joy of running

calm

my heart is calm like mirror in the lake.

contented

kaydys

she asked me to write in her facebook which i did.

he had prepared a victory and a loser's speech for his contest

Workers' Party (WP) chief Low Thia Khiang was unsure if he was going to win the toughest battle of his political career.
He admitted that he had prepared a victory and a loser's speech for his contest in Aljunied GRC on the afternoon of 7 May, Polling Day.
Speaking to The Straits Times on Friday, Low said,

"I'm always prepared to lose and I prepared both speeches."

a good rest

really we needed a good rest.
last time we have three rest days after working four 12-hours shift.
rooster has changed and we are working every day without a good rest.
really we need a good rest.

family is important

singapore: 2nd in the world in gambling

singaporean=local-born singaporean+foreign-born singaporean (2.5m+0.5 million)
thanks to Mr George Yeo

one hell of lucky day today

May 7 2011:The end of one-party dominance in Singapore

Aim high

In Singapore winning 7% of parliamentary seats is tantamount to an opposition triumph

the power of your vote:precious.

by your precious vote that you exercised: 5 ministers are gone!

catherine lim prove me wrong, so wonderfully in GE2011

I had been following the General Election of 2011 with intense interest, right up to the announcement of the results in the early hours of 8 May. There had been much to amaze me, and I just had to write down my thoughts and share them with my readers.

For 17 years, since 1994, I had been writing commentaries on various issues in the Singapore political scene. Whether these were long-standing problems such as the emotional divide between the PAP leadership and the people, or specific issues such as the controversial increase in ministerial salaries, the articles invariably identified the underlying cause as the unrelenting authoritarianism of the PAP government, with all that this implies of stern, punitive measures used by the leaders, and of timid compliance shown by the led.

Even as I made a plea for a political opening up, I could not shake off the pessimism that the PAP’s obsession with control would at best allow only a very limited version or, worse, only a semblance of it.

Now GE 2011 has changed all that.

There were four distinct issues that I had brought up in my commentaries, in all of which I had been proved wrong by GE 2011 :

1) a climate of fear. I had come to believe that the PAP’s systematic use of fear as a strategy to silence critics was so successful that it had become a permanent feature of the Singapore political landscape. During election time, it would spawn all sorts of rumours about how a powerful and vindictive government could find out who you voted for, and punish you accordingly. But the climate of GE 2011 was far from fearful. I saw to my amazement, in the days leading up to the election, the emergence of a large group of young Singaporeans who were articulate, confident and bold, speaking their minds freely, fearlessly, in the mainstream and social media, and showing open, unabashed support for the opposition. Their confidence seemed infectious, spreading quickly among the people.

Never again can I write about a population muted by fear, and its contemptible off-shoot, self censorship.

2) a politically naïve electorate. The climate of fear, as I wrote in my articles, had created an unquestioning society that I once rather gloomily described as among the most politically naïve in the world, since they had never been allowed exposure to the normal democratic processes of public debate, open criticism, an independent media, etc. I even compared such an infantilized society to hothoused plants that could not survive in the jungle of the real world outside.

Apathetic, ignorant, namby-pamby Singaporeans? No more, as shown by their surprising display of knowledge, interest and concern about social issues that had come up for debate during the GE 2011 campaigns. They had clearly thought hard about the issues, examined the impact on their lives, and understood the power of their vote to bring about change.

3) The underdog status of the opposition. I had shared the view, long held by the Singapore electorate, that the opposition would never pose a challenge to the PAP because of their chronic lack of quality candidates, resources, and proper organizational structure, resulting in their utter helplessness against the formidable PAP juggernaut. It was my belief that GE 2011 would be the opposition’s last chance to cast off the ignominious label of the underdog; otherwise they would risk being written off permanently by an exasperated, weary and resigned electorate.

But in the space of just a few years, the various opposition groups had clearly undergone a remarkable transformation, producing candidates to match any PAP team in academic and professional credentials. In the short nine-day campaigning period, they had vastly improved their public image and standing. Indeed, so serious a threat was the star among them, The Workers’ Party, that the PAP had to do some last-minute scrambling to come up with new campaigning strategies.

It was a startling case of underdog-to-top dog transformation.

4) The inflexible mindset and style of the PAP. Clearly the chief reason that had resulted in the realities listed above – the fear, the apathy, the continuing weakness of the opposition – was the outright resistance of the PAP leadership to a political opening up. In my articles, I had invariably concluded that this resistance was in turn due to the PAP’s almost pathological dislike of the messiness of political dissent on the one hand, and their unshakeable confidence in their own superiority, on the other. In the four and a half decades of their rule, they had given the appearance not only of a one-party government in total control but of a government with rightful claims to perpetuity as well.

