31 is too small a sample size, unfortunately.

Yeah.. agreed. Sample size is too small. Though if I’m not wrong that >30 is normal distribution.

This created a big uproar. It attracted more than 300 comments in postings in The Online Citizen. Over 80% of the comments were strongly against the suggestion. Many of the comments were rude and abusive. They called the minister inappropriate names. I was shocked at this behaviour.

I personally observed that there is a strong correlation between the amount of respect commenters have for other people (be it other commenters or civil servants or ministers) and their anonymity. Logically, this makes sense, since, being invisible, they can say what they want without repercussions.

This has been on my mind for a long time now, and I see no way to resolve it. We cannot enforce non-anonymity because there are times when it is really needed. Moreover, there are numerous anonymous comments which are very well-reasoned, and there is no justification in censoring them.

Anonymity is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it keeps the vulnerable from being wrongfully persecuted. On the other hand, it diminishes the accountability to one’s words.

I have been, on a few occasions, advocating people to use their real names. Many have used their real names and criticised the government, like Alex Au, Ng E-jay and many of the authors here, so there is really nothing to fear if they justify their words.

Adding to what I’ve just said, there is also the technical impossibility of ensuring non-anonymity. Someone can easily use my name and blog URL, and there’s no way to prevent that.

TKL wrote: “the government may decide that it is better not to engage the public.”

Who is the eventual looser in an unconsultative government?

“If we want the Government to listen to our views, we have to show that we are a mature and responsible people.”

i strongly disagree. it IS the government’s job to listen to the people who elected them. the onus must be on them to listen, and not for the people to “behave” according to what they deem is right before they listen. such thinking is completely wrong and a good reflection on a parenting approach which Singapore should do well to move away from.

why should we respect a view that is morally wrong??

wat4stay:

why should we respect a view that is morally wrong??

But morals are subjective, aren’t they? If I’m a religious conservative and I find homosexuals morally wrong, does that mean I can verbally abuse them? If I’m a liberal and I think euthanasia ought to be allowed, does that mean I can verbally abuse people who oppose my view?

We can say that he’s wrong. We can argue that he’s wrong. But that gives us no justification at all to insult him.

Mr. Tan KL,

I completely disagree with your views. Your opinions smacked of an upper crust attitude which only reinforce what the incumbent regime practices, i.e. “engage me only if you can argue with facts in proper english”.

People should have the right to express their views or feedbacks in whatever manner they deemed fit and it is the job of the government to analyse the general sentiment of these views, not to selectively choose what to listen or not.

If the view is wrong, then we should attack the view, not the person. We are engaged in a contest of ideas, not individuals. I fully agree with Mr Tan Kin Lian’s views in this post.

Agree with “me” above.
Too much of a kowtow towards the govt is not good for the society.
I am glad that the internet platform is a great leveler – it’s the quality of the opinion that counts and not who you are.

7)

Because it’s morally wrong to disrespect others.

It’s good to object to things you don’ agree with, but objecting it doesn’t requires disrespect. All it needs is a peaceful statement and reasons why you object to a certain something.

Disrespecting is as good as trolling, there’s no need to call people names when you yourself have nothing else to offer but name calling.

“Anonymity is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it keeps the vulnerable from being wrongfully persecuted. On the other hand, it diminishes the accountability to one’s words.”

You’re absolutely right, but there’s no change in the fact I enjoy anonymity, it’s not because people can’t track me (If they wanted they probably could), But it’s because it makes me feel like I’m part of the people, a little black dot in a mob. Sure I can’t change anything being just a dot, but as an observer it’s pure entertainment.

How does one constitute whether comments posted are “rude” and “impolite” when these are abstract terms largely dependent on an individuals’ perspective and believes? What is considered “norm” and “sub-norm”? I think regardless of the form of comments, to “truly” respect a person’s view, I think we have to accept it as face value. If the language used is deemed “coarse” and “non-cultured” per one’s perception, the same message can be construed as a genuine out pour of the poster’s uncensored inner feeling by another’s perspective. So in that respect, I disagree that any bench marking should be set.

I also disagreed in any sort of labeling attached such as “rude’’ or “unkind” or “disrespectful” and so on. It is entirely up to each individual to exercise constrained and be responsible with their doing. If you have decided to put up something that is controversial and provocative with an intention for public discourse, one aspect is guaranteed, sparks will fly in all directions. So can one also come to a preconceived judgment that the inducer should had given thorough sensible thought before putting up the subject matter as he/she probably would have the intelligence (assumption made) to know the possible consequences. One can also argued that it may be a deliberate doing to antagonize for other hidden political propaganda only known to the instigator. So, can this form of argument be faulted as well? As the expression go (my twisted version): if you cannot stand the heat of the kitchen, get out and don’t try to act like you are a chef.

One must realize and understand the nature of chain reaction (i.e. for every action there will always be reaction, regardless). So, if a subject matter is being published or posted to attract public discourse, it is inevitable that there will be differing views of all sorts particularly when the subject matter is deemed controversial. If one really advocates freedom of expression, one should not try to impose their personal views and attempt to lament what should be “acceptable”, “correct” & “proper”. You have no RIGHTS to do that. The same applies to pen names for posters. Can someone tell whether Khor Pun Cow or Lee Jia Sai is not of the same person as Anonnye? What is the essence and spirit of “Freedom of Expression?” Having said, it is slightly different if we readers and posters are submitting our comments via a host site where the moderator have every right to set the rules that are deemed acceptable as the host has a responsibility to ensure that they do not violate their given rights by any governing rules (if there is). In that sense, if we want to participate in any discourse via the host site, out of respect, we have to adhere to the rules set forth and also come to terms that there will be no “ABSOLUTE” Freedom of Expression. That is absolutely fair and square game as no one pointed a gun to your head to force you to participate, but if you do choose to, please respect the rules of the host.

Another observation on TheOnlineCitizen is it has slowly evolved into a platform for opposition parties supporters.

hongjun

hongjun @ #13: I hope TOC remains not a pro-opposition or pro-PAP media; but a pro-Singaporean alternative media.

Yes I agree with TKL. We need to take the government to task about the various issues affecting us without resorting to abusive language.

I like to pose to our government,
Is the current performance evaluation system causing pain to the populace? Are our top brains aspiring to go higher, have they been driven to believe that if they can bring more gold nuggets to the feet of their bosses, they will be favorably recognised……all done without much consideration for the lesser mortals and their lot.

Our top brains have not demonstrated that they care much about cost of living issues…..they scramble to grab/extract as much as they can get approval to do so. ERP, transport cost, not engaging the petroleum companies effectively about retail petrol prices, upping cost of retail space pushing up cost of retailing(this has everything to do with our major retail mall owners who is actually the government), upping housing cost, rewarding themselves blatantly high incomes doing jobs that are quite sheltered from real competitive efforts…..if the big brains can go about tackling the 5% commission issues coming out of India in an amicable manner….without giving away SIA, it will serve as a good measurement of their quality…..not qualification.(This is only one example).

One more challenge that will go well with the general public….outline a comprehensive plan to provide a social safety net for our country’s elders….they have given their best., few have anything left to grow old with …….wishing that part of the big investment portfolio handled by Temasek and GIC can be used to aleviate their concerns. …..how about making an open commitment that you will give our old a secure old age pension(start small)…….ask our scholars to include that as part of their challenge, to enable our old the ability and means to live with dignity, irrespective of background.

This cannot be outside of the government’s mission for Singapore, its people, pulling together all these years even though we do not possess education levels comparable to the young, but we have proven our loyalty and commitment. Do not reward only the well educated.

We have sown(past tense for sow?), the tree have grown, we can see the fruits…….do not tell us that we have not contributed towards the harvest…….do not process the fruits into juice…..giving teaspoonful to us…..versus your gourmet meals cooked at home, with training at the best French culinary schools.

Is my dream still valid? Are there enough fruits left?

9)

“People should have the right to express their views or feedbacks ”

I totally Agree.

“in whatever manner they deemed fit”

This is so wrong though, I suppose everyone have different mentalities on the subject of respect, social etiquette and so on, but what TKL’s saying that we should draw at least a minimum line at insult and abuse.

e.g: (Mind you this is just an example, be it bad or not!)

An old fishmonger sells fishes at an absurd price at the market, telling you his fishes came from the heaven.

You obviously don’t believe him, and tells everyone around that fishes don’t come from heaven, with given facts from credible sources that it’s just not possible.

And with that you ALSO go along telling people the fishmonger’s an idiot, a fool, a retard, a liar….and along with these names you went on to say the fishmonger’s a F***ER, G**, Baboon cheater, Wife Cheater, Market Cheater, XXX-Cheater, or anything else that rhymes with cheater or insults.

I’m all ears for facts and justified anger directed at people, but doing extra stuffs to cause verbal hurt for no apparent reasons makes absolutely no sense.

The way I see it it’s like mini terrorism…

Terrorism = I am right! You are wrong! DIE!
Mini Terrorism = I am right! You are Wrong! DIE from my onslaught of name calling!

There’s really no point in wasting time in the name calling departments…of course, if you feel you really need it go get yourself a blog or something.

I used to like posting under anon. I still do. As I find it really difficult to trust ppl. I used to play rpg. Me and my friends would use anon tags and regularly cause havoc. One day a man appeared in this game, as he said we have gone too far and he was here to put an end to the rebellion. He was a sort of rep sent by the game master. He did not scold us like the others. He never made us feel small like the others who treated us all as if our anonymity was like aids or some disease. In fact he told us, we could do it the hard way or his way. We did not have a choice as we knew the hard way meant they will burn everything. So we did it his way. And he began by telling us all about the great history of anonymity. When many of us realized where we came from some were ashamed how they had behaved. The man went on to say, we have a right to anonymity, but we must also live by a code otherwise we are no better than animals. Many of us regarded him like an older brother. Many people in this network listened to this rep. As he was wise and there was an air of authority about him. As time went by, many of us became more and more curious about this fellow. We all wanted to know who was behind this voice. So one day we all decided to meet them There is a moral here somewhere. But I am too lazy to explain it.

17)

It means you were enlightened. and I think I’m spending too much time here.

If this is a new Government , I would totall agree with what TKL has mentioned.

This is a party that have ruled Singapore for the pass 43 years! I believe what we see here is just tip of the ice-berg; that mean the tolerance level for people has deminished due to the increase in hardship!

Another unique problem of Singaporean is that most of us has either never have a chance or little chance to vote during the election! (as there is too many walk over)

So it is naturally understandable that pple expect the govt to reach out more to them, Having one of the world’s highest paid Ministers/ MPs doesn’t make things any better. In private sectors, u r paid according to what you can delivery! If you don’t , your are fired!

Nevertheless, I do agree that one should not use abusive language and called anyone by “name”, not to menton that the person concern is a minister.

My 2 cent worth opinion.

Comments & reporting of

#15,

I agree with you. On the welfare thing, I’m quite certain our govt will not budge as they have reiterated on many occassions that ppl should take care of themselves & less dependency on govt, else our nation will degrade into a welfare state. The recent budget clearly exemplified their stance.

I just can’t help but wonder my fate as I age; what amt will I be left with my cpf for survival after paying my HDB loan; or worse, have my flat “bought” back by the HDB under some silly scheme which is basically mortaging my flat for some miserable monthly pittance so that I’ve nothing left for my children when I ceased; and knowing that after working my entire live contributing to the society, will I end up collecting cartons on the street instead of govt providing me with some basic shelter and meals so that I live an old age with dignity.

& by the way, it will be much easier to be positive if I’m an ex-CEO living in a landed property in YCK. But most of us are not so lucky and strugging to make ends meet and constantly in dreaded fear of loosing our jobs with the uncertain future.

22) tiredman on February 20th, 2009 4.29 pm

Mine as well. Be patient la. 13) Observer (SG-HK) on Your comment is awaiting moderation. February 20th, 2009 2.51 pm.

I think it is just the spam working well. Don’t worry a thing la.

Unfortunate remark put out of context can looked really ugly and I am sure Khaw Boon Wan’s intent was not that twisted.

Again, the subject is about retiring in a respectable and dignified manner and from the angle of economics and land scarcity, should we be exploring building retirement villages spawned across Asia in good setting even good enough for all to stay in? These are Singapore run villages with our own amenities in Asia – Phuket, Bali or even in Johor where we can run most cost efficient Banyan-styled retirement villages with medical facilities. And the beauty of this scheme may be that residents can move from Bali to Phuket to Johor to Hainan Island freely to enjoy their retirement.

From a policy exploration standpoint, I agree that these must be one of the many considered options.

From an ethical standpoint, this must not be seen as a dislodgement of parents from our family nucleus.

I am sure Khaw Boon Wan did not mean that.

Dear Mr Tan Kin Lian,

Please allow me to make 3 points:

(1) I’m surprised that you are shocked that Mr Khaw was severely attacked for his suggestion. Being part of the staff of TOC, you would have realised by now that articles in TOC are written according to a formula – choose a topic or small incident involving some Govt minister or MP, zero in on some acts, words or phrases that can be embarrassing or interpreted negatively, then implicitly invite comments on it. Given such a formula, what do you think is the likely response? I hope TOC can improve in this area especially in terms of objectivity and more substantial topics.

(2) As I’ve told you before, doing mini-surveys like this is a waste of time and effort. There is no need to always resort to statistics when you want to make a point, especially unvalidated statistics. Having substantiated evidence and cogent argument are sometimes enough to convince your readers.

(3) Anonymity has the advantages of producing unrestrained feedback, heart-felt arguments and truthful answers rather than polite non-answers, censored responses or false opinions.

Re: Respect other people’s views – Tan Kin Lian

“Third, there seems to be a strong dislike and distrust of the government. This is unhealthy.”"

TOC’s chief editor, Choo Zheng Xi, in his piece in response to Lui Tuck Yew, mentioned about the peoples’ ” ANGER”.

There is not only “a strong dislike and distrust of the government” but disgust and scorn.

The question Tan Kin Lian (and others like him) should ask himself is this, WHY IS there such “dislike and distrust”?

Taking the LOSSES on Singapore’s reserves as an example.

The Govt has been evasive and, in my view, deceptive when it compared the fall in Temasek’s and GIC’s assets with the MSCI, the latter only measuring the performance of EQUITIES in selected stock markets, whereas GIC/Temasek’s assets includes private equity, hedge funds and for GIC, bonds, real estate and other special investments.

Doesn’t TKL share in our disgust or “dislike and distrust” for the govt in trying to camouflage its INCOMPETENCE in losing such huge sums of our reserves?

And why is it “unhealthy”?

I don’t think I want to spend too much time to go through the rest of TKL’s diatribe, but to just add that many don’t look at issues from its broader perspective and context.

The Govt has EARNED the SCORN of Singaporeans with its UNCARING, SELF-RIGHTEOUS, SELF-SERVING and what have you attitude which is to an extent exemplified by MP Wee Siew Kim’s daughter, Wee Su Min’s “Get out of my ELITE UNCARING face”.

And by the way, respect has to be earned, rather than demanded.

I agree with TKL that the comments from netizens should be more positive and constructive.

However since internet is the new media for the Govt to reach out to the masses; the onus is for them to sieve out the non-constructive ranting and engage appropriately. It is not meant to be the other way round else the Government will have squandered the chance to reach out to the masses…(reverse of what Lui is saying). As I personally loved to go JB, I am very neutral on the KBW discussion. But since majority of the SIngaporeans are very upset over this issue, the Government should treat this as a touchy issue and handle it appropriately else the repercussions during the coming snap elecion are huge. For what it is worth (ignore the non-constructive ranting) the new media has spoken to the Government about this KBW issue. If they cannot hear the clear message using the excuse that most comments are angry and abusive, then too bad because you have squandered some votes during the next election…

Anyway…be nice everyone…

“Over 80% of the comments were strongly against the suggestion. ”

No worries lah mr Tan, these 80% are based on a populace of minority only. 10,000 people pocket burnt, 10% stepped forward only.

28) Andrew Chuah on February 20th, 2009 9.00 pm

someone ever asked you this question :
Are you this Andrew Chuah shown stated in this resume found on the net? http://www.easb.edu.sg/updated_pages/about_us/Resumes/Andrew%20Resume.pdf

wow, can i say you are a grassroots leader? wow, active in community center and sports council?

so, was he right you are the same Andrew Chuah?

So, you want people’s identities to be shown?

by the way, why did you add percent W based on X with percentage Y based on Z? they should not be added right?

your admirer ,
pinkie

#14) hongjun
Another observation on TheOnlineCitizen is it has slowly evolved into a platform for opposition parties supporters.
……………………………………………………………

Very few singaporeans are brave enough to write to the press revealing their true identity for fear of ridicule and retaliation. Many letters critical of the PAP and governmment policies are not published in the main stream newspapers. So, it is only natural that TOC has become a platform for opposition parties supporters to vent their frustration. This is much healthier and more civilised than using thinner and lighter.

I encourage pro-PAP readers and non-partisans to contribute their rebuttal.

pap can win election after election.

we talk so much also will be no use.

only president or mp talk maybe still a small chance.

hope there will be someone like that long hair mp in hk who always shout at government.

but hk and singapore different also.

any how shout will be bankrupt and lose everything.

what to do next?

20/2/09

Hi Pinki run Amok-I am the Andrew Chuah that lost S$30million during the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis and fought my Singapore bankers up to Singapore Supreme Court and lost, I was a senior banker with a Swiss Bank in Singapore before I came out to do businesses.

Regards
Andrew Chuah

Nice try. My voices will be always truth as a Singapore but that does not mean I need expose myself nude in front of PAP. I will only seriously consider that when Singapore formed a truth to people government. With opposition in balancing the scale. On the other hand my “truth” voice will not only reserve for PAP if at that time opposition decided to defect against the people like what PAP did.

I am asking for a fair fight between parties. Is that too much to ask? Didn’t most of you here want that too?!

Pinkie run Amok (#31),

Why must you get personal over a debate? Sigh..

Edward (#32),

TOC is a far healthier platform than most discussion site on Singapore’s politics. It is a lot less polarised and views are rather pragmatic and moderate.

Hi Mr Tan,

I have mixed reaction towards your posting. It seems you are trying to be as neutral n objective s possible. I accept what you r trying to voice out as valid based on ur personal set of knowledge and beliefs. I agree we shld b constructive and nv resort to attacks on a person’s worth and value as a human being.

Yet, i wonder how objective and error-free can a human being be. based on tis paragraph you wrote:
“i hope that Singaporeans can take a positive approach towards discussions affecting our future. We should keep an open mind and react objectively to any suggestion. If we are not sure, we should seek clarification, rather than jump to the wrong conclusion.”

i may accept Mr Khaw’s suggestions on healthcare, doesnt meant i have to agree it. N whether i agree or disagree, it usually involves how a person thinks, feels and ultimately behaves towards a certain issue. (this is a simple model of understanding human’s behaviors, there r more which is impossible to pin-point it here)
it is unlikely tat the three human being components are acting as seperate entity. For tis, i cannot agree to being objective toward issues. Every disagreement (and agreement) is subjective. you may call it personal reasons and/or motives. n subjectivity may seems to be irrational and immature, but its valid. becos it based on a person’s own set of reasoning and beliefs accumulated over his/her lifespan. A good example, in my opinion, is The mini research you have conducted and what you are trying to imply here has your own set of personal reason and beliefs.

Rather, disagreements would be better handled or prevented if we truely understand the other party we r trying to convey our meanings across, are complete human beings with their own needs like us. I tink that when the govt is trying to communicate their ideas with their citizens, they shld seek to understand whether their policies and/or suggestions r likely to be beneficial to their citizens in the first place – not the other way around. They are elected to come up with the best possible policies for the benefits of their people.

In this aspect, i do admit i am rather disappointed with the govt when they bring up suggestions or trying to provide explaination on their stance, it seems to lack a certain level of transparency, compassion and at times undermining a person’s ability to grow personally as a ‘complete’ human being.

I think seriously this topic should not be brought out at all. 4 letters yes I agree it should moderated. Revealing identity? I think TOC very much know what will happened if tomorrow they require the people to register truth name and email address.

Moreover, I thought didn’t TOC agree that the blogger association and regulating was a crap? It would be a fair statement to say that this shouldn’t be mentioned at all in the first place. Being one of the associate with TOC, I hope TKL articles does not represent TOC. If not, bloggers might just start migrating out of TOC first before this country. Don’t let so many years efforts go down the drain over night because of one no brainer topic. With all due respect. We are not PAP grassroot, and will not photocopy PAP style here.

Writers on the New Media Platform are skewed towards a small group who are likely to be against anything auhoritative. Much research is needed to find out why.
The silent majority has not got invovled/ Given time i think comments will be more balanced more objective. Until then readers of blogs will have to put up with hearsays, rude comments, ridicule, innudendos etc. Such style gave the writers a satisfying feeling when published. Governments world over are grappling with this problem. In Spore the authority has yet to find a formula to engage netcitizens. Maybe set up a Ministry for NetCitizens and employ a corp of government bloggers.

[...] This article first appeared on TOC [...]

I wish to acknowledge the constructive views given by the following:

Jackson Tan (#3, #4, #8)
Randomnessinmind (#7, #12, #17)
Pleasemakesense (#27)

In particular, I agree with #17 about min-terrorism. A terrorist is a dangerous person, often anonymous, who believes that it is his right to attack or kill innocent people to express his anger, Some people commenting in TOC fits into this behavior.

There are people who feels that it is their right to engage in personal attack and insults. Examples are #9, #22. I hope that TOC will have some means to deal with these people.

Each of us is entitled to give our honest views without being labelled pro-PAP, anti-establishment, pro-opposition. The right also extends to people like David Leong.

I hope that TOC will be a place where people can give their honest opinion (without being unfairly labelled or insulted by mini-terrorists) and that it is not seen as a gathering place for mini-terorrists.

I agree with Ravi Philemon (#15) that TOC should be a pro-Singapore alternative media (i.e not pro-PAP or pro-opposition).

Dear smallvoice585 (#25)

In the past, I ignore your views, as I felt that you wanted to argue with me for the sake of argument. My impression could be wrong. Anyway, I respect your right to express your views, even if you disagreed with me.

This time, I have to respond to the three points that you have raised.

1. I agree with your view that TOC should “improve in this area especially in terms of objectivity and more substantial topics.” I also agree that the approach used in some past articles to use a few words to draw attacks on certain people, to be undesirable. I hope that the editor (Andrew Loh) takes note of your view, and also of my view.

I have to correct a wrong impression – that I am a “staff of TOC”. I am a regular writer or columnist, but I do not draw any salary or determine the editorial policy.

2. You said that “substantiated evidence and cogent argument are sometimes enough to convince your readers”. This will work for certain situations. Perhaps, you should write some articles using this approach and see if you can get a fair reception.

I will continue to use my mini-surveys to draw out the “wisdom of the crowds”. It is all right for you to disagree with my approach. There are many other people who find the survey findings to be useful (in spite of statistical errors, due to the sample size and selection).

Ashraf (#2) said “if I’m not wrong that >30 is normal distribution”. Ashraf is correct. A sample size of 30, if it is unbiased, is quite reliable. This is my conclusion after comparing the results from an initial sample of 30 with the final results based on 200 people – for similar surveys.

3. You said “Anonymity has the advantages of producing unrestrained feedback, heart-felt arguments and truthful answers”. I agree.

Anonymity is also the means used by some people to push out lies and personal attacks. They also post under different views to give the impression that many people agree with them. We need to find a way to sort out between these two categories. See the view by Jackson Tan (#3)

Dear 24) David Leong on February 20th, 2009 6.03 pm

“From a policy exploration standpoint, I agree that these must be one of the many considered options.

From an ethical standpoint, this must not be seen as a dislodgement of parents from our family nucleus.

I am sure Khaw Boon Wan did not mean that”

Interesting observation of yours. I would certainly appreciate if you can enlighten me why you are sure KBW did not mean it. Part one of your quotes, at what point do you think this becomes a considered option? Have Singapore really run out of land that can be allocated for this purpose? This also prompted me to ask this question; who are the builders that help Singapore to achieve what she has achieved today?

For anyone who even conceived the idea that KBW has suggested not once but twice can reasonably be construed as a person with little or no regards to human compassion. Even when one is in their dire straits, that idea should be the very last resort if and ONLY IF all options become unattainable. In Singapore perspective, this is not the case. Agree?

Speaking from the perspective of ASIAN ETHNICITY and from a HUMAN perspective, certain traditional values run deep in our bloodstream and can never be substituted with values that clearly violate the sane common sense thinking. Singapore today with its vast reserves accumulated over the past decades which partially comes from the contribution of older generations who with their disciplined and hard work and most of all their dedication to bringing younger generations to this world and ensuring that they will have a better life as compared to theirs (Singapore history books will note that most older generations are peasants migrants), it is indeed inconceivable that any Educated person whom their older parents had brought up by their sacrifices and commitment would have this thought. As a matter of fact, it saddens me not just that KBW has tabled this proposition; it is the process of this thought. How many old folks had KBW visited to obtain their views on his proposition before he decided to table it for discussion? Have he or his entourage of subordinates ever done this due process? I sincerely do not think so

A huge majority of the older generations are less educated, but they possessed the kind of values call “DIGNITY” that not even any academic text books can teach you. I would certainly like to suggest to you during your free time to visit existing nursing homes and talk to some of the old folks there and allowed them to share their experiences with you. You will not be disappointed. It also does no harm to start with your older parents as a casual conversation to get their views on this controversial subject matter. Human lives need to be respected and accorded with dignity. We only live once. It is indeed invaluable.

Agree with TKL on most points. What you all are witnessing is a start of the onslaught of the new media platform. With the advent of iphones /iPOds etc one can easily post a comment on sites such as TOC. Before long when such devices proliferate more comments can be made on the mobile and frequently. And comments can be lies and personal attacks..if they get populated it could affect the value system of society..of Singapore. I am sure those involved in terrorism are monitoring the situation and may well have something up their sleeve. On the subject of surveys (especially on the Net) I was told that a person can vote many times. As such an internet survey may not be accurate. What is the solution to all this? No one has effectivet approach yet…Have you???

Good Morning,

This is not a debate about whether anonymity is the root of all evil as it remains how do you engage people effectively in the internet; tell me, if you remove anonymity; would you be able to PREVENT the 80% of the disgruntled from thinking what they thought about Mr Khaw’s statement?

Sure they may NOT verbalize it openly; BUT the question is CAN you actually stop people (not only netizens) from thinking and reacting in the way they have here in the privacy of their own skulls?

I think not.

So this is what will preoccupy a man who is really sincere about engaging people on a meaningful basis – all I can say is, if Mr Khaw meant it to be ONLY a suggestion; then he should just discuss it with his wife when she is wearing his favorite nighty; but it demonstrates very poor judgment to air such an emotive issue publicly – neither is it fair not to expect people from reacting in the way they did to his inflammatory suggestions; as whatever you wish to say; whether it is done rightly or wrongly is not the point here as it remains a very genuine case of people speaking their minds freely on a subject that is close to their heart.

A wise man will ONLY see it along such terms and NOT try to muddy and confuse the whole issue by attempting to bring in other extraneous issues such as whether it is right or wrong or even attempt to complicated the matter further by bringing the issue of anonymity, privacy and rights. Or even attempting confecting new fuzzy words such as apply terrorism to anonymous postings (real and imagined); that I think has to be very stupid, as it has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with what Mr Khaw once said and the reaction it provoked.

If Mr Khaw wants to engage people meaningfully; then he should learn never to throw stones in a glass house; if he does, I think no one really cares whether it is just a suggestion or one of his opium pipe dreams, most people will just hand him the broom – my feel here is we may not be dealing with a very intelligent man here.

SD (Internet Liaison officer of the Brotherhood)

Thank you Tan Kin Lian for reminding people in TOC that this is not an opposition platform. Thank you for taking up time and effort to start this discussion.

The government sure has sound policies in place for its people and policies that can be further worked and improved on. Ever wondered why Jim Rogers and his family moved into Singapore in 2007? I am talking about a well-respected very smart intelligent man who co-founded the Quantum Fund with George Soros in the 1970s that out-performed the S&P index 4000 times.

Today, I feel safe and assured in the sense that we have a strong currency and reserves. The USD is doomed, the UK Pound is doomed. People over there can own 5 homes without a job previously. Is that scary?

Look at the people US President Obama brings into the administration. US Officials like Larry Summers, Timothy Geithner who thought of printing more money, spending more money to solve the US problems. This will cause hyper-inflation, gold to soar and the USD to crash. Ben Bernanke who claims to have studied past recessions would have failed economics 101. Money is being transferred from the strong ones to the weak ones. Look at the number of Zombie institutions like Citibank, Bank of America, AIG, General Motors, Chrysler in US. They should all fail and being taken over by stronger institutions. Japan still has not really recovered from its bailout of Zombie institutions 20 years ago Do you think it will be different for the US? Ever wondered by Paul Volcker who is the top economic adviser to Obama is so quiet? He has his work cut out by these foolish greedy beaucrats.

If Singaporeans, the Government and Tan Kin Lian want to see more constructive views in this forum, this is what I can personally write. Continue to engage with China and India because we are seeing the rise of Asia and maybe the demise of the United States if the government continues with its usual way (That’s why Jim Rogers move here). Continue to invest in energy and water because they are always limited in supply and for security reasons. It’s good that we have Jurong Island and Hyflux. Continue to invest and move towards innovation and entrepreneurship. We, Singaporean have been taught maths, science, English and our mother tongue throughout our lives but not innovation and entrepreneurship. It’s laughable when I saw companies in job ads looking for innovative Singaporeans with an entrepreneur spirit. We are not being brought up this way. At the same time, we can continue to attact foreign MNCs into Singapore. They bring jobs to us Singaporeans. I am working for a foreign company.

Invest in Public Transport because that impacts us Singaporeans directly. The 2 cents cut in public transport fares is laughable too. It will not make an impact honestly and I hope for a 20cents cut at least. I guess and suspect that public transport companies like SMRT needs the revenue for construction of their new lines. Get more new buses, I still travel on buses that I sat on 10 years ago. The Transport Minister Raymond Lim should do more to improve on normal Singaporean lives and I feel his role and his duty to his people is very important. Continue to make cars expensive over here because we need to have a Clean and Green environment. I dislike people who smoke while driving alone. Obviously they wouldn’t care much or less about the environment. This is a small country.

Continue to invest heavily on defense especially the military. This country has 1 big obvious resource and that’s its location. Shipping has existed in Singapore for over 200 years since it is founded and it continues to be. Ever wondered why PSA is never listed? Singapore is a good location for air-travel and SIA has this good advantage.

I have seen previous forum talking about less time spent on National Service for Singaporeans, less spending on defense. These people obviously don’t know the reality that we are such an attractive place to countries around us. I request the government not to shorten the 2 years national service anymore. Imagine how much on job training will there be for an officer after he is commissioned? The 2 years and 4 months I spend on national service is an experience I will never forget and cherish it for the rest of my life.

Any new initiative from me? I have one. We should go into farming and agriculture. We can have a new Farming and Agriculture Minister who can work with Minister Mah Bow Tan. We should set aside more space for farming. This can be done on our islands, roof tops of suitable buildings and more lands (Lim Chu Kang area) in the main island if possible. The reason is food shortage and supply and the rises of commodity prices. We can grow corn, rice, fruits etc in order to become more self-sufficient for our future.

That’s the future.
Thank you all.

I agree with Mr Tan’s take on this matter. I appreciate the fact that Mr. Khaw made the suggestion as an option he thinks Singaporeans should consider and perhaps take advantage of. This is despite the fact that I disagree with him (and Mr. Tan KL) on the details of the arguments in favor of his suggestion.

Perhaps some of the others have good reason to become wary of his suggestions (drawing on examples where his suggestions turned into policy) but on the whole I do think the community has subconsciously placed words into his mouth, making his suggestion sound far more insidious than it was intended to be.

hI #41 (mrthinktalk)

The survey software that I use has a feature to disallow people voting more than once. It tracks by the IP address.

It does not prevent the same person from using different PCs to vote more than once, or to get a friend to vote for the same views. But, I don’t think that people will go through the trouble to distort a survey.

I accept that a survey has some inaccuracy and the possibility of manipulation. We have to interpret the results with some care. We should not blindly accept the findings.

Dear #40 Mr Tan Kin Lian,

Thank you for your detailed reply to my 3 points in #25.

Let me just clarify that I had NEVER argued with you or anyone else “for the sake of argument”. I don’t have time for that. Perhaps, I can be persistent and forceful at times when I feel I have something important to say.

I know I have many disagreements with you on many issues – from your fear of criticisms and attacks, your need for 100,000 endorsements before your political debut, your short political resume and your continued reliance on mini-surveys as a resource for your writing.

As incredible as it may sound, I am actually trying to be your guardian angel! Everytime, I feel that you are moving in the wrong direction, I feel compelled to point you in the right one. You may call me audacious, but I’m really sincerely trying to help.

I’m not doing this for your sake or mine, but for the many in Singapore who still view you as their next Big Hope. Please do not disappoint them.

The govt must first show their respect to the citizens before they can gain similar respect. TKL has forgotten how PAP has tried to bully opposition members in parliament and totally show no respect for others at all. We have to accept the fact that it takes many ways to tame a lion, and not just one soft way.

I wrote on this article earlier in another posting too. First of all, let me state that I have nothing against all parties. I frowned when I read what the health minister said not because it was put up as an option. I can agree that different people have different views on this. Rather, if you read the entire message of what he said, it is essentially a sales pitch (for citizens to think about sending their elder ones to JB). Only pros were listed.
As a minister who supposedly had undergone a more detailed thought process, sell me an option with even-handed considerations (i.e. include pros/ cons, positive/ negative reactions), and I will give you more weightage on credibility.
Sell me a pure sales pitch (like the article published), and you can be sure I need to get a head damage to award you high regards.

I agree with Mr Tan. Let’s debate issues without always resorting to ad homimem attacks. It makes for much better discourse to better Singapore.

45) disgusted – I’m no longer a TOC editor, but I don’t think TOC exists to “generate a critical discourse on the ruling regime”. But you could say we are about generating critical discourse on governance in Singapore. There are many sites out there that exist just to criticize the PAP, but we would be narrowing our scope too much if we did only that.

I am glad that TKl wrote on providing constructive opinion in cyberspace.

As more blogs and godo sites like TOC are drawing thousands of readers daily, this is surely a potential ground for adverse blogging.

Compared to toher sites that i have being previously, TOC seems reasoable and professional even.

I also dislike TOC drawing out some remarks by minsiters and expect us to comemnt on them. The comments are naturally adverse.

As we blog away let us be conscious of what we say and blog.

By being anonymous it doesn ot allwo us to lower ourselevs and blog anyhow and irresponsibily..

32) Andrew Chuah on February 20th, 2009 11.53 pm

can i deduce that you have not replied to the question ?
y / n ?
cheers

If govt is really genuine abt engaging netizens.They will not force ppl to come out into the open, instead they will deploy the brotherhud method and first strike a friendship and build on a relationship.Then that removes the incentive for anonymity.as it is way does this really deliver. Nothing

the more u want ppl to come out the more they will say no. Life is not so simple.you don’t jump and expect others to follow, not even if u sell it as the best thing since sliced bread

All netcitizens can be traced What u vote can be traced Using your
IP address Your IP address your home address can be given
with permission from operators. So be careful and think before talk

Ang mores on youtube also use nick even when their face is in the vids. There is a reason and purpose for nicks and anonymity.

aiyoyo

think its best all people live life happily (no pressure, low cost)

TKL the reason why some people have taken the rude route is because the garmen had provoked many people.

Have you been to meet the people session then you will know how tons of lies the MPs tell the poor and desperate people who seek all kinds of help.

The musclemen and MPs act as if they are the Lord of the flies.

When provocation had gone too far then one get the petrol light up case and we all know what is is.

The EElite and the ministers had been boasting that they are the scholars and they are the brainest and they are the fittest to serve the country.

The result is dismal. How much money did the genius of the genius lost for Temasek. Billions. Whose money?

To put it in simple terms the garmen had lost a lot of credibility.

What has the garmen done for the poor and starving retrenched workers?

I will be 69 in three months time and I sense very clearly that the garmen is scared of old folks asking the garmen for money.

I quit and I am now in Indochina. I would not be a beggar. I work as a professional jounalist and I volunteered. Why won’t the ministers volunteer. I believe in leadership by example.

Ministers pay. Why so high? People are provoked.

TKL sir, maybe you may like to just let people be.
I mean, if a person dislikes something, would it be fair to force him to make him like it? Even if to pretend he likes it?

As long as it is the truth, whatever it is, we have to respect that.

Would u marry a girl u don like?

like all things in life, yes, sometimes people do that too ;)

Hello TKL, you had written a balanced and enlightening article, and from all reading all your previous postings, I can now see why you were able to rise through the ranks and become the CEO of NTUC INCOME!

You were much more measured and rational in your opinions and views of many issues affecting Singapore and their livelihood, and are also relevant in your suggestions and solutions. I amy not agree with whatever you said, but I do respect you for your ABC views and suggestions:
A = Actionable
B = Balanced
C = Constructive

This, compared with many of the posters here who are probably and simply arguing and opposing for the sake of doing so without any substance or relevance. I hope you’ll not be discouraged by these irrelevant and irrational posters and continued sharing your thoughts and views here in TOC!

Cheers!

#47
Thank you for your clarification. The best way that you (or anybody else) can help me is help to communicate a positive interpretation of my views.

A positive person gives a positive interpretation of any message and passes it on. A negative person gives a negative (and often unfair) interpretation of the same message and attacks the message or the person.

Do not try to “advise” me to be what I am not. I already have too many well meaning and self appointed advisers telling me what to do.

#48, #58
I have not forgotten how the people in authority act unfairly against their rivals. This is why I accepted the invitation to speak in memory of J B Jeyaretnam and also to seek at the forum organised by the Singapore Democratic Party.

I took this actions against the advice of many of my friends to “stay away from trouble”. I do what I can to make my views known on such matters.

Even though I disagree with the unfair behavior of the people in authority, I do not think that it is necessary for the ordinary citizens to engage in venomous, personal attacks against ministers, especially those who are quite fair minded. We can bring our point across without behaving like “mini-terrorists”.

Hi #18
The story that you gave is very good. The key message is: “…. we have a right to anonymity, but we must also live by a code otherwise we are no better than animals.” These are wise words.

#44
Can you send an email to me at kinlian@gmail.com?

“A positive person gives a positive interpretation of any message and passes it on. A negative person gives a negative (and often unfair) interpretation of the same message and attacks the message or the person.”

Do not you think one gives life to the other. If you do not have black, how would you know the shade of white or vice versa.

Should positive comments only be mandated and monopolise the discussion of any subject matter to an extent of one sided picture being presented. Why would we need CPIB, police and soldiers if the world and our nation should always be viewed from a positive angle. While negative messages are hurting to the personal ego, wrong force applied in the form of institutional backing is even worst.

#64

Many Singaporeans have a negative mindset. It is probably the result of our education system.

If an idea has a 80% chance of success and 20% chance of failure, it is likely that the discussion will be on the 20%. After spending a lot of energy on this 20%, the likely outcome is “no good” – as this 20% cannot be solved. This is why most Singaporeans are not entrepreneurial.

If we focus on the 80%, we will get the courage to implement the change, and to find the way to make it succeed. This is the approach of the entrepreneur.

We do not need a 100% perfect solution. If we get 80% right, we will make a lot of profit or do a lot of good. We need a positive approach – to be able to make a change

There are a lot of diverse views posted on my article. I prefer to focus on those contributions that I agree with. I do not wish to argue with the others. I believe that the positive approach will get more people to see what “can be done” rather than “what cannot be done”.

One of my value is to be “positive”. I want to educate people about the power of positive thinking.

#35 zj

It is all right to have different views.

My approach is to have an open mind and to accept different views. I avoid making judgment on other people’s views. I avoid “disagreeing with them”. I just have a different view.

I prefer judgment to be made by many people giving their opinion. This is why I prefer to do the mini-surveys. I believe that the views of many people are better than one person.

I respect the views of other people and are generally guided by the collective views of the people who are most affected by the decision. I consider this to be a “fair approach”.

I also respect the right of the person who is in charge, to make the final decision. I prefer that this decision should be made after getting the views of the people who are affected.

This is the democratic process .. which has its strengths. It is quite unfortunate that the democratic process has been weakened in Singapore over the past 30 years. I hope to be able to contribute towards the rebuilding of this process, through educating people about their rights and responsibilities.

Dear TKL,

You views and points are very valid. Though I agree with you on the point of having a positive outlook, I also believe that it is just as important to adopt a critical stance as it is very often that one progresses through criticisms, especially creativity.

Criticisms can often be misconstrued as negativity when the views come across as being too critical in the mind of the subject.

Just my $0.02 worth.

Dear #61 Mr Tan Kin Lian,

It is good that you now realize that I only have good intentions towards you (for the sake of Singapore).

You rejected any further friendly advice from me. I respect your wish and henceforth I will desist from offering any more of my specific input to you. However, as a netizen, I reserve my right to comment on any issue which may be of interest to me. So sometimes my comments may still be directed at you, but they will be co-incidental and opportunistic in nature only.

So, in that spirit, I will make 2 further points:

(1) There are such things called FACTS. Not everything can be interpreted in positive or negative ways. If helping you means helping to put a positive spin on everything that you say, I think it is against our integrity to help you that way. We, netizens of integrity, will not say anything against our conscience or anything we believe is untrue.

The important thing is not whether you are a positive person or a negative person. The important thing is to respect the truth and always strive to get nearer and nearer to it, day after day.

(2) You do not want people to advise you to be something you are not. But I think a leader should be humble enough to acknowledge that he does not know everything and is willing to entertain the possibility that he may be wrong or mistaken and change accordingly. He should remain teachable throughout his life. He cannot be fixed in his ways.

Thank you for listening. Best wishes!

65) Tan Kin Lian on February 22nd, 2009 7.40 pm

Very valid of your explanation on the entrepreneurial part and the education system. I think they know it, albeit a little late in trying to rectify matters. But still better be late then never.

I agree we need a positive approach. I also believe that Singaporeans are not unreasonable and they need the necessary space so denied to them all this while in the mainstream sphere to show their true feeling, however rude it may be interpreted.

The denial of true participation in any national decision making via a truly democratic process will always result in pent-up feeling sometimes wrongly directed towards good decent ministers who happen to be categorised as coming from the same stifling system.

I do not think this notion will go away soon given the more common understanding of an educated force that freedom exercised correctly far outweight the costs of a restrictive system exercised wrongly. Hereby sir, I always stand to be corrected.

#66 TKL

Thanks for responding to my comments.

Although i share ur views on most occassions. I am wondering whether the mini survey is the best approach you can use to convey what people are thinking andd need. and ultimately come up with the ‘best’ decision.

what i notice is that survey esp yours compiled every respondent survey into a total number that is eventually use for explaning what plp r thinking. it does seems systematic and making valid inferences easy, yet it seems very general.
For example, though we may share similar views on an issue in general, doesnt mean we will share the same feeling, ideas and behave towards it in similar ways. Mini survey r too general to represent the subtle details of what a person is experiencing. as surveys r akin to what the researcher is keen to examine what plp r thinking abt certain issue, it inevitable that there are the presence of researchers’ belief and values involved in conducting this survey. at worst, it may even work as a self-fulfilling prophecy for the researcher.

Do you think an in-depth probing (on a respondent’s ratings) is essential for better conclusion in addition to your survey?
also, it better allows readers to see and understand how plp think and feel in details abt issues.

with regards to this particular sentence of urs:
“This is the democratic process .. which has its strengths. It is quite unfortunate that the democratic process has been weakened in Singapore over the past 30 years. I hope to be able to contribute towards the rebuilding of this process, through educating people about their rights and responsibilities.”

i was watching the two part movie abt che guevera by benecio del toro.
this sentence of urs leave me alot to think abt in relation to the part 2 of the movie.

che guevera was idealistic and he wans to eradicate the oppression and inequality on ordinary folks by the elites. He successfully revolt against the cuban govt (at that time) with fellow passionate men as well as the help of the oridinary cuban citizens. (though he haf to kill at times, yet he shows compassion to the enemy soliders when captured (even providing medical care, food as well as explaining to the POWs abt his revolution, thus gathering support and releasing them to go back home with their families) esp the citizens.)

Despite his ideals and compassion for all mankind, he was eventually captured and kill by the bolivian govt (another revolution). a main reason is that he didnt gather the support of bolivians like he got from the cubans. despite his compassion for the plp there, they were afraid and/or sceptical to help them whole-heartedly. the bolivians are aware of their ‘plight’ and understand why che guevera is fighting. it may be eaay to label them as coward or un-daring to try, yet these bolivians haf their own personal reasons for not helping even tot they aware of their ‘plight’.

Not meant to say sgporeans r totally similar to bolivians, i just hope to relate both contexts. i personally do agree w u that our democratic process r weaken along the yrs. our first-world statue did create lots of social consequences – a price to ‘pay’. and despite listening to so many complains abt the govt, there aiant any differences aft many elections. it seems its not sgporeans r not willing to change, but there r personal reasons s to what hold them back. for example, plp who wans to quit their ‘unsatisfactory’ job dun just look at salary. there are many inter-relating factors that holds a person back too.

just wan to koe, to wat extent and ways r u gg to bring forward your ideals (as wht you mentioned in that sentence) to sgpoeans and gather support if democracy is to be enhanced?

#zy (#71)
Send an email to me at kinlian@gmail.com

Agree with TKL about the 20% (maybe even lesser) are negative. Whenever someone proposes an idea. my mind quickly tries to answer the following questions:
1. What is the purpose?
2. Is it the right time to implement
3. And most important HOW can it be done?
The negative group will possibly unconsciously (maybe education system??) tried to answer the question “How it cannot be done?” I have used the pointers above and it worked for me over the years. Feel free to adopt these pointers and you will be able to realise the potential in you.

[...] wants to ship me to another country when I get old – TOC: Respect other people’s views – Tan Kin Lian – A Lesser Mortal: JB Nursing Home Syndrome – Logically Illogical Logic [Thanks [...]

In a democratic country, everyone is allowed to express their views right! Harsh or soft…Well, we are just expressing it thru TOC. In other countries, they strike. & so on..Compared to that is a a very very soft…If you say this is harsh, what do you say about people who strike?Here people are expressing their opinions (angrily) in tOC, cause they have no other outlet…Dont think you should tell them to stop venting out their anger…by the way do u think the govt will listen to what we are saying in TOC?Hmm….I dont know..if they can take this in a positive & understanding manner it will be good for s’poreans. And Iam sure people in TOC will give kudos if govt does that. If not we can only rant in TOC..so please dont tell us not to even do that….

i agree on 1 point. give objective critics (suggestion is even better), don’t insult. it’s discouraging everybody else from listening to you. what’s for any sane person listen to you if what they would hear is insult.

I think that while we should not deviate from the issue at hand into personal attacks and insults; we should not expect the polar opposite as the norm – that all communication have be respectful and polite before any exchange can actually take place. Let’s not be overly sensitive and delicate – political debates are hardly the realm of ’sugar and spice and everything nice’.

—–

I think that cheaper nursing homes overseas should be an option explored by the private sector instead of being spear-headed by our Health Minister. I think that as a minister Khaw should be aware that he represents the government, and that his words will be, rightly or wrongly, perceived as government policy inclinations.

Unless I am mistaken, Khaw himself had said strong words publicly condemning the lack of filial piety. For the same man to broach on the topic of not only sending one’s parents to a home for elderly, but a home that is in another country, is very inappropriate and borders on hypocrisy. Is it then surprising that Singaporeans take him to task?

Agree it would be better another messenger deliver his message. But then our leaders are tough-minded and not known to shirk responsibilies to make unpopular polices for overall good of the country. This is the modus operandi of the our leaders for many years which had brought peace, progress and prosperity to the people and country. Isn’t this so?

I disagree with the notion that the government is ‘tough-minded’ when it makes policies that goes against the public consensus.

It is a sign of toughness if and only if there are real, significant political price to pay for unpopular decisions. So far the government has been able circumvented such consequences because they are willing and able to bend and break rules to run elections with an obvious bias in their favor.

Peace, prosperity and progress in good times are credited to our leaders’ ability and greatness; but in these difficult period losses are blamed on global climate and presented as inevitable. Are our leaders shirking their responsibilities?

Dear TKL,
After reading or eye balling over 70 postings here over the last 5 days, I can no longer resist the urge to give my take.

1. Just like you I select my choice of words when blogging. I will stay civil and absolutely avoid the use of vulgarities. This does not mean that I will not be forceful and firm, depending on the feelings I have for an issue, but again never abusive. But that’s you and me.
While not at all condoning abusive language, I do accept the reality that there are many men-in-the street and in the kopitiams who have strong views, frustrations and even anger about their living environment and government policies. That’s the way they know how to express themselves verbally and in writing, perhaps because also of a lower language proficiency. Their words may not be refined but they are being true to their feelings. Their writing skills can improve with training but most will not be signing for courses anytime soon. So people and the govt, like it or not, ought to listen between the lines rather than focus just on the language. Once again I’m not defending them but rather I understand human behaviour and it takes all kinds o people to make the world. And they each have one vote. These same people will also most likely be putting their mouths where their voting papers are. We cannot, like the ostrich with its head in the sands, pretend all’s well and sanitized. But I believe your comment is well intentioned.

2. You lamented that “there is a strong perception that any suggestion by a minister will be implemented as government policy”. That is not without reason. It’s like “no smoke without fire” and people have seen so many water-testing by ministers before policy implementations – examples: increase of GST to 7%, IRs, evening ERP, means testing for healthcare subsidies, organ trading, Serangoon Gardens foreign workers dormitory…. The list goes on. I am also not saying that all these are not good policies but that these have been seen to be pushed through despite strong opposing public views.

3. You said “there seems to be a strong dislike and distrust of the government. This is unhealthy.” I agree but your observation is not exactly fiction or myth, or without cause Yes, such feeling is unhealthy but then only the govt. can really fix it. The bloggers just react.
If people are unhappy, and they express that strongly and firmly, there is nothing wrong about doing that. Why is it not civil to disagree or not accept views and actions of ministers and politicians which they don’t like? They are put there by the people for the peopl.e The process here is not like a school debate – it is politics. The issues are real life ones and the people have the right to want solutions and favourable results. . You had played an instrumental role in mini-bonds petitions and had also expressed angst and frustrations forcefully in your speeches and blogs with the unresponsiveness and lack of support and empathy of the govt to the woes of investors. How about a fuller account of the losses of our 2 SWFs and the use of the President’s 2nd key?

You have publicly expressed your intentions to enter politics or some sort as an Alternative-Party person to the PAP. When you do, you too will be at the receiving end as an opposition person. PAP’s leaders have publicly declared that they will “fix” the opposition and not make life easy for them. They have matched words with actions. We saw the large number of PAP MPs trying to rough up Low TK recently in the Budget debate in Parliament on his remarks on the Job Credit scheme. Many bloggers have shown by their postings that they are “mature and responsible people”. That didn’t make the govt more responsive and listen up. It takes 2 to tango, but right now it seems the big partner is not doing much dancing.

Therefore, will your strategy on how you will relate to the ruling party work for you? Will they ever reciprocate and change to the people’s and your liking in your lifetime in politics? I’m sure your supporters and your voters-to-be will be interested to know.

This is one of the few times, I don’t agree with TKL.

The government is not responsive and has not been for a long time.

Their policies are not working.

Worse, we are at the receiving end of their single minded beliefs. They seemed to confuse form over substance.

As citizens, we have been obedient and look where it has led us to. Ministers telling us that we don’t have enough for retirement but they are reducing the interest rates on our CPF savings. This is one example.

The public cannot be blamed in this relationship when it sours.

The policies makers need to reflect on their own doings.

Firstly, I like to point out that the comments on this post so far as been polite and to the point without resorting to rudeness. It just comes to show that most people are not incapable of respectful discussion. They just need to be reminded of that they are ought to be courteous. Thank you TKL for doing just that.

Secondly, there are a quite a number of postings to say that the government has not been responsive to the people and the sediments on the ground. I don’t find myself very old, but as far as I can tell, this is the most responsive government we ever had. It is much better than the government of yesteryears under MM Lee. No disrespect intended, just that time, situation and people have changed.

Everyone expects changes, but one needs to realize that changes take time and effort. America and the European countries reached where they are now after centuries of struggles and sacrifices of the people for their nation. Our time has not come yet, for we have yet to have opposition leaders with strong values and the necessary charisma. Neither do our people have the strong belief that changes need to be made nor the courage to make the sacrifices. If you do not have a chance to vote because your GRC is walked over, don’t just lament about it. Show your support by donating to the political party of your choice or volunteering in their grassroot work. The Obama campaign is built on millions of small donations that make up a huge war chest for him to win the election.

Lastly, everyone has the right to criticize. But criticism without constructive suggestions to improve or remedy the situation is usually not helpful. We should strive to use this platform to brainstorm ideas so that things can be improved, instead of merely complaining about things and then going away, feeling a false sense of achievement that you have done something about it.

Mr. Khwa Boon Wan is only providing information to the public that they are nursing homes in JB which is much cheaper than those in Singapore. He is not telling Singaporeans that they must send their parents to nursing homes in JB. With this knowledge it is up to the individual to decide what he wants to do. More information is not a bad thing.

,…agree… he is not saying must go JB.. he is just alerting us to options..if there are businessmen who want to build and customers who want to go why not??
W are all in a big ship in a stormy stormy sea whether we can pull through remains to be seen. It is too early to blame the captain and crew..wait and see how they pull us through as always… ….

Mr Tan,

I agree with you that we should not make personal attacks just because we dislike the suggestions that the minister made.

The crux of the matter as mentioned by some people earlier is that people in general are very disillusioned with the present lot of government ministers. They have lost respect for them and see them as arrogant and uncaring.

Ministers are often perceived to “talk down” to us. It’s often an “I know better than you” type of message that they try to put across. That probably upsets a lot of people and hence they get personal in their comments.

As for the personal attacks that I have read people write about you, I think you have been unfairly treated but salute you for continuing to stand up for what you believe in.

Dear fellow SinKaporean although I am a confirmed coward & quitter as I had pack up and left Paradise Island a while back to seek my fortune in England. I must say I had never miss Paradise Island even in my most difficult days in England. I started with nothing other then a few hundred dollar to get started and through hard work and preseverance I now lived very confortabily in Wentworth Estate. We can change our lives if we are prepared to take the risks and take the opportunities that present itself from time to time. God Bless.

We do not see HIM as a normal person, we see him as a MINISTER – the elite of all elite (since he is greatly paid)

We are not angry at HIM for making the comment, we are angry at a person of his status making such ludricrous comment.

I believe in your ~point of view~ “Respect other people’s views” BUT I also believe in NOT imposing your own view on others.

Willie Martin said “You have no right to impose your moral values on me!” – http://www.israelect.com/reference/WillieMartin/The%20Unfree%20%5BA%5D.htm

Anonymous: “He who tries to be moral is a true hypocrite, I am a sinner hence I will not stone you today”

As such, I hope everyone views are respected :)

Hurray PAP

And yes morality and ethics needs both the INTELLIGENCE to know what is right or wrong AND the HEART to truly feel what is wrong and what is right. As such I cannot tolarate those kepo ppl trying to look good in a pseudo-fairness system