Opinions

The tit-for-tat, sabre-rattling between Singapore and Malaysia goes on and on and on. Never-ending wayang from both side. The latest to throw his two sen worth is ball-carrier cum member of the Supreme Council of Mahathir's Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia (PBBM), Dr Rais Hussin. Rais, who is also head of the party's policy and strategy bureau, threatened that Singapore will suffer "pain by a thousand cuts" for its position on the maritime dispute with Malaysia. 

As usual, like numerous other Malaysian politicians before him, he was offended by Singapore's arrogance and hard line, legalistic, black-and-white take on issues such as airspace, maritime border, and the water agreement. Rais also felt that Singapore should be wiser and "live and let-live". 

We don't know what Rais is on. Is he setting his sights on higher office by doing the dirty provocation by Mahathir? After this salvo, he is sure to become an even more trusted ally of Mahathir. 

The question we are asking is when will Mahathir leave his position as PM? When will more capable, dynamic and forward-looking people such as Anwar Ibrahim and Syed Saddiq lead the way for the country to build a better future for Malaysia and its immediate neighbours? These politicians have been relatively silent on the provocations. It could really be a sign of disagreements or fissures in the preferred approach towards its relationship with Singapore.

For the future of good neighbourly ties and the region, the more enlightened leaders need to make their voices heard. Others need to know that there can be a better way of managing its relationship with Singapore. 

Our Malaysian friends are not stupid. They saw rampant corruption and systemic abuses that needed to be stopped. They were brave and enlightened enough to vote for an alternative that could not be envisioned in the past. In this conflict, they need to be similarly courageous and not let an old man sour the future because of his outdated world view.

The writer, Kelvin, wants peace so that he can still go to Malaysia to top-up petrol and eat seafood.

There is a photo of a group of people sitting in front of a 'No Pets Allowed' sign board at a hawker centre. However, with them, is a pet dog. How is this acceptable? Is nobody doing anything to stop these group of people from bringing along their pet dogs?

This is very insensitive of them. What if there are any Muslim patrons who might not be comfortable with being around dogs. Or what if the dog sheds fur and the fur flies into our food and beverages while eating there. OR what if the dog stinks and ruins the appetites of others. 

I believe that Singapore should be more sensitive towards such issues. If there are signs disallowing pets, we should follow them. There are many pet/dog cafes around for a reason. It is to cater to these pet owners.

Credit: Facebook

The PAP's elitist mindset has reared is seriously ugly AF head once again. The ugliness cannot get uglier. Or can it? Earlier, at a roundtable discussion on wages, the ambassador-at-large, Professor Tommy Koh, criticised the government's resistance towards instituting minimum wages in Singapore in favour of what it feels are better options in the forms of the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) and the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) schemes. Prof Koh slammed the government for not keeping up with the times and with the reality of lower-wage Singaporeans by continuing to perpetuate "fake" ideological' bases against minimum wage.

Prof Koh challenged the NTUC and the government to show how the imposition of minimum wage can affect Singapore, citing the cases of Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan as examples where the imposition of minimum wages have not affected the competitiveness of the countries. The introduction of minimum wages in these countries did not directly lead to unemployment or underemployment of its people. 

Singaporeans in the lower-income brackets are also facing unfair competition from the introduction of very cheap foreign labour that depressed their wages further. This is neither ideal nor sustainable for such Singaporeans who cannot run away or escape to their home country. It is a delicate act balancing their low wages, their wants and needs for self-improvement, and the challenges from the high cost of living here.

Nevertheless, it does not appear that the Singapore government will change its tack anytime soon.

What's worse is that not only will minimum wages continue to be a pipe-dream in the near future, the rights of lower-wage workers are also being impinged upon even further.

Under the guise of more efficient deployment of resources, the Tampines Town Council is leveraging on mobile, vertical positioning and wifi technology to monitor the work of the estate's cleaners. The town council also framed it as a worker-protection mechanism in the case of disputes and complaints by residents. 

But we all know how it works. Every time a complain is received, the lowest in the ladder bears the brunt of the anger from the public. Just imagine, if a member of the public says that an area is dirty and provides photos, are any of the PAP's town councils going to reply and say , "according to our records, the place has been cleaned by Worker A at HH:MM time today?"

The workers need technological help and assistance to make their jobs easier. The older workers need education and machinery to help them do their work better. Not surveillance. 

Who are monitoring the supervisors? Who are monitoring the Town Council's office workers? When the MPs don't turn up for parliamentary debate, who are they accountable to? 

This move smacks of elitism, arrogance and a lack of empathy on the part of the government. 

As usual, the rights of the lower-waged workers are just glossed over when they are not even paid enough for their labour in the first place. Singaporeans must let the PAP know what they think of their arrogance in the net GE.

The writer, Faith, has no faith the minimum wage will be implemented.

Admin,

I just want to say how nonsense is the move to restrict smoking in Orchard Road to about the designated areas. This is not my sentiments alone but the sentiments of the majority of the smokers that I spoke with regarding the restrictions. The number is not important. 40 or 14 no difference. Our rights is nothing to other people.

