The papers today are over-brimming with letters bemoaning our government Cabinet’s mini-Fukishima. To be precise, the Minister Mentor and Senior Minister have both decided to retire from the Prime Minister’s Cabinet. This is in addition to the Foreign Minister, George Yeo’s automatic job loss resulting from losing his MP seat in Aljunied.

While many of the forum writers are disappointed for the losses, I’m (ironically) disappointed at their lack of confidence in the remaining PAP MPs. While the 3 ministers, as well as many others before them have contributed a lot to the nation’s development, to suggest that we hang on to ministers as much as possible reeks of a heavy dependence on their competence for direction and leadership. I’d even venture to say that these people exhibit addiction syndromes, hoping to cling onto the past achievements of the ministers, and expecting more and more out of them.

The reality is that nobody, and nobody lives forever. Minister Mentor is in his 80s, and all our ministers are ageing alongside ourselves as we speak. To cling on to a minister of proven capability beyond their prime is not just being unfair to the minister (who may be thinking of retirement), but also to the nation as a whole, by preventing new-comers from taking up posts and demonstrating their ability to serve. In politics, the only way you get a candidate to prove his worth is to give him a post of significance. By asking the incumbent minister to stay on in the post perpetually, we are stifling these new-comers. They are unable to execute new ideas, so the point of innovating new ideas become moot when new-comers don’t get the chance to put their strategies into practice.

We speak a lot about stepping out of our comfort zones. It’s time for Singapore to take that step, and give-up-and-coming ministers a chance to serve Singapore. Renewal is key to any country’s continued growth and prosperity. Let’s give our sincere thanks to the departing ministers for all that they have done for our nation, and let’s put new ministers to the test.

This post originates from Pkchukiss - Reality Wine. Read it on the original site:

Percolating ministers like a leaky nuclear power plant

Throughout it all, the PAP government has been instrumental in attracting economic growth to our country, and the subsequent rise in the standard of living is something that no critic of the party can readily ignore. In the mid 2000s, the Goh Chok Tong administration decided that Singapore was lacking sufficient local human capital to continue attracting foreign companies to set up bases in Singapore. The rise of China and India has led to the birth of a vastly cheap, and talented labour force in those countries. It was too hard for companies motivated by the pursuit of low-cost margins and high profits to resist. The outsourcing began, and much of the work that used to be done in Singapore started to be outsourced to other countries.

To deal with this disruptive force, the PAP administration decided to compete on the basis of low-cost, rapidly absorbing foreigners into Singapore, probably in the hope that the domain knowledge held by these professionals would rub off and be propagated locally. This policy is quite obvious in our local sports scene. Table-tennis, badminton national teams comprise of foreign nationals imported to play for Singapore. It is an uncomfortable thought for many Singaporeans to deal with: don’t we have local talents? Why are we inviting foreigners to play under our banner, when we can nurture our own players?

In terms of attracting companies to stay in Singapore, I would argue that pursuing a low-cost objective, as what our current rate of intake foreigners suggests, is unsustainable in the long run. Let’s face it: the trend of outsourcing services is set to continue for the forseeable future, with the improved education standards in growing economies, we would still be losing out in terms of competitiveness. In addition, the risk of depressing wages creates a huge disparity in the country across income classes. We can still achieve relatively modest growth numbers, but the inflationary pressure of such high growth, yet low salaries is something that is not beneficial to Singaporeans. Furthermore, much of the GDP growth we have achieved through this low-cost objective has increased the spending power of the wealthiest segments of the country, but also resulted in much of the country lagging in economic progress.

Of course, this is not an easy problem to solve. However, the least I would want is a government that is emphatic to the difficult living conditions for the poorest segments of the population. It is at this that most PAP politicians have trouble with. While GDP is an important measure on the impact that government policies have helped to grow the economy, the policy of tying ministerial salaries to GDP growth causes politicians to lose sight of the people that growing the economy is supposed to do. I appreciate the need to keep key politicians honest and uncorrupt, but the same high salaries does make it tough for the same politicians to empathise with the disadvantaged in Singapore.

