Singapore also has its very own prophet who worked in the civil service. Unfortunately he was framed for some reason and is now in jail.
See: http://www.sgclub.com/singapore/nea_manager_gui…

The morale of the story is don’t tell people you have special power. You will be used and disposed of unknowingly.

A starving nuclear power. Singapore should help DPRK.

Home > Latest News > Asia
April 16, 2008
UN agency warns of looming N. Korea food crisis
SEOUL – TIME is running out to avert a humanitarian tragedy in North Korea due to acute food shortages, a United Nations (UN) agency warned on Wednesday.
‘The food security situation…is clearly bad and getting worse,’ said Tony Banbury, the World Food Programme’s (WFP) Asia director.

‘It is increasingly likely that external assistance will be urgently required to avert a serious tragedy,’ he said in a statement.

The WFP estimates that over 6.5 million people, out of a population of 23 million, do not have enough to eat. It said the figure would rise unless urgent action is taken.

Mr Banbury called on international donors to increase aid, and urged North Korea to allow aid agencies to check that food is reaching the needy.

South Korean officials said in February that some of Seoul’s rice aid intended for hungry civilians had been diverted to frontline army units.

The hardline communist state suffered famine in the mid- to late 1990s which killed hundreds of thousands. —AFP

http://www.straitstimes.com/Latest%2BNews/Asia/...

Second part of extract of interview with PM Lee:

http://www.straitstimes.com/Free/Story/STIStory…

April 16, 2008

Leading and lightening up in the Youtube Age

How will new media factor in the next general election? Can ministers loosen up and laugh at themselves? Chinese-language daily Lianhe Zaobao posed these questions in the second part of an interview with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong published last Sunday. Here are some extracts from the interview.

ON THE ELECTION RESULTS IN MALAYSIA (above) AND TAIWAN: If the PAP wants to continue to gain the people’s support, it must maintain a clean and capable gobernment. it must continue to strive for a better future for Singapore. —

What inspiration can the Singapore Government draw from the elections in Taiwan, Malaysia and even the United States?
Their situation differs from ours. Like many Singaporeans, I follow the news of the elections in Malaysia and Taiwan on TV and other media.

My conclusion is that if the PAP (People’s Action Party) wants to continue to gain the people’s support, it must maintain a clean and capable government. It must continue to reflect people’s views and continue to strive for a better future for Singapore.

If the Government is unable to satisfy these basic demands, then it is unworthy of the people’s support.

Voters will say: ‘I will not vote for you. I’m kicking you out.’ That is completely reasonable.

Facing the new media and the recruitment drive by the opposition parties, what changes do you think will take place in the next general election?
On ministers with different strengths

‘Every minister has the same aim, that is to work for the people’s well-being, but they have different working styles, ways of thinking and dealing with problems. We do not hope that every minister has the same image and the same skill. We hope that ministers will be like the 18 Luo Han monks, with their own individual specialities, their own contributions. Eighteen will not be considered too much if we can form such a Cabinet.’
... more
The next general election is three, four years away. There will definitely be new developments in new media.

Some of our media regulations were set before the previous General Election.

Some people describe it this way: One year in new media is equivalent to seven years in the mortal world. Therefore, five years of changes in the new media in one term of government is equivalent to more than 30 years in the mortal world. It’s a completely new world.

We have to renew regulations to meet the needs of the new age. We will review whether we should relax some of the regulations.

However, we will proceed with caution to avoid creating a negative impact.

It is no longer a new thing for Singaporeans to create blogs online. People can now make video clips. Previously, it was podcast. Now, it is vodcast. People film their own video clips, and upload them on YouTube.

People also use the new media to release news. It is not a problem if they are factual reports. The problem is that online video clips vary in nature.

Take Fitna as an example. It is a short film on Islam, and spreads extreme anti-Islamic views.

The United States also has such a phenomenon. Michael Moore’s movies are politically motivated. He is very anti-Republican and anti-Bush. You may be misled by his documentaries if you do not understand his background and motives.

