In Malaysia, cars and petrol are so cheap, but you better show off getting cheaper cars in case it might be stolen, and bungalow is such a commodities that it takes someone who work 2 years accumulating $120,000 to cash buy the house for a similar house that cost greater than a millions dollars here. And you don’t have to bloated down by loan of 30years ! Country club ? You have ample choice to choose from.

I not comparing anything but just to let people understand that there’s more life than simply chasing the 5C blindly.

It is highly that most chase the 5C in order to fill the empty void and aimlessness of being a Singaporean here.

Many choose to migrate because they feel that not only Singaporean did not get respect from gov, they also marginalised by its people around.

There also lack of unity among Singaporean and it is all-man to themselves because the bond of a nation is never there in first place, let alone nation building.

What you have suggested is a total revamp, which include a change of government which is now in a state of denial or protectionism due to their entrenchment of power through legalistic wrangling of laws and regulations to suit their own agendas.

I agree with you fully that the government is now in a state of denial using hypocrisy and look-good presentations to mull over people’s problems.

Let us hope people the next generation of leaders other than the few current crop of MPs and connected elites will come forward to make change happen by registering themselves, making their voices heard and standing for election with proactive actions taken through legitimate means.

This website is a small way of identifying such views, and getting people interested and involved to effect such change.

The problems are simply throw back to you citing you is the problem, therefore solution lies within you !

Our gov’s problem is not worth fixing because for every fix you put in, endup more things to fix.

The system itself is a liabilities and fixing it doesn’t make it any more an asset.

Gov that in constant denial is actually a form of protectionism for themselves. This has been going on for decades, and near impossible to even change.

Are such concepts or assumptions even practicable or are they just some kind of self-promotion to glorify one’s oneself?

Is such a leadership system liable to abuse of power where the so-called leader is able to override the wishes of his subjects and even oppress good people who could otherwise contribute to the greater good by their diversities.

Is he a good leader who keeps talking about his own leadership, vision, foresight and who keeps increasing costs of living by taxing and profiteering on lands and facilities owned by the people?

Is he a leader who keep suing his political opponents for the slightest criticism in the course of electioneering through legalistic wrangling of the civil libel?

Could such a leader actively motivate his people to participate in his rule to produce the mass participation in practical knowledge application to benefit all citizens.

Is he a good leader who ignored people’s complaints for years about malpractices like the nkf or shin corp unwilling to serve them with accountability, procedures, processes, codes of corporate governance, passion, moral uprightness or nobility of spirit?

What kind of leadership qualities did citizens expect from our leaders today ?

Despite all the feedbacks of the citizens, what we are seeing is a system of legalistic wrangling of laws and regulations aimed at taxing and recovering fullest costs depriving people of essential services in housing, transportation, utilities and medical care.

The ordinary citizens are suffering from dropping wages, loss of employment opportunities due to rising costs of doing business with a domestic economy being squeezed out by such rising costs and by government’s getting into businesses of all sorts to compete with its own citizens.

What happen to all the talents of our own citizens or do we have no talents?

The Asian Financial crisis has exposed self-centredness as the ultimate cause of financial instability.

Why is it that during the Asian Financial crisis none of our so-called second generation or present team of ministers were able to take action to restructure the economy but instead were seen as blaming the crisis on the people and not their inability to motivate the people due to their own individualism and self-centredness resulting in malpractices in all the NKF going on in so many organizations.

Apparently something has gone wrong with the team since ministers like Dr. Goh Keng Swee or Lim Kim San, Dr. Toh Chin Chye have left the scene being retired early for perhaps deeper reason like being unable to get along with our supremely self-centred leader.

In the fast-paced age of technology, we need leaders who could command the whole organization and population to use their respective leadership and talent to produce maximum results instead of giving excuses and denying problems like NKF or Nicol Highway collapse instead of self-glorifying bigots who only talk about policies and hardly able to translate them into coordinated work processes to reach results.

We need leaders who talk less but are more committed to down-to-earth broad-based technology and knowledge application by the masses.

We need leaders who could translate diverse challenges and decisions into attainable work processes which allow staff to take actions with broad-based knowledge application and teamwork.

We need to leaders who could solve the “20 major major government policy errors” as posted to the Feedback Unit since 2002.

We need ministers and civil servants who could take comprehensive actions to restructure the economy to value-adding technology-driven economy talked about for years.

However, it seems that, to some out there, saying anything nice about MM is equivalent to trying to bootlick him.

Apologise for asking this seemingly obtuse question but I am really confused.

*Edited to remove personal insults and reference to genitalia :) We are a family-oriented blog. :)

to answer your second part of your earlier comment: lky and his cronies hor, always find foreigners critising spore deplorable, inflammatory , and “sue-able”.

*Edited to remove personal insults

Okay, allow me to make 2 quick responses to the critical responses to my earlier comment.

i) I may be wrong but it seems to me that it is not entirely clear whether MM Lee voluntary made those critical comments about the Indonesian Constitution or that he made them in response to a question. If he had made them in response to a question (e.g. “What do you think about the Indonesian Constitution?”), I suppose it would be a quite different situation from if he made them without external prompting.

ii) Again, I may be wrong but I think MM Lee was invited to go to Indonesia to speak at an event, which was scheduled for earlier this year but postponed due to floods, organised by Citibank i.e. it was not a visit initiated by him. Thus, the point about how MM Lee should visit less of a country if he is displeased with it cannot really stand, considering that he was invited to go there. It is perhaps coincidental that MM Lee’s recent visit coincided with the current rough patch in Singapore-Indonesian relations. Of course, that said, I cannot deny the possibility that the invitation to speak at the Citibank event could perhaps be a “smokescreen”.

Also, maybe it is just me but it seems that to sacrifice honesty for basic manners would perhaps be too big a sacrifice.

And, similar to what Gerald said (i.e. “Well intentioned but unsolicited advice”), I think there is a Chinese saying, which can be roughly translated into “Honest words may be unpopular words”. (“Chong yan ni er”), that is rather applicable in this situation.

Moving on, it is rather curious that while critical responses have been made in reply to the first part of my earlier comment, the second part of it have been strangely overlooked. Thus, I think I would just reiterate it (the second part) below.

“Anyway, it would seems to me that if MM Lee, instead of criticising the Indonesian system, had praised the Indonesian system during his visit, I suppose there would be people who would insinuate that he, succumbing to pressure, did so to ‘please’ Indonesia, in order to have the DCA ratified.

Hmm… Damned if he do, damned if he don’t?”

In China, he said: “We are Deferential; but not Submissive..”
In Indonesia, he said: “We cannot allow changes..else…no rule of law??”

it is not shrewdness but plain stupidity without udnerstanding the nature of your opponents who ahs an axe to grind with SIngapore; with present legalistic approach only make it worse.

A change of tack is required…by first removing Lee Kuan Yew from ASEAN politiking.

Do you mena that after 43-year sof nation-building, SIngpaore will collapse instantly when Lee Kuan Yew is no more in Government?

Then, what the heck are tax-payers paying S$1.6-million per annum per person to George Yeo, Teo Chee Hean, Jayakumar and Lim Hng Kiang for?

All four of them should be able to takeover Lee Kuan Yew’s job load in ASEAN Politics.

And the reason why he thinks he can do that with impunity is that he and his family hold the purse-strings of our money – $100 billion. That is a helluva lot of money for subsequent necesary clean-up.

It’s kinda like your mother-in-law coming to your home and telling you how to put your home in order. Well intentioned but unsolicited advice.

he forgot that no matter what he said in this region; it will invariably ended up in attacks on SIngapore by demagogues of all kind…from left to right….

he should play the elderly statesman and comment on anywhere, except Middle East, China, India and ASEAN.

Leave Middle East and Idnai to GOh Chok TOng.
Chian to Lee Hsien Loong,
and ASEAN to George yeo.

Lee Kuan Yew is more of a liability in regional politics and he still does not realise it yet.

As the CHiense saying goes: ‘Teh older you are, the muddlier you become.”