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

The Challenge of New Media POLITICAL Video Production

As the key person that is in charge of the production of NSP National Day Message Video, I would like to thank The Online Citizen's critique. What are more enlightening are those comments that follow the main article.

I have pushed for Web Video to be produced for a long time in NSP. But due to constrains and strategic considerations, we have to push it back till now. But as someone commented in TOC, political parties in this era could no longer be "no sight no sound but only text" on the internet. The internet Video has opened up a new whole spectrum of possibilities for political engagement.

PAP knows the power of media, especially the motion visuals coupled with emotional voices. This is the main reason why it has put a very tight grip on ALL the mainstream media in Singapore. It monopolized the TV & Radio stations right from the beginning and subsequently, took total control of the print media in Singapore after completing laws that subsequently force the merger of the "defiant" Chinese papers, Nanyang Shang Bao. It has made the mainstream media its tool of propaganda and image building while deprive other political opponents from gaining any space nor exposures through it.

The new era of internet has opened up a New Media frontier. Many Singapore opposition politicians, after years of deprivation of utilizing the mainstream media, have become more reserved, conservative and even skeptical in utilizing the internet as the New Media to enhance their political work. The common view is that the New Media is a double edged sword. But some are more willing to make use of the New Media to breach the Media barriers that PAP set up in the past and present.

The Singapore Democratic Party is one fine example that has been more advanced in utilizing the New Media opportunities provided by internet. Well, some may argue about who is the First to put up a website, use Blogs, Twitter, Facebook and so on to have that super facial "feel good" ego painted on them but the truth is, utilizing New Media for "networking" is very different in exploiting the media to the fullest in terms of carrying political messages to its intended audience.

For example, a "politician" may start a blog or use Twitter, but if what he puts up in his blog or transmitted through Twitter are just some political irrelevant content (like gatherings and complains) and not political messages or ideas, then he is not effective in utilizing these mediums for his political work. Never mind if you are the first politician to write the blog or use Twitter but the truth is you are not effective in utilizing them as political tool.

Web video is the most powerful tool that Internet has provided us thus far. The born of Youtube and other free video portals have provided wide opportunities. But it also poses the great challenges to Singapore opposition who have been a stranger to TV political evangelism for the past 40 years. Video, with sight and sound, is a very different animal from just writing plain text message. It involves a lot more of technical production skills and personal skills than just writing words.

My comrades and I have first hand experience in the web video production processes. Although new technologies and software have somewhat made video production tools more easily available for us, but the key still lies in how individuals perform right in front of the camera. Apart from that, the post production work on how the speech is being edited.

PAP has the opportunities and help from professional producers in the TV stations to make them look good in front of the TV but we do not have such luxuries. SDP is fortunate enough to have the help from some freelance video producer and editor but most other opposition political parties, including NSP, do not have such support. We do not have a proper studio to start with!

Nevertheless, such lack of expertise, proper equipment and venue do not deter me to push for the final production. Whether we like it or not, we have to start somewhere somehow. Although we will be at the lower end of learning curve, but I believe that in time to come, we will be fully ready to fight the New Media Warfare in the next GE.

I am fortunate enough to get the help of friends like Uncle Yap and some people who were in TV production to give me pointers and advice. There are at least three versions of edited video before the final ones are made. I have put up all the versions for public critiques and made respective editing amendments after such critiques are being consolidated.

Some may ask me why do have National Anthem in ALL the three language video production. This comment is most probably made by people who have watched all the three videos. But the respective videos are meant for different people with different language background. In the very spirit of our National Pledge (yes yes, I will be touching on this one later), I do not think we should have different treatment to different videos produced using different languages. The National Anthem is meant for ALL Singaporeans, not just those who use English or Chinese or Malay alone. This is a political video production, it has to be politically correct right from the start.

Some have made comparison to SDP's National Day Message video and said that we could have done something like them, combining all languages into one video. I was pretty impressed with their video production as well but the professional advice I have received is that I should do the same. The reason being that not everyone understand Malay, Chinese or even English. For a political message, it is important to get your targeted audience in different language segment to get the full picture of the message, not just the little different parts and pieces.

Subtitles may help in solving the problem of producing multi-language video but that would mean that at any one time, we will have to put up two different subtitles of two languages. This approach will make things look complicated visually. We cannot assume that everybody can read English subtitles, even though most people do.

Just take for example, if someone who only know Chinese watch SDP video, he may be lost for the rest of message except for the Chinese part. Same for those who only knows Malay or Tamil.

Thus, I was advised that mixing the three language presentation into one is not feasible politically. Political video, it seems, has more considerations than a normal video production like advertisement or just plain home video. It has to be all encompassing and all possible considerations have to be made to cater to the different voters.

Of course, presenting a 5 to 8 minutes speech in a mono-language will have its challenges. As I have mentioned before, Singapore opposition politicians have little real life practice and opportunities to stand right in front of the camera and speak naturally, convincingly etc. It is a LOST ART, so to speak. But we intend to rediscover it.

It is easy for anyone to put up a 5 to 8 minutes speech without video. Any inappropriate gesturing could well be forgotten there and then. But the video will capture every bits of it and present it pure and naked as it is. Of course we could edit away such portion using cut-away (i.e. using other visuals to replace the person while he or she speaks) but for a political message delivered by a person, it is the person's presentation as in voice, body language and gesturing that is important in carrying fore the message.

I was tempted to use cut-away but was advised against it. The politicians will look more like newscasters if such cut-away is used intensively.Another trick was to cut-away to audience just like what they did for PM Lee's National Day Rally but we do not have that.

Many have commented that the film shot was too wide, should have a mid-body shot. However, my production adviser would prefer wider shot! As stated before, politician's gesturing is an important part of a video presentation. It would be frustrating to see the politician gesturing while part of his or her arms are cut off from the video! (Watch Ken Sun's and Wai Leng's presentation for example). When I take a second look at PM Lee's National Day Message Video, yes, the framing does not cut off the hands.

As for the National Day Message itself, I find it quite comprehensive and focused personally. It has raised at least three important issues of Singapore, Housing, CPF as Retirement Financing and FT Policy that affects jobs as the key problems that cause great anxiety to Singaporeans. And such anxiety may diminish our National Identity as a whole. Of course there are much rooms for improvement in terms of messaging but I do not find any big problem in its approach at all.

The most challenging part of a New Media Video is of course, the presenters themselves. But I think for a first time try, they have performed reasonably well, though there are pretty much room for improvement. This actually brings back an important issue, training is vital in political presentation.

All in all, I think we have a good run in the production process, accumulating valuable experiences. We have to address all the challenges we faced in our first run in order to move forward with better production next time round.

I would like to thank all those people who have took the trouble to comment, critique and more importantly, providing valuable feedback to us. I would like to thank TOC once again for their effort in providing us the critique on their well read website. We take all comments and criticisms with great spirit as the necessary nutrients for our growth and progress.

Goh Meng Seng

Minibond Gathering in Hong Lim 22 Aug 2009

There will be a Minibond Gathering in Hong Lim tomorrow, 22 Aug 2009.

This gathering aims to put up a petition to the Prime Minister to request his action in getting the relevant authorities to exert social justice for aggrieved Minibond and structured products investors. Particularly, the petition urged the authorities to provide the same compensation option as Hong Kong where financial institutes bought back those investment products at 60% to 70% of original pricing and will return any excess of such amount (after the underlying assets have been sold) to the investors.

Please meet Mr. Tan Kin Lian and group in Hong Lim at 5 pm. Unfortunately, I will have to miss this gathering this time round. The following is message from Mr. Tan Kin Lian:

Tan Kin Lian
There will be a Gathering of investors of the credit linked notes and supporters at 5 p.m. on Saturday 22 August (8-22) at Hong Lim Park. The Gathering will start off with the National Pledge (not Aspiration) that we have been pledging (not aspiring)... for 44 years. I will be extending the Pledge beyond the citizens to include the residents of Singapore. See you there.


Goh Meng Seng

信约是个什么东西？ What is a Pledge?

