Screenshots

You know what, actually I dont care..

This is the country whose oppositions are sued until they go bankcrupt, giving clear signals - 'Dont get into politics! Dont create trouble!'. And also, this is truly selfish country - buying water at 3 cents, and demanding vigorously for that right, wow I am so dumbfounded.

Leaving aside the opposition and water issue and just looking from an internal perspective, would our PM/DPM be prepared to engage 10 young guns from across the political spectrum to talk and debate on all the issues facing every Malaysian? That is the question. I doubt as most Malaysian politians are not sincere, substandard quality and always in denial mode to be able to face searching and intelligent questions and issues. thks.

we dont even get a Dialogue with the Minister in Malaysia.
it's all about ceramah after ceramah only.
Unlike Australia and US,where the opposition leader and the PM have live debate over the TV.

An unorchestrated and intellectual live debate on tv?I think better chance of hell freezing over.

But hey, if it does happen, don't talk about rising cost of living or high unemployment rate. It's more important issues like what to wear or who is a better entertainer that matters most to us. Right?

syedhs,

Don't bring out the issue of water! You heard what our government tell you to but you never listen to other side of the story !

Let me tell you this, the water quality is tip-top in Johor since 20+ years ago. We never have milky water or shit smell water, why? Do you think we really do not benefit as a nation when we sell 3 cents raw water and buy back at a premium?

Do you know a lot about SG before you start complaining? Like a lots of people here argue for NEP, do anyone aware that SG do have some form of NEP for Malays? How come no one over there complaint over such issue? You only hear tudung story about the primary school girl but none you really heard them complaint any education issue or any lack of teacher in national school. Why? We have SPM/STMP issue every year, we have 6A student or 12A student who can not get into Uni every year, why ?

Well, the old man's right. Politics has got to do with our life, our job, our home, our children's future. So vote wisely.

If you read between the lines... what the old man really meant was this:
"Politics has got to do with your life, your job, your home, your Medicare, MY FUTURE, MY CHILDREN'S FUTURE, MY GRANDCHILDREN'S FUTURE MY GREAT GRANDCHILDREN'S FUTURE AND MY GREAT, GREAT GRANDCHILDREN FUTURE"

If take out those freedom issue, Singapore is a dreamland for many 3rd world country. However, beside economy , participant from the citizen are minimal.

A Taiwanese critiques has mentioned this : she prefer to have messy citizens participation than "lean and clean" ironfist ruling, as long as those politicians follow democracy games rules. Because a ironfist ruling can easily fells into well of power corruptions.

OTH, altough Bolehland allow dissent voices, we did not enjoy much of the participation power(as compare to Taiwan). Have you ever see people voice at Municipal/State/Parliament level?

Syedhs,

Singapore has already completed their CIQ complex a few years back with all the road systems. Now you want them to dismantle all road systems leading to causeway and align with the bridge.

Well, from what I read, they are not interested because it is of no beneficial to them. But, to satisy us to build the bridge when the 2nd bridge is under-utilised, they will need SG$500 Million (RM1.2 billion). Of course, they need a trade off for spending those money. Sand and Johore Air Space. They need the airspace so that their fighter jets can fly direct to South China Seas for training instead of flying 90 degree to the east and head north.

The 3 cts is the right to draw dirty water from Pulai river. They have to install the piping, filtrate the water and channel back to SIngapore all at their own cost. But in the contract,they have to sell "clean water" to Johore at 50 cts when the cost of purification is RM2. Johore in return resell the same water to us in JB at almost RM3.00. Get that. Must see 2 sides of the story and make your own judgement. We are no fool to sign the 100 years contract for such a "one side deal", you know.

Okay as for hearing both sides (ie listening to both Singapore and Malaysia), I am very welcome to hear it. I remembered during Mahathir's tenure that quite a lot of supposedly-classified discussion was declassified and published into the paper. I rememberered I try to read all of them, and still I am amused that why Malaysia still receives 3 cents and not much more. If anyone can give me the Singapore's side of news.. I would welcome that.

Anyway, regarding the politics.. I think you have to question yourself what is the meaning of LKY's statement:

"Politics has got to do with your life, your job, your home, your Medicare, our children's future"

He is true, if it is treated as global statement, not taken into context. And if I read correctly, the simple message behing it is please keep voting for PAP, because PAP is the one who bring the Singapore as it is today. But then, I have the impression that anywhere, regardless of whatever, there must be at least one opposition party which is as powerful as the ruling party.

Democrates vs Republican.
Conservative vs Labour.

And although this may not be needed much in Singapore, it is very badly needed in our country, Malaysia. Haha, sorry for steering away a bit from topic.

malaysian_hero,

Okay thanks for the another side story. I donno, but just noticed it right after my previous posting. Btw, you are Singaporean, arent you?

Readers from Today and Strait Times responsed to the TV Forum.

............................
Can you see where I'M coming from, Mr Lee?

I Say

Friday • April 14, 2006

Lee Ching Wern
chingwern@newstoday.com.sg

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/112779print.asp

The writer is a journalist with Today. She was one of 10 Singaporeans under the age of 30 who participated in the forum, "Why my vote matters — A dialogue with the Minister Mentor", broadcast on Channel NewsAsia on Wednesday. The repeat telecast is at 6.30pm today on MediaCorp Channel 5.

__________________________

Enlightening exchange of views

Watching gloves-off forum was most liberating Will we get greater individual autonomy? Shallow, ungrateful comments by panelists

Friday • April 14, 2006

Letter from Mohd Rosle Ahmad
Letter from David Cai
Letter from Hazra Osman Ghani

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/112768print.asp

___________________________

Majority of S'poreans want MM Lee to continue and say there is no fear factor

Friday • April 14, 2006

TODAY NEWS TEAM
news@newstoday.com.sg
After the forum, the feeling

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/112802print.asp

____________________________
STI Home > Free News Headlines > Story

April 14, 2006
MM's TV DIALOGUE
The brutal truth: Politics is about daily life

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/free/story/0,6418,385163,00.html?

____________________________
STI Home > Forum > Story

April 14, 2006
Dialogue was an eye-opener

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/forum/story/0,5562,385207,00.html?

____________________________
STI Home > Forum > Story

April 14, 2006
Where was the respect and decorum for MM?