I am talking about the destitute segment of the population: the group of people who cannot work or earn insufficient salaries to support themselves and their families. Anecdotal evidence from Parliament sessions recorded of skirmishes between the PAP’s Dr Lily Neo, and the Minister for Community, Youth and Sports (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan) bear this out. Despite the good Dr Neo’s efforts to raise government assistance to this group, Dr Vivian has resisted raising the assistance sum for the destitute. With a Parliament dominated by PAP MPs, and the Party Whip system (where MPs from the party must vote according to the party line, in spite of their own beliefs), there is insufficient consideration or representation of the needy in Singapore.

Furthermore, the lack of transparency and accountability by the PAP ministers is something undesirable in the long run. IDA’s $388 million “honest mistake” and the recent floods have been testimonial to the abuse of the blank cheque given by the electorate. We have also seen how the PAP has utilised withholding HDB upgrading as a whip to punish citizens whom vote for the Opposition, in blindness to the fact that citizens in Opposition wards still pay the same taxes, and do the same National Service as with wards that vote for the PAP.

And this is precisely why, we need an institutionalised Opposition in Parliament, to hold the PAP Cabinet accountable for their policies, and to ensure fair play.

I do recognise that the Opposition has insufficient manpower and resources to form the government, and much of their manifestos lie in social policies, with SDP candidate Tan See Jay’s economic plan being the first to address economic worries. However, I believe that PAP, for all its economic savvy, is insufficiently representative of Singaporeans. By voting the Opposition into Parliament, I wish to see a robust competition of ideas and policies. I’m sufficiently satisfied that most Opposition parties understand this view. Worker’s Party has declared that they believe that PAP should continue to be at the wheel, with an Opposition to keep the Cabinet accountable.

What’s more, with PAP’s continued monopoly on policy-making, there is no way for us to know if there is a better alternative policy out there. Even the PAP ministers themselves have recognised that competition is good. I don’t see how politics should be any different from the many other areas that PAP has espoused this ethos for.

This post originates from Pkchukiss - Reality Wine. Read it on the original site:

Final thoughts on General Elections 2011

From The Straits Times (29 April 2011)

THE Workers’ Party’s ‘star catch’, corporate lawyer Chen Show Mao, 50, is a ‘success story’ of the PAP’s immigration policy, said Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam on Friday.

So is researcher Ms Angela Oon, 32, a WP candidate in Nee Soon GRC, where Mr Shanmugam’s PAP team is the incumbent.

Taiwan-born Mr Chen and Malaysia-born Ms Oon are ‘examples of the success of our immigration policy – and they are beneficiaries of the policy,’ Mr Shanmugam told reporters at the Chong Pang PAP branch after a walkabout.

‘So, it is surprising that Mr Chen is making such an issue out of immigration.’

At a WP rally on Thursday, Mr Chen had asked the massive crowd ‘how many tens of thousands of foreigners a year is enough?’

Moderating the influx of foreigners until the country’s infrastructure can ‘catch up’ is a key point in the WP manifesto.

Mr Shanmugam wanted to know how Mr Chen and Ms Oon would change the immigration policies which allowed them to become Singaporeans, in 1986 and 2010 respectively.

‘Mr Chen wouldn’t be able to ask these questions and stand for elections if the immigration policy wasn’t there – the very policy he is now criticising,’ he said.

‘I’m not saying they shouldn’t be in politics,’ he said. ‘I’m saying that there are in fact successful examples of the (immigration) policy. Singaporeans can see that the policy has its benefits. You have people like (Mr Chen and Ms Oon) coming out.’

Personally, I find it annoying that the minister claims Mr Chen’s citizenship is possible only due to the PAP’s pro-immigration policy. That’s complete rubbish, purely because all countries take in immigrants all the time; to claim that an Opposition government that takes over the PAP’s reins would somehow stop foreigners from coming into Singapore is disingenuous. Hell, even the United States, Australia, and other countries around the globe open their doors to immigrants the whole time; there was nothing special in the PAP’s policy that made a difference in Mr Chen’s situation.

Thus to claim credit for Mr Chen’s successful naturalisation is not only a self-serving red-herring, but also a cheap attempt to insinuate that Mr Chen does not welcome foreigners into Singapore.

