Multiple subsidies have led to a welfare system that has trapped Europe in slow growth. Europe’s welfare systems have lowered incentives for people to strive and to excel.

We can’t grow tapioca, or corn; we can’t compete in making Nike shoes or sewing gowns. We have to move up to more complicated jobs and services.

We have to earn enough money by working hard and smart in manufacturing and services to pay market prices for food, rice, wheat, maize, vegetables, fruits, fish, meats, chicken and eggs.

The Government must ensure that everyone has the highest-paid job he is qualified to do. If his salary is below the minimum for a decent life, the Government will top up with Workfare.

Let us be grateful that we have long-term stability and therefore continuing high-value investments and good growth.

————-

--> · Dr. Audrey Chin, Investor, on money in women and men’s life cycles

· Deborah Ho, CEO, DBS Asset Management, on investment and spending patterns between women and men

· Choi Foong Sutrisno, Social Worker and Director, DayBreak Family Service Centre, on the consequences of differential earnings, spending, and wealth patterns between women and men

· Leong Sze Hian, Financial Planner, Economist & Author, on how best to map the financial life of women and men

The aim of this ThinkBox is to encourage more women and men to become part of the dialogue on managing money as singles and as couples. The forum will discuss the monetary challenges that confront Singaporean singles and couples and explain how these challenges can be overcome. The goal is to help the public create better relationships between themselves, their partners, and their money.

Members of the public are invited to attend and participate in sessions of The ThinkBox. Details of the upcoming session are:

Topic: Money: Women & Men

Date: Wednesday, 21 May 2008

Time: 7:00pm to 9:30pm

Venue: The Box at SMU (Li Ka Shing Library, 70 Stamford Road, Basement One)

Every other month, The ThinkBox will continue to bring together businesspeople, academics, women leaders and others to tackle dynamic issues of the day. Future forums topics include, ‘Sex and the Lion City’, ‘Girls for National Service?’, and ‘The Singapore Supermum’.

# # # # #

For more information about The ThinkBox please call 6779-7137 or email tenley@aware.org.sg.

———————

--> Andy Ho, Senior Writer, Straits Times, May 8, 2008, “If old enough for NS, why not the vote?”

The above are quotes from Ho’s article. The first one is the very first line of his piece, and the second one the very last sentence from it.

The “recent public forum” Ho was alluding to, I suppose, was the Youthquake forum held at the Workers’ Party (WP) headquarters on May 4, 2008. It was organised by the WP’s Youth Wing (YW) and in particular Bernard Chen, the YW’s Organising Secretary. (TOC reported on the event here.)

(I do not know of any other “recent public forum” which addressed the issue of the voting age.)

The forum’s title was, “Should Singaporean Youths be Allowed to Vote at 18?”

I think as a journalist – and a senior writer at that – Ho should have given due recognition to the organizers of the forum and not just allude to it. In fact, Ho avoided mentioning the WP altogether. This wouldn’t be so bad if not for the last sentence of that piece – Ho called on “a post-1965 Member in Parliament” to “initiate” the debate on the issue. I would have thought that the youths at the forum had initiated the debate already!

And as we all know, the only “post-1965 Members of Parliament” (also called P65 MPs) are from the People’s Action Party (PAP).

One can only wonder why Ho did not instead urge the WP to “initiate” or further the call to lower the voting age and instead called on PAP MPs to do so. After all, the forum was organised by the WP and not the PAP. This is quite bewildering, to say the least.

While it is laudable that Ho made some good arguments in favour of Singaporeans being allowed to vote at 18, closer scrutiny of his article reveals virtually the same points which were highlighted by the young speakers at the forum, particularly by Khairulanwar.

Here, Ho again failed to mention that the young forum speakers had also brought up virtually all of the points he raised in his article.

For example:

Ho said:

Perhaps a post-1965 Member of Parliament might initiate the debate to enfranchise these trustees of our posterity.

National Serviceman Khairulanwar, in his speech at the forum, said:

This suggests that the government has an implicit trust in the NSFs (Full-time National Servicemen) to undertake such a critical responsibility; however a similar trust to enfranchise us into the electorate remains lacking.

Today, May 9, the Youth Wing of the WP responded to Ho’s article. On its website, the YW says:

We agree with the arguments raised in Mr. Ho’s editorial, since virtually all of these arguments were raised by the speakers at the above event and duly recorded by Mediacorp, and urge that this matter be debated in Parliament regardless of partisan standing.

We stand united for the betterment of the nation.

Yes, we should all move on and address the issue of lowering the voting age in Singapore to 18 which, by the way, is the age most countries have legally adopted as the age of majority.

Nonetheless, one would expect senior writers in a national newspaper to not be shy from giving credit where credit is due, especially when it is something which is being fronted and organised by the youths of Singapore – even if they are from or invited by opposition parties.

Give credit where credit is due, Andy. (Though you may not have been there at the forum, as far as I know.)

And while you’re at it, do applaud the youths for speaking out too.

—————-

-->

Next Page »