Forum Index
this forum welcomes all forumers who appreciate decent and well thought out views and discussions. all forumers are encouraged to accept that different forumers have different views and often there is no absolutely right or wrong views.
Menu
 Forum IndexHome
FAQFAQ
MemberlistMemberlist
UsergroupsUsergroups
RegisterRegister
ProfileProfile
Log in to check your private messagesMessages
Log inLogin/Out

Quick Search

Advanced Search

Links
mysingaporenews
Singapore River Tour
Singapore Education
Singapore Orchids
littlespeck
ypapforum
Singapore Hosting
Sample Link 2
Sample Link 2

Who's Online
[ Administrator ]
[ Moderator ]


Google Search
Google

http://www.phpbb.com
Signs of decline
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 33, 34, 35, 36  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Singapore Current Affairs
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 9:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Singapore’s competitive edge
PM Lee: “We are already competing with Malaysia in terms of ports and it boils down to who can run a port better and more efficiently.”
This has been our strength, the key factor that propelled Singapore to the First World and became the jewel of South East Asia. It is the quality of our work force, their training and education, their work attitude and efficiency, the best workers in the region. These are the factors that made the difference over our competitors.
Can Singapore remain as competitive among our neighbours? Can Singapore be more efficient in the running of our ports and airports and other industries? Yes, we can, if we continue to produce the best Singaporeans that our system has been producing, our schools and universities producing the graduates needed by the industries. Is this happening, or we are producing mismatched graduates, duds that are not even good enough compared to Third World graduates?
Are you asking me? Who has been lamenting that our system is not producing the right type of work force with the right skills for the right jobs? You got the cheek to say this?
Can we compete with the Malaysians and Indonesians, with the Pinoys or the Indians, if we hire these same people to run our ports and airports and systems? Would we still have the advantage over them when we are using the same kind of workers, with the same DNAs, and worst, employing the workers that are the unemployed, unemployable and underemployed in their own countries? How can we be more competitive when we are replacing our highly regarded and efficient Singaporeans with the rejects, the unwanted from our neighbouring countries to run our organizations and systems? We want to compete with our neighbours with their Third World quality workers?
Can anyone miss the joke? The joke is on us, Singaporeans. We have forgotten what made us great and better than our neighbours. It was our workforce. Now we are dying to bring in their half baked workers and claimed that they are better than our Singaporeans and want to be more competitive. Is this the reason why things are starting to break down?
It is unbelieveable! Stupidity cannot be cured.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2017 10:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

NTUC FairPrice gives priority to Pioneers
I happened to have a chat with a few pioneers and up came the topic of priority queue for pioneers in FairPrice. There is a priority queue but not sure if pioneers are given first pass. And then I was inside a FairPrice outlet and there were queues everywhere. Then I looked up and saw two big circular signs hanging over one cashier counter. One read ‘Pioneers Priority’ and another ‘Give Way’. But there was a queue. So I thought I test the system and went forward to ask the cashier whether got priority for pioneers. She answered promptly, pioneers also must queue.
Oh, brilliant idea. Two big signs that said priority for pioneers and give way to pioneers, and actually did not mean it. Pioneers also must join the queue. My recommendations to NTUC FairPrice are like these: either remove the two big signs as they are meaningless, or to add two more signs, one reads ‘Pioneers must also Q’ and another ‘No need to give way to pioneers’. If not the signs either make the pioneers look silly queuing in a priority queue for them or NTUC FairPrice looking stupid having such signs that meant nothing. Did they think through what they are going to do before they hung those big signs up in the first place? Maybe it is too difficult for them to think how best to deal with such priority queues.
The cashiers must have taken instructions from their supervisors, and the supervisors must have taken instructions from their superiors, and up the pecking order. So who is the top idiot that passed down such a stupid idea to give pioneers priority queue but instructions to the cashiers to do the contrary? Oops, the cashiers knew exactly what to do. Pioneers must also queue. The signs are for wayang only, tak pakai lah.
I had another encounter of such stupidity in FairPrice a few years back. I saw this senior uncle, more senior than me, in front of me in a check out queue. And there was this smiling and grinning cashier happily demanding to see the senior citizen cards before giving the 2% discount. It was a Tuesday and there was a 2% discount for senior citizens. Monday is for Pioneer Generation with a 3% discount. The senior uncle showed the cashier his pioneer card but she said no pakai. 'Úncle, today for seniors only and seniors must show senior card. Pioneer card not recognized on Tuesday. Want pioneer discount, come on Monday.'
I wrote to NTUC the next day explaining to them that pioneers are older than seniors. Apparently they did not know, I supposed. At that time the youngest pioneers were already 65 years old while those qualified for senior cards were only 60 or 62 years. So why pioneer cards not recognized when the card was proof that the holder was older than the seniors? NTUC replied to apologise and said cashiers would be told that pioneer card holders would henceforth also be recognized as seniors and would be entitled to the 2% discount on Tuesday. If I have not been a busybody, the happy cashier/cashiers would be happily demanding for senior citizen cards on Tuesday and rejecting the pioneer cards.
This is how daft and stupid Singaporeans have become. They just follow rules or instructions without thinking. Like they said, cheng hu got say then do. Cheng hu no say, don’t do. No need to think. Cheng hu is doing all the thinking. Daft sinkies just listen and obey instructions. Life cannot be more simple and blissful than this.
I hope NTUC read this or someone got the link to NTUC tell them about my recommendations on priority queues for pioneers as mentioned above. The cashiers need to get specific instructions before they can do anything right. Instructions from the top very powderful, cannot disobey. It is not that the cashiers are stupid. They could exercise their initiative and can be very helpful when they wanted to.
Stupidity has no cure.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2017 8:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Who is the first elected President of Singapore?
WP raised this question in Parliament and if I am not mistaken the question was turned into an attack on Hsien Loong’s integrity for using Wee Kim Wee as the first elected President to compute when a minority president should take his place in the Istana. Correct me if I am wrong. I think the formula used to calculate the time qualification for a minority president is quite interesting for discussion. I must say the govt is right and I am not questioning anyone’s integrity, not Hsien Loong’s for sure.
Let me just put down some facts here, copied from the Istana website and wikipedia.
Mr C V Devan Nair was elected President of the Republic of Singapore by Parliament on 23 October 1981.

