oneworldtalk

TT Ruby · Joined: 24 Mar 2007 Posts: 306 Location: Natural Habitat

Interesting snapshot of Singapore from the perspective of the Indonesian neighbours.

Always Worrying?
Yes, Singaporeans are a bunch of worriers, wondering when the sky will fall hard on them. It is not surprising to hear many whinging about the slightest imperfections. Psychoed for decades to constantly feel beseiged and vulnerable, who can blame them for being "kiasu".

The leadership is always thinking ahead, pre-empting any disasters that may befall the tiny nation state, creating solutions even before the problems arise. Hence they are paid millions for the challenging task.

Indonesian perspective, Jakarta Post 21 Apr 07

TT Ruby · Joined: 24 Mar 2007 Posts: 306 Location: Natural Habitat

Politics of retreat - unlikely in this generation or never in Singapore?
Not with pay increase to further bolster and entrench the elite ruling party and personalities.

Retreat won't be voluntary as no politician would willingly give up power and the rewards that comes with it. Or in some cases, they want both, to have the cake and eat it. However, "retreat" may eventually be forced upon by the growing alienation between the ruling and the governed in due course. Unless the pie keeps growing to keep the lid on festering discontent - economic, political and social rumblings.

The proposals to abolish GRC and pave the way for proportional representation would undoubtedly introduce more tangible democratic practices instead of mere trappings and form. However, a brainchild of MM Lee Kuan Yew, it is not to be abolished easily. Ironically, it is this system that will keep the PAP intact and united for many years to come.

It won't be easy to read the mind and plan of PM Lee Hsien Loong given the tight controls and secrecy of party matters. So is his declaration of finding a successor by 2011 a freudian slip that he is getting tired of the wheeling and dealing, an exit plan in exchange for better things in life or a diversion from the outrage and pressures over the recent pay hike for ministers and top bureaucrats?

Liberalisation is more than just bar top dancing, casinos and designated grafitti walls. Otherwise, it would only amount to one step forward, two steps back. Would PM LHL risk being remembered as the son who lost the inheritance than one who liberated Singapore from authoritarianism? Depending on how you or they look at it.

Though written a year ago, the arguments are well thought out and relevant.

Poor Man · Joined: 03 Jun 2007 Posts: 127

The rich will get richer. The system, government, economy, global or local, facilitates the rich making more money.

The poor either work hard and move to middle class, which is getting harder and harder due to rising cost of living.

The middle class must work very hard to maintain their standard of living and prevent themselves from sliding down the social ladder.

The poor may become poorer if they lose their jobs that keep them going living from hand to mouth.

Will Singapore become like the Philippines where there is a large proportion of the very rich and the very poor? Not really. There will still be sizeable middle class that is struggling with day to day living.

cafe grande · Joined: 20 Mar 2007 Posts: 82 Location: Down Under

The Change or "revolution" may have to come from within the PAP and the middle or even elite class given all the obstacles set up to prevent the emergence of a credible opposition. Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim are not enough.

Mark my words. PAP thought that by offering lots of money will keep all their MPs in line and forestall any dissent from within. Since there is deep seated distrust of people outside the party and inner circle, any change will have to come from within this elite group, ie, if these people dare and are willing to make some sacrifices.

chung roger · Joined: 22 Aug 2007 Posts: 9 Location: Singapore and Sydney

Singapore

Present

A country where politics is an extremely well paid career. A country cannot be managed by professionals who are largely and fundamentally motivated by money.

A country where your sons will serve National Service and expected to defend the country. Your son will need to compete with foreigners for a job and this foreigner will flee when the fighting starts...

A country that faces several issues with Malaysia and Indonesia and now add Thailand to the list. The problem lies with perceived professional arrogance of our leaders in the workings with these countries.

A country where parents studies as hard as their children for examinations, the government ranks your child's scholastic grades with little emphasis on his other physical talents. Furthermore, the government also categorise and label the children in their early years of education... the unfortunate ones go to ITE, and fortunate one goes to join the PAP. This is punishing for the children as we were suppose to enjoy our childhood.

A country where titles is a measure of the person. Today Singapore is extremely short of hospitality staff because the government had instilled in Singaporean through the education system that your child must be a manager, doctor, lawyer... so most of the hospitality jobs went to Malaysians, Indonesians, etc. They benefit with the development of the IRs.