First of all, the PAP government talks about engaging citizens and adopting a more consultative approach. But who did they consult over these? The first people that should be consulted are us smokers and not businesses or people who don't smoke. Eh wtf? What consultation is there when the people most affected are not engaged on the issue.

Most of us feel like the unwelcomed step-sibling or black sheep of the family. Like we are here and people know that we are here but people just don't care about what we think. 

We cannot smoke in a lot of places. Even in our own homes, we don't really smoke or smoke in the toilet out of consideration for our family and friends. Army camp no need to say. Why can't we smoke more freely at a very public place like Orchard Road?

You don't need to tell us that it's not healthy. We know that very well. But after a long tiring day or stressful period, a puff can ease our worries you know. Don't compare us to the haze ah ok because that's unfair. You also see people in army or CD or police smoking what. There are fellow smokers who do better in ippt after smoking. No cigarette tak power. Got some friends working in tourism and f&B who are not happy because it is very difficult for them to go for a smoke now in between their work or rest time.

I am just ranting but I represent alot of my brudders and sisters who are smokers. Just because we are not in the majority our voices and rights are curtailed just like that without any consultation or anything.

Sara

According to Goh Chok Tong, one of the first lessons he learned during his first electoral contest in 1976 in Marine Parade was that people voted along racial lines. Goh observed that at the time, people were more likely to vote for a candidate from the same race. This was due to Singapore's relatively young status as an independent state, and the prevalence of vernacular schools that meant that the way people think was closely allied to the language that they used. There was still a certain apprehension of someone from a different racial background.

While he noted that Singapore has taken important steps in terms of fostering racial and religious harmony in Singapore and that "national issues" may be a more important point of unity as compared to race, Goh still feels that when it comes to the crunch, Singaporeans will still vote along more primordial, "tribal' lines.

Is Goh right? Is race still an issue?

If it is, it just means that the PAP's attempts at racial harmony has failed. Having racial quotas in HDB precints, introducing universal National Service and getting rid of vernacular schools have not had the desired effect of fostering genuine relationships and understanding between people from different cultures. What we have is superficial linkages and tolerance more than actual understanding. Some other PAP policies like introducing race-based self-help groups like CDAC, SINDA, and MENDAKI, and creating SAP schools have have the unintended consequences of creating exclusive bubbles in the different communities.

Singaporeans are honest and straightforward. The annual celebrations of the festivals of other race or religious communities in the local education system have not had the desired effect. If even teachers think that Vesak Day is a Chinese holiday or that Hari Raya celebration is a celebration of the Muslim New Year, then what chance do our students have of understanding their fellow school mates?

In the last two general elections, we have seen national issues like cost of living and the need for more opposition voices in Parliament has become issues that struck a chord with many Singaporeans, regardless of race and religion. These issue will resonate more in the next election as more Singaporeans become better educated. Younger Singaporeans growing up in a prosperous Singapore will also get to vote for the first time. These developments will pose string challenges to the dominance of the PAP.

Singaporeans can take heart from Malaysia's example. Race and religious issues are still very important but that has not stopped Malaysians from letting the incumbent coalition feel what they really want.

If Malaysia boleh, so can Singapore.

The writer, Kelvin, has many real friends from different races and religions.

It appears that not all is rosy within the PAP's ranks despite the confirmation of Heng Swee Keat as the next PM. In a recent interview with CNA, one of the most senior figures in the PAP, Goh Chok Tong, revealed a an issue that many of us normal Singaporeans have witnessed over the decades. For many years, the PAP has recruited from the civil service. People from the teaching, police and military services were talent-spotted and approached. Not many turned down the opportunity. 

While the candidates, more often than not, come with fantastic academic credentials, they do not normally possess stellar non-academic credentials. PAP has acknowledged that it is a tough order to recruit people from the private sector. Besides the usual lawyers, doctors and academics, who also normally hail from the usual elite schools, PAP has found it harder to attract candidates who have stellar business credentials. 

What possibly happens is the fostering of groupthink, or as Goh puts it, a "civil service, public service[way of] thinking" to approaching problems and challenges. Goh qualifies that it is yet a huge problem in the immediate future but can be become very pronounced in the next two decades if the PAP continues to select from a narrow pool of "elite" civil servants.

Maybe Goh does not feel it now because he is still within the PAP's system but for normal Singaporeans looking on from the outside, the problem of "groupthink" is already very apparent.

This is not something that Singapore should be proud of. Moving forward, it will be even more problematic when more challenging global circumstances calls for more daring, unconventional, but informed approaches and consensus fostered through rigorous debates. For that too happen, there needs to be a greater diversity of lenses and world views within the PAP and within the parliament.

For so long, the PAP has maintained that Singapore's survival hinges on its ability to be adaptable and relevant. If the PAP does not change, the only way Singaporeans can ensure our survival is voting more opposition into parliament to ensure diversity of voices.

The writer, Kelvin, thinks a lot about PAP's groupthink.