WP changes mind on nationalising SMRT & SBS

This blog at regular intervals reminds readers that the Wankers’ Workers’ Party had been silent on public transport nationalisation, despite it being in the Wayangs’ party’s 2011 manifesto and despite Gerald Giam advocating it in ST in July 2011 (here, here); and despite the seeming failure of the govt’s public tpt policy (I mean does the pumping in of S$1.1bn show that the “for-profit” policy working?)

Finally WP and GG have broken their silence: ”If PTOs are unable to do so because of their obligations to shareholders, public transport should be taken out of private hands and run by a not-for-profit corporation which focuses on providing efficient and quality public transport, instead of generating shareholder returns.”

Err this was what is written in Manifesto: “Instead of public transport being provided by profit-oriented companies, all public transport including the MRT & public buses servicing major routes should be brought under a National Transport Corporation, a public body, to ensure a smooth integration of the overall national transport network and to avoid unnecessary duplication of services and overheads incurred by multiple operators.”

Spot the difference? The Manifesto call was unconditional. Now the operative word is “IF”.

Second time WP changing its mind on a Manifesto call. The first was on the benchmarking of ministers’ salaries. Like this change, one GG was behind that one too. Maybe Eric Tan (remember him?*) was right to rubbisg GG.

If the Manifesto is juz toilet paper, pls tell us WP. And tell us which first-world opposition party treats its manifesto with such contempt?

Related post

http://atans1.wordpress.com/2012/11/23/why-wp-mps-are-not-first-world-parlimentarians/

—

*GG called him his Si-Fu. Si-Fu lost NCMP seat to GG. Si-Fu had been promised NCMP seat before GE 2011, if East Coast team was entitled to one.

Meritocracy’s feet of clay: Ong Ye Kung

(Update on 3 January 2013: He has joined Keppel Gp, a TLC, and not as expected his father-in-law’s property company. I’ll be blogging on this next week. Want to try to find out if his in-laws scared that their workers’ will go on strike or be unhappy if he joined them. I mean his record at SMRT/ NTUC not too good.)

Our nation-building constructive media are ignoring the white elephant in the space where of the circles of TLCs/GLCs, PAP, NTUC and the civil service meet: sometimes also known as S’pore Inc.

Once upon a time, Ong Ye Kung, was S’pore Inc’s poster boy of meritocracy.

Just in April 2011, before the May GE, our nation-building constructive media praised him as an example of meritocracy at work. Son of a Barisan Socialist MP (and no friend of one LKY), he was a scholar* who rose to a senior civil service post**, then became a senior NTUC leader, and then a PAP MP candidate. It was whispered that he was Zorro Lim’s anointed successor as NTUC chief; and was tipped by ST as a future candidate for ministerial office. He did became the NTUC’s Deputy Secretary-General in June 2011.

But by then his slave worker drawn chariot had gotten stuck in the mud . He was a member of George Yeo’s losing Aljunied GRC team. Worse was to follow in 2012: the wheels came off his chariot of gold and ivory and he was thrown-off, and cast into the darkness and mud and became a person that the constructive, nation-building media knew not.

Earlier this year, SMRT’s S’porean drivers made known publicly their unhappiness over pay proposals that had his endorsement as Executive Secretary of NTWU (Nation Transport Workers’ Union). As he was also a non-executive director of SMRT, if he were an investment banker, a US judge would have rebuked and censured him for his multiple, conflicting roles.

Then he resigned, effective last month, from NTUC to “join the private sector”.

In perhaps a farewell, good-riddance gesture, FT PRC workers went on strike (illegally) and we learnt:

– they lived in sub-standard accommodation (SMRT admitted this);

– unlike most SBS FT PRC drivers, most of SMRT’s PRC drivers were not union members; and

– Ministry of Manpower reprimanded SMRT for its HR practices.

All this reflects badly on Ong: NTUC’s Deputy Secretary-General,  Executive-Secretary of NTWU and SMRT non-executive director. And on the system that allowed him to rise to the top. After all his ex-boss said the following reported on Friday, which given Ong’s multiple roles in SMRT, can reasonably be interpreted as criticism of Ong:

In his first comments on the illegal strike, which saw 171 workers protesting over salary increases and living conditions, the Secretary-General of the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) said the labour dispute “shouldn’t have happened” and “could have been avoided”. [So where was Ong: looking at his monthly CPF statements and being happy?]

NTUC is thus reaching out to SMRT’s management to persuade them “to adopt a more enlightened approach to embrace the union as a partner”, he added. [Hello, NTUC's Deputy Secretary-General was on SMRT's board, so what waz he doing?]

Mr Lim, who was speaking to reporters on the sidelines of the Labour Movement Workplan Seminar, cited the example of SMRT’s rival SBS Transit where nine in 10 of its China bus drivers are union members. Only one in 10 of SMRT’s China bus drivers are union members, according to union sources. [So, why didn't Ong advise SMRT to help unionise these FTs, and if he did, why didn't NTUC push harder ehen SMRT refused?]

SBS Transit’s management “recognised the constructive role of the union”, while union leaders “played the role of looking after the interests of the drivers”, said Mr Lim.

“And as a result … they work very closely as one team, it’s a win-win outcome. In terms of how workers are being treated and respected, how management are responsive, how they work together, I think it’s a kind of model that we ought to see more and more in Singapore.” (Today)

Apparently, Ong is supposed to join his father-in-law’s property development business: but with this revelations, it should come as no surprise if his in-law’s family has reservations about him: he might mismanage and upset the workers. Property development companies are fragile because of their leverage: they can’t afford executives who can’t execute.

And if anyone is wondering about the origins and meaning of the term “feet of clay”:

Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible.

This image’s head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass,

His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay. (Daniel 2:31-33)

…

And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters’ clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.

And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken.

And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. (Daniel 2:41-43)

…………………….

*From 1993 to 1999, he was in the then Ministry of Communications, where he helped develop the Land Transport White Paper and was part of the team which established Singapore’s Land Transport Authority. Taz right, he was there at the beginning of the great SMRT cock-up.

**He was the Principal Private Secretary to one Lee Hsien Loong, then became the CEO of the Singapore Workforce Development Agency.

NatCon: Dialogue in the Dark

“Dialogue in the Dark (DiD) is a social enterprise that aims to educate the public on the experience of blindness, ” writes MSF S’pore (Kee Chui Chan’s ministry)

Tot it should be appropriated as a description of NatCon.

Now to more serious matters.

PM on Wednesday talked of the need to have a government prepared to plan long-term. Bit rich of him to talk about this given the admitted problems in public housing and public transport that the govt’s policy of bringing in FTs by the container-loads have caused. I mean what were Mah Bow Tan and Raymond Lim doing? They even denied there were problems in public housing and public transport.

And waz the point of long-term planning if the plans are  lousy or execution bad? I’ve remarked before that the drive for greater productivity began around the time I started work: in the late 1970s. I’ve retired since then, and still there is a problem about productivity. And in the early 1980s, one LKY was ordering graduate S’porean mothers to breed, lest S’pore depopulates. His son is pleading with S’poreans to have more babies.

Two weeks ago, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said that the National Conversation important in govt’s decision making. So important that the govt finds it necessary to frame the questions that we can ask it? “By early next year, Education Minister Heng Swee Keat expects to announce themes which the committee spearheading a national conversation about Singapore’s future will focus on,” CNA report.

Might as well prepare model answers? From the papers coming out from the Institute of Policy Studies (like the one setting out various growth scenarios dependent on the level of immigration) and government ministries (like the one on growth and population by the National Population & Talent Division of the PM’s office), and the articles in the constructive, nation-building ST by its economics correspondent and various senior writers, I will not be surprised if “model” answers will soon be available.

(Even the BBC and BBH, an ad agency, are helping out on the birth rate issue.)

And there will be prizes for the WP MPs who recite these answers perfectly. Yes, yes I know WP will not take part in NatCon, but they regularly support the PAP, after saying they disagree with the govt (instances).

And yesterday, PM highlighted three key goals (OB markers?):

–  ”a vibrant economy by creating good jobs for everyone, as well as a harmonious society where people can enjoy a balanced and fulfilling life.”

– “a meritocratic system where people succeed based on their effort and contributions, along with special effort to help those who start off with less to do well in school and upgrade at work.”

– “to build a Singapore where citizens belong and feel as one, as well as an open, cosmopolitan city that welcomes foreigners with the skills and talents to help the country succeed.”

“Mr Lee said the balance between these goals — just like yin and yang elements — will change will over time.The government, he said, is in the process of adjusting them.”

Right, so on top of given questions and model answers, boundaries are set. We can only talk about asking govt to adjusting them.

Err, is there anything left to discuss?

And if get scared by all the talk about the future doom and gloom if the PAPpies don’t the rule the roost, this is a useful antidote from America: it may not be our problem. We might be dead by then.

“For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind”

Well, well. So 102 FT drivers recruited from China (5% of all SMRT’s drivers) refused to work yesterday, disrupting SMRT bus services. They were not happy about their pay. Happily for commuters using the affected bus services, they agreed to return to work while talks continue.

Whither the FT policy, and LKY’s pride in FTs? Striking was a no-no for workers (except, as I recounted yesterday, when the govt had another agenda). S’porean sheep workers did not strike partly because they were afraid of retribution. Now FTs have led the way and have so far got away with it. They might even get more money. If they do, will locals realise that they too can get away with striking? If immigrants whom LKY respect can strike, why can’t they?

And if S’poreans start striking, will the MNCs move on?

Something for the cabinet, PM and his dad to ponder.

“For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind: it hath no stalk: the bud shall yield no meal: if so be it yield, the strangers shall swallow it up.”

As for SMRT, time to forget about the stock. Management is still dysfunctional, despite having a ex-SAF chief and scholar in charge. Err might even turn into another NOL, where as I have recounted another ex-SAF chief and scholar has run it aground (Search “NOL”  on this site).

Why WP MPs are not First World parlimentarians

Last week, two WP MPs, Sylvia Lim and PritamS made impassionate pleas against the amendments the govt was proposing to the law on the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking. They said the amendments were wrong morally wrong and not logical and did not do justice. So I was surprised when I read that they voted for the bill. Stupid me because this isn’t the first time that the WP has “wayanged”.: grandstanding against the govt but then quietly supporting the govt, when the spot lights have moved on.

DPM Teo told us in the Hougang by-election campaign that the WP had voted in favour of the Budget earlier this year. I had assumed because of the criticism that the MPs had been making, that they had voted against it or abstained.

(And I will be not surprised if I learn that GG had voted in favour of the ministerial salary changes, despite criticising the changes).

They have promised to be First World Parliamentarians. But they don’t even behave like honourable men and ladies. And in the UK and US, when the Opposition voices unhappiness with govt bills, its legislators vote against the bills, not for them. At worse, they abstain.

The WP Mps are like PAP MPs who speak out against policies and then vote for the measures they juz spoke against. They do so because party discipline (the whip) requires that of them. Netizens and others sneer at this behaviour but are accepting of the WP MPs’ behaviour.

Given this hypocrisy by WP MPs, no wonder the party forgave Stag Yaw when he admitted after the 2006 election that despite standing against PM in AMK GRC, he voted for the PAP. He was later anointed by Low to be his proxy in Hougang. It’s in the WP’s genes to talk bad about the govt, but then support it. Remember Show Mao’s analogy of the WP wanting to like an adviser to the emperor? Well to stretch the analogy, the official would publicly criticise the emperor for an action, and then privately assure the emperor that the emperor was right.

A member of the Communist-dominated parliament in Vietnam has in a rare show of dissent told PM Nguyen Tan Dung that he should resign for his mistakes in handling the economy, it was reported last week. Bet you a WP MP will never ever ask the PM to do this. Remember Low refused when challenged by the PM to say that Wong Kan Seng should resign when a Muslim “terrorist” escaped.

But what do you expect when a party ignores its Manifesto twice:

– on the nationalisation of public transport: and

– on what to peg ministers’ salaries to.

The “W” in WP stands for “Wankers”, “Worthless” or “Wayang”: anything but “Workers’”

Sorry JJ, if there is no change in this behaviour, next time I won’t vote WP, even though I voted WP all my life, and even though I think you are doing a good job in parliament, questioning the govt’s education policies. And if Charles Chong, is still my MP, I’ll make sure I’m not in S’pore on election day. (Charles Chong is worse than VivianB when it comes to sneering at the needy, even though he ain’t as rich and high-class as VivianB.) Join the SDP, JJ.

I gave the WP MPs in the last parliament a lot of slack because Low’s strength is not being a parliamentary speaker or debater. He is a backroom fixer and organiser. And Auntie was new. And there were only two of them. Hey but now there are 6 MPs and two NCMPs. And the PM is moving in the right direction, even if the PAP has yet to shed its old ways. But the WP MPs are juz taking the money, and looking after their own interests so that they get re-elected.

Typical S’porean way

In a 2010 paper in the journal Tobacco Control, a group of Singapore-based cancer specialists proposed phasing-out tobacco by denying access to tobacco for anyone born from the year 2000 onwards. The researchers said their idea introduced the concept of tobacco-free generations that would “never legally be able to take up the harmful habit of smoking, at any age”

So very S’porean.

I came across the above when I read Should you need a licence to smoke?  This is something experts in the West are now thinking of recommending.

S’pore’s juz the place to introduce it, less draconian than banning youngsters from smoking.  We got licences to own cars (COEs) , licences to drive into the city (ERP charges),  licences to buy “subsidised” public housing (got to have marriage licences first), and local media journalists need licence to think (juz kidding).

And the govt could introduce the mandatory death penalty for smoking without licences. Shan could justify it on the grounds that smokers are all going to die one day, anyway.

Indians: Lots to celebrate

TOM will be the second Deepavali since the cabinet reshuffle after last year’s May GE.

And my contacts among the Indians in the PAP have plenty to raise their glasses to as they feast and booze. Two out of four of PM’s most trusted ministers are Indians, the Indian PAPpies crow to their Chinese and Malay comrades. One is, allegedly,  descended from the wolf in Red Riding Hood, and the three-headed dog with a serpent’s tail, a mane of snakes, and a lion’s claws, that guarded Hades. The other is the PM’s Brains and Heart. The other two Chinese ministers are the PM’s hewers of wood and water? I.e. Dalits crow the Indian PAPpies. Some even wonder if they should PM an “honorary” Indian. 

And VivianB is being given a chance (final one?) to show what he can do: tame the regular 50-year floods that happen three times in two years.

And there is another “countryman” cabinet minister in the PMO’s office. Earlier this year, ignorant Americans in the US State Department might be forgiven for thinking  that S’pore is on the Indian sub-continent or in the Indian Ocean given that he and Tharman visited the US at about the same time.

Then there is the Hard Truth that no Chinese or Malay has become a minister after becoming a divorcee.

And juz recently, another Indian has been made senior junior minister.

Juz calculate the percentage of Indian MPs to the total.

Funnily, Indians are the  most vocal critics of the PAP or the government. Take a stone a throw it into that crowd, and you are more likely to hit a Wijeysingha,  Ravi, Yadav, Nair, Tambi, Cherian or Braema than a Kum Hong, Alex Au, Teo Soh Lung Dr Chee or his sister.

