Lee Hsien Loong: “We have helped those who needed help...no one will be left behind.”
Lee Kuan Yew: “You go down New York, Broadway. You will see the beggars, people of the streets...Where are the beggars in Singapore? Show me.”
Goh Chok Tong: “Your worries are mine too...we are one big family.”
Yeah right!!
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Legal minimum wage in Singapore
Would a legal minimum wage law help the poverty situation in Singapore? We have the lowest 20% of income earners suffering a drop in average income for the past 10-15 years. While the top 10% of income earner continue to receive income increases. There are households with breadwinners but still struggling to make ends meet.
Australia has a minimum wage law of about Aust$511 per week. USA about USD5.15 per hour, UK about 5.35 pounds/hour.
According to the Singapore Department of Statistics, The average wage for the lowest 10% of households with income earners was S$459 in year 2000. Bear in mind that 2000 was before SARS and 9/11. For some reason I can't find data on income distribution on the Stat Dept website newer that year 2000. But I figure there will not be a huge difference in the 2006 Data.
Australia has a minimum wage law of about Aust$511 per week. USA about USD5.15 per hour, UK about 5.35 pounds/hour.
According to the Singapore Department of Statistics, The average wage for the lowest 10% of households with income earners was S$459 in year 2000. Bear in mind that 2000 was before SARS and 9/11. For some reason I can't find data on income distribution on the Stat Dept website newer that year 2000. But I figure there will not be a huge difference in the 2006 Data.
Click here for full article.
Some Benefits with implementing a minimum wage law (from wikipedia)
1. Increases the average living standard
2. Creates incentive to work.
3. Minimum wage is administratively simple; workers only need to report violations of wages less than minimum, minimizing a need for a large enforcement agency
4. Stimulates consumption, by putting more money in the hands of low-income people who spend their entire paychecks
5. Increases the work ethic of those who earn very little, as employers demand more return from the higher cost of hiring these employees
6. Decreases the cost of government social welfare programs by increasing incomes for the lowest-paid.
Maybe we should get an MP and lobby for minimum wage laws here in Singapore.
Are you one of those that starts thinking "As long as I give my 10% of my paycheck" or "I donate to charity every month"? Are we, Singaporeans that narcissistic? Do we start ignoring the very real situation about poverty here in Singapore? As long as there is a roof over your head, you got a job, a comfortable life, you children go to school, they are safe, PAP is fine?
Has narcissism and materialism infected the majority of Singaporeans to such a degree, that they think only of their own households, and choose to believe or play along with whatever the PAP says, as long as status quo is maintained?
The poverty here in Singapore is just the symptom of a larger problem (but thats another post of another day). With a fully controlled press that practices self censorship, Singaporeans who are not exposed to foreign press, are only getting one side of the whole story.
Get the government to do something about the high influx of foreign workers, get the government to do something about the minimum wage, and the poorest of the poor here in Singapore. Make them bloody work for their still unjustified multi million dollar salaries.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Singapore's Progress Package wins UN award
CNA article here
This is really disgusting, is there still justice in this world?
The progress package payout was on 1st May 2006. Polling Day was on 6th May 2006. Instead of being slammed with vote-buying, they get an award... this really leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Another thing that doesn't sit really well....
Quote from the article linked above
"Mr Tharman said this open-ness, together with trust, is also extended to people, enterprise and ideas from all over the world.
And these qualities are helping with Singapore's branding.
He said that although Singapore should monitor the negative aspects, it does not have to be defensive about them."
If Mr Tharman claims to be on the same page as the rest of the PAP, or this is the general consensus of the rest of the PAP, especially at the upper echelons... then
This is a bleeping bloody frickin busload of bullcrap... especially coming from a PAP minister...
How many times have we heard "mind your own business" from the Govt when Singapore gets negative press?
How many occasions have we seen the Govt get fiercely defensive with negative criticism about being draconian, lack of independent press etc?
How many times have foreign publications been sued by Govt leaders? Most recently the case with the Far Eastern Economic Review last Aug. is one classic example.
This is really disgusting, is there still justice in this world?
The progress package payout was on 1st May 2006. Polling Day was on 6th May 2006. Instead of being slammed with vote-buying, they get an award... this really leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Another thing that doesn't sit really well....
