SMRT Drivers Guilty and Game Over

WTF, bang table, kick chair and break bottle, after that obediently head down sit down and pleaded guilty.

The 4 Tiongs  knew that they sure lose the case as by law they organised an illegal strike and the court, urged on by AGC, would call for a harsh deterrence so that other foreigners can't take Singaporean companies hostage. AGC must have promised they would fight for the maximum of one year jail if the strike team contested in court.  Plus fine. Maybe also rotan. Maybe also Corrective Work Order.

AGC should wave the rotan about, figuratively. Yesterday it was SMRT buses and commuters inconvenienced because of the strike, tomorrow it might be food court cleaners, NTUC supermarkets check out staff, hospitals nurses and horror of horrors, maids doing a walk-out even. Foreigners are needed here, but not troublesome ones please. Lucky for them that they managed to get only 6-7 weeks jail, about no more than the first guy who pleaded guilty last year, who had also instigated the strikes.

The police are investigating the police beatings that some of the 4 Tiongs claimed happened to them during police questioning. If they were found to have fabricated the entire story to gain public sympathy, would those responsible be jailed again after they served their time for staging an illegal strike? Ouch. Be careful when opening doors with a kick, make sure it does not swing back into one's face. I think those Tiongs might need their lawyers again later.

Anyway, few lawyers would take up pro bono cases, especially ones that help these foreigners who caused disruptions in bus services while this anti-foreigner anger lingering in the air. Some of these lawyers might do it out of good hearts. Bless them. Some might do it as a marketing gimmick. Good luck to them. Which is the two for Peter Low's firm as it has been appearing more frequently recently? The firm has been boosting its image as lawyers taking on little-hope little-sympathy causes e.g. this SMRT strike case, and also a challenge of the legality of 377A. Thankfully, no longer is the David vs Goliath court scene dominated by Mad Ravi, which is better for everybody as Mad Ravi tended to turn his cases into sad jokes whenever his mental state had a Chernobyl meltdown. BTW weird creepy Gopalan Nair is not too happy with Peter Low over some old wounds.

Instigators of SMRT bus strike get jail
By Joy Fang
My Paper
Tuesday, Feb 26, 2013


SINGAPORE - The four former SMRT bus drivers from China who were charged with instigating an illegal strike last November were yesterday convicted and jailed for between six and seven weeks.

He Jun Ling, 32, who faced two charges of instigating and inciting other SMRT drivers to take part in the strike, was jailed seven weeks. The other men - Gao Yue Qiang, 32, Liu Xiangying, 33, and Wang Xianjie, 39 - faced one charge each and were jailed for six weeks.

The men had earlier claimed trial but, last Friday, their lawyers announced their decision to plead guilty after the prosecution gave an indication of various sentencing options.

It comes two months after former SMRT bus driver Bao Feng Shan, 38, was sentenced to six weeks' jail after pleading guilty to "commencing" the strike.

Yesterday, Senior District Judge See Kee Oon explained that he was of the view that the four drivers' culpability "cannot rank any less than that of Bao".

He added that a "particular aggravating factor" was that the four drivers were planning a large-scale strike. They did so "with the purpose of putting pressure on SMRT to accommodate their demands, but with the clear consciousness that it would cause disruption and inconvenience in the provision of transport services". The fact that they had pleaded guilty signified "their awareness that they could not justify taking the law into their own hands", said Mr See.

In mitigation, lawyers representing He and Liu said that both men had acted as a result of how SMRT dealt with their grievances. But the judge said that while it may well be the case, the present proceedings are "not the appropriate forum for an inquiry into these issues, much less the basis for a judgment on any perceived shortcomings on their employers' part".

joyfang@sph.com.sg

Lower Income Screwed by Inflation

We all know that already but facts reported and repeated. For the lowest 10% of households, real income drop by 1.2% per household member in 2012. BTW Inflation in 2012 was 4.6%. Budget coming soon, will this be addressed in the form of subsidies and rebates, to lessen the burden of inflation and shrinking wages as a result?