Unfortunately for the minister, he cannot be further from the truth. None of the political parties in Singapore have released a manifesto that demands to stop the import of foreign talents into Singapore. Quite the contrary. For example, the Singapore Democratic Party’s manifesto on immigration policy states that foreign workers should be welcomed into Singapore, however with the expressed condition that employers are unable to hire Singaporeans to complete the task required. Such a policy is quite in line with many other country’s, counting the world’s biggest immigrant-absorbers Australia and United States as the ones that hold this policy.

In contrast, the PAP’s immigration standards are the practices that completely ignore best practices around the world. The leaders of the party believe that an unchecked influx of foreigners into Singapore is good for the economy. What the PAP Cabinet has failed to realise is that Singapore’s transportation, housing, and entertainment facilities are unable to cope with the vast increase in foreigners within the past few years; that’s not to mention the cultural shock of being thrown amidst so many newcomers at once. Of course, since none of the ministers take public transportation during the peak hours, none of them are aware of the infrastructural squeeze. Rising public housing prices in the resale market is yet another consequence in the sharp rise in demand for housing from new migrants. Which the ministers are unaware of, since none of them live in public housing (their world class salaries preclude them from doing so).

And let’s not forget that the vast majority of our nation has a strong conservative base; All we are asking for, as citizens, is for the immigration rate to be carefully considered, and carefully tailored to suit the country’s needs. Foreign talent should continue to be imported into Singapore, but there has to be a legitimate justification for doing so. If employers are allowed to import foreigners without restrictions, then that is tantamount to a simple import of cheaper foreign labour to reduce costs. As we can see, the results of this carte blanch foreign talent policy has resulted in wage stagnation for Singaporean employees, while the economic benefits of having these foreign talents pay off for the Cabinet in the form of double-digit bonuses.

This post originates from Pkchukiss - Reality Wine. Read it on the original site:

Red-herring to claim Chen Show Mao “bites the hand that feeds him”?

Even I’m not immune to that, and my friends called me a “Crazy typical Singaporean” when I went for the overnight queuing for the iPhone 4 launch last year; right on the morning of a friend’s university graduation ceremony.

So it’s totally not surprising that the PAP, with it’s very astute observers of Singaporean psyche, thought that it would be a good idea to prey on the insecurities within each and everyone of us. And many of them don’t mince their words.

“You know, the cure for all this talk is really a good dose of incompetent government. You get that alternative and you’ll never put Singapore together again: Humpty Dumpty cannot be put together again… my asset values will disappear, my apartments will be worth a fraction of what are, my ministers’ jobs will be in peril, their security will be at risk and their women will become maids in other people’s countries, foreign workers.”

Quote by Lee Kuan Yew

This argument strikes right at the heart of our fear of losing years of phenomenal economic growth, and unjustifiably so. We have no evidence (and the PAP certainly hasn’t shown any) that having a sizable Opposition presence in Singapore will upset the policies of the PAP which, let’s face the facts – are going to be forming the next government anyway.

To buttress their claims, Tanjong Pagar MP Ms Indranee wrote in to The Straits Times to argue just how the Opposition would “block policies that benefit Singapore”. I would argue that in part, Ms Indranee has succeeded in painting the Opposition as a malevolent force intent on destroying the country, as we can see in the recent letters to The Straits Times forum.

Notice that neither the recent letters, nor Ms Indranee describe any specific scenarios where the Opposition supposedly intend to do Singapore in.

Yet the fear has already set in for some people; the irrationality of such feelings serve to alienate them from any logical arguments attempting to convince them to critically consider the merits of having an Opposition in Parliament.

We need to recognize such fear tactics for what they are: legally acceptable, but misleading tools of politics used to charge up support, and to invoke our deepest fears in the hope of winning a few more votes. See through the rhetoric, examine the underlying arguments; determine whether they hold merits, then decide for ourselves whether what they’ve said is valid or not.

That said, I do feel these political campaigns add colour and vibrancy to our political landscapes. It’s my deepest wish that such tools will electrify the country, seek out our own positions, and defend our ideas with the same passion and vigour as we see in the political campaigns. That competition of ideas can only be healthy.

