Screenshots

The issue is really about the relevance of the methods used by the governments at hand.

Bolehland will say that without Umno's loaded hand, there will be societal disruptions for one cannot ignore half the peoples remaining behind while most of the other half appear to be ahead, immigrants to wit.

Bolehland will also hasten to add that Harryland wouldn't be what it is today but for the resources and capital that go through it from bolehland and goblokland.

Harryland knows all this. Saying what was said only serves it to drive the cream of Bolehland over the causeway. And Harryland need them because it has long concluded that it cannot sustain its swiss-style state for long without brains to attract investors from the advanced states to make the place a value-added hub. Controlling human and financial capital as well as logistics are Harryland's selling points to those investors who with choices in China, India and Vietnam would have a hundred other reasons not to be here, except to park themselves to make some, while using their offices to sell more to the bleary-eyed of this region.
Presence at the crossroads of east and west in the heartland of half a billion does offer some strategic boardroom powerpoint persuasion.

The heart of the matter is it's neither bolehland nor harryland. It's flatland.

LKY knew that long ago; one suspects Umno knows that too. But the difference is that while LKY just went ahead and did what was necessary thugwise, Umno continues to play up the race card that has resulted not in what it should really want - a sustainable and progressive middle-class malay community - but in fact power-enrichment mechanics that have made Bolehland the acme of international embarrassment.

To that extent, LKY is right that the chinese and indians should be treated equals and not impeded from achieving their best for Bolehland. Umno should ask itself more candidly - why let that red dot do it for us when we can do it for ourselves and reap all the benefits of increased human capital deployed to boost better nation-building?

And we need to do this yesterday. We may be able to trick our hoi-polloi with quicksilver tongues that we're 'boleh' but that word is passe in flatland because 'boleh' only means one malay competing against another malay within our own limited borders, when what is needed is malay competing with everyone in the world, flatland.

Harryland has some serious challenges itself; it has to turn to gambling even more now that biotech is seen to require even a more protracted gestation period. And while it has started to carve a name in funds management, healthcare and education, there's only so big a market in this region for those per capita raisers to make a more reassuring impact for the future of a nation-state.

Those challenges Bolehland faces too. There will come a time when Harryland reaches the plateau of the sigmoid curve of growth; it either finds another one it becomes a brunei or a kuwait, looking to maintain its lifestyle by becoming a rent-collector through its acquired assets parked all over the world. By then, the meaning of national sovereignty which it is so eager to denote now will have little meaning - because who can invade a state that has been molecularized over the planet in effect?

In the few construction contracts Bolehland has been having, especially in the MidEast, it's also happening - but bear in mind, when you're managing the building of a putrajaya in some desert, the only thing you earn are the management fees. And once the thing is up, they won't need you again because they will have the blueprint and knowhow to be your competitor in the next tender. A business when the cutomer becomes the competitor is not very attractive.

When you read of a khairy talking like he knows chinese votes won't scamper despite what he has belaboured to rake up in order to build his own personal political career, when you listen to what Badwe and Nib and so many wide-eyed jokers have been saying and doing, when you see the circus of bolehland politics played like some mr bean's movie right before your eyes, you really wonder how much more the citizens of this bolehland can take before the whole thing breaks down.

And lastly, LKY needn't worry that his precious Harryland will be assaulted. The gunsight of the local Steyr rifle doesn't work; neither the turret of the scorpion tanks.

Malaysiakini should feel vindicated? Please do not distort LKY's statement. Please read it carefully. he says, "...it's got some very good articles in it and some of them are signed regularly by the same person. So when we get that, we read it and then we say, okay, circulate it. But you get a lot of rubbish, too, and you have got to filter it. It's a waste of time."

LKY says SOME very good articles and SOME of them are signed regularly by the same person.

and he says, "You get A LOT OF RUBBISH TOO!"

You have just proven that LKY is right when he says that "there is the problem of credibility" because you have just contributed to the problem by twisting LKY's words. Please note that LKY never says that Malaysiakini is credible. Only that it has SOME very good articles and it has a credibility problem because it is too much anti government while the traditional Malaysian news media suffer from the same credibility problem for being too pro government. We need to take the middle path: that is being neither pro nor anti and report facts as facts without fear or favour without ulterior motives.

