Rajiv Chaudhry -
The two objectives, Singapore as a business and Singapore as a nation society appear to be on divergent paths.
With a general election due to be held in little over a year’s time (and possibly a lot earlier given the strong performance of the economy this year), it is not surprising that the government is finally taking notice of the rumblings which have been growing steadily louder among the people on a number of issues. Chief among these is the subject of the large numbers of foreigners that have been let into the country in the recent past. In his National Day Rally speech, Prime Minister (PM) Lee Hsien Loong devoted a considerable amount of time to this issue.
To many observers, however, the overall impression created by his speech was one of obfuscation, forced optimism and defensiveness at an issue that appears to be taking on a life of its own. In the words of the veteran journalist P N Balji in Today (31 August issue), the PM switched from explaining to empathising to (finally) pleading.
Dr James Gomez of Monash University in an interview with TOC (13 July) identified the foreign workers issue as likely to be the single most important issue in the coming elections.
The total population of Singapore has grown from 3 million in 1990 to 5 million in 2010, an increase of 2 million people (or 66%), the bulk of which has come from abroad. The government has acknowledged that the fertility rate amongst Singaporeans is languishing below 1.3 which, after accounting for deaths, is well below replacement rate. The PM, in his speech, said, “For this kind of productivity, Singaporeans are not working hard enough” – to laughter.
More seriously, let us look at elements of the PM’s speech, to see whether the government’s arguments are valid and sound.
The government’s entire thesis for letting in large numbers of workers rests on the oft repeated mantra that foreigners are needed to grow the economy and create jobs for Singaporeans.
The PM said that immigration “is an issue everywhere,” citing Australia, Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Japan and the US as examples. While it is true that in a world where workers are increasingly mobile, immigrants everywhere are facing a political backlash, to mention Singapore in the same breath as these countries is simply not comparing apples with apples.
The key point to bear in mind in any discussion on the subject of immigration into Singapore is the limitation of space in this country. Singapore is a country with a mere 710 sq km of land area with an outer limit of 800 sq km at most. It is the third most densely populated country in the world after Macau (China) and Monaco with a population density of over 7,000 people per sq km. Adding more people to this limited land area creates pressures quite unlike those at any of the larger countries mentioned by the PM.
The government’s central argument that more foreigners are needed to grow the economy continues to have a circular ring to it (create more jobs for whom?). For example, the PM said that the integrated resorts (IRs) have created more than 20,000 jobs. What he did not say and what Singaporeans would be interested to know is how many of these went to Singaporeans who have had roots in the country for over two decades and how many of these jobs went to recent immigrants.
While it is also true that the IRs will generate substantial tax revenues for Singapore, this needs to be balanced against the social cost of creating a pressure-cooker society with large numbers of low-wage and less educated immigrants in our midst.
In support of his case to allow foreigners into the country, the PM cited the example of the Malaysia born couple which designed the Pinnacle@Duxton. This is obfuscation. Is the PM using this example to suggest that all foreigners who have been allowed to settle in the country are as talented as this couple?
The PM also cited the examples of Keppel and SembCorp, mentioning that three-quarters of the 20,000 workers in these two companies are foreigners. I have suggested in a previous series of articles (here) that high-end manufacturing activities such as rig-building and oil refining where Singapore has a comparative advantage must be retained. In any case, most of these workers are migrant workers who, as the PM said, will not put long-term pressure on the country’s infrastructure.
What is putting (or has put in the past) a severe damper on wages and productivity is the easy availability of low-wage workers from abroad for non-critical manufacturing and service industries. In the 1970s labour-intensive industries were gradually phased out as the economy moved up the value scale; I suggest it is high time to restructure and re-orientate the economy once again to reduce our dependence on large numbers of low-skilled or low-wage foreign workers.
By continuing to allow businesses to freely employ such workers, the economy suffers twin disadvantages; first of not putting sufficient pressure on firms to innovate and raise productivity and more seriously, by placing a glass ceiling on the wages of the bottom 20% of Singaporean workers.
The government says there are some jobs Singaporeans will never do. I venture to suggest that if wages are high enough, Singaporeans will accept most jobs on offer.
The two objectives, Singapore as a business and Singapore as a nation society appear to be on divergent paths.
As a society evolves and moves up the development scale, it must carry all of its citizens with it. In this regard, the Scandinavian countries still remain the model for the rest of the world to follow. I believe it is still not too late and if Singapore changes course, it is possible, over a time-frame of, say, 30 years or so to raise the wages of the bottom of our society to developed country levels.
As far back as in 1994, Paul Krugman, Nobel Laureate and Professor of Economics at Princeton University, pointed out that the growth of the East Asian “miracle” economies could not continue without an increase in productivity. The Economics Restructuring Committee recognized this fact and made it a key recommendation to the government. Yet, progress on productivity will be limited so long as companies are fed a diet of cheap and easy labour.
In the meantime, social pressures on housing, transportation and other services continue to mount. Yet, last week, the Minister of National Development, Mr Mah Bow Tan said, “If the demand is there, in 2 years time, we are going to build a new Toa Payoh”. If we keep adding the equivalent of a Toa Payoh every two years, the mind boggles as to where the process will eventually lead.
My vision for Singapore is a country that is small, manageable, comfortable, caring of the under-privileged, green and yes, SM Goh, gracious. It is not necessary to be the biggest and the best in everything. Luxembourg does not aspire to host the Olympic Games, yet its citizens enjoy one of the highest per capita incomes in the world. It is not crowded.
We continue to parrot the formula that worked well in the first 25 years: “grow or perish” (it seems to have become hard-wired in the nation’s operating system.) I suggest it is now time to think “grow too much and risk social atrophy”. We need a radical re-formulation of our national aspirations and goals. Although we are far down the road, it is still not too late to change course, or else SM Goh’s vision of a gracious society will recede until it is a mere speck on the horizon.
P N Balji concluded his commentary by saying, “What Singapore needs is a game changer …. that will redefine the country for the next 45 years”. Do we have that spark of talent in this government to provide that game changing inspiration? Will the new Population and Talent Division under the charge of the Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng be equal to the task? (DPM Wong looked rather tired when I last saw him on television.)
Before concluding, let me quote something Robert Kennedy had to say on the subject of the Gross National Product way back in 1968. It continues to be just as relevant today:
“Too much and too long, we seem to have surrendered community excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things … Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.”
Let us learn to measure the worthwhile things in our life and manage our growth better by listening to the concerns of citizens who care about the quality of life in a country they and their parents built.
A well written and brilliant article which captures the mood of the people.
Is it heretical to consider a smaller economy and a lower standard of living?
Singapore is waiting for a leader who can articulate the ideal of a non materialistic society which does not require a large economy driven by casino driven capital and massive amounts of foreign talents or workers.
Whatever this PAP Govt says, we are now conditioned to take it with a pinch of salt.
We are still waiting for the Swiss standard of living, and now Goh Tok Tong says now we should look beyond materialistic goals and look towards more values like contentment, family values, etc. He, when our PM, bashed up Singaporeans who immigrated, when his very own daughter left and married an Englishman.
Whatever Govt leaders say hold no water now, so in one ear, and out the other.
depends on what you mean by lower standard of living.
If it is the ‘average’ you are talking about, I don’t see how it is heretical (except to the super rich). Now, the average, imo, is skewed by a super rich minority. i.e we have a low median SOL, but a high average.
the ‘ideal’ i think we are envision is to have a lower average SOL, but a higher median. In this case, more people are actually enjoying a higher SOL than previously. To them, this is NOT a lowering of SOL at all.
NDP rallies are nothing more than the PM telling a nice story to Singaporeans, hiding the truth from them.
A powerful conclusion. Nice.
A smaller economy need not equate to a lower standard of living. The opposite might be true.
Yes, a smaller economy with a reasonable and average standard of living is the ideal. I realise that “reasonable” and “average” are relative terms but they are necessary in order to restrain the rabid capitalism which has sent air pockets in our social fabric.
Those who support unbridled capitalism are normally part of an elite who live of the labor and sweat of the average person.
I am in agreement with Peter Sellers and Lobo76.
We must achieve equilibrium in all aspects of lives here to ensure quality of our environment, quality of living and quality of existence.
@Oso Bear6 September 2010
Is it heretical to consider a smaller economy and a lower standard of living?
Whether You Like It Or Not,
You will need a government from the People,
To be able to enact policies that reflect the sentiment of the People.
Until that day arrives, you will continue to see a disparity between what the government wants, and what the People wants.
Whether You Like It Or Not.
“What Singapore needs is a game changer …. that will redefine the country for the next 45 years”.
I represent game-changing technology that will do exactly that PM Lee.
Have posted a lot on your FB page and you know about the tech that I am …referring to and you know it addresses climate change concerns as well as cleans up the Petroleum Industry’s image as well as emissions from petrol. Not only that, you know that it would be a beneficial exchange between Singapore and the 2 biggest Economies in the world. You also know that OPEC thinks this technology is the goods and you know some consultants of theirs have told me so.
You would also know that your former PPS, who handled my correspondence to you is now the boss of the EMA.
You must also know that the EDB’s response is one of the main reasons I am persisting with promoting Singapore as the technology’s platform to ASEAN.
You also know that the likely results results of this technology is akin to an ongoing domestic monetary stimulus and very capable of providing Singapore the cleanest air in the world for ANY Urban centre. Doing so would make Singapore the first to do so: clean its air so thoroughly.
You also know that the Patent’s principles are more than willing to co-develop Patents with A*STAR for the Aviation Industry and further reduce emissions where they do significant damage in the upper atmosphere, thus further placing Singapore at the FOREFRONT of reducing emissions whilst sustaining and enhancing the economy in GDP terms as well as increasing quality of life for ALL Singaporeans.
How long more do I have to run around?
Malaysia is really looking the goods. They have a significantly larger presence internationally in regards to Auto manufacturing with Proton and F1.
Very well written article from a social point of view. Unfortunately, our current garhem only understands GDP.
The examples used during the NDR are so childish & borders on desperation to make something out of isolated cases. E.g. for the couple that designed the Pinnacle@Duxton. What does that proves – that FT are more talented? Look, why not cited the Indonesian ASEAN scholar that stabbed the NTU professor, and we also can say FTs are of unsound mind and tendency to cause harm. What’s more, we should ask how come with 1000′s of govt scholars, not one could do the Pinnacle@Duxton? Does that mean LHL needs 1,000,000′s scholars -OR- there is a mismanagement of our limited talented people to achieve critical results? (Aka garhem soaks the cream of our talents and let them sit on their butts doing nothing).
LHL also said: If we want higher growth, “we” need to bring in more foreigners. This shows:
1) Is it “we”, or rather “he”? Did we voted on the issue?
2) He has absolutely no idea on how to sustain the economy otherwise. Just cut and paste previous policies on a larger scale. Worth $3.10m salary, meh?
3) Is it impossible to grow, maybe a little less, using current labor levels? Isn’t that what productivity is about? 4) Can growth be alternatively be achieved by capital injection instead of injecting cheap labor? Are too much capital tied down or channelled into our SWFs, hence labor injection is used for the shortfall?
5) After the BS about why the need for YOG and hard-selling its “success” to us, are we being fed other BS? Isn’t the “freak floodin’ once in 50 years” also turned out to be BS?
6) If growth equals to intake of foreigners, then how come all the countries LHL citied do NOT take in as much foreigners (as % of overall population) as we do? Are they so stupid NOT to recognise this apparent silver bullet to jump-start their fledging economies? Or are “we” the stupid one instead?
PS. in particular, he should give the percentage of foreigners in USA, England, blah, blah, blah,… and ESPECIALLY Japan. Yes pls enlighten us!
This might not be totally relevant, but what really bothers me is that as a Singaporean, I find it embarrassing that there no local architects talented (or deem talented) enough to lead the iconic public housing project. What is going on in our PM’s mind when he prepared the speech?
@Marcus Chng
According to an industry insider, high-profile building projects are always awarded by URA to projects with “brand name” foreign architects. So developers who want to win with their proposals rarely give local architects a chance. (I have no idea how talented local architects are). But what’s new? The same thing is done with art talent in Singapore. Ministers and bean counters don’t know how to judge quality until foreigners attach the price tag; the higher the price, the better the talent must be, so in a nutshell, foreign architects/artists/sculptors must be better.
I hope TOC will use larger FONTS for the main article, so it’ll be easier to read the longer articles
And not the same font size as the comments
Wow… Wong Kan Seng to head that team… his talent is to let Mas Selamat run out and off to malaysia. The guy don’t even know he is a clown to Mas Selamat who at the causeway other side laughing there !!!
This dept “Population and Talent Division” will turn out to be just another laughing stock for the world to see too :D :D :D
I am sick of reading stuff like this.
I hope we can change the country’s fate so that we can read something else.
I just cannot believe that there are jokers who still think pap is doing good.
Hey, Old Guy, invest in a MacBook Pro. You can enlarge the fonts to any size you wish. Perfect for old hands!
We give out working visas to foreigners like credit cards. There are way too many white collared jobs in HR/Marketing/Sales that can be filled by Singaporeans yet they go to expatriates who command a much higher salary + other perks. For me, this is very unfair. At least if you’re bringing in ‘foreign talent’, be discerning.
I had just finished watching a Japanese drama titled “Change” by Takuya Kimura. It is about a primary school teacher who became the prime minister of Japan. If any country were to have a prime minister like him, then its people will be the most fortunate people in the whole world, however, this is just a drama, it can never happen in reality. Juz wanna share with everyone out there. Please enjoy the drama, especially the final episode. Hope that it will inspire everybody.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K5GShzOjtA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWTB8AF6kVU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj73hsVyUCg
the above link is to watch the final speech of the prime minister in “Change”.
please enjoy
it’s disheartening to think we need to live under this management forever
it’s disheartening to think we are still being brainwashed to believe what worked 45 years ago is still going to work when the world has changed
it’s disheartening to think people believe we need the PAP to survive
it’s disheartening to think we are not masters of our own country
it’s disheartening to think Singapore does not belong to Singaporeans
it’s disheartening to think one day, I’ll be a stranger in my own home, discarded and disregarded by the very government I put in place to look after me
“If the demand is there, in 2 years time, we are going to build a new Toa Payoh”.
how about the infrastructure to connect & move the whole population of a new Toa Payoh to & from the other Toa Payohs (estates), if the new demand is from upward increase in the new population. if this goes on, ain’t we creating the circular problems ad infinitum that will never ever get solved.
With regards to architects who works in the civil service i.e. HDB, URA etc you can rest assured that they are cosy in their ivory towers, wherever they are, just shouting instructions down to the poor entrepreneur to comply with this and that regulation or else their projects or enterprise will not get to see light of day. Their minds are numbed through years of inactivity since they hold the final say on most things. These architects are rotting so you don’t expect them to come out with any stunning design like Pinnacle @ Duxton. I deal with them very often in the course of my work, and you can take it from me that they are just “flotsam” floating on the water. with not one iota of brilliance in them. Theirs is a sad story indeed.
when you join civil service, you already wanted easy life. if you are scholar, lagi best, just top down, no questions asked.
yes when they deal with you, all they ask is you to be cheap and stunning, they dont have to do much and very highly paid. this is singapore model of leadership at GLCs and CS.
if you private sector, no choice… either you do or you be out of business.
Well written article. One that resonates with many of us who appreciate logical and cogent arguments which the detractors would find difficult to put down.
I couldn’t help but notice the defensiveness and almost pathetic pleading by the Prime Minister to Singaporeans to bear with the problems. Unfortunately I believe it is a little too late and too little to convince us of solutions. Whatever is being done is only window dressing (eg 80,000 foreign imports instead of 100,000), patching up (eg purchase of more trains to ease congestions at MRT stations), and offer of pacifiers (eg building more HDB flats and tweaking of property purchase rules).
As someone had mentioned earlier, the PM attempted to address the symptoms but not the root causes of people’s unhappiness. Even then it was a poor attempt at peddling snake oil.
The objective to achieve business success above everything else is destroying the soul of the nation and at odds with the “gracious” vision of GCT.
I do not have hope of meaningful and worthwhile change as long as the PAP rules this country.
It is up to you. If you still vote for PAP, then don’t complain be be ready to be screwed again after elections
bent 6 September 2010
when you join civil service, you already wanted easy life. if you are scholar, lagi best, just top down, no questions asked.
…………….
and the abovementions no needs to pay coe/erps/maid levies? let alone ever increased gst..
last BUTT not least..they are no longer classified as ironbowel earners..they too can be replaced..unless their surname is LEE lark…
opps before i least forget…
……….
when you join civil service, you already wanted easy life. if you are scholar, lagi best, just top down, no questions asked
………….
do you ALL agreed their cpf$ withdrawals got special priviledges? you know liked earLEE FULL withdrawals/no instatements monthLEE peanuts payment after 62 perhaps?..and their hdb 5 rooms mortgages got discounts mey? they also kannaed the NEW hdb rulins same liked us
if you hav an OVERSEAs properties you also cannot qualified for hdb subsidies
with EFFECT from aug2010
When I was in Australia recently I talked with a WHITE Australian who is a “Aweeper” His job is to clean the public place at the Ferry Terminals….
His pay?
MORE than Australian $20 per hour.with the usual benefits.
But in Singapore Local Singaporeans do not want to be Sweepers because they will be paid S$6.00 per hour with almost zero benefits.
Now I am telling the PM why is it an Australian Citizen will work as a Sweeper whilst Singapore Citizens “refuses” to work as a Sweeper.
There are literally tens of thousands of Singaporeans who are very willing to work menial NOBS provided they are paid a FAIR and DECENT wage…..There is really NO NEED to employ the hundreds of thousands of Foreign Economic Refugees to make life difficult of the lower educated citizens of Singapore.
Shame on the PM Shame on the PAP
@Bobby…………Precisely. My casual job is as one of these ‘Aweepers’. That is my pay. I love my job. On weekends I now get paid A$25 an hour. I have worked in it for 18 yrs and the experience I have gleened from it is invaluable in filling my cup of innovation in other avenues.
@Baby Boomer
“The objective to achieve business success above everything else is destroying the soul of the nation and at odds with the “gracious” vision of GCT. ”
Concise Brilliance :)
Bobby…………$20 per hour during the week. $25 on weekends, $33 on public holidays.
Was a ‘smaller economy’ being advocated, or was a ‘more productive economy’ being promoted ?
The present policy of the government by the Pro Alien Party is that of ‘being big and Number ONE’ in everything and anything that is good for our economy should be pursued irregardless of our limitations in resources, labor or talent.
Clearly, a lower standard of living was not included as a desired consequence with a more realistic review of the economic efforts.
The call for a new game plan will have to begin with a change in the POLITICAL MIND that insist on believing that it alone has the talent to set the national agenda, and that democratic practices are time consuming and irrelevant.
It seems the govt has run out of ideas what to do or say next. It seems everything they do or say now runs into problems.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010Lee Kuan Yew at 87, the fire still burns
Kuan Yew celebrates his birthday on Sept 16
By Ahmad Mustapha
Singapore’s Minister Mentor, Lee Kuan Yew, who was Singapore ‘s founding father, has always been very direct in his comments. This was the man who outsmarted the communists in Singapore (with the innocent help of Malaya then and the willing help of the British) and who later outwitted the British and outpaced Malaysia in all spheres.
Singapore practices corrupt-free meritocracy and Malaysia affirmative action. The former attracted all the best brains and the latter chased out all the brains. The Singapore cabinet consists of dedicated and intelligent technocrats whereas Malaysia has one of the most unwieldy cabinets. Not only that, brain wise it was below par not even good for the kampong.
With that kind of composition, one that is very brainy, naturally Singapore , with no natural resources could outstrip Malaysia in every aspect of development. Malaysia, on the other hand, was too much preoccupied with its Malayness and the illusory ‘Ketuanan Melayu’ and was also more interested in useless mega iconic development rather than real social and economic development.
Whenever Kuan Yew utters anything that deemed to be a slight on Malaysia, voices were raised admonishing him. Malaysia would never dare to face reality. That Singapore had shown that it could survive was a slap on those who believed that Singapore would fold up once it left Malaysia. Therefore it was natural that these doomsayers would try to rationalise their utterances to be in their favour to combat on whatever Kuan Yew commented. Its political jealousy.
Singapore achieved its development status without any fanfare. But here in Malaysia, a development that was deceptive was proclaimed as having achieved development status. It was trumpeted as an achievement that befits first world status. This was self delusion. Malaysians are led to believe into a make believe world, a dream world. The leaders who themselves tend to believe in their own fabricated world did not realise the people were not taken in by this kind of illusion.
Lee Kuan Yew believed in calling a spade a spade. I was there in Singapore when the People’s Action Party won the elections in 1959. He was forthright in his briefing to party members as to what was expected of them and what Singapore would face in the future. Ideologically, I did not agree with him. We in the University of Malaya Socialist Club had a different interpretation of socialist reconstruction. But he was a pragmatist and wanted to bring development and welfare to the Singaporeans. Well! He succeeded.
Malaysia was so much embroiled in racial politics and due to the fear of losing political power, all actions taken by the main party in power was never targeted towards bringing wealth to all. Wealth was distributed to the chosen few only. They were the cronies and the backers of the party leadership to perpetuate their own selfish ends.
Seeing the efficiency and the progress achieved by Singapore caused the Malaysian leadership to suffer from an inferiority complex. That Malaysia should suffer from this complex was of its own making.
In a recent interview, Kuan Yew said that Malaysia could have done better if only it treated its minority Chinese and Indian population fairly. Instead they were completely marginalised and many of the best brains left the country in drove. He added that Singapore was a standing indictment to what Malaysia could have done differently. He just hit the nail right there on the head.
Malaysia recently celebrated its 50th year of independence with a bagful of uncertainties. The racial divide has become more acute. The number of Malay graduates unemployed is on the increase. And this aspect can be very explosive. But sad to see that no positive actions have been taken to address these social ills.
Various excuses were given by Malaysian leaders why Singapore had far outstripped Malaysia in all aspects of social and economic advancement. Singapore was small, they rationalised and therefore easy to manage. Singapore was not a state but merely an island.
There was one other aspect that Malaysia practises and that is to politicise all aspects of life. All government organs and machinery were ‘UMNO-ised’. This was to ensure that the party will remain in power. Thus there was this misconception by the instruments of government as to what national interest is and what UMNO vested interest is.
UMNO vested interest only benefited a few and not the whole nation. But due to the UMNO-isation of the various instruments of government, the country under the present administration had equated UMNO vested interest as being that of national interest. Thus development became an avenue of making money and not for the benefit of the people. The fight against corruption took a back seat. Transparency was put on hold. And the instruments of government took it to be of national interest to cater to the vested interest of UMNO. Enforcement of various enactments and laws was selective. Thus a ‘palace’ in Kelang, APs cronies and close-one-eye umno MPs could exist without proper procedure. Corruption infested all govt departments, the worse is the police and lately even in the judiciary.
Singapore did not politicise its instruments of government. If ever politicisation took place, it is guided by national interest. To be efficient and to be the best in the region was of paramount importance. Thus all the elements like corruption, lackadaisical attitude towards work and other black elements, which would retard such an aim, were eliminated. Singapore naturally had placed the right priority in it’s pursuit to achieve what is best for its people. This is the major difference between these two independent countries.
Malaysia in its various attempts to cover up its failures embarked on several diversions. It wanted its citizens to be proud that the country had the tallest twin-tower in the world, although the structure was designed and built by foreigners. Its now a white-elephant wasting away. It achieved in sending a man into space at an exorbitant price. For what purpose? These are what the Malays of old would say “menang sorak” (hollow victories).
It should be realised that administering a country can be likened to managing a corporate entity. If the management is efficient and dedicated and know what they are doing, the company will prosper. The reverse will be if the management is poor and bad. The company will go bust.
There are five countries around this region. There is Malaysia, and then Indonesia. To the east there is the Philippines and then there is that small enclave called the Sultanate of Brunei. All these four countries have abundance of natural resources but none can lay claim to have used all these resources to benefit the people. Poverty was rampant and independence had not brought in any significant benefits to the people.
But tiny Singapore without any resources at all managed to bring development to its citizens. It had one of the best public MRT transport systems and airlines in the world and it is a very clean city state. Their universities, health care, ports are among the best in the world.
It is impossible to compare what Singapore has achieved to what all these four countries had so far achieved. It was actually poor management and corruption, and nothing more. Everything is done for the vested interest of the few.
Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines and the Sultanate of Brunei need good management teams. They would not be able to do this on their own steam. I would advise that they call on Kuan Yew to show them what good governance is. Why look East to Japan when it is just next door across the causeway.
(The writer is a nephew of Malaysia’s Mahathir Mohamad. The article is published the way we received it by email from another source. It first appeared under the title Lee Kuan Yew at 84, the fire still burns on the Internet last year, but the message is still as powerful this year. And maybe that is why the story is being re-circulated now as the grand old man of Singapore chalks up another year. Btw, LKY was born on Sept 16, 1923. Many happy returns and good health to him! – Malaysia Chronicle)
I am grateful for PAP and what the party has done for the progress of Singapore. I am seriously sick of whiners like some of you who just bitch about our government all the time. I really hope you piss off to some other place and leave the majority of us grateful Singaporeans alone.
I can’t wait for the next election where I will vote PAP.
pm lee is zee best pm singapore ever has.
he is not only a scholar,he is also a general.
so,he can think and strtegise like no pm had before.
we must put all our trust in pm lee hl.
yes S’pore need another “few more” auspicious mega projects to seal all the good luck in. in this highly competitive world, the Suntec’s Fountain of Wealth & The Flyer isn’t enough. S’pore needs all the good lucky money can buy!
to create wealth, we need to spend. so spending on good luck charm is the best investment. but one can never hold the fortune teller accountable?
some people trust any Tom, Dig or Heli blindly cos the art of Fengshui has got a long track record…
We sure as heck, need a miracle alright..one that sees the PAP booted out for good.
Yup, in the land of idiots (the cabinet) LHL is “zee best pm singapore ever has”.
@Marcus Chng
The leading “local architects” you referred to were judges for the competition. It was an international competition with selection process based on merits of the design proposal. It so happen that the winner is a Malaysian couple. It could have been anyone really.
KHJK says:
I really hope you piss off to some other place and leave the majority of us grateful Singaporeans alone.
I can’t wait for the next election where I will vote PAP.
Erm.. at the rate of 36% foreigners amongst us now who can’t vote, i seriously doubt there will be many ‘grateful Singaporeans’ like you left to vote in the PAP in the future… even if they wanted to.
At the rate GRCs are being formed to perpetuate UMNO like dominance in the Sg political landscape, kiss your chance to vote good-bye.. it’ll be a walkover….
Why do we need GDP growth if it isn’t commensurate with the quality of Singaporeans’ living? An epidemic can increase our GDP via increased consumption of health care. Prostitution can always do wonders for our state coffers. Surely the “philosopher kings” in our government should be capable of looking beyond the facile concept of the GDP?
KHKJ,
Are you nuts?