This post originates from Pkchukiss - Reality Wine. Read it on the original site:

PAP loves Fear-mongering

Despite all that, the force of political change wafts gently in the air — almost perceptible, but remains an unmeasurable quality in the sea of confusion, as we read media reports of he-said-she-rebutted. We have highly-educated Opposition candidates staking their claim to represent the wishes of voters in most constituencies, probably quelling the PAP’s disdain of non-graduates (and raising the goosebumps in its stead). In fact, we are almost assured of an interesting contest between young Tin Pei Ling (PAP), and Nicole Seah (NSP) at Marine Parade. Both claim to represent the voices of young, which makes me feel very good; but whether their claims are for real — only time on the campaign trail will tell.

Which brings me to the next point: I’m a bit discouraged by the reckless cat-calling and disparaging comments made about PAP’s Tin Pei Ling. During Nomination Day, while she was giving her speech at the nomination centre, a vocal group present chanted “Kate Spade… Kate Spade…” I do believe that they were well within their rights to heckle her, since it’s part and parcel of enduring politics; however, I take issue with the fact that many people dismissed her outright as a potential candidate due to her age, the now-famous photograph where she posed with her Kate Spade bag, as well as the video interview where she stomped her feet.

I personally believe that the photograph and video is a part of her personality, and in no way would be an indication of how she would do her job as an MP. When the time comes, and it is time to do work, we all put on our work mannerisms, and conduct ourselves professionally. It’s just ridiculous to expect anyone to stay that way the entire time, regardless of whether the person is an important office holder. My guess is that the people are angry about Ms Tin riding on the coat-tails of the Senior Minister into Parliament without having to face electoral scrutiny on her capabilities. I do indeed want to point out the irony, since Dr Chia Shi Lu, a doctor whom even PAP activists in Tanjong Pagar hadn’t heard of, rode the Minister Mentor’s coat-tails into Parliament for real.

I think that the electorate should give the young candidates, Ms Tin and Ms Nicole Seah a fighting chance to campaign for the hearts and minds of the Marine Parade voters. Please do not dismiss them as being unsuitable for the job at hand simply because of what they do in their private time. Let whomever hadn’t goofed around at least once in their teens and tweens cast the first stone.

On a side note, I was surprised to find out that both candidates hail from NUS, within the school’s University Scholars Programme. And my Government and Politics of Singapore professor (Prof. Hussein Mutalib) made a very incisive observation during one of the lectures a few months back: “You’ll never know. Some of you sitting in this room now are going to be in the Administrative Service. Some of you will be joining political parties. Maybe one day I’ll get to invite you back to give us a talk after you become an MP.” My guess is Prof. Hussein probably did previously taught some of the candidates fighting for election.

That’s a mind-boggling thought, to be honest. That the Koi bubble tea-obsessed classmate sitting a mere 3 seats away from you may one day represent you in Parliament is a thought that is akin to getting dwarfed by a silent giant kept in a little bubbly-faced undergraduate. Oh wait, that’s what I was describing.

At any rate, I’m proud and happy that our political system has come this far to empower young people of my age have the confidence and tools to take on the challenge of being a Member of Parliament. It is a testament to us ushering in a new age of advancement in our political system towards something that would be more inclusive. And as someone who is eligible to vote this time round, you can be sure that I’m going to soak in this atmosphere… after my semester finals :p

This post originates from Pkchukiss - Reality Wine. Read it on the original site:

GE2011, and my initial thoughts on the young candidates

Ministry: MP Low wrong on lift upgrading

I REFER to last Saturday’s letter by Member of Parliament for Hougang Low Thia Khiang, ‘No basis for MP not to announce lift upgrading’.

The joint letter last Friday by the Housing and Development Board (HDB) and the People’s Association (‘Why grassroots advisers announce lift upgrading’) should be read in conjunction with Minister for National Development Mah Bow Tan’s explanation to the media last Wednesday.

As Mr Mah highlighted, HDB’s upgrading programmes are carried out and funded by the Government. This is no different from other government programmes such as the building of roads and schools.

