another worthy article from singabloodypore:

http://singabloodypore.rsfblog.org/archive/2008/08/13/western-critics-the-pap-and-singapore.html
by CHUA CHUAN SEAH - Western Critics, the PAP and Singapore Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:40 pm

In their recent deceptive articles and comnentaries on Western critics, the crafty PAP propagandists and apologists, working as "journalists" in the PAP Government-controlled Straits Times, have been misleading Singaporeans, all over again, deliberately, by deviously refusing to make the important distinction between the PAP Government and the country of Singapore! These articles are flagrant examples of the duplicities practised by the mendacious ST journalists during all these long years of oppressive PAP dominance! What cunning! What dishonesty! What bias!

Don't these ST journalists realise that, nearly 12 years ago, there were already more honest, unprejudiced and principled readers who, in the Forum page of their very own Straits Times, had tellingly and crucially, made that important distinction? Yes, for the benefit of their fellow ST readers--even in those early post-PM LKY days of the Internet revolution?

Mr Sai Siew Min, for instance, in his momentous letter "Singapore's identity should be independent of the PAP"(ST Forum, 21 November 1996), asked relevantly and crucially:"How then do we distinguish between the PAP and Singapore? Do we say the PAP is Singapore?"

Mr Sai was, of course, in those expectant days of Goh Chok Tong prime ministership nearly 12 years ago, defending the right of Singaporeans to speak up courageously against the ruling party (or the PAP Government)--when it falters--as opposed to the people or country of Singapore itself!

Honest Western critics too, have the right to make and to insist upon such a vital and necessary distinction! For, time and again, in their penetrating commentaries and criticisms in the foreign media, are these mostly and genuinely concerned and impartial foreign or Western critics not actually taking the ruling (PAP) party (or the PAP Government) to task--and NOT the people or country of Singapore itself?

For, the majority of these foreigners or Westerners do indeed appreciate, admire and acknowledge the undeniable achievements and progresses made by the people or country of Singapore.

These just and fair-minded Westerners understand and appreciate the value of respecting and tolerating differences (especially of opinions) in a democratic country (like the U.S.)--an important value and attitude that we Singaporeans, too, should have, if we are to consider ourselves as citizens of a democratic society (as we dutifully recited that we indeed are in our National Pledge every morning during our school days)!

We must not only tolerate and respect differences (especially of opinions) among our own citiens but also the differences (again, especially of opinions) among the foreigners or Westerners--when it comes to their evaluations of both the PAP and the people or country of Singapore.

For not all foreigners or Westerners like to sing, wholeheartedly and unreservedly, the praises of the PAP (or the PAP Government)--despite their appreciation of and admiration for the achievements and progresses made by the people and country of Singapore. (And surely, they have the right to hold and to express such anti-PAP -- and NOT, I emphasise, anti-Singapore -- views?)

That is an important distinction not usually highlighted by these untruthful PAP propagandists and apologists, working as "journalists" in the deceiving Singapore media! For, as another perceptive reader Mr Adrian Kwong Sze Ken wrote, in his equally significant letter "Singaporeans should consider what they hear before following blindly" (ST Forum, 14 November 1996), "it is xenophobic to reject advice from 'foreigners/outsiders' based on citizenship alone."

Mr Adrian Kwong--thank Heaven for such impartiality and fairness!--further elaborated: "Just as we must be careful in choosing what advice we want to take from non-Singaporeans, we must also be judicious in choosing the politicians we want to represent and govern us. To make the best possible choices in either sphere, it is essential that we remain logical and objective in exercising our discretion about the information we receive."

It is clear that most Singaporeans and Westrners alike do not hate Singapore itself--or harbour any antipathy or negative and damning viws against Singapore--the country or its people! For they are all aware of the impressive successes, achievements and developments of Singapore--the country or its people!