The other funny thing is that the local Indian population are not impressed by the important role that Indians play in the the governance of S’pore. They grumble about the “lack of meritocracy  in the admin service and senior management of government ministries and agencies, Temasek and its TLCs, and other GLCs, and in private companies. This even though they dominate the legal profession and the print media.

We Chinese should be happy that there is division among the Indians. Imagine if the PAP Indians and the anti-PAP Indians unite: they will run S’pore. Err maybe taz why Wong Kan Seng allowed the Aryans in. They tend to look down on their S’porean cousins because they are darker than said self-proclaimed Aryans and high castes. LOL

And because of a Hard Truth (that Indians have been discriminated against) they are great sniffers of perceived discrimination, being able to sniff a Higgs particle of discrimination in the atmosphere. This helps keep MNC employers on their toes: not to discriminate in favour of Pinoys, ang mohs etc.

Have to a good holiday all.

 

Why history is not on the side of the PAP and WP

But on the side of the SDP and NSP (maybe, if it keeps on its present busy beaver path).

There is every reason to believe that these developments [states approving initiatives on gay-marriage and marijuana] reflect national trends in public opinion. And these national trends are driven in turn by the same general processes of social change behind the gradual liberalisation of values in Europe and around the globe. Ronald Inglehart, a political scientist at the University of Michigan, was first to document this process in detail. Mr Inglehart’s well-confirmed thesis is that, roughly, as societies become increasingly secure in material terms, each new generation is predictably less “materialistic”—less focused on merely economic concerns—and more concerned with equality, autonomy, and the injustice of arbitrary authority. If we take the long view, we can see the success of this cycle’s gay-marriage and marijuana initiatives due to the inexorability of death, which in time disposes of antiquated mores, and to the relentless liberalisation of cultural attitudes in well-functioning market democracies. Thus are the young ever the vanguard of progressive social change. And the young stayed away from Mr Romney in droves

Extract from an Economist blog. No link as the rest is very, very US centric

NSP: Not in hibernation, but beavering away

So the NSP has not gone into hibernation. It is co-organising this seminar entitled “How to Survive the Perils of the Online World?” . Pretty impressive speakers: three lawyers (one an academic, while another is a former president of the Law Soc and former DPP) and Cherian George. New NSP member, Ravi Philemon, ex-TOC chief editor, blogger, do-gooder and social activist is moderating. It should be an interesting, entertaining and educational do. Do try to attend, but make sure you park carefully*.

Traditionally the NSP (referred to by trolls as the “No Substance Party”) falls asleep after a GE, to waken just before the next GE. It happened after 1996 and even after 2001, when Steve Chia became a NCMP. He, and the NSP, didn’t build on that position for the 2006 GE. After the 2006 GE, it went into hibernation to be roused in 2008 by one Goh Meng Seng, who had joined NSP from the WP.

After the 2011 GE, GMS resigned from the NSP (a troll said he is a serial resigner from parties after GEs, having resigned from WP after the 2006 GE: if he set-up his own party, he would quit it after losing a GE.).

The expectation was that the party would go into hibernation what with internal disputes earlier this year.

Well the party has proven us sceptics wrong. It is walking the ground regularly in Tampines GRC. I hear Nicole Seah is doing something in Marine Parade GRC, Hazel and hubbie are wading in the North Western marshes and recreational farms, and Jeannette Chong is cycling (though there are trolls saying she is doing so to lose weight) in Mountbatten.

As befits a party with two scholars (Hazel and hubbie) and a lawyer (Jeannette), NSP is planning to do a policy paper entitled: “My Singapore: Identity, Population and Manpowe”’. To help it write the paper, is doing a survey. The survey format is undergrad stuff but it shows NSP is trying to solicit people’s opinion, not hectoring while ignoring them (PAP). Nor ignoring them, unlike WP.

It holds regular legal clinics to advise S’poreans. After Alex Au’s row with AG on his comments on a legal judgement, I had suggested to a NSP member I knew, and on Ms Chong’s FB wall, that maybe it should use one of its legal clinics to advise netizens on how to avoid upsetting the AG. It would have the additional advantage of getting some PR and goodwill from netizens. So maybe, I should get a bit of credit for this Saturday’s seminar? But easy to propose, organising isn’t so easy.

But more needs to be done. NSP’s website is pretty basic (Rumour is that GMS designed it). As at time of writing 5th November, it didn’t even advertise  ”How to Survive the Perils of the Online World?” on its website: this appeared on 6 November. But it is advertising a 2011 November event, I kid you not. So its online presence is even less than that of the WP or SPP, and miles behind that of the SDP.

The good thing is that with such a low starting point, there is no further downside. Can’t get any worse.

My suggestion to NSP is to anoint Ravi as online Czar, responsible for online strategy and delivery. He did a gd job at TOC, when he was editing the contents: claiming Han Seng Tong’s scalp, getting minister Shan say nasty things about TOC, and making KennethJ angry (Ravi didn’t publish his rants).  Against that, Mrs Chiam has said nice things about TOC under Ravi’s editorship.

To conclude, NSP is shedding its “No Substance Party” image and the hibernation habit between GEs. But it has a long way to go in building its cred among voters. Giving Ravi the online portfolio will help built cred online. But NSP should make sure Ravi doesn’t skive when it comes to walking the ground: not because he needs to shed kilos, not juz pounds (he does) but boots on the ground are needed to win a seat (Juz ask auntie Sylvia, and he-man Steve Chia). Every member must do the walking or cycling.

—-

*LTA might not be happy that Ravi is kicking up a big fuss over how LTA exercises its rules when an MP intervenes. He has also alleged that an MP had parked illegally.

Pricing is not the only way PM! Try cooperative game theory?

The Economist, a British weekly newspaper, seems to the PAP’s bible*. It believes that pricing is the best way to allocate scare resources and long before the government introduced road pricing, the Economist was advocating it: just like high taxes on petrol (we got this) , permits to drive cars (our COEs), consumption taxes with rebates for poor (GST and rebates) , low rates of corporate and personal income taxes, and no tax on savings (All present and reporting). Oh yes and it believes low fertility rates are bad and that immigration is to be encouraged, screw the social problems.

But even the Economist accepts that there are limits to using prices to allocate resources. It recently wrote:

– People often exclude financial considerations from their most important decisions, from the person they marry to the foster child they adopt. Even some transactions that do involve money are not really about price. Universities in America do not admit students based on who pays the most, for example. Rather, they select students based on complex criteria that include grades, test scores and diversity. Similarly, students choose their university on more than just financial factors.

Money is not essential to a market. After all, economics is about maximising welfare, not GDP. But the absence of a price to allocate supply and demand makes it harder to know whether welfare is being maximised. This year’s Nobel prize in economics went to two scholars—Alvin Roth, who has just joined the economics department at Stanford University, and Lloyd Shapley, a retired mathematician at the University of California, Los Angeles—who have grappled with that very problem http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21564836-alvin-roth-and-lloyd-shapley-have-won-year%E2%80%99s-nobel-economics.

– Mr Shapley’s and Mr Roth’s Nobel prize illustrates a larger point about economics. Undergraduates often study “utility functions” to learn how people choose alternative consumption baskets in a way that makes them better off. Once they go on to graduate school and then a job, they deal almost exclusively with priced transactions: for wheat, autos or equities.

Yet in countless private and public policy questions, welfare can be improved in ways that do not show up in the price. Mr Roth’s work on public school admissions and kidney donations are an obvious example, but there are countless others.  I recall reading that Starbucks had a plan that would let an employee in one store trade jobs with an employee in another so that both could work closer to home. The result would not change either employee’s output or wages, or Starbucks’ profits. Conceivably GDP would fall because the employees would spend less on petrol or bus fare. But provided the swap was voluntary, the welfare of both would without question rise http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/10/understanding-economics.

(Cooperative game theory is waz the above is all about. It looks at how well people can do when acting together; by examining all the possible combinations, theorists can spot outcomes that individuals acting alone cannot achieve http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/10/microeconomics)

Well one hopes that the government too recognises the limitations of using prices to allocate everything. And that bit about “maximising welfare, not GDP”. It’s in the PAP’s bible. Juz read it, not juz Hard Truths which incidentally is derived from this book book.

—

*Where they differ is on democracy and a free media. The Economist is a strong advocate and proponent of both these principles, unlike the PAP. BTW I used to joke that the government doesn’t need high-salaried ministers and civil servants to think up policy. They need to read the Economist. Declaration of interest: the Economist is my favourite source of info and analysis. I like its combi of social liberalism and conservative economics and its style of prose, entertaining, and irrelevant irreverent.

It says things like: “The branding function of philosophy in politics is to give individual conscience a form congruent with group interest, to transform the mathematical necessities of coalitional partisan politics into many millions of separate acts of self-congratulating private virtue. It’s a neat trick. It would be neater still if fewer pundits played along.”

MFA is not as productive as its US, UK counterparts?

I came across the above table in a Special Report on India in the Economist. Tharoor was using this data to show that India was shortchanging itself diplomatically because it had about the same number of diplomats as S’pore. From my perspective, it is not productive that S’pore, a little red speck, has one diplomat for 6,000 S’poreans. Even the hegemon makes do with only one diplomat for every 16,000. people. It isn’t only SMEs that contribute to the productivity gap.  And the British, supposedly overstaffed, have one fat toff per 10,000 people.

No wonder the photo in ST of one George Yeo shows a rather thin man. No more living off the fat like his diplomats?

Wonder what our Asean neighbours’ per capita numbers are? I’m sure that they have numbers  closer to that of China or India than to the US.

Yes, yes, I left out the fact that the population of S’pore is “peanuts” compared to the US etc, and that there is likely to be an absolute minimum number of diplomats needed for efficiency, but if ministers and the local media regularly boast about S’pore’s per capita numbers, I’m juz using the same stick: to beat the BSers.

Finally, I wonder if our NS men are given the same line I waz given yrs ago. When I waz doing NS in the mid 70s, I waz told that we, had to fight, to buy time for our diplomats, to get the UN, USA etc to intervene. In the early 80s, I attended a course with some senior diplomats. I told them what I was tot. They rolled their eyes and said if the SAF had to go to war, MFA had already failed. No point asking US, UN for help.

Given one LKY liked to annoy the neighbours regularly, maybe MFA was doing a good job?

Circle Line: the unasked questions

I’m writing this on Sunday evening.

On Saturday morning, I read that replacing the Circle Line ‘s power cables would take 18 months, beginning from January next year.

SMRT said the areas between Dhoby Ghaut and Dakota Stations are more problematic, compared with other parts of the network, as the cables sit in an area that is prone to water seepage from the ground.

SMRT’s executive vice president for trains, Khoo Hean Siang, said there are plans to replace all the cables.

He added: “We want to change out to a higher grade cable that can submerge, (be) more water resistant to make sure … the system will last for 20 to 30 years.” CNA report.

But neither, MediaCorp nor SPH reporters asked:

–  ”The North-South Line only started giving serious problems last year. It was opened in 1987. Why is the Circle Line giving problems so soon?”

– “Given the newness of the line, first opened in 2009, and with the latest stations connected just last year, how come the electric cables need replacing so fast?”

– “Why were these cables used?”

– “ As the total cost was nearly S$10bn, not peanuts, by any measure, why were these cables chosen?

– “What other problems could possibly happen, given the cables gave problems much earlier than anticpated?”

– What is the cost of replacing the cables?

– Who is bearing the cost of replacing the cables? SMRT? Or the govt? If SMRT, will dividends be affected? Or will fares have to rise?

And neither did they ask these questions on Sunday. and my Secret Squirrels and Morocco Moles in both these constructive, nation-building media organisations, tell me that tonite’s programmes and tomorrow’s editions will not ask these questions.

These are the questions that the media should be asking. I’m sure PAP MPs  and Lina Chiam will be asking some of these question in parliament.  And I’m sure netizens are already asking these questions. But I’m sure the WP MPs will be silent. Too busy looking at their bank statements to see if the 30 pieces of silver ++ have been paid into their accounts? Taz what my disillusioned Morocco Mole in WP is wondering.

At the very least, S’poreans must be told why the decision to purchase a cable, now known to be sub standard, was made or allowed to be made? Was it an “honest mistake” by someone or an entire organisation, or an organisational failure, or was there corruption?

My very simplistic answer is that in the 1980s when the first lines were being built, one LKY was PM. No-one wanted to explain to him why the trains would not be running on time. The Circle Line was largely built when the PM was one Goh Chok Tong, and his DPM was one Lee Hsien Loong, today’s PM, his chosen successors. Whatever history may say about LKY, the train lines built when he was PM lasted over 20 years, before giving serious problems. Under his chosen successors, the Circle Line didn’t even last fault-free for five years.

Sometimes change is not for the better, even ifthuggish methods of management have been replaced by more civilised, possibly less effective, methods.  

And while there is no longer fear in the air the media breathes, the mental “knucklebusters” still remain in the minds of the media.

Jos too is talking cock

Shouldn’t Jos Teo bitch about the Integrated Programmes that make PSLE such an impt exam today, rather than against employers that offer PSLE leave for their employees, and parents that take time off to coach their kids. In my time, PSLE was important to get into RI, Victoria and Serangoon English: once in if no major balls-up could do PreU in these schools (Integrated Programme is juz modern variant), but if one went to mission primary schools, going to mision secondary schools (and PreU) wasn’t that dependent on PSLE results, unless one was stupid. Things got even better when the govt started NJC.  More places for PreU studies.

But then the cycle turned and now PLSE is the exam to pass.

“We are quite mistaken to behave as if PSLE is THE defining moment in a child’s development.”: Err not all parents can afford to send their kids overseas to make sure they get a good education, if the kids get culled here.

And following the logic of her outburst, wouldn’t the logic of her argument mean that the government is wrong to continue curbing the number of COEs? As even ministers and MAS concede that the rising costs of COEs adds to inflationary pressures, even if ministers are wrong to say that rising COEs don’t affect the cost of living of us plebs (those unable to afford owning cars, and have to use public tpt).

Which brings me to the inflation situation.

Remember me bitching in early August that MTI jnr minister Lee Yi Shyan, and the local media covering him, were misrepresenting the pix on food inflation? I had pointed out that there were reports of rising food prices.

Well now MAS validates what I was saying. MAS warned on Tuesday about upward pressures in imported food prices over the next few months and into early 2013 due to weather-related supply disruptions.

Jos has gd company. And this ST guy should be in line to be a jnr minister.

Note: Last sentence and link to Jos piece added at 9.09am on day of publication.

 

Super wimps, elitism, double standards & other mean tots

I never had much respect for George Yeo, believing he wasn’t one of those people who one could trust in a crisis. This proves my point : suddenly turned critic of PAP when he sensed he was going to lose, “In war deserters are executed.” And a recent ST article double confirms me right: blames the political climate for his loss, not himself. Aljunied was targeted because  were runours since the late 90s that George Yeo wasn’t taking his MP duties too seriously. Only a WP goof-up (Gabra Gomez)  prevented WP from challenging him there in 2001. 

Worse, for the PAP, the ST piece confirmed what sceptics had always said abt the “younger” ministers: only committed when the going is gd.

ArchieB should juz release his letter. DPM Teo’s comments, last week, did ArchieB no favours. Anyone ever tot ArchieB shld not have sent the letter? He shld make the letter public so that S’poreans can decide if the govt was right or wrong to counsel him on the letter. Anyway, those who got him to sign the original must be happy: makes the government look bad.

“Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong says Singapore has to stay exceptional by remaining cohesive as a nation, with first-rate leaders to navigate the choppy seas of the changing world order.” So why didn’t he sack DPM Wong, Minister Mah, VivianB, Raymond Lim, George Yeo, Lim Hng Kiang and Balaji when they underperformed? So easy to talk now. PM Lee got rid of the first three, and GY lost his seat.

James Buchan, an author, has noted, that “economists, like royal children, are not punished for their errors”. Well by ESM Goh’s record, ministers too are like “royal children”.  

And yes, Lawrence Wong, there is nothing wrong with meritocracy: the problem is that those who mess up often don’t pay for the consequences of their failures. In a meritocracy, failures get shown up, to encourage the others.

And it’s over a week since it was announced that two “terrorists” who juz happened to be Malay Muslims were detained without trial under the ISA. But Function 8, and other bleeding heart chattering human rights chatters and bloggers are deafening in their silence. If the govt wants to detain anyone under ISA, use the terrorism label. No-one will say anything. And to be on the safe side, add the “Islamist” label. That will do the trick. And to be super KS, add “drug dealer”.

But I’m being unfair. There is one very good reasons for the silence. No bleeding heart kay poh wants to be associated with a suspected drug dealer or Islamic terrorist, forgetting that the same arguments that apply to their educated, middle class, English-speaking friends who get ISAed, apply to “drug dealers” and “Islamic terrorists”.

And no, the Kay pohs are not Amy Cheongs.

There are two other good reasons for the silence on the “Islamic terrorists”. If the Malay Muslim community keeps quiet, it doesn’t make sense for the kay pohs (can’t think of any Malay Muslims among them) to get involved. I mean the community may very well agree with the detentions. After all, elements of the community were very vocal last year over perceived insults to Islam, filing police reports, and flaming.

The activists in the Muslim community also tend to keep to themselves. I have heard of occasions when Muslim activists quietly admit that they did not come out in solidarity with other activists because while grateful for the help that they (the Muslim activists) get on issues like homelessness, joblessness, HDB and utility arrears and single mothers, they don’t extend help or even recognition to the non-Muslim activists because the latter support haram causes like gay rights and sex education. Wonder if these activists are willing to share a meal with these infidels?

So why should the kay pohs still their necks out?

Funny thing is that in M’sia, Muslim activists (think PAS) have no compunctions working with the people in the DAP and non-sectarian NGOs. And even UMNO doesn’t dare attack the Islamic credentials of PAS. So it isn’t a racial or religious matter.

Finally, MP and committee member WP PritamS said: “Don’t mistake timidity for inaction. With more experience, we hope to get better.” Err wondering what he means by “get better”? “Get better” in keeping quiet?

For the record, WP has

– stopped talking about nationalising public transport despite it being a Manifesto promise and the govt throwing money at the system while enabling SBS and SMRT to have private shareholders;

– made it clear that it wants to be the PAP’s trusted adviser (Show Mao didn’t tell us that a trusted, loyal adviser can have his balls cut-off if the hegemon is upset* http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19835484) ; and

– told us it is willing to help out PAP in a coalition govt. Err why WP changed its mind on ministerial salaries, another departure from its Manifesto?

Heard that in WP HQ toilets, copies of Manifesto used as toilet paper. And members use it as cat litter. Can’t be true, can it?

—————-

*Guess this is the reason why the WP MPs are so quiet. Easier to juz take the money.

“Our society” at fault for FT Amy ? & other panties-twisting Cheong tales

First, shumething to cheer Amy up: “Look on the bright side. You may have lost yr job and am reviled in S’pore. But in return, yr photos have been reproduced online and in the print media. As you are one good-looking babe despite being no spring chicken (heck, 37 is mother hen age), some rich PRC bloke may want you as his wife or mistress. Think of the infamy and loss of job as the cost of an “Who wants Amy as a sex companion?” campaign. I’m assuming the photos are recent, of course.”

At worse, some IT company trying to get Horny Team contracts, could do worse than offer her a job. Sue looks like an auntie when compared to Amy. Ya I got the hots for Amy but my bank balance is only in low five digits.  

Let’s get serious. we know that she is an Oz citizen, born in M’sia (Waz wondering how come she still gd looking at 37. S’pore gal would like Auntie Sylvia at that age).

Would Tharman and Shan have made the following reported comments if they had known she was FT with the “T” standing for Trash. After all it waz the “FTs are betterest” policy that allowed her in”:

Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam wrote: “The person’s comments were offensive not only to Malay-Muslims, but also to all the rest of us who value Singapore’s multiracial spirit and who want to take it further.”

Minister for Foreign Affairs and Law K. Shanmugam called Ms Cheong’s comments “shameful”. He said the incident confirmed what he had long suspected and had said before, that there are “deep fault lines in our society” based on race and religion.

I would ask Tharman, “Who let her in so that she could mess up S’pore?”

As for Shan’s comment blaming “our society” for the “deep fault lines”: Did he know she was an FT, not a S’porean when he made the comment? If he knew, his comment was mischievous.  After all, the “fault line” is the  ”FT” policy which allowed her in. And didn’t his boss say the comments were “isolated”? Shouldn’t he have ascertained the facts before blaming “our society”? Everything is fault of us S’poreans, is it Shan? LKY yr heloo?

And Lim Swee Say while correct when he said “It isn’t about Amy Cheong” was wrong when he said it “isn’t about NTUC”. NTUC is proud that it is part of the machinery of the governing PAP and the government. So continuing employing an FT who spews anti-Malay* invective is an issue. And she had to go because only last December an NTUC MP  (“Flame on” Seng Han Tong Han) was accused by TOC of making racist comments (which technically he didn’t). His PAP and NTUC comrades rushed to his defence but the mud stuck. Thinking abt it, TOC was responsible for Amy losing her job. And if Seng had sued TOC for defamation (he would have won), Amy would have kept her job.

Now for something constructive. PM spoke of “respect”, and this was spot on.

Wonder how many noisy events there were in the vicinity of Amy’s flat in the last few weeks? TNP or TOC should investigate and do a story.

There should be respect for the rights of others. So the HDB should ensure that it does not allow void decks to be used too frequently for communal events. Of course the devil is in the details. But taz why there are kay pohs like PAP activist Lionel De Souza who filed a police report against Amy, to help monitor the situation. BTW,  he learning to be “sensitive” like some NSP stalwarts who filed police reports at the slightest hurt to their religious feelings.

And while some Malays have been preening themselves on the community’s behaviour over the incident (read ST), one wonders if she had made anti-Muslim remarks, would the NSP stalwarts and some other Muslims reacted with vitrol? What say you Donaldson? He put something up last year that had some Muslims upset, even though he claimed at the time he wasn’t anti-Muslim, and doing it out of love.

And KennethJ stop clowning around. Don’t ape the above Indian ministers in talking rubbish. Trying get some cheap publicity for yrself? Yr thesis is absurd. How can there be institutional racism when two out the four of PM’s most ministers are Indians like you? And look at the number of cabinet ministers and MPS that are Indian: punching way above their weight, I could say. I mean us Chinese should be bitching that the PM and PAP have an “Indian first” policy, but we are not. This is S’pore, KennethJ not yr adopted home, the UK.

Finally had to share this great comment in TRE by one Neutral:

What the Opposition needs: an Ivanishvili

(But first, let’s give three cheers for our LionsXII, FTs and all. They came back fighting and only lost the Italian way: via penalty shoot-out. Sundram shld replace FT failure as Lions mgr. The “S” in FAS doesn’t stand for “Serbia”, it stands for “Sundram”. )

Right back to Ivanishvili

Who he, you may well ask?

Last week in Georgia (the country, not the US state), in an unexpected turn of events, Mr Ivanishvili’s coalition defeated President Mikheil Saakashvili and his United National Movement (UNM) in parliamentary elections. Polls had shown that the UNM would win the election.

The new parliament will convene and a new government will then be formed with Mr Ivanishvili as PM.

According to the 2012 list compiled by Forbes, an American weekly magazine, Mr Ivanishvili is the world’s 153rd richest man and worth  US$6.4 bn just under half of Georgia’s GDP, which in 2011 was about US$15bn. Forbes reports he  made his fortune in Russia during the breakup of the USSR.

He was virtually unknown in Georgia even though he was a major patron of the arts and the church. A year ago,s aying he was  fed up with the way he saw his country was going, he decided he could run it better.  He formed the Georgian Dream party and then got together a coalition of six parties. “The parties have nothing in common except being recipients of his largess and a hatred of the president. Many of the party leaders, who range from Western-leaning liberals to nationalist xenophobes, also hate each other; at least some of them don’t like Mr Ivanishvili much either”, an Economist blog writes.  

Some more abt him.

Too bad our very own TJS, KennethJ, Eric Tan, TKL, Chen Show Mao and JJ were not as successful, financially, as him. KennethJ  claims he was a “successful hedge fund mgr” and among billionaires there are quite a few hedgies. Sadly for KennethJ (and us?) he is not among them. And from the way he ran RP’s 2011 GE and the way conducts himself (taking public tpt, not using senior counsel in his case against govt), one gets the impression that he doesn’t have serious money. 

Likewise TJS doesn’t seem to have serious money. While qualified to stand for the presidential elections by virtue of being CEO of an int’l fund mgr’s regional operations, as I blogged, the biz he ran wasn’t a success. LOL. He then went on to StanChart where rumour has it he had problems with his Indian FT bosses. Rumour was that he couldn’t land the real estate financing deals that his job entailed.

TKL was the CEO of NTUC Income and was earning “peanuts” compared to the CEOs of commercial insurance companies. Anyway, as a politican, he has no cred, having lost his deposit in 2011 presidential election, after running a joke of a campaign. He wanted a $2m annual salary but was trying to fund his campaign via donations. His cheapness showed. TJS showed he was willing to spend his own money. And he garnered the most votes for every dollar he spent.

Chen Show Mao quit legal practice to become a WP politician and seems to have disappeared without a trace except to the residents of his ward in Aljunied GRC. JJ was a successful entrepreneur, who sold his online education company for a few million dollars, and is now a WP NCPM, and investor. Eric Tan was a senior bank executive, and WP treasurer who quit WP when an NCMP post went to GG, not him. He is a “private equity manager”. But none of them, I gather,  has the serious money to fund the Opposition. But to be fair to Eric, a few months ago I heard a story (that I cannot verify) that he donated $50,000  to WP when he joined the party in 2001. I am repeating this story because the guy telling it claims to know him and Low well. Guy is also in the “news” flow on things like this.

So the Opposition is still looking for its very own rich “Godfather”.

Yes I’ve left out someone who is a millionaire several times over and a “retired” politician. Having being a govt minister since the 1990s until last year,  and having a wife who owns a law firm, George Yeo should have the money (even if no billionaire) to get fund the Opposition. Once upon a time, hearing that he had presidential ambitions, I suggested to TOC’s then core team that they should offer TOC’s site to him for a million dollars and five-figure monthly salaries for all of them. I don’t think they followed up my suggestion. LOL. They are idealists.

And he may have a motive: revenge. The allegations persist that the PAP fixed him at Aljunied, giving the WP a GRC.

NatCon: More cynical than Wayang?

Many (self included) think that NatCon is Wayang. But could it be even more cynical? Is NatCon’s aim  to distract us from the govt’s mismanagement of the economy. This unworthy tot struck me when I read DBS’ analysis of the S’pore economy last week.

DBS says that high inflation in recent years is mainly made in Singapore and this has affected overall competitiveness. High COE premiums and rentals, as well as the continued increase in labour cost are the key drivers. Ironically, the bulk of these were policy-induced, it said. [Translation: Inflation is fault of the govt leh]

It goes on, “The tightening in foreign labour inflow in particular, is creating significant strain on enterprises and eroding Singapore’s cost competitiveness. The near- term impact is higher labour costs, compression of profit margins and the tendency for companies to pass on this higher cost to consumers, resulting in higher inflation. Thus, in a bid to restructure the economy, growth and competitiveness have been affected, and just when the global cycle is weak.” [Translation: The govt's policy of reducing FT inflow is making it more difficult to growth the economy]

So given that stagflation (economy not growing or is shrinking, but inflation is remains high: “Singapore’s consumer price index rose 3.9 percent in August from the year before, more than double the 1.7 percent rate in the U.S., the world’s biggest economy. Inflation in the island state averaged 5 percent for the past year<” reports Bloomberg) is the fault of the govt, what would distract the masses and netizens more than get them engaged in something irrelevant and entertaining? Even if the netizens don’t take part, they are so busy bitching abt it that they forget (or don’t realise the economy ‘s failings) to criticise and highlight the mismanagement of the economy by the government. So NatCon is the PAP’s answer, juz like in Roman times, the emperors had “Bread and circuses” to keep the rabble in Rome happy and distracted when the barbarians were crossing the frontiers?

Waz sad is that PM thinks he has to resort to gimmicks like this. He made a gd start getting rid of underperformers and supernumeries in the cabinet. He then started spending our money on making life more comfortable for us. He should execute the latter well, not get distracted by PR gimmicks.  If executed well, spending more of our money on ourselves will win back the voters.

 

Why the ‘T’ in the FT is not Talent but Trash: ICA not checking with police?

Did you know that ST reported that an Indonesian jailed with having sex with an underage prostitute, had just become a PR? I learnt this yesterday via TOC. This a few weeks after reading in TRE that ang moh gaw, Robert Dahlberg, who “moved on” while on bail, received his PR even after he had been charged for beating up two true blue S’poreans at Suntec City in 2010.

So it’s OK to be a PR despite having being charged with a sexual offence or beating up people? Shouldn’t the PR approvals have awaited the court’s decisions.

One wonders if the Immigration & Checkpoints Authority (ICA), part of Home Team, which processes and approves PR applications, has done a thorough, robust check on applicants before approving them.  If ICA doesn’t even bother to check with other S’pore government agencies, how can we trust that it makes checks overseas. Are the qualifications from say Shangrilla uni or Utopia Biz School genuine? Do the schools even exist?

No wonder we  got the following PRC FT cases.  A PRc man invested S$1.5m so that he and his family could get PR. He apparently lied in his PR application that he was a senior executive in a private biz, when in fact he was a mid-ranking Chinese bureaucrat who stole the money. And then there were the case a few years ago of two PRs who ended up as food hawkers here (This only known because they were the victims on an attack). Or the PRC PR who worked here as a shop assistant. This only became known because she was found guilty of assaulting a SMRT officer who tried to stop her from “cheating” SMRT over her child’s fare. She refused to repent, saying she was in the right.

I hope a PAP MP asks the government to explain why ICA does not check with other govt agencies on whether applicants had criminal charges against them? And whether there are any other checks with other govt depts. This failure to check goes to the heart of the government’s credibility on its claim that it has a Foreign Talent policy, not a Foreign Trash policy, as many readers of TRE suspect.

Or could it be that inter-agency communications are lacking, be it the IT systems or the work flow processes?

Whatever the reason, PAP MPs should be concerned that the govt’s cred is at stake. It could cost them votes at next GE.

I don’t think the WP will ask the question. I suspect that, based on its parly performance so far, it is a sleeping co-driver, who prefers to let sleeping dogs continue sleeping. Doubtless Pritam is dreaming of being a millionaire minister, and Show Mao of being a well-paid adviser to a GLC or the PM.

Finally, juz wondering: Maybe the ICA officers are subversives trying to sabo the govt? They are Dr Chee groupies? After all he has lots of groupies in NUH. LOL.

—-

PS: Piece on a possible connection between NatCon  and the problems (highlighted by DBS) that the government created for the economy should now appear on Wednesday.

A plug for Team PAP

Many have castigated (self included) the ruling PAP for being mean to S’poreans despite its our money that it refused to spend. Things are changing as I’ve been blogging recently (example), even if others don’t appreciate or notice it.

But here’s shumething to reflect on from  a blog of PAP’s favourite “running dog” int’l publication (it advocates things like CoEs and road-pricing and GST and low corporate taxes):  Here lies a problem that has dogged nations all through this crisis (and still dogs nations outside the euro zone like Britain and America). The collapse of tax revenues in 2008 and 2009 caused deficits to soar, and made public finances look unsustainable. But when you start from a very large fiscal deficit, it is hard to get back to balance. Do it too quickly and you squeeze the economy too hard; do it too slowly and the markets may not finance you. I am not aware that Keynes dealt with this problem (although I’m happy to stand corrected, if anyone has chapter and verse). Of course, the best answer is growth (a consummation devoutly to be wished) but we are very good at talking about it, and a lot less good at producing it.

The PAP avoids fiscal deficits. So taz one problem we don’t have. But look out for my Monday piece on the problems that the government created for the economy. Not me but from DBS Bank.

“Honest conversation” on FTs: Let’s have it, not juz pretend that we’ve having it, Iswaran

S’poreans must have honest conversation about immigration: S Iswaran late last week. But will we be allowed to, minister?

No, I’m not talking abt what Uncle Leong pointed out about the growth in FTs despite all the talk of by the government of it being curtailed. The analysis and comments of Uncle Leong and many others based on the government’s very own data has resulted in this attempt via originally new media (then amplified by the constructive, nation-building media) at damage control.

And let’s ignore what rogue scholar, TJS, has somewhere analysed*: that it’s not true declining population lead to economic ruin. He is after all, as Lawrence Wong, would put it “anti-PAP”. And he could even, at a stretch, be classified as one of Sim Ann’s  demons who  ”spew hate and prejudice against individuals or groups”. Remember, he bitched against bungalow owning ministers, when, I’m told, he too has a bungalow.

No: My complaint is why don’t we get told how well Japan is doing?

A country has three choices when its TFR (total fertility rate) drops Get the TFR back up; encourage immigration; and do nothing i.e. let the population age.

Most countries try to increase TFR, some succeed. Japan tried it, failed and as it doesn’t do immigration, it prefers to use robots, it is managing the decline in population.

Japan has shown, a country with a declining population can still do better than other developed countries as figures from HSBC (published earlier this year) show which contradict the doom and gloom that one LKY says abt Japan.

Growth per capita in the 2001-2010 decade

Japan 1.6%

UK 1.2%

Germany 0.8%

US 0.7%

France 0.6%

And looking at the overall GDP numbers, Japan’s record is as good as that of the Germans, who now have created the Fourth Reich in Europe.

US 1.6%

UK 1.5%

France 1.2%

Germany 0.8%

Japan 0.8%

So the Japanese have well, considering their aging and declining population. Perhaps our PM should be listening to them, and trying to take some tips, especially on the use of robots (say to replace Lawrence Wong and Sim Ann who seem to be stuck with some PAP robotic messages that are a throwback to when LKY ruled the roost. And get dad to stop talking rot on Japan.

As to the need of the elderly population needing younger S’poreans to pay taxes to keep the place going, that both PM and Tharman mumble about, ain’t the governing PAP forgetting that it instituted the CPF system precisely to avoid a “Pay as You Go” social security system. (OK, OK, I’m unfair on the PAP on this but two can play the BS game.)

It’s you die, if you got no CPF (Don’t look to VivianB for help. He will only sneer at you for being poor) So by the PAP’s own account, the elderly (like me) don’t need a growing and younger workforce to support.

So Minister, although you are a Hindoo, somehow I think this verse from the bible is applicable to you (and your fellow ministers) when it comes to having an “honest conversation” about FTs:

(Note “mote” means “a particle of wood or chaff” i.e. it’s very, very tiny) 

Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye.

—–

*Sorry no link as I’m not too impressed by his analysis. He left out that his favourite Nordic countries tax its people too much for my taste.

Blame GCT and Lee Jnr, not LKY

(Or “Why blood is always thicker than water”)

Following this post wondering why shumeone very senior from ST was dredging up quotes from a long time ago to show that one LKY preferred S’poreans to FTs; JG, a reader, responded in defence of LKY. Before readers brand her a “running dog” like the ST chap, pls remember that she wrote this: on why the PAP will fail: ’cause “always behind the curve”. And also remember that the FTs are “betterest”policy took off when his son became PM.  

(BTW, JG, you may not have heard the rumour that LKY was alleged to have said that he tot that DPM Teo would have made a better PM than his son. He was rumoured to have muttered this after it was alleged that his son told him to desist from campaigning for (or is it against?) the PAP in last year’s GE.)

I have a different take. When he was PM, he was on the “right side” of the immigration debate. As shown in the 1971 speech, he was shrewd enough to realise that certain FTs will fit in (eg : M’sians), certain won’t. And preserving social ethos is as important as iimmigration numbers. And the need to weed our reliance on FTs.

Under GCT and LHL the immigration policy went on “auto-pilot” and by definition, went astray. They took in FTs by the bus loads to gin up the GDP.

Throughout this period, LKY streneously defended the Govt. Asked S’porans to “grow their spurs”, either fast growth or be prepared to send your kids to work as maids overseas etc. Why the change?

I think its because when it comes to his own son, his instinctive paternal reaction is to defend. I dare say that the old LKY would have disapproved of the way LHL handled many issues. The old LKY dares so say things, and take position, like saying that certain cultures won’t fit in (eg : Filipinos), so hold them off in terms of immigration. The old LKY wouldn’t fumbled the way the “national conversation” was handled. And wouldn’t ditter for so long about fire or not fire Wong Kan Seng, Mah Bow Tan.

After GE2011, LKY volunteered to step down from cabinet. After he volunteered, GCT no choice but to follow. I think he recognised immigration is now a big bugbear. And he recognised we’ve taken in quantities and qualities that make integration difficult. So he spoke what you pointed out in your article.

But a father’s love for his son, can sometimes still blind him to objectivity. That’s why I think its easier for him, if his son were not in charge. He can be a bit more Mahathir like. With his son, he can’t and won’t.

Why the PAP needs new ideas

“We usually find gas in new places with old ideas. Sometimes, also, we find gas in an old place with a new idea, but we seldom find much gas in an old place with an old idea. Several times in the past we have thought that we were running out of gas, whereas actually we were only running out of ideas.”
Parke Dickey, geologist (1909–95), quoted in Encyclopaedia of Petroleum Science and Engineering

If the PAP wants to rule Singapore for another 50 years, it needs new ideas. Having NatCon isn’t going to help.

Time for a new idea?

Still got time as the “new idea” (for PAP at least) of bribing us with our own money, will keep it in charge until a few years after the next tax increase. PM’s dad had a good point when he didn’t think goodies made much of a difference in the long term. But PM would agree with Lord Keynes, “The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead.”

S’poreans urged to keep “open mind”: Err what abt PM and other senior PAPpies?

Singapore’s Acting Manpower Minister Tan Chuan-Jin has urged Singaporeans to keep an open mind as the country engages in a national conversation about its future. This appeared last Monday.

Given the storm in a tea cup over the Catholic Archbishop of S’pore’s withdrawal of a letter to Function 8 that did not correctly express his views on detention without trial (if so why send it ArchieB?), PM’s assertion at a NatCon dialogue* (despite , and after, the closeness of a poll decrying single motherhood), that mums shld only breed if they are married, the previous week, and Lawrence Wong and  Sim Ann  who “demonised”** critics as anti-PAP, the former, and “spew[ers of] hate and prejudice against individuals or groups”, the latter: I couldn’t help but recall several verses from the gospels of Matthew and Luke:

(Note “mote” means “a particle of wood or chaff” i.e. it’s very, very tiny) 

– And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

– And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

– Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye.

The PM’s dismissive attitude to the poll, and Wong’s and Sim Ann’s attempts to demonise critics is good evidence that the PAP hasn’t changed its mind on all but one of its Hard Truths. The only Hard Truth that has it revised is that it is no longer mean about spending our money on making life more comfortable for ourselves.

Or are PM, Sim Ann and Lawrence Wong mindlessly reciting from the PAP’s now obsolete SOP manual, rather than thinking for themselves.

——-

*Thinking about it, MediaCorp’s decision to have so many PAPpy zombies and other “running dogs” makes sense. I mean if there were less of them, the vote on single mums breeding for S’pore could have gone in favour of them breeding. Then PM would have very serious PR issues, no matter what he said.

**OK, OK I exaggerate but juz a little.

Education: England learning from S’pore

Aimdst all the angst (a foreign publication’s take) about our educational system (tuition, PSLE exams etc), pause and reflect please especially netizens.

In England, reforms are underway so that

– Slower learners will try to pass the new exam a year or two later than their peers (like our 5 yr  O levels and 3 yr A levels, while

– “using the best performers in international tables as a guide (expect things to look a lot more Singaporean in the next few years)”. http://www.economist.com/node/21563330

And the Philippines is looking to S’pore for inspiration http://blogs.wsj.com/searealtime/2012/09/14/philippines-draws-inspiration-from-singapore/ utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed&WSJASIA_article_outbrain=&obref=obinsite

What say you haters of all things PAP: KennethJ, GMS, Dr Chee and groupies, TOC*, xmen and various bloggers? Bang yr balls in frustration. Stop living in an echo-chamber.

The policies of the governing PAP are not all bad. And S’poreans know this.

—

*I exclude TRE because it is very clear that its mission is to counterbalance the constructive, nation-building local media. Juz like them, it makes no pretensions of being objective.

Another “best” analysis from a govt funded think-tank

ISEAS is technically a stat board (and it receives regular govt funding), so one would have tot it would produce Institute of Policy Studies/ ST kind of constructive, nation-building BS analysis. But it has again surprised* with this from its latest ASEAN Monitor (a quaterly publication). Power to ISEAS’ academics and staff. IPS should learn from it on how to avoid writing rubbish that does it no gd.

Very few countries are as self-conscious as Singapore. This is true for image as well as policymaking. The education minister and former economist, Heng Swee Kiat, has been tasked by the Prime Minister to lead a committee of younger ministers to review policies across the board, ostensibly to better prepare the country for the next 20 years. The challenge would be to enthuse the general public who may have come accustomed to such ‘re-thinking committees’ which have, over the years, included the Economic Review Committee (2001) and the Remaking Singapore Committee (2002).

A potentially divisive issue brewing is the ruling by the Court of Appeal to allow a legal challenge to 377A of the penal code which criminalises sex between men. In 2010, Tan Eng Hoon was arrested and charged under Section 377A for engaging in oral sex in a shopping mall toilet. Tan, represented by human rights lawyer M Ravi, applied to the High Court to declare Section 377A unconstitutional because it violates Article 12 of the Constitution which guarantees equal protection and treatment under the law; an application the High Court subsequently turned down.

The Court of Appeal has, however, overruled the High Court, and decided that there are sufficient grounds on which 377A may be legally challenged. The legality of homosexual acts is an emotive one given the significant Christian and Muslim communities. Observers may recall the highly, not to mention religiously, charged parliamentary debates over 377A five years ago and conclude that old wounds may soon be scratched open.

Finally, after years of campaigning from local activists, the government announced that the death penalty would no longer be mandatory for certain drug trafficking cases. If the courts are satisfied that the drug trafficker was not involved in drug distribution activities, cooperated substantially with the authorities or suffers from amental disability, the judge may exercise discretion. This qualified concession, nevertheless, represents a small victory for activists who will be encouraged to further press for the abolishment of the death penalty. Their growing momentum may soon see signs of a conflict between progressive and conservative forces shaping up within the country.

Key points: The country is becoming increasingly polarised over a vast variety of issues from politics to morality. Expect more frequent debate and confrontation, not necessarily always playing out in the mainstream media.

————————-

*Other posts containing ISEAS’ analysis on S’pore

http://atans1.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/spore-politics-analysis-by-stat-board/

http://atans1.wordpress.com/2012/08/01/scoring-pm-14-months-on/

“Is WP living up to expectations?” “Yes” says JG

Below is a longish piece from a reader, JG, defending the WP’s actions (or is it inactions?): it worked in the past and will work in the future. Pls read it. It has some gd points.

My contention is that what worked in the past, may not work in the future. From 1991 till 2006, Low was alone most of the time (and JBJ wasn’t much of a help in parly or out of it). From 2006 to 2011, he had Tonto, aka Sylvia Lim. But now there is a team of five MPs and two NCMPs.

Expectations are different. The WP has to manage expectations, or live up to them. Or do both. It cannot continue doing things the old way. It must also communicate more. Pre-new media, it could get away with silence because the constructive, nation-building media dominated the info flow. And S’poreans knew it.

But now things are different. Yet while SDP is using the new media to put across its messages (free from MSM distortion), the WP is not using new media much. The initial stone-walling over Stag Yaw showed the WP up. Effective communications should have it saying, “We need some time to investigate the allegations”: not “Allegations? What allegations?”. 

I had promised to do a list of things WP did not do. I now won’t because between above, and below,  the criticisms of WP have been covered. I hope, in the future, JG will give me her take on the following “Not First World” WP parly practice:

– WP voting for PAP’s budget after criticising it.

– Keeping quiet on public tpt nationalisation despite it being a manifesto promise and despite the failure of the rojak system that the govt defends. It is so succesful that the government has to subsidise the bus system to a tune of $1.1bn.

– Tweaking its position on ministerial salaries contrary to manifesto.

———

“Is WP living up to expectations?”

If you read Temasek Times, its 100% no (“wayang party”). And everything is derived from 1 single sentence that Pritam once uttered : If PAP loses majority one day, we WP will work with them to form a coalition govt. One single sentence from one MP – and the entire party is disqualified. Can anyone find one single sentence from one MP from PAP which you strongly disagree with (eg: “repent”? “grow more spurs”?) for which you will also disqualify the entire party of 81 MPs? So Temasek Times is an extreme case. They, and probably some netizens too, prefer the “fire brand” type opposition that CSJ or SDP seems to offer. So if you’re not the fire-brand type, you’re not “effective”.

[Actually JG, it's more than one sentence. Remember Show Mao's Tang Dynasty allusion? Came across to some of us that he saw WP as at best as assistant to the PAP government: juz as official accepted his status vis-a-vis the emperor in the imperial system. And Low had often come across as accepting the hegemony of the PAP. But that could simply be his acceptance of the reality on the ground between 1991 and 2011. He is no idealist and rabble-rouser like the late Saint JBJ.]

But what you’re pointing out is a more moderate opinion that I’m also hearing from other sources – the WP are just not speaking up on issues of importance.

I’m not here to defend them. But everyone will have different expectations of WP. Some supporters of Obama are disappointed that he hasn’t rescued the world in 4 years, some are not so disappointed. In general, the higher one’s expectations, arguably the bigger the disappointment.

My personal expectation wasn’t high in the first place.

Before 2011 GE, when LTK was MP and Slyvia Lim was NCMP, you can already see the “style” in which they are comfortable in. At critical junctures, they will speak up. I still remember vividly how LTK berated WKS over the Mas Selamat screwup, and Slyvia berated the Ministers of having no shame for their pay. But they do not speak up on every issue. And many of their speeches are not memorable, they are basically not orators. They are more “ground people”. Personal touch, work the ground, take care of bread and butter issue and preferably in a low key fashion. In fact, if you ask LTK, I guess that he will say to him, the relative importance of ground work vs rhetoric is maybe 80 : 20. I sometimes think netizens weigh it the other way around.

So post-2011 GE, this was the tone adopted by WP team. So one part of “have they lived up to expectations” must surely be weighed in terms of whether they’ve met the expectations of people on the ground in Aljunied. Their bread and butter issues, their constituency issues. Running a Town Council is not rocket science and I think that in general, if you’ve got an experienced team (from Hougang) and you don’t screw up, you should be OK.

That said, I also think that many netizens do not bother to find out, or read up on, issues raised by the WP in Parliament. Not having made a combative speech, doesn’t mean not having raised an issue. When good points are made, they are also not necessarily covered in the ST, perhaps deliberately so.

But again, at critical junctures, they do speak up. The recent memorable ones are Sylvia raising the Woffles Wu issue, Gerald calling out the PAP for labelling Singaporeans dissatisfaction with the Govt’s immigration policy as “xenophobia” (and provoking a stupid response from Sim Ann) and Yeoh JJ speaking out on unfair subsidies by the Govt to PAP Kindergarten and NTUC in the private pre-school market.

Are they the best debaters? No. Could Sylvia have handled the cut-and-thrust of the debate with Shanmugam better? Yes and she didn’t. So maybe she scored say 6 out of 10? But that’s Sylvia. No different from the Sylvia of NCMP days. Its easy for netizens to, on hindsight and out of the line of fire, come up with more robust responses. But just take a look at the recent PM Lee tea-party with bloggers – when PM asked whether anonymity is supportable, look at the weak responses the bloggers give. Even seasoned bloggers like Andrew Loh literally “peed on their pants” when confronted with unexpected questions at the spur of the moment. I’m sure if you ask Sylvia to respond the next day, she will probably come up with a better answer. Just like all bloggers did, when they commented on the anonymity issue the next day.

My point then is this – It takes time to build up a credible opposition team. Its one thing to have only 1 or 2 opposition members, its another to have 8 or so members and quite another to have or to want to have 20 or 30 members. With WP, you know (or should have known) from the start that they’re not a fire-and-brimstone type party and see it as much more important that you do not screw up publicly and you work the ground. We do need to give them time and of course, constructive criticism is needed too.

But have they met my initially low expectations – yes. I want more of them in, so that when it comes to critical decisions in the future, it will not be a guaranteed “law is passed” vote in Parliament.

 Below is a longer comment by the same said JG defending the WP’s actions (or is it inactions?). My point to JG is that what worked in the past, may not work. From 1991 till 2006, Low was alone most of the time (and JBJ wasn’t much of a help). From 2006 to 2011, he had Tonto, aka Sylvia Lim. But now there is a team of five MPs and two NCMPs. Expectations are different. The WP has to manage expectations, or live up to them. Or do both. It cannot continue doing things the old way.

Archie goofed? Saboed? Tea cup storm ensues with credit to no one

I must say the Archbishop has no brains. Otherwise why would he write the original letter. None of church’s biz who the state locks up without trial. And there is the back story of liberation theology and the 1987 “Marxists”. Why get involved? What was he thinking or not thinking? Was he on a high after communion, what with the wine and incense?

Or was he misled into signing the letter? Some liberation theology, Marxist subversive friend of Function 8 and the SDP could have slipped the letter in among other letters to be signed. If so church shld root out the subversive. Call in ISD if nec. Even so shows Archie was careless. And a bad judge of character. 

If anyone doesn’t know what I’m talking about, read this summary: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1227305/1/.html

And waz this other rubbish Archie?

[T]he Archbishop said his letter to the group was intended as a private communication.

He added if the the group was going to publicise it at a political event – something which he did not intend – then they should have asked for permission first.

The Archbishop said they did not do so.

So why withdraw the letter if it was private and could not be released? [B]ecause the contents did not accurately reflect his views.

So why so careless or stupid? Vatican should investigate his suitability to be the leader of S’pore Catholics.

But God is great, everyone else involved in F8Gate goofed.

Home Team did Archie no favours with its letter attacking Function 8. Sit down and shut up. [Update after publication: Gd link on whty it shld not have said anything http://www.tremeritus.com/2012/09/23/mha-walks-into-a-minefield/]

And if it was unhappy with the original letter, juz get MFA to complain to the Vatican. Knowing the Pope’s views on liberation theology, Archie would have been beaten up in-house. No need for ISD to intimidate him, as alleged.

So why have tea and lunch with him and tax-payers’ expense?

Function 8 didn’t do itself any favours with its various remarks. Dignified silence would have served it better: at the very least shown up Archie’s unsuitability to be a religious leader. All respectable S’poreans (self especially) should avoid it. Must be Dr Chee’s and SDP’s evil spirits finding a new home after he and SDP exorcised themselves.  

And Maruah, “civil society” is more than Function 8, Alex Au and friends.

And I suppose Maruah, Alex Au etc will have no issues with any religious leader if said religious leader comes out in support of the govt’s immigration policy, or its sexual education policy or the view that adults must be married before breeding for S’pore. Careful for what you wish.

Finally where being an internet activist can get one arrested and beaten up (see below) So give PM, DPM Teo, ISD and Home Team a break, Alex Au, Function 8, Maruah, TOC, and other “subversives”. Wonder why our constructive, nation-building media doesn’t highlight what real repression is all abt?

ISD sleeping on the job in vetting local media appointments, and ferreting out subversives?. I mean hard to believe MediaCorp and CNA could be so cack-handed in choosing panelists. Conclusion: trying to sabo NatCon by deliberately choosing so many PAPpies and friends?

And if you don’t think this is funny enough, read this http://newnation.sg/2012/09/ntuc-fairprice-retracts-love-letters-sold-to-function-8/.

———-

With the effectiveness of the mainstream opposition hit badly by the repression and by its own lack of unity, many young Belarusians have turned to internet activism. The regime clearly wants to nip this in the bud as quickly as possible. In August several pages on social networking sites were shut down, their administrators arrested and beaten. Raman Pratasevich, who at 17 has already seen the inside of several prison cells, beamingly says the page he runs, Stop Luka, is currently live again. When I met him on Independence Square, the scene of the 2010 protest, four plain-clothes police officers immediately appeared.

This time, they merely took down our names and let us carry on the interview. But earlier that day, several journalists had been detained and roughed-up alongside the activists they were filming. Their footage was deleted. The same day a number of foreign youth activists from the International Federation of Liberal Youth were detained and told to leave the country on the grounds that they had violated their visa rules. Some OSCE election observers have been denied visas. It seems in the run-up to polling day, the regime is turning up the heat, just to be sure.

Extract from Economist blog

Reacting to other bloggers’ tots

There are several pieces the last few days that I wanted to respond to. So here are the quotes and  links to the pieces and my reactions to them.

These u/m bloggers have got it absolutely right. S’poreans should empower themselves by PM’s NatCon for our own ends, subverting it. Let’s use NatCon constructively to build civil society in our nation.

– My point is that we should stop relying on the government, for them to handhold us all the way; we, as citizens, have the abilities and intelligence to bring something new to the table. Guanyinmao’s Musings

– This is not to say that a national conversation is useless. Instead of criticising it, those of us who care should seize the agenda, put the issues we are concerned about on the table by blogging about it, emailing it to the government ministries and make them public on our blogs, speak to MPs (both opposition and ruling party), organise forums, create a movement. Andrew Loh, Publichouse.sg

In the bad old days, these two bloggers would be detained under the ISA for being too clever by half. But heck, PM’s different. So give him credit for not using the ISA, and for being willing to be generous with our money: spending it to make life more comfortable for ourselves. Teachers, and doctors and other healthcare professions should be happy with their pay rises. GE sooner than later?

Propaganda machine dysfunctional? Or is it juz MediaCorp and its CNA? SPH hasn’t goofed yet? One can only hope.

– So far, out of the 50 people supposedly from all walks of life who were invited to share their thoughts (except dirty ones) with Our Supreme Leader, it has been discovered that more than a handful have applied for membership with the ruling party. New Nation

– National Conversation has rapidly degenerated into ‘Spot the secret PAP member’ contest. Donaldson Tan

Six or seven out of 50 seems a lot, and then there the PA people and family relations. What abt trade unionists? On Wednesday, a picture began circulating on Facebook giving the background of 36 participants. Netizens accused them of being ”running dogs” of the PAP.

The above shows how new media makes it difficult for traditional media to be constructive and nation-building.

And while the governing PAP takes seriously the task of using the media to “guide public opinion”, with a friend (or is it a “running dog”?) , in the constructive, nation-building MediaCorp, the PM doesn’t need “cowboy town” bloggers to cast doubts on NatCon. First there was the uninviting blogger Ravi and friends (“because PM had met the bloggers”), then this. What next MediaCorp?

Actually, given that a PAP MP is the MD of the S’pore operation of an int’l PR firm, it’s a bad reflection on that firm’s capabilities that these things can happen. He shouls know better.

But the fact that bloggers focus on the numbers and not on what the PAPpies and friends said, gives the impression that these PAPpies and allies didn’t contribute to the conversation. So why bother abt naming and shaming them, except that it’s a great blood sport, discrediting them and the governing PAP? Now if they had skewed the conversation, then bitch abt their skewing of the conversation, not juz their numbers. Sorry, I no watch television, so no imput there.

It’s private and public LOL!

My avatar commented on Facebook when he read this SDP rant abt Dr Chee being prevented from selling his books at a spot where he was arrested for protesting.: “It’s public space for purpose of  ”protesting”. It’s private space in terms of selling stuff. I kid you not: law like that LOL. Dr Chee shld go to spot in Raffles City where JBJ used to sell his books. And see what happens. ))))”. AG confirms this view this correct.

Trying to manufacture a controversy to sell more books in a very worthy cause? Plenty of lawyers associated with SDP, so could have advised it on the law. But then they are “trouble makers” like Teo and Ravi. LOL.

[T]he summary removal of my piece has damaged my reputation suggesting as it does that I would write material that was defamatory and untrue. It goes to the heart of my credibility. KennethJ

He shld stop taking  himself so seriously and stop sliming others, this son of the much-loved JBJ. He is doing himself (and memory of dad) no favours by being so childishly petulant regularly. Take his  response on Alex Tan, vis-a-vis Mrs Chiam’s classy, high EQ response. She didn’t have a First Class in econs from Cambridge (she’s only a British-trained nurse), but she sure knows how to handle a tricky situation, unlike him.

Funny thing is that despite being so full of himself, he made a fool of self when he publicly got the words of the Pledge wrong at a public rally last yr. And in an ang moh accent too. Govt scholars (including Tony and Hazel) went to posh British unis. They don’t speak in ang moh accent. But he wants to show that he is different? The excuse that he worked many yrs in London, cuts no ice with me. Know someone who went to a really posh (and intellectually demanding) English public school, and then went to work in the City when it was a racist place before finally returning home. Speaks English like LKY.

And talking of LKY, I come back to the tot of throwing people into jail.

It would be the sadness of all the world if Mr Lee were to shy away from doing the one thing which would leave a lasting legacy for all of us, before he eventually passes on. And this one thing is to offer an apology to those whose lives were torn apart by his actions. Andrew Loh, Publichouse.sg

If you read the piece, the examples of “wrongs” that need to be apologised for are things that LKY tot he was right to do. And which many S’poreans at the time gave him the benefit of the doubt for doing (me for instance), if they didn’t outright support him. It is only with hindsight that these decisions seem to many, especially younger S’poreans, to be wrong.

Take the 1987 Marxists’ arrests: liberation theology worried even the Roman Catholic church. The insurgencies in Latin and Central America, partly inspired by liberation theology worried the US government who feared that the USSR was using the insurgencies to attack the USA in a vulnerable area. And if you have heard as I have, a Filipino priest, expound on the need for the church to fight social injustice, one can be reasonably afraid of the do-gooders: that they will be taken advantage of by the USSR and friends.

We now know who won the Cold war. But in 1987, the USSR was the evil empire. And LKY was planning to pass on power.

SDP groupies, other do-gooders and TJS ACHTUNG

Read this http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2012/09/fiscal-policy

[M]odern states have tended to extend benefits to the better-off, partly because of lobbying and partly as a way of buying the support of the wealthy for the welfare state. All this is well illustrated in Suzanne Mettler’s book “The Submerged State”, which shows how these hidden subsidies can distort voters’ view of the way that government policy works; a 2008 poll found that 57% of Americans denied ever using a government programme. But when shown a list of 21 actual programmes, including student loans and home-mortgage interest deduction, 94% of the deniers turned out to have benefited after all.

[Would be interesting if TJS's research centre could do something on whether the middle class benefits from govt subsidies: could kill the PAPpies pt abt housing and education subsidies]

Universal benefits are very expensive. But targeting benefits requires means-testing, an instrusive process that causes hard cases at the margin. And restricting benefits to the poorest may weaken political support for the whole system, along the lines highlighted by Mr Romney; people may believe that the hard-working “us” are subsidising the feckless “them”.

 

PAP will fail ’cause “always behind the curve”

In response to this on why the Opposition should “wake up their ideas”, and not be complacent abt the PAP’s message of, ”It’s yr money, let’s spend it to make you happier”, JG, a reader, responded with u/m which I am reproducing because it makes some very valid points.

By its nature, LHL is an incremental type person. So yes, they want to move in the direction of “more inclusive growth”, but the way they do it tend to be very slow. Lets take Tharman’s recent budget for eg. In one stroke, every low income family is reportedly getting more in subsidies than they are paying out of GST. Ask any man on the street today – do you feel it? Do you feel less “squeezed” economically? No.

Why is this so? Because the effort is half-hearted – existing policies are repackaged to be part of the mega subsidies. Because they are always behind the curve – transport fee increase, conservancy fee increase, etc etc – every little thing adds up to negate the impact. And fundamentally, it boils down to top leadership – for LHL to even say “20 years later”, shows how snail-pace his mindset is.

In other words, rhetoric aside, my guess is that the people will feel that PAP is too slow to change. The big wayang about “National Conversation” which has drifted slowly to “National Recalibration of Expectations” will be one of the final nail in the coffin.

As the earlier comment also pointed out, it is not just because of the fact that the bottom rung of society is left to fend for itself, that is a megabug. Immigration, cost increase are others. Fundamentally, there is the pervasive feeling that there is no security anymore – you may lose your job anytime to a “faster, cheaper, better” foreigner, your children won’t be able to afford a house or a car in Singapore, you’re left to fend for yourself in your old age. There is no game-changing policy the PAP has announced or implemented to address these. And my perception is, because they have run out of ideas. Or, are too boxed into their ideological boundaries, that they cannot offer anything new.

My point to JG is that there is no need for new ideas: juz spend our money, and promise not to raise taxes for the foreseeable future.

Unless the Opposition finds a strategy of countering PM’s new strategy*, come the next GE (which could come sooner than later if the ground is sweet), 2011 will be like 1991, another false dawn.

——

*Maybe NatCon is a diversionary tactic, aimed at keeping netizens and the Opposition away from the realisation that the PAP is implementing a new strategy.

I could be wrong.

But the Opposition shouldn’t be complacent, especially the WP.

Time for Opposition to rethink assumptions, lest it repents after next GE

Shumetime back, I blogged that PM in his National Day Rally speech came out with the message,”It’s yr money, let’s spend it to make you happier”. I’m glad to read that TJS has written, “PM talked about increased social spending supported by tax increases not now but in 20 years’ time, DPM Tharman laid out a case for active government policies “tilted in favour of those with less”". Well nice to know I and TJS have come to the same conclusion, more-or-less.

Which brings me to TJS’ main point, “Events in recent years have shown that the PAP is both incompetent and insincere. To save Singapore from the PAP, we have to focus on regime change … We do not need a national conversation to generate ideas on how to bring Singapore forward …

‘But the current leadership is not equal to the task – what can one expect from a PM who has no vision for the country or an ill-conceived one based on wrong facts, and a DPM who is full of hindsight but empty of foresight? The real salvation for Singapore lies outside the PAP and there are enough talent out there to form an alternative leadership team. It’s time for them to come together, get organised and stand ready to take over. A regime change is long overdue.”

I’m sure his sentiments are shared by the Opposition, even the WP.

But if as TJS is saying the PM is calling for ”increased social spending” and “DPM Tharman laid out a case for active government policies “” why shouldn’t some of the 40% of the S’poreans (self included) who voted for the Opposition, vote for PAP in the next GE? If the PAP government starts ”walking the walk” of spending more to make life more comfortable for S’poreans, especially the poor, and “squeezed” middle: i.e. more than “talk the talk”, why shouldn’t some of us switch our votes. Remember that in last presidential election, 70% of the voters voted for two men closely associated with the PAP. What it shows that 10% of all the voters are willing to vote for the PAP. They are not members of the “PAP are bastards” platoon like KennethJ, TJC, and Dr Chee and groupies

The only answer to my question is that “The Opposition can deliver better policies and execute them better”.

My next question then,”Where’s the evidence?” Whether TJS and other members of the opposition like it or not, they had better hope the WP MPs start raising their game. So far, three are non-entities, one has underperformed expectations(Show Mao) by doing bugger-all, and two are clowning around (GG* and PritamS). Only JJ is showing his mettle. .

And I’m sure S’poreans remember that the WP have gone quiet on their manifesto call to nationalise the public transport system, shumething I’ve grumbled about regularly. I mean, it’s an open goal what with the tpt minister admitting openly of the heavy subsidies being given. So why is GG** and the WP refusing to take a shot at goal. Scared to miss? Or kelong?

So if there is regime change, there may be no change if the WP is the dominant party in the new government.

So getting rid of the PAP when it is using our money to make life more comfortable for us would seem to be a dangerous and dumb thing to do, neh?

Might as well back the PAP in that case.

The point I’m trying to make is that the governing PAP seems to have ditched the sacred cow  (no longer a Hard Truth) of being mean to S’poreans despite extracting money fromS’poreans via all kinds of levies and imposts: it is now willing to spend S’porean’s money on making things better for S’poreans.

If it spends our money on S’poreans, the Opposition should rethink their assumptions and premises, and the messages they want to send to voters. If not, come the next GE (which could be held before 2016, if the PAP senses that S’poreans have been won over by the spending), the Opposition will be repenting, not the PAP. The ground may be shifting.

Oh and I hope that this is the last time TJS imitates KennethJ’s attempts to portray changes in government policy as evidence of KJ’s genius his genius in pointing out its errors. S’poreans are not stupid, and neither is TJS. He is an RI boy and scholar, unlike KennethJ.

—

*Eric Tan (remember him) must be v.v. happy. I tot that GG was brilliant in 2009 or 2010, putting online the questions Sylvia and Low were asking in Parly and the responses they got. This showed S’poreans that they were not as quiet as the constructive, nation-building media made them out to be.

**In July 2011, GG wrote an ST article explaining why nationalisation is a gd idea. So it was surprising that went the trains started failing, that the silence from him and WP was deafening.

NatCon: What Dale Carnegie & dad can teach PM

Two quotes from Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence People, that could teach PM, Heng, Sim Ann and other ministers a trick or two:

– “No one likes to feel that he or she is being sold something or told to do a thing. We much prefer to feel that we are buying of our own accord or acting on our own ideas. We like to be consulted about our wishes, our wants, our thoughts.” (Actually Auntie Sun’s hubby, pastor Kong, could teach them this, what with his Sentosa Cove penthse to prove it. But PAPpies prefer to learn from FTs.)

– “The only way on earth to influence other people is to talk about what they want and show them how to get it.”

The second quote explains why PM’s dad (and a hero, flawed, of mine) was successful in getting S’poreans to vote for him and the PAP despite his bullying, thuggish ways.

He spoke to S’poreans of his and older generations what they wanted to hear: “A better life for yrself and yr family.”

And how to achieve it: “Vote for the PAP and accept my policies be they throwing dissidents into prison without trial (anyway they are commies who want to steal yr money or work you to death), and have union leaders like Devan Nair who are my running dogs, and accept my lectures, hectoring, thuggery and bullying.”

He got the message right* and delivered the prosperity bit (whether or not the prosperity was the result of his** policies and methods is open to debate***) for most elderly S’poreans. True, there are some elderly S’poreans who missed the prosperity (and who now need to be helped), but in general, many are reasonably well-off, especially if they suffer from severe illnesses. I’ve relations much older or juz slightly older who have benefited from the then HDB housing policies of the 70s and 80s. And who are benefitting from the present healthcare system.

(One said during the Chinese New Year, “We were poor when we were young. Thank the Lord (her family are Christians) that in our old age we are comfortable. Nothing worse than being poor when old.”)

They are the first to admit it, their children and grandchildren are not finding life that easy. But hey LKY’s only a mortal, even if at times the constructive, nation-building media, esp ST, portrayed him as a demigod.

———————–

*And he is a genius when it comes to marketing “Authentic marketing is not the art of selling what you make but knowing what to make.” Philip Kotler, academic (1931–), Marketing Management (1967)

Above and more marketing quotes from http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2012/09/z-business-quotations

The problem. is that since the late 1980s or early 1990s, the PAP wants S’poreans to do want the PAP wants them to do; but it is unwilling (and unable) to promise S’poreans material prosperity in return. It is only willing to say,”We will try to help you achieve material prosperity. But we still want yr soul.”

The governing PAP used gimmicks, like asset enhancement inflation and indiscriminate importing of , that have backfired on the PAP because of their negative consequences, intended or otherwise, on S’poreans.

**And don’t forget the role that Dr Goh Keng Swee, Lim Kim San, Hon Sui Sen and Ngiam Tong Dow played in the economic policies. They wisely left the bullying, lecturing hectoring and thuggishness to LKY.

***Remember that in the 1960s and 1970s, S’pore was one of the few places (HK was another) that welcomed MNCs to set-up factories. MNCs were looked upon as a form of neo-colonialism by most of the developing world. Today, every developing country wants MNCs to set-up factories. So credit must be given to the PAP for this policy. But as we know, this policy resulted in the lack of home-grown companies like Foxcomm and HTC in Taiwan and Samsung in Korea. But breeding these cos led to problems in these countries.

More tots on the National Conversation

Shumething I came across on Facebook: To be frank, I think the default is now, “Why should we listen to the government?” and we should all realise that they’re listening more and we’re listening less. Old knee-jerk political reflexes are not useful anymore. We need to be clear-minded and work on both qualitative and quantitative data and input, not just the same old stories on all sides.

He is spot-on.

Then this: “S’poreans [are] urged to share and listen with open minds and  hearts” said Education Minister Heng Swee Keat who “is heartened by the many conversations that are going on about the national conversation and follows them with great interest.” Mr Heng had been tasked by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to lead a team of younger ministers to engage Singaporeans in a national conversation about the country’s future direction.

So how come

– a “CNA producer rescinds invite to bloggers to a forum with Prime Minister because her ‘bosses bosses have decided not to have bloggers on the forum because apparently bloggers have already had a private session with the Prime Minister already” http://www.raviphilemon.net/2012/09/because-pm-has-engaged-dr-jiajia-he-has.html

–” TOC was uninvited to the Singapore National Games”

Now to a suggestion of a topic.

The conversation, to be meaningful, must include the issue of public access to govt data bases. This explains why it should give access: In knowledge discovery in datasets, the major barrier to entry is access to the data. When corporations, governments or other private firms jealously guard their proprietary data, the number of people playing with the data and trying to discover valuable things, or putting that data to good use, will remain small. When data is made public, anyone can put that data to work. In recent years governments have begun making large troves of their data publically accessible. The U.S. government’s open-data project, data.gov, for example, has begotten over 200 citizen-developed apps. Similarly, the city of Vancouver, an early mover in the municipal open-data space, opened up their data in 2009, spawning valuable mashups of transit data, the water grid, and common spaces.

It’s gd for a knowledge-based economy.

Netizens who want to take part should take time to read this http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/ips/docs/events/p2012/SP2012_Bkgd%20Pa.pdf. Written by some of the best economists in S’pore (Jedi Knights all: wonder who is their Yoda? Tommy Koh?), it gives plenty of information to counter the governing PAP’s Hard Truths.

Finally, the calls by some netizens for a debate rather than conversation are misguided. Debates are by their nature rigid. The emphasis is on point scoring. This format suits the government. So better to keep it at the conversational level.

Related post: http://atans1.wordpress.com/2012/08/20/nation-conversation-nah-sounds-like-another-attempt-at-conversion/

PM: This is xenophobia

It’s different from disagreeing with you and the PAP on the need of FTs or being “ungracious” towards them, as mee siam hum (yr speciality) is from kway teow char with hum. Remember you got the two dishes mixed up yrs ago?

 … a video I had watched on the internet before setting out. It showed a man – possibly from central Asia or the Caucasus – being dragged through a forest. It’s like some dark horror movie, but this is real.

There are screams, which may have been added later. But then, the man is tied up and killed. The details of how he is savagely murdered are too horrific to watch. Those who have studied the video assure me of its authenticity and say the killing is the work of a far-right gang.

No authority seems to have the power or desire to take it off the web.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19434795

Err Lee what did you say abt food inflation?

Last month when asked about the current drought in the United States Midwest which is affecting corn and soybean crops, Mr Lee Yi Shyan, Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry and National Development and chairman of Retail Prices Working Group said it is not likely to have an impact here in the near term.

This is because Singapore imports a negligible amount corn, and only seven per cent of its soy beans from the US.

But a sustained price hike for the grains, which are used for animal feed, he said, may raise commodity prices in the long term. (More)

Funny then that on 30 August BBC Online reported

Global food prices have leapt by 10% in the month of July, raising fears of soaring prices …

The bank said that a US heatwave and drought in parts of Eastern Europe were partly to blame for the rising costs.

The price of key grains such as corn, wheat and soybean saw the most dramatic increases, described by the World Bank president as “historic”. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19431890

So the issue is not even that only in the long term food prices here will rise, but how soon. That it will rise in “the near term”, despite his denial, is a probability. Even before the spoke juz before National Day, prices had alread risen. I mean as a MTI minister, surely he would have access to that information, unless his officials hid data from him to make him look stupid?

Discounting that possibility or the possibility that MTI does not have access to near-live data (highly unlikely),  either this jnr minister doesn’t know economics (maybe taz why he did not get promoted to minister?*) or he was juz mindlessly spinning knowing that the constructive, nation-building media would not challenge him, and that people would believe him.

Methinks one test of whether the government is sincere about having a national conversation is for ministers to stop assuming that the people are simple-minded to believe whatever ministers say. Those days are over. S’poreans have the internet and social media to keep tabs on waz happening in the rest of the world and in S’pore. The days when the constructive, nation-building local media filtered everything are over.

——

*Unlikely given Tharman’s and Hng Kiang’s grasp of basic economic theory 

http://atans1.wordpress.com/2012/05/25/will-hougang-make-the-pap-moan-the-inflation-blues-not-joke-abt-it/

http://atans1.wordpress.com/2012/05/08/tharman-has-a-point/

PM’s speech: Not juz a change of format

(Or “Why LKY would not have made this speech” or “Two cheers for PM”)

It’s been five days since the speech and the air is thick with analyses and commentaries of what PM said last Sunday. Most of them are noise or smoke or hot air.

While the constructive, nation-building media gushed (like a teen-ager about her puppy love) over the PM’s speech, netizens were not too impressed. Typical reactions:

“PM Lee, to no one’s surprise, did not address the root cause of the many issues troubling Singaporeans. The lack of accountability and transparency, civic and political freedoms, freedom of the media, human rights failings, gerrymandering and discriminatory upgrading projects have their roots in repression.“

How can there be hope, heart and home when the real issues – foreigner, infrastructure, housing, transport and healthcare – are still outstanding?

Come on netizens: Look on the bright side. He

– pledged to ensure sufficient affordable housing for citizens, and built more nursing homes for the elderly.

– said the government will decide on measures to encourage Singaporeans to marry and have more children after consulting the public. Areas being considered include better work- life balance, flexible work arrangements, priority housing for couples with young kids, paternity or shared maternity leave, defraying childhood medical expenses, better pre-school, childcare and infant care, and improving cash benefits for having children known as baby bonuses, he said.

– pledged Singapore will have two more universities to increase educational opportunities and the government will invest S$60 billion over ten years on the island’s subway system. Bloomberg report.

What this means is that the government is finally going to spend our money on us. No more of his dad’s ”frugality”* on spending S’poreans money on S’poreans.

He is saying, “It’s yr money, let’s spend it on making you happier”.

To reinforce the point, he implicitly promised that there would be no near time tax rises, saying (correctly) that Singapore will need to raise taxes in the next two decades (but not now) as the government boosts social spending to support an aging population.

In the past ministers like Tharman and Raymond Lim (remember him?) threatened to raise GST whenever S’poreans asked for more govt spending.

So netizens, give the PM more rope to hang himself or show us that things are a’changing. The assumptions and prejudices of the PAP remain (see here) but at least he is spending our money on things that we want or need to make life more comfortable.

For that let’s give him two cheers. Give him a third if he rethinks the aforesaid prejudices and assumptions inherited from dad.

—

*An economist lecturing at SMU once commented (when LKY was MM and in rude health) that LKY would die if the government spent a cent more than absolutely necessary on making life more comfortable for S’poreans. Having read his daughter’s comments on his wanting Mrs Lee to change the elastic band on his underwear when she was recovering from her stroke, I think the economist had a valid point, and wasn’t joking.

Tharman admits FTs can become citizens without integrating?

I juz read this in amazement: “DPM Tharman urges new citizens to form ties with S’poreans”.

Shouldn’t these new citizens have “formed” ties with S’poreans before they become citizens? What he says implies that FTs who become citizens are allowed to do so in a bubble. They don’t have to integrate with us. They are juz “urged to” after they become citizens.

If so, then this is another example of shumething “Uniquely S’porean”.

In other countries, FTs are not made citizens until after they undergo citizenship training, and passing tests to show they understand what being a citizen means. The training includes integrating with locals. Juz ask the British, US, Australian and NZ governments. FTs have to undergo integration training before they become citizens.

Kindergartens & the ruling PAP

So the PM in yesterday’s speech promised that the government will play a more active role in pre-school education to help S’poreans “level up”*. Actually it already has a very active role**.

Ever since the Lien Foundation came out with its report earlier this yr which in its media released stated, “Singapore’s preschool education placed 29th amongst 45 countries on the Starting Well Index” and reported that  South Korea (10^th) and Hong Kong (19th) were ahead of us,there has been the usual hot air from the government, the constructive, nation-building media, and S’poreans, largely off-line via the media***.

One issue that all three groups skated around are the two elephants in the ice-rink: the PAP Community Foundation (PCF)  which is the dominant provider of kindergartens in S’pore, and its smaller cousin NTUC; and the ring-master (the governing PAP). Remember that the NTUC and PCF are “teeth” to the lips of the governing PAP.

It’s not surprising that the government and its minion, the media, avoided talking abt the role of the PCF and NTUC (until last night) and the government in the failure of kindergarten education here (PM skated over why the system needed fixing). So let me lay it out thickly.

The report says that where S’pore falls short is on quality issues: “Most of Singapore’s weaknesses showed up in the area of‘quality’, which includes factors like ‘student-­‐teacher ratio’,‘average preschool teacher wages’, ‘preschool teacher training’and ‘linkages between preschool and primary school’. All top ten countries on the Index have ratios ranging from one teacher to five to 11 children, compared to Singapore’s 1:20 ratio.”

It’s a question of funding.

While the NTUC and PCF cannot be blamed for the lack of funding because they are, unlike private kindergartens serving the moneyed, trying to serve the masses, not the children of elite, middle class bloggers: they can be blamed for not lobbying the government for more money to rectify ‘student‐teacher ratio’,‘average preschool teacher wages’, and ‘preschool teacher training’.

So until the government increases its funding (which the PM now has), the children of S’pore’s masses will continue suffering from low quality kindergarten education.

———

*He said: “First of all, we’ll establish a new statutory board to oversee pre-school education. Secondly, we’ll provide and upgrade pre-school teacher training to raise standards. Thirdly, we’ll bring in new anchor operators, in addition to PCF and NTUC.

“And fourthly, we’ll upgrade the anchor operators — the existing ones as well as the new ones — so that they can improve the careers they can offer the teachers.

“They can offer structured development opportunities for the staff, they can introduce creative learning methods for the students but to raise the base — the quality of the mass market.” CNA

**I read with amazement last week the spate of articles in, and letters to our constructive, nation-building media on whether kindergarten education should be “nationalised”.

***Not surprised netizens have been quiet. They don’t breed. Or if they do, they send their kids to gd, expensive kindergartens. They are middle class elitists.

Why Tharman will be the next PM

(Or “How S’pore’s PMs are chosen”)

We know that Tharman as finance minister has failed to control inflation (Yes, yes, I know latest number is 4% but remember grain prices are flying), when all he can do is to make jokes about it, and that the government (where he is now the senior most minister in charge of the economy) has consistently failed to raise the productivity of S’pore workers* despite talking the talking on this since I started working in the late 1970s. I’m now a man of leisure and the government is still talking about raising productivity. SIGH.

I was reminded of another failure of the government’s economic policies when the July export data came out last week.  No it wasn’t the failure of the government policy to diversify away from electronics. If S’pore has a comparative edge here, so be it.

No, it was the failure many yrs ago to realise that pill-making is not a steady business. Example: in July, while pharmaceutical shipments were up 1.3% after rocketing 24% in June. It was brought in to smooth the volatility of an economy dependent on the export of electronics, a volatile commodity.

It didn’t work because while selling drugs is a steady business in gd times and bad (unlike electronics), making pills is not. It’s a very volatile business. Drug cos are forever tweaking their supply chains to minimise production costs and inventories. Production is not smooth.

So while pill-making has become an important driver of economic growth, it has not made the economy any less volatile. In fact combining it with the manufacturing and export of electronics causes the economy to gyrate wildly at times.

Guess who introduced pill-making? One Lee Hsien Loong. He was once responsible for raising the productivity of S’porean workers? In the UK, a Chancellor of the Exchequer, who goofed on two major policy decisions, would not get to be PM.

Looks like better not bet against Tharman being PM. With the failures on inflation, productivity and the following on his CV, nap that he will become PM:

– Another failure is the rise in the number for homeless S’poreans at a time of reasonably gd economic growth.

– They are exemplars of the “working poor”, something articulated so well here. Read it.

– Article also explains why Workfare, as it is constructed, doesn’t help the poor. Related posts: http://atans1.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/budget-a-plague-on-both-your-houses/

http://atans1.wordpress.com/2010/10/13/minimum-wages-missing-the-point/

Update after posting: Promotion here is via failure? Presidency of S’pore and Temasek. So the PAP’s meritocracy is achieved via failure, not success? So Orwellian. Reminds me of Beckett’s, “Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.”

National Conversation? Nah sounds like another attempt at Conversion

As regular readers will know, I’m quite happy with PM’s performance so far.

But on his call for a national conversation, I have no intention of wasting my time joining in, even though as I’ve said, I have plenty of time.

Why? For a start I’ll be in my 70s then.

Seriously, the reason is that I don’t believe despite the latest attempt to kill sacred cows (great take here from a Ravi*), the basic tenets of the PAP have changed. Based on the comments of PM and his ministers,I don’t see any change in the following articles of faith, not even the slightest evidence of a willingness to rethink any of them:

– FTs are needed.

– S’poreans must breed.

– Free** markets are the best way of allocating of resources.

– GRCs are a must.

– PA, although funded by the tax payer, must remain part of the PAP machinery.

– Newspapers need a yearly licence.

– SPH and MediaCorp publications and channels must be constructive and nation-building.

– Racial quotas are a must in HDB estates.

– Ex senior servants and SAF officers make good ministers and business leaders. Funny thing is that our best performing TLCs (SIA and Keppel) are not headed by these people.

– Details of our reserves must remain secret.

– Not a cent less than 25% of the annual budget must be spent on MINDEF.

– ISD is needed.

– Malay Muslims must be watched, and treated with kid gloves and the iron fist.

– PAP is never wrong.

– PAP is misunderstood.

These have been the articles of faith of one LKY (Hard Truths he calls them). The only thing that has changed since his retirement is that the government doesn’t feel the emotional pain*** of spending more of what is our own money on making life more comfortable for S’poreans. Witness the money being spent on public transport, public housing and healthcare, and welfare (albeitly wrongly by refusing to give the needy cash now).

No, what will happen is that it will be a dialogue of the deaf. The government will hector and lecture S’poreans while closing their eyes and ears to S’poreans. S’poreans, in turn, will ignore the noise from the governing PAP.  The only way to get the PM’s and ministers’ attention is by holding the PAP to account at the next GE. Would the PM have apologised if there was no need to shore up the vote? I doubt it?

The Hougang by-election judgement

Remember the Hougang by-election case? The bloggers have moved on, disappointed with the judgement*.

As I’ve juz heard that the petitioner, a part-time cleaner who resides in Hougang will not appeal the judgement that the PM is not obliged to call a by-election because the constitution does not require a by-election to be called if there is a vacancy, I tot this would be a gd opportunity to post on the judgement: raising points not raised by other bloggers.

First, let me commend the judge for not dismissing the case on technicalities, and on his diligence: 53 pages!

His judgement that the PM is not obliged to call a by-election because the constitution does not require a by-election to be called if there is a vacancy – surprised the legal academics and one Siow Kum Hong who the media had been regularly quoting on the case, and netizens.  But should the academics and Siow have been surprised?

In this , I had asked: I wonder why no-one had petitioned the court to get the government to call a by-election until this year? Surely there were lawyers* at that time who are as smart and brave as Ravi** ? As Chiam was an MP on two of the above instances, perhaps someone should ask him why he never bothered to bring a case? Does he agree that the PM has an unfettered discretion on whether to call a by-election or not to fill a vacancy?

*There was JBJ who although, not very smart, was brave. And there was Francis Seow, a former Solictor-General, a good litigator with the brain of an intellectual, and the heart of a lion. He is still alive though not in practice. He is a Harvard Fellow, wanted by the S’pore government on some tax charge. He was detained under the ISA for a short while in the late 1980s.

It could explain why the WP (its MP lawyers were called “cow dung” by the petitioner’s lawyer, Ravi, for not lending WP’s weight to his client’s case) did not raise the issue in parly or in the courts. The three MP lawyers may have advised that a court petition to compel the PM to call a by-election would not succeed.

One grumble that I hear the academics quietly muttering against the judgement is that it was a formalistic interpretation of the constitution, not taking into account the intention of the constitution. (Siow has said on Facebook that it is formalistic.)

Well, have they ever tot that the drafters of the constitution were men of their time? At that time, the dominant view among the English and other British judges was that the executive could be trusted because ministers were “our kind of chaps”, and that because the executive had the mandate of the voters (which could be lost if the voters were angry with it), it could and should have largely unfettered discretion: the courts should only intervene when it was clear on the face of it that something was wrong. It should never question the motives of the executive unless there was blindly obvious evidence that shumething was wrong.

Witness, the slew of cases that allowed detention without trial on the say so of the minister, and the refusal of the courts to question the executive’s motives even in the UK. Times have changed. 

Our constitution had to be amended because the Court of Appeal here ruled that it could judicially review the reasons behind an ISA detention, over-ruling a long-established local ruling. I once heard the senior state counsel in that case explain that the judges were influenced by changes in judicial thinking in other Commonwealth countries. My take is that our judges wanted to be part of the “in” crowd of judges. They wanted to continue being invited to the lunches and dinners of the ang moh judges.

Penultimately, going by the media reports, it seems the judge never asked the lawyers to argue the point on which he decided the case. When I was studying law in London, we had the benefit of hearing eminent judges talk on their decision-making process. One thing they insisted on: they would only decide on the points argued before them. If they had any original ideas, they would put it before opposing counsel and ask them to argue the point. Seems this was not done here. Reminds me of a defamation case brought against JBJ by some ministers. The judge found against JBJ on a point neither side had raised, nor had the judge asked the lawyers to argue the point. Never ever heard of that principle invoked ever again. Can’t even remember what it was.

Finally, by deciding the issue on the grounds he did, it is unlikely that the petitioner would have to pay the AG’s cost which would have been substantial, especially as AG used a Senior Counsel in private practice. Guess who pays? We the tax payer. SIGH.

—–

*Their restraint in commenting on the case could be due to their fear of being ”forced” to retract their comments by the Attorney-General, like one Alex Au was “forced” to do as regards on the decision in the Wally Woffle’s case. He subsequently “repented” of his act of removing the offending post (bit like Peter denying that he knew Jesus and then feeling upset with himself). Actually, as a trained lawyer, I agreed with AG. Wonder if AG repented of being nice to Alex Au?

Seriously, perhaps the NSP, with a lawyer as its VP, could conduct a seminar for bloggers on how to criticise judges’ decisions without running foul of the AG.

Inflation: Why the misleading picture, minister & media?

(Or “Think short-term, not long-term says minister Lee or “MTI minister does not know econs?” or “Govt’s spin machine is stuck in the stone age”)

The Retail Price Watch Group (RPWG) last week emphasised that the slower pace of food inflation impacted positively on household expenditure as food expenses take up a considerable portion of each household’s monthly budget. This slower pace of food inflation is good for S’poreans is the message that the constructive, nation-building media is spreading, not challenging. Example of how inflation is reported . At the end of this piece are two links on the numbers on inflation, and what they mean.

Earlier this year, when inflation was hitting new highs, in addition to the sick jokes by Tharman and Hng Kiang on “no worries” if “you don’t rent private housing, or want or need to buy a car”*, S’poreans were told to look forward, not back. Inflation would “moderate”. It hasn’t has it? The rate of growth has slowed a tinny winny bit, taz it.

Now the message seems to be look back, not forward. If you wonder why, read this, ”Another food crisis looms”: grain and meat prices are rising fast (not rice though but note ”Rising wheat prices and a failure of America’s soya harvest might scare nervy Asian countries into a rice-export ban just as during the food crisis of 2007-08.”).

And there is this: Global food prices sharply rebounded in July due to wild swings in weather conditions, a UN food and agricultural body has said.

The rise has fanned fresh fears of a repeat of the 2007-2008 food crisis which hurt the world’s poorest. BBC report

But when asked about the current drought in the United States Midwest which is affecting corn and soybean crops, Mr Lee Yi Shyan, Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry and National Development and chairman of RPWG said it is not likely to have an impact here in the near term.

This is because Singapore imports a negligible amount corn, and only seven per cent of its soy beans from the US.

But a sustained price hike for the grains, which are used for animal feed, he said, may raise commodity prices in the long term.

So said minister is downplaying the effect of drought in the US on food prices. And our media is not questioning him. And they all are wrong to downplay the rise in retail prices.

There are floods in Brazil, the other large exporter of soya. So it isn’t juz the US. 

There is no getting around the fact that two of the staples of the world food industry are about to become scarce commodities.

That means they will also become more expensive. Soya beans and corn make oil, animal feed, and ethanol (to be added to petrol), and are used in snacks, fast food, even soft drinks. America’s drought is going hit us all.

FT gave a concrete example: Based on the numbers of a big US producer of chickens, Sandersons, a US$2 increase in corn, like the one that just took place, adds about US7 cents to the cost per pound of chicken meat. And as the margins are tiny, so prices of chicken have to rise unless there is a serious recession.]

Then there is the issue of time frame. The USDA expects further rises in prices, and it is predicting that global corn trade will be sharply lower this month “in response to tighter US supplies and higher prices” reports the BBC. So minister, if “this month” is “long term”, what is “short-term”? Ten minutes? 

But this downplaying of inflation and the misuse of the term “long term” is not all.

But a sustained price hike for the grains, which are used for animal feed, he said, may raise commodity prices in the long term.

So after always being tot to think long-term, and with the government always praising itself that it takes the long-term, strategic view, and taz why we should always vote for the PAP, we are now told to think short-term? 

Whatever happened to thinking and planning long-term? Retired juz like one LKY?

And why is the media not pointing out and commenting the change in govmin thinking? Are they waiting for approval?

Could minister and media been trying hard to avoid spoiling the national mood ahead of 9th August?

Or waz it all, “An honest mistake?” Or is this Lee trying to ape Tharman and Hng Kiang as a standup comic?

Or, as is most likely, could the government PR and corporate communications machine still be in the pre-internet age when real-time information was expensive and limited to traders in financial institutions? Then media releases, and ministerial statements and Q&As could be crafted days or weeks ahead of time, with each officer in the pyramid making changes until the final draft reached the minister. Now when communicating to any audience, ministers and their minions must be aware that real-time info is available at a touch of the screen.

(Links on inflation

Inflation has accelerated, fueled by rising housing and private transportation costs … The monetary authority last month estimated consumer-price gains will average 4 percent to 4.5 percent this year, compared with the 3.5 percent to 4.5 percent range it forecast previously.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-10/singapore-economy-contracts-as-pressure-gains-for-policy-easing.html

DBS says S’pore facing stagflation with one of highest inflation rates in region.

http://sbr.com.sg/economy/news/singapore-struggle-one-highest-inflation-rates-in-southeast-asia)

—————-

*OK, OK I exaggerate but only a little.

India following S’pore, rewarding failure

New finance minister in India. Previous one became president. What a country. Mismanaged the country’s finances (high inflation, falling foreign direct investment, retrospective taxes etc) but moved onto the highest post in the land.

Bit like S’pore? Tony Tan as executive director of GIC presided over purchase of “two 30-yr” investments (UBS and Citi) that tanked within months of purchase. He became president.

Seriously, the actions of new Indian finance minister is gd news for stale Indian bulls like self.

http://www.breakingviews.com/india-begins-the-post-mukherjee-clear-up/21034450.article

Err Tharman for president? We could do with a finance minister given our problems with inflation:

– Inflation has accelerated, fueled by rising housing and private transportation costs … The monetary authority last month estimated consumer-price gains will average 4 percent to 4.5 percent this year, compared with the 3.5 percent to 4.5 percent range it forecast previously.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-10/singapore-economy-contracts-as-pressure-gains-for-policy-easing.html

– DBS says S’pore facing stagflation with one of highest inflation rates in region

http://sbr.com.sg/economy/news/singapore-struggle-one-highest-inflation-rates-in-southeast-asia

Kee Chui misreps our views on FT gladiators

(Or “We don’t like cheating or cheaters”)

But first things first. It’s National Day and let’s celebrate it even if the PAPpies insist on trying to confuse us that the PAP is S’pore and S’pore is the PAP. Reclaim the Crescent and Stars. We can be proud to be S’poreans without subscribing to the Gospel of Harry.

Now back to Kee Chui and his misrepresentations

“Let’s not just look at where people come from. It’s not just where people come from that we should be concerned with, it’s also what they’ve done for the country,” said Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) Chan Chun Sing, commenting on public criticisms at the “buying” of Olympic medals by the use of foreign-born sportsmen.

S’poreans who criticise the use of FT gladiators to win medals are doing so largely because they do not believe that national sporting glory should be bought by using “instant citizens”, the way the Parks Division plants ”instant” trees.  

We would view things differently if our talent scouts brought in kids from overseas, and these kids are nurtured into champions here, and then later overseas. Our wimmin ping-pong team became S’poreans when they were already mother hens, not chicks. And it is rumoured that even their toilet cleaner had to be imported from China (OK, OK, I made that one up).

The critics of this FT gladiator policy are not uniquely S’porean.

A lady who writes regularly on British affairs and who is an advocate of a more liberal immigration policy, a controversial issue there too, writes: To come in late in the day with imported talent and claim they are British success stories isn’t about being open to migrants. It’s just cheating. Nobody watching will be fooled. If they get medals, we’ll feel a little embarrassed. Whether it’s swimming or anything else, let’s have a sporting culture strong enough for us to know, when we win, that it’s a real, homegrown achievement, not a fiddle. Otherwise, frankly, I’d rather we lost.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jan/28/Olympics2012.olympics2012

Taz my view, and I know the view of many of my fellow citizens. We have nothing against these FT gladiators who fight for S’pore, and I’m sure many of those who don’t think much of the FT gladiators policy, honour these women as Olympians. My only exception is that lady who attacked the German table tennis federation after she lost her match. http://atans1.wordpress.com/2012/08/02/ft-she-gladiator-shames-us-msm-stta-shamefully-silent/

Want us to agree with the government on the use of FT gladiators? Switch  from the emphasis on national pride and glory to the monetary benefits of sponsoring these gladiators. Show us the cost benefit analysis http://atans1.wordpress.com/2012/08/07/show-the-cost-benefit-analysis-of-sponsoring-ft-olympians/.

If the numbers stack up, I’m sure I and my others would have no problem with S’pore sponsoring them: bit like Nike sponsoring athletes.

Finally on an unrelated topic, did you know that a M’sian Chinese air condition repairman can be a PR? ST revealed this yesterday. Add him to slutty looking, violent cheating shop assistants, and hawkers who became PRs from PRC.

Africa’s next megacity wants to be like S’pore

Eat yr hearts out, and bang yr balls in frustration, KennethJ, EJay, Goh Meng Seng and other S’porean critics who hate all things PAP even when they work and are to the benefit of S’poreans: an African wants to model his hometown on S’pore (the S’pore before Raymond Lim and Mah Bow Tan messed up throughly its infrastructure; and the S’pore before the PAP let in the FTs in by the cattle truck load to overrun the likes of SGX, DBS, SMRT, and Geylang.)

Nimrod Mushi is a lecturer at Ardhi university, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and is one of the experts commissioned by the government to produce a “master plan” to overhaul the city’s infrastructure. Singapore is his role model, and he favours big projects to clear slums and build bridges, roads and out-of-town settlements.

“When we went to Singapore, we could see their satellite towns, their ring-roads, their skyscrapers and their decentralised services, and it’s working very nicely there,” he says.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18655647

Scoring PM 14 months on

This piece is in response to PM’s cabinet changes 14 months ago and to this on reasons for moving ministers around and out, someone commented, “How about getting a more decisive PM now? A new PM will be much more receptive to new ideas and fixing failed policies.”

Who knows? Will Teo Chee Hean, Tharman or Ng Eng Hen be any better? Could be, but only one of them has held a major economic portfolio for a decent period of time, and in recent months fumbled badly. Teo  is a “security” man and Ng is shaping up that way: surgeon turned security guard.

And in favour of giving our PM a bit more rope before condemning him, he has only been able to choose his own cabinet since May 2011: something Goh Chok Tong, never had, despite him being PM for over a decade. Even PM in his first term had to live with “legacy” ministers: his dad, and duds like GCT, Wong, and Mah.

Post 2011 GE, the PM has done the following to appease our righteous and reasonable anger:

– cut ministers’ salaries;

– accepted the “resignations” of underperforming ministers  (Wong, Mah and Lim);

– thrown money at the public transport and public housing infrastructures; and

– taken measures to control property prices.

He and his government has “talked the talk” of limiting FTs. But while there have been measures to curb the inflow of FTs, many S’poreans (self included) think it is all “wayang”. Even a government think-tank is sceptical about how long the measures will last. As I wrote: ‘the May issue of the ISEAS Monitor, ”[it] serves as an early warning of a possible relaxation of recently tightened immigration policies.” ISEAS is the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies , a think-tank that is a statutory board that needs government financing.’

His government has failed to control inflation: ministers can only make sick jokes about S’poreans who don’t rent homes, or buy cars not being affected.

And in the 1990s, he approved the diversification of the economy into making pills, saying it would help counterbalance the effects of the volatile electronics cycle. Hasn’t worked has it? The economy is even more volatile because pill-making while independent of the electronics cycle, is even more volatile. 

Despite these failures, he could still do good. ISEAS in the said issue points out that the public criticism of govt policy by professors Lim Chong Yah and Phua Kai Hong, respectively, on wages for the and the cost of  medical care for the elderly could

– change the character of public debate from a pro-government versus anti govt dynamic to “a more ‘substantive national conversation”;

- indicate “the rise of a non-partisan intelligentsia” that does not agree with the premises and assumptions of the government.

But then, he could be trying to do the S’pore version of “Let a 100 flowers blossom and hundred schools of thought contend”. The council on internet literacy could be the prequel to a “Night of the long knives”.

—–

Another gd reason for moving ministers around

In this and this, I talked about one reason why moving ministers around was good: the new ministers can “move on” from their predecessors who because they were the ministers who made the decisions or who were otherwise responsible were in denial, or too defensive about their actions, couldn’t take remedial action: flood prevention measures, and public housing and transport problems. 

The news in the past week, about a major flood prevention project (see below), reminded me  of another reason: a minister who was a dud in another portfolio could turn out to have the skills needed in a new portfolio. VivienB is the person I have in mind. As welfare and sports minister, he was a flop: making fun of the elderly needy, and while refusing to spend more on them overspending wildly on the Kiddie Olympics.

But as water minister he dares to be decisive: approving an expensive but much needed project. PUB’s plans to build a diversion canal and detention tank at the Stamford Canal Catchment to better deal with intense storms. The cost has not been revealed but given that it involves construction work in the Orchard Road area, it will cost serious money.

Well VivianB is not afraid to give it his approval. If Yaacob had been in charge, senior PUB engineers tell me that he would still be thinking about it: asking if they could find cheaper ways of mitigating once in half a century floods that juz happened twice in two months in 2010. After all as an academic, he would say that the events of 2010 could be juz statistical flukes. If so, why spend money unnecessarily based on outliers?

And thinking about it, Yaacob is a good “information” minister. He took his time over introducing a Code of Conduct for bloggers. And now seems to have shelved idea for yhe time being.

We would not have liked it if he had been decisive and autocratic about it. And imagine the egg on the face of the government if he had acted decisively and forced the CoC down the collectively throat of netizens: a CoC that was modelled on the practices of the mainstream media; only for revelations to hit the fan that STOMP used paid “content providers” to pose as citizen journalists, one of them faked a news item, and for the STOMP content team to admit that they are FTs from China?

So PM, let’s move on to yr dad’s policy of moving ministers around and out. No more jobs for life that Goh Chok Tong and you seem to favour.

Dr Chee has a v.v. gd point

(Includes clarification on missing update)

[T]he government cannot discriminate against political activities by banning them in public areas, while allowing commercial ones to take place.

“My colleagues and I were prosecuted for distributing flyers without a permit but the police said during the trial that a similar group distributing flyers for, say, a tuition centre does not require a permit,” Chee explained.

“This is not provided for under the law.”

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/four-sdp-members-take-illegal-assembly-case-to-court-of-appeal.html

Sticky Lady, if she gets charged for any offence, should argue along similar lines. If money lenders and property agents are not prosecuted for plastering state property with their telephone numbers, why should she be penalised? Govt cannot use law to punish non-commercial activities only.

Let’s see how the government and judges tackle the point. Prosecutorial discretion is my bet.

I must say Dr Chee has matured from an angry young punk into a mature leader: from comic super hero to an authentic leader. Wonder if KennethJ, Tan Kin Lian and Goh Meng Seng will evolve similarly? Saint JBJ never did (but then his bravery is the stuff of legends), while Low was never a comic action man superhero, Clark Kent than Clark Kent. Chiam (SIGH) has become the White Knight of Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There,when once he was Luke Skywalker.

——

On 19th July 2012, I noticed that someone had cited me on something that is missing from above. What happened is that I had tot of updating the piece to include my views on KennethJ the sabo king. I then tot that it would make piece unfocused (from a piece on Dr Chee and Sticky Lady and selective justice to one of these and KJ the king clown), so I deleted it. I didn’t realise that I had posted the Update. If I had known, I would have let the Update stand.

Sorry folks for misleading. It was an honest mistake, I swear.

STOMPED! Yacoob’s CoC

(Or “The difference between blogging and the traditional newspaper story”) 

Remember when Yaacob was  promoting his CoC (Code of Conduct) for the internet, he praised our mainstream constructive media and said they should be exemplars netizens should follow http://atans1.wordpress.com/2012/05/16/two-examples-of-how-st-covers-fts/ .

We now know what he wants us netizens to do: fake news reports using paid content producers like STOMP. His sis is a very, very senior editor at ST, a sister publication of STOMP.

Well I doubt that in 2012, we will hear anymore about his CoC. But next year is another year, and the CoC is not a once in 50-years event.

I was reminded of the above CoC and STOMP’s paid content producers posing as “citizen journalists” when I read this: [T]he traditional newspaper story derives its force and directionality from the man-bites-dog newsiness of the flat content. It’s very difficult to include expert commentary that depletes or diffuses the newsiness, because it sucks the signifying force out of the piece. In contrast, blogging and tweeting are far more flexible and use many other discursive techniques to supply directionality and signifying force, most importantly personalistic tone. You can write a blog post about something utterly un-newsworthy, say the fact that Barack Obama is president of the United States, and make it signify through sheer emotive presence or stylistic technique. But you can’t write a newspaper story about that.

One great reason why netizens shouldn’t be forced to be like a newspaper, even one like the FT or NYT or the Economist, let alone a publication like ST when even the footie news is distorted for the government’s constructive, nation-building agenda of “FTs are betterest” policy. 

Read the whole blog posting because it gives great insights on how a newspaper, any newspaper from the NYT to ST and its peers in China and North Korea, operate http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/06/media-rules

Related http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18458567

Reason WP quietly ditched its public tpt nationalisation call?

(“Trying to serve residents better, WP ditches manifesto call nationalise public tpt?”)

My WP “Morocco Mole”* (the sidekick of  ”Secret Squirrel” in the carton series: bit like Yaw to Low) tells me that at July’s parly seating, GG will again keep quiet on the above issue in the debate after the ministerial statement on the major disruption in the MRT system. Tells me no other WP MP will raise the issue of public tpt nationalisation, as this is GG’s responsibility.

He asked, “Why so cock, when the Commission of Inquiry’s findings  that SMRT was skimping on maintenance can be used to support WP’s election manifesto call to nationalise public transport? Also shows WP can think better than PAP.”

I referred him to this ST report, where it was reported that MPs are lobbying LTA  for better bus services in their wards: all because the $1.1 bn subsidy.

I told him since WP has appointed Ah Huat (remember him?) to co-ordinate its efforts for more buses to serve Hougang and Aljunied, it would be most awkward for him (and WP) to beg LTA, and SMRT and SBS to improve services in WP areas if the WP is publicly proposing to destroy their staffs’ rice bowls. It would have no leg to stand on.

His response, “Tan kuku. Even if Sylvia, Glenda and Angela (remember her?) perform [expletive deleted] on the LTA, SBS and SMRT male managers, and Show Mao [expletive deleted] the female managers, think that they will improve services in WP areas? Why WP so cock?” 

He has a point. SIGH (Victor Hugo: “A traitor always pays for his betrayal in the end.”)

Related post: http://atans1.wordpress.com/2012/05/28/hougang-only-up-to-a-point-lucky/

—-

*Moley is a WP cadre but not on the Central Executive Council,. He is ex-Barisan. He early last week told me that the WP had tabled only one question abt public transport (abt the release of the COI report). He is right. Which makes WP’s silence on this issue more deafening. Look at the topics raised: what the public wants raised for the most.