No-See-Sky Charsiew

Gorgeous charsiew, isn't it? Made from bujiantian (不见天 ,
 'see no sky' meat, i.e. armpit of a pig where there's
a layer of glassy fat over the lean meat.)

Adventures of Legolas and Tauriel 2

When The Hobbit meets Hokkien/Teochew opera. ;-)

Translation: "Ng zai chway..." - Don't know looking for what 'gu lan' (Gollum, 'gu lan' means bull penis, a crude reference meaning WTF). I hear already not happy (offended).
"Che kai si..." - What is this? Hair gold face pale pale looking like woman like that." 

Tausuan and Mu Lan

Tausuan, sister of Tauriel, sister of Tauhuay....

The Tau Triplet Sisters

Never suspected, right? Tauriel has sisters. ;-)

Lego & Tau

Tauriel finds out Legolas might be secretly dating her sister, Tauhuay (which is Hokkien for soyabean curd, a dessert.)

Busting the Chilli Myth

There's a Cantonese saying: Chilli so hot, it will make you fly. Probably a tongue in cheek reference to fanning around looking for water. ("Lak tho fei hei")

Sambal Chilli Bandolier

Now, wouldn't this be a hot seller at MFA embassies around the globe??? ;-)

Star Wars Kueh

From a picture of layered kueh comes this: ;-) (modified from previous version!)

The original photo.

Singapore Natural History of Makan Museum

Celebrating the opening of Singapore's Lee Kong Chian Natural History Museum today. ;-)

(Can you name the layers of food strata? ;-)

Valley of Ya Kun

Understanding The Singapore Story 6

Hong Kong's pan-democratic lawmakers can learn from Lee Kuan Yew
- by Tony Kwok

SURPRISINGLY, our pan-democratic legislators in Hong Kong have been largely silent about the death of Mr Lee Kuan Yew. In the past, they often looked down on the Singapore political system, criticising its "fake elections", "lack of press freedom", "one-party rule" and "dictatorship". I believe they are wise not to comment on this occasion, as they would have been given a big slap on the face by the people of Singapore.

Whether the system of government is good should best be judged by the people of a country, not by outsiders or scholars. The fact that the people of Singapore flocked to queue for hours, in unbearable heat or intolerably heavy rain, just to pay their last respects to Mr Lee demonstrated public endorsement of the founder of the Republic and the political system he created.

I believe there are plenty of lessons Hong Kong's pan-democratic legislators can learn from Mr Lee.

Firstly, Mr Lee received his university education in the Western world, similar to many of our pro-democracy legislators. Certainly, Mr Lee outshone all of them in terms of academic achievement. He knew the Western system well, including its faults. So while Mr Lee chose to follow the common law system in Singapore, he was not keen to take the system on in its entirety. For example, the country adopted a system of fused professions, making no distinction between barristers and solicitors, thus reducing unnecessary legal costs. Mr Lee also did away with the funny wigs worn in court.

He must have noticed at the time of his study that British police forces had a serious corruption problem. Under him, Singapore's Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau became a model for the rest of the world to follow. Hong Kong was able to learn from it the proper way to fight corruption. Mr Lee also limited a person's "right of silence", making the interview of suspects by law enforcement officers much more effective.

No doubt our pro-democracy legislators would have taken the entire Western system, values and culture, on board, believing that the Western system offers the only genuine kind of democracy. Should they not learn to distinguish what is good or bad for our unique environment, instead of blindly following others?

Secondly, in his 2013 book, One Man's View Of The World, Mr Lee had high praise for China's achievements and the ability of the Chinese leaders. He predicted that China would continue to prosper and become one of the two most powerful nations in the world. Indeed, in the past, he pushed for policy in Singapore to take advantage of China's economic prosperity. He wanted the Chinese language to be widely taught in Singapore schools. He was one of the first leaders to recognise China's potential and pushed for partnerships with it, including setting up an industrial park in Suzhou.

He greatly admired Hong Kong's competitive advantage of being the gateway to the mainland. Yet our pan-democratic legislators oppose every single move by the SAR government to build economic links with China.

Third, when he was conferred an honorary doctorate by Chinese University in 2000, he said in his speech that the only way Hong Kong should and could develop its political and electoral system was to follow the Chinese Constitution and the Basic Law. These were truly the words of a wise man 15 years ago. Had the Hong Kong pan-democratic camp taken his advice, there would not have been such a deadlock and Occupy Central would not have happened.

If Mr Lee were the chairman of the Democratic Party or Civic Party today, how would he have acted?

I am sure he would persuade his party to accept the currently proposed electoral reform package. He would have no problems with, say, a rule of getting the minimum 5 to 10 per cent vote required before seeking the endorsement of the nominating committee.

He would study the make-up of the nominating committee and come to the conclusion that many of the very decent representatives there need not follow the orders of Beijing. He would then use his persuasive powers and charisma to lobby their support. If he could demonstrate his genuine desire to serve the best interests of Hong Kong, he should have no problems securing the support of the majority of these groups.

At the same time, he would call for public support. If he is prepared to openly pledge his loyalty to Beijing, it is not inconceivable that Beijing would give him its blessing, even if he comes from the pro-democracy camp. In any event, if he had overwhelming public support, it would be difficult for the 1,200 decent members of the nominating committee to arbitrarily vote him out.

Those close to Mr Lee said he was not one for idealism. He was truly practical and not stubborn; he would change his mind if he was convinced it was in Singapore's best interests. I hope the pan-democratic camp can learn from his political wisdom.

It is absurd that the pan-democrats would vote down the reform proposal simply because it was not the most ideal one on offer; and, as a result, prefer the old system of letting the selection committee, instead of the people, elect the next Chief Executive.

The sad thing is that the Hong Kong pan-democratic camp does not have anyone with the brains or foresight anywhere close to that of Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

The writer is former deputy commissioner of the Independent Commission against Corruption.

This article was first published in the South China Morning Post.

Back From the Grave 1 - The TNP News

April 11 2015 cover page

'LKY' responds to recent issue on Watson stores selling vibrators.

