新明日报 （Shin Min Daily News, 01 December 2009, Page 5）
工人党组织秘书饶欣龙受访时形容， “冷静日” 或许是人民行动党的其中一个策略，减少反对党接触选民管道。 他表示 “冷静日” 当天只能进行竞选广播及传媒报道， 这样，执政党可透过基层 组织或工会组织的网络，继续与人民进行非正式的联络，但反对党就较难如此进行。
WP: ‘Cool Off Day’ Reduces Opposition Parties’ Already Limited Electoral Outreach Channels
WP’s Organizing Secretary Yaw Shin Leong during an interview described that ‘Cool off Day’ seems like one of the multiple PAP elections engineering strategies. This will reduce opposition parties’ already limited electoral outreach channels. He expressed that since on ‘Cool off Day’ only media broadcast & reports are permitted, this may result in the incumbent party tapping upon its ('non-political') grassroots mechanisms or its (pro-PAP) labor unions’ networks to conduct ‘whispering campaigns’. However opposition parties without these platforms would not be able to do so.
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Beware the Slippery Slope of Political Hegemony
I refer to the news report ‘Yeo: Beware the slippery slope of protectionism’ (TODAY, 12th November 2009)
It is most glaring when our leaders understood the dangers of increasing protectionism and the importance of trade liberalization, whilst ignoring the dangers of PAP hegemony and dismissing the need of the political opposition in the political defense in Singapore.
There is definitely a need for fellow Singaporeans to resist PAP hegemony or it may certainly lead to a possibly dire situation for Singapore in future. Perpetuating PAP hegemony without building up credible check & balance mechanisms in Singapore’s Parliament is definitely one such slippery slope and if we are not careful, before we know it, Singaporeans will be in a dire situation.
So what are the measures to prevent political hegemony from becoming a potential time bomb for Singapore? Singaporeans must therefore ‘keep pushing forward the political liberalization agenda’ by voting in credible opposition members into parliament and not be enticed by the obvious PAP hegemonic-perpetuation strategy via the schemes’ expansion of non-constituency members of parliament & nominated members of parliament.
Therefore politics is an area if Singaporeans do not move forward, we are likely to lose balance and be lesser off for the lack of a credible political defense. In 1959 the late David Marshall, ex-Chief Minister of Singapore and Founding Chairman of the Workers’ Party underlined this importance when he said the following in a rally speech:
"The duty of an Opposition is to act with vigour to guiding and criticizing with integrity the conduct of the government, to make heard the voices of the minority without fear so that the majority, drunk with their new found power, should not abuse that power, should not ride rough-shod over the people in a drunken orgy of dictatorship"
The Workers’ Party has been on stand by over the decades. It is certainly prepared and in position to discharge this duty. So what are you waiting for? Join WP today and discharge your duty as a patriotic citizen of Singapore!
News Link:
Yeo: Beware the slippery slope of protectionism (TODAY, 12th November 2009)
It is most glaring when our leaders understood the dangers of increasing protectionism and the importance of trade liberalization, whilst ignoring the dangers of PAP hegemony and dismissing the need of the political opposition in the political defense in Singapore.
There is definitely a need for fellow Singaporeans to resist PAP hegemony or it may certainly lead to a possibly dire situation for Singapore in future. Perpetuating PAP hegemony without building up credible check & balance mechanisms in Singapore’s Parliament is definitely one such slippery slope and if we are not careful, before we know it, Singaporeans will be in a dire situation.
So what are the measures to prevent political hegemony from becoming a potential time bomb for Singapore? Singaporeans must therefore ‘keep pushing forward the political liberalization agenda’ by voting in credible opposition members into parliament and not be enticed by the obvious PAP hegemonic-perpetuation strategy via the schemes’ expansion of non-constituency members of parliament & nominated members of parliament.
Therefore politics is an area if Singaporeans do not move forward, we are likely to lose balance and be lesser off for the lack of a credible political defense. In 1959 the late David Marshall, ex-Chief Minister of Singapore and Founding Chairman of the Workers’ Party underlined this importance when he said the following in a rally speech:
"The duty of an Opposition is to act with vigour to guiding and criticizing with integrity the conduct of the government, to make heard the voices of the minority without fear so that the majority, drunk with their new found power, should not abuse that power, should not ride rough-shod over the people in a drunken orgy of dictatorship"
The Workers’ Party has been on stand by over the decades. It is certainly prepared and in position to discharge this duty. So what are you waiting for? Join WP today and discharge your duty as a patriotic citizen of Singapore!