But the ruling (PAP) party? The PAP Government? That is a totally different matter! For the oppressive, repressive, authoritarian and autocratic political system that the PAP Government has created in Singapore is not exactly or really the kind of political system that most Singaporeans favour or would choose--in spite of seemingly giving their supposed "general consent" or "mandate" to the PAP to govern Singapore at every general elections since Independence!

For, the more politically astute, discerning, aware and educated Singaporeans among us, know that these repeatedly "successful" elections "victories" were achieved by the Machiavellian, scheming, sly, unprincipled, guileful, wily, unscrupulous and cheating PAP leaders, members and supporters--using undemocratic and unjust methods and means of electioneering and campaigning, using the instruments of State to undermine the chances of opposition parties in general elections, and also unfairly imposing dubious voting rules, procedures and practices!

To return to what ST Forum correspondent Mr Sai Siew Min said in 1996: "Let us not," wrote Mr Sai, "persecute differences just because they are different or just because they are viewed by the mainstream as treasonous." He added, pointedly, further, that "it is also because the Americans subject their system to close scrutiny consistently that despite their apparent differences with one another and in spite of their weaknesses, they are still able to cope with changing situations and multiple crises."

And Mr Sai then concluded, in a moment of intellectual brilliance and political inspiration, witnessed by ST readers and published in the unethical and veiled "freedom" of the government-controlled Straits Times itself nearly 12 years ago, and reflecting the kind of true journalistic qualities and values not shown by so-called "professional journalists" in the deceitful mainstream Singapore media now as ever (since PAP rule): "It remains to be said that no one system is perfect and no human entity infallible. The question of how to cope with that fallibility becomes more important than the fruitless quest for a perfect system. To assert dogmatically that one has found the perfect system condemns us irrevocably to doom. If we want a truth, then let that be the only one."

That final advice was indeed a key contribution to the political education of our people. How have we forgotten that already?

Originally posted by youyayu:

the 4.7 million share holders make me laugh

yes, we must learn to write like this ft - balance, fair, intelligent and humourous.

this is for the benefit of those don't subcribe to the safe times:

The world doesn't dislike Singapore

I REFER to last Saturday's commentary by Ms Chua Lee Hoong, 'Why they hate Singapore'. Singaporeans celebrated National Day last Saturday and deserve the world's congratulations.
Trying to describe why Western democracies may 'not like' Singapore is absurd and na�ve, and is probably based on a lack of general understanding and knowledge of how most of the Western world perceives Singapore today.

Western perception
Trying to describe why Western democracies may 'not like' Singapore is absurd and na�ve and is probably based on a lack of general understanding and knowledge of how most of the Western world perceives Singapore today.

The world has other problems and people elsewhere simply do not care about having Singapore on their radar screen of dislike
... more
I was born in Belgium, lived in four European countries, the Middle East and Hong Kong.

I have worked and lived in Singapore for the past 10 years; my wife is Singaporean, and so are my two youngest children. Yes, Singapore is a very good place to live and work in, probably one of the best globally. Singapore is very well 'managed' and that's where its difference from many other countries lies. Singapore is not governed, but managed as a company with 4.7 million shareholders.

You have a vision and you have good managers who understand how to implement that vision and its strategies.

You hire the best to ensure you remain competitive and highly profitable in order to secure the future of your citizens.

Singapore's business model achieves its aim, and I am sure many of its achievements can be 're-packed' into potentially highly successful export products.

Success is the creation of balance, stability and prosperity between the managers, employees and shareholders or citizens. Western democracies, on the other hand, have their successes too.

Luxembourg, Switzerland, Austria, Norway and Finland - as well as some Middle East countries - are all worth studying and emulating.

Putting China and Singapore on the same page because both are so-called authoritarian states is wrong. There is nothing common to both, except for the ethnic origin of the majority race.

China is a country of 1.3 billion, pushed into a highly regulated, market-driven economy at lightning speed, causing lots of collateral damage.

