• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Gayle Goh Revisited - What a JC Girl wrote in 2006 just before the elections

PAPIB

Alfrescian
Loyal
http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread....-Girl-wrote-in-2006-just-before-the-elections



Just imagine this was written in 2006 by a 17 year old female student.
Brilliant.

it a amazing deep insight by one so young. And if you are in East Coast GRC, read the last paragraph first.Subject: Still vote PAP? Read this article by a 17 year old girl first.Believe or not, this mind-blowing article was written by a then 17 year old ACSIan girl back in 2006. Her name is Gayle Goh. She'll be 23 this year in August 2011.


Tuesday, May 02, 2006

Do We Owe Our Existence to the People's Action Party?

We have been hardwired since young to be grateful in everything to the People's Action Party. We have been conditioned to accept the abrogation of our democratic freedoms as a necessary inconvenience for the sake of prosperity. We have been primed to forgive any injustice committed by the ruling elite in the name of continued progress under the guidance of benevolent paternalism -- the government knows best.

I remember the issue being discussed countless times in class.
Whether in an honestly indignant manner, or in the form of a light-hearted jest, or even a sardonic diatribe, my peers and I have raised our protests against the form of rule present in Singapore to our elders. Time and time again, I have heard the same answer: that is the sacrifice. Freedom is less important than stability.
Stability has given us prosperity.

Now, in the heat of the elections, the same thing is once more on everyone's lips. Freedom is less important than stability. Stability has given us prosperity. We owe everything to the PAP. Without them, we wouldn't be here today. After all, there was a time when people said that Singapore won't make it -- but we did!

Let's do ourselves the favour of honesty today, and ask if what the PAP accomplished for Singapore was really such a miracle. Let's ask ourselves if it's been worth the sacrifice.

Singapore has long been known as one of the four East Asian tigers, which also include Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan. These countries were part of the Newly Industrialised Economies, which emerged in the 1960's, mostly a product of decolonization, and faced the challenge of industrialisation and development in an increasingly globalised world where other countries had already had a headstart.

Nevertheless, the four tigers followed a generic formula to success; rapid industrialisation and an export-oriented economy, with the aid available from various external agents including the World Bank, the IMF, and of course the then-hegemonic United States, who had virtually reconstructed the post-war economies worldwide in a colossal, unilateral effort. Their currencies were devalued to make their goods cheaper, and foreign advisers were brought into the countries to offer their expert opinions on the situation (the famous Dr. Albert Winsemius, in Singapore's case). The governments focussed their efforts onto education, as well as expansionary fiscal policies to create jobs and stimulate their infant economies.

Singapore had natural economic advantages to help her on her way to achieve the stunning growth she has displayed. Chief among them, perhaps, was her strategic location along major trading routes leading to the Far East, hence Singapore's invaluable contribution to British profiteering in Southeast Asia during the age of colonialism.
Bustling port activity had already given her a headstart in development in comparison to Malaysia. In fact, the different nature of Singapore's far more developed, industrialised and high-end economy in the years of de-colonization as opposed to Malaysia's less developed, more agrarian economy was a very big worry on the part of the British, and one of the foremost reasons raised why Singapore should not merge with Malaysia. Singapore had already displayed not only a potential for, but also a track record of prosperity and development before the PAP was ever in the picture.

It is therefore perfectly understandable why, given these natural advantages as well as the favourable climate of the international economy at that time (it was during the period which has been termed the 'Golden Age of Capitalism', lasting from 1947 to 1974, and flanked by the Marshall Plan and the OPEC oil crisis), the East Asian tigers flourished and prospered. So what, if anything set Singapore apart?
What was unique about our development strategy?

