Why we have to pay for a hasty wrong policy made? -- Bus Services Enhancement Fund comes under spotlight during REACH Budget dialogue

http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC120223-0000103/Bus-Services-Enhancement-Fund-comes-under-spotlight-during-REACH-Budget-dialogue
‎"What Singaporeans want are quicker solutions," said Mrs Teo. "They don't want to wait so long. So it's with Singaporean needs in mind that we assessed that the better way to do it, the faster way to do it, the more efficient way of doing it, is to partner the existing public transport operators to deliver the increased capacity."
~ Minister of State for Finance and Transport Josephine Teo

It's the government, in the first place, want to have quick solutions on economics and population policy that it allows many more FTs coming into Singapore that cause the over crowded issue. IMHO, why do we need to pay the final bills for a hasty wrong policy government have made? And if this is so, then a parallel policy re-think or even revamp Transport Ministry need to work on for the public transport policy. We should not always have a short term solutions for issues affect every citizens of this nation everyday.
~ Ang Chong Leong

Bus Services Enhancement Fund comes under spotlight during REACH Budget dialogue
by Sumita Sreedharan Updated 10:01 AM Feb 23, 2012

SINGAPORE - The Government's plan to fund 550 new buses for operators SBS Transit and SMRT dominated Wednesday night's Budget dialogue session organised by Government feedback unit REACH.

Of the 15 questions raised by members of the public during the session, a third zoomed in on the Government's plan to boost bus capacity.

Some questioned why the Government is using public funds to finance private operators, while others felt if the S$1.1 billion set aside under the Bus Services Enhancement Fund could be used for other purposes, such as employment. Questions were also raised as to whether the current market structure of the transport sector should remain or be nationalised.

Minister of State for Finance and Transport Josephine Teo, who chaired the session along with Reach chairman Amy Khor, pointed out that the S$1.1 billion set aside will be used over the next decade and was necessary to improve the levels of service to meet commuters' expectations.

"What Singaporeans want are quicker solutions," said Mrs Teo. "They don't want to wait so long. So it's with Singaporean needs in mind that we assessed that the better way to do it, the faster way to do it, the more efficient way of doing it, is to partner the existing public transport operators to deliver the increased capacity."

Mrs Teo also stressed that SBS Transit and SMRT are "expected to raise standards across the entire fleet they run". As more buses are added to the fleet, buses - including those plying feeder services - will be less crowded, she added.

In funding the new buses directly, Mrs Teo felt the Government has taken a "practical approach" towards the matter.

Speaking to reporters after the dialogue, and asked on whether it would have an impact on any future fare increase, Mrs Teo assured that "commuters should not be overly worried" as "the fare formula hasn't changed as a result of the bus injection". Public transport fares are determined by a fare cap formula, which factors in changes in inflation, wages and productivity.

While public transport made up 12 per cent of total responses gathered by Reach on the Government's Budget, building a fair and inclusive society topped the number of responses with 40 per cent of all inputs received.

At the dialogue on Wednesday night, some raised concerns over the Silver Housing Bonus and wondered if those downgrading were suppose to buy resale flats which were still as expensive. In reply, Dr Khor noted that the Silver Housing Bonus was just an option for those already thinking of downgrading and was "just an added incentive."

The Silver Housing Bonus provides up to S$20,000 - S$15,000 in cash and S$5,000 to CPF - for Singaporeans aged 55, who wish to move from larger flats to smaller units.

Dr Khor, who is Minister of State for Health, also reiterated that the Government's priority is for seniors to age within the community. Having elder-care centres within the community also makes it easier for families to visit their family members, she added.

Responding to suggestions to extend the MediShield illness insurance beyond 90 years old, Dr Khor said the result of that would be higher premiums. She said there is a need to strike a balance when it comes to affordability. Dr Khor added the Medifund endowment exists for Singaporeans beyond 90 years old and who need help with medical expenses.

(Photo taken from http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/current-affairs-lounge-17/transport-issue-%3B-crowding-trains-spill-over-onto-crowding-platforms-2859322.html)

Story of a village with only one restaurant: PAPCH Garden

http://www.tremeritus.com/2012/01/17/story-of-a-village-with-only-one-restaurant-papch-garden/
Story of a village with only one restaurant: PAPCH Garden
January 17th, 2012 | Author: Contributions

There is a village that only has one restaurant. Everyone in the village has to eat at that restaurant PAPCH Garden which serves $10 XO Chye Tow Kueh.

Villager: Why can’t we have more than one restaurant?

Head Waiter: Our village is at a critical point in it’s economic development where more than one restaurant can lead to chaos, so we only have one restaurant. Also, if there are other restaurants, I might get distracted and be unable to concentrate on my job.

Villager: But the food here is really not good! And it’s very expensive because all the staff are paid so much. And it’s also full of outsiders from other countries eating in it – and you have them working in the kitchen too, taking away ours jobs.

Head Waiter: Our restaurant is a small one. If you were to open another restaurant, the prosperity of the village would be fundamentally threatened.

Villager: But can’t it be a little cheaper?

Head Waiter: That would not suit the conditions of our village; the restaurant also needs to develop. We need to pay top dollar to attract top talents for our restaurant.

Waitress who called herself Ms Eff You: When I made the decision to join the restaurant in 2006, pay was not a key factor. Loss of privacy, public scrutiny on myself and my family and loss of personal time were. The disruption to my previous career was also an important consideration. I had some ground to believe that my family would not suffer a drastic change in the standard of living even though I experienced a drop in my income. So it is with this recent pay cut. If the balance is tilted further in the future, it will make it harder for any one considering joining the restaurant.

Villager: But the employees of the restaurant are all driving Mercedes Benz! And living in bungalows! And some of them have more than 10 houses.

Head Waiter: To ensure fair and uncorrupted staff, you need to pay them high salaries. This is what it is called, a transparent wage. If you really want, we will form a committee to decide on the staff wages, then talk about it in front of you even though we have already made a decision.

Villager: But last year, you lent all the profits of the restaurant to Temashit store and Jee Ai See Corporation!

Head Waiter: This is the village policy, you don’t need to worry about it. We are in it for the long term.

Villager: I heard that the Jee Ai See guy in charge of purchasing bought all the worthless shares that have since lost all their value – 50 billion American peanuts worth.

Head Waiter: That type of employee is very rare.

Villager: Then why did you promote him to make him President of the restaurant company?

Head Waiter: We have already volunteered him to take a pay cut of 51%.

Villager: But he’s still the best paid President on earth!

Head Waiter: Let’s move on. You have misunderstood me.

Other villagers: And the water from kitchen flooded our houses the other day!

Waiter in-charge of drinks: Ah, that was just ponding which happens once in 50 years.

Villager: And what about the time your restaurant system broke down for over 4 hours and trapped over a 1000 people inside?

Restaurant Valet: Don’t worry, we will have a committee of inquiry on this matter. Also, that chef responsible has also left to pursue personal interests. And the second chef has also left earlier to pursue personal interests.

Villager: So when we’ve got so many problems, why do you still hang up certificates of high quality? Why do you tell outsiders that everyone is eating so well? There are some people in our village who have no houses and not enough to eat.

Waiter in-charge of drinks: What do you want, 3 meals a day? Anyway, you misunderstood me. I am sorry you are upset about your misunderstanding me.

Villager: The grain was grown by the peasant farmers. The village was built by the first generation villagers and the its security is undertaken by all our our young male villagers for 2 years of their lives.

Head Waiter: Look, New Singapore Shares!

Villager: I can’t even get a decent meal, what do these other things have to do with me? Why don’t other villages have all these problems that we have here?

Old Waiter: Whenever you talk about yourself, you only say bad things. When you talk about others, you say everything is good. You are so complacent. You need to have spurs stuck in your hide. You must repent!

Villager: Eh, but down the road there is a new hawker stall with a hammer sign. The food quality looks quite good and the staff wear blue uniforms. Also, they smile at you and try to help you. They have a chye tow kueh chef who was trained in Beijing to make XO chye tow kueh and many other things. He has even taken a pay cut to come back and help our village out.

Major General (NS) Waiter: But hor, even though they only charge you $1.50, you might not want to eat it because the quality is not good leh. (Turning to the other waiters) If you guys agree with me, Kee Chiu!

Old waiter (getting angry): If you choose to go to that hawker stall, then I say good luck to you. You have five years to ruminate and to regret what you did. And I have no doubts you will regret it. At the end of the day, you should ask yourself: Do you want a celebrity chef who has been away 30 years and a bunch of non-scholars to serve you?’

Head Waiter (quickly cut in): Please bear with us. We’re trying our best on your behalf. And if we didn’t quite get it right, I am sorry but we will try and do better the next time.”

Villager: Too late. 39.9% of us are going to try the stall. I hear it’s in Aljunied.

.

Karen Teoh

* From http://www.danwei.com/a-village-with-only-one-restaurant/ with some uniquely Village amendments.

* Personal note: I think the Chye Tow Kueh was the last straw for me after the spate of recent news about pay, SMRT and ‘ponding’. Anyone want to make a video/podcast with it? Might be interesting to hear it “acted’ aloud. At the end of the day, this is just a light-hearted post to blow off steam, laugh about it – then go eat at the other hawker stall in Aljunied in 5 years time. Hope they will be setting up franchises in different parts of the village. Please share and repost – and remind people to eat at the other hawker stall when they next have the chance.

* Editor’s note: Have also added some further amendments to Karen’s amendments. Feel free to add further and share it around

catherinelim.sg » 50 Years of PAP Rule: Has PAP Fatigue Set In?

http://catherinelim.sg/2012/01/17/50-years-of-pap-rule-has-pap-fatigue-set-in/
50 Years of PAP Rule: Has PAP Fatigue Set In?

Below is the full transcript of my acceptance speech on being awarded the ‘Lifetime Achievement Award’ by the Online Citizen on the occasion of its 5th Anniversary, on 13 January 2012.

