atans1

Posts Tagged ‘Dr Chee’

Dr Chee fixed Chiam in the 1990s

In Uncategorized on 18/05/2016 at 2:19 pm

I wrote sometime back that the Chiams were really verypetty people when they got real shirty about a photo of Chiam and Dr Chee. But Dr Chee deserves the “Mad Dog” tag by escalating the row into an attempted nuclear strike that turned out to misfire by calling a news conference where he distributed this document http://yoursdp.org/news/timeline_of_events_of_the_sdp_chiam_saga/2016-05-14-6121 which in my opinion called Mr hiam as a PAP stooge

I’ll comment on an important fact that the Chee document left out, and talk about a more mainstream narrative about the Chiam and Chee row that many moderate S’poreans in their 40s and above believe in, but which young S’poreans may not because they were too young or not around in the mid 1990s.

What the SDP document left out?

Why did Chiam want to discline Dr Chee? The answer is that Chiam realised the damage to SDP’s reputation that Dr Chee’s hunger strike (It last five days and it seems he cheated) and his public comments condemning the PAP for his sacking. to protest his sacking by NUS.

After initially backing Chee, Chiam became critical of Chee’s hunger strike and his public comments condemning the PAP for his sacking. He said Dr Chee had made his point and should produce evidence that the PAP got him sacked. Temember that Dr Chee never sued NUS or the PAP.

He knew that the public damage that Chee was doing to the SDP’s image as a moderate Oppo party

Chiam wanted to censure Chee for his comments, but failed and the rest u can read in SDP’s document and below.


A reader gives a reason for Chiam’s resignation, I never heard before

The SDP account says chiam’s resignation as leader occurred because of his failure to support Chee’s hunger strike; this is incorrect; the resignation occurred much later, over Chaim’s objection to Chee being employed by Bukit Gombak town council, under MP Lim How Dong who was SDP chairman at the time, and found nearly the whole CEC on Chee’s side.

References please.


The mainstream alternative to the SDP narrative. 

Someone blogged this (https://thoughtsofrealsingaporeans.wordpress.com/2016/05/15/the-tale-of-ah-chiam-and-ah-chee-three-points/ which almost reflects what I was planning to say (I don’t agree with the last three sentences of the extract, though). So rather than reinvent the wheel, I’ll quote.

The point he’s making is that Chiam had to resign as secretary-general to retain credibility and that Dr Chee was willing to lose a parly seat by seeking to sack Chiam.

Dr Chee did not address the crux of the matter – what were the circumstances then that forced Mr Chiam to quit a party that he founded, and did Dr Chee do right by Mr Chiam?

Here’s three points of rebuttal to Dr Chee:

  1. The way I see it, Dr Chee is playing with words. Dr Chee technically didn’t formally oust Mr Chiam as Secretary-General. There wasn’t an official motion to remove Mr Chiam as Secretary-General. But Dr Chee made things extremely difficult for Mr Chiam, and turned parts of the party hostile towards Mr Chiam. Mr Chiam was forced to resign as Secretary-General.

 What Dr Chee did was akin to a company suggesting that an employee should leave and making conditions very harsh for him, and maintaining that the employee was not retrenched as he resigned voluntarily. Jialat, don’t even get retrenchment benefits.

 It is clear from the news reports in the 1990s that there was fierce party infighting after Dr Chee joined SDP in 1992. There was a clear contestation of wills over the direction of the party. It is difficult to determine who was right or wrong, but the key personalities in both camps can hardly be absolved of any blame or responsibility. So why is Dr Chee trying to make himself seem innocent and wriggle out of it?

  1. It is ironic that Dr Chee said that PAP was trying to use Mr Chiam to destroy him, when Dr Chee was the one who tried to destroy Mr Chiam’s political career in the first place?

 As if forcing Mr Chiam to resign as Secretary-General wasn’t enough,SDP (under Dr Chee’s leadership) tried to expel Mr Chiam from the very party he founded – a move that would make Mr Chiam lose his Potong Pasir parliamentary seat.  Luckily for Mr Chiam, the courts ruled that his dismissal from SDP was illegal.

There is a Chinese idiom called “赶尽杀绝”, which roughly translates to ‘eradicating/destroying completely in a ruthless manner’.  Quite an apt description I’d say.

  1. So Dr Chee said that PAP has been using Mr Chiam. But hasn’t Dr Chee been making use of Mr Chiam as well?

 He hijacked Mr Chiam’s party agenda and took over as Secretary-General. If Dr Chee had been honourable, he wouldn’t have joined Mr Chiam’s SDP in the first place given vast ideological differences. He would have set up his own party instead. But Dr Chee chose to take a short cut – by joining the biggest opposition party at that time (SDP held three parliamentary seats when Dr Chee joined), and forcing its leader out. Yes, like a fifth column.

 

SDP: No adult supervision isit? Why liddat?

In Uncategorized on 17/05/2016 at 2:22 pm

(Note the SDP has before the publication of this piece changed the u/m headline to reflect the outrage on social media and the internet at its “cock-up”, “honest mistake”, or “dishonesty” (Goh Meng Seng, who else?*). But the problem of lack of adult supervision still stands, so I’ll not change the piece, but just add this foreword.)

Given that there are people in SDP (like Dr Chee and Dr Paul) who are familiar familiar with statistical analysis, it’s surprising that SDP can make the claim: SURVEY: BB VOTERS SAY CHEE BETTER CANDIDATE BUT FEEL SAFER WITH PAP*

http://yoursdp.org/news/survey_bb_voters_say_chee_better_candidate_but_feel_safer_with_pap/2016-05-15-6124

But the survey showed that 33% of SDP voters (only 39% of the total) gave as one of their reasons for voting for Dr Chee because they felt he was the stronger candidate, versus 29% of PAP voters (61%) who gave the reason that they felt Mr Murali was stronger. So did more BB voters say that Dr Chee was the better candidate? No but taz what the SDP headline says.

Using the SDP’s logic, the result of the survey shows that Chee should leave the SDP. They’re just dragging him down. 53% like him (The survey also showed Dr Chee with a 53% overall positive perception by Bukit Batok voters.), but PAP prefered at 67% to 28% SDP. Surely he would have won as an independent

What the survey really shows

A pre-election survey conducted between 30 April to 3 May 2016 by Blackbox Research showed that Bukit Batok voters found SDP candidate Dr Chee Soon Juan to be the better candidate than his PAP rival Mr Murali Pillai.

However, residents rated the PAP as the preferred party (67%) to SDP (28%).

The survey had predicted that the PAP would win the by-election by 64.4% of the vote to the SDP’s 35.6%. The actual result turned out to be better for the SDP which secured 38.8% of the popular vote.

http://yoursdp.org/news/survey_bb_voters_say_chee_better_candidate_but_feel_safer_with_pap/2016-05-15-6124


*To be fair, there are many other people who call the SDP “dishonest” in its misuse of stats here. They unlike GMS have no axe to grind.

**Changed after inter and sicial media outrage to: SURVEY: HIGHER % OF SDP VOTERS IN BB SAY CHEE BETTER CANDIDATE THAN THOSE ROOTING FOR MURALI

 

 

SDP: No adult supervision isit?

In Uncategorized on 16/05/2016 at 2:30 pm

Screenshot from Zaobao.com

Where were Danny the Bear and Drs Wong Souk Yee, Wong Wee Nam and  Paul Thamby at the SDP media conference on Saturday? A media conference that was called to slime Mr Chiam as a PAP stooge (My interpretation of what the event was about based on this official SDP document http://yoursdp.org/news/timeline_of_events_of_the_sdp_chiam_saga/2016-05-14-6121.

My sources tell me that only the above two Old Guard members of the SDP were present. And that it was called on the spur-of-the-moment.

Looks like Dr Chee is feeling the effects of the loss of the Bukit Batok by-election where his ass was whipped by an Indian in an area where 75% of the voters are Chinese, many of whom elderly and less well-off. They are the kind of people who the SDP says it cares for, unlike the PAP. They obviously don’t believe him.

When he said that he didn’t feel it was a defeat at the time, I joked that the RI doctors Drs Wong wee Nam and Paul Thamby must have pumped him with sedatives before the result was announced. Looks like he was really sedated, or on a natural high.

Whatever, he has returned to reality and blamed the Chiams for fixing him.

Seriously SDP has an image problem when Dr Wong Soul Yee is considered by the likes of me as a moderate, restraining voice in the SDP. She was detained under the ISA foe 15 months in the 80s as a “Marxist conspirator”.

I’ll blog on why it was most unwise of Dr Chee to remind voters of what happened between him and Mt Chiam all those yrs ago. His narrative left out one important bit that those around at the time remember. And it’s not to Dr chee’s credit.

Dr Chee thinks we Pinoys isit?

In Political governance on 09/05/2016 at 2:08 pm

Going by his election speeches, he thinks S’poreans want change.

—————————————-

A plurality of Filipino voters do not, in fact, want continuity: they want change. The current economic boom has failed to trickle down far enough. Poverty—particularly rural poverty—remains endemic. Millions of Filipinos who live far from cities, attending substandard schools, are ill-equipped by education and geography for service-sector jobs.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2016/05/economist-explains-3

“People are tired, people are disillusioned,” Ms Grace Poe a candidate says.

————————————————-

S’poreans are not  Pinoys, They don’t want change and are not tired pr disillusioned: OK, OK only 70% are happy with the way things are, or going (More spending of our money on ourselves; more room for individualism, less regimentation etc). There are up to 30% of the voters who want change, and within this there has always been a disgruntled angry, vocal but otherwise passive, always unhappy with the PAP and life in general. The latter are about 20% of all the voters?

Whatever, Chee is obviously an avid reader of TRE, the favourite site of born-losers, cybernuts, cyber-rats and bums (the hard-core 20%, who don’t even try to fund TRE, claiming poverty or the right to be frr-loaders.), and TOC, the favourite of the chattering, ang moh tua kee classes (Terry Xu’s an exception. He’s cut from the same mould of those arrested in Coldstore. And another exception is SDP’s Dr Paul who would make a good PAP minister in the Tharman mould.).

My serious point is that Oppo and social activists must realise that Brand PAP is very strong* with easily 60- 70%% of the voting market; and that their own base is, at best 30%, of the voters, with a core but passive base of about 20% of all the voters. The good news is that only 35% of the voters are hard-core PAP supporters like Eunice Chia-Lim and Jason Chua. There is the 35% of the voters that are prepared to listen to the right message delivered by the right person (not any mad dog or Chee): remember they voted for Dr Tan Cheng Bock. And in GE 2011, up to 10 points of them voted for the Oppo, allowing the WP to win Aljunied (which had two cabinet ministers, and one junior minister)

——————————————————————

Throughout my campaign, we focused on the issues that Londoners care about most – the lack of affordable housing, transport infrastructure and fares, the NHS, the need for real neighbourhood policing and pro-business policies. It might seem like stating the obvious, but offering solutions to the challenges most people face every day is the only way to win elections. How can you expect to enthuse an undecided voter, or persuade a previous Tory voter, if you can’t gain their trust on the key issues, or you don’t want to talk about what they care about most?London’s new mayor. Emphasis mine.

————————————————-

Until the Oppo and social activists realise how the numbers stack up, the PAP’s hegemony is assured so long as the PAP doesn’t mess up too badly.

Actually the first half of the last sentence is wrong. The Worthless Party realised long ago the strength of Brand PAP and beat  the PAP in Aljunied in a year when the PAP wasn’t listening to grievances that were real. “Only noise” and “Astroturfing”, their grassroot leaders assured the PAP ministers and MPs, about the grievances circulating on the internet and social media. There was a mass culling of these leaders, a culling that would have made Mao, Stalin, the Kims and out Harry proud if people were executed, not juz “let go”.

But the elected Wankers MPs are so paralysed with the fear of losing their $15,000 sinecures that they decided to keep quiet and become good social workers. Almost didn’t work. But all the indictions that the elected Wankers WP MPs  will persist in keeping silent. Letting Lion Man and his fellow NCMPs roar.

Waz to be done to weaken the PAP’s hegemony? I hope to address the issue soon.


*If its support were brittle, social media and the internet would have eroded the support of the PAP by exposing the games and misrepresentations (Examples 1, 2)  the PAP administration play. Something that the constructive nation-building media conceals and even aids and abets.

This strong brand answers the question my avatar posted on Facebook about the failure of social media and the internet to help the Oppo cause when one of the usual suspects was KPKBing about Chee losing because of  “hate, fear, ignorance, and greed”.

The excuse used to be that the voters didn’t know the truth because of PAP control of media. Well there’s new media now. So waz the excuse? Or I forgot “hate, fear, ignorance, and greed”. Always ada excuse.

Bukit Batok: The tyranny of numbers

In Uncategorized on 04/05/2016 at 4:12 pm

Here I wrote that if the Foxes could win the EPL title, Dr Chee can win Bukit Batok  After all the bookmakers who put the odds of their victory at 5,000 to 1 (the odds anyone would get if anyone wanted to bet Elvis was still alive). the odds of Chee winning Bukit Batok must be a lot less. So a “miracle” can happen.

But The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that’s the way to bet.

Guys and Dolls

Chee would need to overcome a deficit of 24 points to win. Ah Lian had only to overcome a deficit 9 points to win in Punggol East. In the end she won by 14 points. Even if he got 14 points, that would take him to 40% of the votes.

