I refer to the recent Parliamentary proceedings on 17 February, reported in Hansard. I found some interesting replies to questions that I do not remember reading in the media.

Read Part 1 at: PARLIAMENT: INTERESTING REPLIES NOT REPORTED IN THE MEDIA? PART 1

17 February, 2014: 

STRENGTH OF AUXILIARY POLICE FORCES

[Transcribed by Jess C Scott from 'Not By Wages Alone (Selected Speeches and Writings of Devan Nair, 1959-1981)'.]

“The Emerging Elite” (20 March 1973)

by Devan Nair (Speech to the Kiwanis Club, Singapore)

A rapidly industrializing society throws up an elite. And in modern Singapore the elite are the professionals of various types, the technocrats, the engineers and the business executives.

This is necessary and inevitable, for without this professional, technocratic and executive elite, and the managerial, professional and technological expertise they possess, the modernisation process would not have been possible. The not-so-elite majority of working Singaporeans have therefore put up with the higher remuneration and the extra perks and privileges enjoyed by this elite group.

But the shortcomings, weaknesses and foibles of the elite have their reactions on the ground. It is good for Singapore, and in the larger interests of the elite themselves, that there should be periodic and public assessments of ground level reactions to them.

I have the privilege of being one of the leaders of organised labour in Singapore, and may claim, without being immodest, an ability to assess, at least as well as anybody else in Singapore, the present reactions, and the likely future reactions of our working population, to the manner in which our elite conduct and comport themselves.

What distresses me is the feeling that, at ground level, the new elite in Singapore appear to be generally regarded, not as the inspiring social leaders they ought to be, but as somewhat odious but necessary evils.

There is a very vital reason why our new elite should take a hard look at themselves, the image they project to the ground, and their social values, or more correctly, what strikes the ground as their lack of social values. For, in the very nature of things, the future political leadership of Singapore is more than likely to come from this group. But in order to rule and to lead effectively, there is a fundamental pre-requisite. And this is the acceptance by the ground of the social bona fides of the aspirants to political and social leadership in the Republic.

The present generation of political leaders have established their bona fides with the ground beyond any possibility of doubt. They earned it the hard way, over two decades of effort and struggle, and close identification with the real interests of the people.

It is important to appreciate, however, that Lee Kuan Yew and Co. belong to a freak generation. In fact, as individuals, they were quite unrepresentative of the great majority of their social class, the members of which were brought up and educated in the colonial era, and whose major preoccupation was to fend for themselves and feather their own nests. Nation-building and a large vision of the future was not in their line of living and being, for they were essentially a colonially fostered class of people. But because the present generation of leaders exceeded their class characteristics and loyalties, and developed a creative vision of a better society, they were able to establish themselves as the modern leaders of Singapore. In more senses than one, this freak generation are the creators of the vibrant and bustling Republic we know today. However, freak generations are never repeated by history. Indeed, it sometimes happens that their work is undone by those who inherit their mantle of leadership.

It is one of the ironies of development that some of the results of the work of the leaders of development are not what they themselves desired or intended. The emphasis that they quite rightly placed on social and financial rewards for skills and expertise, the accent on quality and excellence, have been the driving force of our economic growth. But one unpleasant side-effect has been the creation of a professional and technocratic elite with an enormous appreciation of their own financial value and a singular lack of any larger social consciousness or commitment. The success syndrome has engendered in many of them, not loftier and more worthy social drives, but baser and narrowly personal and selfish appetites.

It does not seem to be sufficiently well understood that the aspirants to political and social leadership in the next generation will not have the advantage of having led the people from subservience to an independent national identity, and from the old to the new. What then, it may be asked, are their chances of earning the same kind of acceptance from the ground which the present generation of leaders enjoy? Very little indeed, to judge by the values and the motives they exhibit as a social group. Individual exceptions to the rule appear to be distressingly few and far between.

Excessively self-centred, their primary concern seems to be the constant enhancement of their own market value, and the extra perks they can get for themselves. The ground in Singapore has been educated or persuaded to accept the view that in the interests of growth, the full market value of the new elite should be conceded, as it is being conceded all round.

My colleagues and I in the NTUC have done our part to persuade the workers to accept the growing income differentials between them and the burgeoning new elite of Singapore — the professionals, technocrats and management executives. We think our workers are sophisticated enough not to grudge the new elite their extra perks and special privileges but what they do resent is the lack of any tangible signs of general social concern or commitment on the part of the new elite. This raises the possibility that in the long run, any effort at political and social leadership by members of the elite, distinguished as they are, as a social class, more by self-centred concerns than by social awareness, must be seriously undermined. Flamboyant life styles, and vulgar displays of affluence and spending power, do not endear the elite to the ground. They only estrange. And the most impervious barrier that can, in future, divide the rulers from the ruled, the elite from the ground, is the Dollar Curtain.

Thus far, Singapore has managed to escape any acute confrontation between the elite and the not-so-elite in our society, for the following reasons:

• Our classless education system, the absence of hereditary privilege, and the free social mobility up the whole hierarchy of educational, professional and industrial skills.

Many a washerwoman’s son is today a professional or an executive. Long may this social mobility remain a strong feature of our society.

But the virtues of social mobility being granted, the fact remains that an elite in any society must be a minority. And the sole social and political justification for an elite, in the long run, is the degree to which they can lead and inspire a whole society to higher levels of achievement. If they fail to do this, and are content merely to serve themselves and feather their own nests, there can be only one end-result — social and political instability in the Singapore of the future.

Succession to the present political leadership there must inevitably be, for the good reason that our present leaders are not immortal. But the question that exercises many minds is whether this succession will be able to command the same respect and acceptance from the ground which the present generation of leaders clearly do.

Lee Kuan Yew and Co. do not have to prove themselves to the ground. A lifetime of effort and solid achievement, in intimate association with the ground, will take care of that.

But we can imagine the aspirants to political leadership in the 80s and the 90s, even if they belong to the present ruling party, having to face some very searching questions at the hustings:

• “Yes, we know what the previous generation of leaders did. But what have you done to deserve the same kudos? We know what you have done for yourselves. But what have you done, and what do you propose to do, for us and for Singapore?”

It would be much easier for members of the emerging elite in Singapore to answer such questions if they took their own market value a little less seriously, and concentrated much more on widening and deepening their social values and commitments. This is the only way to bridge the dollar gap between them and the ground they hope one day to lead.

What is called for is less of the cocktail circuit and more of the community circuit. The greater the identification and active involvement with our community development programmes, our community centres, our labour and co-operative institutions, and with the improvement and upgrading of the skills of our workers, the easier will it be for the new elite to establish itself with the ground as an accepted and respected group. And all this must be done sincerely. For nothing smells more rankly to ground level noses than insincerity and hypocrisy at the top.

After all, it requires only a little reflection on the part of our emerging elite to help them restrain their own selfish concerns. The simple truth is that they are where they are today, with their enhanced market value and special perks, because of the discipline and wage restraint exercised by the working population, without which all the development we see around us would not have taken place. And where would your market value be if the market itself were not kept healthy by the restraint and discipline observed by, and often enforced upon, the non-elitist majority of our working population?

The elitist aspirants to the future leadership of Singapore must be educated to realise that to be accepted as leaders of society, they must be clearly seen to be giving of themselves, their time and their energies, in a whole-hearted way, to the community. Those who choose only to receive, but not to give, will deserve, not the crown of leadership, but the failure of the Singapore effort to create a more just and a more equal society. It will be a failure which will be placed squarely at their doors.

C.V. Devan Nair, in Not By Wages Alone (Speech: 20 March 1973)

Transcribed by Jess C Scott

* Jess is a former Singaporean who has a keen interest in the country, its people, and the direction of its leadership. She blogs at jesscscott.wordpress.com.

Australian parliamentarians’ pay is generous by international standards. As a raw figure, it’s among the highest in the world – currently the base salary is $195,130 per annum. But because Australia’s economy is relatively strong, in real terms it places roughly on a par with what other rich countries pay their politicians.

Rupert Murdoch, founder, Chairman and CEO of global media holding company News Corporation, the world's second-largest media conglomerate, owning both News Corp and 21st Century Fox has previously taken a similar line, praising Singapore’s ministerial pay scheme. Murdoch reckons that "the most open and clear society in the world is Singapore – the cleanest society you can find anywhere – as every minister is paid at least $1m a year and has no temptation to transgress." The Singaporean prime minister takes home almost AUD$2m a year – nearly four times as much as Tony Abbott.

