TR EMERITUS

Here we are in 2021 and the PAP continue to not allow a fair living wage for the workers of Singapore. Scratch that. The PAP will not even allow a lousy and inadequate minimum wage for Singapore workers! Reading through their mouthpiece media this morning it appears they would like us to know that Mr Zaqy Mohamad whom is currently the Minister for Manpower had a jolly good idea and wanted to talk about it whilst visiting Jumbo Seafood recently. He reported the less-than-jumbo idea of using the PWM (Progressive Wage Model) and extending it to the food services sector. Firstly may we point out to the PAP that there is nothing progressive about the Progressive Wage Model. There is nothing progressive about paying full-time workers a pittance of a salary that will not afford them even a basic standard of living in the most expensive country in the world. Secondly, to then expand the categorically inadequate PWM into other sectors is quite simply a mixture of madness, meanness and poor economic thinking. Has Mr Zaqy used a PAP type thought-process model to think his idea through? A few more coins for the workers will result in more coins for the customer to pay for food. A very simple equation and one that stands in the forefront of the articles this morning. ‘Customers may have to pay more for their food’ type of statement. Whilst the simplicity of the PAP thought-process is a sight to bewilder, it does disregard the glaringly obvious on many occasions. One of the biggest barriers to fair and thriving business in Singapore is the situation that we have become and continue to remain a rentier society. A nation of corporate landowners whom benefit from a government which puts the interests of Big Corp above the individual citizen in many areas. It is time we tackle the rentier society that is burdening and dampening the progressive heights we could be reaching if we allowed our small and micro businesses a chance to flourish. PV works with many business owners and it is evident that rental costs are inhibiting our local home-grown entrepreneurs and innovators. The PAP do not care if we have to pay more for our chicken rice or local dishes. Costs went up when they raised the water prices 30%, costs will go up when their super-jumbo idea of higher GST comes into play, and they will not care if we pay more because of their PWM idea for food sector workers. Can we see what they care about via the method of observing what they refuse to change or alter, or even bring up for discussion at such visits like Mr Zaqy at Jumbo Seafood? They omit discussion about a rentier society, they omit discussion about protecting Big Corp, they omit discussion about the impact of a living wage on industries they may or may not be interested in. PAP is clearly a government for the rich and powerful. It would be hard for a group like that to effectively and understandingly make a better life for the average workers who keep Singapore running. Workers that need to raise their families and live their lives in the most expensive country on the planet. Just in case you missed the point, PV demands a Living Wage for ALL workers in ALL sectors in Singapore. We also demand the removal of the GST system and to be replaced with a Luxury Tax which would see 0% tax on all basic living goods. It's quite a simple equation. Putting People First.   Lim Tean You can follow or engage with PV via: Email: [email protected] www.PeoplesVoiceSg.com Telegram Channel: t.me/peoplesvoice_sg Telegram contact: t.me/PVvolunteers WhatsApp Business: Peoples Voice Singapore (939 802 89)      Read More →

I sincerely congratulate PUB on the opening of our fourth desalination plant. What is even more remarkable about this large scale desalination plant is that it is capable of treating both fresh and seawater. I am a fierce government critic because I love my country and I care but unlike so many blind pap suckers and supporters who only know how to suck but don't know how to think about issues deeper and still strongly defend their masters even when things screwed up under their charge, I am not stingy with my praises and my accolades when they do well like in this case. I would like to sincerely congratulate the pap government for a job well done. This plant will not only benefit the current generation of Singaporeans but also generations of citizens after us. Water is life. Singapore is small, we are land scare with high population density and for many years, Mahathir squeezed our balls over the water that we imported from Johore and older generations of Singaporeans have lived under that threat. I strongly support the government's policies to price water correctly in Singapore. Any responsible government must never shy away from doing that. We have enough water for everyone's need but we will never have enough water for people's wastage. Everybody on this island and I mean everybody must understand that by heart and live their lives with that realism and water discipline. I would venture further to suggest that we allocate water on a per capita basis per household and tax usage above their respective allocations more dearly. Also, extra taxes should be seriously considered for private swimming pools, condominium swimming pools and hotel swimming pools etc. Well done to the pap government on this one. Think.   Simon Lim      Read More →

