"Let there be LIGHT!" And there was Light. And Vanity. Vanity. All is Vanity.

Sometimes, I wonder, how people decide on their pet peeve, and (in this specific case) what "triggered" (I do not like to use this word, but hey, I need to show I'm current, right?) this missive to the Forum Page (or Voices in Today's paper). Let's see if we can spot the trigger...

Why does Singapore need so many lights on?

By Lee Teck Chuan

19 December, 2019

As Singapore moves ahead with its eco-friendly drive, have we overlooked how much electricity we are using, especially from lighting?

Are we guilty of light pollution?

Lights have proliferated unchecked along pavements, covered walkways, bridges, corridors, stairways, and in bus stops, car parks, lifts, void decks, playgrounds and parks.

["Proliferated unchecked? He makes lights sound like some runaway weed. "Unchecked"? He thinks light fixtures are free?]

Unintended ‘problems’ could surface with new curriculum for secondary schools

[So after many years and robust defence of the streaming policy, the Ministry of Education decided in 2019 that streaming has had its day, and should be retired to the chorus of cheers from parents, educators, and social commenters and pundits.

Well... 

Let's just say you can't please everyone. 

Here's an unpleased one:]


ROBIN CHEE MING FENG

06 MARCH, 2019

I refer to the report detailing the Government’s decision to abolish streaming in the near future.

While we must appreciate the Government’s efforts in slaying this sacred cow, we should not be under the delusion that this major change in policy would lead to a significant reduction in the stigma experienced by students who are less academically inclined.

Under the new system, students would no longer be labelled as belonging to the Express, Normal (Academic) and Normal (Technical) streams.

However, it is just an effort in repackaging or renaming the streams.

Offer public transport subsidies to help S’pore become car-lite

[I am beginning to suspect a conspiracy. But let's go with the Forum Letter to TODAY first.]

Francis Cheng

March 11, 2017

If Singapore is aiming to be a car-lite nation where Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans alike, regardless of class, travel on public transport, then subsidies to ensure affordability may be a necessary element (“Khaw signals that transport fares will go up in future, TODAY March 9”).

Subsidies to public transport are common in many countries. A shift towards greater use of public transport can help reduce emissions and congestion. Public transport subsidies are all the more necessary for low-income households and the elderly.

Hawker food no longer has 'soul'

[An old forum letter from July. I can appreciate the sentiment, but no real solutions offered. ]

Jul 20, 2014

I support Penang's plan to ban foreigners from being hired as cooks at hawker stalls, to protect its food heritage ("Penang may ban foreign cooks at hawker stalls"; last Sunday).

In Singapore, too many types of traditional fare are disappearing. Our food is also being "bastardised", from roti prata to Teochew fishball noodles.

Traditional ingredients are shunned, and faster cooking methods are being used.

Indeed, one need look no farther than our foodcourts to see that our food no longer has "soul".

This sad state of affairs is not due solely to the presence of foreign cooks on the hawker scene. Other factors include the lack of pride in maintaining standards and the lack of Singaporeans willing to become hawkers.

If we do not intervene to turn back the tide, our taste buds will suffer.

Barring hawker stallholders from subletting their stalls will not slow down the dilution of our food culture. A stallholder can easily employ cheap foreign labour to helm the stall while he takes a back seat.

In order to maintain the standard of our hawker food, which has fed and made generations of Singaporeans happy, the Government should follow Penang in not allowing foreign cooks to helm hawker stalls.

If the Government deems this ban too drastic to be applied islandwide, it should at least apply this rule to new hawker centres.

To sweeten the deal, rentals in new hawker centres should be kept affordable, to minimise increases in food prices.

Let's work together to preserve our food heritage for future generations to savour!

Colin Loh

"Let's work together"? Really? How do you propose to "Work Together"? 

You wanna be a hawker? 

Yes, you are right. There is a lack of Singaporeans who are willing to be hawkers. 

Are you willing? Any of your siblings want to be a hawker? How about your children if you have any or when you have children? Would you encourage them to take up hawkering?

From this blog piece:

Wanted

Hawkers. Be your own BOSS! Must be capable of cooking EXCELLENT food at affordable prices. Willing to work up to 18 hours a day. Minimal rest days (maybe twice a month). No promotion prospects. No career advancement. (But hey, you're already your own boss!) No CPF! (You can decide how much to put in yourself!) Successful candidates should have:

• Good memory for faces and orders
• Able to do simple math on the fly (make change without calculator). 
• Diverse language skills (Mandarin/Malay and English at least, dialects an advantage).  
• Logistics and management skills an asset - no training provided except on-the-job learning by trial and error. 
• HR experience also an asset. The successful hawker may have to hire stall assistants, deal with MOM if they are foreign workers. Deal with CPF and IRAS regarding their wages. Prepare and manage their work schedules.

Challenging work environment (likely no air con, slaving over a hot stove, risk of rat and other pest infestation if stall not properly maintained and clean - ENV officers will be checking on your stall's cleanliness;  possible unreasonable customers with "special" requests (e.g. Mee Siam mai hum), possible disputes/disagreements with neighbouring hawkers, town councils, MPs, new media.)

So you think low rent is the solution?

So did this guy in his forum letter.

And my response:

Yes. Rent is one aspect of costs. But thinking that controlling rent will reduce costs is simplistic at best and assumes hawkers are idiots.
Look at any rent-controlled hawker stalls where the hawkers either bought their stall about 25 years ago (and so pay no rent, and so have sole control over their rent costs) or are "legacy" hawkers who were given 30-year rent-controlled leases that are a fraction of the open market value of their stalls.
Yes, their prices ARE lower.
But what are their operating hours? Because their rent is low, they only need to cover their variable costs. After they have earned enough, they close for the day and take it easy. Do I blame them? Of course not! Hawkering is a tiring and trying job, and most of them have been at it for years. They deserve to take it easy in their silver years.

To quote H. L. Mencken: "For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong."

The corollary to that quote is: For every complex problem there are at least 3 billion idiots who 

a) think they understand the complexity of the problem;
b) think they have the clear, simple, and obvious answer; and
c) think everyone else is obtuse for not seeing the obvious solution they are proposing.

How to check if you are one of the 3 billion idiots: Ask 5 of your friends how to solve the problem. If even one of them has the same solution as you, you are an idiot. (If all 5 of them have the same answer, you are DEFINITELY an idiot.)

Let's say you are not an idiot. Say the solution really is to have more Singaporeans take up hawkering. What's stopping them?

What's a hawker? Someone who cooks great food and charges affordable prices. Correct?

If he cooks great food and charges high prices, he would be a chef no? If he can't cook great food, he is just a dilettante, right?

So, the question is, why won't Singaporeans cook great food for very little money? In a non-air-conditioned environment (to save on costs)?

Is the answer obvious now?

I am sure there will still be Singaporeans who want to be hawkers. Just not enough to sustain the "hawker" culture or ecology of the 70s and 80s... or even the 90s. 

You want soul food? Food with soul? And you are looking to hawkers to make it for you?

There will be two trajectories for hawkers. 

New Hawkers from Philippines and China will be selling what they know how to cook. You're already seeing them. There are Filipino hawker stalls selling Filipino cuisine, and PRC stalls and restaurants selling regional specialties. They will sell to their community, and they will keep the prices low because that is what their countrymen can afford with their lower wages. 

You can try to expand your gastronomic horizons and try these new offerings.

Local "hawkers" will be upgrading themselves. They want to be chefs, be respected, have decent reasonable working hours, while making enough money to give their families a reasonable standard of living. You could enjoy these good ole "soul" food, if you can find these new "hawker-chefs", and you were willing to pay the "reasonable prices" they will be asking.

The other way to enjoy good soul food - learn to cook it yourself.

Many of the "soul" food were family recipes, which were eventually shared with the public at family run restaurants and foodstalls. 

Time for the trend to reverse itself.

 

What message was police sending over Filipino event?

TODAY

FROM DANIEL SIM SHAO QI -

MAY 29

The police have advised the Pilipino Independence Day Council that there are public order and safety concerns with the venue proposed for its celebration plans. Consequently, the organisers decided to cancel their event.

I am disappointed in the Singapore Police Force. Instead of fulfilling its duty to protect law and order, it gave in to threats by bigots towards other members of the community, the same bigots our Prime Minister condemned for their intolerance.

Instead of advising the organisers to hold the event elsewhere, they should have promised additional security if needed. What message are we sending to the Philippine government — that we are unwilling to protect its citizens?

What is the message to foreigners who live and work in Singapore? When a police force tells the people it is supposed to protect that powers in the community are too big for it to control, it is plainly shirking responsibility.


[What arrogance.

Prior to PIDC submitting their application to use Ngee Ann City space, PM Lee (and other politicians) had already stated his public support for this and denounced the xenophobia of some Singaporeans.

So if you were the police officer who received this application from PIDC, and you assessed that it is not safe to approve it, do you ignore the PM's publicly stated support for this and act "without fear or favour" by rejecting this application?

Or do you raise this to your boss as a potentially controversial issue requiring management inputs and consideration?

And do you think management might have asked, "is there some condition we can request to allow us to justifiably approve this?"

"Is there someway to approve this? Would PM want us to approve this?"

And in all likelihood, this application may go all the way up to the Minister of Home Affairs who would have discussed this with PM (in view of his publicly stated support), who would then have spoken to the Philippines Ambassador to explain what are the considerations, and sought the Ambassador's help in speaking to the PIDC organiser, before the Police publicly announced the denial of the application.

Is this all speculation or do I have proof? Of course it is all speculation. But speculation supported by facts. Such as, the PIDC organiser has NOT raise any noise about this. ]

Harping about the F1

Oct 04, 2012

F1 reveals ethical dissonance


THANK you, Ms Anna Quek, for so eloquently expressing the concerns about the Government's decision to extend the hosting of the Formula One (F1) race for another five years ("S'pore GP: Full disclosure, please"; last Saturday).

[I don't know why you are thanking her. Her points were nothing related to yours. Oh! You were just using it as a hook! Or simply to form solidarity of "SG against the F1". I see. No logical or philosophical alignment other than a simple common foe: the F1.]

Singapore risks evolving into a country of contradictions.

[Wrong. Singapore is already a country of contradictions. Farrer Park is not on Farrer Road. Marina Bay Station is not at Marina Bay Sands. Esplanade Station does not open directly to the Esplanade. There are 4 different brands of "Katong Laksa" all claiming to be the authentic one. Right in the middle of our city centre, we have a cricket club and how many Singaporeans even know the rules of cricket let alone play it?]

We welcome casinos and try to teach values in our schools.

[No. No. No. We teach students to be disciplined and want our soldiers to think!]

We host a clearly environmentally hostile race, while we make increasingly loud noises about sustainability.

[We do? (make increasingly loud noises about sustainability)?]

We also claim great pride in our reputation for integrity.

Yet, integrity is about doing the right thing, even if it costs one personally.

[So... JBJ, CSJ are men of integrity, but since CST and LTK have never been sued by the PAP and so never suffered personal costs, they have no integrity, or at best less integrity than JBJ and CSJ?]

It means having to make financial sacrifices in order to preserve and build a long-term reputation.

[Like Ng Eng Hen giving up his multi-million practice to make just about $1m as a minister? Or K Shanmugan giving up his multi-million dollar law practice? or Vivian Balakrishnan?]

I am increasingly concerned that we are unwilling to make the necessary sacrifices because we cannot see beyond dollars and cents.

[Like how your definition of integrity is pegged to financial costs? How about a simple, "Integrity is simply doing what one says one will do and saying what one will do"? Like CST? What's with all these personal costs and financial sacrifices crap? Integrity - it's not real until you put a price on it.]

If we do not watch it, we may one day be called ethical pragmatists, which is an oxymoron.

Mak Yuen Teen

[Thank you ethical moron. My problem with your letter is your assumption that contradictions are an evil. "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind and the same time and still retain the ability to function" says F. Scott Fitzgerald.

There is an obvious failure to function here.

Contradictions abound in life. Mature people navigate these contradictions and can even hold opposing ideas in their mind at the same time. They don't selectively seek to resolve the "contradictions" that contradict their wants.

Here's a contradiction: we value tolerance. So here is an example of me being intolerant of intolerance!

Let's see what Anna Quek actually wrote.]

Sep 29, 2012

S'pore GP: Full disclosure, please


I AM dismayed that Singapore has committed itself to a further five years of Formula One ("Five more years for S'pore race", Sunday; and "F1 'to bring bigger benefits' in next lap", Tuesday).

