http://forums.delphiforums.com/sammyboymod/messages/?msg=a628.4
Mellanie Hewlitt
26 July 2003
Singapore Review
As I read Mr Tan Tarn How's article this morning in the 26 July 2003 issue of the Straits Times (attached at bottom), several thoughts flashed through my mind.
Until recently, the need for a strong labour union has been taken very much for granted. But with growing retrenchments and unsympathetic policy makers, the need for a bona fide union who will stand shoulder to shoulder with the worker is absolutely necessary.
In Singapore, the lack of bona fide union representation is all the more glaring given that this is not a welfare state and the state does not provide any relief for the unemployed. The government's clear message to the retrenched worker is not to look for free "hand-outs" (quoting the words of Straits Times writer Ms Chua Lee Hoong).
Does asking for a descent job qualify as a "hand-out". I think that the average
Singaporean only wishes to be given the opportunity to earn his keep, and it is not his fault that he has fallen victim to an imperfect system. (Pls see previous article "Job Market Imperfections? Live With It!!! in previous issue of Singapore Review, attached below)
And adding insult to injury, not only do policy makers remain unsympathetic to displaced workers, unemployed workers are also denied of their hard earned CPF salaries. If this is not the time to dip into hard earned savings,what is?
It is understandable that many workers are bitter and feel that Unions here are
government affiliated and will only make a 1/2 hearted attempt to fight for workers rights. Most often the measures are limited to retraining and job sourcing unlike real Labour Unions in France and South Korea who have little fear in going toe to toe with ministers and government on serious bread andbutter issues concerning employment and wage reforms.
But what do you expect when the unions in Singapore are largely run and managed directly or indirectly by officials who retain strong ties with the government (and ultimately employers).
In Singapore, so called "Labour Unions" like NTUC are seen as tools for the government to implement unpopular wage reforms. The relationship is a symbiotic one and therein lies the problem. There will come a time when the needs of the workers are at odds with government wage reforms and this is precisely the time when real labour unions come into play.
It is no strange coincidence that the NTUC chief has always been a PAP member and a member of cabinet. The dilemma that poses then is what happens if there is a conflict of interest between workers and cabinet/policy makers?
Unfortunately, public consensus here confirm that when push comes to shove,these pro-government unions will not be there in the darkest hour of need.
In short the pathetic state of labour union representation in Singapore is much like that of opposition politics. Whatever protests and representations allowed via official channels are merely cosmetic in nature, more so to show case to the world that individual rights are represented in form and on paper.
When thequestion is asked, the government can proudly respond and answer, "Yes, we have a labour union in existence here to represent workers rights and workers dohave a channel to make themselves heard."
And it is conceded that this is the truth on paper at least.
But peering beyond the veil, the real scene that greets the eyes is far from encouraging. It is an ominous reminder that here in totalitarian Singapore, the Government controls everything, and we mean everything literally.
In these difficult times, where there is a growing divide between the interests of workers and the interests of the Ruling Elite. The absence of real, tangible dissent in opposition politics and labour representation is both conspicuous and worrisome.
Events in recent weeks have emphasized the growing discord between the interest of the masses and those of the Ruling Elite. Singapore Review has been flooded by passionate letters endorsing release of CPF funds during these difficult times. Other issues which have attracted passionate response concern the NEL Fiasco (and repeated calls to open Baugkok station) as well as looming unanswered questions concerning ministerial salaries.
Cruel Irony Defined: A PAP Minister who takes home SGD100,000-SGD175,000 PER MONTH in tax dollars telling a worker (who earns SGD2,000 a month) to be "less choosy" and to work harder.
And unfortunately for the average Singaporean, the above scenario has been replayed over and over again like some defective recorder. After awhile, even a once intelligent mind becomes numb and accepts fiction over fact and form over substance.
This ridiculous situation exists only in Singapore as there is no real barrier(whether in the form of real Labour Union representation, or Opposition Representation) standing between PAP ministers and average individuals.
Is this a political system that is FOR THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE AND OF THE PEOPLE? One really wonders.
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE CONSTITUTION?
The merits of a One Party, One Government, and totalitarian dictatorship have long been questioned. The words of Kennedy strike home "POWER CORRUPTS AND ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY". The spirit of these words govern the Doctrine of Separation of Powers in a written constitution. One wonders in Singapore whether the constitution exists only in form and not in substance. As is often the case in Singapore, the spirit and original objective is often lost in a model system that looks good only on paper.
8 Dec 2004
Grace
Very strange how I have only realised that this technology has brought me into contact with people that I care and feel for. So I am sad to pass on the news that Grace Chow has died.
And below a quote from her site I re-post(11/10/2004) a review I did at her request.
You can read her final thoughts at the following address.. dyingis@blogspot.com
A Pain in the Neck
by Grace Chow
Publisher: BookSurge Publishing
ISBN: 90-808996-1-5
Description:
(Book Review)
Reading this book made me look back on my own experiences of popular music, philosophy and Singapore. At first I had never imagined that all three could be combined. Perhaps my failing was due to the lack of a final ingredient, an incurable disease.
The author Grace Chow begins her story with a theme that resonates with many of our own sense of needing to escape, to get out.
When I first stumbled upon the PAP's planned housing, I realised that I would have felt suffocated and atomised in Singapore. I thought that my initial response was that of an outsider, now I realise that others feel the same. The HDB complexes are practical solutions, but some of us desire more than, 'practical solutions'.
"A Pain in the Neck", contains many views on how Singapore is governed, and who it is governed by. Written in many styles, serious, insightful and I actually laughed out loud on a few occasions. Peppered with despair on the darkest of days, but there is a dogged determination within its pages to express life and to live it to the full according to her individual will and capabilities.
Grace Chow combines many elements in this autobiography; Singapore; escape, love, philosophy, religion, popular music, travel, illness, memories, hope and despair.
The somewhat simplistic stereotype of the average Singaporean is that of un-questioning, consensual, and materialistic. Grace has laid the stereotype to rest.
I await another book from Grace Chow. Write faster Grace.
And below a quote from her site I re-post(11/10/2004) a review I did at her request.
You can read her final thoughts at the following address.. dyingis@blogspot.com
Soon, I will be dead. I have a recalcitrant tumour in the neck, and it's a real pain. It's given me plenty of time to prepare for my death, and now it's finally going for the kill. I am completely powerless in the face of it. My only option is to flee to my mind, where I have so, so much to say and tell... but I have no one to tell it to. This is the loneliness of death.