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/forum/story/0,5562,385162,00.html?

____________________________

malaysian_hero,

I am lost here (being from Penang), so humour me. Why does SG specifically need Johor sand and airspace?

Does the sand need to come from Johor and nowhere else (they are bloody rich BTW)?

Why are they so fond of Johor airspace? Is it cleaner and less polluted compared to the airspace on the other side? Or maybe their planes can't make those sharp turns? I suppose they can't change their runway alignments either, no space lah....

Bro! The sand fm Malaysia specifically fm Johor lah.......

Do you want the buy the sand and start "Tambak the sand to make the water at PTP (Perlabuhan Tanjug Pelepas) shallow.....

Abt Airspace.... do you like other country AIRFORCE fly over yr roof top?

Ops... talking abt another side of 3 cents story....

Can you make comparison between those days 3 cents and today 3 cents..... This is what TM ague about..... correct me if I'm wrong..... what happen of the value of RM0.03 for the hundred years where by now the exchange rate already 2.26 ( as today at money changer).

//But then, I have the impression that anywhere, regardless of whatever, there must be at least one opposition party which is as powerful as the ruling party.//

Good try syedhs,but it sounds ideological towards an inspiring western system of democracy that could balance the power between ruling and opposition.
Sadly but truly,this power balancing thingy just doesn't work out in SEA.Not even the developed SG and media freerer Thailand,so what could you expect from Bolehland?
From past till now,has power always been wellspreaded between ruling BN or to be more exact UMNO and opposition?
During GE,the ruling one could spend whatever amount they want as long as they win the poll but opposition could only work with their limited resources.After having spent so much to win,how could they be compensated and everybody knows.

syedhs,
No, I am a johorean (jeff can confirm my IP)working in SG just trying to present 2 sides of the story for your consideration. Who is right or wrong is up to individual's interpretation.

a malaysian hero - same here I'm also Johorean.....

At least we have fellow fm south giving opinion.

Many years ago when I stayed in Kluang in 70's.... I do miss this old man Lee Kow. He did tell my late father (sorry he is not interested in politics) - We must have check and balance to have a healthy country..... And now when I grow old and in Mahathir era... I do agree what he said.....

Honestly, as a Bolehland citizen, I am no impressed with Tun M cheap water talk.

Come on, all Bolehland know that, if Bolehland make a water plant, under current BolehNaik administration, it will cost 10 times more, 70% less efficient, 5 times more pollutant(remember the recent shit water) and many times more expensive to maintain than the Singaporean water purification plant.

syedhs & bmart333,

3 cents for clean water is dirt cheap. But 3 cents for dirty and treated water is not cheap. The alternative is for those polluted river water to flow into the sea. The rivers are replenished constantly from the sky. The cost to Johore is zero. You cannot store river water. The choice is to sell it for 3 cents or get nothing for it when it goes into the sea. But that is not the whole story. Under the agreement, Singapore has to sell back treated water at a fixed rate. As someone pointed out, Singapore sells back at 50 sen, when it costs them RM2.00 to purify. And Johore on-sell it for RM3.00. The profit from reselling clean water by the Johore govt is probably more than what they get from dirty water.

Those who criticise the 3 sen seems to forget one vital point - dirty untreated water and clean water are TWO DIFFERENT PRODDUCTS. Alot of money, energy and other resources (fuels, chemicals, manpower, etc) are needed before dirty water can be transformed into clean water.

Just to get away from the emotion attached to the 3 sen, my favourite example is to consider the prices of sand and silicon.

Sand is dirty cheap. But the computer silicon chip is relatively much more expensive than sand. But at the core, silicon chip is nothing but refined sand - from which the silica is derived. So, would the syedhs and bmarts of the world cry foul and said, "but I sell you sand for 3 sen and you are selling me silicon for RM30?"

And please, why do you have to question malaysian_hero's nationality? Does what he said makes sense? Does what he said based on facts? Or, you are one of those who will defend "my country" no matter whether it is in the right or wrong?

confusedcious,

Ah.. right you are entitled to your name.. because you are confused. Come on lah.. I have stated I am willing to hear both stories, yet you are thinking with all the negativities - in other word, 'Jangan buruk sangka'.

http://app.info.gov.sg/data/art_AbdullahOpensWaterTreatmentPlantInJohor_130204.html
http://www.mgcc.com.my/mgcc/bizlinks.nsf/0/57fca11fe301059448256e8b002bd1b6?OpenDocument&Click=

Everyone, please do the math. Because of national pride, we builded our own water plant in Johor rather than using SG plant and it cost RM650 million which can produce 35 million of water. Do you know RM650 millions alone already allow us to buy water (the plant capacity of 35 million@RM0.50 ) from SG for 101 years without all the running cost of the plant?

a malaysian hero: It cost Rm2.40 to SG to process the water rather than RM2 if the link is correct.

Another Johorean here.

Dude! you got me wrong again... don't so confuse.... Singapore buying sand is it for silicon.... nop....

Selling at 3cents is it wrong.... nop..... my questions is simple. those days 3 cents and today 3 cents pls compare whereby you buy those day nasi lemak 20 cents and today Rm1.50......

I am comparing this??? yup dirt cheap dirty water.... but do you really go to Johor tenggara where the PUB's water catchment located... correct me I'm wrong.... It is clean dude!!! Don't lah compare with Sungai Segget! Cheers!

Anyway by the end of the day... We are talking about our national interest. whereby we are manage by people who are interested of building 5.6 mil house... what to do You all vote them..... including me after all the sweet promises!!!

I just watched the telecast and I think that for the most part of the debate, LKY did make sense though the young people were totally out-gunned and mismatched.

As for our Tun, I think his latest outburst is a show of his frustration at being proven wrong time and again. I think there is a hint of his total disregard for the law and recklessness when he said that he would have carried on with the crooked bridge, regardless, if he was still PM. Did he really mean that he didn't care if this exploit would drag us into another expensive suit at the ICOJ.

BTW his sarcastic comments about having to ask our neighbour's permission for everything we do, even in our own house, sound strangely contrary to the MBSA's ruling on dog ownership.

There is one statement agree whole heartedly (if you take away the sacarsm)..."Tak apalah ... saya waste money lebih banyak, mega projects." :P

Losing his position and in turn his control over the government and the press is making his worst nightmares all come true.