Say what you like about him but Singapore’s late first Prime Minister, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew had a genius for manipulating the Western narrative when it came to all things Chinese. Mr. Lee, the original WOG (Western Oriental Gentleman) started out as “Harry Lee” and had made a point of only wanting to speak English as an Englishman and refused to speak “Singlish” or anything resembling a Chinese dialect. However, he realized that the English educated would never help him get into power and so he taught himself the language of the streets, ensured the name Lee Kuan Yew would be the one the public knew and before you knew if he was “Chinese.” Once in power, he then tried to redefine Chinese culture to his own liking. He kept the public persona of Lee Kuan Yew but went to war on Chinese dialects. It was a mixture of wanting to ensure the Chinese-dialect street agitators would never do to him what they had to done to the colonial government but at the same time wanting to stay Chinese enough to capitalize on a Chinese market should it ever grow. Singapore’s meteoric rise is well documented and Mr. Lee saw to it that his colleagues went on a process of “leadership renewal,” while he had himself hired as a well-paid consultant in the cabinets of his successors. Mr. Lee, who had shamelessly used Western expertise (particularly that of Dr. Winsemius) and capital to build Singapore, proceeded to promote the Singapore Success story as a success story of Asian Values under a wise Asian ruler. He told his “fellow Asian Leaders” that he had the secret formula for success and at the same time he promoted himself across the Western World as the man who knew Chinese and Asian culture. How successful was he? Mrs. Margaret Thatcher, former Prime Minister of the UK, talked about how she’d ask her friend “Harry Lee of Singapore” about Chinese Culture. As the so-called premier expert of all things eastern and western, one of Mr. Lee’s greatest lines was to announce that “Democracy was incompatible with Chinese culture.” The motivations behind this message were obvious. To his Western Audience, it was the message that they could pump capital in Asia and not worry about what the common folk felt because they’d follow their leaders. To the Asian audience, there was a message to follow the leadership and prosperity would follow. It’s tough to argue against Mr. Lee because he was right in so many ways. Singapore remains a fairly pleasant place or at least pleasant enough for you to get looks of “what the heck are you complaining about,” from your American and European friends and the Asian countries that prospered like Taiwan and South Korea also did so under strong authoritarian rule. Then, there’s the giant story of China, which has gone from a backwater in the 70s to a world power set to change the nature of geopolitics and remains under one party rule. Mr. Lee has been described as probably the best nation builder by non-other than Charlie Munger, the number two man of Berkshire Hathaway. [LINK] While it’s hard to argue with Mr. Lee and his track record, he was, however, not perfect. As a Singaporean who grew up with Mr. Lee in the 80s, it was clear that while Mr. Lee set high standards for many things, age somehow mellowed Mr. Lee into being, how do you say – a bit more flexible. The Prime Minister who said he always sacked and replaced the chief when things went wrong, actually started berating the public when members of the public were not pleased with the Minister in charge of security when a terrorist was allowed to limp out of a highly secured facility. Mr. Lee’s flexibility in the high standards and good planning were particularly visible in the area of Chinese culture and democracy. As the proclaimed “father of the nation,” Mr. Lee stressed that it was a Singaporean Singapore rather than a Chinese Singapore. He also threw his weight behind a pledge to “build a democratic society based on justice and equality.” However, once he got himself his consulting position, he felt that Chinese culture and democracy were somehow incompatible. Unfortunately, that’s not quite true. If you look at the other two places outside Mainland China, namely Hong Kong and Taiwan, things like democracy and individual liberties are taken very seriously. In the last two years Hong Kong, which is Chinese sovereign territory (Despite one country two systems, it is clear that Hong Kong’s Chief Executive reports to China’s President), you’ve seen things like the Umbrella Movement, where ordinary people have taken to the streets in protest against draconian surveillance laws. In Taiwan, which claims to be China (Taiwan’s position is that it is the government