We all know what Singapore is. I am sure Chinese and Russians, and many other nationalities, visit Singapore to study and learn its best traits.

They also visit many other countries - as do Singaporeans- which do certain things better than the Republic.

It's na�ve, (or arrogant?), to think that the whole world visits only Singapore.

The meaning of the word, 'hate' should be carefully weighed before using it. There are two meanings to hate: intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury; or extreme dislike or antipathy.

I have travelled the world for the past 32 years. I have never encountered or heard a single person or group who hates Singapore - or even dislikes the Republic. At most, Singapore is criticised for banning 'chewing gum' and for its lack of freedom of speech.

Mostly, however, and especially among Westerners, Singapore is praised for being clean, affordable and secure, and for its wonderful food.

The world has other problems, and people elsewhere simply do not care about having Singapore on their radar screen of dislike.


Bruno Serrien

found this in singabloodypore and thought forummers might be interested:

IBAHRI response to Wall Street Journal op-ed, 23 July 2008

The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) would like to correct some inaccurate comments made in the opinion piece Singapore has an Independent Judiciary (Wall Street Journal, 23 July 2008) by Ms S. Radha, Press Secretary to the Minister for Law, Singapore. The opinion piece was made in response to the Wall Street Journal's editorial 'Judging Singapore's Judiciary' (15 July 2008).

Ms Radha asserts that the IBAHRI’s report, Prosperity versus individual rights: Human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Singapore, contains "baseless" and 'vague' allegations about lack of impartiality and independence in the court’s consideration of defamation suits; and "errors of fact" about Supreme Court judges. However, as readers may see for themselves by accessing the report on our website, the observations made are based on comprehensive examples and evidence, and the 'errors of fact' she quotes are in fact misstatements of what the report actually says.

The IBAHRI’s concern about defamation suits initiated by People’s Action Party (PAP) litigants is evidenced by detailed case studies, court reports and a list of the awarded damages made in such defamation cases (see page 60 of the report). This list indicates that damages awarded by the court to successful PAP litigants are many times the amount awarded in non-PAP litigant cases. Contrary to Ms Radha’s article, these actions have not all been initiated in response to ‘scurrilous allegations of corruption’, but have often been in response to relatively minor comments or claims made by opposition members or candidates, or respected international publications.

Ms Radha tries to deflect criticism from our recommendation that Singapore should ‘put an end to the transfer of judges between executive and judicial roles’ by stating that ‘there is no need…because Supreme Court judges cannot be transferred and there has never been such a transfer.’ The concern voiced in the report, however, (on page 52) was not about Supreme Court judges, but that ‘Magistrates and district judges…are rotated to various positions within the Legal Service…which appears to be…a breach of the separation of powers doctrine’. The report does not claim that Supreme Court judges are transferred in this way, and its main point on this important aspect of establishing the independence of the judiciary thus remains unaddressed.

Ms Radha also states that the report denies that Supreme Court judges enjoy security of tenure until the age of 65. This is incorrect. On page 55, the report states that they do. However, the report expresses concern about those Supreme Court judges who remain in their positions after the age of 65, and are from then on in their positions at the will of the Prime Minister. The report notes the IBAHRI’s concerns about the lack of tenure for all other judges, including High Court judges.

Originally posted by JoshuaSamuel:

From : http://theladymelissa.blogspot.com/2...graduates.html

I would suggest that anyone reading this post also take a look at the very vibrant comment page.

Village Graduates
I have been engaging a half-educated person in a semblance of intellectual debate under the comment pages of "A Good Christian Girl" and "A Refutation of Sorts".

As everyone knows, I did not go to a local university; whenever I come into contact with a local graduate, their intellectual paucity always astounds me .

The worse people to debate with are the badly educated. The uneducated are easy to dismiss. The well-educated are a joy to debate with, even if sometimes disagreements can get quite heated - you nevertheless go away mentally stimulated and satisfied. The badly educated on the other hand (like this person who more or less admitted to be an NUS Arts and Social Science graduate) are painful to debate with.

