TR EMERITUS

This change in the Infectious Act is Outrageous! Click to enlarge How could the Gov empowerd itself to FORCE anyone to take any vaccine?!   Goh Meng Seng      Read More →

Singapore has suddenly become a very interesting place. Singapore’s reporters finally have something that their counterparts in other parts of the world take for granted – things to talk about. Our little island state, which took pride in being squeaky clean to the point of boring now has a host of scandals popping out every so often. So, one has to ask – what on earth is going on? One of those big scandals evolves around a story on a couple of Chinese nationals getting busted to the tune of a billion dollars. Then men had allegedly used their dubious monies to go on a shopping spree of lots of high-priced real estate and other wonderfully luxurious items. Lots has been said about the case and so I shall leave the details of the case to intelligent people: [LINK] So, what can I, a mere mortal who doesn’t want to be associated with the intelligent on the island say that hasn’t been said before? Well, I guess the answer is – what else were we expecting? Our entire economic system, which was built on the movement of goods in-and-out of the place has now evolved into becoming about the movement of vast sums of money. If you listen to just about every government proposal around, you’ll notice a common theme – a need for the rich from elsewhere to park their money here. Hence, it’s a badge of pride whenever some billionaire or other moves here. Think of Eduardo Severin, the co-founder of Facebook. Who can honestly say they heard of him? Mark Zukerberg had long since become the face of Facebook, in the way that Lee Kuan Yew had become the face of Singapore until his death. His co-founders were in Silicon Valley speak rather like Singapore’s old guard ministers – sent to retirement to be forgotten. However, for Eduardo Severin, this all changed when he moved to Singapore. Our media literally could not stop talking about him. The fact that he is in Singapore is newsworthy enough. He’s only one of the best known to make it to Singapore. He is the living example of how well government policies work. The government argues that we need people like Mr. Severin to come here to spend their billions in order to create good jobs for the locals and any local who dares to have fantasies about making life for the world elite a little more interesting will be dealt with accordingly. Let’s leave the billionaires aside and look at tourism. Why did we push through the building of two casinos and insist on having the “Only Night Race” here? Answer is simple, we want people with elsewhere with lots of money spending it here. There’s no doubt that having people spend money there has economic benefits. Even Bhutan, which prides itself in being isolated, invites tourist in because tourist do provide foreign currency to a country to settle its bills. However, there comes a point when the chase for money becomes, well, a little in savoury. Here’s where Singapore becomes interesting. If you look at the places that a “dubious” when it comes to money (think – most of the Caribbean or the Channel Islands), you can actually have sympathy for these places. Places like the Cayman Islands are literally too small to do much and, in a sense, they can argue that they don’t actually have choice? Singapore is different. We have a world class port that is at the centre of a dynamic growth region. We have a history of making things, particularly in the electronics industry. Our population is educated. So, do we really need our entire system to be based on the world’s wealthy buying overpriced real estate? Then there’s the fact that Singapore claims to be ruled by law and “compliance” is supposed to be stringent enough for the Western and Japanese multinationals to feel at home. So, how do we match things like strict adherence to compliance and the need to get as much money in as quickly as possible? As with anything legal, there is ultimately the question of looking at the letter of the law. As a prominent enough expat banker explained – Singapore likes big sums entering quickly and getting out just before the international bodies start questioning. The banks just take their fees and money is in the economy fine and dandy. So, if you want to look at technicalities, I guess you could say that we play it safe. However, while we may be clean on the technicalities, it doesn’t mean that we’ve stayed clear of the funny characters (Funny characters can afford lawyers to help them get round the system) and more importantly, has this love of collecting money from the world’s wealthy actually harmed our ability to generate wealth by other means? After nearly a decade in corporate insolvency, I would argue that we have. If I look at a range of cases that I’ve handled, the landlord is inevitably one of the largest creditors or even the one that wound up the business. Rent is a killer and as one family butchery said “we’re effectively employees of the landlord.” Take our “cultural icon” hawkers, who make a living selling things like kway teow (fried noodles) at $5 a plate and pay rents of $5,000 a month. Ask yourself how many plates do they need to sell just to cover the rent? That worry only applies to a guy who doesn’t have hot money backing him or her up. Someone who has hot money back merely needs to ensure the money flows through the books. Rents are, well, part of the professional fees. People with hot don’t need to innovate because, well, why should they when they know that the bills will be paid? We need to relook at our system. Nothing wrong with getting money from elsewhere. However, we cannot be dependent on it. Its like drinking too much. The first bit of booze is fun but when you start to depend on it…..well, lets just say that visiting a hospital are filled with people who got too used to the high brought about by a dependence on booze.   Tang Li *Although I’ve been based mainly in Singapore for nearly two decades, I’ve had the privilege of being able to 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 →

