilst we are encouraging procreation, and are aware of the increasing trend of Singaporeans marrying non-Singaporeans, which I understand is now at an all-time high of about 4 out of 10 marriages that we continue to deny permission to marry in genuine cases.
As our constitution and national pledge say equality for citizens, why do we discriminate against citizens on the basis of their income, education and occupation?
If the theory that intelligence is due more to genes than to the environment is correct, are we not in a sense, making the lives of the genetically disadvantaged even harder, by denying their basic human right to love, to marry, and to have children?
If we are worried about “sham” marriages to get residency in Singapore, we can perhaps learn from other countries like the United States, which has severe penalties for “sham” marriages, whilst maintaining the right of every U.S citizen to marry anyone they truly love.
I also understand that for Singaporean women, getting permission to marry a foreigner is even harder than for our men, as even higher standards of income, education and occupation are required.
Is this a breach of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), of which Singapore is a signatory?”
It is really bad where the PAP leaders are abusing their dominance leadership and telling the average income, single Singapore citizens directly what they want them is to give up their marriage for the ruling party’s interest. They had chosen to ignore: “Leadership is an opportunity to serve. It is not a trumpet call to self-importance.”
While all the average income, single Singaporeans who are in love with a foreigner who is on work permit or S-pass but were denied permission to marry their loved ones, had no choice but to suffer quietly.
This is a quote by Thomas Jefferson, the 3th President of the United States of America.: “My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.”
Going to the extent to deny its citizens the right to love, marry and procreate is truly atrocious. That is really too much government.
Posted on his blog on May 28, 2007 is a letter by Tom Thekathyil who wrote to Gopalan Nair about the subject: “Singapore. Why the blame lies on the Opposition Politicians for Singaporeans having to live as slaves.” Here is the letter in full.
“This is a gross distortion of the truth, and you know that.
Half century ago Singaporeans were seduced into giving up their essential liberties for the distant promise of a chook (a Cantonese word for porridge) in the pot.
After all LKY was once the prole's champion (key speaker at some Socialist International sometime in early 60's). What they were not told was that the chooks would not necessarily be in their pots.
From the time the opposition was decimated with incarceration of key Barisan Socialis members there has been no effective opposition in Singapore. Many who saw the handwriting on the wall emigrated. Of the remainder many of the most able were co-opted into serving the government and dissenters were sidelined if not ruthlessly suppressed, as your own blogs demonstrate.
Half century in government is a long time to rewrite the laws to reflect the interests of the governing as opposed to that of civil society. Add to this a subservient judiciary and ... bingo!
If Singaporeans have been enslaved, they choose to do so with open eyes, and are no less culpable than the opposition claiming to act in their interests. Don't ask JBJ what he has done for the people - more useful to ask what the people have done for themselves.
They are free to demonstrate their feelings at the next election, if only to see the tiger's stripes. In short you cannot vote to be enslaved and then ask another man to explain why you are a slave.
You and I choose to walk away; those who stayed to fight and pay the price have my respect regardless of their effectiveness. They are no less worthy of yours.”
Dear Tom Thekathyil, let me correct one of your statements. “What they were not told was that the chooks would not necessarily be in their pots but in Lee’s pot only.”
Gopalan Nair wrote: “Please do not insult lions, by calling Singapore a Lion City. Lions are courageous noble creatures in the face of danger or any bully for that matter. If by calling Singapore a lion city, meaning Singaporeans are lions, you defamed all lions in Africa and India. If the lions could sue, they would have engaged the best lawyers and sued you for defaming their character!
A City of Sheep would be a correct name for those who people in that Island Republic of Singapore. Sheep as we know, have an inbuilt tendency to comply, turn here or that way, this direction or that and willingly permit themselves to be sheared for their wool or slaughtered without complaint.”
Dear Gopalan Nair, may I suggest to make a minor correction to your message? I suggest: “If there is a lion who could talk like Lee Kuan Yew, it would have sued all Singaporeans for defamation.”
By the way, please do not use the word “A City of Sheep”. You are directly challenging Lee Kuan Yew whether to ban the book by George Orwell, entitled: ‘Animal farm’ or not. That is exactly what he had turned Singapore into – an animal farm for the past 4 decades.
Are we not stupid to have voted for him in every general election?
This is day-light robbery by the Minister of National Development.
If you are late in payment, a demand notice for outstanding conservancy and service charges (SC/CC) shall be sent to you. In this demand notice, it stated clearly:
1) Penalty in arrears Jan 2009 - $6;
2) Penalty for previous month - $6.
The penalty is imposed under the Town Council (Penalty for late payment for conservancy and service charges) By-Laws 2002. It will continue to be imposed monthly until full settlement.
The Bylaws 2002 was passed by the Parliament of Singapore where there are 82 members of Parliament versus 2 opposition members. Do the people of Singapore have a chance to tell the PAP-led government that they do not agree to this By-laws 2002?
The loan shark says, “Owe money, pay money”.
However, you and I can’t go against this By-Laws 2002 and not pay the penalty. Continual ignorance to pay the outstanding conservancy and service charges is an offence that will land you and me in jail. The By-laws says, “Owe money, go to jail”.
On top of that, this Bylaws 2002 is so ruthlessly unfeeling in two areas.
1) There isn’t a grace period where a reminder was sent out before the actual penalty is imposed. For example, perhaps, after two reminders were sent and yet, the said HDB flat owner failed to pay up, the penalty shall be imposed.
2) Two, a $6 penalty over a monthly SC/CC fee of $77.50 (Take the case of an Executive Apartment/Masionettes flat-type) is equal to 7.7 per cent interest per month, which in turn is a whooping 93 per cent per annum. Credit card companies charges only 24 per cent per annum. Other than day-light robbery, what other terms can you use to better describe this astronomical interest?
Yes, there is a more appropriate phrase to describe it. The Town Council (Penalty for late payment for conservancy and service charges) By-laws 2002 is telling you, ‘Just lie down and enjoy being raped’.
Robin Hood is an archetypal figure in English folklore, whose story originates from medieval times but who remains significant in popular culture where he is known for robbing the rich to give to the poor and fighting against injustice and tyranny. His band includes "three score" group of fellow outlawed yeomen – called his "Merry Men". In popular culture Robin Hood and his band are usually seen as living in Sherwood Forest in Nottinghamshire.
The CPF Housing Grant is a housing subsidy to assist married Singapore citizens who are buying a resale flat from the open market for the first time. The grant can be used for the initial down payment to reduce the housing loan quantum. Where does this money come from? Does the money come from the government coffer?
You make a guess.
Singapore citizen households enjoy a housing subsidy when they buy a new flat from HDB or a resale flat in the open market applied with CPF Housing Grant. Each eligible family can purchase up to a maximum of 2 subsidized flats, in other words, enjoy housing subsidies twice.
The resale levy is meant to reduce the subsidy on the 2nd subsidized flat so as to maintain a fair allocation of public housing subsidies between 1st and 2nd-timer citizen families. This is also to give priority to 1st-timers who have more urgent housing needs.
Flat owners who do not buy a 2nd subsidized flat from HDB need not pay the resale levy.
The amount of resale levy is graded according to the flat type of the flat owners' first subsidized flat. Under the revised policy, flat owners whose first subsidized flat is a 2-room flat will pay a resale levy of $15,000. Those whose first subsidized flat is a 3-room, 4-room, 5-room and Executive flat will pay a resale levy of $30,000, $40,000, $45,000 and $50,000 respectively when they purchase a second subsidized flat.
When a resale flat is sold in the resale market, the first time buyers were given the housing grant of $30,000 to $40,000. For the same unit of flat that a first time buyer purchase with the help of the housing grant, a resale levy is imposed upon the sellers. Notice the resale for a 3-room is $30,000 and gradually goes up to $50,000 for an Executive flat.
For the same resale transaction of the same flat, ‘Robin Hood’ is stealing $30,000 to $50,000 from the seller and giving only $30,000 to $40,000 to the first time buyer. There is a possibility that ‘Robin Hood’ pocket some $10,000 from every resale transaction – the difference between the resale levy and the housing grant.
In the ‘Animal farm’, Squealer the pig justifies the pigs' monopolization of resources and spreads false statistics pointing to the farm's success.
Likewise, HDB justifies its monopoly of the building of public housing and spread false statistics that the PAP-led government is handling generous housing grants to first time buyers of resale flats. However, it did it even better. It paints a beautiful picture of the government being the ‘Robin Hood’.
