THE TEMASEK TIMES

News and views from an unique perspective

Singaporeans should appreciate what the PAP govt has done for them

Posted by temasektimes on August 20, 2012

People should appreciate what the government has done for the people and the country. Take public housing for example, it should be a about simple basic housing, and we should be happy in getting just a simple 3 room flat. Instead government is giving us more choices.

We have the choice of bigger unit, private condo liked EC project and amenities. We are even given 2 times to buy a public housing unit directly from HDB. I can’t think of any country where the government provides public housing benefits and choices to its people in such a scale like ours.

Some complained they are homeless, but didn’t confess they had already used up the 2 entitlements of buying direct from HDB. They twice make profit, eventually mismanaged their fund and ended up homeless, and start to blame the government for not helping them. If this group people deserve help then I would also like to sell my house for a profit and seek help from the government.

There are many other instances when people make complaint, like inflation. We import almost everything we need here and exporting countries are raising prices for there products and every country is facing this inflation problem.

Please have a thought of what we are enjoying here, despite the small land we have, the lack of natural resources, except its small population, the multi-racial and multi-cultural society we live in.

DESMOND CHUA AIK HONG

*The above was first posted as a comment on PM Lee’s Facebook.

36 Responses to “Singaporeans should appreciate what the PAP govt has done for them”

  1. Jack said

    Desmond, sorry, what is given by the government? A 3 room HDB flat? HDB has never subsidize the public housing, in fact, all are profit making.

  2. LoveSG said

    “Desmond Chua Aik Hong” sounds like he belongs in North Korea!

  3. NaBey said

    YES! Agree completely. I Thanks the Govt for making me Smarter By:

    a. Packing up MRT & buses, now I trained myself how to squeeze and cut Q. Now I go China holiday, I know how to compete with the local for MRT seats and cut Q.

    b. Jamming up expressway despite of countless ERP. Now, I am smarter, I know how to detour and short cut and save $1.50 on ERP everyday despite of the longer time and pollution i had contributed.

    c. Inflating food. Now, I know where to get free food in Kim Yam Road temple.

    d. Sky rocket priced HDB. Now I know what is sell expensive and buy expensive.

    e. How to beat speeding trap by asking your staff to take blame and offering him no $ but instead, future promotion, etc …. and then I will be jail-free if I got caught.

    f. How to offer Sex in exchange for Govt tender. And how to check Gebiz in Chinese New year.

    g. Most important, NOW I KNOW HOW TO ANSWER A QUESTION FROM MY EMPLOYEES BY USING MORE QUESTIONS TO THEM !!!

    THANK YOU GOVT !!!

  4. Public Eyes said

    Credit is to be given when it is due. Until Singaporeans live overseas, will they understand that we have top-notch public housing. This is where the distinction should be – public housing is for Singaporeans. Not your PRs and not foreigners. If we, as a country wish to draw in more residents on our turb, to oil the economic growth wheel, make sure you separate the level of goodies for Singaporeans vs others. You can argue that most of our tax dollars come from PRs and foreigners but they are here without a free lunch. They already benefit from more than 50% savings in income taxes (except the Americans who have to pay global taxes) compared to if they stay back in their own home countries. Many are here, because they need to be here. The unemployment in their home countries drove them here. Does the government feel that it needs to make it even more attractive to lure them here. No. Singaporeans come first. Period. No point giving too many goodies to foreigners and PRs, as they only see Singapore as a stepping stone – so says my Filipina domestic helper too. She says to me this morning – Mdm, all my friends, those with degrees, are only waiting for 5 years’ experience in Singapore which is what is needed to apply for a job in the US as nurses or nannies. Go figure.

    Back to the topic – public housing is to have public housing prices. It has become incredibly unaffordable for young Singaporeans. How can the government want young, single Singaporeans to get married and have kids when they can’t even afford their 1st home? Public housing should never have been profit-making. Why does the HDB have to price their properties so high and make so much money? Why is it all about the money? We had gone on a very bad route. Perhaps thanks to Mah Bow Tan, who is so unpopular with Singaporeans for sky-high HDB prices that went through the roof. Can the new minister take the most unpopular decision now, and correct this, to make all new HDB prices at least 80K cheaper? Existing HDB owners will be very unhappy but cutting new prices will prevent a property bubble that is looking to expand even more. Can you, Minister? It is the right thing to do. Although unpopular. As you said, HDB flats are not meant to be flipped for profits.

  5. K said

    The time to appreciate pappies is over! Time now is to replace them. There r sinkies who love sg & hav valuable ideas to build sg into a even better country. Sadly most hav left or been ignored. So now it is time for those sinkies whom gives a damn. As Lorex said, UNLESS somebody really, really gives a damn, nothing gg to change. Sg as we kno it is done for!

  6. laughingseal said

    So you’re saying that the only those who mismanaged their HDB profits are homeless? Have you done a survey to that fact? Whatever the case, these people are SIngaporeans too and they deserve our help in times of difficulty – as does everyone. When we help others, one day we might get help when we need it too. Forunes can change very fast.

    Also,I notice you didn’t mention senior citizens and disabled folks in SG? How about providiing for the weakest in society?

  7. Carmen said

    That is some remarkably bad English. When the PAP govt sends you for language retraining, maybe then I can take you seriously.

  8. ngpy said

    Now see who is talking, may I asked of Mr. Desmond Chua A. H. is the PAP doing all these just for free or are they doing solely forthe sake their COUNTRY and the PEOPLE OF SINGAPORE with no intention of self interest at all. Then, if they think it is not worth their while for doing so, doing all for free, simply relinquish or excuse themselves and let others helm or take over their place including yourselves if you are part of them.

  9. Walls have ears said

    DESMOND CHUA AIK HONG

    Points NOTED
    Points Scored *******

    The father built
    The Son Gave
    The Mistress Swallowed
    The Stepbrothers gains

    The End is near

  10. Exaggerated said

    With all due respect………………

    ” and we should be happy in getting just a simple 3 room flat. Instead government is giving us more choices.” ……………….large percentage of the people are stuck in the position where their combine pay does not allow them to buy a 3 room flat and they cannot afford to pay for something more expensive.

    “We have the choice of bigger unit, private condo liked EC project and amenities. We are even given 2 times to buy a public housing unit directly from HDB.”……………….I cannot imagine how the mission of HDB have deviated from providing cheap and affordable housing to pegging themselves to the private property market.

    “Some complained they are homeless, but didn’t confess they had already used up the 2 entitlements of buying direct from HDB. They twice make profit, eventually mismanaged their fund and ended up homeless,”…………………….what is the percentage of this pool of people? Are you going to kill the whole flock of sheep just to find that wolf cover in sheep’s skin? Do we want to have a policies that serves the general public pool or just that minority percentage of people?