To: Minister, Ministry of Birthpower

Dear sir,

I am writing from the grave as there is an issue that deeply moves me. Instead of making love to a proper man, women, I understand (from those Watson flyers folks burn to me during this current Qing Ming) are shedding their inhibitions over a battery operated stick. How can this be? It is highly wasteful and makes no economic sense.

Let me explain.

Already, our majority menfolk are working themselves to the bone, leaving precious little energy for whatever boning they are supposed to do, to ensure the survival of our species. What's the point of me having worked so hard, never finding time to even "baobao" my son Loon that he now laments that I was not touchy-feely enough?

I don't want our Singaporean men to be like me, lose that 'touchy-feely' instinct because of dedication to work or country.

And this mechanical device - a vibrator - will distance men even further from their womenfolk. What if these ladies find the device more satisfying, and then forever forgo intimacy with their significant other?

Already Swe Sey has confided in me that he often times shed tears because his wife has gone over to The Dark Side, that is, hiding herself in the storeroom doing the dastardly deed. 

Sir, I ask you, is this right? Should Swe Sey be asked to cry some more? Already he is such a sensitive sod. No. He needs peace of mind to function at the PMO.

Now, what shall we do?

Should we ban it outright as we did with the chewing gum? Is it as obnoxious as that? Will the women jam preloved vibrators in lift doors to stop them from closing? Will they hurl the sticks from HDB floors in moments of orgasmic abandonment? Will they litter park benches with it?

I think not.

Let's be practical and think how we can kill two birds with one stone, like in Operation Cold Store.

Let's call this Operation Turn-on.

What we can do is use this occasion to bring men and women together.

First, may I suggest we make it mandatory for Operationally Ready (ORD) men to carry a vibrator always. It will have a pager function set to vibration mode. Anytime their loved ones page them, they are allowed to respond like in Reservist Recall mode, report back immediately. 

Given the nature of the call, they have only 20-, 30-, and 40-minute windows to respond. As most women know, any interval after 40 mins is asking laundry in the sun not to dry up! We must encourage our men folk to respond as quickly as possible so their women remain in "the mood" and not decide to turn on the telly to catch the lastest K-drama. Or worse, retreat into the storeroom to rearrange stuff. We men know once they do that, any baby-making desire is as dead as dust on the floor. Or sucked out of life by the vacuum cleaner.

The vibration mode of the stick will serve as a kind of Palovian trigger to these men. Either they service their womenfolk quickly or stand to lose to a battery operated stick. How disgraceful is that? That cantretiregracefully Mahathir will laugh and say we Singaporeans "tak boleh" and offer to add Tongkat Ali to our water from Johor, Najib not withstanding.

Given time, our menfolk's reaction to the vibrator recall alert (VRA) will become reflexive. I am sure our womenfolk would love that! After that, I think our menfolk will be happier and more productive (after a 20-minute nap, that is). I have come to know satisfying a woman can be exhausting!

However, our womenfolk will be banned from buying such vibrators outright  for themselves. - Not even an electric toothbrush.

They will have to buy with their menfolk as Main Stick Owners or MSO (there's another acronym for you!) Their menfolk will guard it with their lives at all times, much like how they did with their M16 during NS. 

Once our menfolk respond with the paging stick, I believe their darlings will prefer the real thing. If not, the device can buy them time to "Majulah Singapura" or "marilah bersama-sama", haha. (See, I also have a sense of humor!)

And should such sticks spoil, they can bring to Singtel, Starhub, M1 or any 7-11 outlet to get it replaced. I am sure Watson will want to do their national-duty bit. And folks with Passion Card can get a further 10% discount. I like the 'passion' in the PA Card name. Check with Swe Sey (he is PA VP) how we can leverage upon this very suitable keyword in this Operation Turn-on. He might even have some idea on how to make it better.

Given our past bad PR from banning things, I'd advise that we do not ban this device outright. If we deploy it in this operational manner, I am sure every couple in Singapore will be very happy. Perhaps our Baby Bonuses will find renewed interest! 

To end, let me reiterate the seriousness of this situation: If our womenfolk find more pleasure in a vibrating stick, the future of Singapore will be at stake. Already, we have serious manpower problems in the service and maintenance trades. One day, we might not even have folks picking up used cardboard! 

And if our womenfolk should shun our men, who or what will they find solace in? Computer games? Work? Adult sex dolls? Other men? Oh my!

As usual, let's nip this problem in the bud so our menfolk can go back and nip theirs in the.... Never mind. Don't worry about me. I am happily reunited with my darling wife Chu. We are now finding time to do the things I had not given priority to. I urge our menfolk to do the same.

Note to Swe Sey: Please check the user demographics of this vibrating stick. If graduate women are using it more, we must act without delay. If majority are O-Level, then we place quota. Those with PSLE never mind; they are the ones got sense to get married and have kids! 

Yours truly,

Always thinking about Singapore, your mega-servant,

LKY

Note: All resemblances to actual persons or institutions are purely coincidental and fictitious. Do enjoy the humor for what it is. ;-)

The Misgiving Tree

The Hunger Games

Pictorial joke from a stick of chicken yakitori. ;-)

Tiger's Plight

Tiger, tiger burning bright

Serially, serially cheated on his wife

Came back strong

But back was weak

Adapted his game

Making several tweaks

All in vain

As back came the pain

But he played some more

Sadly no more Tiger's roar

Sunk he has into the pits

Now suffering from the dreadful yips

Or so said Hank

The man who kept Tiger at No.1 rank

For so long, till the confession came

Then the Tiger became rather tame

Tiger, Tiger yearning bright

When oh when will he get it right? - by TC Lai

I'm So Lonely...