[Narcissistic delusion. Assumes we are concerned about her dismay. Or that her dismay amounts to an earth shattering catastrophe that needs urgent attention to address or prevent.]

I am unconvinced by its purported benefits and worry about the ethical implications from the promotion of the event.

[See "Narcissistic Delusion" above. Assumes that others should be similarly unconvinced.]

The only certainty about F1 is the financial outlay for each race, amounting to about $150 million, with the Government co-funding 60 per cent of approved costs.

[Her first factual assertion.... and it's WRONG! OK, possibly wrong. The figures she stated were the conditions of the first 5 years deal. We have not been told what the deal is for the next 5 years.]

It is widely acknowledged that Singapore paid a hefty premium for the first deal, and there were expectations that the Government would negotiate better terms for a second contract.

It is disappointing that there has been no disclosure of the actual financial terms of a deal involving millions of dollars of public funds. Instead, Singaporeans are asked to place their faith in "consultants" who claim favourable international publicity generated by the F1 glitz.

[Life is disappointment. Get used to it.]

I am sceptical that any for-profit company would pooh-pooh such a trophy event and risk incurring the wrath of its clients.

[There's healthy scepticism, and poisonous cynicism, and pathological paranoia. She has a 1 in 3 chance of being healthy. Consultants thrive on the value they provide to their clients, and their reputation depends on it. Bad advice can kill their reputation. Ask Arthur Anderson. Similarly, I am sceptical that any myopic, idealistic, xenophobic puritan with no business experience or business acumen, would approve such an event and risk not being able to impose her values and wants on others.]

Even assuming the survey results are representative, there is no certainty that favourable impressions translate into actual benefits for Singapore and the average Singaporean.

At any rate, $150 million is a princely sum for a three-day "marketing campaign".

[And here is the essence and evidence of the naivete of the idealistic, myopic, xenophobic puritan with the mono-factorial decision-making heuristic. You can spend $150m (less actually for the SG govt) for EFFECTIVE marketing that reaches your TARGET audience in 3 days and it would be better than spending $15m for a year long campaign that is ineffective. Or $50m. Or $100m. Or even $150m for a year long campaign that is not as effective. Judging the worth simply by the cost is precisely why we need consultants and not Ms Quek and her ilk.]

I am also curious how the "incremental tourism receipts" of $560 million, from 2008 to last year, were attributed to F1, or how the fantastical "billions" in revenue projected by the consultants were arrived at.

[Finally! A good question!]

Is every tourist asked upon arrival at Changi Airport if they came specifically because of F1, and if so, were their wallets tagged and monitored?

[Followed immediately by a stupid research methodology!]

How were the losses suffered by Marina Bay area businesses and commuter inconvenience accounted for?

[Another good question! I think those businesses have been ignored by the govt! What do you think we should do Ms Quek?]

I believe I am not alone in noticing that there have been many more "super-cars" on our roads since the introduction of F1.

[... And... other than that short question, she has also ignored the fate of those "few, those unhappy few" businesses.... And has instead decided to imply that F1 has caused a surge in "super-cars" in Singapore! Correlation is not causation, as any researcher can tell you. ]

On our Little Red Dot, the allure of super-cars probably lies in their bragging rights, driven home by deliberate loud revving and speeding (if only for 10m).

While it may be a stretch to blame F1 for the anti-social behaviour of some drivers, the marketing thrust of F1 - fast cars, grid girls, extravagant parties and "bling-bling" - is nothing short of crass consumption, with its corrosive effect on social values.

[And so she admits it is a stretch to blame the F1... and then proceeds to cast her disapproving eye on crass consumption, and pass judgement on its"corrosive effect" on social values. Why corrosive? I don't know. Bravo Ms Quek! In one sentence, you have managed to start with understated research methodology, and jump straight to the conclusion you had already decided! Bravo! Such intellectual sleight-of-hand! Mental illusion that is exceeded only by your narcissistic delusion! Beautiful were it not also opinionated and misleading.]

Hosting F1 in Singapore will appear much less triumphal once its true economic and social costs are weighed against a realistic assessment of "incremental receipts".

Anna Quek (Ms)

[When we require a realistic assessment of the costs and benefits of hosting the F1, we can be sure that you will be the most biased and unqualified person to make that assessment. We may have to ask one of those for-profit consultants to run the assessment. Again. You will probably be disappointed. Again.

Tough.

Deal.

Personally, I have no interest in the F1, or to want to watch it up close and in person. This is a made for TV spectacle, and I would watch only for the thrill of seeing slips, slides, skids, crashes, collisions, and explosions. From the safety of my home or a sports bar somewhere. I hate unrelentingly loud noises. I hate packed-like-sardines crowds.  Would I be unhappy if F1 were not renewed for 5 more years in SG? No. It bothers me not one bit. But it matters to many others. So for a week or so, downtown SG is off-limits to me, by my own choice. Big deal. So the F1 is "environmentally hostile". If so, it is so regardless of where it is held and affects the global climate eventually.]

Have alternative NS for new citizens, PRs

May 12, 2012

I SUPPORT the views of Dr Leong Chan-Hoong ('Bridge the foreign-local gap with NS'; Wednesday) and would like to add a suggestion.

A uniquely Singapore system based on first come, first served principle

May 29, 2011
 
Your letters

I am irked by people who question our uniquely Singaporean seat reservation system at hawker centres and foodcourts.

[And I am irked by your stupid letter and lack of comprehension.]

These places operate on a first come, first served basis.

[Ya, so I come first, see an empty space, go buy my food, come back and see packets of tissues "choping" the seats by people who came later than me.]

The people who find tissue packs placed on tables to reserve the seats are facing a fact: They have got there later than others. However, these latecomers refuse to accept this fact and, instead, start a flood of discussions and classify this seat-reserving behaviour as an embarrassment.

[So will you give up our tissue-choped seats to someone with a tray of food? Obviously if they have a tray of food, they were here earlier than you. Except that you plonked your tissue on the table first.]

In my experience, this tissue pack reservation system operates only in crowded places where there are insufficient seats available, such as in Shenton Way food centres during peak hours.

I seldom come across the practice in heartland areas like Ang Mo Kio.

I do not know if placing a 'reserved' card issued by the hawker centre will be any more acceptable to people who are against a reservation system. If they disagree with first come, first served as a principle, nothing will make them any happier - be it a card, umbrella, book or even bodies.

The tissue pack system is the cheapest to operate.

[But inherently rude and inefficient. If people got their food then look for their seat, there would be less space waste. As it is you see "empty" tables occupied by tissue packs while people with hot food unable to find a seat wander desperately about. This kiasu, kiaboh mentality is inconsiderate. But you don't see it, cos you are inconsiderate.]

If we decide that a First World country cannot practise such an 'unseemly' system and deem this an embarrassment, let's design one which includes issuing seat numbers and having a crowd manager. Then voila, we have a system resembling a restaurant.

Then my fishball noodles may cost $5 instead of $3.50.

But seriously, people should just live and let live, and let peace prevail.

Lam Wen-li (Ms)

Proposed skywalk icon impractical, will be an eyesore

Mar 6, 2011
YOUR LETTERS

Mr Harry Tong ('Build 'skywalk' mall as national icon'; Feb20) proposed that Singapore consider building its next icon in the form of a 5km-long, three-storey-high, open-air skywalk pedestrian mall running above the existing Orchard/Bras Basah roads and stretching to the Marina Bay area.

Beyond the factors of feasibility and costs, there are at least three major issues with this proposal.

First, the idea of a skywalk as an above-ground connector between buildings emerged from the need to protect pedestrians from crime and inclement weather in certain North American cities.

[We have inclement weather here too. And floods too.]

Because of its original design intentions, the skywalk also drains pedestrian traffic from the street level, thereby impoverishing the existing street life without necessarily compensating for this loss, since pedestrians typically use the skywalk only to move between destinations.

[Have you seen Orchard Road? It can do with some draining (of pedestrians as well as rain water). In any case, window shoppers are not so dumb as to window shop on the streets. They go into Ion, wander thru to Wisma, then into Ngee Ann City/Takashimaya, pop out onto the street only because that is the only way to link to the next shopping mall. People on the street clearly want to move to their next destination anyway.]

If a skywalk is built here as proposed, it will impoverish the present vibrancy of street-level activities on Orchard Road without any certainty of recreating such activities again above ground.

Second, a skywalk on the scale of what Mr Tong proposed would be more of an urban travesty than a national icon. It will cast a shadow over everything below it.

Imagine the underside of such a long skywalk. It will be similar to the underside of a concrete highway. Can this serve as an attractive space for vibrant street life?

[Here I think there is some concern. A almost fully enclosed skywalk will lead to a build up of vehicle exhaust which would potentially make the "Underwalk" a health hazard. But this need not be so, with proper ventilation and eventually if/when we switch to more electric vehicles. And the unimaginative concrete tunnel is the brainchild of an unimaginative brain.]

Third, the need to rely on yet another icon to attract more tourist dollars is unsettling.

'Icon' means the representation or imagery of some identity - an icon is thus not the real thing. To rely continuously on different representations to sell Singapore to the world undermines the commitment to the kind of social solidarity, and hence civic identity, that iconic representations cannot offer but which every unique city or state integrally requires.

[LKY is iconic. We should tell him he is not coke, i.e. not the real thing. I don't even know what this point is about. Probably an iconic rant with no real substance. Probably taking a word out of context, and arguing semantics. Yeah, I'm sure every tourists to Singapore is here to see our civic identity. We should charge admission for it.]

For these reasons, the proposal for yet another eye-catching icon, whether in the form of a skywalk or some other urban structure, needs to be considered carefully.

Jeffrey Chan

[Get off your high horse and walk. If you like high horses, you might like the skywalk.]

Works there, why not here?

TODAY
Jan 04, 2011

Letter from Rick Lim Say Kiong

I AM worried. Despite the assortment of pro-family measures dished out by the Government over the years to address Singapore's low fertility rate, it continues to drop further ("S'pore grapples with low birth rate, integration", Dec 31).

While our total population is steadily increasing, we are aware that this is due mostly to the number of transient workers and immigrants who become Permanent Residents (PR). Singaporeans have groused about this massive influx of foreigners. The nub of their complaints is not only with the number, but also the quality, of the immigrants.

We can all agree that we need transient workers for jobs in sectors such as construction, food and beverage, and cleaning. Since these industries have been reluctant to increase wages or improve productivity, foreign labour seems to be the only option at the moment to meet manpower demands. What we need to be concerned about, however, are immigrants not working in these labour-intensive industries.

As a human resource practitioner, I have noticed that the quality of workers applying for and obtaining permanent residence has decreased over the years. In the past, when the Government was espousing the need for foreign talent to work here, start businesses and create jobs for Singaporeans, potential PR applicants had degrees, diplomas or higher-level certificates and/or a wealth of experience.

[Since you are HR practitioner, tell us why the market is not paying more wages to Singaporeans, or why productivity is stagnating. You should be in the know. If the new FW are lower quality, why is your HR practice to hire lower quality FW?]

In the last six years, however, I have noticed that even workers with three O-Level credits are granted PR status once they have worked here for a year or two. Skilled as they may be, do they contribute to our economy by creating jobs or do they take jobs that can be done by locals? If only real foreign talents are given PR to work and stay here, and they do create jobs for the locals, then my guess is that most Singaporeans would not mind their growing numbers.

We need to worry about why we cannot arrest the decline in our fertility rate when pro-fertility measures implemented in other developed countries seem to work. In Australia, the goal is to reach a fertility rate of 2.1. Their current rate is 2.0 - impressive if you compare that to our dismal figure of 1.22 last year.

Australia has flexible working arrangements for employees, dating agencies for singles and a government-run baby bonus scheme for parents - which we also have in Singapore - yet theirs seem to work and ours do not. Why?

[So why don't you tell us why it works in Australia? We don't know why ours don't work. If we knew, don't you think we would have fixed it? Since you know Australia's work, did you dig a little deeper and get an analysis of why it worked there?]

One contributor to the Today online forum puts it aptly with this analogy: When pandas in a forest are not reproducing themselves sufficiently, do you add other bears to the forest (where resources are scarce) and then expect the panda numbers to increase?

[Depends. The bears were introduced to eat berries and salmon. Pandas only eat bamboo. Not very versatile. Impossible to reskill. And if resources (bamboo) are scarce, don't worry. Bears don't eat bamboo.]

When we find that our spaces get more cramped, wages do not increase, modes of public transport are packed, jobs are threatened, housing options are becoming limited and their cost increased, et cetera, it does not take much to realise that these factors will impact our country's fertility rate.