Dr Wee Kim Wee was elected the President of the Republic of Singapore by Parliament on 30 August 1985.

Mr Ong Teng Cheong became the fifth President of the Republic of Singapore and the first President to be popularly elected by the people on 1 September 1993.

Below paragraphs are from wikipedia.
The Singaporean presidential election of 1993 was the first presidential election held in Singapore. Polling day was 28 August 1993. Former Deputy Prime Minister Ong Teng Cheong became Singapore's first directly elected President.

In January 1991, the Constitution of Singapore[1] was amended to provide for the popular election of the President. The creation of the elected presidency was a major constitutional and political change in Singapore's history as, under the revision, the President is empowered to veto the use of government reserves and appointments to key civil service appointments. He or she can also examine the administration's enforcement of the Internal Security Act[2] and Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act,[3] and look into investigations of corruption.
By virtue of transitional provisions in the Singapore Constitution,[4] Ong's predecessor Wee Kim Wee exercised, performed and discharged all the functions, powers and duties of an elected president as if he had been elected to the office of President by the citizens of Singapore, until Ong took office.

The govt is taking the position that Wee Kim Wee is the first elected president, ah, yes and no if you understand the above facts. Wee Kim Wee exercised, performed and discharged the duties of an elected president once the Act was passed though he was not an elected president elected by the people but elected by parliament in 1985. This is a legal point only the court can make an authoritative interpretation. He did exercise and perform the duties of an elected president but not an elected president elected by the people, only as if he was elected by the people. This could be a point of contention even if he is legally and constitutionally accorded the status of being the first elected president.
The other point is that when did he exercise and perform the duties of an elected president? I think it should be sometime in 1991 or 1992 after the Act was passed in parliament. It must be as the constitution does not have a people’s elected president before this date. Before this date he was not an elected president elected by the people but elected by parliament.
The amendments for a minority president election have a qualification time of 30 years for a minority president election to be called. This 30 year time frame should start from when, 1985 when Wee Kim Wee became president or when he exercised and performed the duties of an elected president in 1991 or 1992? Or should it start from the year the Elected President Act came into force in 1991? If 1985 is the commencement date, then by 2015 a minority president election is due. If the commencement date is 1991/2, then the next minority president election should be due in 2021/2. Correct or not, this is simple arithmetic.
So the big question is which year should be used to compute when the next minority president is due, 2015 or 2021? I think this merits some discussion and clarification. Would WP take this up to the court for a legal interpretation? If there is any doubt or ambiguity, the High Court should be the authority to make the clarification and interpretation. Seeking a court interpretation on this matter cannot be an attack or questioning anyone’s integrity, I think.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 10:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Singaporeans have the chance to elect their president
Some Singaporeans still did not know that they did not elect their Prime Minister. The Prime Minister was elected by a special group of elites within the party. Maybe now more Singaporeans know that the electoral system is such that they only elect the MPs and the rest of the ministers, including the PM, are elected by themselves, not the choice of the Singaporean electorate.
But come September Singaporeans could enjoy the benefit of electing their president by casting their votes to the candidate they like. Yes, they are going to elect the president directly. But who would this candidate be? By the way, who would be selecting the candidate for the Singaporeans to elect? How many candidates would be selected for the Singaporeans to elect? Some think there will be one candidate selected, some say maybe two.
What is important in this election of president process is that the Singaporeans would have the chance to go to the poll, which is compulsory, to cast their vote for the elected president. This is a privilege rarely bestowed to the electorates in many democratic countries. Singaporeans are so lucky. They can choose their president and elect the person of their choice. This is democracy at its best. A president from the people, by the people and will be for the people.
What more do you want? Just be grateful. By the look of things evolving, it looks like the Singaporeans would have the chance to elect Halimah as their next president. And Halimah, when elected, would have the mandate to check on the govt. This is called checks and balance to prevent a rogue govt from running away with the country's reserves.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I thought it was a joke or a hoax
Below is posted in the statestimesreview.
‘I am deeply saddened and shocked by the events that took place on March 4. My mother is 73 years old, frail and suffers from a host of medical conditions.
That morning, she went to the Ang Mo Kio South Neighbourhood Police Centre to report a lost pawn shop ticket. However, the officer-in-charge informed her that there was a warrant of arrest issued against her in 2015 for failing to appear for a court hearing on a town council-related matter. They did not provide her with any further details of the offence.
She was detained and taken to the Ang Mo Kio Police Station and, from there, to the State Courts, before being remanded at Changi Women’s Prison (CWP). While in custody, my mother was stressed and overwhelmed, and was unable to recall the contact details of any of her relatives....