Another related problem is how do you refute views that are wrong.

If a newspaper report is wrong, readers can write in to refute it or the newspapers can carry another report to clarify matters.

The newspaper readership is rather fixed, but it is difficult to identify readers or surfers online. How do you find them to clarify the truth? There is no way to do this. This is a problem.

Another problem has to do with the nature of certain new media.

For example, YouTube clips and political advertisements are very similar. Political advertisements cost a lot of money, including production, buying airtime on TV or print advertisements.

Singapore politics will turn bad if political campaigning costs a lot of money.

From a narrow perspective, if political parties have to produce advertisements, the PAP will have an edge because we have the resources to do so.

However, from a broader, national perspective, it is not a good thing. This is because many people will be willing to donate money to parties that need money, but political donations are never unconditional.

You win the election and after you come into power, the donors will politely ‘seek payment for debts’. What do you do for such debts of gratitude?

In developing countries, this often turns into a problem of corruption. In the United States, it is not called money politics, but campaign financing.

(John) McCain has adopted a clear stand on reforms on this problem, but he still has to campaign. He has no choice as the system is such that he has to raise funds for political advertisements.

I do not hope for Singapore to go this way.

Election culture

You once said you ‘hoped to see in Singapore a serious and objective election culture that judges things as they stand’. Has Singapore achieved that?
I think things are better now, but they still need improvement.

The content of newspaper reports is definitely more substantial. The level of debate is also higher. Of course, not every article has fresh views, but the overall standard has risen.

In Parliament, the standard of our MPs is not bad, objectively speaking. They may not speak as well as their counterparts in developing countries, Australia, the United States or Britain, but our standard of debate is rather high.

Our MPs do a lot of preparatory work and they speak with substance. Of course, at times, their debates may not be exciting enough, but they do their homework and put forward good views.

When debating the Budget, they may have only two, three minutes to speak, but they speak convincingly and their opinions are worthy of consideration.

Some Nominated MPs have also generated much buzz with their controversial views. The Government may not agree with them, but it is good that they speak their minds freely in Parliament and they should do so. By doing so, we have reached our objective of setting up the NMP system.

As for the opposition MPs, they actually seldom debate in direct opposition to the Government.

Chiam See Tong does not speak as much now. Sylvia Lim speaks rather carefully and seems restrained. Of course, this is good.

Although Low Thia Khiang is very smart, he seldom debates on the core substance of policies. He seems more keen on catching the Government on its shortcomings, so as to embarrass the Government.

This is very different from his impassioned speeches at election rallies. His attitude is that his responsibility is just to criticise government policies and not to propose alternatives.

The value of doing so is limited. Such a strategy neither enhances policies nor raises the standard of political debates.

Does coffee shop talk meet the criteria of the serious and objective election culture that you envisioned? Some academics and commentators see their responsibility as just to provoke the Government into new ways of thinking, regardless of whether their views are right or wrong. How do you regard such an attitude?
I do not know if this is your interpretation of them or their real intention.

My opinion is that many of those who criticise the Government or cannot accept government policies genuinely feel their opinions are not wrong.

Although we go all out to explain policies to the people, they may not understand completely and accept totally, especially the finer points of the policies.

It is not difficult for people to accept the broad principles of policies, but for the finer points, it is not easy.

Actually, if we test people’s knowledge of the policy details, I think journalists and PAP MPs may not make the passing grade.

Therefore, I think the people who criticise Electronic Road Pricing or means testing are not just doing it to provoke the Government so that the Government will have new ways of thinking.

The people truly do not see why the Government is proposing such measures. The Government has actually explained, but they remain sceptical about the policy.

Nevertheless, some things have to be carried out. If you conduct a poll on whether national service should be implemented, I believe the majority of Singaporeans will support it.