[Bullshit. One of the biggest problems in poor countries are high births among poor people living in cramp conditions, with low stagnating wages, or no jobs, and no housing options. All the points you raise are our government's insidious efforts to make Singaporeans feel poor so that they will produce more babies.

And that was a facetious way of saying, those are excuses, not reasons. Sometimes they are fodder for blackmail. You see it in forum pages: If the govt wants me to have more kids, they should help me get a flat!]

In addition, our long working hours and demanding workloads are the main killers of fertility. Having better maternity benefits, flexible work arrangements and baby bonus schemes are measures that treat only the symptoms of our underlying problems - and until we truly fix these, our fertility rate is likely to continue its decline.

[So to reduce long working hours, and demanding workloads, we need to hire more people, and since there are no more people of the required quality, we need to hire more... FOREIGNERS! Which means that Singapore will get more crowded and housing costs increase and people worry about their jobs, so they DON'T HAVE BABIES!

You haven't really thought through this problem, have you?]

Act faster to solve drainage woes

Jul 24, 2010

THURSDAY'S report ("100mm: Expect floods if this much rain falls in an hour") confirms that there was nothing freakish or extraordinary about the recent storms. What was extraordinary were the serious floods that occurred within a span of one month as a result of the storms.

It is clear our current drainage system is failing to cope with the rapid urbanisation of recent years, which took away much water-permeable grounds.

[So, you'd prefer to walk on dirt tracks? Your choice: flood or mud.]

So steps are now being taken to raise roads and improve drains, and works will be expedited where possible. But why are most of the major tenders being called only in October or November, and some even next year?

Singapore prides itself as being able to achieve in record time completion of high-profile projects, such as the Formula One circuit and the two integrated resorts. Why can't we do the same and have the entire drainage system upgraded in record time?

[Because the F1 is sponsored by private capital, and the govt taxes hotels to recover costs. IRs were built with private capital. So who's going to pay for accelerated construction of drains? In any case, to improve drainage, works will probably mean diverting or even reducing drainage capacity temporarily in order to upgrade it. That means if it rains heavily, it would cause more floods. Must wait for drier season.]

Given the widespread disruption to lives and severe losses already suffered in the recent floods, and the high chance that more is to come (with possible loss of lives), wouldn't it be justified that we accord the greatest urgency to tackle the problem?

[PUB has already stated that they would bring forward their drainage improvement plans. Threatening the possibility of loss of lives is an appeal to emotions. And hyperbole. It would be irony if there is a drought after the completion of the drainage improvement works.]


Francis Kwek

Find alternative ways to sell

Apr 24, 2010
Today
Letter from Li MingHui

I REFER to "Don't call us, period" (April 21), which described how painful it is to be harassed by banks for credit-card membership, by insurance companies for a great product launch, etc. I would like to highlight that fitness clubs and spas are no less guilty for pushing sales through telemarketing.

Is it truly necessary to call a person twice/thrice a day to talk on the same subject? Has anyone who was never interested in fitness clubs/risky investments ever succumbed to these calls and bought products/services?

Businesses which attempt to sell their products via telemarketing could end up having harassment charges filed against them. In this day and age, I am truly surprised that marketing people have yet to come up with more targeted, high yield and less intrusive methods to sell their products.

Telemarketing is as futile as printing thousands of flyers and hiring pushy aunties and uncles who would stand in the middle of high-pedestrian traffic junctions and underpasses, shoving them out as furiously as their arms allow them.

I'm simply against lazy, unimaginative marketing people, many of whom are well paid to reach new customers. It is time to sit down and analyse the target market and think about how to reach them.

[I share this rant. I don't know how effective telemarketing and flyers are, but they are not effective with me. I agree that lazy unimaginative marketing people are not doing their jobs if these tired, ineffective ways are their best efforts at marketing.]

Defending Singapore

[I must limit my posts from comments. These unmoderated comments are sure to throw up lots of eccentric, idiotic, and parochial mumblings. This blog is to highlight those mumblings that manage to surface to the ST Forum page. But here, i selected these posts because it one man asks a questions with all sincerity and personal angst, and someone answers with all sincerity, but after that things just goes nuts.]


AbolishNS2abolishNS
6 Mar 10:15 AM
*2 of my uncles and one of my aunties were killed by the Japanese when they invaded Singapore; similar to many other people who were either tortured or killed in Singapore at that time.
My grandparents and father suffered hunger and humiliations during the Japanese occupation of Singapore.
My father told me to do my National Service well
Without being a regular; I contributed until the rank of Major [NS] and was CO of one Guards Battalion and Brigade Dy S3.
*But now traitors had let in excessive numbers of cheap foreigners; invaded n mess up our lives in Singapore. This is same like the Japanese enemies who invaded n exploited Singapore 2 generations ago.
Many of us lost our biz, are jobless, missed local university places, missed scholarships, missed preferred primary school places, lost COEs, couldn’t afford public HDB flats, disrupted by foreigner queues jumping for buses, for trains, for tickets, etc. We are forced to be more boorish.
Many of us got squeezed out of PMET jobs and now have to work as taxi drivers, insurance n financial derivatives agents, property agents, etc.
*Now my 80+ yrs old father have to stand while foreigners occupy Priority/Reserved seats in MRT trains and queue behind foreigners at hospitals n polyclinics.
Foreigner enemies are all here amongst us and probably the only task left for our uniformed armed forces is to help our ruling party clear oppositions n protestors from our streets.
Now, unlike my father, I tell my sons that National Service is meaningless.
I also told my sons not to hurry in marriage and least of all having children who may become financial slaves to the banks thru buying expensive houses, cars, and also tax slaves etc.
IQ is genetic; ordinary locals got squeezed down the artificial Population ‘Bell Curve’ by foreigners in Singapore.
Quotas in Uni, JCs, Polys limiting locals plus FTs also squeezed us down the artificial Population 'Bell Curve' in Sgp.


f14d_tomcat
6 Mar 02:37 PM
AbolishNS2abolishNS (Major NS CO Guards BN DYS3), (Page 1, 10.15am),

allow me a contrarian view on your "NS is meaningless" comment.

My family and me were born here and lived here all our lives. If SG ever got attacked by an invading army I WILL defend it. Just because certain govt policies do not fit me doesn't mean I would hand SG over to the enemy on a silver platter. I am NOT, repeat NOT, defending the govt, foreign talents, elites and permanent residents. To me these are SEPERATE ISSUES.

SG became a Japanese colony (Syonanto) Feb. 1942 - Aug. 1945 because we did not have an armed forces. Our British colonial masters surrendered unconditionally to the Japanese. Nobody owes SG a living. We are responsible for our own defence and cannot rely solely on foreign powers . My maternal grandfather an admin assistant in the British Army was taken away by Japanese troops never to be seen or heard of again. My mother who was six years old at that time grew up without a father. The rape and slaughter of civilians was common. My late grandmother said, "To say that life was tough under the Japanese occupation is a gross understatement."

When SG got kicked out of the M'sian federation (1965) we had nothing and started from scratch. Today despite warts and all, I am confident that the SAF can more than hold its own in this region. I believe when the $hit hits the fan, many SG men including the anti-NS crowd (and those who poke fun at the SAF) would defend SG with their lives BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE PROTECTING THEIR LOVED ONES. If SG falls it means we lose our loved ones, our life savings in the banks, our CPF and homes. We lose EVERYTHING except the clothes on our backs and become instant penniless refugees.

This post is NOT arrogance, boot licking, self congratulations, chest thumping, complacency or scare mongering. That is NOT my intention. Neither am I an elite. I am just an ordinary working man Joe who doesn't even make $2k salary per month.

Thank You for reading

f14d_tomcat
Corporal (NS)

[Proceed beyond this point at your own risk. :-) This is when the same old dead horse with new bows and ribbons gets trotted out.]

BPLforever
6 Mar, 02:54 PM
f14d_tomcat,

Many Singaporeans, including myself, are willing to give up our lives to fight for our country but that doesn't mean we should die in vain. It is pointless to fight if we know that Singapore cannot be defended.

Please help my friends and me understand the role of so many foreigners here in Singapore when we risk our lives for this country.

Suppose Singapore was in a conflict with Vietnam. Now, we all know that there are more than 100,00 Vietnamese citizens living and working here. Many for selfish reasons, have become PRs.

What do you think these Vietnamese would be doing when all Singaporean males are abroad fighting?

Now we all know that Singaporean has a very credible army. Suppose we had the upper hand and were wiping out many Vietnamese soldiers. How do you think these Vietnamese living here would feel and what would do you think they will do? Many of them have family members in the Vietnamese army after all? What if their familiy members got killed? Would they be supporting Singapore's cause or sabotaging our efforts?

Would they harm our helpless wives and children left behind in Singapore?

My friend and I are very concerned about this? We can concentrate on defending our country without knowing how these Vietnamese citizens, who are loyal to their home country, would behave.

If they are going to sabotage our efforts and attack the helpless women and children here, it makes no sense to have NS.

Maybe we will not have any conflict with our neighbouring countries, you say. NS is to defend against aliens from Mars???

Tell us why then NS is so important. I still don't get it with so many foreigners here and 2 million more on their way here.

Please explain to us.

Blind faith and blind allegiance doesn't win wars.


RotiPrataMan
6 Mar, 03:13 PM
14d_tomcat

Vietnam was taken as an example by BPLforever.

Imagine a different scenario and let's say Singapore goes to war against anyone of these countries :

China
Philippines
Thailand
Malaysia
Indonesia..

all of which have more than 100,000 of their citizens living in Singapore as FWs / FTs / PRs.

Would they harm our helpless wives and children left behind in Singapore when you go off to fight their countrymen ??

It's not a silly or irrelevant question..

So, please let us have your true and honest answer on it.


f14d_tomcat
Yesterday, 03:37 PM
BPLforever (2.56pm),

Scroll down to the LAST POST to get your answer here http://comment.straitstimes.com/show...=30272&page=22 First you claim 200,000 Vietnamese in SG, now you say 100,000. Can you make up your mind?

RotiPrataMan (3.13PM),

Your answer is on the link provided above. Supposing going by your scenario the SAF goes to war against one of these countries and these non-military trained FTs, PRs, FWs attack S'poreans. Would you fight back against them to protect your loved ones and your property? I strongly believe you would. That is the essence of my post all along.



f14d_tomcat
February 24, 2010 Wednesday, 03:52 AM [From an on-line comment on "Quality of life that's hard to beat" which apparently precedes this on-going discussion between BPLforever and f14d_tomcat]
BPLforever,

Here's my view on why NS is a necessary evil. However before I begin let me state categorically that I DO NOT think that S'poreans who emigrate are 'Quitters' as some are wont to do. This is the 21st century, we are highly mobile and live in a Global Village.

For those who think the SAF and NS isn't necessary, waste of time, waste of tax payers money, abuse of human rights, etc. I beg to differ. If SG ever got overrun by a foreign army, WE ALL lose our loved ones, our homes, life savings, CPF and possessions. WE ALL become stateless refugees with nothing but the clothes on our backs.

Allow me to be politically incorrect here. Lets face it, women are the spoils of war if warfare history is an accurate barometer. When a pack of armed soldiers want your girlfriend, sister, wife or daughter they won't ask for your permission. The women would be 'eaten' alive right in front of you and murdered cold blooded on the spot. And you'd be too terrified to do anything about it. While those murderous troops are at it, rest assured they won't be thinking about the rules of the Geneva Convention. If you think this sort of thing happens only in the movies you won't be laughing when such tragedy befalls you. One only have to look at China's tragic past in the 19th Century. Despite its size and population it was weak and divided and the 'Sick Man of Asia'. It got plundered and raped, first by Western colonial powers, then by the Japanese in World War 2. The most infamous of all was the 'Rape of Nanjing'.

The below boxed paragraph is what a friend of mine wrote in another forum, with my slight alteration.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The SAF have not fired a shot in anger. Neither is it a superpower with wonder weapons or have the benefit of actual combat experience. Nobody in their right minds would prefer that we did and have body bags returning and have parents cry over. As those anti-NS people sip their latte happily taking potshots at the SAF and SG behind the comfort of their computer keyboards or party and shop in Orchard Road, they are totally clueless to the many instances of harrassment on the high seas by a neighbouring ASEAN country harrassing our granite and sand barges. If not for the Republic of Singapore Navy and SAF do you think they wouldn't disrupt our Sea Lines Of Communication (SLOC) and livelihood? There are many other instances of harrassment not published in the newspapers.