This is a comment of a Singaporean (冀居·谢) in a Chinese Forum. Excellent dissection. I shall write on what my views on this issue of Pledge.

Goh Meng Seng

主题:信约是个什么东西？
作者:冀居·谢 10:06am 20/08/2009

三分染房 之

信约是个什么东西？

2009.8.20


去了一个萧锦鸿来了一个维斯瓦（Viswa Sadasivan），使我想起孙文的名言：“世界潮流浩浩荡荡，顺之则昌，逆之则亡。”他所指的潮流就是民主政治。看来官委议员制度接下来应该还有很多微调和改革的空间。

维斯瓦的动议设计得十分狡黠，就刚巧在国庆之后，高调宣读信约之余温尚未散去，人们发现原来执政党并不能够根据信约的原则来治国，很好笑，是不是？

黄永宏说：词藻优美的歌词或信约不足以确保国家生存繁荣。李资政说破给大家听：拉惹勒南和他共同撰写并修改的信约，原来是一个平等主义的画饼。他认为平等原则并非现实也不实际。既然如此，政府早该丢弃这个骗人的信约，为什么还要大家在国庆日庄严宣誓呢？害得李慧玲的老爸老妈都受骗。

李光耀说：“信约是什么？是种意识形态（ideology）吗？不是，那是个抱负（aspiration）。我们可能实现吗？我不知道，但我们必须一直努力尝试。我们是个国家吗？是转变中的。”

根据马克思主义者对意识形态的定义，我们的信约绝对是意识形态，因为它符合这个：由社会中的统治阶级对所有社会成员提出的一组观念（a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society）。李资政说的“抱负”，是一项长期并最终要实现的东西，但是国民信约如同早报报人所理解的那样，那是我们在“起跑点”时唬人的东西，是出于政治考虑的建国理念，是件旧包袱。加上部长所说的为了继续繁荣富强而不能够去实践，那么这个抱负根本没有动机和理由要国人去信守，是个虚无缥缈，浮在云端的东西，李光耀要把“国会带回现实”（bring the House back to earth），是不是再一次骗人了呢？维斯瓦这招“以子之矛攻子之盾”简直太绝了！咱们的两位资深反对党议员，等着领退休金，什么事都不干了，嘘！

那我们退而求其次，不当信约是意识形态，就当它是个盟誓好了。当年刘邦打败秦朝，因为秦朝太多严刑峻法，为了与民休养生息，刘邦只和灞上的父老约法三章：杀人者要处死，伤人者要抵罪，盗窃者也要被判有罪，如此而已。但是接着下来，汉朝统治天下的时候，约法三章应该有个时效，过期了就失效。还是继续告诉人民，国家只和他们约法三章，实际上什么法都进来，那就是欺骗人民了。

盟誓也未必是抱负，因为盟誓有时为了一己之私，是个临时的苟合：为了实现XX之幸福，共同努力。它也可以是非道德的，如《投名状》最著名的信约：“抢钱、抢粮、抢娘们！”只要目的达到，大家以后发财立品，过去的荒唐事也就别提了。

陈振泉在参与辩论时指出，维斯瓦忽视了政府政策所附带的责任与义务。因为一个负责任的政府在制定政策时，必然是以顾及人民的利益为出发点。这么说来，如果我们根据信约的内容来制定政策，反而会伤害人民的利益！？拉惹勒南误国误民，罪该万死。周殊钦说：“陈振泉把国会带回现实中的一席演讲，立时把我的思绪从天花板上拉回到现实世界。就在我‘脚踏实地’地离开记者席之前，就听到议事大厅里传来赞赏陈振泉令人信服演讲的零星掌声。我在想，其实议员们给他的掌声可以更热烈、更响亮些。”——这马屁准准拍在屁股上，因为看法和李资政不相伯仲。

他们可以相信李显龙在国庆群众大会充满隐喻地说我们种族和谐伊甸园已经成立——“不要走、不要走，杀很大！”，却认为维斯瓦的“公正平等”提议不切实际？更甚的是，强烈要求实践“信约精神”倒成了里通外国的洋奴，因为要把西方的那一套搬进国情特殊的新加坡。请问部长先生，信约是谁写的？

“65后”hiphop议员柏默说：“事实上，维斯瓦先生今天能够不畏后果，站在这里畅所欲言，就否定了所谓‘恐惧氛围’或‘担心报复心理’的存在。而我的反驳，也是民主进程的体现。”—— 他忘了那是议员的特权，一般人是享受不到的。当年惹耶勒南就是太享受这个特权，使到执政党在86年8月通过“国会（特权、豁免和权力）法修正案”，亦可谑称为“惹耶勒南修正案”，专门用来对付敢严词批评的反对党议员。还有执政党国会领袖马宝山近年进行的国会发言程序和时间的改革，官位越大发言时间越长和更自由，都在在使到国会有他讲没你讲（早报也不让维斯瓦的完整言论和读者见面）。维斯瓦先生不知要轮到什么时候，才可以进行反驳？极有可能这个处女秀也成了他的天鹅之歌了。

The failure of past success - HDB

The news article published on The New Paper is not new. Moons ago, The Malay Newspaper Berita Harian has published alarming figures on those who are forced out of their HDB flats when they could not afford to pay their mortgage. They were even told by the HDB staff to "stay with their friends or relatives" instead of giving them a solution to their housing-financial woes.

The newspaper report actually gave a slanted connotation on the whole issue. Did Mr. Rafi bought a flat that is way beyond his means? Apparently no. Base on a monthly salary of $2,800, his mortgage payment of $900 is just about one third of his total salary. Ask any financial planner and they will tell you that this is quite alright. He did not buy a house that he could not afford back then.

It is only when he lost his job and found a job that pay less than half of what he used to get that make him unable to fulfill his mortgage payment. This is the key problem that the reporter refused to address.

Of course the reporter hinted that the blame of his plight now is due to "ill advice" from property agent but seriously, what other options could he possibly have other than selling off the flat that he could no longer afford?

The REAL BLAME lies in HDB and its policy! HDB KNEW that Rafi and his family can no longer afford to pay the mortgage and the only option is for him to sell their flat. But wait, where should they be living if they sell their flat? HDB refused their plead to rent a flat from them! I mean, rules and regulations aside, HDB could actually sit there and tell people that sorry, they could only live off the street or live with somebody else and they could not rent any flat to them!

What has become of this PAP government? This is a clear case of REAL NEED! Housing policy such as HDB has been one of PAP's greatest political achievement back in the 1970s and 1980s. They were proud to say that every Singaporeans will have a decent roof over their heads and this is their great political achievement. But now, this no longer holds any truth!

HDB, through the PAP government's policy, has actually DENIED Singaporeans of any roof over their heads! This should be the REAL ISSUE of this newspaper report! And there are many more people in the same plight and it was reported in Berita Harian that many Singaporeans who could not pay for their flats will be evicted out of their flats and HDB will not provide any alternative housing (i.e. rented flats) for them!

I think PAP's ultra-capitalist approach to governing Singapore has just gone too far. Where are the visions and promises of the past PAP for Singaporeans to have decent roof over their heads, a decent job, really cheap subsidized healthcare and the great promise of CPF covering their retirement needs?

Contrary to what Prime Minister Lee wanted us to believe in his National Day Rally, Singapore has become worse, not better! At the very least, back in 1970s and 1980s, we do not leave people to live off the street without a roof over their heads. We did not need to demand patients and their family members to guarantee that they are able to pay for whatever medical costs before admitting them into the hospitals which are now really overpriced. We did not have massive influx of Foreign workers to become cheap labour substitutes of Singapore workers and depressing our wage. Our wages are stagnant or even regressed for some segment of Singaporeans for the past 10 years while price hikes (Public Transport fare) become a common practice.

PAP's past success has failed. CPF as retirement funding has failed. HDB as part of 100% housing for all has failed. Affordable basic Healthcare has failed. Providing stable and good pay jobs has failed. There is really little past success of PAP left.

Goh Meng Seng


Mon, Aug 17, 2009
The New Paper



Their spiral into the streets

RISING property prices have a way of blinding you to stark realities like affordability.