Furthermore, when my mother was moved between the police station, CWP and the court, she was handcuffed and had leg restraints on. It is appalling that a weak old woman was subjected to such harsh treatment.
Law enforcement officers must be empowered to exercise flexibility to handle such cases with empathy and more humane considerations. I hope our pioneer generation members will not be subjected to such an ordeal in future.’
When I read this narrative, immediately I don’t believe that this could happen in Singapore. Our police officers are very well trained, very caring, very proper, very professional, as exemplified in the Benjamin case. How could they treat a 73 year old woman like that? This cannot be true, this must be a joke.
The statestimereview must verify the details before posting this kind of articles or may incur the wrath of the police. I hope the statestimesreview double confirm this case or remove it from its site.
Oops, after writing the above I came across a half page article in the ST on 16 Mar stating that indeed this case was genuine. The victim that was restrained/not restrain, is a Gertrude Simon. The police respond on this, ‘A joint statement by the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) and Singapore Police Force (SPF) last night said she was not restrained by the police, and this was done only when she was transferred to prison as part of standard procedure.’
The Police added, ‘The Police and SPS have a duty to enforce the law and to ensure that the rule of law is respected. At the same time, we are committed to ensuring the well being and safety of persons in our custody.’ The Police were just doing their duty and also for the well being and safety of the person to restrain/not restrain a person. And she was offered food and water, to call home and like Benjamin, ‘She did not show any sign of being traumatised, and was alert in police custody.’
The daughter said, ”When I saw her after her release she was very quiet and when I brought her home, she slept with her hands closed to her face, like in handcuffs,” she added.
Basically she was very well and professionally taken care of, under standard operating procedures, when under police custody. Everything was done properly according to the law and lawful procedure. Case close, no big issue.
Would the kind and compassionate Shanmugam want to review this procedure just like the Police reviewing the procedure after Benjamin’s case, to rethink if it is appropriate to restrain/not restrain a 73 year old woman with respect to the nature of her crime that warranted a restrain/not restrain procedure?
A few questions to ask.
1. Did she commit a serious crime that requires handcuff and leg restraint?
2. Can the handcuff and leg restraint protect her from harming herself?
3. Would she be able to run away from the police?
4. Is it necessary to restrain a mild, weak 73 year old woman?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 8:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Water pricing no need rocket scientist
A person needs just so much water to clean himself and so much water to drink daily. Many are already using the minimum to keep themselves clean and not smelly, and drink just enough to be alive. Should these people be forced to cut down using the little amount of water they are using now with this 30% tax hike to remind them that water is a strategic asset, a national security asset? Which clowns are making such unreasonable demands on the poor people trying to be alive? It is nonsense, it is cruel, wicked and insane to make such demands on the people already living with the bare minimum to be slammed with a 30% price increase.
You don’t need a rocket scientist to explain to the clowns that people need a minimum amount of water to live and to clean themselves for basic hygiene needs. But the clowns are so thick that they could not understand this. And now a foreign talent could not tahan their stupidity, and the media in agreement, had to publish his thoughts to remind the clowns that this foreign talent could not take it anymore. And the reasons given are simple common sense that any daft sinkie would also know.
Dr Jochen Krauss said this as reported in the Today paper, ‘A fair system needs to differentiate users.’ Can understand this or not? He added, ‘But it is the Government’s responsibility to ensure the lower income can afford and have access to water….At some point, households will not be able to reduce their water consumption any further.’ Why thoughtlessly hike the price of water across the board to hit the lower income households who are struggling to pay the water bill with another 30% increase? Is this a responsible thing to do for a govt that claimed to be caring, compassionate and ‘thinking’ because it is all so talented? Where is the thinking, where is the compassion, where is the caring? I can’t find them, can you?
This Dr Jochen must be so exasperated to find the nonsensical logic being shafted down the people’s throat thinking that the people cannot see the silliness of the reasoning and had to say it out. Be sensible and responsible, and stop hitting the poor and lower income households with a sledgehammer. Super talent? Caring? All inclusive, no one being left out? Oops, yes all inclusive, no one being left out from this 30% hike, all must kena taxed and made to know the price of water even when they are using the bare minimum.
Should not there be a reward for people who are already using the bare minimum, who already knew the value of water, and are saving this precious water, not wasting them? The thinking of this policy is that these people also must be made to feel the price of expensive water regardless of whether they know or did not know. This is the same kind of silly totalitarian thinking like when one person went to Batam to spend his money then all the CPF members must be punished.
The truth is that they are just finding excuses to keep the people from their CPF money. And in this water hike case they just want to tax more, to collect more money. They cannot be so stupid not to know how nonsensical and unreasonable is the logic and the policy. They are punishing the very responsible people who have been cutting down on wastage of water over the years.
Stupidity has no cure.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Sun Apr 02, 2017 9:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cheng Bock, why took so long to speak up?