Does it make all those anti-NS people feel good that all this is happening? While they get drunk enjoying their 'Sabun Party' at Sentosa's Siloso beach or boogey the night away at Zouks, just know (and be grateful) that there are Army/Armoured Combat units, RSAF combat jets and Naval units on 24-hour standby 365 days a year.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many do not remember another neighbouring ASEAN country's 'fishermen' using explosives to kill fish at sea (for an easier catch) and blame SG for lobbying explosives on their territorial waters. Just because we are ASEAN members doesn't mean we're always kissing cousins. There are elements that will ALWAYS push boundaries to provoke and test our patience and resilience, and shove us to test our mettle. Why? Because we're a small country and they feel we should kowtow and be subservient to them

Someone once said, "The SAF's role is to MINIMISE the country's vulnerability by deploying the strongest possible defence (within our means) against potential external threats. Its impossible to guard every installation and scan every visitor. Our goal is to REDUCE the threat to a tolerable level, so that it does not have a significant impact on SG's sovereignty and economy."

* Someone once asked me to name one potential external threat. I told him isn't it so obvious that M'sia's problems could have a spillover effect on SG? M'sia and SG seperated under acrimonious circumstances in 1965. SG did not fight for independence, it was forced upon us to rot and die. Today even after 44-years of independence certain people on both (!) sides of the causeway feel that SG should be forcibly taken back. Feelings run deep and 'healed' wounds are only superficial. Thankfully with the passage of time this has somewhat abated. Still, do we need an SAF and NS? I say yes.

* Former M'sian PM Mahathir Mohd once said in reference to SG, "There are many ways to skin a cat" and more recently the late Sultan of Johore said, "I will make sure Pedra Branca returns to M'sia" despite the International Court of Justice awarding the islet to SG. The Sultan's provocative statement have many supporters. Do we need an SAF and NS? I say yes.

* In 1986 when Israeli Prime Minister Chaim Herzog visited SG protesters across the causeway went beserk. Many were frothing in the mouth with popped out eyes, fisted the air and stomped on SG flags and howled loud and long. But they forgot that SG is a sovereign and independent country, NOT a M'sian state. Do we need an SAF and NS? I say yes.

* And finally, this article appeared on ST 1st July 2008:
S'poreans might recall the 1991 M'sian - Indonesian joint military exercise codenamed "Malindo Darsasa 3AB". It involved an airborne assault by paratroopers in Southern Johore. The joint exercise was provocative in every sense of the word.

1) The airborne assault was codenamed "Pukul Habis" (Malay for Total Wipeout).

2) The drop zone was only 18km from SG.

3) The exercise occured on August 9th. 1991 - SG's 26th National Day.

The SAF's response triggered an Open Mobilisation on the EVE of National Day. The move signalled SG's knowledge of the upcoming exercise and determination not to welcome a "Trojan Horse" on its doorstep.

Do we need an SAF and NS? I say yes.



f14d_tomcat
6 Mar, 06:17 PM
BPLforever (4.50pm),

What's the matter, getting hot under the collar? Remember, it is you who started name calling (page 2) first, hor? It is you who refuse to accept fact. The essence of my post is WOULD YOU DEFEND YOUR LOVED ONES AND YOUR PROPERTY from people who attack SG? But of course to say "Yes" is a massive loss of face, aye? If you feel my post is BS, ignore it or go click on Home And Garden :) I don't have an answer? MOI? Here you go again, MY LAST POST on this page and read especially the last paragraph,

http://comment.straitstimes.com/show...=30272&page=22

You see Mr. BPLforever telling me to shut up and sit down won't help you one bit. To borrow your own words "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink." LOL-LOL-ROFL!

And since you said "The foreigners would kill S'poreans while we're fighting overseas", here's my scenario. Have you heard of the US govt (in WW2) who forced the internment of Japanese American citizens? It was approved by the US govt in the wake of Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour, Hawaii. Those Japanese are naturalised US citizens but were nevertheless packed off to War Relocation Camps. Is it not possible that the SG govt could do the same to your hero foreigners in SG before armed conflict starts? ;-) BTW your hero foreigners fight the SAF on SG's homeground with what, Lego toy tanks? Neither are guns readily available in 7-Eleven and Isetan. Unless you mean the plastic variety found in Toys R Us, LOL-LOL-ROFL!

You also said the Vietnamese community in SG number "100,000. Could be close to 200,000. The figures are not published despite S'poreans wanting to know." Hogwash! The figure is 14,000 mostly brides of S'porean men, students and those working in businesses. I hope this link works http://www.asiafirst.com/forum/lofiv...p/t191166.html

If you REALLY feel NS is meaningless perhaps emigration is an attractive option? This guarantees that your precious boy-boy does not suffer the same fate as his father (You) having to serve NS against his will. This govt cannot stop you from emigrating to foreign countries. SG ain't North Korea where you could get shot for trying to flee. There are about 200 countries in the world, take your pick. Unless of course you feel the pros of living in SG (warts and all) outweighs the cons. Never mind lah, let your boy-boy suffer in NS, your being comfortable is more important :D

Thank your lucky stars that you are allowed to rant about the govt behind the comfort of your computer without fear of retribution. Try this stunt in North Korea and you'd be taken away in the middle of the night and put to sleep permanently.

Yeah, its so cool, huh?


BPLforever
6 Mar, 08:10 PM
f14d_tomcat,

There are many Vietnamese students and workers here. Anyway, I used Vietnam as an example. I see you are trying you best to avoid the question.

Let's say we are in conflict with Philippines then. I know for sure there are more than 200,000 filipinos here.

Forget it, I doubt you will answer this question.

Do me a favour then. Answer this simple question.

In terms of defense only, is flooding this country with more than 3 million foreigners (population target of 6.5 million) good for the country. Just in terms of defense only.

Can you answer this simple question honestly without beating around the bush before you ask Singaporeans to give their life in vain.


xiadingwai
6 Mar, 09:32 PM
f14d_tomcat
Hello f14 , this is ASRAM missile over !
here we go again, yr previous post to me on another thread which is now closed , "You said you are not a hero. You don't have to be a hero to lay down your live to protect your loved ones from an enemy. It is an in-built mechanism in most of us adults to protect our family, much like parents would protect their children from harm even disregarding their own safety."

You are correct but most of us will never be able to protect our loved ones because we have NO chance, most will be buried under the rubble of concretes from collapsed HBD homes like an earthquake. You brought up past WW2 Japanese occupation etc. as ref. is no longer valid because today wars with SG does not need foot soldiers. Gaza conflicts with the Israelis is a very good war lecture so is the Iraq war. The big guys just need to send in their highly precision big heavy bullets on to her targets and we probably stay in prayers or watch the unwelcome airshow, within 48 hours it will be all over . It does not matter whether we are SGs, FTsor FWs. I for sure will leave first with my family and loved ones, more willing to give away my assets than my life for the stupid PAP n her military conscription with her top military scholars half *,1*,2* and 3* Peace time Generals not having any war experiences. I doubt a war happening to Singapore more likely a terrorist war. How to protect SG when a locked up terrorist Mat can escaped from detention . Haha.


BPLforever
6 Mar, 09:47 PM

Yes, then why have NS? Why not have a professional army? No need to spend more than S$11 billion dollars just for wayang when weapons and equipment will only rust.

Better to spend the money on Singaporeans' education, health etc.

We are all still loyal Singaporeans but nobody's son needs to die in training just for wayang.

Only professional soldiers who are well paid.


BPLforever
REPORT POST
6 Mar, 09:53 PM
By the way, xiadingwai has a very good point.

With 6.5 million people soon and a population density of more than 16,000 people packed together more tightly than sardines in a tin can, enemy only needs to fire one missile and all the HDB flats will come tumbling down like dominoes.

If you want to flood the country with millions of cheap foreign workers for questionable economic gains, then please don't talk about defending this country. Those who are flooding this tiny island with cheap foreign workers obviously, imho, are not thinking about 'defense', only about the money.


f14d_tomcat
6 Mar, 11:09 PM
xiadingwai (Page 3, 9.32 pm), BPLforever (Page 3, 9.53pm)

The nuclear strike, one bomb, small country, no resources, turn off the tap, contaminate water supply, et al SG die theory is a hot favourite usually the result of GROSS ignorance and in many cases - mischief. Mischievious sceptics like you two are a dime a dozen. You two coots post like a bunch of Hong Lim Park Ah-Peks with their false dentures and bi-focal glasses or menopausal housewives in the wet market, Welcome to that club........LOL-LOL-ROFL!

To get a better understanding of SG's answer to your misconception click here

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/mi...island-8563-6/ (The best strategy to defending S'pore island).

Read especially OPSSG posts beginning from post #81-134. He is among the best posters in Defence Talk Forum. His job as a Defence Analyst Professional puts him in an excellent position to comment and analyse SG's defensive capabilities than anyone in ST Forum ever could. His posts are matured, coherent and he provides reliable links to drive home his points. We could all learn from his posts. There is all to gain and nothing to lose.

However should you two coots decide to post in DT Forum, be mindful of the rules and regulations because DT Forum moderators are intolerant of trolling and mischief postings and the like. Unlike ST Forum where practically anything goes, in DT Forum, generally speaking you are in the Big League, no pray-pray-one, hor? You've been advised don't say I didn't tell you. I eagerly look forward to both your monikers in DT Forum and lets see how you survive in a SERIOUS forum.

Being an aviation buff my interest on DT Forum is primarily towards Aviation threads. My personal favourite is the RSAF thread and there is an interesting exchange between OPSSG and bear_bear_sg. Both posters represent opposite ends of the spectrum. The former needs no introduction while the latter is an uninformed cynic, and I detect a little sarcasm as well. Beginning from Post #323 - 343,

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/ai...sions-4117-22/

Once again, I eagerly look forward to both your monikers in DT Forum. Happy reading.

Comments on "The stingy nanny"

This is not from ST Forum Page, but the on-line comments (there were 65, I deleted some) on the Economist article "The Stingy Nanny" about the state of welfare in Singapore.

As usual any article that praises or criticises Singapore will invariably draw supporters and detractors. Singapore seems to be an anomaly or a contradiction. That is why people like to write about it and read about it and offer an opinion about it.

I've deleted some of the shorter comments that have not added substantially to the views here. One liners praising or castigating Singapore without explanation of the opinions have been deleted.

David Hadden wrote:

Feb 13th 2010 1:13 GMT

As a Canadian I find it strange that Europeans find it necessary to lecture a country that has much less unemployment than Europe, an excellent health system, social peace (compared to Europe), a proper criminal justice system (no repeat drug traffickers or vandals), almost no true poverty, low personal and sovereign debts, and a culture of personal responsibility. Why would any sane Singaporean want to emulate Europe, or Canada, or the US? Rather, it is the decaying Western countries (US, Canada, Spain, Greece, Portugal and maybe even Great Britain to name the most visibly troubled)that should look to successful Singapore for guidance.

otaroomari wrote:

Feb 13th 2010 2:13 GMT

Western countries should emulate Singapore in how they handle their welfare system.I live in the United States where more than half of the population get some form of Government welfare program. This puts enormous strain on the budget;however, changing this in a Democratic country is political suicide. It is easy to enforce strict welfare rules in Singapore because it is an autocratic country.

Izan wrote:

Feb 13th 2010 3:34 GMT

I have heard multiple times how the European and North American countries should emulate the Singapore system and i do agree it does have it's benefits. However, there are different view from two ends of the spectrum. Don't get me wrong, the system does in one way or another prevents the citizens from being too complacent, but there is a need to focus more on Singaporeans and stop assuming that they won't do jobs that the foreigners are doing. It has in some ways due to the governments own decisions to reduce labour cost. Though it has been beneficial, Singaporeans got to come first. Provide them with such jobs before offering the jobs to foreigners. I mean it in the best of ways with not discrimination in mind. The citizen shouldn't pay for not being given priority in the name of low labour cost.

