atans1

Posts Tagged ‘Lee Hsien Loong’

Survey shows S’poreans don’t believe PM’s siblings

In Political governance, Public Administration on 03/07/2017 at 10:55 am

But want house demolished.

Really sitting on the fence. But when White Horses fight, that’s the best place from which to view the spectacle.

https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/lladro-horses-group-horses-fighting-515424428

No automatic alt text available.

Harry’s Hard Choice for “filial” daughter that she’s avoiding

In Political governance, Public Administration on 03/07/2017 at 6:17 am

But first, double confirm, Lee family feud is all about younger siblings’ unhappiness with tai kor.

Don’t believe me? Just read the last para of one of Lee Hsien Yang’s latest FB posts:

We are simply very sad that it is in fact Hsien Loong using powers and instruments … for his personal agenda, whilst pretending to be an honourable son.

Forget all the BS about the abuse of power, the absence of “checks and balances to prevent the abuse of government”: his siblings are upset that he’s a hypocrite and want to expose him as such.

Now I sympathise with their anger: PM should not have gone to the cabinet about his doubts about the circumstances around the execution of the will and PM did attack his brother and wife’s integrity.

Whatever, the govt has no problem with Lee Wei Ling living in the house (as per LKY’s and wife’s wishes) because it pushes the problem of what to do with the house into the future (30 yrs at least; when S’poreans may want it preserved as a shrine to the genius of the PAP, unlike now.

It’s the PM’s siblings who want a decision now.

A decision by the govt today (say tear that house down), cannot bind the govt of the day when she moves out to say turn house into shrine for Harry. So are the siblings really calling for a constitutional change to enshrine Pa’s wishes in the house? If so they should say so.

If Lee Wei Ling wants her cake (stay in the house), she cannot eat it (get it torn down when she leaves) short of a change in the constitution. She should also remember that in S’pore, changing the constitution is as easy as changing one’s underwear.

If she wants to force a decision on the house now, when a majority of S’poreans want Harry’s wish to be honoured, she has to leave it now. 

And trust S’poreans to get the PAP administration to acede to Pa’s wish to demolish the house after she leaves. As things stand, the PAP administration is aceding to his wish that she lives in the house.

Anything less than moving her ass out (or saying she’ll move said ass out) will double confirm she’s a spoiled brat. Pa in his wisdom left her with a Hard Choice, a choice that she refuses to acknowledge.

Btw, LKY must be  laughing at his eldest son and daughter. He willed the house to him but gave her the right to live in it, when I’m sure he knew they were not on the best of terms. Pay back time for both of them? Remember when she rowed with Pa, she lived with PM and Ho Ching and their family. This shows that she’s an ingrate like TRE cybernuts. No wonder she’s their new heroine.

Image may contain: text

Oxleygate: Hell’s bells, another PAPPy and I share the same views

In Uncategorized on 30/06/2017 at 2:34 pm

Janadas Devan (see below) respond to LWL on LHY’s share: https://goo.gl/mCuyg9

I agree with his

My personal view remains that Mr Lee’s wish to demolish 38 Oxley Rd should be granted the moment you are no longer living in it, which may be 20, 30 or more years in the future.

I am as baffled as most Singaporeans why Hsien Yang and you wish to consume all of us in your personal family matters.

My take is that she’s a spoiled brat, wanting her cake and eating it. Only a white mare will think like that.

On the house book project he mentions, I wrote about the book project here after PM posted on FB in June 2015

“Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang would like to honour the wish of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew that the house at 38 Oxley Road be demolished after Dr Lee Wei Ling ceases to live in it.” …

Wonder if the ex-ST guy I mentioned in post has had to give a statutory declaration?

Janadas Devan wrote

Dear Wei Ling:Your latest post blares, tabloid-style, misleading information. Having edited you for many years, I know this is not your style.

The email you quote was written when I was Associate Editor of Straits Times, not Chief of Government Communications. And as you know well, I had met Mr Lee Kuan Yew with a few other journalists to discuss a book that he had proposed on 38 Oxley Rd.

When he met us in July 2011, he made plain that he wanted the house to be demolished. But as the months and years passed, the nature of the project changed as it became less definitive whether the house would be demolished – and if so, when.

For example, we were told that you will be staying in the house for as long as you live. Then I learnt plans to build a model of the interior of 38 Oxley Rd was dropped – because, I gathered, Mr Lee was considering plans to gut the interior of the house altogether to remove traces of the private space.

There was no doubt then or now that Mr Lee’s preference was to demolish the house. But as the shifting instructions we heard from the family in 2011-12 – including from you – indicated, the fate of the house had by no means been decided at that point.

I ceased to be involved in the Oxley Rd book project in July 2012, when I left ST. My personal view remains that Mr Lee’s wish to demolish 38 Oxley Rd should be granted the moment you are no longer living in it, which may be 20, 30 or more years in the future.

In the meantime, I am as baffled as most Singaporeans why Hsien Yang and you wish to consume all of us in your personal family matters.

Please: Think of Singapore, and forget the rest.

 

Double confirm: All Harry’s fault and PM’s siblings are spoiled brats

In Political governance, Public Administration on 29/06/2017 at 1:49 pm

Dr Thum Ping Tjin, a S’porean anti-PAP historian based at Oxford University’s Centre for Global History, talked about the row between PM and his administration on one side and his siblings on the other,  in an interview with Reuters, last week.

Dr Thum said that LKY learnt from the British how to rule (I once heard LKY tell a BBC reporter in the late 80s when questioned about how he reconciled his speeches about repression etc when he was in opposition to what he did later: he laughed and said he learnt from the British administrators who tot him the difference between ruling and talking).

What LKY used in Operations Coldstore and Spectrum is a climate of fear that is in turn used to justify authoritarian measures. His genius (my word) is passing “anti-democratic legislation through the form of democracy but not the substance of it.”:

The power LKY acquired and wielded through this system was led to the “steady erosion of our democratic freedoms and liberty, (and) more importantly the erosion of the independence of state institutions.”

This, Dr Thum argues, was what his son inherited: a system where, like dad, he makes a “decision” which passes through the democratic consultation and legislative process where it is legitimised. Despite the facade of democratic deliberation, such decisions are really foregone.

And this is what got his siblings upset:

“That’s what Lee Wei Ling and Lee Hsien Yang are really upset about. For many years they, of course, benefited from this system, but now the system is being used against them. A decision that Lee Hsien Loong made about the house in Oxley Road has probably been taken in advance. What has happened is that he then convened the committee to legitimise this decision to give it a veneer of parliamentary democracy in order to wash his hands clean, to keep his hands clean, to say it was done in the proper way. But its a foregone conclusion.”

He goes on

“The problem with a system where too much power is concentrated in the hands of one man, is that the interests of that one man from his own perspective becomes indistinguishable from the state’s. As long as that one man was Lee Kuan Yew, there was a very clear harmony between the man and the state but now the Lee family is 3 people and they have very different interests, very different perspectives, and so they are fighting each other.”

And

“Lee Hsien Loong, of course, is now fighting back using the machinery of the state against them which shows just how much his personal and the national interests have blurred together. Again, this is part of Lee Kuan Yew’s legacy. 
“His siblings are fighting against him with the only real weapon they have, which is to try and deprive him of the authority of Lee Kuan Yew.
“So what we have today is a very brittle system which is still reliant on the personal authority of a dead man.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-mpreKaFg4

And he headed SAF and SingTel?/ Where PM’s siblings have the high moral ground

In S'pore Inc on 28/06/2017 at 4:59 am

Mdm Ho Ching was “never authorised” to remove the personal belongings of Mr Lee Kuan Yew from his home, Mr Lee Hsien Yang said on Saturday (Jun 24).

(More details from CNA below)

So why wait till now to tell S’poreans that he and his sister didn’t do their job as executors? If they really didn’t give their consent, shouldn’t they have taken steps to retrieve the property then? And as citizens, and good children of Harry, expose their sister-in-law’s thefts and their brother’s lies?

And he should remember that by keeping quiet at the time, the executors are likely to be deemed to have consented.

Where else have they failed in their duties? Given they held high executive posts in S’pore Inc., we have a right to know.

Seriously, I think he should stop being petty, because he and his sister are trying to frame the row as about the abuse of power, the absence of “checks and balances to prevent the abuse of government”, and how the constructive, nation-building media ignores or disses those that don’t fit into the “right” narratives. And how these are new developments and that they are the first to notice**.

They should have focused on where they have the moral high ground, not give spurious, cock reasons.

To my mind, they  are right to be morally upset with their brother for not challenging the will but telling his subordinates that he had problems with the circumstances surrounding the will.

Why PM could not go to court.

— But he should have just sat down and shut up not tell his subordinates his concerns.

Especially since LKY recognised that the govt could override his wishes.

And PM’s statutory declaration was nothing less than an attack on the integrity of Lee Hsien Yang and his wife. As a son of LKY, Lee Hsien Yang would have learnt the importance of defending his integrity. He could do no less as a son of Harry than to attack his brother’s integrity in return.

——————————

*The youngest son of founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew was responding to a note on Facebook by Mdm Ho, the wife of his brother and Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, on the circumstances under which the elder Mr Lee’s belongings were loaned to the National Heritage Board (NHB) for a memorial exhibition.

Mdm Ho had explained that she was tidying up the house after Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s death when she came across “small interesting items which (she) thought were significant in papa’s life”. She also said that she kept both Mr Lee Hsien Yang and his sister Dr Lee Wei Ling informed on what she had done, including the loan of the items to NHB.

PM Lee also said on Friday that the loan to NHB was “openly done, and for a good cause – an exhibition remembering my father soon after he died”.