Following the shock results of the General Election of 2011 (GE 2011) there was, as expected, a flurry of commentaries analyzing the causes. But the analyses omitted what could turn out to be the most interesting and intriguing one of all. Thus while they examined, with forensic thoroughness, the people’s anger against the unpopular PAP policies related to foreign workers and the ministerial salaries, while they scrutinized the resentment against PAP arrogance, they paid little attention to what I have rather facetiously called PAP Fatigue, that is, an overwhelming sense of weariness with a ruling party that has been around for far too long.

The weariness would appear to be part of human nature, a natural disposition to react negatively to an imposed environment of oppressive sameness and uniformity, the reaction being all the stronger when there is no prospect of change.

For nearly 50 years, Singaporeans had never known any form of government except the one-party rule of the PAP, had never been exposed to any but the authoritarian and peremptory PAP style, had never experienced democracy except the carefully edited PAP version.

Some years ago, on the occasion of the fortieth anniversary of the party’s rule, then Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew declared that since the PAP government was the best, it should be around for the next 40 years. If he had his wish, it would mean that Singaporeans would have to live permanently with PAP fatigue.

Yet into the twenty first century, conditions in Singapore were already ripe for political change. For the society was arguably among the most technologically advanced and globally connected in the world, and the most aggressively capitalistic. This meant that Singaporeans were well exposed to other forms of government, to examples of properly functioning, two-way government-people relationships, examples of robust civic societies.

Why then, for nearly half a century, did the Singapore electorate choose to endure PAP Fatigue?

The reason must lie in the special compact between the PAP government and the people, which though only implicit, was nevertheless strong and binding. According to this compact, the government would provide the people with the highest possible level of material prosperity, political stability and social orderliness, and the people, in return, would show full co-operation and support for whatever decisions the government made and whatever policies it chose to enforce.

So under a rule far longer than any seen in other countries, during which the PAP exerted control in virtually every domain of life, the fatigue factor, because it was not allowed free expression, simply settled into a general docility and conformity of thinking, feeling and behaving. If it dared rouse itself into political agitation, it was quickly smacked down by that fearful instrument of control, the Internal Security Act or ISA, by which activists could be detained without trial. And there was also that equally feared instrument, the defamation suit by which political critics could be financially crippled for life.

Through it all, the people must have constantly reminded themselves that it was still a very worthwhile trade-off, for they were enjoying a degree of prosperity unmatched in the region. In any case, even if they wanted an alternative government, there was simply no prospect of any, since the existing opposition parties were just so pitifully small, weak and helpless. Taking into account all these factors, Singaporeans must have come to the conclusion that their lot, though somewhat complicated, was by no means a bad one.

Hence, it did not matter that outsiders were making unflattering observations of us, for instance, that Singaporeans had become a nation of unquestioning and compliant subjects, incapable of acting on their own, with no interests beyond bread-and-butter concerns and the famous 5Cs of social success. Singaporean students might perform brilliantly in exams but were woefully lacking in independent thinking, creative expression and social skills. The Singapore media and other public institutions were predictably, boringly pro-Establishment. Most of all, there was no identifiable Singapore culture beyond the ubiquitous food centres and shopping malls.

If in a general election, PAP Fatigue managed to surface in little pockets of angry voting, it made no difference whatsoever to the general state of affairs. This was true of all the previous 11 elections; after each one, the antagonism duly subsided, the people went back to their accustomed acquiescence and the government to its accustomed strongman methods. It was business as usual.

So what happened in the 12th election to make GE 2011 so different as to be called a defining election, a watershed, after which things could never be the same? Had the fatigue factor finally reached the stage of ‘enough is enough’, and struck back as a retaliatory force that took by surprise even the supremely confident PAP? Had it managed to link up with the other causes of voter discontent, to form one huge, super anti-PAP force that actually did the unimaginable, that is, compel the PAP leaders, led by the Prime Minister himself, to offer public apologies in an amazing display of contrition, humility and earnestness never seen before?

And did this extraordinary outpouring imply something that was just too good to be true: that in future the government would think twice before ramming through one unpopular policy after another, such as the deplorable one of the ministerial salaries?

Indeed, it may be said that what the people accomplished in GE 2011 was nothing less than historic—putting an end to fifty years of political apathy, fifty years of a losing compact with the government.

At this stage of my deliberations, a very pertinent question may be asked: Is this a true picture of GE 2011 and its outcomes? Or it is somewhat exaggerated, overly optimistic?

We’ll see. Going further in the deliberations, I am now going to suggest that the main reason for the obvious effectiveness of the fatigue factor was the concurrence of two special happenings, unique to GE 2011, which interacted to produce an effect that neither on its own could have achieved.

The first was the emergence of a group of voters who, by virtue of a natural restlessness and impatience were the most likely group to turn PAP Fatigue into an active fighting force. These were the young voters, in their twenties and thirties, many of them first-time voters, with the natural tendency of youth to get easily bored and start clamouring for change.

Thus even the mere fact of the PAP’s very long presence in the political scene would have been enough for the fatigue factor to kick in and make a difference in votes. But what seriously aggravated this fact was the perception of the young voters, accompanied by strong resentment, that the PAP government had become totally indifferent to their needs and aspirations.

They were, in the typical language of youth, ‘pissed off’ by certain well-known attributes of the PAP which, though generally detestable, were especially repugnant to the young.

These included the overbearing, intolerant and patronizing approach that was so stifling to their vibrant and creative energies; the elitism, superiority and highhandedness that offended their youthful ideals of equality and fair play; the inflexibility, stiffness, and formality that were at odds with the casual, spontaneous, friendly manner that they favoured.

If additionally, this group shared the overall voter perception that the PAP, despite its claims of high standards of leadership, was becoming too lax, complacent and arrogant, and losing touch with the common people, then the hostility would have been that much greater.

The second mentioned special happening in GE 2011 was the emergence of a force which provided exactly the hope that these disaffected young voters needed, exactly the channel for their blocked and frustrated energies. This was the amazingly revitalized Workers’ Party, the clear star of the opposition.

It quickly came to represent for them all that the PAP lacked: a simple, casual, unassuming style that dispensed with pomp and ceremony (there was a post-election picture in the newspapers showing the party chairman in a Hawaiian shirt riding a bicycle and another one of him conferring with his new constituents in a Spartan setting of basic furniture set up in an HDB void deck); a bold, creative flair for new ideas, as seen in the party slogan of ‘A First World Parliament’ that clearly resonated with these young voters ; a calm dignity throughout the hurly burly of the hustings, which must have impressed them deeply because it contrasted so sharply with the shocking display of vindictive anger by a senior PAP member.

Perhaps the most attractive attribute of the Workers’ Party for these young Singaporeans was something that the PAP had routinely and contemptuously dismissed as irrelevant in leadership, but which the young, in their media-saturated world, prize highly—charisma. A newcomer in the Workers’ Party, was quickly seen to embody this quality: he had not only the dazzling credentials of a top academic, entrepreneur and CEO, but also the glamorous good looks of a star (A female newspaper columnist wrote gushingly about his choice of a certain style of shirt, showing him in three pictures smiling like a true celebrity basking in the adulation of fans)

In short, these young voters saw the PAP as old, dull and stale, belonging to the past, and the Worker’s Party as new, bright and hip, pointing to the future.

The prominence of this group of voters on the electoral stage may irritate some PAP sympathisers and provoke this question: Why bother about them when they do not, after all, comprise the majority, and, in any case, will soon outgrow the immaturity of youth?

The conclusion which the PAP leaders have probably already reached is this: this group of voters cannot be ignored; on the contrary, they must be singled out for special attention and wooing, for numerous compelling reasons.

Firstly, they will be active voters for a long time to come, and must therefore be quickly weaned from their present hostility. Secondly, they are the young citizens, in an ageing population, whom the government will have to depend on for the country’s future development, and who must therefore not feel alienated enough to want to leave the country and emigrate. Thirdly, they belong to the increasingly powerful world of the Internet and the social media, which no government in the world can afford to ignore. Fourthly, because in GE 2011, they clearly had the support of a large number of older voters who could easily identify with them, they might be setting a dangerous precedent—starting a trend of strong generational unity within the anti-PAP camp that could only work to its advantage.

Lastly, and perhaps most significantly, the exuberance, boldness and defiance of the young voters, operating in the new media world of instant, dazzling communication, could be infectious enough to have an unstoppable snowball effect, engulfing other groups of voters, including even those normally sympathetic towards the PAP. In fact, something like this could already have happened, as may be inferred by the 40% vote against the PAP in the General Election swelling to an alarming 65% vote against the PAP-endorsed candidate in the Presidential Election some months later.

In short, possibly for the first time in Singapore’s electoral history, a small core of young voters had provided the sparks that started a fire that could set off a whole conflagration if not stopped.

Thus it was not surprising that the PAP quickly swung into a massive campaign of damage control, repair and rebuilding. The Prime Minister announced, almost immediately after GE 2011, that the PAP would ‘re-invent’ itself in order to win back the people’s trust. The term is a much stronger one than ‘self-renewal’, used to describe an on-going exercise in which young potential leaders are systematically recruited and trained to replace the older leaders, to prevent complacency and carelessness from ever setting in.

‘Re-invention’ implies much more than self-renewal—it means a complete overhaul, a transformation, a born-again PAP that has an entirely new compact with the people. As if to convince the people of his utter sincerity, the Prime Minister used another, even more impressive-sounding word: he told the nation that from now onwards, he and his team would be ‘servant-leaders’. (I remember gasping at the use of the word) ‘Servant-leaders’—the ultimate oxymoron that must have made many people sit up and ask: did I hear right? Never had a prime minister so earnestly pledged so drastic a change of leadership style, so soon after an election.

At this point, I have to come in as a skeptic, and show the other side of the GE 2011 picture, which I fear is not at all pretty. I believe that the PAP is incapable of re-inventing itself, because true re-invention would require the opening up of one crucial area, that the PAP seems determined to keep under control at all cost. This is the area of political liberties—open debate and criticism, independence of the media, public assemblies and street demonstrations for a cause, etc., all of which are taken for granted in practising democracies.

Over the years, the government had reluctantly made small concessions, such as allowing a Speakers’ Corner, relaxing some censorship laws, tweaking a rule here, tinkering with another there, never going beyond these small, meager offerings that Singaporeans had no choice but to accept because there was nothing better.

