Singapore: Massive outcry over Thaipusam’s noise curbs

Guidelines made public last Friday that restrict devotees to singing – no music or drums to be played – have drawn varied reactions.

The Hindu Endowments Board (HEB), which announced the guidelines, said it has received a “handful” of queries from devotees seeking clarification.

A Facebook page, Bring The Thaipusam Beat Back, was set up by a devotee on Monday – and more than 40 people had pledged support.

Prominent socio-political blog Temasek Review saw hundreds of comments within days condeming the new guidelines.

Prominent lawyer Mr Ravi has also filed a Summons against the AGC and HEB claiming that the rights of minorities have been violated with this new guidelines. He will be holding a press conference at 11am in his office tomorrow.

Thaipusam is an annual occasion where Hindus give thanks to Lord Murugan for his blessings. Devotees carry milk pots or kavadis – metal or wooden structures fixed to the body – to express devotion to the deity.

Census figures indicate that Hindus make up about 5 per cent of the overall resident population – or about 250,000 people.

The 4km event, which can take as long as five hours, starts from Sri Srinivasa Perumal Temple in Serangoon Road and ends at Sri Thendayuthapani Temple in Tank Road.

The rules, which the HEB said mirrored police guidelines with regard to public order, appeared to bear stricter control over common practices during the procession. One was the barring of music and playing of instruments. Now, only religious hymns may be sung. Other rules include no wearing of make-up on the faces of devotees and allowing only small objects to be hung from their bodies.

The HEB said these guidelines were set by the police and were not new, even if it was the first time they were compiled and made public.

HEB chairman S. Rajendran said the move was calculated to reduce noise and unruly behaviour, both of which have been on the rise. Twenty years ago, the walk was attended by about 10,000 people – including both participants and spectators. Last year, that figure was 50,000, he said.

Read more here

Singapore leaders getting a bitter taste of its own medicine?

As Singapore appears to be embroiled in a protracted diplomatic spat with its neighbors following a series of damning releases by WikiLeaks, one cannot helping wondering how a small country has become so maligned and vilified at least in the region after the United States of America.

The shocking releases of Singapore diplomats making unflattering remarks about Malaysia, Thailand, Japan and India by two Australian papers last Sunday was followed swiftly by another diplomatic cable leaked on WikiLeaks a few days later with PAP strongman Lee Kuan Yew calling Burma’s generals “stupid” and “dense” and expressing his reservations about Laos, Cambodia, Burma and Vietnam joining ASEAN.

Poor George Yeo must have a busy time of late trying to contain the damage from the diplomatic fallout.

It doesn’t matter if MFA comments on the leak, less so if they are really mere “gossip” and “cocktail talk” as Mr Yeo will want the world to believe. The fact remains that Singapore’s reputation has taking a battling with even the Japanese media giving extensive coverage on Tommy Koh’s remarks on them being a “big fat loser.”

Does it surprise us or anybody that our diplomats and leaders are capable of making the most callous, disrespectful and yes, undiplomatic comments about their purported friends and allies within diplomatic circles?

Singapore officials have acquired a reputation of being condescending and arrogant with a “superiority complex” over its neighbors, noted a Malaysian diplomat which is why Malaysia Foreign Minister Anifah Aman said quite frankly that he did not expect an apology from Singapore when he handed a protest note to the Singapore’s High Commissioner in Kuala Lumpur.

The “holier-than-thou” attitude displayed by our leaders has peeved off quite a number of countries over the years though they may not have expressed it explicitly out of courtesy, coupled with their propensity to sue the foreign media, doesn’t make them exactly popular among some countries in the region.

While Australia has maintained friendly ties with Singapore for a number of years, the same cannot be said of the Australia media whose coverage of Singapore is always less than favorable.

Nearly 1,000 cables were leaked by WikiLeaks exclusively to the two Australian papers – why did they choose to pick on Singapore only and not on others?

Consider the following headline carried on the Sydney Morning Herald:

Big fat red faces for Singapore leaders

Though the comments were made by Singapore diplomats, the Australian paper chose to shift the focus to Singapore’s leaders instead.....more

Malaysia agrees to give up railway land in Singapore !

The Prime Ministers of Malaysia and Singapore have agreed that the Keretapi Tanah Melayu Berhad (KTMB station) currently in operation at Tanjong Pagar will be relocated to the Woodlands train checkpoint by 1 July 2011.

Announcing this in a joint statement on Monday in Singapore, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his Malaysian counterpart Najib Razak also agreed that Malaysia would co-locate its railway and Customs, Immigration and Quarantine (CIQ) to the Woodlands train checkpoint.

Singapore would facilitate the relocation to the Woodlands train checkpoint and ensure bus service connectivity from the KTMB station at Woodlands to a nearby MRT station for the convenience of train passengers.

Both countries also announced that a company known as MS Pte Ltd will be established as soon as practicable but not later than 31 December this year.

Malaysia would hold a 60 per cent stake in this company under Khazanah Nasional Berhard while Singapore will have a 40 per cent share to be held by Temasek Holdings.

The three parcels of land in Tanjong Pagar, Kranji and Woodlands, and another three pieces of land in Bukit Timah will be vested by M-S Pte Ltd for joint development which in turn could be swapped on the basis of equivalent value for pieces of land in Marina South and/or Ophir-Rochor.

The joint statement says both sides will conduct their respective valuations.

Prime Minister Lee will visit Kuala Lumpur within a month with a proposal for the land swap for Malaysia.

The transfer of the land parcel to MS Pte Ltd will take effect at the time when KTMB vacates the Tanjong Pagar Railway Station.

Meanwhile, the Prime Ministers of both countries have proposed the joint development of a rapid transit link between Tanjung Puteri, Johor Bahru and Singapore to enhance connectivity between the two countries.

The proposed rapid transit system link will be operational by 2018.

Thereafter, Malaysia may consider relocating the KTM Station from Woodlands to Johor.

A joint implementation team will further discuss the implementation details.

According to the statement, the team will complete its works by the end of the year.

It added that the outcome reached by the joint implementation team on the matters discussed should be reflected in a written instrument to be signed by both countries upon approval from their respective governments.

Both leaders agreed that the Tanjong Pagar Railway Station Passenger Terminal building would be conserved given its historical significance and would be a centerpiece for the new proposed development on the site.

In addition, the old Bukit Timah Railway Station building at Blackmore Drive can also be conserved.

Both leaders also discussed bilateral co-operation in the joint iconic project in Iskandar Malaysia.

They agreed that Khazanah Nasional and Temasek Holdings will form a 50-50 joint venture company to undertake the development of the iconic wellness township project in Iskandar Malaysia.

The project will involve the participation of private sectors from both countries.

