Ladies and Gentlemen,
Singapore's state owned and controlled newspaper the Straits Times online edition of June 1, 2010 has the story "Remember your obligations". He was speaking to graduating High School students, telling them to remember their obligations to society by either joining the one party dictatorship's Government Service Sector or do charity work.
By this, he was implying that as the state has given them an education, it was only just for them to repay the community.
But really is this all correct? Has his father, Lee Kuan Yew really done something good for these students, or has he in fact damaged their minds by turning them into cowardly servile robots, only capable of blindly following Lee Kuan Yew's orders?
Education, we would all agree is meant to open the minds of students, enabling them to think openly and fearlessly for what is right and the courage to execute it. But if this was in fact what education was meant to be, these students have not been educated at all; they have been brainwashed into submission and complete obedience to authority. Singapore has in fact damaged their minds, resulting in fact in their being handicapped in any other society other than Singapore.
The Singapore government has caused these students by years of indoctrination to become consumed in fear, unable to think openly and act upon their ideas. For instance, every single one of these High School students is fully aware that in Singapore there is no freedom of speech, no human rights whatsoever. Had these students been in any other country, they would have protested against this denial of rights a long time ago, and held nationwide protests to demand them.
Yet, these Singapore students have no courage to do any of that, thanks to Lee Kuan Yew style education which has turned every single one of these people into literally robots, only capable of obeying orders but incapable of having any opinions about anything.
If these students are aware of how much Lee Kuan Yew and his son have damaged their minds, they would would be so enraged as to tell both father and son to stop this immediately. But no, these students did not have anything to say. As expected of Lee Kuan Yew's students, they knew no better, quietly listened to the son's speech and went home to their HDB government apartments, to another day of the same old boring, submissive, uncomplaining existence.
No, these students did not have an education. What they have had in Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore is a brainwashing.
Those whose minds have been damaged beyond redemption, will perhaps stay behind and join Lee Kuan Yew's government service as his son desires. Others who are still able to realise the harm that is being done to them, would in all probability pack up and leave Singapore permanently.
Tan Kin Lian: SDP's alternative economic vision sensible
-
Tan Kin Lian: SDP's alternative economic vision sensible
MONDAY, 14 JUNE 2010 Singapore Democrats 
Former NTUC Income CEO and financial analyst, Mr Tan Kin Lian, has come out in support of the Singapore Democrats' economic proposal. Mr Tan says that he finds the alternative programme "to be quite sensible".
Mr Tan writes his own blog and, in one of his posts, he highlighted the high cost of living in Singapore, widening wage gap, and stagnant incomes as problem areas in the current state of our economy. "What is the alternative?" he asked and pointed to the SDP's programme.
Mr Tan came into prominence in the local scene when he championed the cause of investors who were hit by the toxic mini-bonds saga in 2008. He organised weekly meetings at the Speakers' Corner which attracted hundreds of participants.
Mr Tan is of the view that Singapore needs an egalitarian economic system. This is also the Democrats' position. Singapore must work towards an economy where everyone benefits. At present we have the PAP's unsustainable elitist system where the super rich keep on getting richer at the expense of the rest of society.
The key elements of the SDP's programme are:
- changing the way we measure economic growth by using other indices of well-being of the people rather than just relying on the GDP. A high GDP figure does not indicate how the poorer segments of society benefit, if at all, from the growth. The SDP proposes using the Genuine Progress Index instead of, or in conjunction with, the GDP.
- narrowing the income divide by introducing minimum wage legislation, implementing a retrenchment entitlement policy, and increasing spending for social programmes especially those helping the needy and elderly. These policies provide a safety net for those who fall through the economic crack. They also give people greater spending power which ultimately benefits the economy.
- moving away from being overly dependent on multinational corporations (MNCs) and start to cultivate homegrown entrepreneurs. To achieve this we also need to dismantle our Government-linked companies (GLCs) which are monopolising the domestic commercial sector. Our dependence on MNCs and GLCs is a main reason why the income gap is so wide.
The PAP often accuses the opposition of not being able to offer Singaporeans a viable alternative. This is completely untrue. The Singapore Democrats have been and will always be a party that is constructive and offers solutions for our nation's problems.
This elections the SDP will focus on our economic platform which is workable, realistic and necessary for our country. For a complete account of the our proposal, please click here.http://yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/3804-tan-kin-lian-sdps-alternative-economic-vision-sensible-
-
narrowing the income divide by introducing minimum wage legislation, implementing a retrenchment entitlement policy, and increasing spending for social programmes especially those helping the needy and elderly. These policies provide a safety net for those who fall through the economic crack. They also give people greater spending power which ultimately benefits the economy
So how long is the retrenchment entitlement be valid for? 1 mth, 6 mths, 1 yr, 5 yrs? Then where's e $$ going to come from? Slowly draining out e reserves to bankruptcy?