Just ask Mr Mohamad Rafi and Madam SBagam.

Their stories are similar - they bought HDB flats they couldn't afford and when they fell behind on payments, they made poor decisions, sometimes based on wrong advice.

Read all the stories:
» Her descent into the van
» So what can we do for them?

They claimed that housing agents told them to sell their flats and pocket the profit, then get rental flats.

But HDB rules do not allow someone who sold a flat in the open market to get a rental flat until 30 months after the sale.

Increasing demand for rental flats also means they have to join a queue, says HDB.

Meanwhile, they run out of money and end up homeless.

The problem has raised concern in the Malay-Muslim community, with the Minister for Muslim Affairs, Mr Yaacob Ibrahim, recently mentioning a need for the Malay community to exercise financial prudence.

He said last month: 'There is enough evidence to suggest that the Malay community is overstretched.

'They have extended themselves in terms of credit, buying homes beyond their means... there is a downward spiral effect.'

Mr Mohamad Rafi used to earn $2,800 a month as a forklift driver. He didn't get any CPF contribution, had little savings, but the 30-year old newlywed didn't think twice before buying a four-room flat for $244,000 in Clementi in the open market.

He used $29,000 from his CPF savings from his earlier jobs and took a HDB loan, repaying $900 a month.

That was in 2000 and the economy was booming.

But, as the economy slowed, he was retrenched after his company went bust in 2004. He managed to get another job as a forklift driver, but at just $1,200 a month (without CPF contribution).

By then, he and his homemaker wife had two children.

As his debts spiralled out of control, his HDB repayments dwindled to irregular payments of $200-$400.

'There was no way I could afford the flat anymore,' he said.

Within three years, he ran up arrears of $20,000. After repeated reminders, HDB sent him an acquisition letter in 2007 along with a court order.

He was told that if he wanted to keep his flat, he had to pay up half of his arrears.

'Where to find $10,000 like that?' he said.

Grace period

Desperate, he sought the advice of a property agent friend who told him that he could seek an MP's help to ask for a grace period.

He was granted 10 months' grace and was advised by his friend to sell his flat in the open market.

At end 2007, he sold his flat at a loss of $19,000 and had hardly anything left after settling his arrears.

With no money and no home, two children and his wife pregnant with their third child, he was at his wits' end.

His parents' flat in Bukit Panjang had been sublet, he said. So the family headed to Hawaii Hostel in the Bencoolen area where they paid $36 a day for a simple air-con room and free breakfast.

The family of four squeezed into a double bed.

'It was so cramped, I was sleeping like a mummy,' he said.

In March last year, his parents asked him to move in with them after the subletting period ended.

But shifting to his parents' flat came with a hefty price.

He had to quit his job to take his 62-year-old mother to the National Kidney Foundation dialysis centre in Toa Payoh thrice a week

Why didn't he ask his wife to take his mother for dialysis? He claims she was busy looking after the children.

He also had to help his father, then 65, sell ice-cream on a pushcart, for which he got $15 to $25 a day.

After a family dispute in March this year, he left his parents' home. Now with a 5-month-old daughter, the family of five had to put up at his father-in-law's rental flat in Bukit Merah.

With no income, he could not support his family and even took his children out of school.

His first daughter was in Primary 1 while his second was in kindergarten.

He returned to Hawaii Hostel last month but left after five days because he could not pay the bill.

For the past month, his family have been roaming the streets in the Bugis area in search of shelter.

They have spent nights outside Fu Lu Shou Complex, Sim Lim Tower, Sim Lim Square and Burlington Square.

On Wednesday night, they rested in the 24-hour McDonald's outlet in Bugis.

'People come to McDonald's to eat, but for us it is where we sleep,' he said.

He now works at the Thieves' Market in Sungei Road as a driver-cum-helper for one of the hawkers.

He now regrets buying his flat without anticipating that his financial situation could change.

Asked whether he felt ashamed, he said: 'What to do, it's our reality now.'

Nurul Asyikin Mohd Nasir, newsroom intern


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FROM BAD TO WORSE

2000:

Mr Mohamad buys 4-room flat in Clementi for $244,000. He was earning $2,800 a month and could afford $900 monthly HDB payments

2004:

Economy goes bad. His salary drops to $1,200. Can only make irregular payments of $200 to $400

2007:

After repeated reminders, HDB sends acquisition letter. He approaches MP for help and gets 10 months' grace

end 2007:

Mr Mohamad sells flat at $19,000 loss. Left with no cash after paying HDB, family stays in hostel

Mar 2008:

Moves to parents' home in Bukit Panjang. Mr Mohamad quits job to look after mother. Earns about $15 a day selling ice-cream

Mar 2009:

Leaves parents' home after dispute in March. Moved into in-laws' home. Left the home last month. Now living on the streets

This article was first published in The New Paper.

What PM Lee did not address in his NDR speech...

The following message has been posted on the internet forum today. This is a common outcry from many people, not only those in their 40s but now, even those in their 20s and 30s.

While Mr. Lee Kuan Yew tried his very best to address this touchy issue of Foreign Talent Policy which drew many sarcastic and even talk back remarks in the internet forums (of course SPH would not report on such responses), his son, Prime Minister Lee, chose to skip this issue altogether.

Religious harmony issue isn't the main key concern of True Blue Singaporeans now as it was 40 years ago. It may still be a sticky issue to those NEW citizens who have yet to get used to the compact multi-racial living environment, but I do not think those who are born in Singapore and live through most of their lives here have any problems with their other race residents at all.

The main key tension in our society now is about losing jobs to CHEAP FOREIGN LABOUR SUBSTITUTES. We will welcome REAL FOREIGN TALENTS who could do jobs that Singaporeans may not have the expertise in, so that we could learn from them. We would not have any problem to even pay them more in terms of salary because they have the skills that we don't have. But there so many thousands, even tens of thousands of Singapore workers who are displaced by CHEAPER FOREIGN LABOUR that it is becoming a very common talking point of the town!

This is the main key point of grievances of Singaporeans nowadays. It is impossible for us to accept that kind of pay that they are paying these foreign workers basically because we have a house mortgage and a family to support in this high cost city!

Ironically, the influx of foreign talents have affected the property prices in Singapore as well. They have even affected the prices of new HDB flats! The HDB's pricing mechanism of "market subsidy" is totally flawed. Foreign workers who have become Permanent Residents increased demand on the HDB resale market. But the supply in HDB resale market is pretty stagnant basically because Singaporeans bought their HDB flats to live, not to invest, speculate or for resale. Thus we have witness the HDB resale price being sticky upwards even during this recession basically because the supply is stagnant while the demand keeps pressure up by NEW Permanent Residents.

In the end, the prices of NEW HDB flats which are basically meant for Singaporeans are kept in high price levels when it is pegged against the resale market prices. With such pricing mechanism, the Foreign Talent Policy has contributed to higher HDB prices, Lower wages and it makes young people to think twice before getting marriage. And when Singaporeans are not getting married earlier and have less babies, PAP insists that we need even more Foreign workers! This will become a big vicious cycle in the end!

Apparently the Prime Minister and his Cabinet do not have a solution to reverse this vicious cycle and thus refrain from mentioning about the SOCIAL and HOUSING problems created by their Foreign Talent policy. But such ostrich attitude will not keep the problems away. It will become more serious in the years to come but no one knows when will be the boiling point.

Goh Meng Seng



----- Original Message -----
From:
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 1:03 AM
Subject: RE: Bitter guy blogs about it


I am an engineer. Over the past year, I have been squeezed out of my job by cheaper Chinese, Malaysian and Indian engineers.

To them, $2000 is much when they remit back home.
To me, I can’t even afford a HDB, as frugal as I try to be, because the foreigners keeps driving home prices up on a daily basis.

To add insult to injury, more of the foreign graduates replacing me had their university fees paid by our very own Ministry of Education. These graduates were not only given free college education, they were even given a month allowance of few hundred dollars each. While I had to work part time to support my education in NUS, and I still remain in debt to my student loan. (BITTER LAUGH!!!!).