A Pain in the Neck
by Grace Chow
Publisher: BookSurge Publishing
ISBN: 90-808996-1-5
Description:
‘A Pain in the Neck’ is a humorous, ironic, autobiographical story about a young, well-educated Chinese girl who desperately plots an escape from Singapore, and finds love and happiness in Europe. The moment that she finally has the world at her feet, however, she is struck down by an incurable disease that only occurs in one in a million people. This book invites the reader into the grungy world of Singapore politics and the intricate dreams of a girl growing up in a family she detests for their sheer mediocrity. It is written in a unique style that combines story-telling with essay. Each chapter has a different theme, but this eye-opening journey remains led by the constant, strong voice of the author’s narration. It pursues the poetry of life with Schopenhauer, Descartes, and The Smiths as chorus; it does philosophy to a soundtrack of pop music.
(Book Review)
Reading this book made me look back on my own experiences of popular music, philosophy and Singapore. At first I had never imagined that all three could be combined. Perhaps my failing was due to the lack of a final ingredient, an incurable disease.
The author Grace Chow begins her story with a theme that resonates with many of our own sense of needing to escape, to get out.
When I first stumbled upon the PAP's planned housing, I realised that I would have felt suffocated and atomised in Singapore. I thought that my initial response was that of an outsider, now I realise that others feel the same. The HDB complexes are practical solutions, but some of us desire more than, 'practical solutions'.
"A Pain in the Neck", contains many views on how Singapore is governed, and who it is governed by. Written in many styles, serious, insightful and I actually laughed out loud on a few occasions. Peppered with despair on the darkest of days, but there is a dogged determination within its pages to express life and to live it to the full according to her individual will and capabilities.
Grace Chow combines many elements in this autobiography; Singapore; escape, love, philosophy, religion, popular music, travel, illness, memories, hope and despair.
The somewhat simplistic stereotype of the average Singaporean is that of un-questioning, consensual, and materialistic. Grace has laid the stereotype to rest.
I await another book from Grace Chow. Write faster Grace.
Sceptics Challenge New Premier's Promises
SINGAPORE:
Marwaan Macan-Markar
BANGKOK, Aug 13 (IPS) - Lee Hsien Loong, Singapore's new prime minister who was sworn in Thursday, is offering his country's citizens a chance of enjoying the right to free expression -- a luxury that had only been the preserve of his family and a few members of the political elite.
But Lee, who was destined to head South-east Asia's tidiest dictatorship, will have to go beyond the words uttered during his first speech as premier to be taken seriously.
''People will not believe him, because such calls for change have been made before,'' Sinapan Samydorai, president of the Think Centre, one of the few independent groups in the city-state campaigning for political and civil liberties, said in an interview.
''They will not lift restrictions that make it impossible for citizens and members of civil society to criticise government leaders,'' he added. ''A person holding political office should be open to criticism.''
Lee told an audience shortly after taking over as the country's ruler that more openness and diversity will be permitted under his watch.
''Our people should feel free to express diverse views, pursue unconventional ideas or simply be different,'' the 52-year-old Lee told a carefully chosen audience that represented the breadth of Singapore's social spectrum among its 4.3 million people.
On the face of it, such an encouragement marks a change from the tight-fisted manner in which Singapore was run for decades by Lee's father, Lee Kuan Yew, now 80 years old.
The whiff of change in the city-state was first noted during the 14 years when Goh Chok Tong was the prime minister. The most recent testimony being the permission for a gay and lesbian festival to be held in August, which was part of a policy to open up parts of the social and entertainment sector in an otherwise strait-laced society.
But for change to be meaningful, say political activists like Samydorai, there must be amendments to the litany of laws and bureaucratic measures that have been regularly used to emasculate views that challenge the ruling order.
''After nearly 40 years of authoritarian rule the government doesn't need to tell people what to do,'' he added. ''Many people and voluntary organisations practice self-censorship because of the climate created to collaborate with the state.''
The bland quality of Singapore's media, most of which belong to a government controlled company, reflects this.
And an attempt by the government to offer a new platform for openness in 2000 - creating a Speaker's Corner for individuals to express their views openly like they do at the legendary Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park, London - has made little headway.
Critics point to the hurdles Singaporeans face if they want to use the local Speaker's Corner. They include showing identification and signing a police register before speaking. In addition the government has forbidden speeches that touch on religion, race and issues that the state considers a national security threat.
The Western media who often praise Singapore for its dramatic success at achieving developed country economic status within a couple of decades has not been spared either from the government's disdain towards criticism.
Publications like The 'International Herald Tribune,' 'Time' magazine, 'The Asian Wall Street Journal,' and the 'Far Eastern Economic Review' have been taken to task by the Singaporean authorities for their critical reportage.
Some commentators have remarked that with Lee taking over the country
that his father helped to build, words such as ''nepotism''
and ''dynasty'' in a Singaporean context may be forbidden.
The Singapore government's sensitivity to such references has already been felt by the financial news service 'Bloomberg News'. It was forced to pay damages after a case was brought against it by the two Lees and Goh for a comment made by a 'Bloomberg' columnist about the appointment of Lee Hsien Loong's wife as executive director of Temasek Holdings, the state investment corporation.
During the senior Lee's rule that spanned over two decades, he defended the tough political controls imposed on the country in the interest of development as 'Asian values.'
The People's Action Party (PAP) which he headed and now has the junior Lee at its helm imposed its will by denying political space for a healthy opposition to grow in the 84-member parliament, of which the PAP currently holds 82.
In the run-up to taking control of Singapore's parliament, Lee served as deputy prime minister, helped shape new economic reforms and rose to the rank of brigadier-general in the army.
He speaks four languages in addition to his impressive academic record, which includes degrees from Cambridge University and Harvard University.
His ''new team, which boasts many old hands, will continue the ongoing economic and foreign policies put in place by former prime minister Goh Chok Tong over the past decade,'' Thailand's English daily 'The Nation' commented in an editorial Thursday.
Lee's entry on to South-east Asia's political stage comes during a year when political leaders across the region have faced elections or are about to, such as Malaysia, Philippines, Indonesia and Thailand.