Unfortunately, there isn’t much evidence to suggest that paying our MPs more would make politics cleaner. Research is indecisive on this point, but seems to suggest that paying public officials more once they’re already making a decent, living wage doesn’t have much of an effect on corruption. Such studies usually point to the importance of transparency in government practice and strong anti-corruption institutions as the primary factors in reducing sleaze.

Indeed, Australia already has very low levels of corruption, according to Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index, ranking ninth in TI’s 2013 report. If we look at parliamentarians’ pay among those countries considered less corrupt, including the Scandinavians, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland, and the Netherlands, only Swiss Federal Councillors earn more. Although members of the executive in Singapore are paid extremely well, parliamentarians are paid about the same as their Australian counterparts. Though salaries vary among this group, these results suggest that the strongest predictor of clean politics among stable, developed countries is a mix of strong anti-corruption institutions and high levels of transparency.

Read the rest of the article here: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/28/australia-politicia...

Speaking at a dialogue session in London, PM Lee said that Singaporeans are the ones who will decide who they want in power.

He said that this decision will depend on how well the PAP continues to run the government and whether it is able to build on past successes.

He was responding to a comment by former British secretary of defence and transport, Malcom Rifikind who pointed out that the PAP lost a lot of votes in the last General Election with almost 40% voting for opposition.

Based on this, Rifikind had commented that it may not be long before the PAP was voted out.

In response, PM Lee had said that politics is more complex than that and it wasn't possible to simply draw a linear pattern to predict the future.

He emphasised that in the end, the people will decide who they want to run the country.

MINISTRY OF SOCIAL AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT (Committee of Supply)

Dr Lily Neo (Tanjong Pagar): On my second clarification, the Minister earlier said that there will be assistance for retirees who are on subsistence living due to very low CPF pay-outs, and that now this group will be eligible for Public Assistance or ComCare. I would like to thank the Minister for that. May I ask the Minister whether he knows the number of such cases that had been rejected by CDCs or MSF for the past few years, as I had quite a few in my ward, and whether such cases now can be recalled to give them the due assistance?

Mr Chan Chun Sing: Madam, the answer to Dr Lily Neo’s first question is yes, definitely, which is why we started the vulnerable families pilot, which is why we started the SSOs. As the Member has said, we want each case to be managed according to their needs. What the Member has also mentioned very importantly is this: it is not just the cash pay-out that is important. What is most important is to solve the underlying issues: is it one of holding down a job? Is it one of health issue? Housing issue? Education? And so forth.

In a facebook post on Friday, Education Minister Heng Swee Keat happily announced that there are an additional 14,000 University places available in local, subsidized universities.

This comes as the Singapore Institute of Technology officially became Singapore's newest autonomous university.

SIT now officially joins NUS, NTU, SMU and SUTD to make up the 5 autonomous universities of Singapore.

Heng explained that with the new openings, 30% of each cohort will now be able to enter local universities.

He also wrote about the fact that it is quality as well as quantity: "This expansion is done in a careful way, to match students’ aptitudes. Even as we create more places, we want our students to be able to meet the rigours of the programmes, and at the same time, to make the best use of opportunities as our economy grows and becomes more diverse."

Talking more about the future plans, he said that they are continuing to expand Universities with a goal of providing local Uni spaces for 40% of each cohort by 2020.

"It will take hard work from MOE, our universities and our partners, but it is a most worthwhile goal and I look forward to pouring our energies into this." He wrote.

While promoting the opening of new university places, Heng also advised that Singaporeans should not "chase a piece of paper".

"What is more important is to build deep skills and have the right values that will enable you to succeed in the long haul. Don’t go for short-cuts. Put your heart into learning more about yourself and others around you too, to find out your own strengths, to learn the needs and hopes of others around you, and to build up the truly special things that you have to offer the world." he explained.

Party activists were at the Marsiling housing estate this morning to meet and greet residents. Several residents welcomed us with warm smiles and readily opened their doors as we went door to door to let them know that we cared about their concerns.

“We want to update you on some of the things that we've been doing,” our volunteers tell them. “But more important, we want to do something about the extremely high cost of living that everyone in this country is so concerned about.”

A middle-aged female resident mentioned that there are too many foreign workers in Singapore. “If we cannot depend on our own people to work, then why have a country at all?” she said.

The changing political mood among the people is reflected in the way they respond to the SDP.

An indication of this trend is the unprecedented number of residents who signed up to volunteer or to receive our e-newsletter. We will be catching up with our newly registered friends for coffee soon.

We informed residents of our alternative policies and that the SDP has concrete ideas of how we can better control the quality of foreign workers coming in to work in Singapore, lower healthcare costs, and reduce HDB prices.

We also took the opportunity to inform residents of the Mohd Isa Bursary Award where we are giving out bursaries of $300 to $500 to students from needy families. A few families said that were interested and would apply. (Click here for more information.)

Even as we gain momentum in our build-up towards the next general elections due by 2016, there is still much to do and many residents to reach out to. We intend to step up our ground campaign and will need help from you, our fellow Singaporeans.

We can change Singapore for the better but only if all our friends and supporters pitch in.So sign up today and get involved! Many of our friends in the Sembawang GRC have.

Source: YourSDP.org

There were two stories in the news this week about our education system. The Sunday Times of 30^th March reported a speech by NIE’s Assoc Professor Jason Tan, where he introduced a new word (at least to me): Parentocracy.  Basically, AP Tan said that children today are more likely to succeed based on the advantages their parents give them, and less so on their individual abilities.

On Wednesday, we learned that the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) ranked Singapore teens top in the world in a problem solving test. It puts paid to the often heard criticism that Singapore students are just excellent at rote learning. Our PISA ranking is a great achievement, and our students, their teachers and the MOE deserve credit.

But there is one important aspect of education which PISA does not test, and we should be mindful of.

I have been a working professional for over 20 years, and have interacted with many Singaporeans at all levels of the employment ladder. While there are always black sheep, the Singaporeans I have dealt with are hardworking, knowledgeable and have a deep sense of responsibility and commitment to their work. But they are often let down by their standard of spoken English and a lack of confidence to persuade or articulate their views on their feet. Many employers I know share this view.

I say this not to criticise Singaporeans, but to highlight that we are paying a high price for this deficit.   However skilled you are at problem-solving and however many hours you spend at your desk, you will not likely make a strong impression in the business world if you are unable to communicate your thoughts and ideas effectively. I have lost count of the number of times I have attended meetings where Singaporeans keep silent while others dominate the discussion, thus giving the impression that the latter are more knowledgeable or capable. If you say nothing, people will assume that you have nothing to contribute. That is a serious disadvantage if you are competing for a job, a promotion or a project.

To be clear, I am not saying that we should be all talk and no action. To put it simply, it is important to have the substance, but you need to demonstrate the form as well because, like it or not, you will be judged on that.  

What does this have to do with our education system? I believe that one reason why my generation lack such skills is that there was never any incentive to speak up or speak well in school. In my time, oral exams were only pass/fail, and were, frankly, meaningless. So, very little time was spent on making presentations or engaging in activities which enabled us to speak up. Instead, we spent a lot of time writing and on hard subjects, because that is what the exams demanded of us. If we were poor in English or our second language, we memorised compositions and hoped that a similar topic would come up in the exam! Where English was concerned, the deficit was not made up outside school as very few of us spoke good (or any) English with our family and friends. In short, we graduated not equipped with the oratory skills important for our working lives.  

The MOE has moved on this. A few years ago, it introduced the STELLAR program and has changed the PSLE English syllabus to promote better speaking skills. There are more activities for students to make presentations and engage in debate. Our students now are more confident to speak up. These are good steps, but I wonder whether they are enough. Anecdotal evidence suggests that much more is being done in this area in the international schools. It would be good if we could get a sense of how our students are doing compared to others.

Here is the connection to AP Tan's point. If we placed greater emphasis on speaking up in schools, and assess students accordingly, there will be a greater incentive to speak well. Nothing focuses the minds of students and parents better. I am not proposing to burden our kids even more - we can afford to scale back a bit on content. Yes, parentocracy dictates that those with means can and will send their kids for enrichment classes to improve their speaking skills.  But that advantage will always be there in any system - think tuition and personal coaching for art, dance and tennis to meet DSA requirements.

But here is the thing – it costs much less money to get our children to speak up and speak well than to learn to play tennis or the piano. The difference is that at the end of the day, our children will learn a real skill which will benefit them for the rest of their lives.