Cheng Bock held a press conference on 31st Mar to question how the govt compute the qualifying period for the election of a minority Elected President. The points he raised were sensible and logical as the way the govt calculate the 30 year/5 term to start from Wee Kim Wee is apparently controversial and kind of contrived. Even the brightest legal mind would have problems accepting the logic and trying to explain it legally as sound and constitutional unless one is prepared to content with funny explanations.

This move by Cheng Bock is drawing flakes from some quarters criticising Cheng Bock for being silent for too long, that the rice is cooked and it is now too late, water under the bridge. The question is that is this really too late and nothing can be done about it? Looking from another angle, what Cheng Bock has done, by waiting for all the nails to be struck into the coffin and then raised ruckus about it is a very sound strategy. It is a strategy that said, now that every is done it could not be undone except to pull down the whole scam.

Let me use the analogy of some foreign talents engaged to build a house using farcical or unsound formula for the foundation. If someone would have jumped the gun at this point to point out the glaring error, it could be corrected immediately, rectified and the building built on sound foundation subsequently. But if the questionable foundation was allowed to go undetected, no alarm raised, the whole structure built would not stand when the fault is pointed out and has to be demolished totally. You cannot fix an unsound foundation structure, say if the piling was shortchanged, or very poor material were used or inadequate support material was used. It must be pulled down, there is no two way about it.

Ok, back to Cheng Bock's objection on the computation of the 30 year/ term qualifying period, is it sound and logical? If not, if it is flawed, it must go back to the drawing board to start a new jiggle. How reasonable and logical was the use of Wee Kim Wee as the first Elected President, and from when? Is this another case of stuffing round pegs into square holes? And who is to decide whether it is sensible and constitutional if not the court of law? Some jokers said there is no recourse and if need to it should go back to Parliament. But Parliament also had a round of 'robust' debate on this issue, so everything cannot be changed. Really, is this what the legal fraternity thinks so?

I am not sure if Cheng Bock could take the case to the 'UN backed' Hague Tribunal, the one that ruled that island without its own fresh water is not an island, but surely Cheng Bock could file for an interpretation in our courts of law. This is not a lawless country. If a case like this cannot be heard in our courts of law, then it would mean that we are a lawless country, not 'boh cheng hu' but 'boh huat teng', Parliament is the law and above the law, the final say in making laws and changing the Constitution and no court of law can hear or challenge the Parliament?