These people have read the right books, memorised the right key words and phrases, but have no real understanding of the issues. Worse, they lack to intellect to analyse these topics properly. In these cases, what happens is that you get verbal diarrhoea spewed at you and you don't even know where to begin to argue back, because even though all the paragraphs are correctly stringed together, the sentences are grammatical, the spelling is almost always right, the right names and phrases are dropped, BUT the person does not make any sense. This leaves you intellectually frustrated because unlike uneducated people, you have to unteach before you teach. It's like a gadfly, albeit without the intelligence of Socrates, which you have to swat away, because this person talks your language ostensibly, and you feel a compulsion to correct her.

The local universities cannot be good until the government stops sending the brightest overseas on scholarships; however, the local universities will fail to attract them until they can draw the best thinkers and dons on all levels, rather than second-rate teachers from India and China. It is a vicious cycle and until this cycle is broken, local university undergraduates (with the exception of Law and Medicine) will always be second-rate, so much so that some foreign (mainland Chinese) undergraduates have said that Singaporeans are stupid. If their experience is only at the local universities, it is no wonder they say that, since our most brilliant have all gone overseas to Oxbridge and the Ivies, Stanford or MIT. What these mainland Chinese have not experienced are these students who have not only gone to the best universities in the world, but consistently top these universities. I honestly think that the mainland Chinese and Indians who top NUS/NTU/SMU would be easily trounced if they came up against our true best and brightest.

Singapore needs to put more resources into universities if it wants to be taken seriously as a First World Nation. The vicious cycle needs to be broken somewhere - they need to hire the best professors and get some of the brightest to stay at home. These may lead to fewer places at the local universities so some people will not qualify. But some people don't belong at universities - they would probably serve society better by getting technical proficiency at a polytechnic, then joining the workforce.

Afterall, it's better to be a non-graduate than a half-educated village graduate

why bother to post such long-winded vomit here. just let her live in her gilded cage.

Originally posted by Veneta:

Chen Shui Bian has illegally "paid" himself US$31 million during the 8 years as President or about S$5.4m per year.

 

Who dare say that Singapore minister's salary is the highest in the world now?

 

 

Aug 15, 2008

Taiwan's Chen quits party

TAIPEI - TAIWAN'S former president Chen Shui Bian on Friday quit the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) after money laundering allegations against him and his family surfaced this week.

'I have to say sorry to DPP members and supporters with a heavy heart. I let everybody down and caused irreparable damage to the party. This was not my intention but I made mistakes,' Chen said in a statement.

'To show my deepest remorse, my wife Wu Shu Chen and I leave the DPP from now,' he said.

The statement came hours after Taiwan's premier, Mr Liu Chao shiuan, confirmed that an investigation had been launched into the money laundering claims implicating the Chen family following similar moves by Swiss authorities.

Copies of Swiss documents obtained by Kuomintang lawmaker Hung Hsiu Chu showed that Chen's son Chen Chih Chung and daughter-in-law Huang Jui Ching had transferred some 31 million US dollars (S$43.9 million) to Huang's Swiss bank accounts in 2007.

The former president on Thursday admitted that his wife had wired abroad 20 million US dollars from his past campaign funds, saying she had done so without his knowledge, but he denied money laundering charges.

He also vowed to donate the overseas funds to public affairs.

A string of corruption scandals implicating Chen, his family and top DPP officials has tarnished the party's image and led to its defeat in a March presidential vote.

Chen is already under investigation for allegedly embezzling 14.8 million Taiwan dollars in special expenses from the government while he was president, and his wife is on trial for corruption and document forgery in the same case.

He was named a suspect in the case in 2006 but escaped immediate prosecution because he had presidential immunity. -- AFP

are you cock sure that our ministers never illegally pay themselves like ah bian?