"Can you make comparison between those days 3 cents and today 3 cents..... This is what TM ague about..... correct me if I'm wrong..... what happen of the value of RM0.03 for the hundred years where by now the exchange rate already 2.26 ( as today at money changer)."

I can think of 3 commodities that are cheaper today than 30 or 50 years ago - eggs, air travel and computers.

The price of eggs has remained relatively constant.

The price of computers per kB, per MG or per GB has in fact gone down drastically over the years.

Likewise, the price of air tickets has gone done tremendously.

RM1 = S$1 when the water agreement was signed. Now, according to you, S$1 = RM2.26. Correct. But whose fault is that? You want to blame Singapore for this?

Would really like any senior minister in Malaysia talking about tough issues with a group of young Malaysians.

On the sand issue, is it that bad to sell it to Singapore? For them it's a matter of survival for their growing population and economy needs. And if we don't sell then ok-lah. No deal then no deal lah, but don't have to bring up all these feelings. I know that there're so much blood-ties of all races between our two countries and the people-people relationship is much, much better and stronger than the government-government (also media-media) who bring tonnes of garbage from the past every time any negotiation is to start. We're not helping here.

regarding 'ol kuan yew's much rebroadcast television moment: do you all really think that it was impromptu and not scripted? this is a father and son outfit that demands questions ahead of time for for vetting and preparation from university students at NUS during their so called forums! and how arrogant can the old man get 'if i am arrogant, would i be here to today!". talk about hubris of the highest order!. shame no one asked him about detention without trial, the secret police and the fact that i/c numbers are recorded on ballot papers (or at least on the stubs). or the fact that podcasts and blogs will be monitored/banned during the election period. i wonder if screenshots,aisehman and malaysiakini (or rather their SG equivalents) would ever be tolerated in the land down south.

ref the bridge (or non bridge as the case may be). in SG terms a balance of benefits means skewed in their favour.end of story. AAB has a better bargaining position now. our johor logistics hub can still thrive using the underutilised second link, no need to worry. what has happened though is that SG has lost a bargaining chip with respect to sand, air space and CPF. maybe be a good thing in the long run for both sides to move on past this.on the whole, i think AAB made the right choice. better to look a fool for a year than a hundred.

for all the SG apologists out there, answer me this: if SG regards MY as a sovereign nation, why does it keep our west malaysians CPF there until age 55 (unlike all other CPF memeber from other countries and also sabah/sarawak)? and why can't duty free be brought in from MY to SG? the inhabitants of the little red dot keep 'boraking' about how they are a small but fiercely independent nation and yet they don't want to accord the same to their nearest neighbour!

someone on here once posted that everyone loves to quote that LKY took SG from 'malaria infested outpost to first world state' but happily forgets the fact that the british left him a great starting point. if he was in charge of timor, i wonder what LKY could have done! please call a spade a spade lah!
after all as the late tunku said of kuan yew "that man is not to be trusted"!

taufan said /// for all the SG apologists out there, answer me this: if SG regards MY as a sovereign nation, why does it keep our west malaysians CPF there until age 55 (unlike all other CPF memeber from other countries and also sabah/sarawak)? and why can't duty free be brought in from MY to SG? ///

Simple - some of these are by mutual agreements and historical and some contractuals.

For duty free, it cuts both way. Anyway, the flights between Sg and MY are more like domestic flights than international flights. It only make sense to treat them as internal flights. If duty free is allowed on travels between SG and MY, then what will happen to the hundreds of thousands of workers commuting to Sg to work everyday? Can we deny them their duty-free entitlements? Wow, if that is the case, I would start a business by just crossing the causeway a few times a day.

And what about the restricted passports (which is about to be phased out in a few months' time)? Which countries in the world have 2 types of passports - restricted and international. The fact that the restricted passports existed for many years on both sides of the causeway testify to the fact that SG and MY are special cases where we were more like relatives than strangers.

Those Malaysian who worked in Singapore knew from Day 1, that they will be treated like Singaporeans and can only take out their CPF upon retirements. Sure, they can take out their CPF anytime they want, just like Singaporeans, but they will not be allowed to work in Singapore again. In fact, the Malaysians are luckier - Singaporeans have to give up their citizenships if they want to take out their CPF money before retirement. You chose to view this as lack of sovereingty. It is more a historical legacy, and in fact more like Singapore treating Malaysians as equals. Don't forget Malaysia also treat East Malaysian states of Sabah and Sarawak differently went it comes to immigration controls. Does that mean East Malaysian should also be given sovereignty?

In case you haven't notice, newspapers from both sides are not allowed to circulate on the other sides of the causeway. Again, this is by mutual agreements as in the past, for historical reasons and to prevent bad blood.

Do you know that Malaysia still "own" huge tracts of land along the KTM line from the causeway all the way down to Tanjong Pagar? Singapore is not allowed to develop its own land as long as the KTM is still operating. Why don't you cry foul for Singapore?

ref:wrath

your comment ref the duty free is flawed. if i fly from SG to MY, not a problem i can buy duty free with ease (actually changi DFS had a sign saying as much until last year i think.before about 3 years ago you couldn't buy duty free from changi if you were flying to MY, but now that has changed after all the 'red dotties' never want to lose out the chance to make a few bob what!). also duty free can pass happilly both ways between SG and batam/bintan (30 minutes by ferry away).so why the big variation on the SG part? your comment w.r.t. the daily commuters is moot because you can only but duty free if you are staying away for more that 72 hours. also your point about running a business by criss crossing the border would be illegal.

to the best of my knowledge, there is no agreement or treaty w.r.t the CPF holdings of west malaysians. if it were so, i'm sure we would have been made aware of it. do you have any better information on this? it is wrong to say that MY folks working in SG have a better deal whilst forgetting the people from everywhere else have an even better deal. just because the MY people working in SG know the rule and accept it, does not make that rule correct surely!

the whole restricted passport issue is by mutual agreement of the two countries. in any case both sides have abandoned that idea now. well if we follow the 'special cases/relatives' argument then perhaps the 'red dotties' should appreciate their place as the adik kecil and behave accordingly. the problem is i see them shouting sovereign nation on the one hand and then quoting 'special relationship' at other times. at least the MY position throughout has been consistent!.