A cartoon as a result of cooking that: ;-) (Kim (and song) from Team America (2004 movie))

Darth 'Crab Face' Vader

One of these crabs is not like the other
One of these crabs you just cannot stewOne of these crabs will beat the shit out of youAnd tear off your arm like in a sushi meal- lament by Luke Skywalker, circa 'Painful Moments of My Childhood'

Henry Kissinger on Lee Kuan Yew

Chaotic world will miss Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s leadership: Kissinger

SINGAPORE — “Lee Kuan Yew was a great man. And he was a close personal friend, a fact that I consider one of the great blessings of my life. A world needing to distil order from incipient chaos will miss his leadership.”

Those are the first three lines of a moving eulogy — as Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong called it — by former United States Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, himself a giant in global diplomatic circles.

Writing in the Washington Post, Dr Kissinger said that Mr Lee emerged onto the international stage as Singapore’s founding father and developed into a world statesman who acted as a kind of conscience to leaders around the globe.

Paying tribute to a colleague and friend he had known for more than four decades, Dr Kissinger recalled that fate initially did not appear to have provided Mr Lee with a platform to succeed, as he described Singapore’s turbulent post-colonial years which saw the Republic kicked out of Malaysia.

“It was cut loose because of tensions between Singapore’s largely Chinese population and the Malay majority and, above all, to teach the fractious city a lesson of dependency. Malaya undoubtedly expected that reality would cure Singapore of its independent spirit,” wrote Dr Kissinger.

“But great men become such through visions beyond material calculations. Lee defied conventional wisdom by opting for statehood,” he wrote, adding that Mr Lee’s choice reflected a deep faith in the virtues of his people.

“He asserted that a city located on a sandbar with nary an economic resource to draw upon, and whose major industry as a colonial naval base had disappeared, could nevertheless thrive and achieve international stature by building on its principal asset: The intelligence, industry and dedication of its people.”

Dr Kissinger, who was the US Secretary of State from 1973 to 1977, said that Mr Lee took Singapore to places it had never been, turning it into a global financial centre with quality education, no corruption and a high per capita income for her people.

“Superior performance was one component of that achievement”, said Dr Kissinger. “Superior leadership was even more important. As the decades went by, it was moving — and inspirational — to see Lee, in material terms the mayor of a medium-size city, bestride the international scene as a mentor of global strategic order.

“A visit by Lee to Washington was a kind of national event,” he added. “A presidential conversation was nearly automatic; eminent members of the Cabinet and Congress would seek meetings. They did so not to hear of Singapore’s national problems; Lee rarely, if ever, lobbied policymakers for assistance. His theme was the indispensable US contribution to the defence and growth of a peaceful world. His interlocutors attended not to be petitioned but to learn from one of the truly profound global thinkers of our time.”

Dr Kissinger said as a pilgrim in quest of world order and responsible leadership, Mr Lee understood China’s relevance and potential and often contributed to the enlightenment of the world on this subject.

“But in the end, he insisted that without the United States there could be no stability.”

Dr Kissinger added that in his dealings with Mr Lee over 45 years, the former prime minister was never emotional. Neither was Mr Lee a man of many sentimental words. “And he nearly always spoke of substantive matters. But one could sense his attachment. A conversation with Lee, whose life was devoted to service and who spent so much of his time on joint explorations, was a vote of confidence that sustained one’s sense of purpose.”

Dr Kissinger noted that Mr Lee’s domestic methods “fell short of the prescriptions of current US constitutional theory”.

“But so, in fairness, did the democracy of Thomas Jefferson’s time, with its limited franchise, property qualifications for voting and slavery.

“This is not the occasion to debate what other options were available”, Dr Kissinger wrote. “Had Singapore chosen the road of its critics, it might well have collapsed among its ethnic groups, as the example of Syria teaches today.”

Dr Kissinger ended with a moving note on Mr Lee’s wife, Madam Kwa Geok Choo.

“The great tragedy of Lee’s life was that his beloved wife was felled by a stroke that left her a prisoner in her body, unable to communicate or receive communication. Through all that time, Lee sat by her bedside in the evening reading to her. He had faith that she understood despite the evidence to the contrary,” Dr Kissinger wrote.

“Perhaps this was Lee Kuan Yew’s role in his era. He had the same hope for our world. He fought for its better instincts even when the evidence was ambiguous. But many of us heard him and will never forget him.”

Dr Kissinger’s words moved Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to comment on the eulogy on his Facebook page yesterday (March 24).

“Henry Kissinger was an old and close friend of my father’s,” the Prime Minister wrote.

“They first met in 1967, when my father was taking a sabbatical in Harvard, and Kissinger was still a professor. They kept close ever since, in and out of office. When my father was ill recently, Kissinger wanted to visit his old friend one more time, but sadly my father was not in a condition to receive him. Now he has written this moving eulogy to my father.” 
AGENCIES

My comment: Yup, LKY has always been a straight talker. If you watch his speeches, etc, throughout his career, you'll find that LKY was one mighty consistent fella. His beliefs, analyses, etc. Singapore and the world will miss him.  

Understanding The Singapore Story 5

The Lee Kuan Yew Conundrum
- by Braham Allison, March 30, The Atlantic

Re: Singapore's late leader governed undemocratically but effectively. Which raises a question: What is the ultimate purpose of government?

Washington, D.C., is fast becoming an acronym for “Dysfunctional Capital.” Singapore, in contrast, has become the poster child for “the concept of good governance,” to quote the Financial Times’s obituary for the country’s longtime leader, Lee Kuan Yew, who was laid to rest on Sunday. For Americans in particular, this contrast presents a conundrum. On the one hand, Americans hold as a self-evident truth that their democracy is the best form of government. On the other hand, they see mounting evidence daily of Washington’s gridlock, corruption, and theatrical distractions, which makes their system seem incapable of addressing the country’s real challenges.

In assessing the quality of national governance, international rankings often focus on three related baskets of indicators: first, a nation’s level of democracy and civic participation, and the degree to which citizens exercise political rights; second, the effectiveness of its government in facing issues, making policy choices, executing policy, and preventing corruption; and third, its performance in producing the results people want, including rising incomes, health, and safety.