A country where the 1980s' show "Dynasty" is in play.

Singapore a "developed country"... qualitatively; I don't think so, quantitatively, I agree.

Now that's how a Singaporean thinks and write...

Future

No change... why? The government is singular ...I believe most know what means.

Singaporeans are not as "free minded" as the government engineers every aspect of their choices and in each election, fear is mandated in their minds that if you choose the wrong leaders, you are gone.

Attempts to develop entrepreneurs by the government formally through
schools and universities had failed... frankly, I can't think of any country that has such courses. Singapore leaders failed to realise that it was the issues of separation, British withdrawal, etc, gave impetus for Lee KY and his old team to develop Singapore like entrepreneurs. Today, Singapore is governed by well paid technocrats and motivated very differently from a true politician who does to achieve history or reputation for himself and yet serving the people.

A look at the American economy and political system...there is endless changes politically but the country remains sound and dynamic. There is no lack of creativity or business savvy opportunities.... despite changes in political leadership every 4 or 8 years.

From management experience, it is good to introduce some periodic changes to stimulate new energy and mindset changes to ensure optimal performance and new ideas.

In short, Singapore must move away from the "apron strings" of PAP and have a qualitative and quantitative 2 or 3 party parliament where no one man or party rules the day. Majority of Singaporeans are educated and not naive to see the rights and wrongs...they are just presently content and not interested. I believe the ground swell on several issues especially the issues of "elitism and their benefits" and the extremely high Ministers' and civil service have not been forgotten. I fear that if the present form of politics continued, the only way to see change may be mayhem in Singapore.

I don't attempt to forecast Singapore's future but only stated Singapore's younger generation must attain and act with a "freedom of mind and venture without the support or fear of the government" in order to be able to see Singapore compete against the talents coming from China or India.

Bear in mind, they have billion of people - a lot more hunger and talent than Singapore...and the great part of their thinking is "everything can and will work... nothing to lose".

Hot Chilly · Joined: 20 Mar 2007 Posts: 618 Location: Tropics

I have great respect for Ngiam Tong Dow. Though this report is not new, it is relevant for today and tomorrow. If only people could truly understand and apply it, Singapore will shine brighter many years to come. Listen to this man. He is full of wisdom. He won't just utter nice sounding words to curry favour or please. He speaks with his heart.

The Straits Times, 12 Oct 2003
Stop dancing to the tune of the gorilla
By Susan Long.

Part Two of the much-talked-about interview with ex-civil servant Ngiam Tong Dow

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?A

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.

Hot Chilly · Joined: 20 Mar 2007 Posts: 618 Location: Tropics

Whilst majority of Singaporeans are apathetic, complacent and caught up with material pursuits, the leadership and intellectuals are perennially discussing its future and survivability and governance, with no plans to rock the boat in the pipeline.

Catherine Lim has recently raised the the challenging and controversial topic -- what would a future Singapore look like, say, fifteen or twenty years?

http://catherinelim.sg/2008/02/23/a-challenge-for-the-future-democratising-the-lee-kuan-yew-model-of-governance/#more-25

It is indeed a difficult task as no nation could withstand internal or external threats and challenges if it lacks a social conscience and soul. Material well being will only go so far as satisfying basic needs. In Maslow hierachy of needs, people aspire to greater and non-tangible stuff in life. The conditioning of "fear" has certainly worked for the majority of Singaporeans. They merely shut down one part of their feelings or consciously tell themselves not to unleash any passion for what they believe in deep down in their hearts. Hence we have many including educated citizens who vote with their feet.

Even China would have to change as economic achievements devoid of people's participation and sense of belonging will not get the country farther than what it is today. Singapore given its small size is more open and dependent on the international community and market, must take the step to engage the people. Surely the government is confident to allow more credible opposition participation. We can't expect the best to emerge with too much uniformity, group think and inbreeding within one political party.

Change,should take place as soon as possible. In fact, better while Lee is still alive, to ensure smooth transition. Not all changes should not be viewed with suspicion. There are positive and constructive changes that will do the nation good. Citizens' concern should not be mistaken as lack of loyalty. Only those who care would voice their dissent.

