Spotted on a mailing list, I thought I should reproduce this to illustrate how the current minimal "public aid schemes" available is not easy when it comes to applying for them. Even with the available aid schemes, how many of them, if applied, are given out in time? Some of the individual stories reveal only tip of the iceberg of how the poor is faring in Singapore. All those bracketed and in italics are my own inserted comments I have also highlighted certain sections by bolding them.
===
Available online on Asiaone.com website as a free story
May 7, 2007
Help for the poor: So close, yet so far
By Vivi Zainol, For The Straits Times
WHY do needy Singaporeans continue to fall through the cracks despite the Government's array of public aid schemes?
To tackle this question, 18 of my students at Ngee Ann Polytechnic interviewed more than 30 low-income households for a vacation module. They found the biggest bar-riers to be education and language.
Many are illiterate. With little knowledge or understanding of schemes to help them, it's not surprising that some say they know the Government is helping them, but they feel it is not doing enough.
Some would rather get an extra job than ask for help. Others struggle to make themselves understood and say they do not have the time, money or energy to make return trips to their MP or Community Development Councils (CDCs) to ask for more help.
For those who did bother, a common complaint heard by students was that the CDC officers are rude.
Several years ago, as a Straits Times community reporter, I had heard the same comment when I asked a woman with three children, and whose husband was in jail for a drug offence, why she did not ask for help. Describing how her experience with CDCs turned her off, she said a CDC officer had sarcastically asked her: 'Didn't your husband leave you any money?'
'If he had, why would I be asking for help?' said the troubled woman, who had contemplated suicide.
One group of Ngee Ann students decided to observe CDC officers in action after receiving the feedback. At one CDC, officers were unfailingly polite (Only one CDC? what about other CDCs? Perhaps they were not as rude because of the presence of students?) - it was the low-income group which was being demanding and uncooperative. However, all the CDC officers were Chinese - help- seekers speaking Malay and Indian had to struggle to make themselves understood.
At another CDC, student Nurlina Fatima Shafrin, 18, recalled how a CDC officer was heard commenting loudly to another officer nearby on how 'irritating' the people who had come to ask for help were, even when the latter, who were filling up forms, could hear them.
What is interesting to note is that interviews by students uncovered a perception among low-income earners that the higher-educated tend to look down on them and are arrogant. Formally attired CDC officers also unintentionally give the impression that they are less approachable.
Not all CDC officers are trained social workers - there are not enough social workers to go around in Singapore.
Also, some members of the low-income group can be downright prickly, believing they have a right to receive handouts from the state.
But surely everybody deserves good customer service regardless of income group? The poor have their pride too.
Could CDCs perhaps train their staff to understand the sensitivities and psyche of the lower-income group? Steps could also be taken to ensure that staff on duty speak different languages and dialects. Members from the low-income group could even be employed to help.
It's good news indeed to hear that the Government has raised public assistance spending from $96 million to $140 million, and ComCare funding from $43 million to $67 million. (What is the duration for that allocated amount spent? What is the percentage of the assistance that goes to actual assistance? How much of it is dispatched to those who need it, and in time? How much of the public assistance would be offset by the increase in GST?)With that much money allocated to the needy (It appears to be a lot of money but is it enough?)it makes sense to ensure these funds reach the ones who need immediate assistance.
Take Mr Ramasamy Ratran, a 52-year-old Indian man, who was a pitiful sight when my students and I chanced upon him. He was lying on the dusty floor in his rented two-room flat, having been discharged from hospital just two weeks earlier.
Fortunately, a former female neighbour and a male friend had taken it upon themselves to look after Mr Ramasamy, who is epileptic and living on his own. Medical social workers had settled his hospital bills, but he was getting no financial help while he was recuperating and unable to work.
'Can you please help him? He needs help. When I first came two weeks ago, there was no electricity. His flat was in total darkness,' pleaded the former neighbour, who had helped to top up his prepaid utilities smart key to get the electricity back on.
Mr Ramasamy was not the only one my students and I found in need of assistance. When barber Yahya Pinghani, 39, was hospitalised for a kidney problem, he could not work and had no daily income for weeks. His children skipped school that week because there was no money for the bus fare.