And Chee is no Ah Lian (he’s no typical S’porean) and the SDP is no WP. After all the WP was fighting in an area that had strongly supported the Barisan Sosialis.

And the PAP is not making the mistake it made in Punggol East of parachuting a fake son of Punngol (he left the area almost as soon as he was born). Instead the PAP parachuted in a real son of Bukit Batok. He had been serving the people there for many yrs before being sent on a suicide mission in Paya Lebar. By all accounts, he did well there against a lawyer turned highly paid social worker, who is reputed to be WP Low’s Dauphin.

So I’m sure Dr Chee and his allies (think the social activists and the cybernuts and rats of TRELand) are publicly rehearsing to bitch publicly why he lost when he gets thrashed an humiliated: “Gutter politics by the PAP”. But they conveniently forget that he was dog-whistling like mad. In the West, dog-whistling is the pariah of gutter politics, but not it seems in S’pore. At least not in cyberspace (no friend of the PAP), and the salons and gardens of the chattering classes.

The PAP always fight dirty: it’s in their DNA. But so does Dr Chee. Ask Mr Chiam.

Besides where got fun if cannot call names, especially if the cap fits? Ask the Chiams about Dr Chee’s character.

Chee reinvented SDP after making it toxic

In Uncategorized on 03/05/2016 at 6:24 pm

Below is a post from one of my readers about Dr Chee’s claim that even if he was unemployed, he built up the SDP. The regular commenter ended:

So even if we do not pass personality judgement on Dr Chee’s not finding a job, how much has his time in unemployment been useful to the SDP and opposition politics as a whole? I think not as much. It has been useful for his personal redemption and image revamp, as he can all along play the jobless martyr victim card, drive his celebrity status, sell some books, and that’s about it.

Taz a bit too kind because Dr Chee led a political party that was the leading Oppo party into the Wilderness and irrelevancy and then having realised that he and the SDP were lost in the desert of public scorn and derision, reinvented the SDP and himself.

When he defenestrated Chiam and even before defenestrating the rest of the Old Guard (no friends of Chiam) he moved the SDP into the politics of civil disobedience, and in the process allowed the PAP and its constructive, nation-building media allies to demonise him and the party. Other than Chiam, the party had two other MPs. But since he took over, the SDP had none.

Remember his antics that got him the well-deserved moniker of “Mad Dog”?  And the antics of his supporters who made the very name of SDP toxic?

If you don’t, just google. Reminder: he wanted to contest Punggol East and handover the running of the place to the WP (that’s the Mad Dog in hime for you), he wanted public protests, and he wanted to be like Gandhi.

I give Dr Chee credit that in the 90s his vision of S’pore in 2016 was a lot more closer to the reality (Mad prophet?) than mine or the PAP. And for the alternative policies that the SDP has proposed. And I’ll give him credit for his actions in reinventing the SDP and himself. But there’s too much historical baggage,

But let’s not forget that he screwed up big time leading the SDP into the Wilderness, not the Promised Land.

(Yes, yes I know he and the SDP claim the credit for liberalisation measures that we’ve seen over the years. But I’m sure others too like the Americans, civil society activists and even one Lee Jnr can also claim some credit.)

Here’s the rest of the comment from the regular reader. Make sure you read the bot on those who left the SDP.

I posted the following on another blog:

“But ok, let’s just say I am wrong and lets not begrudge Dr Chee Soon Juan on his not finding a job. In fact, he gave a couple of reasons to justify it and why his time unemployed has been well spent.

Now he told us, don’t judge him as an unemployed person. Judge what he has done to grow the SDP while not working full time. Alright. In the 2011 GE, the SDP contested 11 out of 87 seats and won none. In 2015, it contested 11 out of 89 seats and won none. Wow, not much growth there. And in the 4 years in between, high profile candidates like Vincent Wijeysingha, Tan Jee Say, Ang Yong Guan, as well as promising youngsters like Jarrod Luo* have left the party, some parting ways on really bad terms. Dr Chee himself made a big screw up of the Punggol East BE with his “joint ticket” proposal to the WP. (Incidentally, I wonder why the PAP is not attacking this, rather than his other past indiscretions”.)

Dr Chee Soon Juan also told us that the SDP has been hard at work putting forth policy papers on various national issues. Even if I do not agree with their policies, this is something I give them credit for, which is at least a lot better than the likes of RP, NSP, etc. Well then, I guess the whole of SDP must be unemployed, in order for them to work on these policies full time? Not at all! Dr Paul Tambyah, the one saving grace for Dr Chee’s recent tenure, is a full Professor at NUS since 2013, and was probably instrumental in crafting the SDP’s healthcare policy. Unless Dr Chee is saying that all his SDP colleagues are working full time, and he is the only one who is working at home crafting all these policy papers?

So even if we do not pass personality judgement on Dr Chee’s not finding a job, how much has his time in unemployment been useful to the SDP and opposition politics as a whole? I think not as much. It has been useful for his personal redemption and image revamp, as he can all along play the jobless martyr victim card, drive his celebrity status, sell some books, and that’s about it.”


*Left out Jeremy Chen and Danny the SDP Bear.

Jeremy Chen was a scholar and was working in MINDEF in the division where Ho Ching was once working. He left and went to do a PhD in NUS biz School. But he can be a bit dumb. He got into a row with self and others when he accused SIA of “fixing” the results of its investment in Virgin Airlines where it lost money but wrote-back a profit. We explained to him that SIA had already progressive written off the investment and had overprovided, hence the write-back. He yelled that he “didn’t do accounting”. I asked how come can do PhD without knowledge of accounting and how come SDP can accept him as member

He claims to have single-handedly written most of SDP’s policy papers. He left SDP after a row with Had Dog.

BB By: Dreams can come true

In Footie on 03/05/2016 at 7:19 am

The 2-all draw between Spurs and Chelsea means Leicester has won the EPL: a fairy tale come true.

But maybe not. The role played in the team’s success by Buddhist monks, who have been flown in by the club’s Thai owner to bless the players before games, is covered in the Sunday Telegraph. BBC

Maybe Dr Chee should be calling up the same Thai monks to come here to bless the him and the SDP,

Seriously if Leicester can win the EPL, anything is possible. Even Mad Dog Chee winning in Bukot Batok against a very decent son of Bulit Batok who happens to be Indian and a lawyer.

He’ll show up the elected MP Wankers in the Worthless Party who prefer to be highly paid social workers like the PAP’s Kate Spade Tin.

White Mare bites Chee

In Political governance on 02/05/2016 at 2:05 pm

Beware the Naked Man Who Offers You His Shirt”:PAP

He haw. When Dr Chee talked of becoming a full-time MP; and of Murali going to office everyday and being a part-time MP when he would be going to Bukit Batok everyday if he won, I couldn’t help but laugh at his pretentious nonsense. I mean since when has Dr Chee worked full-time since his NUS days? (Now I speak as someone whose mentor said the last time I really worked was when I was studying law: I been skiving since then). And hasn’t he heard of multi-tasking? Or delegation?

So although I’m not a fan of White Mare Grace Fu, I tot this response appropriate in the light of Dr Chee’s comments and his history.

 

It would be good if Dr Chee got into parly. He would show the up the elected WP MPs. We’d get someone who aspires to be more than a highly paid social worker like Kate Spade Tin. But let’s face it, he’s not a typical S’porean.

Take his attitude towards his wife not working: Dr Chee is using his family life to show that he can relate to ordinary working S’poreans. Does not work: he has a  highly qualified wife who doesn’t go out to work, choosing instead to look after the kids and do the housework; and he is happy with this.

More

But if he were, he wouldn’t have spent the last 3-decades banging his head on a wall would he?  He’d be out trying to earn some serious money to pay for his penthouse and his BMW.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Very Petty, Prickly Chiams

In Uncategorized on 24/04/2016 at 6:35 am

I’ve decided to rewrite this.

Double confirm, Chiams are very petty people. And they are as prickly as one Harry was.

In response to Mrs Chiam’s Facebook post, Dr Wong Wee Nam, the author of the article noted that the image Mrs Chiam was referring to, was attached to an article recounting his effort to bring Mr Chiam back to SDP and the party was not seeking any endorsement from Mr or Mrs Chiam.

Will Mts Chiam pls sit down and shut up. She trying to destroy Mr Chiam’s reputation isit? Why liddat?

————————————————————

My fellow citizens, Mr. Chiam and I understand that the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) has been circulating an image of Mr. Chiam See Tong and Dr. Chee Soon Juan in SDP’s newsletter, The New Democrat.

We would like to clarify that Dr. Chee did not seek nor receive permission to include Mr. Chiam’s image in this newsletter. Mr. Chiam has not given his endorsement to any candidate for the upcoming Bukit Batok by-election.

Mr. and Mrs. Chiam See Tong

————————————————————

When an Oppo figure fights PAP, the Chiams are neutral, not endorsing Dr Chee? Even if they had kissed and made up? Oh I forgot, Chiams had a place of honour at Harry’s funeral, so  Chiams returning PAP a favour?

Or both? Still not happy with Dr Chee and owe PAP a favour for giving the Chiams so much face before rubbing their noses in the mud by thrashing Lina Chiam in the GE.

I disagree with P Ravi (remember he’s a SPPP member and Mr Chiam called him “his best  SPP man”) when he wrote on Facebook “both Mr and Mrs Chiam are big-hearted enough to allow for differences of opinion and even welcome them”*. If they were really big-hearted they’d have juz kept quiet about the use of the photo. After all as SDP supporters have pointed out, the photo is not the private property of the Chiams.

And they should have sought an explanation from the SDP before insinuating that the SDP was using Chiam. for electoral gain.

Time for the Chiams to sit down and shut up. At this rate, the good that Mr Chiam did will be long forgotten even before he dies. And Mrs Chiam will be largely to blame.

—————————–

*P Ravi’s post in full:

I have publicly supported Dr Chee’s bid for Bukit Batok. Some people have asked me for my views on Mrs Chiam‘s note yesterday. I cannot comment on the matter because I have not seen SDP’s newsletter, and I do not know (and also do not wish to know) much of the background to the Chiams’ note.

But from my experience, both Mr and Mrs Chiam are big-hearted enough to allow for differences of opinion and even welcome them. I think that’s what democracy is all about. I only have the highest regard for the both of them.

I stand by my view that Dr Chee will be a great Parliamentarian.

Somehow, I don’t think P Ravi will be in Chiams’ good books any more.

Petty Chiams, Arrogant Chee

In Uncategorized on 23/04/2016 at 5:47 pm

[Update at 6am on 24 April

Double confirm, Chiams are very petty people. And apologies to Dt Chee.

In response to Mrs Chiam’s Facebook post, Dr Wong Wee Nam, the author of the article noted that the image Mrs Chiam was referring to, was attached to an article recounting his effort to bring Mr Chiam back to SDP and the party was not seeking any endorsement from Mr or Mrs Chiam.

Will Mts Chiam pls sit down and shut up. She trying to destroy Mr Chiam’s reputation isit? Why liddat?

Piece amended to reflect that Dr Chee did no wrong.]

 

Looks like the Chiams are really petty, while Dr Chee is really arrogant. Very true that “Character is permanent” is true of the Chiams and Chee. Very sad.

————————————————————

My fellow citizens, Mr. Chiam and I understand that the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) has been circulating an image of Mr. Chiam See Tong and Dr. Chee Soon Juan in SDP’s newsletter, The New Democrat.

We would like to clarify that Dr. Chee did not seek nor receive permission to include Mr. Chiam’s image in this newsletter. Mr. Chiam has not given his endorsement to any candidate for the upcoming Bukit Batok by-election.

Mr. and Mrs. Chiam See Tong

————————————————————

When an Oppo figure fights PAP, the Chiams are neutral, refusing to endorse not endorsing Dr Chee? Even if they had kissed and made up? Oh I forgot, Chiams had a place of honour at Harry’s funeral, so  Chiams returning PAP a favour?

Or both? Still not happy with Dr Chee and owe PAP a favour for giving the Chiams so much face before rubbing their noses in the mud by thrashing Lina Chiam in the GE.

Time for the Chiams to sit down and shut up. At this rate, the good that Mr Chiam did will be long forgotten even before he dies.

Anyway Dr Chee is really very arrogant and dumb to use a photo of them together. without permission.

Whatever, “Character is permanent”, juz like Mad Dog symptoms and pettiness.

 

Update at 4.30am on 24 April.

I disagree with P Ravi (remember he’s a SPPP member and Mr Chiam called him “his best  SPP man”) when he wrote on Facebook “both Mr and Mrs Chiam are big-hearted enough to allow for differences of opinion and even welcome them”. If they were really big-hearted they’d have juz kept quiet about the use of the photo. After all as SDP supporters have pointed out, the photo is not the private property of the Chiams.

P Ravi’s post in full:

I have publicly supported Dr Chee’s bid for Bukit Batok. Some people have asked me for my views on Mrs Chiam‘s note yesterday. I cannot comment on the matter because I have not seen SDP’s newsletter, and I do not know (and also do not wish to know) much of the background to the Chiams’ note.

But from my experience, both Mr and Mrs Chiam are big-hearted enough to allow for differences of opinion and even welcome them. I think that’s what democracy is all about. I only have the highest regard for the both of them.

I stand by my view that Dr Chee will be a great Parliamentarian.

Somehow, I don’t think P Ravi will be in Chiams’ good books any more.

