HARD TRUTHS” AND “HARD MYTH: Ngaim Tong Dow

“HARD TRUTHS” AND “HARD MYTHS” FOR ALL SINGAPOREANS TO THINK ABOUT BEFORE THEY CAST THEIR VOTE ON 7 MAY 2011.

Fellow Singaporeans, regardless of what constituency we live in, apart from Tanjong Pagar GRC, this is our opportunity to vote, perhaps for many of us the first time in our lives, or for the first time in decades.

Many issues have been raised, and exchanges of opinions made for and against the opposition parties and the ruling party.

This paper is from a concerned citizen, a “baby‐boomer”, who has been fortunate to have lived and worked not only in Singapore but in other countries. It comes from the heart, but is based on the mind and hard facts. (To call them “hard truths” may be somewhat supercilious and condescending, but the phrase has recently been given much play in the media. For me, I will endeavour to present “truth” as facts, not opinions).

Hard truth #1: The founding fathers of the PAP have done very well for Singapore. They have governed with steely determination, bold courage and with the people’s best interests at heart. Above all, they governed with righteousness and selflessness. Tough policies and decisions had to be made, mostly correctly. But some policies were flawed, such as the “Stop at Two” campaign.

Hard truth #2: The pioneers made many sacrifices to serve the country. Apart from Lee Kuan Yew, early ministers and decision‐makers such as Goh Keng Swee, S Rajaratnam, Hon Sui Sen, Lim Kin San, EW Barker, Devan Nair and David Marshall served with great distinction. Their contributions will not be forgotten.

Hard truth #3: Singapore today has many firsts and won many accolades. We have the best airport according to many international benchmarks. We were once the busiest port in the world, but still among the busiest. We probably have the healthiest per capita reserves of any country.

Hard truth #4: We have beautiful parks, greenery, and an environment that is clean, secure, and relatively crime‐free. Education standards are high, and infant mortality among the lowest. Unemployment is low and we probably have the highest proportion of citizens who own their own homes.

Hard truth #5: We have in our government ‐ Cabinet ministers, junior ministers and Members of Parliament – who have brilliant academic records. We also have quite a few from the Ministry of Defence. A high weighting appears to be placed on academic brilliance in the selection process of potential Members of Parliament.

Let us now examine some possible “Hard Myths” that seem to be suggested today by the ruling party, and then ask ourselves such questions as: How many of these myths are truly defensible? How many serve the best interests of the people of Singapore? How many are designed to perpetuate power in the hands of the ruling party?

Hard Myth #1: We know what’s best for you, so we have to select people whom we believe can serve you best, but we must still maintain absolute power, simply because we have the best people.

Really?

Time and again, especially in the recent past, we have seen mistakes made for which no apologies are made (at best, just a bland statement “It is regretted…”). We have seen possibly “wrong” people being selected to high office (including cabinet ministers), and policies introduced that have compromised the righteous values held dearly in the early days.

Examples? Firstly, the casinos. Didn’t an illustrious founding father say that “over my dead body” will Singapore have casinos?

The rationale now given is that “We have to have them (couched in the euphemistic term of ‘Integrated Resorts’) in order for Singapore to continue to grow and prosper. If we don’t, our neighbours will soon have them and we will lose out even more at that time. We have no choice”.

Really?

The question: at what social cost? What are the figures for broken homes, relationships, increase in organized crime, money laundering, prostitution, and so on? How effective have been the counter‐measures to ameliorate the negative impact? Should not the public be given facts and figures on such matters?

Secondly, the naming of public hospitals – to what lengths are we going to heap praise for possibly the wrong reasons? How are far are we prepared to go to “worship” the spirit of MONEY? What signals are likely to send?

The Khoo Teck Puat hospital was named to recognize the donation of this man’s family. Yet, there appears to be a widespread opinion that the contribution was a way to perhaps make amends for lapses in income tax returns? The most recent naming of the Ng Teng Fong hospital raises another basic issue – how can a 10% plus contribution be justified for having the naming rights for the entire hospital? Where did the 90% come from? Surely, the tax‐payers’ pockets.

I fully agree with former MP Dr Tan Cheng Bock for immediately resigning from board membership because he disagreed with the naming rationale of this hospital. Not to agree and still remain on the board would have been unconscionable.

Yet, did any of the cabinet ministers who disagreed with the allowing of casinos resign? None. What happened to their sense of conviction, their sense of values? Curiously, one of them was even recently quoted as saying that Catholics believe that a little gambling is no sin!