    “There are many other instances when people make complaint, like inflation. We import almost everything we need here and exporting countries are raising prices for there products and every country is facing this inflation problem.” ……………………..precisely the case, government lacks foresight, only in pursuit of fame and fortune. We all know we have to be as self sufficient as possible. We know that there is a food shortage in the world, but we are implementing policies which abolish farming or food cultivation. We are only paving ways for commercial infrastructures. We understand we need water and develop water treatment plant because we are constantly facing threats from the water suppliers. Will it be too late when we are threaten with food imports?

    Please have a wider visual and have alternate thinking to break away from how our education system stifles and control how we perceive things. Education is as powerful as empowering ourselves with knowledge and also sculpting how one think.

    Good government policies should serve the general public and not that special pool of minority. There will always be a percentage of people fleecing the policies but that is why there are government bodies to vet through every case by every case to determine if it is justifiable to approve or disapprove. Policies are implement to help general public, not to make work easier for the government bodies to vet through cases. We should not misunderstood efficiency for “instant cup noodles” processes. For the greater good, if the current government is unable to resolve the so many issues Singaporeans is facing, they should consider stepping down. Afterall, the mission of government is for the greater good of the people and not for themselves.

  11. I wanna puke! said

    When you increase land prices, property prices & rental psf goes up. Any goods and services which depends on commercial space would need to be increased. With the mass importing of demand (ie. FT) and with limited land supply, property prices will inflate overnight. This is inflation. Your savings is worth half it used to be. Still loving it?🙂

  12. Annoymous said

    @Desmond Chua Aik Hong – Take your boot-licking post to PM Lee facebook better, you will be top of the list.

  13. SueM said

    When we are told to be grateful to one political party for everything it has done to build singapore, doesn’t it show the party has been in power for too long? doesn’t that spell power-hungry dictatorship where no other political group is allowed to rule that we have to be “thankful” to that one existing ruling party like they are our lord and saviour? in true democracy, there is no such thing as appreciating ONLY one political party for building a country, there is something seriously wrong with that idea.

  14. Zach said

    Desmond should grow up and open his eyes. Why should Singaporeans “appreciate” the PAP considering it numerous failures which include:

    (1) low productivity of Singapore economy
    (2) low birth rate which started from LKY’s “Stop at 2” policy
    (3) depressed local wages
    (4) failing to plan for the many foreigners it allowed into Singapore
    (5) shortage, “shrinking” and high cost of public housing
    (6) shortage of public buses and MRT trains
    (7) shortage of hospitals, doctors and nursing homes
    (8) shortage of teachers and places in schools and universities for Singaporeans
    (9) shortage of jobs for Singaporeans
    (10) foreigners taking jobs away from Singaporeans
    (11) frequent breakdowns of MRT trains
    (12) overcrowded public transport (buses and MRT trains)
    (13) bailout of public transport (failed privatisation)
    (14) frequent 50-year “ponding”
    (15) high inflation (Singapore more expensive than Hong Kong)
    (16) high cost of education and healthcare
    (17) high cost of electricity (another failed privatisation)
    (18) high cost of private transport and fuel
    (19) poor air quality as per WHO Air Quality Guidelines
    (20) depleted CPF accounts after buying “affordable” HDB flats
    (21) many CPF accounts below CPF Minimum Sum
    (22) massive (billions) losses of taxpayers’ money by Temasek / GIC
    (23) wasteful purchases by Government agencies like NParks
    (24) putting Singaporeans life at risk by allowing rich “yellow trash” to drive in Singapore
    (25) increase social friction with foreigners
    (26) made Singapore a “tuition nation”
    (27) real income likely to fall this year
    (28) failing to provide Singaporeans with Swiss Standard of Living

  15. SINYoobi said

    I thank the government for opening floodgate and welcoming any Tom, Dick and Harry into our country. Those young sluts from mainland China who came to Singapore as private students are seducing married men and breaking up marriages and families.

  16. To Mr Brown Tongue & Brown Nose said

    We have enough canine species in the MSM and in the public service to sing these praises to the great Leeder already. So we don’t really need anymore “education” (aka propaganda) from desmond to tell us how “fortunate” we truly are. And Mr desmond chua, please clean your brown tongue and your brown nose often, will you?

  17. Nico said

    Hi Desmond, I appreciate what PAP had done. But I’m also appreciating what we could have more from more than just a PAP government. That’s why we want to give PAP government a well-deserve rest.

  18. stevenadosan said

    Sound like new citizen! Who say we got no natural resources? We the people are the natural resources!

  19. Think said

    what about the people who has not buy a new hdb flat yet .. you think the price they can reach .. with the salary they are earning have a respect for the poor before you post . the product and food item has rise from export what about our salary .. can we match them .. who has brought in so many ft to make matter worst . pls check first before you post. you don’t have a clue whats going on do you ?

  20. Ron said

    I am grateful to the Old Guard, who brought Singapore up from almost nowhere, who toiled for low wages (compared to the sky high million dollar Ministers). They fought the Communists, fought the Confrontasi and got rid of slums and gangs. They made sure Spore did not catch the Union diseases of western countries. They laid the foundation of Spore’s greatness.

    So I am grateful to the PAP of yester years. The recent cohorts of highly paid Ministers have not delivered sterling results for their sterling salaries. If anything, the populace is saddled with housing loans that now stretch to 50 years, showbox flats, great unhappiness over a slew of issues. Not to mentioned some terrible losses in investments.

    What has happened to the Great Singapore? If Orchard Road can flood repeatedly, MRT can breakdown repeatedly, FTs insulting Singaporeans repeatedly and even underaged prostitutes are allowed to operate with impunity (and Singaporeans are jailed because of that), is that sterling performance?

    We can wax lyrical about the PAP of yester years. We should worry about the fate of PAP in the coming years.

  21. Gar said

    To the Writer of this comment. I would advise you not to write such article/comment because the people against PAP are usually at the disadvantaged and lower income of their polices with nothing to lose and heavily disgruntled. It is best to hide identity or just shut up. You are having a good life doesnt means everyone is. And it is horrifying to say people cannot make it means they deserved it.

  22. LkySi said

    Re: This is how Lee Kuan Yew cheated and double crossed Lim Chin Siong

    “truth” wrote in message
    news:Hez%j.5837$IK1.3430@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Lim Chin Siong vs Lee Kuan Yew: The true and shocking history

    It will forever change how you see Lee Kuan Yew and the PAP

    Lim Chin SiongIntroduction

    Schools teach our children that Lee Kuan Yew heroically delivered
    Singapore from the evil clutches of the communists and gave us what we have
    today.

    Whether such an assertion is historically accurate or not, the Government
    seems intent to seal this version in the annals of Singapore. When filmmaker,
    Mr Martyn See, released Zahari’s 17 Years in which Mr Said Zahari talked about
    his 17-year detention, the Government promptly banned it.

    It, it stated, “will not allow people who had posed a security threat to
    the country in the past to exploit the use of films to purvey a false and
    distorted portrayal of their past actions and detention by the government.”

    Top-secret documents held by the British Government, now declassified,
    reveal some jaw-dropping facts about Lee Kuan Yew and how he came to power.

