Impersonation

It has come to my attention that I have been impersonated on Sammy Boy's Alfresco Coffeeshop Forums. An account going by the moniker of 'Perry_Tong' was created on Saturday 14th October 2006 while I was away in Tioman teaching scuba diving. Several posts have been made 'in my name.'

It appears that an email address I use has been compromised. The password has since been changed.

Apologies to all affected by the mis-representation.

A police report has been made (J200610172055) and Delphi forums are currently assisting with the investigations.

The Flag

For 140 years (1819-1959), the Union Jack flew over Singapore. Then, on 3 December 1959, the National Flag, an important symbol of independence, was unveiled at the installation of the new Head of State, the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. Also unveiled that day were the State Crest and the National Anthem. The flag was conceived and created by a committee headed by the then Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Toh Chin Chye.

The Flag consists of two horizontal halves, red above white. Red symbolises universal brotherhood and equality of men; white, purity and virtue. In the upper left corner, a white crescent moon and five white stars form a circle. The crescent moon represents a young nation on the rise. The five stars stand for Singapore's ideals of democracy, peace, progress, justice and equality.


Now is as good a time as any other to remember the Singapore flag. Our flag. I am a Singaporean everyday, not just on National Day.

October 2006, Singapore.

40 odd years on after the unveiling of the Singapore flag.

Red sumbolises the universal brotherhood and equality of men (should be changed to include women and sisterhood also?) : so why is there apparent age, gender and sometimes racial (more linguistic) discrimination in employment in Singapore, or can this 'discrimination' be attributed to economic requirements? Does the General Household Survey hold some clues?

White symbolises purity and virtue. Who can argue with that but why do we need purity and in what regard to we need purity when Singaporeans are a self-proclaimed pragmatic lot who will do what it takes? I'm not so sure about virtue when one is lining up for stuff in Singapore. This quality of 'virtue' may also hang in the balance on a Thai court's proceedings in the near future unless they are somehow magically 'shushed up'.

The crescent moon represents a young nation on the rise. Are we still on the rise when most of the rest of the world considers Singapore a developed nation? Should we consider installing a nearly full moon now?

The five stars stand for the ideals of:

Democracy, so we conduct elections within a given time limit but why do so many citizens feel it as a chore instead of a nation building process?;

Peace, we are certainly not at war but according to the happiness index we are far from being at peace as a nation, why is this so?;

Progress, we have indeed come very far from the backwater days but wither the social price?;

Justice, any comment other then in praise might be tantamount to contempt so let's leave it be for now;

Equality, what of 'changing demograhics' where there are now people of different political, social, sexual orientations and preferences? Is there equality for them?

The Haze - International Law - Legalism that is failing?

An annual event that never ceases to choke its neighbours - the haze, due to intentional forest fires, is back with a vengeance!

While Singapore and Malaysia does their level best in terms of government proclamations and exhortations to their counterparts in Indonesia to stem the problem the people suffer.

Why does it not work? The exhortations that is? Why does international law not prohibit the burning of these forests given the green movements now so widespread to save as much of the natural earth as is possible? And if international does prohibit such practices why does it then not work and no punitive measures are meted out?

International law comprises mainly of three parts. (For the scholar in international law I beg your understanding that this is a law article meant to have law appeal.) It began as a motley collection of internationally recognised and practiced norms which evolve of time along with the traits of human society. This includes common points in deferring national legal systems. So if killing someone for fun is prohibit in say 80% of the countries in the world that subscribe to international law then it is codified and officially recognised through inter-national conventions and treaties that such a law should be made international.

Next, international law is a loose collection of a series of great legal minds (though sometimes not so great) and their attending philosophies. If enough 'people' and 'countries' subscribed to these points of view it is once again considered a part of international law. Say if an eminent and internationally recognised philosopher spells out her/his beliefs and the world in general subscribes to it after a prolonged period of deliberation these countries and the people they represent may then choose to codify it and sign a pact among themselves claiming that this is a law which should govern them. To put it simply.

Lastly, international law is a series of 'laws' as laid out in documents signifying agreement to certain behaviours as agreed to between two or more countries. For example, that if a crime is commited by a citizen of country G in country K then an extradition should take place for criminal prosecution, or that the citizen of country G who has commited the crime should be charged in country K under the local laws and institutions. When enough pairs (or more) of countries have a similar covention we move back to the first point where it becomes an accepted international practice and is then similarly codified.

But the international legal system is such where exceptions are the rule and sovereign nation states can 'opt out' of a 'law' of a sub-set of a 'law.' In short, international law is a loose collective agreement of practices agreed to among a majority of countries but also a system wherein countries who buy into the system are permitted to remove themselves from certain 'laws' or certain clauses in those 'laws' as they deem fit.

For instance, Singapore has officially recognised the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but has chosen to interpret the clauses in its own way. Notwithstanding the disparity in political rights between the likes of European countries and itself, or other Asian countries and itself.

So why this long run around about the haze?

Our PSI index levels climb every year and respiratory symptoms start to appear with a cost on the quality of living in Singapore and the economy (except the medical sector which will 'boom') and we cannot really do anything about it.

Yes, Singaporeans can get together and organise a protest against this practice in Indonesia which generates the haze, even if we were permitted to do so, but it would achieve no result and no end under international law.

Yaacob recently came out blasting WP's statement on the haze claiming that work has been ongoing for the last 15 years in terms of talks and discussions about what can be done. Indeed, Singapore has offered help too in many ways.

But until international law is made binding on every signatory member without exceptions - just like how civil laws are binding on citizens without exceptions and notwithstanding claims to ignorance, Indonesia can merrily continue on its way with the haze situation posing health and economic risks to its neighbours.

Will Singapore lead by example? Or will the internal politics of the country and the desperation of the PAP for an overwhelming victory at each and every election serve to downplay the importance and enforceability of international law which may alleviate situations such as the annual haze?

2002 book quoted in 2006? What gives?

Lifted off the Straits Times:
Oct 5, 2006 An elitist strategy in the best sense

This is an excerpt from Singapore's Success: Engineering Economic Growth, a new book by former International Monetary Fund official Henri Ghesquiere. The book is published by Thomson Learning, Singapore, 2007

'THERE is little doubt that the PAP leaders are elitist,' wrote (University of British Columbia dons) Diane Mauzy and R.S. Milne*. 'They admire the power of the intellect, and they believe that only a few of the best and brightest are capable of leading well.'

The elite, in the Singapore context, however, is merit-based.
Unlike in some other countries, it is not a closed, privileged, hereditary social class that succeeded in capturing the state. The strategy that the governing elite selected was conducive to political implementation of growth-enhancing institutions. Three features can be identified that many other countries lacked.

First, a long-term vision of economic growth became Singapore's central focus. Other goals coexisted, such as survival as an independent country, building a national identity, and ultimately reaching First World standards in the arts and culture. But economic growth was needed to help fulfil these other national goals.

The primacy of achieving long-term economic prosperity for society as a whole set Singapore apart from many other nations. Mr Goh Keng Swee, Singapore's first finance minister and also defence minister, expressed it succinctly. 'We must strive continuously to achieve economic growth, which requires political stability, and should not be distracted by other goals.'
Other goals were thus subordinated, such as ideological notions of achieving redistributive justice via social transfers or tax policy.

Communist countries had different priorities. China's primary preoccupation, until 1976, was to wrest power for the peasant class by breaking a four-millennium-old feudal order, and to rebuild the nation. Only in 1982 did Deng Xiaoping declare as a primary goal turning China into a modern prosperous country by reforming and opening up its economy.

Still other countries channelled vast collective energy into restoring an earlier balance of political or economic power between different ethnic, racial or religious groups. Or they went to war over border disputes, often resulting in negative productivity growth, meaning that total output declined even if inputs increased. Pervasive uncertainty precluded high levels of investment and talented individuals emigrated or perished.

Singapore's elite had none of that: 'Unless you have economic growth, you die' was the government's maxim. Divisiveness was shunned. Singapore, as consecrated in its Constitution, is a multiracial society that accords equality to all citizens regardless of race, language, or religion. Laws enforce this. There is constant concern not to upset internal balances and to maintain stability.

Engineering prosperity for all was the best way to preserve internal cohesion, ethnic peace, and harmony, and to survive. Economic growth became the beacon for the city-state's collective destiny, not just to survive, but to prevail through superior performance.

Second, in Singapore, the governing elite chose a strategy that would share the benefits of economic growth among the populace - not through income redistribution policies, which tend to impede economic growth. Instead, the preferred strategy was to arm men and women with the means and opportunities to earn a living and acquire assets for their families by raising the skill level, including that of lower-income groups, and thus ensure upward mobility.

For Singapore's elite, this win-win offer was perfectly rational: Wealth would be shared or it would not exist. The only viable model was export-led growth that would take advantage of Singapore's location and make optimal use of its one resource, its people, creating social unity in the process. The dearth of landed estates and other natural resources precluded the feudal model as a source of privileges.

