Rilek1Corner

Tag: Lee Hsien Loong

  • Singapore Can Re-enter Federation of Malaysia to Dilute Malay Race

    malaysia-and-singapore-flags

    Credit: Reuters
    Credit: Reuters

    KUALA LUMPUR: Bumiputera must unite under Umno to stem the rise of opposition party DAP, an Utusan Malaysia columnist wrote today, warning that Singapore could still possibly re-enter the Federation of Malaysia to dilute the community’s majority among the races.

    Cautioning the Malay youth not to be sold on the notions of liberalism espoused by the opposition, Datuk Ahmad Faris Abdul Halim said the country’s largest ethnic group was not certain to always maintain its numerical superiority over the other races.

    He claimed that Article 2(A) of the Federal Constitution allows the inclusion of new states into the federation with a two-third majority vote in Parliament, which he said could open the door for Singapore to re-join the federation that expelled in 1965.

    “If this happens — bolstered by the recent statement by Singapore’s founding father Lee Kuan Yew who repeatedly said it was not impossible for Singapore to re-unite with Malaysia under certain conditions — then imagine the ‘implications’ of Singapore with its 87 parliamentary seats,” he said.

    “Therefore, Singapore’s 87 seats included into our country’s 222 parliamentary seats. What would happen to the Malays?”

    Ahmad Faris said this would be the easiest way for a combination of DAP and Singapore’s ruling PAP to dominate the opposition bench here, given the former party’s existing 38 federal seats.

    He also alluded to the increasing dissent from the country’s non-Bumiputera community towards Article 153 of the Constitution and contention against Islam’s position as the religion of the federation.

    Article 153 specifies preferential quotas for the Bumiputera community in the areas of scholarship, education, and civil service.

    He also alleged that the non-Malay community were so strong in their racial culture that they have managed to control nearly 68 per cent of the country’s riches, but he did not elaborate what he meant by the “riches” nor did he state how culture facilitate this purported domination.

    The self-described current issues analyst then said the entire Bumiputera community should unite together with Umno — even if they did not all share the same religion — to demand for their rights as prescribed under Article 153, saying this would cow others from making claims on these.

    Umno, in turn, must adopt the tough measures introduced under former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, and take the lead in defending Islam, the monarchy, and the Malays.

    Singapore joined Malaya, Sabah and Sarawak in 1963 to form what is now known as the Federation of Malaysia, but was expelled in 1965 after a tumultuous period that witnessed large scale race riots in the republic the year before.

    In Election 2013, the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) suffered its worst electoral performance when it managed to win 133 spots in the 222-seat Parliament and lost the popular vote to the opposition Pakatan Rakyat pact.

    Although the rest of BN lost further ground from the previous nadir of Election 2008, Umno grew more dominant as a result of the backing it received from the mostly-Malay rural areas of the country.

    Since then, the party has come under increasing pressure to reward the community and ensure its continued support as the bedrock for the party’s revival or survival in the next general election.

    Source: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/singapore-could-rejoin-malaysia-to-dilute-malay-rule-utusan-columnist-claim

    letters to R1C banner

     

    YOUTUBE: youtube.com/user/rilek1corner

    FACEBOOK: facebook.com/rilek1corner

    TWITTER: twitter.com/Rilek1Corner

    WEBSITE: rilek1corner.com

    EMAIL: [email protected]

    FEEDBACK: rilek1corner.com/hubungir1c/

  • Malaysian Commando Intrusion Into Singapore Missile Complex?

    commando_69_malaysia_1

    THE STALLED WATER TALKS BETWEEN Malaysia and Singapore can now restart only with a meeting of the two Prime Ministers. The two negotiating teams cannot overcome the impasse, for one does not understand the other and the other only too well. For the talks to resume, Singapore must ask for it. But she would not without some guarantees from Malaysia. Singapore botched the talks, in the Malay mind, when she revealed confidential documents in an unresolved issue. And proved she would in future in a regional dispute when she published confidential correspondence between Singapore and Indonesia over trade statistics. Singapore insists the letter of the law must be honoured.

