Rilek1Corner

Tag: Singapore

  • I’m Not Pro-PAP, I’m Pro-Singapore

    I’m Not Pro-PAP, I’m Pro-Singapore

    If you have read my “About Me” page, you would probably have realised that I am pro-government.

    “And if you ask me: why politics? Well, I have an unabashed deep admiration for my Singapore government…”

    It was probably a risk to have made that statement in my introductory page. Fervent opposition party supporters would probably have blacklisted my blog or swore never to come by again. (Not that I’ve actually ever blogged about politics.) Yet, being the passionate person that I am, I had no qualms in professing my ardent support of the incumbent government, albeit not explaining why.

    Today, on the 50th birthday of this country that I love with all my heart – that in order to protect it, (if need be) I’m willing to die on the battlefield – I will endeavour to justify my utmost support for the government: not with political arguments but with day-to-day experiences.

    To begin, I confess that I used to be a naïve – critics call it “brainwashed” – supporter of the PAP. I would volunteer at the local Meet-the-People Session religiously every week. I would read the news and take the ministers’ words as it is. I would aggressively defend against irrationalised opinions of government policies. I chose to study Politics with a great intent to understand the psyche of politicians, to be well equipped to combat any accusations of the government that were poorly thought of.

    I completed my freshmen year as a Politics and International Relations undergraduate in the United Kingdom (University of Manchester). What I learnt in university turned out to be different from what I had expected. Instead of reinforcing my beliefs, it made me more critical. Liberal democracy, checks and balances, free press, freedom of speech… The more I studied, the more I realised how my government was under the attack of the prodemocrats. However, at the same time, something else seemed to be invigorating my allegiance to the Singapore government. It wasn’t what I was learning in university. It was my everyday experiences – the long walks down the streets of Manchester, the trips to the Underground Tube in London, and the interaction with friends from all around the world – that bolstered my faith in how Singapore is being run, and my sense of pride to be called a Singaporean.

    I walked to college and back every day, saddened by the sight of homeless men and women begging for spare change. I visited the city center every weekend to immerse myself in the vibrant city life, only to be tainted by the ugly streets plastered with splotches of unwanted gum. I tried my best to go home before the sun went down; otherwise, I would be jumping at every alarming sound that could possibly have been a gunshot or a violent attack. I ran to the bus stop on Sunday mornings, hoping and praying that I didn’t missed the bus (for I would never know when the next one would come). I walked to the nearby Underground Tube when I was in London for the weekend, half expecting the station not to be operating on that day. I learnt about the concerns of my peers in finding a job back in their home country upon graduation. I heard about their plans of not returning to their country, in search of better prospects elsewhere.

    All of these are things I would rarely – if not, never – experience in Singapore. And on one of the occasions when I sought the opinion of a European friend of mine on Singapore’s lack of freedom of expression, his reply took me by surprise. “Who cares? You have money.” His reply brought things into perspective. I’m not saying (and I believe that’s not what he meant) that such freedoms aren’t important. What I’m saying, reader, is that compared to the people living in many other countries, in fact even in most of the 1st world countries, we are very fortunate to be living in Singapore. Before the anything-but-PAP supporters rebut with their arguments on how we – the average citizen – “technically” don’t have money, or that money isn’t everything, I would like to remind them that despite how financially handicapped you are, you still have the freedom to food security and personal safety that more than a handful of Europeans do not even have. My point is simply: do not take it for granted.

    On the 23rd of March this year at about 9p.m., I was on a trip to London, waiting for my scrumptious dinner to be served at the very sought-after Burger and Lobster. While waiting for my platter of steamed lobster to appear in front of me, I was scrolling through Facebook. That was when I first caught sight of PM Lee’s official statement on the passing of former MM Lee Kuan Yew. My first instinct told me that his Facebook account was probably hacked, again. Denial. It was only after confirming with the various sources that I finally came to terms with reality. I, along with my fellow Singaporean friends who were on holiday with me, continued dining as though nothing had happened. Yet, deep inside, we all knew that something had changed. There was an extremely unsettling feeling within me – a subtle amalgamation of grief and anxiety. I was tempted to pour out my feelings in a blog post a few days after his death; to lament the death our dearest founding father, to vent my anger at those who were disrespectful, to express the innumerous worries that I was harbouring for the future of Singapore.  However, I abstained from doing so in order not to pass off as non-objective and emotional.