These programmes have to be implemented through government channels. In the case of HDB upgrading, this channel is the advisers to grassroots organisations, who are appointed by the Government. Opposition MPs are not answerable to the Government, nor are they obliged to carry out and explain the Government’s policies.

The Government pays up to 90 per cent of the cost of the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP), with the rest shared between the residents (5 per cent) and the town councils (5 per cent). Funding for LUP is possible only because of the Government and the Budget surpluses it has generated through prudent policies.

Opposition MPs are not responsible for generating budget surpluses. There is therefore no basis for opposition MPs to lead the LUP – a national programme funded mainly by the Government. Mr Low is mistaken when he cites the ‘will of the people’ expressed in general elections to justify why he should play a leading role in the LUP in Hougang. The will of the people expressed in general elections is to elect a government for the country as a whole; and not to elect separate local governments for each constituency.

Singapore has a one-level system of government. MPs, whether People’s Action Party or opposition, do not constitute a local government in their constituency.

However, MPs do have a role in running town councils. Their role in town management and maintenance is clearly defined in the Town Councils Act, and does not extend to implementing government programmes such as the LUP.

Lim Yuin Chien
Press Secretary to the
Minister for National Development

In it, the secretary mentions that the opposition MPs are not qualified to head the upgrading programme because:

1. The opposition MPs do not have credit in helping the government create a budget surplus.
2. The opposition MPs are not answerable to the government.
3. The upgrading programme is a government programme, and it is up to the government to appoint its agent.

The secretary also clarifies that the votes cast in the general elections are to:

1. Elect a government of state as a whole, instead of for separate local governments in each ward.
2. Elect a Member of Parliament in each ward for the purpose of town management and maintenance as defined by the Town Councils Act.

I call bullshit on this letter.

The opposition MPs do not have credit in helping the government create a budget surplus.

Firstly, it is the executive branch of the government’s job to run the country and manage the state’s funds. There is no way that any MPs, PAP or not, would be able to influence or command in any form, how the Cabinet manages the funds, except at the annual Budget debate. Thus, this point is a red herring.

The opposition MPs are not answerable to the government.

It is interesting to read about the second point. Why are Member of Parliaments supposed to be answerable to the government, when it’s actually the other way round? The government cabinet is accountable to the people via their elected representatives in Parliament; and for Hougang and Potong Pasir, it is Mr Low Thia Kiang and Mr Chiam See Tong.

The upgrading programme is a government programme, and it is up to the government to appoint its agent.

Another red herring. Surely if the government is all about accountability, it can appoint its own agent to helm the project; but is it so untenable to have the ward’s elected MP make the project announcement? Is it so hard to have the agent work with the elected MP just because he is a member of the opposition party?

Elect a government of state as a whole, instead of for separate local governments in each ward.

Wrong again. The General Elections are meant for the people to elect their representatives into Parliament. When the representatives have been elected, the President invites the majority party to form the government, consisting of elected Member of Parliaments. The government as a whole is being elected, but not directly.

I’m not opposed to the government appointing its own agent to head the project, but the agent should be working with the elected MP to conduct the works, despite his party affiliation. In this situation, the two MPs have been lobbying for many years to have their wards upgraded. When it finally comes, the people to announce the upgrades are the 2 losing PAP candidates for the wards; and the way it is portrayed makes it seem as if they were the ones who were responsible for getting the HDB to change its policy.

In fact, much of the outcry on this issue has always been on why the MPs are not the ones to announce the projects, when the government knows consciously that Mr Low Thia Kiang and Mr Chiam See Tong have been the ones most vocal and active about this issue. It’s very much a side-lining of the two politicians, as much as I can see from here. This letter appears to explain the situation, where in fact it is a distraction from the actual question that we have been asking:

Why aren’t the elected Member of Parliaments for Hougang and Potong Pasir the ones announcing the lift upgrades?

This post originates from Pkchukiss - Reality Wine. Read it on the original site:

So… the money belongs to the government now, eh?

Meanwhile, Mr Wang has posted some comments on the IDA’s creative manipulation to artificially boost Singapore’s Internet penetration statistics. I’m not surprised; after all, we’re talking about the same agency that made the $388 million “honest mistake” where the entire country’s tax-payers paid for this incident, while bureaucrats carried on their lives as if nothing had happened.