Mr Pinghani's wife Murni, 41, complained how, after three weeks, her single friend who had applied for help with her at a CDC had already received assistance while she and her family were still waiting. She revealed that her family owed a whopping $4,000 in utilities bills.
CDCs do give $200 once-off emergency assistance, after which the needy wait six to eight weeks for CDCs to respond. (Six to Eight weeks? Is that how efficient our civil service is?)So what do they do when help is a long time coming? Many see their MPs, getting a $50 cheque for their trouble, or resort to collecting food from voluntary welfare organisations. How many know that they can get immediate assistance from your Citizens Consultative Committee? I did not either, for that matter, till I asked around. (The question in my mind is, how can the CCC help? How immediate can they help and how much. Unfortunately, the writer does not probe enough.)
Perhaps it is time that bulletin boards in HDB flats were put to better use. They could advertise where the poor can get help and give details of the schemes. Many low-income earners are illiterate, but the ones who are not will surely help to spread the word around.
It could also be made mandatory for medical social workers in hospitals to inform social workers or CDCs when a person who is from the low-income group is discharged so they will give him temporary financial assistance during his recovery period.
Last year, the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) set up a community care network for the elderly in Ang Mo Kio. Under this scheme, grassroots leaders are trained by family service centres to identify needy households.(Let's hope the grassroots leaders are not as rude as the CDC officers.)
Perhaps if this outreach scheme is formally extended to include all needy Singaporeans, not just the elderly, it could be used to ensure no one falls through the cracks and to explain the help schemes available to the needy.
MCYS minister Vivian Balakrishnan recently called on Singaporeans to be eyes and ears on the ground, saying 'we need the whole of society' and not 'an army of bureaucratic civil servants', when he outlined $140 million worth of initiatives for the low-income group.
The findings of the 18 Ngee Ann polytechnic students who ventured out of their classroom may not be conclusive, but simple observations like theirs should not be belittled. Like any jigsaw puzzle enthusiast will tell you, even one small piece makes a difference.
The writer is a lecturer at the School of Interdisciplinary Studies at Ngee Ann Polytechnic.
posted by Charles Tan,
to comment
12 May 2007
8 May 2007
Singapore's media ranked 154th
In advance of World Press Freedom Day, on May 3rd, Freedom House has released several critical tools to highlight data from its annual survey of global press freedom, and to help explain the newest findings in their historical context. The current edition of the survey, Freedom of the Press 2007, points to improvements in several countries such as Italy, Nepal, Colombia, and Haiti; however, it shows mixed trends in Africa, as well as a continuation of a longer-term pattern of decline in press freedom in Asia, Latin America, and the former Soviet Union.
Freedom House
04 May 07http://freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=362
Singapore
Status: Not Free
Legal Environment: 24
Political Environment: 24
Economic Environment: 21
Total Score: 69
Media freedom in Singapore is constrained to such a degree that the vast majority of journalists practice self-censorship rather than risk being charged with defamation or breaking the country’s criminal laws on permissible speech.
The Singapore constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression in Article 14, but it also permits restrictions on these rights. Media freedom in Singapore is constrained by the Newspapers and Printing Presses Act, the Defamation Act, and the Internal Security Act, all of which allow authorities to restrict the circulation of news deemed to incite violence, arouse racial or religious tensions, interfere in domestic politics, or threaten public order, national interest or national security.
The government proposed a series of amendments to the Penal Code in 2006 that would cover offenses committed via electronic media. The draft amendments would not only provide jail terms or fines for defamation, “statements that would cause public mischief,” and the “wounding” of racial or religious feeling, they would also make it a crime for anyone outside the country to abet an offense committed inside the country, thereby allowing the authorities to prosecute internet users living abroad. Singaporean students studying overseas are the presumed targets of this amendment.
The Singapore government is quick to sue critics under harsh criminal defamation laws. In May 2006, for example, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his father, First Minister Kee Kuan Yew, filed criminal charges against the publishers of opposition newspaper The New Democrat, which is published several times a year by a committee of the Singapore Democratic Party.
The lawsuit started with an unsigned story that described as “secretive and non-accountable” the ruling party’s handling of a corruption scandal at the National Kidney Foundation.
