My question for Ngiam is: "so who did you vote for, if ever?
(05-05-2011, 01:18 AM)WolfT Wrote: [ -> ]I do hope pap lose marine parade grc...
Yes, WolfT san they have waited for 20 yrs without voting......hope that happen on 7 May...United Premas is maintaining Marine Parade GRC, of late they cut a big junk of voters to Aljunied after evaluating the result for 2006 ....and internally they have prepare to take over Potong Pasir (hope dat it will not happen, instead they loss Macpherson)....if Nicole seah won, i will rope in at least 30% of existing and ex town council staff to support the opposition to run the estate...the contract is 3 + 2 yrs..bal 2 yrs more before expiry...sinking fund is healthy, despite they loss half a million on Lehman bros investment.
Desperate last minute calls from PAP.....they have disseminated to most of their govt related companies HR, including NTUC to attend their rally and follow behind the MPs, in return they will be given off-in-lieu...Sh**, misused of public fund...i got proof from HR email to all HOD, tell u they will resort to all dirty tactic to win back every single seat...Why? for the sake of easy money.
T
ime for a change...Vote the opposition...dun allow them suka suka pass laws that favour them.
From a friend, after reading Ngiam Tong Dow's interview..........
__________________________________________________________________
I'm flying back to Singapore tomorrow from Hong Kong. Hubby and I are joined by another Singaporean couple here. And I read in the cyberspace that there are many more overseas Singaporeans (one as far as Boston) who will head to a place where our hearts are. We are coming home for election
Over the last few days, there is a question that keeps ringing in my head --
What is in a vote?
For many, a vote is personal.
For the PAP supporters, it is a time to show our gratitude to a party who has led us well. Some chided Singaporeans for being ungrateful. We should be proud. We should be thankful to the leaders who design a system that make many of us successful. 饮水æ€æºã€‚
For this group, "thinking" of opposition is betrayal. It is uncomfortable - "No, no!" One extreme view I have seen is to proclaim that we should not even have opposition in NCMP (though defies the logic of NCMP?). This is the strongest that I have heard to suggest that anything that smells of non PAP or alternatives immediately should be rejected.
That's what PAP emphasized over and over again - we do well, be contented and don't rock the boat. A friend observed. Singapore election is none other than a national campaign for citizens to show their unequivocal support for the PAP. I think this is apt for these fans.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, is a group of people who are anti-PAP or anti-establishment. As long as it is the opposition party, any Tom, Dick or Harry will do. Again, a vote reduces to a protest. A personal vengeance of many grievances that they have had of PAP. Regardless of whether the ills are entirely due to bad policies. In opposition rallies, they found an avenue to release the suppressed emotions. Every five years, perhaps election becomes an outlet. Arguably even therapeutic?
But I do hope we pause and think of the significance of our vote. Does it not have a purpose larger than a personal gratitude or vengeance?
A friend sent me an interview Straits Times had with Mr Ngiam Tong Dow on Oct 5th 2003. Mr Ngiam is the ex head of civil service and a highly respected former Permanent Secretary. He shared many worries about Singapore's long term survival and the kind of society the next generation will inherit. Reading this strikes a deep fear and concern in me. He was so prophetic. I strongly encourage that you read it if you have not had the chance to. Go google, it is titled "Singapore is bigger than PAP"
7 years ago, he warned of the elitism and arrogance that the civil service is beginning to exhibit
"I suspect we have started to believe in our own propaganda. There is also a particular brand of Singapore elite arrogance creeping in. Some civil servents behave like they have a mandate from the emperor. We think we are little Lee Kuan Yews. There is also a trend of interllectualiation for its sake, which loses a sense of the pragmatic conerns of the larger world."
Today, this phenomenon is even more rampant? Vivian B saddened me with his "$5 for 3 meals and nothing more" stand for the poor. So has Khaw BW who suggested that we should send our parents to JB if we want affordable nursing home. It really pains my heart to see our leaders so out of touch and compassion.
What truly inspires me is his call for a more inclusive approach to politics. He cited the French model of elite administration.