However, if you ask them whether we should have goods and services tax, I think many Singaporeans will say we shouldn’t. We have to accept the fact that we cannot get 100 per cent support for everything.

Can ministers laugh at themselves?

Online, there are still many people who would present what a minister has said in another way. Would it not bring leaders closer to the people if they could laugh at themselves?
We should know how to laugh at ourselves. That is very necessary. If we show a stern face every day, not just the people, but also our family members will find us repulsive.

However, if the people feel you are like a clown and lose respect for you, will your words still carry strength? Will people still take your opinions seriously?

In the United States, journalists covering the White House organise a ‘Gridiron Dinner’ yearly where the President and Vice-President are invited to attend and personally go on stage to create comic relief.

I think it is fine if one does not go overboard in ridiculing oneself.

However, I observe that the real motive of this dinner is not to create the opportunity for the President to draw closer to the people, but to dampen the respect that journalists accord the President. We should strike an appropriate balance between self-ridicule and respect.

Instead of falling for the pranks of others, could our leaders work on their image, so that they would cause people to feel that they have more character and are more colourful?
We can do more in this aspect, but we do not want to create a personality cult.

I feel journalists should focus their reports on a leader’s opinions and views towards policies and events.

Occasional reporting about the clothes he wears, his personal style and his hobbies is not a problem.

However, it may not be a good thing if the private life of a political figure becomes the main news item.

At the same time, not every minister is willing to go public about his personal life and hobbies. Even if they are willing, their families may not agree because they also hope to have privacy.

People see government salaries going up and are of the opinion that the Government should also satisfy their various demands. How would you handle these expectations?
If you ask MM Lee, he would say Singapore needs a bad government for a period of time for people to be aware of the world situation, the true reality.

After that, everyone would realise what actually is a good government.

I do not want to take such a route. I hope to think of other ways for Singaporeans to understand our situation, compare it with other countries, and I hope the people understand what we should do to keep to a more steady path of development.

How far is the Government willing to go in abandoning old views?
We are willing to start from scratch when considering every problem.

Other than the very basic principles, there is no policy that cannot be discussed and reconsidered.

Of course, it is unlikely that we will change basic national policies like whether Singapore needs independence, whether we need a multiracial country, whether we should maintain our meritocracy system.

However, apart from these policies, we are willing to reconsider other policies.

Nevertheless, we must understand that for policy changes, today you may think that they are correct, and the day after tomorrow, after some thought, you may say why were you so stupid at the time for not seeing the consequences.

Policies must be flexible, and yet have long-term stability. These are two conflicting considerations, but we should strike a balance between them.

Look at China. They have long-term and relatively stable policies, especially in foreign affairs.

Their consideration is based on China’s national interest. Their perspectives towards the United States or South-east Asia are consistent and stable. They can bide their time over 10, 20 years.

It is difficult for the United States to maintain such stability because its leadership changes every four years.

Even if the President comes from the same party, the Cabinet members will change, with new ministers, a new Secretary of State and new perspectives.

Taiwan President elect impressed by the anti corruption efforts of CPIB.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singapor…

                        Taiwan's president-elect visits Singapore's CPIB

                        By Andrew Lee, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 15 April 2008 2104 hrs
                        

Ma Ying-jeou visits Singapore’s CPIB

Taiwan’s president-elect visits Singapore’s CPIB

SINGAPORE: Taiwan’s president-elect Ma Ying-jeou, who will assume office on 20 May, said he will strive to make his government corruption-free.

In an interview with the Singapore media on Tuesday, Mr Ma spoke about his visit to the city-state’s Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB), and his impressions of Singapore.

Mr Ma’s clean image and his anti-corruption message helped Kuomintang party win a landslide victory in last month’s presidential election.

“You can’t have corruption because we have rather comprehensive laws that will prevent you from doing that,” said the president-elect.

“We have learnt this experience in part from Singapore. I visited the CPIB. I was very much impressed by the slogan. Singapore is one of the few countries in the world where corruption is under control,” he added.