Hri Kumar

*Article first appeared on https://www.facebook.com/notes/hri-kumar/parentocracy-and-pisa/680282875...

Throughout my years of participating in opposition politics, there are many people who always ask me about "moles" or "ISD agents" in various opposition parties. Many are "concerned" about these people and such. 

My reply to them is pretty standard: 

1) Knowing PAP as a "control freak" party which will suppress opposition parties' growth, there will definitely be moles and ISD agents in ALL opposition parties. So if you are afraid of these people, then stay out of opposition politics. This is based on the fact that PAP has built very extensive "intelligence network" in universities (the years of "professional students" in Nantah and University of Singapore aka NUS) in the past and that's how it rules with FEAR in all aspects of Singapore. 

2) Granted that we would expect all opposition parties to be infiltrated, it is how we are supposed to deal with them. If they are just listening post, making secret reports back to PAP's controlled intelligence units, so be it. If we can make them MPs, would they want to be "secret agents" anymore? Agents being agents, they are just money face people. They work for money, not loyalty. That is why in history and reality, there will always be "double agents". Thus, it is possible to work with them if you know how to manage them. 

3) If I find certain people are out to "sabotage" the working and progress of the opposition parties, they will no longer be regarded as just "listening post agents" but "agent provocateurs" by me. These people will need to be get rid of. How? It will take some time and some skills. In fact, even if we do not know for sure whether they are "ISD agents" or moles or not, as long as these people have obvious actions that aim to hinder or even sabotage the party, they will have to be get rid of. 

The most important thing to bear in mind is, always keep yourself alert and NEVER try to do stupid things thinking that nobody will know about it in opposition politics. eg. illegitimate love affairs (actually this applies to PAP people as well because they have also planted agents to keep a look out on their own people!), taking kick backs from party transactions, take funny photos, get drunk and fool around with women etc etc. You may think that you are "lucky" after one or two try and can get away with such hanky panky things but the truth is, they will just keep all these information on you KIV until the RIGHT TIME to use them against you! 

Always act in good ways, always be mindful and keep reminding yourself that there will be eyes watching you. Basically, that's what I do and tell people I live like a monk! Only then, you can survive such "dirty political monitoring".

Goh Meng Seng

*The author is a former secretary-general of the NSP.

Malaysia's defence minister has sparked outrage after agreeing the tragedy of missing MH370 flight was a 'blessing in disguise'.

It is the latest in a series of blunders by Hishammuddin Hussein as the international search continues almost a month after the Boeing 777 went missing.

He has been criticised for withholding information from relatives, and failing to stop two Iranians who boarded the plane with stolen passports.

He received a tweet from Kuala Lumpur journalist Ismail Amsyar and his response caused outrage

Last night, a Kuala Lumpur-based journalist Ismail Amsyar tweeted the minister saying: 'MH370 is a blessing in disguise for all of us. I understand now the beauty of unity, the sweetness of having each other.'

In a response which has caused international uproar, Mr Hussein said: 'Right u are :)'

Outraged Twitter users hit back attacking the 'inappropriate' tweet, which has since been deleted, as families continue to fight for information on the mystery.

Mr Amsyar, who received death threats following the exchange, this morning apologised 'from the bottom of [his] heart' for the comment.

 

+4

The minister, here with US secretary of defence Chuck Hagel, has borne the brunt of criticism over MH370

Apology: Ismail Amsyar was sent death threats following the exchange and has since apologised profusely

He apologised to Mr Hussein, who has since deleted the tweet and not commented on the incident

Mr Hussein has yet to comment on the incident.

It is widely believed the controversy over MH370 has scuppered his chances of succeeding his cousin, Malaysia's prime minister, as leader of the ruling party - with some claiming it has tarnished his entire political career.

He came under fire when once asked to defend the 'disorderly' plane search, as he retorted: 'It's only confusion if you want it to be seen to be confusion.'

Read the rest of the article here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2596004/Malaysian-defence-minister-centre-PR-blunder-agreeing-MH370s-disappearance-blessing-disguise.html#ixzz2xy0bIc2L 

We have seen close to a hundred jobless PMETs by now for this year and it looks like a new record since our annual average is about 200 clients for the past five years.

The emails just came flooding in and maybe our two protest events on the 6.9 million population white paper have generated much publicity for our services for the unemployed.

Introduction

The two very common complaints from this  jobless professional group are ageism and the foreign influx. Both reasons carry equal weightage when we spoke about why they have been  jobless for so long.

Ageism is a sick disease worldwide and especially so in Singapore whereby the aged worker is avoided like the plague.

Some younger hirers are also afraid to employ the experienced oldie for fear that  their own rice bowls will be snatched one day by the new hiring.

Sydney vs Singapore

While working in the community service in Sydney many years back, I saw that most of the work force is above 40 years old – I hardly saw anyone who is in their 20s or 30s working in the nursing home - maybe those older ones find that  community work suited them well. Foreigners  working there are mainly helpers and the managers are mostly Aussies.

They  also have a minimum wage of close to A$30, 000 and it helps them to survive in any job that they could find.

They are also protectionist in nature and many companies need to prove by showing evidences that they could not find anyone suitable locally before they can  hire a foreigner.

Over here, when the HR person is a  20-something and you are 50 years old, chances are there will be some miscommunication during the interview and you can kiss your hope completely goodbye if the HR guy is a foreigner.

Ageism a problem here?

Employers are  afraid to hire someone above 40 years old for fear that he is difficult to train – old dogs don’t take to new tricks easily and if the office environment is one that is hip and trendy, they will also not consider someone older for fear that he can’t blend in.

I beg to differ as I feel that older workers are more steady and composed due to their years of experience and maturity. They may  learn things slower compared to their younger counterparts but for sure they will try their best to learn the ropes even if they have to stay back.

They will also stay longer in the job and seldom job hop compared to the Generation Y group as they cherish the job opportunity that comes with it.

I have a jobless PME who is 62 years old and was recently hired to do sales in a local IT company. He was over the moon when he got the job as he has ben searching for many months.

Yet there are also many others who blamed the foreign influx for their jobless state.

Of course,  skill mismatch, high expectations and lack of enthusiasm to job search  are some of the other reasons listed by jobseekers on why they are still jobless after many months

Incidentally, an employer  told me how he found one of our jobseekers to be so lacklustre while answering the interview questions that they didn’t hire him as he does not seem to be very interested in getting a job.

They finally found someone else who showed more enthusiasm and interest in landing the job even though experience wise he lost out to the first person. Talk about performing at your best during an interview…

I am not sure which reason is the main one that keeps  many of our PMETs unemployed but I could see that 70% of our clients are aged above 40 years old and majority of  them  are  above 50 years old.

Why educated experienced PMEs  still jobless

Its tough seeing well educated PMETs with gleaming resumes showing up at my office for a chat – they have lost a lot of their confidence and esteem by the time they saw me.

Many have overseas working experience and their careers usually have packages exceeding close to $70, 000 a year.

Nevertheless, a great majority of them remain down to earth when out  job searching and many are ready to get a pay cut of close to 30 to even 50 percent in order to and a job.

They are often  trapped in having to care for their growing dependents – who may still be in school-going age and their home mortgages are still outstanding. Some have confided that their prolonged joblessness have jeopardised their marriages and a few have actually filed for divorce.

The social ills of  joblessness are often  seldom discussed and publicised in our society and I have even heard of some who took their lives due to prolonged unemployment. Fortunately, on our watch, we have yet to hear of someone successfully committing suicide yet.

Our aging PMETs  are however surprisingly clueless when asked whether they want to  switch line and understandingly the  prefer to go back to their own trade as it involves less retraining and hopefully a better package due to their work experience.

Few have attempted any coaching classes and rarely do I hear of any who have tried out profiling tests to gauge their career suitability in certain trades.

They are also poor at networking and seldom venture out of their comfort zone to mingle and get to know more people.

Yet fewer have garner enough courage or financial muscle to start a  business after working for the past few decades.

Those with money on hand prefer to trade on their own to earn a quick buck or two effortlessly.

Risk taking must be on the lowest rung of endeavour  for Singaporeans in this part of the  world whereby many Asians make their money from businesses.

Moreover, for those PMETs who want to go for retraining, they also   do not know what they want and even if they are keen many do not really understand how the retooling system  works i.e. what line to switch to and how long the whole upgrading programme entails.

Maybe after years of high protected employment, our aging PMETs really have problem staying jobless in a economy that is severely besieged by the perils  of globalisation and our open-door policy.

