TR EMERITUS

Out of an island of 4.98 million, less than 3.5 million are born domestically. Some unofficial sources even claim that this figure can be as low as 3.0 million. The rapid influx of foreigners without any adequate policy to accommodate the increase in population in terms of housing and transport, together with heightened job insecurity due to the foreigners vying for the same jobs local held have all indeed led to a large proportion of Singapore population having doubts about PAP for the first time in 50 years. The disillusioned group simply have lost all hope and prayer in a party that they voted in religiously election after election with majority votes. In a country where the slightest criticism of PAP could land anyone into deep troubles and where fear of expressing any dissatisfaction was widespread, there has been a phenomenal change. There are websites such as TOC and TR challenging state fed news and opinions. There is a facebook group with a large membership calling for PAP to be voted out. An 18 year old teenager started a petition to demand LKY apologise. There is a greater number of privileged individuals stepping into opposition parties which used to be perceived as political landmines fit for the hot headed. As to the question of whether all this will lead to a political outcome of PAP loosing substantial seats or even power, the answer is a clear and simple NO. This is due to the extreme disunity amongst Singapore born Singaporeans. We are not talking about the group that supports PAP versus the group that wants change. This division will always be around. It is the disunity within the latter group that is troubling. Amongst those who want to see change in Singapore and who want to see PAP ousted, they are extremely divided within their ethnic communities. Within the Chinese community, one group has formally recognised that the minorities are not given equal economic opportunities. This group recognises that the way forward is to make the playing field more levelled. The other group however still refutes this and still argues the economic backwardness of the minorities is solely due to their lower educational attainment levels etc etc which have proven otherwise in numerous reports and studies. This group do not see a need for any major reform. Within the Chinese community one group truthfully admits the marginalisation of minorities especially Malays and Muslims in the armed forces and senior government positions. They recognise security can be preserved without the need to resorting to these kind of tactics. However another group in the Chinese community insists Singapore’s security lies in how well it restricts minorities’ access to the security forces and senior government positions. Likewise one group of Singapore born Chinese who want change recognise that the PAP have set up a host of organisations such as MUIS, WAREES, Hindu Endowment Board etc solely to control the endowments and spaces of the minorities. They also recognise PAP have set up a totally racist law Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA) in order to control Muslims through a code of unfair laws and a proxy group of Muslim stooge agencies and individuals. However another group of Singapore born Chinese are unaware of this and/or uninterested in all this. Even when they come to hear about such unfairness the minorities are subjected to, they are no less interested to see a change. Rather they are indifferent to the status quo. Similarly one group of Singapore born Chinese who want change recognise the PAP restrict the freedom of the minorities to practise their languages and religions. The other group simply toe the national propaganda and refuse to accept these realities exist. The former group also recognise that the way forward is to give the minorities the freedom they had before 1959 and the freedom they will have if they migrate to any civilised western country. The latter group strongly opposes any change to status quo. This division is only isolating the support for the Chinese community that wants change from the minorities who also want change. Unless the Chinese community who want change learn to accept the harsh realities the minorities are facing and make an offer of reconciliation and unity as the way forward, they solely will never be able to unseat PAP in even a single GRC. Similarly the Singapore born minorities who want change are equally divided in how they want to move forward with the Singapore born Chinese. One group do understand the anxieties and struggles of the Singapore born Chinese community. This group empathises and is keen to help. They are interested to see a change in the outcomes. However another group is simply oblivious to all this. They are not sure nor keen as they are totally unaware. Majority of Singapore minorities actually do not support PAP though the support for PAP is rising. Even the Chinese Singaporeans are unaware of this as they conveniently believe PAP’s fast one that Malays support PAP. Despite the widespread opinion amongst minorities to see change, one can hardly find much participation of the minorities in the opposition political parties, alternative web news channels like TOC & TR. There is indeed some significant representation of Indians and some Malay youths but the overall minorities who want change are heavily underrepresented in the world wide web and political parties. Unless these minorities step forward and unite, their position is not going to improve. Within each religious group, there is also a strong undercurrent of sentiments that want change to Singapore. Yet you will hardly find any unity amongst the Christian groups, Buddhist groups, Hindu groups, Muslim groups etc who want change. Even amongst each religious group there are deep divisions amongst those who want change. Actually the division amongst the opposition parties is the same nature. Each is obsessed with their own ways. To sum up the situation, a large proportion of Singaporeans want change and do want PAP ousted. However each group wants change in their own way and does not want to unite for a change to occur. It is of course nonsense to suggest all must have a single objective. Instead what all of them should have is a single overarching vision and they must unite for that vision. Singaporeans being Singaporeans, they are too preoccupied with the smaller objectives and they live in fear that if they unite for the mega vision, their smaller objectives will be lost. As they work towards that vision, they must be willing to make compromises which of course is a herculean task for Singaporeans. They ought to look at how Singaporeans co-existed before PAP, Singapore migrant communities co-exist abroad and successful examples of multiculturalism abroad. They need to draw inspirations from these. This culture can change within a month or a century. It all depends on the will of Singapore born Singaporeans.   Singaporean2010  Read More →