Median household income growth moderated in 2012
By Imelda Saad | Posted: 20 February 2013 1610 hrs

SINGAPORE: Singaporean households earned more from work last year compared to the year before, but wage growth moderated, with bottom earners being the hardest hit.

Despite the economy slowing down last year, wages continued to rise.

The median monthly household income from work grew in 2012 by 7.5 per cent in nominal terms, and 2.7 per cent in real terms after factoring inflation of about 4.6 per cent.

According to the Department of Statistics' latest report "Key Household Income Trends", household median income rose by S$530 -- from S$7,040 in 2011 to S$7,570 in 2012.

Despite the wage growth, the rate of increase actually moderated.

In 2011, real wage growth was 5.6 per cent.

Analysts put it down to several factors, including the economic slowdown and inflation.

Dr Tan Khay Boon, senior lecturer at SIM Global Education, said: "I believe this is linked to the economic growth rate, because our last year's economic growth has significantly slowed down -- although it's in the positive range, it has slowed down significantly.

"Wage growth may still be able to increase partly because of the tight labour market, but the increase will be more moderated because of the economic slowdown."

As for the lowest 10 per cent of households, they saw real income dropping by 1.2 per cent per household member in 2012, while the top 10 per cent of households saw real income growing by about 5 per cent.

Associate Professor Annie Koh, Vice President of Business Development and External Relations, Singapore Management University, said: "I think if you look at the bottom 10th percentile, again if you look at just the headline figures alone, you would be asking 'what are the jobs, what are the descriptions and what are they paid at', and essentially those wages do not move.

"So again with inflation variable being higher this year than last year, if your real wages went down, it's because your nominal wage did not change. Inflation hits you and therefore in real terms, you're actually taking back less."

The Gini Coefficient, which measures the wage gap, increased slightly to 0.478 last year, from 0.473 in 2011.

Government transfers like utilities rebates, GST Credits and Workfare Bonus helped to mitigate this gap. With such social transfers, the Gini Coefficient moderated to 0.459.

Figures also showed that Singaporeans who live in smaller flats received more of such transfers.

On average, resident households received more than S$1,300 of transfers per member, from the various government help schemes.

Those in 1- to 2-room public flats, received the most -- at over S$6,000 per household member, followed by those in 3-room HDB flats at S$1,530 per household member on average.

Analysts said that as a developed country, the income divide in Singapore would remain, but it could be managed.

They added that more could be done to help low wage earners.

Dr Tan said: "The more long-term issue is to help this group to move up the income level. That means provide education and training, provide job opportunities that are higher value-added for these group of people to move into."

But the outcome of re-skilling and enhanced productivity takes time. So analysts argued that year-on-year, the government needed to look into setting aside more funds for social transfers.

Assoc Prof Koh said: "So if you're looking at a budget surplus that's coming up, everyone's expecting it -- they'll say 'why isn't the government helping us as we tide over this period waiting for this upskilling to get the higher wages coming'."

With Singapore's Budget Statement coming out on Monday, analysts expect the government to dish out more help for the lower wage earners.

They said there is room for more social transfers to help with immediate needs and added that the government should press on with long-term efforts to help the low income group.

Assoc Prof Koh said: "There's definitely a need for us to look at inter-segment and inter-governmental transfers beyond just credit bonus for work, beyond just healthcare subsidies.

"Literally, I think there should be a longer transfer mechanism -- maybe not in terms of tax reliefs, because if you are in the low-income bracket you are not taxed at all."

"So how are you going to get better subsidies to help the buying power of the lower 10 per cent of our population?" added Assoc Prof Koh.

Protest Hong Lim Park Style!

Look daddy and mummy! I'm making a xenophobic loser statement that I think damn cool! Yeah! Xenophobes Not Dead!

Last Saturday's protest was an eye-opener! Ignoring the rain, people actually give a shit when it comes to livelihood bread and butter issues! Compared to the other liberal rights protests by at Hong Lim park when nobody goes except maybe the 5 journalists, 50 plainclothes mata and 5 hardcore supporters, which is almost like a PAP rally in the boredom-meter!

More foreigners, as far as the mob at the event think, means no jobs as they were stolen by foreigners, no wives as they stolen also by foreigners, no space on MRT trains, not enough housing, foreigners jacking up COE and buying Ferraris and beating red lights to crash into taxis at junctions.

Anyway if xenophobia is in the minds of the public's blame game on their woes, it's their right. Sure, blame the Other. Right. People are free to rant what they want at their own risk of being seen as whiners. What was funny was that Gilbert Goh was exposed as a xenophobic twat with that post stereotyping foreigners in Singapore. That comment on finding Viet women in Joo Chiat! LOL Even Siew Kum Hong TOC lawyer was so pissed that he said he rather have 2 million more foreigners than one more Gilbert Goh. Poor demagogue Gilbert. And he sabo the speakers in that xenophobic protest who did not know it was a xenophobic protest. Vincent Wijeysingha who was from TWC2 before had to explain that he was not xenophobic during his speech even, to distance himself from Gilbert publicly. His Home and TWC2 friends, busily helping PRC and Bangla workers must be facepalm the whole Saturday afternoon that Vincent got himself into this shit.

WP was not there as they are quite disciplined and restrained, cautious of being seen as opportunistic. Again, good instinct and leadership from Low Thia Khiang to keep WP away from such rabble. Imagine if WP went, seduced by what they thought was easy scoring of political points by just turning up at Hong Lim Park that afternoon. In the end as things fell apart, the stain of being xenophobic would have stuck on them too. Vincent from SDP was there. Ravi Philemon from NSP was also there. So it was actually like a mini-opposition unity minus WP rally, with president losers Tan Kin Lian and Tan Jee Say and all probably regretted their involvement with Gilbert Goh.

Cute kids but cock parents. Asking gina to carry these kind of placards is damn lame and low.

Ng Boon Gay is Free to Go

Well, the court, specifically District Judge Siva Shanmugam, implied that where Ng wanted to put and poke his dick is his own private and personal business, and a "corrupt" act that his in-laws should get involved in, not CPIB. In retrospect, the entire story behind this case was whether Cecilia Sue is chio or not, and whether she is more chio than Ng's wife, and finally whether Ng's wife should have stood by him or divorced him and get some serious alimony. Not whether Ng gave contracts for sex, which he had no power to as he did not deal with such contracts at all so it seemed.

All the controversy and speculation on who the mystery woman initially raged, and when Cecilia appeared finally, it climaxed. Although before that some poor people were wrongly outed in the internet as the woman who slept with the CNB chief. Singapore's number one political gossip and inner circle forum Sammyboy naturally had its fair share of insider leaks on what was happening e.g. Cecilia's colleague Koh Hong Eng desperately attempted to defend her by saying there was some government conspiracy to screw Ng.

Cecilia then caused some court drama when she insinuated that the CNB top cop forced himself on her. Oh-Oh. While "rape" was not mentioned, she managed to shoot holes into her own story by turning it upside down for CPIB that that there was no corruption and exchange of favours. The inconsistencies in her story screwed CPIB.

In the end, about one year after the first sex scandal of 2012 arose, there is no totally happy ending for poor Ng and Cecilia, their names jizzed on for public ridicule. Ng although acquitted, as a top civil servant of a cool outfit, his career is fucked coz of some extra-marital affair. Wrong woman, wrong time, wrong enemy. Some competitor in the IT business was probably angry with Oracle or Cecilia's fat government accounts, and that started the whole CPIB corruption and sex comedy. Office politics and backstabbing stakes much higher now as CPIB and the court is involved! Beware of who you offend at work and in the industry nowadays! The other side of the sharp sword - not sure of how to totally screw your rival and to get ahead? Well...smirk.

The other morale of this story, hurrah for the court. It has shown critics again that the judiciary can and is independent. CPB can think and hope all they want but the court might not give to them the head they wanted in the end.

Ng Boon Gay's "not guilty" verdict: AGC will assess whether to appeal decision
By Joyce Lim

The Attorney-General's Chambers says it has not decided whether it will appeal the not-guilty verdict of former top cop Ng Boon Gay.

A spokesman said: "We will assess the grounds of decision and assess whether to appeal or not".

Similarly, the prosecution will have to decide whether or not to charge star witness Cecilia Sue, 36.