During the interview, Mr Ma also spoke about wanting to foster closer ties with mainland China. – CNA/ac

Without the effective leadership we have now, we would be having food riots like those poor developing countries. Thank god for this capable government, we are able to grow the economy and everyone is enjoying the fruit of success. Increased in values of our houses means increasing assets in our pocket if we want to sell off and upgrade. It made perfect economic sense to have appreciation of housing unlike USA where the prices of houses are plunging and as their assets drop in value, people will be jittery about spending on other essential things in life.

Why are you all so bitter about? Don’t you receive your growth dividends and GST rebates worth hundreds of dollars? It’s sharing the success of the Singapore’s leadership with actual cash for everyone.

PM Lee’s extract of interview on Singapore’s leadership:

http://www.straitstimes.com/Free/Story/STIStory…

April 15, 2008
Beyond kissing babies
What makes a good Cabinet minister? Why were DrNg Eng Hen and Mr Raymond Lim made ministers so rapidly? Chinese-language daily Lianhe Zaobao posed these and other questions to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in an interview published last Sunday. Extracts from the interview:

EYE FOR A LEADER: One of the issues foremost on PM Lee’s mind is leadership renewal. Singaporeans have high expectations of ministers but, in reality, it is difficult to find leaders who are perfect, he says.

Since you assumed office 3 1/2 years ago, there have been many policy changes, in areas like education, medical subsidies, transport and CPF. What characteristics did the young ministers display in pursuing these reforms? Are there differences between them, your generation and the previous generation of ministers?

This is not an issue of differences between two generations of ministers. Times are different now and the circumstances have changed. The way we craft and implement policies must also adapt to the new environment.

Decades ago, when the economy was not that developed, we could be bold and resolute because we were very clear about what must be done. You could not go wrong as long as you moved in that direction.

In the current environment, we cannot say for sure that no problem will arise. We must think clearly how a policy must be adjusted to achieve our goal, to avoid undesirable effects. This is not easy.

Regardless of whether it is to do with car population control or health care or goods and services tax (GST) adjustment, you have to ask: What negative effects could there be?

What can be done to try and reduce these negative effects, to reduce misunderstanding, fear and unnecessary pressure among the people in the face of new policies?

It is not as easy to implement policies in this manner. The policies we rolled out in the last two or three years were deliberated and formulated over many years.

In the past, the Government adopted a rather paternalistic approach, saying this is right and we should just follow. But now you are worried that people do not understand, have fears and are discontented. Is the Government’s leadership style moving towards one of equal footing?

What you are describing are two extremes. We were not completely paternalistic in the past, and we are not completely populist today. We do not parrot the views of others.

Regardless of who the leader is, he must have his own views and ideas. If you have no ideas, you should not be a leader. If I do only the things that everyone agrees with, there will definitely be problems.

As a leader, besides listening to the people, you also have the responsibility of analysing, understanding and explaining the issues, trying to convince the people, striving for consensus, so that the nation can move ahead.

We are working more on this now. The people are relatively better-educated and can better understand the issues, including the nature and the difficulties of the issues.

On the other hand, the policies today are more complex. If we cannot explain the policies to the public in simple language, it will be very hard for them to accept these policies.

Our style has indeed changed, but we still must maintain our resolute and objective leadership style.

Ministers populist?

Do you feel that your ministers are populist?

We have to achieve good results in an election every five years, which is the basic requirement of a democratic system. But we cannot make decisions according to what is popular.

A minister should not be a MrNice Guy who knows only how to please the people. He should not follow the views of other people blindly. He must tell people what he believes in and what his stand is.

Every decision made by the people holding office will have a negative effect; every choice has a good and bad side.

You must pick the one with the least number of bad points and the most number of good points. This is not a matter of simple calculations, but a judgment, a choice. In the short term, your decision may not be accepted by the people, but you must realise that this is a long-term plan which is more appropriate.

Means testing and GST

Some people have been critical of some policies formulated by our ministers recently, for example, means testing in hospitals. Minister Khaw Boon Wan set the start point low when he was considering the personal income ceiling for means testing. It was then raised to more than $2,000, and it was finally set at $3,200. Perhaps the minister had a Plan A or a Plan B…?

You have to ask Minister Khaw Boon Wan. This is his style, his way of doing things. I think the public would not have accepted it if he had begun at $3,000, and it became $1,500 eventually.

This is because people hope there will be some compromise after discussions. We will make the adjustment if it is reasonable. But sometimes, we feel that there is no alternative but to carry on with the original plans even after discussions.

Let’s take the GST – it was raised from 5 per cent to 7 per cent last year. Many people feel that we should have done it slowly and raised it step by step. But my view is that the GST is not a popular policy, and if we want to raise it, we should do so when the economy is growing strongly.

The people will be more receptive, and the Government will have the ability to adopt several measures to help the people cushion the impact.

I prefer to do it fast and adopt several measures to cushion the impact at the same time. If the adjustment is slow and the increase small, the measures to cushion the impact will not be so generous and timely.

What is the Government currently most worried about?

In the short term, we are worried about whether the people can adapt to economic restructuring and whether we can attract investments and jobs to grow the economy. If we cannot grow the economy, then there is no need to talk about other issues. We have often talked about the social safety net and the quality of life, but they cannot be done without economic growth.

In the long term, the issue of leadership is very important. Cohesion and the leadership issue are related.

It is not easy to enhance cohesion and continue leadership renewal, and it is not easily understood by others.

It is not easy to maintain a system like Singapore’s, to have good and carefully chosen leaders. Whether in developed or developing nations, the systems will differ. The conditions are different in different countries, so too the system and mode of operation.

Our way of doing things best suits our situation and our environment, but the problem is how to maintain this leadership quality.

Few countries can maintain a selection and appointment system which is fair, open and based on merit from the highest to the lowest level.

Minister as CEO

The Government is seeking first-class talent from the top 1 per cent, but most people wonder why the Government cannot accept the next best talent, for example, talent from the top 5 per cent. What is your view?

Many people ask why the Government is so picky and accepts only the top talent when we talk about the broad principles, but they adopt a different attitude when they look at individual ministers. They will ask why this minister is not good enough, is not capable enough and has little eloquence.

In reality, it is difficult to find leaders who are perfect.

There are few people who are very capable and can connect with the people, while being willing to dedicate themselves to society and take up the responsibility to lead.

Of course, there are different grades of leaders. Let’s take the example of our grassroots leaders. We can find these devoted volunteers in every constituency. We can also find suitable candidates to run as MPs.

However, I believe Singaporeans have high expectations of ministers, the deputy prime minister and the prime minister.

In many countries, the ministers are like the directors of the ministries, and the deputy ministers or the permanent secretaries in the ministries are the real chief executives. The ministers’ speeches are usually drafted by the officials, and the specific policies and policy details are formulated by the officials.

If there is a major change in policy, unless the officials agree, the minister cannot make the change.

In Japan and other countries, it is not necessarily the ministers who answer the MPs’ queries, but the deputy ministers or the officials who do so.

It is different in Singapore. The minister is the chief executive of the ministry – he decides on the policy and guidelines and then personally explains in Parliament the rationale and aims of the policy.

Some people ask why the Government is so concerned that more than 100 top students are staying abroad every year. We are concerned as we have to rely on the top youngsters to create a future for Singaporeans. If they go overseas and stay for a long time in another country, it would not be easy for them to switch to politics here as they would have lost touch with Singapore to a certain degree.

They may hold Singaporean passports and their families may be here. But in the 10 to 20 years they are away, not having gone through the ups and downs in Singapore, and being unfamiliar with the worries of Singaporeans, the likelihood of them joining politics will be reduced and this will worsen the shortage of political talent.