Foreign media in Singapore are also subject to restrictive laws. In August, after the Far Eastern Economic Review published an interview with opposition party leader Chee Soon Juan, FEER and four other foreign publications were advised that they needed to post bonds and appoint legal representatives in order to continue to operate in Singapore. When FEER did not comply, its circulation permit was revoked, thereby effectively banning the publication. Meanwhile, on September 14, the Prime Minister and his father filed defamation suits against FEER over the article.
Nearly all print and broadcast media outlets, internet service providers, and cable television services are either owned or controlled by the state, or by companies with close ties to the ruling party. Annual licensing requirements for all media outlets, including political and religious web sites, have been used to inhibit criticism of the government.
Approximately two thirds of the population had access to the internet in 2006. Nonetheless, the government restricts internet access and Singapore has zero-tolerance for bloggers who challenge the government in any way. Prior to the May 6 Parliamentary elections, the Communications and Arts Minister warned bloggers and website managers that they do not have the right to back a particular candidate’s program or to express opinions on political issues. These same rules were applied to other new media, including podcasting and videocasting.
On April 26, the opposition Singapore Democratic Party was ordered to withdraw a podcast from its website. In June, popular blogger Lee Kin Mun (aka “Mr Brown”) was informed by state-owned Today newspaper that his weekly column, which had satirized the high cost of living, would be suspended. On November 6, a judge ordered Yap Keng Ho, a member of the opposition, to remove from his blog a video of himself speaking in public during the general elections.
Source
150
Cote d'Ivoire 68 NF
Malaysia 68 NF
Maldives 68 NF
United Arab Emirates 68 NF
154
Afghanistan 69 NF
Djibouti 69 NF
Gabon 69 NF
Singapore 69 NF
158 Iraq 70 NF
159 Bahrain 71 NF
Oman 71 NF
161 Chad 74 NF
Togo 74 NF
Venezuela 74 NF
to comment
Facts & Figures on The New Immigrants from The Sunday Times
Facts & Figures from The Sunday Times, May 6, 2007:
===
Figures for Applications Granted:
2002: Citizenship - 7,600; PRs: 39,500
2003: Citizenship - 6,800; PRs: 32,000
2004: Citizenship - 7,600; PRs: 36,900
2005: Citizenship - 12,900; PRs: 52,300
2006: Citizenship - 13,200; PRs: 57,300
Source: Immigration & Checkpoints Authority
===
Singapore's Population:
1970: 2.07 million with 2.01 million residents (citizens and PRs) and 61,000 foreigners
1980: 2.41 million with 2.28 million residents and 131,000 foreigners
1990: 3.05 million with 2.74 million residents and 311,000 foreigners
2000: 4.03 million with 3.27 million residents and 754,500 foreigners
2006: 4.48 million with 3.6 million residents and 875,00 foreigners
Source: Singapore Department of Statistics
===
Estimated breakdown of Major foreign nationalities in Singapore:
Chinese - 200,000
Indonesian - 150,000
Filipino - 120,000
Indian - 90,000
Bangladeshi - 60,000
Thai - 45,000
Japanese - 26,000
Sri Lankan - 20,000
British - 17,000
American - 15,000
South Korean - 15,000
Australian - 15,000
Myanmarese - 10,000
German - 5,000
French - 4,000
Source: Embassies & High Commissions
===
Between 1990 and 2006, there is an increase of 860,000 citizens and PRs. Of how many are originally born in Singapore? Between 2002 and 2006, applications granted to PR and citizenships is 266,100. Of course the problem of simply adding the citizenship and PRs over the past few years could be erroneous as there may be overlaps- people who applied for PR may go on to apply citizenships.