    When Lim Chin Siong, another of Lee Kuan Yew’s prisoners, died in 1996,
    the PAP was equally anxious to make sure that Lim’s portrayal as a
    revolutionary communist remained etched in the minds of the people.

    In response to a tribute that the SDP had written about Lim, the PAP
    through then MP Dr Ow Chin Hock, said that the Barisan Sosialis (Socilaist
    Front), of which Lim was its leader, fought the Government in 1966 “on the
    streets, according to the teachings of Mao Zedong in the Cultural Revolution.”

    It was a bald-faced lie. Lim was already in prison under ISA detention in
    1966 and could not have led his party in anything.

    This, it seems, was not the only untruth that the PAP has been telling
    us.

    For example, Dr Ow pointed out that Lim was not fighting for a democratic
    Singapore (the cheek) but a communist one. Lim would have turned Singapore
    into “Mao’s China or Ho Chi Minh’s Vietnam”, the PAP insisted.

    Besides, it was the Internal Security Council (ISC) under the command of
    the British and not the PAP Government, who ordered the arrest and detention
    of Lim and colleagues.

    This was because there were only three PAP representatives on the ISC and
    they were “outnumbered” by the other four members on the Council, three
    British and one Malaysian.

    Nothing could be more untrue.

    Top-secret documents held by the British Government, now declassified,
    reveal some jaw-dropping facts about Lee Kuan Yew and how he came to power.

    Two history scholars studied these papers and presented their findings in
    the book Comet In Our Sky (available at Select Books at the Tanglin Shopping
    Centre).

    The first is Tim Harper who teaches Southeast Asian history and the
    history of the British empire at the University of Cambridge in London.

    The second is Greg Poulgrain, a professor at Griffiths University in
    Australia who has been researching Southeast Asian history for more than 20
    years.

    This SDP feature presents a summary of Dr Harper’s and Dr Poulgrain’s
    chapters. It contains some shocking archival material.

    It also attempts to answer questions like who were people like Lim Chin
    Siong and Said Zahari? Did they really pose a security threat to the country?
    Were they communists hell-bent on undermining constitutional/democratic means
    of governance in Singapore? Was it really the ISC that was responsible for
    their arrest and imprisonment? Most important, is the PAP’s version of history
    based on fact?

    Remember, this narration is not the SDP’s rendition of events past. It is
    a collective summary of the research done by two historians.

    To ensure that this present essay remains faithful to Professors Harper’s
    and Poulgrain’s works, quotes from the historians’ chapters are used
    liberally.

    Still, don’t take our word for it. Get a copy of Comet In Our Sky and
    read for yourself the real history of the PAP and Barisan Sosialis.

    Why bother?

    But why is this important? Why should Lim Chin Siong, a man who died more
    than ten years ago and who led a party which is now defunct, be relevant to
    the world in which we now live?

    Hard, historical facts are the greatest antidote to fear mongering by
    the state and to the use of national security as a bogey to suppress freedom
    and democracy.

    First, because those events are part of our history, and history defines
    who we are as a people and, more important, shapes the way we plan our future.

    The textbooks that the Ministry of Education writes for our kids are not
    history but rather fables, starring Mr Lee Kuan Yew. We have a duty to teach
    our youths the truth.

    Also, what happened in the 1950s and 60s continue to be relevant because
    many of Lim’s colleagues are still alive and the sacrifices they made for the
    independence of Singapore have been all but erased. Their stories must be told
    and their honour restored.

    Third, and perhaps most important, not only is the PAP’s cloroxed account
    used to mentally condition (brainwash, if you prefer) our children, it
    continues to be used as a weapon to intimidate and silence voices of dissent.

    If Lee Kuan Yew can manipulate the security apparatus for his own
    political ends in the 1950s and 60 as you will note from Dr Harper’s and Dr
    Poulgrain’s revelations, what does that say about the present use of the ISD
    to detain other Singaporeans?

    More ominously, what if the PAP feels sufficiently threatened politically
    and resorts to concocting another conspiracy to detain without trial more
    Singaporeans and opposition politicians like it did to a group of
    professionals in 1987?

    Hard, historical facts are the greatest antidote to fear mongering by the
    state and to the use of national security as a bogey to suppress freedom and
    democracy.

    Knowledgeable citizens with a keen sense of history are the best
    protection against acts of repression in the future.

    So if you are a discerning Singaporean unwilling to let the authorities
    tell you what to think and how to think it, if you are one of those who don’t
    want your mind raped, then introduce yourself to this four-part Special
    Feature and take part in the forum discussion.

    Lim Chin Siong vs Lee Kuan Yew: The true and shocking history

    Part I: Our man
    08 Jul 07

    “The men who led Singapore to self-government and independence were swift
    to produce an authorized version of their struggle.,” historian T N Harper
    observes, “it began with Lee Kuan Yew’s dramatic broadcasts as Prime Minister
    on Radio Malaya in 1961. The plot and the moral of this story are clear: by
    the political resolve and tactical acumen of its leaders, the fragile
    city-state weathers the perils of a volatile age and emerges into an era of
    stability and prosperity.”

    However, much to the discomfort of the Minister Mentor who hitherto has
    had a relatively free reign in portraying “the period as one in which Lim Chin
    Siong and the left were outmanoeuvred by the tactically more astute Lee Kuan
    Yew,” Harper cautions that “authoritative new archival research sheds new
    light on the high politics of the period.”

    In other words, Lee’s bravado with which he presently speaks covers up
    much that took place during those years.

    In truth, Lim Chin Siong’s fate was sealed right from the very beginning
    by the power of the British colonialists – and not Lee Kuan’s political
    prowess.

    At that time British authorities were already devising ways on how to
    stop Lim’s ascent in Singapore’s politics. Southeast Asia historian, Greg
    Poulgrain, writes that “In the Public Record Office in London are some of the
    observations and stratagems pursued by both the Colonial and Foreign Office –
    revealed now more than thirty years after the events – on how to deal with
    this rising star, Lim Siong Chin.”

    With Singaporeans becoming more educated and the advent of the Internet,
    events surrounding the heroics of Lee and his PAP during the period of
    independence and merger with Malaya “no longer looks so unilinear and
    uncontested.”

    The emergence of Lim Chin Siong

    Harper recounts the “meteoric” rise of Lim Chin Siong as a student and
    trade union leader in the early 1950s who was at the heart of the
    anti-colonial politics that had erupted all over Asia following World War II.

    By unifying the labour movement and galvanizing the overwhelmingly
    Chinese-speaking electorate through his formidable oratorical skills (he once
    told his massive audience: “Saya masuk first gear, lu jangan gostan!” – “When
    I go into the first gear, don’t you go into reverse!”), Lim captured the
    attention of the masses.

    And Lee Kuan Yew’s too. This led to an association between the two men
    and the subsequent formation of the PAP. The anglophile Lee (Harry, as he once
    wanted to be called) saw the power of his younger Chinese-educated comrade.

