atans1

Posts Tagged ‘PAP’

PAP’s kung fu with tax payers’ money

In Political governance, Public Administration on 17/07/2018 at 11:00 am

PAP knows how to make yr money its money and make you grateful for it spending money on you.

Those were my tots when I read Dr Paul Tambyah:

[t]he PAP’s ability to mobilise state resources in other ways is “very, very difficult to try to go up against”, he says.

“During my first clinic session after the election, a patient of mine who I’ve been treating for many years wheeled himself into the room in his motorised wheelchair and he said, ‘Doc, you guys ran a good campaign. Too bad you all lost.’ I said, ‘Thank you. By the way, where do you live?’ Then he said, ‘We live in Yuhua, but you know, (Minister) Grace Fu gave us this wheelchair.’ Then I said, ‘She didn’t give you the wheelchair. This is paid for by your taxes’.

“He said, ‘No, no no, she came to my house with an entourage of people, with her photographers and she gave me the wheelchair’.”

Even though Dr Tambyah says he reiterated that ‘it’s your money that went into this wheelchair’, his patient ‘refused to accept’ it.

“This was a guy I’d been looking after for 10 years. He knew me. We got on with each other very well. But at the same time, he felt indebted to the ruling party politician because she was able to, in his mind, provide him with mobility.”

Read more at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/paul-tambyah-chairman-singapore-democratic-party-on-the-record-10527550

Related post written in Sept 2012: Time for Opposition to rethink assumptions, lest it repents after next GE

Advertisements

Even PAP voters don’t trust the PAP to tell the truth

In Political governance, Public Administration on 16/07/2018 at 11:19 am

A recent comment on TRE set me thinking

NotMyProblem:
July 8, 2018 at 11:30 am (Quote)
Keep information in the dark reminds me of my schooling days.
When I had a “F” for my examination, I would not dare to show to my parents.
But when I had an “A”, the first thing I would do was flashing my result to the whole family.
Do you think this is similar with PAP’s result?
PAP being such an arrogant govt, do you think it would hide something that was good? Don’t you see the amount of skeletons in the closets which required so many million dollars Ministers to keep them hidden.

Many people vote for the PAP because they are happy, or least contented, with the results as they perceive them of the PAP govt’s policies: PAP has lost “output legitimacy”

But talk to them about whether they trust the PAP govt to tell the truth about anything and their attitude can be summed up by the above quote, in particular

When I had a “F” for my examination, I would not dare to show to my parents.
But when I had an “A”, the first thing I would do was flashing my result to the whole family.
Do you think this is similar with PAP’s result?

The PAP’s “need to know” attitude, trumpeting of successes and stifling of criticism no matter how reasonable, makes even PAP voters wonder about what we are not being told.

Why do you think the PAP until very recently had to resort to sue and sue? (Why PAP (and PMs) sue and sue). They know the trust factor is not high despite 70% voting for the continuance of a one-party state.

The bottom line for the PAP govt especially the 4th generation ministers is that they should

— realise that the PAP is in the stagnation phase (Is PAP in “decline and disintegration”?);

— stop talking cock about Hard Truths and how great is the system Harry created; and

— start fixing the flaws in the system starting with the MRT system: Public tpt: PAP ahead of the curve and flew off the rails? Related: PAP’s cock-ups since the 1980s.

They shouldn’t expect their clownish and nuttyenemies like Lim Tean (Lim Tean: A disgraceful chamber of horrors) and Meng Seng (Silence of Goh Meng Seng) to continue helping them keep the 70% onside.

 

 

 

The PAP way is the American corporate way

In Corporate governance, Political governance, Public Administration on 15/07/2018 at 11:21 am

They both exercise “extreme ownership”: Ownself check ownself.This way really delivers compared to the British way of checks and balances.

At more established US companies, managers often practise “extreme ownership” — which Jocko Willink and Leif Babin, the Seals-turned-management gurus, define as taking charge and holding yourself accountable. They have to. There is no one else to do the job.

When he was not writing books or building the world’s biggest chipmaker, Grove of Intel weighed in on this perpetual corporate governance debate: “The separation of the two jobs goes to the heart of the conception of a corporation. Is a company a sandbox for the CEO, or is the CEO an employee? If he’s an employee, he needs a boss, and that boss is the board. The chairman runs the board. How can the CEO be his own boss?”

That comment has since been quoted in numerous shareholder proposals to install an independent chairman, including at Amazon, Kroger, Target, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, ExxonMobil, Wendy’s and AbbVie. They have all been defeated. A report this week by Equilar, the pay and governance consultants, found that 38 of the top 500 US public companies last year had proposals to install an independent chair. All failed.

At seven of the top 10 US companies by market value, there is no independent chair. Most shareholders are content to give the CEO a sandbox if he builds a nice enough castle.

Contrast that with the UK, where independence is deemed essential by the corporate governance code; chairs even feel empowered to pontificate in public on the direction of their companies.

This may play well with corporate governance experts. It does not seem to help performance. The top four companies on the S&P 500 are now worth more than the entire FTSE 100.

FT

Why the PAP thinks it is infallible

In Political economy, Political governance, Public Administration on 13/07/2018 at 11:20 am

In response to PAP’s cock-ups since the 1980s where I wrote:

one is left wondering why the Oppo parties couldn’t and can’t (WP is expected to lose Aljunied in next GE) make a more serious dent in the PAP’s popularity with 60- 70% of the voters? Only Tan Cheng Bock (ex-PAPpy) can.

Is it repression and fear?

Or is the PAP juz lucky what with the quality of Oppo leaders …?

the retired NUS professor who had listed the PAP’s cock-ups since the 80s, I quoted, answered

[T]he leninist government model assumes a network of best talents that are attracted by a good ruling ideology and by distribution of material rewards from national resources controlled by the group – so by definition, opposition parties are left with inferior talent and lack resources to effectively compete; elections are meant to be “exams” in which citizens give the government a “mark” – a low mark leads it to improve itself through genuine effort, not intimidation, bribery, propaganda; you can contrast the situation in neighbouring countries to see that failure to observe these rules eventually leads to breakdown

I think he’s right. Remember our Harry liked to compare the PAP’s system of choosing leaders to the Roman Catholic church’s method of choosing leaders: cardinals elect a pope who in turn appoints the cardinals. And the pope like the church is always right. Sounds like PAP?

He went on to make a more telling observation

I also point out that the various past “blunders” I discussed are already baked into the system, and there is no simple way to reverse them; whoever currently running the country can only take the situation as it exists and work from there onwards

Harry and the rest of the Old Guard, contrary to the belief of many S’poreans, therefore bear responsibility for the problems we now face. It’s not all the fault of their successors, even if they are not as good as the Old Guard

Akan datang here: A six-figure salary is ‘low income’

In Political economy, Political governance on 12/07/2018 at 11:09 am

It’s already happening in parts of the US

A family getting by on $117,400 (£87,970) in one US city can now be considered ‘low income’, according to government figures. How can that be the case?

That workers with six-figure salaries could be considered “poor” is something that might surprise many people.

But taking into account income and housing costs that is the reality for some families – who may be eligible for housing assistance – according to a recent report from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development.

In San Francisco and nearby San Mateo and Marin Counties it said $117,400 for a family of four was “low income”, while $73,300 (£54,900) was “very low income” – the highest figures anywhere in the country.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44725026

So don’t be surprise if those couples here on a combined low six-figure salary start thinking of themselves as hard done by the PAP administration, despite the low levels (“peanuts”) of income tax and GST.

Remember the Singapore Dream of the 5Cs of condominiums, cars, country clubs, cash and credit cards? How many S’poreans can realistic afford condominiums, cars, country clubs and still have cash? Credit cards are now nothing but bait to get consumers to over spend so that banks can charge them usurious eates

A NUS survey points out

Out of 25 aspects about living in the country, Singaporeans ranked the affordability of cars as being the least satisfied with, followed by the affordability of properties, cost of living, ratio of locals to foreigners, and affordability of healthcare.

“Increasingly (over the years), they are upset about the affordability of cars and properties, so you can surmise from there that they are concerned with the issue,” said Tan.

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/singaporeans-less-satisfied-quality-life-democratic-rights-nus-survey-130122483.html

Related posts

S’poreans unhappy enough to make mad Dog PM?

Will people like Mr Ang and his family ever vote for Oppo?

 

PAP’s cock-ups since the 1980s

In Political economy, Political governance, Public Administration on 11/07/2018 at 9:53 am

In Is PAP in “decline and disintegration”? I wrote that PAP was in stagnation phase that began in 1990

A regular reader, a retired NUS professor lists the things the PAP got wrong since the 1984.

[S]everal major PAP blunders started in 1984 during the election campaign of that year

1. elected president: LKY had already reached 60 by that year, and this was then the public sector retirement age; so he had to face the question whether he was stepping down; the thinking at the time was to move to the presidency – under the then constitution, parliament would decide; he being who he is, the position would not be merely ceremonial, but it must be his legal background that made him uncomfortable, and a decision was made to enhance the position; the resulting controversy led to his undertaking not to be the first elected president, Goh Chok Tong’s decision to invent the post of Senior Minister to keep LKY in the cabinet, the elected president Ong Teng Chong’s conflict with cabinet, regular embarrassment about a 3-men committee rejecting candidates causing a no contest, etc

LKY could have just retired in 1990, started a newspaper column (modern idea would be blog), a charity/research foundation, a senate, and he would have remained the most influential person in the country, taking into consideration his son and his 2nd cousin were both in cabinet; it was quite unnecessary for him to feel insecure about his own place in singapore society even if he held no elected office; if he had been a blogger posting articles daily, every important person in singapore, the cabinet ministers especially, would have eagerly read them as soon as they were posted

2. HDB asset enhancement: during the campaign LKY got annoyed by opposition claiming “your HDB apartmen[t] is on 99-year lease; you dont really own it”, and announced “HDB will stop building in opposition districts”; at the time I actually did not understand why that should cause anyone to worry; but the Northeast MRT line provided part of the explanation – no population increase, no new infrastructure; the Mathias Yao–Chee Soon Juan Straits Times Forum series of letters provided some more – poor infrastructure, lower HDB value; with HDB apartments traded on the open market (previous owners are allowed to go back and buy a new apartment from HDB after 5 years).. Soon Permanent Residents, who are not entitled to buy from HDB, buying on the open market caused the HDB asset values to rise beyond affordability

3. CPF: with people living longer, the idea of delaying CPF money return was raised in 1984 and initial reaction was negative; again LKY was annoyed; soon the idea of minimum sum was adopted, later compulsory annuity, which would have been workable if most people can still get a substantial part out in cash at 55; with the weak salary increases in the past decade or so (partly because of foreign labour, e.g., IT used to have highest paid new graduates, before the industry bought in PRCs and Indians) and low interest rate, more and more people found themselves not meeting the minimum sum requirement, and every increase in minimum sum value makes more people angry

2011

[M]uch of PAP’s recent electoral adversity was self inflicted; the major examples I recall

1. James Gomez case 2006: LKY, Wong Kan Seng and George Yeo spent far too much time talking about a minor issue (LHL and GCT both kept quiet – they could afford to); the Aljunied voters punished George Yeo, and WP identified the electorate as vulnerable, put effort into the ground work and won it decisively in 2011

2. Tin Pei Lin case 2011: it was sound strategy to find some younger, especially female, faces, but the party should have made the effort to find someone with a track record as a political operator in her own right, not just a polished presenter with management consultancy experience recommended by a personal connection; I also believe if they introduced her at the end, after people have grown bored with all those familiar CVs of civil servants, generals, professionals, executives, etc, she might have enjoyed a better reception, so they botched the presentation in addition to selection

3. Joo Chiat case 2011: it was also sound strategy to replace old by young, but Charles Chong is older than Chen Soo Sen so the change could not be justified on that ground; Chen also enjoyed certain personal support which did not readily transfer via party loyalty; Workers Party ended with nearly 50%

4. Hougang case 2012: Teo Chee Hean dwelt far too long on Yaw Shin Leong’s personal and business failings, which Yaw’s former supporters preferred not to be reminded of, whereas upbeat talks about the wonderful things PAP would do for Hougang if elected, might have more fully exploited the unexpected opportunity; after the Hougang moralizing, the Palmer case was a particularly hard blow – PAP candidates are like anyone else

[W]hether the party would learn from these mistakes, and whether it would make new ones in 2016, is of course to be seen; given the resources available; it certainly has the potential of doing much better

Looking at the above, one is left wondering why the Oppo parties couldn’t and can’t (WP is expected to lose Aljunied in next GE) make a more serious dent in the PAP’s popularity with 60- 70% of the voters? Only Tan Cheng Bock (ex-PAPpy) can.

Is it repression and fear?

Or is the PAP juz lucky what with the quality of Oppo leaders: clowns like Lim Tean (Lim Tean: A disgraceful chamber of horrors), Goh Meng Seng (Silence of Goh Meng Seng) and Pritam Singh (WP distributing unsafe food (pass expiry date) and getting financial advice of cybernut resulting in having to take down misleading video after Lawrence Wong kicked Bayee’s ass)?

Email yr answers pls.

 

Is PAP in “decline and disintegration”?

In Economy, Malaysia, Political governance, Public Administration on 09/07/2018 at 2:08 pm

Seems that Abdullah Badawi had told an adviser after the premier was compelled to step down following the 2008 general election in which the UMNO-led BN’s margins of victory were badly dented:

In the nature of evolution, the former prime minister said, there were four phases in the rise and fall of states and entities: kesedaran (awareness), kebangkitan (emergence), kegemilangan (greatness) and kehancuran (decline and disintegration). When asked what phase he saw UMNO to be in then, Abdullah told the adviser: the last one  ̶  of decline and disintegration. It would take another decade, or two more general elections coinciding with the premiership of his successor, Najib Razak, before this prognosis proved to be an indisputable fact.

http://www.rsis.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/CO18112.pdf?utm_source=getresponse&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=rsis_publications&utm_content=RSIS+Commentary+112%2F2018+UMNO+Post-Power%3A+What+Now+in+a+Changing+Landscape%3F+by+Yang+Razali+Kassim+

I’m sure the anti-PAP cybernuts will say that the PAP is in the “decline and disintegration” phase, but they have been saying this since cyberspace became polluted by their presence in the mid noughties. And they were saying it post 1959 when they lived in the gutters, drains and toilets of brothels.

Me? I think that Badawi is wrong about four phases: There’s a “stagnation” phase between “greatness” and “decline and disintegration”.

Harry was pretty shrewd to pass the baton to his son and GCT in 1990. By then, the PAP had entered the “stagnation” phase what with Harry getting progressively getting rid of his Old Guard in the name of leadership renewal.

Think of the flawed policies of the teams led by GCT and Harry’s son, and then Harry’s son alone: “asset enhancement”, “FTs by the cattle truck load”, the failures in the public transport system and the many restructuring plans (Economic restructuring: This time, it’s really different). I mean why the need for so many since the 1980s? LHL must have drawn up a really bad plan in the 1980s for there to be a need of so many followup plans?

And he’s now PM, what? Meritocracy? What Meritocracy?

Meritocracy? What meritocracy?

Why PAP doesn’t do accountability, meritocracy

We are still in that phase. As for M’sia, it entered that phase with the arrest of Anwar and continued until the day after the 2008 general election. But of course, Badawi wouldn’t admit that he presided over the stagnation that would lead to decline.

The PAP will enter the “decline and disintegration” phase when like the BN it cocks up so badly that it loses its two-thirds parly majority (BN lost this in 2008). Until then dream on cybernuts. Or should it be wank on, what?

After all, in the coming GE. WP is expected to lose Aljunied GRC: How to ensure no GST rise. It’ll then only have fortress Hougang. As for the SDP, so long as S’poreans don’t want to get rabies, it’ll be unelectable. The later Mad Dog Chee realises this, the happier the PAP will be.

Why no NIMBYism here

In Infrastructure, Political economy, Political governance, Public Administration on 08/07/2018 at 10:18 am

NIMBYism is a problem in developed countries bar S’pore.

A really bad example of “Not In My Backyard” is Heathrow’s expansion. They’ve been talking about it since the 70s (I first used that airport in 1976). UK’s parliament has finally decided to let Heathrow build a third runaway.The majority of 296 for third runway is welcomed by business and deplored by locals: court challenges are expected.

Here’s someone complaining to the FT about the decision

What utter tripe. Of course the most important question is whether the runway is “needed”, and for this Country, in this Century; the answer is no. There is little to be gained environmentally or financially for the Citizens of the UK. BAA – yes. Transit passengers- yes. BA- yes. Travel operators- yes. But for tax payers, Children who breathe the air, and UK PLC as a whole, who will suffer ever poorer traffic delays and travel costs. Nope. It’s a scam. Like The Privatised Utilities, and the whole Brexit fiasco. Heathrow expansion is a bl33dy scam.

NIMBYism is kept in check in S’pore not because 70% of S’poreans are constructive and nation building, putting the needs of S’pore (as defined by the PAP) before self, but because S’pore is a one-party authoritarian state.

 

Why Tun M, Anwar, PAP won’t, can’t reform the status quo

In Political governance, Public Administration on 28/06/2018 at 10:36 am

Reformasi is in the air on both sides of the causeway, with even PAP ministers talking of the need to change.

I’m the first to admit that because I’ve had an active interest in M’sia since the 80s, I’m skeptical that A New Hope will be followed by the Return of the Jedi. It’ll be followed by The Empire Strikes Back (though that doesn’t imply the return of BN or UMNO).

As for the PAP, pigs will fly first before the PAP reforms S’pore.

Whatever,

[Alan Blinder, Fed Vice-Chairman when Greenspan was Chairman] draws various lessons[for reforms based on his experiences in helping get Reagan’s 1980s tax reform package passed]. First, start with strong but broad presidential leadership. Second, leave technocrats to design a policy combining effectiveness and simplicity. Third, find some wily political operators with tactical nous to sell it. Fourth, come up with an eye-catching symbol that defines the package (in this case, a massive reduction in the top rate from 50 per cent to 28 per cent). Fifth, allow a degree of backroom bargaining while the deal is constructed. And sixth, make sure the package is agreed as a whole, rather than picked apart by special interests.

Advice and Dissent, by Alan Blinder

Think Tun will do this? I have my doubts. For one, he wants to ensure the continuance of Malay dominance.

And it’s not only Tun who wants to ensure cont’d Malay dominance.

Anwar has assured Malays and other Bumiputras that their rights under the new government would not be sidelined, while stressing to all not to be taken with the false propaganda about the Democratic Alliance Party, which is also part of PH. Like Tun and the DAP, he needs the kilang and cina coolies to clean up the manure created by Tun, himself and Najib.

“Felda and Universiti Teknologi Mara will not be threatened but kangkung professors can’t (be accepted),” Dr Anwar said.

As for the PAP, so long as they worship Harry,  Hard Truths will prevail. Sad. Because Harry between the 1950s and the end of the 1980s had no Hard Truths to guide him. He did what he did to get power, then retain power and in the process help bring material prosperity to S’poreans and S’pore. He changed course several times: from socialist to fascist lite, from democrat to authoritarian, from multiracism to “English and Mandarin tua kee”.

He only tot up Hard Truths when he became goal keeper to keep himself busy because as goal keeper he had little to do other than manage the team. He was the first of the player managers. Sad.

Why I like Seah Kian Peng

In Uncategorized on 27/06/2018 at 10:51 am

Yesterday in Why Seah Kian Peng is right to say he’s “left of centre”, I said I would explain why I like Seah. I like him because he doesn’t let the Hard Truths of hypocrisy, morality and groupthink stand in the way of attempts to help an unfortunate group of S’poreans: unmarried single mothers.

In TRELand when the cybnenuts talk of unmarried mums, they compare them to prostitutes. Even PAP ministers, MPs and the IBers don’t go that far. They juz say “Undeserving poor. They bring it on themselves. Promoting moral hazard to help them.”

And sadly many, many S’poreans agree with them and the TRE cybernuts.

But Seah (and a few other MPs like Lily Neo) joins NGOs in trying to help them, and in trying to get the PAP and society to change their views on these “fallen” women. Power to him and the others.

Over the years, he has also spoken up for more assistance for unmarried single mothers.

In 2016, the Ministry for Social and Family Development finally announced that the Government is ready to extend the full 16-week maternity leave accorded to married mothers, to single mothers as well.

Their children also now have access to a Child Development Account, a savings scheme to help pay for childcare and healthcare costs.

MPs and women’s rights groups spent years campaigning for this and other benefits.

Mr Seah feels even more can be done to address their needs.

Unmarried mothers still do not get the Baby Bonus cash gift and parenthood tax rebates that even widows and divorcees, receive. When it comes to housing, they have to wait until they turn 35 to buy an HDB flat under the singles scheme.

“The challenges of raising children by themselves is already hard enough. But they have to still think about something as basic as housing. So on our part as a Government, how can we help?”

The Government has traditionally been cautious about equalising benefits for this group as it says doing so could send out the wrong signals.  A common argument is that such a move might be seen as condoning having children out of wedlock.

“Frankly, I don’t believe in this. But even if as a result, one or two people start thinking along those lines, so be it. We shouldn’t stop ourselves from helping people just because we fear a small group could end up abusing a policy.”

This concept should apply to every policy, he says, including to how much help should be given to the low-income in society and how even means-testing to assess a person’s eligibility for assistance is conducted.

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/seah-kian-peng-mp-marine-parade-ceo-ntuc-fairprice-on-the-record-10459284

 

 

Why Seah Kian Peng is right to say he’s “left of centre”

In Humour, Uncategorized on 26/06/2018 at 2:41 pm

Here’s Chris Kuan KPKBing about Seah Kian Peng calling himself “left of centre” in this interview https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/seah-kian-peng-mp-marine-parade-ceo-ntuc-fairprice-on-the-record-10459284

He labelled himself “left of center”. Read his opinions (and his back pedaling when put on a spot by the journo) on various issues like taxes, using the reserves and solving social divide and inequality, you will realize straightaway, unless you are politically inert, that if this MP considers himself “left of center” then that is as good a reason as any that we must have a lot more opposition MPs. In other words, if the Honourable Seah Kian Peng is the best the PAP has in terms of checks and alternative / independent views or thinking on policy positions, then there is really little to no serious debates within the party, well not seriously enough to generate meaningful changes. But we do know that already, don’t we?

FB

The way Chris (and often me?) often describes the PAP (elitist, illiberal, and steals from the poor to give to the rich) makes it sound like a fascist party.

So any PAPpy that is a half way decent guy or gal (think Tharman or Liy Neo) is left of centre. So Seah is right to call himself as “left of centre”. Tomorrow I’ll give an example of his “progressive” views, views that even TRE cybernuts disagree with.

Btw, did anyone notice that

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

looks like this?

 

 

 

 

 

 

the flag of the British Union of Fascists in the 1930s?

And this?

File:Runic letter sowilo variant.svg

Add another oneFile:Runic letter sowilo variant.svg File:Runic letter sowilo variant.svg and we have a sign associated with the Nazis (National Socialists): the SS, a Nazi military unit that had two distinct branches. One branch were elite fighting men, feared and respected by the Allies in WWII. The other butchered Jews and other “lesser mortals”.

A more appropriate symbol for the PAP?

 

Why “S’pore is not a repressive country”

In Political governance on 22/06/2018 at 10:53 am

When an anti-PAP warrior living in an HDB flat posted this on FB

“In a recent interview with renowned CNN anchorwoman, Christine Amanpour, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong as categorically stated that Singapore is not a repressive country because in the last election, every seat was contested.

I find this reasoning rather one dimensional as whether or not an election is contested is not the complete picture. This is especially the case in Singapore whereby the opposition do face certain challenges before they even get to the contest.”

TOC

One Adrian Tan posted:

Got a lot of anti-PAP types living in “subsidised”, “affordable” public housing. If S’pore as bad as what TOC claims, why PAP govt no kick them out? 🤣😜

To which I’ll add some of the names of some of these warriors: M Ravi, Terry of TOC and Teo Soh Lung.

If they get kicked out of the HDB flats they are in living in, I’ll admit that S’pore is a repressive country. Until then, I’ll hold the view that S’pore is an authoritarian one-party state that 60-70% of voters every five yrs or so willingly agree to put up with for another five yrs.

S’pore: An illiberal democracy?

Goh Meng Seng (Silence of Goh Meng Seng) even claims that to part finance the fight against the PAP, he sold his HDB flat in 2010 or 2011 when he was NSP’s Sec-Gen. But it’s alleged that he never paid any monies into the NSP’s bank account.

 

Anti-PAPpies want Kim to nuke S’pore isit?

In Uncategorized on 19/06/2018 at 5:26 am

Why liddat?

On FB, TRE and TOC and the Indian (I’m told, I don’t read it) the anti-PAP types are denouncing two PAP ministers for taking wefies with Little Rocket Man).

On FB in response to comments denouncing the PAP ministers:

There seems to be an assumption among people of a certain ideological bend that our ministers wanted to take the wefies. Has it ever occurred that Kim asked for the wefies as a goodwill gesture to say thanks to S’pore for hosting and paying his bills?

Adrian Tan

He’s a bit of a wimp for calling the anti-PAP types “people of a certain ideological bend” but he’s right about the assumption that the ministers wanted the wefies, and the possibility that Kim asked for the wefies as a goodwill gesture.