In this regard, PAP Fatigue has an additional meaning for political critics like myself—a frustrating, exhausting weariness with the PAP government, not because it has been around too long, but because during this long period of rule, it has not seen fit to nurture the people politically, and has failed to provide the proper environment for political education and growth. This right of the people is so basic and fundamental that no amount of material wealth can compensate for its denial or loss.

Still, assuming that the Prime Minister is sincere in his pledge and that he understands the mood of high expectancy in what may be described as Singapore’s version of the Arab Spring, the following questions are pertinent. Just what can the PAP government do to win the people’s trust, and once and for all, establish a proper basis for a working government-people relationship? To match the watershed expectations generated by GE 2011, what watershed act of re-invention is it prepared to undertake? With special reference to the by now obvious threat of the PAP Fatigue phenomenon, what can the government do to prevent it from ever appearing again, not only among the young voters, but the entire Singapore electorate?

Some months ago, a group of 16 ex-political detainees jointly petitioned the government to set up a commission of inquiry to look into the allegations against them. The petition was promptly dismissed; the government later issued a terse statement to say that since all the proper procedures about the matter had already been taken, no further action was needed.

I was acutely disappointed. For I thought that the PAP had missed a fantastic opportunity to prove to the people that it had the honesty and courage to face up to its past excesses and take responsibility for them, or, as the case might be, that it had the strength and dignity to stand by the principles on which it had acted. Either way, it would have won the respect and regard of the people. Moreover, it had also missed the chance to show Singaporeans what is surely the noblest quality to come out of any conflict—the grace and magnanimity to reach out to former foes in reconciliation and new amity.

Indeed, a Commission of Inquiry with its urgency of purpose, potency of authority and high public visibility, would have been the ideal combination of powerful symbolism on the one hand and political will in real action, on the other, to bring about the event needed to signal the dawn of a new era. In one fell stroke, it would have banished that long-standing affective divide between the government and the people, an emotional estrangement that neither side wants. In the practical language of Singaporeans, it would have been a win-win situation for all—the government, the ex-detainees, the people, the entire society, even future generations. If only. If only.

The unfortunate truth is that the PAP remains adamant on keeping a tight lid on political and civic liberties. While it takes a generous and liberal stance in the opening up of all other areas—education, the arts, entertainment, lifestyle—it has built a firewall around the political domain. While it has readily agreed to commissions of inquiry for national mishaps such as the Nicoll Highway collapse, the escape of top terrorist Mas Selamat, and more recently, the major breakdowns in the MRT, it draws a line at matters that might engulf the whole nation in political questioning and debate, for which it has the strongest antipathy.

Indeed, so averse is the PAP to the subject that, as many of us may have noticed, it even shies away from using words such as ‘democracy’, ‘human rights, ‘ ‘political reform’. And yet these are matters at the core of a government-people relationship if it is to be based on transparency, respect and trust.

I will maintain that as long as there is no real political opening up (two weeks ago, in his New Year message, the Prime Minister spoke about a ‘political transition’ but I don’t think he can ever bring himself to talk about ‘a political opening up’, or ‘political reform’) and as long as political dissidents feel they may be punished in one way or another, for instance, by new and subtle uses of the ISA which the government has made clear it has no intention of repealing, the so-called transformation after GE 2011, will, at best, be a partial one only, and at worst, a travesty of all the noble promises that had been made. What a pity. Once again, the ‘if only’ sigh of wistful longing!

If only, to their very substantial material achievements, the PAP could add the non-material, but equally important achievement of enabling the society to move steadily towards political liberty! I am not talking about the disruptive, wild excesses of democracy seen in some countries; I am talking about a sensible, responsible exercise of democratic rights that surely Singaporeans are capable of, at this stage in the development of our society.

The skeptic in me wants so much to be an optimist. I am terrified that if nothing comes out of GE 2011, nothing ever will, out of any future election. It will be business as usual, in the most hideously fatalistic sense of the word.

My best hope lies in the young Singaporeans I have been so enthusiastically talking about, those young voters who, in GE 2011, converted the fatigue factor into a voice that the PAP government was forced to listen to. Over the years, as they continue to be exposed to the outside world, as they become more discerning, more critical, more engaged, I hope that they will continue to use PAP Fatigue as a tool for change, always constructively and wisely, always with the well-being of the society in mind.

Most of all, they must persevere in nudging forward, respectfully but relentlessly, an exasperatingly resistant PAP government that prefers, if at all, to take such painfully slow, such painfully small steps along the path of political reform. Reform there must be. For only then can Singapore come into its own, only then can it claim to be a successful society in every sense of the word, and take a proud place among other societies in the world.

Current pay system not an option: PAP MP | publichouse.sg

http://www.publichouse.sg/categories/topstory/item/396-current-pay-system-not-an-option-pap-mp
"I believe that there are successful people in Singapore who are willing to put aside their corporate perks and power suits to serve in a cause they believe in."
~~ Ms Denise Phua

Parliamentary speech by Ms Denise Phua, MP for Moulmein-Kallang GRC, on ministerial salaries, on 16 January.

Ask 10 different people how much they think their political leaders should be paid and you are likely to get 10 different responses. Sir, that was my experience when I studied the views of Singaporeans in the public, private and people sectors through desktop research, face-to-face discussions and polls.

To the passionate who are fighting for causes they deeply believe in, sacrificing part or all of their salary is not an issue.
To the low-wage worker who earns $5 an hour, a million-dollar pay is unimaginable.

To a PMET (Professional, Manager, Executive, Technician) earning the median Singapore income of less than $3,000 per month, the million-dollar pay is an unattainable dream.

There are others who are concerned with the Golden Parachute effect of entrants to politics who enjoy big windfalls in pay although they had no prior appropriate leadership experience.

Yet to some in the private sector, the Ministers’ pay is a bargain compared to the typical $3m to $7m annual CEO packages of local banks, telcos and others. On the ground, someone quipped that the annual pay of for instance, a local CEO which in a good year can skyrocket to $20 million, could pay for more than half the Cabinet. The Straits Times reported recently that the annual incomes of second tier senior executives in some big local firms amounted to between $1m and $2m.

Sir, the mixed reactions reminded me very much of the parable of ‘The Elephant and the 6 Blind Men’. Each man described the animal according to the part of the elephant they are touching. And according to John Godfrey Saxe’s poem of the same parable, all men ‘disputed loud and long’.

The truth of the matter is, all of them are right except that each view is but a partial view. The same can be said of Singaporeans’ descriptions of the ministerial pay issue. The disputes are similarly ‘loud and long’ and ministerial pay is one of the most divisive subjects in our country.

To heal our land, it is critical that each of us take the time and be open enough to find out and accept that there are other perspectives.

LEADERS WHO ARE WORTH THE MILLIONS

When the subject of Ministerial and Top Civil Servants’ pay was debated upon in April 2007, I was very uneasy. Till today, I believe that there are successful people in Singapore who are willing to put aside their corporate perks and power suits to serve in a cause they believe in.

Sir, five years on, I have learnt to recognise my view, like the blind men describing the elephant, is but one perspective based on my own values and season in life. Mind you, there are indeed people who would still give up successful careers to do what they believe in. In fact, just last week, yet another young banker hung up her corporate suit and joined the charity I run. But there are insufficient. I could not find enough of them who had the right mix of passion and technical and leadership competencies I need to help me construct our dream 21st century charity. Through a mix of monetary and non-monetary measures such as culture-building, we were able to attract and retain barely enough talents to sustain our rapid growth.

Sir, I can imagine how the challenge of attracting sufficient people with the right character and skillsets to enter politics, is multiplied.

The ‘new-normal’ political culture appears to call for ‘superhero’ politicians who are even rarer species. Ideally, the leaders of the future should be able to:

1. Inspire our people (especially those who have options to leave) to not only stay on but also actively construct our dream country together;

2. Connect and engage their constituents both face-to-face and in cyberspace;

3. Facilitate, gather differing perspectives and resolve multi-faceted issues with stakeholder groups who sometimes have opposing interests;

4. Harness continued support of their constituents and teams and do well at the polls; and to me most importantly.

5. Exercise not only courage to question but also the skills to provide solutions and exercise reforms in sacred-cow areas which are complex and deeply entrenched; but if nothing is done, will lead our country to demise. I am talking about the complex challenges such as trimming the $700-million tuition industry which appears to be a grudgingly accepted feature of our education landscape; the creation or re-designing of jobs to elevate the incomes and dignity of vulnerable citizens such as the elderly, lowly educated or the disabled; the potential of transforming private enterprises in essential services such as public transport to social enterprises.

Sir, MOE has developed a framework of the 21st century competencies essential for the survival of our students, our political and government leaders need the same. The dream leaders who are closer to the ideal profile I described are worth many millions. That is the additional perspective I wish to offer to the topic of ministerial pay review.

HALF-FULL OR HALF-EMPTY – ANALYSIS OF THE REPORT ON MINISTERIAL PAY REVIEW

Sir, I would like to turn now to the specifics of the Report on the Ministerial Pay Review, from a leadership and HR professional’s perspective.

Sir, I hold this glass of water in my hands. Is it half-full or half-empty? Some of us optimists will declare it is half-full. Others who are less positive will say it is half-empty. The cynics amongst us will wonder who drank the other half. I say it is both – half-full and half-empty.

HALF-FULL – POSITIVE RECOMMENDATIONS

Although I do not completely agree with the recommendations carried in the Report of the Ministerial Salaries Committee, I cannot, in good conscience, say that the Committee has done a poor job. By boldly recommending pay slashes up to 50% - measures which are hardly cosmetic, the Committee has moved in the right direction.

Like many in Singapore, I thought it was important that if reference was drawn from what I felt was a more punishing private sector in terms of pay and accountability, then it was only right that common compensation principles in that sector be applied.

I am heartened that some of the recommendations I made were considered and applied, and in some cases, enhanced.