Who is the victim? You and I who had to pay the resale levy. Dear ‘Robin hood’ has put his hands into your pocket and took out $40,000 to $50,000. Are you happy with that?
Go ahead and vote PAP in the next election.
On May 22, 2007, Gopalan Nair wrote on his blog: “I append below a nice letter from a Singaporean lawyer who has left Singapore permanently.
‘Greetings from Brussels. My name is Reynold Pereira.
Like you, I also practiced law in Singapore until I decided I move to Europe with my wife back in 1998. We were first in Paris for about three years before moving to Brussels. We have now been in Brussels for almost six years.
The plan had always been to move to Europe to find a better life. I guess I became disillusioned with practice after a while. I had all these high ideals about defending the underprivileged but after going through some trials and being on the wrong end of some strange decisions by the courts, I decided that I had enough.
In a way, I'm glad that I left Singapore. I do miss my family and friends and some of the old haunts like Adam Road hawker centre and Komala Vilas. But in terms of quality of life, I think Singapore is way down the list. We are quite happy in Brussels and strangely enough there are some old cafés here which reminds me of the old 'kopitiams' in Singapore. My kids are happy and my first kid who will be going to primary one next year seems okay.
I do keep up with the developments that are taking place in Singapore with regards to the political field and sadly, nothing has changed. It's still the privileged few who 'kowtow' to the Lees that get things their way.
I must confess that while I was in Paris, I used to attend these functions with another dissident Singaporean Indian lawyer (who is currently doing very well in practice in Paris) because for us, the invitation card was a coupon for getting 'free good food'!!! But I think, for most Singaporeans who have migrated overseas, their mind has already been made up and these 'makan' sessions would never be able to make them change their minds about returning to Singapore.’”
Dear Reynold Pereira, freedom is what you want. But that is too painful for them to give up even a little. (Don’t forget, LKY is an extreme miser.) Food (prepared by the best chef or prison nasi lemak) is dirt cheap and bland to your mouth because you yearn for freedom, and NOT food.
Back in Singapore, we are slaves who can cry and cry every night. Deep in our heart we all know we will never get our political freedom under the Lee dynasty of dictatorial rule.
What does Lee Kuan Yew has in his mind?
Genghis Khan lived for himself and solely for his own glory. In his mind, he said, “I am the number one. Everyone else must be subservient to my command.” He lived all his life to fulfill two words: ‘For me’. He went on to destroy almost every civilization.
Adolf Hitler mimicked Genghis Khan: “It is for me” and tried to conquer Europe. He failed and brought Germany into total devastation.
President George Bush Junior tried to imprint his leadership by finding Saddam Hussein as the enemy and he started the Iraq war with a very clear message, “For me”. The cost of financing the Iraq war is now over $600 billion and that is spending $121,000 per American per year.
Lee Kuan yew had demolished the oppositions ever since he came to power. Don’t you know what he has been hiding behind his desire? It is, “For me” but under the façade of ‘for the country’. So he says, “Robbing its citizen everyday is ‘for the country’”.
Therefore, all Singaporeans who are sheep better ‘just lie down and enjoy being raped’, in the name, ‘for the country’.
Fellow Singaporeans, “JUST LIE DOWN AND ENJOY BEING RAPE.”
Among the four former presidents who had passed away, Ong Teng Cheong was the only one who did not receive a state funeral. Ong Teng Cheong, (王鼎昌; pinyin: Wáng Dǐngchāng; 22 January 1936 - 8 February 2002) was the first directly elected President of Republic of Singapore. He was the nation's fifth President, in office from 2 September 1993 to 1 September 1999.
Wee Kim Wee (Fourth President of Singapore, 1985 – 1993) died recently and was given a state funeral. Many citizens had a collective cry. He was a genuinely well-liked man; his personal humility impressed thousands.
Why, a reader wrote to the Straits Times to ask, was Ong Teng Cheong (President of Singapore 1993 – 1999) not likewise given a state funeral when he died in February 2002?
The government's reply was an empty one. Following is an excerpt from the Straits Times. Basically it said that: “the policy on state funerals was ‘still evolving’ and is decided on a case-by-case basis by the Prime Minister and the cabinet.
Singaporeans who have made 'truly exceptional contributions' will receive a state funeral.
But it is not feasible to have a set formula on who gets one, based on a person's previous rank or appointment,” Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's press secretary said yesterday.
'The decision to hold one is made by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet,' Mr. Chen Hwai Liang said in his letter to the Today newspaper and Chinese-language daily Lianhe Zaobao.
No amount of explanation can deny the fact that the party’s whip is cracked. The masses or sheep as in the ‘Animal farm’, will always believed in the party leader for whatever reason he gave why ex-President Ong Teng Cheong was not given a state funeral.
In the ‘Animal farm’, when Boxer is injured, and can no longer work, Napoleon sends him off to the knacker's yard and deceives the other animals, saying that Boxer died peacefully in the hospital. When the animals cannot work, Napoleon tosses them aside, for they mean nothing to him. Poor Ong Teng Cheong is the first Boxer. You and I, the 4 millions Singaporeans are all the other animals.
On the contrary, the Benjamins as in the ‘Animal farm’ will never believe the party leader did not crack the party’s whip to force every single party member to tow his line. As the Chinese saying goes, 《杀鸡敬猴》meaning ‘kill the chicken in front of the monkeys’; this was taken as a stern warning.
Perhaps, the Benjamins will for once choose to put down their cynicism provided the PAP party leaders walk the talk. That is, only if Lee Kuan yew and his son were to visit Ong Teng Cheong’s grave and pronounced, “Sorry, you deserved a state funeral.”
Unlike the Japanese who publicly admits a mistake, the PAP leadership would not. The Japanese understands what humility is and its virtue.
However, to Lee Kuan Yew, nothing matters more than these few words. Pride! It is my pride! In my entire my life, nothing else matters other than my pride!
What is pride? 面子是别人给的。You can’t ask people to give you your pride. It is absolutely up to their sole discretion.
This is a quote by Abraham Lincoln: “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”
In the late 1960s, fearing that Singapore's growing population might overburden the developing economy; Lee Kuan Yew (who had 2 sons and one daughter) started a vigorous 'Stop-at-Two' family planning campaign.
“Minister for Health, Mr. Yong Nyuk Lin, tabled a White Paper in Parliament in September 1965 and outlined a Five-year Mass Family Planning program aimed at reducing the birth rate from 29.9 per thousand in 1965 to 20 per thousand in 1970.4 The Family Planning and Population Board (FPPB) was subsequently established in January 1966 to implement the recommendations in the White Paper.
The national policy then was to provide family planning facilities to all eligible married women in the 15-44 years age group, numbering about 180,000. A sum of S$1 million was allocated for the entire program. Although the program met with initial resistance, more than 156,000 eventually received family planning services.
By the end of its third cycle in 1980, fertility rate had declined to 1.7 children per female population. By then, however, Singapore’s economic growth and aging population meant that it needed more babies to maintain a sizeable workforce. The family planning program was revised in 1986 to encourage Singaporeans to have more children.”
Do you think spending a mere $6.41 per recipient of the family planning services was effective? At today price, it can’t even buy a pack of 12 condoms. Certainly $6.41 can’t buy sufficient condoms to last a pair of couples for a year. Let’s not count the number of pack of condoms require from 1966 to 1980.
This program was bloody successful not because the government spent a mere $1 million for the family planning program. There are several more draconic executions.
1. In 1970: Abortion was legalized. Later years, it is made easier to abort.
2. In 1972: Parents with 2 children, instead of 3, can be sterilized.
3. From 1984 to 1986: Lower-educated, lower income couples were encouraged to be sterilized.
One of the lesser remembered execution plans was the announcement that the third or subsequent child will lose its priority to enter a choice primary school despite the parents having paid up the S$1,000 fine. Most Singaporeans were ‘kiasu’ for their children (which means, afraid that their children will lose out to the other children who stand a better chance to enter a good school). So they abided and stop-at-two. Today, most of these older couples regretted and cursed Lee Kuan Yew.
They cursed him for being absolutely cruel to an unborn child. He was adamantly cruel in removing the right of the unborn child to a good primary school. He did not respect human rights at all. He did not respect: “all man are equal”. He applied his authoritative and corrupting power in imposing ‘what he wants for himself’.