Let’s start with performance, since it is easiest to measure. As a Russian proverb declares, it is better to be healthy, wealthy, and safe than sick, poor, and insecure. Who can disagree? On these criteria, how has Singapore performed over the course of its first five decades versus the United States; or the Philippines (which the U.S. has been tutoring in democracy-building for a century); or Zimbabwe (an African analogue that declared independence from the United Kingdom just a few years after Singapore, and where dictator Robert Mugabe has been as dominant a national force as Lee Kuan Yew has been in Singapore)?

Table used 2005 USD$ (World Bank)

As the table above shows, over the past 50 years, real per-capita GDP in Singapore grew 12-fold. In current dollars, the average Singaporean’s income grew from $500 a year in 1965 to $55,000 today. Over that same period, real per-capita GDP in the United States and the Philippines doubled, and Zimbabwe’s actually dropped. When comparing the United States and Singapore, it is important to note that Singapore was essentially catching up to America. But what about economic performance in the 21st century? Over the past decade and a half, U.S. GDP has grown an average of less than 2 percent a year—while Singapore’s averaged nearly 6 percent. In the World Economic Forum’s latest Global Competitiveness Index, Singapore was ranked second overall, behind only Switzerland (the United States came in third). For the past seven years, Singapore has also been ranked the best place in the world to do business by the Economist Intelligence Unit.

As for its healthcare services, Singapore’s infant-mortality rate has fallen from 27.3 deaths per 1,000 births in 1965 to only 2.2 in 2013. A child born in the United States has three times the chance of dying in infancy of one in Singapore. In the Philippines, 23 out of every 1,000 children born die in infancy. In Zimbabwe, 55. In 2012, Bloomberg Rankings judged Singapore the world’s healthiest country based on the full array of health metrics; the United States ranked 33rd, the Philippines 86th, and Zimbabwe 116th. Singapore also has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. A citizen is 24 times more likely to be murdered in the United States than in Singapore. And in 2012, less than 1 percent of Singaporeans reported that they struggled to afford food or shelter, by far the lowest percentage in the world.

"For Lee Kuan Yew, the ultimate test of a political system is whether it improves the standard of living for the majority of people."

For Lee Kuan Yew, the ultimate test of a political system is whether it improves the standard of living for the majority of people.
The second basket in assessing governance focuses on what experts call the effectiveness of the governmental process itself. Each year, the World Bank produces Governance Indicators metrics on government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law, and control of corruption. Singapore leads the United States by a significant margin on each of these measures and is not even on the same level with the Philippines and Zimbabwe. Singapore’s widest lead over both the United States and comparable nations comes in the prevention of corruption and graft. Singapore scores in the top 10 while the United States ranks 20 countries lower on the list, with the Philippines and Zimbabwe in the bottom third. According to the 2014 Gallup World Poll, 85 percent of Americans see “widespread” corruption in their government, while only 8 percent of Singaporeans believe their government is corrupt.

On democratic participation and personal liberties, Freedom House produces an annual report. In its 2014 ranking, the United States was among the freest countries in the world. Singapore scored in the bottom half, behind South Korea and the Philippines. It lost points mainly for Lee Kuan Yew’s People’s Action Party’s tight management of the political process. According to its report, “Singapore is not an electoral democracy. … Opposition campaigns have typically been hamstrung by a ban on political films and television programs, the threat of libel suits, strict regulations on political associations, and the PAP’s influence on the media and the courts.”

The Democracy Report
The contrast between Singapore’s ranking in the first two categories, and the third, reminds us of a fundamental question of political philosophy: What is government for? Contemporary Western Europeans and Americans tend to answer that question by emphasizing political rights. But for Lee Kuan Yew, “the ultimate test of the value of a political system is whether it helps that society establish conditions that improve the standard of living for the majority of its people.” As one of his fellow Singaporeans, Calvin Cheng, wrote this past week in The Independent, “Freedom is being able to walk on the streets unmolested in the wee hours in the morning, to be able to leave one’s door open and not fear that one would be burgled. Freedom is the woman who can ride buses and trains alone; freedom is not having to avoid certain subway stations after night falls.” Lee Kuan Yew always insisted that the proof is in the pudding: rising incomes for the broad middle class, health, security, economic opportunity.

To Western ears, the claim that an autocratic state can govern more effectively than a democratic one sounds heretical. History offers few examples of benevolent dictatorships that delivered the goods—or stayed benevolent for long. But in the case of Singapore, it is hard to deny that the nation Lee built has for five decades produced more wealth per capita, more health, and more security for ordinary citizens than any of his competitors.

Thus Lee Kuan Yew leaves students and practitioners of government with a challenge. If Churchill was right in his judgment that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others, what about Singapore?

My comment: All I can say is that the govt has a social contract with the people it rules over. It has to communicate and deliver. Look at HK. Sure they have democratic processes, but is the govt effective? Are they even serious about tackling an issue? Presently it seems to be ruled by the elite and wealthy and those toeing the Beijing line. Is there hope? Yes. It has to start from the ground up. They do really need a firm, persuasive and effective leader.

Understanding The Singapore Story 4

Top 10 reasons why Singapore is the BEST place to work in for foreign workers

If you are a foreigner and you are finding hard to survive in your own country, then Singapore is the right place for you to earn a quick buck and perhaps to become rich in your lifetime.

Unlike other developed nations who discriminate against foreign workers, the ruling party of Singapore is extremely pro-foreigner and amendable to your interests.

In Singapore , you will enjoy essentially the same rights and benefits as the Singapore citizens without their accompanying responsibilities such as serving two years of mandatory National Service in the army.

You will be welcomed as a “talent” with the red carpet rolled out for you whether you are really talented or not.

Here are 10 top reasons why Singapore is the best place to work in for foreigners:

10. Getting  a  social  visit  pass  or  work  permit  is  relatively  EASY:

You can go to Singapore under a tourist vist ( Social Visit Pass ) and you will be allowed to stay in the country for up to 30 days. This can even be extended for another 30 days so that’s almost 2 months in total. Use that time to find work and chances are, you will find one.