ref east malaysia: when malaysia was formed (not the choice of words not founded or joined into), certain agreements were put in place to protect the states that were coming together in forming the federation. as i'm sure you know, this was encapsulated in the 20 point agreements covering sabah and sarawak. these were formalised agreements that are in effect to this day. to say that it is tantamount to giving soverignity to memebrs of the federation is substantially flawed. after all if you form a club with your friends with binding agreements, that does not make you a club on your individual basis does it?

ref the newspapers: yes some strange mutual agreement does let this happen but nothing stops you from bringing any MY papers to SG or vice versa. in any case in this day and age, it is a moot point with net domination.

ref the KTM land: the land in question was by treaty/ agreement given to MY or KTM for 999 years. thats the way in goes unfortunately-if SG has that kind of land in MY, would they just want to give it up? after all the 'red dotties' love quoting the law and agreements at any chance they get!

taufan,

Thanks for keeping this civil, let's keep it this way.

I am afraid you are speaking from both sides of the mouth. When it suits you, you agree it is in the agreements. When it doesn't you said it is not right even if it is agreed. Surely what is good for the gander is good for the goose?

You see your hipocrisy here?
Re the KTM land, you said "sorry lah, it is in the agreement". Yes you are right, it is legally binding. But notice that SG has never made this an issue? They have never brought this up. I only bring it up because you are harping on why Sg never treat MY as a sovereign country. I am just showing a counter example of MY not showing the same consderation. For that matter, do you know that the Malaysian Navy is still squatting in their base in Woodlands? You call this sovereignty? Again, please note that Sg has not made this an issue - I am quoting here as another example of unbalanced agreement that Sg has abided by.

What you have brought up would not have been an issue if MY treats SG the same way - obey the treaties that have been signed. The Water Agreement and Separation Agreement clearly stated that MY MUST obtain SG's consent before the Causeway or pipelines can be dismantled.

So, what are you saying taufan? If the agreement is unfair to SG, sorry lah, you have to abide by the agreement. But if it is unfair to MY, sorry lah, please, that does not make it correct. Head MY wins, tail SG loses.

taufan, read your posts again. You are the one who is not consistent. SG has never quoted special relations. I am the one who brought out those examples to show how inconsistent you are. Just go through your posts again. You are the one who said if CPF policy sucks, change it. You are the one who said, "too bad about KTM land, it is in the agreement." Can you not see the incosistency here? What about the agreement not to suka suka potong the causeway? And remember MY actually suka suka told SG not to reclaim land in its own territory? You call this respecting other people's sovereignty?

You know what's the real problem bedeviling Sg/My relationship? It is this abang-adek relationship. Same as your ketuanan mentality. And you are a perfect example of the abang mentality.

Dear TheWrathOfGrapes "The price of eggs has remained relatively constant.

The price of computers per kB, per MG or per GB has in fact gone down drastically over the years.

Likewise, the price of air tickets has gone done tremendously.

RM1 = S$1 when the water agreement was signed. Now, according to you, S$1 = RM2.26. Correct. But whose fault is that? You want to blame Singapore for this?"

I did not blame SG. But your argument is totally is out of context.... Natural resources vx tecnology is true different thing!!!

Yup the price of egg is consistence.But still cannot compare those days price and today price where by all those egg producers are going into hightech farm!

To me I' totally looking at the economy point of view.

about you mentioned regarding our Ketuanan mentality... opsss sorry dude.... it cannot compare to Sigaporean Kiasu Mentality.

grapes:

re "For that matter, do you know that the Malaysian Navy is still squatting in their base in Woodlands?" to the best of my knowledge KD Pelanduk relocated to Lumut more than 10 years ago. i will be the first to say that i am not familiar with the agreements that covered the woodlands base. however, i seriously doubt that malaysia would have stayed longer than they were allowed to and similarly, i doubt that SG would have let them stay past the expiry of any agreement. do you have the facts?

re "The Water Agreement and Separation Agreement clearly stated that MY MUST obtain SG's consent before the Causeway or pipelines can be dismantled." did the articles of seperation clearly state what you are saying? could you point me to a reference please.

re "You are the one who said if CPF policy sucks, change it". please read my post: i am asserting the fact that by treating MY citizens differently (both from other nationalities as well as between east/west MYians), SG is treating MY as a whole differently. and i daresay not as a fully soverign country. do they treat english, welsh and irish CPF members differently i wonder? .please read and understand my posts prior to countering them lah!

now this :"Same as your ketuanan mentality. And you are a perfect example of the abang mentality." i take offence to. why do you assume i have a 'ketuanan mentality'? either put or shut up grapes . that statment was not anchored in any statement of fact based on my postings. i think you have just happily extrapolated that everyone who has a differing point of view from you about singapore must be a fanatical ultra nationalist. actually come to think of it: why don't you tell me what this 'ketuanan' mentality i suposedly have is all about.

the long and short of my posts is this: if SG wants to be treated (as it should be) and a soverign, independent country, it should accord MY the same right too. i note you haven't really countered the CPF and duty free propositions that i posted earlier. these remain clear examples that SG does not see MY as a soverign nation.

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/113644print.asp

Forum meant to provoke

Thursday • April 20, 2006

Lee Ching Wern
chingwern@newstoday.com.sg

A FEW days ago, my father was having dinner at a coffeeshop near our home when he overheard this conversation between two middle-aged uncles about me.

"You got watch the Lee Kuan Yew programme on TV or not? That girl say PAP hao lian (arrogant). How can?! Those youngsters have no respect for elders," said the first one angrily in Hokkien.

His friend replied: "Bo dua bo suay (too big for their shoes). How do their parents teach them?"

And the other day, on my way to work, I spent the entire cab journey listening to some "experts" on a Chinese radio programme slam us for being rude, lacking in public decorum and Asian values.

These views are echoed in a number of scathing letters written to me as well as to the newspapers (mostly by Singaporeans in their mid-30s and 40s) in the days following the telecast of Why My Vote Matters — the forum with Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew that I participated in together with nine other young Singaporeans.

Apart from saying we were rude, some people accused us of trying to impress our friends. Some even questioned our upbringing.

I am deeply puzzled and disturbed by the reactions.