Imagine what would happen if the two ministers (not my fav ones*) said “No”.

Btw, since VivianB has also been denounced on FB, TOC, TRE etc of saying innocuous words like “impressive” when describing his impressions of North Korea which he visited recently. They want him to say, “The place is a shithole like Aljunied town council run areas” isit?

Our anti-PAP types hate the PAP so much that they openly want Kim to destroy S’pore because if S’pore is nuked PAP ministers will die. They forget that there are special measures to protect these ministers. How not to call these anti-PAP types, cybernuts?

The PAP couldn’t have wished for nuttier enemies, what with friends like Calvin Cheng (Err so why the silence on Calvin, minister?) and FATPAP.


*What I’ve written about them

VivianB’s other folly: F1

Our new PM/ Trumpets pls for me

Will people like Mr Ang and his family ever vote for Oppo?

In Political governance on 15/06/2018 at 11:00 am

Further to S’poreans unhappy enough to make mad Dog PM?

where I reported this survey which says

Singaporeans are less satisfied with their overall quality of life and democratic rights compared with previous years, according to a survey conducted by two National University of Singapore (NUS) dons.

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/singaporeans-less-satisfied-quality-life-democratic-rights-nus-survey-130122483.html

there’s

As far as Mr Ang Hong King, 72, is concerned, his three-room flat which he bought for S$6,000 in 1970, has served its purpose — providing a roof over his family’s head for almost five decades and counting.

The semi-retired driver and his wife raised their three daughters in the unit at Block 65 Circuit Road. Their children have since moved out, and gotten flats of their own.

Having no plans to move out, Mr Ang shrugged off the prospect of his flat — which is worth about S$250,000 now — losing its value in the future. “Price drop also never mind,” he said.

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/big-read-no-easy-answers-hdb-lease-decay-issue-public-expectations-have-change-first

Somehow I doubt it. So long as Mad Dog and his fellow nutters refuse to accept that there’s a big group of voters out there contented (Note I didn’t say “happy”) with the PAP, S’pore will continue to be a one-party state where the voters are happy every few yrs to renew the status quo of a one-party state.

Once Mad Dog and friends accept this reality, they can think of ways to destroy this contentment. More soon on possibles tactics. But if they continue thinking that 60-70% of S’poreans are stupid, then they can continue howling at the moon and banging their balls.

 

 

 

Our London ambassador on why Reformasi here is for the deluded

In Political governance on 09/06/2018 at 1:24 pm

I’ve quoted a few letters from our London ambassador to the Economist showing that in return for a cushy, well, paid job, the lady has to shallow some sperm now and then.

But the latest letter got it about right in terms of the PAP’s dominance of S’pore politics. And it’s funny too:

Politics in Singapore

Your Banyan columnist (May 26th) notes that “voting is clean” in Singapore. Furthermore, that the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) has won 14 general elections since 1959 because it runs “the country competently”. I thank Banyan for the compliment. After all, how many former British colonies are there where voting has always been clean and their governments consistently competent?

But Banyan insists there is more to the PAP’s longevity: a “favourable electoral system” and a cowed electorate, among other things. The PAP won 70% of the popular vote in the last general election. Could a “favourable electoral system” have delivered that? Your correspondents have been stationed in Singapore for decades. Did Singaporeans strike them as a people easily brainwashed into believing that the PAP and Singapore are “synonymous”?

Singaporeans are well-travelled, well informed and some even read The Economist. They continue to vote for the PAP because it continues to deliver them good government, stability and progress. The PAP has never taken this support for granted. As Lee Hsien Loong, the prime minister, noted recently, the political system is contestable. We have kept it so. The PAP could well lose power, and would deserve to do so if it ever became incompetent and corrupt.

FOO CHI HSIA
High commissioner for Singapore
London

So Tun and the S’poreans who think the sun shines from his ass can keep on wanking:

A Financial Times story today said – Mr Mahathir, who always enjoyed needling neighbouring Singapore and its long-ruling People’s Action Party, said the electoral earthquake would reverberate across the narrow Straits of Johor.

Mahathir told the Financial Times, “I think the people of Singapore, like the people of Malaysia, must be tired of having the same government, the same party, since independence.”

Related post: M’sia/ S’pore: Academic nuttier than cybernuts

 

Why Reformasi won’t happen here

In Political governance on 22/05/2018 at 9:49 am

TOC, TRE and all the usual places where cybernuts congregate are full of comments that change is coming here. like it did in M’sia, and the PAP is doomed.

Taz a lot of “noise” and hot air because most of the 30% that die die must vote for any donkey or clown so long as said clown or donkey is anti-PAP are a bunch of wanking cheapskates.

Terry’s Online Service reported on FB yesterday that

In 2014, there were already 16,039 subscribers at a monthly subscription rate of RM$40( SGD$15.4) [Terry was talking about M’siakini]. In comparison, TOC has 64 subscribers at a monthly subscription rate of $3 and a few at $10.

S$264,000 a month in 2014 versus less than S$640.

And

By 2013, Malaysiakini was already earning an annual income of close to 1.5 million ringgits (SGD$577k). While – as reported to IRAS for TOC’s revenue in 2017 – we received around SGD$29,600 in advertising and donation.

TOC’s numbers were in response to

A reader, Dylan Tan wrote in response to the report on Anwar’s thanks to Malaysiakini of its role in Malaysia, “that works if the Alternative news in SIN can be as quality as Mal(aysia)”

Terry retorted

We agree that our quality of reporting and coverage is not even close to that of Malaysiakini, but that can be said the same of our operating expenses.

And cited the numbers given above and repeated below

— Subscriptions: S$264,000 a month in 2014 versus less than S$640 a month.

— Total annual income of S$577,000 in 2013 versus S$29,600 in advertising and donation for 2017. TOC’s subs are “peanuts”.

With enemies like the free-loading fans of TOC and TRE, the PAP doesn’t need friends. And will rule forever and a day.

Jokes’ aside. Maybe they really don’t oppose the PAP? They juz make some noise, hoping the PAP will throw them some goodies? Bit like my dogs barking or whining to get my attention.

Or worse, maybe tha fans are part of PAP’s IB. They aim to deceive Terry and TeamTRE and other suckers that there are people out there listening to them.

M’sia/ S’pore: Academic nuttier than cybernuts

In Malaysia, Political governance, Public Administration on 13/05/2018 at 10:26 am

(Or “Will US AG accuse our PM of theft?“)

In M’sia: ‘Mountain of challenges’/ BBC analysis applicable here too,I made fun of those anti-PAP cybernuts who shout that Mad Dog will lead a coalition of the nuts to beat the PAP in the next GE.

Well I found an even nuttier nut: he’s a M’sian-born Oz academicwho he thinks PAP is like UMNO

Meanwhile Singapore has been ruled by the People’s Action Party (PAP) since 1959, almost the same number of years as UMNO was in power. On the surface, PAP appears to be strong. In the most recent general elections, held in 2015, PAP’s share of the popular vote increased by about 10 per cent, reversing after years of decline. Many would argue that the increased vote was primarily due to the death of Lee Kuan Yew six months earlier; Singapore’s voters wanted to give LKY a last hurrah. The nation is due to hold its next general election in two years’ time and Lee Hsien Loong, the current prime minister, will hand over power to the so-called 4G (Fourth Generation) leaders. No corruption allegations akin to 1MDB have been made about the PAP leadership but there is persistent unhappiness among Singaporeans over the escalating cost of living and the paternalistic style of PAP rule. The standard joke is PAP actually stands for “Pay And Pay” party.

Given Malaysians and Singaporeans have a fairly similar political culture, the dismissal of UNMO by their Malaysian cousins may prove inspirational. As more and more Singaporeans associate PAP with surging costs – and a planned hike in the rate of GST confirmed earlier this year – the PAP brand may become toxic as well. Ordinary Singaporeans already have a negative view of the PAP elite, who graduate from the best-known universities, hold the most prestigious scholarships and serve in the Singapore Armed Forces before entering PAP politics. They are seen as totally removed from the hard lives of ordinary Singaporeans.

http://www.afr.com/opinion/mahathirs-victory-a-warning-shot-for-singapores-pap-20180510-h0zwql

The nut forgets that the PAP had 70% of the popular vote in the last GE (the UMNO-led coalition had less than 50%) and the PAP has still a two thirds majority in parly (the UMNO-led coalition lost that in 2008).

I have two questions for him, “Does he foresee any scandal like 1MDB happening here? A scandal here that has the US of A’s Department of Justice and the AG accusing the PM* of theft?”

Btw, I’ll always joke that what will bring the PAP down is for S’poreans to find out from the int’l media that our Harry had had a secret Swiss bank account. Even after Pincohet lost power in Chile, even his opponents respected him as incorruptible: he had his enemies killed but he was not corrupt, or so they tot. But Chileans lost their respect, love of him when it was discovered he had a secret Swiss bank account.

Coming back to the topic of nuts, here’s another nut. He was a FT (where the “T” stood for “Trash”): https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-05-11/malaysia-singapore-union-flickers-back-to-life.


*OK, OK, they did not directly name Najib, but the documentation made it clear they were referring to FLOM’s hubbie.

GST rise: Anti-PAP activists should take note

In Political governance on 09/05/2018 at 4:35 am

“Najib, he’s good,” said Matakahr bin-Ali, a 78-year-old rubber farmer. “Yes he put in the GST, but then he gives back to us.”

Mad Dog, Lim Tean (Got time to register another Oppo party but no time to deliver on promises after raising money from public for video and rally:Where’s yr defamation video and jobs rally Lim Tean?, Meng Seng, Tan Kin Lian, Tan Jee Say, Uncle Leong etc will KPKB at next GE campaign about coming GE rise.

But PAP will say, “Got even more and bigger rebates leh: trust us.”

Who you think majority of voters will trust? PAP, or Mad Dog, “Can’t keep promise” Lim Tean, “Fake data” Leong or the diabolical trio that helped PAP thwart voters who wanted Tan Cheng Bock as president?

Even I who have never voted PAP in my life, think I’d trust PAP more than I trust Mad Dog, “Can’t keep promise” Lim Tean, “Fake data” Leong or the diabolical trio.

With enemies like these, does the PAP need friends? What do you think?

My serious point is that these guys should sit down and shut up. They should allow people like Dr Paul, Pritam, Auntie, Show Mao (If he can remove his balls from his mouth), Chris K, and the young professionals in the SDP and WP to lead the battle in denouncing and rebutting the need for the GST rises.

Let others succeed where they failed.

A new generation should fight the PAP’s mixture of young and old leaders. They can at least seriously dent the PAP’s hegemony: but only if the Old Guard step aside.

 

Healthcare: user fees drives up costs

In Political governance, Public Administration on 08/05/2018 at 11:17 am

To show S’poreans that saying that they want to earn the right to lead is more than BS, the coming generation of leaders should start looking at Hard Truths that have become irrelevant or were wrong in the first place. They can do no worse than look at user fees in healthcare.

The PAP administration swears by user fees in healthcare because it says that not to have fees means that there’s a buffett syndrome: Welfare for insurers (cont’d)

It would argue

In the 1980s and 1990s many health economists were relaxed about out-of-pocket payments, also known as user fees. The World Bank saw them as a way of making sure money was not wasted, and of helping health-care consumers hold providers to account. There is merit to this argument. Research by Jishnu Das of the World Bank found that when Indian health workers saw patients in their private clinics, they spent more time with them and asked more questions than when the same health workers saw patients in public clinics.

Economist

———————-

I’ve blogged before that the PAP doesn’t need that many smart people as it follows most of the Economist’s prescriptions (except on hanging, drug legalisation, free media and a liberal democracy): PAP’s bible challenges “market-based solution”)

—————————————————–

Well its bible now says that it’s not a

good idea to rely mostly on user fees to fund a health system. They stop those who need care from seeking it. Concerns that users will consume too much health care unless they have to pay are overblown. And when people are not getting vaccinated to save a few cents, others suffer, too.

Worse

Out-of-pocket payments are also “cannonballs of inefficiency”, says Timothy Evans of the World Bank, which is now sceptical about user fees. If spending is pooled, it can insure more people against the risk of ill health and put pressure on providers to cut prices. Of the $500bn generated globally by user fees every year, the World Bank estimates that 40% is wasted.

https://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21740870-if-universal-health-care-become-ubiquitous-politicians-will-have-act-more

Re the issue that user fees

are also “cannonballs of inefficiency”

seems to apply here as DBS says govt should control costs of households esp in healthcare: See who’s telling govt to control healthcare costs/ What we be should be KPKBing about

Anti-PAP Malay that ungrateful meh?

In Political governance on 05/05/2018 at 10:48 am

High Court recently threw out SDP assistant treasurer’s bid for Marsiling-Yew Tee by-election. Hali was the MP there before Why PAP thinks we need a Malay president?

One Faizal Maidin posted on FB 

Marsiling has one of the highest Malay Muslims population in Singapore but yet we have no Malay/Muslim MP to represent us. ZzZzZ This is unfair to us. We have voted for 4 MPs and not 3 ok.

He should go on his knees and thank the PAP for making a Malay a president when the voters want Dr Tan Cheng Bock to be our presient. But to be fair, maybe he thinks “Malay presidency” is “Calling a deer a horse”?

Related posts

— Good crowd at #notmypresident protest

— #hardlymahpresident

How PAP can tame cyberspace while making money (cont’d)

In Internet on 04/05/2018 at 10:52 am

The spate between no-class Charles Chong (representing the no-class PAP administration), and some lobbied (instigated? manipulated?) over-sensitive (Err did they watch the video of the exchange, or relied on hearsay? And from whom? PJ?) Oxford University academics (not colleges I note) and the non-entity Project Southeast Asia (more on this strange beast soon) reminds me of

“The unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable!”

Oscar Wilde

“A plague o’ both your houses!”

Mercutio, Romeo and Juliet, Shakespeare

It further reminds me that the PAP are missing another two tricks from darkest, dysfunctional Africa. Making bloggers Pay and Pay and tieing them up in petty details are what the PAP can introduce from Africa.

I had in Fighting fake news while raising revenue where I pointed out that our meritocratic scholars in the PAP administration could learn from Uganda in darkest, dysfunctional Africa: they could tax users of social media.

Another country from that dark continent has two brilliant ideas

Tanzania’s government has come up with a scheme that could prove even more draconian [referring to Uganda’s plan]: it plans to charge hundreds of dollars a year for the privilege of blogging. As part of new online regulations, bloggers will be required to pay hefty registration and annual licence fees that add up to roughly $920 — prohibitive for most in a country with a nominal per capita income of under $900. In proportion to GDP, the Tanzanian registration and licence fee would be the equivalent of asking Americans to pay nearly $60,000 to start a blog.

FT

Somehow I don’t think, the Idiots S’pore, Terry Online’s Channel or TRE (even if TRE’s pilot plan to use visitors’ clicks to mine crpto coins takes off) can afford the kind of sums required. Different for the SDP (CIA? Or Soros?) and mothership (George Yeo?Philip Yeo?).

And I certainly can’t be bothered with the paper work Tanzania is insisting on

What are the rules?

All online publishers including bloggers, vloggers and podcasters have up to 5 May to register and are required to pay $480 for a three-year licence, plus an annual fee of $440.

Radio and TV stations must also apply for licences to share their content online.

To get a permit, applicants must fulfil a list of requirements, like submitting staff CVs and reveal their future plans.

They will also have to keep a record of visitors to their site.

The regulations say the aim is to clamp down on “hate speech” and indecent material with the same standard being applied to online users.

They broadly define a blog as “a website containing a writer’s, or group of writer’s own, experiences, observations, opinions including current news… images, video clips and links to other websites”.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-43867292

Our new PM/ Trumpets pls for me

In Political governance on 27/04/2018 at 11:05 am

Whoever he turns out to be, it will “Continuity with change.” the slogan of the fictional President Selina Meyer in the television satire Veep.

That was actually stolen from the secret slogan of Goh Chok Tong’s and Jnr Lee’s (still continuing) tenures.

Btw, trumpets pls for me. Nice to see that academic and anti-PAP nuts have finally realised that Ong Ye Kung is not PM material https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2018/04/26/ntu-prof-next-pm-between-chan-and-heng-ong-is-out/. But only after PM said so.

Lest anyone forgets, I wrote in late March

I never was impressed by Ong Ye Kung (See Ong Ye Kung: A study in failure) and nothing since he became minister and a contender to be PM has changed my mind.

I went on to say

I doubt he’s as good as Prof Tommy Koh makes him out to be: “I have the highest respect for Minister Ong and regard him as credible and the leading candidate to be our next prime minister.”

He was the CEO of the Workforce Development Agency and labour productivity never did improve. His NTUC and SMRT failings I’ve listed in Ong Ye Kung: A study in failure.

Granted he has good communication skills, but so did JBJ, M Ravi and this serial promise breaker: Where’s yr defamation video and jobs rally Lim Tean?.

Ong Ye Kung: “Is he the 4G leader with the killer instinct?”

Chris K, when u next meet the people who claim they are in the know, pls ask them why did they get Ong’s prospects so wrong? Are they really in the know or only pretend they are in the know.

As I used to advise people overseas: the real decision makers here don’t talk a lot to their inner circles, even in private.

OK, OK I was wrong to think that Bayee would not become the Sec-Gen of the Wankers’ Party. I underestimated Bayee’s stupidity and Low’s inner SunTzu and despair at WP’s prospects at the GE. More on this next week.

 

“One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” & the PAP

In Political governance, Public Administration on 17/04/2018 at 10:56 am

Milos Forman, the director of “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest”, died recently died. It was only the second film in history to win Oscars for best picture, director, actor, actress and screenplay.

The film starred Back Nicholson as a man battling the system in a psychiatric establishment and was based on Ken Kesey’s novel.

Milos Forman said:

“To me it was not just literature but real life, the life I lived in Czechoslovakia from my birth in 1932 until 1968,” …

“The Communist Party was my Nurse Ratched, telling me what I could and could not do.”

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-43767278

Here’s an extract from the book on which it was based.  The speaker is Nurse Ratched, the lady really running the equivalent of our Mental Health Institute:

“Please understand: We do not impose certain rules and restrictions on you without a great deal of thought about their therapeutic value. A good many of you are in here because you could not adjust to the rules of society in the Outside World, because you refused to face up to them, because you tried to circumvent them and avoid them. At some time—perhaps in your childhood—you may have been allowed to get away with flouting the rules of society. When you broke a rule you knew it. You wanted to be dealt with, needed it, but the punishment did not come. That foolish lenience on the part of your parents may have been the germ that grew into your present illness. I tell you this hoping you will understand that it is entirely for your own good that we enforce discipline and order.”

She let her head twist around the room. Regret for the job she has to do was worked into her face. It was quiet except for that high fevered, delirious ringing in my head.

“It’s difficult to enforce discipline in these surroundings. You must be able to see that. What can we do to you? You can’t be arrested. You can’t be put on bread and water. You must see that the staff has a problem; what can we do?”

… The face moved with a ticking noise till the features achieved a different look. She finally answered her own question.

“We must take away a privilege. And after careful consideration of the circumstances of this rebellion, we’ve decided that there would be a certain justice in taking away the privilege of the tub room that you men have been using for your card games during the day. Does this seem unfair?”

Doesn’t what she say sound familiar if you

— lived in Potong Pasir when the Chiams ruled the place; or

— are living in Aljunied or Hougang

and have to wait forever and a day for yr HDB upgrading?

Or if you are a singleton below age 35, ineligible to get a BTO flat?

Or are a singleton age 35, eligible to only get a two room BTO flat in a non-mature estate?

 

 

MPs: Ours compared to Taiwanese/ No real change in Wankers’ Party?

In Political governance on 13/04/2018 at 11:01 am

The Taiwanese parliament has a really bad reputation here because our constructive, nation-building media are forever highlighting the rows, fights that goes on there. To be fair to our media and their masters, the Taiwanese parliament is world class in its level of rowdiness and the willingness of its members to use their fists.

So when TRE used CNA report shows public tpt Hard Truths are BS there was this interesting response

Taiwan MP vs SG MP:

Inside parliament, they fight against each other.
Outside parliament, they fight for their people.

SG MPs:
Inside parliament, they fight for each other.
Outside parliament, they fight against their people.

It got this response
 MarBowling:

Nowadays, we hardly find MPs like Dr Tan CB and Dr Lily Neo who have concern and heart for the common folks. MPs like Cheng Li Hui and the rest of the PAPigs are more concern for the pockets and perks than the welfare of the common folks. So voters of Tampines GRC should do the Needful in the next GE:show your middle finger to filthy rich MP Cheng Li Hui who CLEARLY shows that she cares more for the coffers of transport operators than the pockets of the common folks commuters!

Juz wondering, why both writers make no mention the WP MPs? Because they are MPs from the Worthless Wankers’ Party?
Couldn’t help but think that Bayee was saying “We remain the Worthless Wankers’ Party” when I read
Workers’ Party (WP) new chief Pritam Singh said on Sunday (Apr 8) the opposition party will build on the work of his predecessor, Mr Low Thia Khiang, and continue to be “rational, responsible and respectable”, as it seeks to work with all Singaporeans to “take on the form and the shape of a loyal Opposition”.

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/pritam-singh-takes-over-low-thia-khiang-new-wp-secretary-general

Btw, Secret Squirrel and Morroco Mole tell me that MP Cheng Li Hui has never ever used public transport. In her school and uni days, she had a chaffeur-driven German luxury car to ferry her around.

S’pore: An illiberal democracy?

In Political governance on 10/04/2018 at 11:31 am

I’ve said repeatedly that S’pore is not a democracy but a one-party state like China (Keeping power in a one-party state) albeit a de-facto one where the voters every few yrs approve in overwhelming numbers in a de-facto referendum (never less than 60% of the popular vote) its continuance.

But could it be a democracy albeit an illiberal one?

Yascha Mounk who teaches at Harvard

argues that there are two sides to liberal democracy. One focuses on the first half of the equation: protecting individuals from the tyranny of the majority through checks and balances and enumerated rights. The second focuses on the other half: handing power to the people. For most of the post-war period these two versions of liberal democracy went together like apple and pie.

Today, though, the popular will is increasingly coming into conflict with individual rights. Liberal elites are willing to exclude the people from important decisions, most notably about immigration in the case of the European Union, in the name of “rights”; meanwhile populists are willing to dispense with constitutional niceties in the name of “the people”. Politics is defined by a growing battle between illiberal democracy, or democracy without rights, on the one hand, and undemocratic liberalism, or rights without democracy, on the other.

https://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21738862-yascha-mounks-diagnosis-more-convincing-his-cure-how-liberal-democracy-fell-apart

But somehow I don’t see S’pore as an illiberal democracy because the PAP doesn’t believe in giving power to the people i.e. the masses.

Three quotes from LKY make my point about their contempt for the views of the masses

“I have never been overconcerned or obsessed with opinion polls or popularity polls. I think a leader who is, is a weak leader. If you are concerned with whether your rating will go up or down, then you are not a leader. You are just catching the wind … you will go where the wind is blowing. And that’s not what I am in this for.”

“Between being loved and being feared, I have always believed Machiavelli was right. If nobody is afraid of me, I’m meaningless.”

“You take a poll of any people. What is it they want? The right to write an editorial as you like? They want homes, medicine, jobs, schools.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/23/lee-kuan-yew-the-best-quotes-from-singapores-founding-father

PAP FT policy trying to avoid this mistake?

In Economy on 08/04/2018 at 10:52 am

In The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon wrote: “The narrow policy of preserving, without any foreign mixture, the pure blood of the ancient citizens, had checked the fortune, and hastened the ruin, of Athens and Sparta. The aspiring genius of Rome sacrificed vanity to ambition, and deemed it more prudent, as well as honourable, to adopt virtue and merit for her own wheresoever they were found, among slaves or strangers, enemies or barbarians.”

Well we now have an FT jnr minister Dr. Janil Puthucheary who comes from M’sia and FTs by the cattle truck load.

Coldstore: Why Harry’s narrative or the highway

In Political governance on 03/04/2018 at 10:44 am

(Or “Why Harry’s Coldstore narrative must be the truth”)

The roughing up of someone who dares to publicly talk about a Coldstore narrative that is different from that of one Harry Lee has cyberspace talking cock and upset*.

Amidst the noise and fury, one important issue in both what constitutes “fake news”, generally,and, in particular, in the ongoing dialogue of the deaf about different Coldstore narratives has been forgotten.

The son of one of the Coldstore detainees recently said:

For some of the matters around national security, race, religion, economic and financial issues, public health issues, by definition that source of truth must be government-backed or state-backed. The most egregious issues, the issues with significant impact, significant impact on our social fabric, on our national security, on our public health, the issues of peace, stability, the facts behind those, if you’re going to have a source of truth, it needs to be state-backed.

Dr. Janil Puthucheary, a Jnr Minister, at the Select Committee hearings on Deliberate Online Falsehoods, 23 March 2018

As S’pore is a de facto one-party state (because the voters regularly agree to it), Harry’s version of ColdStore (Bunch of commie subversives who had to be locked up because they wanted to make S’pore Great for Communism) is the official version. 

And because it is “government-backed or state-backed” it must be the truth going by what the jnr minister said. (And don’t forget that the greatest of the Hard Truths is that “Harry is always right. Harry is never wrong”.)

Related post: Were the Coldstore detainees communists, progressives or leftists?