1. An independent and external Salary Review Committee was set up, for the first time so that executives do not write their own;

2. The line of sight linking an incumbent’s Pay and his Performance is now clearer;

3. The previously simplistic link of Bonus to GDP growth rate is now expanded;

4. The Salary Benchmarking formula now targets a much bigger group of 1000 instead of 48 top wage earners;

5. Keeping the annual base pay package to comprise only monthly salaries and a 13th month bonus by removing items like Special Allowance and Public Service Leadership Allowances is a more acceptable compensation practice; amongst others.

HALF-EMPTY – ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Sir, to help further fill up the Glass, I would like to offer 5 recommendations:

1. Peg Pay to a Broader Base of Income Wage Earners and Discard Discount

The proposed salary benchmark of the entry level minister, is now pegged to the top 1000 wage earners, instead of 48, in Singapore. A discount of 40% is then applied.

Sir, the selection of the 1000 top wage earners, albeit more reasonable, is arbitrary and smacks of elitism because the base is about 0.05% of the workforce, assuming a workforce size of 2 milion. The application of the discount, whether the current one-third or the proposed 40%, is also arbitrary and often forgotten and unappreciated.

I propose that political leaders’ pay be pegged to a simple top percentile income bracket, eg 10% of 20% of Singaporeans.

A quick poll I conducted revealed that more Singaporeans are likely to understand and accept that their leaders belong to the top 10-20% income bracket in our country.

2. Strengthen the Line of Sight between Pay and Performance

a. Remove 1 of the 3 components of the Variable Pay Component ie the Annual Variable Component (AVC) and retain only (i) Performance Bonus which relates to the performance of the individual portfolio; and (ii) National Bonus which is linked to how the country performs;

b. Publicise the Key Performance Indicators or KPIs for individual portfolios so that Singaporeans have a better understanding of how they are linked to Performance Bonuses of the office bearers. Developing and publishing KPIs that relate to both the routine operations and new initiatives in, especially essential services such as housing, transport, social services, and education, are important for better understanding of the size of the individual portfolios and promote better quality dialogues;

c. Expand the National Bonus indicators which are now 100% linked to jobs and incomes. This is to reduce the potential of excessive risk-taking or undesirable tactics to boost the numbers. For instance, starting a third casino to boost the economy may well boost all 4 components of the National Bonus - real median income growth rate; real grow rate of the lowest 20th percentile income; lower unemployment rate; and enhance real GDP growth rate; but the move may well be an easier path to developing or own tourism products and is detrimental to the long term competitiveness and social well-being of our people.

3. Review the Benefits Package and Not Over-Extend the ‘Clean-Wage’ Principle.

Sir, it is a little ludicrous that the dental benefit of our Prime Minister and Ministers is $70/- per year and outpatient subsidy capped at $350 a year. Consider the provision of common benefits such as car and annual health screening packages that are typically provided to executives. Do not over-extend the application of the principle of ‘Clean Wage’ so far that it becomes artificial.

4. Clarify the job scope and expectations of Political Appointment Holders.

Sir, one of the underlying factors leading to the constant unhappy undertone when the subject of political pay is discussed in our country is the lack of awareness of the duties of political appointment holders from Members of Parliament to Ministers and even Speakers.

a. Members of Parliaments have differing views of their roles. The latest episode during which several Opposition MPs opine that it is the job of Government to help their poor and needy residents and referral is the right strategy; caused a debate of its own outside the House. The clarity of duties and goals would be useful even to MPs of the ruling party.

b. The man in the street, for instance, does not understand the role of the Speaker of the House and does not have sufficient information to comprehend how it equates to a Cabinet Minister.

c. Clarity is also useful in the case of office bearers who hold multiple portfolios, sometimes up to 3 roles. It takes more than a human being to do 3 roles effectively and leave little time and space for the incumbent to reflect and reform policies where needed.

Sir, instead of sweeping these under carpet, it is needful to clarify the job scopes and expectations of political appointment holders.

5. Conduct a Review of the Civil Service Leadership Pay

One of my deepest concerns is that the Review excluded the some 300 top civil servants in the elite Admin Service. The title of the Report is entitled “Salaries for a Capable and Committed Government” but the review has deliberately excluded top civil service leaders specifically the Permanent Secretaries and others in the elite Admin Service. This is the group that has been often been kept below the radar from public eye though they play a significant role in supporting the Prime Minister and his Cabinet in the development and execution of national policies. Due to their critical role, some of these elite talents are pegged on the same salary band with the ministers.

Sir, if and when the recommendations of the committee of political pay review are accepted, some civil servants will receive much higher packages than their ministers. Unlike the political appointment holders, they will continue to enjoy the retention of benefits such as the pension schemes which will be removed from the former.

a. Sir, paying for top talents especially for those who opt for a career in the civil service is not an issue. However, the same principles of rigour in job evaluation, accountability for KPIs and disclosure must be applied. If private firms and charities are expected to disclose the highest paid executives and their salary bands, there is no reason why there should be a cloak of secrecy over the Admin Service incumbents.

b. Sir, I ask the Prime Minister to conduct an independent review of top civil service leadership that will go beyond pay to attract, develop and retain talent for a capable and committed government.

CONCLUSION - HEAL OUR NATION

In conclusion, Sir, the review of political salaries is a work-in-progress. It needs further refinement but it is moving in the right direction. To reject it and to wait for it to be perfect and acceptable to every interested Singaporean, will mean the current system stays. And that to me, is not an option.

Like our opinion on this glass, some will continue to insist that it is half-full whilst others will insist that it is half-empty. And then there are those who will provide constructive ideas on how to completely fill the glass and make future reviews even sharper and more acceptable. This is the group who will help in the healing of the differences that have arisen out of the controversial subject of political pay.

On this note, I wish to thank the Prime Minister for slaying one of the sacred cows that has been a source of division and unhappiness amongst Singaporeans. I want to thank him too for graciously donating all of his pay rises in the last 5 years, in order to defend the policy of attracting and retaining talents to run our country.

I urge all of us as leaders of this country to develop a dream for Singapore that is so compelling that more leaders with both character and competence will come forward to serve, come what pay.

Chen Show Mao’s speech on Ministerial Salary Review 陈硕茂对于部长级薪酬检讨的国会演讲

http://wp.sg/2012/01/ministerial-salary-review-csm/

Chen Show Mao
"Because political service starts with our election as parliamentary representatives of the people, MP allowance should be the starting point. The Cabinet is the constitutional extension of Parliament not an extension of the private sector."

陈硕茂
“我们的政治领袖可不是直接由私人企业界遴选出来担任部长，而后再兼任民选议员的。相反的，他先得当选为议员，才能受委进入内阁担任部长。因此，部长薪金不应当与私人企业界的薪金水平挂钩，而是应该以国会议员的津贴为基准。“

================
Chen Show Mao’s speech on Ministerial Salary Review

Mr Speaker Sir,

The Workers’ Party view the committee’s report with a sense of hope because it is a step in the right direction. We agree with the three principles that political salaries should be competitive, that political service is a calling and has its own ethos, and that wages should be transparent.

Political service is a calling and not be treated as discount factor
However, the order by which the principles are applied has produced in our view a flawed new benchmark. Because competitive salary is placed as the first principle ahead of political service, the committee has pegged ministerial salary to the median salary of the 1000 top-earning Singaporeans and then applied a discount for political service.
If the new benchmark is accepted by the Government, it would continue to send the message, to potential political office holders and the people of Singapore alike, that top pay is the benchmark by which the importance of the office is to be judged, and that the value of political office can, in the final analysis, be monetized. It cannot be，Not even at the highest income levels. Political service is a calling; it is a privilege accorded by the electorate to serve the largest number of our fellow Singaporeans. It is primarily a privilege, not primarily a burden or sacrifice. The principle of political service should come first and not be treated as a discount factor.

Whole of Government, People-up approach

Because political service is in the genre of public service, we propose a whole-of-government, people-up approach that benchmarks Ministerial salary to MP allowance, which is in turn pegged to the pay of the civil service bench-marked to general wage levels. Because political service starts with our election as parliamentary representatives of the people, MP allowance should be the starting point. The Cabinet is the constitutional extension of Parliament and the institutional expression of the legislature’s control over the executive. It is not an extension of the private sector.

This whole-of-government, people-up approach is a pragmatic reality in many well-governed, developed countries and territories around the world.

Is Singapore unique? Of course. But it is not so dissimilar to others that we cannot learn from their best practices and how they apply good principles.

For example, the committee writes, “As is international practice in Westminster Parliamentary systems, the … political appointment holders will also receive MP allowances as they have the dual roles of being MPs”.

Parliament Sovereignty is paramount

We agree that the Ministers should receive their MP allowances. But that is because, Ministers are MPs first, they are not merely also MPs. We must remember that in our system of government, Ministers are first of all MPs elected by the people as their representatives. Not selected by the Prime Minister from the private sector into the Cabinet and then also MPs. Parliament is the highest authority in our system of government, and MPs, as elected representatives of the people, should be the starting point for the determination of ministerial salary. The committee’s benchmark to the private sector clouds this fact. Worker’s Party recommends pegging ministerial salary as multiples of MP allowance. This expresses the fact that ministers are first and foremost elected as MPs to serve and represent the people.
So in what multiples should Singapore peg ministerial salary to MP allowance? We propose that an entry-grade minister’s monthly salary be 5 times the MP allowance, and 9 times for the Prime Minister.
As DPM said, there are no right or wrong answers, and this is ultimately a judgment call. We propose multiples based on the increased responsibilities and additional capabilities and experience required of the different political offices in Singapore. We also believe that this is where the principles of competitive salary and transparency can come in, to take into consideration some of the factors cited by the committee as to why the system of Singapore may be different from those in other countries. In the words of DPM, we believe the pay should be sufficient to not deter potential political office holders with desire and ability, from serving in political office without undue concern for their standards of living.

Of course we would like to see capable men and women in the Cabinet. But I do not believe that our best people for political office are only those who make the most money. Many of our former and current Ministers did not come in from the private sector or the top earning professions, that is as we would expect. Many of them were public servants who heeded the call of political service by standing for elections.
Political service is in the nature of public service. We believe that MP allowance should be set with reference to the salary of senior executives in the regular civil service. This is consistent with the general practice in most of the countries and territories we surveyed.