Hard Myth #2: Following from HM#1, the ruling party must then do everything possible to attract the best people for the job, and that money is the KEY factor in overcoming obstacles preventing good people from entering politics and to serve the people.

Really?

How can we ever justifiably (and in all clear conscience) accept the ruling party’s rationale for paying astronomical salaries for cabinet ministers, pegged to a certain percentile of the CEOs in the top 6 industries in Singapore?

CEOs in the corporate world who make big mistakes are removed promptly from office. Does this apply to cabinet ministers and others in government?

It appears not. It seems that we are “Uniquely Singapore” by having a system where monetary rewards are not tied to accountability. Why the double standards? What happens when the most wanted (and dangerous?) person escapes from the much guarded detention centre? The lowly supervisor gets sacked and another given a warning. What of those at the director level, or the ministerial level? Was this regarded as just an honest mistake, and no further action and no apology is necessary? Or perhaps it’s because the escapee wasn’t that dangerous after all? What is the public expected to believe?

Undoubtedly, there are many sensitivities and complexities in governing Singapore. We are a multi‐cultural, multi‐religious and multi‐racial society, existing amidst a sea of nations with their own challenges, agendas and problems. So we must have leaders who are politically savvy, bright, forward‐ looking, culturally sensitive, measured, and above all, have the passion and commitment to serve the best interests of the citizens of Singapore.

The question is this: Can we truly attract such people assuming that money is the primary motivator?

Have we, deliberately or unconsciously, developed a Money‐above‐all‐else in our Singapore worldview? What happened to our values of righteousness, justice, equality, and compassion?

How can we justify paying our Prime Minister six times what the President of the United States is paid? But there is more – we also have two Senior Ministers plus one Minster Mentor whose salaries are just slightly below the PM’s salary! Thus we have in fact FOUR persons being paid 5 to 6 times more than the President of the Unite States, still the most powerful nation in the world. One may argue that the US President has other perks and can make millions after retirement from speaking tours, etc. This can be countered quite easily by asking how many months’ “performance bonus” is being paid to ministers and others? It is believed that this “performance bonus” can be up to 8 months’ salary.

There is still more – not only do we have the highest paid Prime Minister in the world, we also have the highest paid Head of State of any republic in the world – our President. He is paid more than S$4.2million per annum. This is 8.5 times the salary of President Barack Obama.

Interestingly, the Prime Minister in Parliament has declined to divulge the salaries of individual ministers, saying they were placed in different grades.

Why? What happened to transparency? Does not the tax‐payer have a right to know? If not the precise numbers, surely a range, the median and average salary could at least be provided? Could it be political embarrassment?

Many may have forgotten that our first Executive President Mr Ong Teng Cheong, was paid, from recollection, around $700,000 per annum. He was humiliated in Parliament for asking a simple but important question – the total financial reserves of the country. He was told that it would take many, many man‐years for the answer. He was later given a shortened answer. It was a good question, our late President was merely doing his job, and yet this shabby treatment. Why?

Many Singaporeans have asked ‐ was he subsequently “punished” by not being accorded a state funeral? Yet his salary was only 16% of his successor’s annual renumeration. Why the need to raise it to such heights over the past few years? Our president’s role is mainly titular in nature. Could this be a way to “reward” a loyal supporter of the government? Or a preparation for the next incumbent?

So is there any wonder why there appears to be a growing disenchantment among Singaporeans with the ruling party’s leadership and its policies? Is there any wonder why Singaporeans are wondering whether self‐interests and protection of interests for the select few have replaced the best interests of the citizens at large?

Going back to HRM #2 – it is highly questionable that the myth has produced effective results. It also appears that cabinet ministers and MPs are out of touch with the ground.

In the current slate of candidates for the General Election of May 7, 2011, only a handful from the ruling party are from the private sector, the very sector from which they want to attract talent.

Perhaps many have joined the party for the “wrong” reasons? It has even been suggested that some in high governmental positions today would not be earning any where close to the salaries they are earning if they were to leave. Of course, there may be a few doctors or lawyers who may have made more money in the private sector. It is uncomfortable to read that a minister should even make a comment that the government “got him for cheap”. Did he lack political acumen or was it just plain arrogance? Perhaps he should have remained where he was?

We even have a minister who thinks nothing of saying “Let’s move on. Nobody is interested in the YOG anymore”, or words to that effect.

Really? Whose money paid for the YOG? The tax‐payers. Yet, this issue was brushed aside at a time when the electorate is voting in their new Parliament. Political naiveness?

The foundational question is ‐ Did our pioneering fathers join politics for monetary rewards? What has changed so much that the ruling party leaders now have to pay top dollars in order to attract the “right people” to join them?

Indeed Sylvia Lim has a point in voicing her opinion that with the wide divide in salary levels, how can the ministers be expected to share the same dreams as the ordinary people?

Hard Myth #3: Since Singapore is very small, and we have such a small pool of talent to pick from, it is not feasible to have two A teams. So stick with the ruling party as we have picked the best. And therefore, we don’t really need an opposition. (As a way of making sure many citizens agree with this viewpoint, the ruling party increased the number of NCMPs, as a way to debunk the need to have elected MPs from the opposition).

Yet the quality of candidates from the various parties has improved significantly, and many have sacrificed much in contesting the elections. And they have offered themselves to the Singaporean electorate.

And isn’t this what is necessary in Singapore? Why the need to assume that “right” talent must come from the army, scholars, CEOs and bright doctors, lawyers and professionals, selected only by the ruling party?

What happened to compassion, commitment, character, capability and calling? Did our first generation of leaders expect or demand astronomical salaries before they came forward to serve?

Thus, HM#3 indeed a myth.

Hard myth #4: In keeping with the myth that the ruling party has the lion’s share of talent, they therefore have the right to do everything possible to maintain in power. Any other group will bring Singapore down.

Of course, this means that the ruling party will do whatever is not illegal to remain in absolute power. The best example is gerrymandering after every election.

How does this serve the best interest of the people? Citizens are indeed treated like digits who can be literally kicked around to ensure that the ruling party wins at the polls again. There are countless examples of Singaporeans who are befuddled, bemused and even angry for this blatant use of power to ensure power is maintained.

So, whose interest is paramount – ordinary Singaporeans or the ruling party?

Conclusion:
Fellow Singaporeans, this is indeed a watershed election. If you believe the myths above are just myths, then the conclusion is clear.

Exercise your unalienable right to vote wisely, courageously and righteously.

Exercise your right to say, “You guys have done a good job, by and large, but you do NOT have a monopoly of good ideas and policies for the good of Singapore, now and in the future.

Exercise your right to get the message that across all ages and walks of life, ordinary citizens have feelings, they like to feel they can express alternative opinions. They genuinely want to be heard but not in a condescending manner.

Exercise your right to say, “Please be more accountable. Please stop paying yourselves salaries that just cannot be defended by any rational, common sense standards”.

Exercise your right in saying, “Please stop being so arrogant, and taking me for a person who can’t think. Please be gracious to at least genuinely apologise when mistakes are made. It’s all right, we do recognize you are human”.

Exercise your right to get the message, “Yes, economic growth and prosperity are important, but not at the expense of righteousness, justice, equality and compassion. Values remain critical for the soul of the nation”.

Think of the future, of the next generation and beyond. If power continues to remain in the hands of a selected few, absolute power can indeed corrupt, as observed by one philosopher centuries ago.

Do not be intimidated by veiled threats. This has happened before and has not worked. Ask yourselves ‐ can the ruling party really going to carry out its threat to “punish” those who vote against them? Are they going to penalize 40, 50 or more percent of our voting citizens? If they do, it merely confirms that change is even more imperative in Singapore. Bullying tactics may have worked in the past, but today, things are different.

Singapore really needs to have a strong alternative voice in Parliament. If the ruling party begins to believe it has a God‐given right to rule, and rule with absolute power, without checks and balances, without a true heart for the people, Singapore is heading for major storms.

And remember, your vote is indeed secret. The ruling party has so much more to lose if ever there is the smallest hint or truth that it voting is not secret. The opposition parties are there to ensure that this is maintained. It has been for decades; it won’t be changed on May 7, 2011.

In closing, those who believe in God, pray. Pray for discernment, wisdom, courage, justice, righteousness to prevail for the nation on May 7, 2011. Those who believe in other religions, philosophies or in themselves, spare a thought for the same virtues. Those who do not believe in any god, just think what is fair, just and reasonable – for yourself, family, neighbours and fellow citizens – today and in the future. And then vote. Do not spoil your vote. It will be a wasted opportunity if you did.

May 2, 2011

Ngiam Tong Dow:There may be no second chance the next time around

IN THE aftermath of GE 2011, a new buzzword entered our political vocabulary. Political reporters wrote about the ‘new normal’ of Singapore politics. Being an ‘old normal’, I wondered what was new.

From third world to first: Like any other country in the world, Singapore now competes in a global economy. In such an economy, importing cheap foreign labour is no longer a viable strategy. It is a dead end.

That was until I spoke to NUS undergraduates at a ‘tea chat’ as a guest of the Master of Cinnamon College, one of seven new colleges forming part of NUS’s new University Town. I wanted to understand the mindset of the younger generation compared with the old mindset of my generation.

Except for the few activists of the University Socialist Club, my contemporaries at university were politically passive but not naive. In the political environment we were then in, we thought it prudent to keep our thoughts to ourselves.

In contrast, NUS undergraduates today are more articulate. They have courage of their own convictions, expressing their views vigorously at tutorials or the cafeteria.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has to deal with an electorate that is vastly different from the old normal of his father’s generation. The command politics of his father no longer works. While Mr Lee Kuan Yew appealed to emotions, PM has now to appeal to reason.

In my synopsis, I posed the question: Though Singapore has held seven general elections, can Singapore be considered a democratic state?

Let me state what we are not. We are not a theocratic state like the Vatican or present day Iran. We are definitely not ideological states like North Korea, Cuba or China.

The western concept of democracy is government of the people, by the people, for the people. China’s emperors had to gain the consent of the people to earn the mandate of heaven to rule. In my view, the core purpose of government is to raise the livelihood of the people.

The People’s Action Party (PAP) has won every one of the seven general elections since independence in 1965. The PAP won the mandate to govern because it delivered jobs and housing. Singapore is almost a model state attracting some of the ablest people in the world to work here. Would they also live here and raise their families?

There are two competing strands in our body politic. The first strand is meritocracy. It is modelled on the Chinese imperial scholar system where the best minds compete in nationwide examinations presided over by the emperor himself. The Singapore President Scholar is akin to the Chinese Imperial Scholar. Both systems aim at identifying the best talent to serve the country.

The second strand relates to the system of selecting leaders. It is modelled on Plato’s Republic. In the Republic, peers select their own leaders until the philosopher king emerges. As the first among equals, he is accountable to no one but himself.

Over time, peer selection breeds a leadership that becomes complacent. Though our state is rooted in meritocracy, we must beware of the dead hand of peer selection. Elitism creeps in imperceptibly.

The recommendation by the ministerial salaries review committee to peg ministerial salaries to the median income of the top 1,000 income earners reflects an elitist mindset which is troubling. If the primary purpose of government is to raise the livelihood of the people, a better statistical measure of livelihood would be the median income of all workers, not just the top 1,000 income earners or the MX9 salary scale of the Civil Service.

Curiously, both the government and the Workers Party accept that ministerial salaries be pegged to high income earners rather than the median of the work force, which is $3,070 a month as at June 2011.

The term first world is the vocabulary applied to wealthy European countries in the early 20th Century. In the early 1900s, Argentina was considered a first world country. Dr (Henry) Kissinger praised Singapore for moving from third to first world. Singaporeans may agree with the first but not the second half of his compliment.

Singaporeans of my generation remember vividly the slums, joblessness, dirt and disease of the 1950s. Through dint of hard work and discipline, we moved rapidly from a labour to a skill-intensive economy. By the early 1970s, we achieved full employment with an unemployment rate of 3 per cent.

The great challenge for us today is that we have reached the limits of our skill-based model of growth. Nothing stands still. The BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) are rapidly catching up on the United States, Japan and Europe in the automotive industry. China and Japan are embarking on the design and manufacture of commercial aircraft. But it will take considerably more time to succeed in the production of jet engines, landing gears and constant speed drives – key components of an aircraft.

Singapore has to move from a skill to a knowledge-based economy. The products and services of such an economy are characterised by high technological content. To position ourselves for such an economy, Singapore devotes the greater part of our national budget to education and training.

When I was in school in the 1950s, only three out my O level class of 40 went on to university. Today, 30 per cent of a primary school cohort enrol in tertiary education. Raising our average educational level from primary to post-secondary should make a world of difference for our international competitiveness.

So I observe with some dismay that the manufacturing share of our GDP dropped from a high of 30 per cent in the 1980s to 20 per cent currently. We need to ask ourselves why our concentration on engineering and science-based education is not yielding dividends in productivity and innovation.