But in a Facebook post on Saturday, Mr Lee Hsien Yang said that he and Dr Lee – the executors of Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s estate – had not authorised Mdm Ho to lend the items to NHB.

Read more at http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/ho-ching-was-never-authorised-to-remove-lee-kuan-yew-s-8975018

**They seem to have forgotten JBJ, Chiam, the Coldstore and Spectrum detainess, etc.

 

Anti-PAP activists, cybernuts support Hsien Yang but trust PM: WTF?

In Political governance, Public Administration on 26/06/2017 at 2:25 pm

I’m seeing on Facebook two usually sane anti-PAP activists agreeing with the cybernuts that Lee Hsien Yang is right to ask PM to challenge the will in court.

———————————————-

My takes on the will:

Why PM could not go to court.

But he should have just sat down and shut up not tell his subordinates his concerns.

———————————————————

Seems the nuts and the sane anti-PAP activists don’t realise that:

The Chief Justice, Judges of Appeal and Judges of the High Court are appointed by the President if he, acting in his discretion, concurs with the advice of the Prime Minister. Before tendering his advice as to the appointment of a judge, the Prime Minister is required to consult the Chief Justice.

Since they trust the judges that PM has a hand in selecting, why not believe and support him directly?

They too nutty isit?

Seriously, in a de-facto one-party state, like in a real one-party state, actively opposing the ruling party can be bad for one’s mental health. Just ask M Ravi, Mad Dog Chee and Lee Wei Ling. Why do you think Lee Hsien Yang and his wife decided to “visit friends” in HK? They need a break. Opposing the PAP is mentally taxing.

The significance of PM’s coming statement in parliament

In Political governance on 26/06/2017 at 4:56 am

Anti-PAP cyberwarriors, sane and nutty, and neutral commenters have been complaining that PM’s coming parliament statement is all wayang because

— he enjoys parliamentary immunity, a feature of the Westminster and other Western systems

———————————————————–

(1) No Member shall be liable to any civil or criminal proceedings, arrest, imprisonment or damages by reason of any matter or thing which he may have brought before Parliament or a committee by petition, bill, resolution, motion, or otherwise or may have said in Parliament or in committee.

(2) No person shall be liable to any civil or criminal
proceedings, arrest, imprisonment or damages by reason of any act done under the authority of Parliament or the Speaker and within its or his legal powers or under any warrant issued by virtue of those powers.

——————————————————-

He can defame his siblings publicly and they can’t sue him unless he repeats his comments outside parliament.

— His siblings don’t have such immunity to counter him.

— The PAP controls parliament, so difficult questions can be ignored and a vote of confidence can be engineered easily.

The critics are correct.

But they have forgotten, or are ignorant, or are concealing another aspect of the Westminster way of doing things which could explain why he’s making the statemewnt.

By Westminster convention, a minister found to have misled parliament is expected to resign or face being sacked. This is because the knowing presentation of false information to parliament, is a very serious offence under the Westminster system.

Effectively then, PM is making a statutory declaration in public and challenging his siblings to show that he misled parliament.

Of course, in the de-facto one party state we live in, the PAP can ignore the convention. But still there is the international reputation of S’pore to consider, something both the PAP and S’poreans really, really care about.

We love the praise of ang mohs, and get defensive and angry when they criticise us. Ang moh still tua kee, despite S’pore becoming self-governing in 1959, and independent in 1965.

Oxleygate: No leh, not monkeys, juz henpecked?

In Political governance, Public Administration on 24/06/2017 at 1:21 pm

Here I suggested that reasonable people could reasonably conclude that the ministers who decided to investigate PM’s suspicions were a bunch of monkeys. They should have told him that it was not appropriate to look into the circumstaces of the execution of will since he didn’t challenge probate.

Well here’s an alternative view from some netizens. They quoted one Ngiam Tong Dow:

When you raise ministers’ salaries to the point that they’re earning millions of dollar, every minister – no matter how much he wants to turn up and tell Hsien Loong off or whatever – will hesitate when he thinks of his million-dollar salary. Even if he wants to do it, his wife will stop him.

Remember Ngiam? And to be fair he repented of the above and went quiet.

Oxleygate: We got monkeys as ministers isit?

In Political governance, Public Administration on 23/06/2017 at 10:54 am

But to be fair to our monkeys ministers, I still can’t stop laughing about a White Horse and a White Mare (lineage of Lee and Kwa) KPKBing screaming about the abuse of power, the absence of “checks and balances to prevent the abuse of government”, and how the constructive, nation-building media ignores or disses those that don’t fit into the “right” narratives.

They seriously expect us to think that these are new developments and that they are the first to notice? (More on these matters one of these days.)

Back as to why reasonable people can reasonably conclude that Lee Hsien Loong and the Oxley house cabinet committee members are a bunch of overpaid monkeys, and cocks to boot.

LHL really fixed himself. Here I explained why it was impossible for him to challenge the will in court: it would let world know the family was rowing; and because if he had challenged it and succeeded, the estate would be divided by the law governing situations where’s there no will*, not by an earlier version of dad’s will. Not something a filial, honourable son would do.

So as he couldn’t challenge the will, he should have just sat down and shut up and not KPKB tell his subordinates his suspicions that the will may have been improperly executed. He could comfort himself with the thought that dad’s wish in the will to demolish the house, was just a wish because LKY accepted that the govt could decide not to demolish the house. He personally could sidestep the issue by really recusing himself on the issue of what to do with the house.

As to the cabinet committee members, when they heard his KPKBing suspicions about the execution of the will, they should have told him, “Sorry boss, no can do anything. Not appropriate to do anything since you, rightly as honourable and filial son, didn’t challenge the will in court.

‘So we can’t go into the issue of whether the 9th Immortal was railroaded into signing the will.

‘We have to accept, because it says so in the will, that HE wanted the house demolished .

‘Even if you can get Ho Ching to summon him from Hell Hades his place of honour beside the Jade Emperor, to say that he didn’t want the house demolished, and that he was “fixed”, we have to accept what the will said he wanted.

‘Anyway, what’s the big deal? He accepted that the govt has the final say.”

Seriously I don’t think it was wise of the Lee Hsien Loong or the cabinet committee (and by extension the cabinet) to try to go into the execution of LKY’s will, and that it was a serious and bad mistake to try to do so.

Btw, still think that serious money gets us ministers who are not monkeys?

————————————

*https://singaporelegaladvice.com/law-articles/in-the-absence-of-a-will-how-is-the-deceased-estate-distributed/

LKY, PM not above the law: Dr Lee, LHY and cybernut friends

In Uncategorized on 17/06/2017 at 8:25 am

That’s what these cocks don’t understand.

Here’s an extract from the “Observer” (new to me and sounds like TMG, pro-PAP but pretending to be neutral) that summarises the law well:

The family home on 38 Oxley Road is subjected to the Planning Act and the Preservation of Monuments Act, with the latter due to the fact that the building undeniably holds significant historical importance. The decision-making agencies are ultimately the National Heritage Board (NHB) and the Urban Redevelopment Board (URA). In this regard, even if LHL had wanted for the building to be demolished as he has asserted previously, the final decision lies in NHB and the URA. Under the Planning Act, building owners are required to seek the Urban Redevelopment Authority’s (URA) approval prior to carrying out works to demolish, redevelop or undertake additions and alterations to their properties. Under the Preservation of Monuments Act, the National Heritage Board (NHB), under the purveyance of the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY), can make a preservation order to place any monument under the protection of the Board. https://observer.news/…/lee-family-not-get-decide-lkys…/

To this, I’d add that LKY was aware that he was not above the law: hence his wish that the house be demolished once Dr Lee get her ass out of the house. He knew that the govt could preserve his house despite his wishes.

I’m not saying that the PM behaved in a proper, respectful manner towards his siblings. The evidence on that is still coming out. And so far neither side has come out looking well. Score draw so far.

But it’s clear to me that PM’s siblings and their cybernut allies think that Harry, at the very least, is the 9th Immortal. And that his will must be done.

That is wrong. And disrespectful of Harry. 

 

 

 

Double confirm, PM has no class

In Uncategorized on 18/03/2017 at 10:01 am

What with the second anniversary of LKY’s next week, below is the condolence letter that our PM sent to the widow of Fong Swee Suan earlier this year. It was a badly written letter.

PM should have not made the negative comments about how things would have been different (and implicitly, worse) if the Barisan Socialis had won: “Singapore’s history would have been utterly different if Mr Lim and Mr Fong had prevailed. Fortunately, they did not, as several of those who took their path recognised later, after the dust had settled.”

The PM should also have used the term “leftists” not “”pro-communists” in describing Fong and Lim Chin Seong etc. (But at least he didn’t call them “communists”.)

The letter then would have shown PM to be gracious, and a gentleman.

Still it’s a lot better than the letter he sent to the sons of JBJ on JBJ’s death (see below also).

The letter was extremely negative. Among other things it said JBJ “sought all means to demolish the PAP and our system of government”.

The letter was best not sent. While no fan of KJ, I can understand the anger he felt about it. He blogged on his anger.

Both letters show that PM has no sense of occasion. Blame his father (Mum was a lady, he was an educated thug)? After all his sister never lost her sense of entitlement (Example).

—————————————————

Dear Mdm Chen,

I am sorry to learn of the passing of your husband, Mr Fong Swee Suan. Mr Fong Swee Suan was a convenor of the People’s Action Party when it was formed in November 1954 and a member of its first Central Executive Committee. He and Mr Lim Chin Siong had joined Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s “Oxley Road” group earlier in the year to discuss the formation of a political party. Almost wholly English-educated, the non-communist group led by Mr Lee found in Mr Lim and Mr Fong a bridge to the Chinese-educated world – “a world teeming with vitality, dynamism and revolution,” as Mr Lee put it in his Battle for Merger talks, “a world in which the Communists had been working for decades with considerable success.”