Questions persist:
1. Is Singapore "bringing in" too many new immigrants?;
2. Can we solve brain drain and birth stagnation problems by "bringing in" foreigners?;
3. What about the newly created jobs? How many of them goes to Singaporeans?
4. How much of the created wealth in the economy goes back to further building the economy of Singapore? How much of it translates into social policies that benefit the Singapore society?
to comment
===
Figures for Applications Granted:
2002: Citizenship - 7,600; PRs: 39,500
2003: Citizenship - 6,800; PRs: 32,000
2004: Citizenship - 7,600; PRs: 36,900
2005: Citizenship - 12,900; PRs: 52,300
2006: Citizenship - 13,200; PRs: 57,300
Source: Immigration & Checkpoints Authority
===
Singapore's Population:
1970: 2.07 million with 2.01 million residents (citizens and PRs) and 61,000 foreigners
1980: 2.41 million with 2.28 million residents and 131,000 foreigners
1990: 3.05 million with 2.74 million residents and 311,000 foreigners
2000: 4.03 million with 3.27 million residents and 754,500 foreigners
2006: 4.48 million with 3.6 million residents and 875,00 foreigners
Source: Singapore Department of Statistics
===
Estimated breakdown of Major foreign nationalities in Singapore:
Chinese - 200,000
Indonesian - 150,000
Filipino - 120,000
Indian - 90,000
Bangladeshi - 60,000
Thai - 45,000
Japanese - 26,000
Sri Lankan - 20,000
British - 17,000
American - 15,000
South Korean - 15,000
Australian - 15,000
Myanmarese - 10,000
German - 5,000
French - 4,000
Source: Embassies & High Commissions
===
Between 1990 and 2006, there is an increase of 860,000 citizens and PRs. Of how many are originally born in Singapore? Between 2002 and 2006, applications granted to PR and citizenships is 266,100. Of course the problem of simply adding the citizenship and PRs over the past few years could be erroneous as there may be overlaps- people who applied for PR may go on to apply citizenships.
Questions persist:
1. Is Singapore "bringing in" too many new immigrants?;
2. Can we solve brain drain and birth stagnation problems by "bringing in" foreigners?;
3. What about the newly created jobs? How many of them goes to Singaporeans?
4. How much of the created wealth in the economy goes back to further building the economy of Singapore? How much of it translates into social policies that benefit the Singapore society?
to comment
Bush is right to be firm on Iraq?
The Sunday Times front page top news screams, "Bush is right to be firm on Iraq: PM Lee"
Not exactly music to the ears considering that George Bush's Newsweek rating poll has hit an all time low of 28 percent, one percentage point lower than his father.
Almost 62 per cent of Americans disapprove of Bush's Iraq war, with only 30 per cent believing that his actions show he is "willing to take political risks" to do what is right, according to the news magazine. Bush scores a rating similar to Jimmy Carter, in 1979, after the Iran hostage crisis.
Should our government endorse what Bush has said or done when Americans have appeared to think otherwise?
What about Singaporean's attitudes towards Bush and the Iraqi invasion in 2003? Would our government's close links to the administration's stance towards the Iraqi war make us a more likely target of terrorist attack?
posted by Charles Tan
to comment
Not exactly music to the ears considering that George Bush's Newsweek rating poll has hit an all time low of 28 percent, one percentage point lower than his father.
Almost 62 per cent of Americans disapprove of Bush's Iraq war, with only 30 per cent believing that his actions show he is "willing to take political risks" to do what is right, according to the news magazine. Bush scores a rating similar to Jimmy Carter, in 1979, after the Iran hostage crisis.
Should our government endorse what Bush has said or done when Americans have appeared to think otherwise?
What about Singaporean's attitudes towards Bush and the Iraqi invasion in 2003? Would our government's close links to the administration's stance towards the Iraqi war make us a more likely target of terrorist attack?
posted by Charles Tan
to comment
3 May 2007
State of the Singapore Blogosphere, May 2007
I think my original rant was that there had yet to be a 'golden age' of the Sg blogosphere, not that there used to be. As for the infants now winning I agree, however I see it in a different light, it is those who argue for 'objectivity, fairness, unbiased and personal accounts' of their lives that are winning. In a regime that prides itself in de-politicisation of the polity then yes there has been a shift towards non-political narratives. But surely this is an acceptance of the Singaporean hegemony, so while the political blogs and aggregator blogs continue to be busy building resistance identities rather than project identities, the Singapore blogosphere is nothing other than a bunch of predominantly middle-class, university educated males constructing a space for self-referential echo chambers - myself included.
By Elia Diodati
Authoritarian, yes. But transparent nonetheless. - Kitana, b.Itter s.Weet sym.Phony, The Final Post, April 17 2007.