But Lee, of course, has still to face an election to affirm his legitimacy as a prime minister. He was appointed through a parliamentary formality. (END/2004)
Marwaan Macan-Markar
BANGKOK, Aug 13 (IPS) - Lee Hsien Loong, Singapore's new prime minister who was sworn in Thursday, is offering his country's citizens a chance of enjoying the right to free expression -- a luxury that had only been the preserve of his family and a few members of the political elite.
But Lee, who was destined to head South-east Asia's tidiest dictatorship, will have to go beyond the words uttered during his first speech as premier to be taken seriously.
''People will not believe him, because such calls for change have been made before,'' Sinapan Samydorai, president of the Think Centre, one of the few independent groups in the city-state campaigning for political and civil liberties, said in an interview.
''They will not lift restrictions that make it impossible for citizens and members of civil society to criticise government leaders,'' he added. ''A person holding political office should be open to criticism.''
Lee told an audience shortly after taking over as the country's ruler that more openness and diversity will be permitted under his watch.
''Our people should feel free to express diverse views, pursue unconventional ideas or simply be different,'' the 52-year-old Lee told a carefully chosen audience that represented the breadth of Singapore's social spectrum among its 4.3 million people.
On the face of it, such an encouragement marks a change from the tight-fisted manner in which Singapore was run for decades by Lee's father, Lee Kuan Yew, now 80 years old.
The whiff of change in the city-state was first noted during the 14 years when Goh Chok Tong was the prime minister. The most recent testimony being the permission for a gay and lesbian festival to be held in August, which was part of a policy to open up parts of the social and entertainment sector in an otherwise strait-laced society.
But for change to be meaningful, say political activists like Samydorai, there must be amendments to the litany of laws and bureaucratic measures that have been regularly used to emasculate views that challenge the ruling order.
''After nearly 40 years of authoritarian rule the government doesn't need to tell people what to do,'' he added. ''Many people and voluntary organisations practice self-censorship because of the climate created to collaborate with the state.''
The bland quality of Singapore's media, most of which belong to a government controlled company, reflects this.
And an attempt by the government to offer a new platform for openness in 2000 - creating a Speaker's Corner for individuals to express their views openly like they do at the legendary Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park, London - has made little headway.
Critics point to the hurdles Singaporeans face if they want to use the local Speaker's Corner. They include showing identification and signing a police register before speaking. In addition the government has forbidden speeches that touch on religion, race and issues that the state considers a national security threat.
The Western media who often praise Singapore for its dramatic success at achieving developed country economic status within a couple of decades has not been spared either from the government's disdain towards criticism.
Publications like The 'International Herald Tribune,' 'Time' magazine, 'The Asian Wall Street Journal,' and the 'Far Eastern Economic Review' have been taken to task by the Singaporean authorities for their critical reportage.
Some commentators have remarked that with Lee taking over the country
that his father helped to build, words such as ''nepotism''
and ''dynasty'' in a Singaporean context may be forbidden.
The Singapore government's sensitivity to such references has already been felt by the financial news service 'Bloomberg News'. It was forced to pay damages after a case was brought against it by the two Lees and Goh for a comment made by a 'Bloomberg' columnist about the appointment of Lee Hsien Loong's wife as executive director of Temasek Holdings, the state investment corporation.
During the senior Lee's rule that spanned over two decades, he defended the tough political controls imposed on the country in the interest of development as 'Asian values.'
The People's Action Party (PAP) which he headed and now has the junior Lee at its helm imposed its will by denying political space for a healthy opposition to grow in the 84-member parliament, of which the PAP currently holds 82.
In the run-up to taking control of Singapore's parliament, Lee served as deputy prime minister, helped shape new economic reforms and rose to the rank of brigadier-general in the army.
He speaks four languages in addition to his impressive academic record, which includes degrees from Cambridge University and Harvard University.
His ''new team, which boasts many old hands, will continue the ongoing economic and foreign policies put in place by former prime minister Goh Chok Tong over the past decade,'' Thailand's English daily 'The Nation' commented in an editorial Thursday.
Lee's entry on to South-east Asia's political stage comes during a year when political leaders across the region have faced elections or are about to, such as Malaysia, Philippines, Indonesia and Thailand.
But Lee, of course, has still to face an election to affirm his legitimacy as a prime minister. He was appointed through a parliamentary formality. (END/2004)
7 Dec 2004
'too tired for sex'
Surely all business corporations large and small should be 'forced' by law to ensure the future population of Singapore. Fewer working hours, longer maternity leave and paternity leave. Paid overtime to ensure that more people can afford to have a child would be a good start. So lets wait for the NTUC to demand such changes for the over worked and under sexed Singaporean worker, or will they simply make child products less expensive. I am no great fan of over zealous and short sighted trade unionists, but I must state that the NTUC is a joke. A correlation between long hours and lack of sex drive doesn't take a genius to see.
However the following article begins, in the title, to draw this correlation then promptly drops it in favour of arguing that it is the career goals and social status aspirations of individuals that result in poor sex drives and poor birth rate. This seems to claim that the reason for the lack of interest is something to do with the individual personalities or desires of Singaporeans and not the long working hours, poor maternity and paternity leave that dominate all non-state organisation in Singapore.
The poor birth rate is correlated with un-caring business practices, not the 'greedy Singaporean individual or couple' that the article from the Sunday Times argues. Classic Singaporean analysis at its PAP best.
Asia's lovers are 'too tired for sex'
December 05 2004 at 11:00AM
Singapore - Married couples in Singapore are too tired to have sex, according to a survey published on Sunday in the city-state, which is facing a chronic shortage of babies.
The survey of 200 married couples carried out by the Sunday Times showed more than three in five couples have sex once a week or less and 75 percent of them cited tiredness as the reason.
"I have no time to have sex, let alone the commitment to bring up a child," said film producer Chan Pui Yin, who is married to a businessman.
Sociologists were not surprised by the results, which they said were a reflection of the emphasis on career and social status by Singaporeans.
"The definition of success has changed," said marriage psychologist Dr Frederick Toke.
"It's measured not by your family, but by your career and your good social status," he said.
Tan Thuan Seng, president of the Christian group Focus On The Family Singapore, echoed similar sentiments.
"People are more selfish now, because of the focus on individual freedom and pleasure," Tan said.
A majority of the couples polled placed love as their number one priority, followed by financial security, children and then sex.