    Today, more than 4 months after the death of Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, I vindicate the anxiety that I had harboured and I restore the right to write this blog post. The general elections are coming. There are speculations that it would be in September. If that is the case, I wouldn’t get to vote – I would be a month late. Yet, I hope that through this post, I would convince at least one person to consider where Singapore is right now, in the light of what is happening in the world – what is happening to our neighbours, what is happening to our former colonial authorities, what is happening to the supposed 1st world. In the light of all these, there is a reason to be grateful to our government. There is a reason to rejoice for your birth in this blessed nation. There is a reason to stay and fight for the country amidst its challenges.

    I do not want to sound over-optimistic. There are a myriad of issues and policies that I have started to question ever since I have been exposed to liberal democracy outside the country. I hate the inequality; my family struggled for more than a year with the meager earnings of my father’s small business. I do not believe in gerrymandering; I reckon that a capable party should compete based on fair elections. I don’t think that ministers should be paid so much; a genuine servant of the country ought not to be motivated by money. I disagree with certain aspects of how the public service is being run; more than 2 years in the Armed Forces have showed me more than enough flaws to convince me of the inefficiencies of the public service. Yet, unlike many who turn these frustrations into blind hatred for the government, I choose to accept that no government is perfect.

    I’m no longer pro-PAP. I’m pro-Singapore. I love my country and I would support the party that proves its mettle and worth. For taking care of my country for the past 50 years and nurturing her to whom she is today, I’m grateful to the PAP. However, if there comes a day when the country is being wrecked in the hands of this party that I have placed my trust in, I will not hold back my vote for the opposition, if there be a more capable one.

    And on a final note, to the Singaporeans who claim that they hate the country (especially because of the huge influx of foreigners) and are eager to leave for another country: by doing so, you are a hypocrite and you are no different from the foreigners in our country that you so very hate. You are not welcomed in another country either.

     

    Source: www.melodysim.com

  • What Singaporeans Can Be Thankful For This SG50

    What Singaporeans Can Be Thankful For This SG50

    Dear Singapore, as you celebrate your annual “We’re so glad we’re not part of Malaysia” celebration, let’s see what you can be thankful for.

    If you were part of Malaysia your 100 dollars will be in ringgit and would have shrunk to a third of its value to $35.45.

    Your national airline SIA is world renowned and rated for many years as #1 in the world as compared to our MAS which happens to be bankrupt.

    Your Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong is smart and can even find time to program a sudoku solver in his spare time whereas Najib Razak is making a fool of himself on the world stage.

    Your police and government pride itself as being corruption free, whereas our Malaysian Anti-Corruption officers have no recourse but to pray to Allah to protect them from the police.

    As you watch the fireworks tonight let every spark represent one of the 2.6 billion reasons why you should be glad you’re not part of Malaysia.

    Happy SG50 Jubilee Singapore. May you prosper for many more years to come.

     

    Source: MGAG

  • Qantas: 23-Hr Flight Delay Due To Jubilee Celebrations

    Qantas: 23-Hr Flight Delay Due To Jubilee Celebrations

    Australia’s national airline Qantas yesterday blamed Singapore’s Jubilee celebrations for the 23-hour delay of one of its flights which left dozens of passengers stranded here on Sunday night.

    Flight QF36 had been due to depart from Singapore for Melbourne at 7.55pm on Sunday but did not leave until 6.54pm yesterday.

    Singapore’s airspace was closed from 6.25pm to 7.10pm on Sunday during the National Day Parade (NDP) aerial displays over the Marina Bay area.

    Qantas said this meant that its inbound flight from Brisbane had to be diverted to Batam.

    The Straits Times understands that the plane had to re-fuel on the Indonesian island, around 20km away from the Republic.

    But before it could take off for the short flight to Singapore, its cabin crew had exceeded their maximum flying hours.

    The plane was forced to remain there until a new crew could be flown over. It arrived in Singapore only at 4.39am yesterday.

    The delay held up Flight QF36, as well as Flight QF6 – a Qantas flight to Sydney that had been due to depart at 11.50pm on Sunday, but finally left at 10.18am yesterday.

    The airline did not say how many passengers were affected by the delays, but a spokesman said that they were due to “congestion at Changi Airport as a result of the airport’s closure for SG50 flyover celebrations”.

    The Straits Times counted more than 50 people in the queue for the retimed QF36 flight yesterday. One passenger estimated that about 300 had been affected.

    The retimed flight was also unable to fly directly to Melbourne and had to transit in Darwin, although Qantas did not say why.

    The airline gave those affected accommodation at hotels or the airport lounge and meal vouchers, although this was considered meagre compensation by many.

    Australian housewife Melanie Dobson, 42, was due to fly home on QF36 with her husband and four-year-old daughter and said they were not told until 1.15am yesterday that they would have to spend the night in a hotel. “We are just exhausted,” she said.

    Her husband Andrew, 49, had to sleep on the floor so that his wife and daughter could share the bed. “It’s a bit of a disappointing end to the (Jubilee) weekend,” said the businessman.

    Other major airlines also had to reschedule flights in advance due to the NDP.

    A Singapore Airlines spokesman said: “Several Singapore Airlines and SilkAir flights were retimed as Singapore’s airspace was closed.”

    A Cathay Pacific airport duty supervisor said that while the airline had experienced some minor delays on Sunday, these were “all operational” and the flights affected by the airspace closure were “rescheduled months ago”.

    Meanwhile, yesterday’s QF36 flight to Melbourne was also delayed – and retimed to depart at 3pm today. A queue of confused passengers formed at the Qantas customer service desk at 5.30pm.

    Singaporean Adly Mohd Sham, 26, said he and a friend had arrived at the airport at 4pm, only to discover their flight was delayed.

    The customer service officer, who will miss his transfer flight to Tasmania, added that nobody had explained to him why the delay had arisen. “So far we’ve had no e-mail messages or calls, nothing.”

     

    Source: www.straitstimes.com

  • Aide Debunks Picture Of Rosmah ‘Bossing’ Najib At SG50 Parade

    Aide Debunks Picture Of Rosmah ‘Bossing’ Najib At SG50 Parade

    Rizal Mansor, the aide to the prime minister’s wife Rosmah Mansor, has debunked a photograph of Rosmah apparently ‘leading’ her husband Najib Abdul Razak during the Singapore National Day celebration last Sunday.

    The photograph, which has gone viral, was used to claim it to be an example of Rosmah “bossing” her husband as she is seen walking ahead of Najib.

    They were seen walking past Johor Sultan Ibrahim Ismail Iskandar and Johor Crown Prince Ismail Ibrahim, both of whom have been subtly critical of Najib, without any acknowledgement.

    Rizal said there were more important issues to be concerned about, but nonetheless he still addressed the photograph after noting that many people had played up the matter.

    He pointed out that Rosmah had to walk ahead as she was supposed to sit on the inside.

    “Rosmah walking in front of Najib, have a look at the arrangement sitting. It was like going to the movies, who is seated on the inside must go in first.

    “The seating and the position she enters is determined by Singapore’s protocol. We are guest, we have to follow,” he says in his Facebook posting.

    Rizal also addressed another photograph taken from an angle that apparently showed Rosmah as the only head of government’s wife present at the celebration.

    Other leaders too had their wives present…

    The aide posted a separate photograph, pointing out that there were also other heads of states or governments who were accompanied by their wives.

    “Rosmah was the only head of government’s wife?

    “Have a look at today’s (yesterday’s) Utusan Malaysia photograph. The wife of Indonesia’s vice-president was present, Vietnam and New Zealand too.

    “Out of eight head of states or representatives present, four of them brought their spouses.

    “Singapore prime minister’s wife was also there,” Rizal said.

    Social media has often made fun of Rosmah’s alleged influence over Najib, despite the prime minister denying that his wife plays any role in his administration.

    Najib is also suing Taiping MP Nga Kor Ming on his claim that Rosmah was present in a cabinet meeting, based on a photograph that Najib said was merely a regular meeting between him and a few ministers, at which his wife was present.

     

    Source: www.malaysiakini.com

  • PAP vs WP – What These Four Years Have Shown

    PAP vs WP – What These Four Years Have Shown

    An interesting period in Singapore politics will soon end with the coming general election.

    In fact, it was probably the most significant four years between elections. How so?

    This requires some explanation, so I should start at the beginning, after the 2011 GE.

    When the ruling party lost Aljunied GRC, there were some who argued that it was a good result for the country.

    They were not necessarily opposition supporters but believed that the People’s Action Party’s almost complete electoral domination could not last.

    Sooner or later, it would lose some of its appeal: its policies might not be working as well, voters want more alternatives or they might simply tire of its longevity and desire change.

    This transition to a more competitive political landscape could result in several possible scenarios. Will a two-party system emerge, as in many mature democracies? Would the PAP lose power one day? Or might it survive and continue to succeed but renewed and transformed.

    Whatever the outcome, Singaporeans hoped the change would be gradual, peaceful and lead to a stronger nation, one as able as it was in the past to overcome its challenges. What they feared

    most was sudden, unpredictable change, leading to instability or mediocrity and a loss of confidence in the country.

    Seen from this perspective, GE 2011 was a good outcome.

    Even though the PAP lost a GRC, it scored a landslide victory nationwide, winning 80 out of 87 seats and 60.1 per cent of the votes.

    If the country was indeed transiting towards a more normal democracy, this was a gradual, controlled shift.

    That was the initial assessment in the days immediately after the GE.

    Now, four years later, and as another election looms, the question is whether the experience so far has reinforced or weakened this view.

    Did it offer a glimpse of what the changing politics might look like and which of those three scenarios is the more likely?

    In fact, these four years were rich with data, and if I were a political scientist I would have had a field day.

    The ruling party swung into action on the policy front, determined to fix those policies that had caused much unhappiness in 2011. It tightened immigration, ramped up the construction of Housing Board flats and added hundreds more buses to the public transport network financed from government coffers.

    In doing so, it lived up to its reputation of being able to deliver results when it puts its mind to it.

    But there was no radical change in its approach to solving these problems, no huge departure from existing policies.

    Those who wanted a more fundamental review of, say, housing or transport would have been disappointed, though the Government might counter that it was more interested in tackling the problems in a pragmatic way rather than indulging in the grand ideas.

    The biggest shift in thinking was on social policy.

    It seems unlikely the subsidies and assistance given to senior citizens will end with the pioneer generation – more likely it signals a new approach to welfare support.

    Ditto the new health insurance scheme, MediShield Life, which now covers those with pre-existing medical problems.

    While you could argue the merits of each of these changes, taken together, the picture seems clear: The Government has become more responsive in helping vulnerable segments of the population.

    The PAP set out to make sure these issues would not dominate the agenda when it fights the next general election.

    On the political front, though, its approach could not be more different, refusing to concede much ground, and it might even have dug in some more.

    It pressed the WP on the management of its town council and the saga is still ongoing.

    It tightened legislation on online media and took legal action against several people for what they said in their blogs.

    Wasn’t this reverting to the bad old days? If it was, so be it, it seemed to be saying to its critics.

    For the PAP, change would not mean going soft on its political opponents. If these four years have shown how the party is responding to the new political landscape, it is this: fix the policies but give no quarter on the political front.

    On the opposition side, the only party of note is the WP, and it too showed plenty how it was managing the new situation.

    Those who expected it to liven up politics here by proactively engaging the PAP and giving it a hard time would have been disappointed. Even when the debate was over ministerial salaries, an issue on which it could have scored many political points, it did not rise to the bait and maintained a position not too far off the Government’s.

    Did these four years show up its inadequacy as the main opposition party holding the Government accountable or was it part of its strategy to consolidate its gains.

    Possibly both.

    The WP is intent on being regarded as a serious-minded party appealing to the middle ground, not one on the fringe.

    It believes this is the way to increase its share of the votes and that, with its small presence in Parliament, going full frontal against the ruling party on every issue will bring more risks than gains. That is why it prefers to work quietly on the ground in its own wards and in those it fancies at the next election.

    For the WP, the four years have shown it is content to make headway steadily rather than noisily. It appears more in consolidation phase than in any hurry to install a two-party system.

    One area though hasn’t been revealed but will become clearer in the coming weeks when it introduces its candidates for the GE: Its ability to attract people into the party, particularly those with ability and commitment.

    For me, this will be the most interesting and revealing part of its four-year journey so far.

    Do well on this front, and it would have made real progress.

    For the other opposition parties, I am afraid the four years have been more of the same. Still at the fringes, and all of them still hoping for the one breakthrough on Polling Day.

    Back to the question I posed at the beginning: Has it been good for the country?

    From the way the PAP responded, it has to be a qualified yes. The people got a more responsive government and the main opposition party is still keeping alive the hopes of opposition supporters. Voters now have a better measure of the two main parties and can cast their votes accordingly.

    In fact, you could also say GE 2011 was good for the PAP, forcing it to adjust to the new reality. I bet that’s not how they saw it four years ago.

     

    Source: www.straitstimes.com

deneme bonusu