Internet Politics - Surveillance and Intimidation in Singapore

Internet Politics - Surveillance and Intimidation in Singapore

Tharman: Singapore is already an “activist” state

Image via Wikipedia

Temasek Review

July 31, 2010

Speaking at the annual dinner organised by the Economic Society of Singapore yesterday, PAP Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam warned that “layoffs will continue in developed economies for at least another five to eight years or possibly longer.”

He also added that income disparity will continue and Singapore needs to provide incentives for ”foreign talents” to come to Singapore in reference to the PAP’s unpopular pro-foreigner and ultra-liberal immigration policies.

According to a recent Wall Street Journal, the relentless influx of foreigners into Singapore has depressed the wages of ordinary Singaporeans, increased the cost of living and led to an overall decline in the standard of living.

While Singapore economy has grown by an average 5 percent for the last ten years, the median wages of the average Singapore worker has remained stagnant at $2,400 monthly.

The income gap between the rich and the poor has also widen considerably and is the highest among developed countries after Hong Kong.

Mr Shanmugaratnam noted that “governments need to question existing policies, re-mould entire social contracts and prepare the ground for a new era of growth” and in order to achieve this, governments needs to be an “activist” state like Singapore.

“An activist state which intervenes with spirit, to promote social mobility especially among the poor. That promotes opportunities for its people, that frees up competition and that is able to sustain optimism in the future,” he was quoted as saying in Channel News Asia.

By Mr Shanmugaratnam’s definition, an “activist” state is one which is completely controlled and dominated by one single political party, broaches no dissent and is active in fixing the opposition as and when it sees fit.

Singaporean wishes MM Lee a happy retirement!

Temasek Review
July 31, 2010

Dear MM Lee,

We Singaporeans are a simple lot: we are merely seeking new management.

If Singapore today is somewhat the same as it was 20 years ago, you would probably be even more popular than Jay Chou, Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson & Oprah all put together, period! However, times have changed. Singapore has advanced at such a velocity that even Carl Lewis has a problem keeping up, much less you.

While your methodology & system are sound, it has, unfortunately, become very unsuitable in the 21st & 22nd century’s context. Running a country is much less a single man’s job today. Teamwork is of the utmost importance. If a team cannot work well together, something has to give. Either you change the unhappy citizens (& end up having monkeys for your subjects) or change the mentally-challenged lot that are currently running the country.

Singapore requires the average Singaporean to work his hardest. At the other end, its leaders have to work at their maximum capacity as well. This cohesion of efforts between the two ends of the workforce make up “Team Singapore”.

It is, with bitter regrets, that not everyone is 100% capable of performing their duties. In a profit-driven organisation (which Singapore so obviously is), those who do not cut it are told to leave.

Looking back at recent events, it is very obvious that certain heads should roll. R&D conducted by our Environment Ministry generated findings that were already well-known facts. Primary school students would be able to tell you confidently that floods are caused by intense storms, coupled with drainage issues. The A-star student would even be able to tell you that rain/thunderstorms are acts of nature, not God. The scholar would add that sufficient engineering would be able to avert most, if not all calamities.

With all due respect, the entire department just does not cut it. We urge those responsible for making “ground-shaking” statements be removed from our “board” & replaced with genuine talent.

The Cambridge Dictionary defines “talent” as a natural ability &/or attractive person(s). It will be rather scandalous to have a country run by pretty boys & sexy women. So we are left with the other alternative: leaders with natural abilities. As the current “board’s” only natural ability is to receive obscene pay cheques & humiliate the people who pay them, I sense the time has indeed come for a complete revamp.

Dear MM Lee, should you still insist on working (post-retirement occupation), I’m sure the country is more than gracious to offer you a relatively slow, easy & less demanding job. How does “Facebook correspondence” sound to you? There won’t be the necessity to travel long punishing distances just to attend press-conferences or interviews. However, should you feel the need to be a little more active, how does child-minder sound to you? I’m sure your great-grandchildren will be more than sufficient to cause you to break sweat every once in awhile. The most beautiful thing is, you could work from home!!!!

To be brutally honest, you have little or no talent (if according to the Cambridge’s definition). At 86, you have definitely lost your natural ability (to do anything & everything). On the other hand, you are neither attractive (have you seen yourself of late?).

Hence, the axe should be brought upon you, apart from many others within your cabinet. It is a win-win situation as far as Singapore is concerned (that is the whole point we are arguing about in here). We spend less on excessive employment, & for those that we replace, we get value-for-$ talents. Only thus will Singapore be further propelled into the future – 101% efficiency. This will ultimately pave a golden path for the current & future generations.

They say karma is, more often than not, executed upon our following generations. Let us protect them now. I do not wish for what we do wrong today, to come back & punish our descendants.

Please MM Lee, if forecasting is your forte, keep it to yourself & perhaps forecast how your next medical appointment will turn out. Leave the larger & heavier stuff to the professionals. There is absolutely no sense in overworking yourself.

Singapore will be very upset should you go & wreck your health, doing what is absolutely pointless, for her. Think of the amount of security (apart from costs) required for one of your interviews, which lately have become non quote-worthy. The by product of your speeches is deeper misunderstanding between the common man & the government.

It has long since not been your responsibility (or jurisdiction) to “look after” Singapore & its people. We currently have a Prime Minister to do that job. Should, for any reason(s) he does not live up to the reputation, a replacement should be made ASAP, in the best interests of the country.

Male citizens suffer in the military, learning the various methods to protect & guard our land. Let us not let them down by giving them a worthless piece of land to defend. Keep up the little good work that you all have done & clear up the multitudes of rubbish you all have created.

Redistribution of wealth (your incomes): I am sure every party-member is more than willing to work for Singapore for a much less pay cheque, say SGD 500,000 per annum? We strongly believe that our politicians are not “in it” for the succulent pay. Many CEOs have reportedly worked for their company(s) for a dollar a year. While it may be ridiculous to be earning S$1 per annum, any self-righteous man would gladly carry the load of governing our Motherland for much less than S$500,000 per year. Care to disagree, MM Lee?

In conclusion MM Lee, stay healthy. Stay at home. Stay away from the press (both foreign & local). Stay away from politics already. Singapore wishes you a happy retirement. Thank you!

EDITORS’ NOTE

The above is posted as a comment on our site by a reader

The Political Awakening of a Singapore Student

Thursday, 27 May 2010

Natalie Koh

I am an ordinary Singaporean student who, until now, has been brainwashed like many of you. Now I know the ugly truth. I'd like to share my experience with you about my struggle in taking off the blindfold the PAP has tied on me for years.