"The very brightest of France all go to university or college. Some emerge Socialists, others Conservative, some work in industries, some work in government. Yet, at the end of the day, when the chips are down, they are all Frenchmen. No member of the French elite will ever think of betraying his country, never. That is the sort of Singapore elite we want. It doesn't mean that all of us must belong to the PAP. That is very imnportant."
There was a time when PAP had all the best people. Today, can we say that we have a government that truly comprises best of the best? And more philosophical - what is best? Our definition of political talent is so over simplistic and narrowly defined. Talents are talents if and only if they have the same partisan view as PAP. Once they switch camp (like Tan JS), they cease to be a talent. PAP wants us to believe that ONLY they can have the best. Because they told us that they have found the solution in the million dollar pay check that no talent can refuse.
Interestingly, this notion is challenged in this election. For the first time, we begin to see mediocrity and "air head" in MIW team. On the other hand, the opposition captured our imagination with some candidates we never once thought could be in the other camp. Scholars, top international corporate lawyer, ex senior servants, many other professionals (psychiatrist, PHD in sociology..)
This is a rude awakening. PAP does NOT have the monopoly of the best talents. The day is gone.
But come May 7th, large majority if not all of the PAP new candidates, many with names we can't even remember - because they are over shadowed in a GRC, will walk into the parliament. On the other hand, we are likely to shut our doors to other more deserving people who may bring much more valuable perspectives.
This cripples the ideology of "Be The Best Leads". Singapore will no longer be a parliament of the best people. Even PAP has admitted that it is increasingly difficult to get good people on their side. If that continues, are we moving towards a parliament with increasing mediocrity?
This scares me. What happens if this is not corrected? Will this be chipping away the foundation of our success? Will this be the beginning of our road down a slippery path?
One idea that is foreign to many Singaporeans - our brainwashed minds never dare think of it before - is that good people may have different political views from PAP. And now, they are willing to step out of their comfort zone to serve. In a new world where challenges facing Singapore will only increase, what is the danger of having a highly calibrated and like minded leadership and shun people with different ideas?
My friends, one way to prevent it is to address how we bring talents into the parliament. Our GRC system today is a highly anti-competitive mechanism that is serving PAP's political needs. No country in the world has this.
Finally, in GE 2011, we have in our hands the hope of realizing the once unthinkable idea of a breakthrough- winning at least a GRC. When this happens, out of a fear of losing big in the future, PAP may be forced to rethink this mechanism.
We need this badly. We need to go back to the system where every single candidate has to claim their rights of their seats via their own merits. More importantly, we have to be comfortable with a multi partisan parliament where the best are recognized for their best regardless of their party loyalties.
Hence, I humbly submit that our vote is more than just personal gratitude or vengeance. It is a vote for a more embracing and divergent society.
And no, it is NOT because we are ungrateful. It is not necessarily because we are anti-PAP. There are other ways of showing gratitude (like sending flowers?). Votes are not rewards for job well done.
We vote because we want the best for Singapore. We love her too much. For some of us, enough to fly home to be part of this new journey.
Indeed, like what Mr Ngiam reminded us - Singapore is larger than PAP.
I truly hope we do not let the sad eventuality of 87-0 happens. That will be a day of darkness in Singapore history.
I really dread to board the plane on Sunday with a heavy heart
Who are the real sinners? The people who refused to support the gods or the gods who threatened those people using the people's money just because they do not want to support the gods?
What gives the gods the right to deny taxpayers who did not support them public funds? Every taxpayer should have their fair share to the pool of taxpayers' money. This sort of bullying will backfire.
I think the days of writing on MNC must be over. There is no chance there. Electronic peripherals and components are razor thin in profit and is easily transportable to elsewhere.
We wanted Swiss Standards in living - measuring in terms of GDP and/or Per Capita Income. I think , we should emulate the Swiss Mentality. They have strong-holds in many products :
1) Precision Machineries
2) Watches / Clocks
3) Food , and Beverages .. Nestle , Chocolates
4) Banks ,
5) Insurance / Re-insurances
6) Building Materials / Home accessories ,
7) Sports Goods , and the list goes on.
So , what do we have : -
1) Building Townships / JTC Type Factories
2) Water - Recycling Water
3) Oil & Gas Platforms / Rigs
4) Ports & Ports Management ( Compete with Li Ka Shing ? )
5) Oil Refineries
6) Drugs Manufacturings ,
7) Educations , ....
What we have ( and we do have ) is kinda cyclical. What we need to produce is Stable stuffs , perhaps , more high end stuffs ,
Any out of the box ideas ?
there is little help in seeding consumer retail companies and letting them succeed.
The out of the box idea is not to depend on Govt top down central strategic planning too much. We need to be a little more entrepreneur - like the Taiwanese, Hong Kongers, and Mainland Chinese.
But I see more and more examples of entrepreneurship in Singapore - just look at the companies in SGX. Although many are not global yet, but most are regional players. It's interesting that most SME are started by Poly, ITE, and school leavers.
We just have to ask ourselves - all things being equal, would we work for MNC or local SME? We need to walk the talk ourselves.
(08-05-2011, 08:21 PM)Kalos_2 Wrote: [ -> ]I think the days of writing on MNC must be over. There is no chance there. Electronic peripherals and components are razor thin in profit and is easily transportable to elsewhere.
We wanted Swiss Standards in living - measuring in terms of GDP and/or Per Capita Income. I think , we should emulate the Swiss Mentality. They have strong-holds in many products :
1) Precision Machineries
2) Watches / Clocks
3) Food , and Beverages .. Nestle , Chocolates
4) Banks ,
5) Insurance / Re-insurances
6) Building Materials / Home accessories ,
7) Sports Goods , and the list goes on.
So , what do we have : -
1) Building Townships / JTC Type Factories
2) Water - Recycling Water
3) Oil & Gas Platforms / Rigs
4) Ports & Ports Management ( Compete with Li Ka Shing ? )
5) Oil Refineries
6) Drugs Manufacturings ,
7) Educations , ....
What we have ( and we do have ) is kinda cyclical. What we need to produce is Stable stuffs , perhaps , more high end stuffs ,
Any out of the box ideas ?
I kind of like one of SDP Tan Jee Say's ideas from his manifesto "ideas for change" of seeding 10,000 budding enterprenuers giving them each $1mil seed capital to support their business ideas for a total of $10 billion. Each of these budding enterprenuers will in turn hire 20-30 local staffs. Assuming a failure rate of 50% that's only $5 billion wasted. But up to 100,000 people could get hired in knowledge based or services related companies, the hope is a small number of from this 10,000 could in time grow to reach international level like facebook or youtube or even like microsoft. and hopefully these would in turn spin off other companies and over a few decades we could have a viable knowledge based industry
(09-05-2011, 12:26 AM)sgd Wrote: [ -> ]I kind of like one of SDP Tan Jee Say's ideas from his manifesto "ideas for change" of seeding 10,000 budding enterprenuers giving them each $1mil seed capital to support their business ideas for a total of $10 billion. Each of these budding enterprenuers will in turn hire 20-30 local staffs. Assuming a failure rate of 50% that's only $5 billion wasted. But up to 100,000 people could get hired in knowledge based or services related companies, the hope is a small number of from this 10,000 could in time grow to reach international level like facebook or youtube or even like microsoft. and hopefully these would in turn spin off other companies and over a few decades we could have a viable knowledge based industry
Failure rate of 50%? I think it is probably in the region of 95%.(Am I too optimistic?)
How many unique business ideas can there be?
The best place to generate knowledged based industry is in university and polys. Facilities and tools are easily available at low cost. For private businesses, any attempt to buy commercial systems and tools to start the business will mean at least 1/4 amount of the $1 million will be used up.
The current way of assessing a good student using exams and projects are outdated. Any student that can create a viable business or technology during the 3-4 years course should automatically be awarded with a 1st class honour degree as long as the student passes all the university modules.