Quote from the article linked above
"Mr Tharman said this open-ness, together with trust, is also extended to people, enterprise and ideas from all over the world.
And these qualities are helping with Singapore's branding.
He said that although Singapore should monitor the negative aspects, it does not have to be defensive about them."
If Mr Tharman claims to be on the same page as the rest of the PAP, or this is the general consensus of the rest of the PAP, especially at the upper echelons... then
This is a bleeping bloody frickin busload of bullcrap... especially coming from a PAP minister...
How many times have we heard "mind your own business" from the Govt when Singapore gets negative press?
How many occasions have we seen the Govt get fiercely defensive with negative criticism about being draconian, lack of independent press etc?
How many times have foreign publications been sued by Govt leaders? Most recently the case with the Far Eastern Economic Review last Aug. is one classic example.
Voting for Opposition a bad move? What about Checks and Balances?
Fearful of supporting the opposition? I think, firstly its probably due to the government swinging the Sledgehammer, with "ISA" engraved on its side so prominently in the past. Every time I talk about how much I respect people like Jeyaretnam, Chiam See Tong and about how much I root for the opposition parties... it really saddens me, to the point my heart aches, to hear my loved one tell me " Please think of your future, don't get into trouble". Opposition politics is synonymous with trouble? It really saddens me, it is a very real sign, to me, that there is an acute need for political reform. To quote the venerable Mr Jeyaretnam "A complete and thorough reform of the system" "no more tinkering".
Then there is another kind of fear, As Mr Lee Kuan Yew had once said - paraphrase "Elections are about your futures and your children's' futures" It really does make one, standing in the voting booth stop and think doesn't it? Especially those who have families or kids to raise. He does seem to have a talent for it doesn't he? Striking fear in the hearts of people... one way or another.
Many people worry, or fear, that voting the for the opposition will threaten the security of this country, both civic and economic security, if indeed, the PAP is to be ousted from its entrenched seat of power. The operative word being "if". yeah, I know it sounds kinda pessimistic.
A thought I was toying with, there are many people whom I have come across, see the sledgehammer of the PAP and don't really like it. Some would like to see more transparency and accountability from the government. Some feel that more press freedom is in order. But if these people still voted for PAP, why do they?
My take? I think this is where they trip. They are not willing to risk the economic future for the checks and balances in government. At the moment, they don't see the perceived "required calibre" within the opposition at the moment, so "hmm ok I'll vote PAP for now till WP/SDA get better people" becomes a common self justification line they use, and then end up voting for the incumbents or PAP. But its not impossible to find capable people isn't it? For instance, even in a coup de'tat like in thailand very recently, they still found people to run the country. But thats far from what we should be doing tho, just saying that its not impossible to find capable people outside the ruling party.
So how will Singapore get a credible opposition in Parliament?
Firstly, a credible opposition doesn't equate to overthrowing the government, or even a revolution. A credible opposition does not mean destabilizing the Government, which what some people fear. Overthrowing the government is not the objective here. Placing a credible opposition in parliament has to start gradually, by taking small steps....
Firstly, the opposition has to build up strength.... which so far, WP is ahead among the opposition parties, but not enough, yet, still its a rather significant step. They(the opposition) do not have to match the PAP, man for man. The people they have at the moment is already a big step, considering 15-20 years ago or even 5 years ago, if a graduate were to openly join an opposition party, chances are, that there was actually a social taboo attached, or even regarded as insane by some. But I digress, what I'm saying is that they first have to get enough talent, win a GRC, or even 2. Establish a foothold. Which I think they have amost done in the 2006 GE with Aljunied GRC.
Then the 1st real step of the main objective to establishing Checks and Balances. Something I'd like to consider the Achilles heel of the PAP, hard to get to, but when you get to it, its the key to everything.
What is the most important key to rule a nation? Its the absolute power and control of the law.
And what is the supreme law of the land? It is the Constitution of The Republic of Singapore.