Angry Doctor analyses MOE’s statistics, and shows just how irrelevant the race-based breakdown on the recent PSLE results really are, and how that MOH exhibits same said creativity through its AIDS statistics.

If, after you have read the two articles, you still feel that Singaporean tax-payers are paying good money for competence, Molly is here to wake you up from dreamland. Like they say in the army, “wake up your bloody idea!”

Here’s my wishing to you a Happy New Year in advance!

This post originates from Pkchukiss - Reality Wine. Read it on the original site:

No updates until January 2008

Here’s another one, this time on the issue of overcrowding on the North-East line.

Increase frequency of trains on North-East Line
I TAKE the North-East Line, from Boon Keng Station to Dhoby Ghaut, to work in the morning. It is almost impossible to get into a cabin by the time the trains reach Boon Keng Station.

At Farrer Park and Little India, only those who dared to push themselves (and others) can get aboard. The journey is extremely uncomfortable for everyone.

The seven minutes-a-train schedule was set when the flats in Punggol and Seng Kang were not filled, and when the country had a smaller population. Now, there are more people living in Punggol and Seng Kang – in fact, everywhere on our tiny island, contributing to our economy and making it ‘vibrant’. Unfortunately, a more vibrant Singapore is also a more crowded one.

Before SBS Transit starts comparing our trains to Tokyo’s, may I repeat the point a Singaporean who had lived in Tokyo made a couple of years ago when the crowded-trains problem was brought up: Our standard of personal hygiene is not on par with the Japanese’s. In addition, our humid climate makes us perspire and smell. It is no fun being pressed against bodies wet with perspiration and body odour early in the morning.

I hope SBS Transit will look into increasing the frequency of trains during the morning peak hours. If this is not possible, perhaps it could do what the Japanese did: designate a few carriages for women.

Kuah Kar Yoke (Ms)

Ms Kuah, I was happily reading your letter in hope that The Straits Times has finally decided to post something that makes sense. And then I saw your last paragraph.

Are you telling me that designating a “few” carriages for women will solve the problem of overcrowding on trains?

So we decide to take up this suggestion in its infinite wisdom and do just that. The ladies take up two or three carriages out of six on the train, and the smelly men are all packed into the other three cabins. How does that enable more people to pack into the same MRT train? We still have the same number of commuters trying to squeeze into the same train; designating sections for ladies will at its best improve the situation for the ladies. Men would have only 3 cabins to go to, compared to all 6 for the ladies. If that doesn’t sound sexist, her implicit declaration that men perspire and smell does.

I myself board the train at Boon Keng station, and I travel to Outram Park for my line transfer to the West line. What I’ve seen is that wait times for the next train will always be at least 5 minutes during the morning peak hours. Unless the train interval is there for the sake of safety (in which case I would have rather had the safety officers in the train manually operate the train during peak hours to enable more trains to operate at one time), I don’t see any other reason for operating that few trains, except perhaps SBSTransit is trying to get away with packing as many people like sardines into a can as it can get away with.

This is yet another example which shows that the competition situation in the transportation arena is sorely lacking. Without either competition or governmental regulation, passengers are the only losers in this game.

This post originates from Pkchukiss - Reality Wine. Read it on the original site:

Yet more stuff that doesn’t make sense

Remember how the PTC and the PAP government keeps expounding on the merits of small incremental hikes in bus fares to “minimise the impact of eventual fare hikes” and that “it is better than having one big price increase a few years down the road”? Well, the sad truth is, you pay more during these incremental increases than you do if the increase was done at one shot.