'They're like mushrooms growing on trees'
Christine Goh, who placed financial security as her first priority, said she would not be having any children.
"I don't want kids," Goh said.
"To me, they're parasites. They're like mushrooms growing on trees, feeding on the host," she said.
Singapore's low birth rate has become an urgent concern after the fertility rate hit an all-time low of 1.25 children per woman in 2003 with only 35 000 babies born in that year.
The south-east Asian city-state needs at least 50 000 babies to be born each year, or a fertility rate of 1.8, just to naturally replace its population of 3.4-million. Experts say 2.1 births per woman is the ideal rate for constant renewal. - Sapa-AFP
However the following article begins, in the title, to draw this correlation then promptly drops it in favour of arguing that it is the career goals and social status aspirations of individuals that result in poor sex drives and poor birth rate. This seems to claim that the reason for the lack of interest is something to do with the individual personalities or desires of Singaporeans and not the long working hours, poor maternity and paternity leave that dominate all non-state organisation in Singapore.
The poor birth rate is correlated with un-caring business practices, not the 'greedy Singaporean individual or couple' that the article from the Sunday Times argues. Classic Singaporean analysis at its PAP best.
Asia's lovers are 'too tired for sex'
December 05 2004 at 11:00AM
Singapore - Married couples in Singapore are too tired to have sex, according to a survey published on Sunday in the city-state, which is facing a chronic shortage of babies.
The survey of 200 married couples carried out by the Sunday Times showed more than three in five couples have sex once a week or less and 75 percent of them cited tiredness as the reason.
"I have no time to have sex, let alone the commitment to bring up a child," said film producer Chan Pui Yin, who is married to a businessman.
Sociologists were not surprised by the results, which they said were a reflection of the emphasis on career and social status by Singaporeans.
"The definition of success has changed," said marriage psychologist Dr Frederick Toke.
"It's measured not by your family, but by your career and your good social status," he said.
Tan Thuan Seng, president of the Christian group Focus On The Family Singapore, echoed similar sentiments.
"People are more selfish now, because of the focus on individual freedom and pleasure," Tan said.
A majority of the couples polled placed love as their number one priority, followed by financial security, children and then sex.
'They're like mushrooms growing on trees'
Christine Goh, who placed financial security as her first priority, said she would not be having any children.
"I don't want kids," Goh said.
"To me, they're parasites. They're like mushrooms growing on trees, feeding on the host," she said.
Singapore's low birth rate has become an urgent concern after the fertility rate hit an all-time low of 1.25 children per woman in 2003 with only 35 000 babies born in that year.
The south-east Asian city-state needs at least 50 000 babies to be born each year, or a fertility rate of 1.8, just to naturally replace its population of 3.4-million. Experts say 2.1 births per woman is the ideal rate for constant renewal. - Sapa-AFP
5 Dec 2004
Asia Blog Awards 2004: Introduction and Rules
Hosted by Simon at Simon World
This year's event will be similar to last year with a few key differences. The rules for the event are below. Any suggestions, offers of help or comments are welcome:
1. All nominated blogs must be predominately written in English.
2. For each regional category, the blog must either be written by someone living in that region and/or predominately concerntrate on that region.
3. If your blog is nominated but you do not want it to be in the voting, please send me an email at simon-[at]-simonworld-[dot]-mu-[dot]-nu with your blog name and URL, your email and a clear statement you do not wish to be nominated. Otherwise all nominated blogs will be considered potential entrants.
4. The logo is the same as last year's awards. I encourage you to use it and to promote the awards but please download it to your own server. Do NOT link to the image on my server.
5. Voting will be restricted to once per day per person. You can vote more than once, but only once per day. I will doing my very best to prevent cheating. Any blog found to encourage or engage in cheating will be immediately disqualified.
6. Due to the limitations of the voting service, there will only be 10 finalists per category. At the end of the voting I will list the winner and runner-up and all nominations for each category.
7. The finalists will be determined as follows by the number of nominations (note that nominations do not count as votes) and my discretion. Repeated nominations by the same person do not count. If your blog is nominated in more than one category I may, at my sole discretion, exclude you from certain categories. If you have a preference for one category over another, please email me. In other words I've only got 10 open slots per category, so I'll do my best to judge who should go into those slots. I'm looking for volunteers to help with choosing finalists (see below).
8. To nominate a blog leave a comment in the relevant post's comments. See below for the full list of categories. Please include both the blog's name and its URL. You can nominate yourself.
9. I am the sole judge of these awards. I welcome input but my decisions will be final (unless I change my mind).
9a. I am excluding my own site from being nominated. If you'd like to vote for me, I'm in the Asia section of the World Blog awards.
10. Timetable:
Nominations: close December 8th
Voting: December 9th to December 15th inclusive
Results: December 17th
The timetable is subject to revision. It is deliberately quick to avoid the Christmas/New Year period and avoid dragging on too long. If there is enough demand I may extend the voting into the New Year but at this stage this is the timetable.
Before I get to the categories, I have two requests. For each regional category I would like a volunteer who knows the blogs of that region well enough to help me sort out potential finalists. Your own blog will still be eligible for that category. Also anyone able to help in designing logos/buttons for the winners to post on their site, please let me know. You can email me at simon-[at]-simonworld-[dot]-mu-[dot]-nu
The categories are:
This year's event will be similar to last year with a few key differences. The rules for the event are below. Any suggestions, offers of help or comments are welcome:
1. All nominated blogs must be predominately written in English.
2. For each regional category, the blog must either be written by someone living in that region and/or predominately concerntrate on that region.
3. If your blog is nominated but you do not want it to be in the voting, please send me an email at simon-[at]-simonworld-[dot]-mu-[dot]-nu with your blog name and URL, your email and a clear statement you do not wish to be nominated. Otherwise all nominated blogs will be considered potential entrants.
4. The logo is the same as last year's awards. I encourage you to use it and to promote the awards but please download it to your own server. Do NOT link to the image on my server.
5. Voting will be restricted to once per day per person. You can vote more than once, but only once per day. I will doing my very best to prevent cheating. Any blog found to encourage or engage in cheating will be immediately disqualified.
6. Due to the limitations of the voting service, there will only be 10 finalists per category. At the end of the voting I will list the winner and runner-up and all nominations for each category.