Originally posted by SPLIT SECOND:

,"“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”."

 

In 2008, where do we stand? are we all on the way to the Dark side?

we're already in the dark side. more specifically we're at anger leading to hate. we hate the pap for increasing their pay unconscionably while asking us not to ask for pay increament!

Originally posted by pearlie27:

i really think that caning is excessive and even unnecessary for vandalism. As no one is being threatened or hurt physically, fine and imprisonment should suffice. i also think that teenagers shouldn't be tried like adults as they aren't adults yet. We all know that adolescence can be a trying time for teenagers. They are unable to handle their emotions and behaviour properly. We should give them more leeway when they make mistakes and help them adjust to adulthood. Harsh punishment could embitter them and cause them to view the world with hostility. They would then become ill-adjusted and could continue to cause harm to themselves as well as others in the future. It is very likely that Micheal Fay has been scarred by the divorce of his parents as well as the caning here as he has no one to guide him. To me he is a pitiful soul!

agree!

Originally posted by googoomuck:

I admire Hougang residents. Majority of them are not spineless cowards.

yes, my salute to them!

they're more honourable than the pap, they wouldn't be bought!

Originally posted by Sardaukar-Prime:

I think I'm quite tired of all this talk about voting in the opposition and seeking political space when they are not willing to give any.This is a nation where if you question the credibility of Lee Kuan Yew,its viewed as something he can profit from via lawsuit.He's overstayed his time in office.

To quote Harvey Dent(or is it Bruce Wayne?); "You either live long enough to see yourself become a villain or die a hero."

At this point in time Lee Kuan Yew wields close to absolute power.He wields enormous influence in the political and economic spheres by virtue of his wealth as well as enormous control of the media,via political machinery of the PAP.

He is an elder statesmen,formerly respected by many, that has overstayed his time.

The PAP senior cadres and associated supporters are able to generate enough  public noise that they can drown out the voices of the opposition in public.The police are not inclined to grant licenses for the opposition to hold rallies but behave rather differently with the PAP.

So what to do?As far as I can see,you either become a reformist within the PAP,join a political party that actually has the cunning and intellect to wait out the old bastard or quite politics altogether.

The best time to confront the PAP is when LKY finally dies.His legacy will be entrenched in the system but without his strong personality to drive it as much they will be prey.Similarly,a large party like the PAP has enormous discipline but I doubt LHL can hold it together without the influence of his father.

The PAP will splinter,the excesses of the system will be exposed and that is the time to confront the PAP.

Otherwise,next election,the civil service will work some magic, redraw election boundaries and once more we'll be stuck in our self-imposed gilded bird cage.

ok, we shall wait for him to pass on.

with our political  climate so harsh how could  alternative parties develope properly?

Originally posted by frakfrakfrak:

U.S Senate House Judiciary committee begins proceedings to assess whether President George W. Bush Jr should be tried for murder for the ILLEGAL INVASION OF IRAQ.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDAFozFn4kU

MSNBC reports that Rupert Murdoch's FoxNews has been exposed as being a propaganda mouthpiece of the Neocon conspiracy, transmitting White House talking points as "facts".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-OpIXfXKO8

Rupert Murdoch owns News Corporation, the world's largest media company.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation

List of assets owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_News_Corporation

Note: Includes Dow Jones & Company

yes, it is high time they did. that man has committed a grave crime against humanity!

Originally posted by ChiBet:

one corrupt communist country singing praise of another corrupt communist country

yah, they are scratching each other's back!

Originally posted by Fs4751:

Everybody is so scared of giving birth.....inflation rate killing us, medical cost rising, everything rising except our pay......so how to expect more birth rate?....sianz

yes, the costs of living have gone up so much it is hard enough to make ends meet. so tell me who will dare give birth!

Originally posted by xavier1979:

Like they say in the industry, "(Temasek) is catching a falling knife".