Take an example:
2007: Stage 1-4 bus fares: $0.60
2008: Stage 1-4 bus fares: $0.61
2009: Stage 1-4 bus fares: $0.62
2010: Stage 1-4 bus fares: $0.63

Ignoring leap years, assume that somebody makes two trips a day, the total amount forked out by one person for the bus fare would be: 0.60 * 365 * 2 + 0.61 * 365 * 2 + 0.62 * 365 * 2 + 0.63 * 365 * 2 = 438 + 445.30 + 452.60 + 459.90 = 1795.80

Now, if things were different, and the price was increased in chunks – as and when it is really required: (we’ll assume that the price was hiked by 3 cents in 2010 because fuel prices went into stratospheric )
0.60 * 365 * 2 + 0.60 * 365 * 2 + 0.60 * 365 * 2 + 0.63 * 365 * 2 = 438 + 438 + 438 + 459.90 = 1773.90

Total savings for consumers had price hikes been done as and when it is required in this scenario: 1795.80 – 1773.90 = 21.90

Now, the scenario I put out here is unrealistic. Firstly, the “small increases” referred to are in the ballpark of 5 to 10 cents, secondly, it assumes that the cost of maintaining the transportation system can only go up. Passengers stand to save a lot more than the cumulative $21.90 if the PTC only approved fare hikes only when it is needed.

I won’t go into the other areas in this issue, as the point I merely wish to highlight is how the public is being led to believe that small increases are beneficial to them. This is also an important lesson to me: the dangers of mis-information is very real. Having The Straits Times as the main staple diet of local news will lead to a biased grasp on the issue at hand. Thank goodness for the Internet.

This post originates from Pkchukiss - Reality Wine. Read it on the original site:

Small increases reduces pain? Rubbish

Update: Molly has decided to give out some awards. Head on over to participate in the ceremony.

The legislation of morality is a hallmark of a country of inequality. Seen an extreme example yet? Try Nazi Germany. What NMP Thio is suggesting is to enshrine the morality of “The Majority” into the laws of the country, as a yardstick of the country’s stand on a particular issue. Wait a second… Just which “Majority” are we talking about?

Are we talking about “The Majority” who believe that non-believers of their religion will burn in hell? “The Majority” who believe that the government has no business using their money to buy compulsory annuities? Or “The Majority” which believes that casinos should not be legalised in Singapore?

That’s right: there is no single issue on which there is a set “Majority” that would agree with you on any issue. No country can properly define a set of moral rules that sets out a country’s acceptance of any issue in the world, unless you are running a theocracy. In this case, democratic countries set out laws that protect the liberty of a person to pursue his own life, on the condition that any actions taken do not harm another person’s liberty to pursue their own private life. This forms the basis why robbery, murder, rape, paedophilia, drug smuggling are all illegal.

Of course, we all know that Singapore is far from being a democratic country – there is no better way to explain away how “The Majority” failed to have their say on the issue to have gambling outlawed in the country. Repealing 377A holds no tangible economic benefits to Singapore that introducing casinos to Singapore would, and the government has taken extreme care to over-ride the concerns of “The Majority” in favour of attracting the foreign dollar. Like the Prime Minister has implied, the retention of 377A without active prosecution is a compromise – though this compromise is not what he makes it out to be. It is a compromise by the PAP government in the face of ramming issues like compulsory annuities down the country’s throat as a “democratic” measure. After having so many bread and butter issues go their way, they probably feel that there is a need to show that the opinion of a vaguely defined “Majority” actually matters.

In a way, things get more complicated. The country gets entangled in a fight between the people who want this discriminatory law to be abolished, and the ones who want it to stay in order to police the private lives of individuals. Both parties forget that short of significant economic benefits, none of the sides get their way. Even “The Majority”, celebrating their victory against the gay-rights movement do not realise that the shrewd government has just bought political will for another few more rounds of policy throat-ramming. Ideology in any form has no place in Singapore, unless it can bring in money, like how integrated resorts can.

Already, Shianux is urging people to migrate from Singapore. While you might be able to earn a living here, people of ideology are unable to thrive in Singapore. Even Sim Woon Hoo, often trumpeted as the shining beacon of Singaporean Entrepreneurship, did not make his fortune in Singapore. If you find that Singapore life is not for you, I am suggesting that you go elsewhere; there is no use fighting the system the way it is. I would say more, but short of a change in the local social climate, it would be hard for true democracy to be realised in this country.

I wish you all the best.

This post originates from Pkchukiss - Reality Wine. Read it on the original site:

Ideology can’t pay for your bills, but is good political currency