The answer comes, predictably, in the form of strict governance -- not in the mere presence of strictness, as some degree of authoritarianism was exercised in the early stages of Taiwan's and South Korea's development as well. But Singapore is unique in the extent of its authoritarianism, and the length of time during which this authoritarian rule has been sustained. Labour unions were de-politicised, collective bargaining power restricted, and trade union interests were subordinated to those of the State. [Note:
please don't believe a word of what Lee Hsien Loong says when he tries to make it sound like it's better for workers this way because Union leaders have a place in Cabinet. While I applaud his rhetorical twist and his laudable optimism in seeing the glass as half full, let's not kid ourselves -- they are Ministers in charge of the Unions, not Union leaders in charge of the country.] In addition to the labour restrictions, we also saw high levels of government involvement and ownership in production, financing and marketing through the existence of statutory boards. Beyond economics, we also saw a strong government presence in the media, and tight restrictions placed on the freedom of speech, assembly, protest., and so on.

In South Korea, we also did see suppression of labour movements, but this at least came with a guarantee of a minimum wage; the Singaporean government gave us no such guarantee. Furthermore, the proliferation of government/ex-government ministers in so many sectors -- the media, the union congress, etc., meant a depth of intervention unparalleled in the East Asian tigers. Singapore too has been the only country out of the original four to still hang on to its authoritarianism. South Korea has long abandoned the suppression of the labour movement, since
1987 in fact.

What were the results of our authoritarian regime? Lower wages, lots of rich government-linked companies who had access to our national reserves, and people who couldn't complain. Good things in and of themselves, perhaps, but hardly instrumental in Singapore's success.
No, that was predicated on the other constants which had held true in South Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan who had not embarked on similarly interventionist policies, with the exception perhaps of South Korea, where the chaebols crowded out many competing firms in production, contributing towards South Korea's collapse in the Asian Crisis of 1997-1998. Hong Kong adopted positive non-interference, becoming the most extreme example of a free-market economy in the world, while Taiwan took the route of passive interference, with gradually declining government intervention as the years went on. That's with regards to economics -- with regards to things like press freedom, one only has to look to the Reporters Without Borders' index of press freedom today. South Korea is 48th, Taiwan is 60th, Hong Kong is 34th, Singapore is 147th. Please, don't tell me Singapore's economy will die if we have a free press.

All these countries achieved sterling growth, but the important thing to note is that an all-knowing, clairvoyant, authoritarian government that repressed freedoms and compromised on democracy was not necessary to achieving this growth. The 'constants' earlier mentioned which determined the East Asian tigers' success were factors like the access to foreign aid, available 1st world markets, the Confucian work ethic, et alii. The biggest justifications for our enforced stability, which were capital inflow and the benefits of foreign direct investment, were also constants available to these countries, not exclusive to Singapore in any way. Our contemporaries today enjoy success, progress, and stability with a free media, with labour unions, with less government intervention in the economy.

What are the questions this leads us to ask? Can we bear to admit to ourselves that our carefully-constructed world of police permits and suppressed labour unions and government involvement in large corporations did not need to be constructed for us to be enjoying the benefits of prosperity and consumerism today? If we can admit this, then what is our debt to the PAP? One of gratitude, certainly for their astute leadership. But not one of mindless bondage, not one of servitude, and not one of complete absolution and endorsement of the tactics by which they have achieved success. No longer should we say, "of course things should be this way, otherwise Singapore wouldn't be Singapore". If so, then South Korea wouldn't be South Korea, Taiwan wouldn't be Taiwan, Hong Kong wouldn't be Hong Kong, and Japan wouldn't be Japan. All these economies are either in close competition with us, our ahead of us today.

So the next time the PAP cadres stand up and say, our Ministers must be in our trade union in order for there to be progress and stability, the next time they say we must not have free speech or 'too much democracy' in order for there to be progress and stability, the next time they say the PAP and only the PAP can give us progress and stability, let us remember two things. Let us remember firstly that our economic success was due to a range of other, more instrumental factors which had to do with luck, coincidental timing and natural advantage, rather than suppression. Then let us remember also, that progress and stability, movies, toys, games, fabrics, gadgets, dollars and cents, are not the sum and whole of human welfare, which must include always the dignity of choosing the proxies by which we govern our own lives as a mature and civic society free of fear, oppression and systematic propaganda. Let us no longer accept excuses.
 

mojito

Alfrescian
Loyal
That is before she got her scholarship yes? Ask her now. Ask her if PAP is the best and she will agree with me.
 

Asterix

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
More than 2 million hits, so I assume many people have seen this oredi .............