Instead, the employment share of low-wage, low-skilled personal services is rising. Are we overeducating our children? This is a heretical thought contrary to all my basic EDB instincts. In EDB, our article of faith is that the higher the education level, the more rewarding will our jobs become. Our total factor productivity should be rising not stagnating.

In my view, productivity and real wages of the bottom 20 per cent of our work force have not risen because our labour policies allow employers easy access to low wage foreign labour. In national accounting, low wage foreign labour may not be as low-cost as employers believe. If we add the cost of housing, transportation, health and other social services which employers have to provide for their foreign work force, they may be better off training and equipping their Singaporean employees to raise their productivity. Rising productivity enables workers to be paid more. Inflation sets in only when wages are raised without any increase in productivity.

Productivity can only be raised when CEOs leave their comfort zones and take direct charge of the production process. They have to be hands on, not resorting to outsourcing. Productivity should be the key KPI (key performance indicator) for the award of bonuses to CEOs and management.

At the national level, PM is the CEO. Bonuses for the Cabinet should be pegged to increases in the median income of the work force, rather than the GDP.

Like any other country in the world, Singapore now competes in a global economy. In such an economy, importing cheap foreign labour is no longer a viable strategy. It is a dead end.

The 2012 budget is politically adroit, replete with spending proposals which basically are income transfers from the taxpayer to the poorly paid, the disadvantaged and the aged. Income transfers are palliatives, temporary reliefs to abate rising social discontent. They do not help to raise productivity. The real challenge is to grow the economy by raising total factor productivity.

It is not easy. A Japanese scholar pointed out in an article in Japan Echo that the optimum rate of productivity increase achieved by his country averaged 4 per cent annually. We need to remember that the Japanese are one of the most diligent people in the world. Singapore is already straining at the seams with a current resident population of five million. We are embarking on a crash programme to build more MRT lines, hospitals, HDB flats, schools and universities to accommodate the sudden surge in population.

The economic assumption is that we can increase our GDP if we can accommodate more people. In my view, even doubling our population to 10 million people will not make things better. More likely, a larger population can only make matters worse.

We have to grow through raising productivity, not higher headcount. We need to be smart enough to produce more with less. Our higher education levels and superior infrastructure enable us to compete in knowledge-based industries and services. We transformed ourselves in the 1970s from a labour to a skill-intensive economy.

There is one reality our younger generation has to face. In a global economy, you will be competing not only with friends and classmates but with the best and brightest of your generation in India, China, Brazil, Russia and Eastern Europe.

University graduates in China and India are willing to work for a tenth of what our young engineers and scientists expect. If we fail to raise our total factor productivity, Singapore would just be an also-ran in the race to be a knowledge-based economy.

When Sir Stamford Raffles founded Singapore in 1819, his town planner demarcated the town into several ethnic enclaves. Kampong Glam (Malays/Arabs), Chinatown (Hokkiens, Cantonese, Teochews), Little India (Tamils), and Tanglin (Europeans).
Empress Place on the left bank at the mouth of Singapore River was the administrative and civic centre. The British governor presided from the Istana. The Istana where our President and Prime Minister have their offices is the seat of government.

Each racial group was free to conduct their own trades, practice their own religions, set up their own schools, and largely married within their own race and ethnic group.

The colonial government provided the overarching framework of law and order and schooling in the English medium. Being a British colony, the language of administration was English. Access to English medium schools was open to all races. English became the lingua franca acceptable to all the races as none has any in-built advantage over the other.

From 1819 to 1959 when Singapore was granted self-government, our different races lived lives of passive co-existence. Even then, Singaporeans witnessed at first hand the madness of three racial riots in the 1950s-60s. Learning from bitter experience, our government established the inter-religious council and enacted legislation to protect minority rights.

Income gaps
In 2012, what will be the threat to social stability? In a society that is racially diverse and practising different faiths, it is matter of pride for me as a Singaporean that we have learnt to treat our neighbours as our friends. Future social unrest will arise not from racial or religious differences but from the growing class divide caused by widening income gaps. The top 1,000 earn million-dollar annual salaries while the rest a monthly median income of US$3,070. The gap is untenable.

Paradoxically, this income divide is seeded in our deep belief in meritocracy. In the past, equal opportunities in education have provided the social mobility to enable the bright boy from a poor family to make good. The playing field was level for all students.