of China in exile in Taiwan, whereas China claims that Taiwan is a renegade province) is famous for legislators who are so passionate that they end up brawling. Needless to say, Singapore gets rather smug when scenes of the mess in Hong Kong and Taiwan get shown on TV. Our calm and clean little pond compares well with their rather less calm and clean places. It’s especially true with Hong Kong, which is Singapore’s largest rival for banking business. Our private banking sector has been particularly blessed as the wealthy take their money out Hong Kong and park it in Singapore. However, this smugness fails to take into account two key factors. The first is geopolitics. Singapore is an independent and sovereign nation. Our immediate neighbors are Malaysia and Indonesia. While there was “Konfrantassi” in our early years, Singapore has had a relatively peaceful relationship with its immediate neighbours in the last 40-years. Malaysia and Indonesia are unable to make laws for Singapore nor can they bar other countries from recognizing the existence of Singapore. Taiwan and Hong Kong by contrast have a different relationship with their big neighbor – China. Hong Kong was a Crown Colony and then it became a “special administrative” region of the People’s Republic. In theory Hong Kong is allowed to operate under its own set of rules and only leaves defense and foreign policy of Beijing. In theory, the Chinese government has signed a treaty agreeing to leave Hong Kong alone under a system of “One Country-Two-Systems.” Practice is a different story. Much as Hong Kong readers will protest it – the fact remains “ONE COUNTRY two systems.” Hong Kong is China and its very reason for existence is China. People go to Hong Kong to get into China and while the Chinese government has refrained from sending tanks into Hong Kong the way it sent them into Tiananmen Square, its capable of doing its part to see that the investors head for Shanghai, which is China-China – or One Country: One System. There’s a different twist with Taiwan. Unlike Hong Kong, Taiwan is not a part of China. For many years, Taiwan under the Kuomingtang (KMT) claimed to be the rightful government of China which was in exile in Taiwan, whereas the Communist Party (CCP) claimed that Taiwan was a renegade province of China. While Taiwan is to all intents and purposes a sovereign nation, it is not recognized as one. While Taiwan has plenty of money, China freezes out Taiwan from just about every recognizable international body. The rules of geopolitics are simple – size matters. While Taiwan is democratic and has plenty of money, nobody is going to get on the wrong side of a billion consumers. Even pro-independence Taiwanese politicians tread carefully to avoid unnecessary conflict with China. So, comparing Singapore with Hong Kong and Taiwan is an “Apple-versus-Oranges” comparison. Singapore has a certain amount of control over its economic and political destiny in the same way that Taiwan and Hong Kong do not. The second point that one should take note off is that despite the relative difficulties that Hong Kong and Taiwan face when compared to Singapore, neither appear to be rushing towards a Singapore style of “Daddy knows it All” government. Taiwan in particular takes pride in its democratic system of government: [LINK] Many years ago, the Economist stated that if you looked at East Asia with ethnographic lenses, you’d notice that outside of Japan and South Korea, the countries that have done best are primarily Chinese. Of the Chinese majority countries, Hong Kong put everything into overpriced real estate, Singapore put everything into government, China put it into the party apparatus. Taiwan by contrast had entrepreneurship. Think of the semiconductor industry, which had a heavy presence of Taiwanese entrepreneurs. Is there a link between democracy and value-creating entrepreneurship and is it sustainable: Well, it appears that Taiwan has done respectively well given that its not even a recognised nation? [LINK] Democracy and individual liberties are not bad for business and Chinese culture has shown that it is not against business. Chinese people steeped in Chinese culture have also shown that they treasure individual liberties and democratic process as much as other people who have experienced democracy and the protection of individual liberties. This is something that non-Chinese people should remember whenever they talk about how Chinese culture is incompatible with democracy.     Tang Li *Although I’ve been based mainly in Singapore for nearly two decades, I’ve had the privilege of being able meet people who have crossed borders and cultures. I’ve befriended ministers and ambassadors and worked on projects involving a former head of state. Yet, at the same time, I’ve had the privilege of befriending migrant labourers and former convicts. All of them have a story to tell. All of them add to the fabric of life. I hope to express the stories that inspire us to create life as it should be.      Read More →