    Even within the PAP, “Lim eclipsed Lee Kuan Yew and other leaders in the
    popular following he commanded…”

    But in his memoirs, The Singapore Story, published in 1998 Lee Kuan Yew
    condescendingly described Lim as “modest, humble and well-behaved, with a
    dedication to his cause that won my reluctant admiration and respect.”

    The truth is that Lee didn’t have much of a choice. Lim Chin Siong was at
    the front, back and center of a political movement that commanded national
    attention. From all accounts, Lee would have been marginalized if his
    parasitic instincts had not been so acute.

    Popular as he was locally, Lim Chin Siong did not confine his politics to
    within Singapore. Despite British efforts to isolate the island from
    anti-imperial movements that engulfed much of Empire, Lim would draw
    inspiration from liberation movements elsewhere in Africa and Asia.

    His speeches in the early 1960s repeatedly made reference to events in
    the colonial world as well as to South Africa, Korea, and Turkey. This sense
    of internationalism had a “deep resonance” in Singapore.

    The colonial government countered by censoring imported reading material.
    “This,” writes Harper, “would continue, even intensify, after self-government
    as the PAP government increasingly saw itself as pitted against what Lee Kuan
    Yew was to term the ‘anti-colonialism’ of global liberation movements.”

    In other words, Lee was not the hero who led the fight for Singapore’s
    freedom. This might come as a shock to some but as declassified documents
    reveal, it was Lim Chin Siong who insisted that Singaporeans’ freedom and
    independence were not for compromise.

    It was also “what really caused the British authorities to consider [Lim]
    such a threat.”

    The talks collapse.

    When David Marshall became the chief minister after his Labour Front won
    the elections in 1955, he organised a delegation to London the following year
    to negotiate independence from the British. Marshall included both Lim Chin
    Siong and Lee Kuan Yew in his team.

    The chief minister fought hard, some say too hard, to wrest power from
    the British in the internal affairs of Singapore. He opposed Britain’s power
    to appoint the police chief who in turn had power over the Special Branch, as
    it was then known. It was the Special Branch that gave the authorities the
    power of detention without trial.

    The idea of retaining the power of internal security whilst granting
    self-government, Marshall accused the British, was like serving “Christmas
    pudding and arsenic sauce.”

    Lim Chin Siong supported the chief minister on this and demanded a
    constitution that transferred power to the local government with only defence
    and foreign relations left in British hands.

    The British refused the demand and the talks collapsed. Marshall returned
    to Singapore frustrated and, amidst condemnation by Lee Kuan Yew, resigned as
    chief minister.

    …Lim Chin Siong is detained.

    Lim Yew Hock took over the position and led another visit to London the
    following year, which again included Lee Kuan Yew. But this time, Marshall and
    Lim Chin Siong were not part of the negotiating team.

    More accurately, Lim Chin Siong could not go because Lim Yew Hock, as
    chief minister, had placed him under arrest, ostensibly for instigating a
    riot.

    The episode began when Chief Minister Lim closed down a Chinese women’s
    group and a musical association. A week later, he banned the Chinese Middle
    School Union which provoked further unhappiness with the locals.

    Undeterred he arrested Chinese student leaders and shut down more
    organizations and schools, including the Chinese High School and the Chung
    Cheng High School. Given the already tense situation between the
    Chinese-speaking people and the colonial authorities, this was a highly
    provocative act.

    At that time any Singaporean leader worth his salt could not have sat by
    idly. And so Lim Chin Siong came to the fore and spoke up for the students.
    The late Devan Nair, former Singapore president, joined in.

    A 12-day stay-in was organised at one of the schools and Lim Chin Siong
    was scheduled to speak at a nearby park one evening.

    It wasn’t long before the police appeared and ringed the crowd. Suddenly
    a mob started throwing stones at the police who then charged with batons and
    tear-gas.

    Violence erupted and spread, with police stations being attacked and cars
    burned. By the end of the chaos 2,346 people were arrested and more than a
    dozen Singaporeans were killed.

    The blame was squarely pinned on Lim Chin Siong who was arrested.

    But did Lim Chin Siong really cause the mayhem? Who was the “mob” that
    started attacking the police?

    At that time, Chief Minister Lim made no bones that the Lim Chin Siong
    was the front man for the communists who had started the violence. Lim was
    arrested by the Special Branch the following day.

    Lim vehemently denied this accusation and countered that the chief
    minister was a colonial stooge. As declassified documents now reveal, Lim Chin
    Siong was largely right.

    Entitled Extract from a note of a meeting between Secretary of State and
    Singapore Chief Minister, 12 December 1956, the archival note recorded that it
    was Chief Minister Lim who “had provoked the riots and this had enabled the
    detention of Lim Chin Siong.”

    Poulgrain even documents that full-scale military assistance was
    requested by prior arrangement. Singapore Governor, William Goode,
    acknowledged that the colonial government was not beyond employing the tactic
    of provoking a riot and then using the outcome to “achieve a desired political
    result.”

    Indeed, Poulgrain noted that “[Public Record Office] documents show these
    were the tactics of provocation that were employed in the 1956 riots that led
    to Lim Chin Siong’s arrest.”

    A few weeks after Lim Chin Siong was behind bars, Lim Yew Hock visited
    London in December 1956 and was “warmly congratulated on the outcome by Alan
    Lennox-Boyd, Secretary of State for the Colonies.”

    And yet, in his memoirs, the Minister Mentor concludes that the Malayan
    Communist Party “in charge of Lim Chin Siong” were behind the whole affair and
    that Lim Yew Hock had purged Singapore of the communist ringleaders.

    .and the talks are resurrected

    And so in the 1957 with Lim Chin Siong under detention, Lim Yew Hock led
    the delegation to London. But during the negotiations, it was Lee who “played
    a crucial role in sweeping away the earlier obstacles to agreement on internal
    security by resurrecting the proposal for an Internal Security Council (ISC).”

    The ISC was structured in a way that Britain and Malaya outweighed
    Singapore in the outfit. Why was the PAP supportive of such an arrangement?

    Historian Simon Ball said it best: “Lee wanted an elected government but
    not one that could be blamed for suppressing its own citizens.”

    Even more damning was an archival “Top Secret” document that recorded:
    “Lee was confidentially said that he values the [Internal Security] Council as
    a potential ‘scape-goat’ for unpopular measures he will wish to take against
    subversive activities.”

    But the PAP continues the charade. Recall what Dr Ow Chin Hock wrote in
    his letter in 1996 about the arrest of Lim Chin Siong and other Barisan
    leaders: “The [ISC] had a British chairman, two British members, one Malaysian
    members and three Singaporean members. Together these four non-Singaporeans
    outnumbered the three Singaporeans on the council.”

    In any event, unlike the one led by David Marshall, the negotiations in
    1957 had little spine and gave away too much of Singaporeans’ rights. As a
    result, both sides expeditiously reached an agreement for self-government, an
    agreement that Marshall called “tiga suku busok merdeka” (three-quarters
    rotten independence).