7. The finalists will be determined as follows by the number of nominations (note that nominations do not count as votes) and my discretion. Repeated nominations by the same person do not count. If your blog is nominated in more than one category I may, at my sole discretion, exclude you from certain categories. If you have a preference for one category over another, please email me. In other words I've only got 10 open slots per category, so I'll do my best to judge who should go into those slots. I'm looking for volunteers to help with choosing finalists (see below).
8. To nominate a blog leave a comment in the relevant post's comments. See below for the full list of categories. Please include both the blog's name and its URL. You can nominate yourself.
9. I am the sole judge of these awards. I welcome input but my decisions will be final (unless I change my mind).
9a. I am excluding my own site from being nominated. If you'd like to vote for me, I'm in the Asia section of the World Blog awards.
10. Timetable:
Nominations: close December 8th
Voting: December 9th to December 15th inclusive
Results: December 17th
The timetable is subject to revision. It is deliberately quick to avoid the Christmas/New Year period and avoid dragging on too long. If there is enough demand I may extend the voting into the New Year but at this stage this is the timetable.
Before I get to the categories, I have two requests. For each regional category I would like a volunteer who knows the blogs of that region well enough to help me sort out potential finalists. Your own blog will still be eligible for that category. Also anyone able to help in designing logos/buttons for the winners to post on their site, please let me know. You can email me at simon-[at]-simonworld-[dot]-mu-[dot]-nu
The categories are:
Best HK Blog
Best Mainland China Blog
Best Korea Blog
Best Taiwan Blog
Best Singapore Blog
Best Malaysia Blog
Best Thai Blog
Best Indonesia Blog
Best Japan Blog
Best Philippines Blog
Best India Blog
Best Bangladesh Blog
Best Pakistan Blog
Best Vietnam Blog
Best Central Asian Blog
Best Newcomer 2004
Best Designed Blog
Funniest Blog
Best Non-Asian (Foreign) Blog
Best Political Blog
Best Essayist
Best Journal/Diary
Best Photoblog
There are also the World 2004 Blog Awards.
NOMINATING: Remember, to make a nomination leave a comment in the relevant category's comments. Please include both the blog's name and its URL. You can nominate yourself.
posted by Simon on 12.17.04 at 07:42 PM4 Dec 2004
Fascism Anyone?
Now before you read the following I am in no way suggesting that Singapore is anything other than an authoritarian capitalist state. The list is quite extensive and I am sure that many countries would fall under its indicators of a fascist state.
All I am suggesting is that you have look at the list and count the number of indicators that Singapore seems to not have.
And remember that Fascism is a word that should not be used lightly. Singapore is not a fascist state, well thats what I thought...
Fascism Anyone?
Laurence W. Britt--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 23, Number 2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Inquiry readers may pause to read the “Affirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles” on the inside cover of the magazine. To a secular humanist, these principles seem so logical, so right, so crucial. Yet, there is one archetypal political philosophy that is anathema to almost all of these principles. It is fascism. And fascism’s principles are wafting in the air today, surreptitiously masquerading as something else, challenging everything we stand for. The cliché that people and nations learn from history is not only overused, but also overestimated; often we fail to learn from history, or draw the wrong conclusions. Sadly, historical amnesia is the norm.
We are two-and-a-half generations removed from the horrors of Nazi Germany, although constant reminders jog the consciousness. German and Italian fascism form the historical models that define this twisted political worldview. Although they no longer exist, this worldview and the characteristics of these models have been imitated by protofascist1 regimes at various times in the twentieth century. Both the original German and Italian models and the later protofascist regimes show remarkably similar characteristics. Although many scholars question any direct connection among these regimes, few can dispute their visual similarities.
Beyond the visual, even a cursory study of these fascist and protofascist regimes reveals the absolutely striking convergence of their modus operandi. This, of course, is not a revelation to the informed political observer, but it is sometimes useful in the interests of perspective to restate obvious facts and in so doing shed needed light on current circumstances.
For the purpose of this perspective, I will consider the following regimes: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia. To be sure, they constitute a mixed bag of national identities, cultures, developmental levels, and history. But they all followed the fascist or protofascist model in obtaining, expanding, and maintaining power. Further, all these regimes have been overthrown, so a more or less complete picture of their basic characteristics and abuses is possible.
Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is [Singapore], officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not.
Note
1. Defined as a “political movement or regime tending toward or imitating Fascism”—Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary.
References
Andrews, Kevin. Greece in the Dark. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1980.
Chabod, Frederico. A History of Italian Fascism. London: Weidenfeld, 1963.
Cooper, Marc. Pinochet and Me. New York: Verso, 2001.
Cornwell, John. Hitler as Pope. New York: Viking, 1999.
de Figuerio, Antonio. Portugal—Fifty Years of Dictatorship. New York: Holmes & Meier, 1976.
Eatwell, Roger. Fascism, A History. New York: Penguin, 1995.
Fest, Joachim C. The Face of the Third Reich. New York: Pantheon, 1970.
Gallo, Max. Mussolini’s Italy. New York: MacMillan, 1973.
Kershaw, Ian. Hitler (two volumes). New York: Norton, 1999.
Laqueur, Walter. Fascism, Past, Present, and Future. New York: Oxford, 1996.
Papandreau, Andreas. Democracy at Gunpoint. New York: Penguin Books, 1971.
Phillips, Peter. Censored 2001: 25 Years of Censored News. New York: Seven Stories. 2001.
Sharp, M.E. Indonesia Beyond Suharto. Armonk, 1999.
Verdugo, Patricia. Chile, Pinochet, and the Caravan of Death. Coral Gables, Florida: North-South Center Press, 2001.
Yglesias, Jose. The Franco Years. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1977.
All I am suggesting is that you have look at the list and count the number of indicators that Singapore seems to not have.
And remember that Fascism is a word that should not be used lightly. Singapore is not a fascist state, well thats what I thought...
Fascism Anyone?
Laurence W. Britt--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 23, Number 2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Inquiry readers may pause to read the “Affirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles” on the inside cover of the magazine. To a secular humanist, these principles seem so logical, so right, so crucial. Yet, there is one archetypal political philosophy that is anathema to almost all of these principles. It is fascism. And fascism’s principles are wafting in the air today, surreptitiously masquerading as something else, challenging everything we stand for. The cliché that people and nations learn from history is not only overused, but also overestimated; often we fail to learn from history, or draw the wrong conclusions. Sadly, historical amnesia is the norm.
We are two-and-a-half generations removed from the horrors of Nazi Germany, although constant reminders jog the consciousness. German and Italian fascism form the historical models that define this twisted political worldview. Although they no longer exist, this worldview and the characteristics of these models have been imitated by protofascist1 regimes at various times in the twentieth century. Both the original German and Italian models and the later protofascist regimes show remarkably similar characteristics. Although many scholars question any direct connection among these regimes, few can dispute their visual similarities.
Beyond the visual, even a cursory study of these fascist and protofascist regimes reveals the absolutely striking convergence of their modus operandi. This, of course, is not a revelation to the informed political observer, but it is sometimes useful in the interests of perspective to restate obvious facts and in so doing shed needed light on current circumstances.
For the purpose of this perspective, I will consider the following regimes: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia. To be sure, they constitute a mixed bag of national identities, cultures, developmental levels, and history. But they all followed the fascist or protofascist model in obtaining, expanding, and maintaining power. Further, all these regimes have been overthrown, so a more or less complete picture of their basic characteristics and abuses is possible.
Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity.
1.
Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.
2.
Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.
3.
Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.
4.
The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.
5.
Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.
6.
A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.
7.
Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.
8.
Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.
9.
Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.
10.
Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.
11.
Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.
12.
Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.
13.
Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.
14.
Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.
Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is [Singapore], officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not.
Note
1. Defined as a “political movement or regime tending toward or imitating Fascism”—Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary.
References
Andrews, Kevin. Greece in the Dark. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1980.
Chabod, Frederico. A History of Italian Fascism. London: Weidenfeld, 1963.
Cooper, Marc. Pinochet and Me. New York: Verso, 2001.
Cornwell, John. Hitler as Pope. New York: Viking, 1999.
de Figuerio, Antonio. Portugal—Fifty Years of Dictatorship. New York: Holmes & Meier, 1976.
Eatwell, Roger. Fascism, A History. New York: Penguin, 1995.
Fest, Joachim C. The Face of the Third Reich. New York: Pantheon, 1970.
Gallo, Max. Mussolini’s Italy. New York: MacMillan, 1973.
Kershaw, Ian. Hitler (two volumes). New York: Norton, 1999.
Laqueur, Walter. Fascism, Past, Present, and Future. New York: Oxford, 1996.
Papandreau, Andreas. Democracy at Gunpoint. New York: Penguin Books, 1971.
Phillips, Peter. Censored 2001: 25 Years of Censored News. New York: Seven Stories. 2001.
Sharp, M.E. Indonesia Beyond Suharto. Armonk, 1999.
Verdugo, Patricia. Chile, Pinochet, and the Caravan of Death. Coral Gables, Florida: North-South Center Press, 2001.
Yglesias, Jose. The Franco Years. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1977.
3 Dec 2004
Singapore's Good Deed
Singapore will give $29m more to poorer neighbours
(Think Centre)
01 December 2004 by Tan Khim Chuan
Check out the headlines on (Nov 30,2004) ST [Straits Times]. "Singapore will give $29m more to poorer neighbours Aid to help Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar and Vietnam towards economic integration"
"...SINGAPORE will be giving additional technical aid worth $28.9 million to the four poorest countries in Asean over three years. The assistance is an extension of its current five-year $59 million aid package to Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam, which began in 2000..."
Our government is so ready to contribute to the well-being of our neighbours but I felt the money could be given to improve the living conditions of our poorer citizens here instead. For example, I still see elderly folks scouring trash bins for and rubbish areas for cardboard, just to sell all these for a measly sum.
These people have contributed to nation building but sadly, elderly folks, especially those who remain unmarried or are widowed, are, in my point of view, not being taken care of by the country.
Tan Khim Chuan
News.Telegraph
Before you read the following article I would like to remind you of the salary of the Ministers in Singapore:
1. Singapore Prime Minister's Basic Salary US$1,100,000 (SGD1,958,000) a year
Minister's Basic: US$655,530 to US$819,124 (SGD1,166,844 to SGD1,458,040) a year
2. United States of America President: US$200,000 Vice President: US$181,400
Cabinet Secretaries: US$157,000
3. United Kingdom Prime Minister: US$170,556 Ministers: US$146,299 Senior Civil
Servants: US$262,438
4. Australia Prime Minister: US$137,060 Deputy Prime Minister: US$111,439
Treasurer: US$102,682
5. Hong Kong Chief Executive : US$416,615 Top Civil Servant: US$278,538
Financial Sec: US$315,077
Source: Asian Wall Street Journal July 10 2000
By Sebastien Berger, South East Asia Correspondent
(Filed: 10/11/2004)
Older people should work longer for less money, Singapore's ageing population has been told.
The official retirement age in the city-state is 62, but Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore's founding father, said he was working on a scheme to allow workers to remain in employment. However, because their strength and energy would be less, the pay would be lower.
Mr Lee, 81, still sits in the cabinet, with the title of minister mentor, and retains huge influence in the government, which is headed by his son, Lee Hsien Loong.
"I've been lucky," he said. "My father lived to 90-plus and I don't abuse my body unnecessarily. So if I had to retire at 62, it's a dead loss."
Singapore's birth rate is at an all-time low. On current trends, the number of over-65s will quadruple by 2030, threatening the economy.
Mr Lee pointed out that medical costs, which must be met by individuals or through insurance, rise with age and working for longer would allow people to build up more savings.
End of Article.
Mr Lee says "I've been lucky,", yeah right! That's one way of saying it.
(Think Centre)
01 December 2004 by Tan Khim Chuan
Check out the headlines on (Nov 30,2004) ST [Straits Times]. "Singapore will give $29m more to poorer neighbours Aid to help Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar and Vietnam towards economic integration"
"...SINGAPORE will be giving additional technical aid worth $28.9 million to the four poorest countries in Asean over three years. The assistance is an extension of its current five-year $59 million aid package to Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam, which began in 2000..."
Our government is so ready to contribute to the well-being of our neighbours but I felt the money could be given to improve the living conditions of our poorer citizens here instead. For example, I still see elderly folks scouring trash bins for and rubbish areas for cardboard, just to sell all these for a measly sum.
These people have contributed to nation building but sadly, elderly folks, especially those who remain unmarried or are widowed, are, in my point of view, not being taken care of by the country.