Many women from China came to Singapore to work as freelance prostitutes and they can earn a year of their salaries back home within a month.

If you have the right connections, getting a work permit to work in Singapore is very easy as it is in desperate need of cheap foreign workers. As long you are willing to work long hours for a pittance without asking for too much, you are sure to get a job in Singapore which pays more than what you are getting in your country.

9. Safe  place  protected  by  citizens  serving  NATIONAL  SERVICE:

Singapore is one of the safest place in Asia . All Singapore male citizens have to serve two years in the army followed by another 10 years of reservist. They will be mobilized during times of unrest to protect your lives and properties. In the event that war breaks out which is highly unlikely, you can always return back to your own country with your money and let the Singaporeans do the fighting and dying for you.

Singapore ’s ruling party has no qualms sacrificing its citizens to protect the interests of foreigners. Every year, there are unknown numbers of Singapore citizens who are killed, crippled or injured during National Service, yet there is no outcry among Singaporeans.

8. Easy  to  ADAPT  to  local  culture  and  language:

Singapore is a multi-cultural immigrant society. Regardless of where you are from, you will bound to find your fellow countrymen in Singapore . If you are mainland Chinese, you will realize that certain parts of Singapore resemble some small towns in China like Geylang and Chinatown . One can find Chinese from all the 23 provinces of China congregated along the narrow alleys of Geylang between Lorongs 4 and 22.

If you are from India , you won’t feel lost in Serangoon because so many of your kind is there! You can find Indian cuisine from all across India in Singapore itself! For Filipinos, Thais, Burmese and Vietnamese, you have enclaves of your own such as Lucky Plaza, Golden Mile Complex and Peninsula Plaza where you can hang out with your friends during the weekends.

7. No  need  to  INTEGRATE  into   Singapore  society:

Unlike other countries where you belong to the minority and may be pressurized to conform to the resident population, there is absolutely no need to do so in Singapore where 36 per cent of its population are foreigners. Of the remaining 64 per cents so-called “citizens”, a rising proportion are new citizens born overseas like you.

There are large number of mainland Chinese in Singapore and it is likely that you will be able to find your own clique there without bothering too much about the locals. The Indians have their own gang too and they are now branching out into HDB estates like Punggol, Sembawang and Seng Kang.

In Singapore , foreigners are the kings and you call the shots. The timid locals will not dare to step on your toes so long you assert your rights and they will give in to you like sheep, as they were called lately by a Senior Minister.

6. PREFERENTIAL  treatment  for  foreigners:

Racism is rife in some countries like Australia which saw a spate of protests against Indians lately, but not in Singapore where the ruling party is extremely protective of foreigners to the extent of dishing out preferential treatment to them. Singaporeans will never dare to attack foreigners openly or protest against their presence because they will be arrested immediately by the police under the new Public Order Act.

However, foreigners are free to campaign for their rights and interests without much interference from the authorities.

When over 200 PRC workers protested outside the Manpower Ministry last year over unpaid wages, they were allowed to block the traffic to its entrance for hours. The employer was eventually forced to repay the workers.

In a recent case, a PRC couple together with 3 others “hijacked” a SBS bus for six hours and was given a free cab ride home in the end. The police was called to “escort” them from the bus down to the cab.

5. Get  PERMANENT  RESIDENT  status  easily:

Getting a PR means you get almost the same benefits as Singapore citizen without necessarily giving up your native citizenship which enables you can reap the full benefits offered by both and enjoy the best of the two worlds.

If you are a Singapore PR, you are allowed to stay in the country over a long period of time, you can sponsor your family to come over and stay legally, you can set-up a business here, and many other benefits.

You do not have to be a professional or world class talent to qualify for PR. Singapore’s ruling party is so desperate to boost its flagging population via immigration that they will accept any Tom, Dick or Harry.

Even cleaners, masseurs, construction workers and prostitutes are able to become PRs and citizens. Two out of every three applications for PRs are successful and you do not have to wait very long for it.

On average, if you are a professional like doctors or nurses, you will get your PR within half a year of application. A China national and Singapore PR Zhang Yuanyuan who worked as a teacher in a private school received her PR in just 2 months.

4. Take up  Singapore  CITIZENSHIP as  a  springboard  to  greener  pastures   elsewhere:

One good thing about the Singapore passport is that it enables you to travel around the world without a visa to most countries. If you have made up your mind to leave your country for good and wishes to emigrate to other countries like Australia , Canada or Britain , the easiest way to do it is to take up Singapore citizenship first and use it as a springboard.

A Filipino nurse worked in Singapore for a 5 years after which she obtained its citizenship. Within a year, she applied to work in Britain and was accepted immediately. She is now a British citizen and has brought her entire family from the Philipines to Leicester where she now works in a local hospital.

Since Singapore has already offered you a stepping stone to a better future elsewhere, it will be a waste not to make full use of it.

3. There  are  MANY  jobs  available:

There are plenty of jobs available in Singapore and foreigners are usually preferred to locals as they cost less and do not have reservist obligations.

It is easier to get a job in Singapore than in your own country. That is why your leaders are all turning to Singapore to solve the rising unemployment back home. Philipines President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo sent a delegation to Singapore last year to explore possible job opportunities for migrant Filipino and they were offered a cool 5,000 jobs by the Resort World Sentosa.

As long you are willing to try your luck, you are assured of getting a job in Singapore .

2. The  pay  can  make  you  RICH:

Though you will earn less compared to Singapore workers, you will still earn far more than what you will back in your own countries due to the strong Singapore dollar.
As of now SGD$1 = RM$2.4 = RMB$4.9 = PHP32.

Even if you earn only SGD$500 a month, you will be able to set up a business in your homeland, buy a property and send your children to school if you use your earnings wisely.

1. Easy  chance  to  become  a  MILLIONAIRE  in  Singapore :

It’s easier to become a millionaire in Singapore than in your own country. Just get a PR, buy a HDB flat and wait for a few years for its price to go up before selling it off at a hefty profit.