Coming back to the jnr minister’s comments, looks like he agrees with what a M’sian minister said is “fake news”:

“Any information related to 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) that has not been verified by the Government is considered fake news.

Datuk Jailani Johari (pic), the Deputy Communications and Multimedia Minister, explained that fake news is information that is confirmed to be untrue, especially by the authorities or parties related to the news.”

What “fake” news will be allowed

What else does the jnr minister says about “fake news”? Fake news traffickers will be hanged.

But does the jnr minister disagree with the allegations made against his Pa and uncle who were Coldstore detainees, thereby contradicting the official narrative of “Bunch of commie subversives who had to be locked up because they wanted to make S’pore Great for Communism”?


*The grand inquisitor explains why he did what he did

I have been asked why I spent some time asking PJ Thum questions.

PJ’s main point, in his written submission to the Select Committee, was that Mr Lee Kuan Yew was the biggest creator of fake news in Singapore, a liar, and Operation Coldstore was based on falsehoods.

These are serious allegations made in Parliament about our founding PM.

Either they have to be accepted, or shown to be untrue. Keeping quiet about them was not an option.

Thus I told PJ I will ask him questions, on what he had said.

PJ refused to answer many of the questions directly – if a person believes in what he says, and has gone through the documents carefully, then what is the difficulty in answering questions?

It took 5 hours plus to go through the documents and records carefully.

In the end, PJ said that he had not read some of the material published by ex-Communists on what happened in Singapore; that he disregarded the statements made by Chin Peng, the CPM leader; that the way he set out the most important documents (of December 1962) was not accurate; the key meetings of Barisan Socialis showed that they were prepared to use armed struggle to overthrow a Government of Singapore, if necessary; and the British had a honest view, in December 1962, that security action (which was Operation Coldstore), was necessary.

People know me – I am direct, I deal with the facts, and say it as I think it is.

I can see that Sonny Liew is not happy with what happened with PJ. It is quite understandable. Based on what he says, he and PJ are quite close; they work together in a venture. His award winning cartoon, The Art of Charlie Chan Hock Chye, is also based on PJ’s version of history.

I have not met Sonny, but I have to say he is a good cartoonist. He is a talent.

K Shanmugam Sc‘s post

Btw, I agree with the points he makes about Sonny Liew being a good cartoonist and about why he asked the questions he asked. He had every right to beat up PJ Thum. I make no comment on

PJ refused to answer many of the questions directly – if a person believes in what he says, and has gone through the documents carefully, then what is the difficulty in answering questions?

Btw, seems PJ gave as good as he got, so his whining seems strange. But that’s grist for yet another post soon.

How PAP responds to criticism

In Uncategorized on 02/04/2018 at 9:16 am

Cyberspace is KPKBing about the attacks by PAP MPs on PJ Thum*, Terry Xu etc before parly’s select committee on falsehoods.


Reliable evidence?

This is what my FB avatar posted when Kirsten KPKBed about the attack on PJ Thum

Go read about the paper he submitted. They had every right to ask him the questions they asked him about Coldstore. Anyway based on newspaper report, I now know why he never referenced the views of certain known Communists when he analysed Coldstore. (I read his stuff). He thinks they are unreliable. So an issue when analysing his views is whether he’s right or reasonable to dismiss the views of said Communists.

This is what Chris K says about using what Communists said

Whatever the commies said or wrote, especially b4 the fall of the Berlin Wall, should never be taken as evidence. Marxist ideology was essentially based on historical dialectics, corrupted into their own version, Dialectic Materialism which brought “material” into the theory that history proceeds from conflicts and resolution of social forces. Therefore the commies had regarded that their ideology was “scientific” and therefore inevitable. The trouble was when history proceeded contrary to the way they read the tea leaves, they edited or erased history. The result was lies upon lies.

—————————————————————————————————

And then there is this attack on the PAPpies

Well. This is blistering. Can you sieve the facts from fiction, the specifics from the generalisations? What is true is that it is difficult to navigate the thicket of laws we have. The PAP group would have done better to give a point-by-point reply rather than casting everything as deliberate online falsehoods. That’s the way to win an argument, rather than have it shut down. And nobody should consider it a waste of time and inconvenient, because there will also be people who are willing to hear all points of view and decide for themselves.

Wannabe ST editor attacking PAP’s attack on Human Rights Watch report on S’pore

She of all people should know the PAP way: after all once upon a time she, as an ambitious senior editor in ST, helped facilitate such attacks. It’s alleged she resigned from ST when she didn’t become ST’s editor. Whatever, she walked away from the Dark Side only after she left ST and SPH group. Then she showed her Jedi sight?

Sorry back to the PAP.

PAP calls its opponents’ names. It also makes ad hominem attacks on the opponent. It KPKBs about the opponent’s tone. It contradicts without facts. And its IB changes Wilipedia articles (Example IB changes to PJ Thum’s Wikipedia entry).

arguments

Update at 4.34 pm In response to “Anyone can attribute this exhibit?”, Amelia says

The diagram is based on Paul Graham’s work. http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/how-to-disagree-well-7-of-the-best-and-worst-ways-to-argue

 

PAP proves point made by Buffett

In Political governance on 01/04/2018 at 6:06 am

Warren Buffett said that if you put good managers into a bad business, the business will win. His message was that investors should back good businesses that control their markets and can be run by idiots, because one day the idiots will be in charge.

FT columnist

Re “investors should back good businesses … and can be run by idiots, because one day the idiots will be in charge” applies now to S’pore today and the foreeeable future because it seems the idiots are in charge.

Think of the fiascos around SMRT, GST, and economic strategies that don’t work (Economic restructuring: This time, it’s really different)

Don’t believe me? Why do we keep getting mediocre ministers?

Ong Ye Kung: “Is he the 4G leader with the killer instinct?”

In Political governance on 28/03/2018 at 11:02 am

I never was impressed by Ong Ye Kung (See Ong Ye Kung: A study in failure) and nothing since he became minister and a contender to be PM has changed my mind.

But a TRE reader who wrote a gd piece about the People’s Choice to be PM (See Look who wants Tharman for PM) has written about Ong, so I reproduce it below for yr reading.

Is he the 4G leader with the killer instinct?

Of the three men reportedly in the running to be the next PM, Ong Ye Kung is the one least talked about and widely seen as least favourite.

He has two things on his resume which set him apart from every other cabinet Minister and 4G leader: he has experienced the bitter taste of defeat at an election and he is the son of a leftist.

Ong was in the PAP’s Aljunied GRC team which suffered a devastating defeat at the hands of the Workers’ Party – marking the first every GRC loss by the PAP. Ong witnessed up close the inglorious end to the Ministerial careers of George Yeo, Lim Hwee Hua and Zainal Abidin Rasheed, all three retiring from politics after the elections.

There is yet another aspect to Ong’s background which makes him stand out from his colleagues. His father Ong Lian Teng was one of 13 Barisan Socialis legislative representatives elected in the 1963 GE.

So Ong has lived through a baptism of fire and high drama and has “jumped ship” from his father. Put together, they may not be bad credentials to boast of because it can be argued that his resolve has been toughened and his mettle and strength of character tested.

But it could have been much sweeter – imagine if Ong had made a comeback for the 2015 GE by helming a team to take on the WP at Aljunied GRC (which was there for the taking). Instead Ong entered Parliament through the backdoor – he was fielded in one of the safest of GRCs for the PAP, the Sembawang GRC.

On paper, Ong is significantly behind in terms of exposure and profile when compared with Heng Swee Keat and Chan Chun Sing. But as Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) and Second Minister for Defence, he is in the thick of two key ministries. He was also Chief Executive of the Workforce Development Agency and Deputy Chief Negotiator for the Singapore-US Free Trade Agreement.

Ong has a very staunch advocate and champion in Prof Tommy Koh, arguably Singapore’s most illustrious diplomat. Last January, Prof Koh told a conference that from his experience working with him, “I have the highest respect for Minister Ong and regard him as credible and the leading candidate to be our next prime minister.”

Those remarks more than anything suddenly shifted the spotlight to Ong because Prof Koh is known to be astute in judgement and judicious in his choice of words. Just over a month ago, Prof Koh again set tongues wagging with a Facebook post of a photo of himself with Ong and the telling endorsement: “He has both high IQ and EQ. He is charismatic and an eloquent speaker. He has good leadership qualities and is very likeable. He is a man of integrity.”

Ong has a stoic, steely focus and set views about what works for the country and the PAP. He has said that one-party rule is the best way for a small country like Singapore to succeed. An indication perhaps that he would be prepared to do what’s necessary to shore up the power and dominance of the PAP.

He is also sharp-tongued – recently chastising MP Louis Lim for saying that public officers dare not speak up for fear of getting into trouble. Ong, who spearheads public innovation efforts, warned against “generalisations that tar the entire (public) service” and rounded it off in a caustic tone: “So I say to Mr Louis Ng, be part of the change, be part of the change . . .” The MP was stung. He beat a hasty retreat, assuring that he would be careful about making generalisations in future.

If made PM, Ong would have beaten the odds, surging ahead of more fancied and more high profile candidates in Heng Swee Keat and Chan Chun Sing. He is not to be counted out – yet.

There’s something about Ong which speaks volumes. To get a grip on it, let’s turn to celebrated manga artist Hiroyu Oku who said: “The killer instinct is not perceived by words, but by look.”

Ong Ye Kung has the look of one who is cool, calm, composed – and calculated. He is more caustic and more unnerving than any other 4G politician. He is to be underestimated at one’s peril.

Augustine Low

I doubt he’s as good as Prof Tommy Koh makes him out to be: “I have the highest respect for Minister Ong and regard him as credible and the leading candidate to be our next prime minister.”

He was the CEO of the Workforce Development Agency and labour productivity never did improve. His NTUC and SMRT failings I’ve listed in Ong Ye Kung: A study in failure.

Granted he has good communication skills, but so did JBJ, M Ravi and this serial promise breaker: Where’s yr defamation video and jobs rally Lim Tean?.

Coming back to Ong and the PAP:

Connecting SMRT failures, 4th gen ministers & change of PM

Why do we keep getting mediocre ministers?

Why cabinet can’t do bold new ideas

How to ensure no GST rise

In Political governance on 16/03/2018 at 11:20 am
This suggested tight slap to PAP sure to work. Sad that it wouldn’t be administered.
A TRE reader who is no cybernut wrote that losing five GRCs will make a GST rise unlikely. But that it wouldn’t happen because S’poreans don’t want Oppo running their wards. He’s right on both counts. And based on WP’s leaders behaviour in Aljunied (Now the subject of a legal suit by the town council against Low, Auntie and her bayee for breach of fiduciary duties) who can blame the voters?
Btw, based on sentiment in Aljunied, the WP is likely to lose big time in next GE. If Indian PAPpy can beat Chinese speaking scholar Show Mao in his ward in last GE, anything is possible in next GE.
opposition dude:

Always remember, this is a numbers game. He who has the most seats in parliament will govern Singapore it’s as simple as that. Right now PAP has over 80 seats and 1 to 3 more will be created in the next GE for sure. You want to make PAP lose more than 40 seats in the next GE is unthinkable for both the 70%/30%. All we can do is to make PAP lose more than what they have planned for, only then will a crystal clear signal be sent to the party that we are all frustrated with them over the immigration policy and the high cost of living in SIngapore.

If they lose 5 GRCs in the next GE then we will have sent in 25 or so opposition MPs into parliament. But the same stupid problem of voters not wanting an opposition party to run their ward lingers on. Together with the annual 20k new citizens being granted citizenship this will be quite the challenge.

Auntie’s behaviour: Why PAP can hang her

In Uncategorized on 15/03/2018 at 10:06 am

If they want to. But will they dare?

But first, Grace Fu is that cock meh that she had to take advice from AG?

The law is simple. Parliament decides what is parliamentary privilege.

The Court of Appeal in 1988 upheld the ruling by the Parliamentary Committee on Privileges by against one JBJ on the ground that Parliament was empowered by the Constitution to decide on what was covered by parliamentary privilege and to punish an MP if the Committee held that the MP had abused his or her privilege or were in contempt of the Committee or Parliament.

Therefore, it was up to the Committee and not the Courts to decide whether JBJ was covered by parliamentary privilege.

Parliament is judge, jury and executioner, the court effectively said, reflecting the common law position that is is still applicable in the UK.


Is this what AG advise?

Secret Squirrel and Morocco Mole claim to have seen AG’s advice on the matter.

They claim that AG referred to the Court of Appeal ruling in 1988 upholding the ruling by the Parliamentary Committee on Privileges by against one JBJ. The CA said that Parliament was empowered by the Constitution to decide on what was covered by parliamentary privilege and to punish MPs if the Committee held that such MPs had abused their privilege or were in contempt of the Committee or Parliament.

That the AG said is the law of the land. Well at least that’s what Secret Squirrel and Morocco Mole said the AG said.

——————————-

And because Parliament is judge, jury and executioner, therein lies the political danger for the PAP if the PAP decides to “fix” Auntie because if even a PAP voter cheers on Auntie, says Fu talking cock, there’ll be many more S’poreans (many not anti-PAP) that will agree with this anti-PAP cybernut

HarderTruths:

Does anyone remember JBJ and CST plus Amos. It does not matter what you do, as longas you stand up to these bunch of bullies you are done for.

if Auntie kanna whack by the Parliamentary Committee on Privileges.

Tan Cheng Bock, as usual, gets it about right. He posted on FB

BE GRACIOUS IN PARLIAMENT

Having watched the video on the GST debate, I felt the PAP ministers especially Shanmugam were brow beating MP Sylvia Lim by demanding an apology for asking whether the government postponed the GST hike because of negative public feedback. Many people perceive this brow beating as arrogance. I remember our former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew once told all PAP MPs in 1988 “Any show of arrogance or indifference by any MP or Minister will erode confidence in him and, later, in the government.”

Instead of getting upset, the Ministers should be thankful Sylvia Lim gave them an opportunity to explain. If the government’s position is ‘no’ then just say no and let’s just stop at that. No need to get defensive. As PM Lee Hsien Loong rightly said at the close of the Oxley Road debate: “If MPs believe that something is wrong, it’s an MP’s job to pursue the facts and make these allegations in their own name, decide whether something seems to be wrong, and if you think something is wrong, even if you’re not fully sure, then come to this House, confront the Government, ask for explanations and answers.” I enclose a video clip of Sylvia Lim quoting PM Lee.

PM Lee was echoing the view of our former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew who said “All MPs new and old, should speak out. You have to speak up and bring out the grapevine criticism in the coffee shops and hawker centres. It is damaging for the government not to openly refute it with facts and argument. By bringing up apparently embarrassing issues, you help the government openly state the facts and explain the reasons for our policies and so continue to hold the ground.”

So be gracious, no need to over-react or ask for any apology for bringing out “grapevine criticism” or “apparently embarrassing issues” in Parliament.

Sad that I can’t call him “My president”. For that blame Goh Meng Seng and Tan Kin Lian

Goh Meng Seng, our very own Wu Sangui

Remember he was

the guy who helped (Was he paid? Or did he do it out of the goodness of his heart because he loved the PAP?) the PAP’s preferred candidate to win in PE 2011 by

— persuading TKL to run;

— then running a shambolic campaign for TLK;

— and then saying he had to go to HK for a job interview,

Meng Seng wants us to kowtow to Xi

Look who wants Tharman for PM

In Political governance on 13/03/2018 at 11:31 am

Really a wide spectrum.

For starters a Muslim Indian who is now KPJBing because he needed “approval” to talk to undergrads here http://www.airconditionednation.com/2018/03/09/campus-control/. Do read it. It’s a great rant. I’ll come back to it some other day.

Sorry: back to Indian support for Tharman. So what’s new? Countryman always supporet countryman, their non-countryan co-workers in any organisation will grumble, rightly or wrongly.

But then this is a Muslim Indian (by conversion because he wanted to have sex with marry a Malay*) keeps on saying Tharman (Hindu?) must become PM.

Singapore’s mystifying political succession

Why is the PAP so ambivalent about the idea of being led by Tharman Shanmugaratnam?

http://www.newmandala.org/singapores-mystifying-political-succession/

(Byw, I first read the article a day after being told by a friend that he once attended a wedding in India where there was a drinking session for the male guests in which the main topic of conversation was “those XXXX Muslims”.)

Seriously, Cherian George lists all the usual (and reasonably good) reasons why ang moh tua kees like him want Tharman to be PM.

If an ang moh tua kee wants Tharman to be PM, that is precisely the reason why the ruling party in a de facto one party state do not want Tharman as PM; as do many other S’poreans.

It’s not mystifying, simply that the judgements and preferences of ang moh tua kees are treated with suspicion and contempt, both within the PAP, and within the wider society. It’s not always about one’s skin tone.

Then there’s this guy who comes across as an ordinary S’porean. He most probably voted For Dr Tan Cheng Bock.

The curious case of a politician who is so wildly popular

Tharman Shanmugaratnam is a one-of-a-kind politician. He has more ardent fans than any other. Netizens have long clamoured for him to be Prime Minister. Even critics of the PAP have heaped praise on him.

Yet Tharman never sought adulation. On the contrary he seemed discomfited by it and has done his best to deflect attention, protesting “I’m not the man for PM. I say that categorically. It’s not me . . . I know myself, I know what I can do, and it’s not me.”

What is it about Tharman that makes him so well-liked and wildly popular? It could be the sum of different parts in the man. Ironically the more he tried to shore up his imperfections, the more he connected with people.

He revealed that he was “completely disinterested” in studies and was aimless as a youth. “Studying medicine would have required time and academic effort, and I did not have that at the age of 17 0r 18 . . . I never had a job in mind, no ambition in terms of career.”

Tharman went on to major in Economics at Cambridge and Public Administration at Harvard. And the chap who hated studying became of all things the Education Minister!

As an ACS boy, Tharman spent much of his time indulging in sports – playing hockey, cricket, football, volleyball, rugby, sepak takraw. In later years he even played in the premier hockey league for Singapore Cricket Club and Singapore Recreation Club. The once sports-crazy politician gave this bit of advice on Facebook after Joseph Schooling won an Olympic gold medal: Discover something we each can be good at. Persevere and never give up. Then pass the passion on to the next generation.

There is also the rebel in him. Tharman has said that he was once “a dissident, a government critic.” He even got into trouble with the law. As a director at MAS 25 years ago, he was charged along with four others under the Official Secrets Act for illegal disclosure of sensitive or classified information. He was eventually convicted of a lesser charge of negligence and fined $1,500.

When cultural icon David Bowie died, Tharman posted the lyrics of the classic hit Space Oddity on Facebook and called Bowie a “musical genius.” It seems that his love for music goes hand-in-hand with a passion for poetry. Tharman penned four poems for a 1978 anthology called but we have no legends. He co-edited the book with two friends, all then in National Service and part of the Young Writers’ Circle at the National Library.

How cool is that – a poet and a David Bowie fan who became a Deputy Prime Minister?

The supremely smart and brainy side of Tharman is most apparent to people. He has a sterling record as Finance Minister and is the first Asian to chair the G-30 – a prestigious global body of top financial experts.  He has also been named Finance Minister of the Year by Euromoney magazine.

For someone who is not attention-seeking or rhetoric-driven, who is in fact  diffident at times, he actually has a great common touch and rapport with citizens. In the 2015 general election, Tharman outperformed all others, securing 79.3% of the votes for Jurong GRC.

Given his unique set of characteristics, his past as a rebel, his artistic bent, his refusal to airbrush his imperfections and struggles, it is a wonder that Tharman ended up as a man in white. He is not cast in the mould of a PAP politician.

Furthermore, we have been told by the ruling party that race and ethnic considerations will always be in the minds of voters when they cast their ballots. As a non-Chinese, he is supposed to be disadvantaged, although polling results have not borne that out.

In fact there are a surprising number of people who still harbour hopes of Tharman being Prime Minister. It may be wishful thinking. But it just goes to show that Singaporeans are not looking for sound and fury in their leader, for someone who is ever generous with promises. Rather, Singaporeans are dying for someone who is smart yet straight talking and sincere, and whose imperfections make him all the more human and relatable.

Augustine Low

—————————————————————

*I personally know one such couple. Mum’s Arab/ Chinese (looks Chinese), hubbie is Chinese. They have a daughter who looks Chinese and attends a Christian school (Dad’s from ACS) but is Muslim. When hols come around, she spends a lot of time in KL with her Muslim cousins.

 

 

Why do we keep getting mediocre ministers?

In Political governance on 12/03/2018 at 10:56 am

I mean what accounts for people like Kee Chui (Kidding me? Kee Chui potential PM? He from RI?), Ong Ye Kung (Ong Ye Kung: A study in failure) and Grace Fu (“Getting AG advice leh” after Auntie kicked her ass) getting into the cabinet?


disGrace Fu

When TRE used PAP voter cheers on Auntie, says Fu talking cock there were two good responses

opposition dude:
So disGrace didn’t get the sorry she wanted and is feeling pretty malu by now. How can a respectable minister not even get an apology out of a mere MP right? What will voters think of her as a minister now?

Face is very important to the PAP you know. I wouldn’t be surprised if she is already working on something else to one up Sylvia in the next parliamentary session. I don’t think she will just let it rest like that.

And

grace will be promoted soon?:

where will grace find herself. promoted or demoted?
put in a position where she can do lesser damage to the PAP’s brand?

or even damage to Singapore. we can now see that grace do not possess the qualities to represent SG to deal with foreign governments.

sinkies are now just waiting for LHL to make his announcement.
is he making last minute changes? LOL!

———————————————————

In an FT article on the role that managers played in the continuing productivity problems the UK faces (Sounds familiar?), the writer made three observations

— “Mediocre management is often the product of a flawed business model.”

—  Mediocre management “is at least in part, reflect policy failings.”

— “All too often we remain loath to trace persistent managerial weaknesses back to root causes.”‘

Well the PAP’s business model of “We will grow the economy and voters will have the good things in life. In return, voters will vote for S’pore remaining a de-facto one-party state.” is flawed.

Once upon a time (in the days of Harry and his thugs) growing the economy, most probably resulted in S’poreans’ material prosperity improving. This usually happens in the early stages of economic development. But as the economy matures, this link is usually weakened. Today? Not any more, as strong GDP growth no longer benefits ordinary S’poreans as the GDP growth in the late 90s, noughties and beyond shows (Still expect world topping salaries isit?).

S’poreans are also realising that giving the PAP such concentrated power since 1959 has resulted in the PAP’s leaders being detached from reality. PM admitted in 2011 that the anger on the ground shocked the PAP MPs. They had been assured by their PA grassroot leaders, that the unhappiness voiced in cyberspace was just “noise”. It didn’t reflect reality. Well it did.

As to “policy failings”, think failures like getting S’pore to breed like rabbits (Pandas’ birth rates in the wild are better than ours or so I’ve been told: remember they are still in danger of extinction), immigration (PM that stupid meh?) and all the “transformative” economic plans (Heng, can be PM meh?) starting from the one by one Lee Hsien Loong in the 80s. At least he couldn’t copy, cut and paste from earlier reports (seems Dr Goh made him think) but all other subsequent ministers copied, cuy and pasted from lee.

But remember the FT writer wrote

All too often we remain loath to trace persistent managerial weaknesses back to root causes.

What is the root cause of mediocre ministers?

Us the voters.

Why do 60-70% of the voters consistently vote for the PAP, thereby enabling the PAP to have over two-thirds of parly seats, thereby enabling the PAP to suka suka change the constitution? Example:Why PAP thinks we need a Malay president?

And its not only the 60-70% who enable mediocrity.

In 2011, the 30% who consistently vote for any clown (Think Goh Meng Seng or Tan Kin Lian or Lim Tean) so long as it’s not a PAP monkey, missed the opportunity to cock a snook at the PAP in the presidential election. Instead they voted for two RI opportunists, thereby allowing the PAP’s prefered candidate to win. Half of the voters who usually vote PAP voted for Tan Cheng Bock but the anti-PAP voters prefered the Mad Dog Chee’s preferred candidate or Goh Meng Seng’s buddy, Tan Kin Lian.

As has often been said

Voters deserve the government they get.

It’s the fault of S’porean voters that we get mediocre ministers.

Whatever, with enemies like Mad Dog, Tan Jee Say, Goh Meng Seng and Tan Kin Lian, the PAP can get away with ministers like Kee Chui, Ong and disGrace Fu.

 

PAP voter cheers on Auntie, says Fu talking cock

In Political governance, Uncategorized on 10/03/2018 at 11:28 am

Here’s two FB posts by a senior lawyer who admitted that he voted for the PAP in past elections

I think that Minister Grace Fu should drop the threat to refer to the Committee of Privileges.

Such a display of arrogance and high-handedness doesn’t impress me, and should not impress Singaporeans.

The facts are this, simply.

The G has said since 2013 that revenues must be raised. I was long aware of PM’s comments at the time. So we know that taxes are going up at some time in the future, but not when.

I was also aware of DPM’s 2015 remarks that the G had enough revenue for the decade. This implied that GST might not need to be raised this decade but it was not a clear, direct and explicit promise not too. Neither was PM’s remarks at the 2017 PAP Convention a categorical promise or confirmation.

The was much discussion in 2017 about an impeding announcement of a GST increase, promoted at least in part by PM’s and Minister Heng’s remarks.

Many economists speculated about the timing of the GST increase. Many of them thought it would be this decade, notwithstanding the G’s earlier comments.