My only misgiving about Cheng Bock's press conference is that it is just a press conference and the only outcome is for people to talk about it in the kopitiams. If the govt does not want to talk about it, does not want to engage, then what? Yes, Cheng Bock should do the necessary and bring the case to the courts of law for a decision. Period. If Cheng Bock's interest is only to raise awareness and start a round of public buzz, then it would be just a public buzz. The press conference is just that and nothing more and the EP would be held in September without him.

What's next Cheng Bock? Is this the end of the story? If Cheng Bock is serious and meant business, this must be a new beginning.

PS. I have a suggestion for Cheng Bock if he is not taking up the case himself. He can always ask a cleaner to take it up and have Ravi to represent her again.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Wed Apr 05, 2017 8:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why Wee Kim Wee should not be in the EP computation?
What is the spirit and intent of the minority EP election? I think it is very clear that this is to provide for a minority rep to be the EP after 30 years or 5 terms of EP and no minority candidate of a particular race is elected. We are talking about someone being elected under the EP system, not someone being appointed under the old system.
Why is this important? First, it must be a case that no minority candidate is being elected under the EP system as this system is an open election and no one can guarantee or foresee who would be elected. The choice is left open to the voters. No one can fix the result. OK this is a simplistic view of mine and I know many would disagree. I am just saying something that is politically correct.
Why Wee Kim Wee should not be counted even though he was acting as a nominated President with EP powers for two years? I am not going to quibble about the 2 years or 5 years as these are irrelevant. What is important is that he was nominated and appointed as the President under the old system. This means that during his time, a minority President could have been appointed if so desired by the ruling govt. If there was an intent to have a minority president then, this could easily be fixed by the ruling govt by putting up a minority president instead of Wee Kim Wee. His occupation of the Presidential seat should therefore not be considered in the calculation for the eligibility of a minority presidential election.
Wee Kim Wee was from a different system that allowed the ruling govt to appoint a minority president. In the case of the EP system, the ruling govt has no control, technically, oops, as to whether a minority president would be elected. That is why this minority EP system is introduced to overcome this technical flaw in this system. There is no such flaw in the nominated system.
For this reason alone, it is enough to rule Wee Kim Wee out of the computation.
What do you think? Logical or not?
PS: Singapore is reputed to have the best teaching method for mathematics. If the same question were to be posed to the children in schools, they would come out with 2021 as the year for the next EP election, ie 30 years after the law came to effect. None of them would think 2017 is the answer. Any student having 2017 as the answer would be marked wrong by the teachers for sure.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Thu Apr 13, 2017 8:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Singapore’s quitting game
Quitting is the name of the game in Singapore. Everyone that is not making it is quitting starting from the PMETs. This is so strange when there are millions of foreigners happily working here and many queuing to come, claiming that it is so easy to find a job here. Many of these very experienced and well qualified Singaporean professionals (I have to mention the word Singaporean or else it would be forgotten) are quitting or have quitted the employment scene. Many are forced into early retirement against their wishes. How could anyone in his right mind be quitting from employment in the most expensive city in the world? How is he going to survive especially those with outstanding housing loans and children to take care of, with some in secondary schools or universities that need a lot of money to continue what they are doing?
The quitting game is also quite seriously played in immigration. Many have left the shore for one reason or another, primarily unable to survive without an income and quitting is the only way to realize some cash by selling off their overpriced HDB flats and also to take out all their savings in their CPF.
Promising young students that could not find a place in the local universities, as the universities need to fulfil the criteria of having foreign students to rise in some silly ranking systems chose to fill their places with foreigners, would also have to quit to find places in foreign universities and subsequently stay on in the countries that were generous enough to offer them places in their universities.
Quitting is not confined to just humans losing their jobs or migrating. Companies in the main board of the stock exchange are also quitting. More and more are seeking to delist from the ailing stock exchange when their value are eroded by the dismal performance of a half dead or half alive stock market. Delisting is to protect the real worth of the stocks and without having to pay hefty listing fees all for nothing and then switch to list in other healthier stock exchanges..
The latest trend that is catching up in the above list may be seeking political asylum. Amos Yee has done it. Han Hui Hui has been mentioned to be the next candidate. These are very young people, Amos is below 18 and Han Hui Hui in the early twenties. What horrendous crimes have they committed that they have to run away from their homeland? Is their homeland so unforgiving to young people having missteps in their lives? Who would be next, Roy Ngerng who could not find a job in his country and is now in Taiwan? And would there be more?
What is the next quitting game? Quit applying for jobs? Quit from becoming Singaporeans, quit the country for good?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 8:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Would Halimah Yacob be accepted as a Malay candidate for the EP?
TRE’s editorial article said Halimah’s father was an Indian Muslim. This is a quote from the article,
ST report: Halimah’s father an Indian Muslim
‘In 2013, when Halimah Yacob was selected to be the new Speaker of Parliament after the former one, Michael Palmer, resigned from politics due to his marital affair with a PA woman, ST wrote an article to feature Halimah (‘A strong advocate for workers, women and minorities‘, Jan 2013):
In the article, it was revealed that her father is an Indian of Muslim faith. He passed away when Halimah was 8 years old. She studied hard and later graduated with a law degree from NUS. Her first job was as a legal officer with NTUC….’
This revelation would pose a lot of serious questions as to Halimah Yacob’s eligibility as a Malay candidate for the EP election. The question on the definition of being a Malay would now be in the spot light. What or who is a Malay and who should determine or qualify a person as a Malay, the Malay community, the govt or the AGC office or the EP election committee? This seems easy enough by picking up one of these agencies or whichever agency that is suitable. The difficult part is whether the Malay community would accept any candidate or any agency to speak on their behalf on such a serious issue.
Accepting Halimah as a Malay would in itself create more difficult problems in the future. If a candidate of mixed parentage like Halimah, an Indian Muslim father can be accepted as a Malay candidate, would a Chinese Muslim father, a European or Eurasian Muslim father also qualified under this ruling to be called a Malay? How far would the Malay community go to accept a person as a Malay now that there are 50% Malay, 25% Malay, 75% Malay and many other variations of Malayness?
My personal view is that the worm in the can is growing too big to be of any comfort to the govt or to the Malay community. How to resolve this Pandora of the EP would need more than a rocket scientist or a genius to do it. In the days of LKY, he might be able to talk his way out of it without anyone daring to stand up to challenge his view or decision. Unfortunately no one in the govt today has such an authoritative stature to pull out a rabbit from a top hat and call it a dove.
It would be interesting to see how the govt is going to untie this knot if Halimah is put up as a Malay candidate, or any candidate with such a similar birth right. Anyone thinks this is easy to resolve and put right?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 8:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Time to review NS laws to be fair to Singaporeans
Jason Wong wrote an article on a Singaporean who returned home after spending 30 years overseas only to be jailed for 33 months! The article is in TRE and here is a quote,
‘The PAP has managed to instill fear even in its judges to hand out ridiculous jail sentences. Let’s take the case of 44 year-old Ang Lee Thye. This gentleman left Singapore at age 14 for the United States. Lived in the states presumably all this time, and then at age 41 decided that he missed Singapore enough to risk a jail sentence. He actually surrendered to authorities when he returned to Singapore. Boy did the PAP high court judges give it to him good. The lower court judge low-balled by giving Mr. Ang a 24 months sentence, but these “more” intelligent judges upped his jail time from 24 to 33 months!’
The law is the law. Yes who does not know that? But when the law is unfair, difficult to enforce equitably, and worst, puts Singaporeans at a huge disadvantage, should not the law be reviewed, should not the people that are paid millions by the Singaporeans, put their heads together to come out with a more equitable law to be fair to Singaporeans, to do justice to Singaporeans, the people that are paying them their million dollar salaries but become their victims with their laws? I am talking about the laws on National Service.
Yes, superficially the law is fair to all Singaporeans. I am not going to split hair on this and pick up exceptions. Generally this law is applicable to all Singaporeans, the rich and the poor, the dark horses and the white horses. Ok, take it as that. The law when applied to all Singaporeans is fair. The point is that Singapore is now flooded by foreigners that come and go, to steal the jobs of Singaporeans, steal their girlfriends and wives, while they are serving NS or doing reservist training to protect the country and people.
These foreigners are having the best of everything, with advantages in getting jobs, even getting free education paid by Singaporeans without having to serve NS or NS liabilities. And they got promoted to be the bosses of Singaporeans, to have Singaporeans working under them even if they are younger and have questionable qualifications and experience. Even if they become Singaporeans, or children of PRs, they could easily tear away the citizenship, give up their PRs and return to their home countries, skip doing NS and sell their flats at a profit to daft Singaporeans, and the daft Singaporeans were none the wiser. They are benefitting from all the things being NOT Singaporeans without any responsibility and liability while the poor Singaporeans will be jailed should they misstep and cross the line on this NS law.
It is high time, overdue, to revise this NS law to make it fairer to Singaporeans, not against Singaporeans and putting the foreigners, the PRs and the temporary new Singaporean at a huge advantage. Something must be done to change the situation for Singaporeans to come home again instead of staying away like convicts. Singapore is home to Singaporeans. Home has a special meaning to all Singaporeans. Don’t we want our Singaporeans to come home freely and happily? Do we have a heart to feel for our Singaporeans brothers and sisters, that they are one of us? Or we rather give their places to the foreigners that contributed nothing but sponging on our system, stealing our jobs and making Singaporeans looking really stupid?
What do you think? Are the NS laws fair to our fellow citizens?
I dunno want to laugh or cry for this Ang Lee Thye?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Thu May 11, 2017 8:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cheng Bock is likely to lose


Cheng Bock has posted the high court's acceptance of his application to challenge the govt's formula to count Wee Kim Wee as the first Elected President. This is part of his message:


COURT APPLICATION ACCEPTED
I would like to announce that this morning, the High Court accepted my application (HC/OS 495/2017), which seeks the Court’s determination on whether a piece of legislation (section 22 Presidential Elections (Amendment) Act 6 of 2017 which counted President Wee Kim Wee as the first Elected Presidency term for the purposes of calling a Reserved Election), is consistent with our Constitution (Articles 19B(1) and 164(1) which introduced the mechanism of a Reserved Election into our Constitution).
I am the Plaintiff and for the purposes of serving Court papers on the Government, the Defendant is the Attorney General.
The application was filed on 5 May 2017. The Court accepted my application this morning, and has fixed a pre-trial conference on 22 May 2017....


Though the acceptance gives some hope that the issue would be addressed legally by the top legal minds and also comes under the scrutiny of the whole world, I have very little confidence that Cheng Bock would win this case. Somehow the case of the ruling that election candidate cannot be within 200m radius of a voting station but being inside is not considered within 200m keeps popping up in my mind. Such ingenious interpretation of law is very exceptional and only very exceptional legal talents could explain this logically and legally correct in the courts of law.


Until today, the common folks are still shaking their heads as they simply are too daft to understand the brilliant logic of such an explanation. The smart ones have already given up trying to understand.


It is no coincidence that this would be another CB Elected Presidential election, CB is Cheng Bock's initial of course. CB can also mean cha bor. So whatever way it is gonna be a CB election. I am putting my ears on the ground and eagerly waiting for another fabulous and mind blowing interpretation of the law by Singapore's top legal talents on this case that would outdo the 200m ruling for its ingenuity and brilliance.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2017 8:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Preparing Singaporeans for the future
We have heard many talks about preparing Singaporeans for the future. What kind of future can the Singaporeans be looking forward to in SG100? There are many signs appearing supported by facts and figures that are saying Singaporeans future may be something they better not look forward to.
One stark reality today is the influx of foreigners to take up good jobs and top jobs in Singapore, not only in MNCs but in GLCs and increasingly in stats boards, and also in ministries. What is this fearful trend telling?
Even today, while Singaporeans are still in charge, foreigners are increasing being recruited to top jobs, as CEOs in preference to Singaporeans. And what comes next? They start to fill up the company and organizations with their countrymen and country women. The prevalence of this practice is widespread and can be seen everywhere.
As time goes by, more and more Singaporeans would be out of jobs while more and more important jobs would be taken over by the foreigners and their countrymen and country women. Soon they will proclaim that Singaporeans did not have the skill sets and experience for these jobs, for senior appointments to be CEOs, to head departments and divisions. Oh they are already saying this and doing it already.
Without being employed, Singaporeans would only become less skill and less experience and therefore less relevant to the jobs. The whole process is as good as desensitizing Singaporeans from the job market, turning them into misfits, mismatch, and lack of relevant skills. Many daft Singaporeans could not see this dreadful trend and happily going about reinventing themselves to be hawkers, taxi drivers and even deliverymen despite their education and experience in the corporate world. They will keep descending into the lowest level of employment, of survival in this very expensive world.
How woudl all these developments affect the future of Singaporeans and the young of today? They will no longer be holding the top jobs for sure, or very few will. Not only that, they would also not be holding middle management jobs and not even low level jobs. Their fate would be the same as the non bumis in Malaysia. They have to go into small businesses, peddling pots and pans, to be self employed as they are no longer employable or no foreigner CEOs would want to hire them in Singapore. Yes, they should all be taxi drivers, security guards and hawkers and dressed impeccably as deliverymen. And of course there is still one big job reserved and protected for them, National Service, to guard and protect this island for the foreigners to rule them after taking over their jobs.
I am afraid this reality is increasingly become more real than fiction and will turn into a nightmare for future Singaporeans. Singaporeans, be prepared for a future when they become the outcast, the dalits of their own country, once called Singapore, once your home. Beware and be prepared for this fate if things did not change and the course of social and economic development continues in this direction. A stop must be put to this destructive trend to save Singaporeans and Singapore from the indiscriminate and irresponsible presence of foreigners to dominate over Singaporeans and to destroy the future of Singaporeans.
We cannot hand our country to the foreigners by default, without a fight. Stop going for more silly training to lower skill jobs. You should be upgrading when you go for training, not downgrading. Why pay and spend precious time to traing to downgrade? What nonsense!
The Singaporeans of the past were all the time trying to upgrade and improve themselves. Why are the Singaporeans of today told to downgrade and be happy with the situation?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2017 8:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Petition to the Govt on the Elected President Election
Here is the link to the petition. https://www.change.org/p/in-support-of-an-open-singapore-presidential-election-2017
Lim Tean, Secretary General of NSP, Tan Kin Lian, Goh Meng Seng and Syafarin Sarif have started this petition to the Govt stating that the next EP election should be in 2023 and not in 2017. The issue is how the 5 terms were counted, the govt starts counting from Wee Kim Wee but the petition and Tan Cheng Bock’s constitutional challenge disagrees with this, that it should start counting from Ong Teng Cheong as the first Elected President.
500 people have signed the petition and still counting meaning they don’t agree with the govt’s methodology or tracing it further back, they don’t agree with the AG office’s recommendation.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13465
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 8:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

B&R – Was Hsien Loong invited to attend?
This matter seems to trouble many Singaporeans as such an important international event when many leaders were attending and Hsien Loong was not when Singapore is hoping to hitch a ride on this massive project to pick up a few contracts along the way. And Cynical Investor has said it is confirmed that Hsien Loong was not invited, a slap that would not go unnoticed.
Here is what Cynical Investor posted in his blog.
One Belt One Rd: PM “not invited”
In China on 17/05/2017 at 4:24 am
I was wrong. PM wasn’t invited to the summit meeting on the above, it seems, going by what Lawrence Wong is quoted as saying. He wasn’t aping Western leaders by declining the invitation and sending ka kiah instead.
When asked why Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong did not attend the Belt and Road Forum, which was attended by 29 heads of state and government, including many from South-east Asia, Mr Wong said the invitation was decided by the Chinese.
ST
So reasonable to assume that the Chinese did not invite Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
This non invite may appear to be a diplomatic snub but taken seriously it could fore tell far more serious implications to Singapore. It is not just a continuation of the Terrex fiasco bundled together with the trumpeting of the TPP and the demand that China abide by the kangaroo court judgement on the South China Sea. There are more to it. Well some jokers still openly denied that Singapore did all these things, that Singapore was innocent, an honest broker. Stupidity has no cure but to make such denials in public only proved how stupid these people can be.
Singapore has officially been saying that it supports the B&R project and wanted to participate actively in its development. Why was Hsien Loong left out, ok this is just a view by Cynical Investor, if Singapore is an important player to the maritime Silk Road?
The message is clear, if Singapore is an important part of the maritime Silk Road, there is more reason to invite Hsien Loong to the forum. And if invited, there is no reason for Hsien Loong not to attend, an event that is definitely more important than having dinner at the White House. The probability that Cynical Investor is right is very high and the negative implications that Singapore is no longer in the good books of China could be a forgone conclusion or at least not a major part in the maritime Silk Road plan. By the way the South China Morning Post even said that China left out Hsien Loong deliberately, so no more guessing.
Malaysia appears to be the main actor in China’s B&R project and quietly accepting its role without any gloating. The amount of investments pouring into Malaysia in infrastructure development says it all.
The non invite is not so important than not being part of the big scheme of things. This does not bode well for Singapore’s ambition to be the regional transportation hub in the future. What would happen if Malaysia were to replace Singapore as the regional hub? What would happen to Tuas’ big expansion plan as the biggest container port in the region when no container ship is arriving?
What do you think?
PS. On second thought, there is really nothing to worry about. Even if Singapore is being left out, with our super talents in charge, Singapore would definitely find a better way out, maybe create its own Singapore Silk Road. China forgot that Singapore was the master and China the student.

And there is the great USA to rely on. Then there is always the next big thing in Asia, India, the next growth story. Singapore has the first mover advantage and would definitely do very well clinging onto the Indian growth engine. Quick, quick upgrade the CECA so that all the Singaporean firms and Singaporeans can fly to India to work and to do business. But make sure they recognize our degrees and diplomas first.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Singapore Current Affairs All times are GMT + 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 33, 34, 35, 36  Next
Page 34 of 36

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group. Hosted by Vodien Internet Solutions