However noble the intentions underlying Singapore's social policies, it was in the elite's own interest to more widely extend economic opportunities, such as education, and thereby expand its own group to new entrants. Universal education and numerous scholarships helped bright children of poor parents make it through university. This contrasts with the elite groups in some other countries.

Feudal aristocracies in countries such as Pakistan with extensive landed property were willing to broaden their circle to include industrialists under import-substitution policies. They would not, however, provide quality education on a large scale to girls and boys in rural areas, lest their power slip away. The result in many instances has been a low-level equilibrium with poor agricultural yields, harking back to an older model of apportioning economic rents, not creating new wealth.

Third, the politically dominant group in Singapore was willing to be held accountable. Although political participation is constrained in Singapore, it needs emphasising that the elite freely accepted limits on the exercise of power by the government. It accepted checks and balances that curb the natural tendency of power to corrupt. This set Singapore apart from dictatorships, kleptocracies, and regimes under arbitrary personal rule and helped legitimise the government.

Several aspects can be highlighted. Firstly, Singapore's judiciary acts as a check on political power. Top government officials are accountable before the courts, and have been summoned. (Minister Mentor) Lee Kuan Yew and his son, (Prime Minister) Lee Hsien Loong, both underwent a thorough court investigation in 1996 for allegations of real-estate improprieties and were acquitted.

International surveys routinely rank the city-state very high for maintaining the rule of law, upholding property rights, and using the law to maintain probity of politicians and civil servants.
Secondly, the dominant party regime does not imply absence of democracy: Parliamentary elections are held within a five-year term limit, most recently in May 2006. Elections are contested freely. There is no ballot rigging or intimidation of voters. Singaporeans have the means to change their government democratically, although major obstacles are placed in the way of the opposition.

The PAP's dominance over the opposition parties since the late 1960s, its advantage of incumbency, and the electoral rules it has crafted over the years gave the party commanding heights: Often victory was assured before Election Day, due to a dearth of opposition candidates.
Nonetheless, voting outcome, which has ranged from 61 per cent in favour of the PAP in 1991, to 75 per cent in 2001, and was 67 per cent in May 2006, serves as a scorecard of popular approval. As felt by the government, the periodic requirement to seek a renewed mandate in front of the electorate is a powerful spur to deliver the shared prosperity, personal safety, and public order, which voters have come to expect.

By creating widespread employment opportunities and improving living conditions, the politically dominant group in Singapore acquired and kept a popular mandate to pursue its long-term economic growth strategy.

Thirdly, another countervailing force in Singapore's case, somewhat unusual but influential nonetheless in the current highly competitive globalised environment, is the MNCs. Singapore's strategic dependence on the MNCs as an engine of economic growth provided an additional check against some types of government failure, since political stability, a non-corrupt government, and sound economic management are critical to boosting investor confidence in the economy. Singapore combines a strong state with atomistic markets, rather than a strong state with monopolistic market power.

In sum, Singapore's elite, which established power in the 1960s, subsequently co-opted talent from across society and succeeded in building growth-enhancing institutions. It succeeded by choosing as the central priority a strategy of long-term economic growth. It widely shared the opportunities to participate in that growth and was prepared to be held accountable for its exercise of power. All three features set Singapore apart from many other countries. The dominant group in society established an accepted social contract for a viable long-term strategy.

That strategy was in the best interest of the elite - and the people. The PAP realised that it had to improve economic conditions to prevent the communists from focusing on the grievances of the unemployed. Singapore lacked natural resources to divide as spoils. Once political power was consolidated there were no rival groups to be placated through bribery.

A high level of integrity strengthened the PAP's power. This insightful strategy enabled the elite not just to survive but to thrive at the head of a secure, respected, and dynamic nation. Self-actualisation was achieved by helping the citizenry attain its full potential.

This was a powerful incentive and the elite seized the opportunity. The coincidence of self-interest of the elite and development of the people was fortuitous and a cornerstone of Singapore's success.

*Diane Mauzy and R.S. Milne, Singapore Politics: Under The People's Action Party, Oxford University Press, Singapore, 2002


And while the local reader in Singapore is wowed by these excerpts it might be good to bear in mind that these form, in all probability, less then 2%, if at all, of the cited book. All who have written theses know that one can selective quote authors to achieve the media equivalent of a sound bite. I wonder what is in the rest of the book given that Professor Mauzy also teaches and writes on human rights.

With a local press, though gradually opening up, dominated by the government under the guise of legitimate corporate shareholdings it is pertinent that clarification be sought for such 'pats on the back.'

Edit 9th October 2006: Prof Mauzy has kindly written back on a query posed to her to on the one line quote taken off her book. It is hers. The rest, correctly belongs to Mr. Henri Ghesquiere.

Henri Ghesquiere, whom the rest of the article cites, would make a favoured (by today's regime) PR or future citizen of Singapore and should be invited as such. And thereafter I would suggest to Mr. Ghesquiere to set up a company here to service local activities since he appears to believe that "Singapore combines a strong state with atomistic markets, rather than a strong state with monopolistic market power."

I would further invite Mr. Ghesquiere to attempt, as an academic exercise, to fulfill the role of an 'opposition' politican here in Singapore under our wonderful system to understand his statement on why there is a 'dearth of opposition candidates.'

Wonder if the recent GE might be a slap in the face for Mr. Ghesquiere's analysis on the state of the opposition here in terms of number of candidates? A short bio lifted of his recent book launch here in Singapore, I hope it wasn't a cover letter in his application for citizenship:

Venue: Level 1, Visitors Briefing RoomDate: Saturday, Sept 2, 3.00pm-5.00pm

This book seeks the key to good economic policy by explaining Singapore’s remarkably rapid development—the world’s fastest growing economy in 1960-2000—and asking whether Singapore’s success can be transferred to other countries. Come find out more about this title as the author Dr. Henri Ghesquiere makes an appearance!

Dr. Henri Ghesquiere is a former Director of the IMF-Singapore Regional Training Institute (2004–05) andwas on the staff of the International Monetary Fund during 1978–2005. At the IMF he was closely involvedwith macroeconomic lending programs and growth-oriented stabilization policies in Latin America, Africa,Eastern Europe, and Asia. As a senior IMF official in numerous countries, the author has accumulated a vast amount of practical experience. Henri Ghesquiere holds degrees in humanities and economics from the Universityof Leuven, Belgium and earned his Ph.D. in economics from Yale University. Among his publications isa book on economic development in South-East Asia (1976).

Is economics truly the be-all-end-all question for societies that are growing? Are there no other fronts of growth for humanity other then economic growth? I do not know, I feel and believe there is more to humanity then economics and strong government, even in Singapore, but who am I compared to a person such as Mr. Ghesquiere to which the 'world at large' would blindly respect given his appearance of authority?

What Singaporeans Miss

Thailand's coup leaders struggle for acceptance abroad

The Associated Press

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2006-->

Published: September 27, 2006

BANGKOK, Thailand Thailand's military rulers are struggling to convince the international community that staging a coup was the only way to maintain democracy here. But it's been a tough sell.

Troops and tanks rolled through Bangkok's streets just over a week ago and deposed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who had overwhelmingly won the past three elections. The United States and other governments quickly condemned the coup as a setback to democracy.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stepped up initial criticism, telling the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday that Thailand needs "to get a civilian government and they need to get to elections and get back on a democratic path very, very quickly."

Criticism like that has made the military rulers increasingly defensive. They say foreign governments have failed to consider the complexity of the situation in Thailand, where democracy and democratic institutions took a severe beating under Thaksin.

"We are disappointed with their reaction," said Maj. Gen. Thaweep Netniyom, a spokesman for the coup leaders. "But we also understand their reaction. These are countries that have a very fixed definition of democracy."

Thailand has been widely considered a beacon of democracy in Southeast Asia, where neighbors include military-ruled Myanmar, Communist-led Vietnam and Laos, and Cambodia, where Prime Minister Hun Sen has been assailed for ignoring human rights and free speech, and for jailing critics.

But democracy in Thailand, with its history of military coups, has always been fragile.

Thaksin, a charismatic tycoon-turned-politician, was loved by the rural poor for introducing a universal health care plan and a raft of populist policies. But he was also accused of widespread corruption, human rights abuses, stifling the media and a long list of undemocratic offenses. Massive protests earlier this year demanding his resignation had failed, but were scheduled to resume.

After the military seized power on Sept. 19, coup leaders said they intervened because military intelligence showed the likelihood of imminent and violent clashes between Thaksin's supporters and opponents.

In the capital, Bangkok, the coup makers were celebrated as liberators. Thais showered the tanks with flowers and donated food to troops. Polls have shown that over 75 percent of the country's people supported the coup — partly because their revered king endorsed it.