For myself, I was not sure what the G would announce in Budget 2018. I expected an announcement of GST to be raised, but I had no confidence whether it would be after or before 2021.

Does this mean that I thought the G dishonest in its earlier comments?

No, not at all, because while earlier statements were made about having sufficient revenue for the decade, these statements did not amount to a clear promise not to raise the GST in this term of government.

If the G thinks the earlier remarks were clear and categorical, so that citizens could have no doubts, how does it explain why so many reputable economists were willing to entertain thoughts of an increase this decade?

And later

Having read all the transcripts, Minister Fu’s ability to understand the debate seemed dodgy at best. As Bertha has written elsewhere, she seemed out of her depth and one has to say that this impression is not without basis.

For example, she deplored the fact that Sylvia Lim “continued with this accusation” after the G’s explanations but what does the Honourable Minister mean by that? Sylvia said clearly that she can accept, in light of the G’s response as to its intentions, that her suspicions may be wrong, but she simply does not accept that there was no basis for suspicion when originally made.

I rather struggle to see how this position could reasonably found a complaint to the Committee of Privileges except for a hyper-sensitive government – and that should NOT be encouraged.

Minister Fu also failed to give any coherent explanation of how – if the G’s contention that their intentions not to raise taxes this decade has been made clear in numerous statements pre-budget 2018 – that numerous respected economists could have entered and speculated about exactly that possibility.

Her answer was this : “But having said so, after she has brought the matter here, we have laid down the facts to her. And yet she continued to insist on the allegation. This is the difference between what we say in this chamber and what economists, analysts say outside this chamber.”

This answer of course says nothing about whether Minister Fu would claim that the G had previously made its position so clear that entertaining the possibility of an increase this decade was an unreasonable idea. And probably Minister Fu would, with respect, struggle to make a convincing claim here.

Instead, Minister Fu focuses her complaint simply on Sylvia’s (alleged) continued maintenance of her claim despite the G’s response.

But what does this (alleged) continued maintenance consist of?

Sylvia made plain that in light of the G’s insistance on its position, her suspicion might be wrong as a matter of fact (although the true facts are only known to Cabinet).

But she maintains that, when made, the suspicion was not without basis and essentially Minister Fu had no coherent explanation for why that was the case. She simply is unhappy that Sylvia did not withdraw the original allegation or apologise.

But why should Sylvia, unless the G could demonstrate that there was no basis for suspicion when the claim was first made – and here Minister Fu has no explanation (see above). For example, she did not respond to the question of whether all the economists who speculated on a budget increase this decade after after DPM’s 2015 statement and PM’s PAP Convention speech were thinking in an unreasonable way.

So to threaten to refer to the Committee of Privileges in these circumstances simply reflects poorly on Minister Fu, with the greatest of respect.

 

 

Lawrence Wong: a PM-in-waiting

In Uncategorized on 09/03/2018 at 11:12 am

I’m surprised that the talk cock, sing song academics and other pundit don’t think of Lawrence Wong as a contender to be PM.

Because unlike their favourite, Kee Chui (Why “Kee Chiu” got renamed “Kee Chui”), he knows how to throw smoke when “answering” inconvenient questions

The entire additional S$7.7 billion above the official estimate is being given back to Singaporeans in various ways, instead of just the S$700 million SG bonus, Mr Wong stressed, as he addressed Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) Azmoon Ahmad’s suggestion for the Government to share more of the unexpected budget surplus.

“We don’t save surpluses.”

I went WTF!

But I had to admire his explanation (OK BS).

“We give them all back to Singaporeans but we give back in different forms,” said Mr Wong in Parliament on Tuesday (Mar 6) during the debate on his ministry’s budget.

“Some will be for spending (on) future needs. Some will be spending for current needs… and some will be through a direct transfer, like the SG bonus,” he added, urging for the surplus to be viewed “in totality”.

Mr Wong cited the setting aside of S$5 billion for a Rail Infrastructure Fund “which will benefit all MRT commuters”, and S$2 billion for premium subsidies and other forms of support when the ElderShield review is complete.

———————————–
Why Lawrence Wong is wrong on “We don’t save surpluses”
Or rather “We don’t save surpluses” is misleading.
FB post by Chris Kuan

CNA reported Larry the MND and the second MOF as saying all of the $7.7b of additional surplus from the revised 2017 budget overall surplus has been shared with Singaporeans in various ways such as a $5b transfer to the Rail Infrastructure Fund and $2b for Eldershield. Don’t look at the SG bonus in isolation he said. But that is not quite correct, is it? Tell me if I am wrong but this is how I look at it.

If that $7.7b additional surplus had been shared in the 2018 budget, then the 2018 Budget position would not have been a deficit of $0.6b but of $8.3b. After all each Financial Year Budget is based on that FY’s revenues and expenditures plus that FY’s transfers to funds and endowments and its NIR Contribution right? If the $7.7b has been shared with Singaporeans, then the sum of the Budget position for 2017 and 2018 should equal to the original FY 2017 estimate surplus of $1.9b. But that is not the case, the sum is a surplus of $9b (2017’s $9.6b surplus minus 2018’s $0.6b deficit). So how can this be if the $7.7b surplus from the first year is spent or shared in the second year?

The better explanation or rather the truth of the matter may well be that the $7,7b additional surplus has not yet been shared with Singaporeans, It will eventually – just wait for the year before the general election. Of course in fairness to Larry the MND and the 2nd MOF, all that spending on rail infrastructure and Eldershield in 2018 did take place but that is from using up all the revenues and the NIR contributions estimated for the year. Call me pedantic or whatever.

PS: Being transfers to funds and endowments, the $5b allocated to rail and $2b to Edlershield are ofcos not spent all at once but over several years. An important distinction to be aware of given the govie’s propensity to report this kind of expenditures in a single year.

But the fact that Chris Kuan has to go into such detail to show that “We don’t save surpluses” is misleading. shows that Lawrence Wong is a throw smoke specialist, good enough to be PM after Heng’s one term in that post. You heard these predictions here first.

And here’s another one: he’ll be the next Finance Minister. Remember you first heard this here.

————————————————–

Coming back to Kee Chui. If Lawrence has to answer the questions on the need, and the use of reserves, unlike Kee Chui, he would have said something along the lines of what the CEO of Norwaty’s SWF said when he reported a great set of results*
stressed that the good times would not continue forever, warning Norwegians to be prepared for a potential fall in value in the future.
Btw, remember his warning on HDB flats? Why 30-year old HDB flats difficult to sell
 ————————————————
*The oil fund separately reported one of the best years in its 20-year history as it returned 13.7 per cent in 2017, helped by booming equity markets. Equities returned almost 20 per cent, while property and bonds also contributed positively. The NKr1tn ($128bn) return was the biggest ever measured in kroner.
FT

Why cabinet can’t do bold new ideas

In Political governance, Public Administration on 06/03/2018 at 10:04 am

And why ministers can only talk cock sing song, repeating mantras or clichés about Hard Truths: think about the comments about GST and the reserves.

Last Saturday, I read in the FT

“By appointing people with like minds but with a wide range of professional backgrounds . . . we can discuss things with an open mind and go beyond past ways of doing things to speedily implement bold new ideas.”

Toyota’s president on Toyota’s appointing the first female director, a senior Japanese banker

This led me to think about our cabinet.

With the exception of two doctors and a private sector lawyer, the rest of cabinet (85%) came from the public sector*. All but three were senior officers of three bureaucratic, command and control and hierarchical organisations: SAF, the civil service (which effectively means the admin service: there’s only one “civil service” minister that’s not from the admin service) and NTUC. Two of the remaining three were executives from GLCs (SingTel and PSA) and other was an academic from a local university.

So how to expect creative thinking, let alone commercial, financial or business expertise?


The Spartan who defeated Athens

By the end of the 5th century BC, the superiority of the Athenian Navy had long gone, and the Spartans were more than a match for the Athenians at sea … Firstly, the Spartan Navy had significantly improved. Naval warfare had traditionally been seen as ‘cowardly’ by the Spartans, but this attitude began to change as Lysander gained authority. The illegitimate son of an aristocrat, Lysander grew up in relative poverty. It was perhaps his unusual upbringing that allowed him to think differently from the Spartan norm. He painstakingly made his way up the ranks and was finally given a position of authority in his mid-forties, when he was made the Spartan Admiral in 407. Lysander borrowed heavily from the Achaemenid Empire and used the money to purchase ships and crews; the Spartans were finally a proper naval force.n his

http://www.warhistoryonline.com/guest-bloggers/final-blow-lysander-aegospotami.html

————————————————————————-

The first PAP cabinet in 1959 (and for at least a decade  and a half thereafter) was diversity in action. There were private sector lawyers, civil servants and businessmen.

Later, there was a local executive from HP (then a respected tech MNC), the MD of Shell’s local operations and two bankers. OK, OK, one banker was from a bank where his uncle was the chairman, although uncle was not the controlling shareholder. Before that he was an academic. And when in the bank, he was considered by many outsider bankers an improvement to the usual OCBC senior managers. The other banker was originally from the civil service but he was transferred to DBS.

Things went downhill in terms of diversity since the day when several ex-SAF generals were made ministers. To be fair to one Goh Chok Tong, he tried to bring diversity back by bringing one VivianB into the cabinet. But in 2005 or 2006, he told Cheong Yip Seng (ST editor appointed by one Harry Lee)) that he was disappointed that VivianB had “become like the others”. In fact, VivianB went one step worse than the other PAP ministers, he openly sneered at the elderly poor.

Btw, the PAP administration is so desperate to show that it has private sector experience and expertiste that one minister who in his younger days was in the admin service was said in his cabinet CV to have joined the private sector*. He worked in S’pore Technologies and Temasek.

This would be hilarious if it wasn’t so pathetically tragic for S’pore.


*Many yrs ago, I “discovered” that official data classified all 100%  govt owned cos incorporated under the Companies Act as “private companies”. Hence the huge discrepency between official data and a report from the US embassy on state participation in the economy.

 

Why “Kee Chiu” got renamed “Kee Chui”

In Uncategorized on 26/02/2018 at 10:14 am

Chan Kee Chui’s (aka Chan Kee Chiu’s) latest attempts to talk cock, sing song

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

See Chris K’s comments reported in https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2018/02/25/chan-chun-sing-says-severe-implications-if-singapore-does-not-have-sufficient-reserves-but-just-how-much-is-enough/)

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

reminded me that when TRE republished Kidding me? Kee Chui potential PM? He from RI? there were a few cybernuts (Or PAP IBs?) who tried to slime me by pointing out that I should be using “Kee Chiu” and not “Kee Chui”, pointing out that Chan’s nick-name is Kee Chiu because he liked to use the term once upon his time. I have no objection to this criticism.

But they went on to say that I didn’t know the difference between  the tewo terms  because I wasn’t S’porean. Excuse me must know Hokkien to be S’porean isit?

Whatever if they had any brains (which they don’t being ratty anti-pAP cybernuts or PAP IBs), these guys should know that “Kee Chui” is now a more apt nick-name for him based on his verbal gaffes.

Beng pek ma?

And while focusing on his need for strong reserves, it seems critics missed this gaffe

In a democratic society, few governments will take this approach, informing citizens about a tax increase a few years beforehand.

We are a “democratic society” meh?

Worse, maybe even the cybenuts, and critics like TOC and Chris K believe that S’pore is a “democratic society”. If so what weed are they smoking? To be fair to them, maybe the PAP has put something, other than recycled water, into the water S’poreans drink.

My view? We are not a “democratic society”: The PAP way? is the CCP way.

 

 

 

 

Our Goebbels’ works: only for today 25% discount

In Media on 25/02/2018 at 6:19 am

Saw this yesterday

25% DISCOUNT! Yes, you read right. Tomorrow (25 Feb) is the birthday of S. Rajaratnam, Singapore’s first Foreign Minister, who also wrote our National Pledge. 
However, did you know that he also wrote several short stories and radio plays before he became a politician? 
Some of the stories were so good, they were selected for anthologies in the UK and USA and translated into several languages, including French and German!

Find out more here: https://buff.ly/2CgI8fR

When I think of S. Rajaratnam, I think of Joseph Goebbels who was one of Hitler’s closest associates and most devoted followers. One could say the same of the relationship between Rajaratnam and one Harry Lee.

Goebbels, like Rajaratnam, was known for his public speaking skills.

But his greatest skill was in the use of propoganda

began to take an interest in the use of propaganda to promote the party and its programme. After the Nazi Seizure of Power in 1933, Goebbels’ Propaganda Ministry quickly gained and exerted controlling supervision over the news media, arts, and information in Germany. He was particularly adept at using the relatively new media of radio and film for propaganda purposes.

Wikipedia

Rajaratnam was also good in controlling the media and spinning for the PAP.

But Rajaratnam was no anti-Semite. And he was the side that won.

PAP got a point on welfare programmes

In Economy on 14/02/2018 at 10:26 am

[M]y first wish is that Medishield Life be expanded to cover evidence-based healthcare interventions. I raised this at the IPS dialogue with DPM Teo Chee Hean last month and his response was to cite the classic neoliberal argument* that if you provide free medical care, a “buffet table syndrome” will result. This means that individuals will get all kinds of diseases and treatments just so that they can enjoy the free medical benefits. This is not his fault, it is a widely held belief among health economists from various right wing think tanks primarily in the United States who have advanced this argument.

Dr Paul Tambyah

http://yoursdp.org/news/paul_tambyah_39_s_speech_budget_2018/2018-02-12-6222

(Do read the speech from the only adult in the SDP portiburo. If only Mad Dog would step down and Dr Paul replaces him, the voters perception of SDP would change, enabling the SDP to be the Opposition not the Wankers’ (Or it it “Worthless”?) Party But Mad Dogs don’t do resigning, only biting. Sad.)

The PAP would also make the point that all welfare programmes grow and grow, as expectations rise. This in turn overwhelms other worthy state expenditures. Are they wrong?

Here’s what’s happening in the US

the crucial driver of US indebtedness is not military or discretionary domestic spending. It is the spending on “mandatory” entitlements, primarily social security payments for pensioners and healthcare programmes for the elderly and the poor. Along with interest on the nation’s debt, these make up more than two-thirds of federal spending, a proportion that is expected to grow. In the absence of a debate about how to reduce spending on big entitlements, or how to generate more revenue to support them, political fights like the one just resolved are theatre. They have the potential to do damage if they go wrong, but no chance whatsoever of changing the long-term outlook. The trajectory of the US debt burden is disquieting. The country is headed, by all accounts, for deficits of at least $1tn a year, which amounts to 5 per cent or more of gross domestic product. The total stock of US debt, now standing at 80 per cent of GDP, will pass 100 per cent before a decade is out if current policies are sustained.

FT

Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, has just urged Congress to tackle the ballooning national debt, saying it posed a “dire threat” to economic and national security.

Btw, I’m sure Dr Tambyah would consider the FT and the the US intelligence community to be major part of the neoliberal establishment.


*Why you think he started sending potential ministers to the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard? Harvard is a another major part of the neoliberal establishment.

Bishan otters PAP members?

In Environment on 14/02/2018 at 4:51 am

Or did the otters got co-opted into being constructive, nation-building animals? Did the otters got paid for this?

Seriously, this video shows the PAP, knowing that we love the otters, and are using them to influence us

Whatever fun to watch.

Heng, can be PM meh?

In Economy, Political governance on 13/02/2018 at 10:25 am

Two major biz trade groups are publicly very unhappy with Heng’s Industry Transformation Maps. Looks like bizmen and corporate executives don’t think much of the Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs), drawn up by Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat’s  Committee on the Future Economy (CFE)

The ITMs, which make up one of the key strategies outlined in the Committee on the Future Economy (CFE) report, have come under the spotlight recently amid questions from business and industry leaders about its relevance.

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/looking-ahead-to-budget-2018-what-it-could-mean-for-businesses-9943406

And he’s suppose to be a contender to PM? I mean did anyone say that Ah Loong’s economic strategies drawn up when he was a minister or DPM (Economic restructuring: This time, it’s really different) were anything less than greater than great? He was the Messiah, Moses and Jesus Christ Superstar all rolled into one, even though Ong Teng Cheong was more popular with the masses.

The Association of Banks is one of the unhappy business groups:

At a pre-Budget roundtable organised by the Institute of Singapore Chartered Accountants (ISCA) last month, DBS CEO Piyush Gupta, who speaking in his capacity as chairman of the Association of Banks in Singapore, questioned if the ITMs can keep up with the rapid changes in each industry.

“The blueprint and roadmap that you put in place will be outdated by six months so what we have to create is not a transformation roadmap but transformation capabilities,” he said. “We need to take our ITMs to the next level, which is to create the industry’s capacity to experiment and rapidly change.”

Then there’s the Singapore Business Federation

Also speaking at the roundtable, Singapore Business Federation (SBF) CEO Ho Meng Kit noted a disconnect between the ITMs, which are led by Government agencies, and the “realities of the industries”.

He added that he was concerned about the ITMs being developed for the bigger firms and risk leaving out “the long tail of SMEs in the same industry that are not as productive”.

(And btw this is damning for the Ministry of Trade & Industry

According to the SBF’s latest survey, half of the roughly 1,000 businesses surveyed said they still do not know enough about the ITMs to assess their impact*.)

I repeat again:

[H]e’s suppose to be a contender to PM? I mean did anyone say that Ah Loong’s economic strategies drawn up when he was DPM (Economic restructuring: This time, it’s really different) were anything less than great?

For the record, I predicted many moons ago that Heng would be PM: The next PM has been unveiled.

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

*Minister for Trade and Industry (Industry) S Iswaran said on Feb 5 that “it is not possible for the Government to reach out directly” to all enterprises. In a written response to a parliamentary question, Mr Iswaran stressed that unions, trade associations and chambers (TACs) “must help to propagate the message”, while business owners “must also take the initiative to find out more about the ITMs”. He’s got a point that ‘business owners “must also take the initiative to find out more about the ITMs”’.

 

 

 

 

 

Kidding me? Kee Chui potential PM? He from RI?

In Political governance on 12/02/2018 at 9:40 am

The academics and the anti-PAP cybernuts who claim that Kee Chui is likely to be the next PM must either be really stupid, or really trying to sien us?

I mean who can reasonably conclude that Kee Chui is the material that PMs can be made off?

Two weeks ago, High Court judge See Kee Oon questioned an appellant’s use of a letter from her MP Lam Pin Min (Sengkang West) to play down the offence she was convicted of. (Juz wondering? MP White Horse? Or spouse White Horse or grassroots tua kee?

Kee Chui, Minister and Chief Whip, was then quoted by ST as saying that the PAP has “no specific governing rules” on the sending of MP letters to the courts or other agencies or ministries.

A retired district judge, Mr Low Wee Ping, who was the Registrar of the Subordinate Courts and Supreme Court in the 1980s, in a letter to ST, said one Harry Lee had instructed all MPs, in writing, that they should not write such letters to the courts.

Mr Lee was also of the view that if the MP’s constituent resident perceived his sentence imposed by the court as lenient, he might attribute it solely to the MP’s letter, and, therefore, feel obligated or grateful to vote for the MP in an election wrote

Also

MPs approached by TODAY, such as West Coast GRC MP Patrick Tay, said they are aware of the “long-standing practice” for PAP MPs not to write to the courts on behalf of their constituents*.

So what does Kee Chui do? Scholar and ex-SAF commander makes a U-turn on PAP MPs writing to court.

In his letter to PAP MPs on Friday, Mr Chan wrote that PAP MPs have, “as a norm” over the years, refrained from writing to the Courts on behalf of their constituents.

PAP MPs, he said, “must not do anything that may give rise to any misperception that they can influence or interfere in the judicial process”.

“When approached by constituents over matters that come before the Courts, PAP MPs may write to the Ministry of Law (on procedural issues) and the Attorney-General’s Chambers (on prosecutorial issues). This has been the general practice, and will remain so,” he added.

In his letter, Mr Chan reminded his fellow PAP MPs that the courts have “clear and strict procedures to uphold the independence and integrity of the judicial process”, and are in the best position to evaluate the evidence and merits of a case.

He added: “The separation of powers has never been in question even when the courts have received a letter from an MP, directly or indirectly. Nevertheless, to avoid any doubt or public misperception, may I remind PAP MPs not to write to the Courts on behalf of their constituents.”

Today

Like that can become SAF commander and minster meh?


Kee Chui’s other major cock-up

PAP: Chinese defecate in public, Indians clean up

Remember PM signaled him to listen to how a minister should explain things?

If he were ytansport minister, S’pore would suffer a catastrophic breakdown of train services, and Changi airport would close.

________________________________________________________

And PM in waiting? Like that can be RI boy? But then he was only in RI for Pre U. Even TLK was in RI for four years. But even in RI for six yrs is no guarantee of not being a cock: think TJS.

Like that cybernut should earn millions.


*OK, OK this appeared after he wrote letter but if these MPs knew, how come Kee Chui didn’t know?

The PAP never sleeps

In Political governance, Public Administration on 09/02/2018 at 11:02 am

Well it’s Budget Day, so, With the Budget 10 days away (Sorry I got my dates mixed up, I tot it was today when I first did the piece this morning: 5.00pm)) it’s a good time to remind the anti-PAP types that the PAP is always preparing to win the next general election.

———————————————–

The PAP, like City, never sleeps

The PAP is already preparing for the next General Election (GE) – possibly to be held in 2021 – and Health Minister Gan Kim Yong has been appointed to lead the process of identifying new candidates.

PM on 1 December 2016.

And immediately after the results of GE 2011, Ng Eng Hen, said the PAP campaigning starts next day.

————————————————

It’s already preparing to win over another segment of the population in time for the next GE. The millennials are being courted:

Young couples will soon be able to move into their new homes quicker, as the Government is looking to shorten the wait for public housing.

When implemented, the move will see the waiting period for Build-To-Order (BTO) flats dip to two to three years, from the current three to four years, said National Development Minister Lawrence Wong last week.

ST sometime back

And the elderly (and their children and grandchildren too because less state help means they have to pay and pay more for the needs of the old) are being given more goodies

Amid the rapidly ageing population, healthcare expenditure with a strong social focus to support seniors to age in place will be one of the “big items” in the Budget, said Senior Minister of State for Law and Finance Indranee Rajah.

We already know GST will go up, but the timing, what are the “offsets” (after all our money) and how will everything be spun is what be known later today.

 

How to get S’poreans to welcome mass immigration

In Economy, Political governance, Property on 05/02/2018 at 10:25 am

The calls are getting louder, with more and more voices making the case for Singapore to relook its position on the foreign manpower issue, in the face of a severe demographics slowdown*.

http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/big-read-foreigner-issue-are-we-ready-rethink

The above and a similar ST article a few days earlier is evidence that the constructive, nation-building media is again preparing the way for the flood gates to be opened and for FTs to be allowed in by the cattle truck load (not like now by only the A380 or 747 cattle class load).

The stories reminded me also that

“Opposition to immigration is largely cultural and psychological. Policy options will therefore have to address this.”

Eric Kaufmann, professor of politics at Birkbeck University of London, http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/why-culture-is-more-important-than-skills-understanding-british-public-opinion-on-immigration/)

Eric Kaufmann was talking about the UK, but what he says also applies here.

So somehow, I think talking in general terms that the economy needs FTs wouldn’t work. Think the Population White Paper (Population White Paper: PAP’s suicide note?) which didn’t convince S’poreans that we need FTs by the cattle-truck load.


A personal view

As I’ve blogged before, FTs by the cattle-truck load is good for me personally because of the wage repression effect, stronger GDP growth, rising property prices etc. But still I’m not even in favour of FTs by the A380 load. I want FTs by the A350 or 787 business class and first class load.

__________________________________________________________

So if the PAP wants to use culture and psychology to get S’poreans to welcome cattle truck-loads of FTs, the constructive, nation-building media should tell S’poreans what will happen to the value of their “affordable” HDB flats that they are paying for via 25-year mortgages, if said FTs are not allowed to come in by cattle truck-loads to beat up taxi uncles and professional women. After all, falling HDB, and private property, prices are a consequence of weak economic growth, which will result from restrictions on immigration: at least according according to the “experts” quoted in the said articles*.

As Moneytheism (particularly the Propery cult) is our religion, the message will sink in very fast that S’pore needs FTs by the cattle-truck load to prevent HDB prices, and private property prices, from collapsing.


*The article goes on

Last December, economists said it may be time to re-look the Government’s stringent immigration policies following a UOB report on Singapore’s “demographic time bomb” which will start ticking next year, when the share of the population who are 65 and over will match that of those under 15 for the first time.

In January, Monetary Authority of Singapore chief Ravi Menon devoted much of his speech at a high-profile conference on the topic, making an impassioned plea for Singapore to “reframe our question on foreign workers”, given the limited scope in raising birth rates and labour force participation rate (LFPR). This was followed by a commentary penned by National University of Singapore (NUS) academics urging the Republic’s universities to admit more international students, in light of falling numbers.

Dr Chua, the Maybank economist, questioned how the targets could be met based on the current workforce size without additional foreign manpower, even after taking into account those who are displaced from positions becoming redundant.

“Manpower policies will need to be fine-tuned…Singapore’s transformation roadmap cannot be fulfilled without some flexibility in its manpower policies,” he said.