So the first step is to wrest away total control of the constitution from the PAP. As many of you already know, 66% votes in parliament gives them(PAP) the right to amend the constitution, and thats where the PAP gets its power. Having all but 2 out of 84 seats in Parliament, needless to say that the PAP has absolute control over the constitution. Amendment to this act, introduce that act, amend this act, introduce that act, easily done to entrench themselves. Like what they did to the elections act, and also amended the constitution to give the PM the power to appoint Judges and CJs, on short term contracts, which means, also gives him the right to "not renew" those contracts on "unsatisfactory performance" and I leave the definition of "unsatisfactory performance" to your imagination.... I think it has got something to do with Lee and son and all their libel suits....
So the first major objective, is to gain perhaps 40% of the seats in parliament. PAP will still be in power, with most of their ministers still in cabinet, just that their absolute power over the law will no longer be absolute. And when that happens, the opposition parties will start to have more credibility and may begin to attract more candidates of higher calibre. When that happens joining the PAP will no longer be a "nobrainer" for potential/aspiring politicians. And voting, will then really involve serious deliberation on the part of the voters. Bear in mind, the first step is to wrest absolute power from PAP's hands.
Competition can breed quality.... absolute power can breed stagnation, and then corruption..
The ultimate goal, is to win at least 66% and then remove all entrenching amendments from the constitution. Relinquish the power from the Executive to appoint judges. The police force to become a corporation, answerable to the whole parliament, not just 1 minister. These are things to watch out for when a new party does take over as the ruling party. If a new party takes over, and still retains all the entrenching laws, we might just get another PAP, if only by another name.
Think about it, lending your support to the opposition may not be such a big a risk as the PAP may have you and I believe. Do you honestly think that Singapore will crumble if PAP has 60% seats?
Well thank you for reading this longish essay, if 1 out of 20 people who read this, begins to lend his or her support to the alternative parties, I would be glad to have been able to even make a small difference.
Competition can breed quality.... absolute power can breed stagnation, and then corruption.
Then there is another kind of fear, As Mr Lee Kuan Yew had once said - paraphrase "Elections are about your futures and your children's' futures" It really does make one, standing in the voting booth stop and think doesn't it? Especially those who have families or kids to raise. He does seem to have a talent for it doesn't he? Striking fear in the hearts of people... one way or another.
Many people worry, or fear, that voting the for the opposition will threaten the security of this country, both civic and economic security, if indeed, the PAP is to be ousted from its entrenched seat of power. The operative word being "if". yeah, I know it sounds kinda pessimistic.
A thought I was toying with, there are many people whom I have come across, see the sledgehammer of the PAP and don't really like it. Some would like to see more transparency and accountability from the government. Some feel that more press freedom is in order. But if these people still voted for PAP, why do they?
My take? I think this is where they trip. They are not willing to risk the economic future for the checks and balances in government. At the moment, they don't see the perceived "required calibre" within the opposition at the moment, so "hmm ok I'll vote PAP for now till WP/SDA get better people" becomes a common self justification line they use, and then end up voting for the incumbents or PAP. But its not impossible to find capable people isn't it? For instance, even in a coup de'tat like in thailand very recently, they still found people to run the country. But thats far from what we should be doing tho, just saying that its not impossible to find capable people outside the ruling party.
So how will Singapore get a credible opposition in Parliament?
Firstly, a credible opposition doesn't equate to overthrowing the government, or even a revolution. A credible opposition does not mean destabilizing the Government, which what some people fear. Overthrowing the government is not the objective here. Placing a credible opposition in parliament has to start gradually, by taking small steps....
Firstly, the opposition has to build up strength.... which so far, WP is ahead among the opposition parties, but not enough, yet, still its a rather significant step. They(the opposition) do not have to match the PAP, man for man. The people they have at the moment is already a big step, considering 15-20 years ago or even 5 years ago, if a graduate were to openly join an opposition party, chances are, that there was actually a social taboo attached, or even regarded as insane by some. But I digress, what I'm saying is that they first have to get enough talent, win a GRC, or even 2. Establish a foothold. Which I think they have amost done in the 2006 GE with Aljunied GRC.
Then the 1st real step of the main objective to establishing Checks and Balances. Something I'd like to consider the Achilles heel of the PAP, hard to get to, but when you get to it, its the key to everything.
What is the most important key to rule a nation? Its the absolute power and control of the law.
And what is the supreme law of the land? It is the Constitution of The Republic of Singapore.