    Malaysia has now released a series of advertisements putting her case public for Singapore to rebut when, if, talks resume. The National Economic Action Council (NEAC) placed the advertisements but behind it is the Prime Minister, Dato’ Seri Mahathir Mohamed’s deft hand. It is brilliant. It tells Singapore what she must resolve before an amicable settlement. It is also pointless. Malaysia need not have to make its case public. For Singapore is painted into a corner. It is all but impossible for the talks to resume until the two Prime Ministers, Dr Mahathir and Mr Goh Chok Tong, meet in Putra Jaya. Both Malaysia and Singapore know this. But Dr Mahathir is on his way out, and it would be Dato’ Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who would in his place. Would Singapore allow it or send in the deputy prime minister instead? More than the water talks, Dr Mahathir has raised the spectre of, to use the current buzz-word, regime change in Singapore.

    Singapore ignores the historical past. Why did Malaya, as she then was, agree to three cents (the sen came later) per 1,000 gallons in the agreements of 1961 and 1962? Johore had wanted a far higher price, but Singapore was making its case to join Malaysia, and the then Prime Minister, Tengku Abdul Rahman Putra, decided that since the two states would be in the newly formed Malaysia, there was no need for the island state to pay too high a price. But Singapore left the Malaysian federation two years later in 1965. The agreement provides for a review after 25 years, and when the purchasing value of the dollar declines. Singapore does not accept this. She did not in 1986 and 1987, and that was unravelled only when the then Singapore prime minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, came to pay, in the Malay mind, homage to Dr Mahathir. That is how it is view here. Nothing can erase that.

    Singapore goes for broke in talks when there is political uncertainty in Malaysia. In 1986 and 1987, Dr Mahathir was fighting for his political life. UMNO had been declared an unlawful political organisation by the courts, and few concentrated their attention on the water talks. It is an issue now when there would be a new Prime Minister of Malaysia in three months. And stumbled in both because the Malays close ranks when there is an external threat like this, when an outsider tries to take advantage of internal mayhem. If anything, the new Prime Minister, Dato’ Seri Abdullah, must, indeed would, be unbendable in the water talks.

    Malaysia has over the years created an efficient smokescreen with a number of pointless issues, which Singapore saw as proof of Kuala Lumpur’s perfidy. The second bridge, the needless quarrel over the CIQ, the railway land, and others were brought out for the end game. At first I wondered why but it was a deliberate plan of Dr Mahathir’s to seize the advantage in Malaysia’s favour. He has. It would not be easy for Singapore under his successor, or the successor of his successor, to reach agreement without the two prime ministers meeting.

    In the next stage in the talks, over raising the price Singapore pays for water, a similar deadlock has occurred: the Singaporeans insist on its pound of flesh and it is not agreed presses for a public humiliation of Malaysia. All that matters in Singapore is the present, devoid of the historical past, framed in graphs and pie charts. And she cannot understand a Malaysia, for all its commitment to a technological future, is still mired in a cultural and religious mindset. In Malaysia, there is an acceptance that nations, no matter how powerful, blunder through, and that must be taken into account in every matter. Especially in talks.

    Singapore does not understand or accept this. Which is why a think tank in the republic holds a seminar next month on the Malay mind, with two prominent Malaysians, neither Malay, leading it in an attempt find an instant answer. Could cultural forms be understood and learnt at seminars like this if the national mood is to drag the other side’s nose to the ground? When Singapore positions itself, with Israeli help, as a Chinese island in a hostile Malay sea, as Israel in the Middle East, and believes its military might could flatten its neighbours armed might at the onset of hostilities, and conducts its talks with its neighbours as it does, is it not inevitable that many in Malaysia believe that this issue must result in open hostilities? Especially when it was Singapore that began the military arms race with Malaysia when she bought tanks in the late 1960s. And continue to taunt the Malaysian armed forces by her military aircraft straying deep into Trengganu and Kelantan and back into international waters when the RMAF jets scramble from Kuantan.

    Malaysia has quietly shown Singapore over how weak her security is. She has slapped the Singapore armed forces in ways that caused it to come unstuck. The most dramatic was when its commandos invaded its high security air missiles base in Bukit Batok overlooking the Straits of Johore and pasted Malaysian stamps on the missiles and replaced the Singapore flag on the commanding officer’s table with the Malaysian flag. Several Singapore officers resigned or were reassigned or demoted. The major who carried it out, who is known by his nickname, Sam, is still around and in the business.