The two sides, the non-communists and the pro-communists, joined forces to rid Singapore of the British colonialists, knowing full well that the real battle would come after the British left and Singaporeans had to decide who was to govern them.

Mr Fong and his pro-communist colleagues were arrested by the colonial authorities in October 1956 after a series of strikes and riots paralysed the island.

Mr Lee had to act as the detainees’ lawyer, and would visit them at St John’s Island every three or four weeks. I remember regularly taking a police boat together with my parents from the Master Attendant’s Pier at Collyer Quay to St John’s Island. My mother would bring along a pot of chicken curry and freshly baked bread for the detainees. It was a long walk from the jetty on the island to the house where they lived. I knew them by name, having met them when they came to Oxley Road, probably during election campaigns.

For me the trips to St John’s Island were Sunday outings. But for my father there was a serious purpose. My father spent hours trying to persuade the detainees of the folly of the Communist Party of Malaya’s policy. In the end, all the detainees signed a document, The Ends and Means of Socialism, which they themselves had drafted, setting out their support for the non-communist objectives of the PAP.

In 1959, Singapore attained self-government. The PAP won the general election, and formed the government. Mr Lim, Mr Fong and six other detainees were released from prison. Mr Lee and his senior colleagues were hopeful that all but Mr Lim were sincere in their declarations of support. He appointed the detainees as Political Secretaries in various ministries. Mr Fong went to the sensitive Ministry of Labour. In the end only one detainee, Mr Devan Nair, remained true in his pledge.

The inevitable parting of ways came in June 1961, over the question of Merger with Malaya to form the new Federation of Malaysia. The split was precipitated by the decision of the “Big Six” trade union leaders, including Mr Lim and Mr Fong, to oppose the PAP at a by-election in Anson. The pro-communists formed the Barisan Sosialis, with Mr Lim as its Secretary-General, and the Singapore Association of Trade Unions, with Mr Fong as its Secretary-General.

A ferocious battle for hearts and minds ensued. In the Referendum of September 1962, the option for merger recommended by the PAP won 70 per cent of the vote. Later in the general election of September 1963, the PAP was re-elected to office with 37 out of 51 seats, with the Barisan winning 13.

It is difficult for Singaporeans who did not live through the events to appreciate the passion of those times. This was a serious battle of ideas between two groups of people with diametrically opposed visions of our society. Singapore’s history would have been utterly different if Mr Lim and Mr Fong had prevailed. Fortunately, they did not, as several of those who took their path recognised later, after the dust had settled.

But it is important to realise that this was not a battle between good men and women on one side, and crooks and charlatans on the other. There were dedicated, disciplined, deeply courageous people on both sides. Indeed, Mr Lee and his colleagues liked and respected their opponents, admiring them for their simple lifestyles, selflessness and commitment. Mr Lee recalled in his obituary note on Mr Lim Chin Siong in February 1996 that his differences with Mr Lim were ideological and deep, but never personal. He would have said the same of Mr Fong.

Mr Fong and Mr Lee met for the last time in September 2009, in the chamber of the old Parliament House, where the PAP and Barisan Sosialis had crossed swords in those tumultuous years half a century earlier. The occasion was the book launch of “Men in White”, a history of the PAP. They shook hands warmly, and stood next to each other for a photograph.

As Mr Lee wrote, it was precisely because the PAP had such opponents, that he and his colleagues learnt “the meaning of dedication to a cause”:

“They were prepared to sacrifice everything for their cause, and many did. Some lost their lives in the jungle, many were banished to China. Because of the standards of dedication they set, we, the English-educated PAP leaders, had to set high standards of personal integrity and spartan lifestyles to withstand their political attacks. They were ruthless and thorough. We became as dedicated as they were in pursuing our political objectives.”

Please accept my sincere condolences.

Yours sincerely

Lee Hsien Loong

And

30 September 2008

Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam
Mr Philip Jeyaretnam

Dear Kenneth and Philip Jeyaretnam

I was sad to learn that your father, Mr Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam, has passed away. Mr JB Jeyaretnam was a Member of Parliament for Anson constituency from 1981 till 1986, and a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament from 1997 till 2001. He used to engage in heated debates in the House. Perhaps it was because he and the PAP never saw eye to eye on any major political issue and he sought by all means to demolish the PAP and our system of government. Unfortunately, this helped neither to build up a constructive opposition nor our Parliamentary tradition. Nevertheless, one had to respect Mr JB Jeyaretnam’s dogged tenacity to be active in politics at his age.

However, our differences were not personal. In 1993, one of you (Kenneth) wrote to Mr Goh Chok Tong, who was then Prime Minister, to say that you found employers in Singapore reluctant to offer you a job, and your only explanation was that the employers felt the authorities would not welcome your employment because of your name. Mr Goh replied with a letter which could be shown to prospective employers, to say that the government did not hold anything against you, and that employers should evaluate you fairly on your own merits, like any other candidate, because Singapore needed every talented person that it could find. Mr Goh had previously made the same point to your brother Philip, whom he had invited to lunch. I am therefore happy that both of you have established yourselves in Singapore.

Please accept my deepest condolences.

Yours sincerely
Lee Hsien Loong

 

Who will squeeze Ah loong’s balls harder?/ Tharman’s time is nigh?

In China on 14/12/2016 at 5:29 am

After our APCs were seize by China after PM was brown-nosing the US over TPP (Trump hates it) and over the South China Sea, now Trump has made life even harder for him personally and for S’pore.

“I don’t know why we have to be bound by a One China policy unless we make a deal with China having to do with other things, including trade.”

— Donald J. Trump, the president-elect, on Fox News defending his recent phone call with Taiwan’s president. Mr. Trump’s suggestion that the One China policycould be used as a bargaining chip could risk a backlash by Beijing.

(NYT Dealbook)

China is royally annoyed with Trump (see http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-38286645) over his words and actions over Taiwan, so I’m sure Ah Loong is juz sitting down and keeping his mouth shut hoping that China might forget his comments on TPP and the rule of law in South China, both rods the Obama regime used to beat-up China.

And given that he was “All the Way for Hilary” and was a Obama pet (remember the state dinner?), he’s also hoping that Trump would forget S’pore’s support for the TPP and that Trump had singled out S’pore (albeit unfairly) for stealing US jobs.

Well he can forget it. I’m sure both sides will with glee squeeze his balls, telling him “If you are not with us, you are against us”. And if he sides with the US, remember that S’poreans who invest (think Temasek with its holdings in three out of the four major banks) or do biz in China are watching what China is doing to Lotte and K-pop performers after China got angry with Korea. Better sell CapitaLand.

Here’s my constructive, nation-building suggestions:

— Donate the nine APCs to China. It’s not as though, we’ll be getting them back, any time soon.

— Don’t allow those Poseidon aircraft to use S’pore as a base from which to watch, track Chinese subs leaving their base on Hainan.

— And give Trump Inc a casino licence (make it two).

Seriously, PM should be asking himself why S’pore still sends SAF soldiers and reservists to train in Taiwan. Now that we got the Outback to train in, we don’t send 20,000 men a year to Taiwan. So why bother sending 3,000 and upsetting China?

Doesn’t sound logical does it? Especially as the Taiwanese and Chinese are nowadays rowing over almost everything especially whether Taiwan is part of China. When LKY was pal to the leaders of both, these leaders accepted that Taiwan was part of China. They rowed over who was the legitimate govt of China.

Times have changed but PM, MFA, Mindef etc still live in that past.

Auto pilot isit? Too busy looking at daily bank statements and monthly CPF statements?

And is he really as smart as this ang moh puts it

For every prime minister like Lee Hsien Loong of Singapore, who can provide off-the-cuff a detailed and sophisticated tour d’horizon of the Asia-Pacific region, there is a boorish novice like Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte.

Or is he a juz pet monkey of the hegemon?

Whatever, S’pore (and S’poreans) will be in for a tough time with the hegemony and a wannabe hegemon upset with him.

Time to resign and let the Indians rule the roost here*? After all Tharman is another pet monkey of the West, while he hasn’t offended China.


*They already own the judiciary, the legal profession and the legal service, and the IT sector.

What a load of BS from PM

In Uncategorized on 23/08/2016 at 6:51 am

And PM’s  behind the curve again. And Harry was right. These were my tots on reading his NDR speech.

But first, PM should reflect on whether talking BS is good for his health,

On Sunday night, he delivered two real hard turds in the usual truckload of watery cow dung that included why “Adak must make sure ababg becomes president, otherwise abang will never make it” and “Own race vote for own race”(Hello forgot that his Murali, black in white, whipped a charismatic Chinese dialect speaker’s ass? So hard that the latter was punch-drunk for a while. Yup his brain was in his ass.).

I mean

“We are… a nation where a young Singapore boy can achieve his dream,” he said. “Spurred by his parents’ and coaches’ unwavering belief; dedicating himself to his goal persevering through ups and downs; cheered on by the whole nation – And that’s how we produced an Olympic champion in Rio.”

“Joseph will inspire many more, younger and older, to chase their dreams, to make the impossible come true.” CNA

Ever since the Swimming Association’s Centre of Excellence closed in 2008 and until he won a University of Texas scholarship, Joseph was on his parents’ scholarship. He was lucky to have supportive parents rich enough to fund his (and their and Sporeans’) dream.

And along the way, Mum had to take on Mindef, (Doubtless, Colin was too busy?  Or horses for courses? M’sians braver than S’poreans. They dare protest on the streets,)

Is this “a nation where a young Singapore boy can achieve his dream?”. Come on, only if the parents are rich and reckless enough. While I salute the parents, let’s face it: they were big time gamblers. The odds were against them and Joseph: The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that’s the way to bet.