Even if they are in Singapore working in the private sector or in a particular profession, and even if they are very capable, in their 30s or 40s, their way of thinking and social circles would be limited after being involved in a particular profession for a long time.

It may not be possible for them, overnight, to become ministers in white shirt and trousers, with the ability to interact well with the people.

Ng Eng Hen was a surgeon who succeeded in becoming a minister, but he needed some time initially to adapt.

Surgeons do not have to consider policies every day. They see patients and are concerned about the patients’ condition, treatment and the required operation. Such experience and way of thinking are different from those needed in policy formulations. But Ng Eng Hen is able to excel in his job as he has strong learning and working capabilities. Regretfully, there are not many people who are like him.

Ministers who have worked in government departments – for example, Tharman (Shanmugaratnam) or Khaw Boon Wan – will face smaller differences, but the disadvantage is they have never worked in the private sector.

---

Winning qualities

Q: Ministers like Ng Eng Hen and Raymond Lim who did not come from government departments have been placed relatively quickly in policy-making positions. According to your observations, what special traits do they possess?

PM LEE: Firstly, they possess the spirit to work hard when they agreed initially to switch from their jobs to become ministers of state.

Secondly, with their strong abilities, upon taking up their new positions, they were able to quickly master and understand which were the important issues and problems that should be addressed first.

Thirdly, they need to explain the policies. They are able to convey the problems and their views when they are in Parliament, at seminars or interacting with the grassroots, and make people feel that they understand the voters’ views.

There are basic conditions to becoming a minister, but individual ministers have different strong points. Some ministers are good at explaining the problems and interacting with the people and are more approachable.

But if every minister knows only how to carry a baby and display his friendliness, then we have a problem.

There are oready FT beggars in S’pore. I saw One Ang Mo “beggar” in a local internet posting. FT beggars will out compete local ones as well.

Now they put former AG Chao Hick Tin to be appeal judge in high court. Presiding over those same cases he prosecuted in the last two years in the lower court as AG. A deliberate move for political ends.

This post is not about Walter Woon. Rather its regarding how can a former AG who prosecute people is now the appeal judge siting on the high court hearing those very own cases he prosecuted in the past two years? Its like you are presiding on cases that you already been dealt with? Very strange lah…This AG to appeal judge role change. A total conflict of interest I think.

April 9, 2008
Walter Woon to take over as A-G
By Ben Nadarajan and Chong Chee Kin

Mr Chao Hick Tin, the current AG, ends his two-year term in office on Thursday. He returns to the judiciary as a Judge of Appeal at the Supreme Court on Friday. —ST PHOTO: CHEW SENG KIM

SINGAPORE will get a new Attorney-General (AG) in Professor Walter Woon Cheong Ming from Friday.
The current Solicitor-General takes over the job as the country’s top prosecutor from Mr Chao Hick Tin, who will return to the judiciary after a two-year tour as AG.

Prof Woon, who made his mark as a law academic, a Nominated Member of Parliament and as an envoy before becoming Solicitor-General, will be post-independence Singapore’s fifth AG.

The AG’s role is to be the Government’s main legal advisor. He also decides which criminal cases to prosecute.

Mr Chao will resume his former post as a Judge of Appeal in the Supreme Court, making it a total of three Judges of Appeal on its roster.

The appointments were announced on Wednesday by the President, in concurrence with the advice of the Prime Minister.

Prof Woon’s vacated position as Solicitor-General will be filled by Mrs Koh Kuat Jong, the current Supreme Court Registrar.

Prof Woon’s legal career began with his being called to the Singapore Bar in 1985, four years after graduating from the National University of Singapore’s law school with first class honours. He also holds a masters in law with first class honours from Cambridge.

Although credited with having written several books on law – the one on company law makes it to the reading lists of law students and lawyers – he has a colourful side as well, having authored crime novels and been a top school debator.

Read the full report in Thursday’s edition of The Straits Times.