[video=youtube;ydANJ5qLHG4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydANJ5qLHG4[/video]
 

frenchbriefs

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
I bet shes all grown up now and all the rebellious rhethoric and youthful idealism has been bled out of her and she is now a walking dead zombie on this island,her mind open and susceptible to all types of subliminal messaging and clockwork orange brain imprinting from PAP.all it takes is a little carrot,a scholarship or job and she will tip over and be a full convert.
 

PAPIB

Alfrescian
Loyal
http://disgruntledsporean.blogspot.sg/2006/05/well-this-is-govt-you-elected.html

Well, this is the govt YOU elected.


I am absolutely disgusted by this govt official's callous answer to the question on the impact of outsourcing on our local population.

Well dear Singaporeans, if one day you find yourselves being shipped out of Singapore to Batam and Johor for retirement, please remember one thing, YOU VOTED FOR IT on 6 May 2006.

Here is an excerpt of Gayle Goh's blog:

Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Bilahari Kausikan, visited my school for an N.E dialogue. He made an opening address which, though short, was concise and illuminating of typical Singaporean foreign policy, which is essentially as follows: screw humanity, there's no such thing as friendship in politics, there's only a convergence of interests. The world wouldn't be any different without Singapore in it, so we must strive to make ourselves extraordinary.

This was alright in and of itself, but that mentality started to come across more and more strongly as questions were asked. One student stood up during the question and answer session and asked about the impact of outsourcing on our local population. Though that wasn't an entirely relevant question to pose a man from the MFA, he had no qualms with answering it as follows:


"We have to be realistic. There is a limit to how much re-training we can do for some workers, so we have to look overseas. Look at my generation, more than half of them didn't even complete primary school education. What are we going to do? They are not going to conveniently die off..."

At this point, I was so flabbergasted I stopped listening to the rest of his answer. Perhaps he didn't think he had to watch his words very closely, as he was only speaking to a bunch of teachers and students. I don't even think many of them caught what he said. But his callous attitude was so typical of the government's seeming attitude towards the 'chaff' of our society. The fact that older workers stubbornly remaining alive had little to do with whether or not we should be protecting domestic jobs for our own workers (like that taxi driver's son, an electronic engineer) didn't seem to concern him. He just took his time wending down the garden path of why we should outsource jobs, and the fact that we had an aging population was just a by-the-way manner of illustrating his point. ...
 

PAPIB

Alfrescian
Loyal
Singaporean Diplomat bastard or not?

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/singaporean-envoy-wrong-1mdb-bersih-011234309.html


Singaporean envoy wrong about 1MDB, Bersih 4, says Tony Pua


DAP lawmaker Tony Pua has hit out at Singapore’s ambassador-at-large, Bilahari Kausikan, who in a recent opinion piece on Malaysia’s current affairs and the Bersih 4 rally, described Malaysian Chinese as delusional and mocked the recently formed opposition pact Pakatan Harapan.

The DAP national publicity secretary and Petaling Jaya Utara MP said Bilahari had “unapologetic selfish and arrogant views” that only cemented the perception of Singapore as the contemptible Shylock of Southeast Asia.

Pua said Bilahari failed to recognise that Bersih 4 was not about race and chose to look at the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) financial scandal as “less about corruption than about a struggle for power within Umno”.

He said no one, especially the Chinese, went to Bersih with racial demands but with aspirations for a better country defined, not by race or religion, but by the principles of justice, good governance and democratic ideals.

“They were angry, frustrated and galvanised to act in the light of the tens of billions of ringgit embezzled and misappropriated by 1MDB, as well as the obscene RM2.6 billion donation deposited into the prime minister’s personal bank account.

“Instead of seeing the uproar against 1MDB as a courageous fight against corruption, Bilahari chose to frame the 1MDB scandal as a political fight by juxtaposing (Prime Minister) Datuk Seri Najib Razak and (former prime minister) Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad,” Pua said in a statement today.

In his article entitled “Malaysia is undergoing a systemic change that has profound consequences for Singapore” on October 6 and published in The Straits Times, Bilahari wrote about the overwhelming anti-establishment sentiment of the Chinese and their high turnout at the Bersih 4 rally on August 29 and 30.