I believe it is about the same for most young Singaporeans as it was for me. The brainwashing starts at the secondary school level when most students still do not have the maturity to be able to accurately judge if what they read is true or false. Most of them would not even be interested in politics at that age.

Like some of you, I also viewed Social Studies and National Education as propaganda of the government. But for the sake of getting good grades, many just memorise the PAP’s version of Singapore’s past and regurgitate it when needed.

Drilled into our minds from young that the PAP are the good guys and all who oppose it must be bad, more and more Singaporeans come to accept this twisted view without question.

The awakening for me came when I took up a political science module at the National University of Singapore where I'm now studying. It was about politics and governance of Singapore. That got me thinking about Singapore’s history and the role the PAP, civil service, and trade unions played in it. I also started to examine the subject of the PAP’s political hegemony.

When I signed up for the module, the first thing that I wanted to do was to find out the truth. I thought that in university, there would be more freedom to scrutinize criticize the Government and its policies. But, this turned out not to be the case at all.

The lecture notes given to students spoke highly of the PAP, and denounced the opposition. The lecturer himself, Dr Bilveer Singh, did not take an unbiased view. Whenever he mentioned the opposition, it was to criticize them and to emphasize that they were puny compared to the PAP.

I remember Dr Singh saying that Dr Chee Soon Juan is a symbol of blundering. I was thinking, “Okay, so where’s your evidence?” But he didn’t even bother to support his point and took whatever he as if it was factually true.

And most of the students just accepted it without questioning the accuracy of his statement.

In his textbook (which was a compulsory text for all of us), the lecturer wrote that Dr Chee had ousted Mr Chiam from the SDP. This was, of course not the truth, as those of you who have read Dr Chee’s detailed account of what actually happened would know.

But as this article is about how I discovered the truth about Singapore’s history and politics, I will not digress any further.

What jolted me to the truth was Dr Chee’s books, A Nation Cheated and The Power of Courage. What I read shocked me. I read and re-read it again and again to make sure I had read everything correctly.

The shocking truth has been scrupulously kept away from the eyes of Singaporeans. I am sure the majority of Singaporeans are blissfully unaware that Mr Lee Kuan Yew was not the hero who fought for Singapore’s independence. Rather the true hero was Mr Lim Chin Siong, who failed to become Singapore's first prime minister only because he was continuously thwarted by Mr Lee Kuan Yew and the British.

The book documented from declassified papers that “it was Lim Chin Siong who insisted that Singaporeans’ freedom and independence were not for compromise.” And that was also why the British considered him such a threat to their colonial rule, and tried all ways to cripple him. Please refer to A Nation Cheated for more details.

Everyone knows that there were riots in Singapore’s history, and these riots were explained by the Government that the Malayan Communist Party “in charge of Lim Chin Siong” was behind the whole affair and that it was (Chief Minister) Mr Lim Yew Hock who purged Singapore of the troublemaking communists.

But I learnt from this book that “it was then Chief Minister Lim Yew Hock who had purposely provoked the riots to enable the detention of Mr Lim Chin Siong.” The colonial government and Mr Lee Kuan Yew (London’s “best ally”) had no qualms employing the tactic of provoking a riot and then using the outcome to “achieve a desired political result”.

Lim Chin Siong (left) and Lee Kuan Yew

Another shocking fact that A Nation Cheated reveals is that “Lee had confidentially said that he values the [Internal Security] Council as a potential scape-goat for unpopular measures he will wish to take against subversive activities."

Another controversial issue was the clause the British introduced that would bar ex-detainees, or subversives, from standing for elections. It is revealed that “Lee Kuan Yew was secretly a party with Lim Yew Hock in urging the Colonial Secretary to impose the ‘subversives ban’.”

Yet, in Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s memoirs, he wrote “I objected to [the introduction of the clause] saying that ‘the condition is disturbing both because it is a departure from democratic practice and because there is no guarantee that the government in power will not use this procedure to prevent not only the communist but also democratic opponents of their policy from standing for elections.”

Mr Lee pretended to be the good man by pushing all the blame to the British. It was written that “Lee told Britain’s Seceretary of State, 'I will have to denounce [the clause]. You will have to take responsibility.'”

After I first read the book, I was thinking “no, no way, this can’t be the truth, everyone knows that Lee Kuan Yew was the founding father of Singapore.”

But after I reread the book repeatedly, I finally accepted the concrete evidence. And after the initial denial came the horrid shock. We have been emulating and glorifying this person all this while.

I told my mom what I had read from the book. She got very angry with me and scolded me harshly. She said that I should not get involved in politics, and implied that I (and everyone who wants to stay safe) should just turn a blind eye to the truth.

I was thinking, “This is injustice!” My mom got angry with me that day. I was afraid that she might throw away my copies of Dr Chee’s books.

Now that I know the truth, I feel burdened. I cannot continue to propagate the stand that Lee and the PAP are righteous without lying to myself. I was also scared because what I wanted to tell others was akin to blasphemy, heresy.

I thought of people like Dr Chee who know far more about this subject than I do would feel much more aggrieved because not only do most people not believe us and may even say we are subversive and spreading lies about the Government, but the authorities will also do everything to hide the truth and fool the people.

Even now, I still need to mince my words whenever I discuss politics and Lee Kuan Yew in my family. Youths are forced to self-censor and cannot say much in public because we do not have any freedom of speech (unless it’s about singing the Government’s praises).

What has become of our so-called "democratic" country? I urge all of you, for the sake of your own honor and integrity, to please read and find out for yourselves the truth.

Natalie Koh is currently studying Chemistry at NUS.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Singapore's PM is the old PM's son, but surely no nepotism was involved (trueslant.com)
• Singapore Withdraws Red Carpet for Foreigners With Eye on Vote (businessweek.com)
• BigFurHat and iowntheworld.com are the 'RevolutionMuslim.com' of the racist right (trueslant.com)

Singapore Democrats - When rights can mean life and death

Tuesday, 11 May 2010 Chee Soon Juan

"Are you Dr Chee Soon Juan?" an elderly woman asked tentatively.

"I need to talk to you," she continued as she confirmed my identity. "I have been found guilty of poisoning my husband. But I was forced into confessing. The officer who questioned me was very harsh."