    But self-government was not the only subject being discussed. On the
    side, the British also wanted to introduce a clause that would bar
    ex-detainees, or subversives as the authorities called them, from standing for
    elections.

    Lee supported such a move – one that he would surely have known would
    cripple party comrade Lim Chin Siong’s political career.

    In his memoirs, however, Lee Kuan Yew wrote: “I objected to [the
    introduction of the clause] saying that ‘the condition is disturbing both
    because it is a departure from the democratic practice and because there is no
    guarantee that the government in power will not use this procedure to prevent
    not only the communist but also democratic opponents of their policy from
    standing for elections’.”

    A declassified British memo contradicts this: “Lee Kuan Yew was secretly
    a party with Lim Yew Hock in urging the Colonial Secretary to impose the
    ‘subversives ban’.”

    Perhaps this is not surprising as the British had noted that the “present
    leadership of the PAP is obsessed with the need to persuade the politically
    unsophisticated masses that the PAP is ‘on their side’ and this involves
    demonstrating that the PAP is not a friend of the foreigner.”

    And this is perhaps the reason why Lee told Britain’s Secretary of State,
    Alan Lennox-Boyd: “I will have to denounce [the clause]. You will have to take
    responsibility.”

    London to the rescue.again

    A few months after Lee returned from the constitutional talks in London
    in March 1957, the PAP conducted elections of its executive council. Lim Chin
    Siong was still under detention and could not challenge Lee for the party’s
    leadership.

    Lim’s supporters, however, outnumbered Lee’s rightwing faction and were
    elected to the executive council of the PAP.

    The British, through Lim Yew Hock who was by then “viewed as an
    altogether more compliant tool of the security apparatus,” ordered the arrest
    of Lim Chin Siong’s supporters, thereby securing Lee Kuan Yew’s continued
    control of the party.

    Harper records, that despite Lee’s protests against the crackdown of his
    party’s leftwing, “not all were convinced of his innocence in the matter.”

    In his 1998 memoirs, Lee Kuan Yew describes the fateful detention of the
    PAP’s leftwing leaders by giving much prominence to Lim Yew Hock’s decision
    while adroitly playing down the role of the British.

    After the talks in 1957, and given the stubbornness of Marshall and Lim
    in the 1956 talks, the British were persuaded that Lee was their man.

    Another set of talks were arranged in May 1958 and thereafter “there was
    an unspoken assumption that the PAP would govern after the 1959 elections.”

    Writer T J S George repeated this observation that “repeated [British]
    intervention to ensure Lee Kuan Yew’s political survival confirmed the feeling
    that Lee was by now Britain’s chosen man for Singapore.”

    Poulgrain recounted his own experience with British intelligence officers
    who were operating in Singapore in the early 1960s. One told him about a group
    of officers who were listening in on Lee Kuan Yew making a speech, railing
    against British imperialism.

    “The diatribe,” Poulgrain writes, “brought only a jocular response from
    this group, one of whom openly commented that Lee was going a ‘bit over the
    top’ considering that he was actually ‘working with us.'”

    The historian states plainly that Lee Kuan Yew personified the essential
    long-term interests of the United Kingdom in Singapore.

    Lee himself played up this position when he told the British government
    that the PAP was really London’s “best ally.”

    The British agreed. Secret documents now show that London’s assessment
    was that Lim Chin Siong was increasingly bringing pressure to bear on Her
    Majesty’s Government and “unless forestalled by Lee, may well be able to make
    the pressure decisive.”

    Lee was grateful. He indicated that “he and his other reputed moderates
    in the PAP regard the continued presence of the British in Singapore as an
    assurance for themselves.”

    From then on, despite the British concerns of Lee’s “totalitarian streak
    that rides roughshod over all opposition or criticism”, Lee’s PAP and London
    “became locked closer together.”

    Part II: Get him!

    In the next instalment read how an emboldened Lee Kuan Yew, with British
    backing, officially breaks with Lim Chin Siong. To be posted tomorrow. You
    won’t want to miss this.

    Preview:

    In his memoirs, Lee wrote that “Lim Chin Siong wanted to eliminate the
    Internal Security Council because he knew that.if it ordered the arrest and
    detention of the communist leaders, the Singapore government could not be held
    responsible and be stigmatized a colonial stooge.”

    What the Minister Mentor did not say, but what Harper reveals in his
    chapter, is shockingly contradictory: “In mid-1961, therefore, to seek a way
    out, Lee suggested to the British that his government should order the release
    of all [the remaining] detainees, but then have that order countermanded in
    the ISC by Britain and Malaya.”

    Such a craven act was even rebuffed by the British. The acting
    Commissioner, Philip Moore, stated that the British should not be “party to a
    device for deliberate misrepresentation of responsibility for continuing
    detentions in order to help the PAP government remain in power.” (emphasis
    added)

    Lim Chin Siong vs Lee Kuan Yew: The true and shocking history

    Introduction
    Part I: Our man
    Online discussion

    Part II: Get him!
    9 Jul 07

    After securing control of the PAP with the aid of the British, Lee Kuan
    Yew was still left with the problem of the detained Lim Chin Siong and his
    supporters.

    This was a source of embarrassment for him. Seeing this, Lee announced
    that he would secure the release of his party comrades before taking office if
    the PAP won the elections in 1959.

    Behind the scenes, Lee negotiated and secured the private agreement of
    then British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan that the prisoners would be
    released by promising that he (Lee) would “move against them if they departed
    from the party line.”

    In return for promising to secure their release, Lee had secured Lim Chin
    Siong’s and other detainees’ pledges of allegiance to the party’s manifesto.

    Following PAP’s victory in the 1959 election, Lim and six other
    detainees, were released.

    Question: If Lim Chin Siong had really been the one who started the riots
    in 1956, shouldn’t he have been charged and imprisoned, rather then released?

    In truth the PAP and the British themselves were playing fast and loose
    with the law. The affair confirmed suspicions that all the backroom dealings
    was for political ends, not national security.

    In any event, Lee assigned Lim – who, if not for all the machinations,
    would have been the leader of the PAP and prime minister – the post of
    political secretary in the ministry of finance, the Siberia of politics at
    that time.

    In the meantime, detentions without trial continued under the new Lee
    government and the ISC continued to be used as a front for the PAP’s acts.

    An indecent proposal

    Fed-up with Lee’s autocratic style and the delay of releasing the
    remaining detainees, PAP MP and mayor Ong Eng Guan denounced the government
    for its dictatorial methods and moved a motion in the Legislative Assembly to
    abolish the ISC.

    Harper wrote that because of the secrecy under which the ISC operated
    “not all members of Lee’s cabinet were aware that the Singapore government had
    not pressed for the releases since early 1960.”

    In his memoirs, Lee wrote that “Lim Chin Siong wanted to eliminate the
    Internal Security Council because he knew that.if it ordered the arrest and
    detention of the communist leaders, the Singapore government could not be held
    responsible and be stigmatized a colonial stooge.”

    What the Minister Mentor did not say, but what Harper reveals in his
    chapter, is shockingly contradictory: “In mid-1961, therefore, to seek a way
    out, Lee suggested to the British that his government should order the release
    of all [the remaining] detainees, but then have that order countermanded in
    the ISC by Britain and Malaya.”

    Such a craven act was even rebuffed by the British. The acting
    Commissioner, Philip Moore, stated that the British should not be “party to a
    device for deliberate misrepresentation of responsibility for continuing
    detentions in order to help the PAP government remain in power.” (emphasis
    added)

    Moore suggested that the best solution would be “to release all the
    detainees forthwith.” Lee, however, “was unwilling to present the left with
    such a victory.”

    In a most damning indictment, Moore said that Lee “has lived a lie about
    the detainees for too long, giving the Party the impression that he was
    pressing for their release while, in fact, agreeing in the ISC that they
    should remain in detention.”

    And if one thought that Lee Kuan Yew could not sink any lower, he did. He
    turned to his saviours and warned that should he lose in an upcoming
    by-election, he would call for a general election, which he fully expected to
    lose.

    This was because he was facing defections in the Legislative Assembly on
    his refusal to release the remaining detainees. And should he lose the
    elections, he warned the colonial masters, David Marshall, Ong Eng Guan and
    Lim Chin Siong would form the next government.

    This, he calculated, would be so distasteful to the British that it would
    rally them to his side.

    He presented the scheme at a dinner with Commissioner Lord Selkirk,
    Philip Moore (Selkirk’s deputy), and Goh Keng Swee: Lee would order the
    release of the prisoners, the British would stop it through the ISC, and he
    would then announce a referendum on merger with Malaya (the story behind
    merger is explained below).

    This would provoke opposition from his party mates as well as Lim’s
    supporters whom he would then banish to Malaya.

    A 1961 memo between the then Commission in Singapore and the Colonial
    Office in London revealed that Lee calculated that this move “would force Lim
    Chin Siong to reveal his hand completely and resort to direct action, in which
    event the Singapore Government would relinquish power and allow the British or
    the Federation to take over Singapore.”

    In short, Lee was willing to sacrifice the efforts to secure the
    independence of Singapore to achieve his own political ends!

    As it turned out, Selkirk wanted to have nothing to do with the
    “unsavoury” proposal.

    Merger – on one condition

    At about this time, Malaya’s Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman revived
    the idea of a federation of Malaysia consisting of the Borneo territories (now
    Sarawak, Sabah, and Brunei), Malaya (now peninsular Malaysia), and Singapore.

    In exchange for territorial concessions in Borneo, the Tunku as the head
    of the federation would allow Britain to maintain a strategic presence in
    Singapore.

    The proposal was put forward because the Tunku was having problems of his
    own with the left in Malaya. This was not helped by the strength of Lim Chin
    Siong’s left in Singapore. Kuala Lumpur saw the necessity of crippling Lim’s
    support and wanted Lee to be its hit-man.

    For the British, the idea of a Malaysian federation was an acceptable
    compromise because it allowed London to maintain influence in the region while
    relinquishing its colony which it was going to lose anyway given the
    irresistible anti-colonial sentiment fanning the globe at that time.

    As for Lee Kuan Yew, the idea was heaven sent. Harper documents that Lee
    saw the Tunku’s concept of a “Malaysia” as crucial to his own political
    survival because of the growing strength of the left.

    The left’s strength was amply demonstrated when Lee’s rightwing faction
    lost two by-elections in quick succession – the first to Ong Eng Guan in April
    1961 (Hong Lim) and the second three months later to David Marshall (Anson).

    Lee was rattled. Then PAP chairman, Toh Chin Chye, recalled: “He was
    quite shocked. He drew me aside after the results were announced and asked me
    what to do. I said, ‘Hang on!'”

    Toh also revealed that Lee had written to him that “the trade unions, the
    Middle Road crowd wanted him to resign” and that they wanted him to replace
    Lee as the prime minister.

    Toh did not recommend Lee’s resignation. But the reason he gave was that
    it “would divide the government and it would appear to the people of Singapore
    that we were being unsteady,” hardly a ringing endorsement of Lee’s
    leadership.

    These developments precipitated an open split between Lee and Lim Chin
    Siong. Lim’s group suspected – correctly – that Lee was up to no good in his
    pursuit of merger with Malaysia and they openly called for the abolition of
    the ISC.

    In July 1961, legislative assemblymen, parliamentary/organising
    secretaries, and members of the PAP split from the party and formed the
    Barisan Sosialis. Lee’s party was shaved to bare bones.

    At the time, Harper writes, “there was an immense political momentum, a
    sense that the future lay with the Barisan Sosialis.”

    Even then, Lim Chin Siong never wavered in his commitment to governing
    Singapore in a democratic way when he wrote in a press statement that “any
    constitutional arrangement must not mean a setback for the people in terms of
    freedom and democracy.”

    This contrasts with the PAP’s demonisation of Lim as a front for the
    communist out to destroy the democratic way.

    Closing in on Lim

    Meanwhile In Malaya the Tunku insisted that Lee re-arrest Lim Chin Siong
    before he would allow Singapore into the federation.

    One of the reasons was because if the detention was conducted after
    merger, the Kuala Lumpur government would be responsible for it and it would
    be seen as cracking down on the Chinese in Singapore, increasing communal
    tensions.

    As for Lee’s part, he saw the detention of Lim as his trump card and
    wanted to secure the merger first before he moved against the Barisan leader;
    Abdul Rahman would have no incentive to proceed with merger once the threat of
    Lim was removed.

    But the Tunku was firm: No detention of Lim, no merger. Lee knew he had
    to act.

    And so a two-part plan was hatched to bait Lim and colleagues: “In the
    first phase, the Barisan would be harassed by the police and the government.
    This was designed to provoke it into unconstitutional action, which would
    initiate a second phase of detentions, restrictions and other actions to be
    sanctioned by the ISC.”

    Lim’s opposition of allowing the British to retain powers of detention
    during the constitutional talks in 1956 rang truer than ever and Marshall’s
    colourful description of “Christmas pudding and arsenic sauce” were beginning
    to sound very apt.

    The diabolical scheme was vehemently opposed by the British Commission in
    Singapore. Lord Selkirk told his superiors in London that “in fact I believe
    that both of them (Abdul Rahman and Lee Kuan Yew) wish to arrest the effective
    political opposition and blame us for doing so.”

    In the months leading up to Lim’s arrest, Selkirk wrote to his superiors
    in London again, imploring them not to cooperate with Lee:

    “Lee is probably very much attracted to the idea of destroying his
    political opponents. It should be remembered that there is behind all this a
    very personal aspect.he claims he wishes to put back in detention the very
    people who were released at his insistence – people who are intimate
    acquaintances, who have served in his government, and with whom there is a
    strong sense of political rivalry which transcends ideological differences.”

    Contrast this to what Lee wrote in his memoirs in 1998: “Lim Chin
    Siong.knew that if he went beyond certain limits, [the ISC] would act.”