But Western nations' criticism has caught the coup engineers off guard, and they've been struggling with public relations abroad. "For outsiders, a coup is a coup. There is no necessary coup. There is no good coup," said former Foreign Minister Surin Pitsuwan. "The challenge is to explain to critics and doubters out there: Look, there was no democracy left under Thaksin."

"The fact that they (the coup leaders) are trying to reach out shows that they are concerned about Time magazine and The Economist and international headlines," Surin said, referring to the latest overseas editions of both magazines, which put the coup on their covers with images of soldiers and tanks.

To Thailand — whose economy is driven by tourism, foreign investment and exports — the world's opinion matters.

Coup leaders have held several daily news conferences and offered special English-language briefings for foreign media in Bangkok.

They have sought to ease foreign investors' minds by pledging a commitment to a free-market economy, to maintaining the previous administration's economic and social policies and to continuing megaprojects like expanding Bangkok's subway system.

They have reached out to the diplomatic community, inviting diplomats twice over the past week for debriefings with question-answer sessions.

Diplomats have been urged to send their governments the message that "the military takeover will not be forever, just a very short time — and power will be returned back to the people as soon as possible," said Thaweep, the military spokesman.

At the United Nations, Thailand's ambassador reassured the international community that her country was quickly returning to normal. "We will ensure a swift return to democracy with a definite timeline," Laxanachantorn Laohaphan told the General Assembly Wednesday.

When army commander Gen. Sondhi Boonyaratkalin seized power he vowed to install a temporary civilian regime within two weeks, or by Oct. 4. He has since pledged repeatedly to stick to his self-imposed deadline.

But the longer it takes, the more frustrated the international community will become, said Thitinan Pongsudhirak, a political science professor at Bangkok's Chulalongkorn University.
"There is a broad effort to try to restore international credibility. But the longer they wait, the more problematic it will become," said Thitinan. "They need to hand over power to a competent civilian government. That would solve their problem."

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

Singapore Dreaming

American Response to Thai Coup

U.S. responding to coup, suspends some aid to Thailand

The Associated Press
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2006-->
Published: September 28, 2006

WASHINGTON The United States suspended $24 million (€18.8 million) in military assistance to Thailand on Thursday, invoking laws that bar certain aid programs to governments that have taken power by force.

Affected by the suspension is a $16.3 million (€12.8 million) program to train and equip Thai forces for counterterrorism operations, $4.1 million (€3.2 million) for financing of commercial military sales to Thailand and $3.29 million (€2.6 million) for training and equipping Thai military personnel for multinational peacekeeping operations.

Also suspended was $130,000 (€102,000) for military training unrelated to peacekeeping operations. U.S. assistance for health programs will continue, including funds to help prevent the spread of AIDS and to prepare for a possible bird flu outbreak.

The announcement of the aid suspension by State Department spokesman Sean McCormack came nine days after the Thai military ousted elected prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra in a bloodless coup.

Officials were unable to provide a figure for the total U.S. assistance effort to Thailand, including military, economic and humanitarian aid.

The United States criticized the coup from the outset, calling it "a step backward for democracy." It also has said that the one-year time frame set by coup leaders for holding elections is too long.

Some U.S. military assistance will continue because it is not sent directly to the Thai government or because it serves a U.S. national interest. One such program is designed to combat development of weapons of mass destruction.

Thailand is a long-standing defense treaty ally of the United States.

Congress has approved over the years a number of amendments that forbid certain assistance programs to governments that have subverted democratic processes. The measures are designed to encourage only legal transfers of power.

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

Hmm, I wonder what is the American Congress' stand on elections in Singapore. And their stand on MM Lee's recent comments that if ever the opposition of today come into power, and squandered the wealth of the nation, he would get the local military to take over the Government and throw out the opposition.

Edit: Kelvin, thanks for writing in. Context notwithstanding - as in all things viewed under the legal system we so love in Singapore it is the intent which is applicable.

Further Edit: Kelvin, I stand corrected yet again on my understanding of MM Lee's 'military coup' portion of his speech and have added to the para in red. My misunderstanding and mistake on that part. I still choose to retain the entire para which queries how the American Congress would react since they are now reacting to the Thai coup whom the locals claim are peaceful but in some relation to claims of corruption by the Thaksin regime. i.e. I believe the Americans would still call for a re-instatement of the government and democratic practices (therefore no coup) even if a coup were ostensibly to oust an incompetent government of the day. Thanks for your comments again.

Thank My Lucky Stars or Not?

The NUS department of Political Science would do well to pay attention to the international spats created by MM Lee. It is highly instructive in how not to conduct diplomacy. Any student at GWU would tell you that as well, much less other schools which conduct courses on diplomacy.

But let's go back a little in time. Was it not just a few months ago, prior to Singapore's General Election where PM Lee basically told the Australians how to run their country?

So they say in statistics, once is an occurence, two can be a coincidence, three is typically a trend.

Australia, Malaysia and Indonesia makes three.

So why thank my lucky stars? December 1999 I applied for a position with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, went for three rounds of interviews and was, fortunately today, rejected. I would not have the face or the know how to placate our neighbours who are far larger then us. I do not even know if placating them would be the right thing to do since such irresponsible words are uttered with nary a thought on the political fallout. And I certainly do not want to do an Adlai Stevenson or be done into an Adlai Stevenson situation wherein an internationally respected and upright diplomat is called upon to essentialy lie for his country due to the lack of information provided. Nor do I wish this on any of our many fine and distinguished diplomats of today. But, good luck to all of you!

And hey, is not Minister George Yeo, our Foreign Affairs Minister the right person to address these issues since these are international relations issues? And Second Minister Raymond Lim? So why the silence? Autarky? Or as the locals prefer .... bo chi?

Are these really the men to lead Singapore into the future where our economy is growing ever more closely tied to the international and regional economies? And wither those who support these men?

Has common sense and simple manners gone out the window with each successive electoral victory, never mind how it was achieved, scored? Can we then blame our fellow citizens for the boorish behaviour so often lamented about in the offline and online forums?

To top it off, the silence on the status of OUR national investments in Thailand is curious.

Makes me wonder if I should really thank my lucky stars or not.

While the MSM (mainstream media) is going on and on about how much fun our neighbours are having discussing remarks made by our elder statesman I have not seen any real debate or discussion in the same media on how we Singaporeans feel.

Is there something being hidden? Some other bad news which has been conveniently tucked away into an obscure column in an obscure page while the headlines rage on? What of our money in Shin Corp? What of the economy and what is happening here and now? The untimely demise of some other mega company which Temasek bought into? Mind you these are questions, not aspersions.

For the sheer hell of it I went to apply for a taxi driver's vocational licence today. If and when I do pass I hope to someday drive a taxi to understand what is really going on in the taxi industry.

There were some 50 people who were to be 'interviewed.' I asked around and found out that that is the average daily number who are slated for interviews. Every working day 50 Singaporeans are applying to be taxi drivers. Lost job? Cannot be re-employed? Employment of last resort?

Compare this to headline news barely a month ago where the papers were screaming about unprecendented low unemployment rates? About how employers were upbeat and planning to employ more and more? More Singaporeans or more foreigners is my first question here.

If one bothers to scan through all Saturday recruit sections for a year or so one may realize that many Governmental and quasi-governmental bodies are constantly looking out for the same positions. I wonder why? To make the job market look good? Turnover too high because working conditions are ridiculous (8am to 11pm at some former stat boards where I have friends who are bonded? family time?) or because Singaporeans are too spoiled?

I don't have the real answer. It could be a mix of factors. All of the above and more. But it remains that what I see today at the Singapore Taxi Academy is telling to me in more ways then one.

Every working day 50 Singaporeans apply to be taxi drivers. 200 working days a year works out to 10,000 Singaporeans a year applying to be taxi drivers. Probably a piddling percentage are folk like me today. Is the local economy really ok? Is Singapore really ok?

Edit: Kelvin, thanks for writing in. Even if I discount 50% of the taxi applicants as repeat applicants we still get 5,000 Singaporeans a year applying to be taxi drivers. Still a large number by any measure going forward into the future. No other industry, including today's civil service has that many job openings in a year every year.

Thailand's Coup, Singaporean's Money

Your Excellency
Ambassador Thanchitt
Royal Thai Embassy

Your letter to the public in Singapore is re-assuring of continual growth of Thailand as a nation. It is, however, unfortunate that you were required, in your diplomatic capacity, to pen such a letter to be published in Singapore which does not truly respect the tenets of democracy and human rights as enshrined in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

If democracy is a model to go by in the world for a more stable future then Singapore has to play catch up. While your military forces have taken things into their own hands in an apparent attempt to stop what appears to be high level corruption and restore democracy in place of money politics, Singapore's military has been called upon to quash any opposition that may come into power through legal means at the ballot box.

