The majority of Singaporeans give the government a drumstick and take back a chicken.

“The majority of Singaporeans give the government a drumstick and take back a chicken.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐮𝐩 𝐨𝐟 𝐮𝐧𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐮𝐧𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐡, 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞, 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬, 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐣𝐨𝐛𝐬, 𝐞𝐭𝐜 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐚 𝐥𝐨𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫.

𝐈𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐮𝐭 𝐚 𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐮𝐬 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐤 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐧.

Much of our unhappiness stems from our inability to value the chicken and the drumstick properly.

The smaller number of Singaporeans who actually give the government a chicken and take back a drumstick usually do not complain.

It could be because they know that in other countries, they might have to give up a bigger chicken and/or take back a smaller drumstick. Or it could be they realise that not all countries have the necessary set of favourable conditions to allow them to earn the same amount of money to be required to give the government a chicken.

Some of them feel that it is only fair for the better off to give a chicken and receive a drumstick from the government.”

 

'Give a chicken wing, take back a whole chicken.'

'Give a chicken wing, take back a whole chicken.'

This nonsensical argument is used to dampen people's mood - whenever the government has something good to announce - lest people forget to be angry with the government. It is used to keep people dissatisfied. After all, what can be good if you have to give back a whole chicken whenever you receive a chicken wing?

It works on people who do not think.

How does a government take from citizens. Through taxes.

If you're giving back a whole chicken for a chicken wing that you receive, then you must be paying lots in taxes and outgiving the government even. Are you?

If a chicken is worth 10 chicken wings, and you receive $700 in GST cash (=chicken wing), are you giving back $7000 in taxes (a whole chicken)?

Who gets that 'chicken wing' often used in this argument, the extra that is meant to help the more vulnerable?

These are the lower and middle-income earners. The lower-income group gets S$4 in benefits for every dollar of tax they pay. The middle-income earners get S$2. No one who receives a chicken wing outgives the government.

 

Jamus Lim takes credit for MAS' strengthening of the Singapore dollar

Harsh words but very true.

It is the forex market forces at work and MAS' tightening move is in response to the strength of the USD and not as per Jamus' theoretical and hypothetical suggestion.

Does Jamus really think that MAS' move was in response to his suggestion in Parliament? He must be really naive.

 

Yee Jenn Jong is upset with transparency for Workers' Party

The double standard is very pronounced.

WP calls for freedom of information and transparency and accountability but don't want these for themselves.

Isn't it precisely because Parliament does not sit until next year that the report of a matter as important as this should be posted on Parliament website? This is especially so when WP had given their side of the story at their press conference.

Where exactly does Yee Jenn Jong stand on this matter of integrity, seeing that he is so busy defending the leadership?

Indeed, what is the position of the other leaders in the party, the elected MPs in particular, now that all knew that their top leadership sat in Parliament with full knowledge of the lie and did nothing about it?

Do they agree with the actions of their leader which can be seen to be complicit in Raeesah's lies?

We have no intention of legalising drugs. We must decide what works for Singapore, and not just follow what others are doing.

We cannot afford to be complacent. We know from our experience that once a society becomes hooked on drugs, it takes huge effort and a long time to wean off the addiction.

We will face challenges in future because first, the trend in many countries is to legalise drugs, in particular cannabis, for recreational use. Many of these countries have been unable to control their domestic drug situation and have decided to legalise drugs, in a bid to regain some control over the situation. Some countries have also lured been by the economic benefits of regulating the recreational use of drugs.

Whatever the motivation, these countries have advocated for a harm-reduction approach, which encourages “safer” use of drugs.

But this can easily go awry, despite their best intentions.

Singapore has our own case study. In 2002, Subutex was introduced as a legal prescription for treating opioid addiction. But some people started abusing Subutex as an alternative to heroin, injecting themselves to get a “high”. Within a few years, the number of Subutex abusers and Subutex-associated deaths increased significantly. At the same time, Subutex abusers were discarding their needles in public areas. Young children and the elderly were at risk of getting hurt from the needles, or worse, contracting some disease. We decided to put a stop to this. In 2006, Singapore listed Subutex as a controlled drug, and CNB mounted swift operations to wipe out Subutex from our streets.

We learnt a painful lesson from Subutex. We are under increasing pressure, both externally and internally, for us to consider legalising drugs. But we have no intention of doing so. We must decide what works for Singapore, and not just follow what others are doing.

Second, our youths today are frequently exposed to alternative lifestyles on social media. Drug use may be glamourised, giving the impression that using drugs is harmless, or even cool. Based on annual surveys conducted by the National Council Against Drug Abuse (NCADA), the attitudes of youths towards drugs are gradually becoming more liberal. This is a very worrying trend. We must push hard against it, to prevent our children and grandchildren from becoming the next generations of drug abusers.

CNB therefore needs to strengthen our national drug education efforts. Continue to find new ways to reach out and engage the population.

But the rest of us have a part to play too; to correct misinformation about drugs, to speak up against drug abuse within our social circles, to say “no” to drugs.

Collectively as a nation, we must continue to understand, believe in, and support Singapore’s zero-tolerance approach towards drugs.

- Excerpt of speech by PM Lee at CNB's 50 Anniversary

Yaw Shin Leong is sticking to his assertion that he was advised to stay silent

 

Yaw Shin Leong is sticking to his assertion that he was advised to stay silent.

"Whoever involved would know what happened. After staying silent for the past 10 years, I am not resurfacing this for any reason other than to put on record that accountability was done."

That's his response to WP's statement denying that they advised him to stay silent.

Yaw Shin Leong said he was advised by Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim to stay silent.

If you keep covering up, the past will soon catch up with you.

Yaw Shin Leong (also known as Amos Rao) wrote:

Moments ago, an ex-WP cadre pointed to me the video recordings of Workers’ Party chief Pritam Singh’s press conference held on Dec 2, 2021. At the 9.35 mark, Pritam commented that:

‘Yaw Shin Leong did not account himself to the party after the allegations were made. I think he did not address the media, did not address the party. The party was willing to give him some space to get himself organized, but this just went on and it went on, to a point where it was unreasonable conduct and this was not acceptable. And so, the party took the decision to fire him, to sack him.”

The above is not true. Even before the allegations have surfaced, I accounted the situation candidly to WP Secretary General LTK. When the allegations surfaced, I immediately accounted to both WP Secretary General LTK and Chairman Sylvia Lim. And I was advised to stay silent.

I placed party first before self and to minimize the fallout, I kept silent and resigned from WP CEC. My intention was to give WP CEC a blank cheque to paint the narrative required. To facilitate the process, I travelled out of Singapore voluntarily.

On 14th Feb 2012, I was expelled from WP for 'breaking the faith, trust & expectations of the party and people'. I am okay with this narrative, but I am not okay with what Pritam said, for I did account myself.

I am not entertaining any media queries and will leave the above as it is.

https://www.facebook.com/100010303231730/posts/1585679971785429/