To make matters worse, many of our aged PMEs are also made jobless because they are been replaced by an incoming foreigner.

When they have a chance to go for interviews, they saw that their greatest competitors for work  is not their  own kind but  foreigners who hail from all over the world – they are also younger, cheaper and hopefully brighter.

Many lost hope when they  saw a foreigner hirer interviewing them as how can the person be impartial as more often than not, the foreign hirer will hire back their own kind when all things are equal. Our locals have not much chance if the playing field is so unequal.

After a while, our aged PMETs simply stay at home and  lost the drive to apply  for any jobs advertised – a sure sign that the person will join the long-termed unemployed (LTU) tag.

LTU is a term given to anyone  who remains unemployed for more than 26 weeks and right now, for anyone jobless who is above 40 years old, a time frame of between 6 to 9 months  is common.

After a while, many well educated jobless PETs took  up cab driving as its easily available and have little start-up cost.

Those years of university training and decades of corporate work experience unfortunately went down the drain when that person takes up cab driving as its difficult for him to job search again while driving taxi.

Conclusion

We have close to half a million permanent residents who incidentally are foreigners and another one million EP and S-Pass holders floating around at any one time.

The key question to ask is do we need so many  of them around when we could easily have close to 80, 000 PMETs unemployed or under employed?

Should we not adopt a Singaporean first hiring mentality however difficult it is right now so that our population will sense that there is hope for the country?

I have also just received news that HP has hired a lot of factory workers from PRC China paying them close to $1800/month excluding over-time pay – should not these jobs be given to Singaporeans first?

Many of us will turn old one day and how long can our society sustain when everyone of us goes jobless once we hit the big  four?

Written by: Gilbert Goh

Transitioning.org - A website that helps Jobless Singaporeans find new hope in life

A concern of the modern electorate is the diminishing returns of PAP as the governing party of Singapore.

In this regard, I think that their deviation from their original socialist roots is the primary reason why PAP have alienated themselves from Singaporeans.

Looking through their values and attributes, we can see clearly the difference between what they espouse and what they actually do:

1. The Party’s core values should remain constant. The PAP reaffirms the founding ideals that enabled it to successfully govern and transform Singapore into a modern miracle.

Reality: The founding ideas were primary socialistic. They were the first political party to collaborate with known Communists.

2. The mission of the PAP is to build a fair and just society where the benefits of progress are spread widely to all.

Reality: Yet, PM LHL has said that he has no qualms to bring in more billionaires and raise the Gini coefficient. PAP has never shown how an increase in the Gini coefficient spreads benefits widely to all.

3. Honest: The Party must remain clean, incorruptible, above board and transparent, and lead with integrity.

Reality: How does having an ‘adverse audit opinion’ year after year for the People’s Association give us accountability, when accountability is the hallmark of honesty?

4. Multiracial: A Singaporean Singapore that belongs equally to all citizens, where every individual, regardless of race, language, and religion is assured of justice and fairness.

Reality: Recently, a PAP supporter in TRE, who jumps from moniker to moniker made this comment: “So BK are you a Muslim or Hindus? But normally they do not have nick like BK. Or are you a b**s**d with no known racial origin of your parent?”

Their policies have created chasms festering racists such as their supporter above.

5. Meritocratic: A system that provides citizens with equal opportunities to progress, and for a person’s contributions to be recognised and appreciated on the basis of merit.

Reality: Abysmal housing, health, infrastructure policies have led PM to confess they lack 20/20 vision. Need I say more?

6. Self-reliant: No one owes us a living. We will avoid creating the dependency syndrome a welfare state generates.

Reality: Does self-reliant mean that as a society we allow people like Mdm Lu, 95, climb over the wall to commit suicide to avoid costly hospital bills?

7. Based on these values, the PAP has consistently manifested reliability, pragmatism, unity, far-sightedness, decisiveness, compassion and resilience over the past four decades of its existence.

Let’s see.

8. Reliable: We say what we do and do what we say. Fulfilling promises has shown our people they CAN TRUST us. It has also earned the Party the people’s confidence in our competence and ability to deliver. This has enabled us to formulate and implement policies effectively.

Reality: There is nothing reliable in letting a terrorist escape from our own Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

Or that twice in recent months our immigration checkpoints have been breached. Not by well-trained terrorists but two civilians, and one who is mentally ill.

9. Pragmatic: We have never been trapped by ideology. Instead, we have maintained a flexible approach to generating novel solutions to the problems confronting the nation whilst remaining consistent to our values. By doing so, we have shown that our approach CAN WORK.

Reality: Does pragmatism mean that you mandate wage increases for cleaners and security guards, but refuse to call it minimum wage because it is politically inconvenient?

10. United: A key strength of the Party is the strong sense of unity, loyalty and discipline. This means strong individuals who may have diverse views CAN STICK TOGETHER to work as one effectively.

Reality: Really? Is that why you freeze Dr Tan Cheng Bock from all your grassroots activities now that he ran against Tony Tan?

‘CAN STICK TOGETHER?’ Dr Tan Cheng Bock who had served PAP with such distinction is left out in the cold, loyalty is just a one way street.

11. Far-sighted: We operate with a very long-term horizon. No problem is too remote just because its effects may only be evident in the future. We CAN SEE AHEAD to guide our people along the best way forward.

Reality: Why does their far sightedness affect wages and productivity negatively? Why is it that out of 1 million jobs in the last decade, 90% are low paying jobs?

12. Decisive: The ability to make swift and bold decisions even in the absence of complete information is a key asset. We CAN DO the necessary to make painful but correct decisions for the long term.

Reality: Is that the reason why the Youth Olympics was 3 times over its original budget of S$104 million? Because you make decisions without complete knowledge?

Indeed it is painful, but for Singaporeans not PAP.

13. Compassionate: We must be able to instinctively empathise with our people. We CAN FEEL their worries, concerns, as well as share their hopes and dreams.

Reality: But your propaganda of self-reliance and celebration of billionaires has confused your supporters, and another PAP supporter said this: @BK, Are you a Communist? DO you think Communism will be the best way to reduce GINI?

And this was a response to my support for a more just and compassionate society.

14. Resilient: The ability to persevere despite discomfort, personal risk or possibility of failure means we CAN LAST through tough times to be there for our people.

Reality: Is it resilience or stubbornness? It is a fine line between sticking to your principles and accepting change. And Singaporeans want a change. If not for PAP using the State apparatus to advantage themselves like with the PA & MSM, the will of the citizens would be clearly seen.

What personal risk is there for them at this time? The only risk is the risk of less pay for themselves.

15. These values and attributes have stood the test of time, and more importantly, won the PAP the respect, trust, support and votes of Singaporeans.

Reality: I have known fine people in PAP. It is not the people we are against. It is the insularity and groupism that PAP has engendered.

And over time it is not the values and attributes that are in question, it is the implementation of them that make PAP less respected, less trusted, and will cost them more support and votes in the coming election.

Conclusion

The degradation of their own values and attributes is driving more and more Singaporeans away from PAP. The exploitative nature of monopoly drives both economic marginal utility and social cohesion to the limit. In the process, their ‘manifesto’ is desecrated and soiled.

It is up to Singaporeans to remind PAP of their original promise, whether through an internal shakeup of the party or the voting in of a new government.

History is on our side.

BK

It was hazy when we reached the capital of Malaysia but, fortunately, the situation had improved somewhat. On our ride to Malacca to attend a climate change workshop organised by the Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats (CALD), we passed by acres of palm oil plantations. Malaysia is definitely rich in resources but our agenda for this conference was not about economic growth but how we, as a global community, can mitigate the risks of climate change.

The haze enveloping Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore was, of course, a top issue. Much of the discussion centred around the actions of corporations involved in the palm oil industry and other land agricultural projects. The peatland and forest fires ignited by the heat and dry conditions as well as deliberate actions on the part of corporations clearing the land for development came under particular scrutiny.

Participants agreed that governments must not allow corporations to get away easily if they are found to be the culprits behind the burning of the forests. We spoke about our Government’s Transboundary Haze Pollution proposal to enable regional authorities to take criminal and civil action against corporations and entities responsible for the fires in Indonesia and Malaysia.

Other concerns regarding the impact of climate change such as deforestation, wasteful conumption of energy, and the pollution of ecosystems and water were also discussed. Take for example, consumption of water. We ofte think of water use as in our daily activities like drinking and washing. What we don’t see is the large quantities of clean water used in manufacturing. The making of one car will need over 80,000 gallons (300,000 litres) of water while 10 litres of water is required to refine just 3.8 litres of gasoline. The construction and manufacturing industries also use much water. We may not see and feel the ecological impact of our consumption but the toll that it is taking on nature is very real.