"She was not allowed to call me when she was at the station," her son jumped in. "She couldn't even have a lawyer present unlike in Hong Kong or London." The following day the media reported on the case (here).
This is a little known fact in Singapore. Most people are not aware that if you are called up for questioning by the police, you don't have the right to a counsel while you are being interrogated. And if you are forced into confessing to the crime, in its exceedingly difficult to get the court to accept your retraction of the confession and that it was made under duress.

This seemed to be the case when District Judge Ng Peng Hong threw out Madam Fong Quay Sim's (pictured above) defence that she was forced into confessing that she had poisoned her husband by lacing his food and drink with arsenic.

The 68-year-old granny said during the trial that Station Inspector Faisal Sheik Abdul had pressured her into signing the confession by interrogating her in a very harsh manner. Judge Ng concluded that "there was no intense interrogation", threw out Mdam Fong's defence and convicted her. Sentencing was postponed.

Is Mdm Fong telling the truth? How did the Judge know that there was no intense interrogation? He had only the word of the interrogation officer. Which raises another question: Would the police sink so low as to force confessions from suspects?

They have in the past.

In 1989, Mr Zainal Kuning was charged together with two accomplices, brothers Mohd Ismail and Salahuddin Ismail, for savagely stabbing a coffee shop caretaker to death. During the trial the prosecution produced a signed statement from Mr Zainal confessing to the crime.

At the hearing Mr Zainal retracted his confession and contended that he was forced into signing it. He said that he was denied food and drink for several hours when he was questioned, and claimed that he was repeatedly marched to the toilet where he was drenched, and then made to stand on a chair under the air-conditioner holding two telephone books with arms outstretched.

The accused even said that at one point, an officer grabbed his hair and banged him against the wall. After 24 hours, the accused gave in and confessed.

Rather fortuitously, however, during the three years in remand awaiting trial, Mr Zainal learned from one of his fellow inmates that the inmate had overheard a man by the name of Man Semput boasting how he had killed the caretaker. He even showed off the scars on his chest when the victim threw boiling water at him.

Mr Zainal engaged the late J B Jeyaretnam as counsel. Jeyaretnam argued that the police had no evidence linking his client to the murder scene. There was only the confession which his client had said was forced out of him.

Hight Court Judge (the late) T S Sinnathuray rejected Jeyaretnam's argument and like, Judge Ng Peng Hong in Mdm Fong's case, ruled that the confession was made voluntarily.

During the late stage of the trial, the police managed to locate a man by the name of Mohd Sulaiman aka Man Semput. Fingerprints lifted at the scene of crime confirmed that Mr Sulaiman was their man, not Mr Zainal.

DPP Bala Reddy had no choice but to withdraw the prosecution's case.

After more than three years in prison and coming close to death, Mr Zainal and the Ismail brothers walked free.

The three men subsequently sued the police officer who interrogated them and accused the police of torture, malicious prosecution and defamation. They lost. The media gave scant coverage to the matter.

Mr Chris Lydgate, in his book Lee's Law: How Singapore crushes dissent, chronicled the case. He wrote:

What was more perplexing was the wall of silence surrounding the case...The entire country, it seemed, was unwilling or unable to to discuss the issue. The trial might as well never have happened.

This leads me back to my original point. How is it that suspects can be left with police interrogators for questioning during which confessions can be involuntarily extracted with no witnesses around? How can judges accept such an arrangement?

Abuses by police officers who are under pressure to deliver results can, and have been shown to, occur. Without a lawyer present during interrogation, suspects are at the mercy of their captors. Innocent people like Zainal Kuning, Mohd Ismail and Salahuddin Ismail can be victimised.

In the present case, did Mdm Fong really poison her husband? Did Inspector Faisal force her to confess? Only Mdm Fong and Mr Faisal know.

Here comes the million-dollar question: Why not remove all doubt by ensuring that suspects have lawyers and/or witnesses present during interrogation? If the evidence is strong enough the suspect may want to voluntarily confess on the advice of his/her lawyer. At the very least, accusations of confession under duress can be eliminated.

Such butchery of due process must be reviewed without which we could be wrongly convicting innocent people and even sentencing them to their deaths. With the mandatory death penalty in play in Singapore, such a review is all the more urgent.

Calling Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, Law Society and Singaporean lawyers...

Luck of the Draw for Indonesian Migrant Worker

A matter of luck - Inside Indonesia - a quarterly magazine on Indonesia and it's people, culture, politics, economy and environment

Migrant domestic workers aspire to more than their home communities can offer and are willing to take risks to change their lives

Rosslyn von der Borch

Singapore's Lucky Plaza, a popular meeting place for domestic workers Wayne Palmer

The changing nature of Indonesia's rural economies and an increased awareness of the world - brought about by higher levels of education, greater exposure to the mass media and the ever growing numbers of returned labour migrants - have contributed to a marked change in the aspirations of young rural women. At the same time, the absence of almost any work opportunities beyond poorly paid farming or factory work drives many to seek work abroad, powerfully sustained by their dreams of a better future for themselves and their families.

Women have little or no choice about the external factors that determine the way their migratory experience unfolds. A migrant domestic worker newly arrived in her host country is assigned to an employer about whom she knows nothing. In the absence of any sense of control, she relies on 'luck' to deliver kind and understanding employers.

Migration roulette

Employers and agents often claim that migrant domestic workers arrive in host countries unprepared for the challenges ahead and attribute the difficulties they experience to this lack of preparation. This is true in part, as many migrants find the move from an Indonesian village community and lifestyle to the urban, middle- to upper-class household of their employer disorienting. But it is important to acknowledge that agents, employers and the host community can also make this transition more difficult than necessary.

When I have raised the issue of labour migration with young domestic workers in Indonesia, they have indicated that they are well aware of the high levels of risk attached working overseas. Television and print media coverage of the ordeals endured by some migrant workers make this common knowledge. Prospective labour migrants, then, are generally aware that they will be confronted with a range of difficulties and may experience intense homesickness.

Domestic worker Rini Widyawati secretly kept a diary in which she recorded her observations and experiences during the years she spent working in Hong Kong, which was published after her return to Indonesia. In the opening pages of her diary she describes her stark awareness that she may fail to earn the money she dreams about, but also that the gamble she is taking and may even cause her death. She writes:

A nervousness rises in my heart. Will the future that I seek here be mine? … Will I leave this airport in two years having been successful? … Or will I die here, so that only my corpse will again pass through this airport. This has been the fate of some other Indonesian migrant workers, the reasons for whose deaths are sometimes not clear. Or will I kill myself here when I feel lonely and isolated, with work and family problems piling up on each other? My friends, who have also been migrant domestic workers in Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Singapore, have told me this happens.