This backlash shows not only the vast gulf that exists between the generations, but also how far Singapore is from opening up and how close-minded many still are.

Did we question Mr Lee the way we did on TV because we are a bunch of disrespectful ingrates who are blind to his contributions to Singapore?

If you thought so, consider this: All television programmes are produced with a determined angle and style.

Perhaps you were expecting something akin to the forum that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had with Singaporeans recently, which was a lot "milder".

But was the dialogue with the Minister Mentor meant to be the same? Ask yourself, why were there so many journalists on the selected panel?

Was it, perhaps, meant in the first place to be a more provocative, vigorous and spontaneous exchange that touched on the "unspeakables"?

If you had watched BBC's infamous HARDtalk programme, you would have seen its former host Tim Sebastian accusing, snarling at, interrupting and pointing fingers at political leaders from all over the world — Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong included.

Was Mr Sebastian week after week attacked personally for having no decorum and respect for these great people? No. And not because of his Western upbringing either, but because the show and its reputation was built on just such an approach.

The show's guests knew what they would be in for — if they didn't want the nasty debate, they would not have gone on it.

That is not to say our forum last week was anything like HARDtalk. And we are obviously no Tim Sebastians. But the principle is the same.

If MM Lee wanted to give us this leeway to "speak back" to him on national television, and if we were encouraged to be uninhibited and not to cower when he pointed out our ignorance — who is to say we behaved inappropriately?

To those viewers whose criticisms of us participants were motivated by their deep personal respect for the Minister Mentor, I ask: Is it not MM Lee's prerogative how he wishes to engage us?

Certainly, we had no intention of showing MM Lee any disrespect, but should we have censored ourselves so as not to offend viewers?

To those of you who felt we raised issues that were both unrealistic and unrepresentative, for goodness' sake, this forum had a specific scope.

We were not the ones who initiated the dialogue. We did not decide the rules of play. But it seems to me now that some people have chosen to penalise us for participating.

If you ask me, I think it was a great forum.

Not because our arguments were flawless or the answers were perfect, but because, suddenly, every Singaporean — young and old, including those who never did care about politics — is talking about it in the coffeeshops, on the MRT, in schools and on the Internet.

Isn't that precisely what we set out to achieve?

The writer is a senior reporter

with Today. The participants of last Wednesday's forum reunite to tell their side of the story on the programme, "That Dialogue - Was I Rude Or ... ?", tonight at 8.30 on Channel NewsAsia.

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/113408print.asp

Speak up ... but politely please

Wednesday • April 19, 2006

Yvonne Lim
Voices & Commentary editor

SPOILT brats, ingrates, whiners, disrespectful upstarts.

These were accusations hurled at the 10 young panellists of last week's Channel News- Asia dialogue with Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, as they found themselves under fire for both their questions and the cut-and-thrust manner in which they had asked them.

One was Today's own senior reporter, Lee Ching Wern, who followed up last Wednesday's broadcast with a commentary, "Can you see where I'm coming from, Mr Lee?" (April 14) — on the same day an older generation Singaporean, Mr Hazra Osman Ghani, called the panellists "shallow" and "ungrateful" in an emotional letter.

William Teo Jui Wah could not agree more. "They 'know not Caesar' and where the water flows from!" he declared of the participants, all under 30 years of age and most of them journalists.

"It is perfectly all right to have different views. But the way the questions were asked and what we saw in their body language, suggested that they are no better than kids and should be sent back to school.

"MM Lee was too kind to them. If they were foreign journalists who conducted themselves in such a way, they would have been 'grilled'."

Not that they weren't. Mr Lee's questioning of reporter Ken Kwek on his comments about a climate of fear made Dionne Kho uncomfortable. She quoted the part of the exchange when Mr Lee said: "I allow my grandchildren to speak back to me but from time to time, but when they are out of bounds, I put them in their place."

But out of the 30 or so readers who wrote in, at least 10 felt the participants had it coming.

Wrote Sunny J: "It seems you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth, and it is for 35-year-olds like me to put you back in your place. You should be humbled by the fact that a great iconic leader such as Mr Lee is giving you a lesson in politics and life … Learn open-heartedly from the elders who built this nation with blood, sweat and tears."

Another "post-65-er", Kwan Foon Sim, observed: "The panellists obviously wanted to be heard, but not to listen and learn from MM Lee. I was ashamed that many didn't even exhibit basic courtesy when asking their questions."

But were the participants being unnecessarily rude to Mr Lee, or simply being candid and open? There were those, such as Mohd Rosle Ahmad, who hailed the young Singaporeans' "gloves-off" approach (April 14) for dispelling the myth of the "fear factor" in Singapore politics.

Anne Lim Siew Kim commended Lee Ching Wern for daring to voice the observation: "There is an impression that the PAP is arrogant." Lim felt she was "presenting a point of view that could have provided valuable feedback to the PAP. It is a pity she was not given a chance to say more on the issue".

Boris Chan thought the panellists showed "they have a good understanding of a public segment that sees the need for political diversity".

But Foo Kok Jong thought their arguments for a level political field were shallow.

"These are not arguments. These are simply ideals, not necessarily shared by everyone."

After all, Foo said, what is there to stop any citizen from voting for the Opposition or talking about politics in the kopitiam, online or at Speaker's Corner? "Walk the talk," the self-described PAP supporter told the participants. "You want an active Opposition? Go join an opposition party and strengthen its resources and ability to compete. Until the Opposition parties match PAP in terms of calibre and reach, there can be no viable alternative."

Steve K Ngo felt what the forum showed was that young Singaporeans "want choices, like the variety they get when shopping for their favourite dresses or computer gadgets". "They have grown bored of PAP … But politics is not the same as fashion or food. A wrong decision about clothes and restaurants is unlikely to critically affect the future," Ngo adds.

"I doubt most young Singaporeans today know what is real suffering and challenge. They are raw and naive but aggressive — this is a formula for disaster. Although many are highly educated, that does not mean that they are necessarily wise."

But others felt much good came out of the controversial forum, even if it highlighted a generational gap.

Acknowledging that the reason for this divide was that today's youth could never fully understand the struggles and uncertainties of the 1950s and 1960s, 16-year-old Jessica Nobes wrote: "The dialogue was an appropriate avenue to let doubts be cleared, for better mutual understanding. I was glad that some of the views I shared were voiced and some of my questions answered.

"If we do not have mutual understanding with the Government now, what good will it bring in the future? Muffling opinions will only encourage youth to find other platforms (often undesirable) to voice their opinions. Maybe it will turn into anger, without clear understanding."

Ephraim Loy applauded the Government for engaging the youth. Also noting the number of young new candidates in the PAP's line-up, he said this showed "the young are not forgotten. And knowing that the tagline of the PAP's manifesto was inspired by a student shows how much our views are valued".

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/free/story/0,6418,387212,00.html?

STI Home > Free News Headlines > Story

April 22, 2006

REACTION TO MM LEE'S DIALOGUE WITH YOUNG SINGAPOREANS

The generation gap - among political leaders

Younger PAP leaders sweating needlessly about the post-65ers
By Mafoot Simon
Senior Writer

I MISSED the first telecast of Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's dialogue with the 10 young Singaporeans, and decided to watch the repeat telecast last week. Unknown to me, my 24-year-old son was also watching the show in the comfort of his own room.

As he came out of his room at the end of the programme, he commented: 'Your friend is sweating.' I think that's his generation's way of saying someone is going through a tough time - such as when being grilled by 10 people at the same time.

He was exaggerating about the 'friend' bit of course, but I do not think he was about the 'sweating' bit. Many in his generation must have seen it that way. After all, they have almost zero bonding with MM Lee, and his generation.

My taciturn young son caught me completely by surprise. I had not known that he had any interest in political matters. It is to the credit of the dialogue participants that for many who watched the debate, it would have been difficult to remain disinterested. Letters to the media and coffeeshop talk bear this out.

Two things have preoccupied me ever since.

The first was why MM Lee - known for his short fuse, and for not suffering fools gladly - allowed himself to be subjected to a gruelling 1 1/2 hours of sometimes-rude remarks from the 10 young participants.

Why should he go to all the trouble when he already knew, not least from a Straits Times survey of 413 Singaporeans aged 21 to 34, that seven in 10 said they wanted to vote in the coming General Election, but six in 10 said they would not be disappointed if there was a walkover in their constituency?

Why should he go to all the trouble when he already knew that bread-and-butter issues like the cost of living, jobs and housing topped the list of concerns important to these young people?

After all, a lot of hard work and preparation went into the one-hour programme. There was the preliminary session at the Istana on Saturday that lasted almost 2 1/2 hours. Two days later, it was 1 1/2 hours of recording. And what about the preparations beforehand?

One participant confessed that he spent a whole weekend reading up on Mr Lee and policies such as the Group Representation Constituency 'to come up with questions'.

What he probably did not know is that MM Lee must have read up on the group as well, particularly the seven journalists whose thoughts on current issues are quite accessible through their writings.

MM Lee, according to one participant, 'showed that he had taken effort to remember specific details about us before the camera started rolling' during the taping of the programme.

He started life as a cross-examiner, MM Lee told the group. What he did not say was that he is also a consummate negotiator. And to perform both roles well, he does his homework thoroughly - including boning up on whom he is up against.

Here is an untold story about what happened when MM Lee went on an official visit to a country keen to forge better relations with the Republic. A meeting with a group of the country's top administrators was on the schedule. A day earlier, he asked to be briefed about each and every single member of the administration he was to meet.

Dutifully, his aides gave him the briefing. But they could not get details on one man. MM Lee blew his top, saying that unless he knew each and every one of them, he would not know where they were coming from in the discussion.

'He was like an angry lion. I have never seen anything like it,' was how one witness put it.

Expose them?

BEFORE MM Lee explained the reason he agreed to the dialogue, I harboured a worry that he might actually have wanted to 'expose' the young journalists who write often about their pet peeves - the lack of opposition, the lack of a level playing field for political parties, a climate of fear - peeves which might not resonate at all with other young Singaporeans not from the same English-educated background.

Indeed, I 'sweated' - to borrow my son's lingo - when he pointed an accusing finger at this newspaper for 'purveying an unnecessary falsehood' about the secrecy of the vote in elections.

But all turned out well. He told The Straits Times his reason for taking part: 'I met the young journalists to get a sense of their attitudes to elections and politics. They gave me this but they were over-emphatic in putting across their views.'

This brings me to my second preoccupation about the dialogue.

Generation gap

AS MUCH as it revealed a generation gap in the ways Singaporeans have reacted to the debate, it also revealed a 'generation gap' among three generations of political leaders. Two were sanguine. The third seemed fearful.

Sure, except for MM Lee who is now the only political leader of his generation in the current Cabinet, the other two might not represent the sentiments of their own different generations. But unless a survey is done, let us look at it for what it is worth.

Here is what MM Lee, the only one left among the first generation of leaders, said about the post-65 generation:

'It is not possible to make them like their parents. When they grow older and assume responsibility for their families, their world view will be different. When they grow older and have to leave the comfort of their parents' homes and fend for themselves, they will reorder their priorities. It happens with every generation.'

The second reaction was that of Foreign Minister George Yeo of the second-generation leadership: 'I think it is normal that at any time in any society for there to be a generation gap, and for young people always to want things to be faster, to be different from their elder brother or sister or parents or uncles. That is normal.

'It will be very unusual if we have in a society young people having the same taste and being completely content with what their parents want,' he told the Chinese daily, Lianhe Zaobao.

The third reaction came from a third-generation leader, the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, who said that the debate signalled a gulf between what the young want and what the PAP has delivered.

Speaking as the chairman of the People's Action Party's youth wing at the Young PAP's 20th anniversary last week, he said: 'I will speak very frankly and say that many of us, after watching the televised forum...emerged with an acute sense of discomfort.

'Discomfort, because it may signify that there is a gulf between what the young people think they want or need, and what the party has actually delivered...

'Whatever you may think of the younger generation, the fact remains that the PAP will have to understand, induct, teach and prepare this younger generation to take over, sooner or later.'

This reaction seems to me unnecessarily fearful. The 'acute sense of discomfort' was probably unnecessary too.

First, the gulf that Dr Balakrishnan referred to may not be as big as he imagined.

As the reactions of the older generation leaders showed, they were fully aware of what young people's wants were.

As Mr Yeo said, 'it is normal' for these to be different from that of older Singaporeans.

Second, the group of voters we call the 'young generation' is itself not monolithic.

And to borrow Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto's 80/20 Rule, 80 per cent of the noise made by the young could probably be the work of only 20 per cent. By some estimates, it may even be just 5 to 6 per cent.

So it is good to have the older generation of leaders 'tempering' the exuberance of the third generation. I should hurry now to my son.

msimon@sph.com.sg

This is the SOP for Singpore Govt. They will always reply to readers' letters in newspapers. I wonder why Msia govt do not take the letters in the press seriously and sometimes do not even give a reply to these letters.

___________________________
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/storyprintfriendly/0,5578,387147,00.html?

STI Home > ST Forum > Story > Print >> Back to the article

April 22, 2006

THE NEXT 10-20 YEARS
Capable team in charge, S'pore will move ahead

I REFER to the letter, 'Grateful Singaporean worried about the future' (ST, April 21).

No one can predict what Singapore will be in 40 years. For 10 to 20 years, Singapore and South-east Asia will get a lift from China's growth at around 8 per cent, and India's not far behind. With a capable team of ministers and MPs in their early 50s and 40s in charge of Singapore, we will move ahead.

After reaching a certain stage, all countries have to expand abroad. Singapore, like Switzerland or Holland, has to invest abroad. We all rely on international rules and the World Trade Organisation for fair treatment. If a host country mistreats our investments, other investors will lose confidence in them. During the financial crisis, the Malaysian government froze shares owned by Singaporeans who bought them over Clob. Later they had to release the shares. There is a price to be paid for breaking the rules.

Lee Kuan Yew
Minister Mentor

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/storyprintfriendly/0,5578,386795,00.html?

April 21, 2006
Grateful Singaporean worried about the future
I AM 35 years old and a post-1965 Singaporean. I do not hold the same beliefs as my younger countrymen who were not very respectful to Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew during the one-hour TV forum recently.

I am truly grateful to MM Lee and the other founding fathers of Singapore for running the country and bringing Singapore to its current high status.

Without MM Lee, my family would not be able to own a home of our own, the young in the family would not be able to enjoy an affordable and equal-opportunity education, my parents would not be able to bring the four of us up on a single income.

Without him, I would not be who I am, bilingual and knowledgeable about my heritage and culture.

Without MM Lee, Singapore would probably not be able to enjoy stability and I would not be holding a job that I love.

I have faith in Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong running the country and taking Singapore to the next level but deep in my heart I can't help but worry about Singapore's existence in the next 20-40 years.

With what we have now, Singapore is still a very small country. Can we still exist as a country when, somewhere down the road, the bigger neighbouring countries will surpass us in all areas. Maybe the day will come sooner than later - see how Malaysia and Thailand are progressing.

Will we go back to the situation that MM Lee faced in 1965, forcing the prime minister in 20xx to suggest merging with another country?

I do not disagree with MM Lee's decision to merge with Malaysia, though I was not even born then.

I also worry about top enterprises in the Temasek Holdings stable. How do they venture out of Singapore without arousing the concern of countries that they are linked to the Singapore Government?

Lim Bee Choo (Ms)

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/114111print.asp

Pure theatre ... nothing to be ashamed of

Young panellists were just playing their part, says PM Lee on that controversial debate

Weekend • April 22, 2006

Teo Hwee Nak
Deputy News Editor
hweenak@newstoday.com.sg

THE PRIME Minister has stepped into the fray in the heated debate over last week's Channel NewsAsia forum (picture) between Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and a group of young Singaporeans.

In his first comments on the controversial programme, Mr Lee Hsien Loong felt that the forum got Singaporeans to talk about significant issues, although he would have liked a broader range of subjects covered.

Mr Lee also defended the 10 panellists, who have come under attack for the views they held and for the tone they used in the discussion.

He said that they had nothing to be ashamed of and that Singaporeans who watched the forum should separate theatre from reality.

"This is theatre. It's a programme. It's meant to achieve a particular objective. The form of it, the style of argument, the confrontation, the sparks – these are contrived," he said.

The only character really playing himself that night, he said, was Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew. As for the young panellists, Mr Lee felt that they were only reflecting a particular viewpoint.

"What you see on stage of MM, that's his persona. That is him. But what you see of the panellists, I don't think that's all of them. That's not them. Their private views, the style in which they engage, the opinions that they hold – I don't think those completely came out. They were reflecting a particular view point which they highlighted, exaggerated and maybe slightly caricatured in order to prompt a response and have a good theatre," said Mr Lee.

Echoing a point raised by MM Lee, Mr Lee was also of the view that the liveliness of the discussion was the essence of the forum.

"I think it's better to have people who are speaking up than people who just sit there and say, oh yes, thank you very much, and I agree with everything you say. Then, I think there's no point in this."

What the forum achieved was that it got "everyone talking about something significant", he said.

Still, Mr Lee noted that the tone of the show took many Singaporeans by surprise.

He said that the older generation was surprised at the manner in which the panellists spoke to the man who is revered as the founding father of Singapore. On the other hand, Mr Lee believed that it must have struck the young panellists that while they might hold certain views, other Singaporeans might think differently.

But Mr Lee expressed disappointment in the "substance" of the forum.

"My feeling was that the coverage was narrow. There were certain points that were raised, raised in different ways, MM answered, and question came back again. It basically came down to level playing field, competition, choice, openness, fear. Well if you have a debate like this, you would have to discuss these subjects.

"But I would have preferred the debate to cover wider subjects and not just these … what is the future, where are the big challenges for us, what are the changes we have to make, how can we actually secure ourselves so that 20, 30 years from now, our grandchildren will be sitting happy, or more likely standing up, and charging happily forward. It didn't get covered."

Mr Lee also felt that the forum – which featured seven journalists, two undergraduates and a publications manager – was not representative of the entire spectrum of young Singaporeans, judging by what he had personally witnessed in events he had attended over the years.

"I've talked to the young people there. For many of them, politics is very far from their minds. Their exams are about to come, they want to make sure they've got jobs after the exams. They're worried because the foreign students are doing very well, and maybe would compete with them for jobs. They are very preoccupied with down-to-earth matters."

Perhaps Pak Lah can learn from his counterpart in Singapore to recruit the right team of people to work with him and avoid making costly blunders made by his predecessor.

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/114119print.asp

MR Lee and the right people

On the importance of a mandate, the tough search for talent and the challenge from the Opposition

Weekend • April 22, 2006

Teo Hwee Nak
Deputy News Editor
hweenak@newstoday.com.sg

MR LEE Hsien Loong has had no lack of counsel for his first election as Singapore's Prime Minister.

Before he called the May 6 election, many dished out helpful suggestions on a number of issues.

But among these, the best advice, as far as he was concerned, boiled down to one issue: Get the right people.

In an hour-long interview with Today at his Istana office just one day after he called for a General Election (GE), Mr Lee said: "A lot of people have told me many things. But I think the best advice is to get a strong team: When you have good candidates, then you can call elections. And that's what I've done."

Not only are the 24 new People's Action Party candidates "people of substance", the whole team now has developed a new "depth".

That depth, he said, comes from having very good people in all the GRCs, including some who will even boast anchor "reserves", alongside the team leaders.

In fact, when asked why Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan was the only one among the "super seven" new ministers helming a GRC, Mr Lee hinted that it might not be the case.

So who else can we expect? "Oh no, you have to see on Nomination Day!" he said with a laugh.

He added: "I've got good people in all my GRCs. In some GRCs, I have one or two reserves; I have another person who could lead a GRC but he is sitting there, so (for example) Ng Eng Hen with (DPM) Wong Kan Seng, Vivian Balakrishnan with Lim Swee Say or Raymond Lim with Jayakumar. We have depth."

Apart from his team of experienced Ministers and MPs, Mr Lee took particular care with his slate of new candidates.

"We want people who think independently, who have their own minds, who are people of substance. And I think we have 24 people of substance."

He said that he had personally spent a lot of time with the people he picked, not just to suss them out, but also to listen to their concerns and reservations, and assure them that joining the party was the right decision.

"(After one such meeting), one of them said to me, 'Thank you for spending so much time.' I said 'no, this is the most important thing I can do now.'

"Because the critical thing for me is to have a good team and if I have the 24 good people in, I'm sitting pretty for some time. After this, if there's work to be done, I'll have good hands to do them. If I don't get good people in now, and there's work to be done, you'll end up doing everything yourself and it's not possible to run a country like that."

Mr Lee also revealed that the legendary tea sessions were not the only recruiting platform, with a third of the candidates coming from outside the tea sessions.

"We have taken a lot of effort to do this. I mean, 250-something people came for tea, but it wasn't only from tea. Because after the tea, we sieved through the interviews, we saw them, we looked at the list – repeatedly.

"And then we said, we still lack certain types of people, and then we went out and we looked for them. We spotted individuals whom we thought particularly promising and we made the sales pitch, to talk to each one and try and persuade them to come in, and explain to them why it's important to come in, why they have contributions to make to the team and to Singapore which they could not make outside in private life."

So after the careful sieving and conscious efforts to look for all "types" of people – from union and grassroots, people who are bicultural, and minority candidates – how many are of ministerial calibre?

He smiled and said: "We'll see, we'll see. I think there'll be some."

When pointed out that only one has been identified so far – by Party Chairman Lim Boon Heng when he was introducing IE Singapore CEO Lee Yi Shyan, Mr Lee laughed good-naturedly.

"This is all press speculation. I asked Boon Heng why he said that. And he said no, they (reporters) asked him, is it possible? So he said, yes, it's possible. So you (the media) put that as one possibility."

How about his successor, then? Is he already in PAP's latest line-up?

Said Mr Lee: "We don't know. Time will tell. But I'm quite sure that among Singaporeans in their 30s and 40s, there will be the next prime minister."

Having just taken the lead job from Mr Goh Chok Tong less than two years earlier, Mr Lee is also calling for a fresh mandate from the people when they go to the ballot box in two weeks' time.

While there is a raging debate on what could be considered a mandate, Mr Lee, who has spent 22 years in Parliament, did not want to dwell on the numbers game.

Said the 54-year-old: "We want to have a strong mandate. But it's really a mandate from the people … in a sense that yes, we're in this together, that we now have again, a government with strong support.

"It's not a matter of numbers. You look at Thailand. Thaksin collected 60 per cent of the votes but the establishment doesn't consider that he has the support and he was unable to govern."

What about all the talk about a clean sweep?

"I said we're fighting seriously to win every constituency but I didn't say that I'm aiming for a clean sweep. I'm taking every ward seriously. Lim Boon Heng has this interpretation which I thought was quite a neat way of putting it: If you win 83 seats, that'll be a very good result."

But Mr Lee said that he would be paying close attention to how the electorate votes.

"It's not the number of seats we win but watching the pattern, how the electorate responds to different opposition candidates. If a good candidate gets more votes, well that's how the system works. But if an unsound candidate gets a lot of votes, then I think you must worry that somehow, a bad man has been able to persuade a significant number of Singaporeans that he's okay."

Asked to elaborate, he replied: "If the Opposition candidate stands against a PAP candidate who has some weaknesses that got showed up, then well, it can't be helped. I fielded the wrong man. But if I have a strong person, and you say no, put them aside, never mind, you're good but he's also okay – for Opposition, okay is enough, then I think that's not a good idea."

With the Opposition poised to unveil its biggest slate since 1988, Mr Lee gave his take on his opponents.

"Well, they've got some new faces. What they'll be able to contribute, what their characters will be, we'll see. But I think some of the parties have been conscientious and active for some time. That's the way politics ought to be."

Urging Singaporeans to put thought into the cross they'll be marking on the ballot slip, Mr Lee reminded them that the good times Singapore was seeing now comes about because the people made the right choice five years ago.

"Today, we are sitting confidently in Singapore because we did the right thing in 2001, because people supported us and therefore the government was able to handle the crisis and bring us to this happy situation. I wouldn't say that this is just happily ever and all the problems are past. If we look forward, we see great opportunities. But at the same time, we see serious challenges," he said.

"It's a major decision. This is not a cat and mouse game. You are deciding the team, the policies, the direction for the next 15, 20 years. You are deciding now. But the people you bring in now will be growing with you, serving you, leading you. Make sure you get the right group to do that and take you in the right direction."