atans1

Posts Tagged ‘PAP’

Keeping power in a one-party state

In China, Political governance on 28/11/2016 at 10:26 am

(Or “Why CCP’s fears are PAP’s fears”)

More on why S’pore should be analysed from the perspective that it’s a one-party state like China and N Korea rather than as an authoritarian mutant version of a democratic state.

BBC’s Carrie Gracie( http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-37724839) wrote recently

China’s “consultative democracy” has one glaring challenge of its own: the paranoia of the ruling party.

It never ceases to amaze me how afraid the Chinese Communist Party is of its own people, and how fear clouds its judgment and skews its decision making.

Fear of street protest ties its hands in tackling pension reform or state-owned enterprises. Fear of a punishing assessment of its mistakes makes it manipulate history in a way that distorts not only the past but also the future. Fear of competing narratives makes it drive some of China’s brightest and best into exile or jail. Fear has become a huge overhead and a great brake on China’s progress.

While this is not quite true of S’pore in a literal sense

Fear of street protest ties its hands in tackling pension reform or state-owned enterprises.

because the sheep of Animal Farm S’poreans (Like BG Yeo’s Christians) don’t riot let alone protest, the PAP is kiasu of providing evidence that it’s not true that the “PAP is always right”. This ties its hands in radically reforming the CPF system, GLCs, immigration and in general the economy. After all it can’t blame another party for the problems.


Every decade, another restructuring master plan?

The PAP keeps saying the economy must be restructured.

In the 80s, one Lee Hsien Loong as trade and industry minister headed a committee to recommend changes in the economy. In the early noughties when DPM he headed another committee on the same issue.

 In 201o, one Tharman and his committee produced the 2010 Economic Strategies Committee (ESC).
Now in 2016 (to make up for no plan in the early noughties?)
Indeed, in updating the 2010 Economic Strategies Committee (ESC) report headed by Tharman), the 30-member CFE will have to take into account new global and domestic realities. Chaired by Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat, the panel has been tasked with developing economic strategies to keep Singapore competitive; it aims to complete its work by the end of 2016.
More on the latest plan anon.
————————————————————————–

Again, while not exactly true here “Fear of competing narratives makes it drive some of China’s brightest and best into exile or jail” the PAP’s fear of competing narratives has stifled society here largely thru self censorship and self blinkered minds.

Hence, this fear and the resulting self censorship and self blinkered minds have become a huge problem for S’pore’s economy and body politick. It can’t be the creative, open society that the PAP says it wants and it says is needed because there are limits to creativity and open society: BG Yeo’s infamous OB markers.

“Control of information and thinking and systems is central to the government, and they genuinely want to harvest the economic advantages provided by a populace that is creative and independently minded, but they want to do it without surrendering control. It is their dilemma,” said Michael Barr, associate professor of international relations at Flinders University in Adelaide.

FT. (Btw, Barr can be classified as anti-PAP. But he’s right on this point)

True, S’poreans enjoy Western-style consumption (fuelled by debt) and personal freedoms (tell that to the ang moh tua kees and their anti-PAP cybernut allies). But S’pore is also a complex place with contradictions (think the contradiction between 377A and the relaxed official and civil attitude towards the gay community), and inequalities (think Gini and the elderly poor). “It needs a pluralistic, flexible and modern political system.” (Economist view of Russia, which applies here.)

This modern system doesn’t look like happening any time soon. The PAP has imposed an archaic authoritarian political system (de-facto one party rule) softened by more welfare spending using S’poreans’ forced savings (CPF and btdger surpluses). These can temporarily suppress economic, social and political problems but are unable to resolve them.

The ongoing public transport problems is a good example of what can go wrong with the PAP’s way of doing things.

So as I wrote here: “[T]he level of authoritariansm  is so extreme that a good strong dose of liberal values would do the body politick, and economy no harm.” The problem is with the ang moh tua kees who prefer to ape Western liberals rather adapt liberalism to suit S’poreans. They want us to eat potatoes like them.

Real meritocracy at work, not the PAP version

In Political governance, Public Administration on 18/11/2016 at 6:05 am

Furlong, 30, enrolled in a three-month coding boot camp that usesHackerRank, a web platform that trains and grades people on writing computer code. After earning a top ranking for Java developers globally, Furlong was hired by JPMorgan Chase & Co. in December for its two-year technology training program.

This is Wall Street’s new tech meritocracy.

Wall Street needs coders. Banks need to fill so many programming jobs that elite schools can’t possibly pump out enough candidates. So the industry is looking in places it never did. – Bloomberg

From NYT’s Dealbook

Contrast this with the PAP way.

My posts on meritocracy the PAP way

Meritocracy? No leh Cosiness

Meritocracy’s feet of clay: Ong Ye Kung

Lucy Kellaway, FT’s court jester on management issues, once described what Charles Trevelyan, the permanent secretary to the UK Treasury 1840-59, had in mind when he proposed that meritocracy should be introduced into the civil service.

“He wanted young people to be chosen who had merit – the very best,” says Greenaway. “But he believed that the best were to be found in the gentry, in the professional classes. As the 19th Century went on, the education system mirrored the social system. The universities in Oxford and Cambridge and public schools became the preserve of the gentry and the professional classes – clergy and lawyers and so on.”

Education locked in what used to be patronage, replacing it in a way that was acceptable to the conservatives who had been fearing that these exams would undermine the social fabric of the country.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-23376561

Sounds like the PAP way doesn’t it?

Comparing WP “failures” to PAP “failures”

In Political governance on 17/11/2016 at 5:23 am

I agree with this fair, impartial Facebook post that compared the “failures” of the PAP with that of the WP and judged them by the same standards. I’d add that unlike the PAP, the WP did not have the machinery of the state on its side. If truth be told there were many instances where govt depts or agencies were perceived to be carrying on a witch hunt against the WP town council. Yes, I’m thinking of the NEA.

Luke Wong
16 hrs ·
Had been thinking what a ‘government’ supporter had said on Singapore’s ‘lost decade’.
Lagging infrastructure development (HDB flats, hospital beds), incompetence (over allocation of COE for an entire decade, ponding), indiscriminate and loose foreign worker policy and no accomodation planned for them. These were called “individual cases”, “policy miss-steps” and not “failures”, and had “no major impact” on the people. Singapore is not perfect, system by and large works.
By this yardstick, how can the PAP and its IB label the WP as incompetent and a failure over their alleged TC mismanagement. Has the TC finances and daily operations been affected? Have the people in the GRC suffered? (Have their wages stagnated and they lost their jobs like some did under PAP’s policy miss-steps?)
When do policy miss-steps finally cross the threshold into failures? When systemic cracks appear in a system that “by-and-large works” and lay the foundation for more “miss-steps”, failure is just round the corner. Recall their “learning” culture, “no-blame” culture (“staff confidentiality” and “industry norm”).
Venezuela was “ok” until the depressed oil prices turned their economy upside down and the country into a “failure” right?

Today the presidency, tomorrow yr CPF

In Political governance on 16/11/2016 at 7:49 am

This is what happens when voters keep on giving the PAP a two-thirds (and counting) majority in Parly: PM said in Parliament on 8 Nov that the government is intending to amend the Presidential Elections Act next January to ensure that the next President would come from a minority race:

“Every citizen, Chinese, Malay, Indian, or some other race, should know that someone of his community can become President, and in fact from time to time, does become President.”

He could say that government is intending to amend the legistation because the governing party has a two-thirds majority.

Today the presidency: tomorrow the age of CPF withdrawal goes up to 75 and then the lease of the pigeon loft in sky is cut to 55 yrs from 99? Yes, yes I know that CPF and HDB leases are not in the constitution, so there’s no need for a two-thirds majority.

My point is that allowing any party the power to suka suka amend the constitution is asking for trouble, serious trouble because with a two-thirds majority (and more) can give the government the confidence that really unpopular and unfair measures can be rammed through because come the next general election, with a GRC system and the PM in charge of the redrawing of electoral boundaries, the damage to the governing party can be contained, if the voters hadn’t been bribed off in the mean time, or if memories are short.

 

PAP never sleeps, Fintech shows why

In Economy on 11/11/2016 at 1:52 pm

Recently I reported that the authorities seem to understand what fintech is about and I quoted the FT in support of my point.

Here’s another quote from the same FT article which shows why the PAP is so formidable an opponent on the political arena:

In Singapore, Mr Galligan’s colleague, Christopher Wood, refers to “the threat of disruption from government-prompted efforts to promote a new digital economy — be it in fintech, ecommerce, data technologies, transport, cleantech or the so-called sharing economy in general”. Still, Singapore appears to realise that a government that defines its mission as protecting the interests of the establishment will merely accelerate the decline of that establishment. So far, its stance is paying off. “Supportive government policies and the strongest ecosystem in Asia have already spawned the early stages of a new economy,” Mr Galligan says.

Anti-PAPpists are wasting their time?

 

PM contradicts himself: Strategies were wrong? Tailored messages?

In Economy on 02/11/2016 at 6:08 am

Is PM growing old, forgetting what he said a week ago? Or is he really saying that the old policies have failed? Or BSing to different audiences, telling them what he thinks they want to hear?

Despite slowing economic growth, Singapore is “not in a crisis”, said Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on Tuesday (Nov 1), calling instead for a longer-term strategy to continue growing and creating good jobs.

Mr Lee outlined the strategy in his speech at a dialogue with labour movement leaders, noting that Singapore’s growth is still positive despite difficult external conditions like slowing trade and sinking oil prices.

(CNA last night)

Speaking to a group of students at the Singapore Institute of Technology, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said on 24 Oct that he is confident the country is taking the right growth strategies to move forward.

“We are feeling the pains of restructuring, but not yet seeing the dividends of our hard work. But we are pursuing all the right strategies, and I am confident that given time these strategies will work for us.”

(CNA a week ago)

I’m sure regular readers can spot the contradiction, but for the cybernuts who will read this piece if TRE uses it, here’s the contradiction.

A week ago he said that he is confident the country is taking the right growth strategies to move forward, but last night when talking to his NTUC running dogs he talked about a longer-term strategy to continue growing and creating good jobs.

The 24 Oct remarks stated that the PAP administration had the right strategies in place, but the latest by talking about a new strategy implies that the right strategies were not in place.

Cybernuts beng pek mah?

The constructive, nation building media will not point out the contradictions. And neither will the mainstream anti-PAP alternative media because they cut and paste unintelligently from ST. More on the latter, later in the week.

 

What monkeys, bears and squirrels do differently

In Financial competency, Financial planning on 31/10/2016 at 5:44 am

The squirrels are natural PAP supporters, the bears are the swing voters and natural WP voters, and the monkeys are the cybernuts and SDP supporters.

Let me explain:

The monkeys eat up all the bananas they possess.

The bears eat most of their berries, and store up those left over.

But the squirrels do something different entirely. Before eating any of their acorns, they save 20% of them, and learn to live on those that remain.

Those saved acorns grow into oak trees, with more acorns.

Seriously, the story is about saving voting PAP.

“The point is that saving doesn’t mean you can’t enjoy things in life,” says Mr Gardner.

“But it’s about budgeting. You get 10 and bank two. That two is what will help you in the future.”

So how does this acorn philosophy work in practice?

Stop buying, for example, one cup of takeaway coffee every day, he recommends.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37798513

Sounds like PAP’s idea of democracy

In China, Political governance on 26/10/2016 at 6:05 am

Consultative Democracy

BBC reporter Carrie Gracie (husband’s an aging Chinese rock singer):

At a conference this month to deepen the Communist Party’s so called “dialogue with the world”, senior party members explained the benefits of the Party’s brand of consultative democracy.

Yang Rui for example, a well-known anchor on China’s state television, told me it was a mistake to use the ballot box to decide everything “because you have to suppose every voter is rational and reasonable”. He pointed to the American election campaign as an example of debased populism that threatens to entrench division and triviality.