Back on April Fools’ Day, I wrote about how the Singapore blogosphere is losing its vitality; now akikonomu, the former high priestess of Ise, has already written its epitaph, an ode to rampaging infants. Even back when I started blogging, there were whispers that things weren’t as good as they used to me. Soci, then Steven McDermott, famously ranted long and hard about the “infantile sub-intelligentsia nonsense” permeating the ether.
But now the infants are winning. The great practitioners of online political discourse have declined into moribund obscurity, or sought out other, more rewarding, pursuits. Singabloodypore itself has degenerated into a post-and-boast groupblog. The old Singapore Angle is busy with his second child (congratulations!), while the new Singapore Angle is trapped in its self-pleasing, obsessive groupthink over academic rigor as applied to things that really don’t deserve such standards. Molly Meek’s feline invective somehow seems less vituperative of current affairs and has taken on the tone of self-indugent mockery, in exasperation over her1 inability to satirize the absurd truth. Even Mr Wang has tired of his self-effusing posts on how stupid the Singapore government can be at times, and has made a subtle shift toward “a new thematic focus” as announced on March 30. And in the past six months there has been a noticeable string of prominent self-imposed rigors mortis: Yuen Chung Kwong (December 1), Gayle Goh (January 28), Kitana (April 13), Zyberzitizen (April 18), and now sieteocho (May 1). Vox Leo, by my measure, has joined the ranks of the officially moribund, having last posted on August 22 2006. En & Hou (of Students’ Sketchpad fame) have yet to make good on their promise to “see you after the ‘A’ levels“. And Kway Teow Man’s personal blog seems to have been abandoned since sometime in March.
Unlike the L’Enfant that built the great architectural masterpieces of Washington DC’s National Mall, the infants now overrunning the Singapore blogosphere are killing it through apathetic karma. Sure, it’s not like the infants are engaging in wanton destruction, but on the rare occasions they leave their self-enraptured bubble of photos, linkwhoring ^o^~~~ posts to various offline friends and their pink Comic Sans CSS stylesheets, they tend to form the incessant, one-dimensional chorus of “cannot lah!”
to continue reading
to comment
By Elia Diodati
Authoritarian, yes. But transparent nonetheless. - Kitana, b.Itter s.Weet sym.Phony, The Final Post, April 17 2007.
Back on April Fools’ Day, I wrote about how the Singapore blogosphere is losing its vitality; now akikonomu, the former high priestess of Ise, has already written its epitaph, an ode to rampaging infants. Even back when I started blogging, there were whispers that things weren’t as good as they used to me. Soci, then Steven McDermott, famously ranted long and hard about the “infantile sub-intelligentsia nonsense” permeating the ether.
But now the infants are winning. The great practitioners of online political discourse have declined into moribund obscurity, or sought out other, more rewarding, pursuits. Singabloodypore itself has degenerated into a post-and-boast groupblog. The old Singapore Angle is busy with his second child (congratulations!), while the new Singapore Angle is trapped in its self-pleasing, obsessive groupthink over academic rigor as applied to things that really don’t deserve such standards. Molly Meek’s feline invective somehow seems less vituperative of current affairs and has taken on the tone of self-indugent mockery, in exasperation over her1 inability to satirize the absurd truth. Even Mr Wang has tired of his self-effusing posts on how stupid the Singapore government can be at times, and has made a subtle shift toward “a new thematic focus” as announced on March 30. And in the past six months there has been a noticeable string of prominent self-imposed rigors mortis: Yuen Chung Kwong (December 1), Gayle Goh (January 28), Kitana (April 13), Zyberzitizen (April 18), and now sieteocho (May 1). Vox Leo, by my measure, has joined the ranks of the officially moribund, having last posted on August 22 2006. En & Hou (of Students’ Sketchpad fame) have yet to make good on their promise to “see you after the ‘A’ levels“. And Kway Teow Man’s personal blog seems to have been abandoned since sometime in March.