Tan Khim Chuan
News.Telegraph
Before you read the following article I would like to remind you of the salary of the Ministers in Singapore:
1. Singapore Prime Minister's Basic Salary US$1,100,000 (SGD1,958,000) a year
Minister's Basic: US$655,530 to US$819,124 (SGD1,166,844 to SGD1,458,040) a year
2. United States of America President: US$200,000 Vice President: US$181,400
Cabinet Secretaries: US$157,000
3. United Kingdom Prime Minister: US$170,556 Ministers: US$146,299 Senior Civil
Servants: US$262,438
4. Australia Prime Minister: US$137,060 Deputy Prime Minister: US$111,439
Treasurer: US$102,682
5. Hong Kong Chief Executive : US$416,615 Top Civil Servant: US$278,538
Financial Sec: US$315,077
Source: Asian Wall Street Journal July 10 2000
By Sebastien Berger, South East Asia Correspondent
(Filed: 10/11/2004)
Older people should work longer for less money, Singapore's ageing population has been told.
The official retirement age in the city-state is 62, but Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore's founding father, said he was working on a scheme to allow workers to remain in employment. However, because their strength and energy would be less, the pay would be lower.
Mr Lee, 81, still sits in the cabinet, with the title of minister mentor, and retains huge influence in the government, which is headed by his son, Lee Hsien Loong.
"I've been lucky," he said. "My father lived to 90-plus and I don't abuse my body unnecessarily. So if I had to retire at 62, it's a dead loss."
Singapore's birth rate is at an all-time low. On current trends, the number of over-65s will quadruple by 2030, threatening the economy.
Mr Lee pointed out that medical costs, which must be met by individuals or through insurance, rise with age and working for longer would allow people to build up more savings.
End of Article.
Mr Lee says "I've been lucky,", yeah right! That's one way of saying it.
Don't Mention the National Service
Paying to gain Singaporean residency has hit the headlines recently and I have read a few of the articles in the international press. They all mention the new scheme and the fact that the children of these wealthy lot can also gain residency. However there has been one glaring omission from all the reports. Will the very wealthy offspring have to do NATIONAL SERVICE... Ooops!, Suddenly Singapore no longer looks so great to the wealthy foreign investor. Mind you they would probably gain 'White Horse' status, to ensure that they are treated the same as all the other Service men...
Singapore using residency bait to lure rich foreigners
12-01-2004, 07h18
Roslan Rahman - (AFP/File)
SINGAPORE (AFP) - Rich foreigners can gain immediate permanent residency in Singapore if they park five million Singapore dollars (three million dollars) in local financial institutions, under a new scheme unveiled by the city-state's central bank.
A Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) spokesman said Wednesday these foreigners must also have personal assets worth at least 20 million dollars to qualify but they will still go through routine immigration checks.
Spouses and children aged under 21 will also be able to become permanent residents, the spokesman said.
In announcing the "Best Home" scheme in a speech Tuesday, MAS chairman Goh Chok Tong said it was aimed at attracting wealthy foreigners to the southeast Asian nation as part of plans to expand its financial services activities.
"We hope this will boost total assets under management and attract high net worth individuals and their families to take up residency here," Goh, a former Singapore prime minister, said.
The MAS spokesman, who asked not to be named, said foreigners would be required to invest five million dollars with MAS-registered financial institutions for five consecutive years.
The investments on offer include bank deposits, shares, funds, unit trusts and life insurance products.
He added that these foreigners would receive "in-principle approval" for permanent residency on investing the money, with full status granted after five years.
Less affluent applicants for permanent residency have to follow more stringent criteria, which generally include working in Singapore for least six months, having a valid employment pass and meeting academic standards.
Another scheme allows people to apply for permanent residency if they invest 1.5 million dollars in a local business.
Permanent residency allows foreigners to live and work in Singapore without a visa, and remain in the country even if they do not have a job.
Singapore using residency bait to lure rich foreigners
12-01-2004, 07h18
Roslan Rahman - (AFP/File)
SINGAPORE (AFP) - Rich foreigners can gain immediate permanent residency in Singapore if they park five million Singapore dollars (three million dollars) in local financial institutions, under a new scheme unveiled by the city-state's central bank.
A Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) spokesman said Wednesday these foreigners must also have personal assets worth at least 20 million dollars to qualify but they will still go through routine immigration checks.
Spouses and children aged under 21 will also be able to become permanent residents, the spokesman said.
In announcing the "Best Home" scheme in a speech Tuesday, MAS chairman Goh Chok Tong said it was aimed at attracting wealthy foreigners to the southeast Asian nation as part of plans to expand its financial services activities.
"We hope this will boost total assets under management and attract high net worth individuals and their families to take up residency here," Goh, a former Singapore prime minister, said.
The MAS spokesman, who asked not to be named, said foreigners would be required to invest five million dollars with MAS-registered financial institutions for five consecutive years.
The investments on offer include bank deposits, shares, funds, unit trusts and life insurance products.
He added that these foreigners would receive "in-principle approval" for permanent residency on investing the money, with full status granted after five years.
Less affluent applicants for permanent residency have to follow more stringent criteria, which generally include working in Singapore for least six months, having a valid employment pass and meeting academic standards.
Another scheme allows people to apply for permanent residency if they invest 1.5 million dollars in a local business.
Permanent residency allows foreigners to live and work in Singapore without a visa, and remain in the country even if they do not have a job.
30 Nov 2004
Singapore Aims for More Babies, Immigration
Mon Nov 29, 2004 09:49 AM ET
By Jason Szep
SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Singapore, facing a record-low birth rate and an aging workforce, is aiming for a 40 percent rise in the number of babies born a year following new pro-fertility steps designed to rekindle the embers of romance.
Singapore's government was also looking at other ways to expand its population, including increasing its foreign workers, said Junior Finance Minister Lim Hwee Hua, a member of the government's "Working Committee on Population."
Singapore is grappling with one of Asia's lowest birth rates, with the number of babies born each year well below the 2.1 per woman needed to replenish its population.
In an interview with Reuters, Lim said Singapore needed more babies and more foreign workers to counter a rapidly aging workforce and to fill jobs in service industries that will lead Singapore in a new era of competition from China and India.
"We do need a critical mass," she said.
The size of that mass is a source of speculation.
Dianel Lian, Southeast Asian economist at Morgan Stanley, said in a recent report that Singapore may be on the cusp of a monumental policy shift that could lead to a doubling in its current population of 4.2 million over the long term.
