Tag: Dr Chee

  • Chee Soon Juan: Taking Us Over The Cliff

    Chee Soon Juan: Taking Us Over The Cliff

    HERE’S A SENTENCE that risks boring you to tears if only because you’ve read it so often: Technological advancement is taking place so rapidly that entire industries, not just jobs, are going under.

    But before you roll your eyes and yawn, understand this: Unless you’re the guy sitting at the top of the system that makes the rules and I mean at the very top your posterior is going to be the one closest to that boot marked ‘RETRENCHMENT’.

    Focus for a minute: Uber is going with driverless taxis, Deliveroo is looking to using drones to make its food deliveries, and MacDonald’s is experimenting with automation to let customers create their own burgers. Property agents, stock brokers, receptionists, cashiers and sales assistants are becoming surplus to requirements as buyers and sellers directly transact their business through the Internet.

    Even higher-end professionals like accountants, lawyers and medical professionals are not in the safe zone: Sophisticated tax software will eliminate the need for accountants, court cases can be fought with the employment of artificial intelligence in place of attorneys, and surgeons replaced with robots which can carry out intricate operations at lower costs.

    The discussion is not whether workers are replaceable but how rapidly the process is taking place. In 1998, the Kodak Co. employed nearly 150,000 workers. Today, Facebook, managing how we share photographs through Instagram, has only 10,000 employees – about 7% of what Kodak used to employ. In the 1970s, the American communications giant AT&T had 750,000 employees under its belt. Today, Google dwarfs it in market value but hires only 55,000 people.[1]

    The way things are trending, huge swathes of the population are going to be rendered workless resulting in an increasingly jobless economy. When that time comes (and it’ll be sooner than you think), the idea of a Universal Basic Income would have to be contemplated. But that is a discussion for another occasion. (In the meantime, read Alex Au’s discussion on this topic here.)

    Not only is the world changing, the pace is also quickening. Today’s Google, it’s executives fret, could become tomorrow’s ‘there once was this giant corporation’ story if the company does not constantly innovate.

    Progress is driven by the obsession to develop new technology – an obsession embedded in the cultures of advanced economies where freedom of thought fuels debate and creative destruction.

    Falling behind

    Think about it. Now think about Singapore.

    We are neither productive nor innovative; we make nothing that the world wants to buy. Yes, we’retops when it comes to using technology but that’s not what is going to make us competitive. The fact that we – to adopt the commonly used slang – suck at inventing new technology is what is going to be our undoing.

    We’re falling behind and, with each passing year, going to fall even further behind if nothing changes.

    What can we do? More immediately, what should we not continue to do? For one thing, let’s stop cobbling together committees made up of establishment folks, conducting discussions in PAP echo-chambers and writing fanciful reports that say much but achieve little.

    ​It was the Economic Review Committee in 2003, the Economic Strategies Committee in 2010 and the Committee for Future Economy in 2017. Each one liberally employed buzzwords like ‘innovation’ and ‘entrepreneurship’ and ‘knowledge economy’ as if merely repeating them will magically transform our economy.

    The groupthink meant that what’s really needed to cultivate an innovative culture – one, dumping the state-dominated economic model, two, reforming the media, and, three, revamping the painfully out-dated education system – were not examined.

    Whistling past the graveyard

    On the first point: In an economy whose domestic sector is overwhelmed by Government-linked companies (GLCs), how are entrepreneurs going to emerge?

    The sector comprises several hundred conglomerates and their subsidiaries and employs tens of thousands of workers. But surveys tell us that GLC executives do not possess the requisite leadership skills especially when it comes to taking risks and motivating workers.[2] Is it any wonder then that our labour productivity grows sideways?

    To top it off, the overall performance of the sector is largely inscrutable, that is, until they go bust (Neptune Orient Lines) or come close to it (Keppel Corp and SembMarine).

    The argument that GLCs are a viable and necessary part of the corporate landscape is borne more out of the PAP’s autistic pronouncements than hard evidence. The case for Temsek Holdings to divest its portfolio has never been more pressing.

    Yet, the government’s strategy seems to be one of whistling past the graveyard.

    A secret formula?

    The mass media is another area in need of a desperate makeover. The PAP is, however, betting the farm that it can transform Singapore into a society on the cutting edge of research and innovation while clinging onto 1960s standards of state censorship and citizen intimidation.

    Maybe it knows the secret formula to squaring this circle. But with ministers telling us that flooding on our roads is a once-in-50-years phenomenon, we shouldn’t hold our breaths.

    If we are going to nourish creativity, we must upgrade minds. If we are going to upgrade minds, we must discard state control of the media. We must encourage open exchange of ideas, intelligent debate, free expression and questioning minds.

    How long more are we going to delude ourselves and deny the fact that the most innovative societies are also the most open and democratic ones?