They had been too eager to pour in funds.

they think too highly of themselves! and also they are using other people's money to invest not their own money.

Originally posted by googoomuck:

Singapore may legalise the trade in human kidneys for transplants, its health minister said.

The Health Ministry is considering paying unrelated donors to boost the supply of organs, Khaw Boon Wan said.

"We should not reject any idea just because it is radical or controversial," Khaw said. "We may be able to find an acceptable way to allow a meaningful compensation for some living, unrelated kidney donors, without breaching ethical principles or hurting the sensitivities of others."

Khaw said the ministry would review possible changes to current legislation to allow payments for donations from third parties such as those from the charity and religious sectors. Under the proposal, which would need to be approved by Parliament to become law, patients would also get help in finding donors.

"There are desperate patients out there wishing to live and desperately poor people willing to exchange a kidney for a hopefully improved life," he said. "Criminalising organ trading does not eliminate it...it merely breeds a black market."

Khaw also said the Health Ministry would push to amend existing laws on organ transplants to remove an age limit on deceased donors, currently set at 60 years, because "the suitability of the organ depends on its condition rather than the age of the donor."

The two initiatives should enable Singapore to carry out 70% of the kidney transplants needed every year - up from 50% currently, the minister said.

Khaw's comments follow the cases of two Indonesian men who were jailed and fined by a Singapore court earlier this month after being convicted of agreeing to sell their kidneys to two patients.

Selling or buying organs or blood is illegal in Singapore, as in many other countries, and carries a penalty of up to 12 months' jail.

© The Press Association

<We may be able to find an acceptable way to allow a meaningful compensation for some living, unrelated kidney donors, without breaching ethical principles or hurting the sensitivities of others.">

how can they assure us that there will be no breaching of ethical principles when they only charged and fined the sellers and not the buyer, surgeon/s and hospital in the recent organ selling case?

Originally posted by Melbournite:

anyone noticed it yet?. Almost every youngster whom i have met tells the same thing.

 

wasn't there a survey which showed that 50% of the youngsters want to migrate?

unfortunately we are unable to get top position which we always clamour - our migration rate is the 2nd highest. the highest goes to east timor.

Originally posted by pikamaster:

Dear Moderators,

I am posting this as a new thread rather than as part of the previous one by Atobe because I don't want this post to sink in the middle of 5 pages of long debate.

Basically, this is a letter that I sent to TODAY 2 days ago, which apparently got ignored by TODAY (or censored away by its editors anyway).

I am going to be trying to send this in to the Straits Times too, although I sincerely doubt that they will publish it.

Rgds,

the (returning pikamaster)

The Letter is as follows:

our gahmen don't engage in discussions they only dispense advice as they are the best.

Originally posted by Fantagf:

Singapore

Raising the bar

Jul 17th 2008
From The Economist print edition

A rare slip-up in court by Singapore’s elder statesman, Lee Kuan Yew

MEMBERS of Singapore’s government are notorious sticklers for legal exactitude. So it has been interesting to watch the reaction after the country’s elder statesman, Lee Kuan Yew—a British-trained lawyer before he became a politician—gave inaccurate testimony in the trial of two opposition leaders.

In May Mr Lee testified in a hearing to decide damages against Chee Soon Juan, the leader of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), and his sister, Chee Siok Chin, for defaming the former prime minister and his son, Lee Hsien Loong, who is now prime minister himself. Mr Lee senior claimed that after the London-based International Bar Association (IBA) held its annual conference in Singapore last October, its president sent a letter to the Law Society of Singapore praising the country’s justice system. It has since emerged that there was no such laudatory letter.