Energy consumption was also a hot topic. We seldom think of how we are damaging the environment when we use electricity but the burning of fossil fuels such as oil, natural gas and coal, causes huge effects on earth.

The mining of coal, for instance, causes large cavities in the earth’s crust. When the coal deposits are depleted the mines are abandoned and water fills them up. The remnants of the coal coming into contact with water produces sulfuric acid which can pollute the surrounding streams and rivers thus reducing sources of clean water while poisoning fishes with high-levels of mercury. And when we burn coal for our energy needs, we also produce atmospheric pollution and greenhouse emissions that are the cause of climate change.

Over the years, new and more environmental-friendly methods to produce energy have been created. Popular ones such as wind-powered turbines and solar-panels are widely used globally nowadays. Malaysia has even started a few plants producing energy from solar panels to distribute to local towns. We may have to pay slightly more for solar power but the resultant reduction of pollution is priceless.

The war between consumption and conservation is proving to be lopsided, and Earth is losing. We must do more here in Southeast Asia, and in Singapore, to right the balance.

Singapore, although heavily modernized, has some few remaining corals, mangroves, and tiny acres of forest whose biodiversity are worth preserving. This is why the Young Democrats of SDP voiced our concern with the government’s plan to evict long-time residents of Pulau Ubin in order to develop a resort on the island. There is also the tragic move to remove Bukit Brown to contsruct an expressway.

It was recently reported that the Singapore Heritage Society is calling for heritage and environment-impact assessments to be done. But these studies needs to cover more than just buildings and societal life, it needs to include nature conservation plans for the island.

Countries must adopt strong measures to better protect the environment. People should be educated on the very real threat of climate change on our lives. Climate change and conservation is not a big issue in Singapore but it should be. The environment our children live in will depend on the action that we take to protect it today. Only then can we be regarded as a nation of clear moral values.

Jufri Salim & Surayah Akbar

* Jufri Salim is a member of the SDP’s Central Executive Committee. He is also the party’s Organising Secretary. Surayah Akbar is a member of the Women Democrats.

In 2009, the Singapore Police Force released a video to demonstrate its preparedness to put down riots and violent demonstrations that may take place during the APEC meeting that was held in Singapore that year.

A group of rowdy protesters - not coincidentally carrying “Freedom Now” and “Democracy Now” banners - is shown in the video bent on violent confrontation with the police.

As the background music evokes a sense of fear and impending dread, the narrator assures the viewer that

To be ready for any protest that may disrupt public peace, the police have been conducting training exercises to manage such incidents.

The demonstration then degenerates into a full-blown riot where the protesters start lobbing projectiles and even firebombs at the impressive-looking Special Operations Command (SOC) officers who are specially trained to quell riots. The rioters are quickly subdued and hauled away while the narrator says:

In this scenario, police backup is quickly sent in, and the rioters are swiftly surrounded and eventually arrested and taken away. Tough, disciplined and highly skilled and backed by the latest equipment, these officers are a formidable force to be reckoned with. They can be relied upon to deal with even the most violent riots which threaten lives and property.

With the recent riot in Little India - and more tellingly the evidence that came out during the Commission of Inquiry (COI) hearing - the police's rhetoric has been sorely exposed.

The hearing found that there were insufficient number of officers available, they were not properly equipped, radio airwaves jammed at the crucial moment, the commanding officer did not have any idea how many men he had at his disposal, and officers on the scene admitted that they were not trained to handle a full-scale riot. And when the SOC finally arrived at the scene, it did not have the numbers to fully contain the mob.

By the time the situation was brought under control, there was more than half-a-million dollars of property damage, several emergency vehicles were wrecked, and scores of police officers were injured.

The COI remarked that "a lot of things were wrong" and the police response was "not acceptable".

This is the danger that Singaporeans live with. We have a Government happy to engage PR firms to come up with attractive commercials and slick advertising campaigns to paint a picture of an efficient and sound system in Singapore, only to find things fall apart when the real test comes.

The clip, aired on an episode of MediaCorp's Crime Watch, then runs the propaganda that links protests with terrorism. A police spokesman points out:

The presence of 21 leaders in Singapore makes APEC week the target for terrorists. We cannot allow public demonstrations to undermine security by distracting the attention of our security forces by creating opportunities which could be exploited by terrorists.

Of course, such a statement ignores the fact that a suspected terrorist escaped from maximum security detention - and, might it be pointed out, where there were no distracting protests - or that a elderly woman had wandered into Singapore without a passport or that a Malaysian driver had skipped the Woodlands immigration checkpoint and drove around the country for days before she was finally spotted and apprehended.

If Singaporeans feel a little nervous about the sound-too-good rationalisations coming from this Government about its foreign talent policy or the affordability of HDB flats or the soundness of its GIC and Temasek investments, it's because much of the rhetoric has failed to match the reality.

It must be cautioned, however, that hyperbole is not always couched in expansive braggadocio, they can also come in tears, expressions of remorse and promises of change.

Watch the police video here. The relevant segment starts at the 3:25 mark.

Source: YourSDP.org

First and foremost – thanks very much to ES for sending the following to me.

In the annals of Singapore’s Parliamentary debates – perhaps the most significant and interesting debate ever was the following, on 17 March, 1988.

Little did we know arguably how significant it was then – until today.

How much do HDB flats really cost?

“Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): I am much obliged to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. There are two questions which I would like the Minister to answer, both in regard to the pricing of HDB flats. The first one is, would the Minister be willing to announce or make public the market value of all the land in the housing estates used by the HDB? Now the Minister has come out quite forthrightly, unlike his predecessor, to say that the pricing of HDB flats, in fact, includes the land cost at market value. This market value is a very volatile concept or a very unsure one because market value can mean really anything, depending on what the HDB would like to peg the market value on. If the HDB could give an indication, then I think the public would know how much their flats really cost. Because successful tenders of construction cost are usually gazetted, so we have information on that. But up to now, the land cost has been a complete mystery. I think the Minister should have this cost of land value because he put up a table which was distributed yesterday, and this table does not really give any details of how the price of each individual flat is arrived at.

The other question is the unit cost per flat. The Opposition has been at this since, I think, 1984 but we were unsuccessful every year. All kinds of excuses were given. If the Minister would remember, the former Minister said that it was difficult to give the unit cost because it varies from area to area. To make it easy, perhaps we confine ourselves to each particular New Town. I am sure he has figures of each unit cost.

HDB flats are subsidised?

Until the Minister can enlighten us on that, I think the two points which the HDB has always been canvassing cannot really be cleared up from the air. No. 1 – HDB has been subsidizing the flats; and No. 2 – the HDB has not been making a profit. Of course, we in the SDP have said to the contrary. We do not believe that the flats are subsidized in the sense that the HDB has taken money, out of pocket, to top up what they have lost in regard to cost per flat. And also we say that the HDB does make profits in the sale of their flats.

As regards land, I think everybody knows that when land is acquired compulsorily, normally the compensation is based, in the past, on 1973 values. But after the new law was passed, land value is taken at the price in January 1986 for those lands that are acquired after November 1986. Somebody asked the Minister why the price of land was taken at January 1986, and he was quite forthright: “because prices of land at that time were at its lowest point.” We can see that the land acquired by the Government is almost for a song. We know that land in outlying areas, was acquired and compensation was paid at something like 60> per sq ft. And not long ago I even read of rubber land at Mandai being acquised and the Government compensated the landowners something like 15> per sq ft. So it would be interesting to see what is the market value of the various estates which the HDB has taken. I think this is an important point because I think the public would go along with the Government to allow their land to be compulsorily acquired at a very low value, and not only at a very low value but, in fact, a lot of hardship has been endured by those people who have been evicted from their land forcibly against their will. I think many MPs have spoken about resettlement and, in fact, the story of the human side of the resettlement has not really been fully told.

As I said, the public would go along with the Government and allow their land to be compulsorily acquired if they know that the land acquired is to be used for public purposes, for the national good. But if the market value fixed by the Government is so high and it can be deemed by the public that, in fact, the Government is using the Land Acquisition Act to make a profit on their land, then I am afraid it would be very difficult in future for the Government to acquire land. There will be more resistance to it.