And then midway through the GE 2011 campaigning, I saw something never before seen in the PAP strongmen: a wavering of confidence, signs of real fear. What had happened was that, while campaigning, they had received a rude shock. Accepting the reality that for this election the ground was not really sweet, they had no idea of its sheer toxicity, and were not prepared for the extent and depth of the people’s frustration and anger on a whole range of issues. Shocked, the Prime Minister resorted to effusive apologies for past mistakes and humble promises to do better in the future. The all-out strategy of placation was quickly taken up by other PAP campaigners who too promised to work harder, listen more, show more caring, etc. One minister even spoke of the need for no less than a ‘transformation’ of the PAP style.

For me, this was the most unexpected—and gratifying—proof of how wrong I had been to suppose that the famous PAP knuckleduster approach, so beloved of the party’s founder, Lee Kuan Yew, would be used forever on Singaporeans. GE 2011 killed it. The rather dramatic public display of contrition, humility and goodwill, so at odds with the PAP’s usual implacability, might have been initially used as an election ruse, but through its instant spread among the PAP campaigners, its urgency of tone and consequent high public visibility, it quickly took on the character of a serious compact with the people, from which there could be no turning back. Indeed, it had a momentum all its own, for in his speech after the election results, the Prime Minister saw fit to reiterate the humble promise to serve the people better. It is expected that in the coming days, his PAP colleagues would echo the same placatory message.

Only a temporary aberration of the PAP style that would assert itself once again after GE 2011 fever has died down? Not likely. Neither the people nor the opposition would allow that. For by now, this promise must have sunk enough in the minds of a newly defiant electorate for them to protest as soon as they see it is not being kept. Again, a newly emboldened opposition will want to use it opportunistically in parliamentary debates on PAP policies which they sense to be unpopular with the people. In this connection, it would no longer be easy for the PAP to push through contentious decisions such as the hiking of ministerial and presidential salaries, or to make conciliatory and compromise offers that are merely concessionary, such as the Nominated Member of Parliament scheme, or insultingly tokenistic, such as The Speakers’ Corner. Prediction: the most feared, most infamous instrument of PAP control—the defamation suit against political opponents—will be a thing of the past, fading away with its regular exponent, Lee Kuan Yew.

In short, a newly energized opposition and a newly empowered electorate, two little Davids, have brought Goliath to his knees. It is an amazing psychological victory, quite independent of the actual polling numbers of GE 2011. This election will indeed be remembered by each of these three groups, as the crossing of some defining line in their political calculations, when each will do some fine recalibrations to their strategies of dealing with each other, in order to improve on their gains or cut down on their losses, as the case may be. GE 2011 may well be the historic reference point against which all will measure their past performance and chart their future course of action.

One very positive outcome may be that, past the rhetoric and the acrimonies, the triumphs and the bitterness of GE 2011, all three groups, whatever their individual stance, will be ultimately committed to the overriding goal of the society’s good as a whole. This will have the happy result of a convergence of interests and a unity of purpose, something of a rarity, but still achievable, in Singapore politics.

This, for me, will be the most significant outcome of GE 2011. Beside it, the actual votes-count and the official taking up of positions to form a new Parliament are only the mechanics of a transformation process that has already begun in the expectations of the people. Along its way, it will see many missteps and misunderstandings, and probably even a return of the rancour of the GE 2011 campaigning. No matter. For the process can only move forward, since the high-sounding public commitment made by the PAP to change itself from within, for the sake of the people, has a sacrosanct quality all its own, making a breach politically costly, morally unacceptable and emotionally unsustainable.

Hence I believe that something once thought unthinkable, is happening in our midst right now—a made-in-Singapore political renaissance or revolution of sorts, that will eventually lead to a maturing of our society and enable it to take its rightful place among the practising democracies in the world.

For me, GE 2011 will always be special. For never have I been so glad that I had been proved so wrong on so many counts.

cpf life:money cannot take out

The CPF Life scheme is an attempt to repair a national pension system that has become inadequate in sustaining members through old age.

The reason why the CPF system has become deficient in the first place is because of persistently low interest rates paid on CPF accounts, which has prevented members from building their wealth, as well as members having to pay a large amount of funds towards their property.

As a result of these two factors, and to some extent the inadequacies of the Medisave system in taking care of members’ medical needs, the CPF Life scheme is needed to fill the gaps of this sinking ship.

As medical science advances and with an increased emphasis in a balanced lifestyle, Singaporeans are expected to live longer with females having an average life expectancy of 83.2 years and males an average of 78.4 years. Living longer in turn means that one needs to be financially equipped to sustain his/her living expenses.