Though this may seem shocking to you, it is true that the ruling party allows PRs to buy HDB flats meant for citizens in the open market liberally and to pocket the profits upon selling them later absolutely TAX-FREE!

With the prices of HDB flats set to continue rising due to limited supply of new flats and increased demand contributed by the relentless influx of foreigners, you will surely stand to make a profit when you invest in one now.

In other countries, you will have to either rent a place to live in or buy an expensive flat from the private sector, but in Singapore you get to buy public housing at affordable prices and somemore can make money out of it. Where else can you get such a good deal in the world?

Two case studies in point:

1. A Malaysian and Singapore PR bought a 5-room HDB flat in the prime district of Bishan for $150,000 in the early 1990s. He sold it recently for $600,000 thereby making a profit of $450,000 which amounts to more than RM$1.1 million dollars! He became a millionaire in Malaysia after working for 2 decades in Singapore . Do you think he can earn that much money in his lifetime had he remained in Malaysia ? The best part of it is, after his children completed their secondary and college education in Singapore , he packed them off to Australia with his earnings to further their studies so that they can evade National Service. They are now Australian PRs and he is going to retire in Australia together with them.

2. A Chinese national and Singapore PR bought a 4 room HDB flat in Bukit Merah for $250,000 in the early 2000s and sold it for $460,000 at the peak of the market last year, pocketing $210,000 in an instance which is more than RMB$1 million dollars when converted to Chinese currency. She has since returned to her hometown in China where she built a luxurious 3 storey mansion for herself and family. She can live on her earnings made in Singapore for the rest of her life without lifting a finger to work.

So if you want to become a millionaire in your lifetime, come to Singapore now and you will not be disappointed by its extremely pro-foreigner government !

Source: http://www.transitioning.org/ (published on April 16 2011)

Understanding The Singapore Story 3

The Real Singapore Model
- by Minxin Pei, Professor of Government at Claremont McKenna College and a non-resident senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States.

CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA – The death of Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s founding father, offers an occasion to reflect on his legacy – and, perhaps more importantly, on whether that legacy has been correctly understood.

During his 31 years as prime minister, Lee crafted a unique system of government, intricately balancing authoritarianism with democracy and state capitalism with the free market. Known as “the Singapore model,” Lee’s brand of governance is often mischaracterized as a one-party dictatorship superimposed on a free-market economy. His success in transforming Singapore into a prosperous city-state is frequently invoked by authoritarian rulers as justification for their tight control of society – and nowhere more so than in China.

Indeed, Chinese President Xi Jinping is pursuing a transformative agenda heavily influenced by the Singapore model – a relentless war on corruption, a broad crackdown on dissent, and pro-market economic reforms. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) sees in Singapore a vision of its future: the perpetuation of its monopoly on political power in a prosperous capitalist society.

But the Singapore model, as China’s rulers understand it, never existed. To emulate Lee’s model of government – rather than its cartoon caricature – would require allowing a far more democratic system than the CCP would ever tolerate.

The true secret of Lee’s political genius was not his skillful use of repressive practices, such as launching lawsuits against the media or his political opponents; such tactics are common and unremarkable in semi-authoritarian regimes. What Lee did that was truly revolutionary was to use democratic institutions and the rule of law to curb the predatory appetite of his country’s ruling elite.

Unlike China, Singapore allows opposition parties to contest in competitive and free (though not necessarily fair) elections. In the last parliamentary election in 2011, six opposition parties won a total of 40% of the vote. Should the People’s Action Party (PAP), the party Lee founded, lose its legitimacy due to poor governance, Singapore’s voters could throw it out of office.

By holding regular competitive elections, Lee effectively established a mechanism of political self-enforcement and accountability – he gave Singaporean voters the power to decide whether the PAP should stay in power. This enforcement mechanism has maintained discipline within Singapore’s ruling elite and makes its promises credible.

Regrettably, most of the rest of the world has never given Lee proper credit for crafting a hybrid system of authoritarianism and democracy that vastly improved the wellbeing of his country’s citizens, without subjecting them to the brutality and oppression to which many of Singapore’s neighbors have resorted.
China would be wise to embrace this model, by introducing a considerable degree of democracy and strengthening adherence to the rule of law. China’s 1.4 billion citizens would benefit immensely if their rulers were to adopt Singapore-style political institutions and practices. This would mean, at a minimum, legalizing organized political opposition, introducing competitive elections at regular intervals, and creating an independent judiciary.

Emulating Lee would allow China to achieve immense progress and become a more humane and open society with a brighter future. Sadly, there is almost no chance of this happening, at least any time soon. When China’s leaders cite the Singapore model, what they have in mind is limited to the perpetuation of their power. They want the benefits of political dominance, without the checks imposed by a competitive institutional context.

Lee may have been skeptical about the benefits of democracy, but he was not viscerally hostile to it; he understood its usefulness. By contrast, China’s leaders view democracy as an existential ideological threat that must be neutralized at any cost. For them, allowing even a modicum of democracy as a means to impose some discipline on the elite is considered suicidal.

Unfortunately, Lee is no longer with us. One would like to imagine him explaining to China’s leaders what has been truly innovative about the Singapore model. Obviously, that is not an option. But it would behoove the CCP – if for no other reason than simple respect for one of Asia’s great statesmen – to stop appropriating the Singapore brand in the service of a completely different agenda.

My comment: Now, this article is a great rebuttal to Ben Judah's article that because Sg so-called authoritarian form of govt succeeded, many East European countries (read ex-communist) have decided LKY's form of governance shud be copied. To me, it is just their excuse for holding on to power. LKY came to power becoz he really did help the downtroddden folks who suffered under the British. The people knew him and supported him because of his ideals and ability to wrought change. As for China, all I can say is that the country needed order to bring modernisation about. For the Soviet Union, if Gorbachev had an ounce of LKY's qualities, he would have changed the USSR in phases, not break it up so suddenly. Even if democracy is needed, it needs time to make sure people's lives are not turned topsy turvy. A people has history and aspirations that needsto be preserved and moved on, not disrupted suddenly. The US shudn' speak so high and mighty about bringing democratic change to a country like Iraq, Afghanistan or even Iran. They know how to bring about a revolution, but have no idea how to assist in nation building afterwards. Gung-ho with no workable, long term plans. And many of the people that the US supported in the past all fail. Look at the King of Persia, the Assads of Syria, South Vietnam, etc. For all their top learning institutions, the US always end up as the biggest idiots.