It brings to mind the recent investments made by Singapore's Temasek Holdings, done with executive powers without consultation to the public, and whither the status of this investment since it apparently involves Singaporean taxpayer money. On behalf of many Singaporeans, I ask that The Royal Kingdom of Thailand's honourable judiciary bear this in mind when deliberating on the legality of the said investments. We have no true democratic rights in Singapore and hence no true control over the expenditure of state funds.

The internal political and ideological differences practiced and allowed for by the citizenry in our countries are stark. Your belief in the rule of law as a tenet of democracy is admirable. I hope Thailand's interim and new Government will not adopt a model of Legalism similar to Singapore's wherein there are no rights but only privileges for the citizens.

Thailand has my best wishes for a speedy recovery from an excellent coup which should be a model of reform for many Asian countries.

Chok Dee.




Perry Tong





The Straits Times

Sep 28, 2006 Thailand remains fully committed to democracy

FOLLOWING the recent political developments in Thailand, I must update your readers on the current situation as they deserve accurate information on what is going on before they decide what to believe.

While the military intervention on September 19 may be perceived as a setback for democracy in Thailand, early indicators seem to suggest that Thailand needed to take this step to propel our democracy forward. Indications are that public support for the intervention has been overwhelming. According to the polls on September 20 by a respectable local independent polling agency, Suan Dusit Rajabhat University, 84 per cent of 2,019 people who took part in the survey support the political change.

Another 75 per cent also believe that it will improve our political situation. Besides, Thailand has remained calm and peaceful throughout. Our capital, Bangkok remains as safe as ever.
Such public support should not, however, be interpreted in any way that our people has turned against democracy. The reality is quite the opposite. The Council for Democratic Reform (CDR) has clearly stated that it would return power to the Thai people at the earliest opportunity.

Concrete actions with participation from various sectors of our society are being taken to accelerate the democratic reform process that could not take place properly under the previous caretaker government. The CDR has firmly stated that it would do its best to ensure the ongoing process of drafting a provisional constitution is completed by next week.

A national legislative assembly will then be formed, which will in turn task a constitution drafting body to elaborate on a new constitution. Also, the head of the CDR has firmly and openly stated that he will, within two weeks, transfer all of the Council's administrative powers to a respectable civilian Prime Minister, who will at once form a government to run the country. This government, along with the Thai people, will have oversight over the drafting of our new constitution.

We expect that free and fair elections based on the new constitution will be held within a year, if not sooner. The Election Commission, which was appointed by the former Senate, has already made concrete preparations. What we ask from all good friends of Thailand is your understanding. Despite the recent intervention, our friends will see that respect for human rights and the rule of law, together with the profound belief in the principles of democracy, remain very close to our hearts.

We remain firmly adhered to the UN Charter and obligations under international treaties and agreements, on the basis of the equality of states. No one should doubt that Thailand would resolutely pursue the path of democratic reform to achieve sustainable progress and stability for its people.


Chalermpol Thanchitt
Ambassador
Royal Thai Embassy

Response to Medical Student in Oz

Hi JC,

thanks for writing in. Please find my responses below:

Those are some interesting insights to the Singaporean healthcare model.I'm a Singaporean studying medicine in Melbourne, Aus. I would like to point out that Singapore has relatively good healthcare compared to the rest of the Asian region and our prices are DEFINITELY affordable (be it pri. healthcare or that of a higher tier).

Affordability is subjective. Without intention of prejudice or malice but you appear to be speaking from a relatively well off point of view given your current ability to engage in medical studies abroad.

In Melbourne, the cost of an ambulance trip to hospital could be as high as AUD1k?

This is not surprising, if you have followed an earlier post on privatizing healthcare costs and healthcare insurance this could well be the case in some future version of Singapore's medical healthcare system.

The idea of a welfare state, ie. taxes going back to the 'needy people' could backfire in Singapore - look at Australia. Their taxes are exhorbitant thus price of living is improportional to the std of living (comparing to SG).

Hmm, I do not believe I have promoted the idea of a welfare state. As it stands in Singapore we are virtually a welfare state in the sense that roughly 50% of the population are supporting the other 50% when you take into account that nearly 40% of our population are hired by the civil service or its affliates then add in the self-employed like taxi drivers who are restricted in income to the local market.

Besides, with the introduction of GST, ERP, COE one should be constantly careful of claiming a 'low tax rate regime' in Singapore. Afterall, where does Temasek get its money to buyout USD $2 billion of Thailand's former Prime Minister's company in a private transaction that may have violated Thai monetary law?

But on the other hand, our standard of living may not be comparable to a high tax regime. This again is subjective.

Why would we want this? Singaporeans, especially in my medical school, are stereotypical hard workers and that should be the name we strive to uphold. Work hard and earn proportionally - a meritocracy. Is there a place for the mediocre attitude in singapore? not for long, i'd say.

My apologies if I offend you with this statement: Not everyone is born equal, some may not even have the chance to work hard the same way you do simply because of chance. I used to hold down 2 jobs bartending before I left for my degree in the US. Sometime in the early 90s I was taking home nearly $4k a month in return for working from 9am to 3am daily. My inability to focus on studies at a younger age was an initial setback in my life. My family's financial condition then did not permit me the luxury of even thinking about further education past secondary school.

There should never be a place anywhere for mediocrity. Chance, or some would say, by the grace of God, plays a large part. Perhaps we can afford to be more charitable to those who do not have the means and wherewithal to engage in conversations like this? Afterall, the universal adoption of the bell curve, particularly when it comes to things like IQ distribution, shows that in any given population set there will be those who are brighter and those who may need more help.

That being said, today I fear more mediocrity in thought then at work/study in Singapore. We should be a nation of critical thinkers if we are to proceed successfully into the 22nd century.

65% of Singaporean healthcare is privatised (pretty high) and that would increase the healthcare cost. The only thing the govt can do is to 1. increase the bond of med students that they subsidize, 2. make it more attractive to work in the govt sector.

It is arguable that 'privatized' healthcare in Singapore is dominantly shared by a very few selected shareholders. I do not know of any individual who has a share in SGH so wither the privatisation and its argument that profits need to be generated to sustain shareholder interest in light of capital accumulation tendencies?

As it stands, PSC and other scholarship granting bodies are dramatically cutting back on the numbers of scholarships given out. Due in no small part to scholarship predecessors who have decided to break bond in one form or another. Your recommendations above, in both points essentially go back to the moral equivalent of a welfare state with a slightly different model of tax distribution.

1. Increasing the bond of medical students. Assuming medical students are willing to be bonded for a longer period implies two things. First that a student of medicine will be willing to forego, for 'x' years, a chance at higher learning and therefore specialisation with an opportunity to make mega bucks - private moral contribution for zero future return.

2. Increase the pay/perks pacakage for those who serve in the public sector. By definition the public sector runs on public funds. To increase the pay/perks package implies an increase in either the cost to the patients who happen to utilise the service OR an increase in general taxes to maintain healthcare costs. Which then is a fairer model?


Also, the supply/demand of specialists in singapore is a consideration. With the highly limited places given to medical graduates to specialize, pri healthcare costs peanuts and secondary healthcare costs a bomb.

My first question is then why are there so limited places given to specialisation? If we as a society truly believe in free market capitalism then this practice of limiting places essentially places an externality, in the form of a 'monopoly,' on the healthcare market model. On the other hand, if I were in your shoes and wanted to become a specialists, I would fight against the creation of a large pool of specialists as that would lower my returns on investment vis a vis my studies and aim in life. So the question that has to be begged would be: Are medical specialists specializing for the sake of money / fame or knowledge in light of the Hippocratic Oath?

As Singapore progresses and Singaporeans become more aware of better medical treatments secondary healthcare will play a larger and larger role in the burgeoning of healthcare costs in Singapore. Very soon the model will be imbalanced by a requirement for the expensive secondary healtcare cost that you cite earlier. When this imbalance occurs is when money needs to be found, one way or another, to keep the system going. The other alternative is that the rich will remain 'well' and the poor are allowed to die. Which brings us back a full circle on state welfarism when it comes to medical healthcare costs.

Recent incidents in the last fews years, as reported in the local papers, show that there is no guarantee of a long life even if you keep fit. Young, very fit, males and females are dropping dead around us. Some in school while playing basketball, some in NS just after finishing a 5km run, some while doing taichi. I do not think these unfortunate souls were mediocre in any way related to their own health. It is the luck of the draw when Fate decides it is your time. As a medical student you should be aware of SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome). Even expert medical science is unable to appropriate a more scientific and accurate term for SIDS hence demonstrating the capriciousness of human life.

I personally feel that having a health insurance scheme using govt funds deals injustice to taxpayers. Be it the darwinism in me, or the fact that I detest dole thiefs, I support the pay-for-your-health idea in SG; opposing the medical ethics pillar of 'access and distributive justice'

Singaporeans are, by and large, brought up with enough principles to detest dole theft. Myself included. But given the arguments raised above it is inevitable that if healthcare costs are to be more effectively managed it should be state run (the idea here is not on taxpayer's funds primarily but more a focus on 'non-profit') to enable mass participation.