Southern Bourgeois wrote:

Feb 13th 2010 3:59 GMT

Singapore appears to have it right in creating and maintaining a culture of personal responsibility. In this area, the Congress of the U.S. should take notice and begin to implement incremental reforms to the welfare system to foster this ideology if the nation is to persist as "number one". On the other hand, Singapore may realize a near-perfect system if some sort of unemployment benefits system were set up such as allowing for unemployment insurance (public or private) to assist the laid-off during their re-training and job searches. There may already be something of this sort in Singapore but the article did not allude to any real monetary unemployment benefits system in place.
[There is some merit in an unemployment insurance scheme, especially for certain jobs with volatile fluctuations in employment, or even seasonal employment (tho there are no seasons in Singapore).]

danmaxkl wrote:

Feb 13th 2010 4:37 GMT

David Hadden it appears that you've been in Singapore so long ,you have the pampered overpaid expatriate version of the "Stockholm Syndrome". Singapore is a ghastly place. It makes communist China look like a liberal democracy. I live and work in Malaysia and travel to Singapore quite frequently and you know what,I wouldn't live there if my salary was doubled overnight. It is like a theme park where the theme is "we're a country". Think Disney land but with the death penalty. [OMG! What an original concept! "Disneyland with a Death Penalty"! It's so catchy! Maybe the commentor could get some established writer to use the tag! Someone like William Gibson.] You see,Singapore suffers from a major id crisis. It wants what western democracies have,such as a vibrant middle class,conspicuous consumption and fair skin .. but guess what? it forgets that most of those countries also have a safety net for their tax paying citizens who fall on hard times. It's not enough to tax people just so you can prop up US investment banks or reclaim land for some Dubai-sque type of fantasy. It's a fact: Singapore has the most depressed teenagers in the whole of south east Asia and get this , the highest rate of teen suicide in south east Asia is where ? That's right Singapore. [Only Southeast Asia? So we beat Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia? Most of them are barely past agrarian economies. If they wanna jump to their deaths they will have to travel to the city to find a building to jump from. So Singapore teens are more stressed than teens from agrarian cultures. BFHD. Why not make more reasonable comparison? Oh wait. We can't beat Japan at suicide, teen or otherwise.] There's your successful Singapore. It is a country full of droids who are seen as units of production not human beings. That too goes for the highly (some would argue over) paid expatriate community as well. You become an automaton that lives to work ...

danmaxkl wrote:

Feb 13th 2010 4:43 GMT

I'm guessing all these posts are written by Singaporeans or Singapore residents. It figures, say all the right things as you never know who in the big brother city state is reading them ... The west needn't learn anything from Singapore.. Take Germany, Sweden,Denmark,Holland,Norway ... can you honestly tell me with hand on heart that these super wealthy liberal democracies need anything from Singapore. No, I thought as much. [Norway, no. The rest of you stay behind after class and learn something from Singapore. According to CIA, Singapore is 8th. Netherlands ("Holland") 21st, Sweden is 27th, Denmark 29th, & Germany 36th.]

newstime wrote:

Feb 13th 2010 5:22 GMT

The Singapore dollar should become the world's reserve currency it may! They have it right. I doubt Singapore has a deficit crisis. More likely the yuan.
Singapore is what every Western (and other) country was until about the time of Roosevelt and we are still living off the work ethic that created our wealth.
The waste fraud and laziness produced by our system is unbelievable. The Mexican immigrants have delayed our reckoning without them no one would pick fruit etc....This fact is well known to construction and business owners.

Swiss Reader wrote:

Feb 13th 2010 5:35 GMT

David Hadden - I kind of like living in a place where unemployment is no higher than in Singapore, yet I can vote how I like without having to fear my vote being traced - and if my kid would fall for drugs (which heaven forbid) she will be treated, not killed.

Izan wrote:

Feb 13th 2010 6:10 GMT

I personally know the Singapore scene both socially and politically. It might seem all is good in sunny Singapore, that fear in citizens towards being traced and their future destroyed hunts them when they talk about politics and the government. So in some circumstances, a hype is made by the citizens, it will be 'entertained' for a while then disappear. Though it is not the case all the time, all I can say is that you have to live it to know it

[Man, what drugs are you on? I want.]

Curate's Egg wrote:

Feb 13th 2010 7:45 GMT

danmaxkl/
Well, I've never been to Singapore, but if your major complaint about Singapore is that people are seen as 'units of production not human beings', then I think we can apply the same complaint to my good, cuddly Canada.
And Singapore's prosperity is not based on illusions like Dubai - Singapore has several assets that can truly back its economic standing. Strategic location, one of the biggest harbour in the world, a major trade entrepot, educated population - you name it.

sachichma wrote:

Feb 13th 2010 10:34 GMT

Why should Singapore follow the way. In many issues Singapore is a good example for encouragement, cultural equality. Little India and next to it Arab Street and China Town, while France introduced a burka-ban, prohibiting women dressed with it to enter public buildings. Switzerland banning the construction of minarets, Germany's social system in disarray, Greece bankrupt. If there is any place where something evolved out of the Commonwealth, created by it own people without help of human rights hippies and do-goodie NGO's, then it is Singapore.

Make Love not War wrote:

Feb 13th 2010 10:48 GMT

I am puzzled about the point of this article.
It sets out a remarkably well consiedered system of welfare / avoidance of welfare. And the couple of bleak points it has are being addressed by the government.
So what problem does The Economist see here?
As an European I would strongly advise EU governments (notably those in Greece and other PIIGS) to study the Singaporean model and follow it.
Another point I like about the Singaporean system (which The Economist strangely avoids to discuss) is that non-Singaporeans lose their right of residence and have to leave Singapore as soon as they lose their job. If Europe would have been wise enough to do likewise, there would be significantly fewer problems with largely welfare-dependent migrant communities that constitute an increasing drain on their host societies.
Finally, I am also confident that Singapore is not silly enough to offer asylum to anyone showing up at its doors the way Europe does it.
Well done Singapore! We may not like every detail of your system of government and society, but unlike European governments, the government of Singapore puts the well-being of its hardworking citizens above that of dole-loafers and foreigners.

outsidethebox wrote:

Feb 14th 2010 1:34 GMT

What makes Singapore so different from the West is that when it achieved material success its strong (perhaps harsh at times) government did not allow it to become complacent. Its very existence and certainly continued success is an affront to every liberal in America and Europe. It gives the lie to every welfare state out there. And so, increasingly does China with every passing year.

Taddles wrote:

Feb 14th 2010 1:54 GMT

Just as strict, cane-in-hand schoolmasters are popular with parents, so is Singapore often lauded for harsh treatment of personal failings. Example: a woman who lost her credit card while moving house was liable for its misuse because it took her a few hours to report it missing. Fair?
[How is the credit card policy of commercial banks the fault of the Singapore Government?] The Singapore elite are protected, of course, by a pandering Press. Example: the Prime Minister's wife controls a State hedge fund that lost $50 billion but the media was voluminous in excusing her and she stayed in the job to this day. [SWF]
Singapore is hell for a non-privileged local and good for foreign capital. If only some of the other views expressed here could distinguish the two.

Well Travelled For Real wrote:

Feb 14th 2010 2:39 GMT

I challenge the people living predominately in Europe, US and even in Asia all their lives, who only to stop over or frequent other countries, to uproot themselves and sink into another culture/country/system, before passing judgment of any kind. Most of the comments made are close to being classified as "Frogs in the a well" or rather "I see the horizons of the world with the limits of my vision". That is where disputes/war and may other unnecessary conflicts exists. Many comments are accurate..only in their home country, without truly understanding why certain systems are in place and how people feel and are comfortable. Nothing is perfect. But we all need to understand that we need to respect each other and never to expect others to be able to think/feel/express themselves the same way as we do. We are all brought up differently - value system, environment, religion etc. We need to forge a common goal of helping each other, creating synergy and developing one another's culture/systems. It's never who's better and never 'my success through the demise of others'. I have lived in Europe for 9 years, in North America for 7, Asia for 10. I have been educated in all 5 continents and have lifelong friend's all over. Let's put 'telling others what we know or believe' aside and start learning what others know and believe, to continue and learn and progress in this journey called 'life'. I am not the all knowing nor I am saying I am perfect but I will always remember this phase - "Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision as the limits of the world" and never to be that man.

outsidethebox wrote:

Feb 14th 2010 2:47 GMT

The per capita GDP of Singapore is a third higher than Germany - arguably the most economically successful nation in Europe. So who should be learning from whom here? Some of the accusations against Singapore here are just unreal. People there are just economic units (translation: they work harder than people in other places are willing to, even though they are economically successful). Or the one about unhappy teenagers. If Singapore is that much more successful than Europe now - try to imagine it in 10 or 20 years.

freedomresponsibility wrote:

Feb 14th 2010 3:48 GMT

@Make Love not War
"Another point I like about the Singaporean system... is that non-Singaporeans lose their right of residence and have to leave Singapore as soon as they lose their job."
I don't think that's a good thing at all. What does it matter if the person that works for you is a foreigner? Or to quote Deng Xiao Ping: "It doesn't matter if the cat is white or black so long as it catches the mouse." If they contributed to society's well-being just as much as any local they deserve equal rights and treatment.
"Singapore is not silly enough to offer asylum to anyone showing up at its doors...
If Europe would have been wise enough... there would be... fewer problems with... welfare-dependent migrant communities that constitute an increasing drain on their host societies."
Open borders isn't the problem. The problem is a perverse welfare state that penalizes work. These migrants wouldn't be such a drain if their welfare system wasn't so generous and the labor markets more open. Which is probably why the US doesn't have as big a problem with migrants draining state coffers.

quacko wrote:

Feb 14th 2010 3:55 GMT

David Hadden, when the entire media is controlled by the state, of course you only hear the good news. Singapore's unemployment figures combine permanent residents as well as citizens. PRs of course, will leave if they can't find a job. Also, people who are taking up training courses, or those who have taken too long finding a job, are left out of the equation. The lack of minimum wage means that many, many jobs pay exploitative wages far below living standards. Such jobs would not be allowed to exist in any country with a minimum wage. All these serve to suppress unemployment rates.

Please do take a proper visit to my country (not just what the government wants you to see) before you claim things like 'a proper criminal justice system' (of course there are no repeat drug traffickers, because all of them have been executed), 'almost no true poverty', 'low personal and sovereign debts'. A cultural of personal responsibility is what is pushed by the ruling party, except when it comes to their own actions.
I assure you many citizens, myself included, would be most happy to trade their citizenship for yours. If Singapore is so wonderful, why is the emigration rate one of the highest in the world?

Jeff Dickey wrote:

Feb 14th 2010 6:24 GMT

I'd be willing to bet that essentially all the previous commenters praising fall into one of three groups:
1) Those who've never lived here, and rely extensively on PAP propaganda at first or second hand to form their opinions of the city;
2) Those foreigners who have been here, living the trendy expat lifestyle, raising the spending bar for those of us who happen to live here without piles of OPM at our disposal; and
3) Members of the 50%+ of the working population here, whose iron rice bowl is solidly welded to the Party or to Party-("Government-")linked companies.
What outsiders consistently fail to understand until they've lived here without the expat trimmings for a few years is that there is no meaningful difference between The Minister, the Party, and the Government. There is an excellent welfare scheme in place in Singapore — if you are a rich multinational corporation, or if you are somehow Connected to the powers-around-the-throne. The Singaporean ruling Party brags about its transparency, about how it tells people that it pays $3 million a year to a narcissistic old man whose only official job is "forecasting", and millions upon millions more to other loyal ministers. Forty percent of the minority of Singaporeans who are allowed to vote in elections vote Opposition, and yet every "elected" seat in Parliament is held by the ruling Party. ["Every Elected Seat... held by ruling Party"? Chiam See Tong and Low Thia Kiang are what? Chopped liver? Inaccuracy and hyperbole undermines credibility. It implies one is willing to fudge to make a point, and that makes the point suspect. As a "government-watcher" the writer should be aware of the features of a "first-past-the-post" election.] This Government-watcher has never seen the slightest bit of disharmony between the wishes of the dozen-plus Senior Ministers, the Prime Minister, and the above-Prime Minister on the one hand, and Parliamentary or bureaucratic establishments on the other. [In other government, such parliamentary excitement may sell newspapers, and provide fodder for public spectacle and speculation, but it never bodes well for the nation and the country. Taiwan's parliament puts the WWE to shame in terms of the shouting matches and the fisticuffs and the out and out brawling. Thailand with it's almost 20 coup d'etat since the 1960s, off and on military rule, an aged king was nevertheless finally on track to match Singapore's growth and progress when the military coup derailed the whole train. Indonesia is finally pulling together but there are still so many issues to resolve and so many problems to solve. Malaysia and the circus that is the 2nd Sodomy trial, Ministers that undermine and contradict each other, these are not signs of a strong stable government. Why would you want to wish that on us?] The Party (read: The Minister and friends) can afford to be transparent because they have systematically eliminated the possibility of effective resistance on the one hand, and the educational priorities that might lead to non-servile citizens on the other. And yet, when ill-advised but well-connected Connected individuals lose billions of taxpayer dollars, as with the S$58 billion loss (-31.35%) reported from Q1 2008 to Q1 2009, accountability does not match authority: no Connected heads roll. [If these loses came about while all about us, people were making money, that's incompetence. In a financial meltdown where banks are going bankrupt and value is lost by everyone, the question is not how much you lost, but how much you lost relative to other similar investors. The lack of comparative figures makes for a poor case.]
If this were North Korea or Cuba, some might not be so upset about this, but for a city that pretends to be "a little red dot" of a "country" having "the most stable democracy in the region", it's more than just a little bit hypocritical and self-serving. The Party compares Singapore to legitimate First World countries when it suits its purpose, as in the Potemkin-village shopping promenades for the wealthy; it switches the comparison to the third world at other times, such as when comparing the lowest economic classes and their treatment. The Minister's third propaganda "autobiography" was entitled "From Third World to First"; a local joke, told in whispers, is "well, we made it halfway, and we're taught to be content with our lot." And, like any similar country, self-censorship is a powerful force here, carefully stroked and nurtured; after all, many Bad Things can happen in life, and the ordinary person rarely has either recourse or sympathy from the well-trained public.
Not having a functioning social safety net is absolutely consistent with policy, as it would reduce the amount of money that those who lead the State have to play shell games with, and might make it somewhat problematic to give themselves raises and bonuses on schedule. This city does a lot of talking about the People, and in decades long past actually did a fair job of walking the talk, but the people who are best served by the Singaporean machine now are those who are most tightly plugged into it at the highest levels. Ordinary aunties and uncles, or those who are trying to get their children up the bizarrely competitive "educational" system here, are expected, in so many words, to "shut up and sit down." [This was from the AWARE saga and not something from the Govt. But this writer doesn't seem particularly fussy about where he gets his sound bite.] It's like the social and cultural lessons learned by humanity during the 20th century completely passed this city by — except to teach the rich more ways to make more money from anyone who was not born with a silver foot in his mouth.

culturewhiz wrote:

Feb 14th 2010 6:29 GMT

I agree with Izan that "Singaporeans got to come first. Provide them with such jobs before offering the jobs to foreigners." It's unthinkable that the government is so indifferent to the needs of its citizens...