Understanding The Singapore Story 2

Critics call Singapore an autocracy. But I never felt more free than when I lived there.
In Singapore, I couldn't chew gum. But at least I never feared for my safety.
- By Sahana Singh

Re: Sahana Singh writes mainly on water and environmental topics. She is involved in a campaign to reform water and sanitation practices in Asia.

With its immaculate and nearly crime-free streets, Singapore in some ways offers more freedom than certain democracies.

Between my early life in India and my current life in the United States, I spent 14 years in paradise: Singapore. From clean water and crime-free streets to reliable public transportation and easy access to libraries, the state government anticipates all the basic needs to provide its residents a good quality of life and eliminate the stresses that can impede personal progress. But in the coverage that followed the death of Singapore’s founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew on Monday, Western media has painted a very different picture. They describe a crushing autocrat that chained his people and stripped them of basic freedoms. My experience was quite the contrary. Outside of this tiny island utopia, I never felt more free.

My husband whisked me and our baby away to Singapore in 1998 after landing a job there, despite my fears about adapting to an unfamiliar culture. When we first arrived and checked into a hotel, I called room service and asked for a jug of filtered water – a standard health precaution. The hotel employee dismissed my concerns: “You can drink water from the tap in your bathroom.” At first, I was horrified by the suggestion. In India, water filters were as common as TVs and refrigerators in middle- and upper-class homes. But here, I soon discovered, the state maintained a high-quality water treatment process that delivered purified water nationwide. Not only was Singapore’s water drinkable straight from the tap, but it always gushed with good pressure, even on the top floors of the tallest buildings. It was my first introduction to a government that works.

In my first days in Singapore, I worried about safely getting around town, especially with a baby. I had never used local trains and feared ending up in a dangerous neighborhood. But what would be reasonable fears for a newcomer in most countries were gratuitous in Singapore. Everywhere were street signs and directions in English, clearly marked and intelligently placed, as if invisible planners were anticipating your next question. On my first try, I navigated to Orchard Road, the nation’s retail hub, and back to my hotel without having to ask anyone for directions.

There was no litter in Singapore’s streets. Every building looked clean and every walkway looked newly washed. The national library had numerous branches, stocked with wonderful books. With my baby in a stroller, I could go practically anywhere. It was like an India I had always dreamed of: clean, green and hassle-free.

How was this possible? Singapore gained its independence nearly 20 years after India, and yet, the island nation now boasts a remarkably diverse economy, the world’s top airline, clean river, and a thriving trade port – all achieved in just a few decades. Certainly, Singapore benefits from being a fraction of India’s size, with a population of 5.5 million people covering just 275 square miles. But by any measure, it developed at a staggering speed. The engine behind that transformation was the governance of Lee Kuan Yew, the man whose vision took this little dot of a city-state “from third-world to first.”

But not everyone shared my admiration. At the time, a friend of mine from the U.S. told me nothing could make her move to Singapore: “I would hate to live in a country where my freedoms are curtailed,” she declared loftily. I could only laugh. There I was, freer than anytime I had been in my life. I had just found a job I loved. I could go see a movie with friends and return by myself late at night. I could fall asleep in a taxi, after reeling off my address, and the driver would safely take me home and gently wake me up. Singapore maintains an efficient – if strict – judicial system, fundamental to living in a low-crime society while practicing individual freedom. I had tasted the real freedom that came with security.

Many point to the price Singapore’s citizens and residents pay for achieving that security. The government imposes strict laws with steep fines and punishments for even minor transgressions: Breaching the ban on selling gum can fetch a fine north of $70,000. Vandalizing property can lead to caning. These kinds of sentences may be an affront to American ideals, but in Singapore, like many Asian countries, ensuring the greater good is paramount to self-determination. Americans, it should be noted, also pay a price for the premium they put on individual liberties.

Westerners ridicule Singapore for restrictions on personal expression and protest, but overlook how the nation provides more freedom than some of the most-lauded democracies. In Singapore, there was no gun-culture like America’s or neighborhoods with street gangs to be avoided. As my daughter grew older, I could easily let her move around the city with no worries about her safety. Around the country, there are plenty of mosques, churches and temples in close proximity, along with Christian, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist national holidays. The national government is highly transparent and virtually incorruptible, functioning better than some chaotic, so-called democracies. And yet the world asked why average Singaporeans, who had good schooling, a job, affordable housing, healthcare, child-care and elder-care don’t protest from roof-tops?

Yes, Lee Kuan Yew was not a paragon of the kind of democracy that throws up populist political leaders. Yes, his acerbic remarks would never have won a TV debate or an election in the U.S. But he was not one of the self-serving, corrupt dictators that developing countries produce so often. It would be folly to deny him his due credit for building a nation regularly listed as the world’s best place to live. He accomplished in one generation what took other newly developed countries three or more. He delivered the strong medicine needed to transform a nascent and suffering country into a mature nation, capable of punching far above its weight. Perhaps another leader would have given a sweet placebo, or worse still, poison. May Singapore never squander the legacy of Lee Kuan Yew.

First published in The Washington Post on March 25 2015

My comment: If the Western countries persist to complain that the Sg govt shuts up its opposition, they really have no idea how poor quality the opposition in the country is. They have no alternate plans to what the PAP govt has to offer. In the past, most had a personal agenda against the govt or LKY, some still stinging from their losses in 1961. Another explanation is that any smart thinking person who wants to make a difference would want to join the PAP, the ruling party. And PAP actively recruits all the best talents in the country. Opposition who focus on the issues and on a gentler, kinder pace of life gets better support, opposition folks like Chiam See Tong. You make unsustained personal attacks against a person or govt official the end result is sure to be a libel suit. LKY certainly had no tolerance for slander. Who would (esp from idiots)?