An example: (Touch wood) If anyone had a family member who was terminally ill but refused to give up on life, and there is no public healthcare insurance, the financial impact will ultimately by born by that entire family (assuming that family is close knit and will help each other out). This is as you suggest no?

This draining of funds in a family structure means that others will have less of that fund to spend on other things. For instance, an overseas education for a bright deserving member of that family. (Given that scholarships are now on the wane.)

So that bright young thing is condemned to mediocrity through no fault of his/hers? Yes, one may argue that that is not a fine example of mediocrity but it will surely be the way society will judge an individual. At least our society will.

I do not profess to have all the answers to many questions in life that bank on morality. I do know that morality is a creature that changes with the times. I also do know that certain moral practices are prevalent at this point in time in our general society and they are taken as norms to which we should all aspire.

At the end of the day as an aspiring politician the most vexing question for me in terms of equitability is of this nature: should 1 be saved at the expense of 50? 100? 200? 1000? or conversely should 1000 be saved at the expense of 1?

Should despots be removed at any costs so that the people can be free? Do people even know what it is to be free or be able to appreciate it? Or are we Singaporeans, as an NTU student I took on a diving trip recently so aptly described as : A dog which growls and moans because it sits on its tail, causing it pain, but apparently insufficient pain to justify a movement to a position of more comfort.

I wish you the best in your endeavours in Australia. And I hope you will come back to Singapore, one way or another, to contribute to society with the skills that you have gained.

Thank you for taking an interest in my blog and thank you for your contribution.

Confuscianism / Legalism

Dear YCK,

thank you for the enlightening email. I strive to demonstrate what is palpable and palatable to the masses in terms of governance and policies without dwelling on the depths of their associated philosophies. Admittedly it is easy to fall into the same trap as everyone else with government propaganda and BS. Nevertheless I hope to gain your understanding for future pieces which I may post on the same topic using the same verbiage as this is what 'we' know. I appreciate your candour and email and am reproducing it here:


With my limited understanding of Confucianism, I believe that it has been maligned. However, you could not be faulted as the misunderstanding has been purveyed by none other than the government.

A rather good blog by kiweto was a brave attempt at unmasking true the ruling philosophy of the government. He identified it as Legalism, the ruling philosophy of the Qin dynasty.

I will try to redress this in my own way:Silvan Solomon Tomkins (1911-1991), a personality theorist, in the light of his Polarity Theory saw the recurrent polarity in fields as diverse as mathematics, political theory, theory of child rearing and theory of personality as being attributable to humanistic versus normative orientations.The former positive idealization sees man as an end in himself.

Tomkins assumed that it attempts to maximize positive affect for individuals and for all their interpersonal relationships. The latter negative idealization holds that a man must work towards attaining his full stature, only through struggle toward a norm, a measure, an ideal essence.

Tomkins believed that it stresses that norm compliance is the primary value and that positive affect is a consequence of norm compliance, not to be directly sought as a goal. As a corollary, the suffering of negative affect is a frequent and inevitable experience. Tomkins devised a polarity scale, in which an individual chooses between two statements each on diverse ideological issues to assess the individual's position on the humanistic-normative spectrum. An example of such a pair of statements:

1. The maintenance of law and order is the most important duty of any government.
2. Promotion of welfare of the people is the most important function of a government.

Statement 1 is normative and 2 is humanistic. Humans are basically evil. and Humans are basically good. are another example of such a normative-humanistic pair. Xun Zi the founder of Legalism firmly believed in the former, while Mencius held the latter to be true. It does not take a genius to figure out who was the humanist here!Like the case of the revered Nanyang spirit, snuffed out about two decades back, Confucius name has been abused to legitimize a political agenda. I hope I have succeeded in attaining my original aim to right this wrong.

Healtcare Costs ... Again

[This will definitely never make it to the MSM. Thank goodness for the internet!]

Here we go again.

Dear Minister of Health, you just don't get it do you?


Sep 9, 2006
Five steps to keeping health care affordable

Excerpts from a speech by Mr Khaw Boon Wan, Minister for Health, at the China-Singapore joint health care forum yesterday in Xiamen, China

LAST week, I met Health Minister Gao Qiang in Beijing. We chit-chatted and shared our experiences. We both knew that it is tough being a health minister. [Probably tougher on the Chinese Minister due to his dramatically lower salary, must be mired in corruption by Singaporean logic.]

This is because patients expect us to do magic. They expect us to deliver a very high standard of medical service but at a very low cost, preferably free. These objectives are almost contradictory. How can we deliver First World health care at Third World costs? [Yes yes, it is a condition endemic only to Singaporeans & Chinese apparently. Of course nobody in the world will want to pay Third World rates for First World goods, we all really really want to pay First World rates for questionable goods on which some of us are tested.]

Early this week, I read a newspaper article (ST, Aug 4) which quoted Indian Tourism Minister Ambika Soni as saying that India offers 'the best treatment for one-fifth of the cost (in the West)'. For example, bone marrow transplants cost US$30,000 (S$47,000) in India as compared with US$250,000 in the US. Likewise, cardiac surgery in India costs a quarter of that in the US.

But hospitals offering US standards of care are rare exceptions in India. [As is the story of Singapore. But why can we not strive to be like that Indian hospital? As a tax payer I would happily send a team from your Ministry with MY money to India to study how this hospital pulls off this feat then try to replicate that in Singapore to the benefit of Singapore citizens while creating a possible medical tourism plus point. In this flattening world, price will be the ultimate dictator of where most of the spending dollar goes. Gucci and Mount E. nuts aside.]

The bulk of health care in India remains at Third World level. Hence, it is possible for a few hospitals to offer US standards of care while leveraging on the large number of health-care workers who remain on Third World wages. [Dear Minister, in the international medical community Singaporeans probably ranks as an oddity. First world country, Third world painkillers. Having been treated in the US and here in Singapore ... I would have to say we Singaporeans tend to suffer a lot more pain rather unnecessarily due to your controlled substances acts. Your policy on proven drugs simply does not qualify for any price increases.

Singaporean workers bore the brunt of bringing Singapore to the First World on Third World wages. You are expecting us to now pay for First World priced medicine?]

The challenge is to keep wages and costs at Third World levels while the rest of the health-care system moves to First World standards. It is almost impossible. [Last I heard in Singapore we have a very close tripartite working relationship where Singaporeans will gladly suffer cuts in CPF and raises in broad based taxation like GST and ERP. Our wages have not really gone up sir! And before you pull that Progress Package stunt again ... where is that money going to come from?]

With globalisation, the wages of health-care workers as well as the prices of medical products are converging. Cross-border migration of health-care workers is now common. For a small country like Singapore, we import most of our medical products, like drugs and X-ray equipment. We have to pay international prices for these imports. [I called for local production of generic drugs during this past GE, you responded that we do manufacture medicine here. I have to ask again sir: we produce only Panadol and Axe Oil here? Why can't we produce and possibly export generic drugs that have run their patent life duration? We'll have to ask your colleague Mr. George Yeo I believe. Are drug prices and the ability to produce generic drugs in Singapore bound by FTAs recently signed by any chance? Are Singaporeans being made to pay more for costly drugs in exchange for what the EDB or MITI can later proclaim to be a victory of negotiation at the trade table?]

With people living longer and mothers producing fewer babies, uncontrollable healthcare costs can potentially wreck our finances, not to mention create major political problems. [I believe it too! And the issue at hand is cost! Not whether or not we have more money, through CPF or other means, to pay for escalating medical costs! Costs needs to be contained please, not alleviated by simply allowing us to spend our own money which we otherwise would not have been able to till after retirement.]

Singapore is fortunate that our founding fathers were successful in developing the economy. With clean water, clean air and good sanitation, the health of our people has improved over the years. We now enjoy high life expectancy and very low infant mortality rates.

Our [health-care] system today is not perfect but it is not bad. WHO has rated our system as among the top 10 most cost-effective in the world. [Dear Minister, independent research shows your statement to be in sync with what has been published. May we move on and try to gun for a better and cheaper system then please?]

Today, we spend only 4 per cent of our GDP on health. The average public hospital bill size for the unsubsidised Class A ward is about one month of the average salary. In the heavily subsidised Class C ward, the average bill ($786) is less than a week of salary. [Yes, but we also spend 24% of our salaries, in one form or another, on our beloved HDB flats according to a Cisco international salary survey - the highest in the world! Add the differing costs together and you do not have a low cost model that is attractive to MNCs .... and eventually citizens as well.]

For the high standard of medical care that hospitals provide, we think this is very good value for money. [Comparing with John Hopkins or with the above mentioned Indian hospital?]