Perhaps only willing risk-takers seek work abroad, while the 'risk-averse' stay at home. In any case, hundreds of thousands of women take these substantial risks each year, hoping for high gains that are not possible if they stay in Indonesia.

Cycles of luck

When Indonesian migrant domestic workers go overseas they find themselves pitted against familiar enemies, in particular the structural disempowerment so intimately known to their home communities. It is unsurprising, then, that they speak so often of luck. Wilma, who works in Singapore, comments:

Being a maid is not bad at all, but a lot depends on luck. Luck is important. Because if you go to a family and they bully you, don't give you any days off, lock you in the house, then you're really in a bad place. So you need luck.

The uncertainties that arise when transferring from one employer to another can be immensely stressful. But Susi feels she has always been fortunate in the placement lottery:

I've always been lucky, I think, where employers are concerned. They have all treated me well. Maybe I'm good [laughs] or maybe they're good - or it's just my life, or something like that. It's okay. I can do my work.

Dian commented that she was lucky in having the 'understanding' of her employers:

My first boss and this one, they've both let me do my own thing. She isn't finicky about time. The important thing is that the work is done. Yes, they've both been understanding. I've been lucky in that.

Nina talked about cycles of bad luck and good luck. She experienced the 'bad luck' of being repatriated at short notice by her first employer in Singapore, which infuriated her. However she went immediately to another employment agent in Jakarta and applied to return:

So one month later I came back to Singapore. That employer was Straits Chinese. Her mother was sick and had complications, so she needed another maid. She employed me. But I wasn't lucky. Four months later the lady passed away. But good luck was coming. Because I went to the agency and said I wanted a transfer… In the afternoon the agent called me. She asked me, 'Do you want to transfer to a whitey?' [Very animated tone of voice]: 'Hey, that would be great!' I said. At two o'clock I had an interview. Then I got my employer.

Talk among domestic workers of the importance of luck - and of the personal resources necessary for dealing with adversity - points back to the structural injustice and disempowerment that affects labour migrants, to government and legislative failings in both home and host countries, and often to the personal ethical failings of employers, agents and government officials. Consequently, luck continues to play a part in determining the working conditions of migrant domestic workers, even after years overseas.

Not just passive accommodation

In some cases, migrant workers' reliance on luck may decrease as they gain confidence and are empowered through their experiences as migrants. Given access to each other - especially through days off that can be spent discussing problems and experiences, sharing food and news from home or attending classes - a domestic worker's reliance on luck can begin to be combined with a more complex awareness of her rights.

A reliance on luck in navigating the risks inherent in labour migration can suggest a passive accommodation to fate. But it is also closely linked to the personal capital that can make the difference between a 'successful' and an 'unsuccessful' migration experience. Especially in situations where a migrant domestic worker finds herself 'unlucky', her ability to accommodate her situation and to garner the personal resources necessary to see out her contract or to negotiate change, are tested.

But while accommodation can appear to be in tension with the notion that these women are active risk-takers, it can also be an active state, closely aligned to these women's views of themselves as economic pioneers and as risk-takers. As Nurjannah observed, speaking to me about having acquired the discipline of accommodation:

Lately everybody's talking about foreign workers, about maids. That never happened in the past. Even so, there are still many local employers who use mean and bad words when they talk to their maids. Especially - well I can't say especially who they were - but I was a victim of this myself, long ago, sometimes. But I grew up and now I don't care what they say. I just - I mean - but some girls might feel irritated when the - often employers call them 'sotong (squid) head', something like that [laughs, a bit embarrassed] and sometimes the children say bad things as well. I can handle it. I don't mind. I understand. But some newcomers, they've never heard that word, and they might feel so bad and so irritated and they feel so angry.

When asked to explain what she meant when she said she understood, Nurjannah added:

For myself, for my own personal wellbeing, what else can I do? Apart from wear it? It's easier on myself if I just wear it. It makes everything easier. No arguments. I just let them go. Later I will talk to them nicely so they will think about what they've said. But some girls can't do that. Especially in the beginning. I was also like that with my first employer.

In the importance placed on luck by migrant domestic workers, then, we can see a pragmatic appraisal of what is possible in their relationships with their employers and as migrants.

A form of resourcefulness

No migrant worker in receiving countries where comprehensive labour laws exist - and are enforced - should have to rely on luck to deliver reasonable working hours, time off from work and fair pay. However, like Nurjannah, many migrant domestic workers are prepared to accommodate a great deal, regarding this as part of the job. The focus of these women is pragmatically fixed on the route to the achievement of their ultimate goal of financial gain, and not on what is 'right'. Even if she becomes the victim of severe abuse, this goal may not be risked through attempts to assert her rights unless the odds are clearly in her favour.

But far from signifying acceptance of their 'lot', the ways that migrant domestic workers accommodate the challenges and difficulties they encounter demonstrate a resourceful negotiation of complex circumstances in which they are largely powerless. It is in this resourcefulness that the possibility lies for them to achieve the life they dream about - a life in which they have a measure of autonomy, more power to consume and knowledge of the world beyond their village.

Rosslyn von der Borch (rosslyn.vonderborch@flinders.edu.au) teaches Indonesian Studies at Flinders University in South Australia.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Human Rights Watch: Middle East/Asia: Partial Reforms Fail Migrant Domestic Workers (huffingtonpost.com)
• Malaysia accused of migrant abuse (news.bbc.co.uk)
• Rights group: Maids remain unprotected from abuse (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Better Enforcement Of Existing Migrant Worker Protection Laws Needed (physorg.com)
• A bill of rights for domestic workers in New York. (slate.com)
• Lebanon's foreign domestic workers fight back at abuse (telegraph.co.uk)
• Farmers: Immigration reform needed for ag workers (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• China warns locals to settle migrant pay disputes (sfgate.com)

Singapore Legend Dr Goh Keng Swee Dies

Channel NewsAsia - Cabinet ministers pay last respects to late Dr Goh Keng Swee - channelnewsasia.com

Former Deputy Prime Minister Goh Keng Swee died early Friday morning after a long illness.

Dr Goh, who had also served as Finance Minister and Education Minister, was 91.

An instrumental figure in the development of Singapore from its first steps at nationhood through to the 1980s, Dr Goh will be accorded a state funeral.

Dr Goh is survived by his wife, son, daughter-in-law, two grandsons and three great grandchildren.

Latest News
		Dr Goh's "radical" idea led to formation of GIC: Dr Tony Tan Updated: Sat, 15 May 2010 22:49:10 SINGAPORE : Former Deputy Prime Minister Tony Tan paid his last respects to the late Dr Goh Keng Swee on Saturday evening. Full Story

	NSP pays tribute to late Dr Goh, says S'pore has lost a great man
	Dr Goh's message to serve should be passed on to next generation: PM Lee
	Co-operative federation pays tribute to Dr Goh

The Public Editor - Censored in Singapore - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com

Image via Wikipedia

By CLARK HOYT

LAST month, on the same day The New York Times praised Google for standing up to censorship in China, a sister newspaper, The International Herald Tribune, apologized to Singapore’s rulers and agreed to pay damages because it broke a 1994 legal agreement and referred to them in a way they did not like.

The rulers had sued for defamation 16 years ago, saying a Herald Tribune Op-Ed column had implied that they got their jobs through nepotism. The paper wound up paying $678,000 and promising not to do it again. But in February, it named Lee Kuan Yew, the founding prime minister, and his son, Lee Hsien Loong, the prime minister now, in an Op-Ed article about Asian political dynasties.

After the Lees objected, the paper said its language “may have been understood by readers to infer that the younger Mr. Lee did not achieve his position through merit. We wish to state clearly that this inference was not intended.” The Herald Tribune, wholly owned by The New York Times Company, apologized for “any distress or embarrassment” suffered by the Lees. The statement was published in the paper and on the Web site it shares with The Times.

Some readers were astonished that a news organization with a long history of standing up for First Amendment values would appear to bow obsequiously to an authoritarian regime that makes no secret of its determination to cow critics, including Western news organizations, through aggressive libel actions. Singapore’s leaders use a local court system in which, according to Stuart Karle, a former general counsel of The Wall Street Journal, they have never lost a libel suit.

The notion that it could be defamatory to call a political family a dynasty seems ludicrous in the United States, where The Times has routinely applied the label to the Kennedys, the Bushes and the Clintons. But Singapore is a different story.

Image via Wikipedia

Lee Kuan Yew once testified, according to The Times, that he designed the draconian press laws to make sure that “journalists will not appear to be all-wise, all-powerful, omnipotent figures.” Four years ago, The Times quoted his son as saying, “If you don’t have the law of defamation, you would be like America, where people say terrible things about the president and it can’t be proved.”

Steven Brostoff of Arlington, Va., wondered whether The Times had other agreements like the one with the Lees, and asked, “What conclusions should we draw about how news coverage from these countries is slanted?” Zeb Raft of the University of Alberta, Edmonton, asked if The Times was admitting that certain world leaders “deserve to be treated with deference. This is the implication of the apology.”

George Freeman, a Times Company lawyer, said the 1994 agreement was the only one he knew about and that it applied only to The Herald Tribune. Bill Keller, the executive editor of The Times, said, “Nobody in this company has ever told me what our reporters can write — or not write — about Singapore.” He said the Times newsroom has no agreements with any government about what can be reported. “We don’t work that way.”

Andrew Rosenthal, the editor of the editorial page, said, “If we have something that needs to be said on the editorial or Op-Ed pages, on any subject, we will say it, clearly and honestly.”

That is what the late William Safire did on the Op-Ed page in 2002, when he criticized Bloomberg News for “kowtowing to the Lee family” by apologizing for an article about the elevation of the younger Lee’s wife to run a state-owned investment company. Bloomberg, he said, had “just demeaned itself and undermined the cause of a free online press.”

Safire wrote that he took “loud exception” in 1994 when The Herald Tribune, then owned jointly by the Times Company and The Washington Post Company, “cravenly caved” over an article by Philip Bowring — the same Hong Kong-based columnist who sparked last month’s dust-up. “I doubt such a sellout of principle will happen again.”

Richard Simmons was the president of The Herald Tribune in 1994 and authorized the agreement that was broken last month — an “undertaking” by the company’s lawyers to prevent a repetition of the language that offended the Lees. “We had, in my view, no choice,” he said. “What the American media absolutely refuse to recognize is Singapore operates on a different set of legal rules than does the United States.” He said Western news organizations can accept the legal system there or leave.

For The Herald Tribune and all the other news organizations that have paid damages to Singapore’s rulers (The Wall Street Journal, The Economist, Bloomberg) or had their circulation limited there (Time, The Asian Wall Street Journal, The Economist), the choice has been to stay.

Singapore is tiny, with a population of around five million, but it has outsized economic power as a financial hub, making it an important source of news. For The Herald Tribune, the economic stakes are large: more than 10 percent of its Asian circulation is in Singapore. It prints papers there that are distributed throughout the region. It sells advertising to companies throughout Asia that want to reach readers in Singapore.

“If you want to be a global paper, it has lots of banks, lots of commerce, a highly educated, English-speaking population,” said Karle. “It’s hard to turn your back on that.”

Faced with this predicament when the Lees objected to the article last month, The Herald Tribune apologized and paid up — $114,000 — before it was even sued. Karle said the paper could have spent a million dollars for a worse result in court: forced to pay higher damages and make a more humiliating apology.

But settling the way it did has its own price. Roby Alampay, the executive director of the Southeast Asian Press Alliance, told Agence France-Presse, “This continuing line of major media organizations too quick to offer contrition and money is a sad sight and a persisting insult on legitimate journalism, fair commentary, free speech and the rights that Singaporeans deserve.”

Safire told The American Journalism Review in 1995 that the world’s free press should unite and pull out of Singapore in the face of any new libel action. I think that is what should happen too, but it never has.

That leaves the Times Company with its own choice if another challenge arises. “Singapore is an important market for The International Herald Tribune,” the company told me in a statement. “There are more than 12,000 I.H.T. readers who shouldn’t be deprived of the right to read the paper in print or online. In addition, getting kicked out of Singapore would also make it more difficult for others in the region to get the I.H.T. since we print in Singapore for distribution there and in the neighboring areas.”

Google faced a similar painful dilemma in China. With potentially billions of dollars at risk, it stuck to its principles, and The Times applauded editorially. I think Google set an example for everyone who believes in the free flow of information.