The starting salary of entry-grade senior civil servants in the regular civil service — a director of MX9 grade in the Management Executive Scheme of the civil service (outside of the Administrative Service) is approximately $11,000 a month.

In our proposal, MP allowance would be about $11,000 per month, Ministerial salary would range from $55,000 per month for entry-grade ministers to $99,000 per month for the Prime Minister.

We support the clean wage proposal for transparency, in which compensation is fully accounted for with no hidden items. In addition to a fixed 13-month salary that is keyed to MP allowance, we propose that the ministers and the prime minister receive variable pay of different bonuses that add up to no more than five months in any year (compared to 13.5 months recommended by the committee). Many Singaporeans may take home up to 3 or 4 months of bonuses in a very good year, compared to 13.5 months for the ministers as recommended by the committee. In fact, if the maximum bonuses recommended by the committee were awarded, the reduction in entry-grade minister pay would be 8% and not the 31% calculated by the committee.
In our whole-of-government approach, since civil service salary is aligned to general market conditions faced by Singaporean workers, MP allowance and ministerial salary will move with the income levels of many more Singaporeans than with the total employment and trade income of the top-earning 1000, including their bonuses, commissions and stock options. The Workers’ Party’s benchmark will better help our leaders empathize with the majority of Singaporeans and not just the very few.
Inclusivity vs Exclusivity

The Workers’ Party’s proposed approach aims for enhanced inclusivity and sensitivity to the progress of Singaporeans, rather than discounted exclusivity pegged to top earners. We believe the committee has taken the right step forward with the three principles. It is up to the Government now to go further to apply the principles in the right order by recognizing political service as the first principle, anchored in the primacy of parliament. Let us place ministerial pay on a sound footing in order to ground political leadership in a strong sense of service to all Singaporeans.

Thank you. And now, if I may, in Chinese.

议长先生，

我们认可委员会提出的三大原则：一、政治职位薪金应该具有竞争力；二、从政应该有奉献的精神；三、薪酬应该完全透明。

但遗憾的是，这三大原则在奉行时的先后轻重，却使整套新的方程式出现了根本误区。把部长薪金与全国收入最高的1000人挂钩，然后为了反映政治服务的奉献精神再打个折，这个做法突显了委员会优先考虑的是高薪的原则，这只会进一步强化现有的错误观念，认定从政的价值到头来还是要以金钱来衡量。

我们当然希望有意愿从政的人不会因为薪水过低而裹足不前。但前提是，他立志从政该不是主要因为薪水高，而是因为他先把为国为民服务视为己任。这才是我们应当坚守的第一原则。

认清了从政的本质是公共服务，我们就应该采纳“整体政府”的方案，部长薪金应以议员津贴为基准，而议员津贴则与公务员薪水挂钩。毕竟，在我国的宪政体系下，内阁是国会的延伸，内阁从来不是私人企业界的延伸。

这么一种“整体政府”、由民间从下而上的方案，也在世界许多国家与地区推行。

当然, 新加坡的国情向来就是独一无二的。但再怎么特殊, 也不至于完全找不到其他体制值得我们学习的地方吧？

委员会的建议反映了一个政治盲点：我们的政治领袖可不是直接由私人企业界遴选出来担任部长，而后再兼任民选议员的。相反的，他先得当选为议员，才能受委进入内阁担任部长。因此，部长薪金不应当与私人企业界的薪金水平挂钩，而是应该以国会议员的津贴为基准。

认清这一点后，我们可以考虑第二及第三个原则了：议员津贴的多大倍数才足以确保部长薪金保有竞争力，而又透明化？工人党的建议是：部长薪金应介于议员津贴的五倍至九倍之间，以初级部长倍数最低，总理倍数最高。这个范畴比国际标准来得高，应该足以反映新加坡独特的国情。

委员会的建议所反映的另一个误区是，认定最优秀的从政人才该出自收入最高的1000人当中。我们现任与前任的部长当中，就有好多位并不是私人企业界或者高薪专业出身的。不少部长来自公共服务领域，更有些是先从议员做起，慢慢累积政治经验后再升任部长。

整体来说，以收入水平论从政才能，反映的恰恰是我们的社会典型的精英主义的狭隘心态。

综上所述，我们建议采取“整体政府”方案，部长薪金是议员津贴的倍数，而议员津贴则等同于高级公务员的起薪， 大约每月11000元。而既然公务员的薪金也与新加坡其他员工一样取决于经济状况及市场条件，这个方案更能确保部长薪金不会与人民的薪金水平脱钩。与其由私人企业界收入最高的1000名精英由上而下再打折，我们认为较适当的做法是从民间由下而上，由公务员薪金为起点，制定议员津贴，最后再乘以倍数制定部长薪金。
我们支持实行透明化的裸薪制。但是委员会建议的花红数额显然过高了。报告书说部长将减薪31%，那是以平均7个月的花红来计算得出的结果。但是花红总数额最高可达13个半月，如果花红全领了，部长薪水基本上比检讨前只减少8%。

因此，工人党建议，在固定的十三个月年薪以外，部长与总理所获得的所有花红数额，应该设定顶限，总共不得超过五个月。这么一来，在景气好表现好的年度里，部长与总理，可领多至十八个月的薪水，而不是委员会所建议的26个半月。

工人党期许部长薪金制度能以更包容更贴近民生的方式来制定，而不是只局限在社会金字塔顶层的一小撮精英范畴内，而后再通过打折，努力地尝试贴近民生。委员会所制定的三大原则是值得肯定的，接下来就有待政府如何将这三大原则的先后轻重厘清，充分体现政治领导层为国为民服务的使命感和高尚本质。

谢谢。

Dreams and Reality: Masterpieces of Painting, Drawing and Photography from the Musée d’Orsay, Paris

Rating:	★★★
Category:	Other

看了这美术展览感想是新加坡的艺术观念有待改善。灯光一样打得很差，很多画作因为灯光打得不好，影响了欣赏的乐趣与耐性。画作的编排就像新加坡的美食“罗惹”（Rojak）一样，暴发户似的以各种主题的方式，想把很多的内容和艺术家安插在其中，结果没有从时间或者画家或者风格为重点，看了觉得很混乱。当然，也有可能我的艺术知识和鉴赏能力比较差，我和太太到最后印象深刻的反而是几幅风格简单的画作。

因为参观当天是免费入场，很多画作变成游客“到此一游”的景点背景。新加坡的艺术基础教育和艺术基本鉴赏，比起先进的国家差了一大截。

最后最不解的是，为什么国家博物院要和新加坡美术博物馆抢生意，主办美术展览，难道定位为展出历史文物的博物馆已经没有其他主题可以发挥了吗？

========================
Venue Singapore National Museum Exhibition Galleries 1 & 2
Date Wed 26 Oct 2011 – Sun 5 Feb 2012 | 10am – 6pm daily Saturdays Only | 10am - 8pm

From the collection of the world renowned Musée d’Orsay, over 140 Salon, Realists, Impressionists and Post-Impressionists paintings, photographs and drawings from the mid-19th century to the early 20th century will specially tour to Singapore this year. Titled Dreams and Reality: Masterpieces of Painting, Drawing and Photography from the Musée d’Orsay, Paris, the exhibition explores the reaction of man towards modernity at the turn of the century from 1848 to 1912. The changing social and industrial landscapes of Paris in early modernity forced artists and photographers to rethink their approach to the visual world around them. Their varied responses generated new ways of depicting reality and a proliferation of styles.

Highlights of the exhibition include Paul Cézanne’s The Card Players, Vincent van Gogh’s Starry Night and Alexandre Cabanel’s The Birth of Venus. Many other key works by forerunners of modern art such as Gustave Courbet, Edgar Degas, Jean-François Millet as well as female Impressionists Berthe Morisot, Marie Bracquemond and Eva Gonzalès will also be showcased. A portrait of Georges Clemenceau by Édouard Manet will travel exclusively to Singapore.

extracted from Singapore National Museum
http://www.nationalmuseum.sg/ExhibitionDetail.aspx?id=65&cat=2#INTRO

For Mr M (1948--2012)

I was stopped by a resident of our nursing home when I was leaving office in the last working day before Christmas of 2011. He given me some money and wanted me to help him to buy some food.

The resident was a rogue for most of his life. Fighting, drinking, smoking and gambling were daily routine for him. He has a very bad temper even after he admitted to nursing home. He always swears and shouts even in function when nursing home officials touring around with guests. He dislikes the food of the home and always complaints and even throws the food together with utensil at the nurse’s face. We try hard to refer him to other nursing home although not unsuccessful in the end. My colleagues finally persuaded him after long men’s talk with him. At the same time, we advise staff not to not to mess with him and stay away when we he is losing his temper. 

I then bought the food for him since I was not rushing to go anywhere. When he received the food, he thanked me subtly. I have never seen him act this way.

He was like a hedgehog covered with spines or a soldier wearing helmet and armour. When I see him, he was either telling me his vicious deeds in the underworld or complaining with his usual four letter words at so and so who offended him. He did not know other ways to show his dignity as human beings besides his atrocious rogue attitude. He is just an ordinary person whom does not want to show others his soft spot. 

Now, he is willing to remove his helmet and armour in front of me and show me the human side of him. This moment, to me, is a grace from the above, for me and him. I am grateful that he is sharing this short moment with me.

The moment has deeply marked in my heart and touches me for a long time. 

P.S. The resident passed on today at our Home. Written originally in Chinese on 28 December 2011 23.57hrs in my blog http://clang13.multiply.com/journal/item/147

The Malaysian Insider - Jakim declares book on Lee Kuan Yew haram @ Thu Dec 08 2011

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/jakim-declares-book-on-lee-kuan-yew-haram/
Malaysia
Jakim declares book on Lee Kuan Yew haram
By Shannon Teoh
December 08, 2011KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 8 —

Federal Islamic authorities have declared haram a book in which Singapore’s founding father Lee Kuan Yew urged Muslims in Singapore to be “less strict on Islamic observances.”

Lee Kuan Yew: Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going, a collection of interviews published in January, was included in a list of 15 books declared haram by the Department of Islamic Development Malaysia (Jakim).