Unlike the L’Enfant that built the great architectural masterpieces of Washington DC’s National Mall, the infants now overrunning the Singapore blogosphere are killing it through apathetic karma. Sure, it’s not like the infants are engaging in wanton destruction, but on the rare occasions they leave their self-enraptured bubble of photos, linkwhoring ^o^~~~ posts to various offline friends and their pink Comic Sans CSS stylesheets, they tend to form the incessant, one-dimensional chorus of “cannot lah!”
to continue reading
to comment
2 May 2007
Singapore - The Fake Times
Found the following on sammyboy's forum and it seems to be coming from 'I love my EXTRAORDINARY government'. Contains some bad language, but since when has that stopped you clicking on a link. It also seems to have something to do with the video compilation found on youtube. Looks damn good, and maybe someone should start printing it out and handing it out.
Singapore extraordinary government
Singapore extraordinary government
Singapore - May Day Event @ Hong Lim Park
These are some of the pics taken at the event. Basically, Dr Chee addressed the crowd emphasizing the need for Singaporeans to understand that the current economic situation is unsustainable; and hope that the supporters would take the initiative and be more forthcoming to support the Opposition.
to comment
1 May 2007
Singapore - A Nation Cheated
A Report on Poverty and Labour in Singapore 2007
Without the PAP, Lee Kuan Yew swears, our women folk would end up as domestic help in distant lands. So be thankful. In fact, be more than thankful. Be worshipful that we have national leaders who have brought us riches – and continue to do so.
Bunkum, many of you say. We may be grateful but we don’t have to be talked down to in such a manner even if it is by the Minister Mentor.
Maybe the MM was too blunt, the PAP admits, but at least the citizens are grateful, at least they should be, for all that the party has done for Singapore.
Bunkum, A Nation Cheated says. This latest SDP report written by Dr Chee Soon Juan punctures the propaganda that Singapore is well-served by the PAP.
Available in electronic format, this 72-page Report on poverty and labour in Singapore traces developments over the last 10 years since the Asian crisis in 1997, and provides evidence – hard, irrefutable evidence – that Singapore is ailing from failed PAP policies.
Unlike other emerging markets Singapore does not have an entrepreneurial class that can compete globally, continuing instead to rely on MNCs and inept GLCs. The emergence of a permanent underclass is a result of such an economic arrangement.
Experts, and there have been many of them, have repeatedly warned that without urgent reforms of the political and economic systems, Singapore's economic situation will continue to deteriorate.
To be absolutely sure, the unprecedented level of poverty seen in this country is not the unintended by-product of globalization, as the PAP would have us believe. It is a creation from Lee’s eugenicist views:
"Free education and subsidised housing lead to a situation where the less economically productive people in the community are reproducing themselves at rates higher than the rest. This will increase the total population of less productive people. We must... take the first tentative steps towards correcting a trend which can leave our society with a large number of the physically, intellectually and culturally anaemic."
One of his faithful ministers, the late S Rajaratnam, darkly promised: "We want to teach people the government is not a rich uncle. You get what you pay for. We are moving in the direction of making people pay for everything."
Such attitude has produced a society with individuals like TT Durai with his avarice, Mrs Goh Chok Tong with her "peanuts" comment, Wee Shu Min with her repugnant diatribe against Derek Wee (and her father’s defence of her comments), and Lee Hsien Loong with his petulance that he and his ministers should not be expected to make "unnecessary financial sacrifices."
A Nation Cheated pieces together an unmistakable picture of PAP's failure. It tells the real story of how our enormous reserves have been accumulated through forced savings under the CPF scheme as well as through the sale of HDB flats. The slew of taxes and fees designed to maximise the extraction of funds from the people is another avenue.
More recently, however, economic growth has been sustained from illicit money laundered from foreigners. The explosive influx of migrants has also contributed much to the fattening of state coffers.
The question is: Is this kind of growth sustainable and how much damage is it inflicting on our society?
Perhaps the ultimate indicator of the failure of the PAP is that in the half-a-century of uninterrupted rule, it has failed to create a nation where Singaporeans are proud to be identified with. A 2007 survey of young Singaporeans revealed that more than half wanted to emigrate. A shocking 37 percent said they were not patriotic to this country.
For Singaporeans, this Report is a must read. It informs, it rebukes, it persuades. It is a call for us to awake from our fearful slumber.
For the foreign observer, it is an opportunity to be disabused of the notion that the Singapore Way is a model.
The sin is not in being ignorant, but in choosing to remain so.