He did not involve the people to the family planning campaign. He just shafted it into every couple’s throat with a clear message: “If that is what you want (a third child or fourth), I am removing his or her right to a good primary school. A penalty of $1,000 won’t do the trick.”
This is a quote by Thomas Jefferson, the 3th President of the United States of America: “The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time.”
Lee Kuan Yew played the opposite – he is the Satan. He inhibits the procreation of life and removes the freedom of its people as well.
On May 25, 2005, Leong Sze Hian wrote to The Business Times title, ‘Hello? Anybody listening?’: “I refer to the editorial 'The matter of governance' (BT, May 13) and the article 'Singapore slips, but still high in political governance' (BT, May 16).
For 'voice and accountability', Singapore was placed in the 43.2 percentile rank last year.
In response to the media, the Public Service Division, Prime Minister's Office, said that public agencies are required to reply to all feedback.
But in the Ministry of Health's (MOH) replies, 'Mistaken views on MediShield' (BT, March 1) to my letter 'Suggestions for MediShield' (BT, Feb 23), and 'MediShield's financial status must be protected' (ST, Feb 16), to my letter 'Cap co-insurance, so Class C patients pay less' (ST, Feb 11), my question, 'Now that MediShield Plus will be hived off to a private insurer, will the surplus accumulated be transferred to MediShield and, if so, what is the estimated amount?', has not been answered.
In the Housing and Development Board's reply, 'It's still no to singles renting HDB flats singly' (ST, Feb 4) to my letter, 'Let singles rent vacant flats without pairing up' (ST, Jan 20), the question that I asked about how many rental flats are vacant in addition to the 10,000 unsold flats, has still not been answered.
As the above two questions are merely requests for factual and statistical information, I would like to ask why is there no reply after so many months?
This issue was highlighted by media reports about Madam Cynthia Phua (Aljunied GRC), who recounted in Parliament the difficulties of getting civil servants to respond to the public.
Members of the public have also repeatedly raised this issue.
In the April 2005 quarterly newsletter of the Feedback Unit, Feedback News, Dr Wang Kai Yuen, chairman of the Feedback Supervisory Panel, wrote with reference to the Feedback Unit's Annual Conference of Feedback Groups in January, that the government must strive to meet the public's four 'great expectations':
1. Singaporeans want to be consulted;
2. Close the feedback loop;
3. Singaporeans want quality government responses to their feedback;
4. Singaporeans want open discussions and they want the feedback process to be transparent and inclusive.
By the same token, as a citizen giving feedback, I feel that my expectations of 'close the feedback loop' and 'quality responses' have not been fulfilled. The article, 'Singapore among world's best in government services: Responsiveness to citizens among factors rated highly in Accenture study of 22 countries' by Raju Chellam (BT, April 27), underscores the need for Singapore to improve its 'voice and accountability'
ranking, in order to maintain its 'responsiveness to citizens' rating.
In the Economist magazine (March 26 issue), it said that in the United Kingdom, 'recent data suggests there is a need to restore public faith in the numbers'.
In an opinion poll last October, 68 per cent of respondents said they believed official figures were changed to support a particular argument; 58 per cent thought there was political interference in their production.
It isn't just the statisticians whose reputations suffer as a result. The government hoped to use figures to prove to voters how well it was doing. But if the voters don't believe the numbers, it can't.
When will I get a reply to my two questions?”
Come on Mr. Leong Sze Hian, your questions will never be answered. This is because the statistics certainly is going to make the government looks bad. It is either of these two situations.
One, a Malay proverb says, ‘Meludah ke atas langit, akhirnya jatuh ke atas hidung sendiri’ meaning, ‘One’s phlegm when spit directly up into the sky will eventually falls onto his own nose’. Of course, this kind of data will be forever hidden form the public.
Two, these data could enlighten the voters or make them feel cheated for at least three decades. Are you nuts to believe that the PAP-led government will ever produce this kind of statistics to discredit itself?
Known for his outlandish style of humor and rubber-faced facial expressions, actor, director and producer Stephen Chow has become the greatest comedian of all time on the Hong Kong movie production. The diminutive actor-comedian-writer-director laughs his movie laugh, mouth open like a jack-o'-lantern, eyes sparkling and nearly rolling out of his head, body leaning forward just enough to draw you in on the joke — the happy joke that's at the heart of his career. In films, Chow usually plays the fool but almost always gets the girl.
Chow certainly doesn't seem to believe it, but success speaks for itself. Chow has six of the biggest box-office hits in Hong Kong history. "I wanted to capture the mass audience from the start," he says. Mission accomplished.
Asiaphile director Quentin Tarantino has called him the best actor working in Hong Kong, while film critic Shelly Kracier, editor of the Chinese Cinema Digest, has written that Chow is a "genius." Genius or not, Chow is still as down-to-earth as an eager film extra. "He's one of the kindest, most charming people on earth," says Dede Nickerson, Miramax's Asia consultant, who helped Chow dub Shaolin Soccer into English for its U.S. cinema release. "He never compromises himself to the people around him."
In one of his comedy, he was a ninth-grade official in the Ching’s court. He is a big time bully and everybody feared him.
One day, he went out together with his men as usual. While passing by a whore house, a lady on the second floor poured her basin of dirty water after washing her feet out of the window and rained onto Chow. Chow was taken aback who dares to humiliate him. He looked up and the whore smiled at him. He swooned at her beauty.
Quickly, his men draw their broad swords and scrambled up the stair case. They caught the culprit and brought her down to the street and forced her to kneel down in front of Chow.
She turned her face up and smiled promiscuously at Chow.
Wow! Pulling a wide smile and flirtatious look, he thought to himself, “She is such a beauty.”
One of his men asked him, “Sir, what shall we do to her?”
Chow waived his hand and said, “Oh! Her water just wet my face. It did not wet my robe.”
Quickly, his men let go of her and she stood up.
Wetting his robe means an insult to the court official. Throwing dirty water over his face is an accidental mistake that dirtied Chow, but not amounting to an insult to a court official.
The morale of the story is: a court official must make it clear whether he is a commoner or an official on duty.
When Lee Kuan Yew filed a defamation suit against the citizen of Singapore, he filed it in the capacity of a Prime Minister, Senior Minister or Mentor Minister? It was in his official capacity.
Do you think he can file a suit against the citizen of Singapore in his official capacity?
Here is a quote from Thomas Jefferson, the 3rd President of the United States of America: “When a man assumes a public trust he should consider himself a public property.”
As a minister, it is his duty to serve the people. If the people feel at sufferance or injustice under his care, they have every right to tell him off that he is stepping way out of his duty and remind him that politics is about the people of Singapore.
How can he turn around and sue these people who voiced out to him his governance has gone out-of-control. This is totally outrageous! Instead of taking a step back and recalls where he might have gone over board, he went on to cover up his selfishness and went on relentlessly in hot pursuit of anyone who dares not tow his line, without let up.
This is a quote from Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the United States of America: “Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.”
But it perished in the small island of less than 650 square kilometers called, Singapore. Lee Kuan Yew single-handedly made the government organization into a machinery to satisfy his mindlessly willfulness: “This is my LEE dynasty.”
In the ‘animal farm’, Squealer, the pig represents all the propaganda to show how politicians used language to limit debate by complicating it and confuses and disorients the masses. However, when questions persist, he usually uses the threat of the return of Mr. Jones, the former owner of the farm, to justify the pigs' privileges.
Today, the modern mouth-piece of the government is always the newspapers. In Singapore, the state monopolizes the issuance of 17 newspaper licenses in all four languages to only Singapore Press Holdings – one of the so-called government-linked companies where the government has a substantial shareholding.
In January 2004, she was promoted to be the CEO of Temasek Holdings Pte. Ltd. despite the people’s heavy criticism of Ho Ching’s (Lee Hsien Loong’s wife) serious mistake in buying Micropolis and gambled away with $630 million dollars of the people’s money.
In 2008, she dumped US$5.9 billion of the people’s money into Merill Lynch & Co. - a company beyond rescue. Following is a report in the Wall Street Journal dated, Wednesday July 30, 2008. Merill Lynch & Co. was later bought over by Bank of America. Where has the US$5.9 billion gone?
The newspapers in Singapore, all owned by Singapore Press Holding will never report how much of this US$5.9 billion remain.