    (The third area that needs reform is our education system which I discuss here and will not repeat in this essay.)

    There is a steep price to pay if these reforms are not undertaken soon. Even if a political epiphany miraculously descends upon the PAP today and its leaders awake to implement the much-needed changes, it would take another generation for results to actualise.

    Yet, where there should be urgency, only calm pervades. It is, tragically, the calm of a sedated populace, and it is in this state that we will walk over the cliff with the PAP.

    1. People get ready: The fight against a jobless economy and a citizenless democracy, Robert W McChesney and John Nichols, 2016, Nation Books, New York.
    2. 40% of S’pore workers rate their bosses low: study, The Business Times, 1 October 2004

     

    Source: www.cheesoonjuan.com

  • Chee Soon Juan – The Chiam Issue: Why This, Why Now?

    Chee Soon Juan – The Chiam Issue: Why This, Why Now?

    Below are some frequently asked questions about Mr Chiam See Tong’s departure from the SDP and why we are raising the issue now. I answer them here:

    Why rehash the past over the split with Chiam See Tong? Aren’t there more important issues to discuss?

    Many of you are sick of this matter and you don’t want to hear any more of it. I agree. There is nothing that I would love more than to leave this episode behind and get on with the issues that really matter to our nation. This is exactly what we did during the general elections (GE) in 2015 and again at the by-election (BE) in Bukit Batok – campaigning on the issues that voters care about.

    It is the PAP that keeps dredging up the issue to attack me and the SDP. Take a look at the following:

    • Mr Chan Chun Sing: “Dr Chee then proceeded to betray Mr Chiam, isolate him and force him out of the SDP.” (January 2015)
    • Vivian Balakrishnan: “I have just one message to send to the SDP: In the PAP, we do not have a tradition of backstabbing our mentors.” (GE 2015)
    • Sim Ann: “Singaporeans of a certain age will know…how he ousted his mentor Mr Chiam See Tong from the party Mr Chiam had built.” (GE 2015)
    • The Straits Times: “[Grace Fu] added that it would ‘be very interesting’ to see if there would b referral letter from Mr Chiam See Tong, who had recruited Dr Chee into SDP years ago. Last week, Mrs Lina Chiam had said in a Facebook post that her husband had not given his endorsement to any candidate in the by-election.” (BE 2016)
    • Mr Heng Swee Keat: “This means a person can lie, cheat or betray someone with impunity…How are voters to believe what such politicians say or hold them accountable for their actions if they were running a town council?” (BE 2016)


    Any fair-minded person will conclude that it is not SDP who is rehashing the saga. The PAP will not let the matter rest because it is to its advantage if it can continue to use this falsehood to attack me.

    But as long as the PAP continues to resurrect the matter, the SDP will rebut the lies. We hope opposition supporters will help us disseminate this information and, in so doing, make it counter-productive for the PAP to rehash the issue.

    But didn’t the episode take place nearly 25 years ago? Is it still relevant to voters?

    A few residents in Bukit Batok raised the subject with me and my party colleagues during our recent campaign. A couple of them indicated that they would not have voted for me had I not personally explained the situation to them. How many more voters are out there who still don’t know the truth?

    As much as some people think that the SDP-Chiam episode is no longer an issue, there are many who – with the help of the PAP and the media – still think it is.

    As a political party fighting for every vote, clearing up the issue to ensure that we don’t allow our opponent to capitalise on a falsehood to sabotage our effort is the smart and right thing to do.

    But why now?

    As I mentioned, we did not counter the PAP when it raised the Chiam issue in GE 2015 and BE 2016 because we did not want the PAP to distract the voters from the real issues. But not doing so may have hurt our campaigns because there are voters who still believe that I had betrayed Mr Chiam and, because of this, would not vote for the SDP.

    This must change. We cannot wait until elections to counter the lies, we must start now. To prevent these untruths from being reinforced and spread further in future elections, the SDP will counter them whenever they are raised.

    Why not just bury the hatchet with Mr Chaim?

    We tried – repeatedly. The SDP has invited Mr Chiam on numerous occasions to our functions in the hopes that we can bury the past and move on (see here).

    A recent example was our invitation to him to attend our 35th anniversary dinner in August last year. We even approached him to be our guest at our rally during the BE in Bukit Batok. The Chiams turned down our invitations.

    We also published an article in our party newspaper written by Dr Wong Wee Nam about how Mr Chiam and the SDP nearly came together in 2015. But Mrs Lina Chiam interpreted that as the SDP trying to use the piece as an endorsement by Mr Chiam of me. We had no such intention, we only wanted to bury the proverbial hatchet and to move on.