PM delivered another hard turd by propagating the world-view according to Disney, saying, “[Young S’poreans] chase their dreams, to make the impossible come true”. Another way of putting this would be “If you trust in yourself…and believe in your dreams…and follow your star…”

S’poreans should remember one of Harry’s Hard Truths: Live in the real world. As Terry Pratchett puts it, “If you trust in yourself…and believe in your dreams…and follow your star…you’ll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren’t so lazy”.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2016/07/books-film.

I’m sure our Harry would agree with him and not number one son.

It gets even funnier because the Economist (see above link) says Disney has been moving away from the theme of “If you trust in yourself…and believe in your dreams…and follow your star…” in its latest films (think Freeze) and edging towards the darker views of Terry (and Harry). PM (and PAP) behind the curve again? Like in GE 2006 and 2011?

Most of us (including the PAP’s natural aristocrats are not Olympians in sports, academia, commerce, finance or politics. At best, we are journeymen and women.

———————-

“Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better.” – Samuel Beckett

————————

The truth is that most of us are juz mediocre; accept this reality and be content.

How to be mediocre and be happy with yourself http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37108240

Cybernut Land got new hero/ Harry’s a complex man

In Uncategorized on 20/04/2016 at 2:49 pm

TRE’s cybernuts have a new hero: Harry’s daughter. She must be appalled and he must be fuming given that they are all rabid haters of all things Harry and the PAP.

There have been loud shouts of support for her defamatory comments about her brother, the PM.

When TRE republished this piece of mine, among the rants against me and in favour of Harry’s filial daughter, there was this good comment

There is no need to glorify, mummify or deify the image of LKY. It is already imprinted in the minds of thousands of grateful Singaporeans. This what his daughter Dr Lee Wei Ling wishes for. The piece(lightly edited)  is reproduced at * because it  also shows that the writer understands the complex nature of one Harry Lee.

And in response to this asking why Dr Lee did not object to “LKY: Follow thar Rainbow”, Hawking Eye showed what he and the nutters in TRELand have in common, “die-die” Dr Lee is always right.

The vivid memory of the joyful years with her father and the contentment of having been his anchor support during his final frail years must have caused her reflective pain of unbearable proportion. She must be slowly recovering from that and for her to see her father’s first death anniversary being made, by the powers-be, a national occasion of repeat mourning with state sponsored or orchestrated multiple and extended events, is nothing short of seeking political gain out of the death of a venerated political figure i.e her father. LKY himself was dead against personality cult. Why must the PAP Government attempt to glorify, mummify or deify LKY against his wish and that of his daughter?

The book had already been published. If only Dr Lee Wei Ling had a premonition of what her PM brother and his minions were up to, she would have probably objected to it.

Taz right, move aside New Citizen Han Hui Hui, the cyber-rats have a new heroine.

She’ll stand tall beside Roy, M Ravi and Amos Yee, the nutty three.

The funny thing is that they want her brother to sue her. I’ll explain why one of these days. But with fans like these, she doesn’t need enemies. I mean to be a hero to the ratty, nutty rabble one has to suffer. Ask Roy, M Ravi and Amos if being a hero of the mob brings any benefits other than being a celebrity?

—————————————

*Hawking Eye:

In defence of Dr Lee Wei Ling

LKY’s political life has diabolical dimensions.

His first avatar was that of a demon – a destroyer. He destroyed the lives of key comrades in arm and their families both before and after he became the most powerful man in Singapore – the PM.

His earlier victims were his arch rivals like the leftists – Lim Chin Siong, Fong Swee Suan, Sydney Woodhull, James Puthuchery, Said Zahari, Poh Soo Kai, Lim Hock Siew and many others.

He was successful in eliminating them because he had the support, at that time, of the Tunku (then Malaya’s PM) and the British, both of whom also wanted the leftists rounded up as they opposed the formation of Malaysia, a British idea planted into the head of the Tunku. Operational Coldstore (2 Feb 1963) was the security sweep that put all of them away for good, some of them for more than 10-20 years. The British wanted to withdraw their troops and bases from this region and they wanted a pro British regime to take care of their commercial and security interests here. They found Anglophile Tunku, the perfect man to ensure this and they floated the idea of Malaysia comprising (the then) Malaya, North Borneo (Sabah), Sarawak and Singapore with Tunku as the PM. The Leftists resisted this – initially the concept itself and later over the terms of merger. They parted company with the PAP and formed their own political party – the Barisan Socialis. Operation Coldstore followed thereafter. Singapore’s separation vindicated the Leftists but they were still kept under detention for many more years to come. Once entrenched in power, LKY was unstoppable. He went after whoever opposed him and many were knocked out flat by him with his knuckle dusters. They included Tan Lark Sye (then President of the Hokkien Huay Kuan and founder of the former Nanyang University (Nantah), Chinese Newspaper editors, JBJ, Francis Seow, Tang Liang Hong, Devan Nair and Dr Chee Soon Juan amongst many others

His second avatar was that of a creator, an exceptional one at that. g a save, secure and thriving livelihood for its people, which he did?

How should history judge LKY?

With the passing of a generation of individuals and their families who suffered at the hands of LKY, what will remain dominant in the psyche of Singaporeans in some 50 years time, is high respect and gratitude for him for making Singapore the special one it is. And at that time, all his ruthless handling of his political adversaries in the long gone past, will not matter or figure in the minds of Singaporeans except, perhaps for those who read history.

There is no need to glorify, mummify or deify the image of LKY. It is already imprinted in the minds of thousands of grateful Singaporeans. This what his daughter Dr Lee Wei Ling wishes for. Some in power may collectively want the home to be preserved, perhaps, for political gains. The Government should respect the wishes of both the late LKY and his wife to demolish their house at 38 Oxley Road and do so accordingly. Not doing so can turn ugly, given the legal options available for Dr Lee to resist such a move.

 

 

HARD TRUTH that PM & sis must obey

In Political governance on 17/04/2016 at 1:12 pm

PM’s sister last Sunday posted on Facebook that her brother had “no qualms abusing his power to [have] a commemoration just one year after LKY died.”, going on, “If the power that be wants to establish a dynasty, LKY’s daughter will not allow LKY’s name to be sullied by a dishonorable son.”

He answered on Facebook hours later (after his sister’s remarks had been taken down) that,“The accusations are completely untrue.”

There the matter rests, at least publicly. But things are happening behind the scene it’s alleged.

Whatever, inaction and silence is not an option for the PM beyond the short-term. As the WSJ put it: The Prime Minister now faces an awkward decision of whether to take legal recourse against his sister, a former head of the National Neuroscience Institute, since clemency could be construed as favoritism. He and his father always maintained that libel lawsuits are necessary to protect the reputations of the country’s leaders.

A true blue local blogger put it in terms that any member of the PAP’s IB and TRELand’s cybernuts can understand: Yes. Dr Lee had taken down the offending post. But she hadn’t publicly recanted what she had said and apologised for making a baseless allegation. If we were to accept the logic that Roy Ngerng had to do alove [sic] those things so that public and international confidence in the integrity and character of our PM would not be affected, then PM MUST take legal action against his sister to clear his name. Otherwise, the public and international confidence in our PM would be shaken to its core!

Of course, some would say, don’t be silly. PM’s character and integrity both locally and internationally won’t suffer because of what Dr Lee said. That is effectively also saying that there wasn’t a compelling reason to take legal action against Roy Ngerng. A simple refutation of what he said would have sufficed.

So if PM doesn’t take legal action against his sister, there are two possible implications. First, public confidence, both locally and internationally, in the integrity and character of PM would suffer. Secondly, there is double standard – if you belong to the FamiLEE, you get free pass in some ways. If you aren’t, then out comes the hatchet… I mean… If it was Dr Chee and not Dr Lee who made that statement about abuse of power etc, I’m sure he would be staring at a letter from PM’s lawyers by now…

So. What will PM do? Will he vigorously defend his integrity and character?

Should PM Lee sue his sister?

Rumour has it that something is being worked out behind the scenes so that PM can in future sue to protect his reputation without questions being asked about, “Err why no sue sister? Membership got its privileges isit? Why liddatt?”

Whatever, Harry’s Law must be obeyed. His daughter herself said“Pa” was not anti free speech “For the cynics who complain that Pa restricted freedom of speech, you are wrong. If your statement is accurate, fine. If it is slander, l will have to defend my reputation in court.

A Hard Truth that has no exceptions or mitigating circumstances: sue to protect one’s reputation and integrity. Inaction means confirming the allegation.

Expect, if all goes according to plan, an apology from Dr Lee to her brother and a big donation to charity in lieu of damages. And if this doesn’t happen soon, expect a formal letter of demand from PM’s lawyers to his sister for an apology and damages.

Harry would expect no less. And so should me if remaining true to his principles are to have any meaning.

Related post

 

 

 

 

The next PM has been unveiled

In Economy, Political governance on 06/10/2015 at 5:04 am

Bang yr balls, PAPpy Indians and ang moh tua kees.The next PM is NOT going to be Tharman despite all the flattery that the ang mohs are giving him.

The next PM is going to be the newly-appointed Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat.

Look at the evidence

— The committee on “The Future Economy” will be chaired by newly-appointed Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat. The commitee will review policy measures that have been in place since 2010, and aims to help create more good jobs for workers and help firms in adapting to a lean workforce, among other future challenges.

Ah Loong, many trs ago,  chaired the economic restructuring committee when he was being groomed as the next PM.  He was then the trade and industry minister.

— Do remember that Ah Heng headed NatCon: Our Singapore Conversation was a national conversation  announced by PM in 2012. Mr Heng Swee Keat, the then Singapore Minister for Education was appointed to lead the committee that led (guided?) the conversations with S’poreans to create “a home with hope and heart”.