McGenius wrote:

Feb 14th 2010 6:56 GMT

This may be naive but, don't Singaporeans donate to charity? Yes, I understand the government doesn't tax and spend but aren't there churches or other non-profit organizations that exist to take care of the needy? In the US the uber-wealthy were responsible for the big foundations that helped people, do the uber-wealthy in Singapore not do the same?

ObsTheTimes wrote:

Feb 14th 2010 7:18 GMT

Work is a privilege that you strive to attain. Its life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Not life, liberty and a perennial free check.Government does not owe you a job or benefits in lieu of one. Singaporeans have the proper life ethics and values. The west will choose to impose its intellectual spin on a country that has gotten it right. Nothing is off limits for us to pontificate upon, even how foreigners choose to spend their hard earned money. Hopefully, rich singapore that leads the world on most metrics of human health and achievement, will keep its thrifty welfare system and for their own good, not reward slothful citizens. We in the US continue to let our politicians indulge in populist policies and further degrade and spoil our workers; just to win elections. Families have to be supported, but enough of generous no strings attached monthly checks that you only need to walk to your mailbox for, and then spend whichever way you want. At the restaurant or mall. Recently, jobless benefits were extended to 96 weeks!. If the state gives you free money, then it should get some say in how you should spend it. Liberals decry the lack of work. Barring the current recession, there are and will be plenty of jobs!, but unfortunately, a third of the workforce lacks 21 century work skills or doesn't want to work in factories. Everyone want to be a movie or sports star.Shouldn't the government administer tough love by trying to nudge its people to better themselves, instead of just giving them one lollipop after another?

happyfish18 wrote:

Feb 14th 2010 8:06 GMT

Indeed the nanny state needs not be so stingy in helping the poors and needy. The Dragon Lady is now back at the helm after her "Foreign Talents" at Tumasek had burn't off over 50 billion buying out troubled assets during the Credit crisis of US. In fact, Singapore's troubles from the buying spree has not ended there as the other government investment agency, GIC also announced it had lost tens of billion in investments in NY real estate and the troubled Swiss banking giant UBS. Indeed Tim Geithners aptly said to the Singaporean Foreign Talented investors is that "What is your Pain is also our Gain."

aditya jain wrote:

Feb 14th 2010 9:25 GMT

Laziness is frowned upon here. People in the US make fun of you if work too hard. If you are seen as studying too much, people will call you a nerd and tell you to get a life. Here it’s the opposite. If you don’t work hard enough, you will be labeled a ‘slacker’.
While Singapore has done well economically, it has not solved the problem of distribution. If the system just continues to serve the rich, and does not take care of those who are in need, there will be a point where protests will begin. It is in the interest of the government to take care of the needy, because if it does not, the passive resentment of the citizens will cease to be passive.

neutrino123 wrote:

Feb 14th 2010 12:51 GMT

Let's stick to the topic, talk about welfare, and related issue. Many believe Singapore's government can do more in handouts, but who's paying? Welfare, social securities offered by government came from tax, or debts, depends on what country you're from. If welfare's a dirty word in Singapore, tax's the word else where. It's a matter of choice, do you want high tax and a welfare state or low tax and welfare shortage. I personally prefer the Singapore model, where i get to choose how much to save and how much to spend, not just pay tax and hope my dear government will come to the rescue in time of needs. Instead of paying tax to supporting someone's parents, I'm paying to support my own. Many have brought in GDP per capita into this argument, what about the short coming in using it to measure wealth? It's conveniently left out, just those Singaporean who complain about welfare have left out how to fund those welfare program they desire. It's easy to make demand and promises, fulfillment the issue here, a rise in 10% tax to fund welfare program, next event in the line is another outcry, this time not from those welfare seekers but tax payers.

Johan Sterk wrote:

Feb 14th 2010 1:17 GMT

Singapore's Economic national economic development strategy was modelled after that of The Netherlands' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Winsemius), except for collective insurances providing its inhabitants a safety net. I wonder whether its social mobility and patents per capita now beats that of its model. I think not, nor is its unemployment less then that of The Netherlands. The same holds true for the US. Disinvestment in people does not yield prosperity.

UtarEmpire wrote:

Feb 14th 2010 1:43 GMT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T463nFtg3tg
Here are some examples of the useless louts in Singapore who just need to get off their rears and find work. We don't want scum like these leeching off of a welfare system, do we?

WorkingMan wrote:

Feb 14th 2010 3:57 GMT

UtarEmpire,
Seems to me the video you posted provides all the evidence anyone needs to come to the conclusion that Singapore lacks - and desperately needs - a proper welfare system. It also seems to me most of the people in the video were working - for a pittance. So for you to call them "useless louts" and "scum" is plainly quite offensive.

danmaxkl wrote:

Feb 14th 2010 4:37 GMT

For all you fans of super Singapore,it appears that A. You live in the bubble and thus are force fed state controlled media output via the resident mouthpiece "Channel News Asia" or B.You have a misguided notion of a SE Asian utopia/Shangri La where every body walks around free from the fear of crime,unemployment and all the other potential social maladies that affect other less well run countries. From a business point of view Singapore is an utopia; it has a disciplined work force and low taxes. That said however,it has NO soul. I know several Singaporeans who are very unhappy and whose marriages are all but over due to pressure and the alienation between family members that living to work creates within households. There is more to life than GDP. Singapore wants to replace Hong Kong as the regional Financial hub but I doubt that will ever happen. What makes HKG so great is that it has a real democracy, despite it being of China.

danmaxkl wrote:

Feb 14th 2010 4:41 GMT

Relative to the size and population of Singapore it has quite a high unemployment rate.If it wants to be considered a developed nation ,then it will have to implement certain social programs that developed nations have or else it will never really be accepted to that club it so desperately wants to join. [Singapore does not want to join any club. Those club requires one to have stupid rules like Welfarism, and Strikes, and Demonstrations. And unemployment rate is a rate. It takes into account the size of the population. The first line is meaningless without explanation.]

tri400 wrote:

Feb 14th 2010 4:42 GMT

"The casinos, which open on February 14th, have already helped reduce unemployment"
That's totally false. Casinos don't invent or produce anything of value to society. [Irrelevant and non sequitur. Casinos create jobs and reduce unemployment. There was no claims that they invent things or produce value. Strawman argument. Logic failure.] They only cause misery and pain to a lot of people.

danmaxkl wrote:

Feb 14th 2010 4:49 GMT

neutrino- count yourself lucky you live in a country with only 4 million people. That's the trouble ,Singaporeans as well as being taught how to be productive automatons ,there is a case for them to be taught civil and social responsibilty. I don't see the German's,Dutch or Scandinavians having a problem with their high taxes and the average citizen in all those countries live very well. In Singapore you get to live very well if you earn a lot of money . You need to travel and live abroad to see how other countries with successful innovation and knowledge based economies do it .. it's called equitable wealth distribution. Where are your Confucian ideals?

danmaxkl wrote:

Feb 14th 2010 4:55 GMT

Some of the comments on here sound like they are coming from Singaporeans,who no doubt live in that bubble called Singapore. Tell you what guys!! Take a trip to some northern European countries and see how it's done. [Sorry. I can't afford to go to Europe. I hear coffee costs $20. I have to pay the coffee shop enough so he can pay his high taxes.] Better still, go to Japan.. Now you could learn a thing or two there about equitable wealth distribution. [Another expensive place. Why are all the countries with equitable wealth distribution so expensive?] Singapore is like a former 3rd world country that has suddenly struck it rich and the elites want to hoard everything for themselves. Typical in 'developing' countries.

danmaxkl wrote:

Feb 14th 2010 5:03 GMT

quacko you are an amazing man and I hear everything you say. I'm a Brit who lives and works in KL . I travel often to Singapore for the day and sometimes overnight and I know a fair bit about that place. As I mentioned in a previous post,Channel News Asia force feeds propaganda to any one unlucky enough to have to stay over in hotels there . It's very hard to even get Al Jazeera in your hotel as its style of reporting and exposing things is not what the ruling elite want to have people watch. It's worse than China because it is a pretend state. China at least admits that it is socialist

Erik Nikolai wrote:

Feb 14th 2010 6:43 GMT

This article reinforces my high esteem for Singapore. Europe and the United States would be well-advised to emulate it. No wonder my favorite investor, Jim Rogers, decided to relocate his family there.
I look forward to moving to Singapore in a few years, as I get a bad conscience by being productive here in Europe – I don't want my hard work to support socialist governments.

Johan Sterk wrote:

Feb 14th 2010 7:09 GMT

UtarEmpire wrote:"Here are some examples of the useless louts in Singapore who just need to get off their rears and find work. We don't want scum like these leeching off of a welfare system, do we?"
It's quite shocking to learn that citizens from so called Christian Nations have become so devoid of empathy and civilization to call the elderly and mentally ill 'useless louts'. Are you in favour of the final solution too?

Johan Sterk wrote:

Feb 14th 2010 7:16 GMT

Erik Nikolai wrote: "I look forward to moving to Singapore in a few years, as I get a bad conscience by being productive here in Europe – I don't want my hard work to support socialist governments."
Remember not to return if you can't help yourself any more and depend on the compassion of others.

Johan Sterk wrote:

Feb 14th 2010 7:49 GMT

David Hadden would you be able to differentiate between different European countries? Without it your statements are just meaningless clichés because their truth values depends on the country you talk about.

Econoducationist wrote:

Feb 14th 2010 10:36 GMT

Well, most have given more credit to the Singapore government than is due.
Here one key performance indicator for all to ponder : You take the latest published annual financial reports of its two sovereign wealth funds (Temasek, and GIC) . Then take its reported accumulated losses ( which is above the iceberg) divided over its 3 million citizens and it shows about US$ 80,000 loss per head !.
Does anyone realise this number far exceeds the existing per capita debt of USA, or Greece or Spain or Dubai !. And this is not even including any hidden loss below the Singapore iceberg !.

JShell wrote:

Feb 14th 2010 10:55 GMT

I feel like I learned as much (or more) from the range of comments than I did from the article. Thanks both to the Economist, and the commenters.
Family is an interesting puzzle piece not mentioned often in the West . . . but how many families save enough to really be their own safety net? Especially if they're at the bottom of the economic ladder? Class issues run deep, whether its in the US, Europe, or Asia. Unlocking creativity for a growth-oriented meritocracy seems like the best way that those problems can be transformed, and those systems redeemed (if that's even possible).