Jakim’s planning and research division confirmed the decision was made when its committee on the censorship of publications with Islamic elements met in October.

However, both the division’s director and Jakim director general Datuk Othman Mustapha have not responded to queries by The Malaysian Insider on why the decision was made nine months after the book hit the shelves in Malaysia.

According to procedure, the list of books declared haram is sent to the home ministry for further action but it is unclear if the home ministry has followed suit and banned the books.

Othman’s predecessor Datuk Wan Mohamad Sheikh Abdul Aziz had said in February that Lee was unsuccessful in developing the mindset of the Singaporean public because he was “still influenced by the landscape of the 1960s which were full of prejudice and presumptions against Muslims.”

Lee, who served in Singapore’s Cabinet as PM, senior minister and minister mentor for 52 years before retiring in May, said in the book that Muslims in Singapore were socially “distinct and separate” and should “be less strict on Islamic observances” to aid integration and the city-state’s nation-building process.

It led to uproar from Malay and Muslims groups on both sides of the Causeway with his old rival and former Malaysian PM Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad accusing Lee of having no respect for religion.

Lee later retracted his statement in March ahead of general elections in the island which has a 15 per cent Malay-Muslim population.

His son Lee Hsien Loong led the ruling People’s Action Party to its worst ever performance in this year's Singapore general election, gaining just 60 per cent of popular support.

Lee, 88, admitted last month he has been suffering from a nerve illness for the past two years which prevents him from walking steadily.

Other books in the haram list include Sebongkah Batu Di Kuala Berang by Faisal Tehrani, Mengenal Diri: Ilmu Peninggalan Tok Kenali by Mohd Yusof Che Wook and The Teachings of the Quran by H. U. Weitbrecht Stanton

extracted from The Malaysian Insider Website

The Complete Works of Kuo Pao Kun, VIII: Interview 郭宝崑全集，第八卷：访谈

Rating:	★★★★★
Category:	Books
Genre:	Other
Author:	Practice Performing Arts Centre 实践表演艺术中心

The economy has been achieving excellence progress since Singapore independence. Kuo Pao Kun feels that culture building is relatively neglected compare with emphasis of economy in Singapore. Although starting from 1990s, the government invested heavily in culture, but its coverage is still too shallow. He said that we cannot neglect literature, history, philosophy, religion and mythology education should we want to improve the progression of our culture. “While the Government put in a lot of money supporting orchestra, theater groups, dance companies, we could not have something in-depth should we lack of foundation. Most pressing work to be done is to rethink and to build the base for our culture. There are great gap in our knowledge structure. There is no awareness of the importance of cultural building which we need to invest in generations of effort.

(In Chinese, titles and names translated from Chinese)“Sowing Seed Of Drama In The Wilderness” written by Xiao Jiahui , "The Complete Works of Kuo Pao Kun, VIII: Interview " chief edited by Quah Sy Ren and edited by Chen Ming-luan, Practice Performing Arts Centre and World Scientific co-published in March 2011, Page 26


新加坡自独立以来，经济取得卓越成就。相对于经济，郭宝崑认为新加坡的文化建设被忽略太久。尽管1990年代起，政府在文化上大力投资，但涉及层面仍然嫌浅。他说，若要在文化建设上做根本的补救，就不能轻视文学、历史、哲学、宗教与神话教育。“政府虽拿很多钱支援乐团、剧团、舞团，但欠缺底蕴，再支援十年也出不了有深度的东西。大力建设文学，思考文化建设是当务之急，但我们的知识结构里有很大的缺口，意识上没有认识到文化建设的重要，这需要经历几代人的工作。”

--萧佳慧著〈在荒原上播戏剧的种子〉，柯思仁总编辑、陈鸣鸾主编《郭宝崑全集，第八卷：访谈》，实践表演艺术中心与八方文化创作室联合出版，2011年3月，第26页

城市的眼睛2010年12月31日 eye e city 31 December 2010

19:23 Lorong 1 Toa Payoh 大巴窑一巷

I passed by this HDB flat at ground floor when I strolling with my wife and there was always no one at home. The corridor outside the unit often filled with paper boxes, cans, plastic bottles, and other old items.

Sometimes, there are dark stains on the ground. I presume this is the accumulation of stains which spraying out while flattening the cans.

The corridor considered clean at the day of shooting this photo. However, whenever I thought of the life of this household compared with the general households in Singapore, I was lost in reverie.

和太太在家附近散步时，经过这个位于一楼，经常没有人在的组屋单位。单位前常常摆满了纸皮箱、汽水罐、塑胶瓶子，还有其他旧物。有时候，地上还有黑黑的污迹，估计是在踏扁汽水罐的时候，剩余汽水喷出来，累积堆积出来的污迹。

这天经过拍摄时，已经算是整理清理过的。但是，这户人家相对于一般新加坡人的生活，还是会引起我很多的遐想。

Ang Chong Leong 汪忠良, 41/Social Worker 社会工作者

My photos selected by organiser of eye e city 2010 was censored by exhibition partner, Singapore Discovery Centre (SDC), during the exhibition. Is the photos political incorrect ???

I always feel proud of these people who still choose to work hard and earn a living. This is an alternative view Singapore and Singaporean could have besides thinking they are poor and pitiful ones.

Luckily, it was still in the photo book published by eye e city. Hope the book will not censored and removed from NLB library. :)

这两张被2010年城市的眼睛主办者遴选的照片，在展览时被展览伙伴新加坡知新馆(SDC)剔除。这两张照片出了什么问题？是政治不正确吗?天晓得?

我常常为这些选择努力工作生活的人感到骄傲。与其觉得这些人可怜，值得同情，新加坡和新加坡人可以对这样的生活方式，有另外一种领悟。

还好城市的眼睛出版的2010年摄影集包含这两张照片，希望国家图书馆不会冷藏这本摄影集。 :)

承风启雨渡九年 A Perseverance of Nine Years

承风启雨渡九年

汪忠良

缘起与发展

我不是摄影人，也不是文化人。2003年在机缘巧合之下获知2002年开始主办的“城市的眼睛”活动，当年感怀新加坡很多值得保留的景物都被拆迁，社会也有很多的变迁，便拿起傻瓜相机参与了这项活动，希望能为我们的城市留下一些值得回忆的影像。后来知道这活动不办下去，便联合李子民先生在2004年一起接手主办策划活动，后来陆续的又增加了一些成员，并在公司机构的赞助、社会各界和义工的支持下，每年持续主办这项岁末活动。

先前参与策划活动的大多是艺文界人士，而后来我们接手后的大多是草根较强的社会人士或者是业余摄影人士，所以前后策划者关注的事物和看待事物都有些出入。大致上来说，前者关注的是保留文化记忆，后者是以关怀社会为主调。其间，我们面对了专业摄影对我们活动照片代表性的挑战，还有摄影技术与文字描述与照片内容之间重要性的拉扯。虽说风风雨雨，我们坚持了每年岁末24小时，不设立奖金奖品，没有主题，不以比赛的方式，一年年的坚持下去。

这几年的活动，我们接受很多参与者的意见，作出不少的改变和调整。为了让学生可以参与活动，我们把年龄限制调整至13岁；为了让活动容纳更多的内容，我们也接受手机拍摄的影像、增加了摄影组照 (Eye Essays) 和年度挑战 (Eye Challenge)。

城市的眼睛是一项社会人文运动

有很多人建议城市的眼睛应该设立奖金奖品、每年设立主题、或者以电邮的方式收集照片。这些建议能够更快捷方便，增加参与的人数与作品，而且也能因为有特定主题，更能够符合特定机构的捐款目的。但是我们认为城市的眼睛是一项人文活动，人和人之间的关系、沟通、了解，也是活动重要的构成。我们希望大家亲自报名、选择照片、和我们的会员交换心得，建立起人和人的关系。我们也看到很多参与者在参加活动或者参观展览的同时，也通过谈论照片的内容，加强了与家人和朋友之间的交流，甚至对于新加坡这城市的社会人文发展更加关切。

城市的眼睛也不是为了宣扬某一个文化、思想、价值观，或者是肯定或否定它们；我们强调的是社会的多元性和包容性。遴选出来的照片是代表当年参与者的共同回忆，没有被选的照片也不表示他们是不重要的，或者是没有纪念价值；而只是在活动在展览和出版数量和内容上的限制。我们相信所有的照片对于参与者都有他个人的价值，每个人因为个自的生活背景和经历，对于同样的照片也有可能也不一样的体会，而这照片带给人们的记忆或回忆不能够用数字或者金钱来衡量其价值。

从这个角度来看，城市的眼睛事实上是一个社会人文运动。我们希望借着活动的推展，从大家对于记忆与回忆的讨论，加强人与人之间的交流与沟通，并且关爱我们生活的城市。从更长远的眼光来说，我们希望成为一个相互平等尊重讨论议题的平台，让参与者能够相互分享自身拥有的信念以及拥有这些信念的理由，并且帮助他人了解自身的观点；并且能以各自的方式共同建立这城市的人文景观。

集合大家的力量，圆满今年的活动

有人说，城市的眼睛有一般活动没有的流动魅力。因为没有特定主题，很多时候，我们是在遴选过后才知道当年照片的组合与氛围，以及可能带出来的整体的内涵动力。当年的作品的内容其实是代表了参与者当年对于发生在新加坡的一个集体的记忆。但是在这个非敌既友的世代，活动有时候不能符合赞助机构商家的特定目的，而无形的人文价值和意义，对于很多人来说是没有投资回报价值的。但是吊诡的是，组织筹办活动还是要回到这有形的世界里，需要靠资金来推动的。由于缺少能为活动筹款的义工，今年我们向参与活动的朋友们筹款，并获得了$1,418.50的捐款，加上其他单位个人的捐款协助方才能圆满今天的结果。

此外，我们还要感谢以各种方式协助我们的个人、公司与单位，尤其是新加坡知新馆(Singapore Discovery Centre)协办与支持今年的展览。

今后的挑战

社会趋势和科技的发展对于主办城市的眼睛有相当大的影响。当年，数码相机没有今天普遍流行，大部分摄影都是以底片为主，如今大家只要拿起相机，都能不用迟疑的捕捉他们想纪录的影像。当年，分享资讯不像现在社会网络和电子书这样方便，所以当年出版书籍和展览相对还是主要的影像传播媒介。当年，“集体记忆”这字眼几乎是不存在的，也不像今天在商业与政治带动下，被重点地推上社会舞台。无论官方机构，或者私人机构都一把抓地把大家的集体回忆收罗起来，放在手中。

最近火车站的搬迁，更是被媒体、社会网络和政治人物炒得沸沸扬扬，成为城市的焦点。城市的眼睛如何在这新媒体蓬勃、商业介入和政治热闹的新局面下，避免集体记忆的探索流于表面，而能进入更深层文化和心灵层面的思考，将是今后我们主办人的一个挑战。

转载自《城市的眼睛--2010 岁末24小时人文影像纪录》，新加坡。城市的眼睛出版，2011年10月，pp10-11。

A Perseverance of Nine Years

Ang Chong Leong

Beginning and Development

I am neither a photographer nor an intellectual. By coincidence in 2003, I got to know “Eye é City”. The demolition of many historical and culturally-rich buildings and sites coupled with the social changes happening at that time moved me to pick up my compact camera to capture a moment of the city. In 2004, together with Mr Lee Chee Ming, I took over the reins of organising the annual year-end event which started in 2002, after the previous organisers decided not to continue. Since then, joined by more organising team members and with strong support from volunteers, corporate sponsors and the public, we managed to carry on the annual year end activity through the years.