 

 

 

Catch-22 for PMETs

In Economy, Property on 21/04/2016 at 2:22 pm

“No country becomes rich after it gets old,” warns Rodrigo Chaves, country director for the World Bank. “The rate at which you grow [with] a whole bunch of old people on your back is much lower than the rate of growth at which you can grow when people are active, are educated, are healthy.”

(FT article on Indonesia)

This is the reality be it Indonesia or S’pore or the US: population growth, not productivity growth drives economic growth. What it means is that S’pore will have problems “growing the pie” (or trickle down) if the demographic profile is not reversed.

If S’poreans who have mortgages (whether on public or private) hope to use their property to finance their retirement, they should be petitioning the PAP administration to allow FT PMETs to flood in by the cattle truck load again, not juz by the A-380 load so that there are a lot more younger people so that the economy can keep on growing.

Waz the value of that property if there’s no demand for housing when the PMETs reach 79?

But then, these S’poreans will find themselves unable to finance their mortgages because FTs steal their breakfast, lunch, dinner and supper.

What to do meh?

Well didn’t the PMETs vote for the PAP consistently. Like Harry’s daughter, they have made their bed and must lie in it.

Vote for Robin Hood anyone?

Robin Hood, Robin Hood, riding through the glen Robin Hood, Robin Hood, with his band of men

Feared by the bad, loved by the good

Robin Hood, Robin Hood, Robin Hood

 

He called the greatest archers to a tavern on the green

They vowed to help the people of the king

They handled all the troubles on the English country scene

And still found plenty of time to sing

 

Robin Hood, Robin Hood, riding through the glen

Robin Hood, Robin Hood, with his band of men

Feared by the bad, loved by the good

Robin Hood, Robin Hood, Robin Hood

After all in S’pore, the PAP is viewed as the party “Feared by the poor, loved by the rich”: think VivianB and his sneering at the elderly poor. He’d make a good sheriff of Nottingham in any movie.

But sadly, the nearest we have to a Robin Hood (Dr Chee) will be thrashed by an Indian lawyer in the coming Bukit Batok by-election.

Whoever wins BB, S’pore is the real winner

In Political governance on 07/04/2016 at 11:02 am

I ended this by asking if Chee is “Coyote” not “Mad Dog”? In North Amerindian myths, Coyote does seemingly mad things fhat turn out well. He is “mad” for a reason.

——————————————–

The coyote features prominently as a trickster figure in the folktales of America’s indigenous peoples, alternately assuming the form of an actual coyote or a man. As with other trickster figures, the coyote acts as a hero which rebels against social convention through deception and humor. The coyote was likely given its trickster role in light of the actual animal’s intelligence and adaptability; pre-Columbian American people observed its behavior, and their folkloric representations reflected its attributes. (Wikipedia)

————————————————

The Bukit Barok bye-election will show that we are really multi-racial society. An Indian who speaks Mandarin will whip the ass of a Chinese who speaks Mandarin and Hokkien. (It goes without saying that Both candidates are English educated,)

This victory will demolish once and for all, the arguments for GRCs and a presidential election where only Malays  can be candidates: even though there’s a Malay that can beat Dr Tan Cheng Bock, the person the PAP die-die doesn’t want to be president.

No matter who wins in Bukit Batok, the result is good for S’pore. Voters either put the final nail into the coffin of race based politics*;  or we get someone who aspires to be more than a highly paid social worker like Kate Spade Tin.

Maybe Dr Chee realised the potential to engineer a defeat for PAP even if the PAP wins and put himself up as the SDP candidate?  In North Amerindian myths, Coyote does seemingly mad things feat turn out well for the common man. He is “mad” for a reason.

———————–

*But then maybe the PAP will say Indians are hyper-achievers so where the candidates are Indian, there can be exceptions to race-based voting. After all two of PM’s trusted lieutenants are Indian and the last time I saw the commanding heights of the administration of justice here are owned by Indians.

 

Dr Chee imitating Tharman?

In Political governance on 30/03/2016 at 1:46 pm

Can’t stop laughing at this nonsensense:

My priority as MP of Bukit Batok (BB), should I be fortunate enough to be elected, will be to ensure the efficient and productive management of the BB Town Council. The SDP’s goal is to surpass current levels of performance of PAP-run town councils. We will set new standards for transparency and accountability in estate governance.

The SDP also looks forward to pioneering a new model of town council management where residents are involved in the planning and running of their community*.(Dr Chee)

Looks like he’s trying to tell jokes like failed stand-up (but still rich) stand-up comics Tharman and Hng Kiang . (Even PM tried telling jokes.)

Better still, it really got me laughing.

I mean what experience do the SDP have in running anything major? When it wanted to contest Punggol East, it wanted to sub-contract the management of the ward to the WP run town council. We know that, at the very least, the WP TC can’t keep proper records. So much so that HDB is using public funds to pay KPMG to help the WP town council fix its accounts.

AIM can learn from WP and its ex-mamaging agent on how to screw money from the public.

And  Bukit Batok is managed by the Jurong Town Council, helmed by DPM Tharman. A resident (now living in another area) and grassroot leader (ex) in Tarman Jurong once told me that when Tharman became a minister, his requests for help from govt departments were promptly acted upon. Now he’s DPM things can only get better.

And Mad Dog wants Bukit Batok residents to give up their “white horse” status for pariah status?

Come on, S’poreans are not that daft.

So why would Dr Chee want to run on a platform that the SDP can manage the area better than the PAP? RI doctors, Paul and Wee Nam, time to increase his dosage if sanity pills?

But maybe, he’s thinking of a “Heads I win, tails PAP loses” scenario? I’ll speculate tom or next week on this. Stay in touch. He could be Coyote not mad dog

——————————————–

The coyote features prominently as a trickster figure in the folktales of America’s indigenous peoples, alternately assuming the form of an actual coyote or a man. As with other trickster figures, the coyote acts as a hero which rebels against social convention through deception and humor. The coyote was likely given its trickster role in light of the actual animal’s intelligence and adaptability; pre-Columbian American people observed its behavior, and their folkloric representations reflected its attributes. (Wikipedia)

Coyote does “mad” things for a reason.

—————————————-

—————————-

*He goes on Our first objective is to ensure a seamless takeover of the town council management. To do this, we will establish a Transition Team within three working days following the election to handle the transfer.

The BBTC will not engage a managing agent. Instead, we will employ qualified and experienced professionals as part of the management team, and I will personally see to the effective running of the TC and to attend to the residents’ concerns.

Who would work for him?

A better candidate than Dr Chee?

In Uncategorized on 28/03/2016 at 2:21 pm

Jeremy Chen*, no friend of Dr Chee, came out on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/convexset/posts/10153905970941335 criticising Dr Chee’s decision to stand: Paul Ananth Tambyah would be a better candidate . He would say that wouldn’t he given that he has a real problem with Dr Chee**. When TRE republished his rant***, it received this totful response

Anon:

I am not privy to the inside story as to why CSJ has put himself forward instead of PAT.

But let me use some speculative reason to see if we might arrive at a less SINISTER reason for why CSJ might still be the better candidate.

To start with PAT being a very respected professional could have gone and joined any opposition party and I dare say they would have welcomed him with open arms as a quality candidate. I dare say that, if he had tried, he might even have become a PAP candidate, could he not? Yet who did he decide to join? CSJ with all his ‘tarnished’ reputation. Was it poor judgement on his part, or is there something more to it.

During the election hustings, I listened to his recorded speeches. It is clear he has a deep compassion for the plight of the ordinary person in the street and the downtrodden; a good man with a conscience who wants to make society fairer and more caring. I speculate that he decided to join CSJ precisely because he saw these same concerns, convictions and qualities in the latter. He saw CSJ’s conviction and leadership as someone he could align himself with.

Now, for all his qualities, he is not as vocal and as much a conviction politician as CSJ. He probably knows this himself. For all the accolades and credits given to *KY he was certainly not the smartest in the team he was fortunate to assemble. So the lesson in this is that the figurehead for a cause does not have to be the brainiest (Ronald Regan comes to mind). SHould he be elected CSJ will have a higher profile than PAT and create greater controversy. At this point in time that is what Singapore and Singaporeans need; a loud voice championing the cause of those marginalised and overlooked.

(Don’t you like those initials? Doesn’t PAT just convey a friendly gentle touch?)

Br Chee thinks he can convince the swing voter to vote for him? Because his prophecy of S.pore today is more accurate than that of the PAP (and self) 30 yrs ago? Somehow I doubt it. His mistakes (civil disobedience, looney erratic behaviour) linger in the memory. As do his demonisation by the PAP and its allies in the constructive, nation-building media.

Whatever PAT better watch his legs. Mad Dog has bitten quite a few people who he saw as a threat to him: Jeremy Chen can testify to this . And so it seems can Danny the SDP Bear: when was the last time u saw a pix of him? Nowadays it’s always the Chees being featured. Never mind, I’m sure Tharman will welcome PAT to his team.

————–

*Jeremy Chen was a scholar and was working in MINDEF in the division where Ho Ching was once working. He left and went to do a PhD in NUS biz School. But he can be a bit dumb. He got into a row with self and others when he accused SIA of “fixing” the results of its investment in Virgin Airlines where it lost money but wrote-back a profit. We explained to him that SIA had already progressive written off the investment and had overprovided, hence the write-back. He yelled that he “didn’t do accounting”. I asked how come can do PhD without knowledge of accounting and how come SDP can accept him as member

**He claims to have single-handedly written most of SDP’s policy papers. He left SDP after a row with Had Dog.

***On the whole Bukit Batok by-election thing… It is well known that Paul Ananth Tambyah is more electable in each and every constituency imaginable in almost every demographic (except old racist Chinese people). How then is the SDP not fielding him? The answer is, CSJ doesn’t want to take the risk that PAT will be elected as it would effectively mean relinquishing the Secretary General position to PAT.

Why is he holding on so firmly to it and, in doing so, acting against the interests of the SDP? Being able to position oneself to international organizations as the leader of the “only democratic hope” in Singapore brings with it “resources”. I have not seen such resources in the context of the SDP, but on a global scale it is well known that such “grants” exist.

So until nomination day, I propose that anyone with an interest in seeing a sensible opposition voice in Parliament voice their support for Paul Ananth Tambyah.

Paul Ananth Tambyah for Bukit Batok!!

 

Why Dr Chee should not stand in Bukit Batok

In Political governance on 15/03/2016 at 12:43 pm

But first, looks like the NEA did a lousy job of exterminating the Bukit Batok rats and other vermin (remember that there was also a bug infestation). I mean although the SDP contested the ward in the last GE, almost all the zombie parties* (bar the Chiams’ Party) are talking of thinking of standing: NSP, Goh Meng Seng, Ben Pwee, s/o JBJ and Desmond Lim are all pretending that they matter.

Back to the SDP and Dr Chee

When I saw this, I totally agreed with the points raised.

The SDP knows S’poreans’ concerns and has policies to address these concerns; policies that are in the main pretty decent**. And the Wankers Wayang Worthless Party’s  elected MPs showed in the last Parly that all they wanted to be was high paid social workers like PAP MP Kate Spade Tin. She’s their idea of  what an MP should do: keep quiet in Parly, talking cock when opening mouth; the focus is being a $15,000 a month social worker. They are not interested in representing our views. I still have high hopes for Lion Man and his fellow NCMPs.

The problem with the SDP is Dr Chee and his old guard. Through a foul-smelling, poisonous mixture of their own actions (civil disobedience antics, defenestrating Mr Chiam) and their demonisation by the PAP administration and its media allies, Dr Chee and his old guard are not trusted by the swing voters (those who voted for Dr Tan Cheng Bock: The Malay PAPpy that can thrash Dr Tan). Worse, in the eyes of the swing voters, Dr Chee and gang are the SDP. They don’t see that there are now professionals like Dr Tambyah, Chong Wai Fung in the party; professionals that in an early era would have joined the PAP, if they wanted to serve the public. 

But Dr Chee and the old guard control the party, and there is no sign that he or they want to move on. Ah Loong is already talking of a handover and it’s clear that he’s walking the talk, not like dad who talked the talk but didn’t walk the talk, but Ah Loong made him walk the walk in 2011.

It’s clear that Dr Chee sees Bukit Batok as his way into parly, forgetting that in the last GE the SDP in Bukit Batok and other wards had only the support of the  super core anti-PAP vote. Though to be fair other than the WP, all the other Oppo parties had only the vote of nuts who scream “Any donkey so long as not a PAPPy”.

——————

A dogmatic anti-PAP person

He so hates the PAP that even when he uses SingHealth, he KPKBs that he must wait: he expects no waiting at polyclinic. I asked him why he uses SingHealth given his KPKBing and hatred of the PAP administration. He says thru gritted teeth, “Cheap” but quickly adds that PAP made him poor so he kanna use SingHealth. Ftr, he owns a landed property and drives a car: poor indeed.

—–

Uncle Redbean thinks Dr Chee must stand: The SDP has been rewarded with a penalty to convert. Send in the best forward to do a clean job with this gift from heaven. Heaven has finally smiled at Chee Soon Juan, the man that deserves more than anyone to be in Parliament.

Uncle Redbean and Dr Chee will be depending on the “by-election” effect for victory. But I doubt the swing voters (those who voted for Dr Tan Chin Bock in 2011) would vote for him. He’s not an Ah Lian swing voters are willing to trust, nor is the SDP the WP.