News Link:
Yeo: Beware the slippery slope of protectionism (TODAY, 12th November 2009)
Monday, October 19, 2009
Thoughts on War
I watched "Flags of our Fathers" & “Letters from Iwo Jima” on Channel 5 & Okto Channel respectively over the weekend.
Both World War II films are based on the same battle of Iwo Jima. The former film is narrated from an American perspective, whereas the latter one is narrated from the eventually defeated Japanese perspective. Interestingly both films were produced by American producers.
Amidst carnages and highly-charged emotional war scenes throughout the films, most people who watch both films will conclude that wars can be rather senseless regardless of their intentions. This is especially understood from the contexts of lost lives & torn limbs, whichever side the combatants come from.
Still, the above does not wither my belief for the need for a strong national defense. Personally I am very willing to train hard for war because by so doing I am in actual fact strengthening a citizenry deterrent that prevents war.
Above thoughts aside, such films are the type of movies that can psych one up for in-camp-trainings. Incidentally my in-camp-training at Shoalwater Bay, Australia will be from 22nd October to 9th November 2009 :)
Links:
Flags of Our Fathers (Film)
Letters from Iwo Jima
Both World War II films are based on the same battle of Iwo Jima. The former film is narrated from an American perspective, whereas the latter one is narrated from the eventually defeated Japanese perspective. Interestingly both films were produced by American producers.
Amidst carnages and highly-charged emotional war scenes throughout the films, most people who watch both films will conclude that wars can be rather senseless regardless of their intentions. This is especially understood from the contexts of lost lives & torn limbs, whichever side the combatants come from.
Still, the above does not wither my belief for the need for a strong national defense. Personally I am very willing to train hard for war because by so doing I am in actual fact strengthening a citizenry deterrent that prevents war.
Above thoughts aside, such films are the type of movies that can psych one up for in-camp-trainings. Incidentally my in-camp-training at Shoalwater Bay, Australia will be from 22nd October to 9th November 2009 :)
Links:
Flags of Our Fathers (Film)
Letters from Iwo Jima
Monday, October 05, 2009
丝路之旅的政治感触
By: 饶欣龙This article was first published in The Hammer (Issue 0903)
生为华族，自然而然的，我从小就喜爱阅读中国历史 ，但遗憾的是我所能读得懂的这些中国历史都是以英语讲解的史书为主。因此，为了补偿这个‘缺陷’，我一直都想亲自体验华族的丰富传统，人文与历史。
今年的六月，我和妻子终于有机会到中国西部度假。我们首先飞往新疆维吾尔族自治区首府，从乌鲁木齐开始，然后在14天内乘车4000公里路， 行程包括乌鲁木齐, 吐鲁番, 哈密, 敦煌, 嘉峪关, 张掖, 西宁, 兰州, 中卫, 银川和西安。这11地方也是古人在当时艰苦恶劣的环情下经商，所穿越的丝绸之路。特别是在河西走廊，长长不断的沙漠路那一段，虽然我们所乘坐的是冷汽车，但还是觉得非常累，更何况是骑着骆驼或步行！在这里，我要和读者们分享丝路之旅中我最难忘的三个地方与时刻。
首先是嘉峪关。嘉峪关是长城最西端的关城，有著天下第一雄关之称的嘉峪关自古即是河西地方的軍事重地。嘉峪关关城是明代长城建造規模最大最壮观的关城，同時它也是目前保存最好最完善的一座古代軍事城堡。明初時大将军冯胜在打胜仗班师回京的途中经过河西走廊，看上了嘉峪关这个地勢天成、攻防兼备的咽喉之地，于是在洪武五年（西元1372）時开始兴建嘉峪关关城，历时1百多年才完工，建了一座三重城郭，多道防线，城内有城，城外有壕的軍事重城。事实上，嘉峪关自古即是番人进贡必经之路，也是汉人的軍防重地。
站在那号称天下第一关的城墙上向远处遥望的刹那间， 我领会了两个道理。第一，不论是多么壮观雄伟与坚固的关城，它的强度不会超越关城内的守兵、将领和人民的忠诚和意志力。在历史上，清朝不是轻易就过了关，夺取了中原吗？第二，一个国家的国民心态和关城也是同样的道理。如果国民和政府只是紧紧依系目前所拥有的，不愿意接受挑战，不愿意扩大和强化关城的韧度，当危机出现时，国民所拥有的，最终会不会就轻易地被夺走，还是个未知数。民主制度下着重于政治竞争与政治平衡，不允许如古代帝王专制现象的重现其实也是强化一个国家关城的过程。
第二是在兰州的黄河铁桥上看着汹涌澎湃黄河。黄河是中国的母亲河，也是世界上含沙量最多的河流。黄河有上千条支流与溪川相连，犹如无数毛细血管，源源不断地为中华民族的大地输送着活力与生机。据记载，在三至四千年间，黄河下游决口泛滥1500多次，河道因泛滥而大改道许多次，决口1000多次。洪水遍及范围北至海河，南达淮河，纵横25万平方公里，对中国黄淮海平原的地理环境影响巨大。
站在那 有“天下黄河第一桥”之称的桥上， 看到有些旅客乘坐羊皮筏子游廊黄河。我回想起一位工人党元老曾经跟我解释‘水能载舟，亦能覆舟’的道理。他说：目前的天下还是‘他们’的，但为了国家的长远利益，你们一定要坚持到底。因为水（人民）如果今天能载‘他们’有一天也能覆‘他们’。 但如果你们等到那时候才来造舟，国家就有难了。党元老的教诲，我铭记在心。