JEFF OOI says: For context, please read how Malaysiakini apppreciates the Harry Lee interview in thsi story titled: "Kuan Yew mentions Malaysiakini in interview". The first paragraph reads: Singapore Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew has cited online news portal Malaysiakini as a credible source of information on the Internet in an interview last month with two media experts. Read the whole story. If you can't access the full story, get a subscription. THEN ONLY YOU TALK.

Lee: But at the same time, there is the problem of credibility. So, you have a website called Malaysiakini. That means "Malaysia Now" and it's got some very good articles in it and some of them are signed regularly by the same person. So when we get that, we read it and then we say, okay, circulate it. But you get a lot of rubbish, too, and you have got to filter it. It's a waste of time.

Same with LKY. Lately its more rubbish than good.

britain was on the verge of being a failed state in late 70's. Then Thatcher came along.
Malaysia is along similar situation. We need out thatcher. a saviour who sits above racial and religious lines. who could that be? anwar seems to be the best bet. better than anything Umno can offer.

Dear Jeff,

Thanks for your response. I'm commenting on what you have quoted LKY here and I don't think it is right for you to digress from the discussion by referring to what Malaysiakini writes about itself. If you publish that report in your blog, then I'll comment on it. But as LKY says, there's a credibility problem. While I agree with LKY that Malaysiakini does have SOME very good articles, nevertheless it also publishes A LOT OF RUBBISH and I'll not spend a single sen on a subscription just to read a few good articles and having to filter out all the rubbish. That's why I've stop my subscription to Malaysiakini just as I've stop subscribing to the NST and Star.

But I can't blame you for not being objective. You have every right to be bias.

Regards,

JEFF OOI says: Let's agree to disagree. That's the tenet of free speech and allowed thinking. Thanks.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/305629/1/.html

Good governance, sound judiciary contribute to Singapore's stability: MM Lee

By S Ramesh, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 14 October 2007 2005 hrs

Related Videos
http://video2.channelnewsasia.com/cnavideos/multiplevideos_watermark.asp?skin=player1.swf&bgskin=playerbackground.swf&filename=sun01.flv&adfilebefore=cna%20video2.flv&adfileafter=&playmode=S

SINGAPORE: Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew listed on Sunday some key attributes such as good governance and a sound judicial system that have resulted in stability and economic growth for Singapore.

Addressing some 3,500 lawyers and participants at the International Bar Association's conference, Mr Lee – a lawyer by training – also emphasised the importance of the rule of law for investors and for economic growth.

The gathering of lawyers from around the world was an apt occasion for MM Lee to reflect on what made Singapore the thriving business hub it is today.

And he touched on some themes that were dwelt upon with university students recently: The country's leaders had to create a Singapore that was different from its neighbours – a country that was cleaner, more efficient, more secure, with quality infrastructure, and good living conditions.

Mr Lee said: "Important for investors and economic growth is the rule of law, implemented through an independent judiciary, an honest and efficient police force, and effective law enforcement agencies.

"Had we not differentiated Singapore in this way, it would have languished and perished as a shrinking trading centre instead of becoming the thriving business hub it is today.

"Our laws relating to financial services are similar to the laws of leading financial centres in other common law jurisdictions such as London and New York. As these are the two leading financial centres in the world, their laws govern the majority of financial transactions worldwide. They are used freely in Singapore."

Mr Lee added Singapore also has special legislation to meet its needs, such as the Religious Harmony Act and Group Representation Constituencies to ensure minority representation in Parliament.

The minister mentor also cited three factors which enabled the Republic to escape the poverty that had plagued the region.

He said: "First, clean and efficient government; second, the character and capabilities of the leadership in charge; third, an industrious people, eager and quick to learn to be productive and gainfully employed.

"Political leaders in Singapore take action against opponents who make statements against them that impute dishonesty and lack of integrity. Situated in a region where 'money politics' is part of the political culture and an accepted way of life, any allegation of corruption in Singapore must be taken seriously.

"It leads to an investigation by the CPIB (Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau) and an action for defamation against the person making the allegation to clear any doubts on the integrity of the government. As a result, people in Singapore do not equate their political leaders with second-hand car salesmen."