I can't help but to quote Ngiam Dong How's analogy again, of making Singapore more Athenian than Spartan for our long term prosperity, materially as well as intellectually.

Little Egret · Joined: 19 Jun 2007 Posts: 500

Ngiam Tong Dow seems to be saying a lot of things after a series of articles he wrote which appeared in the Straits Times about a year ago or so. Most things he says about the workings in the government ministries are privileged information that outsiders do not know, that civil servants know about, but not allowed to divulge outside the confines of their work. And rumours do get around sometimes.

Some ideas that he has expounded in his articles must have come on hindsight after his long career in civil service, save for a brief period in Intraco as an executive director. But, he has never been heard expounding those ‘bright’ ideas of his while he was still in the civil service, either at meetings, in public addresses, or at seminars.

TT Ruby · Joined: 24 Mar 2007 Posts: 306 Location: Natural Habitat

Only those who enjoy the trust of the government have the privilege to air their frank opinions publicly. There is no doubt that Ngiam Tong Dow has Singapore's well being at heart. Perhaps it's from hindsight and the perspective of an "outsider" of the civil service that Ngiam has become more creative and productive. But does it really matter if his proposals are still relevant for the current and future direction of the country. It would be difficult to imagine Ngiam being reticent while he was employed in the public service. Just because these ideas brought up during departmental brain storming and that records for the eyes of certain VIPs do not mean that vigorous debate does not exist among senior bureaucrats behind closed doors in Singapore. How else could Singapore have made so much progress within such as short time? In some countries, there are appointments for devil's advocate to question and sharpen analysis and formulate better policy decisions. I guess we'll never know of such interesting debates if they are not publicised.

Little Egret · Joined: 19 Jun 2007 Posts: 500

Most Singaporeans have Singapore’s well being at heart too, but saying aloud great ideas on ‘hindsight’ is another thing. Ngiam Tong Dow should have his ideas challenged at the various ministries and boards that he headed. He might have done so and they might not think too highly as to warrant a change.

All top civil servants in Singapore are very good administrators, who can carry out orders from their superiors with utmost efficiency and speed – this has been proven, no doubt about that. Ngiam might have been one of those top administrators, but he was never a visionary civil servant that his articles seem to portray. His leadership was also lacklustre as to inspire those whom he led. This was the opinion of some who had known him, or had worked with him.

Hot Chilly · Joined: 20 Mar 2007 Posts: 618 Location: Tropics

It's the substance of what Ngiam said that's more important. Whether it is he or some other person who said it, we place value on the ideas. Hindsight is usually clearer. Perhaps there were constraints such as a less open environment and top down decision by Ministers in those days and many bureaucrats would not want to jeopardise their pension which unlike CPF is personal even after one resigns from the post.

What are the attributes of an impressive civil servant? There are various criteria. Some could be technocrats who could produce exactly what they are told and would be duly rewarded. There are also some who are dynamic and inject energy and life into the service but are considered troublemakers who rock the boat too much. There are also some who rise by sheer political acumen rather than capability.

Little Egret · Joined: 19 Jun 2007 Posts: 500

If there were any visionary civil servants to be lauded, it would have been Hon Sui Sen and Howe Yoon Chong, both of whom were later ‘drafted’ into politics and became ministers.

They would speak forthrightly at meetings on what they thought was right to do and did not mimic their words. Hon Sui Sen would speak demurely, while Howe Yoon Chong would sound aggressive with his voice. When they eventually retired from public service, not a word did they utter on their performance in the civil service and in politics, nor did they want to give ‘wisdom’ or advice to the new generation of leaders who took over from them. This is in contrast to what Ngiam Tong Dow is now doing – create an aurora of wisdom around him where some of the thoughts therein might not be entirely his; things that he now highlights might not have been accepted while he was still in the service; and others that he was not in favour of which later turned out well are quietly subdued. Ngiam is due to give another seminar on May 21.