    Malaysia believes this tough talk on water is to force the issue to be resolved on the battlefield. A book on Singapore’s armed forces suggest it as a way of reinforcing its own security and ensuring the republic gets all the water she needs. When Jordan said she would divert a river from the Lake Galilee for agricultura, Israel warned Amman that would be a cause for war. Malaysian defence planners say that its armoury is outclassed by Singapore’s. But the Malaysian fighting machine after the war is not. Besides, neither Israel nor the United States would rush to Singapore’s aid should hostilities break out. Not after the quagmire of one in the Middle East and engaging another Muslim nation of the other. As one military planner asked: “Would Singapore cut its nose to spite Malaysia’s face? For should war break out. Singapore would be destroyed no matter what happens. Is that the brinkmanship it displays?” The talks are preferable, but it is Singapore which must ask for it.

    Source: http://militaryofmalaysia.net/2008/12/komando-malaysia-intrusion-into-singapore-missile-complex/

     

    EDITOR’S NOTE

    Sometimes, we cannot help but wonder why our neighbours are so mean to this tiny island when we have been very helpful and friendly. Just look at what we did for the Malaysians during the MH370 plane disappearance. We were the first few countries to help. That’s what neighbours are for, we look out for each other.

    This sounds like a nice ‘scary story telling’ session by the Malaysians. But Singaporeans should not take this ‘story’ lightly.

    Hope MINDEF can clarify this matter. This is very serious.

     

     

    letters to R1C banner

  • Time For SG Muslims To Break Free from MUIS

    Credit: Guardian
    Credit: Guardian

    Dear R1C,

    I have been keeping watch on the recent developments in the Muslim community pertaining to several important issues like the halal certification matters, MUIS’s flaccid performance on hijab issue, and zero counter measures on Pink Dot SG event this 28 June 2014 which coincidentally falls on the first day of Ramadhan. As a result of the indifference of MUIS towards taking action in the interests of the Muslim community, this has further pushed Muslims into losing faith in the secular fabric of the country.

    As Muslims, we are fully aware eating halal and tayyib food is an important as a matter of worship of God where general principle what is lawful and what is good (Tayyib) should be followed. The food service sector is deemed to be the final link in the entire food industry supply chain and as this industry experiences a rapid growth, the duty of ensuring the food is halal has been shifted to restaurant operators and this can be seen through the introduction of halal standard. However, many restaurant operators did not comply with this halal standard and led to halal fraudulent practices. Reports on halal fraudulent decrease the confidence level amongst the Muslims. What’s more saddening is the tacit approach taken by MUIS and its entirely owned Halal consultancy company known as Warees Halal.

    When it comes to hijab issue, attempts to resolve the tudung/hijab issue by the MUIS and the government remained unsatisfactory. Religious attires do not contribute to social disharmony and disunity and the wearing of headscarves definitely does not contribute to social disintegration. Since late last year, there has been ongoing debate on how the Government should review its stand of not allowing the tudung for certain uniformed public sector jobs, to fit the community’s aspirations. Tudung is an important religious obligation and one which symbolises a woman’s dignity and decency. There is a growing number of the grievances of fellow Muslims who face difficulties in fulfilling the religious obligation in covering the aurat due to the tudung restriction in some workplaces. The Muslims in Singapore appreciate the willingness by some government agencies for allowing Muslim women to fulfill this religious obligation. Such flexibility should be extended to all government agencies as it will reflect the government’s effort in promoting multiculturalism, and be made an example for the private sector. In alignment with the principles of individual rights and religious freedom, Muslim women who are wearing the tudung should be given equal opportunities and treatment in their workplace or in finding employment. We heard murmurs from MUIS and PERGAS, but what has been done so far? The hijab issue has been swept under the carpet again.