Which other minister has been given so much public exposure?

Finally, a cheerleader and paid-up member of the PAPpy (PAP and pro-PAP) Indians, and a leader of the Indian media mafia controlling the constructive, nation-building media wrote recently, in sorrow and defiance:

Shanmugaratnam is going to be the Cabinet’s trump card. As Co-ordinating Minister for Economic and Social Policies, he will play an extremely key role in how the country charts its future trajectory. With ministries like Finance, Trade and Industry, Manpower, Education, Social and Family Development coming under the former Finance Minister’s overall purview, the PM is signalling to Singaporeans that Shanmugaratnam is the man to watch. Never mind that he won’t become the next PM but if he pulls it off, history will reflect on this as the Shanmugaratnam moment when the seeds were planted for him to become the real architect of tomorrow’s Singapore. Like Goh Keng Swee became when he plotted the economic transformation of a newly-independent Singapore.

http://six-six.com/article/new-cabinet-a-reality-check

I like what Tharman did as Finance Minister, and his liberal views. But this guy and the ang mohs praising Tharman and their S’pore lackeys should be fair to our Ah Loong.

He gave Tharman the backing that only a PM without his reactionary minders (Father, Goh, Can’t Sing and Kumar), could give. As I’ve said before, the post 2011 GE cabinet was really Ah Loong’s first where he didn’t have anyone trying to be a back sit driver.

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

SG50/ BKR50: Buffett, LKY & Ah Loong

In Financial competency, Political governance on 31/03/2015 at 5:03 am

(Or “Ah Loong imitated Buffett, not dad”)

When business leaders make mistakes, they have nothing to lose from a proper apology

Thus runs the subtitle of a an aricle in an article sometime back FT which goes on: One business leader who has no problem detailing his mistakes is Warren Buffett. He regularly does it in his annual letter to shareholders. This year’s marked the golden anniversary of his and Charlie Munger’s control of Berkshire Hathaway so he dredged up 50 years of mistakes.

They included investing in dying textile companies and seeing acquisition “synergies” evaporate.

More recent mistakes included holding on to Tesco shares even though he knew it was likely that the UK retailer’s initial problems were just the first in a series. “You see a cockroach in your kitchen; as the days go by, you meet his relatives,” he wrote.

The reasons Mr Buffett gave for his mistakes were not poor advice, or lapses by his managers, but his own “thumb-sucking”, “childish behaviour” and “I simply was wrong”.

The advantage of pointing out your own errors is not only that it deprives others of the opportunity but that it makes it plain that business is hard, that we make mistakes and that only by examining them can we reduce, but not eliminate, our chances of making them again.(FT extract)

Well it didn’t work in politics for our PM did it?

Ah Loong in 2011 departed from dad’s Hard Truths of “Never explain, never apologise”, “PAP is never wrong”, “The message is always right. Blame the messenger, not the message”, “THE LKY way or the highway”, and “It’s the song, not the singer”..

In an attempt to avoid losing a GRC and setting a new record low for the popular vote, he said, “If we didn’t get it right, I’m sorry. But we will try better the next time.” 

It was an apology that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong saw fit to repeat twice on Tuesday during the People’s Action Party (PAP) first lunchtime rally at Boat Quay next to UOB Plaza.

PM Lee acknowledged some of the government’s initiatives have resulted in “side effects”, such as problem gambling among Singaporeans due to the opening of the Integrated Resorts.

He also cited the congestion in public transport because of the increased intake in foreigners.*

Fat good it did him or the PAP say the hardliners in the PAP and other “Lee Kuan Yew is always right” groupies: the PAP only got 60% of the votes (PAP’s worst result ever) and lost a GRC that had two ministers and one junior minister.

Worse in the presidential vote that followed, the PAP’s preferred candidate (Dr Tony Tan) won by a handful of votes from Dr Tan Cheng Bock. They shared 70% of the vote, showing that with the right formula, the PAP could do well.

The problem is that the PAP don’t have the right formula.

So apologising doesn’t always work, FT writer. The problem for Ah Loong is finding the right formula. More on the right formula soon.

——

*“These are real problems, we will tackle them.  But I hope you will understand when these problems vex you or disturb you or upset your lives, please bear with us, we are trying our best on your behalf,” said PM Lee to a crowd of about a thousand.

The secretary-general of the PAP continued, “And if we didn’t quite get it right, I’m sorry but we will try better the next time.”

Pushing on with a message he had for voters on Monday, PM Lee also admitted the government had made two other high-profile errors.

“We made a mistake when we let Mas Selamat run away. We made a mistake when Orchard Road got flooded,” he said.

“No government is perfect… we will make mistakes. But when it happens we should acknowledge it, we should apologise, take responsibility, put things right. If we are to discipline somebody, we will do that, [Err, the train services are getting worse under the “new” CEO and tpt minister, but no-one is being fired] and we must learn from the lessons and never make the same mistake again,” said PM Lee.

Yet, he explained the difficulties in making decisions with incomplete information.

For instance, if the government knew there would be a sudden surge in demand for HDB flats in mid-2009 and that foreigners would have created such congestion on the roads, it would have ramped up plans for more flats and MRT lines.

“We’re sorry we didn’t get it exactly right, but I hope you will understand and bear with us because we are trying our best to fix the problems,” he said.

The government will build 22,000 flats this year and open one new MRT line every year for the next seven years however, the government “has been right more often than wrong,”

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/pm-lee-didn-t-m-sorry-152850327.html

 

PM drunk? Or juz trying on new superheloo costume?

In Political governance on 05/02/2015 at 4:25 am

PM’s interview with a German newspaper (see below) reminded me of this

And a very strange speech he made in December.

No, I’m sure you like me were puzzled by SuperWimps’s AhLoong’s ramblings about the coming GE at a PAP party during December. Reminder this is what he told PAP cadres:

— It will be a “deadly serious” fight between the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) and the opposition.about who forms the government, and not just how many seats the opposition gets;

— too many checkers results in him and the PAP administration being unable to get things done (For whom, we may ask? For themselves? For S’poreans?). “You will have a lot of checkers, you have no workers… There will be gridlock, like in other countries,” he said. – See more at: http://www.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/more-singapore-stories/story/too-many-checks-will-lead-checkmate-20141208#sthash.m4oKYKQZ.dpuf

I wondered if he should consult M Ravi’s doctor or talk to his sister at the Mental Health Institute.

I mean since when did any except the really anti-PAP nutters believe that the PAP would lose the next GE (even the SDP and NSP* doesn’t believe that the PAP will lose power in next GE), or that the Worthless Party are effective checkers**?

So maybe he was drunk on the fumes of dried BS turds that the PA  grassroot leaders were burning in the convention hall in lieu of incense?

But after I read a comment on BBC Online by Prof  John Shattuck***. I realised that Ahloong may be trying to tell us something.. Prof  John Shattuck said the challenge (in Eastern Europe) is to “understand what is appealing about a more authoritarian approach….”.

He believes it is driven by “fear of change, fear of economic retrenchment… and when you feel insecure you want someone to solve your problems without having to think about them yourself”.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30271801

Well when he was talking about “fear of change, fear of economic retrenchment … insecure”, he could be talking about S’poreans.

So maybe PM thinks we are craving for a strong leader (Sheep of S’pore Farm We want someone to solve our problems without having to think about them ourself”) like Hitler, or Stalin, or Mao or PM’s dad? And his speech was an attempt to remake himself into a authoritarian leader like his dad, if not a dictator. Like dad, Hitler, mao and Stalin, no checkers pls.

Sadly because he isn’t his dad, his words make him come across as this guy. An undated handout picture released by the North Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) on 27 April 2014 shows North Korean leader Kim Jong-un (C) looking at a computer screen along with soldiers of a long-range artillery unit at an undisclosed location in North Korea.

Stranger than fiction intro

About right for a guy who is alleged to have marched out of step with the band of which he was drum major?

As to the use of checkers, maybe he hould talk to the ordinary people of Zimbabwe, not the president who was holiday here in December or his very rich ministers?

In a wide-ranging interview with German publication Süddeutsche Zeitung on Tuesday (Feb 3), Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong spoke about integrating new citizens, religious harmony …

ON THE GOVERNMENT’S ROLE IN INTEGRATION

“We set the tone. In terms of our social policies, we make it an objective to facilitate this integration. For example in our public housing estates, which is where 80-plus per cent of the population live, we make sure there are no pure neighbourhoods. We enforce integration, enforce diverse neighbourhoods, and integration in terms of race, also integration in terms of proportion of non-citizens so that you will not have an enclave. So you force people to have to live together.

“When the British built the colony their policy was to keep the different groups apart. To go from that to a modern Singapore where they are all integrated together, where every neighbourhood is integrated, was active social policy. We could do it because we had public housing programmes. We cleared the old villages and slums. We resettled the whole population, so in that process we had the opportunity to cause everybody to mix together.”

ON RELIGIOUS HARMONY

“All the major religions of the world are in Singapore. So we have to get along together and one of our basic principles is that there has to be tolerance and compromise. If you insist on absolute requirements, then we are not going to be able to live peacefully together. That means in terms of your practices, your customs and your celebrations.

“We are also not purists on freedom of speech, so if you say things which go out of your way to denigrate or attack some other faith, that is an offence.”

ON LIFELONG LEARNING

“In Germany, the employers have a model. They look for people, they work with them in the institutions, they work with them on an apprenticeship programme, and the people who are employed after that, completing their apprenticeship, expect to work for quite a long time with the company. They do not go and wander off straight away because somebody else is paying them another 5 or 10 per cent more.

“We do not have such a culture in Singapore. We are trying to move in that direction and get the employers more engaged in the training of the people, even in the institutions and have internships and immersions as a person graduates. We are making some progress, but it’s a long way to go.”