Hopefully the SDP will choose someone who doesn’t have the baggage that Dr Chee has; someone who the swing voter can relate to. But don’t hold your breath. Pigs will fly first before Dr Chee sets his ego aside.

————————-

*Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chief Benjamin Pwee also told Channel NewsAsia he will be contesting the by-election. In GE2015, he ran for a seat in Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC under the banner of the Singapore People’s Party but said he would represent DPP in vying for the SMC seat.

Noting that the electoral boundaries of Bukit Batok SMC lie next to Chua Chu Kang GRC, People’s Power Party’s (PPP) Goh Meng Seng said he will discuss with the SDP if the PPP should run for a Bukit Batok seat when the by-election takes place.

“We will respect SDP’s decision first before we make any decision,” the opposition veteran added.

Singapore Democratic Alliance chairman Desmond Lim said his party would have to meet first to decide on the matter. “We need to call for a CEC meeting to discuss among the members before we are able to make an announcement,” Mr Lim said.

He added that there was “no hurry” to make a decision, as PM Lee has not yet decided when the by-election will be held.

Similarly, National Solidarity Party Secretary-General Lim Tean said:  “We are studying the situation carefully and will make an announcement in due course as to whether we will be contesting the by-election.”

The Reform Party’s Secretary-General Kenneth Jeyaretnam said its Central Executive Committee will meet and decide “in due course”. “We are not ruling out contesting, but it’s too early to make a decision,” he stated.

And “Yes”, that opportunist extraordinaire Tan Jee Say has not yet marked his scent.

**But it wants us to trust our neighbours despite their track record of trying to fix us. And I think its cost estimates of its healthcare system is optimistic.

 

Time to walk the talk, SDP

In Uncategorized on 21/02/2016 at 4:09 pm

SDP is KPKBing about MOE rejecting SDP’s proposal to give talks in schools. It has now written to the education ministers to complain about the rejection.

It has also produced this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeDTApp5GXQ after this schoolboy showed that there may be a demand for what SDP wanted to do.

Dear Dr Chee,

I’m a 15 year old student from St Joseph’s institution. Since a younger age I somehow had a vast interest in politics and started following, and as you have said many times before, realised that Singapore isn’t actually a very democratic country.

Even though I am not yet legible to vote, I do feel the rising concern on the future on my homeland, as do many of my friends in school. Thus, this would be a great opportunity to educate us further and highlighting issues that are or could possibly be faced.

With this however, there are issues. With the Ministry of Education being run by the PAP government, it’s highly likely that they would be displeased with this and immediately reject your proposal to give talks in schools. Even with this though, I’d really like you to know that many of us really do realise the problems in this society and are definitely supportive of SDP.

Regards,
(name withheld)
SJI Secondary 3 student

Why not video a pilot talk on the subject and put on YouTube and see if there is demand for talks on the topic?

If there’s demand make a series. SDP can always crowdsource for funds. (And commission Boy Fantastic, Amos Yee, to do the video. After all, he has sat at the feet of Dr Chee where presumably he learnt that the beloved Harry “was a horrible man.)

Given that MoE will “ban” students from watching any SDP produced video, and the constructive-nation-building media will diss it, watching will be the “in” thing among students. Even the PAPPy kids will be forced to watch if they to be in the “right” crowd.

The SDP doesn’t have some really good material for the pilot video.

SDP has highlighted 10 examples of what it says are “the partisan nature of the textbooks:are written by the Curriculum Planning & Development Division of the MOE:

  1. Singapore: The Making Of A Nation-State, 1300-1975
  2. Singapore: From Settlement To Nation Pre-1819 to 1971
  3. Upper Secondary Social Studies 3 (2nd edition)”

Let me be very clear, I’m not saying that the SDP’s examples “prove” the partisan nature of the books because I have problems with some of SDP’s “right” facts and complaints, even though it seems the SDP is right about the use of photographs that reflect well on the PAP. I’m saying that students should be given the opportunity (in their own time) to be made aware that there are alternative narratives. AS MoE doesn’t want to “confuse” young minds by letting the SDP give ralks in schools, the SDP should use new media to show that there are alternative narratives.

Somehow based on what I hear about the SDP walking the ground in Holland Village GRC versus what I know what Leon Man and friends are doing in East Coast GRC are doing,  I doubt the SDP is into the hard work involved in doing a pilot, and then if there is a demand, the harder work of producing a series of videos. But here’s hoping I’m wrong that SDP KPKBing is nothing but wayang to help pass the time until the 2019 GE. Our students deserve to be exposed to alternative narratives what with 2019 coming round the corner with more opportunities for the PAP administration to spin that the PAP is S’pore and S’pore is the PAP.

The 10 examples cited by the SDP:

Example 1: Lim Chin Siong

One of the history books paints Lim Chin Siong and Fong Swee Suan as violent troublemakers:

“The Communists had control of two powerful trade unions, namely Singapore Factory and Shop Workers’ Union (SFSWU) and Singapore Bus Workers’ Union (SBWU). These unions were led by Lim Chin Siong and Fong Swee Suan.

On the same day (24 October 1956), the pro-communist leader, Lim Chin Siong had organised a workers’ meeting a short distance away from the Chinese High School. When the meeting ended, some of the workers joined the students in creating disorder.

The riots came to an end when the police arrested almost all the union leaders, including Lim Chin Siong and Fong Swee Suan. During the riots, 13 people died and more than 100 were injured.”

It has emerged from declassified documents by the British government that it was Chief Minister Lim Yew Hock who “had provoked the riots and this had enabled the detention of Lim Chin Siong.” Documents also “show these were the tactics of provocation that were employed in the 1956 riots that led to Lim Chin Siong’s arrest.”

Shouldn’t our students be given this information and encouraged to do more reading and research before forming their conclusions? We need to stop the practice of glorifying the PAP and demonising its opponents in our schools.

Example 2: Photos and illustrations

The texts carry these illustrations:

In the section ‘What Is The Role Of The People?’, students are told that the people “have the power and responsibility to choose the right leaders for Singapore”. Accompanying the text is a photograph of PAP MP Mr Christopher de Souza.

In depicting how the PAP had split in 1962, the book labelled the faction led by Lim Chin Siong as “radicals” versus that of Lee Kuan Yew’s “moderates”. The “radicals” then went on to form the Barisan Sosialis.

Example 3: Principles of governance

In the chapter on governance, the book asked “What Are The Guiding Principles Of Governance?” It proceeds to cite the four areas that Lee Hsien Loong enumerated in his 2004 National Day Rally speech:

  • Leadership is key
  • Anticipate change and stay relevant
  • Reward for work and work for reward
  • A stake for everyone and opportunities for all

Under ‘Leader is key’ the book states:

“Honest and capable leaders are needed to maintain stability in the government and to make the right decisions for the country. These leaders must have moral courage and integrity to do what is right and not what is popular with the people. What would happen to Singapore if the leaders only make decisions that are popular with the people?

The government has realised that good leadership and good government do not occur by chance. Potential leaders are specially selected and groomed. Besides talent and ability, leaders are also selected based on their good character.”

The paragraphs seem more suited for the Petir, the PAP’s party organ, than a school textbook. Worse, there was no attempt to help students evaluate the statement. Given that the PAP has produced Ministers and MPs like Phey Yew Kok, Tan Kia Gan, Wee Toon Boon, Teh Cheang Wan, Choo Wee Kiang, and Michael Palmer, is the text accurate and valid? Why are students presented only one side of the story?

Example 4: Representative democracy

On the subject of governance, the text says: “Singapore practices representative democracy.” But this is only half the story. For a democracy to function meaningfully and effectively, there must also be a free media and a free and fair electoral process. The people must also enjoy fundamental freedoms of speech, association and assembly. All these are not practised in Singapore. Given such a circumstance, can Singapore still be considered a democracy, much less a representative one?

This subject is not addressed anywhere in the textbooks. The basic rights of citizens that are enshrined in our Constitution are not presented and the students are not invited to have a deeper discussion on what it means to be a citizen of this country other than on the PAP’s terms.

Example 5: The Pledge

And when the National Pledge is mentioned, the book asks students to:

“Examine the phrase ‘one united people, regardless of race, language or religion’. What do you understand by this phrase? Why do you think there is a need to stress this idea in the national pledge? Share your opinion with a partner.”

There seems to be an effort to steer students away from focusing on the part that calls on citizens “to build a democratic society, based on justice and equality”.

Example 6: Healthcare

in the chapter on healthcare, a section compares the pros and cons of Medisave and Medishield. At the end, however, a sidebar called Pause and Ponder asks the question: “Why is it important for the government to have support for new policies such as Medisave and Medishield?”

Why is the question written in such a leading manner? Why are students constantly shepherded into supporting the PAP’s policies? Is there no room for a more open and meaningful discussion on the realities of healthcare affordability in Singapore?

Example 7: Foreign talent/low birthrate

As for the PAP’s Foreign Talent Policy, the Social Studies book says: “While Singapore waits for its pro-family measures to show some positive results, there is a need to enhance its competitiveness by bringing in talent from other countries.”

What the book does not tell students is that the “pro-family measures” have thus far not been effective. Our population size has been shrinking all these years. Can’t the students discuss the effectiveness, or the lack thereof, of the PAP’s family policies?

The book then instructs the student to “Look at Figure 2.37 for reasons why attracting foreign talent to Singapore is important.” The Figure reads,

“Singapore faces stiff competition from other industrialising countries and being small, it is not possible to produce all required professionals locally. Thus, we must encourage foreign talent to come here so as to boost the quality of our manpower. Foreign talent can create more jobs and increase productivity.”

Again, the text misses out crucial information. For example, Lee Kuan Yew says that without foreigners, we cannot attract investments and produce jobs. Should students not be asked how and why we have come to this stage? The book also omits to discuss related topics such as (a) New jobs created going to foreigners, (b) Our city’s infrastructure being unable to cope with the massive influx of foreigners, (c) The difficulty of foreigners integrating with locals, (d) The resultant rise in the cost of living and (e) The PAP’s definition of ‘talent’.

Instead of stimulating and encouraging our students to analyse what they read, the MOE seems more interested to get students to accept the material as received wisdom and to memorise it for exams.

Example 8: Media

On the topic of managing race relations, one of the books relates the case of Maria Hertogh and the riots, writing that, “The events throughout the [Hertogh] court trial had much media coverage in the English, Malay and Tamil newspapers.”

It shows pictures of overturned cars and houses on fire with the headline “Five dead, 100 hurt in riots”. The Pause and Ponder sidebar then asks: “Why is it important to have a newspaper that is not biased in the reporting of events?” – a clear allusion to the PAP’s justification of controlling the media in Singapore.

The text does not teach students of the importance for dialogue and debate without resorting to violence no matter how much we may disagree with the other party’s views. In other words, it does not educate students. Rather, it conditions their minds and the inculcates in them the PAP’s partisan values.

Example 9: Self-help groups

The book extols the virtues of self-help groups like CDAC, SINDA, Mendaki and the Eurasian Association by quoting an excerpt from “a newspaper”:

“The self-help groups’ biggest achievement has been in saving students from the under-achievement trap. Dropout rates have fallen, grades have improved and more students have gone on to continue post-secondary education.”

The textbook does not provide information on how it arrives at the conclusion that self-help groups have achieved what the newspaper quote purports that they have achieved. It simply makes an assertion. Again, students are told what to think and not taught how to think.

Example 10: People’s Association

In discussing the role of grassroots organisations, the textbook cites the work of the People’s Association saying that it “creates common space through a wide range of programmes and activities”.

It makes no mention of the controversy regarding the control of its activities by the PAP – even in wards that the party does not control. Such a topic may not reflect very well on the PAP but isn’t one of the purposes of education – especially in a social studies class – supposed to draw on themes such as equity and fair play for discussion?

Singapore Democrats

 

Why U-turn on elected president

In Political governance on 24/01/2016 at 1:36 pm

Lasi Thursday, I pointed out that the post of president, whether elected or appointed has been problematic for the PAP because an elected president (Ong Teng Cheong) and an appointed president (Devan Nair) have proved embarrassments to the PAP.

In this post, I’ll explain why I think two PAP apologists are showing off their intellectual deficiencies in their rush to show that the elected president is problematic for S’pore’s political stability.

— Professor Kishore Mahbubani* believes that we should consider the possibility that a rogue president could be elected, and that we should consider having the president be chosen by Parliament once again (“Let’s talk about policy failures and the elected presidency“.

One Herod Cheng, on the issue that an elected presidency doesn’t work for S’pore)

There’ll be great black comedy when the PM has to explain publicly why an appointed president can be a better protector of reserves and minorities than an elected president can. Didn’t the PAP say only an elected president has the electoral mandate to resist Mad Dog Chee’s plans to squander the reserves if said Mad Dog became PM?

Ownself contradict Oneself. Or should it be “Ownself argue against Ownself”?

Before the last PE, I wrote a post (see below) arguing with part of my tongue firmly in my cheek that the voters could change the role of the presidency. The piece was inspired by the bid of Tan Jee Say who was widely perceived to be the preferred choice of the SDP. His rallies looked like SDP rallies. Could it be that Mad Dog Chee was Coyote (the trickster god), realising that the SDP could change the rules of how S’pore is governed by getting its preferred candidate chosen by the people as president.

In a sense the voters really changed the nature of the presidency: by showing the PAP that 65% of the voters didn’t want the PAP’s preferred candidate, even though he was an honourable, likeable, competent and experienced guy. “Anyone but the PAP’s preferred candidate” was the refrain that PM, his dad and the other PAP leaders heard from us the rabble.

This surely has the PAP worried because anything less than 60% of the popular vote is looked upon as a defeat. So the last PE, although its preferred candidate won by a really short nose, was a really a defeat for the PAP.

Hence the apologists are out prostituing their mental deficiencies.

————————————

We the voters will decide what kind of president we want

From films about the Romans, many S’poreans will be familiar with terms like “emperor” , “consul” and “senator”. What most won’t be familiar with is the word “tribune”.

There was a time, when the tribune was the most powerful man in Rome. He derived his authority (which included being above the law) because he was the only leader who had to win a Rome-wide election where all the citizens voted. He was apponted by the will of the people, and derived his powers from the simple fact of winning an election where all Romans voted.

In the S’pore context, even though, those who argue that the president can be an activist president do not have the law (OK the lawyers) on their side, their views could still prevail. In a democracy (assuming S’pore is one), the will of the people matters.

In 1975, Australia had a constitutional crisis which started when the opposition-controlled senate refused to pass legislation allowing the unpopular Labor government to spend money (block supply). It ended when the Labor appointed governor-general sacked the Labor prime minister who still commanded a majority in the house of representatives. An election of both houses of parliament followed, and Labor lost.

Even though the senate retains its power to block supply, and the governor-general the power to dismiss the government, these powers have not been used since 1975.

The reason is that these actions are considered too controversial to try again. The Australian public has decided that whatever the constitution allows, the senate should not block supply, nor should the government be sacked by the governor-general. The government can only lose power in a general election or if loses the support of the majority in the house of representatives.

Putting this into the S’pore context, the role of the elected president can be changed (without changing the constitution) if

– an eligible candidate says he will be an “activist” president;

– he gets elected;

– he walks the walk, not juz talk the talk; and

– the government, instead of removing him or ignoring him or telling him to shut up, listens to him.

Then the role of the president will change by convention (customary practice). And if the government ignores him or removes him, then the voters at the next GE will have the final say. They can remove the government that doesn’t want an activist president.

Is this easier than winning two-thirds of the parliamentary seats and amending the constitution? At least this process doesn’t depend on the People in Blue, the near clones of the MIW.

—————————-

 

Dr Chee’s kind of Us president

In Uncategorized on 26/11/2015 at 10:19 am

Spend and Spend not Pap And Pay.

A Bernie Sanders White House would be $8 trillion in the hole over a decade. The socialist U.S. presidential hopeful wants to shake up the U.S. economy with dramatically more spending. His promises from free college tuition to a government health system, which he is likely to outline during Tuesday’s Democratic presidential debate, would cost far more than additional taxes would bring in.

The Vermont senator’s most expensive idea is to convert the American healthcare market to a national system with the government as the single payer. Sanders would essentially extend the current Medicare program, which is for retired people, to everyone. Breakingviews calculates that this would cost some $9.6 trillion more than current projections over the usual 10-year budget period, based on 2010 healthcare spending and other assumptions including a 25 percent discount thanks to Medicare-style negotiating power and price controls.

Sanders wants another $1 trillion to spend on infrastructure. U.S. roads, bridges, trains and the like need investment, but it’s still a hefty sum. And Breakingviews estimates that his call for free public college for everyone who wants it will cost almost as much again, while universal daycare will weigh in at around $500 billion. Along with four other proposals, this yields $12 trillion in new spending. That’s about 25 percent more than currently projected over 10 years.

The candidate running under the slogan “Feel the Bern” isn’t shy about boosting government revenue, too. He would institute a Wall Street trading tax, aiming to raise $1.5 trillion over 10 years. His corporate tax plan would eliminate most loopholes and deductions but leave today’s 35 percent rate intact and applicable to global profit, which Breakingviews calculates would bring in another $1 trillion. Lifting the income ceiling for Social Security payroll tax would bring in a similar amount. All-in, Sanders would lift revenue by about $4 trillion over a decade.

http://blogs.reuters.com/breakingviews/2015/10/12/president-bernie-sanders-would-dig-an-8-trln-hole/

Can Dr Chee relate to the swing voters?

In Political governance on 23/11/2015 at 5:07 am

Dr Chee recently took a walk around S’pore and pixs of him with S’poreans he met are appearing on Facebook. This ACS boy is really trying really hard to connect with ordinary S’poreans. But I hace doubts that he can do this because he and Mrs Chee have shown that they don’t behave like otdinary S’poreans.

Remember the video that appeared during the recent GE campaign* when the Chees gave us insights about themselves: insights that told me that they can’t relate to those who vote for the PAP but who can be persuaded to vote for the Oppo.

Mrs Chee told us that she had, except for a stint of a few months, not worked since graduation. Wah lan so rich meh? So well qualified, and not working. Study in US up to doctorate level and then become housewife? Got money to waste isit? Not very S’porean?

Even when hubbie lost job and made a bankrupt, she doesn’t go to work? OK, granted she is FT (Taiwanese); still I don’t think any ordinary S’porean woman can identify with her attitude of being highly qualified and refusing** to go out to work (I get the impression that she doesn’t even do part-time work), preferring to look after the kids and doing housework.

While the majority of S’porean women may be prepared to stop working for a few years to bring up their children, once the kids are of schooling age, they calculate that it’s more cost-effective to work full or part-time, and employ a maid. But not Mrs Chee it seems, even if Dr Chee is struggling financially.

————————————————————————-

Working women hold up the sky

About 59% of women are in the workforce. If this is raised to 76%, which is today’s rate for males, the labour force will increase by 13% — Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Grace Fu.

More women work, no need for FTs leh?

———————————————————————

Let me very clear. I’m not saying Mrs Chee is doing the “wrong” thing by focusing her attention on the kids and the typical S’porean mum is doing the “right” thing by going to work. There are studies to prove that a full-time parent can be good for the kids.

What I want to point out is that the ordinary S’pore mum is a working woman, juggling work and a family life.

And husband happy with this situation? He has to struggle to pay the bills without his wife’s help?

During the GE campaign

Got financial problems but not asking wife to work? Doesn’t sound like the typical S’porean young husband does it? Again, I’m not sating that he should ask his wife to go to work. I’m simply saying that his attitude is not typical. In S’pore, husband and wife are a team: both work to make ends meet.

Dr Chee is using his family life to show that he can relate to ordinary working S’poreans. Does not work: he has a  highly qualified wife who doesn’t go out to work, choosing instead to look after the kids and do the housework; and he is happy with this.

Look at WP Low or other WP leader. We know very little of their personal lives but we know enough about them to know that theWP leaders are like us. We know a lot about Dr and Mrs Chee but we also know that they are not like typcal S’poreans. They also aliens from Bizarro S’pore*** like PM , Tharman and other PAP ministers? Btw, despite the ministers’ mega salaries most of their wives go to work. I think only Hng Kiang’s wife is a homemaker like Mrs Chee.

Coming back to Dr Chee: the failure to connect with ordinary S’poreans is sad and worrying because only Dr Chee and the SDP, among the Oppo, realise that to effect serious change on the body politick here, the PAP’s monopoly on the politics of hope in S’pore must be broken.

Uncle RedBean describes part of the SDP’s game plan: The biggest lesson learnt from the GE2015 911 effect must be the importance of being relevant as opposition parties to stay in touch with issues and matters that affect the people and their interests. Chee Soon Juan caught the drift and demanded more transparency in accounting to what really happened in the hepatitis C crisis. What happened, when did it happened, who said what and when, who was informed what and when. These simple questions are going to rub some people the wrong way and instead of answering them, may be retorted with more questions or challenges. 

Because the SDP is the only Oppo party that has a comprehensive list of alternative policies that challenges the PAP’s Hard Truths, this shows that Dr Chee and the SDP are trying to go beyond the anti-PAP vote. In the words of a political observer Derek da Cunha no opposition party can get into Parliament simply on the basis of a protest vote, i.e., a vote against the PAP [WP had a narrow window of oppotunity that resulted from the PAP’s arrogance] An opposition party also needs a pro-party vote, i.e., people consciously voting for the party. The sum total of the entire protest vote plus a significant pro-party vote will then get an opposition party across the finish line. 

The problem for SDP is that it has the plan right, but

— it’s not a party that is trusted by those willing to vote for Dr Tan Cheng Bock (my short hand for the swing voter) in preference to the PAP’s preferred candidate, and

— Dr Chee can’t connect with ordinary S’poreans let alone the swing voter.

But let’s give Dr Chee credit for trying.

———————————-

*During the GE campaign, I was hoping the SDP team lrd by Dr Chee could win an upset victory, so I had to sit on my hands and not comment on the video

**Yes, i’m assuming that Mrs Chee is able to work here. If she can’t because she’s on a long term social pass, then this should have been made clear by her or Dr Chee. Then it would be a question of why isn’t she being allowed to work here despite having a doctorate.  Dr Chee being fixed?

***Backgrounder from Wikipedia: The Bizarro World (also known as htraE, which is “Earth” spelled backwards) is a fictional planet appearing in American comic bookspublished by DC comics. Introduced in the early 1960s, htraE is a cube-shaped planet, home to Bizarro and companions, all of whom were initially Bizarro versions of Superman, Lois Lane and their children and, later, other Bizarros including Batzarro, the World’s Worst Detective.

In popular culture “Bizarro World” has come to mean a situation or setting which is weirdly inverted or opposite to expectations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If elections neither free nor fair: Why is Dr Chee bothering?

In Political governance on 12/11/2015 at 5:21 am

SDP Secretary-General Chee Soon Juan speaking at the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) Post-Election Conference 2015 said that the PAP wins elections because the election system is neither free nor fair: the party controls the print and broadcast media, it uses state bodies such as the People’s Association for its own partisan-political purposes, and the Elections Department works from under the PMO.

This is a repeat of part of his comments immediately after GE 2015 which left me confused on what the SDP is up to.

Yet Dr Chee has made it very clear in private that the SDP will continue its attempts to win seats in paely. And I’m told by a reliable source that the SDP Old Guard, people like his sis and John Tan, who had supported his long foray into civil disobedience*, support his present position of trying to work within the system. I was uncertain of their views.

Isn’t their attitude strange? They sound like an abused partner who, instead of walking out of a destructive, problematic relationship, just nervously asks: ‘Can we talk about this?’ while continuing the relationship?

Something has to give.

But then. “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds”. (Thoreau)

And then maybe Dr Chee and his SDP think that the PAP administration are like the Burmese generals and he is S’pore’s very own Aung San Su Kyi., and the SDP is her NLD.

All I can say is that Aung San Suu Kyi has been pretty consistent in her approach since she entered politics in the late 1980s. Dr Chee has turned this way and that way. And whatever one may say about the PAP administration, 70% of voters trust the PAP to do right by them. Can’t say that the Burmese trust the generals to do right by them.

(Related post: What the SDP, activists and analysts don’t get)

Update at 2.45pm: Dr Chee should be asking himself if he’s right how come WP can win a GRC and retain it; how come Hougang is fortress WP; and Potong Pasir was fortress Chiam for a long time; NBN could win; and SDP once upon a time could win seats (before he took over and ran it aground on the rocks of civil disobedience?

——

*They all believe that the PAP administration’s greater tolerance of alternative voices was due to their heroic efforts but that the WP reaped the benefits (and the MP allowances).

Haze, 9/11 & TOC

In Indonesia, Political governance on 28/09/2015 at 5:18 am

PM got really lucky on 9/11? Or did the 9th Immortal* use his newly acquired powers to fix the weather?

DSC_0080

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DSC_0029

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Imagine if 9/11 was as hazy as last Friday (Schools had to be closed and in the morning, the Pollutants Standards Index,PSI, hit 341- the highest level this year.). PM would most probably not have got the 10 point swing that had the anti-PAP cyberwarriors like Constance Singham choking on their venom from their fangs https://atans1.wordpress.com/2015/09/16/social-activist-feminist-in-denial/. A five point swing would have been more likely, something which I tot probable based on my analysis that East Coast and Marine Parade would not fall, but Aljunied would repent

In the run up to 9/11, if the weather had been like that in the last week TOC (WP’s Hammer Online) would be pushing the line that the haze is almost all the fault of the PAP administration: like it did on Friday

The Singapore government has a duty to address the annual issue and to stop pushing the blame to “uneducated” villagers and companies that are almost never prosecuted in any way. The residents of Singapore deserves a better answer than being urged to bear with it and told that things are beyond our control.”

http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2015/09/is-spore-helpless-about-the-haze-not-really/

I’ll go into what the Hammer Online TOC wants the govt to do one of these days. But until then bear in mind that anti-PAP cyberwarriors accused the govt of using salt to induce rain juz before F1. When the govt denied this, TOC said the govt was being less than open because the M’sians and Indons might have used salt to induce rain (Wow everything blame PAP isit?). Btw, TOC and the anti-PAP cyberwarriors didn’t use the the word “salt”. They used the term “sodium chloride”. To make the seeding sound more “sinister”?

It’s stories like this that “double confirm” the PAP administration’s assertion that TOC is indeed “political” and worthy of being hantamed, left, right and in the balls. When it was “gazetted” yrs ago, I tot the action unfair: now I’m not so sure.(Disclosure: I helped out at TOC when Ravi was chief editor,)

TOC doesn’t respect the decision of 70% of voters to support the PAP? It like, Dr Chee, wants the 30% to rule over the 70% isit?