Din get to see Al Gore’s movie on climate change. Anybody seen it posted in internet?

abit ice-> more ice -> more more ice -> more more more ice -> more more more more ice -> more more more more ice -> DOOMSDAY

As in the movie, “The day after tomorrow”? Too dramatic. This kind of events take years to happen, not weeks. Maybe not within our lifetime but still scientifically possible.

Seen the stomper post by Mait. Really nice.

Din see it in my area. Is it beautiful? Wish somenoe post a picture of it. What is the exact cause? The convection theory by NEA not convincing. NEA never tell us about climate change stuff which is a hot issue globally. Dunno why.

A convincing victory by Ma:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/22/world/asia/22…

By KEITH BRADSHER
Published: March 22, 2008
TAIPEI, Taiwan — Taiwan elected on Saturday its first president who had campaigned for closer economic relations with Beijing, paving the way for a considerable lessening of tensions in one of Asia’s oldest flashpoints.

Ma Ying-jeou, a Harvard-educated lawyer and former Taipei mayor from the Nationalist Party, won by a convincing margin. He prevailed despite a last-minute effort by his opponent, Frank Hsieh of the Democratic Progressive Party, to warn that the Chinese crackdown in Tibet represented a warning of what could also happen to Taiwan if it did not stand up to Beijing.

With all votes counted, Mr. Ma prevailed 58.45 percent to 41.55 percent and Mr. Hsieh quickly conceded defeat. Clear skies and warm weather until early evening helped produce a heavy voter turnout of 75.7 percent,which tends to help Nationalist candidates, like Mr. Ma.

Both parties’ polls showed an increasingly close race in the final days of campaigning, in contrast with the last polls by media organizations nearly two weeks ago, which showed Mr. Ma ahead by 20 percent. But in election day interviews, voters echoed Mr. Ma’s stance that closer relations with the mainland and its fast-growing economy represent the island’s best hope of returning to the rapid economic growth it enjoyed until the late 1990s.

Jason Lin, a 41-year-old interior designer, said as he left a polling place in Taipei that he had always voted for the Democratic Progressive Party until this year and remains a member of the party. But he crossed party lines to vote for Mr. Ma on Saturday because he was convinced that Taiwan’s economic survival depended on closer ties.

“If we don’t get into China’s market, we are locked into our own country,” he said.

Beijing officials have been wooing the Nationalists for years, even hosting visits to the mainland over the past three years by those party leaders who are especially eager for eventual political reunification with the mainland, like Lien Chan, the party’s unsuccessful presidential candidate in 2004.

Mr. Ma has taken a more cautious approach to the mainland, attending annual vigils for those killed during the Tiananmen Square killings in Beijing in 1989 and denouncing the mainland’s repression of the Falun Gong spiritual movement over the past decade. During the campaign, he ruled out any discussion of political reunification while calling for the introduction of direct, regularly scheduled flights to Shanghai and Beijing and an end to Taiwan’s extensive limits on its companies’ ability to invest on the mainland.

Chinese government officials had no immediate response to the election results on Saturday evening, but had made little secret of their hope that he would win.

“China has a love-hate relationship with Ma — when I visited China last November, they criticized Ma a lot, and then asked me to vote for Ma,” said Yen Chen-Shen, a political scientist at National Chengchi University.

American officials have been deeply frustrated with President Chen Shui-bian, also of the Democratic Progressive Party, and have sought to lessen tensions between Taiwan and the mainland while preserving the political status quo. But the Bush administration has also been irritated by the reluctance of Nationalists in the legislature to vote for purchases of American weapon systems, including systems that President Bush offered for sale in 2001 but which Taiwan still has not purchased.

Many in Taiwan have preferred to spend money on social programs while relying on the United States military to deter aggression by the mainland, prompting bitter jokes among American military personnel that if mainland military forces ever land on Taiwan, the Taiwanese will fight them to the last American.