Take MRT for example. As far as I know Ngiam was against the underground rail system from the beginning when he was permanent secretary in the Ministry of Communications in the 1970s, arguing that no underground rail system in the world was economically viable. Even if the MRT does not make money, it should be treated as a social project benefitting the majority of the population. The Singapore MRT is now running profitably and is the most popular form of transport for commuters, thanks to the late Ong Teng Cheong who made the final decision then as the Minister of Communications at the time. But the concept was probably mooted by Howe Yoon Chong in late 1960s when he initiated the traffic studies of the Singapore road system that was done with the help of UN Development Programme experts. Road development was under PWD which in turn reported to the Ministry of National Development where Mr Howe was the permanent secretary.

But my greatest impression of Mr Howe was his decision as Chairman cum General Manager of Port of Singapore Authority to create a container port from scratch at the existing Tanjong Pagar port area. He literally bulldozed through the idea by also acquiring the Hakka Clan cemetery in Holland Road for use as the hinterland to accommodate the containers that would be transported from the future container port. This was done much to the distress of the Hakka community as it was the only Hakka Clan cemetery in Singapore. Mr Howe was Hakka, so is LKY, the prime minister then, and they both were prepared to subjugate the Hakka communal interests for national interests for the benefit of future Singapore. Singapore’s container port is now either the 1st or 2nd in the world with Hong Kong. The Port Authority later found a better solution by reclaiming land at the foreshore for the container port. The cemetery land that was exhumed is now left vacant for some time. Today, this piece of land at the end of Holland Road has become a prime residential real estate. To be fair to the owners, it should be returned to the Hakka Clan Association from whom it was acquired.

In view of Mr Howe’s visionary contribution to Singapore, Temasek Holdings has donated S$15 million to start the Howe Yoon Chong Endowment Fund to support scholarships for weaker students a chance at higher education. Temasek’s Chairman, S. Dhanabalan, has described Mr Howe as a boss who valued people with integrity who could get things done, not just academic and high-fliers. Mr Dhanabalan meant what he said, as he was Executive Vice-President of DBS Bank when Mr Howe was his boss as Chairman and President.

Hot Chilly · Joined: 20 Mar 2007 Posts: 618 Location: Tropics

Little Egret seems well informed on Singapore history. Hope to read more inside stories that are not widely reported.
Many capable bureaucrats and leaders have done wonders in nation-building. I won't favour one or the other.

Little Egret · Joined: 19 Jun 2007 Posts: 500

Hot Chilly, I appreciate your observation! But, there is really nothing mysterious about what I wrote; it’s simply what an innocent child would do, to tell his story that he knew.

Take the MRT example again. In the 1970s there were uncertainties whether Singapore would build the underground rail system. The Ministry of Communications in the interim period was building several car-parks on the outskirts of the city, where motorists could park their cars cheaply for the entire day and they could take the free shuttle buses to the city centre and back after work.

I took this route several times in the beginning as the car-park was just diagonally opposite from where I was residing at the time. One day, I happened to spot Ngiam Tong Dow sitting alone in the shuttle bus that was waiting for passengers in the car-park. He was taking the bus probably to set an example that he was doing what he preaching as he was then permanent secretary at the Ministry of Communications. As there was hardly any commuter in the bus that morning, I had no choice but to go over to sit with him. After an exchange of greetings, I ask him about his ministry’s plans on the rail system. His immediate reply was against the project. He said he had studied many such rail systems in other countries, including the London Underground and none of them was making money, i.e. negative or no return on capital. He had concluded that the project was not economically viable, taking a very myopic economic viewpoint. He did not take into account the social aspects of the system that the community would benefit even if the underground rail system were to be heavily subsidised, like schools and roads which do not make money for a country. If Singapore had taken another 20 years to decide on the first MRT line, the costs would have gone astronomical, as the subsequent lines now being built have indicated. That is why I consider what Ngiam is now saying on many public issues are based more on hindsight rather than foresight at the time. With due respects to his 1st class honours in economics from the then Univ of Malaya (NUS was known at that time), he would make a better academic in the university expounding his theories and writing papers on them.

This brings to my mind another economics academic by the name of Dr A. T. who was very vocal in the press in the late 1960s on the economic issues of Singapore. So, Dr Goh Keng Swee, the Minister of Finance, decided to recruit him into the government and made him a parliamentary secretary in the Prime Minister’s Office. Not long after, Dr A.T. was publicly criticised by LKY for using only 4 cylinders in his work when he should be using 6. He soon left and returned to the university, and nothing was heard from him anymore. Does Hot Chilly know about this case?

In a nutshell, I think and analyse on my own, based on my own judgment of situations that I come, or have come, across in daily life and from personal experience, sometimes from the horses’ mouths (like this one on the MRT). Thus, it may appear vastly different from what you read in the papers.

Hot Chilly · Joined: 20 Mar 2007 Posts: 618 Location: Tropics

Years ago, a friend did some studies on the MRT. Over a span of several years, many consultants engaged and all poured cold water over the MRT, one even suggested an all bus system. The real reason for the impasse probably rested with the top leadership who were unsure whether to proceed. Then one fine day, the top leadership was finally convinced of the benefits of MRT and it was implemented without delay. The gist of the story is that such important decisions depended largely on whether people at the top wanted it. You're right that Ngiam was a bureaucrat and he probably would not have fought and pushed for the MRT, especially when the prevailing political environment was against it. Perhaps, he personally shared the leaders' views that MRT was not viable at that point in time. It's good if one has foresight but having hindsight is still better than none at all.

If the A.T. that Little Egret is referring to is who I have in mind, then I don't think he was outstanding in the academia. From what I heard about A.T. from some seniors, he was a "born again Christian" but not an impressive lecturer and had some personal problems at one time. I don't know the details or the rest of the story. Would Little Egret care to share with us in the forum?

Besides A.T., there were other academics who had been recruited by PAP, became senior ministers of state but their performance was lack lustre.

Little Egret · Joined: 19 Jun 2007 Posts: 500

Hot Chilly, you are on the ball. A.T., previously a Catholic, became a “born again Christian”. He was never outstanding in school either in extra-curricular activities, except to take charge of the school library. He got his PhD from Stanford with a Fulbright-Hays Scholarship and started expounding his economic views when he was only a few years as a lecturer at the university. I only knew how he went into politics from the academia, but never kept track of him after he went into oblivion.

There is nothing unusual for PAP to recruit their cadres from all sources at its disposal. The new president of Taiwan, Mr Ma Ying-jeou, had publicly admitted he was once approached by Singapore (perhaps, through the head hunters) years ago to join the government or PAP (can’t remember exactly which).

Do not expect all bureaucrats and politicians to be top performers. What irks me more are those who claim credit for what appeared they had done, while camouflaging failures that they did, or they were responsible for.

Hot Chilly · Joined: 20 Mar 2007 Posts: 618 Location: Tropics

Speaking out For the silent majority :
What the Singaporean needs is more public debate of policies harmful to him, particularly among establishment insiders.
By Seah Chiang Nee May 31, 2008 The Star, Malaysia

Little Egret · Joined: 19 Jun 2007 Posts: 500

The author, Seah Chiang Nee, is bringing old news back as if they are new from what he has picked up from the other newspapers or on TV. Nothing original, but why is he raising them again, perhaps for the Malaysian readers who may not have heard them before. You see, he writes from a little room of his house in the NE corner of Singapore.

He was a journalist many years ago in various newspapers and journalists are generally known to slant their stories to get a higher impact on the readers. He left the newspapers as Editor of Singapore Monitor (a tabloid) in 1985 when he went down with a serious sickness that nearly cost his life. Many well wishers and his newspaper colleagues at the time had come forward to help by contributing money towards the costs of his impending surgery in Australia. He soon recovered after a prolonged rehabilitation and is one of the longest surviving patients with a transplanted heart for more than 20 years. He is well again now to write, as a columnist for The Star, a Malaysian newspaper, on stories that had been first reported in other newspapers, but of little value for Singaporeans to re-read them again.

http://www.littlespeck.com/about/theEditor.html

Lai CF · Joined: 17 Jun 2008 Posts: 29 Location: Dubai

In view of the current debate on human rights, independent of judiciary, litigation suits, Chee Soon Juan, Gopalan Nair, etc.....

I came across this simple Ancient Babylonian quote:

'The Law of The Kingdom is the Law".

Believe me, it is open to interpretation by each and every individual.

Cheers!!!
_________________
The Law of The Kingdom is the Law

Little Egret · Joined: 19 Jun 2007 Posts: 500

See my related subject on who should dictate change?

http://oneworldtalk.freeforums.org/winds-of-change-to-democratic-socialism-t1235.html#4175