Both leaders said they look forward to the launching of the project within a year.

Prime Minister Lee also informed his Malaysian counterpart that upon the expiry of the 1961 Water Agreement, Singapore would hand over the waterworks under the agreement to the Johor water authorities free of charge and in good working order.

Both leaders expressed satisfaction that the arrangements relating to the POA would facilitate resolution of the issue which has been outstanding for more than 19 years.

They also reaffirmed their commitment towards further strengthening bilateral relations and mutual collaboration in various areas.

Singapore Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew :“good thing” to welcome so many Chinese immigrants as Singaporeans have become less “hard-driving”

In an extensive interview with the National Geographic, MM Lee Kuan Yew continues to support the ruling party’s liberal immigration policies though he is aware that many Singaporeans are unhappy with the influx of immigrants.

“Over time, Singaporeans have become less hard-driving and hard-striving. This is why it is a good thing that the nation has welcomed so many Chinese immigrants.” Lee was quoted saying.

Lee describes the country’s new subjects as “hungry,” with parents who “pushed the children very hard.”

“If native Singaporeans are falling behind because the spurs are not stuck into the hide, that is their problem,” he quipped.

Desperate to boost Singapore’s flagging birth rate, the government opened the floodgates to immigrants which have changed the island state’s demographics radically over the past few years.

Foreigners now make up 36 per cent of the population, up from 14 per cent in 1990.

According to Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng, there were over 90,000 PRs and 20,000 new citizens last year.

A majority of these newcomers hail from China and India with Malaysians, Filipinos, Indonesians making up the rest.

There are few immigrants from developed countries like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Australia or New Zealand.

Even for Chinese immigrants, most of them originate from the poorer inland provinces instead of affluent coastal cities like Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen and Tianjin.

In a recent poll conducted by Gallup in July, Singapore is not even featured among the top five destinations for immigration for college students. Their first choice is United States, followed by France and South Korea.

Due to the difficulty in attracting the most talented immigrants to settle in Singapore, the ruling party has “lowered” its standards to such an extent that even construction workers, cleaners and masseurs are offered PRs and citizenship.

The state media reported a Chinese construction worker whose son just passed out as a SAF officer. He became a PR and citizen within 12 years of arrival in Singapore.

Another China national and Singapore PR, Mdm Song Jin, was sentenced to nine weeks imprisonment for torching the fish farm of a lover.

It is not sure how these China nationals are classified as “talents” in the first place and if they are really “hungrier” than locals.

Lee has long eschewed social welfare benefits, claiming that it will create a “crutch” mentality which will cause Singapore to go down the slippery slope of Western-style “welfarism”.

Under Lee’s draconian rule, Singaporeans are expected to work for as long as they can to support themselves without burdening the state.

On the other hand, the government is flushed with cash accumulated from years of budget surpluses.

Lee is the Chairman of Government Investment Corp and his daughter-in-law Ho Ching is in charge of Temasek Holdings, both of which are giant sovereign wealth funds owned by the Ministry of Finance.

A Wall Street Journal article in September reported that “Government of Singapore Investment Corp suffered a loss around 59 billion Singapore dollars (US$41.6 billion) in the fiscal year ended March.”

Public opinion counts little for Lee who always thought of himself as the only person fit to govern Singapore.

As early in 1962, he warned Singaporeans of what to expect under his one-man rule:

“If I were in authority in Singapore indefinitely without having to ask those who are governed whether they like what is being done, then I would not have the slightest doubt that I could govern much more effectively in their interests.”

Lee’s authoritarian style of governance can only survive in Singapore. He would have been booted out of office a long time ago if he was in Hong Kong, Taiwan or Malaysia.

In a famous quote, Lee said,

“If you are going to lower me into the grave, and I feel something is wrong, I will get up.”

He should know that this is impossible even when he is being taken care of by the best physicians in Singapore.

The National Geographic also interviewed renowned Singapore psychiatrist Calvin Fons who gave an interesting analogy:

“When the country was young, there was a need for wise oversight. A firm hand. Now we are in adolescence, which can be a questioning, troublesome period. Coming into it without the presence of the patriarch will be a test.”

Young Singaporeans are ready to show Lee what they really think of him and his rubber-stamped party. The question is whether he will still be around then to witness Singapore’s very own “political tsunami”.

- Source

Ejected from Singapore

Ben Bland
The Guardian

One correspondent ponders why his working visa was not renewed by the city-state

Unfriendly reporters are jailed, assaulted or assassinated by the governments of Burma, Iran and Sri Lanka. Singapore, with pretensions to being a global "media hub", prefers tools of repression that are more subtle, yet have the same chilling effect on free speech. After a year as an accredited correspondent in the southeast Asian city-state, I was unexpectedly told last month that my employment visa would not be renewed.

The government refused to disclose its reasons despite repeated requests and an appeal from the British High Commission. The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), a New York-based press freedom group, condemned the decision, saying that it "shows the Singapore government's intolerance of independent and critical reporting". CPJ added that I was merely "the latest on a long list of foreign journalists who have been targeted by the government for their news coverage".

Although I reported on some sensitive issues such as rising crime, the ageing population and business links with Burma, I did not break any of the taboos that normally lead to a government reprisal – namely criticising Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore's founding father, or his son, the prime minister, Lee Hsien Loong. International publications that dare to hold Singapore's ruling caste to account tend to find themselves on the wrong side of a costly libel suit. In recent years, the Economist, the International Herald Tribune, the Wall Street Journal and, most recently, the soon-to-close Far Eastern Economic Review have all been forced to pay out hundreds of thousands of pounds in damages to the Lee family.

While the international press is silenced through the courts, Singaporean journalists are cowed by the government's ownership of key stakes in all the country's daily newspapers and news broadcasters. The insidious practice of self-censorship is all-pervasive. One senior editor at a major international newspaper in Asia admitted that he line-edits every single story about Singapore for fear of upsetting the powers-that-be.

A veteran foreign correspondent in Singapore insisted that it was possible to criticise the government "if one takes a subtle rather than confrontational approach and focuses on policy issues rather than personalities". But, fearful of jeopardising his employment visa, he was not prepared to speak on the record.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/nov/30/singapore-press-freedom

Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew pisses off Chinese netizens

Singapore's ever so feisty and sprightly 86 year old Minister Mentor1 Lee Kuan Yew has gone halfway around the globe to meet US President Barack Obama in Washington ahead of his debut Asian tour that will include China, Japan, South Korea and Singapore. Lee's tour also saw him meeting two key Cabinet members of the Obama administration - Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

In his various meetings rubbing shoulders with very important minds, the sage-like Lee who has often been counted on to interpret Asia to the west did not hesitate to tell the Americans what he saw in his crystal ball.