I spent 2.5 years of my precious youth serving the SAF, during which I lost my first girlfriend during training. These foreigners were given PRs and citizenship in less than 2.5 years and they don’t even need to serve.

If war breaks out, I have to protect 1/3 of the population filled with these people?? (Assuming they dun run away at the 1st sign of trouble??!!) SAF even sent me a letter threatening to fine me for going overseas without telling them…to attend a funeral of my uncle…(BITTER LAUGH!!!!).

Hey, here’s an idea, why don’t I migrate to another country before migrating back. That will save me more time!

I am working in odds jobs now 7 days a week. I am now almost 30 already. Inflation exceed my savings rate, and I find a home, marriage, kids and happy future beyond me. A simple illness or a year of unemployment could wipe me out. Yet the government is wondering why there are less marriages and births….(BITTER LAUGH!!!!)

I bear no love to my country now. My country does not need to be attacked, it has already be invaded and taken over.

NSP National Day Message 2009 English, Chinese & Malay

NSP National Day Message 2009



As Singapore continues moulding its nationhood, it must evolve into a unique entity worthy of recognition at the world stage. However, after 44 years of endeavour, there is little culture of significance that we can truely claim our own. Although we do possess notable physical and materialistic achievements, the essential social glue that binds and bonds our still fragile, multi-racial society together, has been considerably diluted in recent years.

The overblown hype on the alleged cohesiveness and perseverance of the nation is only a half-truth at best. One only has to sit in any heartland coffee shop to listen to the Peoples' general frustration with life. There appears to be little passion for patriotism, because the People seem to be saddled with fear, insecurity and confusion. There is apparently little precious love for this little red dot of an island.

The Authorities have continued to confuse the People with its antics. As if to preserve the existence of an underclass, the Authorities are seen to promote price increases indirectly amidst falling wages, and also to welcome foreign workers amidst growing unemployment. Coupled with a host of other faults inherent of a non-homogeneous society, the mounting stress pushes one to question the actual value of citizenship.

Housing and healthcare costs have been inflated substantially over the decades, thereby reducing CPF savings. This has resulted in serious deficiency of funds for retirement financing which is supposed to be CPF’s primary function. On the other hand, insufficient attention was allocated to job preservation which is a constant worry for the young and middle-aged. The anxiety is further enhanced with the flood of foreigners invited in as cheap labour substitutes, coupled by the lack of a comprehensive social welfare for the unemployed. These have caused considerable distress. In the earlier years, there were hardly any citizens living off the streets without a roof over their heads. But nowadays, it has become quite common.

Consequently, more and more citizens have migrated to less stressful pastures abroad with each passing year. And in a simplistic attempt to make up for the lost numbers, more foreigners are invited in to this already crowded country. How does one march into the future, full of fear and insecurity? Especially when the Authorities themselves appear to be hapless in the face of the current economic downturn, despite their self-anointment of being the best. Apart from breaching the social contract by delaying CPF withdrawals, the Authorities can only promise “more hard years” instead, as they do not have adequate provisions for the Peoples’ welfare.

After 50 years under a solo, authoritarian leadership, Singapore can only project a somewhat vague national identity. There is hardly any local song, language, food, fashion or cultural trait with which Singaporeans can truly identify with its nationality. The failure to develop a strong and proper sense of belonging amongst the People can be traced to a number of official policy lapses.


A new British survey recently placed Singapore at 49th position in its Happy Planet Index. 14 Asian countries including 6 ASEAN ones were ahead of Singapore despite its having “achieved” a First World ranking years ago. This high level of unhappiness amongst the People is very tangible. It is therefore imperative for the Authorities to attend to and address it on a national level, instead of subverting it with some pompous and costly celebrations.

The Americans elected their 44th President, based on the philosophy of change. Likewise, Singaporeans should welcome their 44th National Day with a strong aspiration for change in our local political structure. Singapore must have genuine policies to serve its national interests, and not vested ones. Let this National Day remind all Singaporeans of their duties to protect and preserve the nation of their birth. Majulah Singapura!


Ken Sun

Secretary General




国民团结党的国庆日献词2009



在新加坡继续塑造她的国民意识之际，她也必须演变成一个在世界舞台上值得被认同的独特体制。然而，经过了44年的努力后，我们仍然缺乏真正能自成一格、举足轻重的新加坡文化。虽然我们在物质和硬体上都取得了显著的成就，但我们的多元种族社会仍然脆弱。能使我们的社会更具凝聚力和向心力的必要元素，在过去几年来已逐渐被削弱了。

官方管道声称我们的国家具有团结一致和持之以恒的精神。这只是在高喊口号，事实并非如此。我们只需走入任何邻里咖啡店就能听到人们诉说他们对人生感到很无奈。国民的爱国热忱似乎少之又少。因为他们都活在恐惧、不安和困惑的阴影下。人们显然无法珍惜和爱戴这称之为“小红点”的岛国。

不幸的是，有关当局还是继续以它的伎俩让人民感到困惑无助。它似乎要保留着贫困阶层，在薪金不断下降、失业人士日趋上升的今时今日还间接提倡物价的上涨并且继续毫无节制的欢迎外来劳工。再加上我们这多元社会已蕴含了很多瑕疵，这股日积月累的压力不禁催促我们质疑新加坡公民权的真正价值。

过去几十年来，屋价和医疗费的显著上涨，致使公积金储蓄不断的减少。这歪曲了公积金原本的宗旨，导致退休金陷入严重短缺的局面，使大多数国人无法舒适的安享晚年。

另一方面，政府并不重视保留工作给国人的重要性，这给年轻人和中年人带来持续不断的隐忧。再加上政府邀请外国人蜂拥而来充当廉价替代劳工以及失业人士欠缺全面性的社会福利，人们的焦虑感因而直线上升，国民情绪逐现忐忑不安。在建国初期，很少国民会流浪街头、无瓦遮头，可是这种局面如今是越来越普遍了。

这种种因素导致越来越多国人每年移民到生活压力较低的国家。政府为弥补国人流失的数量，不假思索地邀请更多外国人进入这已经很拥挤的国家。

在恐惧和不安的笼罩下，我们该如何迈向未来呢？虽然有关当局把自己冠为最优秀的领导者，但目前的经济萧条却让他们显得束手无策。除了延后国民提取公积金的年龄而违反了他们跟人民早已制定的社会契约之外，“未来的路更艰难”是他们唯一能许下的承诺。这全都因为他们再也无法提供充分支援以保障人民的福利。

新加坡在独裁和专制的政府统治了50年后，也只能呈现模糊的国民意识。新加坡人没有任何能真正能勾起国家认同感的本土歌曲、语言、食物、时尚或文化素质。社群里之所以无法塑造坚韧不拔的真正归属感，其缘由可追溯到好几项官方政策的失误。

根据英国最近进行的一项调查，新加坡在快乐地球指数上排名第49。其中有14个亚洲国家，包括6个亚细安国家，已经超越了在几年前达到发达国家等级的新加坡。人民的极度不快乐情况是非常真实的。因此，有关当局必须刻不容缓地处理这种全国隐忧，而不是通过铺张和昂贵的庆典加以掩饰。

美国人根据改革的理念选出了他们的第44任总统。同样的，新加坡人应该怀抱着本地政治架构能脱胎换骨的强烈意愿来迎接新加坡44岁国庆的到来。新加坡应该有真实良好的政策来推动国家的利益，而不是既得利益。希望今年的国庆节能让全体新加坡人铭记他们保护和捍卫祖国的义务。前进吧，新加坡！

孙祥凯
秘书长



AMANAT HARI KEBANGSAAN 2009 PARTI PERPADUAN NASIONAL (NSP)



Ketika Singapura terus dipupuk untuk menjadi sebuah bangsa majmuk, ia harus merencanakan agar menjadi sebuah entiti unik yang patut diiktirafkan di persada pentas dunia. Selepas 44 tahun mencapai kemerdekaan, Singapura berkembang dan bilangan asset kita bertambah sehingga apa yang kita perolehi membolehkan kita berasa bangga atas pencapaian selama ini. Namun begitu, pencapaian kita belum pasti menjadi kenyataan selagi ikatan akrab antara berbagai bangsa masih belum sempurna dan ianya seringkali dibelengu berbagai masalah kebelakangan ini.