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir wants to know whether the HDB will make public the value of individual lots. Of course, the HDB does have details of the value of individual lots. But I must take very strong objection and, I think, the profession of valuers in Singapore will take very strong objection to his suggestion that the value of land is completely arbitrary. It is not arbitrary. It is not up to the HDB to peg it to any level that it wants. As I mentioned yesterday, I would suggest that the Member for Potong Pasir should try and get hold of a copy of the text, and if he cannot, I will let him have a copy of the text of what I said yesterday: the value of the land that the HDB purchases is fixed by the Chief Valuer.

There are very specific criteria and approach that valuers use in order to arrive at the value of a piece of land. Land is sold and bought all over Singapore all the time, not just private land but also Government land. And using the sale prices of land between willing buyer and willing seller, valuers are able to make the kind of adjustments necessary to arrive at the value of land in other areas or adjacent areas. So it is not arbitrary. In fact, valuers have claimed that though they exercise judgment, their approach is a rather scientific and rigorous one.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Subjective.

Mr Dhanabalan: It is not. As I said, they have to exercise judgment but it is not just completely arbitrary. I have already explained yesterday why we had to use market value of land. But I did make it very clear that HDB prices do not cover the market value of land, which is why 98% of the flats completed have a subsidy element. And I made it very clear what we mean by subsidy.

I would urge the Member to get his thinking right. It is not a question of whether you spend money out of pocket. The point I made was that as long as HDB sells its flats at a price lower than what the purchaser has to pay in the market, there is a subsidy. And this has been demonstrated again and again by HDB purchasers being able to sell on the market at a price higher than what they paid the HDB. That is the only rational, logical definition of subsidy.

I made this point once before. If the Member were to give his son a house which he had bought 10 years ago, either free or even at cost, would he not think that he has done his son a favour?

Chiam See Tong vs Dhanabalan?

Mr Chiam See Tong: That is different.

Mr Dhanabalan: It is not different. The point I am making is that you would be giving a benefit to somebody which he would not get if he were to go into the market to get that particular service or that particular asset.

Mr Chiam See Tong: That is father and son relationship.

Mr Dhanabalan: Or it can be to anybody. So there is no purpose in trying to pursue this point, what is the cost? I have already said that I have asked the HDB to let us know what the historical values are, just for us to note. But HDB has used the market value as a guide to price its flats. And it is very obvious and quite conclusive from the evidence I gave yesterday that 98% of the flats are priced below what they are worth on the market. And people know.

Mr Chiam See Tong: We do not know.

Mr Dhanabalan: If the HDB purchaser thinks that he is paying the HDB more than what he can pay on the market, he would not buy from the HDB. HDB is not the only developer in the market. It is very simple. There are private developers. They build apartments. Some of them look very much like HDB apartments. People are free to buy those apartments.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I think we are going to have a repeat of the last four years. Is the Minister going or not going to answer my question?

Mr Dhanabalan: I am not giving way, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir,

Chairman warns Mr Chiam See Tong?

The Chairman: Mr Chiam, I must warn you not to embark on a speech until I have given you permission to do so. You are very fond of doing this before I give you permission. Please continue, Mr Dhanabalan.

Mr Chiam See Tong: We are not getting the answers.

Mr Dhanabalan: So the question of whether HDB makes a profit does not arise. As I said, at the end of every year, HDB totes up what it costs to build its flats, which means construction cost, development and infrastructural costs, the land price that it pays the Government. It totes what it gets by way of its sales receipts, and there is a very big deficit which is shown in the budget, and it runs into billions of dollars. If the Member for Potong Pasir does not want to understand, then of course there is no way I can make him understand.

Who is not understanding?

An hon. Member: He can’t understand!

Mr Dhanabalan: I do not think the Member for Potong Pasir is incapable of understanding. I think he does not want to understand. As it is said, there is none so blind as those who do not want to see.

I have gone to great lengths yesterday and I would seriously urge the Member to study what I have said and try and understand the purpose behind the pricing policy of HDB. I have already explained very clearly why it is not possible to use historical value and that we will not be able to do a proper, rational, allocation of public housing resources in the present generation, let alone take care of the interests of future generations. We can be very popular, as I said, by giving away land but we will not be doing Singaporeans a favour.

The other point is the question of land acquisition. I did make the point yesterday that Government has been acquiring land at very low values, 1973 values and now 1986 values. Let us not pretend that we are acquiring from a large number of people and then redistributing it also to a large number. In fact, we are acquiring from a very small number of people. Even the resettlement cases which the Government deals with usually do not arise out of acquisition of land which belongs to the resettlement case. Very often, the land is Government land on TOL or on lease. And when Government needs it, the tenants are resettled. Or the land is acquired from a big landowner and the people occupying the land are not the owners. The owner is compensated. The tenants are resettled. The number of people from whom we acquire land is very small. This is a Robin Hood act, as the Prime Minister pointed out once. It is a Robin Hood act. We have taken land from a few landowners and redistributed it. And every HDB flat sold in 1986-87 was below cost; only 2% covered the full cost. Before that, it was 100%. Every HDB flat purchaser pays less than what the market value is.

What is the point of giving a breakdown?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Why don’t you give us a breakdown?

Mr Dhanabalan: What is the point of giving a breakdown? The point is, as I said, 98% of the flats are subsidized, in the definition which I have given and which I have stated is the only rational and logical definition. It is very easy to talk about making profits, book subsidy and be irresponsible. I would ask the Member for Potong Pasir who, I think, usually is quite rational and quite reasonable, to go back and think carefully about the method that we have adopted which is not to make the purchaser pay the full cost. We have never said that the purchaser has paid the full cost. But the market value is a guide towards which we must finally arive at. Maybe the Member for Potong Pasir thinks that there is a fairer and better way of ensuring that we do a proper allocation of our housing resources for the present generation as well as safeguard future generations’ interest. If after he has studied carefully what I have said and he still wants to bring up new arguments, I am prepared to entertain them when we come to the subhead on the HDB, if there is time.

Regarding the GPC recommendations, I must apologize to the Member for Punggol that I did not acknowledge the recommendations. It happened that the recommendations of the GPC coincided with the thinking of the Ministry as well as the Ministerial Committee. And since so many different bodies or committees were thinking along the same line, I overlooked the fact that this particular recommendation came from the GPC. So I want to make due acknowledgement now.

As far as full home ownership is concerned, as I said yesterday, we want to ensure that our construction programme and the pricing of HDB flats will enable Singaporeans to afford at least the basic of a 3-room flat. It does not mean that the other types of flats will not be subsidized. In fact, as I pointed out, all the flats are subsidized but the subsidy for the smaller

3-room flat is higher. Over a period of time, we will have to decrease the subsidy. But I think this will have to be done over a long period of time. And I explained yesterday that if there are no increases in fuel, material, wage cost and if inflation remains low, there is no reason for an across-the-board price increase of HDB flats.”"”

Leong Sze Hian

*Leong is the Past President of the Society of Financial Service Professionals, an alumnus of Harvard University, has authored 4 books, quoted over 1500 times in the media , has been host of a money radio show, a daily newspaper column, Wharton Fellow, SEACeM Fellow, columnist for Malaysiakini, executive producer of the movie Ilo Ilo (24 international awards). He has served as Honorary Consul of Jamaica and founding advisor to the Financial Planning Associations of Brunei and Indonesia. He has 3 Masters, 2 Bachelors and 13 professional qualifications. 

I am happy to announce that the Singapore Institute of Technology Act comes into effect today, and that SIT is now Singapore’s newest autonomous university.

Congratulations to SIT! I met some SIT student leaders recently. They were full of pride and excitement over this momentous step for SIT, and I feel the same way. Welcome, SIT, in joining NUS, NTU, SMU and SUTD as Singapore’s newest autonomous university. I hope that young Singaporeans will make full use of the new opportunities that open up at SIT.

SIT’s new status is part of our efforts to steadily expand higher education opportunities for young Singaporeans. I am glad that in academic year 2014, our publicly-funded universities will be providing 14,000 places for Singaporeans. This is 1,000 more than the 13,000 places in 2012. These additional places come from an overall expansion of the university sector, with the bulk coming from SIT and the new full-time degree programmes at UniSIM. Each year, we raise the proportion of each cohort who are admitted to our publicly-funded university degree programmes. This year, by providing up to 14,000 places, 30% of our students can be admitted to publicly-funded degree programmes. This is double that in 1990, and the highest number ever. We had originally aimed to reach this level by 2015, so we are a year ahead of schedule! 