Five aspects of managing a health-care system

First, we work on the basis that health-care cost will continue to rise. While we do our best to manage medical inflation, we know that the trend is rising. The reason is simple. Doctors and nurses will continue to command high salaries and advances in medical science will continue to churn out new drugs and new equipment which are more expensive than their replacements.
The key to managing health-care cost is therefore to ensure that there is a constant and expanding flow of money going into the health-care sector to pay for new services. There is no short cut to this problem. [I concur, there is no short cut to this problem. Allowing the population to understand how medical costs are derived will allow for greater transparency which you argue for later on. Let's talk about the real cost of medical treatment in Singapore. Dollars and cents, just like what you forced to be published last year for some treatements at different hospitals.]

We are more likely to succeed if we share the financial burden widely. If we load the burden on one payer - whether the government as in the British system, or the employers like the American system - we will cause very severe strains. In Singapore, we involve both the Government as well as employers, and in addition, we rope in patients and their families as well. Our health-care system is supported by all the major stakeholders: Government, employers, patients, family members, insurers and charities. [So the new major shareholder in tripartism is now the patient and their families? At times I feel my tax money goes to supporting our incredible high Ministerial salaries. Perhaps it is time to once again raise the platform of medical national service for doctors / nurses who graduate from our 'heavily subsidised' educational system? If you crank out 100 doctors a year and they have to serve say, 4 years at NS pay levels, would that help lower costs?]

Second, we believe that the health-care market can work better under competition. Market competition is the best way to allocate resources efficiently. Compared to other economic sectors, the health-care sector is notoriously unproductive. But there is no fundamental reason why the health-care market must fail. It fails only because we allow it to fail. [Another common reason for market failure is imperfect information. In Singapore, yet another reason exists for market failure - governmental intervention.]

For markets to function, there must be timely information so consumers and producers can make rational decisions. When we want to buy a mobile phone, we shop around for the best prices for the functions that we desire. But how many patients shop around before they go for their cataract eye operation or knee cap replacement? And how can they shop around when information on how much patients pay for such operations is not easily available?
In Singapore, we are trying to push out timely and relevant information. We gather data from our hospitals and publish them regularly. [Great first step Minister! *applause*]

Third, we must empower patients and get them to take greater responsibility for their own health. This is particular so in the management of chronic diseases like diabetes and hypertension. If we manage chronic diseases well, we are more likely to avoid or at least delay or minimise the onset of future medical complications requiring costly treatment. [Sorry, this is a no-brainer, no applause here. Only thing I will say is to encourage the PAP to continue with its nanny function. Keep it up! Keep it up! .... "Don't worry, the government will take care of it. They have the best brains and they know what they're doing. No one else should interfere!"]

Patients should take responsibility for their own health and work with their doctors and change their lifestyle. Eat healthily, exercise regularly, avoid obesity and smoking, take medication as prescribed by their doctors while regularly monitoring their own health and looking out for signs of complications. Many pilot studies of such structured disease management programmes have shown the benefits to the health of patients, while saving them money. [Please don't give me this whole bullock cart worth of bovine manure. How much time off does your assistant get? How much time off does a wannabe-high-flyer civil servant get? You have a paunch too Minister. We live in Singapore. There is no time to muck around other then to work and to please our bosses. You have not watched 'Singapore Dreaming' have you?]

Fourth, we must revive the important role played by the primary health-care sector. In many countries, this sector has been marginalised as patients and doctors flock to the more glamorous tertiary sector. An over-swing to the tertiary sector has been a major contributor to escalating health-care costs in many countries, without any corresponding improvement in health outcomes. [You said upgrading is good right? So how can you describe the move into the tertiary health sector as an overswing sir? They are merely following their societal instincts to make hay while the sun shines at the risk of being labelled - "see how much they earn? so little" which I believe is attributable to you in the month of August 2006.]

As a rule, we need to keep patients away from unnecessary care by specialists at expensive hospitals. When a patient who can be adequately treated by a GP is instead managed by a specialist in a tertiary hospital, it means a waste and abuse of expertise.

Often, financial incentives and remunerations for the doctors work against the right siting of care. [Is this not where governmental policy would do some good though it is intervening in a market model? To acheive a slightly more socialistic outcome in terms of primary medical care?]

When insurers reward high-intensity, high-cost surgical treatment but do not reimburse GPs who provide low-intensity, low-cost health education and dietary advice to their chronic sick patients, we should not be surprised that the outcome is disappointing. [Yes sir! Because at one point in time not too long ago, primary health care cost was affordable. Insurance had no business there because it was not a marketable model, no one would buy insurance then for primary healthcare. Now the cost of primary healthcare has gone up, which publicly listed or private insurer in their right mind will provide insurance where the payouts are likely to be equal to or more then the premiums collected. ...... ]

Fifth, we should exploit globalisation to help lower cost. While globalisation is itself pushing up wages of health workers, we should leverage on it to average down our cost. [If you guys want to muck around with the market then continue to do so and not shove the final responsiblity on the citizens when the market begins to behave out of expectations due to your shortsightedness or 'globalization'.

And hey, 'globalization' has been taking place since ships first sailed. it is not a recent phenomenon. It is truly a wonder few people in Singapore flip when the government cites 'globalization' as a factor for everything bad. And everything good must be a result of wise decisions and policies by the government. Complete bollocks!

In any event, an elected government is beholden to the people in terms of their welfare. I have to ask what your annual KPIs are Minister? Achieving budget surpluses?

If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen!]

So Singapore ...

Now why is it that Singaporean firms who go overseas (particularly GLCs) tend to fail? Could it be because they are so used to getting their own way (like the PAP) that they don't know how to play by the rules of others? Even when the others are guests that represent a sort of institutionalization of international law?

It would be hilarious if only the totalitarian portion weren't true.

First, here is what the locals (you and me) read:


Sep 9, 2006
Singapore stands by decision to bar some activists
By Tracy Sua & Tanya Fong

SINGAPORE authorities yesterday stood by their decision to deny entry to foreign activists deemed 'undesirable' for the upcoming International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank meetings.

So far, some 20 individuals will be barred from entering Singapore if they turn up at any of the border checkpoints, The Straits Times understands. Among them is anti-globalisation activist Walden Bello, the executive director of the Focus on the Global South. He has been a regular at protests held during World Trade Organisation meetings, such as the 1999 conference in Seattle which was eventually known as the 'Battle in Seattle' because of the violence that took place there.

Mr Bello was also jailed in 1978 for taking over a Philippine consulate in San Francisco.
Police would not provide details of individuals barred from Singapore but said that 'every country reserves the right to determine whether a foreigner would be eligible for entry into the country''.

'Under the current security environment, we will be cautious on who we allow into our borders, especially when a high-profile event like the IMF and World Bank meetings are held here.''
The spokesman added that the meetings will attract the attention of many, 'not least those who may want to use the ready platform and presence of the international media to stage events that will pose a security threat to Singapore and compromise the level of security arrangements we have put in place'.

The police were responding to protests from the IMF and World Bank, over Singapore's decision not to allow representatives of some accredited civil society organisations from attending the meetings.

In a joint statement, the IMF and World Bank said: 'In the interest of good governance, transparency and accountability, we urge the Government of Singapore to allow all properly accredited civil society representatives to attend our meetings.''

They added: 'We have consistently opposed any restrictions on full participation and peaceful expression of views. 'Open dialogue and civil society are also important for the effective operation of our institutions.''

So far, a record number of nearly 500 civil society organisations from more than 45 countries have been accredited to attend the meetings starting next week. At about the same time, more than 700 international activists had intended to gather in Batam, because of Singapore's ban on outdoor demonstrations. But this too seems in doubt now, as the Indonesian police were reported as saying they would not allow it to go ahead.

An Indonesian Foreign Ministry official yesterday brushed aside suggestions by some non-governmental organisations that the Indonesian decision to stop the Batam gathering was taken after diplomatic pressure from Singapore.


Now, this (below) is what the response was to (bearing in mind that our beloved 66.6% PM in the same breath called the MSM reliable while they varioulsy scrambled to cover his 'mee siam my hum' comment into stuff like laksa my hum [CNA - awared winner for best reporting in Asia?], mee siam my hiam [ST - another award winner in Asia Pac for good reporting?]etc):


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/d29328d2-3f32-11db-a37c-0000779e2340.html



IMF and World Bank rebuke Singapore

By John Burton in Singapore and Shawn Donnan in Jakarta

Published: September 8 2006 13:16 Last updated: September 9 2006 02:07

The International Monetary Fund and World Bank on Friday issued an unprecedented rebuke to Singapore over a ban on accredited activists invited to attend the annual meetings of the two financial institutions next week.

The IMF/World Bank suggested that Singapore had violated the terms of its agreement to host the event by blocking the entry of 19 civil society representatives, who allegedly posed a security threat.

"Singapore had promised to faciliate the entry of accredited representatives under the memorandum of understanding with us," a World Bank official said. The IMF/World Bank was only informed this week of Singapore's plans.