Berat mata memandang, berat lagi bahu yang dipikul. Jikalau kita dapat bersembang dan mendengar rintihan masyarakat di kedai –kedai kopi, kita akan sedar bahawa terdapat perasaan kurang yakin pada setiap anak watan Singapura. Jiwa mereka bergelodak dan penuh tanda tanya mengenai kurangnya sikap keperihatinan terhadap negara, masyarakat dan jiran tetangga. Air yang tenang jangan sangka tiada buaya; begitulah perasaan gementar, kurang senang dan kurangnya kepercayaan terhadap bangsa majoriti di Singapura.



Apa yang diperjelaskan oleh pemerintah mengenai keaadaan ekonomi Singapura sekarang hanya mengelirukan masyarakat. Runtuhnya ekonomi sejagat bukan dek perbuatan pekerja, tetapi ekonomi yang diperkotak-katikkan oleh kuasa kuasa sejagat. Kenaikan harga barangan disebalik potongan kadar gaji hanya akan menjejas masyarakat kita. Tambahan lagi, dengan kehadiran pekerja pekerja asing, ianya hanya memburukkan lagi keupayaan masyarakat untuk mendapatkan pekerjaan. Sudahkah tibanya masa untuk pekerja pekerja asing membanjiri Singapura dan dimana letaknya hak kita sebagai warga negara Singapura?



Kos-kos bagi perumahan dan kesihatan telah menghadapi kadar inflasi yang tinggi semenjak beberapa tahun kebelakangan ini. Ia telah menyebabkan kadar simpanan CPF berkurangan. Ia juga telah menyebabkan kekurangan dana yang serius untuk membiayai masa persaraan yang sepatutnya menjadi tumpuan utama CPF.



Pada masa yang sama, tidak cukup perhatian yang diperuntukkan bagi mengekalkan pekerjaan yang menjadi kebimbangan tetap golongan muda dan juga pertengahan usia. Kebimbangan ini bertambah terutama sekali pabila ramai pekerja asing telah diundang untuk menjadi pekerja murahan. Kurangnya perhatian kepada kebajikan sosial bagi mereka yang mengganggur telah menyebabkan kesengsaraan yang berlebihan. Dalam masa 20 tahun pertama pembangunan negara, kita tidak pernah sesekalipun mendengar mengenai rakyat Singapura yang terpaksa hidup merempat, tetapi ia telah menjadi masalah yang biasa pada hari ini.


Selama empat dekad ini, kita telah menyaksikan kenaikan perangkaan anak Singapura berhijrah ke negara asing, mencari kehidupan yang penuh bermakna, samaada mencari pekerjaan mahupun keinginan untuk mencapai kehidupan yang lebih berkualiti dengan kadar perbelanjaan yang minimal. Namun begitu, pemerintah asyik mengalu-alukan kehadiran rakyat asing untuk mengisi kerakyatan Singapura, walaupun menyedari masalah keakraban masyarakat yang wujud di negara ini.



Bagaimanakah kita hendak maju sedangkan kita sering dibelengu perasaan ketidak-pastian dan kurang keyakinan. Langkah langkah yang diambil pemerintah belum pasti dapat mengeluarkan kita daripada krisis ekonomi sekarang ini, sedangkan kita sering berbangga yang Singapura sering menduduki tangga pertama dan terunggul di berbagai bidang. Setelah 50 tahun berada di bawah pemerintahan kuku besi, Singapura hanya setakat mampu untuk mempersembahkan identiti nasional yang samar-samar sahaja. Sebenarnya kita tidak boleh megakui bahawa kita mempunyai lagu, bahasa, makanan, fesyen mahupun budaya yang boleh dikait rapat dengan negara kita.

Satu kajian terbaru pihak British telah meletakkan Singapura ditangga yang ke 49 di dalam indeks Happy Planetnya. 14 negara ASIA, termasuk 6 daripada rantau ASEAN berada di hadapan Singapura, walaupun kita telah mencapai kedudukan negara dunia pertama beberapa tahun yang lalu. Kadar yang tinggi ketidak-bahagiaan di kalangan masyarakat dapat dirasai. Jadi, sudah perlu bagi pihak berkuasa untuk melakar dan menghuraikan isu ini di peringkat nasional, daripada mengelakkannya dengan mengadakan sambutan-sambutan yang membazir dan tidak berfaedah.

Rakyat Amerika telah memilih Presiden yang ke 44 mereka dengan dasar falsafah bersifat PERUBAHAN. Seperti mereka juga, masyarakat Singapura harus menyambut Hari Kebangsaan yang ke 44 ini dengan aspirasi dan azam yang kuat untuk melakukan perubahan ke atas struktur politik kita. Singapura harus mempunyai polisi-polisi yang tulen untuk berkhidmat atas kepentingan nasionalnya, dan bukan sekadar tanggung jawab yang diadakan secara mutlak (vested ones).

Marilah kita sama-sama mengambil kesempatan di Hari Kebangsaan ini untuk mengingatkan masyarakat akan kewajipan kita untuk mempertahankan dan melindungi tanah air kelahiran kita ini.

MAJULAH SINGAPURA!!!

Great Eastern Life is maganimous - Tan Kin Lian

Great Eastern Life is maganimous

When Great Eastern Life sold the Great Link Choice, the product was explained quite transparently. I recalled reading some description of the product in the newspapers. It was clear that on reaching a certain number of credit events, the value of the investment would drop sharply and after passing a threshold, it would be worthless.

The mistake was in allowing this type of "gambling" product to be sold to the general public. There is no way that any investor will be able to assess the risk of losing all their money. They had to rely on the advise of the financial adviser (i.e. insurance agent) and the credit rating agency. The Monetary Authority of Singapore should not have allowed the general public to gamble away all of their money for a small increase in interest rate.
Great Eastern Life made the mistake of selling this product, but several other insurance companies also sold similar products. NTUC Income, which was managed by me during this period, avoided this type of product, resulting in a decline in our market share.
Most policyholders who bought the product were probably told that there is a risk, but were probably assured (wrongly) that the risk is very small. It would be fair for the policyholders to take partial responsibility and bear a portion of the loss. Some policyholders might not have been told of the risk, or might have been misrepresented about the risk, but this is a separate matter.
It is magnanimous (highly generous) of Great Eastern Life to offer a full buyback of this investment product. I congratulate them for this goodwill gesture, which is costly to their shareholders. I hope that all policyholders who got back their money understand that they have been generously treated.
Great Eastern Life has to write off a loss of $250 million. It could be more, if the credit market continue to deteriorate. It could be less, if the credit market improves in the future. No one knows what the future will hold.
I like to wish all the best to Great Eastern Life and hope that they will be rewarded for their generosity, through an improvement in the credit market. In the best possible case, they may fully recover the $250 million that was set aside. At that time, I hope that the policyholders will not ask for the interest to be paid to them (as it would be an unfair expectation).
Whatever the outcome, Great Eastern Life would probably be rewarded by the goodwill gained from the compensated policyholders, their families and friends and the general public in Singapore.
I call on the other insurance companies who have sold similar products to offer a buyback arrangement. It does not have to be as generous as Great Eastern Life, but it should share the loss (or gain) equally between the policyholders and the insurance companies. This would be a fair settlement.
Tan Kin Lian

New Media, Political flims, Open Society & Fair Play

I have posted a Chinese news article from Taiwan regarding FAIR PLAY in sportsmanship recently. The article is basically reporting on the Tug-of-War event held in Taiwan. During the finals, the Swiss team was contesting against the Taiwanese team. One member of the Taiwanese team suffered an injury and by the rule, the Swiss will have the advantage of contesting against the Taiwanese team with full strength.

However the Swiss team chose to have one member less in order to match the number of members in the Taiwanese team instead of taking advantage of the situation then. In the end, the Swiss team still won, not only the game but the glory of it. The article then compared the ugly side of Taiwanese politics to the spirit of fair play displayed by the Swiss team.