As the previous organisers were mainly from the arts and literary circle, the focus was on preserving history and culture. After taking over, the organising team was made up largely by people with close connection to the community as well as amateur photographers. More emphasis was placed on expressing care and concern on social issues. In the meantime, we faced much criticism from professional photographers on our photos’ representation as well as our continuous dilemma to balance between participants’ write-ups, content and technical skills of the photos. Despite these, we persevered year after year, 

persisting with photo-taking in the last 24 hours of each year not turning the movement into a competition by giving away prizes and establishing specific themes. However, for the past years, we have also accepted suggestions from participants and made many changes. These include lowering the age criteria to 13 years old to allow more student participation; accepting photos taken by mobile phones; and introducing Eye essays as well as Eye Challenge to enhance greater photo content.

Eye  é City  is a social-cultural movement

Many also suggested giving away prizes, allowing online photo submission as well as setting themes to help attract certain corporate sponsorships, in the hope to increase participants and photo images in the fastest and easiest manner. However, we feel that Eye é City is a community movement. The relationship, communication and understanding between people are important part of the movement. Participants are encouraged to be involved personally from the point of registration to selecting their final photos and in the process share their experiences and the stories behind their photos with our facilitators and volunteers.  Through such interaction and discussion, participants sometimes not only strengthen their ties with their family and friends, but also develop a greater awareness of their surroundings and society.

Eye é City does not advocate any specific culture, values and beliefs, or comment on their negativity or positivity. We emphasize both diversity and inclusion of society. Selected photos represent the participants’ collective memories for that year. Unselected photos do not mean they are unimportant or of no memory values. It is simply due to the limitations of exhibition and publication space that choices have to be made. We believe that all photos hold personal values to its owners. Due to the differences in life experience and background, different individuals may view and react differently to each photo. Yet, the memories that it evokes cannot be measured in monetary terms or numbers.

As such, Eye é City is indeed a social-cultural movement. We hope the annual activity will encourage and motivate more discussions and exchanges on our memories, we can enhance interaction and communication between people as well as show concerns for this city we live in. We envision Eye é City to be a platform for participants to share their ideas, thoughts and motivations freely based on mutual respect and equality and in their own way, contribute to Singapore’s social-cultural diversity.

 

Gathering Strength for 2010

Some say the uniqueness of Eye é City is in its fluid nature and unpredictability. As there is no specific themes, often times, we are not able to determine the dynamism of the photo collections till after the photo selection. The collection for a particular year represents the collective memory of participants for that said year. In this world of absolutes, it is unsettling for some sponsors seeking specific projects that can meet their contribution objectives and purposes. To many, there is no tangible returns in nurturing social-cultural values. However, the paradox of the situation is that funds are still required to run our activities. Due to a lack of volunteers able to solicit sponsorship, we sought donations from participants this year, who generously helped to raise $1,418.50. Together with other solicited donations in cash and kind, we managed to pull through to completion. We wish to thank all contributors, whether individuals or organisations who has helped us in their own way this year, in particular, Singapore Discovery Centre for co-organising and supporting the 2010 exhibition.

Future Challenges

Social trends and technological developments have had a huge impact on the organization of Eye é City. In the past, film cameras used to take precedence. But nowadays, digital cameras make it so easy for everyone to snap their desired image without hesitation. Back then, when e-book and the social network were not so popular, book publications and exhibitions were the main outreach medium for images. Even the term “collective memories” was virtually non-existent when the movement first started. Today, motivated by commercial and political interests, collective memories have been pushed into the social limelight. Public and private organisations alike are scrambling to gather everyone’s memories. Recently, media, cyber space and even politicians were abuzz with the moving of the railway station, making it the focus of the city. 

It is definitely challenging for Eye é City to avoid the superficial and to develop a deeper cultural and spiritual understanding of collective memories in this new landscape of vigorous new media development and increased commercial involvement and political activity.

 

Translated by Karen Kan & Tan Siang Bee

extracted from "Eye é City -- A Visual Account of the Last 24 hours of 2010", Eye é City, October 2011, pp 8-9.

To Mr. Khaw Boon Wan, What did you expect? from PaSsu Diary- Journal of an Ordinary Bhutanese:

http://www.passudiary.com/2011/10/to-mr-khaw-boon-wan-what-did-you-expect.html

To Mr. Khaw Boon Wan, What did you expect?

(This is in reply to National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan of Singapore on his comments made on our country )

Dear Mr. Khaw,

I was not surprised when you said Bhutan is not the last Shangri-la on Earth, because I had a friend from your country who found Bhutan only "full of mountains and valleys". When you visited Bhutan, what did you expect? Those flying mountains you saw in Avatar? or Every Bhutanese merrily dancing in designer clothes? Well, you must have at least expected fancier cars and taller buildings but we only have taller mountains (not flying ones) and thicker forest (truly natural).

I am not surprised even when you said "Most of the time, I saw unhappy people, toiling in the field, worried about the next harvest and whether there would be buyers for their products." because I heard a proverb in school that goes, "Two men looked through the prison window, one saw the mud and other saw the horizon". I am only surprised that you have spend "Most of your time" in Bhutan looking in the fields. I am amazed at your ability to figure out whether the people are happy or unhappy just by looking at them- O' you even knew they were "worried about the next harvest". No wonder you country export human resources.

I visited your wonderful country sometime ago, and it felt like a city from the future. The transportation system held me spell bound, Cleanliness of the street is so much that I didn't find a fragment of dust on my shoes after walking for the hours, Every building and car looks new, and there is no question about the civic sense among the people. Four days after I landed in Bhutan I woke up and started sharing the stories of your wonderful country- yes it took me four days of sleeping to shake of the hangover of many sleepless nights in your 24X7 country. I read the amazing history of your country and thought to myself, if Bhutan's to develop, Singapore can be our vision.

But since you questioned the presence of happiness in Bhutan, let me answer by telling you few things that you overlooked when you visited my country. Those people you saw in the fields weren't unhappy, if you have gone closer you would have heard them singing and enjoying the social lives, perhaps you won't understand that. If you have spent a little longer time watching them, you would have seen and a woman with basket on her back and holding arms with several children coming with steaming food- we don't have McDonald or KFC. Then everybody will sit down to eat their lunch, laughing and joking, feeding babies, for over an hour- you wouldn't have had so much time to sit and watch I know, times means money in your country. But we have luxury of time. People don't worry "about the next harvest and whether there would be buyers for their products." In fact, we don't do much commercial farming, we do most of them to keep with the tradition. And when the sun sets, doesn't really matter what time, people leave for their homes where they have a large family waiting. Large family because we don't chase away our children when they become 18 or children cast away their parents when they age.

We don't need Health Insurance to survive, no have to go for Education Loan for educating our children. We don't hang the drug users, we counsel them to hang on to their lives, we don't have to have a job to survive, and when we fall sick even the furthest cousin comes to attend without having to update Facebook status.
If you reread our history you will find that our wise kings have hidden us from the outside world so that we could remain the way we are today. If we start mining our mountains and lumbering our forests, we can become Singapore in a year but no matter what you do you can never become Bhutan. It is far too difficult. We shall be the last breath of oxygen on earth.

Bhutan may not be the Last Shangri-la but we are happy.

By PaSsu at 1:01 AM

My reply to Minster Khaw on his comment "Bhutan is not the 'Shangri-la on earth'"

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1160414/1/.html#.TqGXPJgselY.facebook
Bhutan is not the 'Shangri-la on earth', says Khaw
Posted: 19 October 2011 1839 hrs

Khaw Boon Wan speaking in Parliament

SINGAPORE: The measure of happiness has been a topic of debate in Parliament over the last few days, and constant references to Bhutan have been made as well.

National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan joined the debate, saying he visited the small nation a few years ago and the romanticised version of the ancient kingdom did not fit the reality he saw there.

In his speech in Parliament on Wednesday, he said Bhutan is not the "Shangri-la on earth" that some make it out to be.

Mr Khaw said: "Most of the time, I saw unhappy people, toiling in the field, worried about the next harvest and whether there would be buyers for their products. They have studied us because Singapore is also a tiny nation, living next to big neighbours.

"We have successfully transited from third world to first, and managed to create a functioning and harmonious society for our people. In their minds, Singapore could well be the Shangri-la and they want Bhutan to emulate Singapore."

Meanwhile, Minister of State for Manpower and National Development Tan Chuan-Jin weighed in on the discussion on what some perceive to be the government's obsession with economic growth at all costs.

He said the pursuit of GDP should not be an end but a means to an end.

Mr Tan said the main preoccupation at weekly Cabinet meetings has been to provide for Singaporeans and Singapore.