The crackdown is part of tough security measures that Singapore will implement during the September 11-20 meetings. The government will also ban all outdoor demonstrations and has warned it will shoot at violent protesters, citing the threat of terrorist attacks.

The incident represents a setback to the IMF/World Bank, which has sought to improve relations with non-governmental organisations that have accused them of conducting policies that have ignored the plight of the world's poor. A record 500 NGO representatives are accredited to attend this year's meeting.

"This is a major blow to the credibility of the IMF/World Bank. It's terribly embarrassing since the World Bank had adopted good goverance as the theme of this year's meeting," said Antonio Tricarrio with Campagna per la Riforma della Banca Mondiale, who was one of those banned.
Mr Tricarrio said he was "astounded" at Singapore's decision since his group was a widely-respected organisation that had never been associated with violent activities.

Some NGOs alleged that the IMF/World Bank, which holds its annual meetings outside Washington every three years, had selected Singapore as the venue for this year's meeting because of its authoritarian reputation. Previous IMF/World Bank meetings have been marred by violent protests.

Among those banned by Singapore were representatives from the UK-based World Development Movement, Thailand's Focus on the Global South, the Freedom from Debt Coalition in the Philippines and the Forum on Indonesian Development (Infid).

The IMF/World Bank said these "individuals have been cleared to attend the annual meetings by their respective governments and we have accredited them according to our standard procedure."

"We strongly urge the Singapore government to act swiftly and reverse their decision on entry and access to the meetings for these representatives," the IMF/World Bank said in a joint statement.

The Singapore police force said this week that it had compiled a list of potential "troublemakers" who would be denied entry to the city-state. “Every country reserves the right to determine whether a foreigner would be eligible for entry into the country,” said the Singapore police on Friday.

Some NGOs had planned to hold rallies on the neighbouring Indonesian island of Batam because of the security measures in Singapore. But they were told this week by the local police that the protest would be banned because foreign groups were involved in violation of the law.

The chief of Indonesia’s national police, Sutanto, told reporters that NGOs would not be allowed to hold protests on Batam, although authorities would let them meet. “Seminars are welcome,” he said. “But there should be no political agenda, let alone rallies, because this could make foreigners think Indonesia is not safe for investment.”

Additional reporting by Alan Beattie in London and Taufan Hidayat in Jakarta

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2006

Thanks for the comments

Hello Dear Reader,

thank you for your many comments and valuable links, particularly on NTU's 're-written' history. Though I do probably do not personally know many of you I would like to ask a favour to help keep these versions of history alive. Not just about NTU but also about many other things in Singapore especially occurring during the 'Merdeka' period.

To the person whose eyes got zonked reading white, red & blue on black, pai seh, my choice, but thanks for your 'advice' in any event. For me it is a reflection on the state of political affairs here in the little red dot.

Others in democracies speak of tabula rasa, we here speak of tabula furvus. Perhaps one day in the future when enough white words appear, perhaps just perhaps, the slate will be clean again and we can rebuild. I've used white, red, blue liberally : Blue / White / Red - Liberty / Equality / Fraternity. The greens are healthy.

Flat (HDB) World - Commentary

Just finished reading Friedman's Flat World which is an apparent hot seller. Also just read MM's remarks in the ST today on how Singapore needs to buck up and be open, right after yesterday's comments wherein he claimed that Singapore will never have a culture to call her own even after 400 years. IMHO a bit of a cut and paste job from Friedman's book with some modifications to suit the local context and imperial-like tastebuds.

The two are inextricably entwined. In more ways then one. We have been an open and inclusive society from the get go pre-Independence in '65.

(I choose to believe that the racial riots were manufactured incidences - I was not born yet and only have 'written' history as a guide along with oral recounts of the older folk who are diminshing dramatically everyday. This belief is based on a cursory 'study' of the politics of those times - again in part based on re-written history and oral transmissions from our 'founding fathers & mothers.' In short the racial riots were a political gambit - just like how the triads were initially allowed then slowly eradicated once their usefullness diminished.)

And Singapore remains very open to foreigners to this day.

What remains unplatable and has not been addressed as a root cause of worry for the influx of FTs can be found reflected in Jack Neo's 'I Not Stupid' productions. Recall the how the MD accepts the Ang Moh's recommendations based on (translated from Hokkien) "as long as it is produced by a foreigner / ang moh it must be good."

Until this system of thinking which is rampant in our Mandarin caste is eradicated and locals are given a chance to shine through .... really given a chance .... the concern about FTs taking away our jobs will forever remain.

To add salt to an open wound MM Lee furhter went on to comment that Mao Zedong was a great man despite a low education level because he had a 'capacious' mind. Easy for you to say Mr. Lee but your policies and your social engineering tweakings which you in the same breath still ascribe to have condemned all Singaporeans to an endless paper chase to prove self worth and worth to society. So which is it you want now? Highly educated narrow thinkers the system produces today or lowly educated but broad thinkers who are just so because of the lack of constraint imposed by the system of education and social engineering?

But how is it a single man is able to chart the history and the future of a nation? It is theoretically and physically impossible unless supported by a large group of people who perpetuate the system. Brings to mind the civil service.

So how does one go about breaking a mindset within which an entire generation has grown up? How does one go about telling the older generation that their attitudes and beliefs in life will only serve to condemn the next generation into obscurity when for a brief flicker in history these folk proved to themselves that their system was right, that their beliefs were right. It is far easier to consign people to the past then ideas. I have no answer short of a revolution of the mind in Singapore. How can one reverse the thinking of an entire generation?


If you interpret these words as a condemnation of the publicly proclaimed 'confuscianistic values' so intrinsic to Asian society you are right. But let it be known that I am not anti-chinese nor anti-chinese values. The problem lies in extremes. We have pushed ourselves too far to one end of the scale.

Normally, one might say that tomorrow will pay the price for today's excesses but in the case of Singapore where everything is played out at ten times the speed of life ..... this afternoon we shall pay for this morning's excesses. Excesses in social engineering, excesses aspiration, excesses in gaining wealth, excesses in the educational system, excesses in governance without a strong check, excesses in curbing a people's natural inclination to dream, excesses in demolishing a mish-mashing of culture that makes Singapore truly unique, excesses in sycophantic behaviour, excesses of a Mandarin system.

Nope, I still do not have an answer on how to address all these issues at one go even if I were Prime Minster tomorrow.

Friedman's book is an eye opener. A possible road map for countries going forward. I've previously made several recommendations (particularly in education) in the same light. But as a normal Singaporean I stand nowhee in terms of policy making. As an opposition figure my standing is constantly in legal and financial jeopardy. As an employee I have no control over the international economy which is moving quickly into Singapore. As a budding entrepreneur I face Himalayan obstacles in the local civil service in terms of regulations. In total, as an average Tan / Lim / Lee / Muhammad / Gopal / de Silva I have no ownership of my future in MY country.

I'm 35 this year, married, and wondering what kind of Singapore my child will be born into if we choose to conceive. Will my child be free to explore the world's or the universe's possibilities unfettered by a system of constraints, which in my opinion are designed to control and constrain the mental growth of the whole population? Will my child succumb to the pressures of life and our local societal norms in Singapore and turn out to be some freakish, impolite, selfish sociopath (already a good many adults today are like that)? Will my child grow up learning that creativity is taught and should adhere to the sense of creativity of his/her teacher - that approval is required to be creative and that creativity standards are measurable?

Singapore, we can stop the brain drain from happening. We can start to put a halt to the damage created by the Mandarin system of governance.

A true celebration of diversity implies an acceptance of others - including those outside the norm. Parents today need to instill in their children the need for living a fulfilling life outside of school and work. We need more Universities that are open to admission to all Singaporeans without the red tape of the British legacy - that cater to courses that make human beings and not just economic digits. We need to demolish the Mandarin (but not necessarily the PAP) system of governance so as to achieve truer ownership of our land and country. We need to ponder, as a nation, the policies that will take us forward into a future that is bright with possibilities, unlimited potential.

Differences in thought, lifestyle, sexual orientation, political orientation, stages of personal development should not be constrained by public policies which, in Singapore, are translated into monetarily or criminally enforceable societal norms. True openess needs to be achieved if we are to move forward as a people for a greater cause. This is what diversity truly means.

Diversity has no boundaries, unlike what the national education programmes (the mainstream media and government mouthpieces) like Singaporeans to believe.

A full fledged democracy imposed overnight, in which every single citizen is responsible for taking Singapore into the future, will meet with a systemic failure. Many of us have been conditioned not to think or even dare to ponder issues of governance. Until we overcome this difficulty we shall forever remain individual digits who have relegated the rights of our existence to the Mandarins.

What Most Singaporeans Know About NTU

Kindly provided by a reader. Thank you dear reader.

http://www.spug.net/forums/showthread.php?t=72535&highlight=ntu

This short synopsis of what went on and still goes on captures the main drift of my earlier argument on history being re-written.