Despite international endorsement of the achievements Singapore has scored in building up the nation, Mr Lee stressed there is no room for complacency.

He said Singapore has to respond to new challenges that technology and globalisation have brought about.

Mr Lee also stressed the importance of maintaining Singapore's position as a city par excellence, with an environment that is clean, safe and vibrant to work and live in.

During the question-and-answer session, the minister mentor was asked how he would measure Singapore's successes.

He said: "I do not measure myself by the yardsticks of Amnesty International or Freedom House or Reporters Without Frontiers. I measure myself by the objectives of governance of my people. What must the government do? It must establish a system where there is peace, stability and opportunities for everybody to live a full life, which means good health, good housing, good jobs, good education, good hospitals.

"There is nothing which you want to read that you cannot read in Singapore. Everybody is on the Internet, everybody has got broadband, you have got cable television, access to all the information, you can blog, you can do anything you like."

- CNA/so

http://www.straitstimes.com/Free/Story/STIStory_167049.html
Home > Free > Story
Oct 15, 2007

Why Singapore is what it is

Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew was the keynote speaker at the opening of the International Bar Association's annual conference last night. This is his address.

TO UNDERSTAND Singapore, you have to know how we were suddenly thrown out of the Federation of Malaysia in 1965 and became an independent state. Peninsular Malaya had been Singapore's hinterland ever since the British founded Singapore in 1819.

We faced a bleak future. We had no natural resources. A small island-nation in the middle of newly independent and nationalistic countries of Indonesia and Malaysia, each determined to cut Singapore off as the middleman. To survive, we had to create a Singapore different from our neighbours - clean, more efficient, more secure, with quality infrastructure and good living conditions.

We sought to provide an environment that our neighbours did not provide - First World standards of reliability and predictability. Important for investors and economic growth is the rule of law, implemented through an independent judiciary, an honest and efficient police force and effective law enforcement agencies. Had we not differentiated Singapore in this way, it would have languished and perished as a shrinking trading centre instead of becoming the thriving business hub it is today.

I studied law in the Cambridge Law School and am a barrister of Middle Temple, an English Inn of Court. I practised law for a decade before I first took office in 1959 as prime minister of self-governing Singapore. Therefore I knew the rule of law would give Singapore an advantage in the centre of South-east Asia where the law was often what was decided by the leader, whether a president or prime minister, often an ex-military man.

Singapore inherited a sound legal system from the British. Clear laws, easy access to justice and an efficient legal system provide the basis for citizens to compete equally in the market and to grow the economy.

A stable and predictable legal environment facilitates the enforcement of contractual rights and protection of property rights. The common law heritage and its developed contract law are known to and have helped attract investors. Our laws relating to financial services are similar to those of leading financial centres in other common law jurisdictions such as London and New York. As these are the two leading financial centres in the world, their laws govern most financial transactions worldwide. They are used freely in Singapore.

Since 1959 we have adopted English as our working language.

While we have kept key English legal principles; after the United Kingdom joined the European Union, it adopted EU laws and doctrines. We have not followed them. Instead we have amended our laws to fit our needs and circumstances.

The independence of our courts is protected by the Constitution that prevents removal of judges from office by the executive. We established our final Court of Appeal in place of the Privy Council as our courts would be more familiar with our own legislation and local conditions and culture.

We still look to English precedents and examples, but increasingly we look also to those of United States, Australia, New Zealand and other Commonwealth countries. Even civil law countries have given us useful concepts and ideas, especially those adopted and incorporated as part of UNCITRAL trade laws.

Needs-based legislation

WE have special legislation to meet our needs: A multi-racial and multi-religious society is prone to conflicts. Race, language and religion in Singapore have to be handled sensitively, especially during elections. We have enacted the Religious Harmony Act and set up the Presidential Council for Minority Rights. We created Group Representation Constituencies to ensure minority representation in Parliament.

For good industrial relations, we enacted the Employment Act and Industrial Relations Act to provide the framework for our tripartite system of industrial ties, a system for collective bargaining, and an Industrial Arbitration Court to resolve industrial disputes.

For law and order, we have strong deterrent sentences for offences such as drug trafficking, kidnapping, unlawful possession of firearms.

The Immigration Act provides for caning sentences to deter illegal immigrants and overstayers.

For national security, the Internal Security Act allows for preventive detention, an effective response to terrorists.

By the 1980s, the system of courts we inherited from the British could not cope with the increasing volume of work. It needed to be modernised and to make use of IT. This also needed a chief justice who is not only legally qualified, but also has managerial and administrative experience to reform the system.

It was Chief Justice Yong Pung How (1990-2006) who had practised law for over two decades before he became a merchant banker and finally chairman of Singapore's largest bank. He restructured the system, instituted new procedures, used IT in the courts, increased the number of judges and courts and selected the most able and balanced of those at the Bar to become judges.

The World Bank, in a report this year entitled Judiciary-led Reforms In Singapore - Framework Strategies And Lessons, stated: 'Over the past 15 years, Singapore's judicial system has been transformed from one that many viewed as characterised by inefficiencies, delays, and inadequate administrative capacity to one widely seen as among the most efficient and effective in the world.'

Attorney-General Chan Sek Keong, who has since become Chief Justice, will maintain these standards.

Good governance, a sound legal framework and judiciary have resulted in stability and economic growth.

Transparency and integrity

OUR emphasis is on meritocracy, the building blocks of sound governance and integrity in our judiciary and legal system. The integrity of our financial systems withstood the turbulence of the 1997 Asian financial crisis that caused several of our neighbours' banking systems to collapse. Singapore's firm regulatory framework has facilitated economic progress.

Corruption, endemic in parts of the world, was seeping into Singapore in the 1950s when elections had introduced elected ministers in the transition to internal self- government. In 1959 when we took office in the first fully elected government, we moved swiftly to rid ourselves of corruption before it could become endemic.

Transparency International, a civil society organisation against corruption based in Berlin, has repeatedly listed Singapore among the top five of 163 countries. And the only one from Asia in the first five.

Our system does not tolerate corruption and we have avoided the problems of widespread corruption that have plagued Asia. Our Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) annually tabulates the cases brought against officers and executives from the public and private sectors. In two cases, it led to the conviction and prison sentence of a junior minister. Another, a Cabinet minister, committed suicide after being investigated for corruption.

Three factors enabled Singapore to escape the poverty that plagued the region: First, clean and efficient government; second, the character and capabilities of the leadership in charge; third, an industrious people, eager and quick to learn to be productive and gainfully employed.

Defamation

POLITICAL leaders in Singapore take action against opponents who make statements against them that impute dishonesty and lack of integrity. Situated in a region where 'money politics' is part of the political culture and an accepted way of life, any allegation of corruption in Singapore must be taken seriously.

It leads to an investigation by the CPIB, and/or an action for defamation against the person making the allegation to clear any doubts on the integrity of the government.

As a result, people in Singapore do not equate their political leaders with second-hand car salesmen.

Economic competitiveness

INTERNATIONAL surveys of economic competitiveness of countries always include the legal framework and the administration of justice as key criteria in ranking such countries.

The Political and Risk Consultancy, World Economic Forum and other polls show that both foreigners and Singaporeans believe we have good judicial and legal systems, and fair administration of justice.

The Institute For Management Development World Competitiveness Yearbook has consistently ranked Singapore in the top two positions since 1997 under the Legal Framework component. (This category examines if the legal and regulatory framework encourages the competitiveness of enterprises.)

The World Bank released its study Doing Business Report 2007 in September last year. Singapore fared better in 2006, compared to the previous year, and has replaced New Zealand at the top spot.

Despite these endorsements, we cannot be complacent. We have to respond to new challenges that technology and globalisation have brought upon us.

With technology increasingly sophisticated in a world that is increasingly borderless, crime has become multi-faceted, and multi-jurisdictional. Our legislative mechanisms have responded to meet these challenges. Many legal issues today require an international cooperation for solutions.

Law firms are also taking advantage of new global business opportunities and technologies. US and British law firms are able to venture aggressively into new markets, following their clients' multi-jurisdictional businesses. Businesses span many countries and lawyers must meet the needs of their multinational clientele.

We need to maintain Singapore's position as a city par excellence, with an environment that is clean, safe and vibrant to work in and live in. We try to retain our best, and we attract the best to come, settle and raise their families here.