——————

*And the WP doesn’t even want the Oppo to win a GE. It wants its MPs to remain as highly paid, ineffective co-drivers.

**Actually the WP is mixing up “checking” (co-driving) with accountability. The WP should be holding the govt to account not trying to “check”. Example: The WP is in no position to prevent a public tpt fare rise. But after the minister said that fares will go up by 2.8% (discount leh, should be 3.4%), WP should be publicly asking why when the price of oil has fallen from US$115 in June to around US$60. Instead the WP only speaks out when its direct interests are affected by the administrations actions.

***He is the president of the Central European University, an American human rights lawyer, law professor, diplomat and former assistant secretary of state in the Clinton administration.

George Soros, the Hungarian-born investor and philanthropist, funded the creation of the Central European University, with the specific aim of promoting the values of an open society and democracy.

But the challenges have changed. If the university was created on a rising tide of democracy, it now has to examine liberal values under pressure. In parts of Eastern Europe, the voices of authoritarianism and nationalism are getting louder.

 

S’poreans told to clean up FTs’ trash? PM so pro FTs meh?

In Humour, Political governance on 02/02/2015 at 4:32 am

Or juz as clueless as clueless as a certain Catholic High drum-major whose band allegedly ignored him when he and they marched to a different rhythm?

These were my tots when I read PM’s comments* about the garbage at the Laneway Festival because

— I had tot it was for expats, their SPGs, and local ang moh always tua kees: true blue S’poreans from the Hearlands, not welcomed (even if there wasn’t a sign saying “Dogs and Hearlanders banned”; and

— how come no cleaners? I mean even the Pinoys employed cleaners to clean up after their 2013 do at Hong Lim Green a few yrs ago.

Sweiously, two comments on Facebook that I agree with:

Simply put, Why accuse Singaporean in the first place? They already make this country open internationally and why claim only Singaporean are the one that cause the damage? Isn’t this accusation uncalled for especially from the top man of the land? I find it shameful for such well educated man to accused without being there, what is he trying to stir?

And a very totful

On one hand, we can’t discount that the littering problem may the exacerbated by a more varied and transient demographic profile with little attachment to the place. But, this needs more targeted research and serious surveys. Nationality aside, perhaps we may have to look at more undercurrent structures that may have stifled the collective sense of public ownership and initiative in a pathologically manicured state that required a very heavy hand to keep the place clean. Although there are community efforts in cleaning up beaches and swamps, the initiatives that we see in the very ordinary efforts Japanese and Burmese in cleaning their own mess in foreign lands seem absent for Singaporeans in general. why?

And even more seriously seriously, does he want us to employ cleaners, and then not use them?

But to be fair to him, the PAP administration which he heads expects us to pay ministers and senior civil servants and senior executives govt agencies millions of dollars to make decisions like

— awarding land slated for a temple to a listco for commercial purposes; or

— raise public transport fares when oil prices have collapsed.

Maybe PM should have done us a favour and become a top mathematician or scientist http://mustsharenews.com/lee-hsien-loong-mathematician/ or master computer programmer** or anything except to be a PM whose default mode is to blame S’poreans for the Trashies he let into S’pore, or appointed to high office (with us paying them  millions)  and then being blamed for not cleaning up for them.

—-

*Last Saturday, the 2015 Laneway Festival was held at the Meadow at Gardens by the Bay. The left pic shows what the 13,000 festival goers left behind.

It takes continuous effort to keep Singapore clean. We need to progress from being a cleaned city to a truly clean city. All of us can play a part – picking up our own litter, educating our children and grandchildren, and reminding others to do the right thing. Visit thePublic Hygiene Council‘s page to find out how you can help.

**When he was an army officer, he programmed a HP scientific calculator to do trigonometry calculations that had to be done using pen, paper and calculator or slide-rule: . Sadly the HP calculator ,as the US army could have told him wasn’t (isn’t) rugged enough for military use, even in the paper SAF. At least he didn’t try progamning the TI scientific calculator. It’s fragile.

How AhLoong’s salary compares to that of ord S’porean

In China, Political governance on 21/01/2015 at 4:24 pm

Yesterday I blogged that despite President Xi getting a 62% pay rise his pay was peanuts when compared to our very own AhLoong  despite AhLoong taking a pay cut in 2012 (US$22,256 a year versus US$1.8m a yr).

Mr Xi’s monthly base income is roughly twice the average annual income of a registered Beijing city-dweller according to the FT relying on official Chinese data.

Using Mom data, for the monthly median salary of an  ordinary S’porean (employer CPF included), it seems PM’s monthly salary is 4 times that of an ordinary S’porean’s median annual income in 2013. In the late 60s , LKY’s monthly salary was about four times that of my dad’s monthly salary.

No need to wonder why there is a growing income gap between the rich and poor here, is there?*

Which reminds me: “If the annual salary of the Minister of Information, Communication and Arts is only $500,000, it may pose some problems when he discuss policies with media CEOs who earn millions of dollars because they need not listen to the minister’s ideas and proposals, hence a reasonable payout will help to maintain a bit of dignity.”

– Dr Lim Wee Kiat, PAP MP for Nee Soon GRC, 24 May 2011 in Lianhe Wanbao.

So when Ahloong meets Xi or the Obama, he will not respect them, their views or their countries despite the US being the hegemon and China a wannabe?

*Readers might like to know that the PAP’s bible has been going on recently about inequality: inequality and the travails of the middle-classes are America’s (and the West’s) biggest problem, has been gaining currency for some time now. So has the idea that one of the better fixes is to begin to overhaul America’s dysfunctional tax code. Indeed, one publication in particular has been saying precisely that for quite a while.

 

Xi gets 62% pay rise, but still paid “peanuts” by AhLoong’s standard

In China, Political governance on 21/01/2015 at 10:06 am

The Chinese president’s new base salary is equivalent to US$22,256 a year, despite a pay rise of 62%.

FT points out that he and Obama are outearned by Lee Hsien Loong of Singapore, the world’s highest-paid prime minister, who took a pay cut to S$2.2m ($1.8m), beginning in 2012.

As the PAP likes to say that “Pay peanuts, get monkeys”, so the PAP thinks Obama, Xi and other leaders are monkeys? What do you think?

Relevant posts:

https://atans1.wordpress.com/2014/09/13/hen-jost-gracef-money-money-money/

https://atans1.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/with-mps-like-these-pap-does-not-need-enemies/

And from FT too

What countries pay their leaders (annually/$ excluding benefits)
Singapore 1.8m
Russia 1.76m
US 400,000
European Commission 372,000
Germany 290,000
South Africa 224,000
UK 215,000
France 208,000
Indonesia 64,000
Poland 64,00

The Xiaxue of the anti-PAP cyber masses/ Uncle Leong is well

In Political governance, Uncategorized on 14/01/2015 at 6:06 am

Roy, celebrity and irrationality

So Roy and his lawyer M Ravi are back in the headlines KPKBing their rotine lines: Roy (“Juz want a debate on CPF but persecution contines”), M Ravi (“I’m always right because it’s my grandfather’s law”)

Why is Roy such a celebrity while Uncle Leong (Leong Sze Hian) his si fu* is a relative unknown. After all all the best bits of Roy’s CPF “research” are things Uncle Leong (and, to be fair, others) has been talking about and highlighting over the years.

The only thing that was new was the accusation that the PAP administration criminally misappropriated the CPF moneys. Even then he quickly said this allegation is false and completely without foundation. when PM threatened legal action*.

Despite this recantation, Roy remains a hero to the anti-PAP cyber masses.

This, from an Economist blog, explains his appeal: As Drew Westen argued a few years ago in his book “The Political Mind”, political persuasion is all about moving people emotionally, not appealing to their rational faculties.

Roy dared, at no small cost to himself, in public to say what anti-PAP coffee shop and cyber warriors are whispering. .For that act of courage, they are to willing to suspend their critical faculties, if they had any. He is right because he is saying publicly what they don’t dare say. They support him unthinkingly because he validates their view of the way CPF works.

And for that very reason, the PM felt it necessary to sue him even if it annoys many people who think Roy is talking rubbish, and even though suing goes against the kinder, gentler, more liberal view of the PAP administration that he is trying to project. Btw, one of these days, I’ll go into the steel trap that the PAP have set for themselves in the litigation game: they are damned whether they sue or don’t sue.

Uncle Leong is alive and well, and is still rocking

The last piece Uncle Leong wrote was at the end of November. Since then he has been silent causing me and others to wonder or worry what has happened to him. Not like him to remain quiet for even three days.

But read these two pieces that appeared in TRE on Jan 10 and 11

Recently, one of our public hospitals became famous for the action which they took (compared to the immediate sacking of Roy Ngerng citing his defamation of the prime minister as one of the reasons, despite the court hearing had not even commenced yet) in regard to their foreign employee’s Facebook posting against Singaporeans.

There have also been reports claiming that the hospital employs about 70 to 80 per cent of its staff from one foreign country. Actually, some people say that about 80 per cent of their staff are non-Singaporeans (work permits, S-pass, employment pass, PRs, foreign spouses on letter of consent, foreign interns, trainees, etc).

According to the MOH’s web site – this public hospital had the highest total hospitalisation billing for citizens (among all public hospitals excluding the National Heart Centre) for all ward classes (Class C, B2, B1 and A) at the 90th and 95th percentile in 2013.

For example, it was $8,071 at the 95th percentile, against just $4,758 at the lowest public hospital in Class C.

At the 90th percentile – it was $5,220 against $2,901.

Why?

Why is it that this particular public hospital has the highest billing sizes across all ward classes?

Could it be that they employ more non-Singaporeans than other public hospitals?