In the Sunday Times report of 27 June 2010 "SMRT: Tighter security will not mean higher fare", SMRT CEO Saw Phaik Hwa was reported to have said: “People can board the trains – it is whether they choose to.” She also claimed that even at its most crowded, a SMRT train carries 1,400 passengers, which is lower than its crush load of 2,000 passengers. A dismayed Singaporean Chia Ser Huei wrote in to the Straits Times Forum to question Ms Saw's unhelpful response to the question of overcrowding. While the fact is that there are many stations where passengers are unable to board the trains at all during peak hours, Ms Saw is sticking to SMRT's oft-stated view that passenger numbers are acceptable. It is not a matter of choice, but whether commuters can get in without the train doors closing on them. As it is, passengers have to frequently skip an overcrowded train several times before finding one with standing space. Tempers flares are not uncommon among commuters at these times. In addition, it is misleading to cite passenger load figures in other cities to justify SMRT's train load figures and attempt to close the matter. For instance, trains in Hong Kong are more spacious and have more carriages than SMRT trains. Ms Saw's comments seem to show her disinterest in transit operations or she thinks that Singaporeans can easily be fooled. Many Singaporeans have complained that the frequency of MRT trains has dropped after the CEO joined SMRT in 2003. In the past, passengers never had to wait more than 3-4 mins for a train. The train frequency for off-peak hours is now 7-8 mins, and this is even so in the weekday evenings and weekends whereby the trains are packed. Ms Saw has been credited with the rental of MRT station space to retailers to boost the SMRT's non-transit income. Under her, SMRT reconfigured MRT station space to be rented to retailers. The Malaysia-born Singapore Permanent Resident was previously with retail chain DFS until she was retrenched by the company in 2002. Ms Saw was paid $1.67 million in 2009, making her the highest-paid CEO that SMRT Corp has ever employed. Excluding share options, Ms Saw's package last year came up to $1.43 million. Her deputy, Mr Yeo Meng Hin, who worked under Ms Saw at DFS and joined the company together with her in 2003, took home $970 thousand. Compared to the year before, Ms Saw's package was 7.1 per cent higher while Mr Yeo's grew by 13.3 per cent. This outstripped the 6.3 per cent growth in SMRT's total wage bill over the same period. It would appear that with its monopolistic power arising from the lack of direct competition from other transport operators, SMRT does not need to worry about the welfare of its transit customers, and just focus on cutting cost on its transit operations.   Edmund Khor  Read More →

Relief cabby Mr Teo Kian Seng was let off with only a $2,000 fine on Monday for "threatening" his PAP MP Lee Yi-Shyan. The perpetrators of such offences are usually punished with a jail term in the past. Mr Teo had gone to see Lee in March about a $100 fine slapped on his mother who is working as a rag-and-bone woman for the clutter left outside the flat. He was unhappy that the officers from East Coast Town Council have been rude to his mother. Instead of providing a listening ear, Lee appeared to be unempathetic to Mr Teo's grievances and asked him how "he could expect others to be polite to him when he was rude to them." Stung by Lee's callousness, Mr Teo then reminded Lee in Mandarin nonchalantly about the Seng Han Thong incident last year and said he hoped "history will not repeat itself again." According to Mr Teo, he was not rude to Lee and neither did he raise his voice at him. Obviously traumatized by Mr Teo's remarks, Lee made a police report immediately and Mr Teo was arrested by the unusually efficient Singapore police on 3 March. The police will most likely ignore such trivial reports had the complainant been a "lesser mortal." The case sparked a massive furore in cyberspace with many netizens lampooning Lee for being "unreasonable", "petty" and "paranoid". It is a common complaint among Singaporeans that PAP MPs are getting more and more aloof, callous and out of touch with the people in the street. They behave like "little emperors" lording over the people they are supposed to "serve" as mere subjects with scant regards to their predicaments and feelings. Lee is paid $14,000 monthly by Singapore taxpayers for his part-time job as a MP. In contrast, Mr Teo and his aged mother may have to starve because of the $2,000 fine imposed on him for a rather innocuous off-the-cuff comment which hurt the ego of the "holier than thou", "whiter than white" higher mortal first-term PAP MP.   Editor's Note: According to our informant, Mr Teo has already paid the $2,000 fine on Monday. We thank you for your concern.   Please join our Facebook page here and invite your friends to do so to create awareness of the current affairs affecting Singaporeans. Please use our online web form to contact us  Read More →