Make Love not War wrote:

Feb 14th 2010 11:29 GMT

@Erik Nikolai
I still dont think that Singapore is a good place to live, yet. When visiting, I noticed that people were scared to speak their minds, not just regarding politics but in many areas of life. Relative to Western societies this is definitely a step in the wrong direction.
[Scared to speak their minds to you? Were you wearing a white shirt and white trousers? Singaporeans only talk about food, money, cars, soccer, and property prices. They complain about ERP, property prices, foreign workers, foreigners, crowded buses and train, and waitresses who can't speak English. If you were lucky enough to meet some taciturn Singaporeans, consider it your lucky day.]
What we need is some kind of hybrid model. "Democracy" as it is lved in the West has failed, as we all now painfully witness. It has been hijacked by special interests, and regular, hard-working folk are systematically being taken advantage of.
Singapore is too rigid in curtailing personal freedoms, on the other hand, and not democratic at all.
Somewhere in-between would be good. I think a "weighted" form of democratic vote might be in order. E.g. people who pay high taxes, or have advanced, recognized academic degrees get more than one vote. People on welfare, maybe just half a vote. That way power would be shifted to those who carry society without excluding weaker contributors altogether.
Btw, for any fool believing in one-man-one-vote pls note: e.g in EU elections, a German voter carries about 80times less weight than one from Malta, although obviously the German voter is contributing much more to the EU on average. Indeed a German vote has within the EU the least weight of all nationalities.
[Democracy is a red herring. Democracy is a process, not an end in itself. Singapore had 3 Singapore Idol (local version of American Idol) in the last few years. All three times, the winner was a young male Malay. Now it might well be that the Malays are incredibly talented musically, and none can hold a candle to them. But the suspicion was that only the Malay community bothered to vote and they voted for their favourite son. By no means am I saying that the voting in Singapore Idol was a model of democracy, but there are similarities. In many elections for government or other positions, popularity, charisma, and group identification counts. More than competence, skills, and aptitude. Democracy is a way of choosing leaders based on popularity. So winners of Singapore Idols are the most popular by sms voting on the night of the finals. But can they sing? The reality is that some runner-ups have better recording contracts and musical careers than the winners after the Idol competition.
Selection of leaders should not be a popularity contest. So you can see that some of the PAP candidates have the personality of damp dishtowels compared to the flashy and flamboyant opposition. But the PAP candidates are competent.

Singapore succeeds because our leaders, our government are not populists. Yes they know they have to win elections, but they also know that elections is once every 3 to 5 years, but governing is everyday and about looking beyond the horizon.

The problem with Democracy is that over time, it draws out the charismatic, the populist, the charmers, the showman, the Man of the People. There is nothing wrong with these if they were competent, and knew what they were doing. But we get people like Bush.

And the US Presidential Elections now spends US$1b to choose their president. Candidates blows millions of dollars for a chance to win a post that pays US $200,000 a year, if I understand correctly. Heck, even if they get paid what a Singapore Minister is paid, their campaign expenditure exceeds their entire salary within their term of office by a factor of several hundred. And that tells me something about the value of position (as valued by the campaign contributors) as well as the relative value of the democratic process compared to other pressing issues. People would rather throw money in an election campaign than to channel that money to say helping the homeless or funding schools, or providing healthcare for the low income. The democratic process as practised in the US, is wasteful and perhaps even irrelevant.]

Erik Nikolai wrote:

Feb 15th 2010 1:03 GMT

@Johan Sterk wrote "Remember not to return if you can't help yourself any more and depend on the compassion of others."
People aren't being compassionate under a socialist government. Their property is being redistributed automatically, through coercion. This denies people the feeling of good will which they would have gotten if they had chosen to donate their money voluntarily. Under socialism, voluntary charity (the only true type of charity) is replaced by the cold hands of the state.
Charity and good will tends to blossom in more libertarian, free market societies. Historically, The United States has been the best example of this.

outsidethebox wrote:

Feb 15th 2010 1:17 GMT

Should one believe that Singapore can be a very stressful, difficult place to live because it is so competitive? I'm pretty sure it is. Sadly, in the real world, it is that stress and competitiveness that leads to economic success. It has been alluded to here that there is much more to life than per capita GDP. That's so true. There are obviously many who would choose a more comfortable, less "nose to the grindstone" sort of life. It is hard to believe that the Singapore government is going to offer that choice to its people however. They are going to be condemned to ever higher levels of achievement while Europe slips to relative 3rd world status.

bismarck111 wrote:

Feb 15th 2010 1:34 GMT

I am all for the attitude towards welfare. However this statement strikes me as insensitive
"In an interview given to National Geographic last July he said that if native Singaporeans lag behind “hungry” foreigners because “the spurs are not stuck on [their] hinds”, that is not the state’s problem to solve."
Priority should be Singaporeans citizens first. I would like to ask LKY would the average foreigner be hungry enough to work in Singapore if he was required to spend two years slogging through the jungles of SEA.
Singaporean male citizen spend two years of their life and the possibility of being maimed or killed in training just so their jobs can be taken by foreigners. For NS he is called up 2 weeks to one month every year for reserve training often at the drop of a hat. Would an American programmer tolerate it if he was forced to go to Iraq and return after two years to have his job filled in by an Indian on a H1B Visa? And then to rub it in have Obama say "Thank you for risking life and limb, but you weren't cheap enough"
Many young Singaporeans are leaving in droves because there is no benefit to being Singaporean, particularly if you are male. its so easy for companies to fill a substantial amount of positions with foreigners. . The only positions reserved for Singaporeans are clerical staff and secretaries because they don't fall under the work permit or employment pass. Everything else is open season. The Department of Manpower grants employment passes in record time. I have seen cases where they grant them in 1-2 days.
To those commentators here who say that Singaporeans are drones I disagree and agree. They are drones not because they of the political, social or education system, but because of economics. For those who say that not having a welfare system would help people gets people off their butts. It does, but it does not motivate people. The Singaporean government is concerned, because drones do not become entrepreneurs. The Singaporean government has tried tried many schemes - attracting multinational companies, foreign talent, making the education system more creative another. Taiwan is very much like Singapore, its Chinese, has military service, but produces entrepreneurs by the truckload. The main reason is the pay scales of civil servants creates alot of incentives for bright people to become civil servants.

Carlos Collaco wrote:

Feb 15th 2010 2:39 GMT

I've not been there myself but have read or heard about Singapore since my early years.
The insight I got added up to a largely positive picture of a small yet economically proportionately outsized city-State.
The very fact so much is heard of and spoken about on Singapore reveals a success story on most counts from the flagship airline to the cleanliness of the city's streets.
No small achievement over decades of strict rules and hard work as laid out by an autocratic leadership no doubt.
On balance, strong purposeful government has served Singapore and its citizens right.
It has been a home-grown model to suit a mixed population of around 5m living on less than 700 square km.
Also, there are local components to the territory's history that played an important part as to how it evolved.
I would not like to compare the beginnings, growth and implementation of Europe's, or the US's, or Canada's welfare systems to that of Singapore.
Social, economic, philosophical and political backgrounds are quite different at root which would render any conclusions underwhelming.
Nor would I be drawn into general discussions on institutionalised laziness and waste without going through relevant data first.
However, I am in no doubt that many countries in the West, including my own, should indeed look into some of the remarkable 'top-marks' Singapore has obtained by dint of its 'harsh' ways.
Not necessarily to emulate but to improve existing systems here aiming to achieve greater efficiency by developing the concept of purpose.
The welfare State as we've known it in advanced democracies was a major development in societies that embraced it measuredly.
The very concept is now increasingly questioned not for in-built flaws that likely developed.Rather it is the ageing populations and the wild economic globalisation pitching against each other countries with entirely diverging cost-structures that is a threat.
This has spawned very hard questions as to how to keep such systems self-sustaining in the future.
It would be oversimplistic to condemn Europe's cherished welfare State while overstating the pluses of Singapore's restrained model.
I strongly believe we can learn from each other.

neutrino123 wrote:

Feb 15th 2010 4:44 GMT

Danmaxkl, you have bring in social responsibility, what about personal responsibility? If both of us earn the same income, i save for retirement, you indulge yourselves, at our retirement I'm well off, you're on welfare, it would be fair, if you only get minimum from welfare, I have suffer during working years and enjoy during retirement years, you have enjoy during working years and suffer during retirement years. Take note in retirement, I'm moving from a lower to a higher budget, where yours the reverse, who would be better off, and for the record, I don't belong to high income group. It's all back to my first post, would rather let big brother plan for you, or you plan for yourselves?
There will always be free raider, or tragedy of the common, if you're generous about welfare, it's inevitable. Life is about choices, I'm moving forward, upgrading myself to live a better life, you can stay there wait for handout, but if welfare system change, I'll open the flood gate, flush out my reserve, enjoy myself, if you're cheating, let's cheat together.
Equitable wealth distribution you seek exists in communism, does it work? Most thinkers have ignore the fact that rich and poor belong together, a world without poor, is a world without rich, we are just normal. We can never cure poverty, when everyone is feed, they will demand more, it's human, Maslow's hierarchy of needs, when will it ever end?

OMFG wrote:

Feb 15th 2010 5:09 GMT

I'm a Singaporean and have lived Hong Kong, China and Europe. Let me tell you what is wrong with Singapore - in recent years the govt has been too liberal with letting in foreign cheap labor just like Dubai.As a result it has led to a degradation of quality of life.
We now have service staff in retail that can barely speak English the main lingua franca in Singapore. There are severe overcrowding in public places,trains, buses, etc. Public security has also dropped as there are now more prostitution, gambling, hawking of unlicensed foods and formation of foreigner's enclaves in low rental areas.
Public housing price has gone thru' the roof despite the deep recession as newly minted permanent residents are buying and renting houses and syndicates were able to corner the market - making public housing unaffordable to young couples planning to get married. To make matter worse liberal entry of cheap foreign labor has severely depressed the salary of blue-collar work - making many technical work unattractive for local workers. Worker's productivity has dived because no employer want to invest in new equipment and training due to the easy availability of cheap labor.
Singaporeans being of migrant stock welcome skilled professionals who can contribute to their society and economy to work there - but the PAP govt has gone too far with their liberal foreign labor policy. Now there is call by Singaporeans to replace our ineffective ministers and union leaders with foreign talent as well - just like what we have done with institutions like DBS Bank and NOL\APL shipping line.

[I really believe this person is a Singaporean. He complains like one.]

Econoducationist wrote:

Feb 15th 2010 5:24 GMT

Another reason why Singapore's emigraton rate is still the world's highest among all 1st and 2nd world nation states ( leading to one writer to have written that the city states most talented people are leaving in "drones") is because until today there is no social security laws in Singapore to protect workers rights.
In fact this serves as an underhanded means how Singapore had attracted and continue to attract foreign investment which is at odds with its leader's claim of it being a first world nation.
For example, compared to Singapore's nearest neigbhour Malaysia which both were ruled as one territory by the British before , the workers protection laws in Singapore until today have not changed a bit since it was last legislated as the Employment Act in the 1960s to attract the first wave of investors 40 years ago.
[Yet strangely it is the Malaysians that come over to work in Singapore! With its poor workers' rights and lack of social security! The evil Singapore government has not only managed to hoodwink the Singaporeans... BUT ALSO THE MALAYSIANS!!!! Oh the inhumanity!!!]
The British started workers "Provident funds" system in the 1950s in both Singapore and Malaysia to legalise compulsory monthly compulsory savings from wages earners cashable at age 55 for retirement.
In addition to this Employee provident fund , Malaysia's parliamentary government also also passed the Social Security Act shortly after ceasing to be a British colony which make employee redundancy payment a compulsory feature of worker protection today in Malaysia whereas Singapore's ruling party has chosen to turn a blind eye on its citizens welfare to this very day.
As a result , any employee can be legally and easily terminated by any employer after many years of service at the mercy of any employer in Singapore. So this is in reality how Singapore goverment markets iself investor-attractive and investor friendly for quick economic gains at the long term hidden expense of its citizens workers.
So do you still want to come to Singapore to work ? Yes if you are looking at short term gains but no if you are looking at long term right ? So this emplains why Singapore is becoming more like a hotel or corporation and its own natives who have global market values have good reasons to leave from the place in drones.

Yamaka wrote:

Feb 15th 2010 5:38 GMT

This article shows how "outsiders" glamorize Singapore - a tiny, city State - and how the ordinary citizens abhor the labor policies of their terribly autocratic government!
If America (where 308 millions live) relaxes her immigration policy, everyday millions of people will enter the country to work and live well- "in the land of the free and home of the brave".
On the other hand, Singaporean citizens emigrate out as soon as possible! Why?
It is a very autocratic land with so much corruption at the higher level of the Government - elites and politically connected live well - the press is impotent and most citizens are stressed out beyond belief, and her teenagers commit suicide in record numbers. Why? No American will go and settle in Singapore even if his salary is tripled overnight. There is more to life than just dollars and cents. Freedom and fairness is more important and social safety net is very relevant to any advanced Society.
It does not mean citizens need to abuse their economic and political freedoms, as in USA and in Europe.