第三是西安的秦兵马俑。秦兵马俑是指秦始皇的兵马俑遗址，位于中国陕西省西安市临潼东5公里的下河村。走着，看着秦兵马俑时我看到一个小说明，提到在1976年，前新加坡总理李光耀参观秦兵马俑考古现场时说:"秦兵马俑坑的发现是世界的奇迹、中华民族的骄傲。我也是炎黄后裔，也有我的一份。" 在那一刻，我的心里有两种互相矛盾的感觉。第一个感觉，我确实是有一股身为炎黄子孙的骄傲。但在同时，冲上来第二个感觉却是一股莫名的茫然与可悲，秦兵马俑也反映了暴君秦王的暴力行为和野心，草菅人命，造成百姓的苦难。这也是身为炎黄子孙所应该记得的教训。
來源:
[1] 綜合 編輯: 香港商报实习生2
[2] 百度百科： 黄河—百度百科
[3] 维基百科：秦始皇兵马俑
Thursday, September 17, 2009
On Slowing the Pace of Foreigner Influx
I refer to the news reports ‘Why the pace must slow: PM’ & ‘Knitting with $10m’ (TODAY, 17th September 2009)
PM Lee revealed that his government has admitted many foreigners, in recent years more than 100,000 a year but conceded that we cannot continue to admit at that pace.
Eloquently the PM turned the argument and added that nevertheless, it is still better to have foreign workers in our team, because when the economy is good, they create jobs but when the economy is bad, they absorb job losses.
Economic rationalization aside, it is evident that this government has finally awakened to the consequence of its over-confidence during the booming economy. Problems acknowledged by PM include not merely on employment alone, but also related-problems, that of housing and social integration of foreigners.
The Workers’ Party has challenged the government on numerous occasions about this and hold the view that Singapore should take a long term view in population policy formulation with a holistic approach to bring about a sustainable desirable size of population. (WP GE2006 Manifesto ‘You Have a Choice’, Chapter 13, Preamble).
In this aspect PAP government has been erratic. They spend one decade enforcing local population control, the next decade stimulating growth via attracting foreign talents and giving out baby bonuses. Right now we hear from the PM himself on the need curb the rampant pace of foreign influx.
Therefore if the mindset of the government is that our citizens are indeed the ‘heart and soul’ of our nation, then our population policies must be robustly long-term and not merely based on purely short-term considerations but one that strive us towards a more humane society, anchor people and make people want to make Singapore our home.
Otherwise even though armed with a $10 million dollar fund to bond locals & immigrant, public scepticisms will continue and effort may be all for naught. Not withstanding the fact that the very idea behind this fund is so unimaginatively papish!
Links:
Why the pace must slow: PM (TODAY, 17th September 2009)
PM Knitting with $10m (TODAY, 17th September 2009)
WP GE2006 Manifesto ‘You Have a Choice’ (Chapter 13, Preamble)
PM Lee revealed that his government has admitted many foreigners, in recent years more than 100,000 a year but conceded that we cannot continue to admit at that pace.
Eloquently the PM turned the argument and added that nevertheless, it is still better to have foreign workers in our team, because when the economy is good, they create jobs but when the economy is bad, they absorb job losses.
Economic rationalization aside, it is evident that this government has finally awakened to the consequence of its over-confidence during the booming economy. Problems acknowledged by PM include not merely on employment alone, but also related-problems, that of housing and social integration of foreigners.
The Workers’ Party has challenged the government on numerous occasions about this and hold the view that Singapore should take a long term view in population policy formulation with a holistic approach to bring about a sustainable desirable size of population. (WP GE2006 Manifesto ‘You Have a Choice’, Chapter 13, Preamble).