E-mail: public@nytimes.com.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Don't Mess With Singapore (abovethelaw.com)
• Singapore's PM is the old PM's son, but surely no nepotism was involved (trueslant.com)
• Times Co. Settles Claim in Singapore (nytimes.com)
• Notable & Quotable (online.wsj.com)
• NYT Apologizes for Singapore Truth (outsidethebeltway.com)
• Ejected from Singapore (guardian.co.uk)
• Investigative Bureau Tries to Make Up for British News Cutbacks (nytimes.com)

Singapore moves to curtail immigration

Image via Wikipedia

By PATRICK BARTA And P.R. VENKAT

Singapore announced new steps to curb immigration as it tries to defuse one of its most contentious emerging political issues.

The rich Southeast Asian city-state has for years admitted large numbers of foreign workers to boost its population and to stay competitive with China and other countries with deeper pools of cheap labor. But Singaporean citizens are increasingly dissatisfied with the policy, which they say causes overcrowding and depresses local wages. Economists believe an over-reliance on foreign workers also is keeping productivity levels down, jeopardizing Singapore's future growth.

Responding to those concerns, the government said in its annual budget Monday that it will raise levies on foreign workers in phases, starting in July. By 2012, employers will be expected to pay an increase of about S$100 (US$71) in per-worker levies in the manufacturing and services sectors, while charges for construction workers could be higher. The government also will introduce some additional changes resulting in higher levies.

Although relatively small in absolute terms, analysts say such costs are high enough to discourage some employers from hiring low-skilled workers from overseas, especially companies with big work forces in manufacturing and other industries, where profit margins are razor thin.

Image via Wikipedia

It's unclear, though, whether the steps will placate citizens who feel the government hasn't done enough to keep Singapore's foreign-born population from growing too rapidly. Between 2005 and 2009, Singapore's population surged by roughly 150,000 people a year to five million—among their fastest rates ever—with 75% or more of the increase due to foreigners.

Opposition leaders, including those in a new Reform Party created in 2008, have increasingly used the immigration issue to criticize the government, and may be getting some traction, analysts say. Historically, Singapore's opposition parties have had limited growth, in large part because of the government's ability to deliver solid economic growth and rising standards of living.

Given popular dissatisfaction over the issue, the government needs "to look like they're doing something" on immigration, says Tim Condon, an economist at ING in Singapore.

The government has signaled for some time that it is willing to limit immigration, but it is unclear how far it would be willing to go. Singapore already has an exceptionally low unemployment rate of 2.1%, so any move to restrict labor flows is likely to be unpopular among companies that need more workers. Singaporean officials have argued that the higher costs will ultimately force companies to become more efficient instead of counting on cheap employees.

Monday's announcement came on the heels of a government move Friday to curb rising property prices, another source of unease among Singaporean citizens. Aside from tightening rules for home-loan borrowers, the government introduced a seller's stamp duty on all residential properties and residential land bought and sold within a year.

The Singaporean budget otherwise was notable for avoiding big hand-outs and stimulus such as loan guarantees or credit support to companies, focusing instead on long-term targets, including improving productivity by 2% to 3% a year over the next decade, compared with the 1% rate of the past decade.

In January 2009, Singapore announced a S$20.5 billion stimulus package to keep the export-dependent economy from falling deep into recession. The economy contracted 2% last year, much less than the 9% contraction the government initially estimated when it presented the stimulus.

"Budget 2010, therefore, looks beyond the immediate rebound in the economy," Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam said. "It focuses on building up the capabilities we need for a phase shift in our economy over the next decade, with growth being based on the quality of our efforts rather than the ever-expanding use of manpower and other resources."

He said the government will give tax benefits to companies that invest in skills and innovation.

—Sam Holmes
contributed to this article.

The Chosun Ilbo - Two Koreas 'in Secret Singapore Meeting'

There were secret contacts between the two Koreas in Singapore during Oct. 15-20, possibly to discuss an inter-Korean summit, South Korean officials have admitted. Speaking on condition of anonymity, officials said Kim Yang-gon, the director of North Korea's United Front Department, secretly visited China and contacted a South Korean official. The official has not been identified but is believed to be unconnected to the Unification Ministry.

Korea Broadcasting System (KBS) on Thursday said a South Korean official secretly met with Kim in Singapore and discussed the summit question. Quoting an intelligence official, KBS said Kim arrived in Beijing on Oct. 15 but went to Singapore with Won Tong-yon, a ranking member of the Asia-Pacific Peace Committee, and contacted a high ranking South Korean official there. The contact was initiated by the North Korean side, it added.

The South Korean official told Kim that a summit would require a fundamental change in the North Korean nuclear issue, and that no economic assistance could be promised for the summit, the broadcaster claimed. He also insisted that North Korean leader Kim Jong-il will have to visit Seoul this time as two previous summits took place in North Korea. The negotiations ended inconclusively as the North Koreans objected to the idea of Kim Jong-il traveling to the South for security reasons, it added.

A source in Beijing confirmed that the meeting took place. One key figure in the ruling Grand National Party said, "North Korea has long requested a meeting with a person who can speak on behalf of President Lee Myung-bak, and it is true that such a meeting was recently on the verge of happening, but since news of the meeting was made public, meetings of senior officials from both Koreas will be difficult to hold for some time."

What makes Singapore's Changi Airport so charming? - USATODAY.com

Image via Wikipedia

By Harriet Baskas, special for USA TODAY

On a visit to Singapore earlier this month, I asked most everyone I met to tell me what they liked most about their island city-state. Locals sang the praises of the Lion City's food, its culture, its cleanliness and its safety. And more often than not, they told me how much they loved their airport.

Yes, their airport. Not something you're likely to hear from anyone living in Chicago, Detroit or New York City. But it seems most citizens of Singapore are sweet on Changi Airport. Given how often Changi lands on top of (or near the top of) surveys ranking airport shopping, dining, cleanliness and leisure activities, so too is the rest of the world. So I decided to set aside an afternoon to find out what makes Changi so charming.

It's not its coziness

With four gates, one security checkpoint, and about one million annual passengers, New York's White Plains Westchester County Airport is "cozy." Singapore's Changi Airport, which serves close to 40 million passengers a year, is not. It sits on about 3,200 acres of land (more than half of which has been reclaimed from the sea) and has three main terminals, a no-frills Budget Terminal, 230 retail shops, and more than 110 food and beverage outlets. The newest terminal (Terminal 3) has more than 900 skylights and a "Green Wall" that's covered in live plants and about five stories high.