“At home, anger at the current political situation is palpable [Huh? OK on TRE] and some have resorted to action [TRE cybernuts are shoutong obscenities and cursing their fellow S’poreans? Nothing unusual there.] . If the PAP is content to label this group of citizens as the ‘noisy minority’, … For these people, the prospect of being unable to bring about political change through the ballot box* only makes the PAP’s claim of legitimate power sound dangerously vacuous.”

https://atans1.wordpress.com/2015/09/23/will-the-real-sdp-dr-chee-pls-stand-up/

(He forgot that over the years this 30% of voters have been able to get the support of swing voters in Hougang, Aljunied and Punggol East. Juz because the SDP can’t win, doesn’t mean that others can’t. Go ask the WP. Yes, it’s an uneven field, but winning is not impossible. Takes time, patience and maturity: virtues that Dr Chee may not have.

Yes the minority has rights, but so does the 70%. Democracy is not about majoritism, but neither is it about dictatorship by the minority.

Here’s an extract (emphasis mine) from a BBC article that Doc Chee and TOC should bear in mind when demanding that the views of the 30% must prevail (because the 30% agrees with their “right” views?)

Clem Attlee’s Labour government had a massive Commons majority and an undoubted mandate, but had only 16 peers in the Lords. Theoretically, their Lordships could have frustrated Attlee at every turn, throwing out or wrecking every bill in their programme, but that would have risked retaliation in the form of outright abolition – so, instead, a deal was struck.

Peers would not oppose measures promised – “foreshadowed” – in the government’s manifesto, and therefore assumed to have the endorsement of the electorate, at second or third Reading. In other words, the government would get the legislation it had promised to voters, and therefore would not have to get bogged down in an Asquith-style struggle with the Lords – Addison was a veteran of the Asquithian Liberal Party, and would doubtless have preferred not to repeat its epic battles with peers.

Cranborne spelled the new doctrine out in the debate on the King’s Speech in July 1945:

“Whatever our personal views, we should frankly recognise that these proposals were put before the country at the recent general election and the people of this country, with full knowledge of these proposals, returned the Labour Party to power. The government may, therefore, I think, fairly claim that they have a mandate to introduce these proposals. I believe it would be constitutionally wrong, when the country has so recently expressed its view, for this House to oppose proposals which have been definitely put before the electorate.”

He reserved “full liberty of action” on legislation not included in an election manifesto.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34340715

———————————

*Funny that no-one has accused LKY of using his unearthly powers to transform Oppo votes into PAP votes. But Uncle Redbean comes close.

The final result was just too incredible and unbelievable. This must be the biggest mystery of this GE. It was like a strange event in the Bermuda Triangle that defied all logic and reasons. How could a SDP team that was technically superior or at worst equal to the PAP team lost so badly?

Call it a miraculous win for the PAP team. The other mystery must be the near loss of the WP team in Aljunied GRC. The voters could not switch camp just like that, and without a big crisis. The AHPETC was no crisis but a red herring. The voters of Aljunied were not so daft not to see it to affect their voting decision.

Yes, the truth is stranger than fiction.

http://mysingaporenews.blogspot.sg/2015/09/the-sdp-team-that-could-not-have-lost.html

I’m sure that he, like Goh Meng Seng, believes that UFOs are aliens visiting.

 

 

 

 

Will the real SDP, Dr Chee pls stand up?

In Political governance on 23/09/2015 at 4:54 am

After the GE, it was heartening to read this

Paul Tambyah: “This election has confirmed how hard it is for opposition politicians in Singapore to get their message across. I would like to continue with this process unless the PAP adopts all our policies and moves towards social justice (!) because that is what is most important to me rather than who is in power. Singaporeans are not really a selfish people; we do believe in democracy, justice and equality as pre-requisites for peace and prosperity despite the cynicism and materialism around us.”

It was a sign that the SDP had matured.

But then, in a statement that was published on TRE (among other sites), Dr Chee wrote:

“At home, anger at the current political situation is palpable [Huh? OK on TRE] and some have resorted to action [TRE cybernuts are shoutong obscenities and cursing their fellow S’poreans? Nothing unusual there.] . If the PAP is content to label this group of citizens as the ‘noisy minority’, … For these people, the prospect of being unable to bring about political change through the ballot box only makes the PAP’s claim of legitimate power sound dangerously vacuous.”*

And then: ‘Speaking before a crowd that filled the SDP’s headquarters and spilled out the front door, SDP secretary-general Chee Soon Juan argued that the power imbalances in the system meant “elections in Singapore can have one, and only one, outcome… PAP victory.”

Control over the mainstream media, the use of the People’s Association for party purposes and the placing of the Elections Department under the purview of the Prime Minister’s Office have stacked the deck against opposition parties, assuring the continuance of PAP dominance in Singaporean politics, Chee said**.

(TOC)

Is Dr Chee reverting to  his Mad Dog persona? Is he Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde? If so, Dr Chee needs to be forced to his medicine? Or should the dosage should increase?

These are questions that some of us that rooted for the SDP are asking ourselves.

All I can hope is that the new look SDP is not wayang, or will be discarded anytime soon. And that Dr Chee is juz venting his frustrations. Even that is putting a gloss on the situation as it shows that he’s an immature person despite his age, and undoubted intellectual powers, and charisma.

Time to write-off the SDP***? Until it gets a new leader that will take it along the paththat the SDP seemed to have gone down the last few yr until Dr Chee’s outbursts?

One can only watch and wait.

During the elections Paul joked about Tharman joining the SDP, if the PAP splits. Well it looks more likely that if the Mad Dog returns to form (Cannot teach old dog new tricks?) that Dr Paul will join the PAP. After all there are those in the SDP (think John Tan. Chee’s sister and the Old Guard) who never really bot into SDP Bahru. It was a means to get into Parly by appearing moderate.

Watch and wait.

But the election loss is not the only loss that Dr Chee has to grapple with. He has made headway intellectually here partly because of Piketty’s book on why inequality is growing in the UAS, Europe and globally (something Dr Chee has been talking about in the local context since the 1990s, stressing that the engines of social mobility here have stalled).

But now the backlash against Piketty is gathering momentum: Piketty wrong about the inevitability of inequality? http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34283764.

=======================

*I posted on TRE: Come on whatever the PAP does, s/o JBI brown noser Dosh (sun shines from s/o JBJ’s behind), grave dancing Oxygen etc will want the PAP out but do nothing about it. Should anyone really care about their views?

Seriously, does 30% constitute a majority, and 70% a minority? Dr Chee seems to imply so.

**In contrast to Doc Chee’s comments, here is what Dr Paul said on the same topic: the dominance of the PAP. Dr Paul was asked What are the lessons learnt from GE2015’s results?

The main lesson for me was in the structural obstacles which restrict democracy in Singapore. In particular, the billion dollar People’s Association (PA) which makes a mockery of the election process in that the losers of the election in Hougang and Aljunied get all the resources of the taxpayer funded agencies. In addition, the overwhelming power of the mainstream media and their online outlets is a huge obstacle to overcome — for example, the only debates that occurred in this campaign were on CNA and IQ and the IQ debates had a very small audience, less than 0.1% of the electorate.

http://six-six.com/article/post-ge-q-and-a-dr-paul-tambyah

A really fair, nuanced comment, that PAP apologists like Calvin Cheng cannot contradict without sounding stupid. I’m not saying that they are not stupid.

One could argue that in substance, it’s the same point Dr Chee was making. But in politics, prestation and perception are v.v. impt.

***Something to ponder though the maths could be shoddy.

Singapore Democratic Party

Average PAP vote: 68.71 per cent
Average PAP swing: 5.47 per cent

Exactly as predicted by the model, the PAP achieved the smallest national swing against the SDP, far smaller than the national average swing. The model explains that the SDP should be more resistant to national swings than other opposition parties because it has adopted the “clear water strategy”, putting a clear and coherent ideological distance from the dominant party. The model also predicts correctly that as a niche party, the SDP will never have the best performance at the polls.

http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2015/09/modelling-the-2015-general-election-numbers-outcomes-and-theory/

Do read above even if I told TOC It’s hard to take seriously anyone who claims to be conversant with maths and models that can write

Average 2015 PAP vote: 69.99 per cent
Average 2011 PAP vote: 60.12 per cent
Average PAP swing: 9.87 per cent
In the last line “per cent” should be percentage points or points.
And the Alex Au methology of counting the average vote is more nuanced and makes the WP’s loss smaller than the SDP’s loss, making the above analysis suspect. https://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2015/09/21/general-election-2015-looking-back-looking-forward-part-1/

But intuitively, the “clear water strategy” sounds correct.

Salute these Oppo warriors

In Uncategorized on 20/09/2015 at 5:00 am

Unconquerable souls who took on the Empire. They were thrashed badly on 9/11

All hail, Dr Chee, Dr Paul. Dr Ang, P Ravi and Jeannette Chong, and their families. Hopefully,  the last three will retire from the fray for their own sakes and that of their families. They don’t the backup that Dr Chee and Dr Paul have: the SDP.

The SDP activists too should be saluted.

Invictus

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

(by Henley)

 

Photoshopped movie poster on the Singapore 2015 election by PixelGod

 

 

 

 

Chee: Mad Dog morphs into Loong

In Uncategorized on 09/09/2015 at 5:47 pm

From a TRE reader, which about sums up what I feel about Chee

Anon:
September 9, 2015 at 1:33 am (Quote)
Like many of our older generation, I have always had doubts about CSJ. In the early years he appeared rash and even arrogant and brash especially armed with, I believe, his PhD in neuroscience.
Since then he has gone through hell and back and some of us thought he deserved what he got because he gave the impression of being manipulative and hence could not be trusted. Even today, he somehow does not seem to be able to naturally endear himself easily. There is something still too deliberate and even contrived about him. Spontaneity does not come easily. Yet, amidst all this one can still catch bits of the real man underneath his various personas. He has mellowed and with that allowed us glimpses of his true self and his sincerity.
I watched his lunchtime speech yesterday and was deeply moved by his words and his candid sharing. My tacitly negative image of him now no longer hold sway. Here was someone who had endured gross mistreatment and yet he did not allow bitterness to cloud the singularity of his focus. Much to admire, yet at the same time I wished he wouldn’t occasionally flash his ‘overdone’ broad smile; something that feels more like a cover for all he has been through.
CSJ now displays a degree of wisdom that was not evident before. He grasps the problems and concerns of ordinary people and addresses them with conviction and constructive proposals. He has become worldly wise. He speaks with passion and compassion. He is the change Singapore needs. Vote him and Paul in to Parliament. They will do the country a powerful world of good.
Majullah Singapura!

He’s got this guy to thank

And his family:

VivianB peeing in his pants?

In Uncategorized on 05/09/2015 at 10:28 am

Surely this handshake should narrow for the SDP the 20 points gap in Holland Bukit Timah (based on last GE) to a winnable 10 points?.

 

If only Dr Chee and him shook hands, it’ll be a level playing field. And SDP has been taking Dr Tan’s advice* that they didn’t walk the ground enough prior to last GE.

“How do I vote” by Dr Tan Cheng Bock

https://www.facebook.com/TanChengBock/posts/882555261819010

—–

*I was told juz after last GE, that before results came out, Dr Ang Yong Guan (then a SDP paratroop candidate asked Dr Tan (they know one another, if not friends) if SDP could win. Dr Tan asked for details of SDP’s out-reach and concluded that SDP didn’t walk the ground enough.

Oppo slate that deserves to win/ PM rooting for them?

In Uncategorized on 03/09/2015 at 5:01 am

SDP team will be lead by Dr Chee Soon Juan. Other members in his line-up include National University of Singapore Yong Yoo Lin School of Medicine Professor Paul Tambyah, compliance auditor Sidek Mallek, and healthcare administrator Chong Wai Fung.

This team deserves to get in because of

Someone who thinks (like me) but who acts (unlike me).

Update at 2.45pm: Yahoo! talks to him https://sg.news.yahoo.com/ge2015–paul-tambyah-of-the-singapore-democratic-party-092334114.html

Secondly, the SDP has a comprehensive list of alternative policies that challenges the PAP’s Hard Truths.

Now if the SDP gets into power there is a chance that these policies may be a danger: The People’s Action Party’s (PAP) Dr Vivian Balakrishnan had harsh words for the policies proposed by the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), saying that they are “tax and spend” programmes that will ultimately lead the country to bankruptcy.

He may be right (if the SDP wins a GE) but the SDP is not coming into power anytime soon, so why not let it’s ideas be tested in parly and see if they are found wanting?

(Btw, bit rich to talk of overspending. Didn’t he overspend on the Youth Olympics? $60 million to $300m? So who remembers anything of it and what was the net impact?

And this is not all, he sneered at the elderly poor, making fun of them. The same people the PAP is now honouring because it needs their votes: votes lost by the sneerer.

Whatever it is, the SDP is planning to spend our noney on ourselves, unlike VivianB who spent our money oney on fat cat foreigners from the Int’l Olympic Council. And to whose gain?)

Sorry for digression. After all the SDP has been right (sort of)

https://atans1.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/pap-listening-to-sdp/

https://atans1.wordpress.com/2014/02/26/back-to-the-future-lky-dr-chee-the-sdp-agree-on/

https://atans1.wordpress.com/2014/12/19/sdp-right-about-psle-streaming-what-works-in-education/

And as I’ve said before, Dr  Chee in his 1990s articulated a vision of S’pore today is closer to the reality than that of the PAP or mine (and I was a lot more pessimistic than the PAP).

Finally the SDP has proven that it can change. A bunch of nutters have changed their thinking, that even someone like me thinks SDP Bahru has some good ideas that deserve consideration.

Fyi, I plan to go buy the book “Men In White” to compare in detail the ideas of the PAP in 1959 and the ideas of the SDP today. I don’t think the PAP then would have been happy to have someone who sneered at the elderly poor in its ranks.

Update at 5.12 pm

Seems PM wants Dr Chee and Paul in parly. From this we can infer he wants Oppo tigers in Patly

Pointing to the Opposition’s “disappointing” performance in Parliament, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said yesterday that they were voted in to be a tiger in a chamber, but ended up being a “mouse in the House”.

Going by Paul’s and Dr Chee (remember I called him Mad Dog) one can assume that he wants them to beat the sneerer and an MP banker who disagrees with Tharman

https://atans1.wordpress.com/2015/08/10/pm-aiming-left-to-hit-the-centre-axed-pap-mps-who-dont-get-it/

https://atans1.wordpress.com/2015/08/15/wah-lan-pap-mp-is-more-stupid-than-i-tot-haw-par/

Tharman joking again? Or trying to BS us?

In Economy on 30/08/2015 at 4:39 am

But before I go to Tharman, let me quote Dr Chee on the problems facing some, many S’poreans (certainly not me)

the 2014 report by Credit Lyonnaise Securities Asia which showed that almost half of households in Singapore live from paycheck to paycheck with little or no savings. This is middle class that we’re talking about. They are just one major bill away from financial ruin. This can come in the form of an accident, health problem, or some other foreseeable catastrophe.

What is less surprising is the report’s finding that the majority of our elderly indicated that they are not saving. How can they when they have hardly anything to live on after they’ve paid up their HDB loan? What’s more, the little that they have is withheld under the Minimum Sum Scheme.

But what’s particularly disturbing is the finding that a high proportion of Singaporeans in their 30s and 40s are also unable to save.

How did all this come about? The cost of living in Singapore, of course, plays a major role. In 2001, we were the 97th most expensive city in the world. In a short span of just over 10 years, we hopped, stepped and jumped to becoming the most expensive city in the world, according to the Economic Intelligence Unit.

Full text of speech at *. I commend it for your reading.

Singapore’s social and economic policies, which work hand-in-hand, are long-term strategies that have been in place long before the 2011 General Election. Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam made this point on Friday (Aug 14) in a speech at the SG50 Special Distinguished Lecture, organised by the Economic Society of Singapore.

He spoke of support for the very young, starting with broad-based quality in the public school system in Singapore. When a person enters the workforce, there is Workfare where the Government tops up the wages of low-income workers. In housing, the Government went about it in a “very determined way” to ensure homes remained affordable for low- and middle-income couples, Mr Tharman said.

For seniors, the Central Provident Fund remains a critical pillar of support and the Government has introduced features like the Pioneer Generation Package and the permanent Silver Support Scheme, for the low-income elderly.

“This has been a shift that started a full 10 years ago and step-by-step, we moved up our support by intervening with people who are young, intervening in the working years and increasingly now in the senior years. It’s not just an innovation in the last five years,” Mr Tharman said.

“And I recognise of course, there’s some political cunning, saying this all came about because of GE 2011. I’m sorry it didn’t. The world did not start in 2011. We made very clear our intentions and our motivations in 2007. We made clear it was going to be a multi-year strategy and step-by-step, starting from the kids when they are young, through working life, into the senior years.

“We have been moving towards a more inclusive society step by step and we intend to continue on this journey. Learning from experience, improving where we can. But this is not a result of 2011.”** I also commend you read the rest of CNA article below because it’s a good summary of the PAP’s views on “Life, the Universe and Everything”.

Now you know why I put Dr Chee’s remarks first. How can the recent goodies be part of a 10-yr plan given the dates of the reports quoted by Dr Chee: in or around 2914.

If the PAP administration had been working since 2005 or 2006, why weren’t the results not shown in the data?

Remember Tharman’s previous attempts at telling jokes

https://atans1.wordpress.com/2014/07/10/property-tharman-trying-to-crack-jokes-again/

https://atans1.wordpress.com/2013/11/11/tharman-trying-to-tell-jokes-again/

https://atans1.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/telling-coc-jokes-ministerial-coc-needed/

Related posts

https://atans1.wordpress.com/2012/08/24/why-tharman-will-be-the-next-pm/

https://atans1.wordpress.com/2015/07/24/tharman-also-from-bizarro-spore/

https://atans1.wordpress.com/2014/03/31/another-minister-tries-telling-jokes/

But maybe, Tharman the real aristocrat (no not juz s “natural” one: he like VivianB are from ACS), thinks we are daft peasants and workers?

 

————————————————————-

*Full text of Dr Chee Soon Juan’s speech at the SDP’s 35th Anniversary Dinner on 15 August 2015:

Mr Jeffrey George, Chairman, SDP, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen,

In 1995, during the Ordinary Party Conference at which I was first elected Secretary-General of the SDP, I gave an address about the need to invest our time and effort building up a strong foundation for the party.

I related the fable of the Three Little Pigs and how it was important to erect our house with bricks rather than with sticks and straw. Only with a sound foundation could we build a premier party that we all wanted to see the SDP become.

By foundation, I meant that we had to ground the party on principles – principles that allowed the people the freedom to think and express those thoughts, principles that ensured that we enhanced opportunity for all to succeed, not just the privileged, and principles that grounded us on the idea that power is measured by our ability to care for the weakest among us.

By foundation, I also meant taking the time and having the discipline to put up considered policy papers by conducting research and consulting the people.

In the years that ensued, I was repeatedly criticised – even by those in opposition circles – for being out of touch with the masses and being too academic in my approach. My critics also argued that Singaporeans were interested only in bread-and-butter issues; democracy and political freedom were Western concepts unsuited to the Asian mind.

I never bought the propaganda because unless someone can show me that Singaporeans are somehow different from the rest of the human race or possessed DNA that made us inherently desirous of being constantly told what to do, I cannot but conclude that these views are propagated by the powerful few who want to keep the status quo.

Rising prices, stagnant wages

I have maintained that without our political rights, we cannot protect our economic interests and well-being. Recent trends have proven me correct.

Take, for example, the 2014 report by Credit Lyonnaise Securities Asia which showed that almost half of households in Singapore live from paycheck to paycheck with little or no savings. This is middle class that we’re talking about. They are just one major bill away from financial ruin. This can come in the form of an accident, health problem, or some other foreseeable catastrophe.

What is less surprising is the report’s finding that the majority of our elderly indicated that they are not saving. How can they when they have hardly anything to live on after they’ve paid up their HDB loan? What’s more, the little that they have is withheld under the Minimum Sum Scheme.

But what’s particularly disturbing is the finding that a high proportion of Singaporeans in their 30s and 40s are also unable to save.

How did all this come about? The cost of living in Singapore, of course, plays a major role. In 2001, we were the 97th most expensive city in the world. In a short span of just over 10 years, we hopped, stepped and jumped to becoming the most expensive city in the world, according to the Economic Intelligence Unit.

This is not just happenstance. It came about through deliberate planning by the PAP. For instance, the Government rewrote the Banking Act and Immigration policy to court High Net-Worth Individuals to Singapore. As a result, we have the highest proportion of millionaires and billionaires in the world. The massive inflow of foreign capital places enormous upward pressure on prices in the country.

At the same time, we imported en masse cheap foreign labour to do the lower-skilled jobs. This puts downward pressure on wages of the locals. It also has the unintended effect of lowering labour productivity levels. The government has often repeated that wages cannot outstrip productivity. The result is that real wages continue to languish.

This double whammy of rising costs and stagnating wages is what is making lives financially so tough for Singaporeans.

And what about our youth? The future looks anything but hopeful. They now have to compete with foreign students – who are getting generous financial assistance from the state – for places in our universities. And when they graduate, they have a tough time finding jobs. If they do end up with a job, many are underemployed engaging in low-paying or low-skilled positions.

And with the high HDB prices, housing has become largely unaffordable for young couples.

All this means that for our younger generation, opportunity is diminishing while stress and anxiety are increasing.

This has caused many Singaporeans to leave the country. Unfortunately, they are ones whose talent and skills we need most. Lee Kuan Yew, himself, admitted that this development is a serious problem.

So what does the Government do? Instead of examining its policies that gave rise to these problems in the first place, it opens up our immigration doors to let foreigners in by the millions ostensibly to augment innovation and job creation.

But the more people we let in, the greater the competition for opportunity, the more stressful life in Singapore becomes, the more Singaporeans choose to leave and on goes the downward spiral.

The situation has deteriorated to the point that the PAP acknowledges the problem. Both Lee Kuan Yew and Lee Hsien Long have said that without foreigners, we cannot attract investments and create jobs.

Unchecked power

How did we come to such a tragic state? After more that 50 years of uninterrupted PAP rule, we cannot produce a citizenry, or at least retain one, which can keep our country going without having to rely on foreigners?

But even as the SDP saw the situation deteriorate, our hands were tied. There was little we could do because our rulers decreed that the media had to be controlled, political parties could operate only under the most restrictive of conditions, and fundamental freedoms were tightly proscribed.

As a consequence, the ruling party’s power was unchecked. The result is a slew of problems, of which I have just mentioned a few, that our society has to grapple with.

Authoritarian control has another effect that is less obvious, perhaps, but no less damaging to our nation. It has to do with our effort to build a knowledge-based society. The fact that we are so reliant on foreigners and foreign corporations to drive our economy is more than a subtle hint that we’ve not been very successful in this endeavour. This is because a political system which demands conformity does not, and cannot, admit of knowledge creation.

Which leads me back to the point that I made at the beginning of my address, it is the same point that I have been making for the last 20 years: Without political freedom, that is, freedom of speech, assembly and association, we cannot regenerate our economy.

What’s the solution?

The question is not whether the present system will continue to serve Singapore well because clearly it can’t. Even PAP stalwarts like George Yeo have openly called for its reform.

Rather, the question must be how are we going to go about making the necessary changes. There are several areas that we must deal with if we are going to get out of the rut in which we currently find ourselves. But I will confine my answer to the one that is most obvious and immediate: elect SDP candidates into office in the coming elections.

I will point out two incontrovertible facts to underscore why it is crucial to have the SDP in the next Parliament. The first is that we are the only party that has consistently iterated that our political rights and our economic progress are two sides of the same coin, they are inextricably bound. Without advancement in our political rights, problems regarding our economic and social well-being cannot be addressed.

Second, we are also the only party to have drawn up a bold new vision for this nation and crafted alternative policies to take the country closer to that vision. There is nothing worse than asking voters to vote for change when they don’t know what that change is or might look like. We have articulated for society a future that can be better and more secure than the one we have presently. We are advocating a system where the people have the means and the responsibility to shape their own future.

In other words, we want to give voters a reason to vote for the SDP, not just against the PAP.

We want to build a system where debate, reasoned argument, and free choice is highly valued; thick on logic and persuasion, thin on rhetoric and coercion. We want the government to listen – really listen – and be responsive to the wishes and needs of the people. This can only happen with a competent, constructive and compassionate opposition in Parliament – an opposition like the SDP.

SDP’s values

But while it is important to ensure that our future is one predicated on prosperity, we don’t want to advocate ideas that focus exclusively on material wealth – not if it means having to lose our soul and the very essence of being human. And being human is to care for our fellow human beings, to show compassion to those less fortunate than us.

When did we become so callous to suffering? When did we become numb to the fact that our elderly have to clear our tables and wash our toilets or collect cardboard just to live out their remaining years on this earth? I don’t believe that we are such a nasty people. I believe that we have been led astray. We have become so indifferent to the plight of the weak and the powerless because we’ve been told for decades that no one owes us a living, that it’s every man for himself.

We must find our way back, we must find our soul again because a people without a soul is a people who will not find life, life in its most profound sense.

We must impart wisdom that invites an individual to enter the door of his conscience – the conscience that speaks loudly and clearly of our values – that people come before profits, rights before riches and wisdom before wealth.

This is who we are, this is what we stand for and it is what we must strive to uphold. These values keep us united as Singapore Democrats, it is what is going to help us succeed as a party and, most importantly, it is what is going to bring this Republic of Singapore a better future.

It has taken us time to get to where we are today but it has been necessary. We have toiled hard, tilled the soil, planted the seed and with the sweat of our brow and the tears of our spirit, painstakingly cultivated the tree of democratic progress. May it bear fruit this election.

Thank you.

**Rest of CNA report:

He added that what is unique about Singapore is that there is “broad-based upliftment”, with jobs, rising incomes and homes for every Singaporean.

“Without social strategies, without strategies that made it possible for people to develop their potential, through education, without the housing policies that gave everyone a sense of ownership, provided a sense of equity in our society, it would have been impossible for our economy to have succeeded,” said Mr Tharman.

POLICIES HAVE TRANSFORMED OVER THE YEARS

He noted that Singapore’s policies have shifted over the years. The first three decades were focused on the basics – economic survival, job creation, and providing education and housing. And the poor received few subsidies, he said.

“It worked because our economic strategies worked. Jobs were created, incomes did rise and homes went up in value steadily and the economy improved. Social well-being went up without the whole array of social policies, by just focusing on the fundamentals,” Mr Tharman said.

Social policy came to the fore in the 1990s. The Government rolled out policies such as the Edusave scheme for young Singaporeans and Medifund for those who could not afford hospital bills. They also introduced housing grants for the resale market to help more Singaporeans own homes.

“But it is only in the last 10 years, starting from around 2006, 2007, that we made more decisive shifts, a more decisive rebalancing in order to ensure we remain an inclusive society. We needed to mitigate inequality. We had seen in a decade earlier in the mid-1990s when inequality had risen, similar to the trend in most advanced countries. We needed to do more to mitigate inequality,” he said.

SINGAPORE’S LEVEL OF INEQUALITY NOT HIGH BY INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

But Mr Tharman noted that Singapore’s level of inequality, before taxes and Government transfers, is not particularly high by international standards.

He said: “The question then is, what happens after taxes and transfers? Because all governments do want to mitigate inequality, have some redistribution, in order to reduce them. And we do too. There are some countries that in fact achieve a very large reduction in their Gini coefficient, which is about distribution through taxes and transfers.

“The classic cases in Scandinavian economies and to some extent in the United Kingdom and other European economies – those have seen a significant reduction. But the first point we must recognise is that the reduction in inequality that they have seen, the reduction in their Gini coefficient goes hand-in-hand with a very heavy burden of taxation on their population. It is not just about taxing the rich – it is the middle, the broad middle class in the society that pays a very high tax rate. Consumption tax and income tax.”

A MORE INNOVATIVE SOCIETY

Mr Tharman also spoke of the need for a more innovative society, for every company and person to “unleash their innovative spirit” to move from adding value, to creating value through research and development and new products.

That is how Singapore will survive, said the Deputy Prime Minister. He said the country is already beginning to see some results. For example, there are aggressive schemes to support start-ups and help small and medium-sized enterprises upgrade and internationalise.

He said the Government will also take the lead to invest in all Singaporeans – throughout their life.

He noted: “This is why SkillsFuture is a major investment to our future. A major social and economic investment in our future. We are not anywhere near maximising our potential. In fact, no country is anywhere near maximising their potential and we intend to be in the lead by continuously investing in every Singaporean.

“Not many of us, let’s invest in every Singaporean. So we keep improving through life, keep learning something about ourselves, we did not know about. A strength, ability, an interest. And we are going to provide the resources, the facility all around the island to make this possible.”

ON FOREIGN WORKERS AND RESKILLING SINGAPORE WORKERS

Following his speech at the Economic Society of Singapore, Mr Tharman fielded several questions from the audience, including one on foreign workers in Singapore. He said they play an important role in keeping Singapore globally competitive.

Said Mr Tharman: “There are many jobs where you just won’t be able to find enough Singaporeans to do it. And second, because there are many foreign employees who come with expertise and long track records in particular fields that really add to the global teams in Singapore being competitive globally.

“So that is the real strategy,” he said. “In Singaporeans’ own interest, you must have globally competitive teams in Singapore. But if it’s all foreigners, you do not have Singaporeans in the team. Then that is not a sensible economic strategy. So our strategy is to have a balance. Make sure Singaporeans are at the core system – core not just in a regular jobs, core not just in back-end office work, but core in innovative teams and in order for them to be in globally competitive teams.”

Mr Tharman also explained why it is important to reskill Singapore workers. “It is a good thing that we are able to add labour-saving technologies in a labour-short economy,” he said. “We are a labour-short economy so we need every form of labour-saving technology. And the right solution is to make sure that anyone whose job becomes redundant because technology takes over is reskilled, and is able to have another good job.

“And we tend to be as active, as energetic as we can in this through SkillsFuture and through our subsidies as well to help people tide over and learn a new skill.”

He said the society has to help everyone keep up with the pace of change. “Make sure they are not treated as an unemployed statistic becoming an employed statistic, but they are citizens who must feel that they are all part of the team, and if you lose your job, we take care of you and ensure you can be part of another team. That culture of respect for blue collar workers is really something we need to develop.”

– CNA/ms

“Goodies”, price hikes: it’s a package/ What voters really want?/ SMRT

In Political governance on 16/07/2015 at 4:57 am

I’m sure you’d receive by now a letter from MoF telling you that a cash GST voucher has been credited to yr bank account, and another to yr Medisave CPF account. Senior citizens also get another one credited to their bank account. The letter carries the words “Budget 2015”.

Now the annual Budget in S’pore, and elsewhere is a summary of how the economy is doing; it gives a list of new tax and spending decisions from the government; and it contains a lot of political spin. And a new set of economic forecasts is published.

In an election year (or a probable one) it also allows the govt of the day to play Santa Claus or the God of Fortune by handing out goodies.

That’s what the PAP administration did and making sure we are reminded of it.

But let’s not forget all the price hikes since 2011. See https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/p180x540/11040605_707823462655347_6438864457431843130_n.png?oh=4e300144aaa0a5add4d61d2dec39273f&oe=561957B9 for a very comprehensive, op-to-date list.

Especially the fare increases despite the failure to get the trains run on time and the falling price of oil in 2014*.

As PM’s dad once said, when telling SIA pilots that they they had a good deal despite being paid lower salaries than their other furst world counterparts, “It’s a package”.

So tout up the goodies, you’ve been given (remembering that it’s yr money in the first place) since 2011, think of the price increases since 2011 and then decide if the package is about right, or an insult or generous.

All these tots led me to think about what voters really care about.

In the early 1970s, New Zealand’s Prime Minister Norman Kirk laid out a political philosophy which still resonates today. People, he said, don’t want much. They want: “Someone to love, somewhere to live, somewhere to work and something to hope for.”

Relationships and a sense of community, a secure home; a secure job, and a belief that life will get better for us and our children – the building blocks of “the good life”, but what do they mean today as we grapple with globalisation, austerity, immigration, insecurities and uncertainty about the future? Is the job at hand to work out a new formula for fulfilment or to find a way back to these old certainties?

(BBC report before the UK election)

They care about “the good life”, voting for the party that they think can provide with a good life. All the oppo parties bar one mouth the need to help S’poreans get the good life. The WP knows this (hence it positions itself as PAP lite: more accountable and compossinate even if they can’t do accounting and monitoring their managing agent. So does the SDP: it has a whole range of policies**.

The only party that doesn’t care a hoot about the good life is Goh Meng Seng’s party, at least going by his latest attention-seeking tactics. https://atans1.wordpress.com/2015/07/13/what-amos-and-meng-seng-have-in-common/

Maybe, it’s because he’s based in HK, jetting down (private jet?) to encourage his fellow cybernuts?

————–

*Worse the ex-SAF general who is incapable of getting the trains running on time is getting paid a lot more than his predecessor who to be fair to her allowed her Ferrari to run over her when she failed to get the trains to run on time, insulting us in the process.The present CEO is staying put. In the US, The director of the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has resigned after a massive data breach involving more than 20 million people.

Katherine Archuleta said she would step down on Friday to help the department “move beyond the current challenges”.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33481285

Neither SMRT’s CEO nor the tpt minister is moving on  to  help the SMRT and the MRT system “move beyond the current challenges”.

They think they are part of the solution.

**These papers have been widely reported online and are available on this website. We list them below:

Ethical Salaries For A Public Service Centred Government (2011)
Caring For All Singaporeans: The SDP National Healthcare Plan (2012)
Housing A Nation: Holistic Policies For Affordable Homes (2013)
Building A People: Sound Policies For A Secure Future (2013)
A Singapore For All Singaporeans: Addressing The Concerns Of The Malay Community(2014)
Educating For Creativity And Equality: An Agenda For Transformation (2014)
A New Economic Vision: Towrads Innovation, Equal Opportunity and Compassion (2015)
A Promise To The Residents: The SDP Town Council Management Plan (2015)

In addition, we published Shadow Budgets for 2012 and 2013.

Singapore Democrats

Dr Chee’s analysis of where we were heading in the 90s is a lot more accurate than that of the PAP administration of the time. I had a more middle of the road view but I have to say, I suspect, that for most S’poreans, reading Dr Chee’s 1990s analysis today, they will nod in agreement.

AHPETC story: Two chatter-boxes are silent

In Uncategorized on 03/03/2015 at 4:35 am

In all the noise surrounding AHPTEC, two noisy S’poreans are silent..

Dr Chee was quick to defend Roy when he led a bunch of hooligans in disrupting YMCA’s function at Hong Lim Green,  but is strangely silent on coming out in support of the WP over the AHPETC incident: remember that when he didn’t take his anti-Mad Dog pills a few yrs ago, he proposed that if the SDP won the Punggol East by-election, he would allow the then AHTC to run Punngol East.

Maybe that’s why he’s so silent: pai seh that he trusted the WP.

Goh Meng Seng was also pretty quick to defend the actions of Roy, New Citizen H3 and the other hooligans who disturbed the YMCA’s activities. He is also very anti-WP: always looking to say nasty things about the WP and its leaders. Example: when news broke that Auntie and Quah Kim Song had become a couple, he KPKBed about it while others were, rightly, congratulating the couple, wishing them well. Then there was the time when he criticised the People’s Princess Nicole Seah, in the guise of giving her advice.

So his silence especially when when there is an opportunity to slime the WP, is really strange. Has he had his vocal cords cut?

As to the possible reason for  his silence, watch this space. It’s connected to why four NSP young Turks walked out of the NSP and were seen campaigning for the Chiams.

 

Back to the future: LKY, Dr Chee & the SDP agree on …

In Political governance, Public Administration on 26/02/2014 at 4:28 am

One LKY in 1957 said in the legislative assembly :

For cheap labour, they [the British] allowed unrestricted immigration without any plan, without any policy and without any intention of creating or preserving the self. I do not condemn the immigration as such, but I condemn the government which has no regard for the people of the country who have been assimilated and did not bother to educate or to provide education for those coming in. Today, with the renaissance of the motherland of each of the immigration groups, chauvinist tendencies are incited. Yet at this critical juncture we have to call upon these immigrants to give this country their undivided loyalty.

(S’pore Notes: http://singaporedesk.blogspot.sg/2014/02/the-wit-wisdom-of-lee-kuan-yew.html)

In 2013, at Hong Lim Green (the people’s parly?), Dr Chee said, “A word of caution, I ask all of us here in Singapore to be the people that we truly are, the tolerant people that we are and if we attack, we attack the policy, we point out the flaws in the policy, not against the people who are here for work.”, can be simplified to “We disagree with the govt’s pro-FT policy, not the foreigners working here. We are unhappy with the “FTs first, citizens last” attitude of the govt because …”  https://atans1.wordpress.com/2013/10/21/easy-to-avoid-xenophobe-label/

Dr Chee got CIA time machine? Went back in time to influence LKY?

Seriously, by raising the issue of the PAP’s govt immigration policies on S’pore society, Dr Chee, the SDP and many others are juz reflecting what LKY tot in 1957.

After all, S’pore could be returning to a similar situation to that in 1957. In 2013, I wrote: A Citigroup report noted that the White Paper projects the dilution of Singapore-born citizens from 62% of the population to just 55% in 2030 based on number of new FT citizens that the govt plans to bring in projects to come in naturally: 15,000 – 25,000 annually.

In 1959, according to Singapore Correspondent. Political Dispatches from Singapore (1958-1962) only 270,00 out of the 600,000 voters were born here i.e. there only 45% of the voters were born here. The rest were the FT “new” citizens of the day. (https://atans1.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/population-white-paper-2030-will-resemble-1959/)

Just a few “honest mistakes” by Home Team officers (we know that they can be unfit for purpose: recent riot*and border and internal security**, etc***) and in 2030 the voters born here could be 45%, not 55% juz like in 1959 (two yrs after LKY made the above statement. In all probability, in 1957, true blue S’poreans were 45% of the voters.

—–

*“The police had arrived,” Mr Selvam said. “They stood there and did nothing. Ah, the police approve of what I am doing,” he said, suggesting what the rioters would or might have been thinking then, as they continued to hurl projectiles at the bus and at the officers, and eventually setting security vehicles and an ambulance on fire.

“[The rioters] had full freedom to do what they wanted – namely, to burn the bus, burn the vehicles, attack you,” the former judge said.

“A lot of things were wrong,” Mr Tee said. “Are you showing weakness and emboldened them? That could be the reason why they became more violent.”

Mr Selvam said, “They were rioting. What did you do?” [Former Supreme Court judge G. Pannir Selvam is the COI’s chairman, while former Police Commissioner Tee Tua Ba, is a member of the COI] )

**http://singaporedesk.blogspot.sg/2014/01/could-have-been-worse.html

***All the problems at Home Team over recent yrs (corruption, Ang Moh tua kee attitude, PR status for possible criminals etc etc) show that it was badly run when Wong Kan Seng was the Home minister. There should be a claw-back of the millions he earned as a minister.

LKY and Dr M ain’t that bad

In Political governance on 20/08/2011 at 11:10 am

LKY and Dr Mahathir may have played very rough with their opponents, but he didn’t hound them until they committed suicide.

This man made a fool of Hitler in court. He was persecuted until he commited suicide. Dr Chee is still standing tall. So is Anwar.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 267 other followers