One important point – it is not just about numbers, it is about quality. This expansion is done in a careful way, to match students’ aptitudes. Even as we create more places, we want our students to be able to meet the rigours of the programmes, and at the same time, to make the best use of opportunities as our economy grows and becomes more diverse. We are increasing the diversity of our higher education landscape, with new institutions, programmes and teaching approaches. We have a whole range of offerings across many disciplines, from engineering to business, from technology and design to the liberal arts, from the theoretical to the applied. SIT and UniSIM’s new full-time degree programmes are the latest addition to our university offerings, and will integrate classroom learning and application in structured work attachments to better prepare students who enjoy hands-on learning for the challenging careers ahead in the working world. 

We will press on to provide publicly-funded university spaces for 40% of every cohort by 2020. Together with an expected increase to about 10% of the cohort receiving degree education through publicly-funded part-time places by 2020, up to half of each cohort could receive a government-subsidised degree education. It will take hard work from MOE, our universities and our partners, but it is a most worthwhile goal and I look forward to pouring our energies into this. 

We will also make sure that Singaporeans who have qualified for a place in our Institutes of Higher Learning will be able to access a post-secondary education even if their families have financial difficulties. Earlier this month, I announced that we are enhancing bursaries for Singaporean students from the lower and middle income households – to reach out to even more students, and to provide a higher bursary amount than before. About 120,000 Singaporean students stand to benefit from the enhanced bursaries. In some cases, like in ITE, the bursaries will more than cover the fees, and have enough to provide for some daily expenses. In others, the bursaries can cover up to 80% of polytechnic fees for students from lower income groups. 

If I may share a piece of advice: when applying for a course, remember that higher education is not about chasing a piece of paper. What is more important is to build deep skills and have the right values that will enable you to succeed in the long haul. Don’t go for short-cuts. Put your heart into learning more about yourself and others around you too, to find out your own strengths, to learn the needs and hopes of others around you, and to build up the truly special things that you have to offer the world. 

And apart from attending school, there are many ways to build these deep skills, knowledge and values. If the best path for you is to take some time to work and gain experience – do that! And persevere. I recently met a young resident from Tampines. After graduating from the Polytechnic, she landed a job in a marketing company. She is resourceful – instead of just doing what she was told, she went beyond that and proposed a new idea of expanding the company’s business to her boss. The idea worked, and she had a significant pay rise within 6 months. Better still, she was asked to write her own job description! 

I think many of you know that SMS Indranee and many colleagues have been working hard on the ASPIRE Committee (ASPIRE stands for “Applied Study in Polytechnics and ITE Review”) to expand educational options and pathways. Our lives take many different paths – my hope is that young Singaporeans will take full advantage of the multiple pathways in our education system, and carve out your own special pathway to fulfilling careers, just as my Tampines resident has done. 

I hope young Singaporeans will make the most of these important years to discover and really build up your skills, passion and talents, make lifelong friendships, and prepare yourselves for a dynamic, fulfilling and happy life.

Minister Heng Swee Kiat

*Article first appeared on https://www.facebook.com/hengsweekeat/photos/a.202086256496574.46462.195...

Ten facts you may never know about our useless pro-government national trade union NTUC:-

1. Formed in 6 September 1961 and now has 770,000 members since August 2013.

2. It currently has 61 affiliated trade unions and 1 affiliated taxi association.

3. When another leftist trade union SATU (Singapore Association of Trade Unions) collapsed in 1963 due to Operation Coldstore - detention of union leaders - NTUC became the official trade union since then.

4. Over 98% of union members belonged to NTUC now.

5. After the PAP's decisive electoral victory in 1968, the government passed the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act of 1968, which severely limited workers' rights to strike. From 1969, the NTUC adopted, in its own words, "a cooperative, rather than a confrontational policy towards employers."

6. Relations between PAP and NTUC are very close, and have often resulted in members holding office in both organizations at the same time. The NTUC's founder, Devan Nair, was a PAP stalwart and later served as President of Singapore.

7. Trade unions in Singapore are run along democratic lines, and membership is voluntary. Major decisions on industrial actions are taken only with majority support expressed through secret ballot.

8. There are three tiers of union leadership, all elected via secret ballot. Workers in a company elect their branch leaders. The next layer is the executive committee of a union. Officials from the executive committee are drawn from the branches. At the national level, there is the Central Committee of the NTUC. The 21-member Central Committee is elected every four years.

9. Union leaders and employers serve on key institutions such as the National Wages Council, the Economic Development Board, the Central Provident Fund and the Singapore Productivity and Standards Board. Government and employer representatives also serve on the boards of the cooperatives, business ventures and other organizations controlled by NTUC.

10. There are two main groups of members: Ordinary Branch (OB) members are directly represented by the unions/affiliates and enjoy direct collective bargaining rights, while General Branch (GB) members, who work in non-unionised companies, cannot be represented directly but are given workplace advice and whose employment issues are still handled professionally. NTUC also works with social enterprises like NTUC FairPrice and NTUC Link, as well as partners like NTUC Club and NTUC Healthcare to provide a range of core and lifestyle benefits for all of its members

Editor's note: Information gathered from Wikipedia.

Gilbert Goh

Just when Singapore was celebrating the euphoria of Worker’s Party enormous victory at Punggol East by-election by a landslide margin, a deflated PAP counter-punched with the sickening announcement that they will go ahead with the white paper’s 6.9 million population by 2030.

Now, no one  is talking about the WP’s infamous victory as all coffee shop talk switched to the 6.9 million population target – a very effective counter distraction indeed!

Many friends I knew discussed about the matter  in disgust and discontentment  and some even gesticulated wildy when they spoke to me about the implications of having another 1.7 million people on our tiny island – mostly incoming foreigners from third world countries around us.

Systematic way to replace local Singaporeans?

To achieve 6.9 million population by 2030, the government has to bring in at least 90, 000 foreigners annually without fail.

The total composition of our population from 2004 to 2010 is as follows:-

Source: Asia Singapore

I have being talking to many people since that fateful announcement three days ago but not many seemed  to agree with me that the real sinister  intention of this large-scale human trans-migration is for the loyal votes of converted foreign citizens.

You can seive  through the thick 50-page white paper to sense the desperation of our government’s intention to get in as many foreigners as possible each year  and try to convert the permanent residents into willing citizens for their precious votes to stay in power.

Its methodical, effective and ruthless…

In less than two decades, foreigners will replace local Singaporeans systemically as the dominant population in the name of economics and low birth rate.

Though not all  foreign citizens will vote for the ruling party in GE 2016 due to various reasons, 80% of them will definitely vote for  the ruling party  – more out of loyalty than anything else.

Their children – born naturalised citizens here – will also be coaxed by their appreciative parents to vote for the ruling party when they turn of age.

After Punggol East fell in dramatic fashion four days ago, the ruling party knew that their days could be numbered however one wants to  argue  about the by-election effect.

Swift decline in popularity of ruling party

Their downfall is on the cards and its a matter of time when they will fall out of power.

They ushered in their last trump card by announcing the shocking 6.9-million population growth by 2030 – two days after the fall of Punggol East into opposition hands.

Many Singaporeans are  already unhappy with the  pro-foreigner policy even before the announcement of 6.9 million population target, high cost of living and detached nature of the government.

Already, 130, 000 new citizens have voted in the last GE 2011 and it has somewhat stopped the rot at the polls or the ruling party or else PAP  may have gone below the 60% majority votes received.

We have a total of 2.2 million voters during last election and 130, 000 foreign voters represent almost 6% of the voting contingent – a sizeable group which can help in critical hard-won constituencies.

Each year since the early 2000s, the government has being converting 15,000 to 20,000 new citizens and by the time it reaches GE 2016, there will be another new batch of more than 100,000 loyal  eager-eyed voters ready to cast their votes for their benefactor.

Add in the 130, 000 existing foreign  citizen voters and you have close to 250, 000 voters ready to cast their votes for the ruling party by GE 2016.

It is not surprising that this new group of foreign citizens will vote in blind loyalty  to their master as it has provided them with new BTO flats which they can cash out in five years’ time, good-paying cushy jobs in our gleaming ofices and a promising future for their young children.

No employment protection  in place for local Singaporeans

Throughout the 50-page White Paper, there is no mention of any employment protection whatsoever for local or foreign citizens – making them susceptible to replacement by any new incoming foreigner.

I have also  heard that for any couple who has  migrated here, only one party will convert to citizenship  so that there will be another partner who still holds the homeland passport for a quick back-door retreat if  things go awry here.