"The 21st century will be a contest for supremacy in the Pacific because that's where the growth will be," said Lee. "If you do not hold your ground in the Pacific you cannot be a world leader."

Prior to his meetings with Obama and Clinton, Lee received a lifetime achievement award from the US-ASEAN Business Council in a high profile event witnessed by the likes of Henry Kissinger. In his keynote address delivered at the gala dinner last Thursday in Washington, Lee urged the US to remain engaged in Asia:

The size of China makes it impossible for the rest of Asia, including Japan and India, to match it in weight and capacity in about 20 to 30 years. So we need America to strike a balance.

Those comments had the effect of rubbing up Chinese netizens the wrong way. Within a few hours of the Global Times 《环球时报》report hitting the interwebs, Lee's comments attracted the fury of hundreds of Chinese netizens, but wait a minute, there's more.

In building any new East Asian architecture, Lee said the United States must be "an important part" of it, adding that "it would be a serious mistake for the region to define East Asia in closed or, worse, in racial terms."

Here is a snippet from a Global Times blogpost summarising the reactions of Chinese netizens (with translation from the Malaysian Insider):

Many of those who responded were upset and said that Lee had treated the Chinese as outsiders although they had treated Singaporeans as “among their own”.

“Lee Kuan Yew spoke for the feeling of those in the West who fear China’s rise would harm their vested interests,” said one netizen.

Another described Lee as “a political animal”, saying that while he “relies on China to develop his country’s economy, he is ushering wolves here to deal with China”.

A third posting said: “Just because he has achieved some success in Singapore, he dares to play the guiding light that shows US the way. If he has the stuff, he should go to Africa and offer tips on how to shake off poverty and achieve wealth.”

Another posting brushed off his comments as insignificant as Singapore was a small country.

“Lee Kuan Yew had made such comments likely because Singapore is a small country that needs an interplay of balances in the international arena,” said the netizen.

“However, what significance do his words carry when the reality is that for a voice to be heard and the views realised, one needs to be truly powerful,” the netizen asked.

A few highly vitriolic essays written by netizens have been given prominent positions in the blog sections of mainstream media portals. Here are just two of them:

李光耀的言论暴露新加坡是美国围堵中国的桥头堡
"Lee Kuan Yew's comments reveal that Singapore is but a pawn of the US in countering China"

无耻梦想：李光耀想让新加坡统治整个东盟当以色列！
"Shameless dreams: Lee Kuan Yew wants Singapore to rule ASEAN like an Israel!"

The response by the Chinese mainstream media has been somewhat more measured. Most reports underscored the online fury among netizens, and then weighed in on political scientists to reflect sentiment on the ground. Here are a few headlines:

李光耀谈话显示东盟信任美国胜过中国 [China News Agency]
"Lee Kuan Yew's comments show that ASEAN trusts the US more than it trusts China"

石齐平：李光耀为何建言美国制衡中国 [Phoenix TV]
"Shi Qiping (political commentator): Why Lee Kuan Yew wants the US to counterbalance China"

李明波：李光耀说啥不必太在意 [Guangzhou Daily]
"Li Mingbo (Guangzhou Daily columnist): No need to pay any heed to what Lee Kuan Yew says"

李光耀亲美言论激怒中国网民 新加坡多家媒体辩解 [Guangzhou Daily]
"Lee Kuan Yew's latest comments anger Chinese netizens, Singapore media offer an explanation"

Footnotes:
1 Prior to this appointment, Lee Kuan Yew held the title of Senior Minister when he passed over the prime ministership to Goh Chok Tong. In 2004, when Lee Kuan Yew's son Lee Hsien Loong became the nation's third prime minister, Goh Chok Tong became the Senior Minister and the new title of Minister Mentor was created for Lee Senior. Together, the three are often referred to as the "Father, Son and Holy Goh" of Singaporean politics.

( Source: "Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew pisses off Chinese netizens" )

Singapore Has Sovereignty Over Pulau Batu Puteh !

Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore)


The Court finds that Singapore has sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh; that

Malaysia has sovereignty over Middle Rocks; and that sovereignty over South Ledge belongs to the State in the territorial waters of which it is located

The International Court of Justice here today ruled Singapore has sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh while Malaysia owns Middle Rocks, and South Ledge belongs to the state in whose territorial waters it is located.

The judgment brought to a close a 28-year-old territorial dispute between Malaysia and Singapore over the island which Singapore called Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge.

The judgment was delivered by ICJ Vice-President Shawkat Al-Khasawneh, who was the Acting President in the case, at 10am Netherlands time and ended reading out the verdict five minutes before noon.

Shawkat and 15 other judges had heard oral submissions by both countries from Nov 6-23 last year.

Malaysian Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim regarded the judgment as a "win-win" situation and stated that the status quo remained although Singapore had sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh and Malaysia over Middle Rocks.

Download "Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore) - Judgment of 23 May 2008"- International Court Of Justice
(icj) here. Press release here.


Malaysia’s conduct since 1953 showed that sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh had passed over to Singapore, the International Court of Justice said today, ruling 12-4 in favour of the republic.

This decision resolves a thorny issue that has haunted bilateral ties between the countries for 28 years. But the ICJ decision will not be the final word on this matter in Malaysia where loss of territory to Singapore – even an outcrop of rocks – could turn into a political issue. For the past few weeks, Johoreans have been conducting special prayers in the hope that the court will decide in favour of Malaysia.

But the ICJ noted that the strength of Singapore’s claim lay in a letter sent by the state secretary of Johor in 1953 to the Singapore government where he informed that "the Johore government does not claim ownership of Pedra Branca." It could not accept Malaysia’s argument that the state secretary did not have authority or legal capacity to disclaim or confirm ownership of the island, said Judge Awn Shawkat al-Khasawneh.

He also noted that between 1962 and 1975 Malaysia published several maps which attributed Pulau Batu Puteh or Pedra Branca to Singapore. This gave strength to Singapore’s claim of sovereignty.

The ICJ by a majority of 15-1 gave Malaysia ownership of Middle Rocks and said that the South Ledge belongs to the state in which territorial waters it is located in.

---

Malaysia’s Arguments.

1) Malaysia zoomed in on the 1953 letter, pointing out that Johor’s Acting State Secretary then did not have the authority and no legal capacity to renounce, disclaim or confirm ownership of any of its territories. Singapore had said earlier that the letter was from the Johor government then and it confirms the republic’s ownership of Pedra Branca.

2) Cited two Johor treaties with Britain in 1948 which said that Johor had transferred all its rights, powers and jurisdiction on matters of defence and external affairs to the British.

3) Singapore, in its rebuttal, had said that if the British had not funded the lighthouse construction and decided on it, there would not even have been one on Pedra Branca.
However, Malaysia’s counsel disagreed that it was the British who initiated the construction of the lighthouse and took ownership of the island.

