By Ahmad Mustapha
Singapore’s Minister Mentor, Lee Kuan Yew, who was Singapore’s founding father, has always been very direct in his comments. This was the man who outsmarted the communists in Singapore (with the innocent help of Malaya then and the willing help of the British) and who later outwitted the British and outpaced Malaysia in all spheres.
Singapore practices corrupt-free meritocracy and Malaysia affirmative action. The former attracted all the best brains and the latter chased out all the brains. The Singapore cabinet consists of dedicated and intelligent technocrats whereas Malaysia has one the most unwieldy cabinets. Not only that, brain wise it was below par not even good for the kampong.
With that kind of composition, one that is very brainy, naturally Singapore , with no natural resources could outstrip Malaysia in every aspect of development. Malaysia, on the other hand, was too much preoccupied with its Malayness and the illusory ‘Ketuanan Melayu’ and was also more interested in useless mega iconic development rather than real social and economic development.
Whenever Kuan Yew utters anything that deemed to be a slight on Malaysia , voices were raised admonishing him. Malaysia would never dare to face reality. That Singapore had shown that it could survive was a slap on those who believed that Singapore would fold up once it left Malaysia . Therefore it was natural that these doomsayers would try to rationalise their utterances to be in their favour to combat on whatever Kuan Yew commented. Its political jealousy.
Singapore achieved its development status without any fanfare. But here in Malaysia , a development that was deceptive was proclaimed as having achieved development status. It was trumpeted as an achievement that befits first world status. This was self delusion. Malaysians are led to believe into a make believe world, a dream world. The leaders who themselves tend to believe in their own fabricated world did not realise the people were not taken in by this kind of illusion.
Lee Kuan Yew believed in calling a spade a spade. I was there in Singapore when the People’s Action Party won the elections in 1959. He was forthright in his briefing to party members as to what was expected of them and what Singapore would face in the future. Ideologically, I did not agree with him. We in the University of Malaya Socialist Club had a different interpretation of socialist reconstruction. But he was a pragmatist and wanted to bring development and welfare to the Singaporeans. Well! He succeeded.
Malaysia was so much embroiled in racial politics and due to the fear of losing political power, all actions taken by the main party in power was never targeted towards bringing wealth to all. Wealth was distributed to the chosen few only. They were the cronies and the backers of the party leadership to perpetuate their own selfish ends.
Seeing the efficiency and the progress achieved by Singapore caused the Malaysian leadership to suffer from an inferiority complex. That Malaysia should suffer from this complex was of its own making.
In a recent interview, Kuan Yew said that Malaysia could have done better if only it treated its minority Chinese and Indian population fairly. Instead they were completely marginalised and many of the best brains left the country in drove. He added that Singapore was a standing indictment to what Malaysia could have done differently. He just hit the nail right there on the head.
Malaysia recently celebrated its 50th year of independence with a bagful of uncertainties. The racial divide has become more acute. The number of Malay graduates unemployed is on the increase. And this aspect can be very explosive. But sad to see that no positive actions have been taken to address these social ills.
Various excuses were given by Malaysian leaders why Singapore had far outstripped Malaysia in all aspects of social and economic advancement. Singapore was small, they rationalised and therefore easy to manage. Singapore was not a state but merely an island.
There was one other aspect that Malaysia practises and that is to politicise all aspects of life. All government organs and machinery were ‘UMNO-ised’. This was to ensure that the party will remain in power. Thus there was this misconception by the instruments of government as to what national interest is and what UMNO vested interest is.
UMNO vested interest only benefited a few and not the whole nation. But due to the UMNO-isation of the various instruments of government, the country under the present administration had equated UMNO vested interest as being that of national interest. Thus development became an avenue of making money and not for the benefit of the people. The fight against corruption took a back seat. Transparency was put on hold. And the instruments of government took it to be of national interest to cater to the vested interest of UMNO. Enforcement of various enactments and laws was selective. Thus a ‘palace’ in Kelang, APs cronies and close-one-eye umno MPs could exist without proper procedure. Corruption infested all govt departments, the worse is the police and lately even in the judiciary.
Singapore did not politicise its instruments of government. If ever policisation took place, it is guided by national interest. To be efficient and to be the best in the region was of paramount importance. Thus all the elements like corruption, lackadaisical attitude towards work and other black elements, which would retard such an aim, were eliminated. Singapore naturally had placed the right priority in it’s pursuit to achieve what is best for its people. This is the major difference between these two independent countries.
Malaysia in its various attempts to cover up its failures embarked on several diversions. It wanted its citizens to be proud that the country had the tallest twin-tower in the world, although the structure was designed and built by foreigners. Its now a white-elephant wasting away. It achieved in sending a man into space at an exorbitant price. What for purpose? These are what the Malays of old would say “menang sorak” (hollow victories).
It should be realised that administering a country can be likened to managing a corporate entity. If the management is efficient and dedicated and know what they are doing, the company will prosper. The reverse will be if the management is poor and bad. The company will go bust.
There are five countries around this region. There is Malaysia , and then Indonesia . To the east there is the Philippines and then there is that small enclave called the Sultanate of Brunei . All these four countries have abundance of natural resources but none can lay claim to have used all these resources to benefit the people. Poverty was rampant and independence had not brought in any significant benefits to the people.
But tiny Singapore without any resources at all managed to bring development to its citizens. It had one of the best public MRT transport systems and airlines in the world and it is a very clean city state. Their universities, health care, ports are among the best in the world.
It is impossible to compare what Singapore has achieved to what all these four countries had so far achieved. It was actually poor management and corruption, and nothing more. Everything is done for the vested interest of the few.
Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines and the Sultanate of Brunei need good management teams. They would not be able to do this on their own steam. I would advise that they call on Kuan Yew to show them what good governance is. Why look East to Japan when it is just next door across the causeway.

#1 by limkamput on Thursday, 31 July 2008 - 8:52 pm
zak_hammaad Says:
Today at 18: 10.35 (2 hours ago) Lim Kit, it would have been reasonable to suggest you join PAP back then. Instead of exporting PAP policies and vision under the garb of DAP; you are old enough to know that S’pore and Malaysia, though have a common history, have separated too much in almost all spheres as to draw any similiarities in governance.
What are you talking about? Precisely, one country is governed by PAP and LKY and another country managed a successive third tribal party and tribal leaders and the MAKES the difference between the two countries. I really don’t understand your perverted logic. If we are “separated for much”, are you saying we can not make us more similar to Singapore? Singapore is secular, merit-based, dynamic, cosmopolitan and globalising; Malaysia is parochial, bigotry, racist, rent seeking, corrupted, tribal, archaic, zimbabwian, feudalistic, and you fill up the rest if you can think of one.
Zak, the difference is, PAP and LKY, were able to transform a third city slump into a first world economy. Imagine the same Singapore governance system also applies to Johore, Sarawak, Sabah, Penang and Perak. We should have been the Switzerland of Asia by now. We probably could have own citigroup, merill lynch, ubs, and lehman brothers. We probably could have own Rolls Royce and make aeroplane engines in Malaysia by now. Yes, precisely because of your notion of uniqueness, we are still a nation fighting like barbarians, MPs jump and shouting in Parliament like monkeys, garbage everywhere, traffic jam at every road, monsoon drains function as sewerage pipes, mat rempit have a field day, foreign workers are everywhere, corruption in almost every departments and agencies. Zak, you tell me one thing we can be proud of, I shall stop debating with you.
#2 by katdog on Thursday, 31 July 2008 - 9:30 pm
Zak said:
“S’pore and Malaysia, though have a common history, have separated too much in almost all spheres as to draw any similiarities in governance”
Ha ha. I have no idea what Zak is trying to convey in his statement. It makes absolutely no sense. You cannot compare the governance of Malaysia and Singapore because Singapore is just way ahead in every aspect? What? Its unfair to compare Malaysia and Singapore because Singapore is just so damn good?
Zak, you use some really pretty words there, but its just absolute garbage. I hope you could help to clarify what ‘spheres’ that are so different that we are therefore unable to compare Singapore and Malaysia.
#3 by mediadirect on Thursday, 31 July 2008 - 9:33 pm
most of the brainy from malaysia have gone to singapore…most of them are holding high position in their career driving the economy of singapore.
Mamak mahathir have ruled too long as a PM and didn’t improve anything at all. making short sighted decision that pleases the eyes and not thinking 20…30 or 50 years down the road. Same goes as the current government…i should say since independence day.
so what if you have two twin towers? people remember for a short period of time and… life moves on. people forget. But when you have good government and manage your country well, you will be look up to and people will always remember who to look for for advice. Singapore did very well here.
some of those people (minister, whatever position there is ) have been in power for too long at the same post until recent polls. staying too long will make the head and pocket too big.
it didn’t change 20 years ago…it didn’t change 10 years ago…it didn’t change 5 years ago…and if a non-credible people are in power, it will be the same 10 years from now… and even 20 years from now.
the country needs a good formula to balance all opportunity for all races. If someone can contribute to the country and bring success, it doesn’t matter if he is malay, chinese, indian, dayak, iban or others.
it is not a matter of being a bumi or non-bumi, it is a matter of doing the best for one country. if one keep fighting and mentioning bumi rights, they are suffering from inferior complex. these people will forever be left behind. the non-bumi is not asking for the sky or moon but more and equal opportunity and rights. so whats the concern?
#4 by mediadirect on Thursday, 31 July 2008 - 9:35 pm
most of the brainy from malaysia have gone to singapore…most of them are holding high position in their career driving the economy of singapore.
Mamak mahathir have ruled too long as a PM and didn’t improve anything at all. making short sighted decision that pleases the eyes and not thinking 20…30 or 50 years down the road. Same goes as the current government…i should say since independence day.
so what if you have twin towers? people remember for a short period of time and… life moves on. people forget. But when you have good government and manage your country well, you will be look up to and people will always remember who to look for for advice. Singapore did very well here.
some of those people (minister, whatever position there is ) have been in power for too long at the same post until recent polls. staying too long will make the head and pocket too big.
it didn’t change 20 years ago…it didn’t change 10 years ago…it didn’t change 5 years ago…and if a non-credible people are in power, it will be the same 10 years from now… and even 20 years from now.
the country needs a good formula to balance all opportunity for all races. If someone can contribute to the country and bring success, it doesn’t matter if he is malay, chinese, indian, dayak, iban or others.
it is not a matter of being a bumi or non-bumi, it is a matter of doing the best for one country. if one keep fighting and mentioning bumi rights, they are suffering from inferior complex. these people will forever be left behind. the non-bumi is not asking for the sky or moon but more and equal opportunity and rights. so whats the concern?
#5 by One4All4One on Thursday, 31 July 2008 - 9:41 pm
Malaysia has blundered and continues to blunder with certain political party-centred policies and inclinations.
Unless and until this is corrected there would be not much changes foreseeable in the near future, let alone in the far future.
What could the rakyat have to look forward to?
Every way you see, it is a dead end.
We have enough of success in disguise. We have enough of patronage. We have enough of quota-this-quota-that. We have enough corruption. We have enough of high-handedness. We have enough of malay-this-malay that. We have enough umno-this-umno-that. We have enough of nonsense. Enough is enough.
What we don’t have enough of is fair policies. We don’t have enough of equality. We don’t have enough of meritocracy. We don’t have enough of equal opportunities. We don’t have enough of fair play. We don’t have enough of mutual respect. We don’t have enough of due consideration. Not enough is not enough.
Change where change is due, for the sake of the nation’s future.
#6 by dawsheng on Thursday, 31 July 2008 - 9:45 pm
“Singapore practices corrupt-free meritocracy and Malaysia affirmative action. The former attracted all the best brains and the latter chased out all the brains. The Singapore cabinet consists of dedicated and intelligent technocrats whereas Malaysia has one the most unwieldy cabinets. Not only that, brain wise it was below par not even good for the kampong.”
There is no such thing as corrupt free meritocracy practices in a competitive free market.
#7 by One4All4One on Thursday, 31 July 2008 - 9:47 pm
correction:
Singapore was NOT without its mistakes and blunders too. To be sure, no one is perfect. Not any system. However, the best decisions were made, based on the realities and choices.
#8 by mediadirect on Thursday, 31 July 2008 - 9:50 pm
the best decisions are made from mistakes, refining and reviews. learn from mistakes and know what moves us forward as a community
#9 by dawsheng on Thursday, 31 July 2008 - 9:51 pm
“Lee Kuan Yew believed in calling a spade a spade. I was there in Singapore when the People’s Action Party won the elections in 1959. He was forthright in his briefing to party members as to what was expected of them and what Singapore would face in the future. Ideologically, I did not agree with him. We in the University of Malaya Socialist Club had a different interpretation of socialist reconstruction. But he was a pragmatist and wanted to bring development and welfare to the Singaporeans. Well! He succeed”
Lee Kuan Yew said Singaporeans are stupid if they voted for the opposition, how can that be? Can Singapore’s success achieved through one man when the rest are stupid? Well, maybe, if you insist LKY believed in calling a spade a spade. I wouldn’t want to argue with that.
#10 by Loh on Thursday, 31 July 2008 - 9:58 pm
///Imagine if u r a BUMI, will u do the same? To share ur privileges and rights with the non-bumis?///–PureMalaysian
I suppose by “privileges and rights” the writer refers to Article 153 of the Malayan Constitution. The original constitution has a provision for Article 153 to be reviewed after 15 years from independence in 1972. That provision for a review was removed when that article was amended when Tun Razak as Director of National Operation threatened not to reconvene the parliament without that amendment.
The provision for a review means that the privileges were offered for a purpose, and as soon as that objective is served, the privileges would stop. It is ironical that when the Article should have been reviewed in 1972 according to the social contract, the powerful UMNO after using the 1969 incidents decided that that article should remain forever review.
We know that a contract is only valid when parties to it voluntarily agreed to all the provisions, when it was established. That original constitution can be known as social contract among the various communities in the country. From the statement of the late Tun Dr. Ismail who expressed surprise that non-Malays were readily agreeable to the provision of Article 153 in the original constitution stated that Malays, out of pride, would be willingly forgo the privileges when the do not need them. It was considered that 15 years was good enough for the Malays who were thought to be comparatively weak then needed 15 years to catch up with other races. The statement of Tun Ismail that ‘out of pride’ meant simply that Malays would not want to be seen to be weak all the time. UMNO leaders after Tun Ismail chose to justify that the privileges were bestowed to Malays for all reasons other than the truth as stated by Tun Dr. Ismail.
Tun Razak decided to implement NEP for a generation (20 years) and he could have considered the provision of a review in article 153 inconvenient to his Administration. Perhaps he did not know that he would die so soon after attaining power. The effect of removing the provision for a review of Article 153 gives all future generation of Malays the wrong impression as emplified by PureMalaysian. That perception will prevent them to accept that all Malaysians should have equal opportunity under Malaysian sun. Consequently the ordinary Malays would be all forgiving to Malay-based party for whatever ill intentions the leaders might harbour so long as Malays are seen to enjoy more privileges over non-Malays. Further it prevents right thinking Malays from criticizing the wrongdoings of Malay-based government lest they are blamed for not being loyal to the race. When Malays are not free to comment on obvious wrongdoings which are perpetrated by the government, and non-Malays choose not to be misunderstood or branded as racists, we are now landed with a corrupt government which stays in power for over half a century, and continuing. The leaders in government want to continue with the lifelong career as ministers, and would care less when the people are polarized by race and religion. But Malaysia from being the top among the developing SEA countries has been relegated and soon will join the rank of Burma.
Malaysians have been conditioned by the political masters to think more in terms of the singers rather than the songs. When we face with problems of public security and needed help from the police, should we be concerned whether the police personnel were of any particular race? We should expect that government officials perform their duties as expected of their positions, and would be fair to all Malaysians irrespective of race or political inclination. That does not happen. A police report by an ordinary person that he was sodomised, even when medical reports did not support such a claim landed a former Deputy Prime Minister detained over night. Sodomy may be a crime but nobody died. A statutory declaration alleging that an important person knows a murder victim landed whistle blower to change his declaration within 24 hours, and he is now missing. The police could have worked on the declaration as they did not the sodomy claim, especially when a human life was involved in the content of the declaration. The problems lie in the rejection of meritocracy in government administration. When staff intake and promotion are not based on meritocracy, they cannot be transparent.
#11 by Godfather on Thursday, 31 July 2008 - 9:59 pm
The prime minister of Singapore has a first class honours degree from Cambridge University. The prime minister of Bolehland failed entrance statistics, and took religious studies instead at Universiti Malaya. He then installed himself as Minister of Finance.
#12 by melurian on Thursday, 31 July 2008 - 10:06 pm
“The prime minister of Bolehland failed entrance statistics, and took religious studies instead at Universiti Malaya. He then installed himself as Minister of Finance.”
i call that smart, why study so hard when you can gain easier path. now he can overrule those bankers. same with health minister who now qualify for M.D overrule doctors……
#13 by dawsheng on Thursday, 31 July 2008 - 10:11 pm
This article, although written in good faith, made Singapore seems like utopia, and that could have misguided many readers. Singapore is better than Malaysia, I agree. I respect LKY as a outstanding leader.
#14 by The Enforcer on Thursday, 31 July 2008 - 10:19 pm
Someone above mentioned about the water technology in S’pore. If my memory serves me right, the proud owner of that company is a humble M’sian of Chinese ethnicity from a small town in M’sia call Kampar! See the cause of BRAIN DRAIN!
#15 by gundam on Thursday, 31 July 2008 - 10:24 pm
those in subordinate positions will follow the example set by their superiors.
singapore has good leaders, malaysia doesnt have.
#16 by blablowbla on Thursday, 31 July 2008 - 10:28 pm
just 3 weeks ago,d umno racist mp tajudin quoted:quota biasiswa bumi dan melayu tak boleh dikurangkan,ini tidak adil,ini hak kami!banyak bumi dari sabah sarawak tak dapat masuk universiyi!
Hak lanch#o!
Macam ni,jadi kominis lagi baik,semua adilkan?tajudin!
malaysia will continue to b bodohland if such mps are to be allowed to be selected!
#17 by melurian on Thursday, 31 July 2008 - 10:35 pm
“We probably could have own citigroup, merill lynch, ubs, and lehman brothers. We probably could have own Rolls Royce and make aeroplane engines in Malaysia by now”
not really – sgpura is not really global tech player, we don have microsoft, intel, ibm, google sgpura version. even creative are struggling, and they using 3rd party chip for their mp3 player. what’s more, they try to involve (using gov money) into harddisk business but at the end flop…….
overall, malaysia income and revenue is still much much more than sgpura, just the money din channel much to public only….. how many mps in sgpura stays and drive kompressor and datuk as in malaysia……
#18 by TheWrathOfGrapes on Thursday, 31 July 2008 - 10:47 pm
/// Bigjoe Says:
Today at 16: 54.18 (5 hours ago)
You want to know the joke. According to Paul Krugman of MIT, Singaporea actually underachieve. In a study famously called A Tale of Two Cities, Krugman argued that LKY’s dictatorship tendencies keeps the country behind Hong Kong and other advance economies. ///
Bigjoe – I read Paul Krugman’s, and the earlier one by Lawrence Young. The comparison is not entirely apple versus apple. Singapore spends a huge bundle on defence – a complete army, navy and air force, whereas Hong Kong did not and does not. Its defence was taken care of by the British, and later by the PLA.
#19 by limkamput on Thursday, 31 July 2008 - 10:53 pm
melurian, please read carefully, i said, own not invent or manage. if you have money, you can buy and own and earn return which is what singapore did.
#20 by limkamput on Thursday, 31 July 2008 - 10:58 pm
overall, malaysia income and revenue is still much much more than sgpura, just the money din channel much to public only….. how many mps in sgpura stays and drive kompressor and datuk as in malaysia……melurian
huh? du kong hami? Gua catch no ball lah
#21 by melurian on Thursday, 31 July 2008 - 11:18 pm
“if you have money, you can buy and own and earn return which is what singapore did.”
that’s why no pride lar. see how they screw hongkong movies. in old days hk movies are good, not they’re screwed by this “raintree” of sgpura. and bout semiconductor and manufacturing, chartered (spin off from gov glc) used to be good not until taiwanese tsmc and umc kicked them. and even they already semiconductor/manufacturing still today no good solid brand from them (asus, acer, msi all taiwanese, mana ada sgpura). and korea got samsung, sgpura got what…..
#22 by melurian on Thursday, 31 July 2008 - 11:28 pm
malaisie
GDP ranking 29th
GDP $357.9 billion (2007 est.)
GDP growth 6.3% (2007)
GDP per capita $14,400 (2007 est.)
singapur
GDP (PPP) $222.7 billion (2007 est.) (48th)
GDP growth 7.5% (2007)
GDP per capita $48,900 (2007 est.)
don look at gdp per capita where population take into account. gdp malaysia >> gdp singapura, so the country is richer than sgpura.
#23 by Godfather on Thursday, 31 July 2008 - 11:48 pm
melurian:
Did you go to the same economics school as Badawi ?
#24 by titicaca on Thursday, 31 July 2008 - 11:49 pm
singapore has the higher per capita execution rate in the world, zero tolerance for politcal dissent and a forced annuity plan financed by mandatory savings. a political detainee was held for 23 years without trial and subsequent house arrest for another 9 years.
singapore may be an economic miracle of sorts but paradise it ain’t.
#25 by limkamput on Thursday, 31 July 2008 - 11:55 pm
godfather, i think melurian went to the same school, but got kick out after first year. i am sure he does not know what is ppp as stated.
#26 by melurian on Thursday, 31 July 2008 - 11:56 pm
malaysia revenue: $41.01 billion
singapur revenue: $19.71 billion
come on, just like a house hold with income 10k per mth with 12 mouth to feed and 5k per mth with 4 mth to feed, ppl will still say 10k per mth is still richer……
#27 by limkamput on Thursday, 31 July 2008 - 11:57 pm
melurian, why so difficult, compare with China and India easier. Surely the economy of China and India is bigger than Singapore and Malaysia combined.
#28 by melurian on Friday, 1 August 2008 - 12:10 am
i din cina is poor. i din say india is poor. i even don dare to say thailand is poor. but to say malaysia is poorer than sgpura is misleading. i agree generally malaysian ppl is poorer than sgpura, but that does not mean the country (or gov) is poorer than that little state! malaysia in fact is richer than sgpura. just like a household earn 10k per mth brings in more money than ppl earn 5k, but his children (10 of them) might poorer and not enjoy wealth or standard of living as per children (2) from 5k earner.
#29 by limkamput on Friday, 1 August 2008 - 12:37 am
i give up because i have no patience, melurian. thanks bye.
#30 by menarambo on Friday, 1 August 2008 - 2:20 am
LKY very happy Malaysia practice such a bias/poor policy. Imagine if Malaysia is run like Singapore, there wouldn’t be any brain drain. Means nobody is going to Singapore and Singapore will collapse for sure.
#31 by flim1961 on Friday, 1 August 2008 - 2:47 am
Mr.Mustapha:
Your views are very well articulated. I do sense that many Malaysians do share your view as well based on the postings. Unfortunately, there has, in the past, a mindset of “form over substance” within the ruling party. This inevitably will create a house of cards.
As a young adult in the 80′s, I saw this scenario in the long-term horizon and convinced my parents that my future lies outside of my native-born land, not within the walls of myopic visionaries, to say the least. I am not saying that life outside Malaysia has been easy. Life is still a struggle in America, with bills to pay, health care costs rising, etc. However, naive as I may sound, I believe that at least, I can provide an equal chance for my little one, a chance to be judged based on the content of his abilities and character rather than on the color of his skin, to which he had no control to choose. At least, for once, I can proudly say I did the right thing for my family.
#32 by Godfather on Friday, 1 August 2008 - 6:52 am
Hahaha, Melurian, I think you should apply to Bernama for a job.
10 people in Bolehland make $100, while 2 persons in Singapore make $80, so Melurian spins that Bolehland is richer than Singapore. Of the 10 people in Bolehland, 3 persons make $70, while the remaining 7 persons make $30, so the 7 persons try their best to get rid of the 3 persons that make more money than them. And the worst part of all ? The $30 that the 7 persons make is not transparently earned. Part of it is from stolen loot in the first place!
That, in essence, is what the NEP is all about.
#33 by yhsiew on Friday, 1 August 2008 - 8:26 am
The two things that Pak Lah can boast about, as compared to Singapore, are Malaysia has better Press freedom and much higher vehicle ownership per 100 people.
#34 by TheWrathOfGrapes on Friday, 1 August 2008 - 9:28 am
yhsiew – Press freedom – yes, Pak Lah can claim recdit.
Vehicle ownership – no, that honour belongs to Mahathir. He made sure that all foreign cars are priced punitively high by imposing high taxes so that Proton and other locally-assembled cars can sell at all. And of course the petrol subsidies. Now, both are biting back…
#35 by AhPek on Friday, 1 August 2008 - 10:01 am
“……………Malaysia has better Press Freedom and much higher vehicle ownership per 100 people.”. yhsiew.
Are sure or not?? Malaysia has got better Press Freedom? I would agree if you say apparent better press freedom.Remember the huha ripping thro the muslim world over the caricature thing on Mohammed coming out from Denmark
and 2 papers in West Malaysia are banned.The dragonian Printing Press Act is still in existence for the powers-that-be to gag the press.
Singapore in fact has a policy to try and discourage car ownership by having what they call a Certificate of Entitlement (COE) ie to say anyone wishing to own cars must bid for the right to own.COE can even come up to more than the price of the car, that is how forbidding it is to own a car in Singapore.The government’s rationale for doing this is to free Singapore from grid-lock traffic jam and also more importantly to ensure a clean atmospheric environment and they are able to do this because they have created a world class public transport system.
#36 by kun9999 on Friday, 1 August 2008 - 10:02 am
If you are able to, go Singapore. Alot of opportunity await you.
#37 by melurian on Friday, 1 August 2008 - 10:15 am
“10 people in Bolehland make $100, while 2 persons in Singapore make $80,”
$100 is still > $80.
“The two things that Pak Lah can boast about, as compared to Singapore, are Malaysia has better Press freedom and much higher vehicle ownership per 100 people.”
not really. malaysia got intel, altera, motorola, freescale, TI, sony factory here. singapore got intel meh ? and singapur’s still begging investor to invest in their country, not really a tech player (investor)…
#38 by raverus on Friday, 1 August 2008 - 10:21 am
Corrupted cronyism is the main downfall.
*Greedy people never had enough, race card is their game.
#39 by Godfather on Friday, 1 August 2008 - 10:23 am
Melurian, keep it up. You want to be one of 10 people in Bolehland that make a total of $100. We want to be one of 2 people in Singapore making a total of $80. If you feel richer, then that’s OK by me.
#40 by AhPek on Friday, 1 August 2008 - 10:33 am
Melurian,
Before you turn yourself into a clown, may I suggest you look up the meaning of these 3 terms: per capita GDP, Gini Index and Human Development Index. These 3 parameters generally give a very good picture of the ‘wellness’ of a nation and if you compare Singapore and Malaysia along these parameters, I am sure you won’t be so smug about the figures you put up here!! You will probably feel ashamed of Malaysia’s performance.
#41 by Godfather on Friday, 1 August 2008 - 10:36 am
Melurian’s warped logic is what is symptomatic of Bolehland. The non-Malays who make $70 of the $100 want to keep competing with Singapore, and hope that one day, two non-Malays can catch up with the two Singaporeans who currently make $80. The 7 Malays who make $30 between them are happy with what they have, so why push them to compete with Singapore ? So they spin in the mainstream press that collectively we have a larger GDP than Singapore.
The trouble is that one Malay out of the 7 in Bolehland joins UMNO, then realises that 3 non-Malays make a lot more than the 7 Malays combined, so they start all sorts of affirmative action programmes that allow them to steal in order to catch up with the non-Malays. They start all sorts of programmes to hold back the non-Malays so that the Malays can catch up. In the meantime, the little red dot down south progresses even more and continues to be an eyesore to the Malays.
#42 by AhPek on Friday, 1 August 2008 - 10:48 am
Godfather,
Please forgive Melurian for he knows not what he is talking about -a complete lack of understanding simple arithmethic. Absolutely shocking!
#43 by Godfather on Friday, 1 August 2008 - 10:54 am
No, AhPek, he knows what he is talking about. He uses the typical UMNO spin to confuse the Malays so that the UMNOputras can continue to steal the country blind. Their hatred for Singapore is so ill-disguised because Singapore stands for everything that Bolehland is not – meritocracy, integrity, good governance, an AAA rating that few countries in the world have.
#44 by Godfather on Friday, 1 August 2008 - 11:02 am
Sooner or later, BN is going to have to be held accountable for the ever-widening differences between the little red dot and Bolehland. Of course they can’t explain why a little piece of rock down south could have an AAA rating (higher than Japan and Korea) when in 1965 they were on a par with Bolehland.
So they have to spin and divert attention, and say things like “our GDP is still bigger”, “we have a larger economy”, “we have greater press freedom”.
Melurian, perhaps we should all say that Bolehland has a bigger land mass than Singapore – in case not many rural people know this ?
#45 by melurian on Friday, 1 August 2008 - 11:07 am
still, do you agree malaysia (on current situation) “richer” than singapur? malaysia with higher gdp, with higher revenue is richer than singapur ? I’m not saying malaysians, but malaysia as country.
malaysia after millions and billions loss still steady, singapur if loss millions and billions, the whole economy will collapse…
#46 by TheWrathOfGrapes on Friday, 1 August 2008 - 11:08 am
/// melurian Says:
Today at 10: 15.32 (31 minutes ago)
“10 people in Bolehland make $100, while 2 persons in Singapore make $80,”
$100 is still > $80. ///
Congratulations, melurian, you have single-handed promoted Malaysia to the ranks of first-world OECD countries. All the GDP (ppp) figures below are in US dollars.
Malaysia……..357.4bn
Sweden………334.6bn
Switzerland….300.2bn
Norway……….247.7bn
Singapore…….228.1bn
Denmark………203.7bn
Finland………..185.5bn
Luxembourg……38.6bn
Brunei…………..19.6bn
Wow, Malaysia is richer than Sweden and Switzerland. Better still, Malaysia is 18 times richer than Brunei – 1800% richer!!!
I am feeling so rich now; might as well go and buy myself a private jet and a yacht……
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/my.html
#47 by Godfather on Friday, 1 August 2008 - 11:12 am
Melurian, go into the net and read up more before you start making these foolish comments.
Singapore has external FX reserves in excess of US$250 billion, and no debt. Bolehland has reserves of US$78 billion and an equivalent amount in external debt. You still think that Singapore will collapse ahead of Malaysia ? Are the rating agencies wrong when they assigned an AAA rating for Singapore and only an A rating for Bolehland ?
If not for Bolehland “after millions and billions loss”, plus the continuous plunder by BN, Bolehland would at least have an AA rating equivalent to Korea and Taiwan.
Say something truthful that the readers can believe – like Malaysia has bigger landmass than Singapore.
#48 by AhPek on Friday, 1 August 2008 - 11:15 am
Melurian,
Didn’t I ask you to find out the meaning of the 3 terms? Don’t tell me you are insisting that you want to make yourself a clown?
#49 by Godfather on Friday, 1 August 2008 - 11:25 am
Bolehland makes $100 but spends $120, while Singapore makes $80 and spends only $60. Bolehland is richer ?
Many Malaysians cannot believe that the little red dot with no resources could have saved so much that their sovereign wealth funds – Temasek and GIC – could invest hundreds of billions in assets around the world.
Stealing is a hard habit to break for Bolehland.
#50 by Godfather on Friday, 1 August 2008 - 11:29 am
Melurian: go look up and understand the meaning of “budget deficit”.