Win battles lose war

* Submitted by TRE reader.

“Uphold values of respect, professionalism, integrity and social responsibility”

According to the Straits Times report “Health-care workers must ‘uphold values of respect’: Health Ministry” (Jan 10) – “Public health-care professionals, both local and foreign, are expected to uphold values of respect, professionalism, integrity and social responsibility, said the Health Ministry (MOH).”

Got “respect” for Roy Ngerng?

Where was “respect” in the sacking of Roy Ngerng when one of the reasons cited for his sacking was his defamation suit when the hearing had not even commenced yet?

Got “professionalism” in the way Roy Ngerng was sacked?

Where was the “professionalism” in giving Roy Ngerng just hours to leave his job, without any prior notice?

Got “integrity” – no fairness and natural justice?

Where was the “integrity” in not giving Roy Ngerng any opportunity to defend himself against the allegations made against him? Where was the principle of fairness and natural justice in the case of Roy Ngerng?

“Social responsibility” in employing 80% foreigners?

Where is “social responsibility” if it is true that about 80 per cent of the employees are non-Singaporeans (work permits, S-pass, employment pass, PRs, foreign spouses on letter of consent, foreign interns, trainees, etc)?

Hypocrisy and double standards?

Don’t you feel that MOH’s statement reeks of hypocrisy and double standards?

Win battles lose war

* Submitted by TRE reader.

Sounds familiar?

For the record, I’m no Sherlock Holmes. A prominent civic activists drew my retention to one of these pieces.

—————–

*Roy helped co-write Uncle Leong’s pieces for several yrs.

** I recognise that the Article means and is understood to mean that Mr Lee Hsien Loong, the Prime Minister of Singapore and Chairman of GIC, is guilty of criminal misappropriation of the monies paid by Singaporeans to the Central Provident Fund.

3.I admit and acknowledge that this allegation is false and completely without foundation.

4.I unreservedly apologise to Mr Lee Hsien Loong for the distress and embarrassment caused to him by this allegation.

https://atans1.wordpress.com/2014/08/06/roys-defence-has-me-confused/

 

The Japanese story PM didn’t tell us

In Corporate governance, Political governance on 02/01/2015 at 5:17 am

For some reason, AhLoong is such an easy person for me to get annoyed with.

Juz as I was thinking that I was going too far in making fun* of a basically decent chap trying to live up to dad’s expectations while trying to make life more comfortable for us (OK so that he can continue drawing his salary), he has to put up a story about Japan inter-generational strife (http://blogging4myself.blogspot.sg/2014/12/pm-shares-article-from-japan-times.html) to shore up one or several of dad’s Hard Truths.

Well given the performance of his tpt ministers (2.8% rise in public tpt fares instead of 3.4%** despite oil prices falling 49%, and pipes bursting and other problems at Changi Airport), VivianB (rats), and Yaacob (cont’d cluelessness), he doesn’t  follow the Japanese practice of solving managerial problems.

Let me explain.

The president of Japanese airbag manufacturer Takata is to step down, amid widespread criticism of how the company handled recent safety crises.

Stefan Stocker presided over the firm during a period in which Takata airbags were linked to the deaths of five people.

Additionally, concerns that some of Takata’s designs may be defective have led to widespread recalls: more than 24 million vehicles globally since 2008.

Under certain conditions, Takata airbags can be set off with too much explosive force and potentially fire out metallic shrapnel.

The company has been heavily criticised by regulators in the United States for its slow response to the problems, which first came to light six years ago.

Stefan Stocker’s role will be taken over by the current chairman, Shigehisa Takada.the 48-year-old grandson of Takata’s founder. Shigehisa Takada.will take a 50% t pay cut for four months in response to the safety crisis.

Related article: https://atans1.wordpress.com/2011/03/14/learn-from-japanese-set-example-leh-elites/

——-

Since when has AhLoong taken a pay cut in response to ministerial failure?

*https://atans1.wordpress.com/2014/12/29/ahloong-should-ask-this-tourist-for-advice/

https://atans1.wordpress.com/2014/12/23/ahloong-needs-his-very-own-superheloo-costume/

**The last review done by PTC in Jan this year resulted in a fare increase of 6.6%, to be adjusted in two steps. A 3.2 per cent hike was implemented in Apr, and the remaining 3.4 per cent carried forward to the current review.

The fare formula is based on four components:

Core CPI inflation: This currently stands at 1.7 per cent, and excludes home and car prices.
Average wage increase, at 4.3 per cent
Energy index: This registered -12.6 per cent, due to a drop in energy costs in 2013
Productivity index at 0.5 per cent, where operators share productivity gains with commuters

Based on this formula, this year’s fare adjustment quantum is -0.6%. But because of the “roll-over” of 3.4% from Jan’s review, it resulted in 2.8%.

Mr Lui said, “Here we are using 2013, for this fare formula. We know that energy costs have come down, as compared to 2012, which is why for the most recent year, the index was actually -0.6.”

“You may recall that it was 6.6 per cent, of which the most recent fare increase gave an upward revision of 3.2 per cent. So there was a 3.4 per cent that was carried over, and now taken together with the -0.6 per cent, which was derived using all the numbers in 2013, the maximum that is allowed for this particular fare increase will be 2.8 per cent.”

AhLoong should ask this tourist for advice

In Africa, Humour, Political economy, Political governance on 29/12/2014 at 4:34 am

In a BBC Online piece dated 24 December, the writer said that Zimbabwe’s president Mugabe and his family “[are] holidaying in Singapore this Christmas.”

Well as Mugabe doesn’t brook any checkers to his power, maybe our PM should ask him for advice  since PM grumbles that too many checkers results in him and the PAP administration being unable to get things done:  “You will have a lot of checkers, you have no workers… There will be gridlock, like in other countries,” he said. – See more at: http://www.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/more-singapore-stories/story/too-many-checks-will-lead-checkmate-20141208#sthash.m4oKYKQZ.dpuf

Well there is no-one to check Mugabe who has been PM since 1987. The country is a mess http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-30578027 while Robert Mugabe and his ministers in the Office of the President and Cabinet are living large despite a stubborn economic crisis at a time government revenues are dwindling due to a shrinking tax base. – See more at: http://nehandaradio.com/2014/12/28/mugabe-spends-big-amid-poverty/#sthash.FmNmxOnn.dpuf

I don’t think PM wants this outcome here. What do you think?

AhLoong needs his very own superheloo costume?

In Humour, Political governance on 23/12/2014 at 4:56 am

Recently, I met someone who gave me the best reason why PM was wrong to sue Roy Ngerng. (Btw, the guy is as anti-PAP as Dr Chee and Roy and New Citizen H3 combined, but he isn’t that mad as to believe that Roy’s research and writings bears any semblance to the truth.)

He said that in his opinion, PM sued Roy to show S’poreans that he too was a tough guy like his dad: “Don’t play play with me,” was the message PM wanted to send.

Trouble my friend says is that AhLoong looks and sound like a SuperWimp. Suing Roy to show us he as tough and nasty and mean as dad, juz shows us the difference between him and his dad. He is not the man, for gppd or ill, his dad.

And this does not reflect well on AhLoong: it makes us realise that dad’s SuperThug costume doesn’t fit AhLoong. AhLoong needs his own superhero costume but can’t seem able to afford one despite the millions he’s earned.    .

What do you think should be his costume?

Update at 5.30am

Thinking further about it, the PM should have done what he did after dad went off the rails at GE 2011, threatening the Aljunied voters. LKY was seen and heard no more and PM said that things were different now. On the Roy issue, he could have ended the matter after Roy chickened out, admitting

1.On or around 15 May 2014, I, Roy Ngerng Yi Ling, published on my blog (at http://thehearttruths.com/), an article entitled “Where your CPF Money Is Going: Learning From The City Harvest Trial” (the “Article”). I also published links to the Article on my Facebook page (at https://www.facebook.com/sexiespider) and on The Heart Truths’ Facebook page (at https://www.facebook.com/pages/I-want-the-government-and-people-to-work-together-for-Singapores-future/185331834935656).

2.I recognise that the Article means and is understood to mean that Mr Lee Hsien Loong, the Prime Minister of Singapore and Chairman of GIC, is guilty of criminal misappropriation of the monies paid by Singaporeans to the Central Provident Fund.

3.I admit and acknowledge that this allegation is false and completely without foundation.

4.I unreservedly apologise to Mr Lee Hsien Loong for the distress and embarrassment caused to him by this allegation.

5.I have removed the Article and the links to the Article and undertake not to make any further allegations to the same or similar effect.

by demanding that Roy pays his legal costs, waiving his rights for damages.

This would send the message that the PM wasn’t in the business of bankrupting people fo protect his reputation, but that defaming him wasn’t cost-free publicity for wanna-be celebrities. They’d have to pay his legal fees.

AhLoong: Clueless in school, 2005 and today? Still no want checkers?

In Political governance on 15/12/2014 at 4:30 am

I received two interesting allegations in response to https://atans1.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/what-pm-can-learn-from-two-other-privileged-kids/#comments

Our PM was going right-left-right while the rest of his band was left-right-left and nobody bothered to correct him except us bunch of kids who were shouting “Botak kayu”, to have his bodyguards come after us from across the school field.

[Er, I tot drum-major is always right, juz like the RSM on the parade square. Bte, anyone knows if SAF still has RSMs?]

And

Well, his kayu days are still very much with him. Like the occasion when inspecting a German guard of honour during a visit to Germany, our sissy PM walked on oblivious to the fact that his escort, German Chancellor Angela Mekel, had stopped and turned to salute her country’s flag as was their country’s protocol! An aide had to fetch him back! That was a prized video clip. I wonder if it is somewhere in the Youtube. I would not rule out the possibility that Lee’s followers must have BOUGHT it off the TV station that owns it to prevent even more Singaporeans from watching it.