He said in his impression, many young Malaysian Chinese had forgotten the lessons of May 13, 1969, and naively believed that the system built around the principle of Malay dominance could be changed

He said that may be why they abandoned MCA the DAP, and that they were delusional, as Malay dominance would be defended by any means. He said the outcome of this would be “even less space for non-Muslims”.

Pua said the Singaporean diplomat could not be more wrong and told the latter to distinguish Malay “dominance” from Malay “supremacy”, which was contested by most opposition voices.

“No one denies that Malays will dominate the sphere of politics and economy in Malaysia. They will generally dominate purely because they comprise of the majority in the country.

“Perhaps Bilahari can understand the distinction better in the context of Singapore, where the Chinese indisputably dominate the political, economic and social space. However, that does not translate into a Chinese-supremacist city state.”

Pua also reminded Bilahari that DAP, a Chinese majority party, fully supported Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim – a Malay and Muslim – as the candidate for prime minister.

Another DAP lawmaker, Ong Kian Ming also hit out at Bilahari. As someone with “diplomatic experience”, Bilahari should be able to see that the “political forces in Malaysia were part of a larger global trend” towards regime change.

Ong said the opposition in Malaysia was wooing the Malay and Bumiputera votes in rural areas to increase its chances of electoral victory and not just relying on winning Chinese votes.

Meanwhile, Bilahari also said the 1MDB scandal was less about corruption than about a struggle for power within Umno, with Dr Mahathir expecting to exercise remote control even though he was no longer prime minister.

Bilahari said Dr Mahathir’s grievances with his successors were their warming of ties with Singapore, Najib’s decision to settle the railway land issue, cooperation on Iskandar Malaysia (IM) and the refusal of both Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and Najib to proceed with his “pet white elephant – the ‘crooked bridge’”.

He said Dr Mahathir wanted to replace Najib with someone more pliable, while Najib understood that Malaysia and Singapore needed each other.

His article also suggested that “it was better the devil you can cut deals with” and “some systems will be easier to work with than others”.

Pua added that “clearly, as Bilahari’s views demonstrate how Singapore as a country, despite its enormous wealth and developed nation status, completely lacks a moral compass. It is less important for him to support ‘what is right and just’, as opposed to ‘what is in it for me’ in Singapore’s relations with its neighbours, regardless of how evil or corrupt a regime is.”

The DAP politician also slammed Bilahari, who further poured scorn on the attempts to defeat the Umno-led Barisan Nasional by mocking Pakatan Harapan as “a coalition of DAP, Keadilan and a minor breakaway faction from PAS, is a forlorn hope (pun intended)”. – October 8, 2015.
 

PAPIB

Alfrescian
Loyal
http://meltedpotsg.blogspot.sg/2006/05/two-stories-speculation.html


Disclaimer: I am a political observer novice. I have never denied it, except when I was explaining to my friends rather vehemently about why having an Alternative Party is good, and I may have made up shit to persuade them. For which I apologise, but would like to add in mitigation that I didn't do any harm since none of them were in a position to vote anyway.

(They are still talking to me. Thank goodness elections is every 5 years or so.)

Something I observed over the last couple of weeks that I'm blogging about because I want to remember it, is about what makes an event blogworthy. Two things sparked it off - the Bilahari Kausikan versus Gayle Goh, and Denise Phua versus everyone that the money-grubbing-nouveau-riche-eugenics-program aka NUSS could get to come down.

Recounting:
Bilahari, Second Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Gave a talk to JC students, caused Gayle Goh to be "flabbergasted" at his apparent harshness of words, especially with regards to the acknowlegment that elderly employment is a perennial problem, since his generation wasn't about to "conveniently die". Other things that caused disgruntlement included the basic self-interest and "siege mentality" that governed Singapore foreign policy. Ms Goh later blogged about it and her feelings articulately, and her blog was picked up by Tomorrow.sg. Things snowballed, and Bilahari later wrote a letter of apology to her.