    While Muslims celebrate the coming of blessed month Ramadhan, unfortunately many Muslims will also celebrate with the LGBT during their annual PinkDot party at Hong Lim Park. If Muslims continue to sit back in our state of docility, the PinkDot movement will keep on pushing their agenda. However, this does not mean that Muslims must ostracize the strayed homosexual Muslims. Instead, Muslims should come together and take the steps to make them understand Islam even more, and create the necessary avenue or platform for them to interact with true Muslims who love Allah and strive to make amends to improve themselves. Without such avenue/platform, Muslims are alienating these pro-LGBT supporters and activists from any of our outreach efforts. It will be a tumultuous journey but we pray that the families and friends involved are taking steps in the right direction to help their strayed loved ones. We need help from a group of professionals to help these strayed Muslims, but who do we turn to when every single action needs authorization and clearance from the MUIS and the Government?

    After such a long drawn out jihad on these issues with insignificant outcome, it is high time to call for the set up of a new independent ulama body that closely oversees matters of Muslims in Singapore. Something that works like PERGAS but free from government influence and control. Indeed, the Muslim community, has fallen into unIslamic ways and needs clerical leadership in order to return to the fundamentals of the faith.

    Authored by Mohd Firdaus Samad

    letters to R1C

  • BREAKING: People’s Association Gets Adverse Ratings from Auditors

    57D2F54B97B16658289AC9051ED

    Yesterday (19 Feb), Minister for National Development Khaw Boon Wan requested Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam to direct the Auditor-General to conduct an audit of the opposition-run Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council’s (AHPETC) financial accounts.

    AHPETC’s auditor, Foo Kon Tan Grant Thornton LLP, had earlier submitted a “disclaimer of opinion” on AHPETC’s FY2012-13 financial statements, raising 13 issues of concern over the town council’s accounts.

    Earlier, on 14 February 2014, the Ministry of National Development (MND) said that the auditor’s disclaimer of opinion “is more severe than a qualified opinion” [Link].

    In yesterday’s statement, the PAP government said that the observations in the auditor’s report “raise serious questions about the reliability and accuracy of AHPETC’s financial and accounting systems”.

    “This is the second year that the Auditor has submitted a disclaimer of opinion on AHPETC’sFinancial Statements. Moreover the Auditor has raised several more issues of pressing concern this year, compared to last year. AHPETC’s Auditor’s Report and Financial Statements are cause for serious concern.”

    As it turns out, auditors have been giving an “adverse opinion” on the financial reports from the People’s Association (PA) for several years now.

    PA oversees all the grassroots activities in Singapore. It is a statutory board under the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCCY). The Chairman of PA is none other than PM Lee Hsien Loong himself.

    According to ACRA, there are a few types of audit opinions. A “disclaimer of opinion” means the auditor is unable to express an opinion on the financial statements but an “adverse opinion” means qualification of the financial report is not adequate to disclose the misleading or incomplete nature of the financial statements [Link]:

    Types of Audit Opinion Explanation
    Unqualified Opinion The auditor “concludes that the financial statements give a true and fair view or are presented fairly, in all material respects, in accordance with the applicable financial reporting framework.”
    Emphasis of matter (EOM) This is to “highlight a matter affecting the financial statements which is included in a note to the financial statements that more extensively discusses the matter. The addition of such an emphasis of matter paragraph does not affect the auditor’s opinion.”
    Qualified Opinion* This is expressed when the “auditor concludes that an unqualified opinion cannot be expressed but that the effect of any disagreement with management, or limitation on scope is not so material and pervasive as to require an adverse opinion or a disclaimer of opinion.”
    Disclaimer of Opinion* It is expressed when the “possible effect of a limitation on scope is so material and pervasive that the auditor has not been able to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence and accordingly is unable to express an opinion on the financial statements.”
    Adverse Opinion* It is expressed when the “effect of a disagreement is so material and pervasive to the financial statements that the auditor concludes that a qualification of the report is not adequate to disclose the misleading or incomplete nature of the financial statements.”

    TRE has gone through PA’s financial reports on its website and found the following:

    FY2007 (07/08) [Link]

    For FY2007, PA did not include the financial statements of grassroots organizations (GROs) operating under itself. The auditor could not “assess the financial impact to the financial statements of the Association arising from the non-inclusion of the financial statements of theGROs”. As such, the auditor gave an “adverse opinion” against PA because its financial statements “[did] not present fairly” the state of affairs of the Association:

    pa1-640x457

     

    (published by PricewaterhouseCoopers, 15 Sep 2009)

    FY2009 (09/10) [Link]

    In FY2009, a new auditor, KPMG LLP, took over the audit of PA. The new auditor said, “We do not have sufficient information to assess the financial impact to the financial statements of the Association arising from the non-inclusion of the financial statements of the GROs.” As such, the new auditor also gave an “adverse opinion”:

    pa3-640x246

     

    (published by KPMG LLP, 15 Jul 2010)

    Then, the format for the online version of PA’s financial reports for the next 3 years (FY2010 – 2012) changed [a href=”http://www.pa.gov.sg/about-us/annual-reports.html”>Link].

    The public could no longer see the detailed opinions of the auditors. PA only published the “financial highlights” in these 3 reports. In other words, the financial reports became just financial summaries:

    TRE then went down to the National Library to attempt to get printed copies of PA’s financial reports but the librarian was not able to find printed copies for the last 3 FYs (FY2010 – 2012). The library only has printed copies up to FY2009. The librarian told TRE to refer to the online versions instead.

    Not giving up, TRE did a further extensive online search and managed to find an online version of PA’s FY2010 financial report. This copy was found on the Parliament website:

    FY2010 (10/11) [Link]

    Comparing this with the online version on PA’s website [Link], they are essentially the sameexcept that the one found on the Parliament website discloses the detailed opinion of the auditor at the end:

    pa5-640x433

    (published by KPMG LLP, 15 Jul 2011)

    Again, the auditor could only give an “adverse opinion” for PA’s FY2010 financial report because the auditor “[did] not have sufficient information to assess the financial impact to the financial statements of the Association arising from the non-inclusion of the financial statements of the GROs.”

    The relationship of PA and PAP is very close. Mr Lee Kuan Yew once proudly said that the Chinese have been sending teams of officials to learn from Singapore for years:

    They discover that the People’s Action Party has only a small office in Bedok. But everywhere they go, they see the PAP – in the RCs (residents’ committees),CCCs (citizens’ consultative committees), and the CCs (community clubs).

    The operating expenditure of PA is huge. According to its latest financial report (FY2012), PA’s operating expenditure for the year increased by $46 million to $483 million. Government grants which are taxpayers’ money given to PA amounted to $434 million in FY2012:

    Capture30

    Dr Ernest Kan, President of the Institute of Singapore Chartered Accountants (ISCA) and Pasir RisPunggol grassroots leader, had earlier agreed with MND that the audit findings on AHPETC are “serious” (‘President of ISCA: AHPETC’s audit report ‘serious’‘). It is not known what Dr Kan has to say about PA’s audit findings which have garnered “adverse opinions” from auditors.

    It is also not known if the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY), Lawrence Wong, will request Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam to direct the Auditor-General to conduct an audit of PA’s financial accounts, since PA comes under MCCY.

    Source: http://www.tremeritus.com/2014/02/20/breaking-auditors-give-adverse-ratings-to-pas-financial-reports/

  • Bilahari Kausikan: Sensitivity is a two-way street

    ganyang

    INDONESIAN Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa has told the Singapore media that “no ill intent was meant, no malice, no unfriendly outlook”, when Indonesia named a new frigate KRI Usman Harun, after two Indonesian marines executed in 1968 for a 1965 terror attack on MacDonald House in Orchard Road that killed three and injured 33.

    Singaporeans will no doubt be happy to know this. But I am afraid that the Foreign Minister entirely missed the point.

    The issue is not Indonesia’s intentions. It is something far more fundamental. Indonesians never tire of reminding Singapore that we should be “sensitive” and “neighbourly”. But Indonesians do not seem to believe that they should be equally “sensitive” to their neighbours. “Sensitivity” and “neighbourliness” are to them a one-way street.

    These are the facts: Between 1963 and 1966, then Indonesian President Sukarno waged a “Konfrontasi” (confrontation) of terror attacks and military action to “Ganjang (crush) Malaysia”. Singapore was part of the Federation of Malaysia formed in September 1963 until August 1965 when it became independent.

    In Singapore alone, there were some 40 bomb attacks over about two years. Most of the targets could by no stretch of the imagination be considered legitimate military objectives. They included schools, hotels, cinemas, bus depots, telephone booths and residences.

    sjc01bomb26e

    MacDonald House was an office building. The victims of that bombing were civilian office workers. Relatives of the victims are still alive. Older Singaporeans still remember the fear and uncertainty of that period. Are we not entitled to some “sensitivity”?

    The two who planted the bomb, Osman Mohamed Ali and Harun Said, may have been Indonesian marines, but were in civilian clothes and sneaked into Singapore for terror attacks against civilians. They were found guilty of murder and executed after they had exhausted all legal appeals.

    What would Indonesians think if the Singapore Navy were to go crazy and name one of its warships after Noordin Top, the terrorist behind bombings in Jakarta in 2004 and 2009 and who may have assisted in the 2002 Bali bombings?

    The late President Suharto sent a personal emissary to plead for clemency for the two marines. But they had been convicted of murder after due legal process. On what grounds could Singapore have pardoned them?

    To have done so would have been to concede that the small must always defer to the big and irretrievably compromise our sovereignty.

    After Singapore refused the clemency appeals, a Jakarta mob then sacked our embassy, burned our flag and threatened to kill our ambassador.

    There were actually four Indonesians on death row in Singapore in 1968 for crimes committed during Konfrontasi. Two others, Stanislaus Krofan and Andres Andea, had their sentences remitted after pleas by the Indonesian government and were sent back to Indonesia. The bomb they planted did not kill anyone.

    A few years later in 1973, Singapore’s then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew placed flowers on the graves of the two executed marines, thus bringing the episode to a close.

    Both actions – standing firm on fundamental principle even at the risk of conflict and making a gracious gesture once the principle had been established – were equally important in setting the foundations of the relationship Singapore today enjoys with Indonesia.

    The origins of Konfrontasi are complex: the political tensions and contradictions within Indonesian society of that time, Sukarno’s fiery personality and grandiose ambitions for “Indonesia Raya” (greater Indonesia), among other things.

    Self-righteous nationalism

    THESE conditions are not likely to be repeated. But as the respected American scholar of Indonesia, the late Dr George McTurnan Kahin, wrote in 1964 while Konfrontasi was still ongoing, that episode of aggression towards its neighbours was the consequence of the “powerful, self-righteous thrust of Indonesian nationalism” and the widespread belief that “because of (the) country’s size… it has a moral right to leadership”.

    Time may have given a more sophisticated gloss to this attitude but has not essentially changed it.

    This attitude lies, for example, behind the outrageous comments by some Indonesian ministers during the haze last year that Singapore should be grateful for the oxygen Indonesia provides; it is the reason why Indonesians think Singaporeans should take into account their interests and sensitivities without thinking it necessary to reciprocate.

    Indonesians and Singaporeans need to understand this.

    Of course, Indonesia has the right to name its ship anything it pleases, as some Indonesians have argued. But that is beside the point.

    Why choose a name that is bound to cause offence? That the Indonesians did not even think of the implications, as Foreign Minister Marty’s comments to the media would suggest, is exactly the point.

    I do not expect the Indonesians to change the name of the ship. But would any Indonesian leader be prepared to emulate Mr Lee Kuan Yew and place a wreath at MacDonald House?

    It was not Singapore that started this incident. And Singapore has no interest in seeing relations with a close neighbour strained.

    But Singaporeans cannot let this episode pass without signalling our displeasure.

    The foundations laid for the bilateral relationship in 1968 and 1973 are still valid. Mutual respect is the essential condition for good relations.

    My father was ambassador to Indonesia when Singapore’s embassy was sacked. He was on leave in Singapore when the decision was taken to turn down the appeal for clemency. He went back to Jakarta to be at post when the execution took place.

    After the mob attacked our embassy, he and all our staff remained at post, operating from Hotel Indonesia.

    I was a schoolboy studying in Singapore at that time. But shortly after the attack, he summoned me to Jakarta to join him and my mother. I now realise that it was to show that we were not intimidated. It was my first lesson in diplomacy.

    I spent a boring month holed up in Hotel Indonesia.

    The only “entertainment” was the daily demonstrations in the square in front of the hotel, which included a seemingly endless stream of red-bereted KKO (Navy Commando Corps) commandos marching by, shouting threatening slogans.

    But after a while, I realised that it was only a few units marching round and round in circles because I came to recognise the faces of individual soldiers. And that too is a lesson that Singaporeans should understand.