It is with this in mind that the CPF Board came up with the CPF Life scheme consisting of 4 options for CPF members to choose from – Life Basic, Life Balanced, Life Plus and Life Income. The CPF Life Balanced is the default selection if one does not specify any plan.

Though it is compulsory for everyone who turns 55 in 2013 to opt in, this does not mean that the CPF Life is the only solution available for one’s retirement income needs.

Let us first take a look at the features of the CPF Life scheme.

Who can join CPF Life
Those age 52-54 and age 55 and above in 2009 can opt to join CPF Life (not compulsory).
Those age 51 and below will automatically be enrolled in the Life Balance Plan if they have $40,000 in their Retirement Account (RA) at age 55.
CPF members cannot commit more than the prevailing minimum sum into CPF Life.

The entire RA account up to the minimum sum will be used for the CPF Life. Once a plan has been chosen, it cannot be changed.

Attributes of CPF Life

Monthly payout is not fixed - The payout will be adjusted based on the CPF interest rates and the mortality experience. CPF, however, mentioned that the adjustments will be small.
Monthly income level - The CPF member needs to consider the income amount he/she wants to receive monthly. This has a direct impact on the bequest amount for the beneficiaries.
Bequest amount (benefit left for beneficiaries) - The higher the monthly income, the lower the bequest amount and vice versa.
Females will receive lesser amount than males

To put it simply:



How CPF Life Works

2 components to CPF Life – Retirement Account (RA) savings & Annuity

The entire RA savings will be used to fund the CPF Life scheme. This savings is split into a pot consisting of the RA and another pot which pays the annuity premium. The split between the RA and annuity premium depends on the age of entry into the plan.

For example, for a 55 year old male, the split for Life Balanced is 70% RA and 30% annuity premium.
For Life Basic, it is 90% RA and 10% annuity premium.
As for Life Plus and Life Income, 100% goes into the annuity premium (as payout starts at drawdown age).
More will go into annuity premium for the older folks who join before 2013.

Why is this split of significance?

The reason is this:
Interest earned in the RA will be accrued in the RA and the interest will be given to the beneficiary upon the passing on of the CPF member.
Interest earned on the annuity premium will be contributed towards the annuity fund which pools interest from other CPF members – this interest is not payable upon death.

What do beneficiaries get upon death of the CPF member?
For CPF Life Basic, Balanced & Plus: Unused RA savings plus the premium for the annuity less any payout.
For CPF Life Income: This plan does NOT provide for any refund even when the CPF member passes one before any payment has been made.




Note: Amounts are estimated based minimum sum $100,000 of male age 55 with deferred drawdown till age 65. CPF interest rates are assumed at levels of 3.75% and 4.25% (Non-guaranteed).

What does all this mean before you sign up for CPF Life?
CPF Life payout is fixed around the same levels
It is not pegged against inflation, hence, the value of payouts will shrink over time as prices of goods rise.
CPF Life payout is not guarantee
It is dependent on market conditions. It will be reviewed every year based on CPF interest rates and mortality experience - if CPF interest rates decrease, the payout and bequest amount will also reduce.
Limitation of CPF Life Income option
It does NOT pay out any money to the beneficiary should the CPF member die before payout starts.
Variable payouts and bequest amounts
Higher payouts mean that lesser or nothing is left for beneficiaries
Interest earned
Interest earned from the annuity of CPF Life Plus plan is distributed to a common pool

Knowing the difference between CPF Life & a Participating Annuity



The CPF Life Income option though gives the highest payout is not suitable for everyone. It must also be chosen with caution as it does not leave anything for your beneficiaries. Not only that, there is no refund option upon withdrawal from the scheme.

In conclusion:
You should not depend on CPF Life to meet all your retirement funding needs as the payouts may not substantial.
The best thing to do today is to save more and plan your retirement early.
You can also consider additional income plans like participating annuities from insurers.
It is also critical that you have adequate medical and insurance coverage in your retirement years.
CPF Life is our last line of defence against outliving our resources. Plan early for your future lifestyle needs and you can enjoy a worry free

George Yeo supported the casino

Prime News
Mega boost likely: George Yeo306 words
15 April 2005
Straits Times
STIMES
English
(c) 2005 Singapore Press Holdings Limited
A CASINO could provide a mega-boost to the economy, Foreign Affairs Minister George Yeo said last night.
But, whatever the decision, no effort will be spared to minimise the social costs of gambling here, he added.
He was commenting on a survey which indicated that one in every 50 adult Singaporeans risked becoming problem gamblers.

Mr Yeo, as then-Trade and Industry Minister, first broached the casino idea in Parliament during the Budget debate last year.

Explaining the rationale for the proposal, he said last night: 'We are talking about millions of dollars' worth of investment, thousands of jobs and the possibility of increasing annual tourism inflow into Singapore by hundreds of thousands a year.'
He gave his comments to reporters at the launch of a poll for a Housing Board upgrading programme in Bedok. He was not surprised by survey results indicating that some 55,000 adult Singaporeans could become addicts.
'We know there are always problem cases that can lead to occasional family tragedies, whether or not there's a casino.'
People could, for instance, be addicted to horse-racing. 'So whether or not we proceed with this integrated resort, we should make sure we find ways to minimise the social costs.'
Measures could include barring those on public assistance schemes from a casino. Family members could also be empowered to prevent those with a gambling problem from entering casinos.
Still, admission procedures should be simple: 'We should also not make it so complicated that we create a bureaucracy to monitor who can enter the casino.'
As for his personal stand, he said: 'The Cabinet has taken a decision, so we will go by the collective decision.
'Of course, I announced it a year ago in Parliament... and the economic benefits are not trivial.'
RADHA BASU

the present

do not look back and cried over the past
for it is gone.

do not be troubled about the future,
for it has not yet come.

liver in the present, live it to the fullest
and make it so beautiful

That it will be worth remembering.

Foreign Minister GeorgeYeo announced his retirement from politics

Media press statement by George Yeo on Tuesday, 10 May, 2011

Thank you for waiting a couple of days for me to rest before meeting you.
Aljunied voters have decided and I respect their decision. Having committed 23 years of service to the residents, it is only natural for me to feel disappointed but this is politics.
It has been my privilege to have served them all these years and they have enriched my life. They have also enabled me to serve in various capacities as a Cabinet Minister in MITA, Health, MTI and MFA for which I am grateful.
Why did we lose Aljunied?
Mr Low Thia Kiang himself said that they won Aljunied not because the Aljunied team did not do a good job, but because the voters wanted WP to be their voice in Parliament.
Mr Low's analysis is fair and I agree with him. This desire for a strong WP voice in parliament was a political tide which came in through Aljunied which we were unable to withstand despite our very best efforts. Right from the start, the Workers party made Aljunied a national battleground.
The fight became one between a Workers Party voice in Parliament and an Aljunied team with two ministers, a potential Speaker of Parliament, a potential minister and a most effective Town Council chairman.
Though I wish the outcome had been different, Aljunied voters have made their choice.
Many of my supporters asked me to stay on to win back Aljunied in five years time. I wanted to level with them and told them last night that it is better for a younger person to take on this important task. I'm already 57 years old and would be 62 by then. Naturally I would help to ensure a smooth handover.
As we ended our campaign on 5 May, I talked about the importance of transforming PAP. This is a belief I've held for some time. It was not something I felt I could say when the campaign started. But, as the campaign went on, as we heard the growing cry from the heart, I decided to make it plain. Like it or not, we are entering a new phase in Singapore politics development. How we respond to it will decide Singapore's destiny in the 21st century.
I would help in whatever way I can to bring about this transformation of the PAP. I wish I had a mandate from the people of Aljunied to be a strong advocate of such transformation. But I don't.
As for remaining in public life, I will contribute in whatever modest way possible.
Many young people have stepped forward to help me in this campaign. Even more have cheered me on. It is not good that so many of them feel alienated from the Singapore they love. I look forward to continue working with them so that the Singapore we struggle for is the Singapore they feel is their own.
As to the actual role I can play, I'll be happy to respond to them. In the last few years, I have learnt much from my young friends. Often they led me rather than I led them. Since the GE results came out, there has been a flood of support for me expressed personally, through friends and relatives, on email and, in an astonishing way, on internet and FB. The words expressed are heartfelt. Many wrote me long passages, some in tears. I'm grateful for the kind words and the good wishes, and will be an advocate of their cause.
As for what I'll do professionally after stepping down as Minister when the new Cabinet is sworn in, I'm not rushing to make a decision. My wife and I thought we should take our time to think this over. We also need a break to spend more time with the family.
From the bottom of my heart, I would like to thank the people of Singapore for the opportunity of serving them in the last 23 years.

out sick

have been sick for the past few weeks and still fully recovered.
the warm weather and also our body resistance too.
planned to go for blood donation but postponed to later date when we get well.
in the meantime, drink plenty of water and have a good rest.

good bye friends

a brand new day

the formation of two party system in singapore!

you are the best:opposition parties in singapore

if you genuinely support the PAP and want them to succeed, then you must vote for the Opposition

Because EVERYONE can see so clearly that the PAP's performance over the past five years is just taking this country on a one-way trip into slow deterioriation and gradual collapse.

It's just that they have lost their way, over the past five years.

The best thing that can happen for the PAP is that they lose 19 seats in this election. Then suddenly they will wake up, remember the people whom they are supposed to serve, and start getting their act together