4) Malaysia was criticised for its “silence on the nature of acts a titre d souverain” (the exercise of sovereign powers) on the island but this was because during the period 1847-1851, Britain’s conduct could not be classified as having exercised sovereign powers.

5) ”Conduct (British) in every respect related to the construction of a lighthouse and nothing
more”

6) Placing of experimental bricks, the cutting of rain channels and others on the island, as submitted by Singapore, could hardly be described as acts of the exercise of sovereign powers

7) Malaysia’s counsel, Marcelo Kohen, submitted that the permission of Johor to build the lighthouse made the “fragile and convoluted Singaporean case irreparably collapse.

8 ) Native population used the island, as referred to in Portuguese books as early as 1552 and in 1822. Nearly 300 years later, John Crawfurd reported that the “men of the sea” living in that area were subjects of the Sultanate of Johor

Singapore’s Argument.

1) Pedra Branca was no man’s land in 1847, when the British went there to build the Horsburgh Lighthouse. This meant that Malaysia’s claim that it owned the island even before 1847 is untrue.

2) Malaysia has failed to produce any evidence to show that it owns the island.

3) British possessed Pedra Branca without permission from anyone.

4) Malaysia had claimed it gave Britain permission to construct the lighthouse on the island. But again, they had not shown any evidence to prove that.

5) In 1953, when Johor was a sovereign state under international law, the state secretary of Johor, writing in an official capacity, informed the Singapore government that ‘the Johore Government does not claim ownership of Pedra Branca’

6) Singapore’s display of sovereignty over the island was “open, continuous and notorious” for over 130 years. But Malaysia had said earlier that Singapore was merely performing acts that were expected of a lighthouse operator.

7) Between 1962 and 1975, Malaysia published six maps which attributed Pedra Branca to Singapore. Singapore has never published a single map attributing the island to Malaysia

8 ) Malaysia had also argued that Pedra Branca and its outcrops of Middle Rocks and South Ledge should be treated as separate features. But Professor Koh said for reasons of proximity, geology, history and law, the “three features are inseparable and must be treated together.

9) Malaysia had repeatedly argued that this case is about ownership and not about competing activities on the island but Singapore’s case is that Pedra Branca did not belong to anyone in 1847 and that Singapore has acquired sovereignty over it since 1847 and has maintained it from then.

10) Singapore’s actions are consistent with that of a country that has sovereignty over Pedra Branca. In contrast, all of Malaysia’s actions and inactions, he said, are entirely consistent with that of a country which has no title over the island.

11) Singapore’s actions were open and public and are the counterpart to Malaysia’s silence in the face of these activities over a period of 130 years. Malaysia’s official disclaimer in 1953 and its series of official maps attributing the island to Singapore are further confirmation of this picture.

12) The Singapore team highlighted that Malaysia did not protest to any of those activities over the last 130 years.

13) Citing examples, Malaysia did not object when the British expanded the jetty and landing stage on the island in the 1880s, and it did not protest either when Singapore insisted in 1974 that it had to approve Malaysian visitors going to Pedra Branca.

14) Singapore performed numerous activities in a manner which fully reflected the reality that it regarded itself as possessing sovereignty over the island while Malaysia did nothing.

15) Malaysia also disclaimed ownership over Pedra Branca in 1953. Malaysia’s meteorological publications listed the rainfall station on Pedra Branca as being “in Singapore”. It also published a series of official maps over a 14-year period designating Pedra Branca as Singapore. And it did nothing of its own on the island

16) Malaysia had argued that it had conducted navy patrols in the waters with other countries such as Australia and the United States, and those were an exhibition of its sovereignty over the island. But Malaysia has no documentary evidence to indicate the precise areas covered by such patrols or that they had anything to do with Pedra Branca and its waters.

17)Malaysia’s documents, which they claimed show its original title over the island, are insufficient.


Read also:

Malaysiakini:"Batu Puteh goes to Singapore"

An Unacceptable Trait - The ugly Singaporean

China’s quake throws up an ugly side of Singaporeans that frequently makes them disliked abroad.

Have affluent, educated Singaporeans become too self-centred and insensitive to other peopleâ??s plights? Can Singapore be considered a First World city with such boorishness? A mature, developed country isn't??t defined only by wealth and education; it is also about humanity and concern for others. ...

JUSTIFIABLY or not, the disastrous Sichuan earthquake has sparked off a re-look here at a Singaporean characteristic that overshadows his economic achievement.

In a TV interview, a tourist who just returned unhurt complained angrily about his encounter with airport delay and telephone breakdown at a time when the Chinese were frantically rescuing people.

One viewer commented: “He kept complaining bitterly as if the whole world owed him an explanation about the airport delay.”

Another added: “the man was practically shouting at the camera. His behaviour was really shocking.”

In the face of the terrible suffering, the middle-aged Singaporean’s insensitive complaint about his personal inconvenience spread consternation and a sense of shame among viewers.

It highlighted a trait often attributed to affluent, educated Singaporeans that they have become too self-centred and insensitive to other people’s plights.

After years of social campaigns, tales still abound of people rushing for train seats or refusing to give one up to the elderly, ill treatment of maids, littering or inconsiderate driving.

Many of the offenders are middle-class, young and educated who seem to have little interest in other people’s feelings.

The Singaporean tourist, instead of lending a helping hand, was fuming about his own safety – even after he was safely back home.

“Typical ugly Singaporean the sort that makes other people dislike us – totally self-centred,” said a blogger.

Read Full Article here.

Still friends, no matter what ?

PM 'positive' on M'sian rail link, Pedra Branca ruling won't affect ties: George Yeo