Tan Wu Meng wrote:

Feb 15th 2010 7:46 GMT

As a longtime subscriber, I was surprised to read an article such as "The stingy nanny" on your website.
It is misinformed misrepresentation to suggest being poor is "your own fault" in Singapore. We believe that no man or woman is an island, that each disadvantaged Singaporean is part of a broader family, that there is dignity and value in families looking after their kin in times of need -- as opposed to a society where each person answers the call of personal responsibility by asking if he is his brother's, father's or children's keeper.
When an individual abandons their children or elderly parents to the state, the cost is shouldered by all members of society, including those less well off but more filial. To ask the filial but less well off to contribute their taxes towards supporting those abandoned by more affluent families is not "welfare" -- it is a mockery of social justice.
The author extols "automatic benefits". But "automatic benefits" do not help workers develop new skills or find new jobs, either in the same sector or - where an industry is being superseded - elsewhere in the economy. The old adage of teaching a man to fish, rather than giving a fish-like "automatic benefit", may have relevance.
This is not to say Singapore has no income support. The Workfare Income Supplement functions as an earned income tax credit, which will be familiar to economists and those with an interest in Economics. Disadvantaged families receive support for their utilities and additional subsidy for healthcare. Singapore also provides more education support for the children of disadvantaged families, so that a cycle of poverty does not arise.
No system is perfect. But this has not deterred us from aspiring to a better system. We believe in building a Singapore model of social security which promotes independence and dignity rather than dependency. We cherish the value of family, and how social justice is best achieved when individuals and families do not pass the buck to society at large, and indirectly to those less fortunate. We are acutely aware, given the lessons learnt around the world in recent decades, that social security must be sustainable, rather than indebting future generations to placate the present.

vasdeferens wrote:

Feb 15th 2010 11:16 GMT

There will always be divergent views about how high or low to cast the social safety net. Cost , compassion and impact on citizens' motivation are some of the factors. Interesting, but relatively well-trodden ground.
Many of the comments have conflated this issue with others - such as whether Singapore's government is overly authoritarian and illiberal.
I think most Singaporeans support the government's welfare policy. However as this small nation state heads towards its 46th year of independence, its 'established' citizenry - themselves the children of immigrants - are working out what else they want now they have achieved developed world status in economic terms. Greater political freedom and social liberalism are likely to figure.
For some Singaporeans, such change cannot come quickly enough and hence they leave. I doubt the welfare policy is the main driver of this. Note that Singapore's population has grown circa 50% in the last 20 years, largely via immigration from other Asian countries. In the Asian context, Singapore is generally seen as place to make a better life - at least economically.

happyfish18 wrote:

Feb 15th 2010 12:38 GMT

The Foreign Investment talents in GIC and Tumasek has burn't off almost 100 billions in risky investments. Their boss called the Dragon lady has been pressured to step aside briefly to take some responsibilities. However the charade did not last too long as she was enthroned with true dynastic pomp, Hefty bonuses are being paid to these Foreign Talents for their sweats just like the much chastised Uriah Heeps of Wall street.

AussieLouis wrote:

Feb 16th 2010 3:11 GMT

Singapore is a capitalist state run like a corporate body. Its mission is the enhancement of the 'bottom line', in this case the GNP. Ministers' and top civil servants remunerations are tied to it. In the recent recession, they drew less but still substantially higher (like 10 to 100 times the average wage). Top civil servants and Ministers are drawn from the top 1 to 2 per cent of scholars, given scholarships to Oxford, Cambridge, the Ivy leagues in the US and the best universities in other nations. They are often rounded off with further post-graduate degrees from Harvard, Stanford and the likes. A top servant of 30-35 years of age draws between $30K to $50K per month and a minister between $100K to $300K per month. Thus only the 'best brains' can rise to this level and they are the ruling or governing class. Accountability is based on mainly on political mistakes rather than on performance; they are already proven high-performers and any operational mishaps are disregarded. These 'talents' are put on life long career paths and are never taken out except in very exceptional cases. This is 'the privilege class' and they are allowed mistakes for training purposes. Lower civil servants are disallowed the privilege of mistakes and summarily penalised without delay.
Thus the country is run efficiently and productively. Every government department is run with positive returns in mind and therefore owns profit-centred entities to ensure positive bottom lines. The Army and Police Forces, for example, run highly profitable entities such as coin minting, weapons production, vehicle maintenance, aero-industries, securities and anti- industrial espionage services and innumerable companies. The ministry of housing runs design, construction, architectural firms, industrial and housing rental estates and so on. This is an illustration of how a country can be run as a giant industrial complex completely controlled by the state with the highest body being the cabinet acting like a board. The permanent Chairman is Lee Kuan Yew and the CEO, his son, the PM, Lee Hsien Loong.
The people of Singapore and the migrant workers (some are classified as 'foreign talents') are strictly considered as 'digits' (once described by LKY) and operating units contributing to the bottom line. There is a dispassionate manner by which they are treated not unlike Multinational Companies which contributed tremendously to Singapore's earlier progress. It is all very efficient if the human element is taken up dispassionately.
To counter dissent as is natural in human society, the press, unions, army, police, judiaciary, secret service and any organisation that may have an influence on society are fully controlled by the PAP government. Anyone who appears to display political leanings is monitored closely and quickly destroyed even if it appears a threat. One person protesting or speaking in public without official permission is deemed 'a riot' by law and is quickly charged and incarcerated. In political cases, selected judges ensured that defendants are guilty with evidences to the contrary ignored. Thus political dissent which may cause a blip to the efficient running of the state is totally disallowed. The result is an utopian state where almost everything works, crimes are low and everyone, to survive, must put their noses to the grind perpetually. No failures are entertained unless the destitutes so deem are totally hopeless and are given the minimum to stay alive. They are beyond protest or humiliation.
Thus there are three classes of Singaporeans; the ruling elite, the better off and the struggling majority; all run by a state controlled by a permanent first family.
Those who find this society stiffling choose to leave and there are literally thousands queuing to go elsewhere, mainly Australia, Canada, the US and New Zealand and such like havens of democracy. This is the middle class, well educated and well off. Thus there is a hollowing out of the middle managers, entreprenuers, other talents and potential dissidents. It suits the government fine as a declared policy of the PM is that he would easily replaced these disgruntled citizens. Singapore has close to 1.6 million migrant workers out of approximately 3.5 million workers. Obviously wages would be lowered with no protection for Singaporeans whose cost of living are first world; life can only get harder each day. To the expatriate professionals ('foreign talents') these hardships are alien as they enjoy their contrived privileges or kept a blind eye to the exploitation and suppression of the people. To the privileged and better-off this is reality and you either 'make or lump it'. And if you are unhappy, leave. Thus expatriate and short term visitors see a society that functions perfectly; the streets are safe and clean, shops are mega complexes filled with shoppers ( Singapore takes in 6 to 8 million tourists), the government is efficient. Its Utopia, all perfect if you like it!

vasdeferens wrote:

Feb 16th 2010 6:13 GMT

@ danmaxkl:
Your multiple comments are interesting. You say you are British living in Malaysia. Yet you sound very much like a disaffected [ex-] Singaporean. The "Disneyland with the death penalty" line is telling.
In any case, good luck. Try not to whinge too much. Life goes on.

decodeit wrote:

Feb 17th 2010 10:43 GMT

As a second generation Singaporean, I fully agree with my government's non welfare state stance. Every citizen has been taught since young that we are a small country with limited resources. Our human capital is our most precious asset. In order to survive in this competitive environment, we have to constantly improve ourselves (be it academically or economically) because the bottomline to everything is survival. If one is hungry, would one think about ideological aspirations like freedom or would one think only of one's empty stomach. Consciously or unconsciously, I believe most working and contributing adult in Singapore would want a fair and equitable distribution of this created wealth. And why should someone who did not work for it get to enjoy it? Singapore is not a welfare state but we are not people without compassion. There are charities and NGOs set up to assist in helping the really needy and destitute. We believe in helping ourselves first, and my government has just done that by ensuring that all requests by the needy goes through thorough means testing. This is not to deter them but to ensure that help is given to the truly and genuinely needy because any wrongful distribution would deprive someone of the much needed aid.
In any country, there will definitely be some who would abuse welfare. By being careful and advocating self help, we are preventing such an issue from happening. In terms of sustainability, having a self help policy will go a long way as those who are not able to help themselves are given temporary assistance, until a time when they can stand on their own without being permanently crippled by unlimited welfare support.

klwk wrote:

Feb 17th 2010 3:04 GMT

For those making a big fuss out of the emigration rate from Singapore - it's pretty disingenuous to just give one side of the story. I too have many relatives who have moved to another country to work. Did they leave because they hate Singapore? No - the fact is that the companies they work for - some of which are Singaporean in origin - have global interests.
Singapore is a small, global city. Our population is reasonably well-educated, and extremely mobile. A world of opportunity awaits. What do you logically expect the emigration rate to be under these circumstances? Small?
Sure there are those that are unhappy with the Singapore life and leave for good. I had some friends leave Singapore for that purpose too. Sadly for a few, they realised (belatedly) that the grass isn't necessarily greener elsewhere. Sometimes the root of dissatisfaction is in the person, and not in the surroundings.
As for suicide rates, pls see this: http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide_rates/en/index.html and compare Singapore's rates with other advanced countries. There are numerous other studies online which can be easily found. Every life lost is saddening. But at the very least, it should be obvious that some of the more extreme claims on this board can be quickly dismissed by actually consulting real, rather than conjured up data.

Longwater wrote:

Feb 17th 2010 5:35 GMT

The West has its fair share of welfare giving for many years. Singapore first generation leaders i.e. LKY et al, were wary of such burden. They inculcated later generation leaders to follow unquestionably. But the present 60s and 70s Singaporeans are not well endowed in wealth and education, so there are still many living below poverty line. In times to come, newer problems will arise in tackling the lower and middle classes as they will then be very much remote from a very few super-rich including government ministers and senior officials. By then, "Animal Farm" situation will arise. Watch out.

Whaam wrote:

Feb 18th 2010 7:18 GMT

My dad was orphaned in the 1960s. He and his siblings were left to scrape a living for themselves after the death of my grandparents. My dad went on to graduate from RI and NUS, find a job in an MNC, and start a happy and blissful family. Every Chinese New Year, my entire extended family gathers for dinner, where they reminisce about the old kampong days. Today, all my dad's siblings have houses, cars, and take vacations abroad regularly.
I am presently studying in the US. The richest country in the world. Within my college walls, 20 year olds party the night away, popping can after can of beer in a celebration of their youth and their parent's excessively large bank accounts. Right outside their walls, the homeless shiver in the cold, waiting for the next person to drop a coin in the palm of their hands. They collect money from the government every week. But next month, they'll still be waiting in the cold.
Welfare is not always about providing money. Welfare is also about providing opportunities. Let me assure you that the Singaporean system spoils the majority of its citizens. We enjoy the best health-care system in the world. Universal medical insurance AND low hospital fees? I have been to the States, to Europe, to Japan and Korea, and nowhere else is world-class health care made affordable to all. Our education is top-notch, and free. I studied at RI, and most of my friends lived in HDB flats and took the bus to school. In contrast, the top schools in the US are dominated by the rich and the white, who have only a superficial understanding of poverty and social injustice. At home, we walk our streets at night unmolested by crime and poverty. Here in the States, I won't even dream of walking downtown once the sun goes down. It is exactly this uniquely Singaporean "welfare" system that saved my dad from the gangs and triads, put him through school, and allowed him to provide me with all the material comforts I enjoy today.
Singapore definitely does not have a perfect system. I myself am not a PAP supporter, and I feel a sharp pang of disgust whenever we are "informed" that the PAP way is always the right way. But I'm proud of the achievements of this country, and like it or not, it was the authoritative ways of our leaders that brought us to where we are today. Poverty and crime DO still exist in our country. But I daresay the government has done an awesome job in keeping them low. We already have a working system, we do not need to follow a failing Western-Socialist model.
I hate it when my fellow Singaporeans lament about how the PAP sucks and in the next breath talk about how they want to emigrate. I disagree with many things the PAP does, and I feel strongly about income inequality. That's why I vote for the opposition, and that's why I take the effort to do community service. Who else can make Singapore a better place if not us Singaporeans? If you fly off to Australia/US/Europe, please don't turn around and tell us Singaporeans how to run this nation. It's still our country. It's no longer yours.