Dr Chua reiterated that relaxing foreign manpower restrictions during economic upcycles will allow Singapore to capitalise on growing investments and demand. “If restrictions are too tight, business will choose not to invest in the first place,” he said. “That in turn hurts job creation and opportunities for Singaporeans.”

He added that foreigners also “pay their fair share of taxes and contribute to the overall fiscal position, reducing the tax burden on citizens”.

 

 

Why 30-year old HDB flats difficult to sell/ Why PAP rule will end in 2029

In Banks, CPF, Financial competency, Financial planning, Political economy, Political governance, Property on 02/02/2018 at 7:19 am

A doctor turned fat cat investor responded to Jialat for PAP where I reported a property saleman (OK, OK, he’s title is “research director”) as saying “From the ground, homes with leases of less than 60 years took longer to sell, and at a much lower price …”. (Background reading for those who have not followed the problem with HDB leases of less than 60 years: HDB flats: 35 is a dangerous age)

He wrote

Since 2016/2017 HDB flats older than 39 years have seen a “cliff drop” in prices due to:
(1) Reduction of CPF quantum that can be used for properties with less than 60 yrs lease;
(2) Age of buyer plus remaining lease must be >= 80.

In many mature estates undergoing SERS activities, the price of 40+ year old flats are having 35% discounts against nearby brand new “subsidized” BTO flats. Even with marketing efforts extolling the “higher chance” of SERS for those older flats, buyers are not buying it.

This mini cliff drop has been exacerbated since LW [Lawrence Wong] did an about turn against Old Fart’s & Woody’s asset enhancement propaganda.

Currently majority of HDB flats are still within 25-38 yrs old. The above problem will get worse over the next 10-15 years.

This gives PAPies another 2 terms at least to continue milking Sinkies.

Assuming the next general election is in 2019, this means the PAP will lose power or its two-thirds parly majority in 2029 or thereabouts. Mad Dog will then be 67 and Dr Paul will be about 65. If Mad Dog becomes PM jialat. If Dr Paul becomes PM, let the good times roll.

So if SDP is still headed by Mad Dog as is most likely because he’ll knife Dr Paul in the back to ensure that he’ll rule the SDP, I’ll be forced to vote PAP for the good of S’pore. So I hope he steps down soon.

 

Jialat for PAP

In Banks, Financial competency, Financial planning, Property on 29/01/2018 at 7:39 am

Unhappy HDB “owners”will complicate change of PM (Connecting SMRT failures, 4th gen ministers & change of PM) and other plans.

In yet another sign of a recovery in the private residential market (SIBOR up 25%, but property mkt is hot?), prices went up 1.1 % in 2017, reversing the 3.1%  decline in 2016, figures from the URA showed last  Friday.

But the HDB Resale Price Index (RPI) for 2017 declined by 1.5% , HDB said on Friday.

Worse for those wanting to sell older HDB flats

From the ground, homes with leases of less than 60 years took longer to sell, and at a much lower price … we anticipate the market to improve, especially in areas where former HUDC developments were sold en bloc. Some of these buyers downsized to a HDB flat and kept the proceeds for retirement, or to support their children in purchasing a private home.

Dr Lee Nai Jia, Head of Research at Edmund Tie & Company

http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/private-home-prices-11-2017-reversing-2016s-31-decline

(Trumpets pls: I posted this in April 2017 HDB flats: 35 is a dangerous age. And btw, this Old private flats’ value can also fall off a cliff).)

Anyway, the PAP has a problem if private property prices keep going up while HDB flats prices continue to decline, or stagnate at these levels.

Those with HDB mortgages will not be happy that their their “heavily subsidised” flats have not appreciated in value in line with FTs’ and elites’ private property values, while those with older flats will be doubly unhappy.

Since more than 80% of Singapore’s population live in HDB flats, a growing gap between HDB prices and private housing prices is not good for the PAP.

But at least Mad Dog and the cybernuts will be happy: more of the 70% will be unhappy with the PAP. They can “Keep on wanking and dreaming that the PAP will lose the next GE”.

Even PAP govt thinks ang moh tua kee

In Political governance, Public Administration on 28/01/2018 at 10:57 am

Juz different type of ang moh. They look up to the “Victorians” i.e. the arch colonisers. (Btw, one Raffles, was a pre “Victorian”. Farquhar with his Malay mistress and support of gambling as a source of revenue, was not.

But first, below is the govt’s response to an Economist article entitled “Rules are thicker than blood” which made fun of S’pore’s “Victorian” values.

It makes several good points that our ang moh tua kees forget or ignore or are ignorant of:

— “today’s Western norms … are historically recent and by no means uncontested, even in Western societies”; and

— “time will tell if a cautious approach to social change is wiser”.

———————————————————-

Singaporean values

Rules are thicker than blood” (January 13th) derided Singapore’s norms on what constitutes a family as “Victorian”. Our values and social norms on what makes for a stable family unit are conservative and shape the government’s policies and rules on adoption. They differ from today’s Western norms, which are historically recent and by no means uncontested, even in Western societies. Singaporeans will determine their own pace of any change in family values.

A push for rapid social change, especially on contentious moral issues, risks polarising society and producing unintended results. In Singapore nearly all children are born and raised in wedlock, starkly different from what now happens in the West. We make no claim to know which values are best for every society. The Economist may think Singapore is quaint and old-fashioned, but time will tell if a cautious approach to social change is wiser.

FOO CHI HSIA
High commissioner for Singapore
London


OK, OK yes I know “Victorian” values were once ang moh values. And that shows that today’s ang moh tua kees are also real S’poreans like the PAPpies.

Public tenders = PAPpy greed?

In Financial competency, Public Administration on 23/01/2018 at 7:26 am

At regular intervals, cybernuts (Think TKL and TRE nuts) and usually rational S’poreans complain that public sector public tenders must not always go to the lowest bid or to the highest offer. Discretion must always be exercised for the good of the public. In their opinion, the PAP administration’s failure to exercise discretion for the good of the public is evidence of the greed of the PAP.

But are they willing in turn to give the govt and other public organisations the benefit of the doubt when bids are won by those bidding more or offering more (say for leases) but then things go wrong?

The reality of winning public tenders is that the lowest bids or highest offers are the way to win them. The UK has seen the collapse of Carillion, a construction and outsourcing contractor, who won public sector bids by consistently being the lowest bidder.

—————————————————-

The trap of awarding tenders to lowest bidder for society

Rob Whiteman oversaw the procurement process at the government’s UK Border Agency, where he used to be chief executive. He now heads up the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy.

He worries public contracts are too often awarded to low bidders.

“Low bidding can appear attractive to procurement officers because they know they will be judged on value for money. But I think there is a bear trap,” he explains.

“If we overscore cost in the evaluation then we risk squeezing contractors’ profits and if they’ve got their sums wrong they may take their best staff off the contract and the taxpayer gets a sub-standard delivery.”

Another concern raised by Mr Whiteman is a lack of focus on the companies’ financial robustness during the tendering process.

He thinks that while civil servants look at a firm’s track record for delivery, more questions need to be asked about how financially sound the company is before awarding a contract.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-42720245

——————————————————————–

To avoid accusations of wasting public money, there’s pressure to accept the lowest bid. Conversely when tendering revenue generating contracts (say leases), there’s pressure to accept the highest bid to avoid accusations of failing to maximise public revenue.

Remember that in the background is the elephant: there’s the taint or accusation of corruption, favouritism or cronyism when the lowest bid (or highest offer) is not accepted.

Coming back to the idea that discretion must be exercised for the good of the public, what is the “good of the public”? Ideas on a post card, as those wanting public tenders to be awarded using this criteria don’t seem to be able to define it. In the case of renting leases, for the “good of the public” usually amounts to renting out to a small mom-and-pop comfort food operation rather than Tony Tan Colonel Saunders or Big Mac who can afford to pay and pay unlike the small family eatery. So everyone KPKBs of “moneytheism” of the PAP administration.

 

This issue is more complicated than the cybernuts think.

 

 

Connecting SMRT failures, 4th gen ministers & change of PM

In Economy, Political governance on 22/01/2018 at 8:16 am

This headline

All EWL stations to see early closures, late openings on weekends and select weekdays in March

(CNA)

reminded me of the failure of the PAP administration to ensure that the trains run on time*. I mean even that incompetent World War II dictator, Mussolini, ensured that Italian trains ran on time.

This failure is more significant than just the loss of output legitimacy (PAP has lost “output legitimacy”) because the PAP is talking about a change of leaders and the importance of trust.

People would also give their trust when they see the Government has been “responsible, anticipates and are responsive in meeting their needs” and there is an overall improvement in their lives, Mr Chan said.

The minister added: “Some policies take longer to bring forth results and the population may feel impatient.

“Each generation of leaders would therefore need to be consultative yet nimble in meeting these needs while managing finite resources responsibly. These are important so that we do not face a trust deficit, and run the risk of citizens disconnecting with or being disenfranchised by the government.”

Read more at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/chan-chun-sing-lays-out-key-leadership-qualities-needed-for-9852508

The problem for Kee Chui and other potential PMs is that the trust (partly based on output legitimacy”) S’poreans have for the PAP leaders is based on Harry, Dr Goh and gang did. The PAP has been living on (literally withdrawing yearlymillions of dollars) the trust in the bank trust account that these guys put in.

But the fourth generation ministers have not put much trust in the trust bank (OK, OK, same for GCT and Ah Loong and their gangs but that’s another story).

In fact, they could have cost losses to the bank account

— a possible future PM,  Ong Ye Kung, can be blamed for three problems: low productivity, labour unhappiness and SMRT breakdowns.

— Heng, the probable next PM, is linked to the minibond and DBS HN5 note losses (He was MD of the central bank at the time: Helping retail investors: the HK way and the S’pore way).

And worse, there’s not that much left in the bank account after the SMRT cock-ups and PE 2017 fiasco.

True, the 4th gen ministers have avoided getting involved in the SMRT mess. But that shows that they were not trusted to get involved in such an important matter affecting the lives of ordinary S’poreans.

Trust? What trust, Kee Chui?

What’s more, in a one-party state, the party in charge can’t be seen to incompetent, and the SMRT fiascos clearly show that there’s something wrong with the way the PAP does things. So that’s yet another problem for the 4th gen team.

But then could the failings of the 4th generation leaders be the excuse for the 3rd gen leaders in the cabinet to skip a generation and bring in a young, IT savvy guy as the PM in waiting? Names please on a post card?

————————————–

*SMRT said on Friday (Jan 19) that its board has confidence in the company’s management team and the ongoing efforts to enhance management, operational and maintenance capabilities.

CNA

The report went on

A Straits Times report on Thursday said that Mr Nathan has resigned and is serving out his notice. It also said that “observers are expecting chief executive Desmond Kuek to step down as well”. It did not specify which observers it was referring to or why they expect this to happen.

SMRT has been under pressure from the public and the government in recent months after a series of high-profile incidents, including the train collision at Joo Koon station in November which left more than 30 people injured, and the flooding of a section of a tunnel in October which caused prolonged delays.

 

Why PAPPies’ apologies make many angrier

In Uncategorized on 21/01/2018 at 11:38 am

When I read a BBC article on what kind of apologies work (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42716501), I couldn’t help but think of how the PAPPies and their kak kian apologise.

Think PM (before 2011 election and his family row), and Khaw, and the chairman and CEO on the MRT cock-ups; and one thing is clear. Their apologies don’t work i.e. they are not effective: they leave many angrier.

Reason is that the apologists don’t show enough concern

Experts say the formula for an affective apology can be summed up with the acronym CAR

show concern

demonstrate action

offer reassurance

(BBC article. Other extracts also from the same article.)

They demonstrate action and offer reassurance but they don’t show enough concern. But to be far, does Khaw, or the CEO and chairman of SMRT take the MRT to work? And PM was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. It was even encrusted with diamonds.

And they don’t convey empathy and compassion

From businesses, governments and organisations, a scripted response will fail to resonate as it will not convey empathy and compassion.

But if it’s one thing Harry taught the PAP, if in doubt, be “Be arrogant and complacent”.

Moreover

“It is vital that any business or individual making an apology understands the focus – is it sorry for the way it’s acted or is it sorry that the complainant feels the way they do?”

In the case of the PAPies and their minions their apologies come across as sorry that the complainants feels the way they do: think PM or Khaw.

I’ll end with

How to tell a genuine apology from a fake one

— Spontaneity – watch out for the speed of response, the quicker the apology comes, the better indication that the person making it has felt an immediate sense of guilt

— Body language – if genuine, the person making the apology will be looking for listening clues to see if they are being understood, such as eye contact and facial expressions

— Vulnerability – performed apologies always have a sense of being “acted out”, and are often accompanied by too many theatrical gestures. If the person is genuine they will provide “humbling signals”‘, such as a lowered head, to indicate remorse and vulnerability

— Denial gestures – the biggest clues of insincerity can come after the gesture itself, with non-verbal signals that silently reject the words used; this can include looking to the floor and smirking.

 

Sounds like Singapore?

In Political governance, Public Administration on 25/12/2017 at 4:54 am

An anti-PAP talking?

[G]overnment has maintained a façade. It proclaimed democracy and concern for social rights. In reality, it eroded civil, political and economic freedom.

Nope some analyst describing Venezuela

 

Trump and Republicans take a leaf from PAP’s playbook

In Uncategorized on 24/12/2017 at 5:16 am

Remember the howls of protest from the ang moh tua kees and the other anti-PAP types when the PAP administration reduced state spending on wards that had Oppo MPs? Unfair they screamed.

Seems that ang mohs in the shape of Trump and the Republicans have done something similar. Their Christmas present tax cut clearly favoured loyal red (Republican-voting) states over Democratic blue ones.

Deductions of state and local income and property taxes, known as SALT, when calculating liability for Federal taxes is now limited to US$10,000. The provision hits hardest Democratic-leaning states with high incomes, high property values, and high taxes, like New York, New Jersey, and California.

FT reports that a New York based banker earning US$5m a year, will be paying an extra US$400-500,000 in taxes.

 

 

So unlike ministers

In Banks, Uncategorized on 23/12/2017 at 1:43 pm

The zero bonus, or doughnut, could be looming for bond traders as bank revenue from fixed-income sales and trading units has been falling FT reports.

TRE reader tells off s/o JBJ, analyses TCB’s comments

In Political governance on 21/12/2017 at 8:27 am

When TRE used a piece by s/o JBJ ranting about Dr Tan Cheng Bock’s comments etc, he was rebuked by a TRE reader

opposition dude:
December 19, 2017 at 7:36 pm (Quote)
Kenneth, kindly do stop talking about your dad at every opportunity. You are sounding like a real sore loser. At the very least carve out your own standing amongst the electorate just like how your dad was seen as a fiery match for Lee Kayu.

He then went on to explain why he disagreed with Dr Tan Cheng Bock’s comments that the fixing of PE 2017 would affect the next general election. He makes some valid points:

With that being said, the electorate will forget about the PE when the next GE comes. This is because PAP has screwed us all over so many times the electorate votes based on the frustration level on the ground at that point in time.

Just compare and contrast the last 2 GEs. The overcrowdedness on the island led to PAP’s lowest vote share, even the PAP admitted it. It wasn’t the raising of GST or lack of freedom of speech or CPF or even high BTO prices, ministers’ pay, lack of accountability or any of the issues frequently raised here on TRE.

Then you look at 2015. The PAP CLAIMS to have solved all the unhappiness for 2011 but we all know the island is even more crowded than before. But see what gratitude gets you, in this case a 10% increase in votes. Even the PAP says they were stunned because we all know that they didn’t do a proper job on the immigration issue.

Now, if the PE alone can decide PAP’s fate then I would be very surprised. For one thing, I would ask myself why the PAP were not reduced in number when the price of so called public housing made us pay up to a 35 year home loan, why there were still so many of them in parliament when GST was raised from 3% to 7% and why voters did jack when the donkeys’ pay was raised 20% in the 90s.

My take on Dr Tan’s comments: Will Oppo parties step up to the mark and score?

 

Different Parties’ Slogans

In Uncategorized on 06/12/2017 at 2:05 pm

Appeared on FB

P.A.P. – PAY & PAY.
S.P.P. – SO, PLEASE PAY.
W.P. – WHY PAY ?
S.D.P – SO, DON’T PAY.
N.S.P. – NOBODY SHOULD PAY.
S.F. – SO SELFISH!!!

Someone added

R.P. – Refuse (to) Pay

I’ll add

D.P.P – Don’t Pay Party

The PAP way?

In China, Media on 21/11/2017 at 5:52 am

The government doesn’t refute critics or defend policies; instead, it overwhelms the population with positive news (what the researchers call “cheerleading” content) in order to eclipse bad news and divert attention away from actual problems.

This has allowed the … government to manipulate citizens without appearing to do so. It permits just enough criticism to maintain the illusion of dissent and only acts overtly when fears of mass protest or collective action arise.

Sounds like the way the PAP does things with the help of the constructive, nation-building media.

No leh. It’s supposed to be the Chinese way: https://www.vox.com/world/2017/8/2/16019562/china-russia-internet-propaganda-media


“Why CCP’s fears are PAP’s fears”

Keeping power in a one-party state

————————————————–

But maybe the CCP learnt from the PAP? It was one of the things that Deng learnt from LKY? After all when LKY came into power, he made sure that the local newspapers, tv and radio all became part of the PAP’s constructive and nation-building team.


Address to the General Assembly of the International Press Institute at Helsinki on 9 June 1971

“What role would men and governments in new countries like the mass media to play?… The mass media can help to present Singapore’s problems simply and clearly and then explain how if they support certain programmes and policies these problems can be solved. More important, we want the mass media to reinforce, not to undermine, the cultural values and social attitudes being inculcated in our schools and universities.

[Several paragraphs later] Freedom of the press, freedom of the news media, must be subordinated to the overriding needs of the integrity of Singapore, and to the primacy of purpose of an elected government.”

——————————————————-

Their job was (and is) not to critick LKY’s govt but to be its cheerleaders.

Example from MediaCorp’s reporting (Might was well juz publish the speech):

The trust between the People’s Action Party (PAP) and Singaporeans will be tested in the coming years amid social and economic disruptions afflicting the world, party secretary-general Lee Hsien Loong warned activists on Sunday (November 19) at the PAP convention.

And it is during this period, that the trust built by the ruling party “painstakingly over more than 60 years” will be more important than ever, said Mr Lee, who is also the Prime Minister.

Stressing the need for good policies to help Singaporeans cope with the challenges, he also urged Members of Parliament (MPs), activists and “key people throughout our society” to preserve the “good politics”.

He noted that in western democracies, the trust between mainstream political parties and the people has essentially broken down, and the parties “no longer seem to represent the common man’s interests”.

“We must never let this happen in Singapore. The PAP must always pursue policies which benefit the broad majority of Singaporeans,” he said.

“The PAP must always hold the ground, stay close to Singaporeans and maintain their trust and confidence.”

Adding that it will not be an easy task to achieve goals such as upgrading the economy, creating good jobs, building world class infrastructure and preparing for an ageing society, Mr Lee said that in order to implement the policies, “we must get our politics right”.

The people must support the PAP, he said.

“Most of all, they must trust the PAP,” he added.

“They must know that the party cares about them, and is working to improve their lives.”

Mr Lee said this does not mean the government should do only popular things. From time to time, it also has to make hard choices and take difficult decisions.

“And when we do so, we must be upfront with Singaporeans” in explaining the rational and getting their support, he said.

“Even if people may not like the specific policy, we must convince them that we are doing it with good intentions, and for good reasons,” he said.

He reiterated the people “must know the PAP not as a remote, impersonal government, but as their team, as a human, personal preference – your caring MP, your friendly branch secretary, people whom you know, people who have shown that they can get things done, and will help you through difficulties and improve your lives,” he said.

 

P&G mgt reminds me of the PAP

In Uncategorized on 13/11/2017 at 6:55 am

Die, die must crush opposition to its hegemony. 

Procter & Gamble, the world’s second largest consumer group, won its battle to keep activist investor Peltz out of its boardroom. Nelson Peltz wanted to be a director (one out of 11) of what he considered a badly managed company.

P&G mgt refused and won very narrowly.

The FT reports that P&G spent at least US$100 million to deny him the seat he wanted. It had hired Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Centerview Partners and Lazard as advisers. Mr. Peltz’s Trian spent at least US$25 million.

NYT’s Dealbook reported that

 

Many of P&G’s biggest shareholders voted to give Mr. Peltz a seat on the board of the consumer product giant. BlackRock and State Street, which hold around 10% combined, voted with Trian, these people added.

Christopher Ailman, the chief investment officer of the Calstrs pension fund:
Calstrs will own Procter & Gamble long after the current management has moved on or retired. We will continue to vote our shares to ensure that individuals — like Nelson Peltz — who are a valuable asset to a board, get the opportunity to represent us and other like-minded long-term shareholders.

And

That Mr. Peltz could come so close reflects the growing power of activist investors bent on shaking up corporate boards.

As Mr. Peltz told CNBC after the P&G shareholder meeting: “There is no company today that can’t be called to task. Not one.”

PM, Khaw, SMRT: Apologise like Zuckerberg

In Infrastructure on 30/10/2017 at 11:13 am

Recently, Mr Zuckerberg observed Yom Kippur, the Jewish festival of atonement. He wrote on Facebook: “For the ways my work was used to divide people rather than bring us together, I ask forgiveness and I will work to do better.”

I think Khaw, Desmond and the chairman of SMRT should have followed him Where’s Khaw? (cont’d) instead of doing a pale imitation of Japanese-style apology over the “ponding” problem.

PM and the PAP should also do a Zuckerberg for creating disharmony to ensure the “right” person became president by

— going against the national aspirations of meritocracy and multiracialism by wanting a Malay as president, and

— selecting as the Malay president someone whose i/c says “Indian”.

But let’s be fair. Maybe this is why Why PAP thinks we need a Malay president?

And after the recent London terror attack, only the anti-PAP TRE cybernuts will say that the PAP administration is wrong to try to prevent terror attacks.

 

PAP has lost “output legitimacy”

In Economy, Political economy, Political governance, Public Administration on 28/10/2017 at 9:54 am

We all know the failures of SMRT and MRT. So no need to elaborate.

But the problems at SMRT and MRT and the failure of the PAP administration to hold anyone to account except “the maintenance team” (Though to be fair the team failed to empty the holding tanks beneath tracks so they can absorb rainwater without jamming the service.) shows that the PAP administration has really lost “output legitimacy”.

I wrote this four years ago between GE 2011 and 2015. The results of the two elections showed not that the PAP regained “output legitimacy”; but showed that the PAP spent more of our money on ourselves in between Are you better off now than you were in 2011?(Death of LKY also helped):

The ST has for several weeks been writing about the loss of trust between the people and the govt, and laying the blame on the people (“daft”) who are distracted by the new media’s DRUMS beating the RAVII theme ( OK I exaggerate but juz a little). (BTW, here in a different context, I’ve looked at the role the new media plays: amplification, not distortion of the dissenting, inconvenient voices to the PAP’s narrative which the local media propagandises, while suppressing the former.)

Actually, the loss of trust is due to the PAP govt’s loss of “output legitimacy” since the 1990s.

“Output legitimacy” is the idea that elected leaders make decisions that are unpopular in the short term but will be approved by voters once their success has been demonstrated.  A govt aiming for “output legitimacy” (most govts don’t, but the PAP is an exception) is a bold, self-confident govt because the govt and the politicians need to be proved right by events.  Sadly for S’poreans and the PAP, the record doesn’t look that great for one LHL. He had been DPM, and in charge of economic and financial issues, and the civil service, since the 1990s, until he became PM in 2004.

Yet events have showed that S’poreans are discontented, not happy with the achievements of his govt. The PAP only polled 60% (lowest ever) in the 2011 GE, and three cabinet ministers lost their seats, with the WP winning for the first time ever a GRC. In the subsequent PE, the PAP’s “preferred” candidate and a challenger (ex PAP man too) polled 35% each. The preferred candidate won by a very short nose.

This yr, the PM promised to meet our concerns (housing, healthcare and public transport will remain affordable, and on education) is like that: “Crashed the cars, trains and buses we were on – and then wants us to thank him for pulling us out of the wreckage using our own money, by voting for the PAP”.

— https://atans1.wordpress.com/2013/08/16/analysing-pms-coming-rally-speech/

— https://atans1.wordpress.com/2013/08/23/govt-needed-natcon-survey-to-find-these-things-out/

After all S’poreans’ concerns that housing, healthcare and public transport will remain affordable, and on education are the result of govt policies

His dad introduced the concept “output legitimacy” to S’pore (although not the term: too highfalutin perhaps?), partly because it suited LKY’s personality (intellectual thuggery, the belief that “leaders lead” and shouldn’t be governed by opinion polls, and micromanaging**), and partly because while S’pore was a leading Asian city in the 50s and 60s (as LKY and PAP haters like to remind us ad nauseam), that wasn’t saying much for most S’poreans: err bit like now, one could reasonably argue. Examples:

— When the PAP came into power in 1959, unemployment was over 10%; and

— in 1960, 126,000 man-hours were lost in strikes as compared to 26,000 in 1959.

Source: book reviewed here

There were then things that had to be done that would upset many people most of the time for a while. But if the policies worked, then the results would be visible. Well, at the very least, the voters were prepared to give LKY and the PAP, over 70% of the popular vote and all the parly seats for over a decade.