- Nazry Bahrawi, TODAYonline.
.
AS Malaysia's political landscape continues to feel the ripples from last month's elections, its newly-appointed Foreign Minister has assured Singaporeans — those wondering about the polls' possible impact on cross-strait ties — that the relationship will do better than to remain in its "status quo".
.
"Status quo means just as it was. It should be one grade up and we will do this as a fervour, as a push," said Dr Rais Yatim, the first Malaysian Cabinet Minister to visit the Republic since the March 8 polls.
.
At a joint doorstop interview yesterday, Dr Rais and his Singapore counterpart George Yeo — both referred to each other as "my good friend" or "dear friend" — seemed keen to emphasise that the "forging ahead" of bilateral ties would not be derailed.
.
For instance, with the International Court of Justice due to make its judgment on Pedra Branca known next month, Mr Yeo said: "Both of us have agreed that if Malaysia were to win, then we will congratulate Malaysia."
.
If Singapore were to win, Dr Rias would offer his congratulations and "whatever the decision, we will accept it and it will not affect bilateral relations", Mr Yeo said. For years, the lighthouse has been a thorn in the relationship, with both nations referring the matter to The Hague in 2003.
.
Two other barometers of warm ties were raised: The positive vibes over a proposed urban rail link between Singapore and Malaysia; and Wednesday's launch of a marketing office for the Iskandar Malaysia project at UOB Plaza, welcomed by Mr Yeo.
.
In the strongest signals yet from Singapore about the MRT link to the Iskandar development, Mr Yeo said Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had "responded positively" to the idea at a morning meeting with Dr Rais.
.
"The link should not be a difficult one and it will bring immediate advantages to both sides," said Mr Yeo, adding that the issue would be ironed out by the Singapore-Malaysia Joint Ministerial Committee.
.
Asked if there was a timeline for building the rail link, Dr Rais said it was "too early" to say. Last month, Johor Chief Minister Abdul Ghani Othman had said he hoped the link would "materialise in two to three years' time".
.
Singapore is Dr Rais' first stop in his round of introductory overseas visits as Foreign Minister. This is a "special honour" for which Singapore is "very touched", said
.
Mr Yeo who described this as an expression of the "special relationship".
.
Besides Mr Lee and Mr Yeo, Dr Rais also called on Deputy Prime Minister
.
S Jayakumar, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong during his one-day visit.
.
Yesterday, as Dr Rais fielded questions from the media about the political scene and possible leadership change in Malaysia — following the Barisan Nasional's loss of its two-third parliamentary majority and its worst performance at the polls since independence — Mr Yeo steered clear of commenting.
.
Both ministers highlighted the economic importance of one country to the other, and hence the need for cooperation. Singapore, Dr Rais noted, was Malaysia's second biggest business partner after the United States, "that is to say, about RM142-billion-a-year ($60-billion-a-year) worth of relationship".
.
He added: "Like they say most of the time, money may be root of all evil, but sometimes it eases the nerves. That is the jovial way of saying that we need each other.
.
"The commonalities between the two nations should be on our top priority list and the differences, whatever they are, should be left to be scored later."

ONCE ONE COUNTRY

Several parties have already reacted or responded to Singapore’s Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew’s recent statement that some Johor UMNO leaders are behaving like opposition politicians in opposing and criticising the Iskandar Development Region concept. This particular statement did not attract my attention as much as Mr. Lee Kuan Yew’s advice to Singaporean businesses that they should not expect any special treatment for their investment proposals in the IDR since Singapore’s relationship with Johor and Malaysia cannot be seen as similar as that as between Hong Kong and Shenzhen.

I was not entirely surprised by Mr. Lee’s statement on the perceived opposition to IDR coming from within UMNO. I can imagine that his own sources must have gleefully communicated to him the perceived opposition from within UMNO to the IDR whereas I have not been able to pin down any particular source of such virulent opposition to warrant comparison of UMNO sources, if they do exist in the first place, with Malaysian opposition political parties. I am not surprised simply because UMNO politics is not quite the same as PAP politics, where opposition to government decisions is considerably muted in comparison with the more boisterous Malaysian political scene. However, I am perplexed as to the timing of his comment since there was a lot more disquiet with the IDR from within even UMNO Johor at the stage when IDR was known as SJER.

Subsequently there was a minor furor over the concept of the International Nodes and the five service sectors selected for generous incentives for foreign investors. The furor was caused by some UMNO politician’s knee jerk reaction to Tun Musa Hitam’s statement that the requirements of the New Economic Policy will not apply to foreign investors within the International Nodes. Even the UMNO Johor Information Chief had initially reacted negatively to the Tun’s statement. By the next day, however, he had understood what was being articulated and came out in support of the idea of only foreign investors within the International Zone will be exempted from NEP requirements; a situation which already exists for foreign manufacturing investments in Malaysia’s many Free Trade Zones. The only difference being for the IDR incentives are being given for the export of services.

Consequently, Mr. Lee’s statement of UMNO elements being comparable to the Malaysian opposition is to me not surprising only because he is not as comfortable with permissible and open dissent within UMNO compared to that allowed within the PAP since I cannot believe that Mr. Lee can be anything but current in the information that he receives from his own sources. But, who knows since I should not be too demanding of a foreign leader.

Mr. Lee however acquitted himself well when he advised Singapore businesses not to be too hung up on the Hong Kong-Shenzhen model when they consider investments in the IDR. I have spoken on many occasions and to many groups, including UMNO divisions, that the IDR is Malaysia’s Shenzhen to Singapore’s Hong Kong and have instead reiterated that the simplest way to understand and appreciate the IDR concept is to just view the IDR as the next Klang Valley rather than try to grasp the Hong Kong-Shenzhen model or that of Dubai. The Hong Kong-Shenzhen model raised unnecessary fears because both territories are part of the same country even though they have different systems of political governance. The Dubai model can perhaps be applied only for the International Nodes rather than for the rest of the IDR since it is most unlikely that the roles of governmental agencies, such as MARA, UDA, Josher Corp and others, tasked to implement objectives of the NEP will be curtailed from operating within the IDR. On the other hand, I imagine it will be more politically prudent that they become even more visible.

On balance, if Mr. Lee is to be criticised it is only for his forgetfulness. Even though he can claim intimate knowledge of UMNO politics from his days of political activism in Malaysia, that is, when once we were one with Singapore in Malaysia, UMNO politics has not changed too much. Truthfully, that is one of Malaysia’s blessings.

-YB Dato' Shahrir Abdul Samad

Singapore - Ties with neighbours never smooth sailing ?

Singapore's relations with its majority Muslim neighbours Indonesia and Malaysia will not always be smooth sailing, the city-state's founding father Lee Kuan Yew said.

It is heartening to note that despite the highly volatile political setting, it is an outstanding feat of achievement that these countries have maintained, and continue to maintain their continuing ‘smooth’ relationships and are now even moving towards mutual cooperation in the IDR (Iskandar Development Project).

But the most challenging, dynamic, and potentially ‘explosive’ dimension in “ties not always (being) smooth” must surely be the fact of disparity in access to territorial integrity, political power and control, and taking into account the ethnicist race and class dimensions of all groups. To put it bluntly, it is a case of the Singapore “red dot” on the map being surrounded by “vast oceans of green” where the “green” is almost entirely distinct as entities of Muslim communities.

Although academics on both sides of the causeway may therefore shout themselves hoarse by saying these are viable “multicultural’ societies, the reality of political and societal divisiveness of marginalisation and socio-economic deprivation, coupled with divergent ethnic, class, and race disparity among the peoples, suggests that the likelihood of continued political economic upheavals continue to exist continue now and in the near future.