In this aspect PAP government has been erratic. They spend one decade enforcing local population control, the next decade stimulating growth via attracting foreign talents and giving out baby bonuses. Right now we hear from the PM himself on the need curb the rampant pace of foreign influx.
Therefore if the mindset of the government is that our citizens are indeed the ‘heart and soul’ of our nation, then our population policies must be robustly long-term and not merely based on purely short-term considerations but one that strive us towards a more humane society, anchor people and make people want to make Singapore our home.
Otherwise even though armed with a $10 million dollar fund to bond locals & immigrant, public scepticisms will continue and effort may be all for naught. Not withstanding the fact that the very idea behind this fund is so unimaginatively papish!
Links:
Why the pace must slow: PM (TODAY, 17th September 2009)
PM Knitting with $10m (TODAY, 17th September 2009)
WP GE2006 Manifesto ‘You Have a Choice’ (Chapter 13, Preamble)
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
On Affordable HDB flats?
* Reader Keith (OCT 15, 2009 1:34:00 AM) pointed out to me that this blog post contains a factually wrong piece of information. This is because singles do still qualify for housing grants. A quick search of the HDB website yielded the following: http://tinyurl.com/yhgw8n7. Thank you Keith for pointing the error and my sincere apologies to readers for not having clarified the fact first. Yaw Shin Leong, 15th Oct 2009 10.05am
I refer to the news report ‘HDB flats still affordable’ (Straits Times, 15th September 2009)
Last Sunday together with fellow WP members, we were conducting our weekly public outreach at Tiong Bahru Market when a man approached me. He shared with me that because he is single, he does not qualify for housing grants and he could not afford to purchase a HDB flat from the open market.
His question was why should him being a Singaporean, be left out from such governmental grants, by virtue of his choice to remain single? He just wanted to be treated equally.I shared with him that Singapore’s prevalent pro-family public policy on housing does not consider a single as a household to begin with. This man replied that he understood Singapore’s public policy on being ‘pro-family’, but he is just requesting that he, being a Singaporean should not be discriminated for his choice to remain single.
In this instance, this fellow Singapore, who is single by personal choice, will unfortunately fall within the category of the two out of 10 Singaporeans households who does not qualify for the various housing grants the Government gives to home buyers.
Concurrently the very fact that National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan has to publicly assured Singaporeans that HDB flats ‘remain affordable to most’ is an acknowledgement that prices of HDB flats have escalated to a point of public concern.
Interestingly as I was scrolling down the same ST news report online, I read a comment made by a reader who shared the following, ‘Housing Affordability Index Chart for the UA. A Median Priced Existing Single-Family Home in the US is at an average of USD189, 125 (SGD 280, 000) and monthly mortgage payment as a % of income is only an average of 15.5%.’ This reader’s source was taken from US National Association of Realtors’ Housing Affordability Index.
So when I read Minister Mah said that ‘first-time households use on average less than 30% of their household income to service their housing loans, which is within the yardstick the government uses to measure affordability.’ I can’t help but wonder why this purportedly first-world government uses a yardstick which is no where near first-world…
Links:
HDB flats still affordable(Straits Times, 15th September 2009)
US National Association of Realtors’ Housing Affordability Index (2009)
I refer to the news report ‘HDB flats still affordable’ (Straits Times, 15th September 2009)
Last Sunday together with fellow WP members, we were conducting our weekly public outreach at Tiong Bahru Market when a man approached me. He shared with me that because he is single, he does not qualify for housing grants and he could not afford to purchase a HDB flat from the open market.
His question was why should him being a Singaporean, be left out from such governmental grants, by virtue of his choice to remain single? He just wanted to be treated equally.I shared with him that Singapore’s prevalent pro-family public policy on housing does not consider a single as a household to begin with. This man replied that he understood Singapore’s public policy on being ‘pro-family’, but he is just requesting that he, being a Singaporean should not be discriminated for his choice to remain single.
In this instance, this fellow Singapore, who is single by personal choice, will unfortunately fall within the category of the two out of 10 Singaporeans households who does not qualify for the various housing grants the Government gives to home buyers.
Concurrently the very fact that National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan has to publicly assured Singaporeans that HDB flats ‘remain affordable to most’ is an acknowledgement that prices of HDB flats have escalated to a point of public concern.
Interestingly as I was scrolling down the same ST news report online, I read a comment made by a reader who shared the following, ‘Housing Affordability Index Chart for the UA. A Median Priced Existing Single-Family Home in the US is at an average of USD189, 125 (SGD 280, 000) and monthly mortgage payment as a % of income is only an average of 15.5%.’ This reader’s source was taken from US National Association of Realtors’ Housing Affordability Index.