It appears that the press was in on this as well. Does it then mean that the press, if so and by association, is also responsbile for the lack of rootedness felt by many Singaporeans?

Healthcare Insurance – Slowly (?) But Surely Rising Costs

TODAY carried an exclusive article on August 18th 2006 relating how managed healthcare providers provided medicine in lower doses after the patient showed her a medical management company card of which her employer was a participant.

This does not bode well for the medical consumer in Singapore. We will either get shortchanged in terms of medication as suggested by the article or conversely expect to pay more for ‘proper’ medication. And as will be expounded on later - risk pooling will not help in anyway.

Managed care, managed healthcare, medical management company, medical management scheme are all fancy phrases to describe a phenomena which rocked the American medical, legal and social order as recently as the last decade. The dirty phrase in America was: Heathcare Management Organisations or HMOs in short.

HMOs in the U.S. started out with blatantly social aims of pooling risks and delivering affordable healthcare costs for all Americans. It gradually grew into a monstrous behemoth that not only controlled sectors of the government but worse, had government agencies inevitably condoning practices that would generate profits for the pharmaceutical companies that were eager to make a few more bucks.

Costs began escalating out of control as the pharma giants plumbed the HMOs and government agencies with junkets and retreats ostensibly selling their drugs. These drugs are often newly developed and recently passed by the American Food and Drug Administration for public consumption. Actual healthcare providers were economically and otherwise incentivised not to prescribe or utilize generic drugs for those whose seven year patent life span has run out. (Thereafter which any company in the world can produce this drug and sell it at a dramatically reduced rate of profit due to either lower cost of production or simply not attempting to earn on patent royalties – royalties are what one pays for the ‘intellectual property’ required to develop drugs, much like what you pay for an original music CD. Currently the ‘owners’ of “Tamiflu” are under severe international political pressure to allow the drug to be produced elsewhere and sold at a lower cost then normal due to the incidences of bird flu surfacing internationally.)

The rationale was simple. It only costs each end consumer a few dollars more each year in terms of ‘pooled risks’ and doctors who prescribed the drugs had nothing to lose with a slight possibility of gain while the pharmaceutical firms stood to gain massive market share and therefore profits both locally and internationally.

“In 2005, employer health insurance premiums increased by 9.2 percent - nearly three times the rate of inflation. The annual premium for an employer health plan covering a family of four averaged nearly $11,000. The annual premium for single coverage averaged over $4,000 (3).

Experts agree that our health care system is riddled with inefficiencies, excessive administrative expenses, inflated prices, poor management, and inappropriate care, waste and fraud. These problems significantly increase the cost of medical care and health insurance for employers and workers and affect the security of families.*

Since 2000, employment-based health insurance premiums have increased 73 percent, compared to cumulative inflation of 14 percent and cumulative wage growth of 15 percent during the same period.

Health insurance expenses are the fastest growing cost component for employers. Unless something changes dramatically, health insurance costs will overtake profits by 2008.
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust, premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance in the United States have been rising five times faster on average than workers' earnings since 2000.

The average employee contribution to company-provided health insurance has increased more than 143 percent since 2000. Average out-of-pocket costs for deductibles, co-payments for medications, and co-insurance for physician and hospital visits rose 115 percent during the same period.

The percentage of Americans under age 65 whose family-level, out-of-pocket spending for health care, including health insurance, exceeds $2,000 a year rose from 37.3 percent in 1996 to 43.1 percent in 2003 - a 16 percent increase.” *

* http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

Can Singaporeans withstand such increases in cost in such a short span of time? Can you? Why then is the PAP government backing calls for a managed healthcare scheme for the nation when overseas first world experience shows that the system is open to mis-management and costs which spiral out of control?

But cost is only one factor in a HMO setting. Socially, America began seeing higher and higher incidences of those who are treated and those who are not – medically treated of course. Every sane person of reasonable economic means is enrolled in some sort of managed healthcare program in the U.S.. If you have a card showing you are in a program you are treated, if not, show your credit card, if not ……. And if only it ended there. Healthcare costs, under the HMO scheme for decades has escalated to a point where even credit cards may not be accepted as a form of payment for medical treatment in some instances in the U.S.


Later in the week the Sunday Times, 20th August 2006, carried an article on how the Minister for Health is beaming with the success of his plan to turn Medishield around. The claims for success rests on that fact that consumers now have a choice of insurers and plans while government regulations prevent or attempt to prevent cherry picking so as to maintain the risk pool. Alongside these successes were a statement that Medishield is running in the black, by some $100 million, as opposed to running in the red just a year ago. Makes one wonder if premiums collected are too high or payouts are too low resulting in a surplus within one year of running a deficit in the national healthcare plan.

The article goes on to lists examples of how one would pay less for hospitalization stays compared to the ‘old’ plan as the present plan pays out more from insurance therefore requiring less from the consumer. Funny how the article does not also mention if the total bill for hospitalization stays have been going up or down over the past years. What difference does it make if the 3Ms cover more of a medical bill but if the medical bill rises beyond the original quantum then someone, somewhere, somehow has to pay more.

For example, let’s say insurance covers 50% of a bill of $1000 and your deductible (amount of cash you have to pay) is 10% then the insurance plans pays $500, your Medisave gets $400 deducted and you pay $100 in cash. Now insurance covers 60% of $2000 and your deductible is 5% this means that your Medisave account will be poorer by $900 while you are still paying $100 out of pocket – and in the meantime, the insurer has to fork out $1200. With rising medical costs who will ultimately pay despite insurance schemes that claim to pay out more?

Insurance, as a method of pooling risks, simply means that it will be easier for healthcare providers to charge “each patient” or “each insured person” just a few dollars more as in the example above. It is a national plan and no one can really opt out of it. Not every who buys car insurance ‘uses’ it in the form of a claim but everyone has to buy insurance as a pooled risk for motoring and therefore has to pay for all the risks inherent in motoring. Premium increases affect all motorists despite huge improvements in vehicle safety. Could the same thing happen in healthcare? Perhaps the authorities in all their wisdom could incentivize the population further to stay healthy by offering a ‘no claim bonus’ scheme similar to one for motoring rather then just talking about healthy living?

While government administered (public) healthcare schemes can afford to run in the red every now and then with an eye to recovering the losses later. Private firms cannot afford to do so. They are answerable to their shareholders whose only concern is profit. If government bodies insist on running in the black with a ‘healthy surplus’ at all times it mimics a business model and I would then have to ask if surpluses collected have any impact on civil servants bonus structures.

The Minister topped off his speech with a claim that competition is always good – I wonder if he had political competition in mind as well?

This articles carries three sources of information. TODAY’s article points out a loophole that insurers are taking to lower their cost; the website which statistically lists the cost of insurance on the economy (the employer and the employee) demonstrates ridiculously rising healthcare cost under a privately managed healthcare insurance scheme; the ST article tells us how Medishield is now in the black and how private insurers are actually better for the health of Singaporeans healthcare.

A Response to the National Day Rally Speech

While it is imperative that Singapore addresses the lack of manpower situation in the near and medium term with augmentation by foreign talent we should not overlook local talent as well. All this chatter of foreign talent should come with strings attached to those who are first Singaporean. Recognition and retention of local talent should and always be foremost in the minds and hearts of the government and the people of Singapore. There must exist a dual standard for labour in Singapore - Singaporeans must come first.

The dearth of birth rates are a result of our progress in one way or another. That cannot be denied. The thrust of the globalization argument in the local context is that it leaves Singaporeans with perceived little time for family since we are all in constant pursuit of the best, the brightest, the highest and other such world class achievements. As a people we need to take stock of what is of true importance to us in the spectrum of life and not just passing material requirements though they are important. It is my belief that the behaviour and policies of the government and the PAP, written and otherwise, have played a large part in the shaping of what Singapore is today. Credit given where it is due along with its attendent consequences.

One also wonders if the low birth rates is a result of the PAP's Stop-at-Two programme of the 1980s? You reap what you sow. The PAP is not always correct. It is human and makes mistakes. This underscores the need for a responsible Opposition in parliament to challenge and check the excesses of government policy before it is too late.

Relaxation is required in the out-of-control rat race that we are immersed in and it does not bode well that the ruling party, the PAP and its ever efficient and well oiled machinery are constantly pressing all the competitive buttons at all levels of society. The PAP has been wonderfully successful at imposing and inculcating all the 'right' values to make Singapore what it is today.

That the digital generation needs to be engaged via use of technology simply points to the fact that policy makers are out of touch. Engagement with the populace, no matter which generation, should remain a constant activity of a self-professed democratic government. Technology is the great leveller of the 21st century and it is telling that a policy needs to be crafted to utilise it for engagement. It simply demonstrates a strictly top down mode of governance where the court awaits the mandarin's orders.