Read letter to Malaysiakini "IDR offers opportunities to better ties" here.

clipped from www.malaysiakini.com IDR offers opportunities to better ties Dr Collin Abraham Jul 9, 07 4:52pm Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew’s statement that Singapore’s ties with Malaysia and Indonesia will “not always be smooth” will probably go down on record as the greatest understatement over the years. It is heartening to note that despite the highly volatile political setting, it is an outstanding feat of achievement that these countries have maintained, and continue to maintain their continuing ‘smooth’ relationships and are now even moving towards mutual cooperation in the IDR (Iskandar Development Project). It would seem therefore that unless concerted pragmatic measures acceptable to all parties are put in place, it would be unrealistic to expect the seemingly pragmatic ‘smooth’ relationships to continue. I would seriously suggest that the IDR offers this opportunity.

Meanwhile, UMNO Youth Johor Baru wants Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew to retract his remarks which it said accused Umno Johor of not supporting Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi and the Iskandar Development Region (IDR).

'The Johor Baru division of Umno Youth which met today has taken the decision to press Lee Kuan Yew to retract that statement,' its chief, Mr Khalid Mohamad, was reported as saying.

The JB youth wing also expressed its full support for Datuk Seri Abdullah.

According to an article, on 7 July 2007, "Feeling that S'pore investors 'are not welcome in IDR'", MM Lee compared the IDR's impact on us, to Shenzhen in China rivalling Hong Kong commercially.

In the Berita Harian interview which was conducted in English, he had said: 'It is one thing for the opposition party PAS to knock the Malaysian Prime Minister down, but when Umno leaders, especially from Johor, hit out in the same vein, potential investors from Singapore must seriously ask themselves when these attitudes will change, and how welcome their investments will be.'

However, the Malaysian papers translated the words 'knock...down' as 'menjatuhkan' which, when referring to leaders, can also be interpreted as 'topple'.

The word 'topple' was enough to sent PAS, Johor Umno & Malaysians into a rage. Many accusing Minister Mentor of playing certain factions in Malaysia against PM Abdullah Badawi.

Umno Johor information chief Puad Zarkashi accused Mr Lee of attempting to 'create friction in Umno Johor'.

These flip-flopping politicians are just playing ignorant again to prolong the spat.

These Malaysian politicians are really plain ignorant. After all, they are not products of a meritocratic educational system.

Why do these Malaysian leaders/politicians love to shoot themselves in the foot & make laughing stocks of themselves on the international stage? See what happens when you do not practise meritocracy. You get politicians who continually put their feet into their mouths!


Since the inception of the New Economic Policy, the Chinese have been squeezed out of opportunities to expand & have been discriminated against by bumiputra-run Govt Linked Companies.

Malaysian Chinese are not financially strong enough to invest in the IDR. They also lack the networks, financial muscle & expertise, after years of bumiputra discrimination. Many retreated to the private sector, because of prejudice in govt & govt linked businesses. Joining or starting family businesses was another option open to them, so many lack experience on a bigger stage.

Malaysia thinks that they can obtain enough investors from Japan & China. Japan, which has been a strong investor in S'pore for years, have surely done their homework, & witnessed Malaysia's shabby treatment of us - not to mention their constant flip-flopping & nonsensical politicians.

China, on the other hand, relies on foreign investments, rather than being investors themselves. Will Malaysia's racial prejudice against ethnic Chinese, not be a major cause of concern for China?

Are the labour & land costs attractive enough to entice both the Japanese & Chinese over?

At the end of the day, if S'pore is pissed off enough to forget about the IDR, Malaysia may only have the bumiputras to rely on, for the success of this project!

God help not just Johor, but the whole of Malaysia!!!

Be More Responsible,bloggers !

Deputy Information Minister Datuk Seri Chia Kwang Chye today urged bloggers to be more responsible and not to misuse the medium by churning out inaccurate information or slanderous allegations.

He also reminded the public to be more critical and not to act based on emotions stirred by information obtained from websites and blogs.

The Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 contained policies that must be complied with but it was difficult to curb irresponsible blogs.

Meanwhile, Information Minister Datuk Seri Zainuddin Maidin has ticked off certain media organisations for abusing the transparency of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi by rekindling racial political issues.

He said the move could harm the social contract that has been well received by the Malays, Chinese and Indians.

"To me, press freedom cannot go beyond the time-tested social contract," he told reporters after a get-together with Barisan Nasional (BN) component parties in his Merbok parliamentary constituency here Saturday night.

Zainuddin said matters agreed to in the social contract should not be questioned by the media as the move would create adverse effects.

He expressed disappointment over attempts by certain media to highlight incidents such as the May 13 racial riots, Maybank's move to impose 50 per cent stake ownership by Bumiputeras in legal firms and the Parliament leaking roof issue.

Abusing the transparency allowed by the prime minister as the head of government could ruin the pillar of strength of Malaysians who have been living in peace and harmony, he said.

On the publication of a book on May 13 by former Petaling Jaya MP Dr Kua Kia Soong, Zainuddin said the book would only serve to arouse anxiety among multiracial Malaysians.

He said although the Government had not ban the book authored by the former Internal Security Act (ISA) detainee, certain media have reported that the book has been banned and has been sold off.

He advised the people not to be carried away by the negative views of certain individuals about the government through postings in their blog sites.

"They try to incite the people's ill-feelings (through their blogs)," he said.


The Internal Security Ministry denied that it had seized 10 copies of the book on May 13, clarifying that it had only taken the books to check the contents.

The books would be returned if they contained nothing that violated the Printing Press and Publications Act 1984.

Its Deputy Minister, Datuk Fu Ah Kiow, said news reports stating that the books were seized were incorrect and believed that the matter was being deliberately blown out of proportion to gain publicity.

“It is just a very ordinary procedure, something that the officers will do if they receive reports about any publication that may be unfavourable for the public.

Fu said his officers were still reading the contents.

“The book is not a regular publication but a one-off publication. It does not need a permit.

“However, the ministry still has the responsibility of checking the contents of any publication to see to it that it did not go against the Printing Press and Publications Act 1984,” Fu said.

According to Malaysiakini, two major bookstore chains have reversed an earlier decision not to sell a new book on the May 13 communal riots, and Veteran social scientist Rustam A Sani said rational discussion on the controversial ‘May 13' book would make Malaysian society 'more mature' in its understanding of inter-ethnic relations.


Torn Between Two Lovers Bloggers ?

Siapa kata Perdana Menteri Malaysia, Dato’ Seri Abdullah Haji Ahmad pengsan? Bukan saya tapi Rocky dari http://rockybru.blogspot.com. Dulu saya rasa saya kenal siapa Rocky. Tapi hari ini, saya syak Rocky ni bukan lagi Rocky yang saya kenal. Memang patut kita saman si Rocky ni. Saman! Jangan tunggu lama-lama....(more):)


Remember Michael Backman's While Malaysia fiddles, its opportunities are running dry ?