Cheng Ta-chen, a Nationalist aide to Mr. Ma on security policy, said that the Nationalists had not been given enough information by President Chen to understand and approve military purchases.

Following his inauguration, scheduled for May 20, Mr. Ma will have almost complete political power to pursue his agenda. His party and two tiny affiliated parties together took three-quarters of the legislature in January elections. Nationalists also serve as the magistrates, a position akin to mayor, in 15 of Taiwan’s 25 largest cities.

The extent of Nationalist control made some voters nervous on Saturday.

Two controversial referendums, calling for Taiwan to apply for membership in the United Nations, also fell well short of passage.

Taiwan’s referendum law requires a majority of eligible voters to vote on a referendum for it to be valid. Nationalists called for voters not to cast ballots for either initiative and slightly less than 36 percent of eligible voters did so.

With China strongly opposed to United Nations membership for Taiwan, which it regards as a breakaway province, the island’s recent efforts to win membership have failed completely. The United States and China had both denounced as provocative the referendum sponsored by the Democratic Progressive Party, which specifically called for the island to apply as Taiwan and not using its legal name, the Republic of China.

The legal name reflects the principle that Taiwan and the mainland still form one China.

Taiwan’s economy grew 5.7 percent last year, but middle-class and working-class incomes have stagnated as an affluent elite has grown prosperous, often from investments on the mainland.

Much of the island’s manufacturing industry has shifted to the mainland and hundreds of thousands of Taiwanese, have moved to the mainland to manage these operations. The bulk of these are men aged 25 to 45, leaving a dearth of skills and entrepreneurial energy in Taiwan itself.

I think Ma will win by a big margin. He will steer Taiwan away from the dangerous path of pro-indepence and concentrate on the prosperity and progress of the country. I agree our past media coverage keep concentrating on the fight scenes in their parliament. At least CNA now discuss some of the issues at hand but still pale in comparison to those TW channels as mentioned above. But I think handsome Ma win most of the ladys’ votes even without speaking a word.

I do agree that democracy under Abdullah Badawi has been given some space to grow. They let Anwar speak in the election rallies although the state media did not report on them. I hope he stays on because Najib or Mr M’s son are as autocratic as Mr M himself. In this mind, Abdullah think about the next generation of young Malaysian, many of whom went to western countries to study and brough home the “god given gift of democracy” and how he can win them over in the next election. I have more confident of Malaysia becoming a freer and more democratic country. But for Singapore, I don’t know what its future, can’t read the minds of our leaders…a bit depressed.

I would rather stick to Abdullah Badawi. Mahatir style of autocratic ruling is over. Anwar is a gay and corrupted ex convict, I can’t imagine if he come back as PM of Malaysia. Total Chaos will be the outcome. No Singapore should not plunged into the type of opposition that Malaysia is in now, its not democracy but protest votes carried to the extreme and scared off foreign investors.

Congratulation to BN and Mr Abdullah Ahmad Badawi for winning in the Malaysia GE. I have no doubt that the UMNO will reviewed the issues raised by the electorates and come up with constructive policies for continued peace, prosperity and progress for Malaysia. I am also confident that BN will win back the two third majority in the next elcection as Malaysia’s economy will continue to grow in an astonishing pace under the strong and capable leadership of Mr Abdullah Badawi.

I think the complacency message refered to the detention centre’s guards and Superiors. They are bluffed by MAS Selamat apparent cooperation and let down their guards and thus may not have followed the SOP from my reasoning. The minister cannot be blamed for this isolated case of prison break as he can’t watch over what happen to all the prisons in Singapore everday 24 hours a day. His job is to constantly improved the prison system to keep them more secured through constant updates and reviews of policies and SOPs in his ministry. There is not a single case of prison break in all our prisons under the charge of Wong Kan Seng all these years. We should wait for the full inquiries to be completed before we speculate on how it happen.Thus all the blame on our good minister should stop here and we should move on to how not to have another such incident.