Here is a forum comment at that time: http://sgforums.com/forums/8/topics/166923

As to whether he is clueless now about whether he needs better checkers than that provided by the MPs from the Worthless Party, what do you think?
To help you decide, here’s shumething from the Economist letters’ page

Rebranding citizens

SIR – Lexington attributed the rise of public doubts about government in Western democracies to globalisation and the economic wrench it has produced (November 15th). Undoubtedly globalisation has created new strains. However, the erosion of trust dates back earlier than implied. An article in The Economist in 1999 (“Is there a crisis?”, July 17th 1999) described the erosion of trust beginning in the 1960s in America and Sweden. Western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand followed in the 1970s or 1980s. This downward trend continues to the present.

Research suggests that the changes in the values and norms of the public, a shift in the style of interest-group politics and the norms of media reporting have contributed to a secular shift towards a more assertive and sceptical public. The deferential citizen is becoming an endangered species, which is a benefit to democracy.

Russell Dalton
Centre for the Study of Democracy
University of California, Irvine

Finally, FT reported last week, talking about president Xi and the communist part: “On the whole they are nervous. There is a lack of confidence. They know the one-party state is an exception to [global] trends,” say Jean-Pierre Cabestan, head of the government and international studies department at Hong Kong Baptist University. “One of the weaknesses in the party state is the lack of checks and balances . . . Zhou Yongkang clearly enjoyed a huge level of impunity. How do you control that?”

Zhou Yongkang was the security chief under the previous president and was recently arrested, accused of corruption etc.

 

Selective Courage and other PM’s tales

In Political governance on 09/11/2011 at 6:43 am

On 30 October 2011, MediaCorp reported the PM as saying,” [T]o dare to stand up and say something which is true but may be difficult, spiky, which the population may not wish to hear … that takes courage … as Government, it’s our responsibility to speak the truth to Singaporeans …  it’s the Opposition’s responsibility also to acknowledge the truth and to speak it, whether or not it’s politically advantageous to them.”

Fair point but PM, don’t you think that it also takes courage to admit that the government, cabinet, minister, ministry or civil servant has goofed, is sorry, and will take steps to remedy the situation? Whatever Wong Kan Seng may have done, he is the only minister to have taken responsibility for a goof-up by his ministry (the escape of a “terrorist”). Usually tai-chi is practicised.

Think minister Mah, who defended his policy of allowing the prices of public housing to rise in a recession. Or of Raymond Lim for threatening to impose GST on transport fares, while doing nothing to ease congestation on public transport?

Or of VivianB for getting his numbers wrong wrong on the new national stadium and the Kiddie Games, and insisting that he was right to be wrong. Or berating the poor for wanting hawker or restaurant food.

Or the Home ministry allowing  a violent and dishonest shop assistant; and hawkers to become PRs. Or the minister failing to apologise for not recapturing a physically handicapped “terrorist” before he swam out of S’pore.

Or Yaacob talking of “once in a century’ flood, when there was a flood a month. Or of the entire cabinet in allowing immigrants in by the truck-load without thinking of the consequences on the public infrastructure and social fabric.

You were also quoted as saying parliament was for “serious discussion, not just criticism”. It is wrong to try to distinguish “serious discussion” from “criticism”. “[C]riticism” is part of “serious discussion”. Go ask any Cambridge academic.

You said that Parliament is not just a place to hold either the government or Opposition to account … both sides should participate in solving problems together, or Singapore would be worse off for it.

What about giving out more information so that the public can know what is happening? If local academics got beaten up by the then Manpower minister, a few years ago, for using data from a government website, surely there is a problem somewhere? And it’s not with the academics. How can publicly available info be misleading? But that minister is now one of your most trusted ministers.

“Academics, economists and sociologists are demanding more than the “pledge to share more information.” They want the raw data, instead of the ad hoc releases from the official propaganda machine,” notes S’pore Notes some time ago.

This brings me back to your “acknowledging the truth” comment. The truth can only be established by evidence, so make more raw data available.

Your comments seem nothing more than your father’s “style of single-party governance: long-term decisions made by an inner circle, without the distractions of a substantial opposition or the time pressures of electoral deadlines. “Public debate can make issues “harder to solve,” you said sometime back, so it’s reasonable to assume that you would rather avoid informed public debate of any kind.

In his book “Golden Fetters”, Barry Eichengreen argued that one reason the gold standard failed to work after the first world war was that most states had become democracies; regular doses of austerity were needed to ensure sound money. But that was politically impossible once the working classes had the vote, especially as politicians were worried about the threat of communist revolution. [Took this from Buttonwood’s Notes, an Economist blog.]

Try telling the PA and yr minister abt unity, PM?

In Political governance on 06/09/2011 at 7:18 am

On 1 September 2011, the PM said Singapore must also build a united society which leaves no Singaporean behind. He was speaking at the swearing-in ceremony of Singapore’s seventh President Dr Tony Tan at the Istana.

This was the fifth time that he had spoken about the need for unity since the 7th May 2011 General Election. Five times in five months.

Well the trouble with this latest attempt was that the day before, the People’s Association (a statutory of agency of which he is chairman) had published a statement explaining why it excluded Opposition MPS from being appointed grassroot leaders. In a letter to the Straits Times Forum, PA director of corporate and marketing communications Ooi Hui Mei said on behalf of the CEO, “Besides connecting people to people, grassroots advisers are required to help the Government connect with people and help promote Government policies and programmes such as anti-dengue and active ageing. Hence, the Government has to appoint grassroots advisers who support its programmes and can play this role well. Opposition MPs cannot be expected to do this and thus cannot become advisers to GROs.”

She is saying that Opposition MPs are not loyal S’poreans that the government and PA can trust.

Ms Ooi’s letter drew a response from WP’s Aljunied GRC MP Pritam Singh (the guy with tots of being in coalition with the PAP on his brain). He wrote on his Facebook page that he found it “apposite to inform the PA that Opposition MPs do not love the aedes mosquito, nor do we have anything against active aging.” He cited examples of former and current PAP MPs, including former MP Tan Cheng Bock and President Tony Tan, who opposed the Nominated MP scheme and the graduate mother’s scheme respectively.

Hehehe. Snigger, snigger. Gd riposte Bei-Yee Singh. Letter writers to ST and Today and online forums joined in the fun of bashing Ms Ooi’s letter.

Unhappy with this mauling, the deputy chairman of the PA, Lim Swee Say (who is also a cabinet minister and NTUC chief), not heeding PM’s call for unity, got Ms Ooi to issue another letter on 3 September 2011, making the same point again: that Opposition MPs are not loyal S’poreans that the government and PA can trust.

Because of her letters, I’m again left wondering (I’ve commented on his four previous attempts here) whether the PM is sincere when he calls for unity. Why should I take his words at face value, when the spokeswoman from a government agency, where he is the chairman, takes a view that is contrary to his call for unity, both before and after his message. If she had not written the second letter, I would have been willing to try to suspend cynical disbelief. But Ms Ooi’s letters have left me no choice but to disbelieve the PM.

Is he or the CEO and deputy chairman, she scribed for, off-message? Or is his definition of “unity” different? Maybe he means “unity under the regime of Hard Truths”?

Time will tell.

If PM is sincere abt unity, what abt talking a leaf from Mao. When the Chinese Communist Party refused to listen to him, he launched the Culture Revolution. Maybe PM should reform the PA to better serve his and our needs.

PM’s repeated calls for unity, what he means

In Political governance on 31/08/2011 at 7:22 am

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong again appealed for national unity after an intense campaign dominated by calls from critics for an independent president who can act as a check on the PAP, “Now that the election is over, we should all come together again as Singaporeans, to tackle the challenges that Singapore faces, and take our nation forward”.

Forgive me for being extremely cynical but I had heard something similar thrice since the 7 May 2011 general election.

Immediately after the election, the PM had promised that the ruling party would do some intense soul-searching and find better ways to reach out and connect with Singaporeans. He urged Singaporeans to close ranks and work together with the government to achieve the overriding objective of improving the lives of the people.

In August, during his National Day Rally speech, the PM had further committed his government to getting its politics and policies right.

Then two weeks ago, he called for a “harmonious political system where we make decisions in the best interest of Singapore and Singaporeans and keep ourselves safe in this uncertain environment.” Singapore was “too small to afford an impasse and gridlock, to have two sides blocking one another, so you can’t move, you can’t solve problems, you can’t go ahead”.

So one would think the government would have played its part in fostering national unity. But consider the evidence.

One minister called us netizens the “lunatic fringe”, while the PM called internet communities “cowboy towns”, insultiing the inhabitants of those towns and showing his lack of knowledge of Westerns. Those towns were reasonably civilised places. They, at least, didn’t have respectable senior citizens burying hatchets into other folks. The town sheriff or a visiting US Marshall would have shot such a person dead, or arrested him; or the citizens would have lynched him.

Then we learnt that two statutory government agencies, the HDB and the PA (where the PM is the chairman),  tried, almost immediately, after the May GE to fix the WP that had won a GRC by taking away from the WP town council the right to lease out prime common spaces for community functions.

So let’s take PM’s latest message for unity with a big pinch of salt. He must mean unity on his and the PAP’s terms: unconditional surrender by the sheep (swing voters who constitute 45% of the voters) and the asses (the 20% who will vote for any ass if it is an anti-PAP ass) to the donkeys (the 35% who will vote for Tin Pei Ling because she is a PAP donkey).

But ironically, our very own Mr Bean, has got 65% of us animals united against him and the other leaders of the donkeys. So the joke is on our PM, aka Mr Bean. I’m being mean? Google up pixs of both and decide if they look alike.