Category: Rants

Random Discourse – Budget 2012

Leave a comment

The main aim of this year’s budget appears to be tightening the flow on foreign workers with the objective of increasing productivity and ultimately wages for the average Singaporean. However, I am not quite sure hiow a blanket increase in foreign workers’ levy across all sectors the best way of doing so.

Is it difficult for the Ministry of Manpower to get from its database the number of foreign workers in Singapore right now, and get a detailed breakdown by company and position? Would it not be easier to tell from that which sectors in specific requires the ‘Singaporean First’ rule to be enforced and thus boost productivity to achieve whatever objectives the government has in mind? After all, there will be some sectors in Singapore which requires more foreigners. My understanding is that there is clearly a shortage in nurses in Singapore and the government is also looking at increasing the number of hospitals at the same time. Wouldn’t this levy means that cost of medical care will go up across the board for all of us?

It almost gives me the impression that the government isn’t doing this because that is too much work and is just lazy and taking the easy way out. It further reinforces my impression that the current government is hardly any more insightful or far-sighted than any of our opposition parties. In fact, they are so dull in their usual quick fix solutions that one fix leads to another problem – much like raising the ground level at the Orchard-Patterson Junction results in the flood waters back flowing along Orchard Road and Tanglin Road into Tanglin Mall and St Regis.

If this government isn’t just plan lazy, this seems like a kind of ‘I told you so’ response to “teach Singaporeans a lesson” and the make them “repent” for their negative reaction to the influx of foreigners. However, while it is true that Singaporeans are clearly unhappy about the stress on Singapore’s infrastructure (especially the increase in property prices and the packed public transport) as a result, few objects to ensuring the continual growth of our economy. Most of us are in fact asking for fine tuning of the foreign worker policies to ensure that not all companies take the easy way out by employing foreigners even when Singaporeans are willing and more qualified to take up the jobs. In short, most of us just want to ensure that Singaporeans are not discriminated against simple because they are older or allegedly more expensive. There is of course also the question of the competency of some foreigners, where the quality of their work hardly matches the qualifications they boasted but that’s another matter entirely.

The government is doing very little to address the other parts of the cost of doing business in Singapore – rental. The reason why employers will always consider taking it out on the employees by cutting their wages (or replacing them with cheaper ones) and not try and fight for cheaper rent is simply because the employee alone is the most feeble / vulnerable, especially when the union is a sham and the greatest landlord is the government itself.

Even private landlords are far less feeble than the individual worker. I recalled the debate on minimum wages in Hong Kong on Al Jazeera, and the guy representing the Confederation of Trade Unions was telling the representative of the HK Restaurants & Related Trades Federation that “we should together, hand in hand, complain about the high rent… it is the high rent that’s hurting industry, not worker’s pay!” (Watch the embedded video from 10:15 onwards.) Imagine this, in Hong Kong where the union is not as weak and feeble and the representative is ignored, how much more worse is it in Singapore when the union is toothless (and its leaders are also from the ruling party) and the government itself is the greatest landlord?

But please do not be mistaken, I am not endorsing minimum wages here. I am just using this part of the video to emphasize my point. Anyway, let me repeat that I do not find it amusing nor endearing to turn on employers by raising the levy across the board because it will certain have an impact on foreign direct investments in Singapore. Meantime, I wondered if a certain Member of Parliament has thought over whatever he wants to say before he say it. I quote:

” Businesses should look at the positive side of the new regulations on foreign workers. They are complaining that they cannot fulfil orders because they don’t have enough workers. This is a happy problem. Which would you prefer – too many orders, or no orders at all? ” – Gan Thiam Poh

Every time Mr Gan says something, it irks the hell out of me. That’s probably because he has a sense of humor that I cannot appreciate. In fact, some of my friends failed to appreciate it as well and one of them actually asked: ” Losing just one GRC in GE2011 should be a happy problem too. Which do you prefer, losing more parliament seats, or having no seats at all? “

Jokes aside, here’s something for Mr Gan to chew on. A friend of mine runs a small accountancy firm. She has found it increasingly difficult to get new employees. Granted, while I am not aware whether my fellow Singaporeans who are accountants may actually applaud the measures to increase the levy, my friend mentioned to me that she has since set up a new office in Johor Bahru for two reasons. Firstly, to avoid having to pay for levy for foreign workers and secondly, to cut her operating overheads in rental substantially. Please note that this is a local SME turning tail due to the current measures, and many more may either consider this option or already have done so. Makes me wonder if the Singapore government is covertly helping to promote Iskandar Malaysia…

Random Discourse – Leave. My. Country. Now.

One comment

On 18 Feb 2012, an ingrate by the name of Sun Xu (孙旭) said this:

“It’s so annoying to have gangster Singapore uncles stare at you when you bump into them. There are more dogs than humans here in Singapore.”

Clearly, none of China’s 5000 years of history and culture has rubbed off this scumbag. I often thought the the right thing to do is to say sorry when I bumped into someone (whether or not the other person is at fault). Just what did Sun Xu expect? That someone would kowtow and be thankful he was bumped into by a high and mighty Singapore government scholar? Perhaps that happens in some corrupted armpits of China where Hu Jintao or Wen Jiabao didn’t even know existed but it just simply doesn’t happen here, Mr Sun.

I am amazed that he takes offense with that. He should be glad that we Singaporeans, being a civilised lot, are usually mild and not confrontational. I shudder to consider the fate of a Singaporean doing the same in China. In fact, I recalled an incident many years ago in a chatroom in Asia Friend Finder: A poor sod typed something disrespectful of mainland Chinese and within minutes the Singapore chatroom was filled with mainlanders “shouting him down”. Sun Xu should be glad we Singaporeans are above such barbarism. Then again, had he offended that murderous teenage gang in Downtown East, he would not have written his piece of crap and we might actually feel sorry for him instead.

This is not the first time foreign students belittle our country and our people. A few months back some clown by the name of Wang Pengfei made slurs not only about the way we speak but also against a minority group. I did not follow this matter closely but I know he was expelled from his school and an opposition member made a police report. The coward subsequently fled with his tails between his legs to the land of his birth. I was a little sad that he didn’t get hauled up by the police to face the music before that happened. His parents should be given a ‘Eric Cantona Kungfu Kick’ for not teaching him proper manners. No guest should insult his hosts while enjoying their hospitality!

That is not all. If I recalled correctly, there is also this particular case which appears to have gone unpunished. A Liu Peiyu Parry – apparently also from NUS – said (see below):

Translation: Our national (i.e. PRC) soccer team teaches us a fact which can be used in our final (exams). That is not to give up hope because there will always be Singaporeans at the bottom to cushion us.

The above remark subsequently end up on STOMP. I am not aware that NUS took any action against this guy for hurting the feelings of his classmates. Considering that ‘Parrysite’ Liu isn’t a local, I am somewhat convinced that NUS has secretly implemented a reverse quota where our more talented youths are deprived of a place in our local universities so a foreigner can have a go at it.

Anyway, it is of no wonder why these foreigners just get bolder. The Singapore government has been telling the whole world that we Singaporeans are less capable and even gone so far to say that we can’t make it without foreigners. Is it a surprise why any mother’s son from any other part of the world would look down on us? That’s not forgetting foreigners could beat some of us up so bad that they end up in hospital while the police took an entire year to investigate the case and press charges. On top of which, the culprits managed to jump bail and escape out of country. Even so, nothing is sadder than getting stabbed in the back by traitors when some of us want to hold our heads high. In one particular case, one of these traitors wrote a comment like this on Facebook (and I paraphrase): “To get angry over such little things shows that the person is mentally and spiritually weak.”

Wow, I can surely feel his mental and spiritual strength erupting along with those words. Personally, I can respect the restraint when someone chooses not to take offense over the comments of the likes of Sun, Wang and Liu, but I will not disrespect those who instead choose to react (like Tay Ping Hui). Some might want to justify all these as separate, isolated incidents but let’s not forget that in reality, we often hear a lot more outrageous comments in private conversations between friends or relatives. The point I am trying to make here is that these cases are just the tip of the iceberg and some of their slurs which never made it online are definitely much worse. I shudder to imagine just how low in regard our country and people is held by these foreign students. I certainly ain’t alone in that thought because more than half a year back, fellow blogger Darryl Kang has already pointed this out.

It took more than 3 days before NUS responded and haul this fellow up for discipline. Only after that did the ingrate Sun Xu apologised (see above). If not for that he would have thought the matter is over simply by deleting his comment. Some would say late is better than never but I don’t want his stinking apology. I want this fellow to leave my country, now!!! But he should only be allowed to leave after he return every cent of scholarship given by Singapore, with a 3.5% p.a. interest calculated daily and an extra 1% on the first $10,000. That money would have earn that kind of interest in the special account of someone’s CPF. It offends me that my country is paying for his scholarship which I felt would have better served Singapore if given to a Singaporean youth instead. I will not settle for him working in my country to pay it off because every other second he stay in my country is wasting our resources and also fouling up the very air I breathe. Why should we waste an employment opportunity on him? I expect him to pay in cold, hard cash.

Before I end, I must say I cannot identify with the comments made by Member of Parliament Mr Baey Yam Keng, who said that “we need to reflect upon ourselves, are we the way they described.”

I admire Mr Baey’s ability to turn his other cheek. But when I am called a dog in my own country by a free riding foreign parasite, I will not in return call this person who makes the offensive remark a gentleman and ‘reflect upon myself’. Had someone else said this, I would have thought he is suggesting we should be more assertive (if not aggressive) in telling off those inconsiderate people like Sun Xu who can’t seem to avoid bumping into others, or some of his fellow countrymen who seems to have no concept of personal space in crowded places.

Mr Baey should be glad that we rational Singaporeans had not gone so far to write songs (or make videos) to insult / protest against the ugliness of foreigners just like what the Hong Kongers did.

Photos – Air Show 2012

Leave a comment

Went to Air Show 2012 on the last day. The main purpose of me going was simply to see the B-52 Stratofortress flying display, even though I knew it would be merely 2 minutes. Unfortunately for me, it was a no show. It was very disappointing for both my friend and I.

Being the last day, even some of the static display (such as Jacky Chan’s private jet and the 787 Dreamliner) have already left. To make things worse, there are those who seem to have no awareness of the people around them. I noticed a few (who are apparently not locals) taking their time to pose before the F-35, and just when I expect them to move off after they are done, turned around and just gawk at the plane. I have no idea why they did that, though it reminds me of their fellow citizens doing the same at our public swimming pools and even the Sentosa beaches. Quit telling me we should be grateful to these jokers because they are the ones “building Singapore”. There is only this much to my gratitude, and that’s not mentioning they could be working elsewhere and much worse off. In Dubai, for e.g.

Anyway, there weren’t very much to see in the exhibition hall either, since a lot of companies have already closed their booths. We simply mill along with the crowd to enjoy the air-conditioning after a long period in the open. I am not surprised with that because a lot of general public wouldn’t really be interested in the details of defense technology anyway. Defense technology and defense contractors – such nice names for death dealers who are providing the means to kill people better and more efficiently.

Anyway, here are some photos I caught at the air show with my camera. I did a terrible job capturing those planes in the flyby but at least I got some of them and they didn’t turn out as bad as I imagined.

Random Discourse – The Yaw Shin Leong “Affair”

One comment

Finally, the suspense is over. The Workers’s Party [WP] has expelled Yaw Shin Leong from the party. A by-election in Hougang will most likely be announced once the budget debate is over.

I clearly cannot imagine how much more damage there would be to the party’s image and prestige had the matter dragged on. A number of friends I talked to were originally rather disappointed with the WP for not coming clean on this matter. Some have even lost faith in the WP as a political alternative. All that about a ‘First World Parliament’ would be empty talk if the WP intend to kept mum about the matter and hope that the electorate would forget about it in 2016. While those were in the opinion that the WP would need time to investigate the matter or allow Mr Yaw to explain himself, the complete silence on the matter prior to the high profile expulsion was rather disappointing and disheartening. Hopefully the WP can learn from this lesson and handle negative matters better in the future.

It was clear from Mr Low’s strong reaction (when he was told what the Prime Minister had said) that he did not want to let down the people of Hougang. I respect him and the WP in making this most painful decision. Hougang has been in the care of the WP for 2 decades and the WP has decided to stand before the people and asked them to be the judge. There is nothing more transparent and democratic than that. I applaud the WP for its courage in doing the right thing – excise the tumor before it becomes a cancer. It is my opinion that courage is apparently something that the People’s Action Party [PAP] lacks. Otherwise we wouldn’t have to wait until last May for some ministers to step down, when they clearly should have been removed from their posts way before.

Now, on the matter of Yaw Shin Leong’s alleged affair. From what I know this originated from nothing more than an article from a garbage site (one which I shall not offer more publicity by naming) which has a history of being anti-WP. I am surprised that the main stream media [MSM] picked up such rumors and actually published it. For a very brief moment, I actually thought they have finally obtain some proof but it was sadly short on details. While it is most unlikely that the MSM would be able to get anything more out of that garbage site, the MSM kept up the pressure on Mr Yaw and WP relentlessly, especially on the evening Chinese tabloids which my parents read daily. Meanwhile, this very same media had reported that PAP MP Foo Mee Har has publicly called certain attacks on her to be false and baseless. But what attacks is she talking about? The same media which pressed Mr Yaw to address those allegations with dogged determination leaves many of us with our heads in the fog regarding Ms Foo. Such double standards… so much for professionalism!

As to whether Mr Yaw’s private life has anything to do with his ability to serve, I find it hypocritical that many would come to the defense of celebrities who misbehaved but hold politicians to a different standard. For e.g. Few would give a damn if Britney Spears drove with her baby on her lap without a seat belt, or that Amy Winehouse died because drug overdose. When people claim that political leaders are role models, let’s be frank with ourselves and ask who has a greater impact in the daily life of teenagers. Clearly, more would be listening to the songs of their idols instead of a speech from our uninspiring political leaders.

So, I personally don’t really care about Mr Yaw’s private life since as far as politics is concerned I would value capabilities above morality. After all, I am in the opinion that the standard of ‘whiter than white’ is one that is incepted into the our collective social psyche by the PAP to the point that we Singaporeans come to believe that this has always been something we wanted. As far as I can remember, that seem to be something more often used by the ruling party to justify itself. While it is a standard we aspire for our politicians and civil servants, Yaw isn’t the only one who has failed in that aspect recently. Yet, I also have to agree with those who believed otherwise that having an affair is simply the betrayal of one’s spouse – the very person one has taken a vow to love, protect and respect forever for the rest of his / her life. It is the worst betrayal one can commit to a loved one. Many would find it it difficult to trust such a person, much less believe that he would be able to serve them faithfully and truthfully.

That brings me to the end of my post. Allegedly, Mr Yaw and his wife and the lady he has an affair with, all seek counseling on the matter from their church leaders. Assuming that this is true, it means the “information leak” is from the church. I am clearly under the impression that church counselors are expected to keep such matters confidential because their members seek help from them in good faith. While there is Biblical basis to expose and discipline an unrepentant member, it does not include revealing it anyone and everyone outside the church. While the garbage site had actually accused the church of helping to cover this matter up, it is common sense that this attempt has failed. Someone who is personally involved in counseling or close to the counselors has bragged it out. I could not think of any other plausible leak if not from within the church itself. If it was a careless slip of tongue by someone close to the counselors (or even the counselors themselves) and done without malice, then it is a simple matter. It would however be more ominous if someone has deliberately exposed Mr Yaw because of their political differences in spite of their faith in God.

Anyway, this matter has finally come to an end. I wish the WP good luck and hope that it retains its seat in Hougang. I forgot to mention… for those who wants to ride on the WP’s misery as a short cut into Parliament, I hope you lose your deposits if this turns into a multi-corner fight.

Random Discourse – The “Pay” Debate

Leave a comment


WP’s proposal vs Committee

In spite of the hostility of the People’s Action Party’s [PAP] backbenchers towards the Workers’ Party [WP] Members of Parliament [MP], I had not really bothered with the debate on ministerial salaries and the comments made by the ministers or MPs on the matter. Even when Grace Fu was flamed on my Twitter / Facebook feeds had solicited very little response from me. As far as I am concerned, it was a foregone conclusion that the motion to accept the recommendations of the Ministerial Salary Review Committee would pass in Parliament. As I have mentioned in my previous post, even if the cuts are substantial it would only be a cosmetic change. What clearly needs to change is the way the ruling party govern our country. It should be aware that we are people and more than just statistics and its performance in the past few years has been anything but stellar.

I am quite sure those would have expected a “good show” from the WP would be utterly disappointed. Chen Show Mao has done well but other than differing in the principles which determined the figures behind the pay, the figures proposed by the WP are not very different from those of the committee (see chart on right). Regardless of which proposal, our political leaders will still be the most well paid in the world. I have no doubt the rabidly anti-PAP voters would be howling for blood over this perceived “betrayal” and the PAP will be fanning that fire by accusing the WP of flip-flopping and manipulating voters sentiments on the issue in the recent elections. Still, there will be hell of a political debt for the WP to pay, as it seems to have abandoned part of its manifesto.

Having said that, I would still have accepted the WP’s proposal anytime. The reason is that I am convinced that the WP’s method would have been more equitable in the long run and not because I oppose the PAP blindly. Even though the WP did not know how the salary levels of MX9 is derived, I still feel that the WP has intelligently presented the figures in a way that would find more acceptance from a new generation of thinking voters. The PAP may have scored some political points against the WP but it continue to argue on the point of paying for talents and the sacrifices a person has to make to serve our nation will only further stoke public anger against what is already considered an exorbitant pay. Whether it is a ‘clean wage’ with no hidden perks does not change the fact that a large part of the electorate (even when they may not be the majority) is already sick of these arguments – especially the ‘talent argument’ which smacks of elitism. This group has already rejected these perceivably elitist and hypocritical arguments since the last political pay debate in 2007 and the results of the 2011 General Elections is nothing more than a formality.

First of all, there is no doubt that the ministers are high achievers before they join politics. But as some netizens pointed out, no one in his sane mind would have paid even 50% of Lionel Messi’s pay to have Sebastian Vettel play soccer even when the latter has been a talented Formula 1 driver. Simply put, it would be hard to convince us that the ministers’ previous talents or skill sets is of any relevance to some of the positions the ministers are holding. For e.g., what does a surgeon know about defense or a central banker know about education? It doesn’t matter whether the minister has a double first class honors in economics from Cambridge or that he has been a President Scholar!

However, a friend of mine pointed out that having only people who has the relevant experience in charge of the ministry may become a problem in itself because he / she might not be able to see a perspective beyond their field. Good point, since it is really not necessary for a soldier to be the Defense Minister because a minister would have a pool of civil servants in the respective ministry serving under and advising him – provided that these people would not just defer to the minister, but would argue for their points intelligently and passionately. I would hope for the latter even though my gut feel is that it would be more difficult for civil servants to do so when the head of their respective ministry has been portrayed as some intellectual superman. In time, fewer and fewer would do so as a result – either due to staff attrition or for fear of offending their boss. Then there’s the matter of complacent underlings where the minister might not have noticed, and the escape of Mas Selamat from the ISD’s detention center would be a fine example.

But more ominously and alarming would be whatever happened at SMRT. Even though it is not a government ministry or department, it may already have happened within the government when one consider the performance of ex-ministers like Raymond Lim and Mah Bow Tan. It is not hard to imagine why many reject the “elitist pay for talents argument”. The utter chaos as a result of the multiple recent breakdowns of the MRT system and the fact that Singaporeans have to take up ever larger loans over longer periods for public housing with diminishing floor areas would have given the impression that they have respectively run our public housing and transportation policies into the ground (much like how Saw Phiak Hwa has run the SMRT which Singaporeans were once proud of). Top that with never ending faux pas of the ministers in past two years – from Chan Chun Sing’s ‘chye tow kway’ comparison, Vivian Balakrishnan’s ‘How much do you want?’ question and Yaacoob Ibrahim’s “once in 50 years freak floods” to Grace Fu’s “misunderstood” comments. These bungling ministers have completely shattered their aura of invincibility in the eyes of the people.

As for sacrifice, none of the purported talents that the PAP boasts of have managed to put a proper picture of it to the electorate until Tan Chuan Jin came along. Let me quote the Minister of State:

“I am pained by the knowledge that I will miss the many moments when my children are growing up and time with family. My parents are not getting any younger. Those moments missed do not return. Ever. In time, I will look back, and there will be gaps. But that’s life.

I’m not sure how one considers it a privilege to miss these precious moments. It trivializes all of us who do cherish these.”

Some would have argued that this would be the same kind of burden that anyone would bear in the position of a CEO or whatever earning an equivalent pay. True, and it would be a good reply had Tan Chuan Jin used that to justify his pay. But that’s not my point.

Let me explain further. It is my considered opinion that sacrifice means giving up something dear to keep another thing which is dearer. For e.g. the mountain climber who cut off the arm trapped under a boulder to save his own life, or a pregnant woman pleading with a doctor to save her baby during delivery even if that means she dies. As far as I am concerned, Tan Chuan Jin has set things back into the right perspective. In the context of his speech, he has shown us what he has given to serve the nation and no amount of money could quantify that sacrifice. It was clearly way superior than that failed attempt at layman terminology by Chan Chun Sing.

Other than Tan Chuan Jin, the rest of the PAP failed to realise just how entirely hypocritical they sounded, and how they have turned the entire argument on its head. They failed to understand the first impression the people have gotten would be: “How on earth do you justify giving up a better paid job previously for one that still pays handsomely as a “sacrifice” considering the prestige and honor that also comes with that service?!” I do not need explain why the people would be angry when they are called to bite the bullet.

The perceived elitism and hypocrisy in the PAP’s argument is further reinforced by when some PAP backbenchers say things which is further perceived as a clear insult to our collective intelligence. For e.g. Gan Thaim Poh, MP of Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC claimed that using the number of Singaporeans (3.5 million) as a baseline, the PM’s pay of 3.5 million before the review is equal to $1 per Singaporean per year. He further mentioned that it is only out of generosity that the PM took a pay cut and take only $2.2-million.

It might simply have been a ill-thought attempt at humor by an MP from a party where humor has traditionally been ill-received. Netizens are quick to ridicule him over the absurdity of his arguments. Most of it surrounds the fact that many other countries – in specific China and India – have bigger populations than Singapore and by that argument, the leaders of those countries would be laughing all the way to the bank. I have joined in the fun with my own picture. Mr Gan should realise that the Internet is rather unforgiving. It also have very long memories and his idiotic argument will go down into eternity along with those of Lim Wee Kiat and Choo Wee Khiang. My suggestion to both Mr Gan and Dr Lim, would be to gag themselves with a sanitary pad to prevent further idiotic utterances.

Addendum: In my haste to get this post done I failed to mentioned the fact that the MX9 salary grade is only top 5% of Singapore’s working population. Some might wonder how I could justify using that as a basis would be more equitable system. Let me point out the WP intend to propose a whole-of-government, people-up approach that benchmarks ministerial salary to MP allowance, which is in turn pegged to the pay of the civil service bench-marked to general wage levels. I liked that, and I suspect the WP then shot itself in the foot using MX9 as a basis for their proposal. Had they done a little more research they would have used a different pay scale which is more in line with what they have in mind and allowed them to come up with a lower figure than $55,000 for ministerial salaries. I hope this clarification helps.

1 … 12 13 14 15 16 … 99