This article actually reminds me about our very own Singapore politics. Will we ever have the spirit of FAIR PLAY in Singapore? The Swiss team could well have go along the rules and take advantage still within the rule of fair play. But it took a further step in great sportsmanship by making sure that it allows its opponent to have a fair chance to the game.

Will we ever have "FAIR PLAY" in politics, particularly in Singapore's politics? I seriously doubt so. It is a well known fact that PAP controls all the machinery in Singapore, from the People's Association to the media. Even when it comes to setting the rules to the game, PAP will always have the upper hand.

For example, take a good look at the following screenshot:



This is taken from PAP's website which hosted the various videos produced by PAP. It clearly stated that this particular video has been uploaded to their webserver on 27 Jun 2008. But wait, the bill on the changes to political films and such was only passed in March 2009!

So it seems that PAP has long decided (at least 9 months in advance) that they are going to utilize internet video for their political cause and campaigning and they should know that they must amend the law before they could do that. Throughout the 9 whole months, they have been in preparation for this amendment, uploading quite a number of videos up to the internet.

But wait, according to their own old law, it is supposedly to be an offence to create or keep video, especially political videos, that have not sent to censor board! I now wonder whether these videos made prior to March 2009 have been sent to censorship board before they were uploaded to the webserver! I doubt they have the experience of going through the hassle of censorship board because recently they have demonstrated that they didn't know how long the censorship board will take to administer a censor on a political video.



There was once a big hoohaa over Martyn See's first political video "The Singapore Rebel" a few years back which was uploaded to the Youtube back then. If I remember correctly, the police was investigating on people having in their possession of this video cd which have not gone through the censorship board just yet.

Actually in my view, this is nothing big nor serious, really. The Film Act is basically an outdated piece of legislation which could only be applied to the past. Ever since video cameras are made easily available to mass consumption, the Film Act has become redundant immediately. It has been further made obsolete by the rapid growth of internet and webvideo applications. The only reason why the film act still exists is for political protection of PAP. But since PAP itself is going to utilize internet video applications to further its own political agenda, it is only natural that the Film Act will be changed or just tailor made to suit its own agenda.

A Good Video from Mr. Brown

But wait, we are talking about FAIRNESS here. Laws or even the Constitution should not be changed just to suit the agenda of the ruling party! In a true democracy, a consultation process that includes all political parties would be held to determine the best rules for the country.

To a great extend, the New Media has provided an effective equalizer to UNFAIR PRACTICES in politics world wide. It is going to be a world wide trend that politics in places like Singapore which POWERS are dominated and monopolized by a single ruling party will have their political playing fields leveled. It could even create a Tsunami effect because they are developing from a point of total control of mass media to a sudden liberalization of information flow via the New Media.

Whether such breaching of media control by the authoritarian regime in Singapore could translate into meaningful democratic development and progress is yet to be seen. But at the very least, we are leaning towards more Fair Play for once. PAP will still have an upper hand obviously, due to the great amount of resources it has on hand. It could even utilize video clips collected in our National Archives to be utilized as one of its political video (watch the video on 1963 Swearing in Ceremony) But the gap between PAP and opposition parties are at least shorten greatly.

However, in preparation for my party, NSP's, National Day Message video, I have met an unexpected incident. My volunteer who have promised to do the filming of this National Day Message has called up and declined to help suddenly. He told me that he was "warned" by somebody that he should not help us to make such video. He declined to mention how he was warned but said that this is different from his past involvement in filming NGO's events because this is for a POLITICAL PARTY (or rather an opposition party).

At the very instance when I heard that, I was quite upset. However I am determined to break this mindset and install the concept of FAIR PLAY in Singapore's political arena. I would respect my volunteer's decision to back off from helping us because he has a family to take care of. But such despicable intimidation is totally outrageous.

It just reminds me that no matter how "OPEN" the PAP claims it wants to be but the truth is, the FEAR element still exists and worse, perpetuate by some mindless people out there. After 44 years of Nation building under PAP's monopoly of power, our country and people are still stuck with a third world political mindset. We may not have built a strong National Identity but we definitely have one common trait, i.e. POLITICAL FEAR initiated and cultivated by PAP's four decades of autocratic rule. This is really the sad situation we are facing right now.

Goh Meng Seng

瑞士拔河隊給台灣政治人物上的一課

瑞士拔河隊給台灣政治人物上的一課

* 2009-07-25
* 中國時報
* 【本報訊】

　高雄世運拔河比賽，瑞士隊奪魁，贏得高度尊敬。原因不僅在於技術優良，更在於其展現了稀有的運動家精神。其對手因傷一人缺陣，瑞士隊也自動減少一人出場較量，贏來的金牌，貨真價實而且榮耀無比。今日的競技場上，多的是不惜犯規以傷害對手使其不能繼續比賽的伎倆，其實與作弊無殊；作弊者比比皆是，不作弊已經變成美德了。瑞士隊的風範，則是遠遠超過了不作弊！他們若是全員出賽，沒有會說他們是作弊，他們有權利全員出賽；他們選擇減少一人，公平競爭，此一運動精神不僅令人動容，也為台灣上了一課。

　這一課很重要，因為台灣幾乎已忘記「不作弊」是最起碼的道德原則了。不講民間詐騙之風盛行，政府人員，能不能夠不作弊，到達弊絕風清的程度？我們可不敢說。最近的一個顯著例子就出在總統府。馬總統要發表治國週記，被網友抓出不少預錄的未來版，馬團隊則以贈書抓包者作為回應；再如某陳情婦人闖進總統府，如入無人之境，勤務憲兵逕自讓婦人離去，指揮部既不報警，也未向上級呈報，府方則以婦人為陳情常客，故作輕鬆。時程尚未推進，即預寫治國週記，算不算作弊？欺瞞哄騙，文過飾非，難道不是作弊？作弊是一回事；不把作弊當一回事，難道不是縱容作弊，支持作弊，等同作弊？

　馬總統其實一向給人不許作弊，不肯輕縱作弊的正面形象。他在特別費官司裡面，碰到檢察官在筆錄上動手腳作弊，深知其害，也深惡痛絕，不惜提出告訴，等到檢方護短縱容，把作弊不當一回事時，總統更不惜請求法院審判，絕不鄉愿，這本是他一貫的作風。可是，總統追究作弊，似乎手軟的時候也不少。這次總統府出的問題，總統似乎並未痛下檢討，姑且不說，數月之前，要求限期徹查軍方買官舞弊大案，國防部臉不紅、氣不喘地使用移送法辦人員統計數字，敷衍回應，連一個真名實姓也無，用文過飾非的方法遮掩察查作弊的要求，難道不也就是再作弊一次？馬總統則也好整以暇，交待國防部繼續追查，這個弊案還會查得下去嗎？這個弊案能夠查的出來嗎？對於作弊，是不是出現了兩種不應出現的態度？

　軍方對於層出不窮的舞弊行為，慣用瞞天過海的作弊手法應付查弊的要求；警察呢？似乎也好不到哪裡去。不到一個月以前，考試院舉辦的警察人員特考，傳出警專出題老師使用校內期末考題充作國家考試考題，為學生放水護航的作弊行為，遭到考生群起抗議，考試院決定改變計分標準，出題人員列為黑名單，可是警專校方從教育長卻一意護短，強詞辯解，至今未見公布被質疑為作弊的老師姓名。國家考試中，發現警察的老師為警察學生考試預試試題作弊，一次作弊，同時破壞了國家考試、警察與老師的形象與名譽，新聞見報之後，從行政院到內政部到教育部到警政署，沒有看到任何徹底追究、嚴禁再犯的作為，同樣也是從上到下鄉愿縱容，讓作弊者僥倖過關，不受責任追究，文過飾非，不就是另一次作弊？

　當然，擺在國人眼前，最大的作弊事件，莫過於前總統陳水扁的舞弊案件了。貴為國家元首，作弊多端卻不肯認罪，將一切的責任推給屬下妻子家人，作弊的功夫，無人能出其右，民進黨呢？則對於作弊的情節，視而不見，諱莫如深，只知以保障人權遮掩失去政治道德正當性的困窘。保障人權是對的，但是不能解決也不能遮蓋作弊所造成的政治道德破產。遮掩作弊所帶來的政治道德破產，無法用聲討作弊以外的途徑獲得救贖。