He is back with "Top 20 Asian progressives"

Who are the modernisers and reformers steering the region towards good business practice, transparency and management excellence?

Malaysia has Four :

2. RAJA PETRA KAMARUDIN, MALAYSIA
7. MAHATHIR MOHAMAD, MALAYSIA
10. SYED MOKHTAR AL-BUKHARY, MALAYSIA
17. ZETI AKHTAR AZIZ, MALAYSIA

The only representative from Singapore is No 16. LEE KIN MUN (ALIAS MR BROWN).

As Singapore's only representative in this list of Asians, I am proud to announce that I beat governor of Malaysia's central bank, Zeti Akhtar Aziz, who is Number 17. Because, as all Singaporeans know, it is always important to one-up Malaysians in a Top Whatever List of any kind. Take that, Zeti!

In case anyone is reading the above literally, I am only kidding. This is a surprise and a huge honour to be hanging out with Asians of this calibre.


Indonesian President SUSILO BAMBANG YUDHOYONO (11) is also among Asia’s top 20 most progressive.

Singapore pay rise highlights inequality

Singapore's government recently provoked a public furore in the normally placid city-state of 4.5m people when it announced it would increase the salaries of government ministers to more than $1m a year, making it probably the best-paid cabinet in the world.

The reason for the howl of protest was that the move came as Singapore confronts a growing gap between rich and poor. It ranks 105th in the world in terms of income equality, based on United Nations data. Wages for the bottom 30 per cent have fallen in the past five years as demand for unskilled labourers shrinks.

The controversy reflects a wider issue of whether government officials in Singapore and elsewhere should be paid more to attract the best and the brightest when salaries for executives in the private sector are rising sharply.

The issue also raises the question of whether work in the private and public sectors are comparable and how common performance standards can be applied to both.

Singapore's government has often been compared with a well-run corporation, one of the few places where the phrase "bureaucratic efficiency" is not an oxymoron. Many top officials hold degrees from universities such as Harvard or Cambridge.

Since the 1990s, the salaries of cabinet ministers and senior civil servants have been linked to top wage earners in the local private sector. Under the formula, the officials receive two-thirds of the median income of the top eight earners in six professions - bankers, lawyers, accountants, executives with multinational corporations, local manufacturing executives and engineers.

Lee Hsien Loong, the prime minister who is due to receive $2m in pay this year (although some will be donated to charity), says the latest salary increase is necessary to keep up with a surge in executive pay when talent is in much demand. He cited Singapore's strong record of clean government and good governance as justification for the high ministerial salaries.

Lee Kuan Yew, the prime minister's father and independent Singapore's first leader, dismissed critics as lacking perspective, saying that the $46m being paid to top officials represented only 0.022 per cent of Singapore's gross domestic product of $140bn.

But opponents maintain that the government is comparing apples with oranges. "The CEO or manager has to think only of the bottom line. But a political leader must maintain integrity, moral authority to inspire and rally people," says one opposition legislator, warning that ministers will be out of touch with citizens.

Others believe the pay increase could accelerate a brain drain that the government wants to prevent. "The message the government is telling us is to adopt a mercenary attitude. So a lot of people will say it's OK to go overseas if a better-paying job is on offer," says a young Singapore professional.

Moreover, questions have been raised about whether the current government salary formula is appropriate or too generous. A review of the 18 cabinet members reveal none has an accounting background, one worked in financial services, one for a multinational company, two for local private companies and three in law.

Most of rest had some form of engineering background, although three were in the medical profession (not included in the pay formula).

Unfortunately, engineering is the lowest paid among the six professions to which ministerial salaries are benchmarked , with the median income of the top eight earners in the sector amounting to about $400,000, a third of the salary most ministers will receive.

Another challenge is how to determine whether the job performance of ministers can be measured in the same way as executives in the private sector. Singapore's economic growth appears to be the key performance indicator for top officials, akin to a company's profits. On that score, the government has performed well in recent years. But critics say the measurement is too broad and does not take into account other factors, such as income equality or the standards of social services.

Take the example of another small developed country. New Zealand, with a population of 4.1m, has a much slower growth rate (1.6 per cent) than Singapore (7.4 per cent) and its $106bn economy is smaller, with a per capita income of $26,000 versus Singapore's $30,900.

But it ranks higher on the UN Human Development Index in 20th place against 25th for Singapore and its income gap is much narrower. Does Singapore's faster growth but less developed social structure justify its prime minister being paid more than five times the salary of the New Zealand prime minister - or the US president, for that matter - ask critics?

Yes, replies the government, because Singapore is "unique". It is a physically small island in an unstable part of the world, with a multi-ethnic population, that pose special challenges to its rulers. As the debate continues, one thing appears certain. Ministerial salaries will rise further if the present system is maintained. Chief executives and senior managers in Singapore are still paid less than their counterparts in Hong Kong, Australia or South Korea, but their pay packets are likely to increase as global companies compete for their talents.

Moreover, given Singapore's close-knit political world, any investment bank or private equity fund would pay top dollar to recruit a minister, which may be the best rationale for paying them so much to keep them in government service.

(Financial Times -By John Burton in Singapore)

Great posters from kiasu-land

Band of bloggers robbers

Source : xpap "i love my EXTRAORDINARY PAP government"

"I say, 'rubbish,'' Singapore's founding leader dismisses gripes over pay hike

"Arrogant and disrespectful," that was what Tun Mahathir Mohamad slammed Singapore’s Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew for his insulting remarks about Malaysian and Indonesia’s treatment of the Chinese community last year.

Lee Kuan Yew said the attitude of neighbouring Malaysia and Indonesia towards Singapore was shaped by the way they treat their own ethnic Chinese minorities.

"Our neighbours both have problems with their Chinese. They are successful. They are hardworking and therefore they are systemically marginalised," he said.

Indonesia and Malaysia "want Singapore, to put it simply, to be like their Chinese — compliant", Lee said.

In which, by responding to his statement, Mahathir told Kuan Yew not to feel smug about what he had said.

"You should just guard your own rice bowl. You are not that clever. In a small group, perhaps you seem clever.

"But when he goes to China, the Chinese there don’t want to listen to him. The Chinese in China don’t think much of him and it is a fact that he is marginalised by Chinese in the world," he said.

The debate over the million-dollar paychecks of Singapore's cabinet ministers is "rubbish" because the city-state needs to attract extraordinary people to run it, founding leader Lee Kuan Yew said in remarks published Monday.