So click on 'Buy Now' button below and buy a copy of A Nation Cheated today!
Proceeds from the sales of this report will go towards promoting democracy in Singapore.
Option 1: You can place your order through Paypal, either through your own Paypal account or directly with your credit card if you don't have a Paypal account. (If you are not using Paypal account, please send us an e-mail separately to inform us of your purchase. The report will then be emailed to you.)
Option 2: If you don't have a credit card but still wish to purchase a copy, please email speakup@singaporedemocrat.org.
to comment
Without the PAP, Lee Kuan Yew swears, our women folk would end up as domestic help in distant lands. So be thankful. In fact, be more than thankful. Be worshipful that we have national leaders who have brought us riches – and continue to do so.
Bunkum, many of you say. We may be grateful but we don’t have to be talked down to in such a manner even if it is by the Minister Mentor.
Maybe the MM was too blunt, the PAP admits, but at least the citizens are grateful, at least they should be, for all that the party has done for Singapore.
Bunkum, A Nation Cheated says. This latest SDP report written by Dr Chee Soon Juan punctures the propaganda that Singapore is well-served by the PAP.
Available in electronic format, this 72-page Report on poverty and labour in Singapore traces developments over the last 10 years since the Asian crisis in 1997, and provides evidence – hard, irrefutable evidence – that Singapore is ailing from failed PAP policies.
Unlike other emerging markets Singapore does not have an entrepreneurial class that can compete globally, continuing instead to rely on MNCs and inept GLCs. The emergence of a permanent underclass is a result of such an economic arrangement.
Experts, and there have been many of them, have repeatedly warned that without urgent reforms of the political and economic systems, Singapore's economic situation will continue to deteriorate.
To be absolutely sure, the unprecedented level of poverty seen in this country is not the unintended by-product of globalization, as the PAP would have us believe. It is a creation from Lee’s eugenicist views:
"Free education and subsidised housing lead to a situation where the less economically productive people in the community are reproducing themselves at rates higher than the rest. This will increase the total population of less productive people. We must... take the first tentative steps towards correcting a trend which can leave our society with a large number of the physically, intellectually and culturally anaemic."
One of his faithful ministers, the late S Rajaratnam, darkly promised: "We want to teach people the government is not a rich uncle. You get what you pay for. We are moving in the direction of making people pay for everything."
Such attitude has produced a society with individuals like TT Durai with his avarice, Mrs Goh Chok Tong with her "peanuts" comment, Wee Shu Min with her repugnant diatribe against Derek Wee (and her father’s defence of her comments), and Lee Hsien Loong with his petulance that he and his ministers should not be expected to make "unnecessary financial sacrifices."
A Nation Cheated pieces together an unmistakable picture of PAP's failure. It tells the real story of how our enormous reserves have been accumulated through forced savings under the CPF scheme as well as through the sale of HDB flats. The slew of taxes and fees designed to maximise the extraction of funds from the people is another avenue.
More recently, however, economic growth has been sustained from illicit money laundered from foreigners. The explosive influx of migrants has also contributed much to the fattening of state coffers.
The question is: Is this kind of growth sustainable and how much damage is it inflicting on our society?
Perhaps the ultimate indicator of the failure of the PAP is that in the half-a-century of uninterrupted rule, it has failed to create a nation where Singaporeans are proud to be identified with. A 2007 survey of young Singaporeans revealed that more than half wanted to emigrate. A shocking 37 percent said they were not patriotic to this country.
For Singaporeans, this Report is a must read. It informs, it rebukes, it persuades. It is a call for us to awake from our fearful slumber.
For the foreign observer, it is an opportunity to be disabused of the notion that the Singapore Way is a model.
The sin is not in being ignorant, but in choosing to remain so.
So click on 'Buy Now' button below and buy a copy of A Nation Cheated today!
Proceeds from the sales of this report will go towards promoting democracy in Singapore.
Option 1: You can place your order through Paypal, either through your own Paypal account or directly with your credit card if you don't have a Paypal account. (If you are not using Paypal account, please send us an e-mail separately to inform us of your purchase. The report will then be emailed to you.)
Option 2: If you don't have a credit card but still wish to purchase a copy, please email speakup@singaporedemocrat.org.
to comment
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)