So, cozy it's not. But in a hot, humid, rainy country just three and a half times the size of Washington, D.C., and with a population of close to 5 million people, cozy is not necessarily an asset. So the air-conditioned Changi airport, with its vast, bright public spaces, carefully-tended-to greenery, mall-like shopping and dining venues, and comfortable, out-the-way seating areas, has become a popular spot with locals. Many families spend their weekend afternoons shopping, dining and just hanging around at the airport and many students take their school books and head to the airport to study.

Good ambience, good value and plenty of perks

"Singapore is dense, and the airport is intentionally open and spacious, with a good ambience for both travelers and Singaporeans," Changi's corporate communications manager Lee Ching Wern explained during a walking tour of the airport. "We also want the airport to be perceived as a place of value." To that end, the airport is loaded with a wide variety of useful and, for an airport, unusual amenities.

Many airports these days offer travelers free wireless Internet access. Changi does that too, but it also provides more than 500 free Internet stations throughout the terminals, making it easy to check e-mail one last time before boarding that 10-hour flight to Japan. To help travelers while away long layovers, there are free movie theaters, free computer games, free music video and CD listening stations, and a complimentary karaoke-style music studio, where I watched two grown men turn into giggling teenagers before they even put on their headphones. Live entertainment includes "meet and greets" with celebrities passing through the airport and, just last week, a series of performances by a Michael Jackson impersonator. Numerous themed lounges offer showers, massages, meals and napping suites at very reasonable prices, but foot- and leg-massage machines scattered around the airport are free, as are the napping and lounge chairs in quiet, marked rest areas.

For my money, though, the best amenities at Changi are the tranquil koi ponds and a series of five themed gardens, all free and all exquisitely well-cared for. Indoors, there's a fern garden and an orchid garden displaying more than 15 species of the flower. Outdoors, there's a rooftop cactus garden with more than 40 species of cacti and succulents, a sunflower garden that will make you feel as if you've stepped into a Vincent van Gogh painting and, my favorite, a colorful, two-story tropical butterfly garden with more than 1,000 free-roaming butterflies native to Singapore and Malaysia. Each day, new, "just born" butterflies are released into the garden.

Little, low-cost things make a big difference

Changi Airport may be unusual in that it's got plenty of space, a hefty budget for amenities and promotions, and a mandate to make the airport an oasis for both passengers and local citizens. Few airports may be able to match Changi for the breadth and creativity of its complimentary amenities, but airports of any size can certainly take some tips from the airport's approach to customer service. During my three-hour tour of the airport my guides, higher-ups from the corporate communications division, were approached by an exhausted-looking woman wanting to know if there was a place she and her husband could go to rest during a long layover between two extremely long flights. Not only did one staff member stop to explain that there were free lounge chairs in the adjacent terminal – with built-in alarm clocks – right next to the gate for their next flight, but she insisted on walking the tired travelers to the next terminal to make sure that they found those chairs. Inexpensive, but very impressive.

Even more inexpensive and impressive: upon my initial arrival at the airport at 2 a.m. on a Saturday morning, a customs and immigrations officer welcomed me with a big smile and one of the airport's complimentary breath mints.

Now that's charming!

Harriet Baskas writes about travel etiquette for MSNBC.com and is the author of the airport guidebook Stuck at the Airport and a blog of the same name. Follow her on Twitter at twitter.com/hbaskas.

Why Singapore “meritocracy” isn’t meritocracy - The Temasek Review

Image by Henryleonghw via Flickr

By Abdul Gafoor, Social Correspondent

Singapore is a strange country where everything suggested, which is contrary what the government, politicians and policy makers claim, has to be “substantiated with evidence” even though the same government, politicians and policy makers are not required to substantiate their claims with any evidence. No other country has such an idiosyncratic attitude which was introduced by Lee Kuan Yew given his background as a lawyer. He tries to make the country a court room where the rules apply to everyone except government, politicians and policy makers.

The claim that meritocracy exists is one of the various notions that PAP has successfully marketed to the people even without having gone the length to ever proving it actually exists. Other such successes include Singapore being a developed country, education system being one of the best in the world etc. However PAP has had its fair share of failures in some of its baseless claims such as in eugenics where in order to produce smart kids, graduate men should marry graduate women.

The reason why many Singaporeans want to accept this baseless claim that meritocracy exists instead of rejecting is because they are afraid to deal with the factual situation where meritocracy does not exists.

The majority Chinese are afraid that they will fall into the shallowness as the majority Malays of Malaysia. The minority Singaporean leaders are afraid that they have not responded to a situation for fifty years where their bright and smart have been sidelined.

The minority Singaporean masses are afraid to even imagine they may have been systematically marginalized in last five decades because it shatters their crystal image of their state. Furthermore since they are clueless of how to respond they rather imagine it does not exist pretty much like how a person at health risk refuses to go for a screening test because they are not sure how to cope if they are diagnosed with a condition.

I have talked to so many academics, writers and thinkers around the world and everyone tend to point out to two characteristic in Singapore which will never allow meritocracy to exist.

Firstly income inequalities across the ethnic groups. Most Singaporeans even policy makers do not seem to understand what this means. Income inequalities across the ethnic groups does not mean a Chinese, a Malay, a Tamil and an Eurasian are earning not the same dollar as lame cynical Singaporean critics will foolishly claim.

Income inequalities across ethnic groups mean, the difference in incomes across ethnic groups is too large and significant. This is too visible and obvious to deny. Given this reality, meritocracy cannot exist even if you say the highest marks get the scholarship blah blah. You will have to level the playing field before you let them compete.

With the perverse income inequalities, the minorities will not be able to achieve equivalent or better successes than Chinese masses in examinations and job interviews even though they may have the capacity and potential.

What many Singaporeans tend to naively say is that because the minorities do not achieve as much, that is why their representations in ministries, scholarships etc etc are lower than their population proportions and they claim therefore their “meritocratic” system based on “scores and results” qualify as meritocracy.

This then brings to the second reason why meritocracy cannot be existing in Singapore. The way Singapore implements meritocracy is invalid. You cannot use past “scores and results” which is the main method in Singapore used to award scholarships, jobs etc. What you instead require is past, present and future performance because meritocracy is supposed to be based on potential not past achievements.

What someone achieves in the past indeed shows his potential but what someone does not achieve in the past does not show his potential. Therefore assessments have to be based on potential and for that past performance alone cannot be used. Secondly the proper assessments must be used for to evaluate a person for the job or scholarship.