"The biggest mistake any Singaporean can make is to believe that Singapore is an ordinary country and can behave like an ordinary country like Malaysia, like Indonesia, like Thailand, the Philippines, Vietnam, Australia, New Zealand, Denmark," he was quoted by the Straits Times as saying over the weekend.

So Singapore is an Extraordinary country ?

The blunt-talking former prime minister said the public furore over the decision to raise cabinet ministers' base salaries by more than 30 percent to 1.05 million US dollars per year was "completely unreal."

"I say, 'rubbish,'" he told 400 members of the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) on Saturday.

Singapore, with its lack of natural resources and small population, needs attractive packages to draw talented people into public service or the country's future prosperity would be at risk, Lee warned.

"The problem we now face is how to attract more talent, how to headhunt and to persuade the best to come into parliament," said Lee, 83, who remains an influential figure in the government with the title of "minister mentor."

"I see this place going for another 50 years, no problem. But you need top-grade government," Lee said.



He had said: "If you are going to quarrel about S$46 million – up or down another S$10 to S$20 million – I say you don't have a sense of proportion."

And when it comes to benchmarking, Mr Lee said his own annual income, which is S$2.7 million, is a fraction of what the top manager in the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) earns.

Why the Singapore Government pegging salaries with public sector and not benchmark with other Governments? (like US, UK? Japan?)

He said: "The cure for all this talk is really a good dose of incompetent government... your asset values will disappear, your apartments will be worth a fraction of what it is, your jobs will be in peril, your security will be at risk and our women will become maids in other persons' countries - foreign workers."

When asked to comment on the perception that political leaders should not be in it for the money, and instead, be ready to make that extra sacrifice for the good of the people, the Minister Mentor said it is an admirable sentiment.

Has he taught them "not be in it for the money, and instead, be ready to make that extra sacrifice for the good of the people, of Singaporeans" ?


Related Topic:

How much to pay politicians? The Singapore Case - Opinion Asia.

Singapore PM in damage control on salary: analysts

Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's offer to freeze his salary for five years is an attempt to appease rare public fury over plans to boost the salaries of ministers and civil servants, analysts said Thursday.

The Singapore leader told parliament on Wednesday he would forego the salary hike which would give him an annual income of more than two million US dollars a year, up from the 1.62 million dollars he made last year.

He would donate the difference to "suitable good causes", he said.

"It looks like an indicator that he is trying to calm the public," said Sinapan Samydorai, president of the Think Centre human rights group.

"After all this noise, then you announce it, people will still be sceptical even though his intention may be good," he told AFP.

The prime minister's press secretary said Lee's decision to freeze his salary was not a response to opposition to the salary hike.

"The fact is it was a decision taken up front even before the announcements of pay revision," Chen Hwai Lian told AFP.

Lee's salary hike was part of a pay increase for cabinet ministers and civil servants announced on Monday.

His revised salary would be five times more than the 400,000 dollars paid to US President George W. Bush and more than eight times that of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who receives 240,000 dollars a year.

The pay increases provoked a rare outcry from normally reserved Singaporeans.

In a country where political rallies are banned without a permit and the media are closely linked with the government, many of the comments against the pay rise were posted on the Internet, where people can use pseudonyms.

"What a hypocrite our PM Lee is," said Annie, who was among a growing list of people to sign an online petition against the increments. More than 1,800 had signed by Thursday.

"One moment he wants to level up his and his ministers' pay, next moment he tries to be a good and caring person by donating his increment to charity for the next five years," Annie said.

Ministers' salaries are to be raised incrementally from 1.2 million dollars to 1.9 million dollars by the end of 2008.

"Him freezing his pay should be seen more as a gesture to control the damage," said Terence Chong, a fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore.

"He is trying to seize the moral high ground and also to deflect criticism that ministers lack the desire" to perform public service, he told AFP.

The move to increase ministerial pay comes amid a widening income gap and ahead of a hike in the goods and services tax from two percentage points to seven percent beginning in July.

"The reason why there is such dissatisfaction is because the hike has come at a strange time when the salaries of the average Singaporean seem to be stagnating and in some parts taking a dip," said Chong.

"Also, it comes at a time when there are reports of a wage gap between the rich and poor widening," he said.

Lee and senior ruling party leaders said high salaries, pegged to the pay of senior private sector employees, were necessary to attract the best people to government and prevent corruption.

Opposition politician Chee Soon Juan, of the Singapore Democratic Party, disagreed.

"It must never be forgotten that parliaments are institutions of service, not avarice," Chee said on his party's website.

"The pay hike was a colossal misstep on the part of the government ... The PM is obviously now trying to undo, or at least limit, the damage."

Meanwhile, Singapore has banned seven foreigners, including three members of the European Parliament, from speaking at an opposition party debate on Friday on a big pay hike for ministers and civil servants, reports CNN.

The government said this week that ministers and senior civil servants would enjoy a 60 percent pay increase, giving them an average salary of S$1.9 million ($1.25 million).

The announcement has drawn widespread criticism from ordinary Singaporeans given the country's widening income gap and the fact the city-state's ministers were already among the highest-paid in the world.

The police told the Singapore Democratic Party it could not hold a public forum on Friday to discuss the increases, and the immigration authority rejected applications for professional visit passes for the seven foreigners the SDP invited to speak.

"Singapore's politics are reserved for Singaporeans. As visitors to our country, foreigners should not abuse their privilege by interfering in our domestic politics," the Ministry of Home Affairs said in a statement issued on its Web site late on Thursday.

"Foreigners who abuse the privileges that Singapore accords to guests and visitors, and meddle in Singapore's domestic politics, are not welcome here," the Ministry said.

The barred speakers include European parliament members Graham Watson of the United Kingdom, Anders Samuelsen of Denmark, and Lydie Polfer of Luxembourg, a former deputy prime minister of that country.

Under Singapore's Public Entertainments and Meetings Act, public speaking is generally prohibited unless it has been licensed by the government.

Singaporeans who wish to speak indoors do not need to be licensed, but forums featuring foreign speakers require a permit, the ministry said.

Chee Siok Chin, sister of party leader Chee Soon Juan and a senior party member herself, said the SDP would go ahead with the forum with local speakers.

"You have this autocratic government coming down and showing utter disrespect for our international peers. I'm ashamed," she said on Friday.

She said the seven foreigners barred from speaking at the forum are currently in Singapore.

According to the SDP Web site, Chee Soon Juan plans to speak at the forum and rebut remarks made by Lee Kuan Yew, modern Singapore's first prime minister, about the ministers' pay hike.

Lee said earlier this week that Singapore should pay ministers competitive wages because the city-state needs an "extraordinary government with extraordinary government officers".


Related News

Fiscal finagling in Singapore - Asia Times.