Mr Chee (who along with his sister was briefly jailed for contempt for accusing the judge in his case of bias) tried unsuccessfully to have the hearing reconvened in the light of Mr Lee’s incorrect testimony. Mr Lee’s counsel, Davinder Singh, wrote to the court on July 9th admitting that his client was wrong about the letter but noting that the IBA’s president, Fernando Pombo, had praised Singapore’s “outstanding judiciary” in a speech at the start of the conference. Mr Singh argues that what matters is that the IBA did praise Singaporean justice, not whether it did so in a speech or a letter. Mr Chee says there is a difference: the speech was made before the conference, where criticisms of the justice system were aired. Mr Lee was claiming, in effect, that the IBA was still impressed after this.

By coincidence, on July 9th the IBA’s Human Rights Institute issued a report criticising the use of defamation suits by the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) to silence the opposition and the press, and expressing concerns about the independence and impartiality of Singapore’s judges. The law ministry has rejected the IBA’s report, pointing out that Singapore’s legal system has won excellent ratings in other international surveys. Indeed, in cases not involving the country’s leaders, there is no dispute about its quality. As for the IBA’s worries about cases involving PAP figures, the law ministry claims that the IBA failed to substantiate its “grave” allegations with evidence, though its report does discuss several worrying cases.

America’s State Department, which is in rather less danger of being sued by the PAP than are the opposition or newspapers, has expressed concern about judicial independence in political cases in Singapore. In its latest human-rights report, in March, the department noted that the PAP’s consistent success in defamation suits against critics “led to a perception that the judiciary reflected the views of the ruling party in politically sensitive cases.”

According to the Straits Times newspaper, Mr Lee on July 11th accused human-rights organisations of “a conspiracy to do us in”. He said that they saw that Russia and China had been studying Singapore’s success, and hence regarded it as a threat. Mr Lee and the government argue that doing things their way has made Singapore prosperous, orderly and corruption-free, and has earned international respect. The threat of defamation proceedings may make opposition politicians weigh their words more carefully than they do elsewhere. But Singaporean voters continue to buy the PAP’s argument that such constraints are a price worth paying—so far.

he is indeed getting old, so many slip-ups recently. 1st the non existence laudatory letter then the withdrawal of the "conpiracy" statement.

Originally posted by Fantagf:

An overseas friend knowing these morons paid themselves that obscene salary said that this is a new form of corruption.   

no, they need amount of money to wash themselves so that they can be as white and innocent as snow white!

Economy
Recession fears
Despite a built-up cushion, global woes hit Singapore’s exports in a big way - with worse to come. Comment. Seah Chiang Nee
Jul 19, 2008

Singapore is hitting a really bad patch and no one can say how bad - or how long - things will fall before the sun shines again.

Singapore’s selling point for decades, its strong economy – measured by GDP and reserves growth – is now looking a little fray as the global waves hit its our shores.

Bugged by high oil and food prices all around them, middle-class and poor Singaporeans are becoming more and more unhappy as their quality drops.

Last week there was is a brief respite to the oil crisis as prices fell from a high of $147 to $130 a barrel, but it’s too early to pronounce it is over.

Meanwhile, the value of its foreign investments has dropped by US$15-US$20b - so far, led by declines in US and European banks.

This is could be the worst performance in history for both Temasek and the Government Investment Corporation (GIC), despite assurances that they are long-term (30 years) investments.

At home, the government's actions against its political opponents and the way some were carried out in and outside the court have brought heat from some people at home and abroad.

Charges of ‘inept’ leadership and policies that worsen inflation are sounding out almost daily, loosening the bonds that existed between the governed and the governing.

Amidst all these, the centerpiece - the economy - on which the government uses to justify its crackdowns and controls, is beginning to show trouble as a result of the global woes.

(Leaders have often said that as long as the economy is strong, all other problems can be solved.)

In the latest report, Singapore’s non-oil domestic exports in June fell 10.5% to $12.8b, far worse than the 2.8% drop economists had been predicting.

It was due to sharp declines in shipments to key markets such as the United States, Europe and China. The rate of decline was the same as the previous month.