Mr Ng, 46, the former head of the Central Narcotics Bureau, was found not guilty by District Judge Siva Shanmugam on Thursday afternoon.

He was accused of obtaining four counts of oral sex from Ms Sue in 2011, in exchange for furthering the business interests of her then employers, Hitachi Data Systems and Oracle Corporation Singapore.

Mr Ng's lawyer, Mr Tan Chee Meng, said they are "extremely happy with the outcome".

Mr Ng's wife, Madam Yap Yen Yen, was crying and holding a relative's hand when the judgment was being read out and when the judge accepted her husband's testimony to be true. Mr Ng looked calm.

Asked later if it was the best Valentine's Day present she had received, she nodded and smiled.

In his verdict, the judge said he found no ulterior motive or corrupt intent in what Ng did. He said both Mr Ng and Ms Sue's intentions were "innocuous", and that there was no reason to believe that her offer of oral sex was intended as an act of inducement.

Mr Ng could have been jailed up to five years and fined up to $100,000 for each of the four charges.

Mr Tan, who had put up a strong defence of Mr Ng, said it had been a tough year for his client and the latter wanted to extend his heartfelt gratitude to people who have supported him, including strangers.

Lost Your Job? Easy, Claim Sexual, Gay, Racist, Bigot, Foreigner Harassment or Unfairness and Sue!

Boo hoo hoo. The new normal now when you lose your job, blame the foreigner who stole your job. Blame the Ah Neh boss as racist if you are not Indian, and that the boss recruited his same kind Ah Neh to replace you. The most recent excuse, blame the boss who dislikes gays.

Sometimes as bosses we don't get along with kar kias as they are stupid, cocky, incompetent, political or whatever reason. Sometimes as kar kias we don't like our bosses as they stupid, cocky, incompetent, political or whatever reason too. Whether they are gay, fat, skinny, pimply, body odour, bald, skanky, these are just physical pretexts. Office politics and progression is about chemistry and personal relations, besides performance, and if a boss thinks kar kia is incompetent or doesn't fit in as one of the girls or lads, that's it time for the kar kia to move on. That's life, don't be a pussy about it.

This gay Lawrence Bernard Wee, is he a gay Catholic BTW?, wants to sue aunty-fashion giant Robinsons! WTF and the reason is that he thinks he was unfairly dumped as he was gay and his ang moh boss hates buttfuckers. Caveat, some heterosexual guys also into butt-fucking, giving and taking, if porn films are reality TV documentaries of sexual tastes.

I digress. Maybe the boss thinks Lawrence is incompetent or no integrity which are fair grounds for dismissal, and Lawrence used the gay card as his own defence of unfair dismissal instead? I don't know what is going on under the boss table over this case but Lawrence might have a better defence if he said the ang moh foreign talent boss sacked him because he is a local and that the boss is racist. Cannot fly, but better.

Persecuted at work because he's gay
Ex-senior manager sues Robinsons, says he was forced to leave over his homosexuality; company denies allegations. 

Juliana June Rasul
Mon, Feb 11, 2013
The New Paper

SINGAPORE - In what is believed to be a first here, a local man has sued his former company, claiming he was harassed into leaving his job because he is gay.

In papers filed in the High Court in December, Mr Lawrence Bernard Wee Kim San, who turns 40 this year, is claiming "constructive dismissal" against Robinsons.

He says his former boss at the departmental store, Mr Jim McCallum, had harassed him because he did not agree with Mr Wee's homosexuality.

He worked for Robinsons for six years before leaving last August.

In its defence, the store denies Mr Wee's claims of "biasness", "unfair treatment" or "persecution" by anyone at Robinsons, or that he faced "difficulties" or "threats" when he wanted to leave the company.

It said Mr Wee had made the decision to leave last June "to pursue other interest, outside of Robinsons effective 2013" (sic).

It also said that Mr McCallum, whom Mr Wee has accused of treating him unfairly, was the one who had approved his promotions and salary increments.

In his affidavit, Mr Wee claimed he resigned from Robinsons last August "not as a matter of choice", but due to "unrelenting and unceasing persecution" by Mr McCallum, who is the Asia head of the store's Middle-Eastern owner, the Al-Futtaim Group.