Don’t you think Singapore Press Holding is a Squealer: one of the key characters in the ‘Animal farm’ by George Orwell, do you?
Chen Shiyin and Jonathan Burgos of (Bloomberg) wrote on February 10, 2009: Temasek Holdings Pte now holds about 189 million shares in Bank of America after converting its Merrill Lynch stock. Bank of America completed the Merrill Lynch purchase on January 1, 2009.
On February 27, 2009, the closing share price of Bank of America Corporation is US$3.95 per share or US$0.747 billion for Temasek’s share holding in BoA. That means a colossal loss of US$5.153 billion (the difference between US$5.9 billion minus US$0.747 billion). 87% of its total investment in Merrill Lynch was completely wiped off and you will never see your money again.
Will Singapore Press Holding report this colossal loss of US5.153 billions in any one of the 17 local newspapers? It did not.
On May 15, 2009, Costas Paris of WSJ reported: “Singapore's Temasek Holdings Pte Ltd. sold its entire 3.8% stake in Bank of America Corp. between January and March this year, swelling its losses from soured investments by about $4.6 billion.”
Will Singapore Press Holding report this net proceed from the divesture of BoA shares and published the net loss of US$4.6 billions in any one of the 17 local newspapers?
Of course, it will never report the colossal loss.
Since the inception of NKF, it has been bleeding in the millions every year. Lee Kuan Yew was alarmed. As the budget allocated to NKF kept on increasing year after year, it brought in TT Durai. Of course, Mr. Durai knew his mission. That is, to stop the financial bleeding.
He went on devising many schemes to raise money from the public. This is fine. We, the people of Singapore are very generous. We donate and donate and many of us are average citizens who earn about S$1,000 a month, magnanimously donate from our paychecks, money as little as a few dollars a month to several tens of dollars.
But TT Durai did something unfeeling (heartlessly unemotional) on the expense part of the equation. The mission of NKF is to give financial assistance to any poor and needy kidney dialysis patient who cannot afford the high cost of kidney dialysis. He is stingy and tightfisted on this part to the chagrin of many average Singaporeans.
He issued very strict (verbal) instructions (which is difficult to prove when all government employees are kiasi – afraid to die and kai chengfu – afraid of the government) to his staff to force the patients who are seeking financial assistance to first turn to their parents, brothers and sisters, children and whoever extended family members to help them. In this way, he can stop or reduce the outflow of money from the coffer of NKF.
With nowhere to go, the poor patients sought the help of their family members who after several rounds of offering financial assistances, they themselves were in deep financial difficulties. It was only then, NKF starts to hand out financial assistance to the patient who is about to die if he does not get his blood cleaned through the dialysis machine.
Of course, the public is very angry. But what can we do? Some of us complained to each other.
The PAP-run government (People Action Party) had set up a strong structure of meet-the-people session every week. All Members of the Parliament are instructed to attend to this one hour or so evening sessions to hear it out; feedback from the people and to pick on some of their grievances as well.
Of course, they must have heard about the excessive behaviors in how TT Durai ran the NKF organization.
However, the Cabinets looked at the financial accounts of NKF. It is growing strongly in the black and no longer bleeding. In fact, it was increasing at a very high rate to the tune of more than S$240 million in net cash holding.
You can imagine what is in the mind of the Cabinet ministers then, “Hey! Let’s raise our hands and give TT Durai, five. Give him a pad on his back. Increase his salary to $600,000 a year. With him running NKF, the government has not been donating a single cent to NKF for decades because its healthy budget tells us no need to.”
But TT Durai was made a scape-goat to be the bad guy to save the PAP-led government who has always been treating the people of Singapore not a part of itself but has always made its citizens pay-and-pay.
Not convinced?
Let’s ask the MOH to publish the true value of the dollar amount that it had contributed to NKF since inception until today. It definitely would not, dare not. This is because it has not been contributing a single cent since TT Durai took over.
Come on, fellow Singaporeans. Let’s stop donating to NKF. Not because we are heartless. Lee Kuan Yew - the most unkind and extreme miser to his hilt, has manipulated with your kindness and keeps counting his $500 billion in GIC. Don’t forget there are many hundreds of billion more in Temasek holding and all the GLC.
Make the heartless Lee Kuan Yew publishes the figure collected by TT Durai for the past two decades and we, as a united people of Singapore makes him donate dollar-for-dollar to NKF over the last three decades.
We shall resume our donation when only we have seen the dollar-to-dollar donation from the government coffer.
In 1964, the government introduced the Home Ownership for the People Scheme to give citizens an asset in the country, a mean of financial security and to hedge against inflation. This push for home ownership also helped in the overall economic, social and political stability of the country.
The very basic reason why HDB was created was to provide AFFORDABLE PUBLIC HOUSING to Singaporeans – more so the lower income group. Therefore, the first of its three roles is to provide affordable, quality homes. HDB plans and develops public housing towns that provide Singaporeans with quality homes and living environments. The other two core roles are: ensure vibrant towns and build cohesive communities
Whatever happened to this core value?
In the earlier 1990’s, the government tried very hard to convince the public that HDB flat was heavily subsidized to the tune of S$150,000 per unit. The central focus of this propaganda was to tell the Singaporeans they have the incumbent PAP-led government to thank for a roof over their heads. In other words, the PAP party pushed the idea when it heavily subsidized the flat over the citizens’ head it is time for them to show their gratitude by voting the PAP party in the general election. With that message, they trounced the opposition who only managed to win two seats out of a total of 84 Parliamentary seats.
Now Mah Bow Tan, the Minister of National Development says the pricing of the HDB flats are determined by a market-based approach and it is in accordance with market price and demand. This is because despite several years of hard-selling, the Singaporeans do not believe subsidy in HDB flats is real. Anyway, the government could not produce convincing data or statistics to show that there is such a subsidy.
Which means HDB is no different from any of the rest of the property developers whose existence is to make money. Many Singaporeans were appalled how Mah Bow Tan derives an amount of $300,000 for the construction costs for a 4-room flat in Sengkang – a new township build far away from the city centre. The majority of the Singaporeans are not convinced.
In the first place, there wasn’t a fair competition in terms of provision of common public housing in Singapore. In 2000, HDB welcomed its 800,000th home owner in a symbolic key hand-over ceremony celebrating the organization's 40th anniversary. Really, 80% of the Singaporeans do not have a choice but to buy a flat from HDB.
The HDB is just ONE BIG MONOPOLY controlling the demand and supply of public housing in Singapore. The pricing of the public housing, of course, is fully under the control of HDB. Who else?
The funny thing is most of the younger Singaporeans grew up with a perceived knowledge that HDB provides subsidized housing for Singaporean citizens. Mah Bow Tan’s words were a shock to them. Never did they ever imagine HDB is now selling HDB flats to its citizens at market price.
This is the one of the best examples of where the founding principle of nation building to build affordable, quality housing for its citizens is replaced by a profit motive. In fact, this is more than a profit motive. Its flat pricing approach is akin to any businessman who says, “Money in your pocket is not for you to keep.” With that, HDB is making obscene profit from a monopolized trade, of course.
To sue an American deputy editor, perhaps, who had not set her foot on Singapore soil shows how incorrigible Lee Kuan Yew is. His hooliganism of “谁敢在我的地盘里撒野？”had effectively made an American who has never been to his territory answerable to defend his tyrannical rule.
Lee Kuan Yew is not a true Chinese. He is a ‘banana’ who has yellow skin but white inside. If he is a Chinese, he should understand the art of war says, “将在外，君令有所不受”meaning, ‘A general who is leading the troop at the front line does not have to takes the emperor’s orders.’ Ms. Kirkpatrick could not be dishing out instructions to the two editors who are stationed far away in Hong Kong.
This is a quote from Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States of America: “Peace and friendship with all mankind is our wisest policy, and I wish we may be permitted to pursue it.”
Lee Kuan Yew does not pursue peace and friendship but tenaciously went ahead to destroy his friendship with every single one of the people of the United States of American. With that I predict “Singapore is doomed.”
Our neighbor countries, less than 2 kilometers up the causeway on the north is watching the development of this court proceeding very carefully. They are looking for the right signal to quickly amass their army a distance of 100 meters away and surrounding the island of Singapore. They know big brother is very angry, tired and would want to close his eyes.