Today’s ST broke down the PE votes for us. No doubt the pineapple won the day. It’s a common fruit, symbolising unity and prosperity for the common folks. Its commonness is heart-warming, and disarming too. Like Tharman’s compaign, the “Ong Lai” is dearly relatable and non-partisan. For Tharman, he said what he wanted to say and said it simply and clearly. No doubletalk. No hidden agenda. It’s good to do a review after the dust has settled, and before that defining date when one president hands over the mantle to the next. From one race to the other. From one gender to another. From a first to another first. It will be a day that holds great significance to us - a day that sends the signal out there that the highest office in the land is truly Singaporean, multiracial, multicultural and multireligious. A dignified office that is, above politics. Reading the article by Goh Yan Han, Natasha Ann Zachariah and Jean Lau, I come away with three kinds of voters here. I’ll start with the first, mainly the 70.4% who cast their vote for the pineapple. 1) The compass voters. They go for what matters. The heart of the issue has always been the issue of the heart. And office of the president is about character, competence and charity. May the best man or woman win, and win he did. Here are some of the comments about Tharman. “So the criteria we’re looking at become a lot more about character and how they engage with the public, and as an individual, how his character and experience are reflected in their response.” (Ms Aroni Sarkar). “I always thought he should be prime minister - he’s intelligent, extremely capable, and he cares about the people. I’m disappointed he wasn’t our PM.” (Ms Geraldine Wee). Well, you get to hear about that PM title being thrown around at Tharman a lot. But, I believe society and individual personalities have their own sorting out process. We all confront our own crossroads, at different intervals of our life. That crossroad demands we make a choice, a decision, and that decision is life-changing, or fate-transfoming. We only have one life to lead, before we whistle off for good. Some roads split off at the crossroad, and we can never return to the other road we didn’t choose anymore. Tharman, I believe, had confronted that crossroad, and taken a road that he was able to reconcile with himself and the people who put their faith in him. Not everyone can be president or PM, and they are not necessarily interchangeable. One may have the qualities to be one and/or the other. But qualities is one thing; for there are many considerations to ponder over, some of which are highly personal, and highly intense. God allows for u-turn, yes, but He also allows us to take a road of our choice and savour it fully, in a journey not mean for us to look back as if something’s amiss. It is a rewarding journey, and the reward is above all an enduring peace of mind. We will have to accept and respect it, lamentation notwithstanding. Here comes the next voter group. 2) The middle of the road voters. They vote with the aim of keeping the playing field level. “I know that Mr Tharman would win. He didn’t need my vote. I wanted to increase the vote count for Mr Ng so that in the next presidential election, (others) would not be discouraged to stand for election.” (Jiele). This may just be the unintended effect of offering a candidate some have described as the “nuclear option”. When you know how it will end, you also know that you have greater autonomy to cast your vote. However, when the competition is tight, your vote, amongst the hundreds, may just be the decider. And the considerations that go into casting that vote grows heavier. But, when it’s a sure-bet, that Oppenheimer candidate so called, I believe people loosen the grip a tad and vote with greater ease. In a way, they have the luxury of sitting on the fence, and wait for less weightier factors to nudge them. And finally, 3) The fiercely oppositional voters. This group has other factors to consider. They are largely disillusioned with the ruling hand. They have come up with their own reasons for voting in one direction. You can say they have an axe the grind with the establishment. “”While Mr Tan’s “senseless and insensitive speech towards the public and media” and “illogical thoughts on certain national issues” were disappointing, this is outweighted by (my) unhappiness with the PAP.”” (Royston Tang). Having said that, this group counts because they may just be the canary in the coalmine should their numbers increases to more than 30%. They do have galvanizing power, and the ruling hand should never take them for granted. They keep the establishment on their toes should their numbers hike. At 14%, they are still manageable. In a democracy, you can’t please everyone. Although this should not be an excuse to leave anyone behind, it is a raw reality we cannot deny. A democracy will come to a standstill if the only way forward is to please everyone. The conversion process will never be 100%. We should accept the unembellished authenticity process in a society, based on our human nature, and from thereon, do our best with whatever is entrusted to us. Some forces are indeed beyond our control. Leaders will often have to roll with the punches, and receive some hits along the way. We however become wounded leaders, wiser with every punch we can’t avoid. Human-based qualities will always fall short, and prosperity will always bring about its own issues we often struggle to grapple or address fully. No human system is perfect. We just have to take them in our stride. I believe that accounts for the 14%, which in my humble view is more or less within endurable limits. It is also a signal for us to sit up a little straighter to take note. And there you have it, the three kinds of voters, not counting the 1.93% who had destroyed their votes. They exist in the extreme minority, and it shows that many still have faith in our democracy, one that honours our freedom and choice to vote.   Michael Han * The author was a Director at Han & Lu Law Chambers and blogs on Facebook.    Read More →