    Lim need not have gone “beyond certain limits” as declassified documents
    now reveal, Lee was determined to put him in prison, communist or not, limits
    or no.

    More shamefully, Lee will not admit that he was the one who had pushed
    for Lim’s detention.

    Selkirk’s deputy, Philip Moore, reviewed intelligence reports and
    concluded that there were no security reasons to detain Lim Chin Siong: “Lim
    is working very much on his own and that his primary objective is not the
    Communist millennium but to obtain control of the constitutional government of
    Singapore.”

    But London was determined not to allow democratic scruples from getting
    in the way of its strategic presence in Southeast Asia. It acquiesced to Lee’s
    plan.

    Part III: The end of Lim Chin Siong

    The next instalment will examine the treatment of Lim Chin Siong in Lee
    Kuan Yew’s hands. More evidence of Lim’s persecution.

    Lim Chin Siong vs Lee Kuan Yew: The true and shocking history

    Introduction
    Part I: Our man
    Part II: Get him!
    Online discussion

    Part III: The end of Lim Chin Siong
    9 Jul 07

    In February 1963 the ISC, under the direction of Lee, ordered Operation
    Coldstore where 113 opposition leaders, trade unionists, journalists, and
    student leaders who supported the left were arrested. Top of the list was, of
    course, Lim Chin Siong.

    Historian Matthew Jones recorded that the arrests “primarily reflected
    the imperative felt by the decision-makers in London to respond to the needs
    and demands of the nationalist elites.”

    Not for the first time, the British had come to the rescue of Lee Kuan
    Yew.

    Behind bars, torture and psychological abuse were meted out in liberal
    doses. Amnesty International documented much of this in a report in 1981.

    The state of Lim Chin Siong under detention makes for sordid reading.
    According to (the late) Dennis Bloodworth, Lim came close to taking his own
    life while in detention. He had gone into depression. In 1965, when he was at
    the Singapore General Hospital Lim tried to hang himself from a pipe in the
    toilet. He was rescued just in time. After he recovered he was sent back to
    prison.

    Four years later, he penned a letter to his former
    comrade-turned-arch-enemy and capitulated, saying that he had “finally come to
    the conclusion to give up politics for good” and repudiated the “international
    communist movement.”

    Even then, Lee banished Lim to London in 1969 and allowed him to return
    to Singapore only ten years later.

    What kind of treatment Lim received at the hands of his foes that turned
    him from a spirited and charismatic national leader who walked tall among his
    people into a forlorn political non-entity, Singaporeans can only imagine.

    For Lim is not talking, he passed away in February 1996, forever carrying
    his secrets with him to his grave.

    It was not Britain’s finest hour. Far from the honest-broker that
    everyone had expected Britain to be, the UK Government had actively engineered
    Lim’s downfall and Lee Kuan Yew’s capture of the prime ministership.

    As it is, the historic account is hardly a heroic tale of the PAP’s
    courageous triumph over the Barisan, as official accounts would have us
    believe.

    Instead, declassified documents now show that it was a sad tale of
    private dealings and cowardly machinations for the attainment of power.

    At his funeral which overflowed with his former Barisan comrades and
    supporters, eulogies recounting Lim’s selfless dedication to a free and
    democratic Singapore were read. As his casket was pushed into the furnace, a
    thunderous and defiant applause resounded.

    Referendum: To merger or to merge?

    After having fulfilled his promise to Tunku Abdul Rahman to arrest Lim
    Chin Siong before merger, Lee set his sights on taking Singapore into
    Malaysia. He called for a referendum to obtain the people’s mandate for the
    move, a decision that Britain and the Tunku objected to.

    A referendum was hardly necessary as Lim and other Barisan leaders were
    behind bars. One suspects that a vote was needed to give the PAP the mandate
    to move in this direction.

    Indeed Lee, with not little false bravado, wrote in his memoirs: “I
    remained determined that there should be referendum.”

    Democratic? Hardly. Instead of asking Singaporeans to vote for ‘yes’ or
    ‘no’ to merger, Lee proposed a ballot that allowed the people to vote only for
    merger under three options:

    Do you want merger?
    A. in accordance with the white paper, or
    B. on the basis of Singapore as a constituent state of the Federation of
    Malaya, or
    C. on terms no less favourable than those given to the three Borneo
    territories?

    And so after the referendum in September 1962, Singapore moved one step
    closer to becoming a part of an independent Malaysia.

    Regrettable but necessary?

    Lee Kuan Yew, would have us believe as he wrote in his memoirs, that the
    use of detention without trial was “most regrettable but, from my personal
    knowledge of the communists, absolutely necessary.”

    Harper dismisses this argument: “It was.inadmissible to argue, as Lee
    Kuan Yew did, that the exercise of these powers was ‘regrettable’, but
    dictated by historical necessity.”

    The truth is that “through this adversity.the Barisan Sosialis still
    adhered to constitutional tactics.”

    Indeed, in the entire campaign to cripple the opposition, Lee Kuan Yew
    and his rightwing PAP faction has repeatedly resorted to using desperate
    measures of detention without trial, brazenly accusing his opponents of being
    a front for the communists.

    Harper makes it even more explicit:

    “After 1959, Lee Kuan Yew had urged the necessity of defeating the
    radical left through open democratic argument, whilst trying to provoke them
    into extra-legal action. The left, however, had not been deflected from
    constitutional struggle. Therefore, from mid-1962 at least, Lee concluded that
    this confrontation could only be resolved by resort to special powers that lay
    beyond the democratic process. This merely exposed the extent to which the
    crisis, as the British argued, a political one, and not a security one.”

    The last chapter

    Lim Chin Siong’s fight for Singapore may have come to a close, but
    another one is just beginning – the fight for history to be written the way it
    should be.

    Declassified secret papers are beginning to provide a glimpse into what
    really took place during the 1950s and 60s, especially in the
    behind-the-scenes dealings.

    Beginning with Comet In Our Sky more will be revealed. But as Harper
    tells us “many files remain closed and many files that have been released have
    had key documents ‘retained’ by the original government department.” These
    include key documents on Lim Chin Siong’s detention in Operation Coldstore in
    1963.

    As the real story emerges, the Singapore Democrats will play our part to
    urge this process along – in cyberspace – thus ensuring that the memory of Lim
    Chin Siong and what he and his Barisan colleagues did for Singapore will
    forever remain with us.

    This is crucial as our past is still our present. Lim had argued that
    arbitrary powers of detention without trial, in whoever’s hands be they white
    or yellow, will continue to make Singapore unfree and our struggle for
    independence elusive.

    “The people ask for fundamental democratic rights,” he argued, “but what
    have they got? They have only got freedom of firecrackers after seven o’clock
    in the evening. The people ask for bread and they have been given stones
    instead.”

    More than half a century later, can any Singaporeans say with hand on
    heart that Lim Chin Siong was not right?

    .

