Interview with Mr Ngiam Tong Dow, former head of the civil service, in 2003. Q. With all this pessimism surrounding Singapore's prospects today, what's your personal prognosis? Will Singapore survive Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew? A. Unequivocally yes, Singapore will survive SM Lee but provided he leaves the right legacy. What sort of legacy he wants to leave is for him to say, but I, a blooming upstart, dare to suggest to him that we should open up politically and allow talent to be spread throughout our society so that an alternative leadership can emerge.So far, the People's Action Party's tactic is to put all the scholars into the civil service because it believes the way to retain political power forever is to have a monopoly on talent. But in my view, that's a very short term view. It is the law of nature that all things must atrophy. Unless SM allows serious political challenges to emerge from the alternative elite out there, the incumbent elite will just coast along. At the first sign of a grassroots revolt, they will probably collapse just like the incumbent Progressive Party to the left-wing PAP onslaught in the late 1950s. I think our leaders have to accept that Singapore is larger than the PAP. Q. What would be a useful first step in opening up? A. For Singapore to survive, we should release half our talent - our President and Overseas Merit scholars - to the private sector. When ten scholars come home, five should turn to the right and join the public sector or the civil service; the other five should turn to the left and join the private sector. These scholars should serve their bond to Singapore - not to the Government - by working in or for Singapore overseas. As matters stand, those who wish to strike out have to break their bonds, pay a financial penalty and worse, be condemned as quitters. But it takes a certain temperament and mindset to be a civil servant. The former head of the civil service,Sim Kee Boon, once said that joining the administrative service is like entering a royal priesthood. Not all of us have the temperament to be priests. However upright a person is, the mandarin will in time begin to live a gilded life in a gilded cage. As a Permanent Secretary, I never had to worry whether I could pay my staff their wages. It was all provided for in the Budget. As chairman of DBS Bank, I worried about wages only 20 per cent of the time. I now face my greatest business challenge as chairman of HDB Corp, a new start-up spun off from HDB. I spend 90 per cent of my time worrying whether I have enough to pay my staff at the end of the month. It's a mental switch. Q. What is your biggest worry about the civil service? A. The greatest danger is we are flying on auto-pilot. What was once a great policy, we just carry on with more of the same, until reality intervenes. Take our industrial policy. At the beginning, it was the right thing for us to attract multinationals to Singapore. For some years now, I've been trying to tell everybody: 'Look, for God's sake, grow our own timber.' If we really want knowledge to be rooted in Singaporeans and based in Singapore, we have to support our SMEs. I'm not a supporter of SMEs just for the sake of more SMEs, but we must grow our own roots. Creative Technology's Sim Wong Hoo is one and Hyflux's Olivia Lum is another but that's too few. We have been flying on auto-pilot for too long. The MNCs have contributed a lot to Singapore but they are totally unsentimental people. The moment you're uncompetitive, they just relocate. Q. Why has this come about? A. I suspect we have started to believe our own propaganda. There is also a particular brand of Singapore elite arrogance creeping in. Some civil servants behave like they have a mandate from the emperor. We think we are little Lee Kuan Yews. SM Lee has earned his spurs, with his fine intellect and international standing. But even Lee Kuan Yew sometimes doesn't behave like Lee Kuan Yew. There is also a trend of intellectualisation for its own sake, which loses a sense of the pragmatic concerns of the larger world. The Chinese, for example, keep good archives of the Imperial examinations which used to be held at the Temple of Heaven. At the beginning, the scholars were tested on very practical subjects, such as how to control floods in their province. But over time, they were examined on the Confucian Analects and Chinese poetry composition. Hence, they became emasculated by the system, a worrying fate which could befall Singapore. Q. But aren't you an exception to the norm of the gilded mandarin with zero bottomline consciousness? A. That's because I started out with Economic Development Board in the 1959. Investment promotion then was all about hard foot slogging and personal persuasion, which teaches you to be very humble and patient. I learnt to be a supplicant and a professional beggar, instead of a dispenser of favours. These days, most civil servants start out administering the law. If I had my way, every administrative officer would start his or her career in the EDB. Hard foot slogging. Q. YOUR idea of creating an alternate elite is not new. What do you think of the oft-mooted suggestion of achieving that splitting ranks within the People's Action Party? A. Quite honestly, if you ask me, Team A-and-Team B is a synthetic and infantile idea. If you want to challenge the Government, it must be spontaneous. You have to allow some of your best and brightest to remain outside your reach and let them grow spontaneously. How do you know their leadership will not be as good as yours? But if you monopolise all the talent, there will never be an alternative leadership. And alternatives are good for Singapore. Q. In your calculation, what are the odds of this alternative replacing the incumbent? A. Of course there's a political risk. Some of these chaps may turn out to be your real opposition, but that is the risk the PAP has to take if it really wants Singapore to endure. A model we should work towards is the French model of the elite administration. The very brightest of France all go to university or