Money is not easy to be saved into reserves yet it's so easy to be drained off overnight. Many ppl failed to realise how we came from
. It took 25 yrs to get e amt.As for the MNCs... It's doing more harm as w/o them we would not have survived. Having said tat, it's a double engine propelled drive to develop local brands into big international players at e same time.
-
and to think abt it.
If other countries were to be more proactive in attracting e MNCs back then, with our small industries how are we going to survive by creating jobs?
If they'd went elsewhere would we be here ranting abt e income gap issues to begin w/?
-
We have had MNCs all these years, have we gotten our own "acer"? I agree that we should seriously follow taiwan and korea's example.
Of course, I would also agree that SDP's blueprint is on the surface. Talk is easy.
-
say so much no use lah !
as long as LKY and co are in power , nothing will change for the better for the common folk !
we've gone back to the ancient feudal lords and serfs system long ago !
-
Originally posted by Rock^Star:
We have had MNCs all these years, have we gotten our own "acer"? I agree that we should seriously follow taiwan and korea's example.
Of course, I would also agree that SDP's blueprint is on the surface. Talk is easy.
We could have done it eons ago, but e govt was all out to get all e top students into govt service. No one to drive e pte sector.Having said that, does not mean we do not need talents into e govt service as well. A stable, decisive, flexible govt is needed.
-
i think SDP claims are on "overemphasizing" than being dogmatic about taking an extreme route towards driving all foreigns out or taking all reserves ....but somewhat finding balance in between the economic scale...
a genuine concern should be on the socio-psychological impacts of individuals...esp where people suffer at the lower ends without much help or notice from the system...to work out a viable option(s) to help these people and to find ways to motivate/ stimulate the underachievers...
the current socio-economic scale is tipped much greater towards elitism and at the same time hopes to achieve our understanding that only the fittest will be rewarded....something and somewhere is wrong...
pushing beyond the productivity frontier is one thing....but change is best changed from inside out i.e. bottom up approach than top-down....that would pave the way towards a sustainable socio-economical development....
-
Originally posted by Fcukpap:
i think SDP claims are on "overemphasizing" than being dogmatic about taking an extreme route towards driving all foreigns out or taking all reserves ....but somewhat finding balance in between the economic scale...
a genuine concern should be on the socio-psychological impacts of individuals...esp where people suffer at the lower ends without much help or notice from the system...to work out a viable option(s) to help these people and to find ways to motivate/ stimulate the underachievers...
the current socio-economic scale is tipped much greater towards elitism and at the same time hopes to achieve our understanding that only the fittest will be rewarded....something and somewhere is wrong...
pushing beyond the productivity frontier is one thing....but change is best changed from inside out i.e. bottom up approach than top-down....that would pave the way towards a sustainable socio-economical development....
productivity ought to increase wages (e push factor to get ppl to improve workflow or use technology to help).
In some sense lesser jobs would be created but that means investment flow by investors has to keep on steady coming in.
-
push but also pull factors (a balanced approach through greater social understanding to motivate greater inputs from the labour force)...
-
It's interesting.....take for eg indonesia. Their chinese were as poor as us back in the 50s and 60s. Then sukarno and suharto restricted the chinese, gave all the top scholarships to the locals, forbid them to work in the public sector etc. So what they did? They started their own businesses and today, the chinese make up less than 5% of the population but control three quarters of the economy. Had all these chinese entrepreneurs been in singapore, would they have made it? I think not given that those in the civil service are all book smart people. Well, this is not denying we have talents in there too but I feel that this civil service scholarship system is very similar to imperial china. I think that's pretty outdated stuff.
-
Originally posted by Rock^Star:
It's interesting.....take for eg indonesia. Their chinese were as poor as us back in the 50s and 60s. Then sukarno and suharto restricted the chinese, gave all the top scholarships to the locals, forbid them to work in the public sector etc. So what they did? They started their own businesses and today, the chinese make up less than 5% of the population but control three quarters of the economy. Had all these chinese entrepreneurs been in singapore, would they have made it? I think not given that those in the civil service are all book smart people. Well, this is not denying we have talents in there too but I feel that this civil service scholarship system is very similar to imperial china. I think that's pretty outdated stuff.
like it or not, e situation back then was too harsh. -
moving away from being overly dependent on multinational corporations (MNCs) and start to cultivate homegrown entrepreneurs.
To achieve this we also need to dismantle our Government-linked companies (GLCs) which are monopolising the domestic commercial sector.
Our dependence on MNCs and GLCs is a main reason why the income gap is so wide.
I agree.
-
Originally posted by Asromanista2001:
say so much no use lah !
as long as LKY and co are in power , nothing will change for the better for the common folk !
As long as PAP is in power, Singaporeans will never have political freedom.
creativity, cultural vitality, innovative spirit, intellectual life will forever be stifled.
-
Originally posted by Vote PAP OUT to Save SG:
I agree.
We chase them out, they go elsewhere and compete w/ you for talents by pulling Singaporeans to tat side w/ them.things aren't tat simple on surface - there are more complications to come.
-
Originally posted by sbst275:
We chase them out, they go elsewhere and compete w/ you for talents by pulling Singaporeans to tat side w/ them.I don't agree with this kiasee approach. That is why Singapore can never improve.
It is due to PAP.
Fuck the PAP for cultivating the kiasu kiasee mentality in Singaporeans.
The worst thing is that they stifled the chinese entrepreneurial spirit.
Chinese all over the world are famous for business acumen, except Singapore.
All of these is all due to PAP.
-
Originally posted by Vote PAP OUT to Save SG:
I don't agree with this kiasee approach. That is why Singapore can never improve.
It is due to PAP.
Fuck the PAP for cultivating the kiasu kiasee mentality in Singaporeans.
go on and whack e PAP..instead of trying to attract as many opportunities as far as possible, you want to protect so as to create more local industries. end up you still competition from others.
tat's why I'm rather on for double propelled by attracting MNCs and developing local companies to get them on global stage.
-
Originally posted by Vote PAP OUT to Save SG:
I don't agree with this kiasee approach. That is why Singapore can never improve.
It is due to PAP.
Fuck the PAP for cultivating the kiasu kiasee mentality in Singaporeans.
The worst thing is that they stifled the chinese entrepreneurial spirit.
Chinese all over the world are famous for business acumen, except Singapore.
No -- We got the Creative Labs
Oh well, given your nick, you will say such biased things, and that will never equate me to PAP-ist.
-
I think we need an alternative credible opposition man...if this goes on...SG will be worse off....low birth rate...high cost of living....people cannot think except 5C....how to build a national identity like this?
-
Originally posted by Samuel Lee:
Oh well, given your nick, you will say such biased things, and that will never equate me to PAP-ist.
I don't think it is biased. PAP policies and their organisation of society stifled creativity, innovation and chinese entrepreneurial spirit.
This is true.
It's not biased.
Autocratic societies like ours are not creative, innovative societies.
Basically, societies where people are living in fear of the state are not innovative societies.
Moreover, Communism, on the winning side of the war, nonetheless showed that it, like any authoritarian system, failed to produce innovations, flexibility, and freedom; it could make extensive industrial advances only by copying freer peoples, and could not raise its standards of living substantially because it could not combine lack of freedom and force in political life and in the utilization of economic resources with the increased production of food and spiritual or intellectual freedom which were the chief desires of its own peoples.
-
honestly, even if this model is sensible, who is there to implement it?
singapore is not like bhutan. unless you brainwash everyone to give up material well-being, those who's financially advantaged will not accept it.
-
Originally posted by Vote PAP OUT to Save SG:
I don't think it is biased. PAP policies and their organisation of society stifled creativity, innovation and chinese entrepreneurial spirit.
This is true.
It's not biased.
Autocratic societies like ours are not creative, innovative societies.
Basically, societies where people are living in fear of the state are not innovative societies.
I agree they stifled the creativity and innovation such that the security staffs are known to create inconvience and unflexible even in times of need.
Well, it has nothing to do with chinese or malay for entrpreneurial spirit, as in every races also got their own businessman. And that is somewhat linked to creativity / innovation.
-
Originally posted by Catknight:
I think we need an alternative credible opposition man...if this goes on...SG will be worse off....low birth rate...high cost of living....people cannot think except 5C....how to build a national identity like this?
They use english as dominant language is a fatal move towards nation building already.
use alien language as dominant language, only an anglo dog like Lee Kuan Yew would come up with this type of rubbish.
He is shameless enough to try to say that no one benefit from english as dominant language as it is a "neutral" language.
he himself, a peranakan all speak english as first language in order to serve the british colonialists.
You got to give it to lee kuan yew for being able to tell big lies.
He doesn't tell small lies.
he tells big big lies.
-
Maybe SG will end up as an unofficial SAR like HK
-
Originally posted by Vote PAP OUT to Save SG:
They use english as dominant language is a fatal move towards nation building already.
use alien language as dominant language, only an anglo dog like Lee Kuan Yew would come up with this type of rubbish.
He is shameless enough to try to say that no one benefit from english as dominant language as it is a "neutral" language.
he himself, a peranakan all speak english as first language in order to serve the british colonialists.
You got to give it to lee kuan yew for being able to tell big lies.
He doesn't tell small lies.
he tells big big lies.
If English was never used, you believe e MNCs would have come here and set up shop easily? Communication to e outside world esp back then the opened up Western world is very important.I think many of e comments you made, if we never went that way you wouldn't be here either