Its about to get damn crowded in Singapore...
The actual figure from Morgan Stanley is quoted below along with a link to the actual article.
The following is the introduction to an article from Morgan Stanley written by Daniel Lian on September 10, 2004. It is of course not a public government backed announcement just their speculation of the future population size, is it possible and what effect might it have on the market.... However if it in any way relates to the future population size then its going to get damn crowded.
For the rest of the article read...
Demographic and Labor Force Snapshots
The following are links to two of my previous posts on the birth rate in Singapore.
Birth Rate
The Battle of Sexuality
By Jason Szep
SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Singapore, facing a record-low birth rate and an aging workforce, is aiming for a 40 percent rise in the number of babies born a year following new pro-fertility steps designed to rekindle the embers of romance.
Singapore's government was also looking at other ways to expand its population, including increasing its foreign workers, said Junior Finance Minister Lim Hwee Hua, a member of the government's "Working Committee on Population."
Singapore is grappling with one of Asia's lowest birth rates, with the number of babies born each year well below the 2.1 per woman needed to replenish its population.
In an interview with Reuters, Lim said Singapore needed more babies and more foreign workers to counter a rapidly aging workforce and to fill jobs in service industries that will lead Singapore in a new era of competition from China and India.
"We do need a critical mass," she said.
The size of that mass is a source of speculation.
Dianel Lian, Southeast Asian economist at Morgan Stanley, said in a recent report that Singapore may be on the cusp of a monumental policy shift that could lead to a doubling in its current population of 4.2 million over the long term.
Its about to get damn crowded in Singapore...
The actual figure from Morgan Stanley is quoted below along with a link to the actual article.
The following is the introduction to an article from Morgan Stanley written by Daniel Lian on September 10, 2004. It is of course not a public government backed announcement just their speculation of the future population size, is it possible and what effect might it have on the market.... However if it in any way relates to the future population size then its going to get damn crowded.
A Bigger Singapore?
A Monumental Population Policy Shift?
On September 3, the Singapore government announced measures to broaden immigration criteria, so as to boost its population. The key criteria shift appears to be on academic qualifications and social integration. The previous emphasis on tertiary or professional qualifications is now balanced by essential/appropriate job skills needed by the Singapore economy, as well as the ability of the immigrants and their families to integrate successfully into Singapore's society. Prior to the shift, Singapore had always preferred to take in well educated (or wealthy, in some cases)
foreigners, so as to enlarge its pool of highly skilled labour.
The announced new measures do not seem to be drastic at first glance. However, we believe Singapore can leverage a much bigger population to help it 'sharpen' its three-pronged economic strategy. While we are not privy to any policy insight, we believe it is quite possible that the country will contemplate a monumental shift in its population policy - one that would substantially increase its population from the present 4 million to perhaps 6 to 8 million over the long term.
For the rest of the article read...
Demographic and Labor Force Snapshots
The following are links to two of my previous posts on the birth rate in Singapore.
Birth Rate
The Battle of Sexuality
26 Nov 2004
Singapore's Jeyaretnam says career in politics likely over
The Star online
SINGAPORE (AP) - Veteran opposition figure Joshua "J.B.'' Jeyaretnam said Friday his political career is likely over after an appeal's court in Singapore ruled he is bankrupt, a decision that bars him from parliament.
"I have not received the justice that I had a right to expect from the court,'' he told The Associated Press.
Jeyaretnam - a thorn in the flesh of the long-ruling People's Action Party - has for years been embroiled in a thicket of libel and defamation lawsuits, many brought by PAP stalwarts.
The former head of the Workers' Party was declared bankrupt in January 2001 after missing a single payment from a 500,000 Singapore dollars (US$290,000; euro220,000) libel lawsuit filed by PAP members.
Singapore law bars people declared bankrupt from standing for elected office.
Earlier this year, Jeyaretnam twice tried and failed to get the city-state's lower courts to set aside the bankruptcy ruling.
The moves were opposed by many of his creditors, including former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong.
Jeyaretnam said Friday he can't run for office again unless "someone gives me the money to pay off the entire sum.''
The PAP was founded by Lee Kuan Yew - Singapore's founding father and Jeyaretnam's longtime political foe.
It has won every election in the city-state since independence in 1965.
Jeyaretnam won a hotly disputed by-election in 1981 as the only opposition member in parliament. - AP
If Jeyaretnam goes it further undermines the PAP's claims that there is a place for opposition parties in Singapore. Surely the grossly overpaid ministers could band together and pay off this debt. If they don't then they have simply undermined any credible claim to being democratic, by the over zealous use of the independent judiciary system in Singapore.
Well done ministers, in the eyes of democracy watchers around the world you have just shot yourself in the foot.
SINGAPORE (AP) - Veteran opposition figure Joshua "J.B.'' Jeyaretnam said Friday his political career is likely over after an appeal's court in Singapore ruled he is bankrupt, a decision that bars him from parliament.
"I have not received the justice that I had a right to expect from the court,'' he told The Associated Press.
Jeyaretnam - a thorn in the flesh of the long-ruling People's Action Party - has for years been embroiled in a thicket of libel and defamation lawsuits, many brought by PAP stalwarts.
The former head of the Workers' Party was declared bankrupt in January 2001 after missing a single payment from a 500,000 Singapore dollars (US$290,000; euro220,000) libel lawsuit filed by PAP members.
Singapore law bars people declared bankrupt from standing for elected office.
Earlier this year, Jeyaretnam twice tried and failed to get the city-state's lower courts to set aside the bankruptcy ruling.
The moves were opposed by many of his creditors, including former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong.
Jeyaretnam said Friday he can't run for office again unless "someone gives me the money to pay off the entire sum.''
The PAP was founded by Lee Kuan Yew - Singapore's founding father and Jeyaretnam's longtime political foe.
It has won every election in the city-state since independence in 1965.
Jeyaretnam won a hotly disputed by-election in 1981 as the only opposition member in parliament. - AP
If Jeyaretnam goes it further undermines the PAP's claims that there is a place for opposition parties in Singapore. Surely the grossly overpaid ministers could band together and pay off this debt. If they don't then they have simply undermined any credible claim to being democratic, by the over zealous use of the independent judiciary system in Singapore.
Well done ministers, in the eyes of democracy watchers around the world you have just shot yourself in the foot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)