To ease things for this group of new citizens to apply for new BTO flats, HDB ruling allows only one citizen and the other partner can be a permanent resident for the application processing.

If both parties are permanent residents, they can only buy HDB resale flats.

More significantly, these new citizens’  votes will effectively cancel out any upcoming swing votes that the population will throw up in three years’ time.

Six percent  of the population for the previous election swung their votes to the opposition parties – numbering almost 1300, 000 voters  in a 2.2-million electorate effectively reducing the majority percentage votes of the ruling party from  66.6% to 60%.

For the recently-ended Punggol East by-election, close to 10% of the voters swung their votes i.e. almost 3, 000 voters switched camp from PAP to WP.

If the same six-percent vote-swinging precedence takes place in GE 2016, we can expect PAP to decrease their majority percentage votes to around 55%v from the current 60% mark.

And if this voting pattern persists,  they will be out of power in two elections’ time or they may be in power but fail to enjoy a parliamentary majority forcing them to go into a coalition government with another dominant opposition party.

New foreign citizens maintain stronghold of PAP power

This slide however is effectively negate by the incoming foreign new voters – representing almost 120, 000 of new voters for  the overall electorate of 2.2 million but efffectively mostly pro-government as they will vote out of loyalty to their master.

We must also not forget the 130, 000-strong pre-GE 2011 new citizen voters who may continue their loyalty to the ruling party by voting for them in GE 2016 though my belief is that after staying here for close to ten years, they may feel disenchanted with the country’s stifling environment and stressful work condition.

The next election will also adds in another huge new problem for the ruling party - close to  80, 000 – 100, 000 young  voters from those coming from the more vocal Generation Y batch and mostly anti-government will join the new electorate which will further help to bring down the majority votes of the ruling party.

With many  pro-PAP voters wanting to swing their votes now due to the WP’s trusted brand as  a viable opposition party and  fresh anti-government votes coming from the Generation Y group, PAP is really in a  fix now and could  lose power within two to three elections’ time if things go their natural way.

My take is that with 120, 000 new foreign votes coming on board every five  years ready to vote for the ruling party, they could maintain power for as long as they want abeit in a less dominant way even though  more opposition seats will be taken up during each election.

One must also remember that due to our slow birth for the past decade, there will be lesser new Generation Y voters coming on board every five years and local Singaoreans will also pass on but on the contrary, from now till 2030, 20, 000 new foreign voters will be there each year to steadily replace us till their voting representation supersedes that of the local voters.

From now to 2030 – which is a 17-year journey and with a conversion rate of 20, 000 new citizens a year, there will  be almost 340, 000 new voters joining the electorate in a enlarged voting population of close to three  million by 2030.

Each year, 20, 000 new citizens and another 20, 000 new Generation Y new voters will join the electorate effectively boasting the registrar by another 125, 000 as we must also take away  an average of  15, 000 new local Sngaporean death each  year i.e. 25, 000 X 5 years = 125, 000 new votes for each election period.

The only sickening fact of this whole voting conumdrum is that with each passing year,  more pro-government voters are added to the registrar via the foreign citizenship conversion as more and more pro-opposition local Singaporeans will pass on.

By 2030, local Singaporeans may even form less than half of the voting population, effectively handing over the voting advantage to the new citizens – provided they do not swing their votes to the opposition camp after living here for more than ten years.

Conclusion

We have not even discuss the 200, 000-strong  Singaporean contingent  living and staying abroad now and its a huge largely  anti-government group out there who do not have accessible opportunity to vote due to the lack of voting stations.

I am speculating and making alot of wild guesses that most of the foreign citizens will vote for the government but surely this is the PAP’s last trump card of which there is a reasonable mathematical chance of ensuring that they will stay in power longer than usual.

No government in the world has managed to stay in power for more than 50 years though and I am sure that the PAP is fully aware of their swift popularity slide and they will do anything out of the ordinary – even at the expense of sacrificng their own citizens to do that.

Power can destroy the morale conscience of  any government and we have seen enough  tragedy at the world stage to ignore this blatant truth.

Written By: Gilbert Goh

Transitioning.org - A website that helps jobless Singaporeans find new hope in life

Dear The Real Singapore,

I do hope you will share this with your readers. There are possibly a lot of things that happen behind closed doors that we will never know of but this is one thing that I thought your readers should know.

Following is the extract from page 150 of Ross Worthington’s book, “Governance in Singapore”(Publisher: Taylor & Francis, Inc, Dec 2002):

In 1990, an incident occurred in a pre-cabinet meeting which was the beginning of entrenching further among the many in the core executive, resistance to Lee Hsien Loong’s long term ambitions for prime ministership. Prior to this meeting Lee Hsien Loong had gone to the office of Richard Hu, the Minister of Finance, and removed a number of files without Hu’s permission. At that time Lee’s office was on the 48th floor of what is now Temasek Tower and Hu’s was on the 50th floor.

At the pre-cabinet meeting Hu took Lee to task for doing this and was supported by Tony Tan. Lee’s response was aggressive and insulting, he directly insulted Tan and Hu, a man of his father’s age. This was a double insult to Hu, who was Lee’s superior in cabinet and a person of an age who should of itself deserve respect in Chinese society. Suppiah Dhanabalan intervened and chastised Lee for his behaviour, demanding that he apologise to Hu, withdraw his remarks and not interfere in other minister’s portfolios. A heated exchange occurred into which a number of other issues intruded and eventually Lee lost his temper, and reportedly reached across the table and slapped Dhanabalan across the face.

This caused an uproar in the cabinet and Lee was severely chastised by Goh Chok Tong. Dhanabalan stormed out of the room and did not return for some time. Lee, in response to a demand from Goh, subsequently apologised to Dhanabalan, Hu and Tan. Hu, Dhanabalan and Tan all initially stated that they would leave the cabinet as a result of this incident. Goh later took up the matter with Lee Kuan Yew who reportedly verbally thrashed his son over the matter.

This was apparently followed by a more sober, educational but equally critical assessment from Lee Hsien Loong’s mother, a talented though background political adviser. Lee Kuan Yew reportedly met later that day with Hu, Tan and Dhanabalan, apologised for his son’s behaviour and requested that they not resign, supported by a similar request from Goh Chok Tong.

All held out for some time, eventually Hu agreed to stay, but Dhanabalan and Tan both resolved to leave. This they did the following August 1991 elections, all without a public word against Lee Hsien Loong, continuing to subscribe to the tenet of all secrets staying within the PAP family.

Rock Star

TRS Contributor

Disclaimer: TheRealSingapore.com is a platform for users to submit content and all content remains the property of the individual contributors. The views and opinions expressed by author(s) within the website are solely that of the contributors and in no way reflects the views of TheRealSingapore.com.

As the Singaporean prime minister settles into his seat for lunch, I am fussing with my tape machines – two of them, just in case one fails. Lee Hsien Loong smiles faintly and says: “The NSA will give you a copy.”

©Luke Waller

It is an unexpectedly subversive remark from a man I had expected to be the epitome of earnestness. The prime minister has a reputation as a cerebral technocrat, without a frivolous bone in his body. He even looks austere – tall, slim, grey hair and dressed in a dark suit and tie. So the biggest surprise, during our lunch, is how often Lee laughs. Over the course of the next hour, a variety of grim subjects provokes an incongruous chuckle or a broad smile – the Japanese occupation of Singapore in the second world war, the west’s mishandling of the revolution in Ukraine, China’s fear of separatist movements and the bankruptcy of Iceland. It is not, I conclude, that the Singaporean prime minister is a callous man. It is just that his way of taking the edge off the most difficult topics is to laugh while discussing them.

We meet at 11am in the Park Terrace of the Royal Garden Hotel in London. It is early for lunch but this is the hour his staff have carved out between other events on his visit to Europe: a nuclear security summit in the Netherlands, speeches, meetings with businessmen and Britain’s prime minister David Cameron, and, later that day, an event to celebrate Singapore Day in a park in east London, which 10,000 expats have registered for. With typical Singaporean thoroughness, the PM’s staff had emailed me the restaurant’s menu some days before our meeting and taken my order. We are positioned at a corner table, overlooking Kensington Gardens, with the sun streaming through the windows. Our first course – salmon and crab terrine – is brought promptly. Given the early hour, we both stick with water – although Lee, slim and fit-looking, does not strike me as a likely boozer.

Read the rest of the article here: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/4511f092-bf2c-11e3-8683-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz...