TOC: Mah’s explanation does not square with HDB’s annual report

Mah’s explanation does not square with HDB’s annual report

Friday, 20 November 2009, 3:03 pm | 1,401 views

Leong Sze Hian

Number of flats sold declined, contradicting Mah’s explanation on reasons for HDB’s S$2 billion deficit.

On 7 November, the Minister for National Development, Mr Mah Bow Tan, explained why the Housing and Development Board has incurred a S$2 billion loss this year. The loss is twice that of the previous year. According to Channelnewasia, Mr Mah said:

“It is making a loss and the government gives it grants every year to cover the losses, mainly because we’re giving subsidies to people to buy flats to make flats affordable to first timers. That is why we’re making a loss.”

The report went on:

“Mr Mah said the HBD makes a loss each time it gives out subsidies to first-timer home buyers, and when it sells flats lower than their cost price. The reason for the high deficit was because more flats were offered for sale last year, compared to the year before”.

Mr Mah’s remarks seem to contradict the statistics provided in the HDB’s latest annual report.

According to the annual report, HDB revealed that “the number of flats sold under the home ownership scheme this year was 4,738, which was 7,253 less than last year”.

According to its section titled “Key statistics”, the “demand for flats” was 9,870 Home Ownership flats for 2008/2009, compared to 12,449 for 2007/2008; and the “Building statistics – Dwelling units” was 3,154 in 2008 compared to 5,063 in 2007.

All these numbers show that the number of flats sold have declined, rather than increased.

The number of flats sold under the home ownership scheme declined by 60 per cent, “Demand for flats” declined by 21 per cent, and “Building statistics – Dwelling units” declined by 38 per cent, for the last year.

So, how is it possible then that “the reason for the high deficit ($2 billion) was because more flats were offered for sale last year, compared to the year before”, when the HDB statistics show that flats’ building, demand and sales, all declined substantially last year compared to the year before?

Can the Minister clarify his statement on the reasons for the doubling of the deficit from $1 billion to $2 billion for the last year?

As for Mr Mah’s assurance that HDB “sells flats lower than their cost price”, the HDB has not disclosed the breakdown of the cost of building flats, despite letters to newspaper forums requesting for this information, almost every year.

The last time this information was disclosed was in 1981, when the then National Development Minister Mr Teh Cheang Wan, disclosed the land and construction cost, as well as the subsidy and selling price, of the various flat types in six districts.

For example, a three-room flat in the central core region, cost $53,700 to construct and incurred a land cost of $40,000, and sold for $57,100.

——

Picture from Straits Times.

Parliament will sit at 1.30 pm on Monday, 23 November. The following are some of the questions tabled for the Ministry of National Development:

Mr Chiam See Tong: To ask the Minister for National Development (a) what it costs the government to build a 3-room, 4-room and 5-room HDB flat; (b) what is the profit margin which HDB adds to the cost for each of these categories of flats when it sells them to the public; and (c) whether HDB bases the selling price of flats on the prevailing market price of these flats.

Er Lee Bee Wah: To ask the Minister for National Development (a) how many new Build-To-Order flats are presently available for selection; and (b) how do the supply and demand factors influence the cost of these flats.

Mdm Cynthia Phua: To ask the Minister for National Development (a) what is the projected supply and demand of HDB flats in the next 5 years; (b) what are the parameters that are taken into account in the projection of the supply and demand of flats; (c) whether the Ministry has considered an annual buffer number of ready flats and, if so, what is the number and the parameters in arriving at that number; and (d) what measures will the Ministry consider in ensuring that first-timers get a new HDB flat within 3 years.

Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: To ask the Minister for National Development what is the current waiting time and the number/percentage of couples applying for new HDB flats under the Fiance/Fiancee Scheme.

Dr Lim Wee Kiak: To ask the Minister for National Development (a) what is the total number of permanent residents (PRs) who own HDB flats and the distribution pattern of PRs in the various public housing estates; (b) whether his Ministry will ensure that there is a good mix of PRs in the various housing estates to encourage better integration with Singaporeans; and (c) whether his Ministry will consider expanding the current policy on racial mix for HDB flats to include PRs.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan: To ask the Minister for National Development (a) how many HDB tenants have been evicted from HDB rental flats for the past 12 months due to illegal sub-letting or inability to pay rental; and (b) what are HDB’s plans to provide alternative housing for such evicted tenants if they are unable to find alternative accommodation.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan: To ask the Minister for National Development whether his Ministry will review the household income ceiling for rental flats to take into account inflation and the increased cost of living, before pegging rental rates at 30% or 50% of the market rate.

Weather Information in complacent Singapore

Having spent a great part of my time in foreign land, I am used to very detailed weather forecast provided in other places. They have weather alerts such as color codes for typhoons and rain.

For example, if the rain that flooded Bukit Timah is to happen in Hong Kong, it will be Black Rain Alert. It would mean that schools will be closed and students will not be required to travel to school at all. The Alerts will be broadcast by the mass media.

There are times when the Hong Kong Observatory did not make timely and accurate warnings, the community and the mass media would have criticized the authority for the mistake made. This is because adverse weather may result in floods, strong winds and storms that could endanger lives, especially those elderly and young children. You can take a look at the various warnings that the Hong Kong Observatory would issue here.

The Alerts include very hot weather warning because many elderly cannot take heat. It also warns those who are outdoors to take extra precautions during hot weather (normally 33 degrees and above). The system of information provision in Hong Kong is geared towards public safety and interests.

Maybe the authorities in Singapore do not think that weather information or adverse weather alerts are important to public safety. However, if the information about the heavy rain is announced along with the relevant alerts that warrant the closure of schools, those students who were trapped in the flood at Bukit Timah would not need to risk their lives walking in the flood. Furthermore, it would help to alert the elderly not to step out of their houses during this period.

Are we becoming complacent? Or just that our government is so used to the way they manage information? Or that our government simply don't take citizens' interests at heart?

Some may take such issue as "small issue". It is just weather information, no big deal. But the truth is, our government has been keeping a lot of information out of citizens' reach. Every information seems to be "national secrets". The PAP government has been calling out about "Open Society" for so long but yet it seems that the way they handle information is rather opaque. Most of the time, Singaporeans have to rely on foreign sources to tell us how much GIC and Temasek made or lost instead of our very own government.

From the look at the way they manage weather information, we could see the same attitude or simply worse attitude. It simply shows that they do not really have public interests at heart, even though they have been crying out National security and public interests in defense of secrecy of many vital information.

I guess it has to be our fault, the citizens' fault again. If we read the newspaper reports here in Singapore about the floods, they will just exclaim this is an extraordinary flood, worst situation in 50 years, caused by high tide and heavy rain etc etc. But no Singaporeans, no reporters have ever question whether the government could do better in providing adequate information and warnings to avoid citizens risking their lives in the flood. Whether the government should send out early warnings and have schools closure, cancel classes and asking schools to disallow students to travel back home if they were already in school...etc.

No, nothing was mentioned about the responsibility of the government in providing timely warnings. Just reports on how students were seen traveling through floods and some fallen into drains etc. Just excuses about why PUB should not be blamed for the flood as they have done so much drainage work in the past. Every reports you read is about why the government is not to be blamed for the flood but never about how things could be managed better.

This is in sharp contrast to a place with true freedom of speech and expression like Hong Kong. If this happens in Hong Kong, all the commentators in radio talk shows will start criticizing the Hong Kong authorities for not taking precautionary actions and giving the right alert warning. Hong Kong reporters will start to question about the relevant authorities in their efforts of improving the drainage system. The Hong Kong Observatory would have come out and apologized for not giving the right alert warning. The government authorities will start to respond to the queries on the drainage improvement works...

Well, this is just Singapore. The tightly controlled SPH and Mediacorps will not question their bosses up there, would there? However, I am kind of disappointed that no Singaporeans on the net have raised questions on whether the government should have ordered the schools to cancel the classes and adverse warnings cum advice should be issued over the media prior to the floods.

Singapore has spent huge sum of money on many world class weather forecast systems. I believe they could at least provide warnings 3 hours in advanced for adverse weather condition, if not earlier. The problem is that they have not set up the proper alert warning system in place to cope with erratic weather conditions.

I have heard over the radio while driving about the possibility of floods about half an hour before the heavy rain came. Well, but how severe is the conditions? The mere mention of the possibility of floods is just not enough. We need to know whether it is just heavy rain or very very heavy rain. Should our children go to school? or return from school under such heavy rain?

I hope the NEA should take my criticism and suggestion seriously. Weather forecast alone is just not enough. You have to make proper judgment and issue relevant alert warnings to the people for them to take necessary precautions or even enforce closure of kindergartens and schools in Singapore whenever it is needed. Even for hot weather forecast, a certain alert level will enforce warnings to schools to cancel most outdoor activities and such warnings would be useful for many people, like the army, in taking adequate precautions to avoid heat injuries. In Singapore, proper lightning alerts should be issued to warn Singaporeans about staying in open areas. Such lightning warning would be useful for those construction workers whom may work in places without proper lightning protection.

There are so many areas that NEA's Meteorological Services could improve upon the way they provide crucial weather information to the public. I hope they would seriously look into this suggestion of mine for the sake of REAL PUBLIC INTERESTS.

Goh Meng Seng

我国华文教育失败的症结

我为我的孩子做出了另一类的教育选择，那就是到用有学习中文的异地去读书。这地方比新加坡具备了更好的中文学习环境，也有学习英文的条件。虽然英文教育会比新加坡逊色，但是英语是比较容易学上手的。

如果我们要有选择并不是没有，但是代价非常大。
我本身就为我女儿做出了这语言教育的选择，让她在异地读书，从幼稚园开始。许多朋友甚至政治圈的人物都非常困惑为何我会做出这样一个代价非常的选择，但是我还是坚持了我的想法。

学习语言不止是fun不fun的问题，更重要的是切身运用的问题。在新加坡你走在街上，很难会看到几个华文字，这对一个学童来说根本就是潜移默化的暗示中文并不重要，或者是中文只是课室里应付考试的学科，甚至是一个令人乏味的学科。

所以我坚持让我的孩子到一个处处有华文字的地方学习。这地方到处也有英文字，所以我并不担心她会失去学习英文的机会。学习英文毕竟比学习华文容易，因为华文是象形文字，英文是拼音文字。学习华文需要更多视觉的接触才能牢牢的把文字注入记忆。

我很庆幸我做出了这样的选择。如今我女儿读写中文字的基础超越一般同龄的新加坡学童，虽然英文基础稍微弱一些，但是要赶上并非难事。

生长在一个缺乏选择的国度里，我们必须要有更大勇气去作出非一般的抉择，甚至是周围亲朋好友都觉得匪夷所思的选项，才能冲出愚钝政策的枷锁。

我是不服这傲慢的自大和自以为是的执政党！

这关乎我下一代的教育和幸福，我怎么也不会妥协的。我可以留在新加坡为国人奋斗，试图为人民争取够多福利，但胜败谁也说不准。输了我大可一走了之，毕竟这是人民最终的选择，我也无怨无悔。但是要我孩子继续活在这独裁，任意拿各种事物来要挟人民的执政党的统治下，我是死也不会愿意的，更何况是关乎我下一代教育的方向，更不可被他们那误民愚民的政策给害了。

没办法，只有选择那一条路了。

吴明盛

我国华文教育失败的症结

● 王昌伟

文化视角

　　据报章报道，李光耀资政认为政府早年在推行双语政策时走错了方向，那是因为他错误地以为，只要智力相同，人们就能学好两种语文。

　　其实在我国，即使不是每个人都能精通双语，能学好两种语文的人为数并不少。根据个人的观察，在我们这一代受过大专教育的人当中，精通华文的人一般也能自如地使用英文，但精通英文的人却往往无法有效使用华文。问题的关键，不在于华文比英文难学，而在于我国华文教育的失败。

　　我们的双语政策的确是走错了方向，但我认为问题并不出在我们高估了学生同时掌握双语的能力，而恰恰是我们在华文的学习方面，太过“纵容”学生，太过为他们“着想”。

　　李资政经常以他学习华文的经历作为例子，说明一个人不可能同时精通两种语言，那我也想谈谈自己学习双语的经历。我的华文程度和李资政的英文程度一样，都达到母语(native language)的水平，但我相信我的英文程度应该比李资政的华文程度高。虽然不管是口语还是书面语，我的英文还存在瑕疵，但在日常的沟通之外，我还能用英语授课，能用英语发表演讲和与西方学者讨论高深的学问，也能用英文出版学术专著。

　　这绝不是因为我比李资政聪明，也不是因为我对英文有多热爱；相反的，因为家庭环境的关系，我从小对学习英文就有强烈的排斥心理，总觉得自己身为华人，为什么需要被迫去掌握一种不属于自己的语言。但在我们的教育体制下，不管你喜不喜欢，英文水平跟不上体制的要求，就随时会被淘汰。现实就是这么残酷，容不得你选择。

　　记得求学的时候，上英文课是一项苦差，几乎把上学的乐趣消磨殆尽。李资政说，双语政策所犯的其中一个错误是没考虑到讲英语学生的心理，但一直以来，我们的英文教育也从来没有考虑到讲华语学生的心理。不过现在回过头去，我反而感激我们的教育体制不但没有纵容我，还不断设立更高的标准，让我即使心不甘情不愿，但为了生存，还是不得不设法达让自己的英文达到不断提高的要求。

取法于上，仅得为中

　　正因为如此，我才能够打下一定的基础，让英文成为今天发展事业的一大助力。可以想像，如果当年的教育体制对我们这群讨厌英文的讲华语学生特别“关爱”，处处为我们“着想”，只要我们一觉得困难就降低程度来迎合我们，那我自然会产生一种侥幸的心理，更不可能会认真学习英文，等到日后真正需要使用英文的时候，就会陷入“书到用时方恨少”的窘境。

这正是我们的语文政策的最大错误。和李资政的认知相反，我们的双语教育，从来就不曾假设一般人都能同时学好双语。当年除了在少数的几所特选中学，华文都是被当成第二语文来教授的。即使后来在更多的学校开设了所谓的高级华文，其程度之低落仍然是有目共睹的。

　　李资政说，目前的挑战是通过能引起学生的学习兴趣的方法，让他们喜欢上这门语文，并在学生身上打下一定的华文基础，让他们日后如果到了中国等需要使用华文的地方工作，即使一时生疏，很快就能重新掌握。

　　这话固然没错，但我们的华文教育，是否真能为学生打下一定的基础？我曾在《特选中学计划成功了吗？》（2007年8月8日《联合早报》言论版）一文中举出血淋淋的例子，说明如果我们以为我们目前对学生的华文水平的要求，就能为他们打下一定的基础，无疑是在自欺欺人，更遑论继续顾及学生怕难的心理，进一步降低要求。

　　“取法于上，仅得为中；取法于中，故为其下”，这句话说明的道理显然是不难理解的。

　　利用富有创意的教学方式提高学生对华文的兴趣当然非常值得鼓励，但我们的错误，就在于以为降低要求是提高学生学习热忱的先决条件。从第二语文到华文B、到用英语教华文、到只需认字不必写字，这样一步步退让，也许当下能讨好学生，但等到学生日后需要运用华文的时候，他们是会恨我们耽误了他们的。

　　李资政还举出美国第二代中国人未必能学好华文作为例子，说明要学好一种语文必须先从抓住学生的兴趣开始。但我们的社会和美国其实存在明显的差异。美国华人学习华文缺乏有利的环境，而我们的学生即使出生在讲英语的家庭，在生活中，从日常的交谈到流行歌曲到影视节目到报刊读物，还是不缺乏接触华文的机会。新加坡社会有得天独厚的条件，让学生不管是出生在讲哪一种语言的家庭，都能随时随地接触双语。重要的是，我们不要通过错误的教育政策人为地去摧毁这样的环境，把新加坡变成一单语的社会。

　　我们常说，教育乃百年大业，肩负为国家培育英材重任的我们，能不慎思谨行？

作者任教于新加坡国立大学中文系

郭铁成：民主是我们生命的尊严

文章来源：香港、凤凰周刊


提出"民主"是"好东西"还是"坏东西"这种问题，自然不能说有错，但总觉得有些" 文不对题"。因为"民主"并不是"好"或"坏"、"有用"或"没用"的问题，它是我们生命的一种渴望，一种需求。正如吃、喝、拉、撒、睡，正如人的"七情六欲"，你说它们"好"还是"坏"，"有用"还是"没用"？我们需要它们，是我们的生命离不开它们，一旦离开，生命就要受到致命的阻遏。反过来也可以说，如果不是我们的生命需要它，它就是再"好"、再"有用"也与我们不相干。

也许有人会反驳我："民主"的要求属于历史；中国两千多年的王权专制主义，没有民主，国人也照旧过来了，怎么能说民主是人生命的需求？

当然，民主作为人生命的需求，并不如吃喝拉撒睡、"七情六欲"那样简单，它是人发展到一定阶段产生的一种精神需求。这个阶段的标志，就是个性、主体、自我这些个体性的觉醒。在西方，始于"文艺复兴"时期，发展到"启蒙运动"时期蔚然成风，在中国则要晚到20世纪初，至"五四"时期形成一个高潮。陈独秀的一段话对于这种"觉醒"的表述是最清楚的了："解放云者，脱离夫奴隶之羁绊，以完其自主自由人格之谓也。我有手足，自谋温饱；我有口舌，自陈好恶；我有心思，自崇所信；绝不认他人之越俎，亦不应主我而奴他人；盖自认为独立自主之人格以上，一切操行，一切权利，一切信仰，唯有听命各自固有之智能，断无盲从隶属他人之理。"于是他揭橥了"民主"的大旗，尽管此时他对"民主"的要义还"不甚了了"（胡适语）。无论西方还是东方，民主首先都不是一个理论的问题，而是一个实践性问题。就是说，人类并不是根据民主"好"还是"坏"、"有用"还是"没用"来建构"民主"的，而是依据实际需要有了民主实践，才渐渐有了理性的认同和理论上的研究、探索和明彻的表述。后者又进一步推动了民主的自觉建设。

那么"民主"到底是什么？今天，人们对民主理论上的研究已经汗牛充栋，再重复这些已经成为人类常识的理论实在没有多大意义，不如把民主的问题还原为实在的生活。在这里我愿意引用龙应台女士的一段表述：

" 民主，就是手上有一本护照，随时可以出国，不怕政府刁难；民主就是养了孩子知道他们可以凭自己本事上大学，不需要有特权；民主就是发表了任何意见不怕有人秋后算账；民主就是权利被侵犯的时候可以理直气壮地讨回，不管你是什么阶级什么身份；民主就是，不必效忠任何党，不必讨好任何人，也可以堂堂正正地过日子；民主就是到处有书店，没有任何禁书而且读书人写书人到处都是；民主就是打开电视不必忍受主播道德凛然地说谎；民主就是不必为了保护孩子而训练他从小习惯谎言；民主就是享受各种自由而且知道那自由不会突然被拿走，因为它不是赐予的。"

所以，民主并非只是选举投票，只是少数服从多数，只是" 好东西"、"坏东西"的问题，"它是生活方式，是思维方式，是你每天呼吸的空气、举手投足的修养、个人回转的空间"（见龙应台《为台湾民主辩护--与华人世界对话》），是你觉悟的个体生命一刻也离不开的生命需要。这也可说是民主的"实质"。当然可以研究实现它的各种途径（包括程序正义的问题），但这种"实质"，却是个大前提。这个大前提，你如果有兴趣特别想分解一下，也可以看到，这里其实就是自由、人权、平等、多元、法治。于是我们又可以说，民主与这些具有核心意义的价值是紧密相连、不可分割的，说到家它就是这些价值在体制上、制度上、方式方法上的体现。即如阿克顿勋爵所说："人类社会为什么需要民主？因为民主意味着让人民大众享有自由。"脱离这些价值谈"民主"，必定越谈越不得要领，甚至走到民主精神的反面去。

中国1950年代到1970 年代的30年间，尽管用"阶级论"解构"民主"，把"民主"与"资产阶级"连结在一起，并以"无产阶级民主"的革命实践取而代之，但"粉碎四人帮"和进入改革开放的"新时期"以后，人们还是义无反顾地把自己的要求与"五四"曾经高扬的"民主"大旗联系起来。这时，我还可以说，因为几十年"断裂"的缘故，有关"民主"的真义，国人还是"不甚了了"，有关"民主"的理论更是思想上的空白，但有一点他们是再清楚不过：他们要过一种生活，这生活就是为了活命，他们要一点生产上的自主权（可以想一下，1978年12月安徽凤阳县小岗生产队20名农民为"包产到户"所按下的血手印）；这生活就是不会因为"出身"而被剥夺生活基本的权利，不会因为有一点个性和独特性，就被作为"资产阶级"加以批判，因为发表一点意见和观点，就沦为"阶下囚"乃至付出生命的代价，因为读书、求知就被扣上"白专"的帽子，因为做学问、有学识，就成为"资产阶级反动学术权威"；这生活就是偌大中国不要一个人说了算，天是一个人的天，地是一个人的地，十几亿人的生命和生活由一个人来操纵，连"共和国主席"都无以自保，死于非命；这生活就是我们至少能活得像个人样，不至于唯唯诺诺、战战兢兢，整日生活在不知什么时候就会有"群众"以"革命的名义"光顾你的家庭，抄毁你的书籍，拉你到批斗现场，给你戴上"牛鬼蛇神"的帽子，把你驱逐到"牛棚"，流放到举目无亲的地方，经受"炼狱"之苦�目志逯校??

应该把人们这种有点卑微的诉求叫什么呢？这种生活是不是人的一种起码生命需求？如果承认人这种生命的渴望和祈愿是合理的、正当的，也是不可遏制的，那么怎么实现它？这时，能不接触"民主"--也就是广大人民做自己命运主人的问题吗？

我最讨厌的就是一些貌似有学问的"知识分子"，脱离人民大众最质朴，也最有力的生活实践，把最生气勃勃、贯注着生命气息的生活抽空为干巴巴的"理论"，在那里煞有介事地"见仁见智"。岂不知他们在这样做的时候，已经远离真正的学问了。

举个小例子来说吧。1967年8月5日，中华人民共和国主席刘少奇被"造反派"押到中南海的批斗现场，经过了几个小时的残酷批斗，又被押回办公室。这时刘少奇"疲惫已极，余怒未息，立即按铃把机要秘书叫来"，"拿出《中华人民共和国宪法》，义正辞严地抗议说：'我是中华人民共和国主席，你们怎么对待我个人，这无关紧要，但我要捍卫国家主席的尊严。谁罢免了我国家主席？要审判，也要通过人民代表大会。你们这样做，是在侮辱我们的国家。我个人也是一个公民，为什么不让我说话？宪法保障每一个公民的人身权利不受侵犯。破坏宪法的人是要受到法律的严厉制裁的。'"（见刘平平、刘源、刘婷婷：《我们的父亲刘少奇》）刘少奇的"抗议"很有力度，是自身的遭遇让他想到了"公民权利"--也就是民主这个根本性问题。可见"民主"原不是知识分子书斋里的"学问"（只是可惜他的意识晚了一点，如果1957年"反右运动"时他就有了这种"觉悟"，并能提出"抗议"，也许历史可能是另一个样子了）。

我还举个小例子来说明问题。散文家筱敏在《成年礼》一文中，写到自己"1974年深秋的某一天"，在街头读到一张《关于社会主义民主与法制》大字报的情景：

" 我站在人群里，默默地读完了它，走出来。接着又回到人群起始的一头，再次从第一个字开始。天昏暗下来，人越聚越紧。有人划着了火柴，这边的一枝熄了，那边的一枝燃起来（那时的火柴是凭票限量供应的）。一个女孩一手扶着一位老者，一手举着手电筒，一个字一个字念给半盲的老者听。人群慢慢挪动。离开人群的时候，我才知道下雨了，深秋的冷雨，细细地斜飘着。"

文字是质朴的、动人的，而更动人心魄的，还是那情境。如今，你看到什么书、什么理论产生过如此巨大魅力和感召力的？那简直是一首凄美而壮丽的诗篇！人们不是在读，而是在用生命、用心灵在感悟、在诉说。你可以从那街头的阅读大军中感受到伟大的历史脚步正从暗夜中"咚"、"咚"地走来，悲壮、沉实、充满力度。我也读过那大字报中的文字。今天看，或今天从"理论"上看，自然已不足论，但那大字报最重要的一点就是从"文革"的实践出发，点燃了一个蠢动于人们心中、被人们用生命和苦难体验着的"问题"。它一下唤醒了人们的良知和理性，打通了历史，让几十年前就飘扬于人们心中，却"不甚了了"的那面"民主"旗帜，一下获得了真实的意义。

筱敏是把读到那张大字报的一天，视为自己的"成年礼" 的。我想，"五四"的"民主"对中国人来说，可能实际上只有相当有限的"启蒙"意义，真正使中国人成长起来的还是"不民主"的痛苦。经历了种种"不民主" 的苦痛和折磨，人们才会切实明白，民主其实不是别的东西，它就是我们生命的尊严。

而我要说，一个带着强烈生命尊严感、追求民主的民族，才是真正有出息的民族。

(来源：《凤凰周刊》2009年31期，作者：郭铁成)

The effectiveness of NSmen system

I have just come back from 3 weeks of overseas reservist training in Australia, well known code named "Ex Wallaby".

Many people wonder why am I in reservist training when I am already 39? Well, I just have bad news for officers: all officers have to serve up to 50 year old, unlike NCOs and other ranks who will have their National Service "terminated" after 10 years of service (7 high key with 3 low key) or retired into MR (main reserve) once they reach 45 year old.

Yes, I was told that Officers are to serve up till 50 year old instead of the usual "7 high key 3 low key" as announced months ago. They have made a mistake in making that announcement without stating that officers will have to serve longer.

I don't mind serving my National Service (well, it would be great if there isn't any IPPT for old bones like me! ;)) but it seems that something is not very right in terms of cost and benefits along with its effectiveness.

I met a "store man" who is actually a GM of a MNC based in Singapore. It is interesting to note that SAF is paying thousands of dollars (I guess his pay is at least $8K or above) just to get a "store man" to serve in the unit. Well, that is not all. Although SAF paid him thousands to become a store man, he could have contributed more as a GM to the economy for the 3 weeks. This opportunity cost of lost productivity is really difficult to be accounted for.

It is very difficult to expect reservist unit to achieve professional proficiency as a fighting force when they only train at most once a year. We do have very good helpful trainers to guide us along throughout these 3 weeks but how much of such experiences could be registered and pass down for future training? Especially so when the turn around time and disruption of personnel is pretty high in a reservist unit. Simple things like setting up tents and field craft have to be taught all over again for each and every in camp training, not to mention important skills and strategic concept of military planning for officers.

While we have various aide memoir, SOPs and trainers' guidance to depend on, it will really take time for officers and men to digest, master and execute properly. Besides, there are quite a lot of constrains during the exercise, from inadequate equipping, staffing to cancellation of some drills which really undermined our training objectives and purpose.

I am not saying that our unit is not performing well. In fact, our unit is performing pretty well in spite of the many constrains we faced during the whole 3 weeks. I have overheard NSF boys conversation commenting about how "on the ball" our reservist NSmen are which is way beyond their expectation. They thought NSmen are just demoralized old soldiers who could do much less in training but we proved them wrong. We have a good core of officers and NCOs to take the training seriously and making it as good as they could with various constrains. In some instances, we are more serious and on the ball than the NSF in training, poking them for many responses to make the exercise more real. However, having said that, we could not achieve higher proficiency as compared to any regular trained army although the cost of having us to train is very much higher.

Although I do not have the exact figures but I think the cost of getting NSmen to come back for training for whole year round would be tens of millions if not hundreds of millions or even billion. Would it not be more cost effective as well as more proficient to use these money to build a couple of divisions of regular, professional army instead?

Singapore has the highest defense expenditure, in terms of total amount as well as percentage of our GDP in this region. Such spending would have crowded out other expenditures like Healthcare, Education or even social welfare spending.

Defense budget is always regarded as "sacred" as the emphasis on defense is always portrayed as the utmost top priority for the Nation. The attitude of "no question ask" is eminent for the past decades even when it escalated throughout the years. Defense spending has long become the top item in our annual budget and intriguingly, nobody seems to be interested in questioning the rational behind the ballooning budget year after year.

Could we achieve more productive, proficiency and effective defense with less money? We could if we stop paying thousands of dollars for just a store man. The whole concept of NSmen system will have to be modified or even changed radically.

We could have maintained a professional army of 2 or even 3 Divisions with supplements from Voluntary corps and even paramilitary divisions via the 2 years National Service system. We could have trained enough drivers, technically skilled soldiers from the early days of 2 years NS. From the cohort, those who are willing to become part of the regular army will form the 2 Divisions of regular Guards while NS officers and NCOs could opt to become part of the Volunteer Corps that will train regularly with the professional army just like what we are doing right now as NSmen. This will close the loop of first tier reserves for the regular army and they could well become the leaders of the paramilitary force formed by the bulk of other ranks in time of war.

The paramilitary force could well be called up for refresher courses 3 (for combat troopers) or 5 years apart. This will minimize cost, be it real or opportunity costs to the Nation's economy in terms of productivity lost. It will also minimize unnecessary disruptions to Singaporeans' livelihood.

War does not occur suddenly in modern times. There will always be a build up time for war to occur, most probably 6 to 12 months lead time. If there is such urgency in the situation of eminent threat of war, paramilitary groups could be called up more advanced training schedule to equip them with refresher program and crush course on handling of new military equipment and such. Stretching over a period of 6 months would be sufficient enough for war preparations.

This three tier defense setup would have saved a lot of resources with certain level of assurance of proficiency in the first contact forces i.e. the 2 Divisions of regular professional army. These forces are back up by the Volunteer Corps which are capable to lead the paramilitary forces into war if necessary.

To maintain a highly proficient army based largely on conscripts is never easy. The problem will be expounded when this is done in a prolonged manner without real threat of war eminent. We are unlike Israel or Taiwan which face clear and present danger of war each other day. Even for Taiwan which is technically at war with PRC, it has cut down its conscription. The besiege mentality of Singapore must change to make ways for better utilization of resources.

There are many other ways to moderate our defense spending and I believe there may be people with more creative, effective and efficient plans to help us in this without compromising on our safety. What I am stating here is just my thoughts of changing our defense strategy and structure after attending 3 weeks of overseas training. It may not be a perfect plan but I hope it could get people start thinking about containing our defense spending, wastage of productivity and manpower etc.

Goh Meng Seng

The Victory of Anti-Casino Movement in Taiwan

Taiwanese in Peng Hu has voted against the building of Casino Resorts on Saturday, 26 September 2009. It is a great victory for people around the world who are against Casino gambling.

This world has too much greed going around and greed has just created a big mess in the finance industry resulting a world wide economic slow down and recession. Greed may be part of the human tools in making the free market possible but uncontrolled greed will be devastating to the whole system and societies.


Photo from China Times


It is just too bad that Singaporeans have allowed PAP to monopolize power and do whatever they want without proper consultation from the people. We are walking into an era of unknown social impact brought by the Casino Resorts which will be due by 2010. I could foresee that the PAP government would most probably waive the $100 entry fee for Singaporeans in order to save these multi-billion projects if revenue does not meet their initial expectations.

The very same excuse used by governments all over the world in saving banks and financial institutions which were at the brink of their collapse would be invoked, "they are just too big to fail". We will be held hostage by the two casino resorts if they fail and we could even envisage that taxpayers money would be used to bail them out if necessary.

The Taiwanese Anti-Casino victory may send a strong signal to the world that ultra-capitalism may not have its way if proper democratic process is being installed. However, it would mean little to Singaporeans as we are after all a small country with power monopolized by a single ruling party. Singapore may just become the Sin City of Southeast Asia basically because we lack the democratic means to decide whether we would allow ultra-capitalism like building Casino Resorts to take us on.

Goh Meng Seng

The Contrast of Democracy and ill-Democracy

Taiwan is holding its first ever referendum in Peng Hu over the issue of building casino resort.

In contrast with Singapore's PAP government's handling of such controversial issue of building Casino resorts, the Taiwanese has shown much more respect of popular will in deciding such decisions.

The main reason given by PAP is that they have the "mandate" by the people who have given them overwhelming support in past elections. Thus, they do not see the need of seeking referendum over such controversial issue. But we have to remember the fact that more than half of PAP's seats are uncontested seats. i.e. these MPs and Ministers did not get a single votes to walk into parliament. Yes, this is partly due to the weakness of Singapore opposition parties but the fact still remains, they did not earn their votes and mandate to represent Singaporeans at large in deciding on such controversial issue.

My wish is to have ALL seats contested by opposition but it seems that this is hard to be fulfilled in the next elections. Nevertheless, I hope that Singaporeans that have the chance to cast their votes next elections have to think carefully about the impact of giving PAP overwhelming dominance in the parliament. They would have the power to do whatever they want in parliament. Such unchecked powers is dangerous for Singapore. It has proven in the past that such monopoly of power has resulted in a few controversial and wrong policies made, eg. Two is Enough policy, Asset Enhancement...etc.

Vote wisely because if all of us don't vote wisely, more controversial decisions would be bulldozed by PAP without taking citizens' voice into account.

Goh Meng Seng

HDB High Prices & Influx of FT

You can sign an online petition on Lower HDB Price or Build more affordable Flats for Singaporeans here.

One of my favorite blogger Lucky Tan has written on the reasons of the rise in HDB resale as well as new flats' prices. The moderator of 3-in-1 Kopitiam Kojakbt has put up one of his reasoning and his chart on how influx of Foreign Talents is correlated to the pricing of HDB resale flats. (See above)

Although the Pearson Correlation Coefficient is pretty high for the two sets of data, technically speaking there must be a reasonable explanation behind such correlation, else such correlation would be considered irrelevant statistically.

The more appropriate data to be used is the number of increase of PR and non-native Citizens vs the HDB resale pricing. This is because only PR and new non-native Citizens are allowed to buy HDB resale flats. The Total of Foreigners in Singapore could only at best be an approximate to the increase in PR or new non-native Citizens, assuming that the number of new PR and Citizens are directly correlated with the Total number of Foreigners. In Singapore, we have not much choice of data set because the government does not release specific numbers on the increase of PR and New Citizens.

The spiral of HDB resale prices is basically due to two forces, demand and supply. Singaporeans generally could only own one HDB flat per household. It would mean that the supply of HDB flats to Singaporeans are more or less in equilibrium. However, with the injection of new demand caused by the increase in PR and New non-native Citizens, it would cause an inequilibrium in the demand and supply. The supply of HDB resale flats are limited as most Singaporeans bought the flats for own use while the demand of such flats keep going up with the influx of foreigners as PRs and New Citizens.

This will inevitably cause the prices of new flats to surge because the present new HDB flats' price are pegged at the resale flats' price. In effective, HDB is just giving a "discount", not a real subsidy for native Singaporeans. The implicit result would be the influx of Foreigners would have tremendous impact on Singaporeans, especially the young couples, in terms of higher HDB prices.

My suggestion is as follows:

1) HDB should stop hoodwinking Singaporeans by pegging the new HDB flats' prices to the resale HDB market prices and disguise such Discounts as "subsidies". The pricing should be de-linked and new HDB prices should be sold to Singaporeans at cost price and on top of that, REAL subsidies at cost price should be given as follows:

a) Born native Singaporeans or those who have lived here for more than 15years, $20K of subsidies from cost price.
b) Those Singaporeans who have completed their NS, another $10K subsidy
c) Those who get married before 30 years old another $20K subsidy.

2) In view of present FT policy, PAP must solve the problem of inadequate infrastructure, especially housing. HDB should sell NEW HDB flats to PRs direct at MARKET PRICES, instead of cost prices. This will ease the unbalanced market situation due to high influx of FT getting PRs. By earning from these PRs, HDB will be able to cross subsidize native Singaporeans.

This will of course encourage more PRs to convert to Singapore citizenship and at the same time, give REAL VALUE to Singapore Citizens who have contributed to this Nation. On top of that, it encourages family units to be formed without discriminating those singles badly. Singles who are native Singaporeans and served their National service would get their subsidies in recognition of their contribution to the Nation as well.

There is no reason for HDB not to sell New HDB Flats to PRs at MARKET PRICE instead of allowing the resale market to grow into a bubble and in turn, affect all native Singaporeans' housing liabilities. High HDB prices will prevent young couples from forming up family units early. This is a contradiction to our National needs.

It is time for PAP government and HDB to give due recognition to Singaporeans' contribution to the Nation and put tangible value to our allegiance as a citizen. It is unacceptable for us, especially the young Singaporeans, to pay the price of PAP's indiscriminate FT policy in terms of paying higher price for HDB flats.

Our PAP government has been talking big about how they value Singaporeans and putting their interests FIRST above all others. But the truth is, the PAP government is the MAIN CULPRIT in hurting Singaporeans' interest by implementing such housing policy that inflate the prices of new HDB prices for our young Singaporeans. If this policy is not curbed, our future generations would definitely be burdened by higher housing cost all across the board.

Goh Meng Seng

After note: There is an article at H88.com that claims that a report by ERA has indicated that40% of HDB resale flat transactions are done by PRs while Business Times has reported that 86% of transactions have been done at Cash Over Valuation, instead of PAP's claim of 25% of HDB flats done valuation or below valuation.

The quote from ERA report is as follows:

"The government's target population of 6.5 million is steadily increasing the pool of PRs; and they have to buy their HDB homes from the resale market as they do not qualify to buy new flats directly from HDB. ERA's resale transactions show that PR buyers make up some 40 per cent compared to 20 per cent three years ago." - Eugene Lim, assosiate director, ERA Asia-Pacific.

Protecting Military Secrets...?

I have attended a briefing recently with regards to my overseas NS training in Australia, code name Exercise Wallaby.

During the briefing, one of the more important agenda is about "Security". It is about security of military information and such. There are of course quite a number of military sensitive information embedded in the whole overseas exercise and we are cautioned not to have loose talk or even photographs of military equipment and such.

Photos like the one displayed on Mr. Brown Show website (see below)would be considered as a breach of Military security.



The reason is that the photo includes the military assets (or what we normally call equipment). Take a closer look below and you could see that the photo captures the military equipment.



It is a valid concern indeed. Not so long ago, there was suggestions made by a committee to waive the ban on NSMan to bring camera phones to in-camp training for fear of such military security breach. Some military intelligence experts commented that the ban should stay because a picture of how the military equipment is being handled would be a vital information for military spies. It is not just about the military equipment but the personnel's proficiency in handling the equipment as well as the tactical manoeuvrings that matters most in military intelligence.

Since I am going to be involved in Exercise Wallaby, I did a simple search on google on Exercise Wallaby. To my surprise, there are quite a lot of information available on the net and some of these information are far more damaging than what Mr. Brown has put up on his web.

Take for example, the Razor TV produced by Straits Times which has an extensive report on Singapore's utilization of Australian training ground. (There are a total of three parts in this series.)

http://www.razor.tv/site/servlet/segment/main/news/local/12560.html

If we are talking about security breaches, the reporting in the Razor TV is far more damaging that I have seen anywhere else. From the strategic perspective to equipment utilization and it even includes the classified flow cart of how the integrated information system works etc etc.

The reporter could just walk through the camp compound and do interviews etc. I thought this is an exception case of military security breach but what surprises me is that even the Mindef's Publication has put up reports along with photos of equipments and the operating members behind the equipment.

The following are the photos of CyberPioneer:






Well, maybe all these hype about Exercise Wallaby and integrated Air-Land information system is a deliberate efforts by Mindef to make public. Thus, such sensitive information has been cleared and declassified for public consumption.

But I do feel a bit uneasiness for such sensitive information to be made available. It really makes foreign military operatives' job much easier in analysis and information collection.

Goh Meng Seng

Secrets of Hainanese Chicken Rice

Recently there is a little storm in the tea cup over who owns "signature dishes" like Laksa, Nasi Lemak and even Hainanese Chicken Rice. I find it pretty queer that such issue could become a focus in regional politics. Anyway, I have shared my authentic Hainanese Chicken Rice in Sammyboy forum and I would like to share it here as well. This is especially dedicated to Singaporeans living overseas. When you are homesick and miss the Hainanese Chicken Rice back home, try cooking it yourself.

Disclaimer: There are a great variety of variations of Chicken Rice recipe. What I have stated here is just the basic ingredients. Readers could adjust the ingredients as they deem fit. For example, if you live in the Western World, it would be hard to get pandan leaves but you could replace it with lemon grass....etc etc. That's the fun of it, be creative and innovative in what you learn, especially when it comes to food. Have a nice day!

Contrary to what many people think, Hainanese Chicken is not "BOILED" but rather cooked using the latent heat of boiled water. If you boil the chicken along with the water all the while, you will get overcooked chicken with ugly skin. All the essence of the Chicken would be lost to the soup, which is not the primary intend.

The proper way of preparing Hainanese Chicken is to prepare lots of garlic, ginger, pandan leaves, onions/shallots, scallions and aniseed (please see the list of ingredients below). Some have suggested to use salt to marinate the chicken or soaked the chicken in salt water for 2 hours before cooking it. Normally I would only rub the interior ribs of the chicken with a bit of salt.

Choose a large pot so that you could contain enough water to hold the latent heat for the slow cooking. Boil the water with the prepared ingredients. Make sure your chicken has a hole poked through its throat (the interception at the neck just above the breast). Hold the Chicken by the neck, dip it into the boiling water and take it up again. This allow the water to go through its internal ribs. Do this for 4 to 5 times. Then put it down into the pot and make sure the boiling water covers the whole chicken. Close the cover. Turn the fire smaller to bring the water to simmer, boil it for another 10 to 15 minutes. After this is done, turn off the fire but don't open up the cover. Let the chicken stay in the pot for another 35 minutes to 40 minutes.

It is important to note that this method applies to relatively hot summer like weather in Singapore. If you live in temperate weather country where the room temperature is below 25 degree Celsius then you may have to use clay pot instead of metallic pot. Or that you may have to continue cooking the chicken using simmer fire for a total of 25 to 30 minutes or so before leaving the chicken to stay in the pot for another 15 minutes. You will have to experiment with the method taking room temperature conditions into account. The idea is to avoid hard boiling with full blast of fire so that the chicken will not lose its tenderness.

Prepare ice or ice water. Once the time is up, take out the chicken and put it immediately into the ice water. This will prevent the chicken from continuing to be cooked by the latent heat and will also allow its skin to contract. This is why Haianese Chicken has smoothen skin.

Prepare another round of garlic, onions/shallots and pandan leaves along with some coconut milk. You could replace the coconut milk with evaporated milk if you wish. Wash the rice and leave it to dry while the chicken is being cooked. The old technique is to use long grain rice but for me, I prefer pearl rice. Fried the garlic, onions/shallots with some oil. Some people prefer to fry the rice together with the garlic and onions/shallots for a couple of minutes. But I prefer not to do it this way as it may make the rice very heaty.

Take the hot soup from the pot that cooked the chicken to put it into the rice cooker. You can get rid of the fat oil in the process. Put in the garlic, onions/shallots, ginger, pandan leaves and coconut milk/ evaporated milk. Let the rice cooker to do the cooking.

It is important to use warm or hot soup to cook the rice because the heat will prevent the rice to become soggy. If the soup stock got cold (especially in temperate countries), you could add it to the fried garlic and onions to heat it up before you use it to cook the rice.

As for the Chili sauce, just mix the chili with garlic, shallots, ginger and the soup, grind it. You could add some sugar if you like. While the rice is being cooked, you could prepare the sauce. Mix the Soybean Sauce with Sesame Oil together so that it doesn't taste too salty. You will need Oyster Sauce as well.

Cutting up a chicken needs some skills else those who eat it will find it very awkward and difficult to enjoy it. Some people have such a lousy cutting skill that when you eat, your mouth are easily poked by the bones.

You have to cut the chicken skilfully so that the juice will remain within the meat. The basic is to cut along the joints at an angle and never directly into bare bones. The worst kind is to miss the joints but cut on the bones of chicken wings directly. Never cut straight into the breast meat but slanted to about 30 degree to the grains of the meat. But all these are easily said than done. Need alot of practice.

Prepare the tomato, cucumber and sprigs. The cucumber should not be sliced too thin as it will not be big enough able to absorb the chicken juice. Place the the tomato and cucumber on the plate with the cut chicken on top of it. Add the Soybean cum Sesame sauce and the oyster sauce. Then cover the chicken with sprigs. Cut up the scallions for the soup.

There you are, a self cooked Hainanese Chicken rice. Please remember serve the chicken with soy cum sesame sauce and oyster sauce.

I hope that by sharing these "secrets" of Hainanese Chicken Rice here, it will become public property; i.e. it belongs to everyone of us, be it Singaporeans, Malaysians of Americans. ;)

Goh Meng Seng


Ingredients:

Chicken:
1 whole chicken
salt
Aniseed
cloves garlic, peeled
slices fresh ginger, peeled
scallions, trimmed
water
sesame oil mixed with soybean sauce
Oyster sauce
sliced tomatoes (garnish)
sliced cucumbers (garnish)
cilantro sprigs (garnish)

Chicken Rice:
Coconut milk/ evaporated milk
long-grain rice or Pearl Rice
peanut oil
shallots, peeled and minced
garlic, minced
soup stock from cooking Hainanese chicken
salt

ECONOMIC GROWTH Just a numbers game? Quality counts too

A very good article by Professor Basant K. Kapur.



21005.1
Sep 15, 2009
ECONOMIC GROWTH
Just a numbers game? Quality counts too
By Basant K. Kapur




RECENT observations by economists suggest a need to reconsider some aspects of Singapore's economic growth experience.
In an article in this newspaper last Saturday on the inflow of foreign workers, National University of Singapore professor Hui Weng Tat was quoted saying: 'Growth at any cost is not something we want.'
In a chapter in a forthcoming publication of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Professors Lee Soo Ann and Linda Lim observe: 'The fact that government officials are rewarded economically, through salaries and bonuses...for delivering GDP growth, may also lead to 'growth fetishism'... and thus to preference for the easiest route to growth, which is through the addition of inputs of foreign capital, labour and skills.'
These comments raise a number of related issues. Differing somewhat from professors Lee and Lim, I am of the view that, in general, inflows of foreign capital and skills provide valuable growth momentum. However, large inflows of lower-skilled foreign workers are a different matter.
Such inflows create a vicious circle. The availability of low-skilled workers reduces the incentive for employers to upgrade their operations through mechanisation, automation and the like. The resulting low productivity levels imply that they can offer only low wages, which in turn acts as a disincentive to Singaporeans to take up such jobs, and which in turn leads employers to continue demanding for foreign workers.
Of course, the foreign worker 'tap' should not be abruptly curtailed. But a gradual and sustained tightening of the inflow is likely to be highly beneficial over time. There would also appear, as professors Lee and Lim suggest, to be a need to reconsider the GDP bonus scheme for civil servants, which factors in only the real total GDP growth rate each year.
Economic growth should, one, be significantly based on productivity improvement or at least not interfere with such improvement; and two, be inclusive, benefiting all sections of society, especially the less privileged.
I am therefore of the view that consideration should be given to replacing sole reliance on GDP growth in the bonus scheme with a composite criterion, comprising:

GDP growth

A fairly broad-based measure of productivity growth, such as the growth of per capita indigenous GDP (GDP accruing to Singaporeans divided by the total number of Singaporeans); and

A welfare measure, such as the growth rate of the average household disposable income of the lowest 20 per cent of Singaporean households.
No set of criteria for the bonus scheme can be perfect. Just as the current scheme leaves out other desiderata of economic policy - such as low unemployment and inflation rates - so does the proposed composite criterion.
However, a composite criterion along the lines I have proposed will have the effect of, at least symbolically, reinforcing the desirability of productivity growth and inclusiveness as public policy goals.
Two other issues: First, I have referred in the third measure above to 'disposable income', which would be inclusive of fiscal transfers. Is there a danger that an 'easy' route to achieving higher disposable income among the poor might be sought - through overly generous transfers, rather than through training and skills upgrading, thus breeding an entitlement mentality?
Clearly, the application of any criterion will have to be tempered by good judgment. Though, in this case, a little 'erring' on the side of generosity may not be a bad thing for the least-privileged among us, especially if it helps to produce a more comfortable home environment for children in these households.
Second, what weights should be attached to the three criteria in the composite scheme? Since we are considering simply a bonus scheme and the signal we wish it to send to public servants, the exact choice of weights is not critical.
Tentatively, may I suggest equal weights to all three criteria, based on the following considerations: the intrinsic worth of each criterion; and since GDP growth is also facilitated by productivity growth, on the part of both higher- and less-skilled Singaporeans, the three criteria can, to a certain degree, be mutually supporting.
The writer is professor of economics and director of the Singapore Centre for Applied and Policy Economics, Department of Economics, National University of Singapore.

MM Lee, what are we fighting for? II

My response to the Forummer Soh.

Dear Soh1973,

Thank you for your response. You have definitely struck a cord in me.

I have always maintained a very positive outlook to reservist training, even though my logistic unit is not something that anyone would get excited about "fighting". For every reservist training, it is always difficult to convince the need of such army training to my men where they could be more "productive" somewhere else.

Low Morale is the greatest problem for an army, even if it is a logistic battalion. And it seems that over the years, the morale is getting lower and lower. More and more people are asking for deferment and most of the reasons are work related. The most important underlining reason is the FEAR of losing the job to someone else, especially FT.

But even then, we could still maintain basic discipline and morale by giving the basic fundamental reason of the need of having an operational ready army. This is our home land and we are determined to protect it with our own blood. Even though the huge influx of FT have affected jobs and indirectly created a morale problem, we still have a reason to tell our soldiers we are fighting to protect our way of life.

But the recent outburst of MM Lee as well as some of the PAP ministers have raised eyebrows. The so call "Common Space" provided by our National Pledge and Flag has suddenly become some "unrealistic Highfalutin ideals" only!

I am going back for a one month high key reservist training. I seriously doubt that I have any reasons left to give my men for motivation talk. The only pessimistic talk would be, do it good, do it fast and F off early back home.

Goh Meng Seng

MM Lee, what are we fighting for?

A truthful view of a forumer in response to my earlier article, "Defending Our Nation's Core Values".

As an Army Officer myself, I do feel the difficulty in convincing my men next time I meet (coming very soon!) why are we spending weeks or even early a month this year to go for reservist training when what we are supposed to defend as a Nation has been trivialized as "Highfalutin ideals" by MM Lee.

The following article is written by a fellow Singaporean:

It has been a long time since I came into the coffeeshop. I must say, very little has changed since the delphi days.

I must agree with Goh Meng Seng. I am 36 this year and similar to many average Singaporeans, I am frustrated with the influx of FTs who turns out to be more FLs (Foreign Liabilities) then FTs (Foreign Talents). I am also frustrated with how the newer generation of PAP leaders seem so detached from the grassroots. How our leaders seems to have no direction and how often they focus on excuses.

However, I am really disappointed when I read in "Todays" MM Lee's response to what I view is a rallying call for the average Singaporeans and politicians alike to relook at the pledge. There seems to be an over-reaction by MM Lee in trying to put down this rallying call by viewing it as a potential challenge to how the PAP is currently ruling this country.

On one hand, I can fully understand why MM Lee's reaction as he will need to nip any challenges in the bud before it becomes a larger issue. However, on the other hand, I am sorely disappointed that at the end of the day, all the country's pledge meant nothing.

My 4 year old daughter is now in nursery. She is being taught to recite the pledge in both mandarin and english and so far she has memorised it very well. However, I question the rationale behind memorising the pledge now especially after MM Lee's speech in parliament.

I am against many of our ruling party's policies and have acted in accordance to my conscience by my vote for the opposition. My wife on the contrary voted for the ruling party because her rationale is "can we afford to let some opposition party to try when they do not have the track record?" Naturally we argued quite intensely over this issue but then finally decided it is not worth arguing. We agree to disagree.

When we are in the army, we are constantly brainwashed into believing "Duty, Honour, Country" is everything. (Yes, I am one of those ocifer whom many of the forumers here hates). We were brainwashed to the extent that we really meant what we said when we recite the "...with our lives" portion. How sad when all those brainwashing meant for nothing by a simple speech by our MM Lee.

After many years in the work force, I became very disillusioned. ICT is merely something I have to pay for having that rifle and 2 grenades in between my groin. So my mentality is just take it and pay your dues. Then around 5 years back, MINDEF conducted a 1-1 interview where they got these young NSF clerks to call us up and meet us in civilian for interviews. One of the question in that thick stack of questionnaire was "will you defend singapore if war comes."

I remembered my response. I said "If I can get my family out in time, I will not fight" Then the counter question by the clerk was why? My response was "Why should I fight for a country that treats its citizen as mere pawns and runs the country like a company where a selected few are allowed to call out the shots? Why should I fight for ideals that are not by the people, but rather for a selected and privileged few?"

I must qualify my answers then. At that time, I was very into sammyboy coffeeshop and hence my response were very influenced.

Then after a few years, came the period of time where Malaysian politicians were threatening to cut off our water supply. Surprisingly, when my peers and me chatted about these issue, the general concensus was if it is time to fight, we will fight for the nation's survival and that is a legitimate ground for fighting to retain our way of life. A lot of you may not believe this, but the patroitism at that time amongst my peers (most of us are fat and unfit reservist and likely to be used as cannon fodders to waste the enemies' ammo) was intense. Perhaps all those years of brainwashing did work subconsciously after all.

However, after MM Lee's speech in parliament, perhaps all these patriotism will be eliminated. After all, if the main driver behind modern Singapore do not even believe fully in the country's pledge, then do we have a country in the first place?

I have always believed home is where we want to make it to be. Citizenship is merely a piece of paper. Your family is what makes a home. I do agree with Sam that Singapore do not have a culture. However, we are comfortable with it and that is where we make home to be.

In the past, I have always wanted to migrate because I fell in love with the Australian outbacks. However, now after seeing my kids play with their grandmoms and the joy in the grandparents eyes when playing with them, I shifted my point of view and decided that perhaps it is not so bad staying in Singapore as the family is here.

However, I will hate to disappoint my kids if they ask me this question. "Dad, do we really mean what we say when we recite the pledge?"

It is a sad situation. Very few countries in the world have seen their leaders openly come out and say that the pledge is merely a guideline and not a belief that we should work towards. And that we should ignore any rallying calls.

It is especially disappointing when it came from a man who wept in front of public TV because what he truly believed in did not materialise.

Can we now blame the "Quitters" for a lack of identify?

Can we now ask the finger that points at others to look at the other 4 fingers that pointed back to themselves?

It is a sad speech to hear, especially from the man who believed so much in his ideals and wept when it didn't materialise.

Have a good week ahead.

The Bar Chor Mee in Eden Paradize - 伊甸园肉挫面

Translated from a Chinese Forum:

主题:伊甸园肉挫面
作者:李卖蚬 12:08pm 24/08/2009
Author: Li Mai Hum

顾客：老板，你的招牌上写着“伊甸园肉挫面，mee pok够Q、料多、新鲜又正宗“。。
Customer: Boss, your Sign Board claims "Eden Bar Chor Mee, Mee Pok very Q, plenty of ingredients, fresh and authentic"

老板：对呀，这招牌打了四十几年了。。连大明星李连杰、巩俐也来吃我们近年推出的豪华大碗肉挫 面。

Boss: That's right! We have this sign board up there for over 40years already! Even famous stars like Jet Li and Gong Li came to enjoy our latest introduction of Luxurious BIG BOWL of Bar Chor Mee!


顾客：但是hor, 我发现自从你推出豪华大碗套餐肉挫面后， 那些普通碗的用料好像少了很多，香菇不新鲜、没香味，但你用很多酱油来掩饰，肉碎又掺了肥肉太多。。很失败 。 我希望你往后做的肉挫面，不管是豪华套餐或是普通碗，都能秉持着你招牌上所写的。。

Cus: But hor, I find that ever since you have introduced that Luxurious Bar Chor Mee, you have cut back substantially on the ingredients used for those normal small bowl of Bar Chor Mee and your mushrooms are no long fresh, no more fragrance, but you use more soy sauce to make up for the taste. Your Bar Chor are mixed with excessive fat meat... very disappointing. I hope that for whichever category of Bar Chor Mee you made in future, regardless whether it is Luxurious Bar Chor Mee or just normal ones, you could keep the promise that you have stated on your signboard...


老板：小弟，你好狂妄的口气！

Boss: Hey lad, you are so arrogant!


老板：怎么能做到完全正宗呢？上回有顾客叫一碗肉挫面不要猪肝，但他没讲不要猪肝却说有讲，结果让我教训了 他一顿。。你看，有这么挑剔的顾客叫我怎么能完全做到正宗呢？

Boss: How could we possibly create real authentic Bar Chor Mee? Last time, there is one customer who want a Bar Chor Mee without Ter Kua (Pig liver) but he didn't say so, in the end, I give him a good lecture over it... you see, there are so many choosy customers around, how could I ever create Authentic Bar Chor Mee?


顾客：我指的不是这些。。

Cus: I don't mean this...

老板：招牌写的只是个抱负，又或者，让你看了感觉爽而已。。那是我们的目标，我们会Try啦。。几时做到？ 我不知道了leh！

Boss: Those words written on the signboard are just aspiration, rr just something to let you feel good after reading it! That is our aspiration, we will try lah! When we will achieve that? I dunno leh!

老板：..当初写这招牌的我那拍档已经归西去了，他是个理想主义的人，当初幸亏我把招牌修改了一点，要不然 。。

Boss: That partner of mine who wrote this signboard has passed away, he was just an idealist! Luckily back then, I did some amendments, or else...

顾客：要不然会怎样？

Cus: or else what?

老板：不然，招牌上还有”吃了不满意， 原银奉还“的字样。。

Boss: Or else, the signboard will have "Money back guarantee if you don't like it" on it...

顾客：这都不是我讲的重点，我只希望你像以往那样，用心为顾客去煮好你的肉挫面，不要忘记你招牌上的理想， 不要辜负了四十多年来支持你的普通顾客。

Cus: All these are not my main concerns. I only hope that you could just be like the past, put in more effort to cook your Bar Chor Mee, just don't forget the ideology you have written on your signboard. Just don't let down those normal customers who have supported you for all these 40 years.

老板：你这是没有根据的，我要把你带回现实。 事实上，我要你承认四十年来，我们都秉着招牌上的理想，朝着那理想改进。。不然顾客怎么还会支 持我们？

Boss: You are baseless, I have to bring you back down to earth. In fact, I want you to admit that for all these forty years, we have been improving accordingly to the ideals stated on our signboards... else, why would get continuous support from our customers?


老板：你看，我助手也承认，我的儿子也承认，我的姨妈姑姐们。。他们都这么认为。你没话说了吧 ！呵呵。。

Boss: You see! My helpers have agreed on that, so do my son, my aunts... All of them also agree on this. Do you have anything else to complain? Haha..


顾客：唉！好心叫你改进，你却听不进去。。我还是别等到以后吃到面里有屎才来"Peg Chek"，下回我只好去支持别的摊。这可真是把我带回现实 - 有竞争对顾客才会有好处滴。

Cus: Aiyah! I try to ask you to improve out of good will but it falls on deaf ears... I think I better not wait until I have shit in my Bar Chor Mee then I Peg Chek! Next time, I will just support another Bar Chor Mee stall. This really brings me back to reality -- the customers will only benefit when there is competition.


老板儿子： 你不要走、 你不要走！ 这里是伊甸园。。杀！很！大！。。

Boss' Son: Hey, come back, come back! This is Eden the Paradize...Damn!... Very big!...

Defendimg Our Nation's Core Values - Democracy, Peace, Progress, Justice and Equality

I have stared at this screen for hours before I could put my thoughts on it. The emotions and feelings within is so complex that I couldn't even find an appropriate title for this posting.

But I know I have to write this because this is a vital crossroad that our country has reached. I feel emotional because I feel that I have been cheated for over 30 years of my life for believing in the basic founding principles of our Nation.

I will never Pledge anything that is "UNREALISTIC" nor "Highfalutin". How could one Pledge to do something that he doesn't even believe in? Furthermore, I do not think that the late Mr. Rajaratnam has written our National Pledge with such "disbelief" to start with.

The PAP refuses to acknowledge that these founding principles and spirit are the key guiding stars of our Nation's development. The reason is simple, they could not answer for their deeds for the past 44 years that have deviated away from these CORE VALUES.

PAP may want to argue its way out of its shameless pervasive acts of extending its monopoly of power which has slowly eroded the fundamental values which this Nation has been founded upon. But there is not a single doubt that the Pledge, as well as our National Flag, have enshrined and embedded all these values permanently to remind us, the present and future generations that what this Nation should be striving for.

Our National Flag, unlike the Pledge which sound like empty words to PAP's ears, is the most important representation of our Nation.

The National Flag symbolizes the following:

Red symbolises universal brotherhood and the equality of man, while white signifies pervading and everlasting purity and virtue. The crescent moon represents a rising young nation. The five stars stand for the nation's ideals of democracy, peace, progress, justice and equality.

EQUALITY appears TWICE in this elaboration of what our National Flag symbolizes. But yet, our PAP ministers have just brush it aside as "UNREALISTIC"?

Words of the Pledge could be so twisted or even ignored by the PAP but I think the Five Stars on our National Flag are not something that the PAP could deny altogether. Yes, the National Flag has specifically enshrined "DEMOCRACY, PEACE, PROGRESS, JUSTICE AND EQUALITY" as "the nation's ideals". It is not just mere "aspirations", so to speak.

Our attention should not be diverted by the racial cards flashed by PAP. Equality comes in many forms and helping minority races who might have been disadvantaged in certain ways are not discrimination but affirmative actions to provide level playing field to achieve equal opportunities for all. Some bloggers have dealt with this issue and I shall not repeat it here. The key issue here is whether we should discard all these Core Values as the guardians of this Nation.

Both the Pledge and National Flags are the creation of PAP itself as it was the dominating ruling party since Singapore was forced into independence. These ideals are the very Promises that PAP has made to Singaporeans; to uphold the ideals of Democracy, Peace, Progress, Justice and Equality. We, as a nation and a people have accepted these values as the CORE VALUES and IDEOLOGIES for our Nation building. We should hold any ruling parties, especially PAP, past, present or future, accountable to these fundamental principles. It is not just about Racial equality but the whole set of CORE VALUES.

To illustrate this important point, let's say if a political party took over as Singapore's ruling party but suddenly it decides to turn Singapore into a monarchy. Or turn Singapore into a Religious based country. Or that it decides to change the Constitution to follow the China's style of political system and declare that this political party will forever be the Ruling Party while the parliament will be filled with appointed or even "elected" people's representative because we are Asian country and we should follow "Asian political system". Or this ruling party promotes apartheid policies under the excuse of "stability"...

Should Singaporeans just accept the excuse of such ruling parties that the founding values embedded in our Pledge as well as our National Flag as "UNREALISTIC" and it is only "REALISTIC" for us to become a country ruled by a religious doctrine or a monarch or full dictatorship etc.?

Of course not! Thus, these values are not just "aspirations", so to speak, but CORE VALUES and guiding principles of this Nation! Singaporeans should revolt against such ruling parties who try to distort our Constitution and rule against the founding principles of this Nation!

Thus, we should not belittle such Ideals and Principles embedded in our Pledge and National Flag by branding them as "aspirations" or "unrealistic highfalutin ideals". These are the guiding lights of our Nation, without which, we will be endangering our Nation to be destroyed by dictatorship or religious fanatics.

I have specifically put up the idea of reciting the National Pledge during the last election rally at Serangoon Stadium during last General Elections basically because I find it necessary to remind all Singapore voters what we are fighting for. What direction our Nation should develop into and we should not be blinded by those "pragmatic talks" of PAP politicians about the "unnecessary hassle" of having "opposition MPs" in parliament.

A political system without the balance of opposition force within will definitely slip into total dictatorship. Anyone who tries to sell you the idea that Democracy could well be alive even without opposition parties are dictators under the cloak of fake Democracy. Anyone who tries to sell you the idea that "Nominated MPs" could do all the magic of what real opposition MPs can do, is trying to hoodwink you into believing that Democracy could well work with "appointed MPs". There are two political systems that work this way in Asia: China and North Korea. Both are communist countries. Is Singapore working towards that direction?

It seems that PAP is trying out that formula and they are openly and deliberately saying it out loud of such intention recently in their Party newsletter, Petir. That article actually claims that we could well have Democracy without opposition parties! Singaporeans should raise their awareness and be guarded of such subtle but bold intention of PAP in selling such twisted idea to us.

All along PAP leaders have been saying that "Western Democracy" is not suitable to Singapore. What is the intent of such political discourse? PAP leaders have been saying that the American two party system is not suitable for us, least the multi-party parliamentary system. In numerous occasions, PAP leaders have stressed that Singapore should have only one DOMINATING RULING PARTY by default, PAP,to survive. PAP's intention to maintain its TOTAL Monopolistic grip on power is very obvious. Is this why they are not wary of bringing up the Pledge as the guiding ideology of Singapore now?

Are they planning to further enhance the idea that Nominated MPs should replace elected MPs and thus opposition parties should be made redundant? Or would they do away with elections altogether and promise to nominate at least certain number of opposition members into parliament? This would suit their "ideal" of having PAP as permanently the dominating ruling party! All under the pretext that the idea of "Democracy" is "UNREALISTIC" or "IMPRACTICAL" for Singapore's economic progress?

These changes may not be made so soon but history has shown that PAP would go all the way to change the rules of the game if the situation is not in their favor. They have implemented the GRC system after losing two parliamentary seats in 1984. They would further increase the size of GRC when they nearly lost Eunos GRC in 1988. Needless to say, they would alter the electoral boundaries of constituencies just to lower the chance of them losing more seats. GRC is their fortress of Power monopoly.

I do not know what they will change next if they finally lose one or more GRCs! To get rid of general elections altogether and promise more NOMINATED MPs in return? If that happens one day and Singaporeans just let it happens without a fight, it would be the end of Democratic Singapore founded upon the fundamental principles and ideology of Democracy, Peace, Progress, Justice and Equality. A new era of total dictatorship will dawn upon us.

To end this article, which may make me the target board of PAP machineries hereafter, I would like to share the following song with all true blue Singaporeans who are determined to defend and develop democracy in Singapore.



Goh Meng Seng