    Follow-Ups:
    Re: This is how Lee Kuan Yew cheated and double crossed Lim Chin Siong
    From: truth

    References:
    This is how Lee Kuan Yew cheated and double crossed Lim Chin Siong
    From: truth

    Prev by Date: Re: Wahhhh … now,old man want to sue anyone who say negative remarks on him
    Next by Date: Re: Who won…CSJ or LKY !
    Previous by thread: This is how Lee Kuan Yew cheated and double crossed Lim Chin Siong
    Next by thread: Re: This is how Lee Kuan Yew cheated and double crossed Lim Chin Siong
    Index(es):
    Date
    Thread

    Relevant Pages

    This is how Lee Kuan Yew cheated and double crossed Lim Chin Siong
    … Lim Chin Siong vs Lee Kuan Yew: … It will forever change how you see Lee Kuan Yew and the PAP … Government seems intent to seal this version in the annals of Singapore. … Top-secret documents held by the British Government, now declassified, …
    (soc.culture.singapore)
    This is already history….
    … independence for Singapore. … became founder members of the PAP on 21 November 1954. … Lim Chin Siong was elected as Assemblyman for the Bukit Timah … Lee Kuan Yew eventually accused Lim Chin Siong and his supporters of being …
    (soc.culture.singapore)
    Re: This is how Lee Kuan Yew cheated and double crossed Lim Chin Siong
    … Lim Chin Siong vs Lee Kuan Yew: … It will forever change how you see Lee Kuan Yew and the PAP … Government seems intent to seal this version in the annals of Singapore. … Top-secret documents held by the British Government, …
    (soc.culture.singapore)
    Lee Kuan Yew is the new Colonial Master
    … Singapore was a British Colony until 1959 when we were … Malaysia war trouble times with the Singapore government … Lee Kuan Yew and his gangsters are in some aspects worst …
    (soc.culture.singapore)
    Lee Kuan Yew talks cock Pt 2.
    … Lee Kuan Yew claimed that Singapore could not exist without him. … Singapore was a vibrant entreport city even … It was the HQ and nerve centre of the British …
    (soc.culture.singapore)

    5
    Flag as inappropriate
    (11)

    derkeiler.com

    Security
    UNIX
    Linux
    Coding
    Usenet

    Archive
    About
    Privacy
    Search
    Imprint

    Path: newsgroups.derkeiler.com > Archive > Soc > soc.culture.singapore > 2008-05 Print as PDF Bookmark and Share RSS Feed

  23. Lim said

    “Take public housing for example, it should be a about simple basic housing, and we should be happy in getting just a simple 3 room flat. Instead government is giving us more choices” – now it is profiting like private developers and forgetting it’s primary role. If it had stuck to 3-room flats for Singaporeans only – we would not face unaffordable homes at market subsidies now- in other words – corporate greed.
    “We import almost everything we need here and exporting countries are raising prices for there products and every country is facing this inflation problem”- please don’t blame global imported inflation. Our inflation is domestically produced -like inflated housing, transport from bevy of artificial costs like COE, ERP, monopolised sky-high rentals, exorbitant HSA fees for medicine and medical devices, etc

  24. Richard said

    Are u still sleeping desmond do u study maths in primary school nothing is cheap all profit higher than unexpected like HDB.

  25. CB said

    appreciate ???? appreciate my dick ????

  26. Wah…what they have done for Singaporeans? This must be the only country in the world where STATE HOUSING is so expensive that you have to pay over much of your work life!! And it doesn’t belong to you in the end! Where in the world do you find LEASED state housing so expensive that many cannot afford on one income??

  27. Barnabas Di Xanxus L' Dante said

    this guy deserve an umbrella up his ***

  28. Sinkaypoh said

    Desmond is aiming for Mahbok Tan’s job lah!
    Singapore sucks the most money from its people & gives back the second least in the world… not I say, so says here :
    http://www.baldingsworld.com/

  29. To Desmond Chua Aik Huang:I bought a 5,600 sq ft freehold semi-d for 58k in 1970s. Can u get a terraced hse 1,800 sq ft for 58k or even quadruple 58k? In year 2000, I bought a terrace about 3,000 sq ft this time for 1.35m. Can u get a terraced of 1,600sq ft for 2m now? Why can’t u??
    Is the relentless influx of FTs a reckless measure taken by the PAPies at the grave expense of us sinkie commoners? Wherein lies any future for the middle- and lower middle- commoners and their children given that sinkieland is increasingly being gobbled up by FTs who make their fortunes speculating on our property prices and then creaming off their capital gains that aint subject to prop tax by our govt?? Is PAPie govt not protecting FTs sore expense??
    Think again, Desmond Chua Aik Huang, unless u’re a diehard PAPie bootlicker with a closed mind to PAPies’ policies affecting sinkies adversely.

  30. Corrigendum: “Is Papie govt not protecting FTs sore expense” in my post above shd read as “Is Papie govt not protecting FTs at the sore expense of middle- and lower- middle class locals??”

  31. Jason Ng said

    Yes, they had done alot for the people, but they had done very very very alot for themselves, lah!!! Let say 10% for the p eople and 90% for themselves. So what they based on was their own and those high level civil servants, their trusted friends!!! Surveys carried out by local organizations please discount them, at what % you consider what is appropriate!!!

  32. Singapuraboi said

    There is a huge disconnect here. What right hand is doing, the left hand is not supporting. Yes, I think it is good that govt is giving the people lots of housing options. The situation is like opening many jewellery stores in say Ethiopia. While people r fretting over survival issues, these options r nothing more than obnoxious. With salaries dropping due to over supply of foreign talents and locals losing their jobs, basic housing is getting expensive as more people stress out the need for land and this driving land prices up. Then throw in inflation and construction costs r going sky high. Salaries re moving down one end of the equilibrium and cost of housing is heading the other direction. U can just imagine the financial stress. And Desmond, it is naive and shallow of u to think that everyone is selling their HDB flats for profit and thus deserve to be on the dire straits they r in. Have u not been reading the papers carefully? Many of the housing petitions r coming from young about to be married couples. Besides there r many reasons people sell their HDB apart from profit. Do get off ur high horse here. Stop. Wong the belligerent PAPist that always assume the worst of people. A home is sacred to many and no one would make light of selling their house. I m a real estate agent andanipulate investors buying a second property will never sell their HDB unless they absolutely have to. Some hold one to HDb as a legacy for future generations. Some hold on to in because it is their diet matrimonial home and they r sentimental. Housing prices cannot come down unless the govt sells the land cheap. And this is definitely something within their control to do so. However Hdb is already giving subsidies for new BTO which in a way is giving back to the people. Plus HDB loan while high in interest protect that roof over your head, meaning u don’t get kick out of ur house should u run into financial difficulties.

  33. P Koh said

    Give credit where credit is due. Singapore has done well through the years and became a first world country through the combined efforts of both citizens and government. Now that there are flaws in recent years over many issues that have caused social problems so instead of cursing and swearing, let the government lead the way with the help of concerned citizens to find a way to have a soft landing and carry out the repair works before the hole of discontentment becomes too large to handle.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: