Town Council Debate: Cocks posturing & preening

Yes,yes Aunties’s not a cock but she sure behaved like Khaw and  Dr Teo. All these three, and the other supporting speakers didn’t try to bother to explain what the facts were. They juz tried to slime the other side, hoping that some mud would stick. No one drew blood.

I won’t bother to go into detail critcising what the PAPpies said as Sg Daily has done a gd job over the last few days providing links to a critique of the PAP’s position and its attacks on the WP. All I will say is that it confirms my view, many yrs ago, that the idea of town councils would come to haunt the PAP. It wasn’t even a gd idea at the time. Ah well, another black mark to Goh Chok Tong and one Lee Hsien Loong and their team.

I’ll juz make some points about what I found astounding about the WP’s position and netizens’ views.

I find it really strange that the WP thinks its OK for it to give a contract to its supporters but that it is wrong for the PAP to give a contract to a PAP linked company. The distinction escapes me. To me, “It doesn’t matter if a cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice”. (Deng Xiaopin).

The other point is Auntie telling Dr Teo to report the WP to the CPIB if he had evidence of wrong-doing. Err Auntie, why so more PAP than the PAP? Imagine if when Auntie first made her allegations, those many noons ago, the PAP had said the same to her. I mean she, WP and netizens would be bitching at the PAP for trying to hide something. And rightly so. So why like that Auntie?

Which brings me to the point that netizens are so anti-PAP that they unthinkingly cheer the WP’s position on

– it’s OK to give contracts to supporters, but not party-affiliated organisations; and

– trying to win the argument by telling other side to report the matter to the CPIB.

While the PAP has the 120% support of the constructive, nation-building media, netizens are 99.9% anti-PAP. Here’s a tot for the PAP: if the local media were less servile to the PAP, would the internet be a less hostile place to the PAP. Could the hostile environment on the internet be a reaction to the power of the PAP over the local media.

To end, it would be nice if both sides respected the other side so that we the public can learn the truth of the allegations. Here’s an interesting excerpt on the benefits of respecting one’s opponent, though the author readily admits it’s damned difficult,:

Just how charitable are you supposed to be when criticising the views of an opponent? If there are obvious contradictions in the opponent’s case, then you should point them out, forcefully. If there are somewhat hidden contradictions, you should carefully expose them to view – and then dump on them. But the search for hidden contradictions often crosses the line into nitpicking, sea-lawyering and outright parody. The thrill of the chase and the conviction that your opponent has to be harbouring a confusion somewhere encourages uncharitable interpretation, which gives you an easy target to attack.

But such easy targets are typically irrelevant to the real issues at stake and simply waste everybody’s time and patience, even if they give amusement to your supporters. The best antidote I know for this tendency to caricature one’s opponent is a list of rules promulgated many years ago by social psychologist and game theorist Anatol Rapoport.

How to compose a successful critical commentary:

1. Attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly and fairly that your target says: “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.”

2. List any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).

3. Mention anything you have learned from your target.

4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.

One immediate effect of following these rules is that your targets will be a receptive audience for your criticism: you have already shown that you understand their positions as well as they do, and have demonstrated good judgment (you agree with them on some important matters and have even been persuaded by something they said). Following Rapoport’s rules is always, for me, something of a struggle…

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/may/19/daniel-dennett-intuition-pumps-thinking-extract

Er Lee did not pick-up dog’s faeces: shows contempt for law and neighbours

ST reported Er Lee as saying “My dog has a habit of going out, maybe because she was a stray dog. We don’t have the habit of confining her as we want her to be as comfortable as possible”. TRE report

As someone who has owned dogs for over 50 years, I was appalled to read this. Not only is this in breach of an AVA rule (“All dogs must be properly confined within the owner’s premises”), but it also shows contempt for her neighbours. When the dog runs out, can she guarantee her dog doesn’t pass faeces?

Not picking up a dog’s faeces when walking a dog is an offence, and rightly so. Faeces left in the open are a health and pollution hazard.

I’m sure Er Lee would argue that “Not my fault. Dog ran out.” But why did she leave the gate open, and not confine the dog? We sometimes leave the gate open but when we do, we always ensure the dog is always in the house and the steel door is closed. BTW, all my dogs were strays. I keep them confined but walk them regularly.

Whatever it is, we should give ST two cheers for reporting the story. It highlights that PAP MPs too can be irresponsible, law-breaking citizens. Irresponsibility and criminality, are not confined to social activists or opposition party members or activists. PAP MPs too do these things, notwithstanding PM’s (and his dad’s) boast that the strictest criteria are used. Ot maybe rules less strict for FTs?

 

Gd Point on govt

But everything the government do is to serve its own purpose. We are lucky if one of its purposes happen to coincide with ours. It is not the same as saying the government exists to serve the people.

The chap who put this up on his Facebook wall is one Donaldson Tan, chief editor of New Asia Republic, a wannable TOC, that never took off. He is also a tech entrepreneur.

Where are the app developers from RI & other elite schools?

In the last few days, education seems to be a hot topic if one goes by the reports in our local media: all part of the NatCon. I’m sure the Media Bahru will soon be putting its spin on the issues reported by Media Tua.

Well I’ll raise here an issue that doesn’t seem to fit in with a sub narrative that our elite schools are (or not) producing the kind of S’poreans we need.

In the UK, where private schools are the elite schools, students from the elite schools are producing world-class apps

… interviewed Nick 13 months ago … he came from a successful, wealthy family who had opted to give him a private education.

A day after Nick started counting his millions [Yahoo! bot his app which summaries news articles], an email dropped in my inbox about another teenaged developer.

Schoolboy Tom Humphrey has launched an app designed to help language learning by combining dictionary definitions with digital translation tools. He also happens to go to Eton College. [UK's most elite school. Costs about S$60,000 a year in fees]

Meanwhile teenager Nina Dewani, who was interviewed by the BBC last month after designing a password-prompting app, attends a private school in St Albans.

It could be a coincidence, but these young people join a long line of tech entrepreneurs who attended private schools and found fame for their creations.

Sir Tim Berners-Lee went to an independent school, as did Bill Gates (although he later dropped out of Harvard to set up a software company), while child prodigy Mark Zuckerberg had a tutor who helped him start writing software.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22032013

Well, where are the world-class app developers from our elite schools? Let alone tech entrepreneurs.

Or is apps development reserved for this school: School of Science and Technology aims to nurture students to be innovative.

A student there “is pitching his business idea of an app which helps busy working parents remember their baby’s feeding schedule.”

Sports School students represent S’pore in ping-pomg, and SST students pitch uses of to-be-developed apps. Err who develops the apps? Poly students? Technical Institutes’ students?

My serious point is that if the students of our elite schools are not doing cutting-edge things that their counterparts in the West are doing, there must be something seriously wrong with the education system? A topic worthy of NatCon: “Where are the app developers from RI & other elite schools?”?

BTW, any comments about “exam factories” will be spammed. Taz a dumb comment to a complex and serious issue. In the UK and US, the elite private schools get more than their fair share of students into elite unis. In fact, critics complain they take away places from students from state schools.

SMEs & MNCs too believe govt is pro-FT?

Well nice to see that MoM Tan Chuan-jin has implictly confirmed that

– netizens ain’t the only people who believe that govt is pro-FT: so do SME owners and MNC mgrs; and

– they too like netizens need convincing that govt “tightening” of FT policy is not wayang.

Otherwise why would he say: “I think I need to be quite definitive here, so that the signal is clear because I would say for some time, I would say the industry was thinking that government will make a U-turn so therefore the changes perhaps did not quite happen. I think people were hoping that if the pressure was high enough, we will make adjustments and so on. And we notice that as a result of that, the propensity to do the way we do things was not so significant.”?

If the SMEs and MNC believe that the govt is not pro-FT, there would not be the need to say:”I think I need to be quite definitive here, so that the signal is clear … the propensity to do the way we do things was not so significant”? He has to say this only because he wants them to change their thinking that the govt prefers FTs to locals? From which flows their belief that the govt only needs “pressurising to get it to change its mind: and hence their pressure to change?

They should know that like Lady Thatcher, the PAP govt is “not for turning” when it has believes it knows the Hard Truth. So they believe, like us netizens, that restricting FT policy is not a Hard Truth, just wayang?

So I hope that Kishore*, our local MSM media and other PAP apologists move on from the mantra that the new media criticism and cynicism  of the PAP and the govt is juz “noise”: new media criticism of the govt does reflect perceptions (if not always facts) on the ground: even the views of the business community.

—

*Here’s a great rebuttal to Kishore’s attack on our cynicism. I was planning to bitch about his comments, but I was saved the trouble by this http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/04/14/kishore-our-cynicism-flows-from-institutional-failings/

PMs Lee & Najib didn’t read Tocqueville?

Well Najib certainly didn’t because he said recently, “We have in the last four years proven that whenever we make pledges, we have fulfilled our pledge”, and “unveiled a manifesto on Saturday pledging bigger cash handouts, millions of new jobs and lower taxes and crime, as he seeks his first mandate in looming national polls.”

If he had, he would not have said these things because of the dangers of rising expectations: people simply expect more.

Alexis De Tocqueville is famous particularly in the US for Democracy in America. But he also published The Old Regime and the Revolution in1856. In it he talked of the dangers of rising expectations.He argued that revolutions often took place not in times of despair but under improving conditions:

experience teaches us that, generally speaking, the most perilous moment for a bad government is one when it seeks to mend its ways….Patiently endured for so long as it seemed beyond redress, a grievance comes to appear intolerable once the possibility of removing it crosses men’s minds.*

As for our PM, I doubt if he read Tocqueville**. Because if he had, he wouldn’t have said on Saturday, the Singapore society is in a different phase now, no longer a teenager but more of a young adult — with a different growth rate, anxieties and issues. “What changes do we need to make? Not just policy changes, but changes in our philosophy, in our approach, in the way we define the compact, the balance between the individual and the society, between what the person does, and what is the State’s responsibility.

“I think we need to consider this carefully and think about how we will move (forward), so that we can meet the challenges of this new phase.”

He is setting us up for expectations that he and the PAP can never ever fulfill. One reason he can never ever fulfill our expectations is the attitude that he and the other PAP leaders know best (witness the Population White Paper). They know that only they can plan ahead (Mah Bow Tan planning the supply of HDB flats, and Raymond Lim planning tpt infrastructure to cope with immigrants by the cattle-truck load) , that they are infallible in policymaking (“Stop at two” and limiting the supply of home-grown doctors), and only they are able to ignore pressure groups and populism.

Another reason is that there are critics like Dr Chee, E-Jay, Gilbert Goh and Ravi who will never ever be satisfied. And nowadays they have the social media and internet to publicise their unhappiness and dissatisfaction.

————–

*When I first came across this many yrs ago, it struck a chord. I did “History” for O and A levels, and it had struck me that the colonial powers could never ever satisfy the aspirations of the local elites in Indonesia and Malaya. Whenever, they conceded anything, the response was always, “More”. The best way of maintaining power it seemed was to “shoot the trouble-makers”, something the British, Dutch and other colonial powers did in the 19th century. In the 20th, they became more squeamish (lost their empires), and left the shooting to the USSR (Hungary 1956) and China (1989 and in Tibet).

**This is sad as I’m sure LKY had read Tocqueville because he was always trying to ensure that S’poreans didn’t have rising expectations of anything. He always wanted us to be aware of the fragility of life. He admitted, a few yrs ago, that the reason why the size of the reserves and the returns on the reserves had to kept a secret from S’poreans was his fear that we would expect more to be spent on ourselves, if we knew how wealthy S’pore was. At the peak of his mental powers, he would never have said this because by saying it he was saying that there was plenty of money that could be spent.

Thinking about it, he and the PAP must love s/o JBJ, Chris Balding, and the many readers of TRE would are forever bitching that the reserves have been squandered: they are doing LEE’s work in trying to keep expectations low. And hate Tan Jee Say for saying that S$60bn of the reserves is “small change”. No wonder, he hasn’t been rewarded for helping ensure that Tony Tan became president.

What PM should learn from M’sian voters

It’s not juz a growing economy and the goodies that win elections:

… robust economic growth of 5.6% in 2012, poverty virtually eliminated, inequality reduced and 400 legal cases against corruption initiated. And he was able to announce that a scheme to give cash handouts to poorer households will become an annual event.

All should be set fair, you might think, for Mr Najib’s ruling coalition, the Barisan Nasional (BN), to romp home again at the election, as it has done in every ballot since independence in 1957.

… the outcome is in doubt, for the first time in Malaysia’s history. (Last but one issue of Economist).

When people get tired of the governing party or parties, no amount of GDP growth, goodies or appeal to self-interest will change their minds. They can be that daft. I mean if PAS becomes the strongest party in the PK, I’m sure Chinese and Indian women would be forced to wear tudungs. Remember too Anwar made his name in politics as a Muslim activist, not as a secular activist. Yet Indian and Chinese wimmin support PK because they support the DAP and Anwar’s party.

Seriously, there has always been been a large minority of M’sians who don’t like UMNO and its BN allies. What has changed is that a large number of voters who regularly voted for the BN got tired of the growing corruption in M’sia. Despite being given a ringing endorsement by the votes after Dr M stood down, Badawi was seen as overall ineffective especially in combating corruption. Came 2008, there was a swing against BN: it lost its two-thirds majority in parliament which enabled it to amend the constitution at will, and lost the plurality of votes on the peninsula, and lost a few states.

UMNO replaced Badawi with Najib, who has been throwing money at the electorate. But because he hasn’t done much on getting rid of corruption (and getting rid of pro Bumiputera policies, always a sore point among minorities), BN remains unpopular: unpopular enough to lose on the peninsula. And if the peninsula falls, the barons in the East (BN’s stronghold)will switch sides, even though one is an UMNO leader, and the other is a BN baron.

The issue of corruption got voters moving from BN to the Opposition. In S’pore, if the PAP, continues bulldozing its way on, and misrepresenting its “FTs are betterest” and “6.9m or bust”  policies”, it will lose votes even if continues throwing our money on making life more comfortable for us. S’poreans would say, “About time, so no need to be grateful. And it’s our money leh”.

So it’s all about immigration. It’s all about the 15,000 — 25,000 new citizens, and PRs by the container-load that the PAP wants so that S’pore will have 6.9m people in 2030.

(Someone by the name of Victoria posted on TRE: “I am sick and tired of all these alt sites who will twist every story involving foreigners just to incite intolerance, hatred and xenophobia. There is really no need for such gutter politics to paint PAP in a bad light. The hard truth is either we want more foreigners or we don’t want foreigners at all.”

Well, Victoria, I for one am sick and tired of the PAP govt and the constructive, nation-building media asserting that FTs and 6.9m population are to compensate for S’poreans refusal to breed. I have yet to see any chart illustrating why a TFR of 1.2 needs to be compensated for by bringing in FTs so that population reaches 6.9m. Remember that the replacement rate is 2.1.)

The one thing that PM has in his favour is that S’pore doesn’t have a charismatic scoundrel, turncoat and opportunist that M’sia has in Anwar Ibrahim. Mr Anwar once served as deputy prime minister but fell out with former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad in 1998. He was caught trying to take Dr M’s job.

For the absence of an Anwar, PM should be grateful, though we may not. In S’pore, we have the likes of Tan Kin Lian, Tan Jee Say, s/o JBJ, and Mad Dog Chee clowning around. WP Low has characteristically stood aside, affirming that he is only a co-driver, not an aspirant driver. he is too modest. While he is certainly no Anwar, he is a cut above the two Tans, Mad Dog and s/o JBJ. He is no clown. He is a serious, systematic chap who knows his limits. Sadly, he has limited aims for the WP.

Another reason for PM to be grateful.

Related post: http://atans1.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/rebuilding-trust-the-pap-way-one-step-forward-two-steps-back/

The April Fools joke is on the govt

Private daily newspapers are being sold in Burma for the first time in almost 50 years, as a state monopoly ends.

Sixteen papers have so far been granted licences, although only four were ready to publish on Monday.

This is another important milestone on Burma’s journey away from authoritarian rule, the BBC’s Jonathan Head reports from the commercial capital, Rangoon (BBC report on 1 April).

Yet our president has the cheek on 1 April to say. “We want to see Myanmar succeed, and are prepared to do whatever is within our means to support this transition towards democracy and steady development.”

“Where Myanmar goes, S’pore doesn’t dare follow” is what he should be saying.

Update at 10.20 — Forgot to mention that people don’t need a licence to protest: peaceful demonstrations are not an issue.

So will SPF prosecute property agents and money lenders for “mischief”

“Sticker Lady”, who is alleged to be behind the stickers and “MY GRANDFATHER ROAD” graffiti painted on several roads last May, will be charged in court today together with her alleged accomplice, the police said yesterday.

The two, graffiti artists Samantha Lo, 26, and Anthony “Antz” Chong, 30, will be charged with mischief and not vandalism — which would have been punishable with a fine of up S$2,000 or jail of up to three years and caning for men. Mischief carries a lighter maximum punishment of a fine or a jail term of up to two years, or both. Today.

Right, so can I expect the police to charge the property agents and money lenders who put up “ugly’, “non-artistic” stickers in my neighbourhood? It should be a cinch arresting these mischief makers as they displayed their mobile phone numbers prominently. Details in the post I wrote earlier last year — see below.

Their offences are worse because they are not easily removable (they used industrial glue to put up their stickers).

But somehow, I doubt the police bother about these property agents and money lenders.

BTW, I’m impressed that minister shan, in his capacity as MP, took the trouble to write to the police, on behalf of these artists. Nice of him. So unlike, George Yeo’s ladies from hell who once took the attitude that “the law must take its course”.

—————–

If SamL’s a vandal, are these not vandals too?

The police took the antics of the Sticker Lady very seriously, explaining a few weeks ago how the police had to divert substantial resources to identify the culprit behind the case saying, “vandalising public property is a very irresponsible act”. And that it cost money, time and effort to clean up after her.

Err so how come nothing has been done in my private housing estate since then to clean up acts of vandalism that would put the lady to shame, and to arrest the culprits?

It’s not as though it would be difficult to identify the vandals. They left their telephone numbers behind.

Let me explain. Within a 50m of my home, property agents and money lenders have been sticking up ads prominently displaying their telephone numbers. These are pasted on the public property, on electricity boxes, They read

Legal Loans : 90158055/ 84692899

Legal Loans : 93910045/ 98955254

Legal Moneylender: 90158055/ 93910045

Urgent buyer [of property] …/ Serious doctor …: 82855947

They make the place look like a slum (OK, OK I exaggerate a lot, but the public property has been turned into free ad billboards for money lenders and property agents at no benefit to the taxpayer). And have no artistic merit at all. They are juz black print on white paper.

I can understand the importance of zero tolerance policing and the arrest of the Sticker Lady in the context of zero tolerance policing. I cannot understand why property agents and money lenders are exempt from zero tolerance policing rules. Nor why these stickers are not removed. In M’sia, property agents and money lenders pay the police bribes to ensure they are allowed to put up illegal ads. Same here too? After all, if ex senior Home Team leaders are accused of offering contracts in return for sex, what should junior officers do?

Or is it OK to put up “commercial” stickers that deface public property but not arty-crafty scribblings? Or are property agents and lenders different? Like Woolly Wally Woffles’s employee who escaped prosecution, they work for the rich?

Penultimately, a wicked tot. If the money lenders and property agents are arrested, will “The PAP govmin are bastards” netizens (Andrew Loh, SG Hard Truths and Fabrications about the PAP are not in this group of “The PAP are always wrong”) rush to their defence saying, “The ads are so artistic. They are great examples of minimalist chic: black on white”.

Finally an apology to Sam the Sticky Lady. When I read the ST report where her dad described her as being traumatised by her arrest, I tot, “What a spoilt brat who thinks that she entitled to break the law with impunity. Thinks S’pore is her grandfather’s property when she is not a Lee or Tan”. But in view of the revelations of the culture of deceit and fakery at STOMP, ST could be misrepresenting the facts about how she felt on being arrested.

http://atans1.wordpress.com/2012/06/27/if-samls-a-vandal-are-these-not-vandals-too/

FTs: Quality control? What quality control?

Couldn’t stop laughing when CNA reported LKY as saying Mr Lee, ‘authorities here maintain a “certain quality of control”" on immigration http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1261274/1/.html. And then shaking my head on how out of touch he was. And to think that once upon a time, he was my hero because he was a good pragmatic micro-manager. He also talked sense when JBB was spouting nonsense. Seems LKY has picked up JBJ’s bad habit of talking nonsense.

I will not go into the instances where a violent, cheating sexy-looking PRC shop assistant turned out to be a PR, nor when a PRC prostitute got citizenship (this is not an urban myth: there is credible evidence that it happened), nor when a violent, drunk ang moh got PR status when he was awaiting trail for beating up two S’poreans , nor when an Indian murder suspect, here illegally, got a work permit. Nor the many reported cases of faked degrees, and “faked” salaries.

No, I will just point out that the govt has just only, again, tightened the rules for FTs getting a job here.

Acting Minister for Manpower Tan Chuan-Jin yesterday assuaged such fears, declaring that “such practices have no place in Singapore’s workplaces”, and would not be tolerated.

Based on feedback so far, Mr Tan said there were three areas of frustration over nationality discrimination: “Hiring-their-own-kind” where the employers prefer candidates of the same nationality; hiring foreigners as it is faster than screening Singaporeans; and a preference for well-qualified foreigners willing to work for lower wages.

To tackle this, the MOM will introduce a tiered structure for S-Passes where salaries would be tiered according to experience so that local PMEs are not undercut. The ministry will also investigate companies if necessary and suspend work pass privileges if needed — this was imposed on one “fairly prominent company” which advertised for employees of a certain nationality, Mr Tan said.

The government will stop tightening the tap on foreign workers only if three goals are met. They are:

• foreign presence in the labour pool is capped at around a third;
• productivity grows 2-3 per cent a year; and
• when Singaporeans’ wages improve.

Acting Manpower Minister Tan Chuan-Jin told Parliament yesterday, during the debate on his ministry’s budget: “If we are not able to meet these targets, we are likely to continue the tightening and restructuring approach.”

He noted that the foreign workforce, excluding foreign domestic workers, grew by about 67,000 last year – still too large a number, so his ministry has tightened its policies further to bring it down.

It will track the numbers sector by sector, he added. CNA

If there was QC, there wouldn’t be a need for such drastic measures, or the earlier ones, would there?

Instead of wanting more FTs to “spur” S’poreans, maybe he should have “spurred’ on the PM and other ministers when he was in a position to do so? I mean if he had “spurred” the Home Team, tpt, and HDB ministers, and his son, 5the PAP and S’poreans would have been much happier. The PAP would not have lost Aljunied, gain only 605 of the popular vote, nor nearly have its preferred candidate lose the presidential election. And we S’poreans would have better public tpt, less expensive apartments, and less crowded public spaces.

As to his comparison with Japan, I can only wonder why I once admired his analytical skills. S’pore is trying to grow its population, not just mitigate for an aging population. And for all his sneering of Japan, the Japanese have done pretty well. The economy has on some measures outperformed even the US, his ideal of a country that allows in FTs. See analysis here from HSBC, http://atans1.wordpress.com/2012/10/05/honest-conversation-on-fts-lets-have-it-not-juz-pretend-that-weve-having-it-iswaran/

Two great Romans, the dictator Sulla and the emperor Diocletian, at the height of their powers, temporal, and mental, retired from public life, leaving only memories of them at their best (often brutal) moments. Maybe LKY should have done that. He was also very protective of the public image of his mouth-piece Rajaretnam in the latter’s dotage. It may have been better if he had taken such care for his own image.

What the pope can teach our PM and police

No not taking public transport*: the Pope used to do so when he was the Argie cardinal, but the importance of public communication:

The Jesuits, missionaries and educators, are trained to be expert communicators and it is significant that among the first people summoned to meet the new Pope at his hotel suite this morning was fellow Jesuit Father Lombardi – official Vatican spokesperson, head of Vatican Radio (run for many years by the Jesuits) and of the Vatican Press Office.

Under Pope Benedict, Father Lombardi was a mere functionary who had no direct access to the pontiff.

He could not pick up the phone and talk things through quickly with Benedict himself. He received orders from the Vatican Secretariat of State and briefed the press accordingly. All that has changed overnight.

Pope Francis has already decided he will meet the world’s media who have arrived in their thousands to cover the papal election at a special audience on Saturday morning.

This shows a vivid awareness that prayer may not be enough to deal with the situation facing the Catholic Church at this critical moment in its long history. Public relations will be a priority at a particularly sensitive moment of papal transition. Extract from BBC Online.

So when I read  the article “Govt will need to be more open, says PM”. (Sunday Times, Mar 17),which went on: “the Government will become more transparent to adapt to society today, even if politics becomes untidy and its outcomes less predictable”; I thought maybe a good step would be to bring in a Jesuit FT** as the govt’s public communications adviser? Local talent s/o Devan Nair, once a very senior keyboard-wielding Imperial Storm Trooper, the chief of govt communications, seems to have gone AWOL.

Witness the bad PR our SPF is having to face in its investigations of the death of Shane Todd. No-one to blame except the PR people in govt or the SPF: witness  a mealy-mouthly letter that is so ambiguous that it can be used as evidence of incompetency:

“In the course of its investigation, the Police had examined the deceased’s computers and a hard disk drive. This disk drive was subsequently handed over, with acknowledgement, to the next-of-kin. Should the next-of-kin be in possession of other evidence, they should provide it to the Police to assist in their investigations.”

http://www.spf.gov.sg/mic/2013/130220_reply_article_others.htm

This was written to the FT which reported the parents allegation that they had found a hard drive lying around (implying police incompetency or worse). There seems in this letter to be an insinuation that it is the same hard drive, and that the parents are lying. But didn’t dare not say so because it could be a different hard drive: the police just don’t know.

A well written letter would have said the police now want to establish if this is the same hard drive that was handed to the parents, and offer to provide the FT with details of the hard drive it (the police) handed over so that the FT could establish whether it was the same or different hard drive.

—

*But if PM had taken public tpt, he would have realised that Ms Saw and Raymond Lim were making misleading statements on the state of public transport: blaming commuters for having unreasonable expectations. Turned out commuters were right to complain of overcrowded public transport, especially of trains. Our money that the govt is throwing at the problem is proof that us commuters were right, and Saw and Raymond Lim were misrepresenting the situation.

**I don’t think there any any S’porean Jesuits. Any S’porean capable of becoming a Jesuit ends up as a scholar.

So SPF didn’t pursue “every lead and examine the different angles thoroughly”?

Until the US told S’pore to,”wake up yr ideas”?

Oh the shame of being a S’porean. Our SPG SPF investigators are negligent, blind as bats, not trained to recognise PC peripherals or just plain dumb. And this is after the failure to put a terrorist fugitive’s close relative’s home under surveillance (he dropped in to hide), after a senior police man tot nothing of having an affair that he publicly admitted, and where an investigator is undergoing disciplinary proceedings for a possible ang moh kaw tua kee attitude.

A few weeks ago, I was reading my Saturday FT. There was a long story on a death by hanging of a young American scientist here. As I was reading the story, it was clear that his parents were kicking up a fuss, saying that the S’pore police was not doing a good job investigating the death (they still do). Well they were in grief, that was to be expected, and given what they were alleging, some really wacko stuff, that their allegations of police failures had to be discounted. This is S’pore, not Hicksville USA or some third world country. I was going to give up reading the piece and complain to FT about the trash they were reporting.

Then I read that our police investigators did not secure a hard drive. The dead American’s parents said it was lying on a table in full view of anyone in the room, that they didn’t know what it was, but took it away anyway, then found out that it was a hard drive that contained files from his office PC (and which now our police want access to).

The fact that our police failed to secure a hard drive made me understand his parents apprehensions and anger: we were Hicksville USA or some third world country, and the FT was right to report the story. The police had secured his PC and mobile phone but not a hard drive that was allegedly in full view on a table. If the police could be so sloppy, or worse, anything is possible. As the Population White Paper shows, a sloppy, slip-shod, careless mistake can undermine any attempt to be authoritative http://atans1.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/population-white-paper-2030-will-resemble-1959/.

We S’poreans have been told by govt ministers, PAP MPs and an NMP (who was a PAPpie once) that bitching too loud about the policy of letting in FTs by the cattle-truck load, was not good for S’pores image, and could jeopardise economic growth because FTs will be scared away.

How come the same people don’t complain that incompetent police investigation could jeopardise our economy? I mean Foreign Talents may not want to live in a place where the police can’t secure a hard drive (which they now say could contain important evidence).

Now the SPF has invited the FBI to help it, something that it had earlier resisted. In a statement, our embassy in the U.S said that the investigation that began with the Todd death in June is “still ongoing and the Singapore Police will pursue every lead and examine examine the different angles thoroughly.” Not done before? An “honest mistake”? More likely, an avoidable mistake.

Then CNA reported Singapore’s Foreign Minister K Shanmugam said authorities are “committed to getting to the bottom” of the death of an American researcher in Singapore last year … Speaking in Washington, Mr Shanmugam said Singapore has invited the United States to audit the relationship between Todd’s employer, the Institute of Microelectronics, and the Chinese telecoms giant Huawei.

This is total abject surrender by S’pore of its sovereign rights. Might as well accede to the parents’ demand that the FBI supervise our SPF’s investigation? Surprised that these country folk, didn’t demand that the SEALs, Delta Force and the Marines invade S’pore to forcibly secure their son’s body and possessions?

Sorry, I forgot that our boys in blue really goofed up, and added unnecessary mental anguish to the grieving parents. Death of a child is hard to take: the possibility that he may have committed suicide is even harder to take. Best to go into denial and blame it on a conspiracy.

The least DPM Teo can do to limit damage to the police’s image locally and internationally, is to announce publicly that the members of the team that initially investigated the hanging have been replaced*. Pigs would fly first though sadly, even though I have heard on the grapevine that there have changes in the team that originally investigated the hanging. This being the PAP govt, it refuses to acknowledge that anything can go wrong in govt, until  too late.

And would Mrs Chiam or a PAP MP ask DPM Teo the outcome, if any, of the internal police disciplinary inquiry into the conduct of the investigator who, on the face of it, took a tidak apa, ang moh tua kee attitude when two true blue S’poreans were brutally assaulted by three ang moh caws? Two of whom skipped bail, one of whom got PR status after the assault. Another “honest mistake”?

====

*And announce that the same team that visited film-maker Lynn Lee’s home at night, to secure her handphone and laptop because the police were investigating a film she made where PRC FT  SMRT drivers alleged that they were mistreated by the police. Now they are on the bola, zealous cops.

Safe? Are you sure LTA?

Sinkholes happen when a layer of rock underneath the ground is dissolved by acidic water.

Usually this layer is a soluble carbonate rock, such as limestone or its purer form, chalk …Typically rainfall seeps through the soil, absorbing carbon dioxide and reacting with decaying vegetation. As a result, the water that reaches the soluble rock is acidic.

The acidic water causes the erosion of the soluble rock layers beneath the surface – eventually creating cavernous spaces.

The soil or sand over the limestone collapses into a sinkhole when it is no longer supported because of the cavity below. This final collapse of the surface might take anything from a few minutes to several hours. Read http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21600410 for more details on how they occur.

After reading the article, I’m left wondering how LTA can be so confident that the other lanes are safe*? Ain’t the other lanes sited on the same piece of land? It’s that to imagine that the hollow in the ground coincide with the lane: surely the hollow, if any, is spread over several lanes? As the article points out, holes can appear suddenly and unexpectedly, when there is a “tipping point’.

And if other sinkholes appear on other lanes: another “honest mistake”?

But let’s be fair, if the LTA had closed sections of the road while it conducts tests, and then found no other problems, the “Govt are bastards” brigade on Facebook, TRE, TOC, TRS and the internet would have a field day. And S’poreans who were inconvenienced by the road closure would bltch like bleating lambs too.

In first-world democracies, the emphasis would be safety over convenience, partly because govt’s and officials are afraid of lawsuits when people die. Here the culture seems to be public convenience over public safety (and cross fingers and hope no one dies). We had one example of this attitude when the public inquiry into MRT breakdowns, revealed that LTA was upset when SMRT wanted to extend disruption of service to conduct more checks. And the bitch brigade bitched when a minister dared to suggest that there might be a need to stop services to conduct checks or repairs. Nothing further was heard from him.

A balance has to be struck between public safety and public convenience, and this requires a consensus. Now wouldn’t this issue make a great topic for NatCon? And isn’t this issue connected to the issue of how many people we want here, given our population density. We are among the world’s most densely populated places.

———————-

*The patched-up sinkhole on Clementi Road has reappeared.

The gaping hole is about two-metre wide and a metre deep.

It was fixed on 4 March but it collapsed again on Friday.

A Land Transport Authority spokesperson said the affected lane was closed off immediately for repair works.

They are investigating the cause of the hole and are also conducting scans below the affected portion for any possible cavities.

The other lanes on Clementi Road remain safe. CNA

Low & gang are pro LHL?

Readers will know by now that JG is a WP groupie, usual making coherent and rational arguments.

In response to this, she wrote: Looks like you’re still only 3 steps or so into your 10 step journey of epiphany about LHL. You really think he “gets it” and beginning to change since GE2011? Bookmark this post and come back again 2 years time. I’ve seen countless hopeful like you – including Andrew Loh, “Blogging for Myself” – slowly learning for themselves that it is not MBT, TCH, WKS that’s the issue – its the top leadership. When its rudderless or ineffective – what you call “hands-off” – you get bursts of swinging to the left, swinging to the right, tweaking a little here, tweaking a little there. You’re colored by your hopes and prejudice that I think, you will take a longer time to see his lack of leadership for what it is. The problem, as Lucky Tan rightly pointed out, is that the longer you let certain things fester, the worse it becomes and harder to solve. OK, lets set the clock ticking …

Err JG seems to have forgotten that her dear leader, Loh, says,”Effect of policy changes not felt yet” and “Give govt time to work policies”? So isn’t he saying that we should give PM and the govt more time, now that PM is no longer neutered mentored? And remember Show Mao’s analogy of the WP being loyal courtiers to the emperor (OK, OK, I exaggerate: only slightly though), another way of expressing a variant of the idea: give constructive, nation-building criticism so that the PAP can reform itself and change it policies for S’pore?

As to decisive leadership from him, don’t expect it.He is not that kind of person, and anyway, S’pore and the world are too complicated for that kind of style in other than in crises. George Bush was a decisive leader: look what happened.

Err why must S’poreans prove anything, Managing Editor of SPH?

On 24th February, SunT’s headline on its regular column by SPH’s Managing Editor* screamed: “Who’s out of touch – our leaders or people?”. In slightly smaller lettering,” S’poreans have to also prove that they are not a mollycoddled lot who have forgotten the realities of making a living in this competitive world and how this country made it against the odds.”

It irritated me for three reasons. The obvious one is that S’poreans already know “the realities of making a living in this competitive world”: in the last few years, they have had to put up with minimal increases in real income, escalating property prices** and inflation caused in part by the government’s very liberal immigration policies, amidst  turbulent economic conditions. The immigration policies that only now are being revised: not to reverse the situation, mind you, just  to slow the growth of FTs from the cattle-truck load to a lorry-load. I didn’t say this, Grace Fu said this when she blasted WP’s plans to limit FTs.

The second reason is that he seems to have forgotten that the govt had already admitted that ordinary S’poreans neede income rises: the issue was how to achieve it. On 25 February, Tharman announced the Budget and he said later, “And if you can’t raise incomes for the average person, for the median household and for those at the lower end of the wage ladder, your society frays.”

The third reason, it irritated me is is the unspoken assumption (which he may not even realise he made) that S’poreans are not sovereign: we have to answer to a higher authority. And this authority grades us to see whether our views are acceptable or not. If not acceptable, go get locked up under ISA, is it Mr Managing Editor?

This assumption is best explained by Alex Au in this and Dr Jothie Rajah (the first wife of our Law Minister, according to Kum Hong)

It is here that Rajah brings up a novel point. Very often, the PAP in its defence alludes to how Singapore’s legal and political system is descended from Britain. This is used as yet another bullet point in support of ‘rule of law’ legitimacy. But she points out that in many ways, our laws are not descended from Britain. They are instead descended from colonial rule, and colonial rule is inherently illiberal. Colonial governments did not rule over citizens; they ruled over subjects. Colonial governors did not submit themselves to election nor permit much political contestation; they enacted laws such as the Internal Security Act and the Sedition Act meant to control rebellion, and they saw themselves as the enlightened and civilised few sent here to protect the natives who could not be trusted to see their own best interests, grasp the facts or even understand the complex issues of the day.

The examples she studied and presented in her book all have a similar character. She thus argues that

The nation-state has adopted the colonial legal regime in a manner that renders the nation-state a neo-colonising entity, subordinating and infantilising citizen-subjects.

Coming back to Mr Managing Editor: with an ally like this, the PAP and PM must be wondering, “Who needs enemies?”

————–

*His picture reminds me of one of Philip K Dick’s Unusuals in “Our Friends from Frolix 8″. The Ususuals ruled the solar system.

**Mah Bow Tan even ensured that property prices flew in a recession.http://atans1.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/property-prices-mm-lee-is-too-modest/

Don’t be like that leh, Lucky Tan

(Or “Let’s pang chance Lee Hsien Loong: he is dismantling the LKY House of Hard Truths that he,  GCT and other PAPpies constructed” )

True I agree that this is the Budget I would like to have seen in the early noughties http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/03/01/lucky-tan-on-budget-right-direction-but-several-years-late/.

But let’s give PM some credit for not sailing full steam ahead like what dad and GCT seem to want, like the captain of the Titanic, into an iceberg. True the PAP govt would suffer if he continued the Way of Hard Truths, but so would we: we might get what PritamS and Show Mao in the cabinet: a PAP govt held up by the WP. And an economy that has gone to dogs (FT of course), literally. There is still time to correct the course, assuming, of course, that the PM and his cabinet have truly repented of the sins of the previous cabinets and of Goh Chok Tong’s premership where one LHL, Teo, Khaw, Hng Kiang, Tharman  and  Ng Eng Hen were leading ministers.

And true, it might be too late to avoid problems caused by the Way of Hard Truths.

But better late than never I say. Remember he only became unfettered as PM after the 2011 GE. Since 2004, he had been shackled to his predecessors who remained in the cabinet and who shared the same work space. Imagine any CEO having to share his office with his predecessors.

What I like about the Budget is the realisation (to me at least) by the PAP that just because everyone could be made better off by economic growth doesn’t mean that everyone will be made better off: there must be an institutional framework in place to ensure that the gains from growth are shared. Hence the return to the “old” CPF rates, and the govt subsidised salary increases, though I would like to know more about the link between the two. (Hopefully a PAP MP or Mrs Chiam can ask questions to clarify the matter. The WP MPs would be too busy preening themselves crowing about the measures copied from them. One word of advice to them: S’poreans are not daft. S/o JBJ, Mad Dog and TJS lost credibility with S’poreans when they wrongly claimed that the govy “stole” their ideas.)

Which neatly brings me back into the topic of giving our  PM some credit for changing the way things are done. Let’s take his lawyer’s letter against one Alex Au, a few months ago. Remember that incident? If you don’t just google it up on TRE.

As could have been expected, Lee Hsien Loong’s request to Alex Au to remove a defamatory posting met with howls and bitching from the Jedi of the internet. You can read all about it at TRE and TOC. Even the self-styled People’s Voice, TKL, joined in.  When he joins in, you know that the issue has been blown way out of all proportion.

One day I will go into some detail on why PM was right to (I’m waiting for the PAP to offer me some goodies first, like say an AIM-like contract) ask him to remove the post.

But here are the powerpoint points (partly so that PAP can see how gd I can be at defending PM (and other PAPpies, at least better than PR expert Baey and the PAP’s allies in the media)

– he (PM) is doing what we (OK at least me) would all love to do when we are defamed or ridiculed;

– he’s got the money, what with his salary;

– the post of PM should not be tarnished with unproven allegations of corruption directed at the person holding it; and

– Alex Au

—- wasn’t asked to cough up costs,

—- had form as a serial defamer of the PAPpies, and

—- has subversive tendencies and ideas.

(He also didn’t sue TJS for saying that the detention of the “Marxists” in 1988 was political: something that got one Tony Tan upset and screaming, “Defamation”. Instead he left TJS bang his balls in frustration that the Opposition parties ignore him despite his claim ,mathematically correct, that he got more votes in PE 2011 than the WP got in GE2011.)

And to be serious, remember that he changed the undemocratic policy of not holding by-elections for vacant seats, despite a court affirming that he, the PM has a discretion not to hold by-elections.  He could have chosen not to call by-elections in Houggang or Punggol East. But he did and ended up with a jab in the eye in Punggol East.

To sum up: PM’s a pretty decent guy, even if he was born with five silver spoons in his mouth, and a golden pram. He doesn’t go round micro-managing his ministers and senior civil servants. Or suing his critics. Or pretending to be “compassionate like GCT. His problem is that he has to sack a few more non-performers and more importantly humiliate them publicly, so that S’poreans feel “shiok” that even tua kees can be castrated publicly. Imagine if he had humiliated the clownish four: GCT, Wong, Mah and Raymond. S’poreans would be cheering him.

And finally, to repeat something I wrote earlier, he only became a real PM after the May 2011 election. Before that he was a neutered mentored PM (since 2004), and before that a meritocratic society’s version of the hereditary Dauphin or Prince of Wales, except of course that unlike them he got there by virtue of a President and SAF scholarships,  Double First at Cambridge and career in the SAF.

And while the u/m is something that his dad or Goh Chok Tong might have introduced to deter crime, punish criminals and raise revenues, I some how doubt that PM would introduce this US practice.

When a crime is committed there’s often talk of the criminal owing a debt to society – paid back through community service, fines or a prison term … In many American states, ex-offenders leave prison owing fees and fines to the court – possibly $50 (£31) for police transport, or $35 (£22) to a victims’ fund, or $100 (£62) for some unspecified administrative fee.

But in Philadelphia, you can also owe money for missing court dates before your imprisonment – and these sums run into thousands of dollars.

 Those fines ratchet up the bill quickly, with some people who thought they’d paid for their criminal past discovering that they now owe tens of thousands of dollars.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20796981

So let’s cut him some slack, and see how much more to dad’s house he demolishes, even if he and his gang helped built much of the unattractive features.

Two cheers for the govt’s policy of limiting uni education

No college diploma, no job, even as a file clerk (NYT), shows that the govt has legitimate concerns about the extent of university education.

Problem is that at the same time as limiting the local uni education of true blue S’poreans, it allows in FTs with degrees (how many are fake?) by the cattle-truck load.

So locals are held back, so that FTs with fake or low quality degrees can find work here? Something is wrong, very wrong with this reasoning.

It’s reasoning like this, adherence to Hard Truths, while favouring FTs, that turned me against the PAP. That and Charles Chong insisting that people needing help must be stripped of their dignity before they can receive $50, in transport vouchers. Google up “Charles Chong” on this blog.

For the record, S’pore’s spending on education is only around 3% of GDP (about halve of Switzerland which is in line with developed countries), so we got to spend a lot more to have a Swiss-style standard of education.

Related post:

http://atans1.wordpress.com/?s=Switzerland

Rebuilding trust the PAP way: “One step forward, two steps back”.

While one can the criticise the details of the Budget (I hope the WP would not be up to its old trick of publicly bitching against it while voting for the Budget on the QT), I think that finally the govt has got the idea on how to rebuild trust: Spending more of our money on making life more comfortable for ourselves (especially the poorer S’poreans, and the middle class: the latter according to Kee Chui Chan); while trying to curb inflation* by using non-market mechanisms: raising taxes on luxury cars, and properties (other than the home) and by introducing curbs on car financing. How about doing the latter for residential investments: not more than 10 years? (Budget cheat sheet: http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/highlights-singapore-budget-fiscal-2013-074234964.html)

More measures like those contained in the Budget, and the announcements in 2011 and 2012 on increased public transport infrastructure spending of $1.1bn, and the  accelerated HDB building programme, are the right steps in rebuilding trust.

Likewise the announcement that AIM will not take part in the coming tender (Though I’ll blog one of these days on a conspiracy theory on why AIM is not taking part).

But the govt and PAP seemed determined to sabo themselves by doing things like publishing the Population White Paper http://atans1.wordpress.com/2013/02/22/population-white-paper-paps-suicide-note/ . It’s things like this paper that prevents the PAP from regaining the trust of many S’poreans. The govt and PAP have an obsession of doing the unpopular thing. The assumption seems to be that the unpopular thing is always the right thing to do. Maybe they should think of doing the right thing, even if it is the popular thing to do?

The test should be, “Will the measure benefit the majority of S’poreans?”, not “Is it unpopular?”.

Whatever it is, the PAP have until the next GE (2016?) not until 2020 (as PM seems to think) to rebuild trust. Otherwise it might need the WP’s help to form a govt. That will make PritamS (Coalition) and Show Mao’s day (WP as trusted adviser).

My advice: juz throw more of our money at S’poreans, go easy on public transport fare rises, make it possible to use Medisave for more ailments, “borrow” ideas from the SDP’s healthcare plan, squeeze the very rich S’poreans (those who flash around big or sporty cars, or luxury palaces or EC penthouses and go easy on the “FTs all the way” policy.

In short, make life better for the majority of S’poreans.

Budget debate: No more Wayang pls WP

(Esp since govt stops Wayang on COEs and properties)

I was surprised to learn from DPM Teo last yr, that the WP MPs voted in favour of the 2012 Budget. Given the passion that they spoke against things they didn’t like about the 2012 Budget, I had tot that they would abstain. Voting against the Budget would be expecting too much of a party that sees itself as a “co-driver” with the possibility of sharing the driving one day (Dream on Baiyee).

Still I tot that abstaining would be a principled stand (Not opposing for the sake of opposing), that reflects the realities: there are gd bits, and any way PAP will win the vote. But support the Budget was two-faced by any standard, especially given that there were strong speeches against bits of the Budget. (And talking of two-faced, Baiyee and Auntie voted for the govt’s bill changing the law on mandatory capital punishment, after waxing impassionately against it).

So come the time, I expect the WP to be principled: either abstain or vote against the govt’s Budget. I’m of course assuming that there are things in the Budget that the WP strongly disagrees with. If the WP has only minor quibbles, and supports the Budget, in general, I expect it to say so openly, loudly, and to vote for the Budget. Don’t attack it, and then support it. In short, no more Wayang please.

The WP MPs should show us that they got balls they can walk the talk, not talk cock sing song. For the latter, we got PAP MPs like Inderjit Singh. The voters of Punggol East and Aljunied did not vote for WP MPs, only to discover that they voted for PAP clones who dress in light blue.

Penultimately, PritamS had a great suggestion for the govt that he should suggest to WP Low. Practice what you preach: set an example.

“Member of Parliament (MP) Pritam Singh has asked the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to better highlight Singapore’s stand on controversial issues.
He said this was not only to solicit public feedback, but also to remove the chance for misunderstandings among the public to occur on such matters.” CNA on 4 February 2013.

The WP should better highlight WP’s stand (and voting record in Parliament where applicable) on controversial or complicated issues to remove the chance for misunderstandings among the public to occur on such matters.

Finally, nice to see that the govt has stopped its wayanging on inflation caused by COEs and property rentals (Remember Tharman’s and Hng Kiang’s,”Inflation? What inflation? Don’t rent, no new car, no inflation leh.”) Why did it  take the govt so long to introduce these measures http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1256373/1/.html. I also like the new car financing measures. Shumething should be done similarly on residential property financing, other than first homes. SLimit the loans to 10 years, given that interest rates are low.

Update: WP groupie JG (see comments) has a gd point on voting records. This is something that the WP should explain to S’poreans as per Baiyee’s suggestion.

 

What Raffles could have taught the PAP

Executive summary: Gd intentions are not enough; move on fast, and mud sticks: in short, life can be most unfair.

Uncle Leong’s latest piece on AIM(http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/02/22/aim-saga-part-2-has-just-begun/), reminded me that I had planned to write about what Raffles could have taught the PAP in its handling of AIM’s contract with PAP town councils. But the Punggol East by-elections and the Population White Paper crowded out the piece. So it got KIVed and then forgotten until Uncle Leong’s piece reminded me of it.)

Over the December hols, I read a very interesting book, “Raffles and the British Invasion of Java”(http://rafflesandjava.com/ for more details). As I was finishing the book, the AIM story was developing fast and furious. What struck me was that Raffles got himself into a bit of bother over a similar incident.

But before I go into the details, let me give some background.

When Raffles died, his crowning achievement in the view of his contemporaries was not the founding of S’pore (it was still a work in progress: it was loss making) but his lieutenant-governorship of Java from 1811- 1816. Westminster Abbey has a memorial statue to him erected a few years after his death. The inscription reads: “To the memory of Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles … Lieut. Governor of Java … he raised Java to happiness and prosperity unknown under former rulers”. (While “first President of the Zoological Society of London” was the other achievement inscribed on the memorial, S’pore was not mentioned.)

His career went downhill after Java. It was so bad that after his resignation in 1823 on grounds of ill-health, he was investigated for various financial irregularities. He was cleared but to show his employer’s displeasure at his conduct, he was sent a bill in 1826 for £20,000 (now around £1m). He died shortly afterwards.

As to his rule of Java, Dutch sources and historians disagree with the view of British historians and biographers that he brought prosperity to Java. So does the author of the book I read. To them, he failed to improve the lives of the Javanese.

Now to what the PAP and in particular Dr Teo Ho Pin  could have learned from Raffles.

He had told his employer, the East India Company, that Java would be profitable for the shareholders.

But he was wrong. To try to cover part of the cost of invading and governing Java, he sold some land by way of auction. But he was a member of the consortium that won the auction. Knowledge of his participation became public (to be fair to him, he never hid his participation), people complained publicly, and he had to sell his share in the consortium, at cost, to try to avoid the issue from escalating.

He justified his action by saying he did it to instill confidence: that the fact that he was willing to invest should have encouraged other bidders. His boss, who liked him (and who had wanted to conquer Java from the Dutch irrespective of the cost) told him that he did not doubt Raffles’ good intentions, but it was bad judgment to be a member of the consortium.

Raffles was impeached although the judge dropped the charge after investigating the matter. But the incident dogged him in later life, when the East India Company investigated his financial affairs after his retirement: the issue was raked over again. Actually, the directors didn’t like him because he was into empire-building (literally), when all they wanted were profits. Raffles never ever made money for the East India Company. He was a true-blue predecessor of our SAF scholars, he spent money other people’s money, never made it. For the record, the SAF chief, scholar, Temask MD, now CEO of NOL, has reported yet another loss. And Desmond Quek, another scholar and SAF chief, has admitted that SMRT’s costs can only go up.

To be fair, even Raffles’ many enemies and critics conceded that unlike many other East India Company officials, he wasn’t making money on the side, and that unlike many other officials, he retired poor. Still the Java land sale is a blot on his reputation and judgment.

Will the AIM incident result in a similar permanent blemish on the PAP’s “whiter than white” uniform? In the case of Raffles, mud from the land sale stuck, even though he was cleared of financial impropriety.

And is the PAPpies call for a tender, their way of trying deescalate the issue: if someone else does the job, then AIM is history and we will be asked to “move on”.

Of course if AIM takes part in the tender and wins (remember it helped draw up the tender specifications, all hell will break lose. Knowing the competency of the PAPpies today (think Kate Spade Tin, Hri Kumar, Ms Fool, Dr Teo, Dr Lim, GCT, Mah Bow Tan, Raymond Lim and Wong Can’t Sing), no prizes for predicting that AIM will win the tender.

And to think that the PAP was known for its competency, while the WP was known to be the home of bicycle thieves, loonies and economic illiterates. Those were the days, my friends; when we were young.

Population White Paper: PAP’s suicide note?

“The longest suicide note in history” was a phrase used by British Labour Party MP Gerald Kaufman to describe his party’s 1983 election manifesto. .

The manifesto, pressing all the right buttons for Labour activists, but almost no-one else in the UK, called for unilateral nuclear disarmament, withdrawal from the European Economic Community, abolition of the House of Lords, and the re-nationalisation of recently privatised industries like British Telecom, British Aerospace, and the British Shipbuilding Corporation.

Well, in two elections in 2011, S’poreans expressed their anger at the “FTs are betterest policy” that even the govt has admitted led to strained public transport infrastructure, and which many S’poreans blame for high property prices and inflation, overcrowding, alienation and social disorder.

Well methinks the Population White Paper could become the new “longest suicide note in history” especially if ESM Goh Chok Tong’s sneers reflect the attitude of the PAP towards S’poreans concerns about an overcrowded S’pore swarming with FTs.. With PM, DPM Teo and the defence and the foreign minister (only Tharman is AWOL among the PM’s most trusted ministers) trying to assure us that the govt was listening to our unhappiness, ESM said, “But cannot say that I think much of speakers’ rhetoric. Too political, too one-sided, appealing to emotions only and not shedding light on important issues.”

If PM doesn’t give ESM a tight slap soon, PM’s and the govt’s cred will take another beating. Ministers must know that they have to listen more closely to us, as they have promised to do. If ESM gets away with his comments, what’s the worth the ministers’ promises?

Another reason why the PWP could be the new “longest suicide note in history” is because immigration is one of those issues that has a way of turning very toxic very quickly, as politicians from Britain and France to Malaysia and China can easily confirm.

The funny thing is that the PAP govt. could have avoided the problem by not laying its “We love FTs” cards so brazenly and openly. The White Paper could have focused just on the need to breed more, and how to do it. The govt had already promised to a sceptical public that it would reduce the “FTs by the truckload” policy. It had already started addressing the infrastructure issues by throwing our money on public transport, and housing.

It could have juz kicked the issue of having a lot more people here by 2030 into the “long grass” as the expression goes. Or at least until after the next GE. Yet as Uncle Leong pointed out the annual projections for PRs and new citizens, exceed 2011 numbers.

The PM should have rebuilt the trust that the PAP govt once had by focusing on improving our quality of life, using our money.

Instead, he chose to annoy me, and anger many of my fellow S’poreans. Has the PAP lost the will to live? Like the UK Labour Party in 1983? Or is it juz hubris at work?

Finally a foreign journalist’s take on the protest http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2013/02/protest-singapore

——–

*Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer compared the 2012 Republican House Budget to the above manifesto (in terms of comparable unpopularity) and then remarked about the House Budget, “At 37 footnotes, it might be the most annotated suicide note in history.” — Wikipedia.

“HK finds room for 7.2 million people”

That was the headline of a SunT article in the same issue that downplayed the protest at Hong Lim Green, a downplaying that not only got me annoyed but upset a retired senior ink-wielding Imperial Storm Trooper http://berthahenson.wordpress.com/2013/02/17/reporting-hong-lim-park/.

One can only assume that as the same issue carried a front page story on why according to PM, S’pore is a great place to breed, that the story filed from HK was meant to reinforce the view that the 6.9m number that had gotten 5,000 S’poreans to protest was no big deal: their reactions were “emotional” , “unbalanced” or “not shedding light on important issues”*.

Unfortunately for ST, the article contained a table scan0001  comparing the land use in HK and S’pore. Two comparative figures stand out

– Land Use

HK        S.pore

1108       710 sq km

– Country parks and nature reserves

HK         S’pore

738*           57 sq km**

*66.6% of Land Use

**8%

Need I say more on why S’poreans are upset? Especially as the 8% grren space includes the Central Catchment area which will be ripped apart to accommodate the planned projected FT expansion

ST has rightly been given a lot of stick for its coverage of the 6.9m debate. But two cheers to it for the land usage comparison table which sabos the PM’s and his govt’s assertion that 6.9m people doesn’t mean living in a slum. Despite all the extra land and green spaces, even SunT’s HK eporter admits that life isn’t that comfy.

And “Yes’ fair-minded readers, and PAPpies can bitch that I used the comparison stats unfairly, but hey the PAP govt** and allies in the media and the think-tanks (ISEAS is an honourable exception), ain’t playing fair in trying to persuade us that living like battery-hens is high quality living.

—

*Er how can the PM, defence minister etc say that they are listening and have learnt from when one ESM Goh Chok Tong makes these remarks? PM should give him a tight slap to show that the and his govt are sincere in caring for S’poreans, unlike GCT. Remember during his premiership, FTs were allowed to sneak in under the radar. And our fears were dismissed.

***Donald Low, a senior fellow at the LKY School of Public Policy and a former senior civil servant, has criticised the white paper, “wasn’t even a References section to show what research the writers of the paper had done, what social science theories they relied on, what competing theories/frameworks they looked at … There was also a surprising lack of rigorous comparison with other countries that have gone through, or are going through, a similar demographic transition.”

PM should try changing the way he makes decisions and communicates

After listening to PM’s speech on the population White Paper, I wandered if one of PM’s problems bis the deliberate, methodical way he makes decisions and communicates with ordinary S’poreans? Even his “choking” had me wondering how he rehearsed it.

In his book Thinking, Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman describes the two different ways the brain forms thoughts.

– fast, automatic, frequent, emotional, stereotypical, subconscious; or

– slow, effortful, infrequent, logical, calculating, conscious.

No prizes guessing which way the PM and the PAPpies think and communicate.

The Economics Nobel Prize winner argues it would be a mistake to assume that logical thought somehow trumps automatic reaction. The former is often highly sensitive to subtle cues, the source of the “fight or flight” response that kept our ancestors from being eaten by other predators.

To gild the lily, in his book Blink,  Malcolm Gladwell argues that we live in a society dedicated to the idea that we should spend as much time as possible in deliberation, “As children, this lesson is drummed into us again and again: haste makes waste, look before you leap, stop and think. But I don’t think this is true.”

Gladwell argues that there are lots of situations when instant judgments are better than considered though,  “I think its time we paid more attention to those fleeting moments”, suggesting a general policy of intuition would result in a happier world.

In PM’s case maybe a happier PAP, and S’poreans. And a relieved Low. He needn’t worry about governing a city.

And it isn’t as though his use of slow, logical thinking has helped PM think thru how to solve the problems we face*. Based on the questions he is asking himself and us, his slow, logical thinking results in a parroting of daddy’s Hard Truths. http://atans1.wordpress.com/2013/01/29/pm-what-about-asking-the-right-questions-or-at-least-different-ones/

Penultimately, three great responses from TRE readers to the above link which TRE republished:

– PM’s questions remind me of an incident onboard a flight to America some time ago. The flight attendant in response to a passenger’s question, said in a jest “Yes, there is a choice for your meal – Eat or Don’t eat”.

Needless to say, the passenger had to eat whatever was left, because he was not in the first class cabin.

– Mr PM.

If that is the case, can I just ask the following:

1. Are you going to control the costs of housing or do you want us to vote in the Opposition?

2. Are you going to address the rising transport costs or you want us to vote in the Opposition?

3. Will you be completely transparent about the Aim/Town Councils issue, or you want us to vote in the Opposition?

4. Are you going to relax the foreign worker’s policy according to each industry’s need or you want us to vote in the Opposition?

I am asking you these questions in the same style you are using. Nothing personal. It’s just Hard Truths.

– The question I want to ask everyone is, “Do you want a caring Government or do you want PAP?”.

I love the last one. After all, VivianB is still in the cabinet.

Finally, here’s a great quote from a reader of the Economist on how the Swedes made the decisions that resulted in its :“If there is a secret to the Swedish model it is that we try out one stupidity after another. Occasionally we stumble on a useful idea and keep it as part of our society…you could call this the smorgasbord mentality…I guess the good currently outweighs the bad.”
-RS_3 on “The next supermodel”, February 4th 2013

———–

*Goh Chok Tong, he  and their ministers are largely to blame for the overcrowding, and infrastructure failings caused by their “FTs First” policy.

Population White Paper: 2030 will resemble 1959?

Why I see the White Paper no ak

A Citigroup report noted that the White Paper projects the dilution of Singapore-born citizens from 62% of the population to just 55% in 2030 based on number of new FT citizens that the govt plans to bring in projects to come in naturally: 15,000 – 25,000 annually.

In 1959, according to Singapore Correspondent. Political Dispatches from Singapore (1958-1962) only 270,00 out of the 600,000 voters were born here i.e. there only 45% of the voters were born here. The rest were the FT “new” citizens of the day.

Interestingly the author reported that when one LKY revealed the above fact in 1959, LKY also said,”we must go about our task (of building up a nation) with urgency … of integrating our people now and quickly”.

Maybe he repented of nation-building? And his son and the PAP is carrying out a policy of “return to the future”?

This isn’t the only example of back-to-the-future thinking. The ST managing editor “orders” us to trust the govt, saying that because we trusted it in the past, we “must” (his word) trust the govt on the issue of population. Great rebuttal by TRE. My critique of the piece by Lex Luthor’s double.

Problem is the White Paper as first published contains a simple, careless and stupid mistake that allows reasonable people to doubt its professionalism*.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————–

We apologise for the misrepresentation in the Population White Paper that nursing is a “low-skilled” job. We firmly believe and agree that nursing is a noble and caring profession that requires a high level of clinical skill, dedication and passion. The White Paper has been amended accordingly through a corrigendum issued by the Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean in Parliament today.

Pauline Tan (Dr) RN, FAAN, Chief Nursing Officer, 8 Feb 2013

---

I was taught when I started work that a single careless mistake or typo in any document undermines the credibility of the document: if there was one mistake, what other mistakes were there, is a reasonable assumption the critical reader could make?

Then there was the issue of whether the author cared about the quality of the work done, if he didn’t bother to be careful. This was another reason not to trust it. (Yes I trained as a lawyer, and for my transgressions, worked in a PR firm for a year.)

Seems poetic justice and appropriate for the Population White Paper to contain such a howler that DPM Teo had publicly to correct the howler and PM to apologise for it. If they didn’t, they and their loved ones would be safer in using M’sian hospitals? Juz joking.

Because one can reasonably wonder if the assumptions in said paper were thought thru, or juz “cut and paste” from conventional wisdom macroeconomics. We know that macroeconomics conventional wisdom was found wanting in the recent financial crisis, so it is reasonable if standard macroeconomics assumptions on the importance of demographics on growth will be found wanting.

(And if four leading true-blue (they all did NS) S’porean economists are correct, the economic assumptions behind the White Paper are myths: http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/02/09/economics-myths-in-the-great-population-debate/. BTW, all four are scholars, so all those TRE-reading scholar haters, “Sit down and shut up!”. Scholars are S’poreans too.)

What puzzles me is that  neither Mrs Chiam (she’s a British-trained nurse) the WP, nor NMPs, nor the “talk cock sing song” PAP MPs like Inderjit (see this earlier post)  who criticised the paper butwho  were whipped into voting for it, or who went AWOL on voting day) didn’t ask for this insult to nurses to be amended.

Now that would have hurt the White Paper’s and govt’s credibility more than their “sounding brass, or … tinkling cymbal”.

And before I forget, TOC has these two excellent pieces on more cock-ups in the WPW

– http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2013/02/dubious-footnotes-population-white-paper/ (“Yet, the misrepresentation is not limited to just footnote 12. Here is a selection of other misleading footnotes in the contentious White Paper.”)

– http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2013/02/statistics-population-white-paper-debate/(More FTS coming than they did in the past? Are it’s a reduction?)

Unlike S’pore Auntie, TOC is using the online equivalents of botox and other rejuvenating aids to refresh itself. But then S’pore Auntie needs more than botox or surgery to become S’pore Gal once more. She needs a time machine. But that and the rejuvenation of TOC are two more tales for another day.

—

*Donald Low, a senior fellow at the LKY School of Public Policy and a former senior civil servant, has criticised the white paper, “wasn’t even a References section to show what research the writers of the paper had done, what social science theories they relied on, what competing theories/frameworks they looked at … There was also a surprising lack of rigorous comparison with other countries that have gone through, or are going through, a similar demographic transition.”

ST editor calls leading economists and us daft

According to ST editor Han Fook Kwang in his weekly SunT column (pg 37) “it isn’t possible for ordinary Singaporeans to absorb and fully understand all the arguments and implications. arguments and implications highlighted in the Population White Paper”. Hence our opposition. Hello Mr Han, so how come four leading S’porean economists, scholars all wrote this http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/02/09/economics-myths-in-the-great-population-debate/ (I’m linking to this republishing ’cause of the comments section)

So these four are daft too?

He was riffing on what the PM said, “Govt could have presented Population White Paper better”. And going further anddaring to call us openly what PM didn’t dare?

So how come,

– the Chief Communications Officer of the govt, s/o the former disgraced president,

– an unemployed MP who was the head of the regional business of an int’l PR firm,

– the editorial teams at SPH and MediaCorp,

– CoC Yaacob and his team at the Ministry of Truth & Spin, and

– the numerous PR senior managers in the govt and its agencies,

didn’t advise the PM and DPM Teo to take account of our daftness when presenting the PWP?

They too out of touch with us daftees? Or they dafter than us? Or did PM and DPM Teo ignore their advice? Hence they more dafter than everyone else in S’pore.

The ST Managing Editor, as a member of the Dark Side, should be using his skills to prevent us from thinking? Not provoking us to think “unhealthy”, non-constructive tots: like there are daft Men In White on the Dark Side.

With friends like this, the govt …

I was stunned when I read this report in ST on what PAP MP Seah Kian Peng.said on Monday in parliament

“The Government does not always know best, he acknowledged. “It may only know what is efficient, what is rational, what costs the most, or the least.”
Sometimes, he pointed out, it is right to do what the people want. “Not because we think it is right, but because they do.”
The Government must resist the “self-righteous, sanctimonious chant that ‘We do what is right, rather than what is popular’”, he said.”

He kicked (not juz slapped as what Low and gang would do) three Hard Truths. That:

– efficiency, rationality, cost effectiveness are what matters in policy making;

– what the people want should be ignored if it contracdicts what the PAP govt thinks is rational, efficient and cost effective.

– “We do what is right, rather than what is popular” is the way to remain in power.

Somehow I doubt he would be around in the next GE.

On the second day of the population debate, Inderjit Singh said there is a need to take a five-year breather to “solve all the problems created by the past policies of rapid economic and population growth”, said stressing the need to find a better balance between economic growth and social cohesion.

The numbers added to the Singapore population – in terms of PRs and citizenships handed out – must be more exact, and not planned on the basis of “hoping we hit some number”.

“We missed the mark the last 10 years, and are already paying a high price for that mistake,” he said. “As a government, we need to rebuild the trust and confidence among Singaporeans that our citizens matter most to us, and that we are willing to take a break from our relentless drive for growth to solve their problems. Let’s delay the plans for population growth for now, and focus on nation building.”

Hear, hear, Mr Singh.

And outside parly, Dr Tan Cheng Bock had earlier said something similar. Lest, we forget, he was a PAPpy, in the days when PAPpy MPs were respected by the public at large.

These are people that the govt should listen to, though pigs will fly first.

Here are “friends” the govt should give the finger to: despite having a reputation of being pro-business, not pro-citizens, the govt was savaged by business groups from having such a “low” cap on FTs. There was

– a letter from  the Singapore Business Federation;

– another from the S’pore Int’l Chamber of Commerce; and

– an open letter from nine foreign chambers of commerce (American, Australian, British, Canadian, European, French, Japanese, New Zealand and German chambers,

voicing their concerns over the impact of manpower constraints due to the “stringent” policies controlling the inflow of foreign labour. If give them 50% cap, they will ask for 75% cap, is my view.

The Association of Small and Medium Enterprises (ASME) as usual whined and bitched for more, “We, therefore, call upon the Government to provide SMEs with more incentives to develop and improve their human resource systems and processes. Due to their size and resource constraints, many SMEs face difficulties in managing human resource. To attract and keep talent, SMEs need more resources to address employees’ problems and to provide better work-life balance, for instance. Without such ability, companies will likely see high employee turnover rate, which makes them less willing to send staff for training. As a result, we see a vicious circle, where productivity improvement remains a challenge.”

ASME (what an appropriate name) also felt that the White Paper’s projection of 3% productivity growth this decade and 2% in the next was “overly optimistic”.

Noting that companies continue to grapple with shrinking margins and resources [yah and the SME bosses keep buying even bigger houses and cars}, it said that a reckless drive for higher productivity in this context may lead to higher costs and even inflation.

“If these productivity gains do not materialise, the Government must be prepared to relax its tight control over the workforce to prevent the economy from being adversely affected. A buffer in manpower supply is critical to enable both the economy and local SMEs to better respond to rapid and multifaceted changes in external and internal economic conditions.”

What this tells us and the PAP government is that  the interests of businesses here (big and small, foreign and local) are not the same as that of ordinary Singaporeans. They want wages to be as low as possible to increase profits. Singaporeans will only benefit if higher economic growth (the PAP’s ultimate Hard Truth or is it a shibboleth or a sacred cow?) results in an increase in real wages.

The government should publicly repudiate that “Waz good for biz, is gd for S’pore”, a mantra of the 1990s. (I was in the central bank in the early 1980s, and I know people like Dr Goh were cautious in trusting businesses to do the right things by S’pore. The knew the importance of businesses to the economy, but that didn’t mean they trusted businessmen and executives.

The govt should listen to those who care for S’pore and who spoke out against the assumptions of the white Paper, be they be friends (like the PAP MPs and Dr Tan) or foes (WP, NSP, SDP, SPP etc: ya generous to WP, it’s CNY) or ex-govt officials like Donald Low, Lam KY). It should ignore fair-weather friends like the business associations. Remember businesses and their associations can’t vote, ordinary S’poreans can.

Public housing: a brickbat, two cheers & constructive suggestions

As the population target “worse-case scenario” or “projection” of 6.9m as envisaged by the White Paper will require a lot more public housing, here are some constructive, nation-building ideas from me on how to avoid rabbit hatches, or battery-hen housing, in the sky. We can live like pigs in a modern-day Danish farm: comfortable, hygienic surroundings. Danish farmers believe that happy pigs produce the best bacon: something the PAP govt should take to heart, “Keep the exploited happy, and they will remain happy to be exploited”.

But first I want to analyse two “buah tahan” comments that irritate me.

Who comes out with the most stupid comment on the row on Executive Condos? No it’s not Khaw, surprising; but one Jaimie Chong, an EC penthouse owner. She thinks she  will still get permission to cover the “open” space: EC0001. Her agent says so. How dumb can this rich gal get?

And secondly, our dear leader said, ” If government did not get involved in housing, it would be like Hong Kong: overcrowded and subject to high prices …” Is it not surprising that the usual S’pore self-haters who populate the pages of TRE, TOC and Facebook didn’t challenge him on this?

He is telling us a Hard Truth (perhaps the only one) that is grounded in fact: in housing, the PAP govt does more for S’poreans, than the HK govt.

– “In 2012, HDB offered a record number of 34,237 new flats comprising 27,084 new flats under the Build-To-Order (BTO) system and 7,153 balance flats under the Sales of Balance Flats Exercise … HDB had earlier announced that at least 20,000 BTO flats are planned for 2013. HDB is finalising its building plans for 2013 and will now target to launch at least 23,000 BTO flats. These projects will have a good geographical spread in various towns/estates which compares with 75,000 completed over the past five years.” (HDB)

– Contrast this with what HK’s CEO said last month as reported by the BBC, “He promised action to address a property crunch that has seen some residents forced out of the property market and even into tiny so-called “cubicle homes”.

Land would be both re-zoned and reclaimed so it could be developed for housing, leading to a greater supply, he said. A target of 100,000 new public housing units would also be set for the five years from 2018.

“As long as the housing shortage persists, we have no alternative but to restrict external demand and curb speculative activities,” he said.”

The 20,000 a year HK programme starts in 2018.

But it’s only two cheers for PM, because by comparing our public housing programme to that of HK, he is forgetting that dad was a “social democrat” (dad said that in his books), not an ang moh lord or HK property tycoon: social democrats believe in raising living standards. So, of course, the govt had to get involved in public housing.

Now to the constructive, nation-building part on how make us as happy as Danish pigs, not as unhappy as battery hens.

Try this Dutch approach, Khaw? No not land reclamation. Architects in Holland are creating prototype neighbourhoods of sustainable floating houses. Their aim is to have new cities entirely out at sea as an alternative way of living. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21180779. We got plenty of sea too, and the weather’s a lot nicer.

And best of all, we can retain the central catchment reserve, Ubin, the mangrove swamps (so beloved by mosquito-lovers) and the golf courses (that ministers and senior civil servants, and their private sector pals play on).

And floating towns will allow S’pore the possibility of experimenting with an alternative to 50-storey HDB coops flats. We could have hutong-style community housing (high density, low rise buildings) in the new sea towns. Plenty of room to expand sideways there. I read somewhere that London is experimenting along the lines of high density, low rise buildings . Can’t locate the link to story.

BTW, watch this 2011 BBC video clip on S’pore : Urban plan S’pore style http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13852298. The architect who wants “more space” must be very upset with Khaw’s “worse-case scenario”.

“WP will vote for the White Paper,” Moley

(Update after Auntie’s speech: Moley and I are most happy that we got it wrong. But let’s wait and see. I was happy about being wrong about Punggol East, until Low told us that a vote for the WP is a vote to maintain pAP hegemony)

Given the overwhelming majority of PAP Members of Parliament, there is no question where the debate will be heading – towards a total endorsement of the policy recommendations and continued population influx, despite the message sent to the PAP by the Punggol East electorate and many Singaporeans.

Dear readers, would you vote for your MP in GE 2016 if he or she approves of the immigration targets drawn up in the Population White Paper? (http://singaporearmchaircritic.wordpress.com/2013/01/29/broken-trust-broken-policies/)

Neat idea but what if WP votes for White Paper?

We got to vote for Mad Dog Chee’s elitist Singapore Indian Party SDP*, or No Substance**, or the Clowns Brigade: s/o JBJ, the Saints boy, SDA, or the Chiams, because Morocco Mole tells me that  the WP will vote for the White Paper too. Now Moley has been right about WP refusing to raise issue of public transport nationalisation in parly. (Sorry JG, GG never raised the issue as you claimed. He just asked the govt to justify its rojak policy and then when as you rightly pointed the minister gave an incoherent response, GG didn’t respond with a nationalisation call.)

Sure will have wayang by Drama King PritamS and Drama Auntie (Remember their rants against govt changes to the mandatory death penalty? They voted for the changes on the quiet, juz like PAP MPs. And remember WP voted for the Budgets, despite bitching about the said Budgets).

WP will vote for the White Paper. And unlike all the examples cited above of the WP quietly supporting the PAP, while attacking it publicly, WP is taking a principled stand on the issue. LTK and Auntie have been asking the govt to go easy on the policy of cutting FTs, speaking out against the govt’s policy (now discarded?***) of starving the SMEs of FTs. Chinese-owned SMEs  fund the WP on the quiet, so WP has to keep them happy.

And the PAP (the real deal) has just given WP the best excuse to support the White Paper:

– “Reiterating that the 6.9 million figure should be viewed as “the worst-case scenario”****, Mr Khaw wrote: “We hope we do not reach that figure; we may never reach that figure.”

–”Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said … he fully agrees with Mr Khaw’s explanation that a 6.9 million population is not a target, but just a worst-case, aggressive scenario the Government must prepare for.”

– “Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office S Iswaran assures Singaporeans that the 6.9 million population figure in the White Paper is not a target the government is setting itself to achieve.”

(Excerpts from MediaCorp)

“6.9m? What 6.9m? Only projection, worse-case scenario, to spur debate leh,” WP Low will say, says Morocco Mole, Secret Squirrel’s side-kick. [This sentence was added an hour after initial publication.]

Which brings me to a suggestion on helping us monitor and assess a MP’s performance (from http://berthahenson.wordpress.com/2013/01/20/a-political-performance/)

Each MP should put up a yearly account to their constituents of what they did or said in Parliament. How many sessions did they turn up for? How many Bills did they vote on – and what did they say about them in Parliament? How many questions did they ask from ministers – both oral and written. What sort of answers did they get – and did the questions work in getting things done? … this keeps constituents politically attuned and keeps the MPs accountable. Simply saying vote for me again (I am looking ahead to the next GE) because I am kind, good, committed etc and my party has done what and what… isn’t good enough. Thing is, what have YOU done lately for me as my voice in Parliament?

But I doubt WP would adopt such a first-world practice of transparency and accountability. It would make transparent the WP’s two-headed snake strategy of being all things to all voters.

If ordinary netizens want the WP to vote against the White Paper, please start sending a strong message to the WP: use TRE, even TOC, or email direct to WP.

—

*I mean both SDP candidates were highly qualified Indians from very, very privileged backgrounds. They couldn’t claim, like s/o JBJ, that they were rich kids made poor by the PAP. But maybe they could argue that their families have been wealthier if the PAP had not come into power? Seriously, maybe the SDP is an elitist party that believes “multiracialism” is more than “an aspiration”: the voters are colour-blind? Says a lot for SDP’s idealism vis-a-vis that of the PAP and WP.

**NSP is getting its act together policy-wise: a good piece on population, responding to the White Paper   http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/02/02/nsp-proposes-alternative-population-plan-for-singapore/. And in working the ground. The problems lie in internal bickering and giving the WP the excuse to “knife” the NSP. An example of the latter: a prominent blogger who juz happens to be a NSP member was very vocal in his attacks on the WP’s leaders and followers during the recent by-election campaign. He accused them of PAP-like arrogance. (Even I won’t go that far in criticising the WP.). While I’m sure, the NSP had no hand in his attacks, which sounded as though they were written by s/o JBJ, it could cause trouble. NSP had no quarrel with WP over the by-election, yet its member felt free to attack WP. Low is very correct in telling his activists to toe the party line on the internet and social media. It could lead to misunderstandings. The WP now has the perfect excuse to move into Tampines, Marine Parade, Kallang and Mountbatten: a NSP member savaged WP on the internet and the NSP kept quiet would be the WP excuse.

***I’m confused. Cutting FT supply but by growing it?

****Shades of Yaacob, Remember he said this when one LKY shouted a Hard Truth about Malay Muslims.

White Paper fiasco: Who goofed?

So we now know that the 6.9m figure in the White Paper is a “worse-case scenario”

– “Reiterating that the 6.9 million figure should be viewed as “the worst-case scenario”****, Mr Khaw wrote: “We hope we do not reach that figure; we may never reach that figure.”

–” Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said … he fully agrees with Mr Khaw’s explanation that a 6.9 million population is not a target, but just a worst-case, aggressive scenario the Government must prepare for.”

(Excerpts from MediaCorp)

So why didn’t the media tell us this when the media reported the White Paper? The media reported the figure of 6.9m as though it was set in reinforced concrete that had platinum bars rather than steel bars. Surely when the staff of the s/o the disgraced president, and Yaacob*gave the local media their instructions local journalists and editors the customary briefing, they made it clear that the 6.9m figure is a “worse-case scenario”? And that the figure was used to ensure that there would be adequate infrastructure should this happen, which the government didn’t want to happen. And that if it didn’t happen, S’poreans would have even better facilities for which they should thank the PAP on bended knees.

But these messages were never reported. They came to the attention of “the inhabitants of cowboy towns” who were happily shooting holes into the White Paper, and other S’poreans only when the PM Facebooked and Khaw blogged these messages.

Then the local media parroted reported what the PM and Khaw had said.

Either the local media are staffed by stupid people, or are full of subversives, who take their 30 pieces of silver ** while saboing the PAP government. Or maybe the going rate is a lot more than 30 pieces of silver? And they are not getting it? Hence the government’s messages didn’t get broadcasted.

Or were the minions of s/o Devan Nair, and Yaacob, incompetent, stupid spinners? Journalists and editors are claiming that they were never ordered briefed that the 6.9m figure was a “worse-case scenario”. They claim to be as surprised as us netizens that the PM and Khaw are now making this claim.

Whatever it is, if WP Low is to get his wish of continued PAP hegemony, PM should get a grip on the PAP spin machine. He and his ministers can’t do all the spinning themselves. Maybe Auntie Sylvia or Show Mao, in emulation of a Tang dynasty official, can whisper this to the PAP, “behind closed doors”. Remember WP, yr mission is to preserve PAP hegemony.

–

**He used the phrase “worse-case scenario” when one LKY gave his Hard Truth on Malay Muslims not integrating.

Book PM could cite in validation of “Growth, ‘cheong’ all the way”

In “Planet of Cities”, by Shlomo Angel*, a professor of urban planning at New York University, argues that cities must prepare themselves for rapid growth, citing New York and Barcelona: In the 19th century both cities decided to prepare themselves for rapid growth. In 1811 New York’s city council approved a plan which allowed all of Manhattan to be built up and included the island’s now famous street grid. In 1859 Barcelona followed suit with a similar concept to expand the city nine-fold.

Err PM not planning to increase the population that much.

And on why working-age population matters:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2013/01/demography-0

Netizens, pls realise that the intellectual underpinnings are there for the White Paper. It’s the conventional wisdom. Raving, ranting and screaming will do no good.

Nothing will, not even the ballot box: “A vote for the WP is a vote for the continuance of PAP policies” says WP Low. So lie back and enjoy being raped. Think of the value of your property when you cash out and move on overseas.

PM, what about asking the right questions? Or at least different ones

“Do you want faster growth or do you want fewer foreign workers? Do you want more hard work or more leisure? Do you want more competitive schools and good results and good futures, or more relaxed schools and fall behind? How can we find that balance in between?” the Prime Minister asked. Whatever the hurdles, he emphasised that the PAP had always been open with Singaporeans, even when these trade-offs may be unpopular – SPH.

I got two gripes with the above remarks by PM.

Firstly, as usual he is framing* the issues in such a way so as to try to get us to answer the way he wants us to answer them. Dad used to do this successfully when we didn’t have the best education system in the world, when issues were less complicated, and when there wasn’t the internet. But times have changed, but PM hasn’t shaken off daddy’s influence.

– “Do you want faster growth or do you want fewer foreign workers?” Well how about asking, “How can we have faster growth without FTs? Can we substitute robots, or pay higher wages?” And more fundamentally what about, “Do we need faster growth? What about better quality growth?”

– “Do you want more hard work or more leisure?” What about asking,”Can we work smarter to have more leisure?” Or more fundamentally, “Are we working smart? Or are we working harder because we are not working smart?”

– “Do you want more competitive schools and good results and good futures, or more relaxed schools and fall behind?” Shouldn’t we be asking, “Are there other ways of educating S’poreans that ensure national prosperity and self-development?”

Now the answers to these alternative questions may well be those that the PM thinks are the solutions to the problems that we face. Fair enough, then. But let’s ask alternative questions, think thru the answers, and also think blue sky. The great and the good don’t always have the answers. Even Bill Gates got Google wrong, badly wrong http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/01/21/prophesies-made-in-davos-dont-always-come-true/

And lest the PM forget, the PAP has not always been open with us.

The FTs came pouring in on the quiet. The government was not open on this issue, public housing and transport, and inflation.

Mah Bow Tan was telling us that his HDB building programme was sufficient when S’poreans were saying it was insufficient. Well fact that Khaw has accelerated and expanded the building programme shows that Mah was wrong, if not in denial.

And remember Raymond Lim said GST had to rise when we bitched about overcrowded trainds and buses: he implied that we juz wanted more comfort and so should pay for it. He was wrong or in denial about the problem. Well the massive spending plans, shows that we were right to get upset.

And inflation. I’ve gone on and on about Tharman and Hng Kiang saying that higher inflation doesn’t affect S’poreans who don’t buy cars. That is obfuscation, not openness.

But never mind, the PAP can remain complacent because Low has publicly implied that a vote for the WP is a vote for continued PAP rule.

Not that I’ll complain too much. The low-tax environment and the emphasis on making sure property prices “cheong all the way” have allowed me to stop working in my 40s. And have the time to think; and grumble, constructively, I hope.

And oh, keep on spending our money on ourselves. And double it, or triple it. Better return on investment for the PAP, then letting Temasek lose it like in here http://www.breakingviews.com/tpg-runs-rings-around-li-ning-shareholders/21064940.article. And anyway, , potential returns for investors are not going to be that great anyway http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2013/01/investing. So it’s a better investment for us and the PAP: make life more comfortable for us using our money.

—

*Read this on the science of framing questions, to get the “right” answers http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-20512743

Even more goodies on the way?

Heard this one? KennethJ juz filed another police report*. This time alleging that there was massive vote rigging by the PAP to prevent him from winning. He says that it is unbelievable that the voters would prefer WP to s/o JBJ.

Err juz tot PM and the PAP needed shumething to smile about.

Looks like the govt will have to throw more of our money at us. Power to the people of Punggol East if this happens. they know game theory better than I do. I tot that they would vote PAP to get the goodies that comes to having a DPM round the corner. Looks like they are doubling their bets for even more goodies for themselves and us.

—-

*What will the threats, then website breakdown, the police have a lot to do.

Analysing Low’s speech of “Unity? What unity?”

– Netizens note: Nemesis did not punish his hubris

I was wrong. The WP won, overturning the 14 percentage point advantage of the PAP. My friend who predicted that with the amenities already in place, or on the way, the voters would vote WP. They had nothing to lose. Here’s TRE immediate take on it: Lingering unhappiness over issues like immigration and transport continue to plague the Government and the major policy announcements over the past few weeks clearly did not sway public opinion.

The WP also seems to have picked up momentum since their historic win in Aljunied GRC two years ago and it is clear that a desire for a strong opposition voice is a tide that might prove difficult for the PAP to reverse.

Ms Lee Li Lian also achieved a first in the history of Singapore – for the first time, an opposition managed to win a multi-cornered fight in an election. That speaks a lot on how Singaporeans feel about PAP these days.

So the 22 January 2013 speech by Low setting out the WP’s position on Opposition unity: it was for the fairies as far as WP was concerned did not upset Nemesis even though he got a lot of stick from netizens. It didn’t upset the 3,000 voters who swung the area WP’s way.

Below is an analysis sent in by “Choked by red pills” written in the immediate aftermath of that speech.

But first let me say that I understand Low’s annoyance with the calls of unity or co-operation. Based on what KennethJ and Mad Dog Chee said, it seems that their idea of teaming up against the PAP is: “You do the work, I get the glory and acclaim”. It juz isn’t on especially in the case of one-man band KennethJ s/o JBJ. What had he to offer to WP in PE? Look at his rally attendances. As to his economic expertise, if the WP wanted to tap economic expertise there are many high IQ, High EQ economists that the WP can take advice from.

At least in the case of SDP, one could argue that Mad Dog Chee offered extending the loan to the WP of the rabid anti-PAP vote, so that WP has a base on which to do its traditional outreach to the moderates. But even I who incline towards this view of the SDP having the mad dog vote, can’t be sure if this is true, or of the size of said vote, unless the SDP fights the WP. I’ll explore why the SDP WP blinked one of these days.

Then there is the resentment within the WP (very understandable) of the Johnnies come later: who are trying to tumpang on the brand building (that the opposition to the PAP can be responsible, mature and moderate; not just a “motley crew” of bicycle thieves, loonies led by a brave, charismatic, egoistic demagogue) by WP (under Low) since 2001. NSP, RP and even SDP were riding on WP’s hard work. The Mad Dog party only turned to electoral politics in 2010. Before that it was bite-and-bait-the-government  game.

Then there is for Low and the other WP leaders the issue of pleasing their activists who are not MPs. The activists want a crack at $15,000 allowances, The jockeying to get places in Aljunied was not funny.

So while I have problems with WP’s performance since GE 2011, I’m on Low’s side when he sneers, “Unity? What unity? Co-operation? What Co-operation?” when the other pygmies parties want the giant to tie himself up, so that they can take advantage of said giant’s hard work.

Having said all this, I commend this for yr reading. Written by one “Choked on red pills”, it analyses Low’s unity speech of 22 January. It was written on 23 January, well before yesterday’s victory.

For all intents and purposes, this Saturday’s by-election may not be significant for the country’s political future …

However, last night’s rally is extremely significant. It’s not because LTK chose to regale us with his POV about the opposition’s political history since 1991

(note: history is often written by the victor). It’s his explicit rhetoric that his party of alternative political moderates will now go their own way. It wasn’t implied. It wasn’t a suggestion. It wasn’t a hint. He said “opposition unity is impossible”.

Before 2011, it may be reasonable to believe that politics in our neighbouring country was far advanced in terms of maturity than ours. The ruling party there was dealt a heavy blow and resulted in the resignation of their Prime Minister who presided over the elections. It was possible because the opposition there had a central figure, who could persuade other parties to form one united banner against the ruling party, i.e., a coalition. The rest, as we know, is history and there is talk about how the coming elections up there could possibly result in more gains for the opposition.

With LTK’s strongly worded statements during last night’s rally, all chances of an opposition coalition have evaporated. This means that the strategy that the opposition held since 1980s – to avoid three-cornered fights – has been abandoned*. While it signals his confidence in his own party which he has painfully shaped (to his credit), there will be serious implications for Singapore’s political future from this.

Firstly, WP will strongly brand itself as a moderate alternative to the PAP. With the tacit rejection of any form of co-operation with other opposition parties politically, it will go their own way but possibly not stray too far away from the path that the PAP treads in terms of policy. At the same time, with LTK’s rhetoric, he has burnt a fair bit of bridges with the other parties. Effectively, it will be far harder for WP to convince other parties to form any agreement with them if it needs a slim majority to form the Government in the (far) future.

At this point, it may be useful to be reminded of how, when PE SMC was open to a by-election, many believed that the old strategy of a two-cornered fight would still serve the best interests in sending another opposition candidate to Parly. Which means, other parties should stay away from contesting so that WP will have abetter chance of winning the BE. [Yet, ethically it may be tricky to suggest that WP should have the right to contest in the two-cornered fight as they weren’t the first to contest there.] But with LTK’s speech last night, it is an admission that the WP will not hesitate to contest in other wards even if other parties had “staked their claims” and worked the ground there.

When 55% of voters were FTs

(Update on 29 January 2012 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-21/singapore-turns-against-itself-as-pressure-for-babies-irks-women.html

http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/01/29/population-white-paper-projecting-6-9m-u-turn-on-influx-of-foreigners/)

TRE readers are forever screaming that the PAP govt wants to swamp S’pore with citizens born overseas. They might like to know that  in 1959, according to the u/m book, only 270,00 out of the 600,000 voters were born here. If TRE readers are correct, the PAP is only restoring things to as they were when the PAP came into power. Is that so wrong? LOL.

Interestingly the author reported that when one LKY revealed the above fact in 1959, LKY also said,”we must go about our task (of building up a nation) with urgency … of integrating our people now and quickly”. Maybe he repented building up a nation?

Singapore Correspondent. Political Dispatches from Singapore (1958-1962)

(http://artsonline.monash.edu.au/mai/new-book-singapore-correspondent/)

by Leon Comber*

Publisher:  Marshall Cavendish International Asia

“Singapore Correspondent” covers five years of Singapore’s colourful political past – a period of living turbulently and sometimes dangerously. It is a collection of eye-witness dispatches, sent from Singapore to London, spanning a time when Singapore was emerging from British colonial rule and moving forward to self-government and independence. Many of the early struggles of the People’s Action Party (PAP) are described as the focus is on the political struggle taking place in which the PAP played a major part. Many important events which have long been forgotten are brought to life. These dispatches prove that political history need not be dull, and indeed can sometimes be entertaining and lively.

* MAI Adjunct Research Fellow

 

.

Punggol East: More Tak Boleh Tahan comments

(Or “Who are WP, PAP Koh, s/o JBJ, & TJS trying to bluff?”)

Starting with WP, the “can’t stand” comments (Note unless otherwise attributed, quotes are from CNA)

– “Lee Li Lian said having another WP member in Parliament will strengthen the voice of the opposition party.”/ “Lee Li Lian said the Punggol East by-election will serve as a barometer of her party’s performance since the last General Election.

Ah Lian, Voice, what Voice? Performance, what Performance? Eight no sound, no action: one more make the difference meh? WP juz wants another 15k a month allowance.

– “Ms Lee said the by-election will show whether residents will have the confidence to give the party their votes.”

She means confident that WP is PAP Lite, without being able to give away goodies?

– “The Workers’ Party has urged Punggol East residents to use their votes to make the government work harder.”

I prefer what a PAPpy minister said, “Voting for PAP will make WP work harder.”

– Sylvia Lim said that some things (alternative suggestions on certain policies) are whispered to the govt behind “closed doors’’

This was what PAP MPs used to say, Auntie. Oh, I forgot: you are PAP Lite.

– “Chairman Sylvia Lim had said that this by-election is in some way an indicator of how the people feel about the government’s performance.”

So if voters like the way the govt is spending our money on ourselves, vote PAP is it, Auntie?

(I can go on and on, what with what PritamS and Low said on rally nights, but I don’t want to appear anti-WP. Still hoping to have a date with JG.)

But the PAP is just as bad:

– “Dr Koh also said he is fighting his own race in the by-election.”

Err, so so PM, DPM, Education Minister etc did not come, or attack the WP? Impersonators did these things?

– “[H]e feels that tackling local issues first will bring about more immediate reprieve for the residents.”

So Palmer was not doing his job as MP, preferring mangoes with Laura? So why didn’t PAP tell him to pull up his socks (and pants) and help residents? Why wait until now?

– “serving the people”

In Telok Blangah to be precise, not Punggol East or even Punggol. And the ST dares call him “son of Punggol”: err more like prodigal son, who preferred to “move on” to Toa Payoh, then Telok Blangah: anywhere except Punggol area.

– “I want to be a participant in this process of change from within.”

PAP MPs always saying this from time immemorial (“Go with the flow” Georgie said this once): were it not for GE and PE results, there would be no change on the policy of not spending our money on ourselves. The money would be allocated allocated for casino games. Post these elections, the govt has been spending our money on making life more comfortable for ourselves. Voters forced this change of mind-set on the PAP. It didn’t come from within. If change could have come from within, PM would not have had to apologise. Nor would George have turned like a cornered rat on the PAP in a vain attempt to remain a minister.

– Kate Spade Tin and side-kick Denise He were told not to sabo when they volunteered to run Koh’s social media activities.

As to the Sui Kees who think they are Tua Kees:

– “The Reform Party will be having their rally carried out as per planned … This is after being assured by the police that it would be safe to attend the rally and that security has been stepped up. Just a while ago, the fanpage announced that the party will not proceed with the rally unless Singapore Police Force ensures the safety of their supporters.” TOC

Wayang King, Drama Queen, this son of Lion King, JBJ, and Lion Queen, Margaret. They must be weeping in heaven, at how their son turned out. Never mind, the other boy is better, a lot better, even if he married into a PAPpy family. Err maybe, taz why he has high EQ, in addition to high IQ, and is one of us.

– s/o JBJ got flu after being in rain

How to be MP in S’pore? Always raining here. He will always be AWOL or MIA if elected MP.

– “TJS says he tried but failed to persuade RP) and SDA to withdraw” TRE

Wonder if KJ or DL said to him, “Juz following your example, Big Brudder.”. Someone posted this on TRE, “TSJ you yourself is a spoiler do you think as a spoiler you are more professional to talk to spoiler.Come on you are a jilted failure candidate.”

No, not criticising Desperate Loser because he deserves two cheers. He is a warning to Low and Sylvia and other arrogant non-fat people that fat, short, balding men should not be taken for granted nor pushed around: they can cause trouble, serious trouble if provoked. Remember Eric Tan? One day he too may have his revenge on Low, Sylvia and GG, Eric’s apprentice.

As for Mad Dog (or is it it Coyote?) Chee, he deserves a posting of his very own. Akan datang.

Anyway, voters of Punngol East, as the PAP used to say when the WP fielded bicycle thieves, Maurice Neo, loonies,  and JBJ, “Vote wisely”.

And if any voter wants to vote “unwisely” to send messages to the PAP and the WP, vote for DL: he is one of us, a true blue S’porean. He juz got mad as hell, fed-up of being pushed around. KennethJ is not one of us. He is low EQ, high IQ FT that juz happened to be born here, who thinks that S’poreans owe him a living because he is s/o JBJ. Give him the finger.

—

*I mean one LKY even said that the size of the reserves had to be kept a secret from S’poreans, lest we want it to be spent on ourselves.

OMG! Low: a great strategist & sage

Given that netizens have turned against the WP and Low, I tot I should bring a little balance into the row, by letting JG say a few words.

I’m glad she didn’t compare Low and WP to Sun Tzu because then I’ll be reminded of what Edward Luttwak, a modern-day American strategist, recently wrote of the use of Sun Tzu teachings by the Chinese, “While Han generals in charge of large armies were busy quoting Sun Tzu to each other, relatively small numbers of mounted warriors schooled in the rudely effective strategy and tactics of the steppe outmanoeuvred and defeated their forces.” Lest we forget, the Hsiung Nu, Tibetans, Jurchens, Khitans, Mongols, Manchus,and other nomads defeated Chinese generals steeped in Sun Tzu’s aphorisms.

She writes:

Re : Low’s weird comments

I take the opposite tack of you – instead of Low being a liability in this BE, I think he has acted splendidly. Put it another way : on a scale of 1 to 10, I rank Low 8, LHL 6 and CSJ 4 in terms of strategic manouevers and tactical execution.

First of all, we need to recognise that in the heat of a campaign, if you put every person’s words under a microscope, you’ll find meat that anyone can go after. Dr Koh had made many verbal blunders (“As professionals, we need 2 cars”, “my wife said you want to help but people don’t want your help”), KJ (“on MC today”), LTK and interestingly so far, none from Ah Lian. These are TACTICAL mis-steps – every candidate makes them. The Great Obama said something about “bitter people .. clinging on to their guns”, Michelle Obama (“for the first time, I’m proud of my country”).

These tactical blunders happen, but most are minor and recoverable. Particularly if you look at the context they are uttered. In LTK’s case, I think he meant “all the PM has to say” to mean, “is this the best complain you PM can find about WP so far?”. In any case, I think very very few Punggol residents microscopically analyse a candidate’s every word and go off-tangent with one single badly worded utterance.

The more important battle is strategic, not tactical per se. Here, you got to give LTK credit, where I think he is due. Even PAP MPs I speak to (off the record), applaud LTK as being politically very shrewd.

At the start of the BE, look at how LTK handle the SDP jumping in saga. He did it, basically like how Obama handled Romney or McCain – let them self-destruct. LTK stuck to the politically correct script – everyone has the right to stand for elections – who can argue with “the sun rises from the east” type comments, right? Meanwhile, CSJ was detonating landmines publicly, day by day (cannot contact WP, publicly disclose confidential letters, we only good at making speeches in Parliament but not confident in handling Town Council) and then withdrawal. Similarly, it lets the ego of Desmond and KJ grow and over-shadow whatever credence SDA or RP used to have. Suddenly no more rallies, “paid volunteers” saga (for Desmond). AWOL, daily complaints of threats and police reports (for KJ) — let their wayang hog the limelight, let them self-destruct, no need to say a word.

Behind the scene, LTK selected Ah Lian to take on smooth, professional Dr Koh. Arguably, a better choice, than say GG. Because Ah Lian is so down to earth, so real (right down to her missing 2 front teeth) that the contrast with Dr Koh became greater, especially when Dr Koh came across as stretching the truth ($10 left, only enough for chopsticks, switch from BMW to Toyota car when visit Punggol etc etc). This contrast seems to be hitting a cord. It was reported on-line that reporters tailing both candidates on house visits, observed that residents are warmer towards Ah Lian, posing for photos, sharing their stories, introduce their family, giving a drink. Word got to the PAP too.

LTK also straddled the “local issue” vs “national issue” beautifully. I’d say,to the extent of running circles around the PAP. What do I mean? For Aljunied, LTK bet 100% on national – PAP thot local issue usually matters more but was swept by the tide. So PAP tried to immunize itself right from the start with PUnggol BE – a wave of good news. But LTK attacked first on the local front – Riverdale, how come so many RCs but so little coffeeshops, transport, – ie. what has your PAP MP been doing all these years? So local concerns got paraded to the front, and Dr Koh tried playing the same game – I’m my own man. LTK used these local issues to get Ah Lian to connect to each resident on the ground-game front.

Then in the closing stages of the campaign, LTK swings back to national issues in the public campaign. The more good news got trumpeted, the more it appears that if Aljunied had not fallen, PAP would not have reversed course. If Punggol BE had not happen, some of these good news would not get announced. So it plays into the need for opposition, theme. And LTK only drums up AIM in the last few days of the campaign. Why? I do not think many PUnggol residents know what is AIM, or even really care. But the hard core opposition supporters do care. So this is “red meat” for the base. In other words, focus first on the middle block, handle the risk that the base will defect to Desmond/KJ by giving them some red meat right at the end (and after giving time for Desmond/KL to implode). The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Hopefully, this then consolidates both the middle and base votes.

The other advantage of trumpeting national issues at the late stage of the game, is that it baits the “big guns” of PAP to respond. And they usually respond clumsily and turn off voters by the way they over-react.

Whether or not this is enough to win Punggol, I do not know. But I have heard that PAP is sweating. It was said that PAP carefully carved out Punggol SMC in 2011 and that in the prior elections (2006?), that Punggol SMC had 30+% vote swing to PAP. Unexpectedly, this got cut to 10% swing in GE2011. PAP had counted on multi-corner fights, particularly from newly released CSJ and SDP to spoil the party. That didn’t happen. LHL called the elections thinking there’s a good chance they’ll win. As the campaign progressed, and they too feel the “smell of Hougang”, they’re now not so sure.

But as I said, as long as WP increases meaningfully from 41%, and PAP decreases meaningfully from 55% – WP does not need to win, for PAP to lose. A 5% swing away from the PAP (ie. 49% or 50% only) will be a dreaded signal that the electorate is still unhappy with PAP and this will keep them on their toes. A WP win is a jackpot.

And oh, the other thing I like about this BE — it has also put WP under the fire too, to defend its record and hopefully, correct course where necessary. You didn’t hear WP being so defensive in Hougang BE. In other words, this time they got the message – there are some out there who’re unhappy at their low-key approach. Hopefully, this makes them a better party moving forward too. So Desmond is right and wrong – someone needs to keep a check on both PAP and WP. Unfortunately, its not Desmond — its we, the people. Through the messiness of the internet, online chatter, rallies etc. Both PAP and WP are hearing us. That’s good isn’t it ?

—

* If I were her employer, I’d sure be angry that she skivving.

WP supporter’s analysis of the Punggol East by-election

JG responded to http://atans1.wordpress.com/2013/01/20/punggol-east-voters-are-not-daft/ with some good, rational points. For the sake of JG and other decent, sincere and rational WP supporters like her (there are people on Facebook who doubt that such supporters exist: WP supporters are like PAP supporters), I hope Low stops trying to join the PAP Comedy Club. Either that or he should replace his speech writer who must be a PAPpy mole. After JG’s comments, I repeat Low’s “jokes’ and add my comments on said “jokes”.

WP Forever

I’m not sure that the “practical difference of having a DPM” is being felt in Punggol BE or is even on the radar of residents. Sometimes, I also feel that we (the so-called “vocal minority”, of which I’m admittedly one) tend to over-analyze things.

My own take is that residents are probably still disgruntled with PAP, whether more disgruntled or less compared to the mood of GE2011, I’m not sure. That’s on the national factor front.

Also, GE2011 had the factor of “Aunty-killer” and incumbency advantage for Palmer. And on WP side, all the oxygen was being sucked out to Aljunied contest, all other candidates fielded were perceived to be “B” or “C” team. Now its a solo contest. And SDA was perceived “neutrally” then (now, its no longer neutrally perceived, I’ll be surprised to see it get half of what it even did last time). And it seems to have a drumbeat of “bad local factors” – like Riverdale, etc.

Put it all together, I think there will be a reduction in PAP support. GE2011 was 10 point PAP advantage vs opposition. I expect this to drop. I hope the swing is >5%. If its 10% swing, then its a jackpot. But no need to have jackpot to celebrate.

For me, as long as WP increases it support (regardless Ah Lian win or not) and PAP meaningfully decreases — its a big win. Its a win for WP becos it will show that WP’s “style”, while being lampooned by some online, still resonates with the heartland. Most importantly, it sends the signal to PAP – the change you’re making is still not good enough.

An outright win by WP will be a major disaster for PAP. The grassroots will be totally demoralized. This is the “jackpot” scenario.

On the other hand, if the results mirror GE2011 (ie. ~10% advantage PAP), then PAP will have a major win. Not that WP has a lost, unless their support drop <41%. But PAP will be able to say that all these nonsense about AIM-gate etc are just a “vocal minority”. They will feel vindicated. And continue to do what they like, starting with revealing (surprise, surprise) the plans for population growth over the next decade. [These are the reasons to hope and pray for a PAP Lite win. Keeps the Real PAP "kan cheong". Sadly, s/o JBJ and Desperate Loser don't see things this way: selfish.]

Low’s weird comments

His “Why vote PAP”,“The Government should be given time to rectify the shortcomings and neglects pointed out to it. Doing so [not whacking the PAP] would ‘serve the public interest better than continuing to agitate and raise political tension to gain maximum political mileage for WP’, as it takes time for policy changes to take effect on the ground.”

Right so vote PAP to give them more time.

And this comes across as telling PM that he (Low) has met his KPI (presumably decided behind “closed doors”), ”I am pleased that all the Prime Minister has to say about the WP is to lament that we have not done enough in Parliament.”.

Waz the reward? Thirty pieces of silver or a doggie biscuit? LOL

Maybe, Low should return to being,”The deaf mute from Hougang”? He is coming across as , “The WP’s parody of s/o JBJ, the talk cock, sing song wayang king and drama queen from Saint Andrews”.

Punggol East voters are not daft

(Update again: PAP got the killer reason to vote for it “Voting for PAP will make WP work harder: Heng Swee Keat” LOL)

I predict that the PAP will win with  a 6-10 percentage points  margin over the combined votes of the Ah Lian, Determined Loser and Wayang King (or is it Drama Queen, or both?)*. The last two will lose their deposits.

Why a comfortable PAP win?

The very cynical answer is that the voters have experience of being part of a town council in a DPM’s patch. Long-term residents in the GRC and Punggol East know that things get done when an MP is also the DPM. They would have seen the contrast: civil servants, PA officials may tai-chi away a MP or minister’s request, but a DPM’s request is different.

It happens in Tharman’s GRC too. A friend who has been living in Tarman Jurong for many years, and who has been a grass-roots activist since Tharman became an MP, tells me the practical difference having a DPM makes. When Tharman was an MP and then minister, things happened but only at a glacial pace. Always got some reason for not doing what he wanted. The usual excuse is “Not in present plan. Next plan, maybe.”

Tharman and residents had wanted a covered walkway to a MRT station since he became MP. Always told why it had to wait. But when he became DPM, and made a request for the up-teem time, the walkway was not only built but better than the one he had been requesting.

Now, I know, residents in the Punggol, Pasir Ris area have similar tales to tell. So would the voters of Punggol East take the risk of becoming part of a WP town council, given that they have a PAP MP who happens to be a DPM round the corner?

They also have the following non-cynical reasons excuses to vote PAP:

– PAP has apologised and started delivering on its promises (witness ministers’ salaries reduction, S$1.1bn on buses, MRT plans, more flats)*;

– WP has done bugger-all for them (KennethJ double confirms this, as though he has done anything for them too too) and country;

– Low implicitly tells them to vote PAP, “The Government should be given time to rectify the shortcomings and neglects pointed out to it. Doing so [not whacking the PAP] would ‘serve the public interest better than continuing to agitate and raise political tension to gain maximum political mileage for WP’, as it takes time for policy changes to take effect on the ground”**;  and

– WP can’t win what with the two clowns contesting. Even if they weren’t, the previous margin of victory of the PAP would show that it wouldn’t be easy. No George Yeo and his gals from hell here.

So, the voters will be Chinese (even the non-Chinese 20%) i.e. pragmatic. They will vote for the PAP teochew boy born in the area made and good, for goodies, to show WP and other opposition parties not to take voters for granted, and to show netizens that they (the netizens) are nothing but elitist kay poh do-gooders who live in districts 9,10, 11 and 15, not in the heartlands of S’pore.

The people of Punggol East are juz decent, hard working, aspirational S’poreans, not elitist activists. And the PAP knows this.

—

*I’m glad to hear that it seems the SPF asked if he had contacted the London police. He apparently said, “No”. He was asked “You not taking the threats that seriously? Surely you want the police there to keep an eye on them?” I’m told, he kept quiet. [Line struck out after reading Monday’s ST report that his wife had made police report in London. But I’m surprised to read that grandson of that Lion was so upset: he 16 years old, not kiddie.)

**No, PAP has not paid me to say this. It is a fact that the govt is finally spending our money to make life more comfortable for us.

***Isn’t this telling voters that they should continue giving PAP the chance to deliver on its promises? Low needs a better speech writer.

“I’m invested in S’pore” & S’pore in 50s/ 60s

Shumeone (Bad grammar indicates that it is a member of YPAP Internet Brigade? Juz joking LOL) wrote,”why (sic) is this blog becoming like the local sites to air political grievances ?”

Because like PAPy Puthu, “I’m invested in S’pore”. So long as I remain a quitter in residence, and have investments here (property, shares, S$ cash), I must protect these investments. Increasingly the issues affecting my investment centre around the goofs of the PAP govt. These goofs have resulted in over 5% inflation, overcrowding, failing (by S’pore’s very high standards) infrastructure (telco and train cock-ups, congested roads, and the very high cost of public housing), productivity, stratification of society, among others.

For the record, I’m starting to like FT MP Puthu. I didn’t like him because of his sneer at NS (equating saving lives with doing NS. Dr PaulA, put him down by pointing out that there are docs who do NS (including reservist and save lives), and because he said his view on ISA was secret (PAP locked up dad, then deported him).

But I hear he is a gd constituency MP, and he did raise the issue of public transport nationalisation in parly. Something that the Wayang (or is it Worthless or Wankers?) Party hasn’t done despite it being an election promise. Promises made to be broken is it, WP? First-world political parties don’t do things like this.

And talking of the past, Dr PaulA and other younger S’poreans should read the u/m book. While they rightly discount much of the LKY, SPH stuff, as propaganda, they can’t and shouldn’t discount this written by a ex-Special Branch ang moh, after he was sacked by the British. He was married to one Han Suyin and was sacked from Special Branch because of her: In 1956, she published the novel And the Rain My Drink, wherein she described the interrogation techniques used by the Special Branch against Communist suspects.  Comber has written that he was sacked (asked to resign) as Assistant Commissioner of Police (Special Branch) because of said book.

The book describes how bad things once were. A PAPpy would say they make my above bitchings petty. He could also point out that after reading the book, I sent an email to friend in his 60s who moved on from S’pore after Sec 4,”Reading this book reminds me why you did the right thing: go to London. It was a tough time, and the rhetoric from LKY wasn’t reassuring.”. My friend went on to become v.v. rich as a financier.

Singapore Correspondent. Political Dispatches from Singapore (1958-1962)

(http://artsonline.monash.edu.au/mai/new-book-singapore-correspondent/)

by Leon Comber*

Publisher:  Marshall Cavendish International Asia

“Singapore Correspondent” covers five years of Singapore’s colourful political past – a period of living turbulently and sometimes dangerously. It is a collection of eye-witness dispatches, sent from Singapore to London, spanning a time when Singapore was emerging from British colonial rule and moving forward to self-government and independence. Many of the early struggles of the People’s Action Party (PAP) are described as the focus is on the political struggle taking place in which the PAP played a major part. Many important events which have long been forgotten are brought to life. These dispatches prove that political history need not be dull, and indeed can sometimes be entertaining and lively.

* MAI Adjunct Research Fellow

 

 

 

 

Reputations: Be mean & laugh

Here’s an intermission from the antics of Mad Dog (or is it Coyote?) Chee and the S’pore Indian Party as the SDP should be renamed: I mean with both potential candidates being Indians of great credentials (I know Dr PaulA and have a lot of respect for him) and from privileged backgrounds*,  in a predominantly Cina area, what was the SDP SIP thinking? The PAP fields a poor Teochew boy made good, and rumour has it that Low was looking around for another Teochew lang. Unfortunately after Staggy Yaw, none in WP are suitable. Chee and gang must be idealistic mad dogs if they believe that race doesn’t matter in S’pore. It does unless the hegemon decides otherwise.

As to the withdrawal, I’ll blog on it after thinking about what Morocco Mole and Secret Squirrel told me. Anyway I had analysed that the SDP wanted some goodies and that WP should agree: http://atans1.wordpress.com/2013/01/13/when-mad-dog-meets-tua-kees/

Here’s my “Tak boleh Tahan” riposte to various things I’ve read, in the last few days, on the internet. You you find them as entertaining as the Mad Dog’s antics. Or is he a coyote?

Law prof’s “academic integrity”

When prof Tey Tsun Hang  was charged for corruption in that he persuaded his student to pleasure him in return forgiving her better grades, he proclaimed loudly his “academic integrity”. I tot he was going to defend himself by saying that “I didn’t screw her”: all first-world academic codes of conduct frown on professors screwing their students. Well, we now know that his definition of “academic integrity” excludes sex with students. Bit like Bill Clinton’s definition of sex: it excluded a certain action between gal’s mouth and his organ.

And as to his alleged persecution because he criticised the judiciary (http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/01/11/sex-charge-an-academic-persecution-of-law-professor/), so it’s OK for a professor to have sex with his student, so long as he criticises S’pore judges. ERr what about minors?

BTW, if Alex Au had posted this link, I’m sure his friend, the AG, would have written to him that the piece was in contempt of the judiciary. But as it appeared in TRE, the voice of the masses, one can only speculate that the AG doesn’t want to soil his hands http://atans1.wordpress.com/2011/12/11/why-i-miss-tr/. Or AG doesn’t believe that TRE carries any cred with reasonable, thinking S’poreans, it “is a bearer of rumours, rubbish and nonsense”. Or that it will soon close down because “TRE readers are losers, houseflies and maggot’s young”, who are not willing to keep the site going by donating money. http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/01/15/tr-emeritus-a-bearer-of-rumours-rubbish-and-nonsense/

Jos talks cock again

From CNA:

Singapore can possibly take a leaf out from other jurisdictions to look at how they curb rising property prices. Member of Parliament for Holland-Bukit Timah GRC, Christopher De Souza, said this includes learning from Hong Kong and Australia … he prefers the Australian model. He said: “What the Australian model does is prevent foreigners from buying anything except new developments in Australia, and then hold on to that and eventually if they want to sell, to sell only to an Australian citizen.

“This allows the local population to set a correct pricing mechanism, which I feel is a good alternative for Singapore.”

Minister of State for Finance Josephine Teo said Singapore already has such restrictions on the entire HDB market and executive condominiums.

Currently, foreigners are not allowed to buy HDB flats and they are also barred from buying units in executive condominium developments that are less than 10 years old.

Hello Jos: What about the restriction that can only be sold to citizens? Not here is it. If she doesn’t ak PAP MP, thinbk she will listen to what Opposition MPs are saying?

Related post: http://atans1.wordpress.com/2012/10/26/jos-too-is-talking-cock/

Will Mrs change mind?

‘After saying for days that he was seriously considering contesting the single seat ward of Punggol East, Reform Party chief Kenneth Jeyaretnam has now said he is “90 per cent likely to go ahead”.’ (ST a few days ago): yesterday he said he was running.

There are allegations that his wife wears the pants in that household, and that she was finally persuaded that he should run.

Will she change her mind, now that SDP has withdrawn? Her heloo will be whipped by Ah Lian.

Ong Yee Kung is soiled

This ST reporter speculated that Ong was not PAP’s candidate in PE because he was part of the losing team in Aljunied http://www.singapolitics.sg/views/why-was-it-not-ong-ye-kung. Err ever tot that his roles in SMRT and NTUC, coupled with local drivers’ unhappiness and the strike by FT drivers made him toxic. Meritocracy? What meritocracy? http://atans1.wordpress.com/2012/12/10/meritocracys-feet-of-clay-ong-ye-kung/

SDP doing shumething right?

And finally coming back to Chee. SIP SDP must be doing shumething righr to warrant this bitch from ST journalist. Maybe the Dark Side was worried that the Jedi SDP will expose the weakness of the PAP clones? That the WP needs the SDP to provide the base for the clones to reach out to the moderate sheep.

http://www.singapolitics.sg/views/sdps-win-win-win-strategy-lose-lose

Sadly, we won’t know if this thesis is correct.

BTW reading these two pieces by two ST ladies, it is reasonable to speculate if ST’s newsroom is now the in-place for S’pore’s airheads, now that SIA has raised the education qualifications for its waitresses in the sky. Not that the ST ladies would have qualified on the looks front. Even Auntie Sylvia looks better. But then she’s now got $15,000 a month pin money to spend on clothes and accessories, like Kate Spade Tin. Happy shopping gals.

—-

*Heard a story that SDP was finding it difficult to choose because both of them want to defer to the other. Smart boys, if story is true. Losing to Ah Lian is bad for the reputation of any smart man.

When Mad Dog meets Tua Kees

Or “Chee, Sylvia & Low should resume taking their medicine”

While I don’t agree with everything this TRE piece said about Dr Chee, I must say I agree with, “We wait for Dr Chee’s next move. All this is more entertaining than reality TV, if it were not so tragic.”

I’m wondering if he has stopped taking his “anti-wacko” pills (What say you Drs Ang and Paul?). His behaviour increasingly resembles that of Ravi when he stopped taking his medicine. And I’m someone who thinks SDP should contest Punggol East if Sylvia, Low and the other WP leaders continue their tua kee ways.

For the future development democracy in S’pore, there is a need to prove or disprove the thesis that the SDP is carrying the WP. A three-way or more fight will prove or disprove this thesis in a PAP bastion. The PAP  won by 11 percentage points over the combined WP and SDA share of the voters. Taz a solid majority that is impossible to overturn even in a straight fight. So why not turn it into a test of strength between the Wackos and the PAP clones?

Who can mobilise the hard core anti-PAP votes?

“Happy” responded an anti SDP rant to this republishing on TRE saying, among many other things, “The SDP should garner around 20% of the votes. They too know this. However this is what they would like the WP to know should they not want to compromise. There is actually more for the SDP to gain than the WP should the results turn out as such.  The WP will be made to realize the reality that their 40% margins were due to one party fights in most areas. The SDA is not a credible party in the eyes of the people.”

Based on the 2011 presidential election, Happy would seem to have underestimated the hard core anti-PAP vote which ranges from 25-30% (25% that voted for Tan Jee say and 5% for Tan Kin Lian). The “Always PAP” is 35% (they voted for Tony Tan), while the remaining 35% that voted for Dr Tan Cheng Bock are the discerners, “pick and choose”, moderates, “swingers” or people who don’t do religion. It is many in this 35% that the WP are able to persuade to vote for WP.

But these votes are insufficient without the block vote of the hard core ant-PAP voters. The “chop” system ensured that the WP gets this block vote in the areas it contests, even if these voters do not like the WP. They vote WP because they hate the PAP more.

As the PAP is unlikely to lose Punggol East in a straight fight with any opposition party (what with a margin of 11 percentage points over the combined SDA and WP vote), the contest is a good way of showing the WP that it needs the SDP more than the SDP needs the WP. The WP Aljunied MPs want to keep their $15,000 allowances and the life-styles it allows them to lead.  They can do this in the next GE only if they play ball with SDP, according to Happy’s thesis.

And he could be right. In the 2011 presidential election, I’ve been reliably informed, that Tony Tan won 40ish % of votes in the Aljunied area, and TJS came in a close second. Dr Tan was nowhere near. This shows the power of the anti-PAP vote in Aljunied GRC. It also shows the depth of feeling against the PAP: even Dr Tan is haram. What more near-clones like the WP?

Tua Kee WP

So Low, Sylvia and other WP leaders: don’t be tua kee. Be the humble WP pre the Aljunied win. What I find strange about the WP’s arrogance  is that juz after the 2011 GE, when talking to a WP leader (not Low or Sylvia), he was fretting over the loss of the anti-PAP vote, if the SDP decided to play rough. He said the WP needed these votes, while it tried to attract the moderates. Have the WP leaders forgotten to take their “humility” pills, since then?

The WP shouldn’t take the risk that the SDP is right about the votes it can mobilise. If the SDP is wrong, the consequences for the SDP is less devastating than the consequences for the WP if the SDP is right. Whither PritamS’s dreams of being a cabinet minister in a coalition with the PAP?

Cut a deal

The WP should talk to the SDP, offering not to compete in Tanjong Pagar GRC, in return for SDP not contesting Punggol East. Remember

– “Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.”

– “A man’s pride shall bring him low: but honour shall uphold the humble in spirit.”. Remember the humblessness displayed by Low, not the arrogance of JBJ and son.

And Dr Chee should start retaking his “I’m a rational man” pills, and double the dosage. Or least pretend to. He may be a coyote, doing crazy things for rational game theory reasons, but public perceptions matter. And to the public, brought up on US cartoons, not the fundamentals of game theory, the coyote is mad. This doesn’t matter to the hard core PAP haters, but it matters to the moderates. I’m one of the moderates but I’m from RI, and I know the basics of game theory. Besides, I got an affection for wackos with balls.

Otherwise SDP and WP, “A plague a’ both your houses!”. No wonder the PAP rules OK.

Related post:

http://atans1.wordpress.com/2013/01/11/punggol-east-be-gracious-generous-wp/

——

*RI boys got 65% of the votes in the 2011 PE. It also shows that RI can produce a clown, brawler and gentleman operative, all with brains and balls. Eat yr heart out Saints, and other RI haters and self-haters. RI rules OK. And remember Mad Dog Chee, and Tua Kee Auntie and Low never went to RI. LOL, is all one can do with the antics of these politcans.

Punggol East: Be gracious, generous WP

“For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind,” comes to mind when thinking of WP being challenged by SDP, SDA and KennethJ, for the right to be the sole Opposition candidate to contest Punggol East, against the PAP.

If you go to TRE, there are plenty of calls for Opposition unity; and rightly so. But most of the comments say that the other parties should not challenge the WP’s wish to contest the ward. The argument is that WP has the moral right to contest the PAP by virtue of its 41% share of the vote in the area in GE2011.

Problem is that one could reasonably argue that in 2011, the WP was morally wrong to challenge the SDA’s desire to contest the seat. The SMC was carved out of Pasir Ris- Punggol GRC, an area where the SDA had traditionally contested. So even though technically the WP did not technically urinate on another’s patch, it should have left the seat to the SDA to contest. At the time, there wasn’t too much bitching online on the WP’s stance because, Desmond Lim, the SDA candidate was not a popular man online. He had opposed the much loved Chiam (when Said Lim was in the SPP) for what it was popularly believed personal relations, and so didn’t have much public sympathy, online and offline.

Hence WP’s silence on why it should be rightful Opposition challenger. It is hoisted by its own petard

If the WP has the moral right to contest the seat because of its share of the vote, this means that

– the WP was right to ignore the informal rules of the “chop” game*; and

– accept that might is right. Bullying PAP-style is acceptable.

I hope that the parties can come to a compromise: it’s not as though the seat is marginal.

The PAP won 55% of the votes cast, 11% more than that of SDA and WP combined.

Given that SDA and KennethJ** can’t win, even if either was the sole opposition candidate; the WP has “dirty hands” and five MPs and  one NCMP MIA or AWOL,  (only Auntie and JJ are on the ball in Parly), the SDP should be given the right to challenge the PAP.

Personally if the WP is so generous and gracious, come what may, I’ll vote for JJ and WP in the next GE, even if the WP continues doing-bugger all in Parly. I had planned to be out of S’pore if the PAP fielded Charles Chong in Joo Chiat again.

For the record, I suspect that SDP is putting up its hand for a very tactical reason. It wants to contest Tanjong Pagar GRC at the next GE. It is a neighboor of Holland- Bukit Timah GRC. If the WP were to agree, it would not join the clowns in taking on WP and the PAP. Funny the other members of Clown brigade are AWOL from action: RI boys, Tan Kin Lian and Tan Jee Say, and Goh Meng Seng. Hopefully they realise the folly and futility of being in this brigade, despite the cheap publicity members get.

Back to Dr Chee: only an ACS kid would use such deep thinking in pursuing his aim. Or maybe RI boys, Dr Ang Yong Guan and Dr Paul A, taught him game theory.

————

*Don’t like the “chop” system but it’s here to stay for the time being. It allows the opposition parties to take advantage of the core anti–PAP of between 25-30% of the electorate. They juz have to attract another 21-26% of the vote. Even then history shows how difficult this is.

**He is starting to back-track. Typical Saints Wayang Action man behaviour. Remember Reuben Wang, the Saints who “shoted” an obscenity at  DPM Teo, refused to apologise, then with his testicles around his neck and tail between his legs, he apologised? Yet a Saints rubgy captain and assorted rugby players allege on Facebook he is lying when KennethJ says he attended Saint Andrews school. Interestingly, the Saints rugby players defame KJ behind his back, yet don’t take action to correct his alleged lie. Wonder why? They hate the PAP and the government so much that they will not say anything bad publicly about the Opposition?

Even PM disagrees with Doc

No basis to suggest AIM transaction was improper, says Teo Ho

I was planning to blog on the significance of Dr Tan Cheng Bock’s comments on the PAP “volvo” over AIM.

But given that “PM Lee directs MND to fully review AIM transaction”, need I say anything more for the time being? Except that Mayor Doctor Teo Ho Pin has been shown to be a talk cock, sing song artiste, like KennethJ. Isn’t a PAP MP supposed to be better than an Opposition man?

And by directing “MND to take a broad-based approach, including re-examining the fundamental nature of town councils, with a view to ensuring high overall standards of their corporate governance”, PM is also recognising that there is serious public disquiet about Baey Yam Keng’s comments that,“They[town councils]’re not public institutions; they’re not a public service company … “I feel that we may be reading too much into the political association. Because in the first place it’s a political organisation.”

I was planning to blog on this issue given the significance of these words

– They came from an MP who was until recently the head of the regional branch of an int’l leading PR firm: a man who knows the importance of words.

– There are constitutional and governance issues if these words reflect the govt’s thinking on town councils.

But let’s watch and wait for the report.

Note: “And …” was added after first posting.

Doc, pull the other leg, its got bells on it

No basis to suggest AIM transaction was improper, says Teo Ho Pin

There is no basis to suggest that the transaction to provide computer services to the PAP Town Councils by the company, Action Information Management Pte Ltd (AIM), was improper or disadvantageous to the town councils.

Coordinating Chairman of the PAP-run town councils, Dr Teo Ho Pin made this point in his latest rebuttal to comments made by Ms Sylvia Lim, the Chairman of the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council. http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1245602/1/.html

Really?

If there was “No basis to suggest AIM transaction was improper”, why did the explanation take so long to come out?

First Doc Teo tried to rubbish WP’s comments. When that failed he then tried to throw smoke. Finally, we were given details, sort of. To get info that should have been made available when WP bitched about AIM cancelling the contract, after a long tortuous process, akin pulling a rotten tooth without pain killers, makes one wonder why the delay in giving an explanation that addresses the various issues?

And how come Uncle Leong  (http://leongszehian.com/?p=2449) is able to pick so many “holes” in the statement?

While, I don’t agree with some of his criticisms and comments, his analysis especially his pointed questions and observations make it clear that the latest statement from Doc Teo has not dispelled reasonable concerns about the deal. In particular, while the PAP Town Councils saved $8,120 from selling the TCMS software to AIM, they had to pay AIM an additional $33,150 as “management fees” for the period of November 2011 to April 2013.

So this deal cost the PAP Town Councils $25,030 (33,150- 8120). Doubtless Dr Teo could quibble with this sum as it doesn’t take into account the time-value of money.

Dr. Teo’s and AIM chairman Chandra Das’ earlier statements had suggested that AIM did not financially benefit from this contract. So is this amount being rebated to the PAP town councils?

And the statement does not still answer the following issues:

– As Aljunied GRC seems to be one of the GRCs that paid for the development costs of the software that was transferred to AIM, how come AIM can cancel contract if a GRC moves on to the Jedi (OK, OK, I exaggerate) from the Dark Side of the Men in White? Sure it’s in contract, but is this ethically or morally correct? Didn’t LKY say we are a Confucian society? Ethically behaviour is expected.

– Is the WP being fixed by being deprived of AIM’s services? And what are the implications if there is a change of govt? Will the civil service, armed forces, police and government agencies cancel contracts with the new govt? From what happened with AIM’s contract, sounds reasonable to assume this.

– Can a contract between PAP town councils and a company 100%-owned by former PAP MPs be considered arm’s length? Should it be allowed at all to avoid even the slightest appearance of any potential conflict of interest? (BTW, http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/already-criticized-freeport-deals-raises-questions-of-conflicts/ gives an interesting take on the conflicts of interest in a recent US deal, and how difficult it is for those who are unhappy with it to sue.)

(http://atans1.wordpress.com/2013/01/01/aim-taz-what-netizens-wp-should-do/)

Is the Doc trying to join the PAP Comedy Club? Founder members are VivianB (tasteless joke about the poor etc), Yacoob (once in 50-years flood happening twice in two months) Tharman and Hng Kiang (COE prices doesn’t matter if not buying car), and the patron is one Christopher Palmer. I’ve blogged on their jokes and routines.

BTW, wonder if lawyers’ advising Alex Au, for free, can count time advising him on the law relating to defamation, against their pro bono quotas?

Seriously I hope Alex Au seeks and gets advice (for free) on how to avoid defaming* PAPpies. They are kinda sensitive people. Worse for Alex (and other bloggers), they got the funds to pay lawyers. And while the PAPpies have been pretty decent, so far, in not asking for costs, they may change their minds on this issue.

At the moment, defaming PAPpies on the internet is cost free. But the PAP has to pay its lawyers.

And the PAPpies, like any other S’porean, deserve respect. Query, and comment their statements and actions. But give them the respect that all of us are entitled to. Calling anyone “corrupt” without reasonable evidence is wrong**.

A teacher in a fee-paying school in England put it this way when explaining why the school introduced a course on how to avoid libel: ”We’ve been trying to make them accountable – if you wouldn’t say something to a person’s face, if you wouldn’t say it in front of me or your parents, then you don’t say it. I think that’s the key bit that we try to get across to them.” http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/dec/26/twitter-facebook-school-libel-lessons

Perhaps the Law Soc should start a course for bloggers? Or maybe this is something SDP (the Real Opposition) can do, given that Dr Vincent Wijeysingha has just apologised to Acting Manpower Minister Tan Chuan-Jin for defamatory comments about him in an article on the illegal strike by SMRT bus drivers from China.

———

*While the law on defamation can be very technical, Alex Au’s defamatory statements were in legal terms very elementary, and could have been easily avoided.

**There is a pragmatic reason too. The Opposition in the 1980s and 1990s, made allegations of corruption against the PAP government. Well people like JBJ were sued successfully, and the credibility of the Opposition was damaged badly among the potential “swing” voters. This tactic had been tried and failed. And should not be repeated it unless there is credible evidence of corruption.

Strategy quotes for the PAP

“Speed, Price, Quality: Pick Two” ACTUALLY, this is shumething all S’poreans must realise.
Anon business adage

“There are two ways to extend a business. Take inventory of what you’re good at and extend out from your skills. Or determine what your customers need and work backward, even if it requires learning new skills.”
Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon (1964–)

“One gets paid only for strengths; one does not get paid for weaknesses. The question, therefore, is first: What are our specific strengths? And then: Are they the right strengths? Are they the strengths that fit the opportunities of tomorrow, or are they the strengths that fitted those of yesterday? Are we deploying our strengths where the opportunities no longer are, or perhaps never were? And finally, what additional strengths do we have to acquire?”
Peter Drucker, management writer (1909–2005), Managing in Turbulent Times (1980)

“There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible.”
Henry Ford, industrialist (1863–1947)

“People don’t want quarter-inch drills. They want quarter inch holes.”

Theodore Levitt, academic (1925–2006), Thinking in Management (1983)

http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2012/10/z-business-quotations-1

AIM: Taz what netizens & WP should do

– Don’t any how fire & volvo

The PAP,made flesh in Dr Teo Ho Pin, and the constructive, nation-building media are “throwing smoke”, trying to confuse S’poreans on the issues around AIM.

The sad thing is all the noise about AIM being a $2 co, or not having the expertise etc that is coming from many of us  ”cowboys”, is distracting S’poreans from the four issues that matter:

– As Aljunied GRC seems to be one of the GRCs that paid for the development costs of the software that was transferred to AIM, how come AIM can cancel contract if a GRC moves on to the Jedi (OK, OK, I exaggerate) from the Dark Side of the Men in White? Sure it’s in contract, but is this ethically or morally correct? Didn’t LKY say we are a Confucian society? Ethically behaviour is expected.

– Is the WP being fixed by being deprived of AIM’s services? And what are the implications if there is a change of govt? Will the civil service, armed forces, police and government agencies cancel contracts with the new govt? From what happened with AIM’s contract, sounds reasonable to assume this.

– What is the service level agreement (SLA) in the leasing? This includes questions such as what levels of help desk and technical support, how many staff will be providing support, or is AIM outsourcing the support to another company?

[Update: Straits Times reported today that service was 'outsourced' from AIM back to NCS, and the TCs must know this intention when awarding the contract. So the questions are why would they allow that having terminated NCS's services themselves, and what value does AIM add as the middleman. They have to come clean or face accusations of some sort of 'round-tripping'.]

– Can a contract between PAP town councils and a company 100%-owned by former PAP MPs be considered arm’s length? Should it be allowed at all to avoid even the slightest appearance of any potential conflict of interest?

The points in Italics are from Void Decker who has a great piece on this matter: he is on target.

The WP never made allegations about whether AIM was a $2 co or its competency. It tried to focus (in its unfocused, dysfunctional way*), I think, on the first  two issues that shld concern us.

Sadly netizens are not focusing on the substantive issues. Partly it’s because of the hols and because CNY is coming in February.

But the WP is at fault too: its public communications team is a clone of that of Team PAP. Maybe Team Wayang Wankers should ask help from the real Opposition: Team SDP; Ravi the do-gooder (even if he from NSP); TOC (even if it’s undergoing editor change again*); or TRE. Or even TJS.

These are people who know how to communicate effectively with the public. BTW, only KennethJ*** is worse at communicating with the public than Team PAP and the Wayang Wankers.

“Target 50m ahead. At own time and pace, open fire. Make every shot count. Beng Pek mah?

——————-

*Show Mao is not pulling his weight, not being allowed to, or maybe he not that savvy? Will explore this later in yr, in “The AWOL, MIA of Show Mao”. Maybe Low and Sylvia were playing bait and switch, like investment bankers, and time-sharing salesmen?

As to the other two lawyers in Team Wankers Wayang, Sylvia got only so-so NUS law degree while PritamS got his from a crappy place, SMU Law School.

**New chief editor soon. It will by then have run through two Indian chiefs (they are actually Tamils, not Native Americans, or Aryans) in less than 11 months. Then there is the disappearance from TOC’s establishment, in 2011, of two ex-WP cadres and activists, Goh Meng Seng**** (Head of the Chinese Section) and Eric Tan (Managing Editor and then investigative editor). AWOL, MIA, or posts abolished: who knows?

But one of the co-founders is still active in editorially. So there is continuity.

****But then he speak in ang moh accent, don’t know the Pledge and was from Saint Andrews: the school where boys have two rugby props on each of their of shoulders. But despite having cips on his shoulders, a Saints rugby captain says on Facebook that KennethJ is not a Saints. More on this later in the year.

****Also ex-NSP member. Anything else he was member of?

Li Jiawei proves TRE readers right

When she retires, what does she do? Move on from S’pore, back to China.

Juz shows that the many TRE readers who doubted her loyalty to S’pore were right! Readers that were criticised by govt ministers with lots of academic qualifications.

Ministers, in yr NatCon, listen to TRE readers, though I must admit some of them are wackos. The wackos are the s’pore self-loathers.

Wimmin, keep away from our cocks: PAP, Govt

Here’s what of JG (smart gal except she believes in WP) view of why Laura Ong was exposed: to tell gals to lay off PAP MPs. The punishment is being exposed publicly. Or put put it another way, cut off the supply of gals so as not to put temptation in the way of the PAP MPs.

Hey, you got it wrong!! How dare Laura sleep with Palmer??? She’s the one who is in the wrong!! Let the media dogs go after her!!

How dare Laura’s BF expose the affair to TRE and TNP? He’s also in the wrong!! Let the media dogs go after him too!!

Hence most of the expose is about Laura and his BF. Including camping outside their house, or their parents’ house, or asking neighbors about their actions. None of these stuffs when it comes to Palmer.

Seen in this perspective, everything makes sense. The PAP is whiter than white. If they are blemished, its the blemish-er that’s in the wrong. Let everyone learn his lesson – don’t ever touch a PAP MP, OK??

And maybe this is why Sue’s pix appears so often in SPH’s publication. The govt wants to send the message to customer service ladies that customer service does not include providing sexual gratification to civil servants.

Postings may be light until after 2 or 3 January. Happy partying or whatever you may be planning to do or are already doing.

Palmer’s no gentleman, PAP’s double standards, & PA & MSM are scum

No goodwill from me for Palmer, the PAP, PA and our local media, this season of goodwill to all men because of the way they treated Laura.

When Laura Ong was unmasked by PA, Palmer should have asked the media to respect her privacy. He didn’t. Shows that he doesn’t care. She was juz another sex object. Shows his wife, and us, the public, what kind of man he is. But to be fair, maybe the public castration, left him in shock*. One day, a tua kee strutting cock, the next day the balls were brutally hacked-off in public, albeit humanely.

As for PA, it had good reasons for naming her, which strangely it didn’t use. PA has an interest in ensuring that staff not  sleep around with PAP MPs, in order to advance careers. So naming here would be a good deterrence. It also needed to show the tax-payer that the close relationship between PAP and PA doesn’t include providing sex for PAP MPS and cadres.

Where PA went wrong, morally and ethically, was not asking for her privacy to be respected, when it made the announcement  If Zorro Lim had at that time asked for space for her, I’m sure our constructive, nation-building media would not have disturbed her and the others.

(“PA deputy chairman Lim Swee Say said on Friday that the organisation deliberated at length on whether to identify Ms Ong as the woman involved in the Michael Palmer affair but ultimately felt they could not keep it under wraps.

He said that although they did not want to “add to her pain” by identifying her, they recognised that the case had attracted much public attention.” — MediaCorp report)

(Of course, PA might have motives for not behaving properly ethically and morally.)

The call of the CEO of PA to give her space came too late. Her space and that of others were brutally violated by our constructive, nation-building media.

As to the constructive, nation-building media’s behaviour, what can I say that David Boey (once someone who walked on the Dark Side: he was a ST hack) hasn’t already said. If they didn”t dare hound the Palmers, they should havethe  decency to leave her and her connections alone.

But there is justice after all. The media did the PAP and PA no favours because the public saw the contrast in the behaviour of the media, ministers, PAP and PA:

– minister and PAP leader told media to respect Palmers’ privacy: they did;

– but because another PAP minster and a PA leader, didn’t tell  media to give other lady space, they violently violated her space and that of others.

Net result: public disgust and disquiet. The public castration of Palmer did not have the effect that the PAP wanted: that it is puritanical when it comes to the sexual behaviour of its MPs, and that, unlike the WP, it is willing to publicly humiliate MPs who break its rules. There isn’t any of the “rumours, what rumours?” that the PAP’s near-clones used to justify keeping on Stag Yaw until public disquiet made the WP’s defence of Yaw untenable.

LKY is right to despise the local media. It can’t even do the right thing by its masters, the MIW.

—-

*Sima Qian could not bring himself to describe the horror of castration. He talks instead of going down to the “silkworm chamber”. A castrated man could easily die from blood loss or infection so after mutilation the victims were kept like silkworms in a warm, draught-free room.

I look at myself now, mutilated in body and living in vile disgrace. Every time I think of this shame I find myself drenched in sweat.”

Govt may be right on limiting access to uni education, discuss.

Given that Christmas is the season of goodwill to all men (including the PAPpies) and given that the PAP has had a torrid time, and given that Fabrications about the PAP is not doing its job, I tot I should post some facts and analysis (not Hard Truths) that support a policy that has pushy parents and netizens upset.

Sometime back, when

– PM said the desire  for “personal growth” 9i.e. a university degree has to be balanced with jobs; and

– the education minister said that while the govt would increase the number of places in local universities for locals, there would be a limit (I think he said 40% of some “mark”),

both were given a hard time by netizens and pushy parents.

I was reminded of the above recently, when I surfed across a few articles recently that discussed the skills needed to get jobs in a developed economies.

In a McKinsey survey of Western countries, nearly 70% of employers blamed inadequate training for the shortfall in skilled workers, yet 70% of education-providers believe they suitably prepare graduates for the jobs market. Similarly, employers complain that less than half of the young whom they hire have adequate problem-solving skills, yet nearly two-thirds of the young believe that they do have such skills.

Perhaps the young and their teachers need to take a reality check said the Economist writer who reported this.

Then there is this: As some Canadian industries struggle to find skilled workers, others face a glut of qualified candidates and not enough jobs to go around. University professor Peter Fragiskatos says emphasising the importance of a university education only makes the problem worse.

He writes: Notions of success in Canada have been, and remain, intimately connected to obtaining a university degree. Why? After all, Plato, Aristotle, Nietzsche and Heidegger can be discovered just as easily at a public library and for a much cheaper price.

All of this might sound strange coming from someone who teaches at a university. While the joy I feel when working with my students cannot be put into words, the experience has made me realise that a love for learning is not their leading motivation, if it ever was.

Most have been raised with the idea that a secure future will only be possible with a BA or a BSc, and they enrol in university for this reason. As they get older, today’s students are likely to pass along the same message to their kids.

The reality is that Canadians are living in a new era, one where a technical education – usually obtained at a community college – has the prospect of delivering not only a steady job but better pay than what university graduates typically make.

Engineering, mining and many health-related professions – the three areas identified by Tal’s report as most in need of qualified applicants – do not require a university degree.

Finally from an Economist blog  the work of Cambridge economist Chang Ha-Joon, has noted that Switzerland*—one of the richest countries in the world and the nation with the third-highest ratio of Nobel scientists per person—has a lower rate of college enrollment than every other rich nation, as well as other beacons of prosperity like Argentina, Lithuania, and Greece. In fact, once a country has crossed some very low threshold, there is no relationship between the number of graduates and national wealth. The explanation is simple: a typical college education does not linearly increase labor productivity. This is not necessarily a bad thing—there is more to life than making money, after all.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/09/college-enrollment

So maybe, the govt is right to put the emphasis on vocational education, with scholarship schemes like this?

Fat chance that most readers of TRE and TOC, and pushy parents would concur. For the former, the govt, PAP, NTUC and related entities are always wrong. Take Zorro Lim’s statement that NTUC says ‘no’ to equal pay for all nationalities because “Same job-equal pay” rule will put local workers and families at a disadvantage. Facebookers and some bloggers were bitching about this. If he had said “yes”, they would be bitching too.: S’poreans must come first. Wonder how these people feel, now that ST (whom they rightly bitch abt) agrees with them that sMRT should only use the English station names in its public announcements. LOL

—————————–

*S’pore’s spending on education is only around 3% of GDP (about halve of Switzerland which is in line with developed countries), so we got to spend a lot more to have a Swiss-style standard of education. Unless the govt wants us to be third world in education, like on workers’ and refugees’ rights.