So when I read Minister Mah said that ‘first-time households use on average less than 30% of their household income to service their housing loans, which is within the yardstick the government uses to measure affordability.’ I can’t help but wonder why this purportedly first-world government uses a yardstick which is no where near first-world…
Links:
HDB flats still affordable(Straits Times, 15th September 2009)
US National Association of Realtors’ Housing Affordability Index (2009)
Monday, September 14, 2009
On Slow Medicine Movement
I refer to the news report ‘Quality over quantity is the current agenda’ (TODAY, 14th September 2009)
PMO Minister Lim Boon Heng mentioned about "slow medicine movement" being an alternative approach to healthcare which emphasizes quality over quantity of life spent - or comfort over high-risk medical treatment - is gaining appeal among elderly Singaporeans.
Slow medicine sounds like a fantastic idea, where elderly patients take charge of their medical care, to decide exactly what measures they do and don’t want. The concept is certainly music to the government’s ears as it is a reasoned step away from conventional medicine.
It may even seem that Minister Lim’s comments also implied that somehow doctors are the ones who are suggesting unnecessary high-risk medical treatments and procedures because that’s how they were trained to do and perhaps that is what they must do to make profits.
On the other hand, we must always remember 2 other key players, both the insurance companies and the government! Logically both players would definitely prefer ‘slow medicine movement’ to ‘fast medicine movement’ as both players are likely to prefer people chicken out on that chemotherapy and radiation, and whatever expensive procedures doctors offer to extend lives. This is where the hidden danger on the logic of ‘quality over quantity’ comes in.
Presently Singaporeans are not in this danger. This is because so long the decisions for alternative approach lie with the patients, as it is now. However, if society is to romanticize slow medicine into a movement, then Singapore may potentially face the risk of being boomeranged.
This is because once insurance companies and government are to embrace ‘slow medicine movement’, worse case scenario, the latter by legislating it, there will be a constant danger that someone out there is going to decide if one is getting too old to be reimbursed for a particular treatment.
Personally I doubt slow medicine movement will ever be legislated into an official health policy. Yet the very knowledge that it is making in-routes into our healthcare policy makers’ mindset is just so disturbing…
Links:
Quality over quantity is the current agenda (TODAY, 14th September 2009)
For the Elderly, Being Heard About Life’s End (NYTimes, 5th May 2008)
Slow Medicine: How Do We Keep Personal Choice from Becoming Impersonal Policy? (Huffingtonpost, 9th May 2008)
PMO Minister Lim Boon Heng mentioned about "slow medicine movement" being an alternative approach to healthcare which emphasizes quality over quantity of life spent - or comfort over high-risk medical treatment - is gaining appeal among elderly Singaporeans.
Slow medicine sounds like a fantastic idea, where elderly patients take charge of their medical care, to decide exactly what measures they do and don’t want. The concept is certainly music to the government’s ears as it is a reasoned step away from conventional medicine.
It may even seem that Minister Lim’s comments also implied that somehow doctors are the ones who are suggesting unnecessary high-risk medical treatments and procedures because that’s how they were trained to do and perhaps that is what they must do to make profits.
On the other hand, we must always remember 2 other key players, both the insurance companies and the government! Logically both players would definitely prefer ‘slow medicine movement’ to ‘fast medicine movement’ as both players are likely to prefer people chicken out on that chemotherapy and radiation, and whatever expensive procedures doctors offer to extend lives. This is where the hidden danger on the logic of ‘quality over quantity’ comes in.
Presently Singaporeans are not in this danger. This is because so long the decisions for alternative approach lie with the patients, as it is now. However, if society is to romanticize slow medicine into a movement, then Singapore may potentially face the risk of being boomeranged.
This is because once insurance companies and government are to embrace ‘slow medicine movement’, worse case scenario, the latter by legislating it, there will be a constant danger that someone out there is going to decide if one is getting too old to be reimbursed for a particular treatment.
Personally I doubt slow medicine movement will ever be legislated into an official health policy. Yet the very knowledge that it is making in-routes into our healthcare policy makers’ mindset is just so disturbing…
Links:
Quality over quantity is the current agenda (TODAY, 14th September 2009)
For the Elderly, Being Heard About Life’s End (NYTimes, 5th May 2008)
Slow Medicine: How Do We Keep Personal Choice from Becoming Impersonal Policy? (Huffingtonpost, 9th May 2008)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