In Singapore a government scholar typically gets to become a senior military officer or police officer not because he is brilliant in military work or police work but because he scored high marks in GCE O and A level examinations and managed to complete his degree on scholarship and survived through the fast tracked career. That is not meritocracy.

Singapore employers are also extremely subjective when assessing employees. I have seen far too many non-Chinese friends applying to banks only to be rejected. The reasons the employers give are that these friends do not have relevant experience if they are crossing over from say engineering industry. However many (a large number) of Chinese friends who were formerly working as engineers have crossed over into banking industry within the same banks and same departments which rejected those non-Chinese friends.

I also have seen non-Chinese friends with business and finance degrees not even getting interviews whereas their Chinese classmates do. Almost all my non-Chinese friends from JC who got straight As in GCE A Levels are now working as teachers as they could not find employment in the industry for which they were trained for. Likewise I have seen so many non-Chinese friends who have migrated being able to secure jobs in banks which in Singapore rejected them, in industries which in Singapore also rejected them.

What is clear is employers are not giving fair and equal opportunities to minorities in Singapore. What is also clear is that assessment and evaluation of candidates for scholarship and jobs in Singapore is not consistent. Race is a factor.

For many years, there have been calls to set up a labour laws and labour courts to address this just like in any developed and civilized country. Every PAP labour minister over last 50 years have refused. The fact they refused only shows they know the above problems exists and that they are not confident in tackling them.

Singaporean politicians, policy makers and ordinary people refuse to acknowledge these realities and instead insist on imagining Singapore offers a level playing field for all races. The problem is they fail to realize they are unnecessarily creating instabilities into the country with this. A small country like Singapore despite its size does have the capacity to offer sufficient opportunities to everyone in education and jobs.

Having a kiasu attitude and creating unleveled playing fields and believing the whole system functions as a meritocracy only makes Singapore an unsafe place because social unrest will eventually be the natural outcome as proven in so many cases around the world in just the history of the last 100 years.

Part of the problem is fueled by Malaysian Chinese who want to create an impression that what exists in Malaysia does not exist in Singapore. The forms of the problems that exist in the two strange twin countries maybe different but essentially they are the same. They are two sides of the same coin.

What change is required basically in Singapore or even in Malaysia is a leveled playing field for everyone. The governments will have to work towards eliminating income inequalities across the ethnic groups.

Opportunities for education need to be created such that dreams and potential be the criteria for selection. Opportunities also need to be created for promising students who are caught in the storms and shortcomings of their family backgrounds. These opportunities should be available, accessible, universal and abundant such that should any student with potential can reach and attain them easily. Sometimes opportunities should be extended to test to even identify where the brightest and smartest are.

In terms of employment same criteria for evaluations need to be put in place. The culture of rewarding and measuring a person through relationships should be stopped. Instead workplace should be about performance and potential. Legal safeguards must be put in place to make every employer a fair and equal opportunity employer.

Courts must be there to strike fear in those employers who want to select one over the other based on instincts, relationships and subjective evaluations. None of solutions I have said is utopian. They basically are the realities that exist in the developed and civilized world.

About the Author:

Abdul Gafoor is a researcher based in the United Kingdom

Singapore Dissident - Lee Kuan Yew's son, the Singapore Prime Minister wants to make it another hub!

Image via Wikipedia

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Singapore's state controlled newspaper the Straits Times, which Reporters Without Borders placed 157th position in the world for being almost the least free, has this story on Sept 29, 2009 on it's online edition "Institute to Groom Talent". This time, just as Lee's son's many previous grandiose castles in the air, he has started a new initiative to "bring together business schools, corporate universities and professional services firms devoted to leadership and talent development"!

As expected the article is very badly written (but what can you expect from a state controlled newspaper not much different from those in Burma?) obviously because they are unable to recruit good writers, but trying hard nevertheless to understand, it appears to be an attempt by him to nurture and advance business and leadership talent!

Unless the education and training is conducted entirely in Mandarin Chinese, I think it would be rather difficult to attract anyone to Singapore, let alone keep them there sufficiently to train them!

You see, anyone who can read English would very soon find out that such as political party known as the Singapore Democratic Party exists. They are also going to find out that it's leader Dr. Chee has been fined $400,000.00 this last time, not counting the earlier times, by a Singapore judge all because he criticized Singapore's leader Lee Kuan Yew. They are also going to find out that such a man known as Gopalan Nair was sent to jail for 3 months for, among other things, criticizing that same judge Judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean for corruption and bias in a court case.

And finding this out, however much Lee Kuan Yew or his son tried to keep this hidden, they will find out that Singapore has a corrupt judiciary, the politicians are corrupt and there is no human rights at all. And once they discovered that, they would be asking themselves what in Heavens are they doing in Singapore trying to improve on leadership and talent! They might as well be in Rangoon, Burma!

And once they find out the truth, not only will they leave Singapore as fast as they came, they will also turn out to become first class ambassadors for the bad news that Singapore is.

If Lee Kuan Yew's son, who his father handpicked for Prime Minister did not know, Singapore is losing it's talent at such a scale, it is already destroying the country. Not too long ago in a survey, 2 out of 3 young people said, if given a chance they would emigrate. Only 2 moths ago, Goh Chock Tong, teary eyed admitted that Singapore is losing it's talent at such a rate that 2 in 3 students who go abroad never return. And what is worse, the birth rate has shrunk to a level below replacement.

"Singapore Dissident" has been working hard to spread the truth about Singapore, which is, an authoritarian dictatorship that has no free press, free speech or an independent judiciary. And it is hoped that all those who come to Singapore by mistake, hoodwinked by the Singapore government that it is something else, will hopefully read this blog and the others and realize the truth.

The only alternative for this administration is to lure more and more Chinese speaking conformists and crawlers from mainland China to populate the country. Without the necessary qualities, they will be no real replacement for those Singaporeans with talent and an English education who have left.

And coming back to Lee Kuan Yew's son's Human Capital Summit, nothing will be heard about it anymore, as is the story of all his other plans.

Lee Kuan Yew's greatest mistake was to misuse the judiciary. This discredited the entire country. A country which has lost it's reputation for integrity will lose everything. It is no longer trustworthy.

Gopalan Nair
39737 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite A1
Fremont, CA 94538, USA
Tel: 510 657 6107
Fax: 510 657 6914
Email: nair.gopalan@yahoo.com
Blog: http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/