    For the record, Dr Wong’s article was published in The New Democrat in June 2015. An online version of the piece was published on 2 April 2015 (see here). Why did Mrs Chiam raise it only nine months later during the BE – and on two occasions, one of which was published in the Straits Times during the cooling-off period?

    Are you attacking Mr Chiam?

    No, not at all. In fact, it has been quite the reverse. Mr Chiam declared in 1993: “He has not been thrust into my position. He has usurped my position!” More recently, the Straits Times reported that “Mrs Lina Chiam accused Dr Chee of ousting her husband from the party he founded in 1980.”

    Nothing could be further from the truth. When Mr Chiam resigned as the party’s secretary-general, I, together with other CEC members, tried to persuade him to remain. Even when he went to the Singapore Press Club to criticise us and left us little choice but to expel him, we still tried – right up till the very end – to see if we could effect some form of reconciliation.

    But rather than go on a he-said-she-said type of argument, it is best to cite what High Court Judge Warren Khoo wrote in his decision when he presided over the lawsuit which Mr Chiam took against the SDP:

    There were allegations in the pleadings of bad faith and of the defendants (SDP) acting maliciously in order to injure the plaintiff (Chiam See Tong). There were suggestions in plaintiff’s counsel’s questions put to the witnesses for the defendants that the object of the disciplinary proceedings was to make the plaintiff lose his seat in Parliament, that being the consequence of the plaintiff being expelled from the party. I do not think there is very much in these suggestions, having regard to the fact that the CEC even when they had decided to expel him were making efforts to seek a reconciliation with him.

    The truth is that I have always tried to effect a reconciliation with Mr Chiam. I tried it more than 20 years ago and I have tried it in recent times.

    The falsehood that I ousted Mr Chiam and usurped his position in the SDP has gone on for too long. It must stop. Remember, a lie, if repeated often enough, becomes truth.

     

    Source: www.cheesoonjuan.com

  • Former Chee Soon Juan Sceptic: Dr Chee Made Genuine Sacrifices For Politics In Singapore

    Former Chee Soon Juan Sceptic: Dr Chee Made Genuine Sacrifices For Politics In Singapore

     

    Dr. Chee Soon Juan

    Those who talk bad or have ill feeling toward Dr. Chee Soon Juan should relook and rethink again and ask yourselves what has he really done to Singapore in general that cannot be forgiven and forget forever.

    Ask ourselves have we ever know him closely or just rashly demonize him believing whatever the Government control medias has always like to portray him.

    He was very young technocrat, NUS lecturer when he first entered politic in 1992 with SDP which was then headed by Mr. Chiam See Tong as its Secretary General.

    I remembered how proud Mr. Chiam was when he introduced his good catch to the mass media and warned the PAP Government not to underestimate his party credibility and potential.

    Sadly just after a year in 1993 there was leadership crisis and Mr. Chiam parted and joined a new party SPP which was formed by his supporters earlier and from that onwards the SDP party was headed by Dr Chee as its Secretary General.

    Being young and charismatic leader of a political party with liberal views followed by his dismissal from NUS hardened him to confront the PAP Government ferociously.

    PAP Government which have hard time with Mr. JB Jeyaretnam in parliament on that time was determined not to make it easy for Dr. Chee who see him as another threat a potential JB.

    The rest is history when the PAP Goverment managed to subdue him into political wildernesses couple with his bad bloods with Mr. Chiam has made his reputation even worse.

    I’m sorry to say that I’m one of them who has the same thinking as most Singaporeans who never think highly of him even though I was quite critical toward the PAP Government then.

    Tonight for the very first time I came to his SDP rally in Bukit Gombak Stadium and observe him closely. I’m very impress with his composure and manner despites all the foul words hurling at him about his past.

    He indeed a changed man more dignified and what impressed me the most was his humility and his sincerity to serve the people and his despise of materialism and monetary reward which was prevalent with PAP ideology.

    He has proven with deeds when everyone know he and his PH.D. wife and his three children can easily live comfortably if he abandons politic altogether and start new life afresh abroad

    I just shake my head in disbelief of his grit and perseverance who is still steady in facing the humiliation and difficulty to shoulder the responsibility as an opposition politician.

    His eloquent language speaking in English and Chinese never fail to captivate his attentive audience who seem started to acknowledge him as a most formidable opposition that can give the Government a hard time.

    His charisma, aura and persona clearly surpass Mr. Murali Pillai his challenger in this Bukit Batok By Election by a wide margin.

    Just look at the long lines people queuing up to get his signature for his books selfies or whatsoever bewildered me how easy he connect and touch the ordinary peoples heart.

    Although I’m not from Bukit Batok, I hope my fellow citizens from that area can see his genuine sacrifice and vote for him into parliament.

    The time is now.

    Sincerely,
    Ismail L. A.

     

    Source: Mohamed Ismail Ismail