Seven of its 10 major markets registered drops in shipments, led by the 24% fall in exports to the USA, while exports to Europe declined 16% and were down 12% to China. That spells trouble ahead.

Economists are predicting more gloom in the immediate future - even a possible technical recession.

Song Seng Wun, regional economist at CIMB-GK Research said "We should be prepared for even more ugly export numbers in the coming months."

The city's gross domestic product (GDP) grew at a much slower annual pace of 1.9% percent in the second quarter from 6.9%.

According to the Straits Times, a senior executive from the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) said that the global downturn will last longer than the tech bubble burst eight years ago.

Mr. Ng Kok Song told a gathering of top private bankers and senior fund managers that policy-makers here face more uncertainties, including inflation and the US presidential race.

Any recession, even a technical one, could affect jobs and business in Singapore. Citizens are worried about mass retrenchment, low salaries and low bonuses. Meanwhile, inflation continues at record high

 

didn't our emperor said that the next 5 to 10 years will be most promising for us?

Originally posted by redDUST:

why must individual right compromise economic stability? can you pls show me why is this even the case? your line of thought is exactly what PAP wants all of us to think.

come on, break that mould....

that shows how successful the brainwashing has been!

correct, we need to break that mould.

Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:

I don't see how we can ever make the judiciary independent, so long as people in Singapore don't want to admit that there is a problem, and that they are stupid enough to buy the Government's completely illogical arguments defending our judiciary. At the end of the day, Singaporeans are just acting like they are in a tribe.

can't agree any less than you!

Originally posted by 4getmenot:

oh, any decent country would riot/protest as well if you knew the imported meats contained possible traces of mad cow diseases... and they riot or protest simply because they know its wrong..the whole gov cabinet relating to the incident resigned acknowledging the mistake.. wat would you have if it happened here... 'honest mistake?' 'lets move on'? yea i bet those two sentence is etched right into the heads of newborn babies the moment they are born in singapore.. :P but then again..you wouldn;t know becuz the media of yours just prefer painting pictures of the whole wide world in chaos and unrest...whiles yours is a blissful..peaceful... not to mention robotic society.. xD

unfortunately i've to agree with you that if our children grow up reading only the safe times they would be brainwashed to think that is the way all govts work.

Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:

Breaking news: IBA says it did not send letter that LKY testified it did

Wednesday, 02 July 2008 Singapore Democrats

In the recent defamation suit hearing to assess damages, Mr Lee Kuan Yew testified in court that the President of the International Bar Association (IBA) had written to the Law Society of Singapore praising the judiciary here.

This letter was apparently written following the organisation's annual conference held in Singapore in September last year.

The following is what Mr Lee said in court:

 

"Your honour, the International Bar Association decided to honour Singapore and hold its annual conference in this city and you [Dr Chee] were given an opportunity to present your case, with your complaint that Singapore lack the rule of law. There were some 3000 lawyers there.

I think they left Singapore with a very different impression from what you have projected because we have a letter from the President of the International Bar Association to the organisers, namely the Law Society of Singapore, how successful the meeting was and how impressed they were by the standards they found to obtain in the judiciary - " (see here also)

 

But the IBA has confirmed to the SDP that there was no such letter. According to the IBA its president did not write such a letter. The Law Society of Singapore has also denied that it has received any such letter from the IBA.

An IBA official said: "If there is another source of this letter, we do not know about it."

Mr Lee gave this evidence in the witness box during cross-examination by Dr Chee Soon Juan on 27 May 08.

The SDP will seek legal advice on this latest development.

In a related matter, Mr Lee's press secretary wrote to the Wall Street Journal stating that Dr Chee had called Singapore leaders "murderers, robbers, child molesters" and "rapists" in open court.

Dr Chee clearly said no such thing and has written to the newspaper challenging the Minister Mentor to produce the records showing that he (Dr Chee) did. (See here).

http://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/component/content/article/1-singapore/576-breaking

it will be interesting to see who is/are lying.