Understanding The Singapore Story 1

Highlighting insightful articles I've come across during the national mourning week of LKY's passing: 

The Legacy of Lee Kuan Yew and the Myth of Trade-Offs
- Calvin Cheng rebuts critics on Singapore trading freedom for economic success 

THE Western press has been relentless in trotting out the opinion that Mr Lee Kuan Yew had built Singapore's undeniable economic success while trading off fundamental civil liberties.

Much as I understand that it is in the West's fundamental DNA to assert certain inalienable freedoms, as a Singaporean, I strenuously object that there has been any such trade-off.

Some of my Western friends who have never lived here for any period of time have sometimes self-righteously proclaimed, no doubt after reading the cliches in the media, that they could never live under the "stifling and draconian" laws that we have.

My answer to them is simple: Are you the sort to urinate in public when a toilet isn't available, the sort to vandalise public property, the sort that would leave a mess in a public toilet that you share with others? Are you the sort who would throw rubbish on the streets for others to pick up, the sort that would stick gum on train doors or leave them on the floor to dry up into one ugly black scar on the pavement? Are you perhaps a drug smuggler? Because we execute those. Or maybe you molest women? Because we would whip you. Are you the sort that would get drunk and then get into fights and maybe beat up a stranger in the bar? Back home you may get away with it but if you are that sort, then maybe this place isn't for you.

In short, are you a civilised person who wants to live in a civilised society? Because the things you cannot do in Singapore are precisely the sort that civilised people should not do anyway. If you are, you have nothing to fear.

Or maybe like the Western press has kept saying these few days in their commentaries on Mr Lee, you fear that you could be locked up because we do not have freedom of speech?

Do you want to come here and insult other people's race and religion? Maybe these are fundamental freedoms in your country, but in ours, because we have experienced deadly racial riots at the birth of our country, these are a no-no. But then again, why would you want to purposely offend others?

Or maybe you want to tell lies about our public figures, accuse them of corruption when you have no evidence to back them up, or accuse them of stealing, cheating, or all manner of untruths? If so, then be prepared to be sued for libel. Even if Western societies think that you can say these things about your political figures, we don't and we are better for it.

And those political opponents of Mr Lee who have been bankrupted, allegedly because they were such formidable foes? No such thing. Mr J.B. Jeyeratnam and Dr Chee Soon Juan may be the martyrs much adored by the Western press, but have you heard of Mr Chiam See Tong, the longest-serving opposition Member of Parliament who won five consecutive elections against Mr Lee's People's Action Party? Or Mr Low Thia Khiang, who not only won five consecutive general elections, but in the last one in 2011, also led a team that unseated the incumbent Minister for Foreign Affairs and our first female Cabinet minister?

Both these opposition MPs have never been sued, much less bankrupted. In fact, Mr Chiam won several libel lawsuits against Mr Lee's ministers. You would never have heard of them, or have chosen not to, because it doesn't fit the Western narrative that legitimate opposition was stifled by Mr Lee through lawsuits. It doesn't suit your narrative of trade-offs. The fact is that every single opposition politician successfully sued for libel engaged in the type of politics that we do not want, the kind founded on vicious lies being told in the name of political campaigning.

What about detention without trial? Again and again ad nauseam, the Western press has used the example of Operation Cold Store to bolster its narrative of Mr Lee as an autocrat, where 111 left-wing politicians were arrested on suspicion of being communist in 1964.

But what about Operation Demetrius, where in 1971, 342 persons suspected of being involved with the IRA were detained without trial by the British Army? Or closer to the present where thousands have been interred without trial by the United States in Guantanamo Bay on suspicion of being terrorists? Firstly, detention without trial is not something used only by the Singapore Government, but countries need to make their own judgment about applying such laws when they feel their security is threatened and the normal judicial process is inadequate; in the 1960s and 70s, communists inciting armed revolution were Singapore's greatest threat.

Whether those people were indeed communists will be a question no doubt debated endlessly by historians, in the same way as whether the 342 in Northern Ireland were indeed IRA members, or the thousands in Guantanamo Bay were indeed terrorists.

So where is the trade-off? How are we unfree?

I tell you what freedom is.

Freedom is being able to walk on the streets unmolested in the wee hours in the morning, to be able to leave one's door open and not fear that one would be burgled. Freedom is the woman who can ride buses and trains alone; freedom is not having to avoid certain subway stations after night falls. Freedom is knowing our children can go to school without fear of drugs, or being mowed down by some insane person with a gun. Freedom is knowing that we are not bound by our class, our race, our religion, and we can excel for the individuals that we are - the freedom to accomplish. Freedom is living in one of the least corrupt societies in the world, knowing that our ability to get things done is not going to be limited by our ability to pay someone. Freedom is fresh air and clean streets, because nothing is more inimical to our liberty of movement than being trapped at home because of suffocating smog.

These are the freedoms that Singaporeans have, freedoms that were built on the vision and hard work of Mr Lee, our first Prime Minister. And we have all of these, these liberties, while also being one of the richest countries in the world.

There was no trade-off.

Not for us.

Dated Saturday, 28 March 2015 (as published in The Independent in the UK)
- source http://ifonlysingaporeans.blogspot.sg/)
- first published The Straits Times, 27 Mar 2015)

My comment: Singaporeans have been living a free life since 1959. LKY has never told its people how to lead their lives the way perhaps Mao Zedong did with his Little Red Book and exhortations. There was no "do this do that" because LKY said so. Heck, it was up to us to pay attention to his speeches during election. If we cared about LKY, it was because he had a vision of Singapore and had a habit since early days to accomplish what he set out to do. Sure, we had to live with policies set by his govt, but those were largely to do with govt policies. If we didn't like it, we could vote him out of office. If LKY set out to be a dictator, he would have been overthrown a long time ago. Or Sg who have remained something of a backward Cuba ruled by communists.