So the first step is to wrest away total control of the constitution from the PAP. As many of you already know, 66% votes in parliament gives them(PAP) the right to amend the constitution, and thats where the PAP gets its power. Having all but 2 out of 84 seats in Parliament, needless to say that the PAP has absolute control over the constitution. Amendment to this act, introduce that act, amend this act, introduce that act, easily done to entrench themselves. Like what they did to the elections act, and also amended the constitution to give the PM the power to appoint Judges and CJs, on short term contracts, which means, also gives him the right to "not renew" those contracts on "unsatisfactory performance" and I leave the definition of "unsatisfactory performance" to your imagination.... I think it has got something to do with Lee and son and all their libel suits....
So the first major objective, is to gain perhaps 40% of the seats in parliament. PAP will still be in power, with most of their ministers still in cabinet, just that their absolute power over the law will no longer be absolute. And when that happens, the opposition parties will start to have more credibility and may begin to attract more candidates of higher calibre. When that happens joining the PAP will no longer be a "nobrainer" for potential/aspiring politicians. And voting, will then really involve serious deliberation on the part of the voters. Bear in mind, the first step is to wrest absolute power from PAP's hands.
Competition can breed quality.... absolute power can breed stagnation, and then corruption..
The ultimate goal, is to win at least 66% and then remove all entrenching amendments from the constitution. Relinquish the power from the Executive to appoint judges. The police force to become a corporation, answerable to the whole parliament, not just 1 minister. These are things to watch out for when a new party does take over as the ruling party. If a new party takes over, and still retains all the entrenching laws, we might just get another PAP, if only by another name.
Think about it, lending your support to the opposition may not be such a big a risk as the PAP may have you and I believe. Do you honestly think that Singapore will crumble if PAP has 60% seats?
Well thank you for reading this longish essay, if 1 out of 20 people who read this, begins to lend his or her support to the alternative parties, I would be glad to have been able to even make a small difference.
Competition can breed quality.... absolute power can breed stagnation, and then corruption.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Congratulations to MR JB Jeyaretnam
I should have posted this earlier, right when I got back from the press conference on the 20th.
Congrats to Mr Jeyaretnam with his discharge from bankruptcy.
Key point IMO was the decision of form a new party, tentative name, called the reform party. The main platform of the party is the pursue the complete and thorough reform of the government system here in
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJCpCzgbdk8
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7RKQzxFQGw
Some Pics, I'm no professional Photographer tho, taken with my cell phone
I wish MR Jeyaretnam all the best and every success in his endeavours to come.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Privacy in Singapore?
Ok so its been year since my last post... maybe I should use this blog as a personal collection of information or links to information that show how draconian and opressive the PAP can be here in Singapore. Like my own little collection of notes.
Recently a quote by MM Lee can come to my attention via the human rights forum held here in April.
"I am often accused of interfering in the private lives of citizens. Yet, if I did not, had I not done that, we wouldn’t be here today. And I say without the slightest remorse, that we wouldn’t be here, we would not have made economic progress, if we had not intervened on very personal matters – who your neighbor is, how you live, the noise you make, how you spit, or what language you use. We decide what is right, never mind what the people think. That’s another problem."
CSJ : paraphrase - "If you are going to interfere with the lives of citizens to that degree, how can you then turn around and say that the poverty situation in Singapore today is not the business of the government?"
Is this what the leader of our nation thinks of our privacy? Isn't it akin to a CEO who attempts to micro manage his company?
Recently a quote by MM Lee can come to my attention via the human rights forum held here in April.
"I am often accused of interfering in the private lives of citizens. Yet, if I did not, had I not done that, we wouldn’t be here today. And I say without the slightest remorse, that we wouldn’t be here, we would not have made economic progress, if we had not intervened on very personal matters – who your neighbor is, how you live, the noise you make, how you spit, or what language you use. We decide what is right, never mind what the people think. That’s another problem."
CSJ : paraphrase - "If you are going to interfere with the lives of citizens to that degree, how can you then turn around and say that the poverty situation in Singapore today is not the business of the government?"
Is this what the leader of our nation thinks of our privacy? Isn't it akin to a CEO who attempts to micro manage his company?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)