The world’s now a bit more complex since then, and S’poreans’ expectations have rightly risen, so whether it is ever possible that the PAP govt can ever recover “output legitimacy” is open to question even if it has the ‘right” people leading it. But at least it’s willing to spend more of our money on making life a more comfortable for ourselves. Maybe that should be its articulated goal, to frame our expectations of its “output legitimacy”.

Maybe the constructive, nation-building media, and new media outlets that believe in constructive criticism, like the Breakfast Network and the Independent*** can help the PAP govt? Better than flogging the dead horses of trust, daft people and that the internet beats DRUMS to the RAVII theme.

*Recriminations, Accusations, Vilifications, Insinuations & Insults

**Remind me of the bible verses: “Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God?” or “Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.”

***Independent sucks because it got its branding wrong. Name is so traditional media. In fact there is an established UK newspaper by that name.

Names with a whiff of the establishment seem old hat. Chris West, founder of Verbal Identity, specialists in linguistic branding, says that “they appear to be hankering after a debased culture of corporate magnificence”. Consumers think of them as pompous, self-serving, impersonal. The advantage of calling your business Wonga and GiffGaff lies in the rejection of superfluous formality. We perceive them as younger, more in-touch, less “corporate”. As Mr West concludes, “they sound like words we might hear at the pub”.

Then there is the quality of its writing. But that shows up the pedigree of two of its founders.

As for BN, it’s a work-in-progress, and it’s a gd training place for budding journalists: got ex-TOCer who has learnt to write proper, readable English. So I wish it well, even if I’ve heard allegations about its funding. And it has a great name. Spent a lot of cash getting its name right?

The PAP govt has lost “output legitimacy”: Discuss

Btw, Breakfast Network morphed into TMG which has just announced that it’s closing. No money. The Independent has morphed into The Idiots.

Related post: Parable of the contented dog/ No need to be grateful to the PAP

Why our Oppo so small and weak

In Uncategorized on 22/10/2017 at 1:39 pm

They are like our wild animals. They enrich the PAP-created environment without endangering the PAP or S’poreans. Think s/o JBJ, the two Ravis, the Chiams or the Wankers.

Big, dangerous Oppo figures are “sued” to extinction (JBJ, Roy etc) or detained (Teo Soh Lung, Amos Yee etc). But then Mad Dog Chee is still roaming the streets, so beware.

“THE WILD ANIMALS WE HAVE IN SINGAPORE ARE GENERALLY SMALL AND CAN THRIVE IN OUR WOODS AND GARDEN CITY. THEY ENRICH OUR ENVIRONMENT, MAKING SINGAPORE A NATURAL CITY AND NOT A BARREN ONE. THE PRESENCE OF SMALL, WILD ANIMALS IS A TRIBUTE TO OUR ABILITY TO BALANCE URBAN LIVING WITH NATURE.”

HE ADDED: “OCCASIONALLY WE MAY RUN INTO LARGER AND POTENTIALLY AGGRESSIVE ANIMALS SUCH AS WILD BOARS, SNAKES AND CROCODILES. THEY ARE BEST LEFT ALONE AND REPORTED TO THE AUTHORITIES WHO ARE TRAINED TO HANDLE THEM SAFELY. NOT WORTH PUTTING ONESELF AT RISK OR STRESSING THE WILD ANIMAL FOR THE SAKE OF A SELFIE OR VIDEO.”
(ESM GOH CHOK TONG)

Above posted by FB and real life friend on FB.

2033: Real reason why PAP rule will really end

In Political governance, Property on 21/10/2017 at 7:07 am

When I wrote Today SMRT, TOM Resale Public Housing which tells readers living in HDB flats how much time they have to enjoy “asset enhancement” after paying off their “affordable” 25-year mortgage (before the value of their HDB flats collapses according to calculations made by the constructive, nation-building ST not anti-PAP cynernuts), a regular reader linked my tots to an earlier piece Why 2033 will be the yr PAP rule ends.

By then the problem of large swathes of HDB estates’ (not just blocks here & there) impending demise to zero value will be front & center.

this fat cat rentier pointed out referencing Why 2033 will be the yr PAP rule ends

So u really think Ah Loong wants his son to be the 5th generation PAP PM? Something his siblings and anti-PAP cybernuts allege?

Today SMRT, TOM Resale Public Housing

In Property on 20/10/2017 at 10:50 am

But first, why a good public housing system is good for society.

Housing is the first of the social services. It is also one of the keys to increased productivity. Work, family life, health and education are all undermined by crowded houses. Therefore a Conservative and Unionist Government will give housing a priority second only to national defense.

1951 Tory conference: Economist

(Note the Tories won the UK general election and ruled until 1964 despite several debacles like the Suez crisis and not getting into the EU.)

Like the Tories, Harry and the PAP Old Guard when they came to power in 1959 also understood the importance of housing in building a cohesive society .


Related articles

“Housing is Affordable”: The real truth

Recognise this ang moh description of our HDB system?

From conception to death, the PAP looks after S’poreans

—————————————————

But things started going wrong when HDB flats on 99-year leases became “assets” to be manipulated for political gain (Think “asset enhancement”). The result: “affordable” public housing now means HDB “owners” having to take out mortgages of 25 years. Not a big problem if one buys a BTO flat from the HDB. After paying off the mortgage, there’s 39 years to go before the value of the flat falls over a cliff.

http://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/will-you-still-love-your-hdb-flat-when-its-over-64

Note, it’s not the anti-PAP cybernuts pointing out the fall in value when the flat is 65 years old. It’s the constructive, nation-building ST.

But if one bought a 30-year old HDB resale flat, by the time the mortgage is paid up, one only gets 9 years before the value of the flat falls over a cliff.

In between a BTO and a 30-year old flat:

— If one bought a 20-year old HDB resale flat, by the time the mortgage is paid up, one gets 19 years before the value of the flat falls over a cliff.

— If one bought a 10-year old HDB resale flat, by the time the 25 year mortgage is paid up, one gets 29 years before the value of the flat falls over a cliff.

One by one, the icons of PAP rule are showing their feet of clay. First was and is the MRT system run by SMRT, next will be resale public housing.

——————————————-

Feet of clay

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How to win over PAP voters

In Uncategorized on 18/10/2017 at 4:26 pm

Online rows cannot be settled by quoting facts, suggests research.

Instead focus on the benefits that voting against the PAP will bring like having getting rid of the paper generals and other scholars. And that the PAP will throw more of our money at us.

But whatever don’t follow Oxygen and his other nutty and ratty TRE pals. They think that the 30% must rule over the 70% because the cybernuts are more intelligent than the avewrage voter.

Facts don’t matter online

There’s a well-known cartoon featuring a woman asking a man when he’s coming to bed who then says: “I can’t – someone is wrong on the internet.” It sums up just how we can be drawn into arguments online with people who seem to be immune to reason.

But a neuroscientist at University College London says we are probably wasting our time if we think facts will change people’s minds. Tali Sharot has written a book called The Influential Mind about how the methods we use in argument don’t work because they don’t fit with the way the mind operates.

She says the sheer volume of information now available on the internet is actually making things worse: “You can find information that supports anything you want to – and people do.” So if you believe the world is flat or that vaccines cause autism, you can find material online to back up your beliefs.

“What we need to realise is fighting the confirmation bias is not very helpful,” says Dr Sharot. “We can’t change millions of years of evolution – our brains work in a certain way.”

It seems a counsel of despair for anyone who believes that facts matter. But there is a cunning way of getting people to change their minds.

Dr Sharot points to a group of scientists who took a different approach when trying to convince parents that vaccines were not linked to autism. Instead of confronting them head on with studies that showed there was no link, they accepted the parents’ beliefs and instead talked to them about the good things vaccines did – such as keeping children safe from measles or mumps.

“They highlighted something everyone agreed on,” she says. This approach proved far more effective at changing minds than just a bald laying out of facts.

And do not feel smug in the belief that you are far too smart to be dogmatic about your beliefs even when you are shown evidence to the contrary. Dr Sharot says the research shows that the more intelligent you are, the more likely you are to have a confirmation bias.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-41206533

Old told homes are not ‘assets to pass on to offspring’

In CPF, Political governance, Public Administration on 14/10/2017 at 11:11 am

No not a PAP minister or MP telling S’poreans that yr HDB flat is not really yrs.

According to the UK’s media, the UK social care minister has suggested pensioners’ property is not “an asset to give to their off-spring” but could instead be sold to pay for their care needs.

Maybe she’s the kind of person, the PM should offer citizenship to and promise to fast track her into the cabinet? After all, the recent fiasco on what the AG advised the cabinet to do showed what a cock, Kee Chui Chan, one of candidates to be PM is.

Btw, we don’t have this problem In the Daily Mail newspaper, UK’s justice minister Phillip Lee warned that the UK is a “selfish” society where families shirk their duty by “outsourcing” the care of their elderly relatives.

Here we got laws to make sure that S’poreans, not the state, have to look after their elderly relatives, one reason why taxes here are “peanuts”.

Then there’s this:

But if you transfer your CPF to your parents’ or grandparents’ CPF, you could be solving a problem (their need for money) in a way that creates another problem (your retirement needs) worse. Ownself sabo ownself.

Worse the PAP administration will be laughing all the way to the bank if yr parents or grandparents die earlier than expected and they are on CPL Life, not the old CPF Retirement Sum Scheme. The bequest should be much lower compared to if they opted-in to CPF Life.

CPF changes: Rob Peter to Pay Paul and worse

Why 2033 will be the yr PAP rule ends

In Political governance on 11/10/2017 at 8:00 am

Recently, I wrote

The USSR lasted for 74 years from 1917’s October Revolution. Counting from 1959, PAP has until 2033.

Here’s the real reason why PAP rule will end in 2033: 2033 will be the time when the 5th generation of PAP leaders take charge.

Here’s the detailed reasoning.

Tay Kheng Soon posted on FB on Sunday

Cherian George’s prediction or expectation that there will be 20 exceptional young people who will emerge to form singapore’s 5th generation leaders is too optimistic. Unlike the first generation leaders of the 60’s who had a socialistic world view the young today have been destroyed by post modern philosophy which combined with a good life has inbued in them a hyper subjectivist mentality. Its old radicals that need to step up to the challenge of a disrupted world. The 4th generaltion leadership are on cruise mode.

Cherian George had earlier been interviewed by Mothership (the PAP’s atas version of Petir) as saying:

“What the PAP and their supporters celebrate today is the creation of a small band of exceptional young Singaporeans. Lee Kuan Yew and less than 20 other people. So I asked myself, is it reasonable to hope that in Singapore today, among teens among 20-somethings and 30-somethings, that there are 20 Singaporeans with exceptional intelligence, ability, sense of public service, empathy, and conscience, to make Singapore what it can be? Yeah, of course I have hope! You can’t find 20? Please!”
Cherian George on why there’s hope for Singapore to become a better country.

After publicising the article: Cherian George (Malay Minister’s brudder-in- law, and his wife was ex tua kee in ST) commented  on FB

… be able/willing to rise
to the top. That’s why I don’t talk about 4G. More realistic to place hope in 5G (a long time off).

Coming back to the USSR, depending on how one decides to count the leadership changes in the USSR, it was the 5th generation of Soviet leaders that presided over the collapse of the USSR.

Already things like the continual breakdown of MRT services and the failure to find new engines of growth despite a restructuring plan every decade (Economic restructuring: This time, it’s really different) shows that like the USSR after death of Stalin, S’pore is going to the dogs after Harry’s death.

Seelan Palay: Sylvia Lim was right

In Political governance, Public Administration on 08/10/2017 at 1:46 pm

Here I made fun of Seelan Palay’s latest attempt to test the OB markers: he crossed a red line after the police tried very hard not to arrest him, but he persisted, “After several failed attempts by the Police to persuade Seelan to leave the area, he was arrested by the Police at 3.20pm.” (TOC report)

Two years ago I wrote about how one person can be arrested for an illegal assembly

Jogging alone can be illegal?

If wearing the wrong tee-shirt or singlet?

Try walkng or jogging alone* wearing a “Free our CPF” singlet: remember that any public assembly of more than one person** needs police permission.

And jogging in a group of two or more”Free our CPF” singlets will be like jogging in groups in Burundi: illegal.

Running is a national pastime in Burundi, with hundreds of people out jogging on weekend mornings. But in March [2014] the authorities banned jogging in groups – unless permission was sought from the authorities. It affects all group sports in the capital, which can now only be played in designated areas.

Jogging by Lake Tanganyika

The restrictions followed the arrest of some opposition members who were out jogging and chanting political slangs. Police officers tried to stop what they regarded as an illegal march and the situation deteriorated into clashes. More than 40 Movement for Solidarity and Democracy (MSD) party members received sentences ranging from five years to life.

Burundi: Where jogging is a crime

Wonder what about wearing a tee shirt with a Oppo party logo, drinking teh tarik as social media celebrities Ravi and Jeannette Chong used to do when they were NSP tua kees.

And what about the crowds assembling to pay their respects to LKY? What about the crowds at the National Museum LKY exhibition?

Seems anything the PAP administration or the SPF doesn’t like can be an illegal assembly.

Related post: PAP uses Lawfare against its opponents?

———‘

*Auntie Sylvia was absolutely right in 2007 and 2009 when she spoke out publicly:

The change in definition of “assembly” and “procession” is more disturbing. As the Explanatory Statement to the Bill says, these words are no longer restricted to gatherings of 5 persons or more. This means even ONE person alone can constitute illegal assembly, thus giving the State complete control over an individual citizen’s freedoms.

‘First, to say that 1 person constitutes an assembly is certainly an abuse of the word. Secondly, is the government making the change because there had been incidents involving less than 5 persons which had disrupted public life? Unless there is compelling evidence to prove to us that expanding the definition of assembly and procession is needed, this expansion does not deserve our support,”  Sylvia Lim in parly in 2009.

Earlier, in 2007, she had said:

“This refers to clauses 29 and 30 of the Bill. By clause 29 of the Bill, we are removing the heading “Offences Against Public Tranquility” and replacing it with “Offences relating to Unlawful Assembly”. By Clause 30, we will be deleting “mischief or trespass or other offence” and replacing it with “to commit any offence”.

S 141 has been amended to bring it in line with a recent Court of Appeal case: PP v Tan Meng Khin [1995] 2 SLR 505. Now, an assembly will be unlawful if people intend to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment of 6 mths or more, even if it is peaceful and does not disturb public tranquillity. Under our law, a person who organizes a procession or assembly after the police rejection of a permit can be punished with max 6 months jail under the Miscellaneous Offences Act. Hence 5 or more people who gather to do so will become members of an unlawful assembly.

As our society continues to evolve, the time is surely ripe for us to allow peaceful outdoor protests as a form of expression. By all means, we can have rules about how, where and when such processions may be held, but wider law reform is needed. S 141 should be restricted to offences which threaten the public peace, and other laws such as the Miscellaneous Offences Act which require permits for peaceful assemblies should be modified.”

**Two men between the ages of 24 and 25 were arrested by police outside the Istana on Saturday afternoon (Apr 4).

Police said the duo had turned up in front of the Istana with placards at about 4pm. Channel NewsAsia understands that the men were holding signs that read “You can’t silence the people” and “Injustice” for about half an hour. They were clad in identical red hoodies and dark blue jeans.

Police also said both of them had refused to stop the activity despite requests from officers. As such, they were arrested for organising a public assembly without a permit, under Section 16(1)(a) of the Public Order Act, Chapter 257A.

 

 

PAP uses Lawfare against its opponents?

In Political governance, Public Administration on 08/10/2017 at 4:47 am

Is Lawfare the PAP’s weapon of choice against the enemies of the people the PAP?

Yesterday, I came across a word that JBJ, Dr Chee, Roy, Amos, Francis Seow and many other opponents of the PAP would have agreed as being the victims of, if they knew of the term. The word is “lawfare”.

The term is used by the Brazilian lawyers of ex-president Lula da Silva who was recently found guilty of corruption in a letter to the editor in the latest issue of the Economist . They define “lawfare” as “the misuse of law for political ends” and they accuse the Brazilian authourities of using lawfare against their client. 

What do you think? The PAP is using lawfare against its opponents?

Very related article: In S’pore we have rule by law not the rule of law.   

(Last para added at 6.20am)

PAP rule will end in 16 yrs time

In Political governance on 06/10/2017 at 2:59 pm

There have been quite a few comments on FB recently comparing PAP ruled S’pore to the USSR.

The USSR lasted for 74 years from 1917’s October Revolution. Counting from 1959, PAP has until 2033.

 

Why PAP doesn’t do accountability, meritocracy

In Political governance, Public Administration, S'pore Inc on 26/09/2017 at 11:16 am

Meritocracy and accountability are two sides of the same coin as the US navy has recently shown (PM, this is accountability). (Btw, a long time ago, the British executed a white horse to encourage other senior naval officers to do their duty.)

Therev are many examples where despite all the talk of meritocray (Meritocracy? No leh Cosiness), by the PAP, failures are rewarded, showing there’s no accountabilty. Think NOL’s CEO who is now SPH’s CEO or Ong Yee Kung  or SMRT’s Desmond Kwek or paper General Ministers.

The reason is simple: they were doing what they were supposed to do. Juz like when algos fail, the algos are not faulted. They juz doing what they were designed to do: “only doing what it was told”.

This realisation came when I read this

If Facebook’s algorithms were executives, the public would be demanding their heads on a stick, such was the ugly incompetence on display this week.

First, the company admitted a “fail” when its advertising algorithm allowed for the targeting of anti-Semitic users.

Then on Thursday, Mark Zuckerberg said he was handing over details of more than 3,000 advertisements bought by groups with links to the Kremlin, a move made possible by the advertising algorithms that have made Mr Zuckerberg a multi-billionaire.

Gross misconduct, you might say – but of course you can’t sack the algorithm. And besides, it was only doing what it was told.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-41358078

Blame the PAP (or rather the leaders of the PAP). And blame the pioneer generation for allowing S’pore to become a de facto one-party state?

Looking at things this way, and maybe the poor among the pioneer generation deserve the “peanuts” the PAP are shelling out.

What do u think?

Pot calling kettle black

In Political governance on 24/09/2017 at 5:14 am

I couldn’t help think the above when I read

Several Members of Parliament yesterday called for greater compassion from a public service that has, in Nee Soon GRC MP Louis Ng’s words, “lost its heart”, citing examples of how people have been turned away because public servants were doing things strictly by the book.

(Today)

The constructive, nation-building free sheet then went on to quote several PAP MPs.

Come on, the same can be said about today’s PAP MPs with the honourable exceptions of Lily Neo, Kate Spade Tin and a few others.

 

PAP beware: PAP and LKY loyalists not the same

In Political governance on 20/09/2017 at 7:16 am

When GCT was talking cock about the moral authority of the PAP administration (OK, OK he used the word “govt”) I couldn’t help but remember a remark that would pls the Oxley Rd hermitess and her younger brudder, and worry PM and the other PAppies, if they had been told about it.

In a closed FB group that my avatar belongs to, someone who could be reliably relied on to parrot the PAP line, was KPKBing about the reserve presidency (even though Hali’s i/c like his said “Indian”). When other members of the group gently pointed out his deviation from the PAP line, he said something to the effect that “I’m the third generation of LKY loyalists, I’m not a PAPpy”.

He got a good number of “Likes”.

Based on PE 2011 and GE 2011 and GE2015, the core PAP vote is around 35%, with the soft PAP vote about 35%.

No wonder PM was so keen to get Hali as president because even a ceremonial president can cause problems. But in so doing, he may have reduced further the die-die must vote PAP voters. Now that is a real problem. When LKY loyalists disagree with the PAPpists, the PAP’s core vote may now be smaller than 35%.

Never mind, expect more goodies using our own money. My hope is the extension of Pioneer Gen healthcare benefits to those in their early sixties.

 

 

“I’m invested in S’pore”

In Economy, Political governance on 19/09/2017 at 5:21 pm

Hence I talk so much about the way the PAP is mismanaging the place. I wrote this in 2013:

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

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

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

I’m not like chief TRE cybernut Oxygen who moved on out of S’pore years ago, but cannot get S’pore out of his mind. He still KPKBing about his CPF when all he needs to take it out is to become an Oz citizen. But maybe Oz will not him become a citizen because he’s a nut?

Hali humble? What a load of bull

In Political governance on 18/09/2017 at 4:54 am

Justin Wee posted this on FB

PAP and the MSM keeps telling us the sham President Halimah Yacob is humble, no doubt to fudge the controversy surrounding the way she was selected in a blatant disregard for the fundamental tenet of the Elected Presidency.

Now, if she’s humble, can we suggest Halimah to dispense with the motorcade and entourage that accompany her wherever she goes?

She’s certainly not deserving of it given that none of us voted for her.

What’s she afraid of if she claims to be a “President” for all?

Is she afraid of S’poreans?

PAP doesn’t think. They juz use standard procedures from the operating manual. They missed a trick to salvage her and their reputations from the mauling they getting from the public. But maybe they juz don’t give a damn. They look at their monthly CPF statements and smile.

#hardlymahpresident

In Political governance on 17/09/2017 at 11:07 am

WTF? President is paid millions but we got to do her work for her isit?

This is the implication of what Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong said. He wants

 Singaporeans to “help the President succeed” in a Facebook post.

“The process of how Halimah Yacob became President may be highly controversial but she is not a controversial figure,” he wrote on Thursday (Sep 14) afternoon.

Read more at http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/do-our-part-to-help-the-president-succeed-goh-chok-tong-9216068l

Jokes aside, while she was not a controversial figure (In fact I tot she could thrash TCB, and I said that I’d have voted for her despite having voted for TCB), she is now a controversial figure because of her complicity in the wayang of selecting a Malay president whose i/c says “Indian”.

She signed up to the wayang, which

— decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which the presidency is held; and

— induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against the presidency and the president.

And taz why she’s now a controversial figure, even taking into account her past good deeds and character. But she’s crying or laughing all the way to the bank, so u think she really cares what anyone thinks about her? I doubt it. Money talks, BS walks.

One thing I must say about the PAP. If they had been in charge of the Jewish council that paid Judas 30 pieces of silver to betray Jesus, they’d have paid him a lot more. But then having worked for the premier Jewish house in the City, Jews pride themselves on being mean. The joke was that to work in Rothschilds, u needed to have a private income. It was like being an officer in the Queen’s Household Brigade.

Btw, I like the Singlish version of #notmypresident. For one, it sums up my feelings better: #hardlymahpresident.

When the Presidential Commission recommended scrapping presidential elections and reverting to an appointed presidency, a government white paper rejected the idea. The reason for the rejection was that it was important to give the presidency a “popular” and “direct” mandate. 

Going by the Wayang

“popular” and “direct” mandate

must now seem to be Orwellian.

(Last two paras added at 11.40am)

Hali cracks a great joke

In Political governance on 17/09/2017 at 4:40 am

“Although this is a reserved election, I am not a reserved President. I’m a President for everyone”

There was no election. It was a walkover. How can a “reserved” president that was “not elected” be “everyone”‘s president.

Especially when she implies S’poreans are racists to justify the way she became president, parroting the PAP’s explanation of why there had to be a Malay president even if said Malay has i/c saying “Indian”.

Seriously as someone posted on FB

You know you’re off to a bad start when even your humility inconveniences your neighbourhood.

 

Two cheers for Hali

In Political governance on 16/09/2017 at 10:53 am

(For TRE cybernuts like Ng Cock Lim aka Rabble-rouser, pls look up the meaning of “two cheers”)

Because of Hali, “chop” cannot be banned

I am both gladdened and saddened by the National Environment Agency’s reply (Two hawker centres set ‘house rules’ against choping; Sept 2).

It is good that the NEA has acknowledged that “choping” is indeed a problem. But its approach to solving this is not in touch with reality.

The softly-softly approach has not worked ….

ST forum complainer

He’s a real cock (Ng Cock Lim’s twin isit?). Chopping cannot be banned because we juz saw PAP chopping the presidency. If PAP can chop presidency, S’poreans cannot chop seats isit?

#notmypresident protest and me

In Political governance on 16/09/2017 at 6:16 am

Gilbert Goh has called for a silent sit-in protest (text below) against the reserved presidential election today from 4.30PM to 6.30PM at Hong Lim Park.

I usually don’t do protests or solidarity.

But in solidarity, I posted yesterday a post on Hali’s inauguration speech that implies we are racists. And later today and tom in further shows of solidarity (I still don’t do protests), I’ll post more takes showing how the changes to the way the president is chosen

— decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which the office is held; or and

— induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against the presidency and the president.

Sad.

Lamentation of the Malay minister’s brudder-in-law https://mothership.sg/2017/09/a-monumental-miscalculation/

Worth a read even if his comments appear in a PAPpy funded publication. Which begs the question, “Why does it appear there?”

What do u think?

——————————-

Dear Fellow Singaporeans,

We have just received the NParks permit to stage a first-ever Silent Sit-in Protest against the Reserved Presidential Election this coming Saturday 16th Sep from 4.30 to 6.30pm.

Its a sit-in protest meaning that we won’t have any speakers for the event with no stage and no microphone speaker system. You can however bring along your placards to show your displeasure with the incoming government-appointed Presidency.

If you feel dissatisfied with the recent events surrounding the controversial PE, this is the time to show up and be counted. You can continue to be a keyboard warrior quietly firing away online but the time to step up is NOW!