He added that the government is not perfect and there are things that it can do better and it will do its utmost.

"Life cannot be whittled down into an efficient equation, however effective it may be. Not everything is an economic digit; some of the most important things in life cannot be quantified. At the end of it all, it is about us as Singaporeans, and the future we want to build for our children. And we as the government must have the courage to play our role to lead and do the right things," said Mr Tan.

- CNA /ls

“No, it is not even though we’re different, we are one. It is because we are different, we are one.” “政者正也， 子帅以正，孰敢不正”

http://www.wp.sg/2011/10/chen-show-maos-speech-debate-on-presidents-address/
Chen Show Mao’s speech (Debate on President’s Address)

Mr Speaker, Thank you, and congratulations.

Following our two elections this year, some commentators tell us that Singaporeans’ political differences are rising to the surface. Many of our leaders have expressed their concerns about the differences. They warned of divisions and called for unity. I’d like to remind us that differences are not divisions. It is the intolerance of differences that will be divisive.

I would like to quote a man who is not able to join us here today. In a newspaper interview, former Minister for Foreign Affairs George Yeo related what a Roman Catholic cardinal told him about the late Pope John Paul the Second. The cardinal had drafted, “Even though we’re all different because we speak different languages, we are one”. The Pope corrected him. “No, it is not even though we’re different, we are one. It is because we are different, we are one.” Mr Yeo then said, “I thought that was so profound and beautiful. In my first speech to the United Nations, I repeated that story because in the UN, it is also because we are different that we are one. To be a human being is to be different. The whole logic and driving force of biological life is diversification. An imposed unity is a false unity; it’s a contradiction in terms. To me, that is a core position, and Singapore is an expression of that core position.”

Singapore is an expression of that core position of diversity, and this must include political diversity in this day and age. Let me state quite clearly how I see myself as an opposition member of this parliament. I may challenge government policy in parliament, but I do not by definition oppose government policy. It does not mean that I do not support the government in its work. It is very simple. I am an opposition MP and will perform my role to voice alternative and opposing views in the law-making process, based on my party philosophy. But I submit to laws properly made because I believe they express the sovereign will of our people. You see, I do not believe that Parliament is just form, and no substance. I have been elected to serve in this Parliament and will do what I can to help make it work for Singapore, make it a First World Parliament after our own fashion. As an opposition MP, I am not the enemy of the government, I am a Singaporean and a patriot.

I believe that our community will come out of robust debates stronger. Not just in Parliament but in larger society as well. Social cohesion will be strengthened when we give people, including our young people, room to voice their views and grievances and participate in community affairs. This is being recognized in households and at work places around us and is affecting how they are run. There is no reason not to learn from it. But we must start from a position of difference, not a forced unity.

How do we move forward from a position of difference?

A wise Singaporean wrote to me recently on Facebook, “the key is always to set our ‘devilish’ pride aside and for both parties to communicate.” He did not mean political parties, but any two parties in a position of difference. He goes on, “The aim is not to impose one’s view over the other but to find as much common ground as possible for the good of the common objective both parties have… And yes, I have always practised this in the office and with the wife…so far so good.”

How do we expand the areas of common ground to accommodate political differences? I believe it will be best done through strengthening institutions that are non-partisan and capable of commanding the respect and allegiance of all Singaporeans in spite of their political differences. The office of the Presidency, for example. President Tan clearly intends this. In his swearing in ceremony he said, “I will strive to strengthen our common bonds and our core values that underpin our society. …Whatever your political views,… I will strive to the best of my abilities to represent you.”

The government in the addenda to the President’s address said, “The building of friendship, understanding and trust amidst increasing diversity will be supported through organisations such as the People’s Association and grassroots platforms such as the Inter-racial and Religious Confidence Circles.” We welcome this.

Let us Singaporeans take our cue from the President. Look for what Singaporeans’ different visions have in common and take our next steps in these areas of common ground. Let us ask ourselves “is there more we could do?” I believe that it would always be possible to find common ground among Singaporeans, even if it might now take greater efforts on the part of those of us here in this House. But it is possible – they call politics “the art of the possible”.

HUMAN CAPITAL

Mr Speaker

In the addenda to the President’s address, the government announced its plans to, “significantly enhance the transport infrastructure, quality and opportunities in education, healthcare and housing”. We endorse the goal. And we will hold the government to it.

We believe that Singaporeans in recent years have been underserved by enhancements in these areas. We believe that most of these enhancements are best thought of, not just as increased expenditure, but as investments in the human capital of our country, with long term benefits to our society, such as the productivity increase that the government calls our “fundamental economic challenge”. Adam Smith wrote many years ago about investments in a person, such as by the acquisition of new talents, he wrote, “such acquisition of talents always costs a real expense, which is a capital realized in his person. [but] Those talents, as they make a part of his fortune, so do they likewise that of the society to which he belongs.”

Many economists have long regarded expenditures on education and healthcare as investments in human capital. They produce income and other useful outputs for the individual over long periods of time. They also produce external benefits for the rest of society. When growing disparity in wealth suggest that more and more households may not be able to make the investments that may be needed to give their children a place at the same starting line as their cohorts, it is even more appropriate for the government to increase public investments in the human capital of our young people.

This is one of the goals the government set in the addenda to the President’s address: “Through our investment in Education, we ensure that every child, regardless of family circumstances and background, has access to opportunities.” That access to opportunities has to be meaningful and available to everyone.

Similarly, for many expenditures we make outside the areas of education and healthcare, If we just take an expanded view of the returns from these investments, we will be able to see their long-term benefits.

Take elder care for example. Our investments in this area do not just benefit our elders alone. They enhance the productivity of working family members who worry about their care. They sustain and unlock the rich social and cultural capital embodied in our elders, which enhance the efficacy of our economic capital. More importantly, taking good care of our elders who built the nation is the right thing to do in the “fair and just society” that the President wishes for Singapore. It strengthens our sense of community. It is consistent with the values that we wish to impart to our children. These are all intangible but significant returns on our investments.

This is part of our nationhood: these are the bonds that will hold us together in times of trouble.

Our social harmony needs to be sustained and cultivated, carefully ministered. We must invest in these efforts.

“People are the real wealth of a nation”, declared the United Nations’ inaugural Human Development Report over twenty years ago. “People are the real wealth of a nation,” this is especially true for our nation. Let us put our people at the center of our government policies.

Let us invest in Singaporeans. Invest in the future of Singapore.

Significant investments cannot be made all at once. In addition to fiscal discipline, we would need to watch out for inflation, for effects on our currency and competitiveness. But the investments must be made. So we should start now and engage in a long term sustainable investment pattern for the good of our people.

CONCLUSION

Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister concludes in his National Day rally speech that “ours is an improbable nation”. I cannot agree more with his call for all Singaporeans to treasure and fight for our improbable nation.

I would like to add that an improbable nation will be made more probable for future Singaporeans by the politics of possibility.

Mr Speaker, sir, I support the motion. And now in Chinese.


在今年的两次选举之后，我们许多领导人都提到团结的重要。全国人民现在必须上下一心，步伐一致地向前迈进。

他们有人认为新加坡有政治分裂，不利於团结与将来发展。但是各位想想，这分裂是怎么造成的？ 是因为社会出现了不同的声音，还是因为不能包容不同的声音才会造成分裂？

“政者正也， 子帅以正，孰敢不正”，“为政以德，譬如北辰，居其所而众星拱之”，“风行草偃”，这些都是孔子说的来形容好的执政者，意思就是，一个好的领导者，只要有信心，有正确的方向，有好的道德与能力把政绩做出来，人民自然会乐意跟著他走。不需要害怕国家分裂，强调团结。

爱国的权利不是任何一个政党可以独占的。一个党再伟大也只是国家的一部分而已，不是国家全部啊！陈独秀说过，＂党外无党，帝王思想。＂在民主社会里，有不同的意见，不同的建议，是很自然的事情。这也是好事。

其实孔子三千年前就已说过，“君子和而不同”。和谐，可却不尽相同。晏婴说过：乐团只演奏一个音符，谁听得下去？白开水上再加白开水，谁喝得下去？一个和谐的社会，不只有一种声音。而是每个人很和平的在法律的範围内发表他的看法，从事政治活动。我们不必防民如防贼。

在中国历史上最伟大的贞观之治就不是一言堂式的全民团结，就是有喜欢諌言喜欢说真话不怕被唐太宗讨厌的魏徵，才有了贞观之治。

在这国会的任期里，希望明理的执政党可以做唐太宗，而我们来做魏徵，开出太平盛世，而不是一个执政者独断，而小人唯唯诺诺的世代。

我屡次与国外的人接触，大家似乎有一种感觉，觉得新加坡守成有馀但开创不足，似乎欠缺了那创新的能力。在这全球化的竞争下，我们国家不是应该培养出更多有主见、有创造力的新一代吗？

李前总理在演说中也说了他担忧我们年轻人，生活太过安逸。可见李前总理也想过这问题。真正完整的人格、独立的精神，是不可能在一个凡事听从独大的执政党，凡事唯唯诺诺的环境下生成。我们要我们下一代有创新、有独立自主精神，就不能不在政治上、精神上给他一个自由竞争的环境。这要求及这深深的忧虑不安其实是隐藏在许多新加坡人心中，在全球化激烈的竞争下，我们的竞争力难道只能靠执政党的完全控制来达成吗？

所以我们在野党是为了国家的好，才提出建言与批判，爱国不是执政党的专利，希望我们能在各自的岗位上演好自己的角色，这样我们的国家才能有活力、创造力的向前进步。

最後我要提醒执政党除了对自己有信心以外，对国人也要有信心。但我也要感谢执政党，把新加坡建设成一个成熟的法治社会，让我们在野党，可以在一个合法的基础上与执政党并存，竞争,为人民服务。

谢谢。

Chen Show Mao’s speech (Debate on President’s Address) (Mr Chen is the member of Parliament, Aljunied Group Representation Constituency, Paya Lebar Ward)
extracted from The Workers' Party Website
阿裕尼集选区（巴耶利峇）国会议员陈硕茂先生演讲（关于总统献辞）
转载自新加坡工人党网站