　與陳水扁相比，當政者作弊的情形那是小巫見大巫。不過，從軍方到警察，從檢察官到老師，從行政到考試，如果作弊之風不斷，文過飾非成習，小巫很快就有一天會變成大巫。馬總統一向痛惡作弊，也一向知過能改，能不能以瑞士隊為師，不要再學陳水扁或民進黨了！

香港銀行斥63億終極「解迷」

銀行斥63億終極「解迷」
(星島)2009年7月23日 星期四 06:30

(綜合報道)

(星島日報報道)糾纏了十個月的雷曼迷債事件，昨天終於可望解決。證監會、金管局以及十六家銷售迷債的銀行達成集體和解協議。銀行將以原價六折或七折的價錢，向投資者回購迷債。銀行出售迷債抵押品之後，會視乎抵押品價值，向投資者支付額外補償。證監會表示，回購方案已考慮了投資者利益，但雷曼苦主大聯盟則堅持要求銀行十足十賠償。

　　十六家銷售銀行將合共要為回購迷債付出六十三億元，而當年銷售迷債所得的兩億元佣金，也要全數撥入一個特殊基金，以應付出售抵押品的法律開支。不過，證監會在昨天的通告當中，並沒有譴責銀行的字眼，換言之，銀行已取得下台階。

　　早在今年一月以及四月，兩間證券行新鴻基投資以及凱基已與證監會達成和解協議，同意以原價回購迷債，而這兩間證券行更遭證監會公開譴責。相比之下，銀行只是退回部分本金，而且沒有受到譴責，境況較證券行為佳。

　　證監會行政總裁韋奕禮昨天表示，回購方案令到投資者可以盡快取回相當比例的本金，是解決迷債事件的適當方法。他又說，銀行銷售的迷債，無論涉及金額以及投資者人數，都遠較證券行為多，因此兩者難以相提並論。證監會將停止對迷債銷售銀行的調查，而金管局副總裁蔡耀君亦指出，只要投資者接納和解建議，金管局將不會對這些個案採取執法行動。不過，假若銷售過程有可能涉及欺詐等刑事罪行，則會繼續跟進。

　　銀行界消息人士表示，銀行會在八月三日開始，向合資格客戶寄出回購要約文件，客戶要在六十天內作出決定。一旦客戶接受銀行提出的回購方案，就需要撤回投訴。

　　他相信，大部分客戶會接受這個方案，因為相對於抵押品價值，客戶所得是「有多無少」，強調銀行已顯示出最大的誠意。但若客戶拒絕接受，他們的權益亦不會有任何影響，「香港的核心價值是法治精神，如果客戶覺得自己有理據，可以透過法律渠道追討。」

　　銀行估計，有九成五客戶合乎回購方案的資格，至於不合資格的百分之五客戶，則是專業投資者、企業及非個人投資者，而在首次購入迷債之前的三年內，曾有五次或以上買賣結構產品或槓桿成分產品的有經驗投資者，亦不符合資格，消息人士表示，這是為了防止道德風險，令到投資者要承擔其投資責任。

　　政府亦歡迎監管機構與銀行達成和解協議，財經事務及庫務局局長陳家強表示，回購方案是從投資者的利益出發，避免投資者經歷冗長繁複的清盤程序以及不必要的訴訟。

　　他又說，期望銀行可從事件中吸取教訓，改善銷售投資產品的程序。

　　中文大學財務學系副教授蘇偉文估計，大部分迷債投資者相信會接納回購方案，以免夜長夢多，繼續追討將要面對很多不明朗因素。



大聯盟不滿終止雷曼調查投訴
(星島)2009年7月23日 星期四 11:47

十六間雷曼迷債分銷銀行與證監會 就賠償客戶達成共識方案後，在報章發表聯合聲明，正式宣布向合資格的客戶提出回購計劃。不過，雷曼苦主大聯盟召集人陳光譽不滿，若客戶接受方案後，當局將不再繼續調查投訴個案。

陳光譽表示，當局如果不再繼續調查，公義便不能彰顯，社會亦不能從事件中得到教訓。但他強調，並非建議投資者拒絕接受昨日公布的回購方案。投資者應考慮個人經濟狀況，決定循法律途徑繼續追討，或接受方案。

而23日早上10多名購買雷曼迷債的市民，在證監會所在的中環 遮打大廈外靜坐，表示不滿證監和銀行達成的和解方案，他們指銀行欺詐，要求百分百賠償。

十六間雷曼迷債分銷銀行在報章發表的聲明指，在過去數月，分銷銀行在增撥大量資源，加快處理所有投訴個案調查和解答客戶查詣的同時，一直竭盡所能為事件盡快尋求一個全面、公平、合理的解決方案。在今次極不尋常、而且無先例可援的情況下，將雷曼迷債事件作為特殊案例處理，在不承擔任何法律責任的前提下，提出回購計劃。回購計劃已獲證監會和金管局 同意作為管調查全面和解方案的一部分。

聲明又指，雷曼倒閉是全球金融海嘯中的一個巨浪，是不測，也是不幸，無人預計到這個有150年歷史，美國 第四大投資銀行，雷曼會在一夜之間倒閉，相信回購計劃會得到迷債客戶及公眾支持。

根據計劃，65歲以上的投資者可取回七成本金，65歲以下的投資者取回六成本金，日後銀行若成功將債券抵押品變現，投資者可多取一成本金，過去已和解的個案，客戶可獲補償差額，預計銀行合共需支付63億元。

Minibond Victims Petition to PM Lee 迷你债券苦主向李总理的网上请愿书

For those victims of banks and financial institutions mis-selling of structured products like Minibonds, DBS High Notes or Pinnacle Notes, the following is a new online petition started off by Mr. Tan Kin Lian to be sent to Prime Minister Lee.

The main thrust of the Petition is to get MAS to implement a similar
settlement to what is happening in Hong Kong, i.e. 60% now and 40% of
the maturity proceeds. This is reasonable and fair as the various investigations done by both MAS and HK SFC have indications that there are systematic mis-selling of these products to retail investors and fixed depositors.

Please help to spread the news about this petition.

http://www.petitiononline.com/PPMCLN3/petition.html

陈钦亮先生再一次带领迷你债券和结构性金融产品苦主向李总理请愿，请求他为苦主们主持公道，力求金融管理局能向香港证监会一样，为苦主们寻求合理的解决方案。那就是，以至少60%的价格回购所有产品并且把从产品抵押品赎回的40%价值归还给苦主们。

这请愿书将在以下的网页收集签名，如果您想签署这请愿书，请点击以下网址：

http://www.petitiononline.com/PPMCLN3/petition.html

吴明盛代启

Concept of Power II- Hong Kong vs Singapore/PRC , Democracy, Social Justice & National Identity

There are a series of happenings for the past weeks that provide an interesting material to make comparative study of the impact of democratic progress to welfare of the people.

I was only thinking of making democratic comparisons between Hong Kong and Singapore at the beginning of the month after my participation of the Hong Kong 1 July protest march, but the unexpected 5 July racial/ethnic riot has added another perspective to my original script.

The Source of Power

I will start with the call for Universal Suffrage for the election of the Hong Kong Chief Executive. Many people may view such "hard political issue" difficult to relate to their daily lives but the Lehman Brothers Minibond issue has brought great contrast to possibility of how different a government under different degree of democratic progress would react to protect the interests of small investors versus big financially powerful corporations.

The fundamental reasoning for the call of Universal Suffrage is to transfer the power of appointment and empowerment from the few individuals (800 to be exact) to the general public. These 800 individuals are mostly screened and approved by the basic source of power, the Beijing government.

Thus, it would mean that anybody who wants to be elected to be the Chief Executive of Hong Kong, he will have to get the backing of the majority of these 800 Bejing appointed delegates. Most of them are rich, powerful and influential individuals in Hong Kong, representing the business community which includes the property developers, banking and finance sectors etc. Of course there are token representatives from the respective professional functional groups and unions but most of these people are perceived as appointed by or proxies of Beijing government.

With such a power structure, it is natural for those who are in the position of Chief Executive to please the big boss who appointed him in the very first place. At the very least, don't agitate or make the big boss angry. On the other hand, he must maintain cordial relationship with those 800 delegates who voted him as proxy to the Beijing Government. Many of them are tycoons or proxies of such rich and powerful tycoons representing their business and organizations' interests.

Thus in Hong Kong, it is not unusual to hear the people or newspapers complaining of "官商勾结"， meaning collusion of the government and businessman in return of favors.

Buttered Side up

To illustrate how the structure of power affects the political behavior and decisions made by the Chief Executive, the simple request for Universal Suffrage by the Hong Kongers was flatly turned down by Donald Tsang recently in Legislative Council. His reasoning was that the Chinese People's Congress (which of course controlled and directed by the Beijing Government) has closed the case with a time table set for 2017 to implement the Universal Suffrage (instead of 2012). He is not going to go against the political will of the Beijing Government by bringing this up again to the Chinese leaders. Neither will he make any arrangement for those Legislative Council members (i.e. equivalent to our MPs) to visit Beijing to put up their views and requests of Universal Suffrage directly to the Chinese leadership.

It is obvious that Donald Tsang's main concern is to avoid agitating the Beijing Government even though there is strong voices on the ground to demand for Universal Suffrage in 2012. He is less interested in bring the voice of the Hong Kongers to Beijing. This is understandable as his reference of empowerment comes directly from Beijing Government itself.

Accountability of the administration is basically skewed towards the Beijing government who is the source of the power rather than the Hong Kongers. In any system that promotes appointment of key political leaders by the few powerful people, it would always be so.

The Pillars of Democracy & Minibond Saga.

Lucky for Hong Kong, there are two other three pillars of democracy to depend on. The very professional and independent judiciary, the freedom of press and the Legislative Council (i.e. parliament). Apart from that, there is a guarantee of freedom of expression by the layman via street protests.

The Lehman Brothers Minibond saga has demonstrated the importance of having these pillars of the democratic system. The Hong Kong Administration may not have the political will to settle the Minibond saga once and for all using its administrative powers, just like Singapore's MAS. This is basically because many of those in the 800 delegates that elect the next Chief Executive are well connected to the banking and finance sector. By right, the regulatory role should fall flat on the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) but eventually, this hot potato was kicked to the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC). HKMA is directly under the prevail of the HK administration of finance ministry while SFC is more or less an independent commission to oversee fair play in the financial market, mostly on the stock exchange and other financial derivative markets. It would be strange to have the SFC instead of the HKMA to oversea regulation over banks who mis-sold structured products. Anyway, this is another story.

SFC being an independent commission did an investigation into the whole matter and took a hard stand on the banks and financial institutions that mis-sold the structured products. It was not satisfied with the initial general settlement proposal (read by earlier posting, overall 60% to 70% compensation) made by the 16 banks and has in fact warned of sanctions on several financial institutions. Some financial institutions have eventually made FULL compensation to ALL of their clients while others are forced to make formal GENERAL SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL.

The Hong Kong Minibond victims are also helped by Pro-Democratic Legco members to force the Legislative Council to set up an independent Legco Committee of Inquiry. They were able to force the setup of such committee of Inquiry which is empowered with special Legco rights and power to call for witnesses mainly because the Hong Kongers have voted in slightly less than half of the Pro-Democratic Legco members as compared to the Pro-Beijing Legco members who are mainly elected via the Functional Group categories. If the composition of the Legco members are just like Singapore Parliament with only 2 or 3 opposition MPs, I really doubt that such Committee of Inquiry could be set up at all.

The Minibond saga in Hong Kong is coming close to GENERAL SETTLEMENT with FAIR compensation to be made to ALL investors mainly due to the power of the Democratic system that allows it to happen. Unlike the plight of Singapore's Minibond victims who are left to their own to fight for their rights and interests, the solid foundation of Hong Kong's democratic system has allowed Social Justice to prevail.

Forging An Identity

The Democratic progress and development in Hong Kong also allows the Hong Kong identity to be enhanced further. From the various postings on the Hong Kong protest march and 4 June memorial service, we an see that young Hong Kongers have been cultivated with a strong sense of social justice and political mindsets.

For an identity to be forged, there must be meaningful collective memories to start with. Collective memories can come in many forms like unique distinctive iconic buildings, common experiences and even food or culture. The unique peaceful protest march of tens of thousands of people without any incidents of violence is one of such amazing collective memories that one would have as a people.

Although Hong Kong is not a country but the Hong Kong identity is unique to many people. Hong Kongers feel that they have the responsibility to mold the future of Hong Kong instead of leaving it to the will and fancy of the Beijing Government. The spirit of "self-determination" is a strong molding factor of Hong Kong identity in this aspect.

As contrast to young Singaporeans who may hold "defeatist" mindset in wanting to initiate a change or molding the direction of their country, the young Hong Kongers, as young as secondary students, would take to the street to voice out their social-political views in the hope that they could maintain the political pressure on the government of the day to meet their demands.

There was a survey study of young Singaporeans and the result was that a substantial percentage of them would consider migration as the ultimate option for them in the future. This is alarming for a COUNTRY that has existed for more than 50 years. Singapore does not face famine, political instability nor any natural disasters. Why would young Singaporeans plan to leave their country? This is, in my view, a National Identity crisis.

Democracy, Social Justice & Fairness, Ethnic Harmony

The riot and unrest in China's Urumqi has raised alarms on racial or ethnic harmony. It is a timely case study for us to understand how such tragedy should be avoided or deal with if it has already happened. Favorism or discrimination will not solve racial and ethnic troubles.

A country needs a system of SOCIAL JUSTICE & FAIRNESS, INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY and DEMOCRACY to ensure that the leaders from top to bottom take heeds of the voices of different races and ethnic groups on the ground. As we can see in Hong Kong's case, minority races or even foreign maids are allowed to go for protests to voice their grievances. In fact, Hong Kong has a commission which looks into Equal Opportunity for all, particularly in employment.

Lessons to be Learned

The very first lesson to be learned is, the political structure and system MATTERS to ALL of us. This is shown by the differences in the way Hong Kong and Singapore government respond to the Minibond issue. While Hong Kong Minibond victims are heading towards possible GENERAL SETTLEMENT with a substantial compensation facilitated by the independent and separation of power along with democratic means to exert political pressures, Singapore Minibond victims are stuck with the only option of going for potentially expensive lawsuits. MAS has only taken the token step of putting a light slap on the wrist of banks who apparently have systematically mis-sold these high risks structured products.

The second lesson to be learned is that our National Identity could not be forged simply by singing nationalistic songs once every year during National Day. Engagements and participations of the young and old in the political discourse and democratic processes are of paramount importance in forging a collective memories, ownership and common identity among the population.

The third lesson is that Social Justice & Fairness could only be supported and sustained by a truly democratic system with high level of citizen activism on the ground. This will maintain the necessary checks and balances to ensure racial and ethnic harmony within.

On the other hand, in order to make our ruling party PAP to really grasp the reality of empowerment by the people, ideally ALL wards should be contested. Although we do not have a good model of democracy or even an ill-democratic system with controlled press and skewed electoral system, but at the very least there is still a way to make PAP MPs and ministers more accountable to the people. This is by means of making each and everyone of them to go through the process of REAL ELECTION rather than walk over.

If they are allowed to walk over lightly, they would think that what matters most is the PAP's SELECTION process, not voters' choice. In the end, they may end up singing more praises to the PAP leadership instead of voicing out the various concerns of the people who are supposed to be their source of power.

Last but not least, we need MORE ELECTED opposition MPs with FULL POWERS in parliament (instead of NCMPs). In my view, the proportionate representation system is the best system we could have to make sure that we have a parliament with a balanced representation of views over the wide population spectrum.

Goh Meng Seng