Fear has crippled you all this while you are burnt up inside and its time to unleash that frustration by showing up with like-minded Singaporeans together as ONE voice.

People dropping by are encouraged to bring a mat and sit down silently on the park as a sign of protest against the PE. You can drop by anytime between 4.30 to 6.30pm or leave anytime of course. If you can join us for the sit-in silent protest for the whole 2 hours it will be great!

If you bring food and water along do be mindful not to litter the place.

Do wear black so we are united as ONE heart and people regardless of race and religion.

See you soon Singaporeans – Malays, Indians, Chinese and Eurasians are all welcomed!”

Gilbert Goh
Organiser
#notmypresident

Hali wants to unite S’poreans?

In Political governance on 15/09/2017 at 1:24 pm

Against her isit by branding voters as “racists”. Why liddat?

“I look forward to the day when we will no longer need to rely on the provision to have reserved elections, and Singaporeans naturally and regularly elect citizens of all races as Presidents”

The above implies that we voters are racists despite events like the Bukit Batok by-election where an Indian (with the help of true blue Chinese like Grace Fu) whipped the ass of talk cock sing song Hokkien-speaker and GE2015 where yje same Indian beat Chen Show Mao in the latter’s ward. Only the GRC system saved Mao. Ironic because the PAP said GRC was to protect minorities against orang Cina, not orang Cina from Chinese.

Many S’poreans believe the only reason why we had a reserved election was to ensure the PAP’s wish of having someone whose i/c said “Indian” as the second “Malay” president and first woman. If this is true, then the PAP are the racists, not us. And sexists too.

How to respect someone who uses the presidential pulpit to brand me and other S’poreans as racists?  And in her first speech too as president?

Was I wrong about her. I wrote in early 2016: Malay PAPpy that can thrash Chin Bock. I even said I’d vote for her in a one to one fight with Dr Tan despite voting fot Dr Tan the last time round.

Whatever, with comments like this from her, its going to be easy to keep S’poreans angry with the PAP about the way she became president. I had tot that come the next GE S’poreans, bribed with their own money, would forget their anger.


The only way to make PAP listen to you is through your vote. The way to stop PAP from manipulating the elected presidency is to stop them from having a 2/3 majority. They can still be the government with over 50% of the total seats in parliament but once they obtain above 66%, it means they can change the constitution at their whims and fancy and there absolutely NOTHING you can do about it. GE 2011 has shown that if you want PAP to listen to you, the only way is to stop voting for them, nothing is more straightforward and clear cut than that! Losing 1 GRC already made them panic, imagine what losing another 5 GRCs and a couple more single seats will do to them?! You have the power to bring them to their knees, just be smart with your vote.

FB post by upset S’porean

———————————————–

If Hali keeps on sounding like the PAP (Remember PM and ministers on need for reserved presidency? They all said we are racists.) maybe we’ll thank her one day. Meanwhile she can look at her bank statement and laugh at Judas. He only got thirty pieces of silver. And Jews are supposed to be really smart.

 

 

Why PAP thinks we need a Malay president?

In Political governance, Property on 12/09/2017 at 6:25 am

Even if her i/c says “Indian”.

Because it wants to avoid property prices from collapsing?

A Muslim president will keep some Muslims from becoming radicalised and then becoming terrorists because there hasn’t been a Muslim president since Yusof Ishak? (Btw, even at the time, there were questions whether he was Malay. He comes from Minangkabau stock.)  (Btw, Read what a law professor has to say about the definition of “Malay” in our con.

Here’s what an Indonesian Muslim scholar says about Islam and terrorism

… should stop pretending that extremism and terrorism have nothing to do with Islam. There is a clear relationship between fundamentalism, terrorism, and the basic assumptions of Islamic orthodoxy. So long as we lack consensus regarding this matter, we cannot gain victory over fundamentalist violence within Islam.

Radical Islamic movements are nothing new. They’ve appeared again and again throughout our own history in Indonesia. The West must stop ascribing any and all discussion of these issues to “Islamophobia.” Or do people want to accuse me — an Islamic scholar — of being an Islamophobe too?

What basic assumptions within traditional Islam are problematic?

The relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims, the relationship of Muslims with the state, and Muslims’ relationship to the prevailing legal system wherever they live … Within the classical tradition, the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims is assumed to be one of segregation and enmity.

Perhaps there were reasons for this during the Middle Ages, when the tenets of Islamic orthodoxy were established, but in today’s world such a doctrine is unreasonable. To the extent that Muslims adhere to this view of Islam, it renders them incapable of living harmoniously and peacefully within the multi-cultural, multi-religious societies of the 21st century.

https://pamelageller.com/2017/09/muslim-scholar-truth-about-islam.html/

Bottom line, PAP wants to keep S’pore safe? Otherwise property prices will plunge if there’s no Muslim president?

=====

According to law professor Kevin Tan in a talk at the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) Forum on The Reserved Presidential Election on Sept. 8, the definition of “Malay” in the Constitution is anomalous because he says“who is a Malay?” is a highly problematic legal question.

Source: Singapore Statutes Online

“With Malay candidates, it gets even more interesting, because I think back in 1988, this formula when it was first brought up, they already recognised that it was almost next to impossible to define who is or is not a Malay…Because it is a social construct, we make it up, about race, about who is and is not a Malay, or Chinese or so on. It is actually socially constructed. In the case of the Malay, it actually says, a person belonging to the Malay Community means any person and here nobody else has this phrase ‘of the Malay race or otherwise’. So this means that I, meaning Kevin Tan can say I am Malay, even though I am not of Malay stock, theoretically. “

My take on the “Malay” race: no such race.

Race is BS or “post-truth” at work?

In Political governance on 09/09/2017 at 3:41 pm

The upcoming reserved Presidential Election is part of Singapore’s overall framework to create a strong national identity, Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam said.
Read more at http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/reserved-presidential-election-part-of-framework-to-build-9199346

Does he mean that a “Malays only” presidency where the only “Malay” candidates have i/cs saying “Indian” or “Pakistani” means that the idea of different races or that the term “Malay race” are really BS?

More like “post-truth” at work methinks.

“Post-truth” is a word that has come to prominence as the Western liberal elites are angsting and spinning about their defeats in Brexit and the US presidential election.

The Oxford Dictionary declared ‘post-truth’ its word of the year 2016. FT added “A less verbose way to describe the same phenomenon would be to say it was the year in which emotion trumped fact. Or cruder still, it was the year of the lie.”

The Economist (the PAP’s bible) got emotional about “post-truth”:

Mr Trump is the leading exponent of “post-truth” politics—a reliance on assertions that “feel true” but have no basis in fact. His brazenness is not punished, but taken as evidence of his willingness to stand up to elite power.

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21706525-politicians-have-always-lied-does-it-matter-if-they-leave-truth-behind-entirely-art

And

tempting to dismiss the idea of “post-truth” political discourse—the term was first used by David Roberts, then a blogger on an environmentalist website, Grist—as a modish myth invented by de-haut-en-bas liberals and sore losers ignorant of how dirty a business politics has always been. But that would be complacent. There is a strong case that, in America and elsewhere, there is a shift towards a politics in which feelings trump facts more freely and with less resistance than used to be the case. Helped by new technology, a deluge of facts and a public much less given to trust than once it was, some politicians are getting away with a new depth and pervasiveness of falsehood. If this continues, the power of truth as a tool for solving society’s problems could be lastingly reduced.

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21706498-dishonesty-politics-nothing-new-manner-which-some-politicians-now-lie-and

Even Goldman Sachs talked about “misinformation, half-truths, and political spin”, despite having its alumni in the White House.

Well the ideas and concepts behind “post-truth” have been around at least 1900

“They wanted facts. Facts! They demanded facts from him, as if facts could explain anything.”
―from LORD JIM (1900) by Joseph Conrad

A ship’s crew abandons their human cargo of pilgrims, breaking all naval traditions. A young junior British officer Jim is one of them. At a court of inquiry he is questioned in great detail over what happened and in partucular his own actions; the other members of the crew having run way again. He is publicly censured for his actions, and stripped of his qualifications.

The above quotes reflect the narratot’s view of his state of mind at the inquiry.

*LORD JIM is a classic story of one man’s tragic failure and eventual redemption, told under the circumstances of high adventure at the margins of the known world which made Conrad’s work so immediately popular. But it is also the book in which its author, through a brilliant adaptation of his stylistic apparatus to his obsessive moral, psychological and political concerns, laid the groundwork for the modern novel as we know it. With An Introduction By Norman Sherry. READ an excerpt here:http://knopfdoubleday.com/book/30813/lord-jim/

 

More on Hali’s judgement between 2007 -2011/ Meritocracy? What meritocracy?

In Uncategorized on 18/08/2017 at 10:07 am

Further to this about Hali’s judgment as SMRT non-executive director in not being aware of MRT problems that ordinary S’poreans were aware of, there’s more about her judgement (or rather lack of it) during her spell as SMRT director and a senior NTUC leader.

She really showed bad judgement because it concerned SMRT’s labour relations.

I wrote this in 2012 about Ong Ye Kung, but it applies to Halimah too given that labour problems don’t just happen overnight. They fester over time. And she should have known about the labour tensions in SMRT given that  she was Deputy Secretary General, Director of the Legal Services Department and Director of the Women’s Development Secretariat.

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

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

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

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

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

— Ministry of Manpower reprimanded SMRT for its HR practices.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judgment? What judgment?

Coming back to Ong. Given he’s failed at NTUC as Zorro Lim implied above, he’s now said to be a possible PM?

And NTUC is not the only place he failed. He failed here too:

Ong was the Chief Executive of the Singapore Workforce Development Agency from 2005 to 2008. There, he spearheaded many initiatives to build up the Continuing Education and Training infrastructure for Singapore, and made training accessible to the individual worker, including contract workers and the unemployed.

Wikipedia entry

Surely he must share a lot of the blame for the low productivity of S’pore’s work force?

Meritocracy? What meritocracy?

Related: Meritocratic hubris/ Who defines “meritocracy”

When a ceremonial president goes “rogue”

In Political governance, Public Administration on 15/08/2017 at 7:18 am

Nothing much any government can do if it wants to avoid a public row.

This piece tries to explain why die die PAP must get the president PAP wants. And why even then there can be problems. Remember our first elected president?

A look at the relations between India’s ceremonial president (He is the head of the state, and is required by the constitution to act on the advice of ministers) and the governments of the day show how difficult it is to control a president who goes “rogue” ie refuses to act on the advice of ministers even when the constitution says he must.

Our president is more than a ceremonial figure. He is supposed to be a figurehead with some chief jaga duties primarily centred around protecting our reserves. It’s a mixture of ceremonial and custodial functions, thanks to one Harry Lee.

The ceremonial role aspect of our president, a figurehead, is based on the Indian model: he is the head of the state, and is required by the constitution to act on the advice of ministers.

An Indian president is supposedly

a mere figurehead who, in the words of former prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru, is a “head that neither reigns nor governs”, and holds a position of “authority or dignity” more than anything else?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-40772945

But as a BBC article tells us http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-40772945, the so- called “figurehead” can cause the govt of the day a lot of problems.

The seventh president, Giani Zail Singh … had a stormy relationship with the then prime minister Rajiv Gandhi.

In 1987, he withheld assent from a controversial bill passed by the parliament. (The bill was later withdrawn.) There were reports that Mr Singh, who died in 1994 , had even considered sacking Mr Gandhi’s government over an arms purchasing scandal.

The ninth incumbent Shankar Dayal Sharma returned two executive orders to the cabinet in 1996 because they had been “inappropriately” issued before a general election.

And his successor, KR Narayanan, a London School of Economics-educated former diplomat and Dalit (formerly known as “untouchable”), was arguably one of India’s most assertive presidents. He delivered speeches which many believed were not vetted by the government and, in a surprising break from protocol, even gave an interview to a senior journalist.

Mr Narayanan also sent back a proposal to impose direct rule in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh to the cabinet, asking the ministers to reconsider it. He bluntly said: “I am not a rubber stamp.”

And he angered many in the government and the media for chiding visiting US president Bill Clinton at a state banquet, provoking the New York Times to comment that “the tensions inherent in forging an Indian-American friendship surfaced with Mr Narayanan’s speech”.

Then there was the previous president

Prof Manor believes Mr Kovind’s predecessor, Pranab Mukherjee, a veteran Congress party leader and a former senior minister, was “more assertive than nearly all previous presidents”.

Although he rejected a record 28 mercy pleas of death row convicts during his tenure, Mr Mukherjee defied the advice of the government and commuted the death sentences of four convicts in January.

“Mr Mukherjee had the right to refer those cases back to ministers for reconsideration once, but when they reiterated the advice, he is required to accept it. He refused to do so,” explains Prof Manor.

“That was potentially explosive politically, and might have led to a constitutional crisis. But the prime minister and cabinet apparently decided not to make an issue of it – because Mr Mukherjee’s term was soon to end, and because a confrontation would have prevented them from doing other important things.”

So one can understand why the ruling party in a de facto one-party state wants to ensure that the presidency is held by someone who will not go “rogue”, especially given that the job has chief jaga duties.  Remember Ong Teng Cheong?

And just to make sure after the rows with Ong, the chief  jaga can be over-ridden: If the President goes against the advice of the majority of the Council of Presidential Advisers and exercises his veto power, Parliament can override such a veto with a two-thirds majority.

——————————————

Ownself check ownself check ownself: Paradox of the PAP presidency.

——————————————

Whatever, there’s something the PAP cannot avoid: a “rogue” president has the power to publicise via the alternative, new or social media his views when he rows with the PAP administration. So all the more important to make sure kaki lung gets in.

Coming back to Harry Lee who devised the system. He wanted to fix a non-PAP government but ended up tying the PAP administration in knots. The latest twist is a Malay president whose i/c says “Indian”.

Even if she’s really a Malay. 

Oh what a tanled web we weave …

From Aug 9 1965/ “HOW NOW SINGAPORE? Revisiting Lee Kuan Yew’s Hard Truths”

In Political economy, Political governance, Public Administration, Uncategorized on 10/08/2017 at 7:12 am

Dr Paul of the SDP has been sharing this quote on FB.

“…Singapore shall forever be a sovereign democratic and independent nation, founded upon the principles of liberty and justice and ever seeking the welfare and happiness of her people in a more just and equal society,” Harry Lee.

Regular readers will know by now that I’m not to fussed about abstract notions (unlike people like Teo Soh Lung and the other ang moh tua kees who join über white horses to pak PAP) about democracy, liberty and justice in S’pore: these are after all juz abstract nouns.

But I care about “welfare and happiness” of S’poreans because S’pore is a wealthy city state that can afford to spend more on S’poreans. It’s the PAP’s failure to spend more of S’poreans’ money on S’poreans that makes me criticise the actions and machinations of the PAP administration, not abstract notions about democracy, liberty and justice. Money talks, BS walks.

Pls read this

HOW NOW SINGAPORE? Revisiting Lee Kuan Yew’s Hard Truths

 August 9, 2017

Tay Kheng Soon

https://www.futureofsingapore.org/single-post/2017/08/09/HOW-NOW-SINGAPORE-Revisiting-Lee-Kuan-Yews-Hard-Truths

Legendary Malay hero was really Indian/ Blame Mendaki, not PAP

In Uncategorized on 08/08/2017 at 10:25 am

I came across this FB comment made by someone using a Malay name.

Remember Old Malacca sultanate PM or Bendahara , Bendahara Sri Maharaja Tun Mutahir (died 1510) was a famous Bendahara of the Malaccan Sultanate. He belongs to Tamil Muslim ancestry. He was the seventh Bendahara, a post equivalent to a prime minister. He was accepted as Malay in Malay country!

What he left out about the Indian Bendahara was that he filled court positions with his relatives, and was executed by the Sultan who was suspicious that he was trying to become sultan, hence giving posts to his relatives.

Actually the Malacca Sultanate, the Golden Age of the Malays, was a pretty multiracial place.

Hang Li Po, a supposedly Ming dynasty princess, was the fifth wife of Malaccan Sultan Mansur Shah.

Btw, the poster went on

Tun Mahathir , ex PM and numbers of Indian ancestry ministers and MPs from UMNO accepted as members , a party which only Malay can join!

Why we in Singapore make a big fuss about Malay ancestry of Elected President.In fact how many of Malay people are pure Malay!We are Rojak society , and in us flow many ancestry bloodline before our IC indicate the race MALAY!

If Malaysia, Malay country can accept any Indian ancestry Muslim Malay spoken , especially in Penang, as Malay why can’t our country, Singapore.

Thinking about it why didn’t the PAP simply say Nathan also Malay?

After all PAP MP Zainal Sapari says i/c is irrelevant in deciding whether one is a Malay (Malayness issue post). Actually he may have gone further, allegedly claiming that Mandaki was wrong in using i/c card race classification in deciding whether to extend aid. Sadly he sanitisied his FB thread so we can’t be certain.

——————————-

This is especially because Mendaki’s position is that if i/c doesn’t say “Malay” there’ll be no help for the Muslim supplicant, even if the entire kampung swears that said supplicant is really a Malay.

Malay-Muslim self-help group Yayasan Mendaki has a set of criteria for its financial assistance schemes for students administered on behalf of the Government. Among other things, the recipients “must be of Malay descent” as stated in their identity cards. It spells out a list of what it considers to be “Malay descent”, and this includes 22 ethnicities including Acehnese, Javanese, Boyanese, Sumatran, Sundanese and Bugis. Students with “double-barrelled” race are eligible if the first race is listed on the identity cards as Malay, said a Mendaki spokesman. For example, a student who is Malay-Arab would qualify for the schemes but an Arab-Malay student would not, he added.

(CNA)

Malayness issue post

———————-

If he did, was he aware that the Malay minister responsible for Malay affairs heads Mendaki? Now that guy’s i/c says “Malay”. But a classmate of his says that the story in school (Tanjong Katong Technical School) was that his dad chose “Malay” instead “Arab” because of the goodies. But we know school boys can be mean, and tell lies.

So waz new? PAP instinctively prefers FTs

In Political governance on 04/08/2017 at 7:13 am

The MacPherson Zone B Residents’ Committee (RC) will offer a refund to everyone who took part in its open house, after charging new citizens less for tickets to the event.

The RC apologised on Thursday (Aug 3) after some pointed out that tickets for the Jul 30 event cost S$1 for new citizens, but S$3 for everyone else.

Read more at http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/macpherson-rc-offers-refund-on-open-house-tickets-after-charging-9089574

OK, OK, the PAP’s running dogs repented. Thet nade the event free.

But really it shows that the running dogs’ Pavlovian response is to screw S’poreans, while making life great for FTs.

And where did they learn that response from? The PAP.

Remember CurryGate? A govt agency told locals to stop cooking curry because it offended FTs. And worse was proud of its action.

But to be fair to the PAP, here’s an example (the only one I can find of the PAP administration discriminating against FTs)

Also seen just outside the event area was Russian student Elijah Zamyatin, who was playing Monopoly with three Singaporean friends when the group was approached by Yahoo Singapore. The 18-year-old, who has lived in Singapore for seven years, said he had been unaware of the new regulations until he read the signs placed around the area.

“I don’t understand why (it is like this). It seems like love is for everyone except foreigners. This event is to spread love, but you ban foreigners,” he said.

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/pink-dot-2017-draws-thousands-despite-new-restrictions-152411039.html

Like him, I can’t understand this discrimination. If he has the right the right to live here for seven, he has the right to attend an event like this,

“Malay race” created by ang mohs, not the Malays

In Uncategorized on 03/08/2017 at 10:48 am

(Alt title: “How can S’pore be creative and prosperous when the PAP clings to discredited. outdated theories?”)

But first, this well argued, reasoned piece appeared as a letter to TRE. It also provides the background to the explanation that the “Malay race” is a Western, colonial creation to better subjectate natives. One could argue that the PAP keeps the concept in order to play the British game of “divide and rule”.

Coming Presidential Election is a failure at all levels

It feels like the next Presidential Election is a failure at all levels. The government have given their reasons for reserving this next election for the Malays, following changes to the Constitution to ensure the highest office of the land reflects Singapore’s multiracial society.

While the government sees this as a way to reflect multiracial society, this have backfired on them. Where once Singaporeans don’t really see race as an issue, as this generation accepts Singapore’s diverse races living and working together, this very decision to ensure a Malay representative get the Presidency role seems to have given rise to racism.

Now, we have online netizens questioning in what constitutes of being a Malay. Three person are almost certain to be the candidates for the Presidency Election, one allegedly an Indian Muslim, one is of a Pakistani descent and one cannot even speak Malay properly. Now, everyone is questioning on what the government sees as Malay! The issue with this is that race was once not part of this political process, where people vote according to who they think will do a good job. It just so happened that no Malay candidate would run.

Now they have opened to Malays only. Isn’t this going against their open arms policy?And by having only Malays, isn’t this also a racist thing to do? Now everyone is questioning whether this Malay candidate is Malay enough, not some mixed heritage. Just because they speak Malay, does not mean one is a Malay. LKY spoke impeccable Malay, but he is not a Malay! Furthermore, one candidate cannot even speak Malay properly.

So you see? Government wants to reserve the President for a Malay, cos we have not had one for a long time. But by doing this, you are saying Malays cannot contest on their own merits. Govt must hand hold them, and let Malays challenge the not so Malays, and the winner would be a Malay. What kind of logic is that?

Fadly Yusoff

Well said Fadly Yusoff.

Coming back to blaming the Europeans for the problem where “Indians” and “Pakistanis” can be Malays in an election where only Malays can stand, blame in particular the British and an 18th century German.

In 1824, the British introduced the concept of the “Malay” race into S’pore’s psyche and political governance, when they classified the residents of S’pore into “Chinese”, “Indians”, “Malays” and “Others”.

Raffles’ views must have played a part in this classification even though by 1824 he had retired and was living in England:

The popularisation of Malay as a racial category was in essence a colonial product, the significant role of which played by the Spanish since the 17th century and that of the British since the 18th century in identifying the Archipelago as the Malay world. The view held by Thomas Stamford Raffles for example, had a significant influence on English-speakers, lasting to the present day. He should probably be regarded as the most important voice in projecting the idea of a ‘Malay’ race or nation, not limited to the traditional Raja-Raja Melayu or even their supporters, but embracing a large if unspecified part of the Archipelago.[23]William Marsden, another British “merchant-scientist,” classified the inhabitants of the Archipelago as Malays, based on religion (Islam), language (Malay) and origin.[24]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malay_world#Malay_as_a_racial_category

In the previous century, it was a German who proposed the idea of a “Malay race”:

The concept of a Malay race was originally proposed by the German scientist Johann Friedrich Blumenbach(1752–1840), and classified as a brown race.[1]Malay is a loose term used in the late 19th century and early 20th century to describe theAustronesian peoples[2] / categorize Austronesian speakers into a race.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malay_race

The people of the Malay archipelago* (the British name for the region) were not consulted about this theory nor about the British classification of races in S’pore.


The Real Malays

Yes there really are “Malays” (not just Indian Muslims and Pakistanis and other Muslims who say they are Malays, to get the goodies, one assumes):

Malays (Malay: Orang Melayu,Jawi: اورڠ ملايو) are an ethnic group of Austronesian peoples predominantly inhabiting theMalay Peninsula, eastern Sumatra and coastal Borneo, as well as the smaller islands which lie between these locations — areas that are collectively known as the Malay world …

There is considerable genetic, linguistic, cultural, and social diversity among the many Malay subgroups, mainly due to hundreds of years of immigration and assimilation of various regional ethnicity and tribes within Maritime Southeast Asia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malays_(ethnic_group)

And yes there is a place in south east Sumatra call Malayu (or Melayu).

But there is no Malay race. Malays are an ethnic group.

Read this to understand the difference between race and ethnicity.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethnicity_vs_Race

—————————————————-

Coming back to the German and his theory,

Since Blumenbach, many anthropologists have rejected his theory of five races, citing the enormous complexity of classifying races*.

So the PAP is adhering to an outdated and discredited theory in creating a “Malay” presidency? And where only “Indians” and “Pakistanis” want to become a “Malay” president?

Given that a fifth of marriages are between people of different “races”, surely we should be moving away from thinking in terms of “race”? And then there’s this aspiration:

We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion, to build a democratic society, based on justice and equality, so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation.

But then maybe the PAP is using the issue of race to play a modern day version of the British game of “divide and rule” the natives?

What do u think?

Whatever, how can S’pore be creative, let alone progress if the ruling party in a defacto one-party state refuses to change its mind on policies that no longer work or never worked in the first place?

Take the economy where the PAP

— continues to see welfare** as a bad thing except when it needs to buy votes, and

— believes that FTs are needed to keep the economy growing.

No wonder we have had restructuring plans galore (Once every decade it seems),

Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back

John Maynard Keynes

Maybe time listen to the views of this guy on how to fix S’pore’s problems? Lawyer with LLM from Cambridge who was a senior partner in the law firm where the CJ and other judges and two AGs came from.

———————–

*And nowadays called Maritime Southeast Asia (the maritime region of Southeast Asia as opposed to mainland Southeast Asia and comprises what is now Malaysia, Brunei, the Philippines, Singapore, Indonesia, and Timor Leste. An alternate term for the region is “the Indonesian Archpielgo and the Malay Peninsula”.