(On a personal note, said letter of apology was an excellent example of why Bilahari earned his stripes as a diplomat, since he managed to, well, not apologise while giving the impression that he had.

Denise Phua speaks at a forum thatIwasnotatbecauseNUSSisfucked - anyway, in the process she explained that she was shocked when she went online that 80% of the content was anti-PAP. She also suggested that the PAP should look into correcting this imbalance, and "managing" the Internet. Singapore bloggers howled hysterically with laughter, and proceed to complain about idiocies of walkover newbie MPs, censorship, and also change her name to Desiree in one case

(Desiree is an excellent name, but if you say it fast, it becomes Disarray. Freudian?)

One thing that struck me is this - well, two. Firstly, the ST picked up the story about Gayle Goh, and Ignatius Low turned it into a David-versus Goliath piece. Denise Phua's incident was reported but not commented on, with the reporter choosing to leave the quote intact and letting Singapore decide on what to think.

Secondly, Yawning Bread and Mr Wang picked up the Denise Phua piece, but not the Gayle Goh one. A quick survey of the more prominent political blogs suggested that none of them had picked it up. (Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm underpaid and I owe the university 46k. Toss me the requisite 12.90 per hour, and I'll research it better)

Stream of concious reasoning here: The Bilahari one was never about Bilahari. It's about Gayle Goh, the narrative is the one of "spunky fearless youth" tells it to "the Man". And you know that David wins, because of the apology. Never mind that the letter never apologised, but did the equivalent of patting David on the head. The David-Goliath story fit what people like to hear, it made the ruling party look good, it was heart-warming, and it was PR served to them on a plate.

Bilahari didn't get picked up by the more prominent political blogs, except in the Gayle Goh context. The reason - he never dropped the ball. He'd done his job, and done it well, and by all accounts, was well-versed in his area of expertise. (This is from what I read, for all I know my MFA friends are going to start screaming about how he steals the office donuts.)

Denise Phua didn't get picked up by MSM because she had dropped the ball. I won't go into detail about how abyssmally the ball had dropped, because Yawning Bread and Mr Wang have done so excellently. It got carefully ignored by MSM, and that's where bloggers come in - to fill in the gaps and use their position to say what MSM can't or won't.

The doyennes of the political blogs picked it up because it was blogworthy. Ms Phua's mistake was worthy of comment, because it was representative of many issues that people have with the PAP, and because it was potentially indicative of party views, the quality of new MPs, and much more. It was political.


Bilahari's didn't get picked up by the political bloggers because it was fluff, and got picked up by MSM because it was human interest. Ms Phua's got picked up by the bloggers and was ignored by MSM because there was blood on the floor.
 

Leepotism

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
https://www.facebook.com/gaylegoh?fref=ts

ask her she now works at MCCY--PAP machinery.

You see, principles can change. She was co-opted by the white scums many years ago. She no long speaks as she even disabled her i-speak blog. And she also married an ang mo.





Gayle Goh



Executive (Public Service Engagement), PS21 Office at Public Service Division


Singapore Government Administration





 

steffychun

Alfrescian
Loyal
You see, principles can change. She was co-opted by the white scums many years ago. She no long speaks as she even disabled her i-speak blog. And she also married an ang mo.





Gayle Goh



Executive (Public Service Engagement), PS21 Office at Public Service Division


Singapore Government Administration






They continue to feed her well. Hear she got ang moh boyfriend.
 

frenchbriefs

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Funny how the staunchest anti government critics can become one of the most high ranking intimate government loyalist.maybe deep down secretly all opposition wish they are part of the PAP family too.
 

mojito

Alfrescian
Loyal
Funny how the staunchest anti government critics can become one of the most high ranking intimate government loyalist.maybe deep down secretly all opposition wish they are part of the PAP family too.

Indeed. We criticize the PAP because we love them so. Such is the Asian way of showing love.
 

shittypore

Alfrescian
Loyal
Funny how the staunchest anti government critics can become one of the most high ranking intimate government loyalist.maybe deep down secretly all opposition wish they are part of the PAP family too.

Lky noes by nature tat Asian are a greedy lot, so pay well and they will to be you running dog untill mati.
 
Top