Mr Wee claimed that in April or May last year, his direct supervisor, Mr Shia Yew Peck, was told by Mr McCallum that "anything from Lawrence cannot be right to begin with as Lawrence is wrong already as a person".

A few months earlier, Mr Shia, who has known since 2006 that Mr Wee is gay, had allegedly asked him whether he had ever considered turning "straight".

The supervisor later explained that Mr Wee would then be deemed more "normal" and "accepting" to others, especially his bosses, he added.

Last June, Mr Wee started talking about leaving the store and he claimed he had a discussion with Mr Shia.

In that discussion, Mr Shia shared how it was unfortunate that Mr Wee's career at the store would be prematurely terminated primarily due to Mr McCallum's personal bias against him because of his sexual orientation,Mr Wee said in his affidavit.

Pay rise, bonuses

Mr Wee joined Robinsons in 2006 as a senior manager of its cards department. In his six years there, he received raises and bonuses.

By the time he left in August last year, his salary had more than doubled from $7,200 in September 2006 to more than $16,000.

As part of the store's cards department, Mr Wee claimed that he was key in increasing the store's corporate sales from $20 million in revenue a year to over $32 million a year due to "key strategic accounts" that he had brought on board.

Mr Wee also said that at a management town hall meeting in July 2010, the then chief executive officer of Al-Futtaim Group, Mr Robert Willett, had praised him for "being a leader with business acumen and guts" after hearing him speak.

Mr Wee claimed Mr Shia later told him that Mr McCallum had said he (referring to Mr Wee) should "learn to keep his mouth shut".

Mr Wee claimed that his professional life suffered after he began working directly with Mr McCallum in 2011.

On several occasions, he claimed he was put down by Mr McCallum in front of other colleagues during meetings.

He also had his work disparaged, Mr Wee said.

Last April, Mr McCallum asked Mr Wee whether he had orchestrated a compliment he had received from a customer, specifically asking if "the card member was (Mr Wee's) auntie".

Mr Wee claimed he was told on several occasions by Mr Shia that he might not have a future at the store because of Mr McCallum's perception of him.

On a business trip to London in July 2011, Mr Shia told him that Mr McCallum "still had a strong dislike" for him despite his good work, Mr Wee said.

Almost a year later, in June 2012, after what he claimed to be persistent harassment from Mr McCallum,Mr Wee tendered his resignation.

The harassment, he claimed, did not end there.

After discussing his resignation with Mr Shia that month, Mr Wee said that it was agreed (verbally and via e-mail) that he would work until December - more than the contractually agreed two months' notice - to allow Robinsons ample time to find a suitable replacement.

Mr Wee claimed that Mr Shia later told him that Mr McCallum wanted him to leave early as he did not want him to be introduced to Robinsons' new managing director.

In August, Mr Shia told him the store would pay him three months' salary if he were to leave that month.

A day later, Mr Wee met the store's general manager of human resources, Ms Chee Nian Tze, to inform her that he wanted to stay on until December as originally agreed, and that he should be paid accordingly even if he were to leave before then.

Robinsons then agreed to pay Mr Wee a total of four months' salary when he left last August.

Robinsons: None of his claims is true

Robinsons denies Mr Wee's claims that he was unfairly harassed by his boss, Mr Jim McCallum.

The company also expressed dissatisfaction with Mr Wee's failure to provide written or verbal proof of his claims of what Mr McCallum had said to him or to his supervisor, Mr Shia Yew Peck.

It denies that any of Mr Wee's claims are true, including his claim that Mr McCallum had told Mr Shia that Mr Wee" is wrong already as a person".

In defence papers filed in the High Court, Robinsons said Mr Wee had tendered his resignation twice in his six years with the store, to pursue other career opportunities.

On both occasions,he later withdrew the resignation notice.

It also said that Mr Wee's salary increments, promotions, and company bonuses between 2010 and 2012 had been approved by Mr McCallum.

Robinsons also denied Mr Wee's claim of having "increased the corporate sales" for Robinsons from $20 million to over $32 million a year.