college. Some emerge Socialists, others Conservative, some work in industries, some work in government. Yet, at the end of the day, when the chips are down, they are all Frenchmen. No member of the French elite will ever think of betraying his country, never. That is the sort of Singapore elite we want. It doesn't mean that all of us must belong to the PAP. That is very important. Q. What do bad times mean for the PAP, which has based its legitimacy on providing the economic goods and asset enhancement? Is its social compact with the people in need of an update? Oh yes. And my advice is: Go back to Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew's old credo, where nobody owes us a living. After I had just taken over as the Housing Board's chairman in 2000, an astute academic asked me: 'Tong Dow, what's your greatest problem at HDB?' Then he diagnosed it himself: 'Initially, you gave peanuts to monkeys so they would dance to your tune. Now you've given them so much by way of peanuts that the monkey has become a gorilla and you have to dance to its tune. That's your greatest problem.' Our people have become over-fed and today's economic realities mean we have to put them on a crash diet. We cannot starve them because there will be a political explosion. So the art of government today is to wean everyone off the dispensable items. We should just concentrate on helping the poorest 5 to 10 per cent of the population, instead of handing out a general largesse. Forget about asset enhancement, Singapore shares and utility rebates. You're dancing to the tune of the gorilla. I don't understand the urgency of raising the Goods and Services Tax. Why tax the lower-income, then return it to them in an aid package? It demeans human dignity and creates a growing supplicant class who habitually hold out their palms. Despite the fact that we say we are not a welfare state, we act like one of the most 'welfarish' states in the world. We should appeal instead to people's sense of pride and self-reliance. I think political courage is needed here. And my instinct is that the Singaporean will respect you for that. Q. So what should this new compact consist of? A. It should go back to what was originally promised: 'That you shall be given the best education, whether it be academic or vocational, according to your maximum potential.' And there will be no judgment whether an engineer is better than a doctor or a chef. My late mother was a great woman. Although illiterate, she single-handedly brought up four boys and a girl. She used to say in Hainanese: 'If you have one talent which you excel in, you will never starve.' I think the best legacy to leave is education and equal opportunity for all. When the Hainanese community came to Singapore, they were the latest arrivals and the smallest in number. So they had no choice but to become humble houseboys, waiters and cooks. But they always wanted their sons to have a better life than themselves. The great thing about Singapore was that we could get an education, which gave us mobility, despite coming from the poorest families. Today, the Hainanese, as a dialect group, form proportionately the highest number of professionals in Singapore. Q. You say focus on education. What is top of your wishlist for re-making Singapore's education system? A. Each year, the PSLE creams off all the top boys and girls and dispatches them to only two schools, Raffles Institution and Raffles Girls' School. However good these schools are, the problem is you are educating your elite in only two institutions, with only two sets of mentors, and casting them in more or less the same mould. It worries me that Singapore is only about 'one brand' because you never know what challenges lie ahead and where they will come from. I think we should spread out our best and brightest to at least a dozen schools. Q. You advocate a more inclusive mindset all around? A. Yes, intellectually, everyone has to accept that the country of Singapore is larger than the PAP. But even larger than the country of Singapore, which is limited by size and population, is the nation of Singapore, which includes a diaspora. My view is that we should have a more inclusive approach to nation-building. We have started the Majulah Connection, an international network where every Singaporean - whether he is a citizen or not, so long as he feels for Singapore - is included as part of our diaspora. Similarly, we should include foreigners who have worked and thrived here as friends of Singapore. That's the only way to survive. Otherwise, its just four million people on a little red dot of 600 sq km. If you exclude people, you become smaller and smaller, and in the end, you'll disappear. Q. What is the kind of Singapore you hope your grandchildren will inherit? A. Let's look at Sparta and Athens, two city states in Greek history. Singapore is like Sparta, where the top students are taken away from their parents as children and educated. Cohort by cohort, they each select their own leadership, ultimately electing their own Philosopher King. When I first read Plato's Republic, I was totally dazzled by the great logic of this organisational model where the best selects the best. But when I reached the end of the book, it dawned on me that though the starting point was meritocracy, the end result was dictatorship and elitism. In the end, that was how Sparta crumbled. Yet, Athens, a city of philosophers known for its different schools of thought, survived. What does this tell us about out-of-bounds markers? So SM Lee has to think very hard what legacy he wants to leave for Singapore and the type of society he wants to leave behind. Is it to be a Sparta, a well-organised martial society, but in the end, very brittle; or an untidy Athens which survived because of its diversity of thinking? Personally, I believe that Singaporeans are not so kuai (Hokkien for obedient) as to become a Sparta. This is our saving grace. As a young senior citizen, I very much hope that Singapore will survive for a long time, but as an Athens. It is more interesting and worth living and dying for.

Zatoichi TV series (1979) S04E12

corolla sportivo.MTS

Photographer handcuffed by police for taking flood pictures

Photographer handcuffed by police for taking flood pictures

Thursday, July 21, 2005 Asean News Network: Legitimized Corruption Understood From: Carl Kapeland To: Mellanie Hewlitt #Article posted by Wolfgang Holzem / Erwan Shah @ 10:47 AM Dear Mellanie In the latest developments the entire National Kidney Foundation Board of Singapore and its CEO have taken the easy route out and resigned. That's leadership for you, when things get messy, just get up and leave the mess for someone else to clean up. But I don't think the new CEO or Board will do much cleaning up. Looks like they are replacing one bunch of rotten apples with another bunch of potentially more rotten apples. It does not address the real problem. WHAT IS THE REAL PROBLEM? There are several recurrent issues here. Singapore is in this current mess because Lee's PAP Government has forgotten that not everything can be reduced to money. You cannot throw money at all your problems and expect it to magically disappear. The material base that motivates Singapore's "leaders" is only too evident when the NKF's transit CEO (Gerald Ee) hinted that "SGD600,000/- may not be sufficient for the new replacement to take office"!!! Money is the only motivating factor and if they have elected a leader and a board who is motivated only by money, its only a natural and unavoidable result that they will end up with an organization which has forgotten its once noble purpose and replaced it with more materialistic pursuits. Have they (Singapore) appointed a Wolf in sheep's clothing to guard their precious flock? For positions like these in charity organizations, THE CHIEF MOTIVATING FACTOR CANNOT BE MONEY! as they are not running an investment bank. The same applies senior public service positions and for ministerial positions. NOT EVERYTHING CAN BE REDUCED TO MONEY. But Lee's PAP Ministers have used this holistic approach to address any and all issues under the sun. Lee and his ministers simply CANNOT RUN A COUNTRY THE SAME WAY THEY RUN A COMPANY. Why? Because a country comprises of flesh and blood and spirit. A company is merely a corporate vehicle that is often set- up for the sole purpose of reaping a monetary profit. SINGAPORE AS A COUNTRY, IS NOT SINGAPORE INC!!!! And even if it is, its directors (and that means Lee and his million dollar cabinet) have to remain accountable to the shareholders (Singapore citizens). Singapore MINISTERS have to be transparent, and they are not especially as regards their salaries and the management of the country's reserves. Consider this, the NKF was originally set up as a supposedly charitable organization. In form and function it appeared above board and reputable. But in actual practice it had a hidden agenda to siphon wealth from the public into state coffers. And what happens to all this money (all SGD200 million of it?) No body knows. These same similarities in the NKF saga are reproduced on a grander scale in overall state administration in Singapore. Whether its the CPF, LTA, GLCs, Temasek etc they all relate to the same basic issue. It goes back to the same bunch of corrupt leaders paying themselves and their cronies humongous ridiculous salaries, approved and legitimized under a set of bogus laws that they legislated in the first place. But even before this NKF scam, transparency issues have dogged Singapore's state administration for decades and repeated requests by the World Bank, IMF, FTA and other NGOs for greater accountability and transparency have basically fallen on deaf ears. These are basic transparency issues which plaque management of public moneys by all state entities (whether its the CPF Board, GLCs, Temasek, LTA etc). There is massive deception on a grand scale and I suspect the latest NKF debacle only surfaced due to internal friction within Singapore's "inner-circle of elite politicians." Perhaps someone amongst Singapore's Ruling Elite wanted a bigger portion of the loot. Think about it. Durai commenced his latest law suite on the confident assumption that it would be a "no contest" walk-over like his two previous suites. But whilst the Singapore sham courts had no problems finding in his favor in the 2 previous suites (which were taken against private individuals and a volunteer who correctly questioned his lavish spending), the latest suite was against another state bureaucracy. And it was inevitable that the sham court found in favor of the bigger devil. So even amongst the thieves there is a power struggle over who gets a bigger piece of the loot. So this then is justice ala Singapore styled. Who you are and who you are connected with ultimately decides the outcome of the law suite. The material facts of the case (and legal premise) have little relevance in the kangaroo court's final assessment. But by far the most troubling problem is that of Legitimized Corruption. You (Mellanie) have used the term "Legitimized Corruption" very accurately, but failed to elaborate on its true meaning and implications. Legitimized Corruption means essentially that the corrupt act itself is made perfectly legal. That is why there is a possibility that the external audit on NKF may turn out nothing because Durai and his actions may have been all perfectly legitimate and authorized according to the internal constitution of the Board. In a normal organization with bona fide controls in place, the Board would not have approved and allowed such unreasonable and lavish expenditures. However, in Singapore's setting where "anything goes" it is possible that the board were within their discretionary powers to authorize such lavish expenditures. Mind you these are expenditures which (by any ordinary definition) would have amounted to an immoral mis-management of public moneys for unauthorized applications. But if the internal rules of conduct of NKF allowed the Board to act in this manner, it would then be an authorized and legitimate act. So even after the process of audit has concluded it is perfectly possible for the auditors to conclude that the use of donor funds for; a) Durai's pay of SGD600,000 and his salary of SGD1.8 million; b) All expenses and application of donor funds used for purchase of SGD990/- god taps; c) All expenses for first class air travel; d) The levying of a 30% Admin Fee; e) The hiring of personal drivers and limos. All of the above are authorized and legitimate. Anyway we all know that the so called "audit" of the NKF accounts is merely a publicity stunt to show case to the world that the current government and the new board is taking steps to remain accountable. But does this make the above acts any more acceptable and morally correct. NO! Of cause not. An atrocity is still an atrocity even though it is legitimized. One clear example is prostitution in Singapore. It is legal and the fact that it is legal does not detract one iota from the fact that it is still immoral, depraved and inhuman. Of cause there are critics who will argue that moral values are to subjective concepts and we cannot always use these imprecise measures to define what is right or wrong. And I concede that there is some truth in this as we live in a world coloured in gray. However, there will always remain some acts which are so blatantly wrong that they remain morally objectionable and immoral by any standard and yardstick. And the NKF scam (as well as Singapore ministerial salaries) fall within this category. It is morally wrong by any measure and this is not a gray area at all. This same logic applies on a larger scale as regards ministerial salaries and the process that is orchestrated to "approve" such unreasonable and lavish salaries (amounting to millions of dollars per minister). Legitimized Corruption works much like Money Laundering, but is worse. In essence Legitimized Corruption is corruption which is made legal. These perpetrators attempt to do what drug cartels and money launderers do;- basically "launder" the money (or the dishonest act) and make the final product appear nice and clean. But senior politicians differ from your average drug lord or mafia boss in one important respect;- these ministers are much more sophisticated. They know the system (and probably designed it) and know how to manipulate and tweak the system so that they can have access to the ill-gotten gains without getting their hands dirty. Next to them, Gordon Gecko and the God-Father look like novices and vestal virgins. However make no mistake the underlying act itself remains wrong, dishonest and morally objectionable but is hidden under a cloak of legitimacy. Drug money (and money from dishonest trades) is still ill- gotten loot. Behind this elaborate sham are a host of corporate and state entities (GLCs, state owned entities and yes, charitable organizations) which are set-up to place a corporate veil between the real perpetrators and the morally objectionable and dishonest transaction. The fact that it is perfectly legitimate does not itself make it MORALLY CORRECT. This is especially the case when you have a legislature that is totally removed (and remains out of touch) with the moral values and aspirations of the people it is supposed to serve and protect. In fact, this kind of legitimized corruption is the worst possible kind as it means the corruption has infiltrated the most senior ranks of management (and the political leaders). Compared to this elaborate deceit, the more obvious corruption in Indonesia are crude by comparison and far easier to identify and correct as it is acknowledged that such objectionable acts itself are WRONG and are not endorsed by the country's laws. How do you ask a cop to catch a thief when the cop himself is a thief? Legitimized Corruption by its very nature is more sinister and difficult to identify. For instance, a government official who accepts bribes worth $1.6 million a year is guilty of corruption. But what happens if this same official or minister receives this money as part of his "LEGITIMATE" salary. In both cases the act itself is the same unconscionable and immoral act. But in the later case, there is no need for the official to hide his ill-gotten gains as it is formally endorsed by an equally corrupt legislature/parliament who has a hand in the ill gotten gains. The definition of a Parasitic Leech is as follows: "leech: a follower who hangs around a host (without benefit to the host) in hope of gain or advantage" The kind of legitimized corruption already endorsed and prevalent in Singapore's state machinery is far worse. It is a cancerous malice which is more surreptitious and insidious. The festering rot is not immediately apparent to an external casual observer but is eating away the core of the its host. Left unchecked, such parasites will consume a once healthy body before discarding the empty shell and relocating to another unwary host. Legitimized Corruption is also like cancer. It is a chronic ailment which rooted itself very deeply within the host (and the state machinery). Such a chronic ailment did not occur over night but took place over decades of accumulated unchecked accesses. Durai himself was in the NKF for over 30 years and it is no mere coincidence that Singapore has been under the same government (and people and family) for over 30 years. This is precisely the reason why in the US and other bona fide democracies there is a mandatory change in administration every 4-8 years. A new administration brings forth a completely new government which will was away unchecked accesses and commence things tabula rasa. But somehow in Singapore it appears that only families starting with the Lee surname or who are closely affiliated with this first family are the only candidates who qualify for election. What a quaint and family friendly arrangement! Its just too bad that the average Singaporean is excluded from this elitist inner-circle. However, Singapore's Ruling Elite also have to be wary of the accompanying dangers of in-breeding which can occur from a small and exclusive gene pool. Cancerous deformities can result after generations of in-breeding. And the Cancer has many signs and symptoms. There have already been many evident tell tale signs of the internal rot and its accompanying putrid stench. However, Singaporeans in their numbed state of awareness may be mistaking the over-powering stench of decay for sweet perfume. The entire state machinery is orchestrated to maintain this state of illusion and deception. In the normal mechanics of an open and transparent state legislature and government, the moral values of the mans on the street is reflected (although not perfectly) in the policy formulation process. This is not the case in Singapore and your "leaders" know it. Just challenge them to run a referendum regarding their salaries and it will be evident that 90% of the population are totally disgusted by such blatant acts of greed. Of cause the local state owned media will somehow always paint the picture of an adoring and obedient public as part of an elaborate charade. So the truth never ever gets out. Corruption of this scale starts form the top and slowly works its way down the ranks to pollute every senior arm of the state machinery from the Judiciary to Legislature to the Executive and especially to a docile and compliant state managed local press. It cannot be stopped easily without external intervention. Slowly but surely what started off as a morally unacceptable issue becomes part and parcel of "accepted norm" which is disguised behind a pile of state endorsed laws and bills. Even the once sacred document, the Constitution, is not spared and is re-written to the whims and fancies of those they serve. How many Singaporeans are aware of the fact that the country's Constitution has been amended to allow state owned entities and GLCs easier access directly to the country's reserves? And it also does not take a genius to work out that it is the close affiliates of the Ruling Elite who sit on the management boards of these state owned entities and GLCs. The following is a fascinating observation. The exact size of Singapore's foreign exchange reserves and the management of those funds is designated as a STATE SECURITY FOR INTERNAL SECURITY REASONS. Is it mere co-incidence that the conservative ball park estimate of the net worth of the Lee family is roughly equivalent to your country's reserves? (USD130-140 billion?) What you have in Singapore are a bunch of hired mercenaries who are ripping off the very people they are supposed to look after. Singaporeans. This is your country and your life. If you continue in this state of drugged apathy, you will cease to have any control over your own faith and destiny. Do you really want to hand over your life to the devil? Do you want to have a Singapore with No Singaporeans? Its time to wake up from your state of denial and confront the harsh reality before your very eyes. Yours faithfully Carl Kapeland Ohio State #Article posted by Wolfgang Holzem / Erwan Shah @ 10:47 AM http://www.aseannewsnetwork.com/2005/07/singapore-review-legitimized.html

Saturday, 29 May 2010Did LKY Lie We Were Kicked Out of Malaysia? at 8:26:00 AM by Barrie I was too young to remember the time when Singapore separated from Malaysia. All I know is that Lee Kuan Yew put up a good show crying crocodile tears on TV. According to LKY, the Tengku kicked us out. However, I have come across other sources, which point that it was LKY who wanted out and threatened the Tengku with the Chinese Race Card if he did not let Singapore go. The Tengku relented. That meeting happened in a place where there were only two people - The Tengku and LKY himself. The Tengku has since passed away and that leaves LKY to tell the world whatever (corrupted) version he wants to, unchallenged. Well, as you know, when you tell a lie, you have to tell another lie to cover that lie. Then you have to tell yet another lie to cover that one too. It carries on until you cannot remember what lies you told. So, it finally had to happen. The pack of lies told to us, that we were kicked out from Malaysia has finally collapsed. Here is an article in the ST Forum, which touches on LKY's eulogy, which gave away the fact that we were not kicked out, but instead, Singapore had planned to leave all along. Separation from Malaysia: How crucial was Dr Goh's role? MINISTER Mentor Lee Kuan Yew made an interestingly significant remark about Singapore's separation from Malaysia in his eulogy at Sunday's state funeral for his colleague-in-arms, former Deputy Prime Minister Goh Keng Swee. MM Lee said he had asked Dr Goh to negotiate a looser rearrangement for Singapore, but to keep Singapore within Malaysia. Added MM Lee: 'He (Dr Goh) decided that the best alternative was a clean break. After (Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister) Tun Abdul Razak and (Minister for External Affairs) Tun Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman agreed, (Law Minister) Eddie Barker and I worked furiously to settle the terms of the separation.' MM Lee's remark is intriguing in the light of the conventional narrative of the events leading up to Separation in 1965. From all that historians have gleaned prior to MM Lee's remarks on Sunday, MM Lee, who was then Prime Minister, played the pivotal role involving Separation. His remarks suggest that the decision to break away from Malaysia was decided unilaterally by Dr Goh at the crucial moment; against the proposition MM Lee, and perhaps the collective Cabinet, had decided; which was at the very least, to still remain a part of the Malaysian federation of states. If the above is true, the apparent contradiction should be resolved. A key question that arises from MM Lee's remarks is this: What was the extent and significance of Dr Goh's role in Separation? Furthermore, MM Lee's remark also suggests that the key Malaysian leaders - Tun Razak and Dr Ismail - agreed to Dr Goh's proposal of a clean break. This would imply that it may well have been Singapore which precipitated the idea of Separation, rather than Malaysia, as has been the notion all this while, stemming from first Malaysian Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman's view. He reconfirmed, when I interviewed him a few years before he died, that he overruled the strident objections of his extremist colleagues in Umno in deciding to sack Singapore from Malaysia. It would be informative, if not instructive, if MM Lee or Dr Toh Chin Chye (then chairman of the PAP and the only key surviving member of the Old Guard today) shed more light on this critical turning point in the history of Singapore and Malaysia. Associate Professor Hussin Mutalib I have always suspected that it was LKY who wanted Singapore out. I never believed his claims that Singapore was "kicked out". While the LKY's eulogy implies that it was Dr Goh's idea for separation, I still believe that it was LKY's idea. After all, he has been known to fib about history. Besides the point that he misrepresented Singapore was kicked out, he has also tried to cover up the fact that he was elected as PM in the early days only by virtue of the Chairman's vote. It was a tie between him and Ong Eng Guan for the post. Dr Toh casted the final (Chairman's vote) for LKY. However, LKY tries to deny that did happen, as can be seen in this article I wrote in Sep 2009 Old Man wants all the glory to himself In the following article published in the Straits Times dated 5 Sep 09, Did Lee become PM by one vote?, Old Man claims he has no knowledge of the one vital vote, casted by Dr Toh Chin Chye (the Chairman of the PAP then), that allowed him to be the PM of Singapore. It was a nail-biting 6-6 vote, casted by the "inner core" of the pioneer PAP leaders. It was a tie between Ong Eng Guan and Lee Kuan Yew. Being a tie, the chairman, Dr Toh, exercised the chair's vote, and Old Man became the PM. But, Old Man, being what he is, does not want to admit it. He denies that there was such an event. Phew! Now why did Old Man have to wait for 50 years to say that? All along, it was written in the history books that he won by the chair's vote. In the same article, I mentioned how LKY probably planned the merger in the first place, with the intention to leave the Federation later, so that he could be the PM of Independent Singapore. It was a perfect plan to oust his greatest rival then, Lim Chin Siong. The article continues below. A search on the internet will also reveal a few startling things about the history of Singapore. Here are some pointers. Before independence, Chin Siong was Lee's biggest threat. While Chin Siong controlled the Chinese ground, Lee had the favours of the British government. But everything was hanging precariously and power could swing to either side. Lee then planned a merger with Malaysia. It appeared that the merger was an excellent way to rid Chin Siong. Both the Brits and Tengku were uncomfortable with Chin Siong because he appeared to be a communist. Till today, there is still controversy if he was communist. I would be inclined to believe the Chin Siong sounded communist because he used the Chinese race card to rally the people. (Hey, hasn't Old Man used the same Chinese race card for decades too? And no one dares claim he is a commie?) I do not believe Chin Siong was a communist. The Brits (whom LKY was very much aligned to) were only too keen to link Chin Siong with the commies to contain him. With the merger planned, Lee had an excellent excuse to get Chin Siong locked up since both the Brits and Tengku did not like to have Chin Siong around. You can do a search on "Lim Chin Siong" to get more news about the Lim Chin Siong vs Lee Kuan Yew dispute. That was really something. My opinion on the Lim vs Lee episode It was either Lim Chin Siong or Lee Kuan Yew. The fight for power to control was on the balance. While Lim used the Chinese ground for his support, Lee used the Brits for his support. What probably tilted the balance was the merger. Lee got the Tengku on his side too, because the Tengku was wary of Lim as well. After the threat of Lim was over, it was time for Lee to create enough trouble for the Tengku, so that Singapore could be fully independent. Lee's story was that the Tengku kicked Singapore out. Tengku's story was that Lee wanted out and hence created problems. So who is to be believed? With the fact now exposed that Old Man is willing to twist history about the single vote by Dr Toh Chin Chye, who knows what other facts he has been twisting since the 1950s? After all, the Tengku is no longer around to dispute the story. My viewpoint on the merger The merger probably served Lee very well. It was the perfect way to rid of his biggest adversary, Chin Siong. At the same time, he could engineer for Singapore's independence so that he could be the PM of a truly independent Singapore. It was not that Lee did not know that Malaysia's constitution stated the special privileges for the Malays. He asked for the merger with his eyes opened. Yet, after merging, he contested that very special privilege. It is like asking your neighbour to invite you to a party, then when he graciously lets you in, you start ordering him how he should host the party. The merger itself caused Malaysia to have problems with Indonesia and Philippines. Malaysia's plan was to include Sabah, Sarawak and Brunei. Singapore was initially NOT on the list. Singapore asked to be invited and was accepted. Indonesia and Philippines saw the merger as an expansionist plan by Malaysia and felt threatened. This was the Confrontation period. There were terror attacks from Indonesia against Malaysia. And Singapore, being part of Malaysia by virtue of the merger, was also attacked. A point that I would like to make here is that, the PAP cites this incident was that the "sea of Malays around us" seeked to attack the majority Chinese Singaporeans. I feel that Lee is trying to play the race card that Singapore being majority Chinese, are seen as enemies by the Malays around us. The fact was that this was actually about one Malay country (Indonesia) against another Malay country (Malaysia). Singapore was dragged in, because we were part of Malaysia. Not because the Malays were against the Chinese. The above is yet another twist and lie, in the books of the PAP, headed by Old Man. My Conclusion Lee can claim that he is the "Father of Singapore" and that he is the one behind Singapore's success. But we have seen how he twists history, such that he is seen that he has attained a godlike status. My opinion is that if Ong Eng Guan had been PM, he would have taken Singapore the same path. Perhaps, we would see the Ong Dynasty instead of the Lee Dynasty. As for Lim Chin Siong, I also feel that if he had been Singapore's PM, we would still be the same Singapore, more or less. Some critics say that he was a communist and would steer away from Western technology, which brought about Singapore's economic success. I dispute the above. Firstly, it was never proven he was communist. Secondly, if he had been PM, I am sure he would have abandoned his reference to China, changed allies, and taken advantage of the Western influence. If Lee could have changed so quickly from let's merge with Malaysia to let's create trouble for Malaysia, surely Chin Siong could have changed his spots as quickly as Old Man.

MANAGE YOUR TEMPER Anger never let you win Every time you lose your cool, you lose control and at times the cost could be quite high. So learn to manage your temper. As a little kid growing up on a sheep farm near Christchurch, New Zealand, Martin was a bright, hardworking boy, prone to losing his temper and getting angry. He would end up saying harsh words to his friends and family without often realising the impact of his angry outbursts. Intent on mending his son's ways, Martin's dad decided on a plan. He gave his son a sack of nails and told him that every time he lost his temper, he must hammer a nail into the wooden fence at the back of their farm. The son agreed. The first day, he hammered 35 nails into the fence. As the days passed, the number of nails hammered into the fence gradually decreased. It was quite a task going all the way to the back of the farm and hammering a nail. Young Martin figured it was easier to just control his temper, and not get angry. And then, one day, he did not lose his cool at all. A day of no nails! Delighted, he told his father about it. And the father said that for everyday that Martin did not lose his temper, he should pull out a nail from the fence. Martin did as told, and some months later, all the nails in the fence had been removed. Martin was pleased. And so was his dad.The father led young Martin to the back of the farm and pointing to the wooden fence he said "You have done well, my son and I am proud of you. But notice the holes left behind by the nails? They will never go away. The fence will never be the same again. It's like that with our anger too. When we are angry, we say things that leave a scar. And no amount of apologizing thereafter can ever remove those scars. Remember that! "It's a lesson Martin has remembered all his life. And it's a lesson we would all do well to take to heart too. Keep your cool. Don't lose your temper. And you will see a significant improvement in your relationships. People will like you more, they will respect you a lot more - and you will find that hardly anybody gets angry with you. If you find yourself losing your cool often, maybe you should set yourself a punishment equivalent to hammering nails on the fence. Like Martin, you too might then find yourself controlling your temper a lot better. Good to remember that you can never really win when you get angry. You always lose - your temper, your cool and a whole lot else besides. Saying 'Sorry' is like using one of those erasers on the top of a pencil. It's easy to use, it feels like you have erased what was written, but the marks remain on the sheet of paper forever. And in this era of instant messaging and on-the-go e-mails, it becomes even more important to watch your words. If you are upset and want to shoot off an angry e-mail or message, hold it! Draft a mail perhaps - but leave it as a draft. Don't hit the 'send' button whilst you are angry. Tell yourself that you will take a look at it the next morning, and only then send it. Chances are, with a cooler head the next morning, you will realise the folly of sending out the angry email. And it does not matter that you are in the right, or that you think your anger is justified. If you lose your cool, remember, you lose. Period. Next time you are angry and want to say something, take a deep breath. Pause. And maybe say nothing at all.

DO THE RIGHT THING OR DO THE THING RIGHT? CAN YOU DO BOTH? Terry Finance Sir, let me offer you a personal encounter. My company recently advertised for a position looking for a Product Manager with minimun 5 years of experience. We received 200 ++ resumes, out of which 60% were foreigners, from Philippines, China, Malaysia and the rest were from Singaporean. Out of these 200++ resumes, there were two resumes which stood out. One was a Singaporean guy in his late 30s with 8 years of experience and his expected salary was $6,500 which to me is reasonable and another was a Phillippinoe guy in his late 20s with 6 years of experience and his expected salary was $3,000(negotiable). Let me asked you if i were to present these two resumes to my boss, which one do you think he will have chosen? So as a true blue Singaporean, i trashed the 'foreign talent' resume. I might be what some people call "not professional" but as a Singaporean i feel it is only right that a job should always go to a Singaporean with relavant skills and reasonable expectation FIRST and never to a foreigner. Singapore is the home i grew up in, the place i was once immensely proud of. I hate to see where we r headed. Sir, i wish you can hear the tiny voices of people who are struggling and for once balance ecomony prosperity with Singaporean well being. A country without happy and loyal citizens is a country in demise. Finally i would like to clarify that i gladly welcome aunthentic foreign talents that can propel our economy to the next level but for foreigners here to take advantage of our much too liberal immigration policy,NOT A CHANCE.