Former NTUC Income chief Tan Kin Lian has confirmed that he will be contesting the Presidential Election
By Nigel Tan
Chief Editor
Former NTUC Income Chief Executive Tan Kin Lian has thrown his hat into the ring for the upcoming Presidential Election, confirming that he would contest the election if he is granted a Certificate of Eligibility.
Mr Tan first shot to prominence following the Lehman Brothers minibonds crisis that affected thousands of investors following the collapse of the Wall Street investment bank. He took on an activist role, organising rallies at the Speakers’ Corner at Hong Lim Park as well as delivering petitions calling for transparency and accountability from DBS and other banks. He took issue with the fact that Hong Kong banks offered to buy back the assets for up to 96.5% of their value, while Singapore investors were not offered such a generous payout.
Thus far, Mr Tan has indicated that if elected, he will seek to play a more active role in safeguarding the national reserves. In a paper which he published on his website, Mr Tan said that he would be looking at having the President’s Office produce an annual report showing the reserves of Singapore as well as details of the government’s obligations, balances held by the Central Provident Fund Board, and bonds and guarantees issued by the government. He said that this was necessary in the interests of greater transparency, and did not think it would be difficult to compile such a report, saying that he intended to obtain assistance from the accounting profession.
He has also addressed the issue of the President’s annual salary. Mr Tan said that if elected, he would donate between 70 to 90 per cent of his salary to a new charity that would be set up to address certain social needs. He indicated that some of these needs would include the school fees of primary and secondary school students whose parents cannot afford to pay the fees, as well as the hospital fees of needy patients aged 75 and above.
He noted that “there are many charities and agencies that now provide these types of assistance”, but expressed the view that “most of them appear to be burdened with bureaucracy and stringent rules that have to be met before the beneficiaries can get the financial assistance” they require.
He also said that he would not disclose the exact amount which he would be donating, but called upon Singaporeans to trust that he would act “honestly, fairly and in the best interests of the people”. He added that even after the ongoing review on the President’s salary – which currently stands at $4.2 million – is complete, he still expects that the salary level will be much more than what he requires to maintain his “modest” lifestyle, and stated that the President “should set an example of what is meant by public service”.
Though it remains to be seen whether Mr Tan will be deemed as eligible by the Presidential Elections Committee, it is understood that he meets the stringent criteria which requires candidates to have served either in high public office or in comparably senior positions in the private sector. Specifically, candidates must have served for at least three years as Chairman or CEO in a company with $100 million or more in paid-up capital. As the former CEO of NTUC Income, Mr Tan fits the bill.
Mr Tan is also likely to be candidate most closely associated with the opposition, even though all candidates must run as independents and resign their political party memberships before Nomination Day. Though he was a former member of the PAP, Mr Tan spoke at rallies held by the opposition National Solidarity Party and Singapore Democratic Party during the recent general election campaign. He also revealed that it was the NSP’s secretary general, Goh Meng Seng, who first urged him to run for President in 2008. It remains to be seen if one or more of the opposition parties will endorse Mr Tan’s candidacy.
Thus far, only former PAP MP Tan Cheng Bock has confirmed that he will be contesting the election. Former Foreign Minister George Yeo has sent his representatives to collect the eligibility forms, and has indicated that he is considering standing as a candidate. He has said that he will make a final decision within two weeks.
–
The author is the Chief Editor of The Satay Club
You have the facts right, most of it anyway but you got one annoyingly inaccurate. Please see below.
“…Seelan Palay and Shikin Ali have joined the SDP. This would not have been possible if Dr Chee is still the despised figure that you think.”
First of all, they are not well known artists. Seelan Palay is not a respected artist in the arts community because his artworks do not speak in depth of the subject that he addresses and he is very arrogant. For some of us who knows the way he works as an artist, he is not an artist at all but an activist who tries to make art. Not that art and activism cannot go together, they can. Just that the way his artworks have been produced is like how a product is assembled in a factory. Sometimes he spends no time in conceptualising before producing something. Is that art?
Shikin is a fresh grad from NAFA, not enough to be called well known.
Seelan Palay has been running with the SDP for a long time and it is inevitable that he joins. Shikin joins because she is his girlfriend and knowing her, I am totally surprised that she has joined. She is not an activist either. She has never participated in activism at all.
Nani, on a sidenote, I should inform you that I will be overseas in the period between 21 June to 26 June, so unless I manage to find a source of internet access in the said period, I might not be able to debate here in this forum. I am sorry that I will be leaving you but rest assured that I will be back, and when I’m back, please make me feel welcome by showing me some well-constructed and challenging arguments instead of the usual rude, condescending and filmsy load of waffle.
Are you running away? Or do you need a break because my daily bashing of your flawed arguments is causing you stress? =D
Just kidding. Enjoy your holiday. Our verbal battles will resume when you return.
I don’t agree with Nani’s views in general and I do think that he is elitist, but he has a point when he says that young and able-bodied adults cannot be allowed to grow dependent on welfare. Instead, they need to receive support to help them reintegrate back into the workforce. This is the classic adage of “give a man a fish” as opposed to “teach a man to fish”. If for whatever reason a worker can’t find a job after getting retrenched, help him find a job by increasing his employability and keeping his skills up to date. Giving them handouts is not the solution.
@barackobama,
Thank you for your views. You make a fair point and most people will concur with that. However, if you look at the overall argument that Nani makes, that isn’t what he is driving. His bottom line is that all PAP is good and all alternative view points are bad.
M Bellagio:
Please point out some evidence that I said that “all PAP is good and all alternative view points are bad”. I pointed out only SOME areas in which I agreed with the PAP. How do you know that I agree with the PAP 100% on all areas? That is not true and I certainly do not agree 100% with the PAP. It seems like it is you who just decides to flame people if they even agree 1% with the PAP.
@Nani,
I do not flame. I was responding to comments. You appeared to push the government agenda all this while. I have always said that the PAP has done good in the past but that their policies need to change. If you say that you do not agree 100% with the PAP then fair enough. We may have something in common after all.
Singaporean Citizen:
If you have heard the audio transcripts, and you think that Chee’s conduct is “justifiable”, you have got to be so biased that your mind is totally warped. Go play that clip to any neutral party. If you have friends who are lawyers (or law students since you are a student), play it to them and ask for their opinion. Chee’s conduct amounts to an abuse of process of the court. His questions were totally irrelevant and he was making many personal and political points, which were basically wasting the court’s time and deeply offensive to both the court and Mr LKY who was at the time a cabinet minister. Chee needs to learn the meaning of being a gentleman. I agree that the media has not painted a very good image of him, but it’s a chicken and egg story. If he knew how to behave properly, and in a gentlemanly way, the media would have nothing to write about. The media obviously have not portrayed Low, Chiam or Sylvia Lim in the same kind of light, ever wonder why? The media paints a bad picture of Chee because of Chee’s behaviour, and not because Chee belongs to the opposition.
His approach is completely wrong and you can’t simply say all is forgotten because he has not held any street protests for 3 years. People’s memories are not that short. Many of you criticised LKY’s stop at two policy which was started in the 1970s. Why don’t you say, oh that was 40 years ago, let’s forget about it? It’s not so simple in politics. Chee has never apologised for his illegal acts, even if he has served jail time. Sure, he hasn’t done this for 3 years, but how do we know that he has really changed and won’t do this again in the future?
If he wants to convince people to give him another chance, he needs to come clean and say that he no longer believes in demonstrations and protests, and that he was wrong in the past. He doesn’t need to “apologise” but can simply say that he stands corrected. But he has not done that, so how do we know what he thinks? He could still be a firm believer in ‘civil disobedience’ (aka street demonstrations) for all we know, 3 years of not doing it doesn’t mean he has totally given it up.
Why do you think people still distrust him?
As for those 10,000 people who turned up to the SDP rallies, they turned up to listen to the party’s other candidates, not Chee. He was banned from speaking at the rallies due to being a bankrupt. The “fans” were supporters of Tan Jee Say, Ang Yong Guan and Vincent Wijeysingha, not Chee. I am aware that Chee was cheered by some supporters towards the end of the rallies, but that number surely cannot be more than 100 or 200, definitely not 10,000.
Many people would vote for Ang Yong Guan (myself included) as I think he is a very principled guy. But they will not vote for Chee. And unfortunately, many people chose NOT to vote for Dr Ang because of Chee, even if they would have voted for him if he stood on his own (as an independent or member of another party).
I know Dr Ang from before and I can say personally that he is a nice guy. I just wish he joined the PAP or stood as an independent. Despite wanting to vote for him, I could not bring myself to do so. 61% of residents in Holland-Bukit Timah agree with me.
I understand that Dr Chee raised some irrelevant questions, but it is LKY’s fault that such questions are raised because he once before said, in a rather noble tone, that if he sues someone for defamation, that person can question him not only on the particular defamation issue during cross-examination, but on all issues pertaining to his life. LKY, even before suing Dr Chee, have already said that Dr Chee is allowed to question him on every issue even if it is not related to the defamation case. Therefore Dr Chee is not wrong for asking irrelevant questions.
Dr Chee is not a gentleman? I have nothing to say about that except advice you to ask those who have met Dr Chee personally before, and ask them if Dr Chee is a gentleman. It is weird because, if Dr Chee is not a gentleman, why is it that he managed to welcome so many young recruits, including females, to join the SDP?
If Dr Chee has been “behaving,” the media will have nothing to flame him about? I agree that the 2001 “loudhailer” incident have given the state media a good source of ammunition to flame Dr Chee.
However, if you look at the way the state media generally portrays Dr Chee, you can see that it is often one-sided and biased. Often, news about Dr Chee doing good constructive things is left out. Did any local newspaper print an article about Dr Chee’s two pre-election dry runs at Hong Lim Park last year? When Dr Chee launched his party’s alternative policies, was it ever portrayed?
The alternatives proposed by the SDP, which Dr Chee launched, are hardly portrayed, and the SDP often have to rely on the Internet to spread their messages. Given such circumstances, how are Singaporeans going to know about Dr Chee’s contributions as well as his efforts in transforming Singapore’s political landscape?
At times, the state media can be despicable enough to even print nonsensical allegations against and Dr Chee, do I have to remind you about the New Paper printing an article about Dr Chee taking part in a totally non-existent protest march?
For Dr Chee to improve his image, I suggest that the state media can at least help by portraying Dr Chee in a more positive light. They should stop printing lies and nonsensical allegations to smear Dr Chee.
Also, the state media can help by giving a more balance view of the SDP. They can at least show how Dr Chee is contributing to Singapore’s political scene. Let the country know about Dr Chee’s recent Road To 2016 workshop that attracted over a hundred volunteers.
Unless the state media stop their biased portrayal of Dr Chee, there is very little hope that the whole of Singapore can forget about Dr Chee’s past image even if he does all the things that you proposed he should do.
As for your point referring to the amount of support Dr Chee is receiving, I will not jump to conclusions. I agree with you that among the massive crowd of SDP supporters, there’s got to be some who support the SDP but not it’s leader, so again, I reiterate that the state media will have to change the way they portray Dr Chee.
Referring to your point about Dr Ang, you are wrong to say that Dr Ang should join the PAP because that will be tantamount to running for election just for the sake of the seat in parliament while ignoring his personal believes and morals. Dr Ang has already said that he personally disagreed with the PAP on many counts. If he gets himself elected into parliament just so that he can be a PAP MP, he will forced to toe the PAP’s party line and not stating his true believes during parliamentary debates. This will have a repercussion on his inner conscience and he will feel guilty for the rest of his life. As a grown up, you should understand.
It appears that forum poster Nani has projected the middle and lower income citizens who find themselves in financial difficulties because of current government policies as “good-for-nothings”. He paints able-bodied adults who are retrenched and those who have lost their businesses in an environment of high cost and economic slump and being unable to find work to make ends meet are here to “leech” of others like him. And the less fortunate in our society who require assistance via welfare have no “morals”. Singaporeans have “common sense” because they “completely reject” assistance to the common man in dire need of support. I truly wonder if this is how the majority of Singaporeans feel. If it is then we have reached a very sad state.
You are taking my words of context. That is not what I meant. What I meant is that we cannot to have a welfare state where those who are doing well have to be forced to subsidise those who are not. I am against direct disbursements of handouts as I believe this breeds a sense of entitlement and discourages productivity. There is no reason why an able-bodied, young person should require handouts when he can either (a) find a job or (b) go for upgrading so that he can find a job. At the moment, there are more jobs than people. For every 136 job openings there are only 100 workers. It’s an employee’s market now. But now you are obviously going to say those jobs don’t pay enough. So, are we going to encourage Singaporeans to be picky? And give them free welfare handouts while they struggle to find their plum job?
When you say that people can’t find jobs, why don’t you ask yourself why they can’t find jobs? Is it because of their education, work experience etc? These can all be fixed by attending the government-subsidised courses provided by NTUC, WDA and e2i. They hardly have to pay anything at all for these courses, which make them more employable. So what is their excuse for refusing to upgrade themselves? How can you say that its ok for them to refuse to upgrade themselves, yet they should be entitled to state benefits? A ridiculous argument if you ask me, and certainly not reflective of the Singapore I want to live in. As I’ve said, the vast majority of the population (60.1%) agree with me.
As for those who (a) refuse to upgrade themselves, (b) refuse to accept lower-salaried jobs, and (c) prefer to live off welfare benefits until they find their “plum” job (quite possibly NEVER), I do indeed believe that they are lacking morals and you can quote me on that. These people are leeching off everyone else. There is no free lunch in this world. Singapore was built on the hard work, resilience and determination of our fore fathers. There is this old Chinese song that says I can cross the oceans and I can take hardship. These days, “hardship” is hardly “hard” at all. All they need to do is take on a job to support themselves, I mean OK it may not pay $5,000 a month but there are many jobs paying $1,500 to $2,000 a month. While they are supporting themselves, attend upgrading programs, take part-time studies, go for subsidised WDA courses, and so on to make themselves more employable so that they can work towards the job of their choice. Is this approach wrong? Let me tell you, it is precisely this approach that has resulted in the success we have today. NOTHING is given on a silver platter. Those who prefer to sit aorund and complain instead of improving themselves should NOT be entitled to benefits at the expense of everyone else. If they are elderly, sick, handicapped etc, it’s a different story. I am basically referring to those young, able bodied people (many in Europe, Australia etc) who refuse to work and instead spend their time engaging in anti-social pursuits like gangfights, drugs, alcohol etc while living off the taxpayer. We can’t afford to have this in Singapore. Why not you pay a visit to Sydney, go to this district called Redfern and see what I mean. Or go to London and visit Peckham. Then your eyes will be opened. Obviously you young turks have not seen the world and you don’t understand the perils of poor government.
Condescending now are we? This is the position that you have adopted all along and it is why you have also demonstrated such a callous attitude. “You young turks”? How do you know how old or how young anyone is on this forum. You should concentrate on debating the issues. And if there are two sides to an argument, as inevitably there would be, then agree to disagree. That is the way to go. Period. I’ll suggest you act your age (whatever age that is) and refrain from aggressively shoving your views down everyone’s throats.
@Nani
Please understand this, no matter how much upgrading workers go through, it still does not change the fact that there are many employers out there who prefer cheap foreign labor. Foreign workers can survive on even the most meager pay because they are not permanent stayers and will in time return back to their country.
Also don’t blame workers who reject jobs that pay peanuts. It’s not that they are picky; it is because many of them have families to support and cannot survive on meager pay. The have inflation as well as the rising cost of living further are burdening them. That is why many underpaid workers are in a dire need of financial assistance.
You rightly stated that it is impossible to compete with the foreign workers on the basis of cost alone as they are able to survive on meagre salaries. But it is certainly possible to compete on the basis of skills. This is why I keep emphasising upgrading. A Singaporean IT programmer may cost $3,000 a month whereas an Indian/Chinese/Burmese/Filipino IT programmer may cost $500 a month. If the Singaporean is not BETTER, then why should anyone be willing to pay him six times more?
On the other hand, people are still willing to hire American, Australian, British, German IT programmers even though they cost $5,000 per month. Have you ever considered why? Maybe they have more knowledge or more ‘soft skills’ other than just the technical expertise? There ARE alot of companies who would rather pay $5,000 for an American staff than $3,000 for a Singaporean staff, so your argument about competing solely on the basis of cost is lacking perspective.
Let me ask this: there is a chicken rice stall in Changi with poor facilities, poor service, no air-conditioning etc. The chicken rice costs only $2. But the chicken rice in Mandarin Hotel costs $18. Why are there still people willing to pay the $18 for the Mandarin Hotel chicken rice? I can tell you, the actual chicken is a factor, but it’s not the main reason.
Singaporean workers should look towards upgrading themsleves and looking beyond just competing on the basis of cost. You don’t see Mandarin Hotel chicken rice saying “oh if you sell for $2, it means I have to sell for $1.50″.
But do you know that there are some (or should I say increasingly many?) employees out there who prefer low-skilled, low-cost foreign labor. Logically, a highly-skilled worker would demand for higher wages and so many employers, wanting to save cost, would just hire cheap foreign labor in large quantities instead.
http://www.temasekreview.com/2011/06/14/human-resource-company-putting-down-local-singaporeans/
http://www.temasekreview.com/2011/06/12/real-foreign-talent-or-cheap-talent/
That’s the reason why many Singaporeans are feeling displaced by foreign workers.
Oh and those of you who claim that the Straits Times is so awful, may I ask why even Low Thia Khiang has said that the ST has been fair and unbiased in recent months?
Why is it that the ST has given ample coverage to opposition parties, including being critical of some PAP candidates?
And for those who claim that ST is biased but instead prefer to get their news from SDP website and SDP newsletter, I think this is just a joke! At least I get my news from an independent third party news source, not the PAP website or Petir newsletter!!
“”At least I get my news from an independent third party news source, not the PAP website or Petir newsletter!!”"
That is the most amusing joke that I have ever heard in a long while. Thanks for the entertainment…
Nani, my stomach now really hurts with all the laughing already so please don’t push it to the point where it may burst.
Why not you take a look at the whole issue concerning the state media. If the state media is not biased, why are they so active whenever the opposition members makes mistakes but are so quiet when PAP members screw up?
How much coverage did it give to Tin Pei Ling’s flouting of the cooling off day law?
How much coverage did the state media give to Vivian Balakrishnan’s screwing up of the YOG, turning it into a big flop and causing our beloved Singapore to become a international laughing stock?
What about The New Paper printing the nonsensical article about Dr Chee taking part in a totally non-existent protest march?
I do not know for a fact whether the ST is indeed critical of some PAP candidates, but I know for sure that it is a fact that the ST criticizes the opposition MUCH MORE than the PAP in Singapore’s entire electoral history.
Just look at how the state media flamed Jufrie Mahmood in 1991, Tang Liang Hong in 1997, Chee Soon Juan in 2001, James Gomez in 2006 and their attempted flaming of Chen Show Mao and Vincent Wijeysingha (which is thwarted, thanks to the efforts of alert netizens).
I don’t see what’s so funny. The fact remains that the ST is a third-party news source. You are getting your news from the SDP website, which naturally will promote pro-SDP views. It would not be serving its purpose if it did not do so. I don’t get my news from the PAP website. You can say all you like, but even Low Thia Khiang has admitted that the ST is balanced.
You certainly don’t appear to be balanced……..ST is serving whose interests? So Low Thia Khiang has said at one point during the 2011 elections that ST was balanced. One swallow doesn’t make a summer. Everyone (except you it appears) knows that you need to look at the whole picture.
Oh no,no,no. I don’t depend totally on the SDP website for my news consumption because mostly they release an average of one article per day(but you should though, and see for yourself their stand).
Is that news to you?? I might as well subscribe to their publication, The New Democrat, right??
Why do you always assume things, nani? Is it so difficult to even put to me in a direct question regarding my source of news consumption?
For the record, let me tell you that I mostly get my news from yahoo, and unless you are saying that yahoo news is pro-opposition too, I don’t see why reading from that website is equals to me having an unbalanced news consumption.
@Nani
Please understand this, no matter how much upgrading workers go through, it still does not change the fact that there are many employers out there who prefer cheap foreign labor. Foreign workers can survive on even the most meager pay because they are not permanent stayers and will in time return back to their country.
Also don’t blame workers who reject jobs that pay peanuts. It’s not that they are picky; it is because many of them have families to support and cannot survive on meager pay. The have inflation as well as the rising cost of living further are burdening them. That is why many underpaid workers are in a dire need of financial assistance.
Singaporean Citizen: Please state exactly how much you want your welfare handouts to be. You said that $400 is too low but $800 is too high. So can you just state an amount please and stop being evasive. Tell me in exact figures, dollars and cents, how much you want welfare handouts to be. And also, please state your stand as to WHO should be eligible to receive these handouts. All unemployed people? Or will you have some kind of criteria e.g. all unemployed people above the age of 65 and who have less than $2,000 in their savings account? State a proper criteria please.
I have already made my proposal regarding welfare handouts, but you happened to dismiss them with a wave by declaring that it is “not much difference.” I have stated that I am against a large increase, that’s why I proposed a more moderate one. So now why not YOU state your stand then if you are so smart?? Tell us what exactly do you propose.
I am against welfare handouts completely. But for the sake of argument, I would propose to keep the current level of $400. I am not bothered if it is increased to $420 or $440 or whatever, but I would be horrified by an increase to $600 or $800.
However, I would propose more scrunity and stricter criteria. Only those who are unemployed for more than 1 year may be eligible for the claim. Also, they need to be aged 50 and above, OR if they are under age 50, they must have a proven medical/mental condition that renders them unable to work.
For those who claim that they don’t have any medical condition but simply can’t find a job, they will need to prove that they tried hard to get a job. As a stop gap measure the government can give them a one-off benefit of $400 (not monthly but one-off) and refer them to NTUC/WDA/E2I to undergo subsidised training. These are my proposals. Do you want to argue against?
Good. You are basically proving my point that you belief in an elitist society. You insist on the current $400 be unchanged even though that amount is so meager that it is of barely any help.
Only those who are unemployed more than one year can receive handouts? What about those who are desperately short of money and are under a huge mountain of debt at the time of the termination of employment?
Only those who are aged fifty and above and have medical conditions can apply? Then what about those young and healthy but are desperately short of money and are under a mountain of debt? Are you saying you are not concerned about young people going bankrupt?
You sound as if it is super easy to find a job in Singapore. Do you know that the influx of cheap foreign “talents” in Singapore have costed local Singaporeans to get displaced by foreigners?
$400 is barely any help but $440 is going to be of help?
Are you an idiot? Can you do maths? I seriously think you are just arguing for the sake or arguing.
If you disagree that there should be safeguards to prevent abuse of welfare benefits, then you are basically saying that ANYONE who is unemployed can claim benefits from the state a.k.a. taxpayers money? So, tell me, what is going to stop dishonest people from abusing the system by claiming that they are unemployed? What is going to stop lazy people from abusing the system by refusing to get a job?
And you actually had the nerve to claim that you don’t believe in welfare? Yet, you are saying that having stringent criteria (e.g. medical conditions, elderly) is “elitist”, and ANYONE should be eligible to receive handouts so long as they can’t find (or won’t find) a job? I already said, those who are under 50 and have no medical problems can receive a one-off handout and be sent for free upgrading training. I refuse to support young, able-bodied people who refuse to be productive. If you are young and able-bodied, you jolly well work for a living like the rest of us. This week, we learnt that there are more than enough jobs to go around with record low unemployment and more jobs than people. Companies are having problems finding staff. And you are telling me that YOUNG, ABLE BODIED adults should be eligible for state handouts, and yet you still claim that you don’t support welfare?
You are talking absolute, utter gibberish and I have exposed you for the charlatan that you are! What a hypocrite!
Just so you know, if the day ever comes when taxpayers’ monies are spent on welfare handouts to young, able-bodied adults who refuse to get a job, many hardworking Singaporeans will leave the country. Myself included. Why do you think ambitious and enterprising Europeans are leaving their countries in droves?
The day when good-for-nothings are ALLOWED to leech off the efforts of others, is the day when Singapore will have lost its moral compass.
Thankfully, that day will never come as long as the PAP remains in power. And thankfully, idiots like you are in the minority. The vast majority of Singaporeans completely reject the idea of welfare because they have morals and common sense.
It appears that forum poster Nani has projected the middle and lower income citizens who find themselves in financial difficulties because of current government policies as “good-for-nothings”. He paints able-bodied adults who are retrenched and those who have lost their businesses in an environment of high cost and economic slump and being unable to find work to make ends meet are here to “leech” of others like him. And the less fortunate in our society who require assistance via welfare have no “morals”. Singaporeans have “common sense” because they “completely reject” assistance to the common man in dire need of support. I truly wonder if this is how the majority of Singaporeans feel. If it is then we have reached a very sad state.
Nani, why not you see yourself as the idiot who is opposed to eveything under the sun? I have already said that I am against a large increase in handout, that’s why I proposed a more moderate one, and yet you are throwing another clout. What the heck do you really want??
As I have already stated, I believe in the SDP’s proposal of welfare handout.
For the unemployed, the Government pays retrenched workers not covered by their employers 75 percent of their salary for the first six months. This amount would be reduced to 50 percent during the following six months, and further reduced to 25 percent in the third six months. The payments will stop once the individual is re-employed. They will also cease 18 months after one’s retrenchment if the individual is still not employed by then. This will prevent a culture of welfare dependence from taking root. A cap will also be placed on the amount that any retrenched worker is paid.
http://ge2011.yoursdp.org/solution/75/poverty-and-income-inequality
The SDP themselves are against welfarism (God damn it! How many times do I have to say this??). They stated that for those who are retrenched for more than 18 months, no more handouts would be given to them.
Furthermore, under the SDP’s proposal each worker will be allowed to reject only up to three job offers in the one-and-a-half years of the entitlement programme following which, as stated, the retrenchment benefit ceases. Such a scheme will provide workers a cushion when they are retrenched while at the same time encourage them to seek re-employment.
How’s that welfarism?? Nani, you are basically saying that the poor and unemployed are are being what they are due to them being lazy.
How the heck are they lazy when cheap foregin labor are diminishing their chances of re-employment and increasing the chance of a worker getting replaced? Our working poor are already clocking one of the longest working hours and the world.
And yeah, when the day comes when Singapore’s wealth gap becomes the widest in the world, and the rich are those who hold on to power and the poor are the slaves of the rich; I hope you will be happy. I hope you will be happy will that an army of poor workers will be helping you to do even the slightest task such as wiping your buttocks and putting on your socks
Everyone on this forum knows your true stand, nani. You are a staunch believer of an elitist society where the rich holds on to power while the poor slogs for a living. You believe that people can only be poor if they are lazy, while ignoring the fact that they are clocking one of the longest working hours in the world and receiving one of the most meager pay.
Nani, I hope you can get rid of this notion of yours that an elitist society is the perfect society because history have shown that such societies always leads to workers’ uprising, which in turn leads to a socialist revolution.
The 3 or 4 of you, can you stop this senseless bickering please. You are acting like small kids.
Ganesh, You are absolutely right. The problem is that this Nani chap keeps on wanting to get the last word in and this doesn’t help the situation any……..
Singaporean Citizen:
So the truth is finally out! You are a student! No wonder your views are so immature. When you eventually step out into the real world, your views will change. I am pretty sure that you will soon realise that reality is far from what you are perceiving right now, through your rosy and idealistic lens. I also finally understand why you are supporting the SDP and their so-called agenda of “egalitarianism” and social equality etc.
You claim that Chee Soon Juan has changed and he hasn’t organised any street protests for 3 years. While that might be true, please ask yourself whether he can just erase his past with a magic wand? When we are deciding who to elect as our MPs, we need to take into account a person’s entire track record over his whole political career and weigh it as a whole. Also, do ask yourself whether he has refrained from street protests by choice (i.e. due to him changing his views and realising his mistakes), or out of pure expediency and opportunism? Could it be that Tan Jee Say and Ang Yong Guan would quit his party if he holds further street protests? So in that sense, he has not changed at all. He is just temporarily refraining from his activities in order to achieve his short-term aims. I urge you to be careful because a leopard never changes his spots.
Chee has been rejected multiple times by the electorate. You claim that he has widespread support, but the ‘supporters’ that he has are vastly outnumbered by those who still distrust him, thanks to his past behaviour. Many didn’t vote for the SDP not because they distrusted the candidates, but because they distrusted Chee. How can you say that the mainstream media is to blame for his “public image” problems when he himself is responsible for the behaviours that led to the reports in the first place? How come Chiam See Tong doesn’t have a public image problem, he is also from the opposition right?
As for your comment on Chee’s defamation of our ex-PM Goh, this is not a conclusion drawn by me. It was a judgment handed down by the courts. Are you saying that the courts are corrupt? It was a court of law that legally and judicially decided that Chee had defamed ex-PM Goh, not me or anyone else. So you need to consider the facts before making blanket statements.
So what if I’m a student? I do not possess wisdom but at least I know very clearly what’s right and what’s wrong. The very fact that there are countless numbers of poverty-stricken Singaporeans out there who earns less than $500 a month, while our ministers are enjoying million-dollar salaries, is already something very wrong.
Referring to your point about Dr Chee’s track record, why not you look at the PAP’s track record instead and see for yourself how their flawed policies have totally ruined our lives.
I’m pretty sure Dr Chee is not holding another protest because he is wooing Dr Ang or Mr Tan because Dr Chee did not stage his last protest right before the both of them joined SDP, instead, it’s been three years(like you said) since Dr Chee’s last protest when Dr Tan and Mr Ang joined.
A leopard never changes his spots? You should instead say that to Lee Kuan Yew because he have yet to deliver a formal apology for the hurtful statements he made against the Malay community.
You are distorting my statements again. I did not say that Dr Chee is enjoying “widespread support” on a national scale because the scars of the Mainstream Media’s gutter journalism still remain. What I said is that Dr Chee is enjoying dramatically INCREASED support. You want prove? Just look at the jam-packed stadiums and fields of the SDP rallies. You can also go to youtube to watch videos about SDP rallies and see for yourself how enthusiastic the SDP supporters are. The Straits Times also reported that the percentage vote increase for the SDP is the highest among all political parties.
Why wasn’t Mr Chiam a distrusted opposition member? The answer is obvious, because the Mainstream Media did not launch a smear campaign against him.
Referring to your point about the Dr Chee’s defamation saga, let me tell you that I respect the court’s decision. But my question was not referring to the courts! I was questioning Mr Goh. Let me re-ask you the question that you craftily avoided. If Mr Goh is so adamant that Dr Chee is trying to destroy his image, why did he not engage Dr Chee in a public debate? This question is referring explicitly to Mr Goh and not our judiciary.
By comparing LKY and Chee, you are really comparing two totally different things. One is a respected statesman, a founding father, former Prime Minister, and wise world leader. The other is a street protester, a bankrupt, a person who was sacked from his job due to dishonesty, and a former criminal. How can you compare the two? Chee did what he did, and he was punished for it. Did he apologise to Singapore for slandering the entire country overseas (at Williams College, US)? Did he apologise to the judiciary (Justice Belinda Ang) for his unacceptable conduct in court and his accusations that she was biased? Did he apologise to NUS for his dishonest acts of pilfering university funds for his own expenses?
LKY has apologised for his remarks on the Malay community. He has said that he stood corrected. Still, the difference in the stature of these two men could not be greater. I can’t believe you are comparing them like-for-like. As for the SDP’s “increased” support, the entire opposition had “increased” support in GE2011. When you perform as badly as the SDP did in 2006, the only way to go is up. In any case, despite the SDP candidate’s credentials, they still could not win any seats, whereas the WP won 8 seats and SPP won 1 seat. What does this tell you, that even a housewife like Lina Chiam can get an NCMP seat but not the SDP’s highly qualified candidates? If Ang Yong Guan joined WP, he would have a chance of winning a seat or at least crossing 45%. Instead, he got less than 40% because people don’t trust his party.
“LKY has apologised for his remarks on the Malay community. He has said that he stood corrected.”
Can you provide evidence that he actually said “sorry” or I “apologise” in any statement. Did he apologise or did he just say he stood corrected? In a subsequent interview with Charlie Rose, he did a U-Turn on his position.
Unfortunately, Dr Chee have no need to apologise to the whole of Singapore because everything he says are fact. It is true when he said about us having a serious lack of democracy, unfair elections and draconian laws.
What unacceptable conduct did he have in court? If you have been reading the shitty Straits Times, you will surely have the picture that he was rude.
http://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/494-mm-lee-lost-for-words-during-cross-examination-by-chee
Read the above transcript in order to get the picture because it is a well known fact that the Mainstream Media has a tendency for biased reporting.
You raise the point about NUS again. Let me tell you that the evidence of that accusation is circumstantial and not yet proven. Do not assume that something is a fact if it is not yet been proven a fact.
LKY apologized? No, he merely said “he stand corrected” and that does not equates a sorry because he merely accepted that he MIGHT be wrong. But then, where’s the “I’m sorry” which is already long overdue?
You dismissed the SDP’s increased support as mere insignificance. Like I said, and the Straits Times confirmed, that the percentage vote increase for the SDP is the highest among all political parties. They could have gained more votes if it had not been the Mainstream Media spewing crap about Dr Chee participating in a supposed “protest march,” or Vivian Balakrishnan’s gutter politicking when he made a nonsensical allegation that the SDP has a “secret agenda.”
You see how uneven the playing field is in this election? That is why the SDP’s achievement of having the highest votes increase among all political parties is no way insignificant, but highly commendable.
Please do not over-exaggerate MM Lee’s contributions with your descriptions about him being the “founding father,” the true founding father of Singapore is Sir Stamford Raffles. Also, all of the things that he have done would not be possible without help from his friends such as Goh Keng Swee and S. Rajaratnam. Kindly give some credit to these men too.
Since the both of you want to clutch at straws, please tell me how and why “I stand corrected” does not amount to an apology. By saying that, he admitted that he was wrong. If one is not wrong, he doesn’t need to be corrected. OK, maybe he didn’t say the words “I apologise”, but you need to understand he is a man of stature and a founding father of Singapore. It’s not easy for him to apologise.
With regards to Chee, you pointed out that link. Have you listened to the audio clip of the very same exchange? If you have not, please do so. Then you will understand why many people perceive Dr Chee to be a hooligan. He was totally ungentlemanly, veering off topic, disrupting the court proceedings, bringing up irrelevant political points that had nothing to do with the trial. He also constantly interrupted the judge, the witness (LKY), and the lawyer (Davinder Singh). The judge already gave him a lot of leeway. Go ask any lawyer and they will tell you. I have many friends who are lawyers, and all were unimpressed by his conduct.
As for the NUS sacking incident, you are trying to implying that the ST made it up, but I think I would rather believe the ST than the SDP’s own website which is definitely a propaganda outlet. I get my news from a third party paper, not from the PAP’s own website or Petir newspaper.
Besides, Chee did allege that his sacking was unjust, and claimed that the PAP had something to do with it. His former boss at NUS, Dr S Vasoo, sued him and won. So the court has already judged (based on EVIDENCE) that Dr Chee’s claims were unfounded. Therefore, this is proven fact and not mere speculation.
Let me just ask a question here: do you accept that if not for Chee’s image problem, SDP would score more votes? Do you agree that many, many voters are simply not comfortable with Chee and will never vote for the SDP regardless of who its candidates are, so long as Chee is involved with the party?
Plain and simple fact.
Sorry Nani, as I see it, the one who is actually clutching at straws is you. You have provided no new ideas or solutions. You seem apt at only regurgitating the PAP stance and age old arguments. As for LKY, I’ve mentioned that he did a U-turn on his “I stand corrected” comment in the interview with Carlie Rose in March of 2011. And standing corrected is not the same as an apology.
Agree with Bellagio. Nani, please stop making yourself look more foolish than you already is by continuing to claim that you have won the argument because if you scroll down the page, you can see where all your arguments are shredded to pieces and lying in ruins.
Referring to your point that it is hard for LKY to say even a simple “sorry,” I don’t understand why it is so difficult to apologize, when his dear son actually apologized TWICE to the whole of Singapore during the last day of the election period. It kind of puts LKY to shame because his own son is capable of swallowing the humble pie while he is not.
Did I listen to the audio clips? Of course I did! They are all here; please feel free to feast your ears:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PTasDZzdYI (Audio 1a)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m-0wDVGWZY (Audio 1b)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2Naor3TnW4 (Audio 2a)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYPpYO1ULVU (Audio 2b)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZj0RYF1svc (Audio 3a)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVVCZIG6DVU (Audio 3b)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvSDL4X_PfE (Audio 4a)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39E7cEUQxo4 (Audio 4b)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRteulDRrlk (1-SHAMELESS LIAR)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezgKLrSxkdk (2-SHAMELESS LIAR)
You can see from the audio transcripts how LKY continually avoids Dr Chee’s questioning (not surprisingly because he surely have something to hide). Please take some time to hear carefully about the part where LKY LIED directly to the court, which will be interesting. I don’t blame Dr Chee for his behavior, with LKY being uncooperative and his lawyer having to save his ass all the time; I am not surprised that Dr Chee is losing his patience because anyone would.
I am not surprised that you brought up the point about Dr S Vasoo when you talked about the NUS incident; I knew you would eventually come to that. Let me ask you, have you heard Dr Chee’s side of his story? Please go and read up. With the state media being so capable of biased reporting, Dr Chee’s version of the story will unsurprisingly be left out. Dr S Vasoo sued Dr Chee for defamation, not for the allegation for misusing NUS funds, the court merely ruled that Dr defamed S Vasoo but did not directly rule that Dr Chee indeed misused the NUS funds. So it is wrong when you say that the misusing of NUS funds case is a proven fact.
I agree with you that had it if not for Dr Chee’s image problem, the SDP would have scored more votes, but I don’t blame Dr Chee here. It is all the fault of the biased state media for all the biased reporting, gutter journalism and endless smear campaign that damaged Dr Chee’s reputation. It is the state media’s demonizing that is to blame. That is why many voters are still uncomfortable with Dr Chee.
You shamelessly provide the audio clips, can you please listen to them properly? Chee was acting like a gangster throughout the court hearing. He was shouting, raising his voice, adopting an aggressive tone. You can see from his tone how egotistical and narcissistic he is. He tried to use the witness stand as his personal soap box, which any lawyer will tell you is an absolutely NO-NO. He showed totally no respect for Mr LKY, the nation’s founding father. Don’t forget that he was a minister when the hearing was taking place. He also showed totally no respect to the judge. He was lucky he wasn’t cited for contempt.
As for the case involving Dr Vasoo and NUS, Chee accused NUS of sacking him unfairly. However, Vasoo sued Chee, and won. The judge deemed that Chee’s claim was defamatory because Dr Vasoo’s comments were TRUE. In other words, Chee DID INDEED act dishonestly.
So, you are suggesting that Chee’s unpopularity is completely because the “state media” has tarnished him, and that he is 100% not to blame?
You mean that Chee’s actions would not lead any reasonable person to think poorly of him?
Then let me ask you, the “state media” did not exactly give a glowing reference of JBJ, did it? JBJ himself went to jail and was convicted of a crime as well as bankrupted, yet he was twice elected as an MP and once as an NCMP. He commands a strong following to this day even after his death. Many people respect him even if they don’t agree with his views. But Chee? He does not enjoy anywhere NEAR the level of support as JBJ. You can blame the media all you want, but Chee is responsible for his own actions. Singaporeans cannot accept his loudhailer style of politics, and Singaporeans certainly cannot accept a dishonest person (and a bankrupt + criminal) in local politics!
I understand why Dr Chee is acting in such a way. Nani, you are the one who is not listening closely to the audiotapes.
If you are listening carefully, then you can see that it is LKY who is being very uncooperative on the witness stand. He continuously dodges Dr Chee’s questions and his lawyer has to keep coming in to save his ass. I don’t blame Dr Chee for losing his patience because I think anyone would.
LKY have said earlier in a very noble fashion, that if anyone defames him and he sues that person, that person can question him not only on the particular defamation issue, but also on all issues pertaining to his life. But you can see that, through his dodging of questions, LKY is being a coward who is not a man of his words, he have no guts to answer tough questions posed by Dr Chee.
Referring to the NUS incident again, let me reiterate that the judge merely ruled that Dr Chee defamed Dr Vasoo, but did not explicitly rule that Dr Chee is directly guilty of misuing NUS funds.
I will state honestly that at times, Dr Chee is responsible for his image downfall. He may have the tendency to lose his cool at times, as seen by the “loudhailer” incident during the 2001 GE.
However, lets look directly at the whole issue of Dr Chee’s image. If you are saying that it is because of Dr Chee’s own personal flaws that Dr Chee has a damaged reputation, and the state media have got nothing to do with it, you are totally wrong. Dr Chee’s past image would have been totally forgotten by today if the state media can just stop having a tendency for biased reporting, slandering Dr Chee and tarnishing his image.
On the whole, I respect Dr Chee due to his courage in continuing to do what he is doing despite the state media taking potshots at him at every possible chance. There are even times when the state media will step totally out of line, just look at the way The New Paper printed an article about Dr Chee participating in a totally non-existant protest march, are you saying that the state media is not to blame?
You are totally wrong if you say that Dr Chee is still a very despised figure because if you look at video tapes of the recent GE, you can see how Dr Chee is enthusiastically welcomed by his supporters which numbers in the tens of thousands. The ranks of the SDP have swelled tremendously in the recent months with volunteers. Even well known local artists such as Seelan Palay and Shikin Ali have joined the SDP. This would not have been possible if Dr Chee is still the despised figure that you think.
Nani, this whole merry go round thing doesn’t seem to have an end, does it? You have got so much contempt for me that you just basically throw at me any ridiculous accusation you can think of without considering the fact that you are making yourself look like a real ass. You know that you can no longer accuse me of having any so-called hidden socialist/communist/welfarist agenda because they have been shot down and you know they are false, and have got nothing else to say already, so you decided to accuse me of being an SDP mole instead. Well, what would be next? How about accuse me of being a Al-Qaeda terrorist?
@ Nani – “All their other candidates, including the sinister and venal Tan Jee Say, are dubious.”
You use very colorful language. However, I think you are pushing the envelope just a tad bit too far in using the term “venal”. I don’t know how other forum members feel but my view is that you have taken a cheep shot at a highly qualified and distinguished individual. There is no proof of this and so believe this argument falls flat on its feet. As to his comments on his former mentor, I don’t see what’s so socking about it. Besides, I believe it was his mentor who chose to comment about him first despite saying in public that he will not comment on any candidates. You also appear to demonstrate a very callous attitude towards Singaporeans with alternative views, and this is not good for an open political discourse.
Typo error – “socking” should read as shocking.
Isn’t it obvious? Nani is just one damn brainwashed fool who would just believe anything that the PAP says no matter how ridiculous it is.
Bellagio, I don’t agree that Tan Jee Say has dubious intentions but I don’t think he could make it as a Permanent Secretary and it may be true that he is bitter. I also disagree with his economic proposal but I think he is not as scheming as Nani says. As for Chee, I think there is really something wrong with his mind. If he gracefully stepped down as SDP sec-gen, his party may be perceived in a more credible light. Just my two cents.
I beg to differ. You don’t think he could make it as a Permanent Secretary? Why? Simply because his mentor said so? Tan Jee Say had given his side of the story. His mentor is PAP and Tan Jee Say stood for the Opposition. He was Head of the Economic & Manpower Planning at the Ministry of Trade & Industry for 7 years from 1979 to 1985. He is bitter and he has stated that clearly. His focus was on the Casinos. The majority of Singaporeans had reservations about this as well. With regards Dr Chee Soon Juan, you may have a point there as there’s similar sentiments held by others as well. He has changed, but the image of his past is still caught on in memory.
Singaporean Citizen, you have now been exposed as an SDP mole. You have chosen to join the camp of the most widely discredited party in Singapore, the party that is the most extremist, most radical and most anti-Singapore. It is clear to everyone else that the SDP has got no intentions to serve Singaporeans, rather it is just out to serve its own selfish agenda. You have madmen like Chee Soon Juan in the party. Then you have gay rights activists who cleverly disguise and hide their agenda. Then you have unscrupulous characters like James Gomez. The list goes on. That party is a collection of political rejects and outcasts. Thankfully, Singaporeans have resoundingly rejected the SDP at the polls. I had huge respect for COL (Dr) Ang Yong Guan but I really think that he, as a psychiatrist, should consider treating himself because he must be totally mad to have sacrificed his excellent standing and reputation to join the SDP camp. All their other candidates, including the sinister and venal Tan Jee Say, are dubious. He is just trying to get back at the PAP for not making him an MP, and his comments against his former mentor were shocking to say the least. Even the Workers Party did not want to take him on. Dr Ang is the only respectable candidate in the entire party. And it’s sad that he has chosen to join them instead of stepping forward to serve the country with the PAP.
HAHA!! Nani, let me first express to you how much fun I had reading this piece of yours. Seriously! It’s so totally devoid of the slightest form of logic or the mildest form of reasoning, that it’s more like a total piece of comedy! Nani, I really appreciate this, after such a long day at school, some comic relief would seriously help! As I read this, every single line is false… Oh my god… Nani, you seriously got to take your head out of your ass and take a look at reality.
If you accuse me of being a SDP mole, then all the more I can say that you are a PAP mole(almost everyone agrees). All these accusations of yours, I really got nothing to say exept laugh my head off due to it’s ridiculous nature. Even the PAP are starting to respect the SDP, but yet you are still saying things that would only matter more than five years ago… Hello… nani, now is the year 2011, and the elections are over and the SDP have the highest vote improvement among all political parties… please wake up and look at reality.
And for the last time, Vivian Balakrishnan have apologised for his ridiculous accusation about the SDP having a gay agenda, and retracted his statements. If you don’t want to believe that, it’s up to you. You are further proving my point that you are a seriously deluded fool who have got his own head shoved up his ass.
@ Nani – “All their other candidates, including the sinister and venal Tan Jee Say, are dubious.”
You use very colorful language. However, I think you are pushing the envelope just a tad bit too far in using the term “venal”. I don’t know how other forum members feel but my view is that you have taken a cheap shot at a highly qualified and distinguished individual. There is no proof of this and so believe this argument falls flat on its feet. As to his comments on his former mentor, I don’t see what’s so shocking about it. Besides, I believe it was his mentor who chose to comment about him first despite saying in public that he will not comment on any candidates. You also appear to demonstrate a very callous attitude towards Singaporeans with alternative views, and this is not good for an open political discourse.
Tan Jee Say seems like he has an axe to grind. He has made his vendetta very personal. That is why I have said that he is dubious and can’t be trusted.
Unfortunately he has dragged his friend Ang Yong Guan down with him.
Not at all, Tan Jee Say perceives that the PAP agenda on economic development has strayed from its original course. He has thus come forward to serve with his alternative proposals and views. Whether one agrees with him or not, I do not think he deserves to be classified as someone who is dubious. I am sure that Dr Ang Yong Guan is an highly intelligent individual who makes up his own mind.
FYI, it was SM Goh who made the first personal attack against Mr Tan. He just could not accept the fact that his very own former PPS have joined the opposition and thus said that Mr Tan “did not make the cut to be a PPS.” Mind you, Mr Tan not ask Mr Goh for the PPS job, Mr Goh persuaded him. Mr Tan served Mr Goh loyally for five long years, look at the way he’s been repaid.
True that SM Goh was the first who made the comments on Tan Jee Say. But Tan Jee Say also said some very uncomplimentary and disrespectful things in return. Two wrongs don’t make a right. I think Tan Jee Say discredited himself by commenting on SM Goh in such a manner. You need to have respect for SM Goh simply because of his age, stature, experience and the fact that he is a former PM.
On the contrary, respect has got to be commanded. And those who command respect do not dampen that command.
What’s there not to support about SDP’s agenda? Are you kidding me? SDP is a thoroughly destructive party and their track record speaks for itself. Many people have commented that SDP stands for Street Demonstration Party. Dr Chee Soon Juan has proven to be really irresponsible and gangster-like in his public heckling of our former PM, Goh Chok Tong. Not to mention, he makes totally unfounded allegations that defamed ex-PM Goh and caused damage to his character and reputation. Dr Chee’s own character is in doubt after having misused NUS funds for his private expenses (thus ending up in dismissal from NUS), his dramatic hunger strike saga, his ousting of his former mentor Chiam See Tong, and his numerous brushes with the law which have resulted in his bankruptcy and even being jailed.
On top of that, Chee has slandered Singapore’s reputation OVERSEAS. What is his point in doing that? Is he pro-Singapore or anti-Singapore? I think most Singaporeans know the truth about his agenda. And it’s not surprising that SDP has failed to win any seats ever since they were thrashed in the 1997 election, which coincided with Chee’s ousting of Chiam.
Chee is a dubious character who is lacking in integrity. He is not the kind of politician we need in Singapore. By supporting this kind of party, you are showing your true colours.
Sigh… another flimsy argument for me to demolish. FYI, It’s been almost three years since the SDP last went on a street demonstration. Many people have forgiven Dr Chee for his past deeds. You want proof, just look at the overwhelming support he recieves when he attended his party’s election rallies. Look at the jam-packed nature of the stadiums and fields during SDP rallies, and theres youtube videos which showing Dr Chee being welcomed very enthusiastically by his supporters.
The popularity of Dr Chee and his party have risen greatly and thats a fact. The number of votes for the SDP have increased the highest among all political parties. And Dr Chee did not expel Mr Chiam from the SDP, Mr Chiam resigned on his own. Thats a fact too and Mr Chiam admits it. If you say Dr Chee defamed GCT, let me ask you, why did GCT not challenge Dr Chee in a public debate to proof himself?
Dr Chee slandered our reputation overseas? I Disagree. Dr Chee is merely trying to get the world to see the truth about the pathetic political situation in Singapore. All the things that he have said about us, including having unfair elections, lack of democracy and and other bitter truths such poverty and labour, are all sadly facts. Please go and read up on his views and you will be surprised how much sense it makes, however, it is very unlikely that ou will do so because you are the type who have no guts to look at facts.
*you will do so
Singapore Citizen,
Nani has a point. SDP has a tainted past. It may have changed, but there must be a reason why none of their candidates managed to cross 39.5% in any constituency. In contrast, NSP managed to cross the 40% mark in some very difficult constituencies such as Marine Parade even though “on paper” their candidates were not as strong as SDP.
I don’t know about you, but I will never vote for SDP even if their candidates are of top caliber. Until Chee stepped down as sec-gen. I simply don’t trust him and my entire family and circle of friends think the same way.
If the MSM can stop their usual habit of gutter journalism, biased reporting and smearing of Dr Chee, the SDP would have gained much more votes.
Nani, what the heck is wrong with you?? Don’t you even know how to argue?? You argue with facts and not your opinions and guessings, most of the time, from the way I see it, you are basically using whatever assumption that comes into your mind to construct some of the most filmsy arguments that I have ever seen.
I expect an argumentative challenge from you, not all those ridiculous and baseless statements that you keep throwing, all of which are devoid of the slightest form of reasoning or the mildest form of fact logic.
Every time I demolish one of your filmsy arguments, I wait patiently, hoping that the next one that you put up will be more constructive, but the wait proof to be in vain because every new argument is more nonsensical than the last.
Nani, you are basically rehashing all of your older arguments, which have already been demolished, and putting them up again just so that I can rip them apart again. If you scroll down the page, you can see where all your old arguments are already lying in ruins after being ripped apart by me. This whole merry go round thing doesn’t seem to have an end.
I am seriously disappointed by the challenge that you are putting up. I expect an ACS(I) kid to do much better.
I am particularly amused by all those times you claim to have won your arguments against me. Nani, please don’t further delude your already seriously deluded mind. You kind of make idiots like Mah Bow Tan and Wong Kan Seng look like geniuses.
@Singaporean Citizen
You have laid out the general views and sentiments of most forum members here who feel that there are many policies currently in place which needs a major overhaul. Nani needs to accept that not all that is PAP is good, likewise not all that the opposition stands for is bad. Unfortunately, it is very likely that Nani will continue NOT to see the forest for the trees. From the way the arguments are presented, Nani is too hell bent on paying too much attention to details and not understand the general situation.
Unless the PAP does a complete review of all its policies and the manner it handles Singaporeans’ concerns, provides for electoral reform, and makes a very significant change to the policies such as housing, CPF, healthcare etc., then it stands to reason that change, through the opposition, will continue to be sort after by the people.
Singaporean Citizen:
(1) Do you accept that Adam Smith’s free market economic model is the best economic model for society?
(2) Are you suggesting that Chee Soon Juan or Low Thia Khiang (or even yourself) knows better than the revered economist Adam Smith?
(3) You claim that you support democracy. Why are you so intolerant of any views that are contrary to your own? Why do you insist that any views that are supportive of the PAP ought to be opposed no matter what?
(4) You denied that you wanted to ask for public assistance handouts to be increased to $800. You mentioned you wanted it to be increased to $440-460 in order to help the poor. Do you think $40-60 will make a difference in helping them? Why are you going against your own stand of wanting society to help the poor? You might as well come clean and ADMIT your true agenda, which is increasing their welfare handouts to $800 at least?
(5) What political philosophy do you adopt? That of Mao, Marx, Lenin, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, or Kim Jong Il? Or are you a supporter of Goebbels since you openly used Volkswagen as an example of brilliant entrepreneurship when it is common knowledge that Volkswagen was started by the Nazi government under Adolf Hitler?
(6) Do you also support the liberalisation of trade unions? Do you think they should be allowed to go on strike?
(7) Do you also support minimum wage?
I think it is better if you just come clean and state your true stand on all of the above, rather than hiding behind a benevolent veneer of “helping the poor”, while refusing to clearly state your political affiliation or agenda. You openly said that you are a supporter of the SDP. What does this mean? Do you wholly support their entire policy platform including the right to have street demonstrations and civil disobedience? Do you also support the gay agenda as the SDP is known to do? Do you also think the death penalty should be abolished so that murderers, arsonists and rapists can be ‘rehabilitated’? Do you also believe that politicians can heckle the PM in public and cast aspersions on his integrity? The SDP is known to support all these things, so you had best state your true intent so as to eliminate confusion!
Q: Do you accept that Adam Smith’s free market economic model is the best economic model for society?
A: No, I don’t. Please refer to the “nothing is perfect” law.
Q: Are you suggesting that Chee Soon Juan or Low Thia Khiang (or even yourself) knows better than the revered economist Adam Smith?
A: No, but do note that there economic proposals are constructed with aid from various economic experts, both locally and internationally. The SDP even setted up a panel made of various experts to discuss their alternative economic models.
Q3) On the contrary, I don’t oppose to everything PAP nor am I intolerent of dissenting views. I am only against YOUR views because they are mostly illogical and holds no reasoning. Your arguments are basically build out of thin air and devoid of any fact. That is why I have to demolish those nonsensical arguments. I am not against dissenting arguments so long as they are constructed based on facts.
Q4) *I have already answered this question. Refer to the rebuttal argument I made below*
Q5)None. I support democracy. As for your volkswagen thing, please refer below. I have already rephrased that statement to, “. Does the 30% tax rate prevent German entrepeuners from carrying on Volkswagen all the way to this day?”
6) Yes, I do. I believe unions should be free from government intervention in doing their job of safeguarding workers’ rights. If workers are exploited, it is their right to let their grievance be heard instead of being forced to suffer under unfair employment policies. Strikes have occurred everywhere, both capitalist and socialist societies alike, with little or no repercussions to the local economy.
6) Yes, I do. Unions should be free from government intervention in doing their job of safeguarding workers’ rights. If workers are exploited, it is their right to let their grievances be heard instead of being forced to suffer under unfair employment policies. Strikes have occurred everywhere, both capitalist and socialist societies alike, often with little or no repercussions to the local economy.
Your proposals are irresponsible and dangerous.
You are absolutely wrong about unions not having a damaging effect on the economy. Look at the UK and France. Both countries have been crippled by strikes several times in their history. My suspicions were correct. You believe that power should be concentrated in the hands of workers and peasants, confirming your leftist tendencies. You are clearly a dangerous person with socialist leanings even though you insist that you are not. When you say that you oppose socialism because you believe in democracy, that is like saying I dislike french fries because ice cream is sweet (no cause/effect relationship at all). Hence, I can easily deduce that you are disguising your leftist agenda because you are not comfortable being open about it.
If you can believe that workers and peasants should be given power to control industrialists and businesses, even to the extent of crippling them, then you are really an extremist. Your views have no place in Singapore. Thankfully, 60.1% of people agree with me.
Nani, I said, “often with no repercussions to the local economy,” that means most, NOT ALL of the time the local economy will be affected. Why not you don’t think so negatively and look only at examples where union strikes have damaged the economy. Why not you look at Hong Kong or Taiwan?
And you are making blind accusations again. I said that worker’s should have their workers’ rights preserved and not trampled upon which is exactly how many Singaporean workers are treated, I did not say (in your own words), “power should be concentrated in the hands of workers and peasants.” Sometimes, nani, you got to learn how to read.
It is unfortunate that in our modern society nowadays, there are still people like you who believe in the idea of an elitist society. You believe that workers should be denied their sacred right, which is the direct proof of your elitist agenda. You clearly believe in a society where the rich would be in absolute power while the poor would lick the crumbs that fall off a rich man’s table.
Nani, please learn from your PAP role models and scrutinize the opposition manifestos before making blind statements. None of the opposition party advocated for a welfarist/socialist/leftist society. I don’t know where the heck you got such a weird idea in the first place. It goes to proof that you are basically a seriously deluded moron who had his head rammed all the way up his ass.
Q7) Yes I do. Many countries have imposed it. Even Hong Kong, who have long resisted this idea due to the same reasons as Singapore, have also implemented minimum wage. Minimum wage is a great way to reduce wage inequality in many developed countries. Singapore is also in a bad need of such a policy because of our huge income gap, which is already one of the largest among developed countries.
I have got no secret agenda, other than the agenda of Singaporeans. I have no believes other than my staunch belief in democracy. Should there be street demonstrations? Yes. If the ministers are doing a bad job, citizens have the right to stand up and let their voices be heard, and the government have no right to suppress this right of the citizens.
While it is the duty of all citizens to obey just laws, it is also a duty for them to disobey unjust laws. I support the civil disobedience movements that called for the abolishment of the ISA.
You ask if I support the SDP wholly? Well, I don’t see them doing a bad job as a opposition party. Their alternative policies are sound and constructive, their efforts in reaching out to the electorate is sincere, whats there about the SDP that I should disagree about? Can you kindly name me some?
Is that even a serious question?
If you don’t know about the tarnished reputation of the Street Demonstration Party then I suggest you read up on recent history. Not to mention, you should also take note of how the party was wrested away from its founder Chiam See Tong by the unscrupulous Chee Soon Juan. Since that incident, the party has failed to win any seats in Parliament! No surprises there!
Wrong! Thats another lie from the straits times. Mr Chiam was never kicked out of the SDP. He resgined on his own. What tarnished the reputation of the SDP? What a stupid question, it is of course the gutter journalism and political smearing committed by the Mainstream media.
I can’t believe you still believe the rubbish that the shitty straits times have printed. That so called allegations regarding the SDP’s gay agenda have already been shot down and Vivian Balakrishnan have apologised. SDP have also made it clear that they do not have any gay agenda. Nani, please do not harp on the closed issues of the past and look at the present.
Singaporean Citizen:
So, after making such a massive hullabaloo by trolling me and posting the same things multiple times, you are telling me that actually you are only advocating for a 10-15% increase in public assistance from the current $400 to around $440-460? If that is the case, how will the extra $40-60 make any difference to the poor? Or is this a flip-flop to save yourself from embarrassment after I pointed out to you that increasing public assistance to $800 would destroy our social fabric as it would make people not want to work? Which is it?
What is your main grouse? The so-called lack of ‘democracy’? As I have already pointed out, democracy is a waffly ideal and is a Western construct. We can have democracy in our own unique way.
Also, I would like to point out another glaring error that you have made. Socialism is not opposed to democracy. Socialism is opposed to capitalism. Democracy is opposed to totalitarianism/despotism. You can be both socialist and democratic. Some of the Scandinavian countries are currently adopting this model. They tax people up to 78% but provide free education and healthcare. So basically a manual worker there earns pretty much the same as a professional. They have pretty much a classless society. They can say what they want and they have elections. I don’t support this system. In fact, I loathe it and I think that Singapore would be worse off if it was adopted. But I just used this an example as a case in point to highlight your elementary mistake of thinking that socialism is the opposite of democracy.
Nani, you have said that you are against a huge increase in the amount of government payout. I agree with you because like you, I am opposed to welfarism. That is why I proposed a more moderate increase in payout, but yet you are still throwing another clout saying that my moderate proposals are no difference. Nani, what the heck is your stand then?? Are you supportive of an increased amount of government payout or not?? Why not you state your stand then, instead of throwing another nonsensical clout.
You ask if my main grouse against the PAP government is the lack of democracy? No, my main grouse is the clear incompetence of many PAP ministers and MPs such as the likes of Mah Bow Tan and Wong Kan Seng. And yes, the lack of democracy is also something I am very against. Please stop deluding yourself into thinking that we have our own “unique model of democracy” because something even as mild as a one-man street protest against the government is also not allowed.
With our democratic rights which includes freedom of speech and assembly curtailed, there is no way disenfranchised citizens can get their voices to be heard and incompetent ministers can just pass any flawed policies they want. All these have resulted in flawed government policies that have led to our housing and healthcare prices rising sky high, immigration rate being so lax that foreigners with fake certificates are allowed to swarm our beloved homeland and lack of accountability in the event of a minister screwing up.
Lastly, you say that democracy and socialism are not opposing each other. I do not deny that. But historically, there are societies which lumps socialism and totalitarianism together as one, and human rights are regularly trampled upon in these societies, examples are China and the Soviet Union.
These are the socialist societies I was referring to when I said, “socialism which treats human rights like a doormat.” Socialism is an ideology that was invented more than a century ago and different forms have existed since then. There are those that lean more towards a free, democratic society and there are those that are more bent on trampling on the workers.
I do not oppose Social Democracy on the grounds of human rights, but only on the grounds of their welfarist ideology. You assumed that I am opposed to ALL of socialism. Okay, it’s my fault, I should have taken your tendency for assumptions into account and made my statements more specific.
Nani, you have said that you are against a huge increase in the amount of government payout. I agree with you because like you, I am opposed to welfarism. That is why I proposed a more moderate increase in payout, but yet you are still throwing another clout saying that my moderate proposals are no difference. Nani, what the heck is your stand then?? Are you supportive of an increased amount of government payout or not?? Why not you state your stand then, instead of throwing another nonsensical clout.
You ask if my main grouse against the PAP government is the lack of democracy? No, my main grouse is the clear incompetence of many PAP ministers and MPs such as the likes of Mah Bow Tan and Wong Kan Seng. And yes, the lack of democracy is also something I am very against. Please stop deluding yourself into thinking that we have our own “unique model of democracy” because something even as mild as a one-man street protest against the government is also not allowed.
With our democratic rights which includes freedom of speech and assembly curtailed, there is no way disenfranchised citizens can get their voices to be heard and incompetent ministers can just pass any flawed policies they want. All these have resulted in flawed government policies that have led to our housing and healthcare prices rising sky high, immigration rate being so lax that foreigners with fake certificates are allowed to swarm our beloved homeland and lack of accountability in the event of a minister screwing up.
You say that democracy and socialism are not against each other. I do not deny this. But historically, there are socialist societies that trample on human rights; examples are China and Soviet Union. These are the socialist societies I was referring to when I said, “socialism which treats human rights like a doormat.” Socialism is an ideology that was invented more than a century ago and different forms have existed since. There are those that lean more towards a free, democratic society and there are those that are more bent on trampling on workers. I do not oppose Social Democracy on the grounds of human rights, but only on the grounds of their welfarist ideology. You assumed that I am opposed to ALL kinds of socialism. Okay, it’s my fault, I should have taken your tendency for assumptions into account and made my statements more specific.
You say that democracy and socialism are not against each other. I do not deny this. But historically, there are socialist societies that trample on human rights; examples are China and Soviet Union. These are the socialist societies I was referring to when I said, “socialism which treats human rights like a doormat.”
Nani,
It appears you are not here to keep an open mind and provide a well balanced argument. Instead, all that you are interested in is to continue propagating highly indoctrinated partisan ideologies of the present day government. It seems that it is you who is flogging a dead horse, and might I add, one that has been mercilessly crucified. Besides, you flatter yourself, none of your convoluted arguments to-date takes into consideration of the present day circumstances. Hence, your arguments have no bearing on how things are to be taken forward for Singapore.
Bellaggio,
Spot on with your comment. She is just propagating her opinions. Most times using half truth to support her arguments and sometimes using carpet bombing of all sorts of irrelevant facts to confuse the debate.
Nani is a shameless elitist who despises ordinary folks. He proudly bragged about going to ACS(I), earning $25k/month and living in Grange Road. He even said that another forumer (also from ACS) was a disgrace to the school because he had not manage to achieve Nani’s “success” in life. He deserves to be exposed for his snobbery and elitism. No wonder he believes that the poor deserves to be outcast from society.
Isn’t it obvious that Nani is either a PAP member, grassroots leader, or internet brigade? Why bother with his elitist bullshit? Nani, stop ramming your elitist views down our throat. We simply disagree with the current style of government and want to change it!
Singaporean Citizen:
By decrying capitalism and arguing for the state to step in and “equalise” income levels, you are totally disregarding and cheapening the efforts of enterprising people like Mr Sim Wong Hoo, Ms Olivia Lum, Mr Ho Kwon Ping, Mr Wee Cho Yaw, Mr Ong Beng Seng and so on!
Many of these people did not come from ‘elite’ backgrounds but they still managed to make it. This would not be possible if Singapore was an unequal society. There are tremendous opportunities for social mobility in Singapore as witnessed from MG (NS) Chan Chun Sing who became a minister despite his humble roots. In India or China, could such a person, who did not come from “old money” become a minister? So, this is proof that under the current system, if you are intelligent, talented, ambitious and willing to work hard, you can make it in society.
On the other hand, if you are lazy, unintelligent, unresourceful and irresponsible, why should the state subsidise you?
I did not see anyone decrying capitalism here. Nani…Nani… is it just a figment of your delusion…oops imagination.
The reason why I called for increased “state subsidies” are to provide more support for the poor. The poor are suffering badly now due to inflation and rising cost of living, their stagnant salaries and meager government financial support is not helping them. Given such circumstances, wouldn’t it be fair to say that they need more help than they are currently receiving?
If you are saying that my proposal for a 30% income tax for the rich is tantamount to “decrying capitalism,” then are you saying that all the governments of developed countries in Europe and East Asia, who have imposed a 30% tax bracket for the rich such as those of Germany and Japan, are “decrying capitalism” too?
Singaporean Citizen:
You are just flogging a dead horse now because I have completely dismantled your arguments, leaving you desperately clutching at straws. You accuse me of being elitist. Well, I prefer to classify myself as a firm believer in meritocracy and free market economics. You have claimed again and again that the government should do more to help the poor by means of giving them public assistance (aka welfare handouts), raising tax rates for the rich, and implementing retrenchment benefits stretching as long as 18 months. Despite this, you claim that you don’t support welfare and don’t support socialism. You are nothing but a bare-faced liar trying to hide your insidious welfarist agenda behind the veneer of ‘helping the poor’.
You mention that Europe, Australia, Japan, etc all have high tax rates, minimum wage programs and social assistance. Let me ask you one question: what is the unemployment rate in those countries? Then, consider what is the unemployment rate in Singapore?
The reason why welfarist or “equalisation” measures serve to increase unemployment is twofold. Firstly because such measures discourage people from setting up businesses, thereby limiting the supply of jobs. Secondly, such measures encourage people to be lazy, thereby breeding a class of people who are more than happy to survive on unemployment benefits. Unemployment is the bane of progress.
I would like to repeat my question which you craftily avoided: The current public assistance payout from MCYS stands at $400. How much do you propose increasing it to? $800? $1000? Let’s just say that you want to increase it to $800. Now, let me ask you, if you are a low-income earner who knows how to scrimp and save, am I right to say that you can comfortably survive on $800 per month (which is $200 per week?)
So, if you are drawing $800 per month for doing NOTHING, what is your incentive for getting off the dole and getting a job that pays, say, $1000 or $1100? Is the extra $200 or $300 a month going to motivate you to work 8-9 hours a day when you were previously drawing $800 for doing absolutely nothing?
I think you and I both know the answer. The answer is glaringly obvious from looking at the experiences of Australia, UK and other European countries.
So, you are trying to encourage sloth and discourage productivity in order to further your socialist/egalitarian/welfarist agenda which I have no choice but to expose as being thoroughly irresponsible and dangerous.
Nani, because you are so deluded, I will have to urge you to wake up and look at the reality around you, because you are the one whose arguments are totally demolished and you are the one who is desperately clutching at the straws. You basically rely on blind assumptions to argue which is why I find it so easy to win you even with one eye closed. This disappoints me because I had expected a better challenge from you instead of all the filmsy rebuttals that you are currently giving me.
I never asked for such a huge increase in government support like the one you described. You are putting words into my mouth. I advocated a small increase in government aid only. If the MCYS payout increase from $400 to $800, thats a huge increase of 100% and it is totally against what I have been talking about. What I would support would instead be a 10% to 15% increase that would be enough.
Now, You admit that you are against an equal society, it proves my point that you believe in a divided, elitist society where the rich tramples on the poor, and the poor licks the crumbs that fall off the rich man’s table. Nani, I hope you will get rid of this notion of yours that an elitist society is perfect because history have shown that such societies always results in socialists revolutions, Russia and China are clear examples.
And yeah, about what you said about unemployment. Having a high employment rate does not mean poverty rate is low. Whats the point of giving people jobs when they are receiving such less pay anyway? Do you know that Singapore’s domestic purchasing power is one of the lowest among developed countires, even lower than Kuala Lumpur? You critisize Japan, Europe and Australia for their unemployment rate, but do you know that the average Japanese or Australian can buy more things than a Singaporean who works similar working hours?
I am not supportive of welfarism, socialism or communism and such allegations of yours are a by product of your deluded mind. I am merely supportive of the SDP’s agenda, and the SDP’s agenda is not welfarist either. You do not want to check it out for yourself, thats your problem. You are basically someone who believes what he wants to believe because your illogical hate for all things anti-PAP and blind love for all things PAP have clouded your already clouded judgement.
I am still not understanding why are you accusing me of welfares or socialism, such accusations are only a by-product of your deluded mind. I have already stated that I believe in an equal society that is build on the values of democracy and human rights, not socialism which treats human rights like a doormat. Whereas you, it is even more incredible that you are opposed to even a 10% increase in the current amount of government aid payouts even though it is clear that our working poor are in a desperate situation. It goes to prove my point that you are supportive of a divided, elitist society where the rich tramples on the poor. I hope you can get rid of this notion of yours that a divided, elitist society is a perfect society because history have shown that such societies always result in a socialist revolution. China and Russia are clear examples.
Tan Kin Lian said he will donate 70% to 90% of his salary “if elected” which means currently he had not donated a single cent.
This is no different from saying that one will donate X% if one hits the toto or 4D jackpot.
Talk is cheap but it sounds good.
What about his current salary? Has he donated anything
Another about Nani is her difficulty in accepting defeat, as exemplified by the aftermath of me winning my argument against her. Because her flimsy arguments are so devoid of facts and based mainly on her flawed opinions and blind assumptions, I have no difficulty in shredding them to pieces.
Having demolished all her flimsy arguments, Nani, decided to label me as a sympathizer of communism and socialism in order to discredit me. Her ground of accusation is that because I believe in a society with a smaller rich-poor gap and lower income inequality, I must be a believer of a classless society and a communist sympathizer.
Let me make this clear, I am a staunch believer in democracy and human rights, and I am only against the elitist society that Nani dreams of living in.
Nani, I will not deny that I believe in the notion of an equal society. But if you are claiming that equality equates socialism or communism, you are sadly wrong.
There are both communist and democratic concepts when it comes to equality. Its incredible how you immediately assume that the form of equality that I believe in is the communist one.
If you are saying that equality equates socialism, then are you saying that Mahatma Gandhi, who fought to abolish the caste system and built an equal Indian society, is a communist? Are you also saying that the noble S.Rajaratnam, who penned our National Pledge that contained the line, “to build a democratic society based on justice and equality,” is a communist?
Let me state again for the record, that I staunchly believe in an equal society build on the values of democracy and human rights, and not a socialist or communist system which treats human rights like a doormat.
You state that I am a “closet communist” because I support the policy of 30% tax rate for the higher-income which is endorsed by the SDP in their manifesto. Then are you also saying that the governments of Germany, Japan, S.Korea and other developed countries who also have this 30% tax bracket for the rich, are communists too?
Nani, your accusations that I believe in socialism are all absurd. You just blindly argue for the sake of arguing, without recognizing the fact that your arguments have totally no logic because they are mostly built on your flawed opinions and blind assumptions. This is the reason why I always seem to be able to demolish your arguments entirely with ease.
Nani, I will not deny that I believe in the notion of an equal society. But if you are claiming that equality equates socialism or communism, you are sadly wrong.
There are both communist and democratic concepts when it comes to equality. Its incredible how you immediately assume that the form of equality that I believe in is the communist one.
If you are saying that equality equates socialism, then are you saying that Mahatma Gandhi, who fought to abolish the caste system and built an equal Indian society, is a communist? Are you also saying that the noble S.Rajaratnam, who penned our National Pledge that contained the line, “to build a democratic society based on justice and equality,” is a communist?
Let me state again for the record, that I staunchly believe in an equal society build on the values of democracy and human rights, and not a socialist or communist system which treats human rights like a doormat.
You state that I am a “closet communist” because I support the policy of 30% tax rate for the higher-income which is endorsed by the SDP in their manifesto. Then are you also saying that the governments of Germany, Japan, S.Korea and other developed countries who also have this 30% tax bracket for the rich, are communists too?
Nani, your accusations that I believe in socialism, and that I am a “closet communist,” are all absurd. You just blindly argue for the sake of arguing, without recognizing the fact that your arguments have totally no logic because they are mostly built on your flawed opinions and blind assumptions. This is the reason why I always seem to be able to demolish your arguments entirely with ease.
And yeah, it is also clear how Nani is incredibly deluded with reality. Even though I have decisively demolished all her filmsy and illogical arguments from top to bottom, she still can say that she have “won the argument hands down.”
Nani, you are indeed the most cowardly person I have ever seen. You do not even have the guts to admit your own elitist agenda, but yet you choose to accuse your opponents with pure nonsensical allegations. Please do not blame me for exposing you, it is you who have no guts to state your true stand, that is why I have to expose you. I really do not mean to destroy you through such salvo of words, please understand that it is the absurd allegations that you made against me are the last straw.
The notion of an “equal” society means that we are a meritocratic society that does not seek to place artificial barriers on social mobility based on race, language or religion. This is what Gandhi and Rajaratnam were fighting for. Under the Indian caste system, if you are born into a lower caste, you can’t even go to university if you have money, or if you are smart, or if you are talented. This is deplorable and in Singapore we have eradicated this. Today, it doesn’t matter if your father is a millionaire, a doctor, or a bus driver. If you are smart, hardworking and ambitious, you can obtain a world-class education (even in an overseas university). My grandfather was a labourer, my father worked hard and started a business, and I managed to go to ACS (I) and win a scholarship. This would not have been possible in India under the caste system. So please get it straight. Many of our top leaders today came from very poor backgrounds including Mr Goh Chok Tong and MG (NS) Chan Chun Sing who managed to become a SAF general and then a minister despite coming from a very poor family with his mother making only $500 a month! Tell me if this is possible in India or China?
However, this notion of equal society does NOT mean that everyone should be paid the same salaries regardless of their educational level, occupation, and level of talent! If after taking into account taxes, public support and minimum wage schemes etc, a doctor takes home a net pay of $5,000 whereas a coffee shop cleaner takes home $3,000, tell me: where is the motivation for people to become doctors? Why go through so many years of medical school and work so hard?
Hi Nani, I come in peace… hopefully the argument with Citizen won’t be as heated as it is now. I’m not writing to change your mind, not that I have a right to nor you’re willing to anyway. Your views are rather extreme right.
To make things simpler, I only want you to consider two points:
1. Please read my previous post, I have mentioned that just a little more help will NOT result in people content to take the welfare and becoming lazy – our culture simple don’t fit in this way (yes, a minority will exploit as in all system there’s no perfect balance). I have also mentioned in the same post that the reasons of most of these people not doing well are not because they don’t work hard, but due the reasons I stated which in most cases are out of their control. So don’t you think more help should be rendered to those who are struggling, that it is right to leave them to sink furthur into poverty?
There is a moral and social responsibility to take care of the poor and needy. Take note that I didn’t say legal.
point 2 next…
2. I think what Citizen meant is (which I strongly believe as well) is that pay for all professions needs to be respectable. Of cos a doctor should earn much more than a coffee shop cleaner. On the other hand, (I saying very generally but I think you can get my sense of things) I think that an average corporate executive should be not earn more than twice of an average blue collar.
Why do I think so? I believe that everyone plays a part in society, from bank to cashier, health minister to garbage collector, and all legal professions should be respected. However it is not so here… people in general, tagged the value of each profession (more or less) to its pay.
Jobs like construction worker, coffee shop cleaner, garbage collector, sales assistants have been pecieved as ‘lowly’ and ‘physical’ jobs. Parents and teachers alike paint this picture to kids, and the education seems to point this way (even though not directly as no textbook will print that). For this to change, respect to these professions have to be cultivated. Even respect for professions like nurses and teachers are declining. If you look to Switzerland, Japan etc. these professions are not looked down at all.
In case you think I thought so… no, raising pay for these professions alone will not solve problems and may create more. Very briefly, education and correct parenting, plus a change to more positive mindset and a freshening of the professions’ image are some of the important parts that needs to go hand in hand with the pay raise for things to change and have a positive impact. So what do I mean by positive impact? All these steps will make these professions look attractive enough. More people, local or foreign, will be more willing to take up these jobs. Given the right conditions, they will generally excel and improve their work and thus make up for the higher pay (yes, some professions that are not relevant in today’s economy will still die naturally).
Socially, this change could well help to bridge the divide between the rich and the poor, which is widening at an alarming rate. Keeping on surpassing the pay of these professions (using in flux of foreign workers or otherwise) will not work in the long run.
Nani, I have done lots of research, and read up a lot, so correct me if I am wrong, but are there any advocators of democracy out there, past and present, who called for a classless society or called for workers of all backgrounds to be paid the same salaries?
From what I know, there are no advocators of democracy who called for such things, because they are downright socialist right?
So I really don’t understand what’s the point of your entire chunk of arguments. I have never argued that a society should be classless and I have never argued that all workers should be paid the same salaries. I think such policies would erode innovation and motivation for society in general.
Are you still saying that my support for 30% income tax is tantamount to socialism? Well if that is so, then are you also saying that the governments of many developed countries such as Germany, Japan, Canada and S.Korea who also have the tax bracket for the rich closer to the 30% mark, are socialists too?
Nani, correct me if I am wrong, but are there any advocators of democracy out there, past and present, who called for a classless society or called for workers of all backgrounds to be paid the same salaries?From what I know, there are no advocators of democracy who called for such things, because they are downright socialist right? So I really don’t understand what’s the point of your entire argument. I have never argued that a society should be classless nor did I ever argue that all workers should be paid the same salaries. I think such policies would erode innovation and motivation for society in general. Are you still saying that my support for 30% income tax is tantamount to socialism? Well if that is so, then are you also saying that the governments of many developed countries such as Germany, Japan, Canada, who also have the tax bracket for the rich closer to the 30% mark, are socialists too?
The reason why I called for increased “state subsidies” are to provide more support for the poor. The poor are suffering badly now due to inflation and rising cost of living, their stagnant salaries and meager government financial support is not helping them. Given such circumstances, wouldn’t it be fair to say that they need more help than they are currently receiving? I have never argued that a society should be classless nor did I ever argue that all workers should be paid the same. I think such policies would erode innovation and motivation for society in general.
Are you still saying that my support for 30% income tax is tantamount to socialism? Well if that is so, then are you also saying that the governments of many developed countries such as Germany, Japan, Canada, who also have the tax bracket for the rich closer to the 30% mark, are socialists too?
Which is why I don’t understand what is the whole point of this argument. I don’t oppose meritocracy either. But we must understand that there are those who fall through the cracks of our current system. There are those who are not as well-educated as you are and there are those who could not afford to have an education in the 60s and 70s, thats why there are poor people around. I don’t advocate for a classless society or equal pay for all workers because these would be detrimental to motivation and cause innovation to get eroded. When have I ever said that a coffee shop owner or any other manual worker should be paid thousands comparable to PMET pay? You are putting words into my mouth. What does my argument that the rich should be taxed at 30% have got to do with asking poor people to be paid the same as a PMET? Nani, please think before you talk. Are you saying that Japan, Canada and Germany are trying to build classless societies too?
oops, sorry… the “anonymous” person above is me. I forgot to type in my email.
Dear all, I have exposed this person call Nani for being the closet elitist that she is. It is clear, judging from her arguments, that she believes in a society which a few would get to live in extravagance and luxury, while the rest should just lick the crumbs that fall off the rich man’s table.
Our working poor are already in such a desperate financial state. They basically have to slog for a living by working menial jobs and receiving meager pay. The government support that are granted are so little that it is barely any help at all. The rising inflation and cost of living are further exacerbating their situation. Given these circumstances, wouldn’t it be fair to say that our working poor would need more help than they are currently receiving?
Why didn’t Nani understand this simple logic and instead labels the working poor as lazy? Our working poor are already clocking one of the longest working hours in the world slogging on menial jobs and receiving meager pay, is this in any way called lazy? The answer is of course none other than that she believes in an elitist society, a society which power is defined by who’s rich and who’s poor.
A person who is elitist, believes, among other things, that people are only poor if they are lazy, and that people are only unemployed because they did not go out to look for jobs. Therefore, they ignore on the plight of the working poor and spits on the beggar’s begging bowl. This form of thinking is totally in line with Nani’s logic.
Nani, I have read your post. I usually don’t post, but it really pains my heart that there is a bunch of Singaporeans who are hard-hearted, selfish and lack any form of compassionate and respect for those who are poor and not doing well.
I agree. It is so sad that there are Singaporeans out there who ignores the plight of the working poor and supports the idea of an elitist society, where a few would get live in extravagance while the rest just licks the crumbs that fall off the rich man’s table.
Thanks Citizen
Nani, I don’t want to start a PAP vs opposition. But I would like to share with you – most of the people I knew that are not doing well not because they are lazy and deserved it.
Just to name a few reasons why they may not be doing well:
- all of a sudden, a hugh financial burden was placed upon them
- they were doing well in their industry, but things changed really fast, and it became a sunset industry or had moved out of Singapore
- we know the issue of foreign workers… well, it affected some sectors greatly while some others were relatively safe. just go to any job fair and you know how it is
Maybe you can blame them for not being alert on the changing economic climate in some cases. Even if that is so, shouldn’t those who are doing great lend a helping hand to lift them up, be it in the form of donation, tax increase or something else?
But you do not seems to sympathise with their plights at all, and instead worry that by helping them more they will lazy and rely on these welfare. I believe that most people have some dignity and pride in them, if they can help it they would rather be working hard than getting these payouts, and would rather forgo them for someone who needs it more. No offense to Brits, just thinking of a quick example… what I mean is that Singaporeans don’t take their UB40 just to watch football, and in the process become anti-society and in the worse case wreck havoc like those so-called holigans.
Despite the arguments of Nani (flawed in any event), the bottom line is this: the current focus of pursuing the “almighty dollar” at all cost is going to ruin the average citizen. Read “CPF AN EVER MOVING TARGET” – http://theonlinecitizen.com/2011/06/cpf-an-ever-moving-target/
I thought this article was about Tan Kin Lian and his candidacy?
Why has everyone side tracked and now talking about welfarism, SDP and PAP agenda?
To “Singaporean Citizen”
I have read through all of your comments. I find it hilariously amusing that you have decided to spend so much time drafting your wordy and lengthy replies to my posts. Obviously you have nothing better to do and you are simply obsessed with trolling me. What is even more hilarious is that you are simply repeating the same old drivel but are making no headway. Your so-called arguments are circular and devoid of logic. I have won this argument hands-down!
More importantly you seem to be disguising your welfarist and socialist agenda behind the veneer of “helping the poor”. In one of your posts you openly called for public assistance (which already stands at $400 per month for doing absolutely NO work) to be increased. Well, I challenge you to state exactly how much you propose to increase it to? $800? $1000? Try giving people that amount per month and see whether they will want to work or not. I guarantee you that thousands of good-for-nothings would rather take $800 a month from the government to engage in their own unproductive, lazy pursuits rather than get a job. And this will be at the expense of taxpayers!
Your welfarist agenda is plain to see and is so extreme that some might even consider you as a closet communist. You should just come clean and state your REAL stand instead of hiding behind claims of wanting to “help the poor”. Why not have a system like 1960s China/Russia where every single person was paid the exact same salary regardless of their education level or occupation? That would achieve your goal of a CLASSLESS society with NO divisions, right? To you, that is fairness and equality? Well, to me, that will be the bane of mankind. It’s precisely the reason the USSR failed and other former communist states like China and Vietnam have now embraced “profit-driven capitalism”. If that’s so bad as you put it, why did they abandon communism to embrace capitalism?
Just come clean and state your true stand. If you are a welfarist, socialist or communist (or all of the above) at least have the guts to state your real agenda! Stop hiding behind the deceitful cloak of wanting to help the poor!
Nani, let me make this clear. I am not in any way a supporter of communism, welfarism or socialism. I merely advocate for a more equal society where there is lesser divide between the rich and the poor. If you disagree with my view, then are you saying that our income gap, which is one of the largest in the world among developed countries, is a good thing?
I have never advocated anything related to welfarism nor do I support communism and socialism(where in the world did you get the idea that I support such rubbish anyway). I am merely supportive of the SDP’s agenda and I have no agenda of my own, and the SDP’s agenda is not supportive of welfarism either. You do not want to read their manifesto and seek the truth for yourself, that’s your problem, you are basically someone who believes what he wants to believe and lives in a world of complete self-delusion and clouded judgments.
Nani, I have never advocated the idea of large-scale government support, I did not even mention minimum wage. My view is merely that the government needs to do give more support to the poor, especially the low-income workers because their situation is desperate.
If you oppose my view. Then I don’t know what to say. You basically believe in an elitist society defined by who’s rich and who’s poor, where a few would get to live a good life and earn good money while the rest should just lick the crumbs that fall off the rich man’s table You are someone who tramples on the plight of low-income workers, ignore their desperate financial situation, label the poor as purely lazy people and spits on the beggar’s begging bowl, sneering at them all the time for “burdening the society.”
You are someone who believes that Singaporeans who are poor must be lazy and not working hard enough, or in other words, not having “enough spurs stuck to their hides,” while completely ignoring the fact that they are clocking one of the longest working hours in the world slogging on menial jobs, earning meager pay and lamenting the lack of support that the government gives them.
Nani, just one question, how are the working poor lazy in any way? They are already clocking one of the longest working hours in the world. Please change the way you view the low income. Understand their situation first before labeling them as “society’s burden.”
Nani, I have never advocated large-scale government support, I did not even mention minimum wage. My view is merely that the government needs to do give more support to the poor, especially the low-income workers because their situation is desperate.
If you oppose my view. Then I don’t know what to say. You basically believe in an elitist society defined by who’s rich and who’s poor, where a few would get to live a good life and earn good money while the rest should just lick the crumbs that fall off the rich man’s table You are someone who tramples on the plight of low-income workers, ignore their desperate financial situation, label the poor as purely lazy people and spits on the beggar’s begging bowl, sneering at them all the time for “burdening the society.”
You are someone who believes that Singaporeans who are poor must be lazy and not working hard enough, or in other words, not having “enough spurs stuck to their hides,” while completely ignoring the fact that they are clocking one of the longest working hours in the world slogging on menial jobs, earning meager pay and lamenting the lack of support that the government gives them.
Nani, let me just ask you one question, how are the working poor lazy in any way? They are already clocking one of the longest working hours in the world. Please change the way you view the low income. Understand their situation first before labeling them as “society’s burden.”
I am merely supportive of the SDP’s agenda and I have no agenda of my own, and the SDP’s agenda is not supportive of welfares either. It is stated very clearly in their proposal regarding Income Inequality that they are against a “culture of welfare dependence from taking root.” You do not want to read their manifesto and seek the truth for yourself, while continuing to rely on your assumption, that’s your problem. You are basically someone who believes what he wants to believe and lives in a world of complete self-delusion and clouded judgments.
It is totally laughable for you to claim that you have won your flimsy arguments when in actual fact they have all been decisively shredded to pieces. It goes to show the level of strangely delusional thinking that you are shockingly capable of.
@Justacitizen – I fully agreed with you. My 1st choice is Tan Kin Lian and 2nd choice is Tan Cheng Bock. Enough of PAP’s yes-man, so no George Yeo and Tony Tan. As for the incumbant, I hope we do not have to see him or hear from him again after this PE. So much tax-payers’ monies wasted on him.
Also, ignore this ‘Nani’ and ‘Wendy’, think they are PAPpies in disguised.
Wow, it seems like my comments have gotten some people quite riled up, to the point that they are starting to become trolls. Why can’t there be more tolerance of diverse opinions? Or is the internet becoming intolerant of balanced views due to its inherently anti-PAP climate (as was mentioned in a Straits Times article some time ago)? Is it true that anything PAP is bad, and anything opposition is good?
Some have accused me of “blind loyalty” to the PAP. Let me clarify that I am not a PAP member, grassroots leader, nor am I affiliated to the PAP in any fashion. As such, I have no “loyalty” to the PAP. I am just a Singapore citizen who believes that the PAP has done much good, and who wants the current system to continue. There are many Singaporeans who share my view (60.1% to be precise) but unfortunately many of them are not as vocal as I am, therefore their views are often drowned out by the more “noisy” opposition supporters. I happen to hold the view that the current system in Singapore is beneficial to all of us, and I don’t want the opposition to come in and subvert the system with their political agenda. Why is this so? Let me explain:
(1) In Singapore, we don’t conform to the standard dogma of “Western liberal democracy”. So, we have been called “undemocratic” by some. But let me ask: what is the point of democracy? Is it an end-goal in itself, or should it be used as a means to achieve a much more important end, which is progress and prosperity?
(2) Under the current system, we have got strong government. Yes, the government has control over many functions, including the civil service, the PA, the grassroots organisations, the military, Parliament, etc. Some might argue that this is bad. On the contrary, I argue that this is good. Why? Because this way, our government is able to implement policies without having to waste time politicking and bickering. The government also does not have to pander to the masses and to implement populist policies to win votes. At times, unpopular decisions are necessary for the betterment of the country. For example, if you held a referendum on whether NS should be abolished, many people would vote “yes”. But is this the way to go? Would our country suffer as a result? Those of you who are parents, why don’t you ask your kids “do you want to do your homework” or “do you want to eat your vegetables”? What do you honestly think they will say?
(3) The current system is not as undemocratic as some try to make it out to be. We have gone for free elections, fair elections, independence of the judiciary. Anyone can run for office, even “political clowns” like the slipper man, Harbans Singh, Desmond Lim, the Jeyaretnams (both father and son), and so on. We have a Speakers Corner where anyone can speak on any issue. We have an independent President to serve as a check and balance against the government. We have NCMPs who guarantee that there will always be opposition voices in Parliament even if the PAP wins all the seats. Yes, we are not as liberal as some Western countries, but we are a predominantly conservative Asian society. We don’t condone street protests, irresponsible media and so on. We don’t allow marginal groups like the gay lobby or the hardline Christian lobby to sway public policies through political interference. Do you want that? Do you want to have your work disrupted by traffic jams thanks to protests by Greenpeace or Falungong, which have no relevance to you? So where do we draw the line? As it is, we are not exactly North Korea, are we?
(4) Under the Singapore system, we practice meritocracy. We reward those who are ambitious, talented and hardworking. We punish those who are lazy and unwilling to improve themselves. How do we achieve this? By having little or no safety nets for the “underclass” in society. This way, those who are ambitious, talented and hardworking stand to reap the fruits of their labour. In other countries, top earners are taxed 40% or 50% so as to provide unemployment benefits for those who are jobless, as well as other benefits such as free healthcare, free education, free housing, etc. Do you really want to work your ass off, only to have to pay 40% of your earnings to support those who can’t be bothered to earn an honest living? More importantly, do you think it is right for our kids to grow up thinking that if they don’t make it, it’s okay, the state will always look after their needs? Let me tell you, go and scrutinise the WP and SDP manifestos. This is exactly what they want! They are advocating for welfarism! I am staunchly against this because it would destroy the meritocratic, hard-striving culture that we have built up over the years. I think that hard work is a virtue that needs to be encouraged, not put down.
(5) I agree with most of you that the PAP is imperfect and has made mistakes. But which government in the world is perfect? I challenge you to name me one. Our leaders have already owned up to their mistakes. In some cases, they have resigned or been replaced. Even our Prime Minister has apologised publicly. But let’s look at the PAP’s track record as a whole. We came from being a third world country to being one of the world’s safest and most prosperous nations in just 40 years. Tell me, which other government has managed to do this? 40 years ago, some of our parents were still living in kampungs. We need to be mindful of how far we have come, and not assume that we were always a developed country. Look around you in Southeast Asia. Look at the Thais, Indonesians, Filipinos etc. They have “democracy”, they are allowed to have mass protests, they even have coups every now and then! But where have they come? We are having it much better than them.
I hope that my clarifications will serve as food for thought. Have a think of some of the issues I have raised, and then tell me whether it is me who is “blindly loyal” to the PAP or whether it is some other people here (who I shall not name) who are biased due to their blind and illogical hatred of the PAP? I speak facts and I have come up with the above justifications to support my stand. Can those who disagree with me do the same?
I would like to content with your assertions.
(1) What is the point of democracy? Is it an end-goal … or the means to achieve progress and prosperity?
Reply: I am with you. Democracy is to achieve both progress and prosperity. But we are not having a democracy because the rules do not apply fairly. GRCs, gerrymandering, media bias is not progress for our country.
And just to consider – the worst aspects of democracy is deadlock – nothing gets done. But the worst part of dictatorial rule is death for anyone who disagrees with the rulers. History shows us which is worst.
(2) Under the current system, we have got strong government. Yes, the government has control over many functions, including the civil service, the PA, the grassroots organisations, the military, Parliament, etc. Some might argue that this is bad. On the contrary, I argue that this is good. Because our government is able to implement policies without having to waste time politicking and bickering.
Reply: True. But what if they get it wrong – there is no one to stop them. And what if they decide to use the state powers against their own people? There is nothing that we can do once that happens – just look at Argentina in the 1970s, or Nazi Germany, or Fascist Spain. They all said that a strong government is a good government. And anyone who disagreed ‘disappeared’.
(3) The current system is not as undemocratic as some try to make it out to be.
Reply: Our elections are not that ‘free’ – GRCs as an example.
NCMPs cannot vote. Their effect in parliament is the same as an insane man shouting in parliament. A lot of noise, but can be ultimately ignored. Only those that can vote have a voice in parliament.
I agree with you that it is on the balance better that fringe, single issue groups cannot dominate politics – which are the worst traits of the US and UK system.
(4) Under the Singapore system, we practice meritocracy. We reward those who are ambitious, talented and hardworking. We punish those who are lazy and unwilling to improve themselves.
Reply: True. But this is only exam meritocracy.
What about those who cannot perform in exams but are good at other things? Just look at Wayne Rooney – he only took his O levels when he was in his twenties. If he was born in Singapore, he would have already been condemned as stupid.
And to support Singaporeans who are poor is not welfarism. It depends on the kind of support you are talking. If welfare is to ‘give him fish’, then of course it will breed laziness. But if welfare is to ‘teach him how to fish’, then it will breed responsibility, and help the person to be productive. WP’s welfare is of the second kind, if you took the effort to read it.
Furthermore, there are many causes of income inequality in Singapore. It is NOT true that people are poor because they are lazy. That kind of thinking is lazy stereotyping. Do you actually think that poor people have no pride? That they do not yearn to be productive and be able to feed themselves, and pay for their own shelter?
It is because they can only earn enough to eat, that they remain poor. If you earn only enough to eat, then you will not have money to pay for books, school fees, a shelter. And if you cannot pay for books, school or shelter, then how can you become productive?
(5) I agree with most of you that the PAP is imperfect and has made mistakes. But which government in the world is perfect? I challenge you to name me one. Our leaders have already owned up to their mistakes. In some cases, they have resigned or been replaced. Even our Prime Minister has apologised publicly. But let’s look at the PAP’s track record as a whole. We came from being a third world country to being one of the world’s safest and most prosperous nations in just 40 years.
Reply:
The PAP today is living off the glory of the Founding Fathers. Just look at the plans that the PAP has. Their plan is simply that it has worked before, lets not rock this boat. But the problem is that what worked 40 years ago is not really working now! In the past, the police used to wear shorts, but now they don’t, right?
And they only apologised after fearing that they might lose more seats. Where is the sincerity in that? Even a dog knows how to cower in fear of beatings.
That’s all I have to say about this, and thats why the PAP needs to wake up.
Nani, thumbs up to you for giving us much food for thought and sharing your views. I agree with what you said, and I too believe that Singapore can show the world that it can succeed with our own blend of Singapore-style democracy that doesn’t have to conform to Western ideas. In an age where it is trendy and popular to be anti-PAP, I think you deserve credit for having the courage to speak your mind. I urge everyone to give some serious thought to what Nani said in his arguments. They do make sense.
@Wendy,
Nani has relevant points about the PAP. No doubt about that. However, his confidence in the present government is misplaced at best. Further, he is propagating the “I know best” as a valid form of government simply because the PAP has ruled for the 52 years. The PAP then and now are unlike two peas in a pot. The present situation, with leaving any single political party with absolute majority in parliament is simply untenable.
Nani, I would like to correct some of your assumptions which, unfortunately, seems to be build on your flawed opinions and blind guesssworks again.
Let me reiterate to you again that nobody hates for no reason, and that opposition voices have much more meaning than simple “noises.” The reason why there are people who opposes the PAP is because of the PAP’s numerous failed and flawed policies which have so greatly affected our beloved nation. Don’t look now, nani, but from what I observe, it is you who is always getting “riled up” while the rest of us are mostly in completle control of our emotions.
I am not saying that “anything PAP is bad, and anything opposition is good,” But you should open your eyes to all the “bad” things that the PAP have done, because unfortunately you seem to hold the view that everything PAP is good while everything opposition is bad.
The opposition parties are there to offer alternative ideas and policies to counter the ones that the ruling party came up with. They do not oppose to all things PAP. They are not here to “subvert the current system with their agenda.” Nani, don’t you know that it is the PAP who constantly challenges the opposition parties to come up with constructive alternative solutions? Well, the opposition have came up with them, why are you complaining? Are you saying that their ideas and policies are not constructive enough? Well then, I challenge you to go to their respective websites and see for yourself their manifestos.
http://ge2011.yoursdp.org/solutions
I agree with you that a government needs to be strong, but not strong to the point that they are intolerant of opposition and dissent. Personally, I don’t see why it is bad for parliament to be engaged in debates, or in your own words,”politicking and bickering.” Debates in parliament ensures that all opinions are heard before decisions and policies can be passed down. In the absense of debate, the ruling party can just pass down policies that they see fit and tell the citizens that “it is for their own good.” Just look at the “stop at two” policy introduced in the 1970s which resulted in our dismal fertility rate, the highly unpopular “asset enhancement” policy which made housing prices skyrocket as well as the lax immigration policies which have screwed up our country’s demographics beyond recognision. If there have been proper dabates before such policies were passed down, our lives will not be so messed up today.
Even in the event of a parliamentary deadlock, it does not mean that the whole government will stop working because the civil service is still in place to keep things going. The parliament is the one that introduces policies, and the civil service are the ones that carries out those policies. If the parliament is not going smoothly, it does not mean that the civil service will shut down. The police force, civil defence, postal service, military, hospitals, education system, transport service and the law courts will still be working as per normal.
I do not support welfarism and neither do the WP or SDP support them. I have scrutinised the WP and SDP manifestos very carefully and do not see anything in them that gives me the hint that they advocate such a social ill. What they advocate is simply the government give more help to the poor and the “underclassed” of our society. Nani, again I will ask you to go and scrutinise the WP and SDP manifestos. Do not make blind assumptions without seeing the truth for yourself.
I agree that the PAP have done a great job in the past, steering our third world economy into a first world financial hub. But that is the work of the first generation PAP leaders such as Goh Keng Swee, S Rajaratnam, Lim Kim San and Toh Chin Chye. The current PAP leaders did not do any of those things that the past PAP leaders have done, thus the current PAP should not harp on their “fifty year track record.” What we should be focusing instead is the CURRENT PAP’s track record which dates back to the May 2006 general election. The NEW PAP and OLD PAP are two different things.
For the WP’s manifesto, see here:
http://wp.sg/Workers-Party-Manifesto-2011.pdf
To those who claim that the opposition doesn’t support welfarism, I really don’t know what to say. This is totally laughable. Singaporean Citizen said: “What they advocate is simply the government give more help to the poor and the “underclassed” of our society” – this is PRECISELY what is meant by welfarism! It is the Robin Hood mentality, i.e. rob from the rich and give to the poor! SDP has suggested having more healthcare subsidies, they have even suggested having retrenchment benefits whereby the government will have to pay full salary to retrenched workers for 6 months, followed by 75% pay for another 6 months, followed by 50% pay for another 6 months! As for WP, they have proposed having completely subsidised public housing (which by the way is ALREADY very subsidised) by raiding our reserves! Have you forgotten this infamous debate before the GE?
And how on earth do you think that these parties intend to fund these policies? Do you think that money will just drop down from the sky? Or do you think that the government can just print more money? No, this will all come at the expense of the taxpayer!
The SDP clearly stated their intention to raise income tax to 30%, the proof is here http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/sdp-manifesto-dangerous-pap-souza-211740339.html.
30% income tax!! Meaning that if you earn $10,000 a month, you have to pay $3,000 so that the poor can get subsidised healthcare, subsidised housing and retrenchment benefits!
Do you think such a policy would encourage people to be hardworking and ambitious? I can tell you that many people will HOPE to get retrenched, since they will be getting an 18 month safety net drawing salary while doing nothing!
@Nani,
You do not seem to be able to open your eyes. The situation in Singapore is pro-elitist. The PAP method of governing is not the only way forward. There are many seriously flawed policies in place which have brought misery to the people e.g. inflated housing prices, deferred CPF withdrawal, healthcare services, just to name a few. The current policies are all pro-business and does not take people’s predicament into consideration. For the record, the problem we now have with falling birth rate was because of the PAP government’s “Stop at two” and ligation policies in the past.
All the so called help schemes provided by the government do not work nor provide the necessary help simply because there are many impediments in place that deprives the common people from qualifying. The PAP government has also done a lot of good for the country. But this was in the past, the current focus is totally out of sync with what is needed for a developed country. Democracy as per the western values may not be the way forward, but neither is a dictatorial governance.
There must be political reform to accord a level playing field and there must be true checks and balances in place whereby the citizens can feel that any government of the day (PAP or Alternative Parties) is supervised.
Nani, whats laughable is your accusation that the SDP promotes welfarism because they never promoted it in their manifesto. Whats more laughable is your accusation that the WP have the intention to “raid the reserves” because WP never stated anything like that in their manifestos. Please go and seek the facts for yourself.
Nani, please read carefully first before arguing. The SDP proposes raising income tax to 30% only for the top-income earners, while low-income and middle-income earners will not be affected. Nani, did you even click on the link that I have provided above?? Nani, without consulting facts, and relying purely on your opinions and guessings, you will forever be shrouded in a world of blind assumptions where your judgement is severely clouded by biased thoughts.
What the SDP actually proposes is bringing up the tax bracket for the top-earners closer to the 30% mark like in many developed countries such as Germany and Japan. The increased revenue collected from this higher tax rate will go towards funding social programmes such as the Public Assistance Scheme for the poor. Right now, the amount of money granted to the poor is so meager that it is barely any help. The poor basically slogs to earn a living due to the extremely limited amount of money that the government grants them.
How is this robbing the rich and giving to the poor? This 30% income tax rate for the higher income earners have existed in Germany, Canada and Japan and there was barely any opposition towards it. In fact, higher income tax rate for the rich have prevented developed countries from developing a huge income gap like in Singapore, where our wealth gap is one of the largest among developed countries.
As for your statements against WP, you say that housing is already very subsidised. Then perhaps you can explain why young Singaporeans are so priced out of the housing market? You see, any benefits from the housing subsidies that the PAP is granting is completely neutralised by the fact that the price of housing have almost doubled in the past ten years, which is the result of the PAP’s severely flawed “Asset Enhancement Policy” which caused the skyrocketing of housing costs.
I find your accusation that the WP’s intention is to raid the reserves is totally flawed and grossly wrong. How is their proposal tantamount to raiding the reserves? It is not raiding the reserves because they did not suggest using even a single cent of the reserves to pay for housing subsidies.
You ask if I still remember the “infamous debate that you mentioned.” Well, I remember it very correctly. The WP proposed that the government peg the price of new flats to the median income of Singaporeans so as to ensure that the new flats will always be affordable to majority of Singaporeans. Because the money earned from flat sales are channeled to the reserves, Mr Mah made the baseless accusation that the WP’s housing proposal is tantamount to raiding the reserves. However, Mr Mah’s accusation is not true because cheaper flat prices will not stop money from flowing into the reserves, money will still flow in albeit at a slower rate.
What I find totally laughable is your idea that the SDP or WP promotes welfarism. This is just your blind assumption which is not supported by any facts.
Referring to your point about the SDP proposing retrenchment benefits, this is to help them and is in no way related to welfarism.
What you say about,” they have even suggested having retrenchment benefits whereby the government will have to pay full salary to retrenched workers for 6 months, followed by 75% pay for another 6 months, followed by 50% pay for another 6 months!,” is totally false and grossly wrong.
What the SDP really proposes is:”the Government pays retrenched workers NOT COVERED by their employers, 75 percent of their salary for the first six months. This amount would be reduced to 50 percent during the following six months, and further reduced to 25 percent in the third six months. The payments will stop once the individual is re-employed. They will also cease 18 months after one’s retrenchment if the individual is still not employed by then.”
PLEASE READ CAREFULLY. The SDP did not say anything about the government, “having to pay full salary to retrenched workers.”
In fact, the SDP explicitly stated in their manifesto that the “payments will stop once the individual is re-employed. They will also cease 18 months after one’s retrenchment if the individual is still not employed by then. This will prevent a culture of welfare dependence from taking root.”
DON’T YOU SEE?? The SDP themselves are opposed to the welfarism that you continually accuse them of proposing.
I stand corrected on the exact substance of the SDP proposals but my general stand remains the same. The proposals are highly welfarist in nature and they encourage sloth and complacency. Also, please tell me where and how these programs are going to be funded. Obviously the money is not going to drop down from the sky. Tax increases will be necessary in order to implement these changes. The SDP has already proposed to increase taxes to 30% for top income earners (I would be interested to know how they define “top income earners”). If I am taxed at 15% when I am earning $10,000 a month, but taxed at 30% when I am earning $20,000 a month, it means that I will have to pay a whopping $6,000 in taxes. Also, my take home pay will be only $13,000 or so after CPF and taxes. This would only be slightly higher than the guy who is earning half my pay (e.g. $10k a month). What incentive would I have to aspire to become a “top” earner? What motivation would I have to become a director, VP, general manager or CEO? Should we discourage ambition or should we encourage it? The capitalist system of “greed is good” (as proposed by Adam Smith, the legendary economist) is based on the fact that “greed” (or ambition) promotes productivity and innovation. Are you disagreeing with the tried-and-tested theories of a great economist like Adam Smith? Perhaps you think that Dr Chee Soon Juan knows better than him?
Nani, like I have constantly urged you, please go and scrutinise the SDP’s manifesto from top to bottom yourself. I don’t know whether have you heeded my advice to go and read the SDP manifesto, because if you have, you surely must have not scrutinised their proposals properly yet. I understand that you admire the PAP a lot right? Well, this is exactly what the PAP does! They scrutinise the opposition’s manifestos thoroughly during elections. Why not you learn from your role models?
http://ge2011.yoursdp.org/solutions
Pay particularly close attention to their proposals regarding <>.
I totally disagree with your view that the SDP’s proposal is in any way welfarist. Their proposals are tantamount to nothing more than asking the government to do more for the poor and unemployed. This is a fact. Look at the support that the government gives to the poor and the unemployed, is it enough? I know that too much government support equates to welfarism. However, too few government support equates exploitation. Do you want to see our worker’s exploited? Right now from what I see, with Singaporean workers clocking one of the longest working hours in the world but earning such less pay, receiving barely sustainable government support, and continue to be forced to work harder or get laid off, is pretty much more or less tantamount to exploitation of workers.
As I have already mentioned, the source of fundings for social programmes will be from the proposed 30% income tax rate for the higher income, and higher income that the SDP refers to will of course be exactly similar to the government’s definition. Why would the SDP want to come up with their own income categories? If they want to come up with accurate alternatives, of course there must be an equal medium of comparison right?
You oppose the 30% tax rate for the higher income on the grounds that it will erode motivation. But if you look at Canada, Japan, Germany, or any other developed countries who have tax brackets for top earners close to the 30 percent mark, you can see that these countries do not seem to have a shortage of directors, VPs, or CEOs right? Did the 30% income tax rate for the rich prevent the Japanese entrepeuners from being motivated enough to create Honda, Nissan, or Kodak? Did it prevent German enntrepeuners from getting motivated enough to create Siemens, Deutsche Telekom or Volkswagen? Did it prevent Korean entrepeuners from being motivated enough to create Hyundai, Samsung or LG?
Even though we currently do not have any 30% tax rate for the rich, we still do not seem to have created any brands that is internationally renowned. This means that income tax rates have got nothing to do with motivating people to aim for top places in society.
I am not saying that Dr Chee is smarter than Adam Smith when it comes to economics, because Dr Chee is a neurologist and not an economist. But Dr Chee did not create his manifesto on his own. He consulted members of his party as well as various experts, both overseas and locally for their expertise and experience.
*Please pay close attention to their proposal regarding Income Inequality.
You have made yet more glaring mistakes.
Volkswagen was not created by a German entrepreneur. It was created by Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich. Go check it out yourself. Are you a supporter of Josef Goebbels?
In addition, Singapore despite its small population size and limited talent pool, has numerous world-class brands such as Creative, Hyflux, Osim, Banyan Tree, 77th Street, and the list goes on. Singapore Airlines is the best airline in the world. Capitaland is one of the top performing property companies in the world. We also have Neptune Orient Lines, Comfort Delgro, Singapore Technologies and Chartered Semiconductor all of which have attained world class status. Name me a country with such a small population that has such achievements? By claiming that Singapore has no world-class brands, you are cheapening the efforts of
resourceful, innovative and ambitious Singaporean entrepreneurs. ALL the above companies are Singaporean, none of them are foreign. But of course, to you these great business minds are evil because they are capitalist and profit driven. After all you seem to support a classless socialist society where private enterprise and profiteering are not allowed and everyone should be equal and looked after by the state (yet you claim that you aren’t a welfarist!)
Conveniently ignoring the fact that all of these evil capitalist companies have created thousands of jobs thereby putting food on the table for many ordinary people! Instead of lauding them, you totally dismiss their efforts!
Nani, about Volkswagen, let me rephrase that. Does the 30% tax rate prevent German entrepeuners from carrying on Volkswagen all the way to this day?
You accuse me of cheapening the efforts of
resourceful, innovative and ambitious Singaporean entrepreneurs. Its like you are accusing me of having communist ideals. I find that totally totally laughable too because all this while, from the way I argue, do I not sound more like a true believer of democracy or do I sound like a communist sympathiser? I support Josef Goebbels? Come on, anyone knows that Democratic ideals and the ideals of Josef Goebbels are totally two different worlds apart.
You support me of supporting a classless society where private enterprises and profiteering are not allowed. Nani, you are getting me all wrong. What I support is a more equal society where there is a lesser gap in income inequality. If you are saying that my arguments about the 30% tax for the rich is tantamount to me being a communist sympathiser, then are you saying that the governments of Japan, Germany, Canada and S.Korea are communist sympathisers too?
I only advocate for a society where there is lesser divide between the rich and the poor, I don’t know where in the wrold did you get the idea that I support a not a completely classless society.
The SDP proposed having more healthcare subsides. I have nothing against it. Due to the PAP’s policy of commercialising healthcare, healthcare costs are shooting through the roof and is becoming unaffordable to low-income Singaporeans. Do you know that it is getting very common to see low-income Singaporeans travelling across the border to Johor Bahru to seek even simple medical care? This is because the combined cost of travelling to JB and paying for their medical treatments and travelling back is more affordable than making a trip to the hospital near your house to seek treatment. Given these circumstances, don’t you feel that the poor should be given more help when it comes to healthcare costs? Ask yourself, why are our lower-income citizens not even able to seek medical care in their own homeland? If healthcare in Singapore is really universally affordable like Mr Khaw Boon Wan claimed, why is this happening?
The SDP proposed having more healthcare subsides. I have nothing against it. Due to the PAP’s policy of commercializing healthcare, healthcare costs are shooting through the roof and is becoming unaffordable to low-income Singaporeans. Do you know that it is getting very common to see low-income Singaporeans travelling across the border to Johor Bahru to seek even simple medical care? This is because the combined cost of travelling to JB and paying for their medical treatments and travelling back is more affordable than making a trip to the hospital near your house to seek treatment. Given these circumstances, don’t you feel that the poor should be given more help when it comes to healthcare costs? Ask yourself, why are our lower-income citizens not even able to seek medical care in their own homeland? If healthcare in Singapore is really universally affordable like Mr Khaw Boon Wan claimed, why is this happening?
Nani, I hope you can see by now that none of the opposition parties are in any way promoting welfarism, and the WP do not have any intention of “raiding the reserves.”
You can check these links to see for yourself that all my statements are undeniable fact:
1) http://ge2011.yoursdp.org/solution/75/poverty-and-income-inequality
2) http://wp.sg/Workers-Party-Manifesto-2011.pdf
3)http://geraldgiam.sg/2011/04/wp-chief-rebuts-mah-bow-tan-on-raiding-reserves/
@Singaporean Citizen,
Your rebuttals are clear and spot on. All the assertions made by Nani are flawed and do not contend with the flip side of the argument. The present situation that Singapore is in now, with high housing prices, high health care costs, high education fees at tertiary level etc. are borne from the policies that are pro-business. The country has been run like a corporation focusing on profits rather than having the people’s welfare and civil liberties at heart. In fact, the citizens have been treated more like employees of the State!
I am glad that some others, more politically awared netizens, have come here to debate Nani and Wendy. For the rest of the quiet readers of this site should have the benefit of the ‘alterntive’ perpective. Those that are not the his-story of ‘Hard Truth’ and biography of persons written by ST journalist.
Here in the long post of Nani, I just wanna to content 1 of her statement. In pt 2 when arguing for a strong government she wrote, ” Those of you who are parents, why don’t you ask your kids “do you want to do your homework” or “do you want to eat your vegetables”? What do you honestly think they will say?
This is exactly the type of paternalistic and authoritarian government, that the voters are beginning to reject.
That was the desire of the citizens of a pass era. We do not want now, a set of parents who never admit that they have done wrong. That some of their wrong decisions are affecting us negatively now. (pls see Nelson Young’s rebuttal) And that they should stop acting on those decisions.
Though a father must be strong and decisive in handling the affairs of the family, nontheless he must act base on loving his child as a person, and not an object for the extension of his own ‘ideals’. The PAP government have lost tract of this. The citizens are no more a people to care for. They instead measure everything they do by their policy which is their ‘ideals’.
So, are you saying that your kids will automatically know what’s good for them? And they don’t need to be taught that they should do their homework and eat their vegetables? Wow, you must blessed with genius kids then. Either that, or you have no idea about parenting at all. If you take your eye off the bat, sooner or later your kids will be smoking, sniffing glue and drinking alcohol. Is that called responsible parenting? Fortunately, our government does not adopt such a laissez-faire approach because they know that the future of Singapore can’t be gambled with.
As for ‘Singaporean Citizen’, I have already verbally demolished him and exposed him for the fraud that he is. He is nothing more than a closet communist who believes that everyone must be paid the same regardless of their background, education or occupation. This is necessary to achieve his ideal of a classless society! But he won’t even come clean with it because he is too cowardly to state his true stand, and I have to expose him!
Nani…Nani…
You are ranting hysterically now. Attacking me on whether I would raise good children or not. No need for such.
You use the analogy of a strong government liking it to a strong parent caring for the family. I am putting it to you, also in the analogy of parenting, that PAP government style is more for achieving their own goals rather then truly caring for the citizens.
And this is what the PAP government is doing, most times diguising it to make it look good.
eg.
GRC, Elected President, CPF minimum sum, election year share packages… and many more. Even PAP voters know that the above policies serve more than the intend that the government made it out to be. Of course there are many more policies that are like that. But I leave it to the others, who are more aware to debate them.
It is totally laughable for you to claim that you have won your flimsy arguments when in actual fact they have all been decisively shredded to pieces. It goes to show the level of strangely delusional thinking that you are shockingly capable of.
It is sad that you are deluded into thinking that you have won your arguments against me because in actual fact it is me who have completely demolished youor arguments against me.
If you are saying that my opposition towards income inequality is tantamount to sympathizing communism and socialism, then are you also saying that the governments of western countries, who have introduced measures such as minimum wage to prevent a rise in rich-poor gap and combat income inequality, sympathizers of communism and socialism too? That is totally absurd because everyone knows that in the West, democracy is highly respected and protected.
If you are saying that my opposition towards income inequality is tantamount to sympathizing communism and socialism, then are you also saying that the governments of western countries, who have introduced measures such as minimum wage to prevent a rise in rich-poor gap and combat income inequality, sympathizers of communism and socialism too? That is totally absurd because everyone knows that in the West, democracy is highly respected and protected.
Which part of my arguments link me to being a communist sympathiser?? Can you kindly point them out to me?
Nani, I realised all along that you like to argue against opposition views just for the sake of arguing against them. I agree with @justacitizen, your blind loyalty to the PAP drives you with the urge to argue for all things PAP and against all things opposition.
I have read many of your other arguments posted on other articles in The Satay Club, and saw how filmsy they are due to them being constructed based on your weak opinions and blind guesswork, and without substantiation from hard facts and solid evidence. Let me reiterate to you once again that when it comes to arguing, you use facts instead of your opinions. You seem to have a real difficulty in accepting facts because you simply chose not to believe in them. Nani, facts don’t lie, please accept them as they present themselves and don’t blindly believe in fiction just because you want to believe in them.
It is very sad that you do not seem to have the ability to differentiate facts from opinions. Because of this inability of yours to judge facts, that is why your arguments are so easily demolished and this is seen in all your other arguments in other TSC articles.
Nani, I understand that you are loyal to the PAP. But being loyal to them does not mean agreeing to everything that they say. I also do not agree to everything about the opposition even though I support them. Your blind loyalty to the PAP have led to your emotions being too worked up and that in turn led to your judgement being clouded.
Frankly, I am not too bothered whether TKL choses to donate to charity or not. Of course if he chooses to do so, it is generous of him as befitting a President.
I think it’s good for Singapore that he has offered himself to give us a choice as well as give PAP’s preferred candidate a run for their money. The transparency is plus factor for his candidacy. What else can we hope from the other President hopefuls other than being fearful of offending the powers that be ?
Pingback: Daily SG: 8 Jun 2011 « The Singapore Daily
I don’t know about you guys, but I’d never trust an insurance man.
If George Yeo runs, my vote goes to him. If not, I’ll vote for Dr Tan Cheng Bock.
Politicians are more trustworthy than Insurance man?
I don’t think so…especially not one who flip and flop with his public statement.
Anyone agree?
I don’t trust Tan Kin Lian at all. Many of his former employees at NTUC also said that he was quite dictatorial. I think we should look more into the candidates’ background and not make a choice based solely on their former party affiliation.
Once again, let us not confuse what the President is for. The role of the President is to serve as our ceremonial head of state, a unifying figure that can represent all of Singapore on the world stage. The role is similar to the British monarch. In fact, Queen Elizabeth II is so popular that even the Australians don’t want to become a republic and prefer to keep her as their head of state even though they are no longer a colony.
The President is NOT meant to interfere in executive decisions or prevent the government from doing its job. If he does so, it would be highly disruptive, and would compromise state resources. This would also serve to cause division and disunity within the government. Though our late President Ong Teng Cheong was an admirable man, he made a few unfortunate mistakes during his term that caused disruption to the government, and he was rightly chastised for that. Let us not vote blindly for an “anti-PAP” President just for the sake of doing so, as that won’t achieve anything. Remember, the General Election is over. The Presidential Election is not about political issues.
Nani…Nani…
There you go again spewing nonsense. And trying to confuse the uninitiate with comparing SGP to the Brits and the Ozzie. Pls lah… you already did this in the other topic. And not only that, you continue to malign President Ong by saying he “caused disruption to the government, and he was rightly chastised for that.” All of your same posting in the other topics in this ‘Satay Club’ were factually and logically rebutted before.
But hey, this is the internet and you can continue to spread your nonsense. But I was right in my previous rebuttal to your post in the other topic when you asked Wendy not to waste time arguing here against PAP hatred. I told you that you can’t help it and will post messages again because your blind loyalty drives you with that urge to argue for your PAP.
Nani, I will ask you once again to argue with facts instead of relying on your opinions and blind guesswork.
If you are saying that the President’s duties should only be limited to being “our ceremonial head of state, a unifying figure that can represent all of Singapore on the world stage,” and have no administrative duties, then I think all the more he would be undeserving of his $4million salary. What’s the point of being paid such an obsene amount of money when your job is nothing more than showing your face in front of other world leaders?
If the president’s job is ” NOT meant to interfere in executive decisions or prevent the government from doing its job,” then what, may I ask, should be the job of the President? Isn’t the post of “President” a political post? If the post of “President” is not political, then what would it be and what would be it’s responsibilities and duties??
The president’s job is also to ensure that Singaporeans benefit from policies that are about to be passed, and if that particular policy does not, in the President’s opinion, seem beneficial to the country, then of course it is his job to stop it from being passed. After all, the president’s job, since he is elected by the people, is also to represent the people right??
Nani, If the President does not have the power to make any executive decisions, then let me ask you, what’s the point of being a President already??
Mr Ong Teng Cheong made a few mistakes during his term? Let me ask you, what exactly is his mistake? All he did was request the government to reveal to him the exact value of our national reserves. As the President, he is also managing our reserves, so doesn’t he have the right to know in order to perform his job effectively??
Nani, please get your facts right before constructing any more of your filmsy arguments. If the Americans or Europeans are reading what you have posted, they would surely be laughing their heads off. Because the internet is very, very public, please think twice about posting all your foolish ideas and opinions.
This is Singapore. We are not UK or Australia. Don’t confuse the role of the President with the Queen. They are different. And please don’t talk crap about our ex President OTC. You said he made mistakes. Can you please spell out exactly what mistakes he made? Kindly back up your statement with examples.
Nani — Prof Jaya reiterates your points — congratulations.
But really, it that is all that’s needed, why waste the time of 2 million voters (think of the loss of productivity by one extra public holiday). Many a time PAP says no need to hold referendum — waste money. Let government decide.
Govt has chosen very adimirable Presidents in the past from Yusof Ishak to SHeares to Wee Kim Wee. IF its mostly ceremonial, why have election?
The change was introduced by LKY to protect against what he feared to be freak election result. But if the EP is so circumscribed as you would, how will he have the moral standing to oppose a freakly elected government? Even his legal ability to do so will be limited going by what Nathan and Prof J says, since he has to sit and wait for govt to initiate tthings before he can block. In fact, the PAP will have ceated all the precedents for a non-PAP govt to cite if it wants to ignore the EP.
My personal encounters with TKL has shown him to be a vain, self obsessed and disillusioned person. He has an axe to grind with NTUC and his main motivation is not about Singaporeans but his own self promotion. Anyone who has knows and has worked with him can confirm this. He will definitely NOT get my and my family’s vote… The only sincere candidate is TCB.
I will be happy as long as our next president has the surname TAN and not YEO.
Unfortunately, the three-cornered fight just increases the chances that George Yeo (a.k.a. the PAP sponsored candidate) will win.
1) Tan Lead Shake – the slipper man
2) Mah Bow TAN?
http://forums.sgclub.com/singapore/brother_slipper_man_77494.html
Ganesh,
Don’t be so sure. Singapore voters can see thru the ST and MSM now, and may surprise us all of their political awareness.
Majullah Singapura for Singaporean.
/// He also said that he would not disclose the exact amount which he would be donating, but called upon Singaporeans to trust that he would act “honestly, fairly and in the best interests of the people”. ///
You want to donate 70% to 90%, but you don’t want to disclose the exact amount???
OK, I trust you. But you will also have to trust me that I will vote for you.
Anyone who is not linked to the PAP and dares to speak up against them will have my vote, but let me just say I am not 100% sold on Tan Kin Lian due to his close links with NSP and Goh Meng Seng, who he admitted was his “good friend”. In fact, as stated in Nigel’s article, Tan Kin Lian has admitted that it was GMS who first mooted the idea that he should contest the Presidential election. GMS is someone whose capability is dubious. He totally failed to manage his own party, choosing to hide behind a 24 year old girl while sacrificiing his own Tampines campaign to concentrate on Marine Parade. In addition, GMS also clearly stated that he believes in UFOs, and loves to act smart when it is clear that he is not capable. I think that many Singaporeans, oppositition supporters included, are suspicious of GMS and it would be a good idea for Mr Tan Kin Lian to distance himself from him if he wants to contest in this Presidential elections.
Flaming Fox,
GMS is really a genius who could plan forward 3 years in advanced! He has started cultivating an alternative presidential candidate 3 years in advanced! Who could have done that? Not even the PAP! The PAP didn’t even know who to send to stand as Presidential candidate up till now!
If you are right, GMS will not be getting a respectable 43% of votes in Tampines! If you are right, then those WP’s constituencies which gets below 43% would be more suspicious!
You are basically saying, without GMS, there will be no Nicole Seah? Yes, you are absolutely right here. He has openly declared that he sponsored Marine Parade team 10k and yes, you are right, he campaigned hard for Nicole Seah’s team in Marine Parade, resulting in a tight slap on GCT whom everyone thinks is very popular!
But don’t blame GMS for Tampines. Tampines voters are just pathetic. They don’t even understand that the implications on their future generations when they vote. Well, on second thought, cannot blame them also because they are just typical Singaporeans.
What was GMS doing in Marine Parade when he was not even a candidate there? Instead, he abandoned his Tampines contest, not even bothering to organise any rally there until the last few days. He also preferred to walk the ground in Marine Parade instead of Tampines, where he HIMSELF was a candidate! How not to blame him for Tampines? This was the best chance of securing a GRC. The fact that GMS was able to get 43% in Tampines without even doing anything, just shows that NSP could have won if he did more. As party leader, he failed to deploy his resources strategically (basic requirement of a leader) unlike LTK who initiated the courageous move of vacating his safe seat of Hougang and winning Aljunied. If GMS had any brains as a leader, he would have put Nicole, Tony and Hazel in Tampines, if he did so Mah Bow Tan and Irene Ng would be out. What’s the use of getting 43% in Tampines and 44% in Marine Parade? In the end, it was not even enough to qualify for NCMP seat!
Well done TKL. My fear is that if GY also runs, then the “opposition” votes will get diluted between TCB and TKL in a three cornered fight.
Well , PAP has not even announced their candidate to this present date…I am still skeptical if their candidate is Mr TCB undercover….
Pretty sure that Dr Tan Cheng Bock is not the undercover PAP-endorsed candidate. He had several run-ins with the PAP in the past. MM Lee and DPM Goh Keng Swee both didn’t give him face when they publicly slammed him. I don’t think that they will trust someone like him to keep his mouth shut. Also, he has been sympathising with the opposition parties recently. He was spotted at an NSP rally.
Wow. Kudos to him. I think he will be the lead contender. I doubt anyone can beat him in this race with his generosity. Well done!