The spread of private tuition has changed the educational playing field. During my school days, only the academically weak students of rich parents take remedial tuition. Taking private tuition was not a badge of honour. Today, any parent who can afford the fees will send their children not for remedial but enhancement classes to give their children a head-start over their classmates.

Though there will still be the exceptional individual who triumphs against all odds, more and more of our state scholars will come from upper, middle income families with professional parents. There is no easy answer to the problem of an uneven playing field in our schools. In itself, private tuition is unalloyed free enterprise which society should encourage, not frown upon.

The challenge is to level up, not to level down. One suggestion I have is to make classes for academically weaker children smaller. The student-teacher ratio should be more favourable than in brighter classes so that the teacher can give more personal attention to each student, which is what private tuition is all about.

The elitist among us will invariably ask the question whether this is the right allocation of teaching resources. This was the very question I asked of my late EDB colleague Ong Wee Hock who requested more funds to expand our industrial training centres. The ITCs are the precursor of our ITEs. I had to eat my own words later when our ITC trainees with barely O levels went on to start their own factories producing parts and components for MNCs.

It is hard to find the university graduate who becomes a successful entrepreneur. The prevailing reward system drives our graduates to become bureaucrats/managers both in government and business. White collar jobs pay better than blue collar jobs.

In the early 1970s when we achieved full employment, some of us in the EDB began to ask the question about the critical size of populations. We did some desktop research and found that there were several industrialised European countries with population size of around 5-6 million. These were Israel, Norway, Sweden and Finland. Our town planners went to work and concluded that Singapore with a land area of 670 square kilometres can comfortably accommodate a population of 5-6 million.

Flying on auto-pilot, we allowed in one million foreigners in the last decade. As we arrive at our numerical target of five million, Singaporeans find themselves squeezed on crowded MRT trains and buses. Low wage foreign workers replaced older Singaporean workers in menial jobs.

As our births fell below replacement levels, we resorted to immigration as an instrument to top up the babies that young Singaporean couples are not having. There are also elements of political re-engineering. Submerged in our immigration policies is the belief that to maintain racial harmony, we need to keep the current population balance constant.

I have come to the conclusion that we have been peering at the wrong end of the population telescope. Since the 1970s when job hopping became a bottleneck, computer technology has made many manual operations in production obsolete.

The key is to produce more with less manpower. The window to raise total factor productivity through application of knowledge and training is fast closing with the opening up of India, China and Indonesia. Singapore has lost two decades relying on low-wage, low-skilled foreign labour to drive economic growth.

Our managers and administrators are among the best paid in the world. They will have to get off their high horse and personally lead the drive for higher productivity. Outsourcing is a bad word in my vocabulary. Companies and government ministries should figure out how to train their staff and redesign jobs and processes to achieve more with less.

Grants should not be given to management (consultants) to do a job they are already paid to do. Instead, interest free loans should be given to enterprises with clear roadmaps to re-equip and raise the productivity of their workers.

I am against job credits in any form because they are simply wage subsidies which do not raise productivity in any way. My personal observation is that job credits simply add to the bottom line for payment of bonuses to management who do not have to lift a finger to raise the productivity of their enterprises.
We failed to bite the bullet in the 1980s to restructure our economy. There may be no second chance the next time around.

life

If you are not prepared to do national service, don’t become a PR.

Responding to MP Hri Kumar Nair’s suggestion to impose an NS tax on PRs and foreigners, Dr Ng said, “If you are not prepared to do national service, don’t become a PR. 

It’s a very clear message because in our system.

If you don’t fulfil your NS liabilities, you just can’t pay a fine. 
The penalties are very severe 

and it’s way beyond monetary penalties.

bore

14 days have passed since I resigned from work. Although I said to myself."I am enjoying my life now. I am free---I can sleep anytime I want, wake up anytime I want. I don't need to worry about me working the next day. (I need to be on bed at this hour, wake up at this hour, be at work at this hour, need to cook for my packed lunch or dinner, etc, etc}

But I'm starting to get really bored. That's the problem, though. Coz I've been working for 22 years already.

what population white paper did not tell you..

in the executive summary, speaking of getting “3% to 5% Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth on average” between now and 2020, and 2% to 3% thereafter. Strictly speaking, these were not assumptions. They were arbitrarily laid down targets, but once laid down, they effectively determined the result — which is that population has to rise to as many as 6.9 million. We can see the problem straight away: why is GDP growth rate the driver of any population policy? It’s like this: GDP growth comes from two broad elements: productivity growth and an increase in labour force. That is: existing hands creating more output by working more efficiently and productively, plus more hands coming on deck. It is a known fact that over the longish term, productivity growth rarely exceeds 2 percent per annum. Especially for a developed economy, even 2% might be a struggle; it could be 1%. Hence, if the laid-down target is 3 – 5% GDP growth, inescapably it must mean more hands on deck. The choice Singaporeans should be asked to consider is this: Do we prefer to have a more slowly-growing economy (1 to 2 % a year) with no further increase in population or do we prefer a faster-growing one with more foreigners in our midst? The White Paper does not give Singaporeans this choice. We’ve been using immigration to top up the population, but with such a low TFR, a high rate of immigration is needed. Moreover, it is a never-ending problem. So long as TFR remains this low, a high intake will be needed indefinitely. Such a prospect is virtually impossible to sell politically. what is a “demographically healthy” society? Well, it is a sort of idealised society that has a stable population from generation to generation; it is sustainable. It is not lumpy and schizoid like Singapore’s population, bursting upwards in one generation followed by a baby-bust in the next. The old-age dependency ratio in this idealised society is 2.25. There are 2.025 million persons in the working age range of 20 to 64 years compared to 900,000 persons aged 65 and older. You can check the calculation from Table 3 yourself. What does this tell us? It tells us that there is something wrong with the White Paper’s interpretation of good and bad. Our idealised ratio of 2.25, which is compatible with a demographically healthy society, is a lot closer to their “shock-horror” 2.1 than to the current 5.9, let alone the nostalgic 13.5 of 1970.

May this by-election provide the ‘Punggol Slap’ which the PAP will never forget!

Workers’ Party chief Low Thia Khiang reviving his infamous trademark "co-driver" analogy from the 2011 general election, Low said

policies must be devised to benefit the nation as a whole, instead of a smaller section of the population

. He said that if the latter situation occurs, the policy in question had failed. Ladies and gentlemen, we cannot afford to put our lives in the hands of a sleepy driver. Do not put another sleepy driver into Parliament

,” he said with gusto, to loud cheers from an estimated 8,000-strong rally crowd, its biggest turn-out of the three rallies. “May this by-election provide the ‘Punggol Slap’ which the PAP will never forget!”

PAP-AIM: how deep is the hole?

Referring to the controversial sale of management software by PAP town councils to Action Information Management (AIM), which is owned by the ruling party, party chairman Sylvia Lim said that even though the software was created using taxpayers' money, it was sold to an entity belonging to PAP. She said after the party won the contest at Aljunied GRC in 2011, they were able to “dig into documents” pertaining to the running of town councils. “There were aspects which showed how political, town management had become,” she said to an estimated crowd of about 7,000 people at an open field in Rivervale. “For instance, I have come across a few contracts signed by town councils, carrying a clause allowing for

termination of services if there should be a change in the composition of town council management, in other words, change of political management”.

The party chairman questioned the intention of such a clause, and asked if the ruling party was so determined to “trip” incoming opposition, even though

such an arrangement may not be in the public interest.

She said it was akin to sending soldiers to war, but taking away their ammunition in the field.

be free

free yourself. free your mind. do the things you like to do is happiness. and to live this world breathing the very fresh air is blessing indeed. life is indeed simple, why make it complicated.

PAP, AIM and the fat white elephant

In the end, only AIM submitted a bid on 20 July 2010

tender was close on 14th July 2010, and yet AIM submitted on 20th July 2010, 6 days after it has closed and they have awarded the contract. furthermore, they are the only bidder. moreover, it is linked to PAP as three directors are from former PAP MP. In page 6 of Jan 5th 2012 of today's The New Paper one of the companies that collected the tender document, Hutcabb Consulting, shed some light on what was in the documents. Hutcabb Consulting has an office located in Jalan Kilang and counts the Attorney-General Chamber and Ministry of Foreign Affairs as its clients: Chief Executive of Hutcabb Consulting, Mr. Oliver Tian told The New Papar that his company did not bid for the software because the town councils did not provide sufficient information about it in the tender document. "It was very hard to make a decision based on what was provided. After paying more than $200, we simply got a thin stack of documents and the town councils were unable to provide us with more information" - he said - The New Paper, Pg 6, 5 Jan 2013.