**To be fair to the PAP, “A shift to a welfare state is a daunting challenge that cannot be realised without raising taxes comprehensively,” says a S Korean economist taking of the Korean govt’s plans. But as Chris K and Yeoh Lam Keong keep pointing out, there’s a lot more that can be done within the present framework.

“Bullshit is the glue that binds us as a nation” 

In Political governance on 24/07/2017 at 5:01 am

“Bullshit is the glue that binds us as a nation” was said by George Carlin. He was an American stand-up black comedy comedian, actor, author, and social critic.

When Sonny Liew became the first S’porean to win an Eisner Award (In fact he won three*: the Eisner Awards are the comic industry’s Oscars.), I realised that “Bullshit is the glue that binds us as a nation” applies here too because of the hostility to alternative narratives to the “The S’pore Story: The PAP Version”.

“The S’pore Story: The PAP Version”

goes something like this: Newly independent from its bigger neighbor Malaysia, small and vulnerable in the middle of the Cold War, beset by Communist infiltrators and surrounded by domino nations, Singapore finally found stability and a road to prosperity when its founding father, Lee Kuan Yew, defeated dangerous left-wing opponents, regrettably by having many tossed in jail.

“The S’pore Story: The PAP Version”

has been hammered home in textbooks, the mass media and television shows. To oppose it meant risking detention without trial, costly libel suits or extreme marginalization in a country where the state controls most purse strings and levers of power.

The above extracts are from

After the above book was published, Singapore’s National Arts Council (NAC) withdrew a publishing grant, and an official wrote in a letter to the constructive, nation-building ST that the book “potentially undermines the authority and legitimacy of the Government and its public institutions.”

(The author talks about his present relationship with the NAC: http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-40606324/singapore-artist-tops-comic-book-oscars-nominations)

Then there’s “State of Emergency”, another novel. The author sent the first draft of book to NAC and his subsidy was stopped.

Synopsis:
Siew Li leaves her husband and children in Tiong Bahru to fight for freedom in the jungles of Malaya. Decades later, a Malaysian journalist returns to her homeland to uncover the truth of a massacre committed during the Emergency. And in Singapore, Siew Li’s niece Stella finds herself accused of being a Marxist conspirator.

Jeremy Tiang’s debut novel dives into the tumultuous days of leftist movements and political detentions in Singapore and Malaysia. It follows an extended family from the 1940s to the present day as they navigate the choppy political currents of the region. What happens when the things that divide us also bind us together?

Praise:
“A well-written novel, and it has a wide historical perspective.”—Philip Holden, author of Heaven Has Eyes and NUS Professor of English

“A superbly structured piece of work. The sweep of the dramatic narrative is impressive, with just the right dose of intrigue and mystery.”—Haresh Sharma, Resident Playwright, The Necessary Stage

https://shop.epigrambooks.sg/products/state-of-emergency

(Btw, both books are published by Epigram Books, owned by Edmund Wee. He wants to make S’pore Literature Great.)

Then there’s Mr. Thum Ping Tjin, better known as PJ Thum, a Research Associate at the Centre for Global History and co-ordinator of Project Southeast Asia, University of Oxford. He’s got local academics foaming with rage over his analysis of Operation Coldstore. He used declassified British archives to challenge the PAP narrative that S’pore faced a credible Communist threat. Really there’s nothing really very new about his analysis. Some Western historians had been disagreeing with the PAP’s narrative even before the British declassified their records, basing their analysis on information available from US and Australian archives.

(Here’s his analysis of the 1964 “racial riots”: https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2016/07/26/why-history-matters-to-singapore/. It’s not the official narrative.)

Btw, he has his own alternative history podcast on S’pore. Again this often goes against the PAP narrative but in the main it follows what Western historians have talked about. S’poreans are generally not aware of what Western historians write about S’pore because their books and articles are about the region, and the S’pore material is just a “little red dot”.

I’m no fan of his because I think in his analysis of S’pore in the 50s and 60s, he leaves out the bigger picture of Western fears and concerns, not unreasonable, about the danger of Communism to their regional and global interests. For example, in any analysis of S’pore in the late 50s and early 60s, account must be taken of  the PKI,  the Indonesian Communist Party. By 1965, the PKI was the strongest communist party outside the USSR and China. It had influence over Sukarno.

———————————–

*Nominated in six categories for graphic novel “The Art of Charlie Chan Hock Chye”, Liew won three:

Best Writer/Artist,

Best US Edition of International Material – Asia, and

Best Publication Design and categories

 

 

 

Halimah not BSing that she got to consult further

In Political governance on 21/07/2017 at 5:17 am

But first

Image may contain: 2 people, people smiling, text

(Happy to attribute if I know whom to attribute this to)

Back to Halimah

Speaking to reporters after a community event at her Marsiling ward, Mdm Yacob said she has been asked this question many times and felt honored and humbled by the support, but she needed more time to consult with her family and colleagues further.

Heard an interesting story from the usually unreliable sources. Though I hear while he’s happy for wife to be president (Who wouldn’t like to will the Toto top prize?), he’s not happy about  becoming the first First Man doing the traditional First Lady duties like being patron of women’s charities and hosting tea parties for women social workers. He’s no male chauvinist but I’m told he doesn’t fancy doing the things Mrs Tan does and Mrs Nathan did.

Hence the delay in his wife declaring that she wants to be president. His role has yet to be defined to his satisfaction.

Doubtless a fair and reasonable solution will be worked out for him a real gentleman, as his friends and ex-collegues describe him. I’m told he’s retired.

Btw, he’s Malay-Arab.

Can a true blue Malay (no cross breeds pls) from the Malaya Archiplego pls stand up.

The term Malaya Archiplego

was derived from the European concept of a Malay race,[4]which referred to the people who inhabited what is now Brunei,Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia (excluding Western New Guinea), the Philippinesand East Timor. The racial concept was proposed by European explorers based on their observations of the influence of the ethnic Malay empire, Srivijaya, which was based on the island of Sumatra, Indonesia.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malay_Archipelago

What Liu Xiaobo can teach S’poreans

In Uncategorized on 15/07/2017 at 11:14 am

Later today Gilbert Goh and the other usual suspects will be protesting at the failure of PM to sue his siblings. I hope that at least one of the speakers will also talk about what to me is the real scandal of Oxleygate: other ministers not suing the PM’s siblings. Unlike PM, they don’t have the excuse of blood ties.

S’pore and China are both one-party states (one de jure, the other de facto), but different in that in S’pore one a referendum is allowed every five yrs and where the ruling party wins by a majority of at least 60% of the popular vote, or as is bar once, a lot more. Hence 60% of the popular vote is the passing mark of the PAP’s popularity. To the PAP and S’poreans, a 60% win is really bad and it throws out bribes (using S’poreans’ money) to get a better score next time.

So the following remarks in an FT article about the life and death of Liu Xiaobo, are relevant to S’poreans especially to those who will later today protest at the PAP’s hegemony:

Liu imagined a country where Beijing residents might, for example, one day wear black T-shirts on the June 4 anniversary of Tiananmen. Who would the police arrest if thousands of people did that, let alone tens of thousands?

“Tyranny is not terrifying,” Liu wrote. “What is really scary is submission, silence, and even praise for tyranny. As soon as people decide to oppose it to the bitter end, even the most vicious tyranny will be shortlived.”

The PAP is not as formidable as it appears, something I’ll talk about soon, I hope. Meanwhile, here’s one reason why: the trains don’t run on time, and here’s why*.


*Do read this. V V gd analysis.

Oxleygate: “the curious incident”/ What S’poreans are not focusing on

In Political governance, Public Administration on 14/07/2017 at 10:36 am

“The dog did nothing in the night-time.”

“That was the curious incident.”

The real “scandal” is that DPM Teo and Lawrence Wong did not protect their reputations the PAP way, when the younger Lees defamed them by accusing them of doing their brother’s bidding, not PM not threatening to take legal action against his siblings, but doing a wayang in parly.

ESM Goh said in parly:

[I]t is clear that their goal is to bring Lee Hsien Loong down as PM, regardless of the huge collateral damage suffered by the Government and Singaporeans. It is now no more a cynical parlour game. If the Lee siblings choose to squander the good name and legacy of Lee Kuan Yew, and tear their relationship apart, it is tragic but a family affair. But if in the process of their self destruction, they destroy Singapore too, that is a public affair.

Now isn’t the attempt to destroy S’pore by making allegations against other ministers, not just their brother the PM, a good enough reason for said ministers to have demanded an apology and sued the younger Lees for defamation, if no grovelling apology was made? And what about their personal reputations? Why liddat?

After ESM’s Goh’s speech, Lee Hsien Yang posted

“We are not making a criticism of the Government of Singapore, as we made clear from the beginning. What we have said is that we are disturbed by the character, conduct, motives and leadership of our brother, Lee Hsien Loong.”
Read more at http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/we-are-not-making-a-criticism-of-the-government-lee-hsien-yang-9006620

————————————————

Talk Cock Sing Song King Lee Hsien Yang talking cock again above. Other examples

Reading Lee Hsien Yang’s repeated “clarifications” on FB to his earlier FB “clarifications” (example on whether his wife’s law firm was used in the final will: he said “No” emphatically, but then went to explain what they did*), I can understand why the committee wants a statutory declaration and I can understand why he hasn’t given one.

Talking cock about the will

Didn’t do his job as executor

—————————————

Huh? I tot the younger Lees were making allegations that the ministerial committee set up to consider the fate of LKY’s house was doing their brother’s bidding, not making independent judgements and findings? That not attacking govt meh?

DPM Teo rightly responded:

“With regard to Dr Lee Wei Ling and Mr Lee Hsien Yang’s allegations against the Ministerial Committee, public agencies and public officers, the Government has already responded comprehensively to all of them in Parliament,”
Read more at http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/38-oxley-road-govt-still-has-to-carry-out-responsibilities-for-9009684

This shows that, while the PM may have felt that he could not sue his siblings, DPM Teo or Lawrence Wong should have had no such qualms about suing PM’s siblings for the good of S’pore and their good name. They should have asked the younger Lees to withdraw their allegations against them, and apologise. Failing which, they’d sue the Lees.

While I’ve argued that that the cabinet full of Oxbridge men royally screwed up

Yesterday’s wayang and the preceding Lee family row could have been avoided if PM (from Cambridge) had not have gone to the cabinet about his doubts about the circumstances around the execution of the will and the cabinet committee headed by another Cambridge man had not decided to act on PM’s doubts.

DPM Teo, Lawrence Wong, and, possibly, other ministers should have been prepared to take legal action to protect the reputation of the cabinet and themselves. They didn’t and that me is the real scandal. It now seems that this White Horse and White Mare have privileges not extended to people like Roy Ngerng. Who else does do these privileges extend to?

Even now, the Princess of Oxley Road is attacking Shanmugam, raking over the ashes of her allegation of his conflicts of interest. Shouldn’t he be telling her to “apologise or else”, instead of sitting down and keeping quiet? She that special isit?

Gregory (Scotland Yard detective): “Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”

Holmes: “To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”

Gregory: “The dog did nothing in the night-time.”

Holmes: “That was the curious incident.”

Silver Blaze by  Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

 

 

8 ministers from Oxbridge but still can cock-up?/ One-term Malay MP?

In Investment banking, Political governance, Public Administration on 04/07/2017 at 5:06 am

I tot the above when I read

At the peak of Japan’s 1980s bubble [Nomura] … recruited more Oxford and Cambridge graduates than any institution outside the British government.

FT

Nomura has since been struggling to be great again. It’s now ranked 17th among investment banks. In the 80s, it was ranked alongside Goldie, Morgan Stanley, First Boston (disappeared into Credit Suisse) and Merrills (part of BoA today)

Given that there are seven Cambridge graduates and one Oxford graduate (Desmond Lee) in our cabinet of 22 ministers, no wonder we are no longer great. Sad.

(The seven from Cambridge are PM, DPM Teo, Hng Kiang, Zorro, Gan, Heng and Kee Chui.)

Yesterday’s wayang and the preceding Lee family row could have been avoided if PM (from Cambridge) had not have gone to the cabinet about his doubts about the circumstances around the execution of the will and the cabinet committee headed by another Cambridge man had not decided to act on PM’s doubts.

As a PAP Malay MP (Likely the central committee is already looking for her replacement for the next GE) pointed out

PM Lee’s comments in statutory declaration may appear to be a “backdoor approach” in challenging validity of his father’s will.

MP Rahayu Mahzam

Err maybe she reads me or the FB postings of a really, really smart lawyer? No not M Ravi or Jeannette Chong. The guy votes PAP but his legal brain is as sharp as a razor.

Whatever, she has balls of steel or is a real sotong to believe “vigorous debate” means “vigorous debate”. Her Chinese and Indian colleagues know better.

Pink Dot photo describes to a T the S’pore Harry designed and constructed

In Political governance on 02/07/2017 at 6:04 am

This was posted on FB by Jolovan Wham, a Jedi who fights for the rights and dignity of migrant workers.

Image may contain: 3 people, people standing, tree and outdoor

I mock Harry’s younger children’s rants about the abuse of power, the absence of “checks and balances to prevent the abuse of government”, and the lack of media freedom as BS because what they are ranting about is the natural consequence of the defacto one-party state that their Pa built with the overwhelming support of S’poreans. Remember that once upon a time, the PAP won 86.7% of the popular vote in the 1968 general election, and they have never had less than 60% of the popular vote in a general election. They often had 70% and more.

The only time the PAP could have “lost” was in presidential election 2011 (their preferred candidate won by about 3000 votes), but dadly the anti-PAP voters voted for two RI opportunists and deprived an honourable, decent RI boy of a famous victory. The 30% and the two RI opportunists betrayed S’poreans, and the PAP dudn’t even have to pay them. They betrayed S’pore for free.

As for the two spoiled kids, they only screamed when they were ignored by the governing system their Pa installed.

Give Harry the finger! Preseve that house!/ PAP see parly no ak isit?

In Political governance on 01/07/2017 at 6:57 am

I’ve always tot it strange that the anti-PAP mob, sane and nutty (Think Goh Meng Seng and Mad Dog Chee), want that house to be demolished as per LKY’s wish. I mean what would be a better way to insult his memory and show that HE cannot get his way (“The Lee way or the highway”) than by preseving his house against his (and his wife’s) wishes*.

S’poreans would be showing that for all their fine words for Harry, and support for the PAP, they don’t respect him enough to grant his final wish*.

As to the real elephant in the room, on the surface it looks equally strange that the PAP wants to go against his wish while pretending to honour him*. But that the subject of another post.


*Incidentally this is why the PAP tried to pull a fast one, and argue, unsuccessfully, that it was also his wish in his will to preserve the house. Thankfully S’poreans know this is BS and quoted what the PM, LKY’s eldest son, told parliament in 2015.

The PAP sat down and shut up.

Seriously it was so amateurish of the PAP not to check what it’s sec-gen said in parly. See parly no ak isit? So why is the High Lord of Everything Else (PM, PAP sec-gen and eldest son of Harry) making a statement in parly about his siblings allegations, since the PAP does not respect parliament enough to check what its leader said in it?

 

 

 

Oxleygate and BBC Reith Lectures

In Political governance, Public Administration on 30/06/2017 at 9:24 am

Hilary Mantel is this year’s BBC Reith Lecturer. On 13 June this year, the award-winning (two Man Booker prizes in four years) and best-selling novelist gave the first of her five BBC Reith Lectures for 2017.

The title of this series is “Resurrection: the Art and Craft”. The first lecture is called ‘The Day Is For The Living’.

The following extract is relevant as to why there is a cabinet committee looking into the circumstances surrounding LKY’s will despite the PM and his PAP administration accepting that it is valid. They did not (and do not, so far) challenge its validity but the commitee  is saying it is trying to establish if he really wanted his house to be demolished after his daughter moved out as per will.

If this sounds illogical, it is. Accepting the validity of the will i.e. not challenging it is to accept that the will represents “the last will and testament” of the testator. (Aside: in a one-party state, de jure or defacto, the party decides what is “illogical”. “Illogical” can be “logical”. (Related post on a one-party state)

This inquiry has led to a row among the Lee children, and between the PAP administration and the PM’s siblings. They don’t want the PAP administration to do to them what their pa did to S’poreans. (So spoiled, they are?)

To the PAP, it’s all about the importance of trying to control the narrative of LKY’s life. And in athedefacto one-party state he founded, the ruling party has no choice but to control the narrative of LKY’s life by fair means or foul.

Commemoration is an active process, and often a contentious one. When we
memorialize the dead, we are sometimes desperate for the truth, and sometimes for a comforting illusion. We remember individually, out of grief and need. We remember as a society, with a political agenda – we reach into the past for foundation myths of our tribe, our nation, and found them on glory, or found them on grievance, but we seldom found them on cold facts.

Nations are built on wishful versions of their origins: stories in which our
forefathers were giants, of one kind or another. This is how we live in the world:
romancing …

As soon as we die, we enter into fiction. Just ask two different family members to
tell you about someone recently gone, and you will see what I mean. Once we can no longer speak for ourselves, we are interpreted. When we remember – as psychologists so often tell us – we don’t reproduce the past, we create it. Surely, you may say – some truths are non-negotiable, the facts of history guide us. And the records do indeed throw up some facts and figures that admit no dispute. But the historian Patrick Collinson wrote: ‘It is possible for competent historians to come to radically different conclusions on the basis of the same evidence. Because, of course, 99% of the evidence, above all,unrecorded speech, is not available to us.’

Evidence is always partial. Facts are not truth, though they are part of it –
information is not knowledge. And history is not the past – it is the method we have
evolved of organizing our ignorance of the past. It’s the record of what’s left on the
record. It’s the plan of the positions taken, when we to stop the dance to note them
down. It’s what’s left in the sieve when the centuries have run through it – a few stones, scraps of writing, scraps of cloth. It is no more ‘the past’ than a birth certificate is a birth, or a script is a performance, or a map is a journey. It is the multiplication of the evidence of fallible and biased witnesses, combined with incomplete accounts of actions not fully understood by the people who performed them. It’s no more than the best we can do, and often it falls short of that.

Historians are sometimes scrupulous and self-aware, sometimes careless or
biased. Yet in either case, and hardly knowing which is which, we cede them moral
authority. They do not consciously fictionalize, and we believe they are trying to tell the truth. But historical novelists face – as they should – questions about whether their work is legitimate. No other sort of writer has to explain their trade so often.

The reader asks,is this story true? That sounds like a simple question, but we have to unwrap it. Often the reader is asking, can I check this out in a history book? Does it agree with other accounts?  Would my old history teacher recognize it?

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2017/reith_2017_hilary_mantel_lecture%201.pdf

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.

Truths about voter choices: Why people vote PAP despite everything

In Political governance on 07/06/2017 at 2:33 pm

70% of S’poreans regularly get criticised from the unhappy 30% (whether sane like Chris K or Cherian George or insane like TRE donor, Oxygen, Philip Ang or Dr Chee).

Two persons, talking about the UK, shed light why the 7o% did what they did, and why at least 60% of the voters will keep on voting PAP so long as the PAP delivers authoritarian rule that works: http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21722865-city-states-success-offers-much-admire-little-emulate-how-foreigners-misunderstand

Nigel Farage, Mr Brexit, without meaning to got to the nub of why S’poreans continue supporting the PAP. Noting that UK’s big businesses were quite happy about UK being in the EU, he said

Well, yes, of course, if you’re doing well in life you don’t want any change at all.

Or, as I’d put it, “If u think u are if you’re doing well in life you don’t want any change at all.”

Now the next truth is as a FT writer puts it: Voters in general elections make a broader judgment, at once about the character of the leader and the credibility of her or his policies.

This means because they got a low regard for the Labour leader and his policies, even though
Many voters may agree with Mr Corbyn about the NHS, the railways and, even perhaps on soaking the rich — and then they will proceed to cast their ballot for Mrs May’s Conservatives.

Translated into local politics even though many of the 70% may agree that the PAP’s policies on FTs, public transport, welfare, ex-generals badly running ministries, statutory boards or GLCs, and that NS and military spending suck, they still will not vote for the Oppo because of the state of the Oppo.

Talking of the minor parties

— NSP is led by someone who pled guilty to a CBT charge,

— Chiams are egotistic and nepotistic,

— s/o JBJ is autistic,

— People’s Parachutist Party is led by a S’porean based in HK who is pro China, and

— TJS and Pwee are opportunists.

As for the Worthless (or Wankers’) Party, what can I say?

With a few exceptions, they’ve not bothered to raise issues in that concern S’poreans in parly.

Worse, the PAP administration will get the opportunity to pick up Auntie’s taunt and dare. Remember Auntie said, “Sue us if we did anything wrong”. There are two reports by two int’l accounting firms that say AHTC (or rather AHPETC) has a lot to account for, and the WP has allowed a third-party to decide on the recovery of monies. 

And no, I haven’t forgotten the SDP and Mad Dog Chee.

Mad Dog does not believe in leadership renewal, he’s the only party leader still in charge since 1993 when he swapped serious politics for the self-indulgence of street politics, after stabbing Chiam in the front (Chee’s version of events, my interpretation).

Remember in 1993, the SDP had two MPs in parly (excluding Chiam). They were no JBJs but they never stood a chance in 1996 when they stood for re-election what with Mad Dog peeing and crapping all over the streets to the disgust of most S’poreans (self included).

Since 1993, the SDP has been in the Wilderness. Maybe God’s will? Remember the Israelites had to spend 40 years in the Wilderness because they offended God. But at least they reached the Promised Land and committed genocide.

Somehow, I don’t think God is Dr Chee’s side.

And with an activist like Brendan Chong determined to fix the Pink Dot organisers, need I say anything more about the SDP?

“Money talks, BS walks” or “There’s no competition”

In Airlines, Political governance on 05/06/2017 at 4:55 pm

Just ask UA, and the PAP and they’ll say “Cost and cenvenience matters more than quality of service”.

[UA] has just had a great month. Of course, there was the odd hiccup. First, the video of a bloodied United passenger being dragged off an overbooked flight for the crime of wanting to stay in the seat he had paid for. Then there was the giant rabbit, en route from London to Chicago to compete for the title of world’s largest bunny, who died in United custody with lawyers alleging the airline put the live beast in a freezer for 16 hours. Then there was the airline’s apology to the Paris-bound passenger who ended up in San Francisco instead. And the flyer whose trip was cancelled after he taped an argument with a United employee.

Yet despite this month of PR disasters, United is doing fine. Better than fine, in fact. The airline announced this week that it had its best month of the year in April, beating all of its main rivals in key metrics.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2017/05/not-cruellest-month

70% of voters are like UA customers? Never mind the danger of getting beaten up (Think Donald Low, Amos Yee and AHJC), detained without trial ( “Marxist conspirators”),  hung (all those drug smugglers), sued (Roy Ngerng, JBJ, Dr Chee etc) and kanna whacked by price rises (S’poreans), the PAP is convenient and “cheap” for the quality provided.

But here’s an alternative view:

Roger Wicker, a Republican senator from Mississippi, had a different explanation: “There’s not enough competition in the industry.”

George Cherian would agree, He has commented on FB that

The PAP’s marketing of democracy and human rights as “bad products” as you put it is only half the story. The other half: the PAP ensures that it operates in a protected market where those selling the competing product are “taxed” practically out of existence, by placing obstacles in their ability to organise, and destroying careers of activists. It’s not because there aren’t “good marketeers” among Singaporeans who care about these issues. It’s because they are in a market completely different from the example you cite.

What do u think?

(Related article explaining what Cherian was referring to)

Operation Spectrum: Ownself contradict ownself

In Political governance on 04/06/2017 at 2:10 pm

There’s been a lot on FB about about the “Marxist” conspiracy by anti-PAP gang, rational and nuts, in rebuttal LKY was quoted a lot by the pro-PAP cybernuts.

But going by their quotes, it seems even LKY didn’t think there was a “Marxist” conspiracy.

Let’s set the scene. 21 May 1987 was the day when 16 people, mostly Catholic social workers, were arrested and accused by the PAP administration of waging a “conspiracy” to topple the government. Later, six more were arrested for the same reason.

They were never charged in open court where the administration would would have to produce the evidence for detaining them, and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were subversives out to undermine the state. Instead the Internal Security Act was used: the state was prosecutor and judge.

Now, 30 years on, the ex-detainees continue to maintain their innocence, and accuse the PAP administration of faking the “conspiracy” for political reasons: conveniently forgetting that they had confessed and then recanted and then some recanted their recantation.

The PAP administration maintains that the ex-detainees were subversives, driven by Marxist ideology.

But if so why then did LKY tell the Catholic Archbishop of Singapore, the late Gregory Yong, that detainees themselves were of minimal concern to him. He dismissed them as “do-gooders who wanted to help the poor and the dispossessed” and “simpletons”.

Err so where’s the Marxist subversion?

But then helping “the poor and the dispossessed” is Marxist subversion because it showed up the PAP’s BS on welfare?

Here’s another point I want to make. Many of those who want pluraity of views here join the ex-detainees, and the anti-PAP activists and the cybernuts nuts in asking for a commission to establish the truth.

Actually, it’s good for those of us who want greater plurality that the administration refuses to listen.

The more the PAP administration ignores the calls, the more it shows to the voting public the hollowness of “Ownself check ownself” and the flaws in a one-party state . If it does the right thing, it can spin this as “Ownself can check ownself”.