Who could defend Singapore? All the NS and regular army will be called up to defend the country. However, facing the enemies who are many times larger in number, Singapore tiny army severely lacks a 项羽 (Xiang Yu). Lee Kuan Yew has been the only true fighter in the whole history of Singapore. He is the one and only one, best candidate. There is no one else.
This is a crisis that determines the survival of Singapore. Can Lee Kuan Yew please put on your armor and lead the country and charge deep into the enemy position like Xiang Yu did as the true fighter?
This is the best time for you to prove to the people of Singapore you practices true leadership, rallies the people around a noble cause to save the country and leading the charge. Be the HERO.
Do you think Lee Kuan Yew will lead the charge?
I can bet you to my last dollar he is Ma Si (马谡), the ‘Paper tiger’ who asked his troop to charge, but not him.
Let’s go back to kiasuism. Every Singaporean will not want to fight this war. War means dead. If absolutely necessary, Lee Kuan Yew should charge first.
In this libel suit against Ms Kirkpatrick, Lee Kuan Yew is digging his own grave.
Ha! Ha! Let see how he commands his troop of kiasi Singaporeans who have everything to thank our Northern neighbors for.
Musuh posted 36 comments. Many more to come. I need a rest.
On May 29, 2009, Alvin Foo of SPH wrote: “Mr Tharman said Temasek's portfolio grew $56 billion from March 2003 to November last year even after taking recent sharp declines into account. It averaged returns of slightly over 15 per cent a year.
FINANCE Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam on Thursday defended the overall track record of Singapore state investment vehicle Temasek Holdings.
He disclosed this detail when responding to questions on Temasek's sale of its Bank of America (BoA) stake raised by Ang Mo Kio GRC MP Inderjit Singh and Non-Constituency MP Sylvia Lim. The sale led to estimated losses of between US$2.3 billion (S$3.3 billion) and US$4.6 billion, prompting criticism of the move.
In February, Parliament was told that Temasek's net portfolio value dropped $58 billion - from $185 billion to $127 billion - during March 31 to Nov 30 last year, a fall of 31 per cent.
Mr Tharman said on Thursday that the 'only reasonable way' of evaluating Temasek's performance is 'to look at how the losses and gains add up, and how its overall portfolio performs over time'.
It was not realistic for Temasek to outperform the market every time or to avoid losses amid sharp market corrections, he said. 'Temasek has in fact made large investment gains over the course of the market cycle that began in 2003, including the boom that lasted till 2007 as well as the subsequent bust,' he said.
Its portfolio decline came after a 'much greater gain' of $114 billion over the preceding five years. 'Even after taking into account the recent sharp decline, Temasek's portfolio had still grown by $56 billion over the course of the cycle.'
Temasek's performance as at last November also took into account 'all unrealised losses including mark-to-market losses on the Merrill investment'.
Mr Tharman said a 'large part' of Temasek's $58 billion portfolio decline, about $32 billion, was due to the slump in the market value of the 10 largest listed Temasek-linked firms here. Their share prices retreated 41 per cent between March and November last year, in line with the movement of the market here.
Temasek has performed 'respectably' compared to relevant market indexes and reputable institutional investors, he said. 'Temasek has achieved total shareholder returns by market value of slightly over 15 per cent per year on average (in US dollar terms) over the cycle. This compares with 6 per cent annualised gain in the global equity market indices (MSCI World).'”
Tharman Shanmugaratnam, I don’t even want to read beyond the first paragraph. Why?
“Temasek's portfolio grew $56 billion from March 2003 to November last year”
To a fund manager, his portfolio increases in two ways.
1) Gains made by the fund’s investment.
2) New inflow of funds by new investors
Please publish the From Mar 2003 to November 2008, how much new money was transfer from the excess from annual budget into Temasek Holdings.
In my earlier article on “Off-balance sheet items”, the Singapore government scurried away more than S$20 billion a year from the excess of total receipt over total expenses. How much of this surplus from year 2003 to 2008 was transferred to Temasek.
Stupid. For 5 years, the total amount adds up to no less than $100 billion. This alone could have accounted for “a 'much greater gain' of $114 billion over the preceding five years” as you have reported.
I repeat: Please publish the From Mar 2003 to November 2008, how much new money was transfer from the excess from annual budget into Temasek Holdings.
On May 29, 2009, Jeremy Au Yong of SPH wrote: “THE newly announced changes to the political system here are to ensure the country will always have good government. They are not to entrench the PAP's power.
That was the firm response of Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports Vivian Balakrishnan on Thursday when he rebuffed criticisms from the Workers' Party (WP).
Speaking in Parliament during the debate on the President's Address, he took issue with suggestions from Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang) and Non-Constituency MP Sylvia Lim that the political changes serve partly to keep the PAP in power. While he agreed the system tipped the scales against minor parties, he stressed that was not a negative thing.
'You are right,' he said to Mr Low. 'Our system makes it difficult for parties who are just there to take a position or to just make some arguments in Parliament or even just to win a few seats.
'Our system is slanted in favour of ensuring that only parties which can form strong governments will be serious contenders in our election. And that is something which I see no need to make any apologies for because it safeguards the future of Singapore.'
He added that the WP could well win the election if it could offer itself as an alternative government.
On Wednesday, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong proposed four changes to the political system.
The minimum number of single- seat wards would be increased from eight to 12; the average size of group representation constituencies (GRCs) would go down; the Nominated MP (NMP) system would be entrenched; and the minimum number of opposition MPs in Parliament would be raised from three to nine through the Non-Constituency MP (NCMP) scheme.
Dr Balakrishnan said the changes would ensure diversity of views in Parliament and in effect meet the public's desire for more opposition voices. 'What we are trying to tell our people is that in future you don't need to vote tactically,' he said.”
Vivian, this is like polishing the round end of a pebble to be slightly rounder. Why don’t you do something on the sharp, jagged end of the politics environment in Singapore? Tell your master, Lee Kuan Yew to do announce to the people of Singapore that:
1. He as the Mentor Minister is a public figure. Therefore, he is a public property.
2. He understood a quote by Thomas Jefferson, the 3rd President of the United States of America, “When a man assumes a public trust he should consider himself a public property.
3. He understood ‘Stephen Chow’ reasoning that dirtying his face does not constitute to wetting his mandarin robe. Therefore, the slut has not defamed a court official.
4. He better be a better hooligan than ‘Stephen Chow’.
No wonder the title of this article is, “Changes for the nation – not PAP”. Of course PAP won’t change because Lee Kuan Yew is吃屎的狗. He is a dog who eats shits. He will never give up eating shits.
Around mid-February, 2009, The Straits Times reported that Lee Kuan Yew, chairman of GIC announced that GIC lost $50 billion from Oct 08 to Feb 09.
However, on February 9, 2009, Thanong Khanthong of The Nation wrote: “GIC started the crisis (July 2008) with roughly Singapore $550 billion in reserves. My estimate is that it has lost about $190-$200 billion of that, leaving it with about $350 billion left. This amount is equivalent to 200 per cent of Singapore gross domestic product.”
You may want to believe in Lee Kuan Yew that he is right. He never lies.
I too, agree that Lee Kuan Yew presented the right figure. Then Thanong Khanthong is wrong?
You must be wrong again.
Read carefully, Lee Kuan Yew report the loss was sustained from period Oct 2008 to Feb 2009. Thanong reported the period of loss from July 2008 to Feb 2009. Lee Kuan Yew short reported the loss from period July 2008 to Sep 2008. During this period, GIC sustain three times the reported loss of $50 billion.
Get it.
You don’t get it?
Lee Kuan simply selected the loss sustained over a much shorter period to avoid reporting the full losses.
At the same time, Temasek announced the loss of $58 billion GIC cannot announce the full loss of $200 billion over the same period.
Lee Kuan Yew is吃屎的狗. He is a dog who eats shits. He will never give up eating shits. Which means he has been applying his ‘Singapore voters given right’ to manipulate the information that he choose to present for more than 4 decades.
He has been the biggest liar who has been fooling the Singaporeans for 4 decades using financial manipulation. No wonder Tung Chee Hwa has to eat manure to cover up his foul and smelly big mouth.
As the Chinese says the closest kinship possible would be that between father and son. Many Chinese people believe this has to be and vice versa. Or rather they choose to believe it is true, both ways.
However, Yuan Song (袁嵩), a grand secretary of the Ming dynasty asked his deputy a question, “What is the closest kind of kinship possible?”
His deputy replied, “The kinship between father and son, of course.”
Yuan Song shook his head. His deputy was surprised.
Yuan Song’s enlightening answer to his deputy was, “The closest kinship is only from the father to his son. It is seldom the other way round where the closest kinship is that of the son gives to the father.”
Confused?
In year 1990, Jonathan and I went to a shop in the city center that sells luxury watches. Wow! They were really expensive watches, well out of my range.
There was an old man in his late 60’s. I noticed he was quiet and he sat on a stool, dull and square. I wondered why the owner this shop would want to hire such a dull man as a salesperson.
Suddenly he stood up and began to walk away. I looked at my watch and guessed that he was going for lunch. I followed him.
After ordering my food, I went over to sit in front of him. Jonathan came and sat beside me. Quietly, we finished our meals. Jonathan tugged my sleeve and asked me to go. I signaled to him to wait a while longer.
I patiently let old man finished his food before I tried to strike a conversation with him.
“Hi uncle! Did you enjoy your meal?” I asked.
He just looked at me squarely and did not say a word.
I pursued, “You seem to be sad. May I know why?”
Slowly, he said, “I am sad for all the citizens of this country.” He then stood up and walked away.
I was stunned. I asked Jonathan,” What is he trying to tell me? I don’t get him at all.”
“Do you know who he is?” asked Jonathan.
“I don’t know,” I replied.
Jonathan explained, “He is the Lee Kuan Yew’s father”
“I am surprised! Why is he working as a salesman in this shop? He doesn’t need to at all,” I asked.
“I guess that is the best way to pass time,” Jonathan replied.
“Then he should be happy,” I said.
Jonathan explained, “This was what my mother told me.
One day, his son called him and said to him, ‘Sit down.’
After he had sat down, his son asked him, ‘I am your son. Do you know who I am?’
He did not reply.
The son said, ‘I am the Prime Minister. Can you stop frequenting the sleazy districts and flirt with the young girls? You make me lose my pride.’”
I asked, “How do you know this is true?”
“My mother is his neighbor,” replied Jonathan.
Father’s love for his son is a certainty. But in reality it is not necessary true the other way round. Less often, we see kindness from son to father. How true Yuan Song’s words are.
What an ’filial’ son, Lee Kuan Yew is.
Yet, Singaporeans believe he will treat us well.
Well, the facade of modernization is beautiful. Behind that façade, he had made us into slaves -slaves of a beautiful garden city? You like it?
Go on to vote for PAP in the next election.
On May 29, 2009, Jeremy Au Yong, political Correspondent wrote ‘Best of 3 worlds for Singaporeans’: “CHANGES announced to the political system can give voters what they want: the best of not two, but three, worlds.
They will get the best MP to look after the constituency; the best government taking care of the country; and more alternative voices in Parliament so debate and policy formulation can be more robust.
Labour chief Lim Swee Say drew this conclusion in Parliament on Friday as he endorsed changes to the political system that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced on Wednesday.
Having been in politics since 1997, Mr Lim said his impression over the years has been that come election time, voters want these three outcomes.
Indeed, the changes 'will put us on a path towards this best of three worlds'.
This can happen if every political party puts forward its best candidates - people who are not only competent, but who have the commitment and the passion to serve Singapore and Singaporeans.
'And if the voters vote wisely, vote for the best candidate possible, then the outcome will be MPs in each constituency who can serve the residents to the best of their ability; a government that will lead the country to the best outcome; and a Parliament which not only has multi-racial representation, but more alternative voices as well,' Mr Lim said.
'So these are the possible outcomes which we look forward to because it will go a long way in further strengthening Singapore's political capital.' “
Lackey, Lim Swee Say, you are another Minister who keep on polishing the round-end of the pebble. I am lazy to tell you to tell Lee Kuan Yew what to do. He is a吃屎的狗. He is a dog who eats shits. He will never give up eating shits. He will never step back and gives an inch.
Let me tell every Singaporeans what is the truly the ‘Best of 3 worlds for Singaporeans’.
1) With or without GRC, each political party cannot field more than 5% of the contestable seats.
2) Maintain the current feature of the Westminster political system where in the general election, only Members of Parliament are elected by the people.
3) Hold another round of general election to elect the Prime Minister. The elected Prime Minister shall pick the best candidates from the elected MPs to form his Cabinet.
This is the new political system for the 21st century and beyond. It adopts the best of the Westminster and the American Presidential political system.
Don’t agree with me?
I open myself to the political scientists or professors of the world (including both the US and UK) to challenge me on these ‘Best of 3 worlds for all countries’.
Because of limited space, I have to explain my logical reasons over several comments. Don’t go away.
Politics up to today is all about building a power base. A leader gradually builds his power base by making use of his powers of appointment, promotion and demotion to quietly pack the party with his own supporters. With that power base he can then unleash his political power to get things done.
His war cries usually rallies around the mission of his political party where members are inducted and molded to tow the party line. Everyone believes he is working for the party when in fact it could be quite hazy and confused whether he is working for the interest of the party or the mere interest of the leader. However, the leader is certainly going to continue to repeat his words or his mission or his vision with or without amendment to strengthen his party and to sustain his political power even after his party has already wrestled the ownership to run the government.
In other words, in the arena of politics, forming a political party is an absolute necessity. To the leader of a small political party with few members, it is almost impossible for him to achieve anything. A leader of a political party with thousands or millions of members certainly can achieve a lot of things, if not everything that he wants it to be. Mao Tze Dong, the founder of the Chinese Communist Party came back from near complete annihilation by the Kuomintang to form the biggest political party on Earth and drove Chiang Kai Shek out of the mainland of China to the island of Taiwan.
What’s next?
Unfortunately this is often the case. After uniting mainland China he was left with no enemy. How is he going to continue to lead his people? Soon after the formation of the People’s Republic of China, Mao Tze Dong launched the First Great Leap Forward to rebuild the war-torn country. Five years later, it failed miserably.
He did a post-mortem and went on to launch the Second Great Leap forward. It failed again. Both the Great Leap Forward failed because of the poor Central Planning System advocated by all the communists.
At this time, many of his key supporters who had been his strong allies during the war turned away from his central planning policy that was ruining the economy. That means his power base was severely shaken and soon he would lose the mandate to rule.
Though many of his key supporters were moving away from him in the idea of how to rebuild the country, they still want him to be their leader so long he leaves the running of the country economy to someone else. They were asking let us copy some of the good features of Western capitalism.
However, Mao Tze Dong was a person who does not allow someone else to outshine him. Therefore, he chose to launch the Cultural Revolution instead. He unleashed his political power in moving the youngsters under the name of Cultural Revolutions where millions of people died.
Lesson learned from this recent history.
1) The formation of political party is to build a power base (and not for a cause, unlike the Green Parties springing up in the Western countries.)
2) Once a person becomes the leader, he will never let go of his power that he newly acquired. This desire to maintain a grip hold of power is the root cause of tyranny. Lee Kuan Yew is one of the best examples. He is many times more tyrannical than Kim II Sung of North Korea.
For the 21st century and beyond, the political parties must work towards championing a cause. To the true spirit of Darwinism, political parties are formed to champion a cause and dissolve itself once the goal has been achieved.
In Singapore, all the Cabinet Ministers are capable to form a political party on its own and champion his chosen cause. Why must they be slave to Lee Kuan Yew?
Clinging to the belief that PAP is the only political party that guarantees Singapore future is the most idiotic argument other than to serve Lee Kuan Yew hold to power. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
Any one of the current batch of cabinet Minister is qualified to run the government extremely well with or without Lee Kuan Yew.
Among the four former presidents who had passed away, Ong Teng Cheong was the only one who did not receive a state funeral.
No amount of explanation can deny the fact that the party’s whip is cracked. The masses or sheep as in the ‘Animal farm’, will always believed in the party leader for whatever reason he gave why ex-President Ong Teng Cheong was not given a state funeral.
As the Chinese saying goes, 《杀鸡敬猴》meaning ‘kill the chicken in front of the monkeys’; this was taken as a stern warning.
Many of the PAP leadership and grass root members alike are not an incorrigible idiot lot. They don’t like the party whip being whipped an Ong Teng Cheong – a Snowball who had tirelessly worked for the country.
Even since political parties were formed millennium years ago, the party’s whip has always been the central of the invisible power of control that forces every member to tow the line laid down by the party leaders.
Does Lee Kuan Yew want to leave behind the same whip for subsequent successors to continue with the tradition of cracking the party’s whip to satisfy their greed for more power? He is enjoying his tyrannical rights to use his party whip NOW. Does he bother after his death?
He is wise enough to know of this certainty. If one of the successors is relatively weak and random cracking of the party’s whip. Several other second tier leaders within the party rank who disagree with his authoritarian leadership will break free to form their own political parties. This is exactly what happened to Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party (abbreviation, LDP).
However, there is really no point to argue until the cows come home that LKY will destroy his party whip. He is a吃屎的狗. He is a dog who eats shits. He will never give up eating shits. As the father of the PAP Secretary General, he expects every member to heed your central command. If not, why does he need a party apparatus in the first place?
Therefore, do not ‘talk the talk’. ‘Walk the talk’. Destroy the party’s whip now. I tell you how to do it?
Really, there is only one way to reduce the party’s whip. That is, break up the PAP party into several fragmented parties. Each and every grass-root leader is a capable leader. Don’t tell me they are not. Set them free to form their own political parties to champion their own cause. Let them fight among themselves to win the electorate votes to represent the people in each constituency. Let there be 84 voices in the Parliament and not the unhealthy scenarios of when one speaks, the rest of the 83 members of Parliament nod their head in concurrence because of the invisible party’s whip.
Assume the country’s constitutions is amended to limit the number of contestants from a political party to 5% of the total contested Parliamentary seats, if any one of grass-root leaders (there are at least 20 factious party leaders) would like to crack its party’s whip, this whip is akin to a piece of thread that he can only pull through the eye of a piece of needle. It is toothlessly ineffective.
The mere (actually, the very large) number of PAP membership and its members occupying almost all the seats in the Parliament had ostensibly created a huge party’s whip made from the tail of the largest of the most venomous stingrays.
Hi, 吃屎狗的李光耀 (a shit-eating Lee Kuan Yew), I am challenging you now to destroy your party whip or reduce it to a piece of thread.
What is the most critical weakness of the Westminster system? Make a guess.
The answer is the formation of a political party.
Oh! My god! Am I mad or an idiot?
Don’t I understand that all political systems evolve from the activities of political parties? The existence of a party is the fundamental of politics. Stupid me.
Give me a little more time to explain to you my thoughts.
I have a pair of very, very sharp eyes. Of course, that means I have an eye for the fine detail.
To form a political party to champion a political cause is definitely the thing to go. I fully agree and give my 100% support. Mao Tse Dong formed the biggest communist party to champion land reform to re-distribute land to the peasants is politically correct.
What was wrong about the formation of political party lies not in the phrase of championing a political cause. It is what happens after that?
After driving the Kuomintang out of mainland China, what is next? Every peasant has a piece of land to till in the commune. Really, what happen next?
It is the selection of process of who shall be the leader of the country. For the first ten years, the obvious choice was Mao Tse Dong.
Shortly before the Cultural Revolution, the choice is not clear to me (I did not do enough research on this topic).
Among the core members of the Chinese Communist Party, there is an obvious split in the choice of the next leader after Mao Tse Dong had failed in two Great Leap Forwards. Among these senior party members, intense behind the scene politicking who shall be the next leader to lead China out of its doldrums broke out.
Of course, there were a core group of die-hard supporters of Mao Tse Dong who assisted him to unleash the Cultural Revolution.
Do you see the weakness of the political party now?
The selection of the leader is an opaque behind the scene process. A process where there are intense fighting for the ultimate political power. It intensity often spills over to the death of millions of people who do not even know why they are dead or victimized.
Why not bring the selection of the country leader open to the public. Open it up like the election of the Presidential as in Singapore. Give the elected President the full autonomy to choose from among the fractious elected Members of Parliament to form his Cabinet. You may want to retain the name of this office as the Prime Minister. Who cares what the name is. Just change the political institution to let the people of Singapore elect their number one leader who shall lead the country.
I don’t understand why up until today, the choosing of the Prime Minister (perhaps, inherited from the Westminster system) is left to a few power mongers who do a lot of funny things to elect the next leader behind the scene.
Funny things like: cracking the political whip in the like of Lee Kuan Yew in the choice of the PM, intense horse-trading of who becomes a member of the cabinet and who holds what and what ministry in India and Japan, just to name two most detrimental unhealthy process.
Come on, 吃屎狗的李光耀 (a shit-eating Lee Kuan Yew), can you let go of your political whip to let the people of Singapore elect the next Prime Minister or President in an general election?
On May 30, 2009, By Li Xueying, Political Correspondent and Jeremy Au Yong, Political Correspondent of SHP wrote in column, MERDEKA SPECIAL: 24 hrs that changed S'pore.
“Fifty years ago, on June 3, 1959, a new Singapore came into being, with a new government of Singaporeans, for Singaporeans. Some who were there recall those 'Merdeka' moments Over the airways of Singapore's only two radio stations - one English, one Mandarin - Elvis Presley fell silent, as did the Chinese orchestra.
What came on instead, at 12.01am on June 3, 1959, were the crisp, solemn tones of the British Governor, Sir William Goode.
He delivered a short, terse message. At the Chinese-language radio station, an interpreter simultaneously translated it into Mandarin.
Sir William intoned: 'Whereas by Section 2 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, (in this proclamation referred to as 'the order'), it is provided that the order shall come into operation on such day as the Governor may appoint by proclamation in the Gazette.
'Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred upon me by Section 2 of the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council, 1958, I, William Allmond Codrington Goode, Knight Commander of the Most Distinguished Order of St Michael and St George, Governor and Commander-in-Chief of the Colony of Singapore, do hereby appoint the third day of June, 1959, as the day on which the aforesaid Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council 1958, shall come into operation.'
With these words, a new State of Singapore came into being and a new government of Singaporeans was in charge.
It was led by Mr Lee Kuan Yew whose People's Action Party (PAP) had won 43 out of 51 seats during the General Election a few days earlier on May 30.”
Amazing. Today, May 30, 2009 is Lee Kuan Yew’s 50th year celebration of tyranny. Stalin did not make it to two decades. He made it to 50 years.
Wow! I have to kneel down in front of him and kowtow to him in the Chinese style of, “五体投地”- on all four limbs to the ground, I knock my head on the floor.
Yes, nobody knew then that he is building an animal farm in Singapore. George Orwell was alive then. He too, did not foresee that his classic, “Animal Farm” a satirical novel about Stalin is now more appropriate to describe Lee Kuan Yew’s 50 years of tyrannical rule.
George Orwell’s book, Animal Farm, a fable about the events during and following the Russian Revolution, was well liked by critics and the public. The events and characters in Animal Farm satirize authoritarian government and human stupidity generally. The novel describes how a society's ideologies can be manipulated and twisted by those in positions of social and political power. It also shows how ignorance and indifference to problems within a revolution let the horrors happen.
Please visit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZldlyeR8DU
On May 29, 2009 Clarissa Oon, Senior Political Correspondent wrote on ‘Speeches should be free’: “NOW that the political system will be tweaked to bring more competing views into Parliament, all parliamentary speeches should be available online so Singaporeans can be fully plugged in to the debates.
Mr Baey Yam Keng (Tanjong Pagar GRC) proposed this on Thursday, as he and two other PAP MPs rose in support of changes to give opposition parties and non-PAP representatives a larger share of Parliament after the next election.
The changes, announced by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on Wednesday, will guarantee the opposition nine seats, up from the current three. These may be elected or Non-Constituency MPs.
Nominated MPs, who are unelected representatives from different sectors of society, will also become a permanent fixture in the House.
There will also be smaller group representation constituencies (GRCs) and more single-member wards, which will give more room for smaller parties and independent candidates to contest elections.
Having more voices in the chamber will create a 'more diverse platform for the making of the country's policies', said Mr Baey.”
I beg your pardon. ‘Speeches should be free’ and with ‘ and ‘?
Baey, you must be a God-damn fool to bring this up. Everybody in Singapore knows vey well that Lee Kuan Yew will not hesitate to use the defamation suit to bankrupt anyone who dares say something that he dislike.
Are you another Vivian who is trying to polish the round-end of a pebble to be slightly rounder? Why don’t you do something on the sharp, jagged end of the politics environment in Singapore? Tell your master, Lee Kuan Yew to do announce to the people of Singapore that:
1. He as the Mentor Minister is a public figure. Therefore, he is a public property.
2. He understood a quote by Thomas Jefferson, the 3rd President of the United States of America, “When a man assumes a public trust he should consider himself a public property.
3. He understood ‘Stephen Chow’ reasoning that dirtying his face does not constitute to wetting his mandarin robe. Therefore, the slut has not defamed a court official.
4. He better be a better hooligan than ‘Stephen Chow’.
Otherwise, no one dares to talk, not even in Parliament because none of you who sit in Parliament is considered a public property. You are Lee Kuan Yew’s property – his lackeys.
Remember, Lee Kuan Yew is 吃屎的狗. He is a dog who eats shits. He will never give up eating shits.
On May 29, 2009 Zakir Hussain, Political Correspondent wrote on Mah issues stern reminder: “LEADER of the House Mah Bow Tan yesterday issued a stern reminder to MPs against relying on unsubstantiated allegations when speaking in Parliament.
In a brief speech before Parliament was adjourned, Mr Mah noted that the privilege of parliamentary immunity enjoyed by MPs must be balanced by high standards of accuracy.
MPs had a duty not to criticise any person or body, 'unless they are satisfied that these criticisms have a basis', he said.
Under Parliament rules, the Leader of the House is responsible for arranging Government business in Parliament, and will advise the House on the action to take if a difficulty arises, say, if an MP should break certain House rules.
On Wednesday, Mr Sin Boon Ann (Tampines GRC) criticised The Straits Times for its reporting of the Aware saga, citing an e-mail he had received from a person he said he did not know.
He said he had not verified the substance of the e-mail, but 'would not be surprised if it were true and would be very concerned if it is'.
He apologised to the House and 'all those involved' the next day, noting that the privilege of free speech in the House imposed higher standards of diligence on MPs.
Mr Mah noted that MPs were entitled to 'be forthright and to make forceful comments', as the law accords them the privilege of freedom of speech and immunity from civil or criminal proceedings for statements they make in Parliament.
This is so that debate in Parliament can be free and uninhibited, and the House can perform its functions without fear or favour. But he reminded members that 'such a privilege should be exercised responsibly in the public interest'.
'If members wish to rely on third-person reports or hearsay, they should first take steps to verify the identity of the authors and the accuracy of the statements. Members should not rely on such statements if they have not verified them. Not even if they so inform the House,' he stressed.”
Hi Members of Parliament.
Please read my comments published at this blog and ask those questions that I openly challenged the various ministries to provide the true and only true figures. There is no need to seek for the authenticity of these questions. Every Singaporean eagerly wants to know these data.
As an MP, you are the representative of the people of Singapore. You must speak up for your people. Or you want just another lackey who only praises Lee Kuna Yew’s 50-year of tyranny.
On May 29, 09, Sue-Ann Chia, Senior Political Correspondent wrote on ‘Changes to social service – Vivian propose new structure to put VWOs in charge of delivering assistance to those in need: “DR VIVIAN Balakrishnan wants to change the structure of social services to be more ground up, so that the people in charge 'are truly the voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) on the ground'.
This will shift the 'centre of gravity' from the National Council of Social Service (NCSS) to the VWOs, the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports said in Parliament on Thursday.
To do this, he has asked the NCSS - the umbrella body of social services which sets the direction and provides funding for the sector - to learn from the labour movement. Its model is one where unions on the ground are independent with members voting for their leaders. But the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) acts as a central repository of resources and manpower, he said.
The NTUC, Dr Balakrishnan added, also has the economies of scale to train industrial relations officers and post them to individual unions. In adopting this approach, he gave the assurance that the NCSS would be there 'not to check on them, not to audit them'. It would instead serve as 'a central enabler, to achieve economy of scale, give promotional and training opportunities to the staff of the VWOs, and slowly in that way, enable us to upgrade the centres'.
He was speaking during the debate on the President's Address, which mapped out the Government's priorities for its remaining legislative term.”
Vivian, the Squealer. It you are serious about changes to social services, please publish these two statements about the criteria you use to ascertain the eligibility of finance assistance for the poor.
1) The formula for the mean test use by the Medical Social Workers to evaluate applicants for Medifund.
2) In addition to ascertaining the total income of the family and number of people in the family the new formula must include ascertaining the amount of debt the family had already incurred as a result of past rejections of their applications Medifund which had forced them to borrow money to pay the ever spiraling health-care cost that has been consistently being jacked up ever since the Medisave scheme was introduced in 1984.
If you published these two statements, I shall lick your feet clean in front of the Parliament house to thanks you on behalf of the tens, perhaps, hundreds of thousand of people who had their application for Medifund rejected.
I know I will not end up licking your feet because your master is such an extreme miser that he will never allow you to do so. That is, to take a single cent more out of his pocket. He wants you to continue to cut down on the payment on all kinds of social services.
Every year during the budget day, Lee Kuan Yew loves counting the $20 plus billion of excess from the total receipt less the annual expenses parked into either GIC or Temasek Holdings.
On May 30, Jeremy Au Yong, Political Correspondent wrote on STTA dispute after Liu demanded an explanation and flew to Singapore earlier this month to seek a resolution to the argument: “THE dispute between the Singapore Table Tennis Association (STTA) and its former coach is 'unfortunate', but Dr Vivian Balakrishnan urged all sides involved to aim for a 'fair and dignified' outcome.
The Community Development, Youth and Sports Minister indicated that the Singapore Mediation Centre could play a role if need be, and reiterated his hope for a mediated outcome rather than a 'slug fest where only one person walks out of the ring'.
He was responding in Parliament to Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade GRC) who asked for his comments on the table tennis spat.
The dispute started three weeks ago when the STTA refused to nominate former national head coach Liu Guodong for the Singapore Sports Awards - an award many believed Mr Liu was a shoo-in to win. But the STTA said he was not worthy of the accolade.
Angered by what he saw as a slight on his character and integrity, Mr Liu demanded an explanation and flew here from his base in China to discuss the matter. But the matter remains unresolved and Mr Liu has not ruled out legal action.
Dr Balakrishnan ruled out intervention by his ministry: 'Whilst we provide funding to the national sports associations, I think we have, as a matter of discipline, learnt not to micro-manage and not to get involved with the details of operations and in fact even with the details of selection...
'These are decisions best made on the ground by officials, coaches and players and by the people who constitute the sports fraternity for each relevant sport. So I'm very hesitant to say we should go in and second-guess or countermand decisions.'
The primary concern of the ministry and the Singapore Sports Council was in ensuring good governance in the associations.
Dr Balakrishnan, who likened the spat to a disputed line-call in tennis, said it was important not to become 'so distracted or so upset by (it) that you end up losing the match'.
But he told Mr Seah there was a silver lining: 'The fact that people can be bothered, that people are worked up, shows that people are paying interest and care. That reflects the fact that the profile of sport has been raised...It would be much worse if nobody even cared about this award and it didn't even become an issue.' ”
Guodong, you are just one little Boxer. Save you money and effort. Don’t waste your time here.
Boxer is one of the main characters. He is the tragic symbol of the working class: loyal, kind, dedicated, and physically the strongest animal on the farm, but naïve and slow. His ignorance and blind trust towards his leaders leads to his death and their profit. In particular, his heroic physical work is represented by his maxim of "I will work harder" and his second maxim, "Napoleon is always right" is an example of the propaganda used by Squealer to control the animals. Boxer's work ethic is often praised by the pigs, and he is set as a prime example to the other animals. When Boxer is injured, and can no longer work, Napoleon sends him off to the knacker's yard and deceives the other animals, saying that Boxer died peacefully in the hospital. When the animals cannot work, Napoleon tosses them aside, for they mean nothing to him.
George Orwell’s Animal Farm is banned in every communist country. To bad, you won’t have a change to read it. Neither could you find a copy in Singapore. Lee Kuan Yew had long banned it.
Quoted from Musuh:
George Orwell’s Animal Farm is banned in every communist country. To bad, you won’t have a change to read it. Neither could you find a copy in Singapore. Lee Kuan Yew had long banned it.
Animal Farm is not banned in Singapore. You can easily find a copy of it in Kino or Borders. Besides, I read this book while I was in Primary School. My Pri Sch library had this book. Now I own a copy of this book on my own shelves.
I'm just curious as to where you get your information from? Hearsay and not substantiated by facts?
Post a Comment