Instead, it described Mr Wee as being a member of the Robinsons team which "reported to and executed the decisions made by senior management".

As for his claims that he was made to quit his job, Robinsons said: "There was no actual or constructive dismissal of (Mr Wee). Rather it was (Mr Wee) who resigned from (Robinsons)on 24 August 2012."

Robinsons denies that Mr Wee faced "difficulties" or "threats" in leaving the company.

It also denies that Mr Wee had "performed well" in his role at the store, and had received increments and bonuses as "an acknowledgement of (his) excellent service".

It said that before he resigned,Mr Wee and Mr Shia discussed the former's "handling of (Robinsons') relationship with one of its key business partners and on other matters related to his unsatisfactory work performance".

In his affidavit,Mr Wee had claimed that he was harassed to leave earlier than the six-months' notice he had agreed on with Mr Shia.

Not true, Robinsons said in its defence.

It pointed to Mr Wee's employment contract and his conversation with its human resource general manager, Ms Chee Nian Tze.

The contract stated that "written notice of termination from either party will be two calendar months or two calendar months' salary in lieu of such notice".

Ms Chee had explained to Mr Wee that the offer of two months' salary in lieu of serving notice, and an additional one month's salary was"generous".

julrasul@sph.com.sg

Referendum!

Should there be one as it sounds appropriate given the controversy? If yes, what is the basis for calling for a referendum? Not only "controversy" as isn't any policy controversial? Bringing in casinos? 377A? 6.9 population by 2030? No referendum called for those either. I can't think of other democracies having referendums recently as it is a waste of time and resources as the elected representatives are supposed to do that.

NSP Calls for National Referendum on White Paper on Population Policy
9 February 2013
Singapore

Mr Lee Hsien Loong Prime Minister of Singapore

Dear Mr Prime Minister,

The Parliamentary Debate has now been concluded with the Population White Paper being endorsed by 77 to 13 with one abstention. However, it is clear to many that the vote does not reflect the views of Singaporeans because the PAP Members of Parliament clearly voted along Party lines.

The Population White Paper will affect Singaporeans - for better or worse - for the next 20 years and beyond. All Singaporeans have the right to decide how their future is shaped. The future of this country is something that all Singaporeans have a stake in. It is only right that they should have a say in it as well.

For this reason, we call on the Government to hold a National Referendum on the White Paper.

We hope that the Prime Minister recognises that a mandate to lead the government and people of Singapore also encompasses the willingness to listen to the people whose lives will be irrevocably changed by the decisions that their elected leaders make on their behalf.

Thank you,

Hazel Poa
Secretary-General
National Solidarity Party

Below is the letter from NSP to President Tony Tan:

NSP Calls for National Referendum on White Paper on Population Policy

9 February 2013
Singapore
Mr Tony Tan Keng Yam President of Singapore

Dear President

The National Solidarity Party has written to the Prime Minister to urge that a National Referendum be called on the White Paper.

The Parliamentary Debate has now been concluded with the Population White Paper being endorsed by 77 to 13 with one abstention. However, it is clear to many that the vote does not reflect the views of Singaporeans because the PAP Members of Parliament clearly voted along Party lines.

The Population White Paper will affect Singaporeans - for better or worse - for the next 20 years and beyond. All Singaporeans have the right to decide how their future is shaped. The future of this country is something that all Singaporeans have a stake in. It is only right that they should have a say in it as well.

In announcing your intention to run in the last Presidential Election, you had said, 'I believe that the next President of Singapore may have to make very significant decisions that will affect the security and well?being of all Singaporeans.' One very significant decision you could make with the well-being of the citizens of Singapore in mind would be to ask the Government of Singapore to hold a National Referendum on the White Paper.

We hope that the President will act in the interest of the citizens of Singapore and ask the Government of the People's Action Party to listen to the people whose lives will be irrevocably changed by the decisions that their elected leaders make on their behalf.

Thank you.

Hazel Poa
Secretary-General
National Solidarity Party

White Paper and the Idiotic Public and PAP

And just as it quickly began, shallow White Paper dropped in front of our faces, the debate is over in parliament. OK feedback was sought last year but only 2,500 was collected.  As the PAP did not lift its party whip, the results were more or less expected. The PAP leering at one end, the WP and NMPs huddled back to back at the other. One lone NMP abstained, the coolest one as he signaled that the White Paper has both its merits and shits and would not commit. Or the dumbest as he with one cast of no-vote, he won enemies on both sides. The lesson from that, get WP in with at least a third of the seats and then we can see bills being negotiated before they can be passed in parliament. Not like now lock stock and barrel White Paper passed as policy.

There are lots of dumb fucks shouting Nay to population growth to 6.9 million by 2030. Like Gilbert Goh NSP member who whined about no jobs for locals as foreigners stole the jobs. He is going to hold some Speakers' Corner xenophobe bash soon. Great no maids, foreign wives and cleaners for you. Was he ever a businessmen to understand how the businesses feel? Anyway, WTF, unemployment is about 2% since 2010, and higher at 3% during that short 2009 recession. Despite all the hordes of Tiongs, Banglas, Ah Neh, Pinoy coming in, unemployment is still low and stable, not at 10%!. Facepalm.

Another sadly who lost the plot, is former MP Chiam See Tong. Listen me out. He said he was appalled that population would increase to that 6.9 figure as it would strain Singapore's living space and condition. The fucking problem is not the number of people, but the number of housing, the capacity of transport, social services and overall living space and thus quality of life.  Not the number of people in a city. Look at Hong Kong, New York, Tokyo. Modern international cities with high population density but with infrastructure that can cope. 

WP is right all along and actually struggle to maintain the balance between the dumb fuck PAP blind to public concerns and the dumb fuck masses, blind to the fucking need of businesses and the economy, not seeing beyond their noses that businesses, the economy and human capital is what keeping Singapore afloat. Human resources, human capital, skills and sweat, that is needed. Bringing in foreigners is fine - but slowly slowly slowly. WP got it right, listen to them you brainless shitheads.

Parliament endorses Population White Paper
Posted: 08 February 2013 1849 hrs

SINGAPORE: After five days of intense debate, Parliament on Friday passed the amended motion to endorse the White Paper on Population with 77 ayes and 13 nays.

Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Eugene Tan abstained from the vote.

Workers' Party MP Low Thia Khiang called for division on the amended motion to endorse the White Paper. In a division, the vote of each Member is collected and tabulated through an electronic voting system.

Other than opposition MPs, who all voted against the motion, NMPs Faizah Jamal, Janice Koh and Laurence Lian also voted 'no'.

The amendment, proposed by MP Liang Eng Hwa and passed by MPs, among other things, explicitly states that the White Paper "supports maintaining a strong Singaporean core by encouraging more Singaporeans to get married and have children, supplemented by a calibrated pace of immigration to prevent the citizen population from shrinking".

"Although the Amended Motion captures some of the Workers' Party concerns about the White Paper, fundamentally the White Paper still forms the basis of the roadmap forward to 2030, which the House was asked to endorse," said WP chairman Sylvia Lim in a statement.

Explaining the party's reason for voting against the amended motion, she said the party "believes that the path proposed by the White Paper will further dilute the Singaporean core and weaken our national identity" and lead the Republic to "require unsustainable population injections in the future".

Ms Lim added that the party believes that the greater well-being of Singaporeans "lies in sustainable economic growth driven by increases in our productivity and in our resident workforce, rather than further increases in our dependency on imported foreign labour". Demographic challenges must be "addressed fundamentally and urgently" but focusing on increasing the total fertility rate and growing the resident labour force participation rate, she said.

Earlier, both Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean addressed the House.

Concerns over the impact on the Singaporean core and caps on the foreign workforce were among the issues debated over the last five days.

Speaking on a range of topics, Mr Lee pledged that Singaporeans would not be "overwhelmed" by a flood of foreigners and sought to assure Singaporeans that their interests are at the centre of all the government's plans, and economic growth and population policies are just a means to improving citizens' well-being.

Over the next few years, the conversation on population will continue, said Mr Lee. He listed three areas for discussion: marriage & parenthood, the economy and the Singapore identity.