“People seem to forget serious issues. They talk about sex, locker room conversation, men and lousy behaviour. Debates are getting nasty and that undermines the strength of Western democracy.” [Could PAP apologist Kishore talking.]

Fang Xinghai, another senior Party member and vice chair of the China Securities Regulatory Commission, said the strength of China’s consultative system is the intense deliberation which takes place behind closed doors inside the Party itself. [Could VivianB or Tharman talking.]

“This has allowed China forty years of uninterrupted growth within a stable system. Quiet deliberation is a more effective form of policy than a public shouting match, because policy making is complicated.” [Could LKY, GCT, PM or Tharman talking.]

These are people with enormous exposure to western political culture who believe China’s one party system can compete on the delivery of public goods.

In an echo of the mandarin class who ruled China for centuries through the imperial civil service, they defend the legitimacy of a policy making elite. And they don’t want for ambition.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-37724839

Note I’ll be posting extracts from the above BBC article that are relevant to S’pore. So stay tuned.

Are PAPpies and cybernuts related?/ Andrew Loh’s bill dissected

In Uncategorized on 16/10/2016 at 2:31 pm

Maybe the u/m from FT will explain why Queen Jos and Andrew Loh sound so alike in their whackiness? The former appears to believe that sex is meant for procreation only and the other seems to swallow, hook ‘line and sinker the PAP spin that public healthcare is cheap*. On the latter as I’ve wriiteh here

Going by what Andrew Loh has written, anti-PAPpies repent and say “Vote PAP” when they see that their medical bills are peanuts? LOL

David Dunning and Justin Kruger received an Ig Nobel prize in psychology for their discovery that incompetent people rarely realise they are incompetent; the Dunning-Kruger effect is now widely cited. FT

(More on this effect.)

*When TRE republished this, a cybernut asked a rational question: was there over-priced billing in the first instance.

oxygen:

ANDREW LOH IS DEFINITELY NOT WRONG OF HIS FINANCIAL STATISTICS – it is his actual billing. But what he didn’t ask of obvious is this – was there over-priced billing in the first instance.

I saw a scanned copy of SGH’s colonoscopy bill of another – there was TWO facilities charges for one surgical procedure done – that is, there is a facilities charge for waiting area and another facilities charge for procedural surgery. The latter is comprehensible but the former (facilities charges sitting in the waiting room waiting to be call in for actual procedures) is mind-boggling. Why not also charge “facilities charge” for the patient’s relative sitting there waiting as well?

So the issue is the total billing and its details – the discount is rubbery fantasy of illusion -and of course the final billing. If Andrew Loh has expired all his Medisave account, HE WOULD STILL HAVE TO PAY THE AMOUNT OUTSTANDING OUT OF HIS POCKET.

Draining the balances of his CPF Medisave account must mean he has to top that up soon or sometime in the future. IT IS SEMANTIC OF ADVANTAGE ILLUSION – a bill is a bill and needs to be settled – one way or another unless it is free of universal health care like Medicare in Down Under.

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

There was another nut who also had a fit of sanity:

N.Jungne:

What was in the Bill is true, the devil is in the detail. It (the bill) does not reflect the detail of how they come about (summarized).
1). The maximum daily deduction per day in “C-class” X 7 days
2). The deductible for “C-class.
3). The half of 15% co-payment.
Now there is another NEW category (I can’t remember), even a few $$$ can be deducted from our Medisave.
Andrew is not WRONG, they change and change until we are confused.
The QUESTION is WHY (they change).

 Rating: +8 (from 8 votes)

MOS Josephine Teo was misquoted

In Uncategorized on 14/10/2016 at 4:36 am

Readers of this blog don’t usually read TRE except for laughs so I reproduce a piece from there because it’s a good piece that could have been written by rational, fair-minded cyber-warriors.

The piece reads:

Yesterday, many of you shared a statement by Minister of State Josephine Teo which said that couples did not need much space for sex and many of your readers threw shade at her. I am not sure if you read her full interview but your websites and readers have misunderstood and misquoted her statement. Most likely you have not even seen her interview and the context in which she said the phrase. Editors, you are malicious or grossly playful and did not bother with context.

Photo: Mr Brown

MOS Josephine Teo’s statement was in response to a question “Why couples with children were given priority to flats while couples without kids weren’t?”

It is because of this question that MOS Josephine Teo responded that couples with children should be given flats first and not those who were still deciding if they were going to have kids. It is precisely because those with children really need the space to raise their kids as opposed to couples who need space before procreating.

For goodness sakes Editors, get your context right before jumping to conclusions and sensationalising her statement. What she said made sense and it still does not, despite all your attempts to put her down. It is you who refuse to understand the context and tried to misle your readers into thinking that MOS Josephine spoke without thinking.

I know as alternative media you will surely censor my contribution. I hope you prove me wrong.

 

Selvam Raj

* The above was sent to another alternative media and is reproduced here for discussion. Ms Teo’s original interview with the Straits Times is available on Facebook (if it has not been deleted or amended yet).

BBC piece http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37627269

 

 

Meritocracy? No leh Cosiness

In Political governance on 10/10/2016 at 5:43 am

General Paper question in the year 2065:

In S’pore in 2016, there was “cosiness”, not the meritocracy claimed by the bourgeois fascist dictatorship led by bureaucrat monopolist capitalists. The system rewarded mediocrity or even failure if one happened to be in the “right” circle.

Discuss.

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

The FT reported in October 2016 that a group of neo-Maaoists held a secret meeting recently and denounced the present system in China. Their manifesto was a call for revolution to overthrow the current system, which they claimed had evolved into a “bourgeois fascist dictatorship led by bureaucrat monopolist capitalists”.

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

A student wrote the following essay that won the Mad Dog Chee prize that the first non-PAP PM, Dr Paul Anantharajah Tambyah, set up to commemorate Dr Chee.

Text of essay:

A columnist from the capitalist supporting Financial Times, Janan Ganesh, in 2016. wrote:

“Britain is not corrupt, as such. Laws on bribery and embezzlement are not routinely broken. The country does well in transparency rankings.

But what it lacks in venality, it makes up for in cosiness. Insiders look after each other and mediocrities fail upward, or at least sideways. The elite is only half-porous: it is possible to get in but not to fall out. There are plenty of second acts in these British lives. There is always a commission to chair, a university to head, a seat to take in a second chamber that now has almost 800 members keeping London’s livery tailors in profit. This is public service as a parallel welfare state for good eggs.”

Sounded like S’pore in 2016, it seemed to S’poreans who read the FT article. This cosiness wasn’t just a figment of the imagination of the anti-PAP cybernuts who helped the ruling Peoples’ Action Party’s maintain its grip on power (With enemies like them to alienate the swing voters, the PAP didn’t need friends).

The then PAP PM said that ministers who failed cannot be chucked out just like that. Their exits had to be “managed”.  He said this after two ministers (the transport and public housing ministers) resigned after the PAP’s GE 2011 “defeat”. The “defeat” (only 60% of the popular vote voted PAP) was attributed to  voters’ unhappiness with public housing prices and public treansport deficiencies.

In 2016, an ex-CEO of NOL, a shipping company (scholar, paper general and a Temasek MD) after losing his job when NOL was taken over got a cushy sinecure as a director of SPH, the owner of the media outlets that parroted thr PAP administration’s line.

And then there was Desmond Kwek the CEO of SMRT, a public transport company, another paper general, who kept his job despite failing to make the trains run on time.

I’ll let an alternative media outlet of the time, TRE, describe what happened to someone in the “right” circle who really failed in 2016

Cock-ups after Cock-ups

Mr Chew, who was previously with the Public Utilities Board (PUB) and Navy, joined LTA barely 2 years ago in October 2014.

During his two year term at LTA, Mr Chew presided over multiple cock-ups including the collapse of a temporary structure at the Bugis DTL work site which killed two workers, the discovery of extensive defective trains from China and attempt to secretly ship them back to their manufacturer, and the failure to resolve the perennial problem of taxi shortages on the roads.

http://www.tremeritus.com/2016/08/06/ltas-ceo-chew-men-leong-commits-harakiri/

TRE speculated:

In what appears to be a move to appease increasing public anger over the record-breaking failures of the public transport system, especially the SMRT, the Chief Executive Officer of the Land Transport Authority (LTA) has tendered his resignation yesterday (5th Aug).

Coffee shop gossips have it that the CEO has been ‘fingered’ as the ‘fall guy’ to take the blame for the countless failures in the public transport system and did not resigned voluntarily as Mr Chew claims.

“Who in his right state of mind would want to resign from a lucrative paying job that comes with so much authority?”, some uncles and aunties commented.

Some however, speculated that he has voluntarily committed ‘harakiri’ out of his own conscious [“conscience” is what he must have meant], following the foot steps of former Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew.

TRE went on to describe “cosiness” S’pore style:

Members of ‘men-in-white’ club never go jobless

The 48-year-old did not mention where he was heading for, but it is a known fact that members of the ‘men-in-white’ club will never go jobless and arrangement will be made for an alternate posting to some GLCs. It is believed that Mr Chew might join Singapore Technologies. [Chew had said he was going into the private sector.]

Only in a bourgeois fascist dictatorship led by bureaucrat monopolist capitalists would ST qualify as a private sector co. It was owned by the state.

Thankfully in 2026, Mad Dog Chee and Harry’s daughter (she was the chief priestess of the cult of worshippers of Harry Lee Kuan Yew, the founder of the PAP) brought the edifice of a bourgeois fascist dictatorship led by bureaucrat monopolist capitalists down, albeit at the cost of their own lives.

The subsequent general election brought Dr Paul Anantharajah Tambyah’s PAP Bahru (Slogan: “Whiter than White and a Lot More Compassionate”) remade S’pore into the compassionate place it is, with admittedly a standard of living today that is below of of London and NY (OK closer to that of Calcutta and Bombay) than today’s global cities of Rangoon, Shanghai and Hong Kong.

 

 

 

What if Tharman had been the Grinch, not Santa?

In Political governance on 06/10/2016 at 6:55 am

The Grinch.png

I agree absolutely with long-time Singapore political observer Bridget Welsh who said Tharman’s popularity

“stems from his support of spending for social welfare and services…

My question for those who think the light shines from Tharman’s ass (but who are otherwise rational) is, “Would they want him to be PM if he had been Scrooge? If there had been more GST increases and less welfare spending?

Marley's Ghost-John Leech, 1843.jpg

I mean who was the Finance Minister who raised GST two points from five to seven percent?

He’s been Santa since then because PAP administration decided to be generous. It wasn’t his decision alone.

Rational S’poreans who want Tharman to be PM should take note that even cybernuts want him to be PM. To me this shows that the the wish for Tharman to be PM has irrational foundations.

DPM Tharman should respect the people’s wishes

Aye Tharman, why you like that one, you got clear mandate** from the people but also don’t want be PM. You say you not PM de ‘liao’ and not interested, but how you know when you never even try leh?**

One of the readers of The Idiots — S’pore (or TISG as it likes ro be known), no idiot he wrote in Facebook:

He may b the best amongst them but he certainly is no different from them. When u have been immersed in secretive n know your position cultural environment for so long, there is no way u can avoid these.

I hope his groupies who think the light shines from Tharman’s ass realise that the light from his ass is the light from an in-coming train, not the end of PAP hegemony; and not fantasise about how good life would be under him.

Let me clear, I’m not anti- Tharman. I think Tharman would make a decent PM , but so would Khaw.

I suspect the real reason why the cybernuts and the many rational S’poreans who vote “Anyone but the PAP even if he’s a looney, crook or Goh Meng Seng” want him as PM is because he’s an Indian. To them an Indian PM would be giving the finger to the PAP who still says S’pore is not ready for a non-Chinese PM.

A form of racism as despicable as that of the PAP, methinks.

——————————-

*Bridget Welsh went on:

and management of the economy, as well as his ability to bridge groups as a more liberal and open leader compared to his peers”*.

But “as an elite-orientated party, the PAP categorically rejects selection by popular opinion,” said Welsh, a Southeast Asian politics expert at the National Taiwan University.

“Tharman is too liberal, too popular, and an ethnic minority – all features that do not fit with today’s hardline PAP,” she added.

http://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/2023649/why-popular-ministers-insistence-he-doesnt-want-be-pm-reveals-lot

**What clear mandate? Since when have surveys esp by  The Idiots — S’pore

***The certified cybernut went on

 I remember last time you say when you very young, you didn’t know what is your ambition, now also suka suka become DPM, just one level higher also don’t want. You also not very old, Trump, Clinton and Sanders all older than you but they also want to be USA president. Now only ask you be PM of Singapore also kpkb? Singapore cabinet ageist is it?

Also I see you quite fit leh, confirm can live very long one. But you rather let one of the other not-as-experience people become PM. All of them not as charismatic as you, not as yandao as you and lack much standing internationally. I know alot of opposition also want you become PM. Only you can gel all Singaporeans together.

Imagine you let one of the others become PM, PAP will confirm lose support and Singapore will become more divisive politically. You want that to happen meh? Or you become PM first la, you can still mentor them, then when one of them earn enough respect from the people then you step down also no problem what.

I also dunno why LHL want to have minority president to prove meritocracy, but this will only be tokenism. But if you become PM, this will be the epitome of true meritocracy of Singapore. I think you lan lan must become PM lah!

Frustrated Chinese Singaporean

What Islamic State and the PAP have in common

In Political governance on 03/10/2016 at 6:05 am

Reading this BBC article http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-37244146 it struck me that Islamic State  (or ISIS) and the PAP share two leadership problems.

Leaders have to multitask

We know that the PAP;s senior leaders have to multitask because of a lack of trustworthy, competent people (Juz look at the potential successors to PM — more below). PM is the PM, Sec-Gen of the PAP, chairman of GIC and chairman of PA.  Teo and Tharman are DPMs and

— Teo is also the Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister-in-charge of the Civil Service.

— Tharman is the Coordinating Minister for Economic and Social Policies and Chairman of the Monetary Authority of Singapore. Tharman was also covering between May and August Heng Swee Keat’s duties at the Finance Ministry after Heng had a stroke during a Cabinet meeting.

The Minister for Pets is the Law and Home Affairs minister. I mean the welfare of pets and their owners is a full-time job, not like the job of keeping the Indians, Malays and Eurasians happy.

Meanwhile at ISIS

One of the reasons why those leaders held many different roles before their deaths was that the group relied on those it trusted the most to handle its operations.

,,,

Adnani, for example, was the group’s spokesman but also its general emir in Syria and the man in charge of foreign operations orchestrated from Syria, primarily in Western countries.

Another example of IS relying on long-standing leaders to handle several roles was Abu Ali al-Anbari, who blew himself up after US forces ambushed him near the Syria-Iraq border in March.

Before his death, according to a detailed obituary published by the group’s Arabic-language al-Naba newsletter, Anbari had been asked to leave his role as a preacher in his hometown, Tal Afar near Mosul, and take on responsibility for management of IS finances.

At least ISIS has the excuse that finding trustworthy and competent leaders willing to die for the cause is a problem. I mean who doesn’t want be a multi-millionaire?

Both have succession problems

At ISIS, the assassinations by the US have meant

The loss of the old guard is clearly aggravating the group’s problems and might represent the greatest challenge it has faced since the US-enabled uprising against it by Sunni Arabs in Iraq in 2005-6.

Whether the group will survive this transition depends on how far the old guard shaped and defined it.

The transition to the second and third tiers of leadership is already well under way, and the process could affect the overall direction IS takes and the way it operates.

The emerging leaders grew up within the group as it moved from a foreign franchise established by jihadist veterans to a predominantly Iraqi insurgent group, and then back to a hybrid local group with a global agenda.

Many of them also grew up under the US occupation in Iraq and in an environment shaped by sectarian tensions and civil wars.

Meanwhile in the PAP, PM is already talking of the transition to the next generation. Fair enough given his problems with cancer and with his very entitled little sister.

The six candidates to be the next PM are:

1 Heng Swee Keat
2 Chan Chun Sing*
3 Ong Ye Kung
4 Lawrence Wong
5 Ng Chee Meng*
6 Tan Chuan Jin*

(*paper generals three)

Actually the three paper generals should join The Idiots — S’pore (or TISG as it prefers to be known) given their track record. Ong Ye Kung is also a possible candidate for  The Idiots — S’pore. To be fair to The Idiots — S’pore, they’ve had 4 weeks free of major lies or mishaps, a recent record.

Whatever, ISIS would never have recruited these potential PMs if they were Muslim jihadists, even to be suicide bombers. They’d blow up their comrades.

 

 

 

Pay high but get monkeys

In Political governance on 01/10/2016 at 5:43 am

Next time Grace Fu or other PAP ministers bitch about pay praising themselves for the good work they do at below median salaeies, send this graphic from the PAP’s bible, the Economist

http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21707054-how-keep-superstars-their-toes-without-making-them-fall-over-delicate-balance

The chart shows that CEOs who are paid above median, do worse for shareholders than those below median.

Ah Mu’s silence is deafening

In Political governance on 27/09/2016 at 6:25 am

But first, guess which PAPpy said this, “I think race informs culture, informs society, informs our world views.”? Answer at the end of this piece.

Back to Ah Mu. Referring to Ong Yee Kung and his comments that to ensure a minority president given that S’poreans vote along racial lines there must now and then be elections where only ‘minority” candidates can stand, someone posted on Facebook

This idiot should be sacked asap for inciting racial hatred.! How did Ah Mu ( Indian Singaporean) win the Bukit Batok recent by-election against Dr. Chee Soon Juan if the electorates are racially biased.??

My FB avatar posted in reply: PAP should get Ah Mu to come out and say without his Chinese comrades he wouldn’t have won.

To be fair to Murali (Ah Mu) if he opens his mouth, either way the PAP is put in a bad light, and he’ll be in trouble.

If he says he won because of the PAP machine (ie his Chinese comrades got out the Chinese vote), the Indian supremacists in that community would consider him a pariah (“Indians punch above their weight,” they would rightly say and “If S’pore is a meritocracy all the top jobs would be held by Indians: juz look at the judiciary and legal service.” They would also say rightly that Tharman would make a popular PM.).

And the PAP doesn’t look good because a Hard Truth is that it’s the “Song not the singer Stupid!” People vote for the PAP not its candidate. Ah Mu would be disciplined.

If he said he won his seat because he got the Chinese to vote for an Indian and whipped Dr Chee’s ass so hard that he had brain damage, he would be going against the Hard Truth that voters vote on racial lines, all things being equal. Again he’d be disciplined.

So silence is the better of valour.

All this reminds me of the following exchange:

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

————————-

*Well given the PAP’s Hard Truth that voters vote on racial lines and hence the need as Minister Ong Yee Kung put it

for proposed changes to the Elected Presidency that could safeguard minority representation, saying that the primary purpose of the President is to represent Singapore as head of state, and that it is as such important that all races have a chance to be elected.

it’s interesting that Trump’s Alt Right supporters share similar views on race

Richard Spencer invented the term and told me: “The Alt Right stands for a markedly right-wing orientation, and for us, race matters, and race is the foundation for identity.”

I asked him if he was racist.

“The word ‘racist’ is a kind of an insult,” he said.

“It’s like saying, ‘Are you evil?’

“I think race informs culture, informs society, informs our world views.”

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37431509

“I think race informs culture, informs society, informs our world views.”

Isn’t this emphasis on race so PAPpish?

But to be fair to the PAP read this: Dr Chee played up race in Bukit Batok.

 

Minister wants his cake and eat it/ PAP doesn’t get the Internet

In Internet, Political governance on 26/09/2016 at 5:24 am

But first what the PAP doesn’t get about the Internet :

In this internet era where many are literate, the government and their ministries are still assuming that people reach out to them to get info, which are already available on the net. It’s time they learn that the public reach out to them to get action, solution not info.

Coming back to the minister, my avatar responded to a post by Daniel Yap of TMG who had responded to a minister’s BS excusing his failure (“We can’t do miracles”) (Btw, my post on Accountability the PAP way posted yesterday)

Nope. A govt that tries to micromanage and social engineer its citizens has to accept that the other side of the coin “is the expectation that the G can make anything happen. LOL”.

Daniel Yap had posted

One of the side effects of big government is the expectation that the G can make anything happen. LOL

Image may contain: tree, sky, plant, outdoor and nature

Tan Chuan-JinLike Page

Some of you ask me about issues we deal with. This is one. We have an ongoing dispute between two neighbours about a tree between their two properties. W asked

See More

Two other good comments were

Our G wants us to think like consumers during elections with “vote us to get…”; but after elections, they want us to think like citizens in term of a civil society? It’s very hard to do so. 🙁

There is an expectation that the G comes in and lay down the law instead of mediate. Instant results over dialogue, understanding, and trade offs.

And
Too bad, PAP founders created the myth, now they can’t keep up.
Then there was this really totful comment about how MND works and how the internet has changed people’s expectations (People want action, solutions, not info):

There are lots of areas that the public assume the authorities are in control but they are not even monitoring at all. That leads to the great disillusion when the public realise their government ineffectiveness.

Worse, recently i heard MND’s intention to decentralise control and the joke is they delegate the jobs to those not qualified… nearly fainted when i heard their rationale. It’s incredible, their assumption and naivety.

MND should set up its own “police team” to manage all building related disputes, be it involving developers, contractors, owners, tenants etc. Many people are resorting to MPS and SPF that cant do a thing, wasting MP resources, reducing the SPF to mere scouts, trying to pacify and take notes and exasperating the affected residents.

In this internet era where many are literate, the government and their ministries are still assuming that people reach out to them to get info, which are already available on the net. It’s time they learn that the public reach out to them to get action, solution not info. TCJ needs to feedback to MND to get its house in order, all the loopholes covered and manage all these issues proactively. It’s meaningless to go through these again and again. Imagine 81 MPs handle 10 such cases each, thats 810 weekly…

“People are unsatisfied, but we’re afraid of change”

In Political governance on 25/09/2016 at 5:33 am

True here too? Especially the bits about “Power and the state … are one and the same,” and “And any citizens’ participation in politics is not expected.”

Think of waz happening to the post of elected president here? The voters use a presidential election when there is one to cock a snook at the PAP administration. In return, the PAP has drawn up more convoluted fixes (think Nathan) rules, and tied itself in knots or avoiding the issues raised when arguing the case for changes in the qualifications to be a candidate.*

MARINA, a middle-aged Muscovite with dark hair and piercing eyes, is unhappy—about rising prices, rampant corruption and even Russia’s confrontation with the West. But she is not ready for a change of course. “People are unsatisfied, but we’re afraid of change,” she declares. “Gorbachev had some nice ideas, but see how that turned out? I don’t want Russia to be destroyed.” So it comes as no surprise that Marina, and most of her compatriots, voted for more of the same when they took to the polls on September 18th for elections to the Duma, the national parliament.

http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21707388-reshuffle-russias-security-services-may-follow-parliamentary-elections-vladimir-putins

And

Many complain of rising prices and falling wages. “You go into the store and your money gets you nothing,” says Marina (who declined to state her last name, quipping, “Tomorrow they’ll burn my car”). 

Doesn’t this reflect what many S’poreans in the 70% that voted for the PAP feel?

And

The new ministry and United Russia’s dominance of the Duma ought to end any illusion that the Russian system could allow resistance from within, argues Oleg Kashin, a prominent columnist. “Power and the state in Russia are one and the same,” he writes. “And any citizens’ participation in politics is not expected.”

Think of waz happening to the post of elected president here?

——————————————————————————–

*U/m quotes from the constructive, nation-building MediaCorp whose website suspiciously looks similar to N Korea’s internet: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37426725

The Minister for Pets said:

The commission highlighted the “tension” between the President’s two roles and suggested that an appointed body of experts could take over the custodial functions, while Parliament could appoint a President to serve as a unifying symbolic figure. But Mr Shanmugam pointed out: “If you look at the commission’s report, the commission recognise that if a person or body is not elected then they cannot really say no and block the Government.”

Among other recommendations, the commission recommended that the President be obliged to consult the Council of Presidential Advisers (CPA) before exercising his discretion on all fiscal matters. Nevertheless, the Parliament can override the President’s decision, with the level of CPA support making a difference to the Parliament majority needed. Referring to the CPA, Mr Shanmugam reiterated that the commission recognised that “this body of experts, because they are unelected, the best (they) can (do is) only delay (the decision) and Parliament can still override”. He added: “If you want to give real power then they have to be elected as the commission itself recognise”.

In his letter to the commission, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had said he appreciated the commission’s reasons for making the suggestion to consider reverting to a President elected by Parliament. But he stressed that “it would be difficult for a President to exercise custodial powers over the reserves and public service appointments, and veto proposals by the Government, without an electoral mandate”.

… also responded to critics who claimed that the EP changes were politically motivated. “All sorts of statements can be made but (I think they should) get back to basics and look at logic,” he said …

He said that people can disagree with the report, including whether elections are needed to choose a President. If there is a need for elections, it would be sensible to put in requirements for the candidates because the President will have to make important decisions that involve huge sums of money, for instance, he noted. “If you agree that there should be qualifications, I think most people will agree (the Government) should also review the criteria, so the debate and discussion will become better if we deal with the specific issues and questions that I have asked,”..,

Ong Yee Kung said:

“In the end, I think whether the president is (considered to be chosen based on merit) and seen to (have done a) good job has to be judged after he has done the job – and not before he is elected.”

Huh? What cock is this?

Queen Jos said

that the President plays a “hugely important role” in being a custodian of the reserves. “He needs to have the financial oversight and decision-making ability, That is the basic criteria he must fulfill,” she said. His ability to command respect still depends on the people’s mandate, she said. She noted the role of former President S R Nathan – who died last month – during the 2008 global financial crisis. Mr Nathan agreed to the Government’s request to draw funds from the reserves to help companies. The decision ultimately helped “save many rice bowls”, she noted. “When it comes to crucial times like this, he has to make a critical decision, and to answer to the people.

What has this to do the changes, Jos never said.

 

 

Cyber Jedi’s dark night of the soul

In Uncategorized on 23/09/2016 at 4:49 am

Zodiac symbols in the night sky

The night isn’t really that dark.

But seriously, my Friend Terry Xu of TOC (The Online Citizen not Terry’s Online Channel despite attempts by some at TISG or The Idiots — S’pore to slime him.) posted this on FB last weekend.

Do read it, as in some ways, it’s the opposite of what I say here, here, here and here about trying to persuade the swing voter.


Terry would seem to say this about the voters

File photo: Pigs sleeping

Some would say any insult is better than this one. “Hong Kong pig” refers to people who don’t care about politics at all, and only eat and sleep.

BBC Online

——————————————–

It’s a very pessimistic analysis and conclusion from a cyber Jedi who has been fighting the good fight with his cyber sabre. So why does he bother fighting given his pessimism about changing the minds of those who vote PAP?

Question of

Mind must be the stronger, heart the bolder, courage must be the greater, as our might lessens.?

“Battle of Maldon Hill”: A warrior chants as he and his companions face defeat and death*. They didn’t do surrender, and their foes didn’t go mercy or compassion.

Or is Terry thinking like Joe Slovo who said that being a revolutionary was being optimistic that change was coming but realising it might take longer than one’s life-time.

————————————————-

Joe Slovo (23 May 1926 – 6 January 1995, full name Yossel Mashel Slovo) was aSouth African politician, an opponent of the apartheid system. He was a long-time leader of theSouth African Communist Party(SACP), a leading member of theAfrican National Congress (ANC), and a commander of the ANC’s military wing Umkhonto we Sizwe.

Wikipedia


Or maybe he’s realised like certified cybernut Oxygen that

SO I SAY CHANGE FROM WITHIN IS WISHFUL THINKING – it won’t happen

and is preparing to move on?

If I were SAF, I’d check the armoury of the unit where Terry’s does his reservist training. It’s an elite almost operational unit. So plenty of arms and explosives lying around.

Whatever here’s something to keep Terry going if he decides to remain a cyber Jedi

“In the last days of December 1916, a small group of Swiss university students had an evening meeting and an exiled Russian politician living in Switzerland gave them a talk on the coming revolution. He said, ‘The revolution’s bound to come. You younger people will live to see it. We older people (he was in his forties at the time), we shan’t see it.’ Ten months later this same man, his name was Lenin, was dictator of one of the greatest empires in the world,”

AJP Taylor, historian, in a lecture on Btritish tv many yrs ago.

—————–

*”Courage shall be the more resolute, heart shall be the braver, spirit shall be the greater, as our strength grows less.”, is another translation of the Old English verse.

 

“CHANGE FROM WITHIN IS WISHFUL THINKING – it won’t happen”

In Political governance on 22/09/2016 at 4:52 am

The above from a certified cybernut could sadly be prophetic.

The way the PAPpies are behaving (Think the changes to the contempt of court laws and the proposed changes to the elected presidency. Think of the Pet minister’s, Queen Jos’s and Ong Ye Kung’s comments on the latter. They make “Lying Hilary’s” untrustworthy and shifty explanations of emailgate sound pretty straight forward and simple to understand.), Oxygen, a certified cybernut may be a looney who just happens to have a prophetic insight.


Oxygen is a Nantah grad who fled to Oz in the 70s or early 80s  but because he regrets not getting a cheap HDB flat (he can’t get over the injustice), he still has S’pore in his mind despite becoming a New Citizen in Oz many yrs ago. He’s not poor and he’s no cheap skate. He donated $10,000 to keep TRE going before GE 2015.

If he really believes that change from within is impossible, why did he donate money to keep TRE alive? He should have used the money to buying arms and bombs for the S’pore Liberation Army.

He had a Pauline conversion since then? Before the GE, he believed that change was possible.

Opps I forgot, cybernuts are like M Ravi, moods always changing.

——————————————

In response to this, he wrote

oxygen:
September 18, 2016 at 9:16 pm (Quote)
CI, FOR ALL YOUR DECEPTIVE DANCES OF THE WOLF is great when you agrees with this call from Dr Ang Yong Guan

Dr Ang Yong Guan:You spoke about building a compassionate and inclusive nation in your speech. Make it happen. Bring the 30% on board not by pushing them to a corner and create an “us” versus “them” mentality. Embrace their diverse views, engage them in robust debates and create an even-playing political field. Win them over. As I have said before: “People are patriotic, keep that patriotic flame going strong by including them and NOT excluding them.”

The only problem of inevitable trapped dilemma for the PAPpys must be if they grudgingly relent to robust debates and even-playing political field in the public space is this quagmire and quicksands

– their rubber tyre of lies, fantasy and propaganda wear out faster on the road of truth faster than they can change their wheel of meandering river of endless lies, scams and deception

– even secondary school kids can trap them into embarrassed corner of no reply or disingenuous response of “what do you think”

– each can of worms unveiled opens up more cans of worms

– no political saints in their own tribe will sacrifice his paychecks on the altar of their own catcalls of hara kiri demands for unacceptable momumental policy design and implementation disaster

– voters lose respect for the whole tribe such that they may find it uncomfortable to wear the hypocritical virginity white in future election walkabouts and replace that with vibrant red of change advocacy instead (SDP needs to register for copyright protection now)

History needs to be re-written and legacy shamed and

finally of course, entrenched corrupt interest of “meritocratic” cronies of super mortals cultivation within the same tribe will revolt of change necessary for progress – some even think peasants “bo tua bo soy” (no big no small) almost sounding like scolding soya sauce.

SO I SAY CHANGE FROM WITHIN IS WISHFUL THINKING – it won’t happen

 

 

 

Why access to the truth has not set S’poreans free

In Internet on 20/09/2016 at 5:12 am

Knowledge is supposed to be power in one-party states and the internet gives people access to knowledge. But the internet has not done much to change S’poreans’ views of the PAP and its manifold, snarky machinations.

It was thought that the PAP administration’s control of the mainstream media was an important element in preventing S’poreans from understanding the reality of PAP rule here. The constructive, nation-building media helped shape the perception of reality by, among other things, filtering out inconvenient facts and framing the issues in a way that put the best spin on PAP policies.


Why PAP keeps a tight grip on the MSM

only suggestive, the study is cause for concern. The media can set the agenda, but also distort it. There is some countervailing evidence, that relative rankings of corruption do have some validity: diplomats from countries where corruption is seen as more pervasive are less likely to pay parking fines, for example. But if perceptions are heavily influenced by the media buzz, then levels of corruption might be exaggerated. In other words, measures of corruption could themselves be corrupted.

http://www.economist.com/news/business-and-finance/21696162-perceptions-corruption-seem-be-more-sensitive-claims-facts-bad-press

Also read this article about how media owners in Eastern Europe’s use the media they own to manipulate public opinion and to help friendly politicians and u can understand why the PAP controls the MSM the way it does here. http://www.economist.com/…/21707125-politics-central-and-ea…

———————————————————-

So those opposed to the PAP’s hegemony (self included) had thought that the internet (in particular social media and new or alternative media) would make it easier for S’poreans to be aware of or learn of or ferret out inconvenient facts, learn the truth, and draw the “right” conclusions.

It’s now easier to be aware of or learn of or ferret out inconvenient facts, and learn the truth, but sadly many S’poreans still  are incapable of or resist drawing  the “right” conclusions.

Partly this is the fault of alternative media outlets like The Idiots — S’pore (Or TISG as it prefers to be known which at times seems to be trying to imitate fake news websites ), the antics of the anti-PAP cynernut rats, and pro -PAP outlets like Mothership and FATPAP. Their disinformation and loudhailing services for the PAP causes problems when trying to establish the facts or the truth. (In fact TISG is proud that it is a “useful loudhailer” for the govt and its agencies.)

But a lot has to do with human nature (emphasis mine):

[H]umans do not naturally seek truth. In fact, as plenty of research shows, they tend to avoid it. People instinctively accept information to which they are exposed and must work actively to resist believing falsehoods; they tend to think that familiar information is true; and they cherry-pick data to support their existing views. At the root of all these biases seems to be what Daniel Kahneman, a Nobel-prizewinning psychologist and author of a bestselling book, “Thinking, Fast and Slow”, calls “cognitive ease”: humans have a tendency to steer clear of facts that would force their brains to work harder.

In some cases confronting people with correcting facts even strengthens their beliefs, a phenomenon Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler, now of Dartmouth College and the University of Exeter, respectively, call the “backfire effect”. In a study in 2010 they randomly presented participants either with newspaper articles which supported widespread misconceptions about certain issues, such as the “fact” that America had found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, or articles including a correction. Subjects in both groups were then asked how strongly they agreed with the misperception that Saddam Hussein had such weapons immediately before the war, but was able to hide or destroy them before American forces arrived.

As might be expected, liberals who had seen the correction were more likely to disagree than liberals who had not seen the correction. But conservatives who had seen the correction were even more convinced that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Further studies are needed, Mr Nyhan and Mr Reifler say, to see whether conservatives are indeed more prone to the backfire effect.

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21706498-dishonesty-politics-nothing-new-manner-which-some-politicians-now-lie-and?fsrc=permar|image3

The good news is that so long as there are sites like TOC (Its 10th anniversary fell in August this year), TMG and SgDaily (I got posting rights on its FB page); bloggers and commenters like Alex Au, Chris K, Wandering Vagabond, P Ravi, Uncle Leong, Donald Low and Yeoh Lum Keong; and cyber Jedis like Terry Xu and Andrew of TRE, inconvenient facts and inconvenient truths cannot be kept out of the public domain.

So I’m optimistic. Slowly but surely more S’poreans will draw the “right” conclusions after learning the “right” facts. And with a bit of luck by 2033 or 2055, at the latest, Harry will only be a bad dream.

But as S’poreans are exposed to more info, we (including the PAP) face a problem in this brave new world

Given such biases, it is somewhat surprising that people can ever agree on facts, particularly in politics. But many societies have developed institutions which allow some level of consensus over what is true: schools, science, the legal system, the media. This truth-producing infrastructure, though, is never close to perfect: it can establish as truth things for which there is little or no evidence; it is constantly prey to abuse by those to whom it grants privileges; and, crucially, it is slow to build but may be quick to break.

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21706498-dishonesty-politics-nothing-new-manner-which-some-politicians-now-lie-and?fsrc=permar|image3

Remember that given the dominance of the PAP, we don’t have the institutions which allow some level of consensus, absent the hegemony of the PAP. It’s going to be an anarchic jungle when S’poreans break the mind fetters.

But not to worry, the ang mohs who S’poreans (including the PAP) use to validate their actions will still be pontificating and BSing, and sometimes getting the facts and truth right. And S’poreans will listen to them, as they always have. Ang mohs will take the place of local institutions in the building of consensus of what are the facts and the truth.

Still better than consensus based on the PAP’s hegemony. At least liberal, socialistic and conservative ang mohs hold different views.

Cut the BS about being resource poor

In Uncategorized on 18/09/2016 at 1:12 pm

But first, the cubernuts keep harping that when the PAP took power, S’pore was the second most important port in Asia so what happened next was no big deal. Well Rangoon was pretty big then but look at it today. It’s the place that the PAPpies should send kids to to show what life would have been without the PAP.*


A WALK AROUND battered, ramshackle Yangon, Myanmar’s biggest city and former capital, quickly makes it clear how far the country has fallen behind the rest of Asia over the past half-century. In large part the place is but a ghostly reminder of former glories. Under British colonial rule, before independence in 1948, Rangoon (as it was then) was a thriving, cosmopolitan entrepot, the capital of Burma, one of the region’s wealthiest countries. All that came to an abrupt end in 1962 after a junta of army officers, led by the brutal General Ne Win, seized power and launched the country on the quasi-Marxist “Burmese Way to Socialism”. Private foreign-owned businesses were nationalised, prompting the exodus of hundreds of thousands of people, many of Indian origin. https://atans1.wordpress.com/2013/07/13/why-young-sporeans-should-be-sent-to-yangon/

http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2014/01/yangons-heritage


The nutters would be better-off focusing on the PAP’s claim that it made S’pore into a first world state despite S’pore being resource poor.

“In the modern world,” wrote Keynes in the Manchester Guardian in the autumn of 1922, “organisation is worth more in the long run than material resources.”

As Mr Norberg a Swesiah economic historian puts it, “The most important resource is the human brain…which is pleasantly reproducible.”

He bases his commen on the performance of places like London NY and Silicon Valley.


*Such a visit would be better than revising the upper secondary social studies syllabus with the proclaimed objective of promoting “active citizenship and critical thinking”.

A good critique:

The MOE has revised the upper secondary social studies syllabus with the proclaimed objective of promoting “active citizenship and critical thinking”.

Part of the updated content include a case study of the Little India Riot in 2013.

As the account conjured up by MOE goes, within minutes of the outbreak of the riot, the police was informed and the Civil Defence Force was activated. Subsequently, Special Ops Command was deployed and the crowd dispersed.

The authorities’ swift action, according to MOE, shows the importance the PAP Government places on maintaining internal order in Singapore.

Anyone who has followed the COI in the aftermath of the riot would have noticed that a large chunk of the events is missing in MOE’s account.

This chain of events revolves around how the initial police response team had failed to act resolutely when it arrived at the scene despite threats among the onlookers to kill the timekeeper whom they blamed for causing the death of their fellow countrymen.

Their lack of action emboldened the crowd causing it to spiral out of control with the scene of some of the officers fleeing the scene an indictment of the deficiencies of the Home Team.

The result?

25 emergency vehicles damaged, 5 set on fire, 39 police, four civil defence and auxiliary officers injured.

The above glaring gap in MOE’s account begs the questions: is it more interested in brainwashing than encouraging active citizenry and critical thinking?

If it is sincere about promoting critical thinking, shouldn’t it lay out all the facts and let students question and think about what went wrong?

Source: The Alternative View

(January 2016)

 

 

 

Hard Truths still relevant in 2033 and 2055?

In Uncategorized on 18/09/2016 at 4:13 am

Eaelier this month, China marked 40 years since Mao Zedong’s death on September 9 1976.Mao Zedong’s greatest worry was that a capitalist revival would take hold in China and wipe away his utopian vision of communism. Well it happened hasn’t it?

And

A mere 18 years after the death of Mao Zedong, it was possible for a notable Sinologist to give his book on Chinese reforms the title of “Burying Mao”.

So hang in there those who hate Harry and his legacy. Eighteen and 40 yrs is not too long to wait to have the last laugh.

But there’ll still be prople will who worship him, like they still worship Mao.

Image result for shrine to Mao

Image result for shrine to Mao

Wonder what his daughter, his chief devotee will think if she’s still alive in 2055?

Btw, in 2025, the PAP will unveil Harry’s Great Wall https://atans1.wordpress.com/2015/08/25/2025-lkys-memorial-unveiled/

DSC_0029

 

 

 

 

Why the PAP fears Dr Tan Cheng Bock

In Political governance on 11/09/2016 at 1:12 pm

The guy is shrewd, classy with a great sense of PR: see below.

Ada standard as a natural aristocrat and as a president.

With him as an elected president, the PAP administration will have to take account of his views, no matter what the legal position is on the powers of the president. He’ll signal his unhappiness or displeasure even when he has to follow the advice of the cabinet.

Well those who voted for Tan Jee Say and Tan Kin Lian, I hope you are repenting for doing the PAP’s dirty work for them. Each of you didn’t even get yr thirty pieces of silver.

And Tan Jee Say and Tan Kin Lian were the rewards of preventing him from becoming president worth it?

This appeared on Facebook

Message to my friends and supporters

Many Singaporeans including Netizens, have expressed their concern that the Constitutional Commission’s report has excluded me from the 2017 Presidential Election.

I have been kept busy assuring them that the Constitutional Commission Report will be tabled in Parliament in the form of a White Paper on 15th Sept.

Parliament will debate it, make amendments, support it, or even reject it.

We should not jump into conclusion that the whole exercise was to prevent me from running.
After all, the people in charge are men of virtue and integrity and would not resort to doing this.

Let us wait for the coming debate before jumping into conclusion. 

 

Antidote to PAP scaremongering/ How elites see us

In Uncategorized on 04/09/2016 at 12:07 pm

Next time any PAPpy tries to scaremonger us by saying that without PAP hegemony, the economy will collapse remember this extract from BBC Online on Brexit.

‘Booming economy’

“The economy is booming following the vote to leave the EU,” declares the Daily Express lead story about what it describes as “startling new figures” showing a record rise in manufacturing.

It says the “respected” Markit/CIPS UK manufacturing index unveiled the biggest month-on-month jump in its 25-year history.

The paper says it has “dealt a blow to the Remain campaigners Project Fear doom and gloom predictions”.

The Financial Times also carries the story, with the headline: “Busy factories fuel pro-Brexit MPs’ claims of Treasury scaremongering.”

“The figures showed activity in Britain’s factories hit a 10-month high in August, the latest sign that the economy may be recovering its poise after the initial shock of June’s Brexit vote.”

According to the paper, Barclays analysts say business nerves have been settled by the “speedy formation” of Theresa May’s government, the interest rates cut and a signal that the chancellor will ease austerity.

However, the FT adds that Philip Hammond told colleagues it was “too early” to say whether the economy had emerged in good shape after the Brexit vote and he was awaiting further economic data.

Remember this letter to the Economist

Peggy Noonan summed up nicely the situation behind the rise of populism in America and Europe in her recent essay, “How Global Elites Forsake Their Countrymen”. For Ms Noonan, “Those in power see people at the bottom as aliens whose bizarre emotions they must try to manage”.

DON POWELL
Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida

Zika shows alternative media at its best and worst

In Political governance, Public Administration on 02/09/2016 at 6:09 am

Reading alternative media and the constructive nation-building media, would one know the following (on Tuesday morning) about the Zika outbreak?

The Singapore outbreak appears to be localised. Of the 26 new cases identified in Singapore on Tuesday, 22 live or work near the Aljunied neighbourhood in the south-east of the city where 56 cases were confirmed earlier this week. [OK FT had not heard about Bedok case]

At least 36 of the Singapore Zika patients are foreign construction workers …[They] live in dormitories separate from the local population, reducing the risks of transmitting illnesses.

You might just. Many in the alternative media, and the PAP administration’s media allies (or worse) have good reasons to complicate the facts and issues.

So three cheers for the WP, and people in the alternative media like Chris K ,  Daniel Yap and others in Team TMG, Terry and others in Team TOC (“All the measures now by MOH are only implemented after the first find” is more than fair comment) and Alex Au (a super piece on Zika), are doing the right thing by asking relevant questions or pointing out the PAP administration’s BS.

We need more citizen analysts and journalists like Chris K, Alex Au  Daniel Yap and his team at TMG (Yes even though there is there someone who wanted to be a Sith Lord until told the vacancy had been filled), Terry and his team at Terry’s Online Channel, SgDaily* and Forever Vagabond (If he keeps away from Nathan, OTC, investments, SMRT and DBS and focuses on social injustice here).

They believe like CP Scott “Comment is free, but facts are sacred”


Charles Prestwich Scott (26 October 1846 – 1 January 1932) was a British journalist, publisher and politician. Born in Bath, Somerset,[1] he was the editor of the Manchester Guardian(now the Guardian) from 1872 until 1929 and its owner from 1907 until his death. He was also a Liberal Member of Parliament and pursued a progressive liberal agenda in the pages of the newspaper.

(Wikipedia)

———————–

And we need a lot less of those in Team TISG** and the TRE cybernuts now joining TISG. They make the likes of Mad Dog and Goh Meng Seng sound pretty rational. At least Mad Dog and GMS don’t pretend to anything other than partisan.


Cover-up? What cover-up?

My response to the almost similarly worded rants by the SDP and TISG (Sharing resources isit? That poor?) is

If there was a cover-up i.e, we’d not be told there was one case. And then told that there were 41 cases with more to come. We’d not be told nothing. And that the clean-op activity etc were “Juz precautions leh. Cannot isit?”

MoH was complacent and was “caught with their pants down” even if on the issue of “alarm” in the Zika case, I’m on govt’s side, like I was over haze and masks when a prominent blogger went bananas a few yrs ago.

I’m not the only one who has issues with the usual suspects. Here’s a non-partisan view from a person working in communications

Singapore had its first confirmed case of Zika on 28 August 2016, and the Singapore Ministry of Health (MOH) issued a press statement on the same day and called for a press conference the next day. Unfortunately, when it comes to managing issues concerning viruses (especially when the symptoms are mild and can be easily misdiagnosed) retrospective diagnosis is not uncommon. Thus when further testing on previously undiagnosed cases were done, the number of confirmed Zika cases rose literally overnight. When these additional numbers were subsequently made public, alternates were quick to accuse the MOH for deliberately hiding information from the public.
 
What is disconcerting is that these unfounded allegations against the Government hinders the proper and effective flow of important health information to the public. Instead of focusing the public on what they should and can do to protect themselves from the Zika virus, the public is distracted to focus on a non-existent witch-hunt. Valuable government resources are then diverted from dealing with the crisis to dispelling unfounded rumors.
 
As communications consultants, we constantly advocate for information to be released as soon as possible to stay ahead of the social media cycle. However, we also advise clients tobalance the need for speed with the need for accuracy. This is because false positives can cause unnecessary panic (especially in instances concerning public health) and this will affect the credibility of the organization and any subsequent message that is released.
 
Not being privy to what the MOH knew, or the thinking behind their decision, we can only speculate. What we do know is that when dealing with a crisis, there are usually trade-offs when deciding what to communicate with the public. In the case of Singapore’s first confirmed case of locally transmitted Zika, we assess that the MOH needed to decide whether to unnecessarily alarm Singaporeans (and visitors to Singapore which will impact the economy), or to allow the Government to be accused of a cover-up. Rightly or wrongly, we noted that the MOH chose to be responsible and opted not to cause alarm.
But let’s be fair. The PAP administration has in recent months shown yet again that its preferred option is to avoid telling S’poreans anything that is inconvenient to the administration. Think “Traingate” and “SGHgate”.
So reasonable people have grounds not to trust the PAP administration’s version of anything, giving TISG’s and the cybernuts’ rantings some credibility.
————————

What annoys me is the Goh Meng Seng’s, TISG’s, SDP’s etc rants are full of misleading information, allegations and wrong assumptions: “Facts are irrelevant when it comes to criticising the PAP administration”.

This doesn’t help the responsible people in alternative media and those of us opposed to the PAP’s hegemony connect with the swing voters. Worse, misleading or false  information, allegations and wrong assumptions, mean that the reality of the PAP administration’s cock-ups and misdeeds are often ignored by swing voters because the news and analysis comes from alternative media, and the swing voter associates alternative media with the likes of TISG and TRELand.

Finally, juz wondering, if the TRE turned TISG cybernuts will attract to TISG rabid TRE posters like Oxygen***, Dosh, GreatEagle etc? TISG must hope that Oxygen will migrate to a new and better rats’ nest. He was rumoured to have donated $10,000 to TRE in 2015. TISG sure can use that kind of money.


*My Facebook avatar can post links on the SgDaily’s wall.

** The boast “Government and related agencies see us as a useful loudhailer.” is really surprising.

***Example: The 69% are TOO STUPID TO EVEN KNOW THEY ARE STUPID – some even clapping fictitious CPF returns of 2.5% to 3% per annum (really is MONOPOLY money credited to their imprisoned CPF accounts cannot be withdrawn) when global interest rate is 1.5% or negative for even 10-yr govt bond yields.

Other stupid Sinkies voted PAPpy looking skyward IMAGINING their property values will soar higher with municipal carrots dangling in front of their greedy eyes. ALL STUPID – even prime waterfront property hold for 10 years lost millions of dollars.

Here is my evidence.

https://sg.finance.yahoo.com/news/1-4-mil-loss-reflections-000000355.html

And there are also IDIOTS AMONG THE 70% Sinkies thinks PAPpy immigration policy of massive influx will bring in rich Ah Tiongs to chase their property value up.

WRONG!!! stupid again.

 

 

 

Animal Farm: What if the pigs were public-spirited?

In Political governance on 24/08/2016 at 4:58 am

‘It needs more public-spirited pigs’: TS Eliot’s rejection of Orwell’s Animal Farm

This was the title of https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/may/26/ts-eliot-rejection-george-orwell-animal-farm-british-library-online

Eliot, one of the 20th century’s greatest poets and literary figures (his critics said he had fascist tendencies), said: “And after all, your pigs are far more intelligent than the other animals, and therefore the best qualified to run the farm – in fact, there couldn’t have been an Animal Farm at all without them: so that what was needed (someone might argue), was not more communism but more public-spirited pigs.”

Thinking about it maybe LKY, Dr Goh, Lim Kim San, Toh Chin Chye etc would be role-models for such public-spirited pigs.

So if the pigs had been as public-spirited as Harry Lee, Dr Goh etc:

— there would be a Pigs’ Action Party (Don’t worry, the comments get better);

— a sheep would always be elected president but the colour of the fleece mattered (while yellow was the preferred colour, sometimes the president’s fleece must be brown, black or white):;

— the leader of the pigs would always be a yellow coloured one;

— the other animals would have a share (albeit not as much as the pigs) of the “brain food”, apples and milk;

— but much of their apples and milk would be locked up (and waste away)  like our CPF monies;

— Boxer would have been treated a lot better: he’d have Pioneer benefits to supplement his meagre share of stored apples and milk;

— but if Boxer had cancer he’s have to return to the UK (like Alex Josey, LKY’s devoted follower) to get treated on the NHS;

— Squealer, like Rajaratnam, would have Alzheimer’s disease, as a consequence of having to practice doublespeak;

—  Snowball, like Lim Chin Siong would be allowed to return from exile

— the farmhouse, like the Istana, would be open to the other animals on public holidays;

— the windmill would be built right the first time, providing Animal Farm with electricity and the animals would get a share of the benefits;

— Tan Wah Piow would be happy outside S’pore instead of being bitter in self-exile (Daisy the mare fled Animal Farm because she was unhappy and lived happily ever after);

— the animals that plotted against the pigs would not be killed but be arrested under the ISA and made to confess, like Teo Soh Lung and friends, their misdeeds on tv;and

— there would be free but unfair elections every few years that would serve as referendums on the pigs’ performance with 60% approval ratings being the passing mark;

— there would be a population of about 26% that would always vote against the public-spirited pigs, screaming ‘The pigs are always wrong”;

— “To each what he deserves” and “Work sets you free” would be prominent slogans at the Pigs’ Annual Rally.;

— some of the castrated pigs would form the Wankers’ Party to oppose the Pigs’ Action Party; and

— one of the dogs would go mad.

———————–

But some sheep are always unhappy

PAP gave you one drum stick, now collecting two chickens

After every GE, the first 3-4 years, you see massive hikes of various fees to recoup the drum stick they gave during GE. With the greedy Minister, you see car-park charges raised and proposed SnCC charges soon to be raised to better service lifts. To his  hypocritical stand to keep Singapore car-lite, more COEs are being released.

In the recent weeks, you see so many charges and fees being raised despite massive profits. From Medishield Life, taxi licenses, fares, basic necessities, levies et cetera, everything seems to be on auto-pilot going up.

The only year that Singaporean will have a breather will be the year before GE. Then suddenly, you will see all the ministers and politicians becoming your best friends over night, back by media and advertisements in addition social media. Remember all the nice ads at train stations telling you not to worry about CPF and Medishield Life?

Even Facebook and Chinese Wechat will promote these policies then. Question is why don’t you see them now? They seem to have disappeared right after the GE.

Look at the shopping centres, few are buying, pay has largely remain stagnant for years and there is no job security, high possibility of being replaced by fake talents imported. Despite massive profits, why is the government continue to squeeze poor Singaporeans dry? If Temasek and GIC are supposed to make good money, so why are they milking locals high and dry? Isn’t this puzzling at all? So why so many changes to entrap and restrict the use of CPF? Without any visibility, we can only assume that the funds are not doing well!!!

I hear Singaporeans complain and complain about the hikes and increased charges and fee. But isn’t this repeated every five years. After GE, they will fleece us right until the year before GE that they will suddenly be generous. WP did say, they will give you a drum stick and take one chicken, isn’t that correct?

My take is they have been very greedy, it is no longer one chicken, its two chicken, thanks to you giving them landslide. And for those who voted for the greedy party, stop complaining la, don’t be a gu niang!

DuGu QiuBai

He and his kind should realise that the PAP did things a left-wing US senator wants done in the US.

Elizabeth Warren named in some quarters as a potential running mate for Hillary Clinton.

First, she wants to make it easier for all workers to pay social security contributions and buy insurance against disability or illness, as well as to accrue credits for at least some paid leave. Second, she argues that health and pension benefits should belong to workers and should follow them no matter what their employment status. Third, she underlines the need to streamline and enforce existing labour laws to stop employers exploiting loopholes. Finally, she stresses the need for collective bargaining for all workers — unions, historically intent on protecting insiders, need to bear some responsibility.

FT extract


Finally a related post: Life on a real animal farm: animals are well-looked after to benefit the farmer. Something the successors (the natural aristocrats)  to the PAP Old Guard forgot but quickly relearnt after the double 2011 debacles. Now they are spending more of our more on ourselves. And trying to fix the presidential elections so that a compassionate, humble ex-PAPpy, Dr Tan Cheng Bock, can never be elected president,

What a load of BS from PM

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

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

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

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

I mean

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

———————-

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

————————

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

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

Can explain away this Dr Chee?/ Where PAP has failed us

In Uncategorized on 09/08/2016 at 1:08 pm

The Misery Index, computed by adding inflation to the unemployment rate, gives S’pore a score of 1.40, which is the 2nd best – or second least miserable – for all 74 economies surveyed by Bloomberg. Thailand is first with 1.11%. Japan, is third, with 2.70%.

If Dr Chee or any other sane anti-PAPpy cannot explain this away, doesn’t this show that the PAP deserves its “Ownself salute ownself” party once a year on 9 August?

So keep on feeling miserable, anti-PAPpies. Likewise the ang moh tua kees. None of these countries can be called a democracy. Thailand has a ruling military junta, S’pore is a defacto one-party state, and in Japan, the Liberal Democtatic Party has been the ruling party for all but two and a half years since the LDP was founded in 1955.

All three are sceptical about putting human rights on a pedestral to be worshipped.

But anti-PAPpies and the ang moh tua kees can console themselves. Chris K is absolutely right in the following analysis that the PAP has failed us:

Thoughts on PAP’s political domination on Singapore’s 51st Birthday

Singapore sees its 51st year of independence and 48th year of PAP’s total political domination. Do we get to 100th year of independence and beyond? For that we have to consider whether the PAP’s 48th year of total political domination is the right path to get there.

In the 2015 General Election, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong warned the voters that Singapore’s future was at stake in that if PAP failed, the nation was in trouble. This narrative has always been effective for many Singaporeans who are uncertain of life without the PAP. But in it, lies the danger on the path to 100 years and beyond for the narrative implies that without the PAP, there is no viable alternative to govern Singapore.

That is to say, we as a nation has no back-up, no double, triple redundancy, no recovery plans to ensure the continued prosperity and relevance of Singapore, should the PAP failed. How safe is such a company in coping with human failure let alone a nation state?

The PAP may not have failed but that is not the same as saying it has not failed in certain areas nor has not failed certain segments of the population. It always maintained that it must have a super majority, better still no opposition in order to focus on the long term. And yet this did not stop the PAP from indulging in short term fixes that have long term consequences. Neither did this ensure the PAP understand and therefore mitigate the trade-offs in its policy choices.

These are the consequences of the PAP’s single minded maintenance of total political domination. It stymies the opposition parties and repress the legal and political environment so that there can be no policy alternatives than its own. The much bigger potentially catastrophic consequences is that the nation will be in trouble should the PAP failed because there is no other alternatives to govern the nation. Think of it as making sure the nation fail together with the PAP if the party should fail. That should be how we read Mr Lee’s warning.

So while you may not like to contemplate life without the PAP, you are also putting the nation at long term risk if you do not aim for political plurality in our nation, the sort of plurality in which nations survive centuries without having to depend on one party. Besides, who is to say the PAP will not benefit from a period out of government.

Majullah Singapura and Happy NDP!

*Facebook post by Chris Kuan

 

 

PAP: Keeps on Walking

In Political governance on 09/08/2016 at 5:45 am

Today, is the PAP’s annual celebration of “S’pore the one-party state”. To show its power over S’poreans, it gets the kids, NS men and others it can coerce to participate in a spectacle that would do the North Koreans, Chinese patriots, Soviets, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Franco and Mussolini proud. Even couch potatoes have to participate by watching it on their screens. OK, OK, they are persuaded to watch it because it is a spectacle made for tv.

Taz why the anti-PAPpies go overseas on the day, if they got the money.

And the PAP should be congratulated, even if it’s  through gritted teeth. The  PAP keeps on winning majorities of over 60% since the 1968 general elections.

Compare S’pore and the PAP with another defacto one party state, South Africa and its ruling party, the ANC. For the first time since the ANC first came into power in South Aftica’s first democratic election in 1994, support for the party that led the struggle against apartheid has, last, week fallen below 60% (to 52%) in recent nation-wide municipal elections. A mere 22 years.

Compare that to the PAP’s 48 years. The PAP “Keeps on walking” like Johnnie Walker

So why shouldn’t the PAP wrap S’pore’s national flag around itself? The national flag was unveiled by the PAP govt in 1959, the year the people of S’pore gave it a mandate of 54% (but 43 out of 51 seats). Btw this was the second lowest majority for the PAP. The lowest was in 1963: 47%.

Taz how important Coldstore and the detentions of one Lim Chin Seong, and his friends and allies were for the PAP.

Bet you National Day 2018 will be a really special occasion: 50 yrs of PAP’s domination of the voting share.

 

 

Err so why the silence on Calvin, minister?

In Humour on 02/08/2016 at 5:13 am

Or to be more precise, why the official pussy-footing  on Calvin Cheng’s call to kill children? And the silence on real atrocities?

(Not sure who did this. Saw it on Facebook. I’ll gladly attribute this if I know who did this.)

And is it not strange that this minster who has de facto responsibility for pets and their owners doesn’t speak up against vivisection?

Don’t juz talk cock sing song: walk the talk.

Minister snatches defeat from the jaws of victory

In Uncategorized on 21/07/2016 at 7:08 am

Hougang Member of Parliament Png Eng Huat in a Facebook post grumbled about how Minister Tan Chuan Jin and his entourage were given expedited clearance at the immigration checkpoint at Tuas.

On Sunday, Mr Tan and a group of residents and volunteers returning from a durian trip to Johor Bahru were able to skip the immigration queue. In a Facebook post on Monday, Mr Png wrote that he too, had been at the checkpoint with his residents after a trip to Desaru, and that they were among other travellers at who had had “to wait patiently for hours for their turn”. Mr Png added that one of his residents was 89 years old and another had been injured during the tour. 

Since, It is the normal practice for ministers on both sides of the Causeway, as well as members of the Malaysian royalty, to be given expedited clearance at the land checkpoints, the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) said on Tuesday (Jul 19), really Png was barking up (Or is it peeing against) the wrong tree, especially as the minister was in M’sia on official business see below), and not eating durians.
Given the ICA statement, Tan should have taken the high moral ground and asked if Png expected that only he the minister be given expedited clearance, while the rest of the passengers on the bus he was on, cleared the check point like other plebs?
He also had the high moral ground that he was in M’sia on an official visit to the M’sian Deputy Home Affairs Minister’s Hari Raya open house. As a minister on official duty, he would be entitled to a govt car etc, But he took a bus. That also cannot itis?
Png could only sit down and shut up showing that the W in WP stands for “Wankers’ or Worthless.
But the Minister for Social and Family Development Tan Chuan Jin said on Tuesday (Jul 19) that Hougang Member of Parliament Png Eng Huat was “stirring hate and anger” in a Facebook post about how Mr Tan and his entourage were given expedited clearance at the immigration checkpoint at Tuas.

Mana ada standard? m=Mud wrestling with a Wanker? It isn’t even plausible that Png was “stirring hate and anger”e. He’s a Wanker, not a mad dog. And Tan’s an RI boy. Sigh.

Get well soon Heng. The PAP needs you as prime minister. Tan is proving himself as worthless as Kee Chui, another RI boy (OK not a real RI boy: only two yrs, unlike Tan and me).

Seriously, “political success requires mastery of the age’s leading medium”: Reagan knew how to use tv, Trump knows how to use Twitter, but Tan and other PAPpies don’t know how to use social media*.

For that fact alone, those of us, who want an end to the PAP’s hegemony, should be grateful, very grateful.  Likewise we should grateful at the antics of the PAP’s IB in slimimg Png. With friends like Jason chua, the PAP doesn’t need enemies.

Maybe the wheel of fortune is turning against the PAP? I used to say that the PAP was lucky in its enemies. Now even the MPs of the Wankers’ Party are doing more than wanking while smiling at their bank accounts. They are growling.


*No SOP written yet isit?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good reason to ban smartphones

In Internet on 17/07/2016 at 1:05 pm

Here I suggested that the PAP administration should ban the use of smartphone cameras because they are a clear and present danger to the PAP’s paternal instinct to ensure that we only get the “right” info (So that, among other things, we are not panicked.)

Here’s a good reason why the PAP administration should go further and ban smartphones.

Indian newspaper The Telegraph ran a fascinating exclusive on its front page yesterday.

It obtained a copy of an investigation into Kashmiri militancy written by a top police officer in the state.

The report, which has been presented to officials at the home Ministry, argues that growing access to social media is the key to understanding the current upsurge in militancy in the region.

[I]n the last few years the security forces in Kashmir have noticed that the public is now far more likely to intervene in their operations.

He reports that when they go to make an arrest or get involved in even a minor confrontation with militants, very quickly members of the public come out to protest against their action and, on occasion, even attack them.

One factor has to be that smartphone messages go out alerting people to what is going on.

As far as security personnel are concerned this represents a very serious increase in the risks they face.

Just like during the Arab Spring and indeed in the unfolding race crisis in America, it seems the contours of the conflict in Kashmir are increasingly being shaped and defined by technology.

What BoJo can teach the PAP

In Humour on 05/07/2016 at 5:27 am

Writing in the Telegraph, Mr Johnson says the government was wrong to offer the EU referendum without being willing – if the public voted Leave – to “explain how this can be made to work in the interests of the UK and Europe”. BBC

Hoz this for gratitude and gall? Before the referendum result was known, he (and others) thanked the PM for calling a referendum. After his side won, he is blaming the UK govt for calling a referendum that he wanted.

Either BoJo is a joke-cracking clown like Bozo, or he is just an unprincipled and shameless rascal. Or both.

No wonder the grandees of the Tory party don’t want as leader and PM.

Whatever, he can teach Tharman and other PAP ministers how to tell good jokes.


Tharman is the Joker

Isn’t his comments on govt acting quickly on property prices, bit like his jokes on inflation, wages?

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

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

But there are other wannabe jokers too:

Hng Kiang on inflation

A Lee on inflation

And even PM and DPM Teo try their hand:

CoC needed on ministers telling jokes

Where is Batman when S’pore needs him?

——————————————

 

 

Brexit: Lesson for the PAP?/ Eternal truths

In Political economy, Political governance on 04/07/2016 at 7:09 am

Here’s an interesting comment from a FT reader commenting on (What else?) Brexit.  He’s saying that Brexit (and the Eurozone  crisis) should be blamed on cuts to the benefits of what conservatives, the PAP (including Tharman) and the majority of S’poreans (self-included) would call the “undeserving poor”. (They (and me) would be in favour of helping the “deserving poor”.)

The UK is a federation of sorts. On 23 June, it essentially failed. It failed because London had allowed (over a period of ca 30 years) swathes of the country to become impoverished. The transfer union which once existed had been rolled back so much that living standards of the majority of voters had fallen.

London has been rolling back this transfer union because “the elite” has been making the argument that a transfer union makes people lazy. “We must cut benefits (transfers) to encourage people to get on their bikes!” – sounds familiar?

So here’s the problem: … the eurozone will fail if it cannot improve the living standards of its citizens BUT the observation about the dependency transfers induce also holds. The challenge for the eurozone (as much as all our social democracies) is how to square this particular circle?

The Roman emperors got it right. Bread and circuses for the Roman mob, whether deserving or not. Preserving the peace and maintaining power, were more important than rewarding the “deserving” and punishing the “undeserving”. Now that’s an eternal truth.

And here’s another eternal truth: it’s more efficient to help everyone in need whether they deserve it or not http://gladwell.com/million-dollar-murray/.

Trying to differentiate between the “deserving” and ‘undeserving” ends up costing more.

Post said that the man had been sober for several months. But he could relapse at some point and perhaps trash another apartment, and they’d have to figure out what to do with him next. Post had just been on a conference call with some people in New York City who run a similar program, and they talked about whether giving clients so many chances simply encourages them to behave irresponsibly. For some people, it probably does. But what was the alternative? If this young man was put back on the streets, he would cost the system even more money. The current philosophy of welfare holds that government assistance should be temporary and conditional, to avoid creating dependency. But someone who blows .49 on a Breathalyzer and has cirrhosis of the liver at the age of twenty-seven doesn’t respond to incentives and sanctions in the usual way. “The most complicated people to work with are those who have been homeless for so long that going back to the streets just isn’t scary to them,” Post said. “The summer comes along and they say, ‘I don’t need to follow your rules.’ ” Power-law homelessness policy has to do the opposite of normal-distribution social policy. It should create dependency: you want people who have been outside the system to come inside and rebuild their lives under the supervision of those ten caseworkers in the basement of the Y.M.C.A.

That is what is so perplexing about power-law homeless policy. From an economic perspective the approach makes perfect sense. But from a moral perspective it doesn’t seem fair. Thousands of people in the Denver area no doubt live day to day, work two or three jobs, and are eminently deserving of a helping hand—and no one offers them the key to a new apartment. Yet that’s just what the guy screaming obscenities and swigging Dr. Tich gets. When the welfare mom’s time on public assistance runs out, we cut her off. Yet when the homeless man trashes his apartment we give him another. Social benefits are supposed to have some kind of moral justification. We give them to widows and disabled veterans and poor mothers with small children. Giving the homeless guy passed out on the sidewalk an apartment has a different rationale. It’s simply about efficiency.

Funny that the PAP administration’s cost-benefit analysis don’t show this? Not really, because “costs” and “benefits” are in the eye of the beholder i.e. figures can always be fudged. Now that’s another eternal truth.

Meanwhile at a real animal farm

In Political governance, Public Administration on 03/07/2016 at 1:06 pm

Maybe they’ve been taking lessons from the PAP administration?

Perdue Aims to Make Chickens Happier and More Comfortable The poultry producer’s plans to improve conditions for its chickens could force competitors to adopt similar measures.

Seriously, ain’t Pioneer benefits, improving the public tpt syste,m and SingHealth, and building more public housing etc all meant to make life happier and more comfortable for the sheep voters? and it’s all with our own money.

Sounds like our tpt and public housing systems

In Private Equity, Public Administration on 03/07/2016 at 5:36 am

But first

When the population surged by half a million:
Did PAP increase the number of hospital beds? No
Did PAP construct additional housing to cater to the population increase? No.
Did PAP conduct additional maintenance for our MRT? No

(One of TRE’s usual suspects and he has a point: remember PM’s apology of sorts in 2011.)

This brings us to the issues of public tpt and public housing where, inter alia, the NYT Dealbook explains why the profit-motive and doesn’t work, as does cutting costs, increasing prices. (But note that the New York Times is more socialist than Mad Dog Chee. It pretends to be capitalist.)

IN PRIVATE EQUITY’S HANDS, PUBLIC SERVICES AND HOUSING IN DISARRAYSince the 2008 financial crisis, private equity firms have taken over a widening array of civic and financial services that are central to American life, Danielle Ivory, Ben Protess and Kitty Bennett report in DealBook. People interact with private equity when they call emergency services, pay their mortgage, play a round of golf or turn on the kitchen tap for a glass of water.

Unlike other for-profit companies, which often have years of experience in certain services, private equity’s main skill is to make money. And in many of these businesses, it applied a sophisticated moneymaking playbook, cutting costs, increasing prices, litigating and lobbying, a Times investigation has found.

In emergency care and firefighting, this has created a fundamental tension when there is a push to turn a profit while caring for people in their most vulnerable moments. And the effects have been dire. Under private equity ownership, some ambulance response times worsened, heart monitors failed and companies slid into bankruptcy. In at least two cases, lawsuits contend, poor service led to patient deaths.

Cities and towns have struggled to pay for public infrastructure and ambulance services since the financial crisis and private equity stepped in. At the same time, private equity firms have moved in where banks have scaled back their mortgage operations. The shift has happened with relatively little scrutiny, and now private equity firms are repeating the mistakes that banks made during the housing crisis, Matthew Goldstein, Rachel Abrams and Ben Protess report. They are quick to foreclose on homeowners and are losing families’ mortgage paperwork, much as the banks did.

Many of these practices were enabled by the federal government, which sold tens of thousands of discounted mortgages to private equity investors, while making few demands on how they treated struggling homeowners.

The Times examined the largest private equity firms operating in the housing industry to assess their impact on homeowners and renters. Lone Star Funds’ mortgage operation has aggressively pushed thousands of homeowners toward foreclosure. Nationstar Mortgage, which leaped over big banks to become the fourth-largest collector of mortgage bills, repeatedly lost loan files and failed to detect errors in other documents. Its mistakes put borrowers “at significant risk of servicing and foreclosure abuses,” according to regulatory records.

When it invests in real estate, private equity also needs to compete for middle-market renters to serve pension fund investors that have come to expect strong returns. As a result, it tends to focus on suburban communities where relatively few people hold federal subsidy vouchers. “These firms are going into markets which would have recovered anyway,” said Alan Mallach, senior fellow at the Center for Community Progress, a nonprofit that advises communities on dealing with vacant and blighted homes. As a result, many of the working poor are being bypassed.

Read more about The Times investigations into broadening private equity ownership here.

Now this sounds like S’pore:  As a result, many of the working poor are being bypassed.

And I speak as someone who has good experiences using SingHealth, and public tpt (Off-peak of course. But pre-2011 GE, this was painful.)

Pink Dot: Why was govt spooked?/ Pastor Khong try matching the numbers

In Political governance on 27/06/2016 at 6:23 am

28,000 people at a Pink Dot event is the equivalent of a crowd of 330,000 in the UK. or 1.7m in the US. Pretty impressive number then.


FT columnist does the sums:

Singapore’s annual Pink Dot gay pride gathering attracts big crowds. There were 28,000 people there last year.

That is a large turnout in a country with a population of 5.5m. An equivalent gathering in the UK would be 330,000. In the US, it would be 1.7m.

Note that he had to use last year’s numbers because the organiser’s refused to provide a number for this year, claiming that it wasn’t about numbers any more. Didn’t cut any ice with the govt this show of modesty, did it?


This shows what foreign sponsorship money and good local event management can do.

No wonder the PAP administration told foreign sponsors that funding Pink Dot is a no-no area. And they are sitting down and shutting up. Money talks, BS walks. The probability of making serious money, outweighs the BS talk of values.

In a de-facto one party state, like a de-jure party state, the ruling party cannot have any other organisation capable of getting people out on the streets for an alternative view that the party is uncomfortable with. Think the CCP and Falun Gong.

———————-

When China banned Falun Gong, the PA here cancelled Falun Gong classes it was conducting immediately before the movement was banned here. In HK, the movement is not banned. We more PRC than HK isit? why liddat?

————–

Finally, Pastor Khong and allies talk of a moral  majority opposed to LGBT rights. Prove it please. Get 30,000 people to a do at Hong Lim Green. After all if God is really on their side, the crowd will be there.

Scared isit? Why liddat? After all got Allah and the three-in-one version.

And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm.

 

 

And govt wants to encourage fintech?/ PAP is never wrong

In Banks, Economy, Internet, Political governance, Public Administration on 22/06/2016 at 6:04 am

Is Tharman trying to tell jokes again? (Examples in the past, another recent one?). He’s the leading advocate of fintech here.

But demand for digital services leaves banks and other financial institutions more open to more risk. The majority of top bankers said they were open to more risks than they could manage as a result of digital developments, according to a global survey of bankers by the consultancy Accenture.

Yet the PAP administration has indicated by its plan to restrict direct access to the internet for civil servants that it is trying to cut cybersecurity risks by cutting internet connections.

——————————————————

Delinking cicil servants from the internet

‘The Govt’s move to delink computers used by civil servants from direct access to the Internet is “absolutely necessary” to keep govt data and public services secure,’ PM. He cited the possibility of personal data like NRIC numbers, addresses and income tax returns being hacked and put up for sale in the internet.

When this policy takes effect in May next year, civil servants can only access the Internet through dedicated computers or through their own computers. It seems that there have been very determined attacks on the Govt’s IT systems and the threats are getting more severe and sophisticated. Just relying on the system’s defensive measures is looking like a losing proposition? It is best to cut the connections to the minimum?

————————————————————-

So how does the call for more fintech dovetails with the plan to deny most civil servants direct access to the internet?

 

Fintech is all about increasing connections, the civil service delinking initiative is all about cutting connections.

Does the PAP administration think that the banks and other financial institutions can safeguard data better than it can? Or that the data financial institutions hold  is not so impotant?

Or maybe is the delinking policy, is as suggested by Chris K, aimed at avoiding a PR disaster:” PAP must always look good even when PAP goofs”? A variant of “Napoleon is always right”*?

Or is Tharman just joking about the importance of fintech to S’pore?


*Another one of Boxer’s mottoes is “I will work harder”. Sounds so S’porean and something that the PAP encourages. But then why is productivity is so worryingly low. Too many of the PAP’s favoured caste, FTs, isit?

Not uniquely S’porean/ Don’t shout at S’poreans

In Economy on 07/06/2016 at 4:44 pm

Wages, that don’t compensate for rising property prices  and higher cost of living i are not unique to S’pore.

Taiwan, a place where many paper warriors approve of (rightly in my view), because it has successfully made the transition to democracy, also faces a situation where graduate starting salaries, and wages generally, having stagnated for years despite sharp rises in housing and other living costs.

Likewise South Korea.

As the Economist (from a developed world perspective) put it: While the long period of sluggish growth and low rates has been good for investors, it hasn’t been that great for voters; real wages have struggled to rise.

So those trying to stir the plebs against the PAP should realise that the plebs are not stupid. Yes the PAP administration is repressing wages through the FT policy and NTUC, while keep the price of public housing higher than it should be, but

Real wages in Singapore rose 5.4 per cent last year amid negative inflation, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) said in its annual report on wage practices on Thursday (Jun 2).

In the private sector, nominal wages grew 4 per cent in 2015, down from the 4.9 per cent increase the year before. When employer Central Provident Fund (CPF) contributions are factored in, growth in total wages remained stable at 4.9 per cent, due to the increase in employer CPF contributions last year.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/real-wages-in-singapore/2838448.html

No point shouting at swing voters, try to convince them that the PAP’s trade-offs are the wrong ones.  As much as we might disagree with the PAP’s policies, the voters don’t. Ok only 70% agree with the PAP’s position. But that doesn’t mean the 30% must prevail, does it?

As the Guardian talking about Jeremy Corbyn (UK’s very own Mad Dog Chee) and Donald Trump said, both are popular phenomena poorly understood – and in both cases, just shouting at people that they’re wrong has proved spectacularly useless. Asking them why they think what they think may not change anything much. But the conversation is sure as hell overdue.

The govt had its NatCon, and look what happened.  Dr Chee wayanged his way around S’pore after GE 2015 but otherwise the oppo parties have as usual avoided talking to swing voters: in between GEs or by-elections. They leave it to the cybernuts to shout at S’poreans.


*I admit I was one of those who mocked NatCon. But it worked for the PAP didn’t it?

Impotent fury and arrogance/ Roy and Teo: the chosen

In Political governance on 05/06/2016 at 1:18 pm

The ang moh tua kees are KPKBng* that the persecution of Roy and Teo Soh Lung (two of the “usual suspects”) should stop. And if the persecution doesn’t stop, what will they do? Bugger all. Juz sit down and shut up and wait for a new “event” to come along to KPKB about and denounce the govt that 70% of voters noted for. As much as they might disagree with the PAP’s position on human rights and media freedom, the voters don’t. Ok to be fair,  only 70% agree with the PAP’s position. But that doesn’t mean the 30% must prevail, does it? I mean the ang moh tua kees believe in democracy, don’t they?

Meanwhile, the swing voters think, “We  aren’t concerned with the right to talk cock once in a blue moon.” Let’s face it, is it really necessary to talk cock, sing song on cooling-off day? How often does that day come along? Exactly, once every 4-5 years and once in a blue moon in between grneral elections. Cannot close mouth for one day isit? Why liddat?

The voters who vote PAP just want to know if our streets are safe, will the trash be collected, can we drink the public water, will our children be educated, can we afford to live in our houses?

(Letter to FT on what voters in the UK want)

Returning to the “persecution” of Teo and Roy, juz think of it like this: killing two monkeys to frighten the sheep. Note that monkeys are chosen, not respectable and intelligent people who disagree with the policies of the PAP administration. PAP not that stupid lor. Neither are the respectable, intelligent people. They don’t get themselves “persecuted”. Only the likes of Roy and Teo do.

——-

*We, the undersigned are gravely concerned by the ongoing police investigations into alleged breaches by Roy Ngerng and Teo Soh Lung of the Cooling Off Day rules.

We are disquieted by the seizure of their property from their homes, in particular without warrant, and the wholesale and indiscriminate archiving of broad swathes of their personal data.  These excessive and intimidating measures are completely disproportionate to any harm alleged to have been caused by the actions of Ngerng and Teo.

To openly express a political view – including and especially views on party politics – is the fundamental right of every member of society.  If we are to achieve a democratic society where legislators and the government are truly representative of the values and wishes of citizens, every individual must be free to fearlessly express their views of politicians, parties and electoral processes.

For an individual seeking to understand the Cooling Off Day regulations, the application of the prohibitions on individual conduct is not clear.  Someone relying on the wording on the Elections Department website, which indicates an exemption for “the transmission of personal political views by individuals to other individuals, on a non-commercial basis, using the Internet, telephone or electronic means”, might reasonably conclude that their posts were exempt.

Given this ambiguity and the great importance of freedom of expression for individual citizens, it is wholly inappropriate for police investigations of such an intimidating and intrusive nature to take place.  The main effect of this police action is to intensify a climate of fear that deters the frank discussion of political issues by all individuals – a discussion that our society both needs and deserves.

We note that there have been previous allegations of breaches of the Cooling Off Day rules by electoral candidates.  Such conduct is far more likely to cause the harm to the electoral process which Cooling Off Day is designed to avert.  Yet we are not aware of such draconian investigations made in those circumstances.  A society which values the free exchange of political ideas must not apply more restrictive standards to ordinary citizens than to electoral candidates.

We call upon the state to ensure the immediate return of all confiscated property to Ngerng and Teo, the removal of any data obtained from them from state and police possession, and an immediate and total cessation of the investigative process.

Signed by:

  1. Abdul Salim Harun
  2. Adrian Heok
  3. Alex Sng
  4. Alexander Luciano Roberto
  5. Alfian Sa’at
  6. Alvina Khoo
  7. Ana Abdullah
  8. Ananth Tambyah
  9. Andre Goh
  10. Ang Chong Leong
  11. Annie Jael Kwan
  12. Ariffin Sha
  13. Ashukumar Veerapan
  14. Ashura Chia
  15. Azmi Monday
  16. Benjamin Matchap
  17. Benjamin Seet
  18. Bhavan Jaipragas
  19. Brendan Goh
  20. Brenton Wong
  21. Brian Yang
  22. Bryan Choong
  23. Cecilia Joven Ong
  24. Celine Lim
  25. Chang May Lian
  26. Chan Wai Han
  27. Chew Keng Chuan
  28. Chng Nai Rui
  29. Christine Sng Mechtler
  30. Chui Yong Jian
  31. Dan Koh
  32. Dana Lam
  33. Darius Zee
  34. Daryl Yang
  35. David Lee
  36. Dinah Sim
  37. Dolly Peh
  38. Edmund Wee
  39. Edward Eng
  40. Edwina Shaddick
  41. Elisa Kang
  42. Emily Lim
  43. Erica Chung
  44. Esther Kong
  45. Fadli Bin Fawzi
  46. Fadly Razali
  47. Farhan C. Idris
  48. Fenwick Melville
  49. Fong Hoe Fang
  50. Gina Lim
  51. Godwin Koay
  52. Goh Chok Chai Ricky
  53. Ho Choon Hiong
  54. Hong Weizhong
  55. Irene Oh
  56. Ivan Heng
  57. Jackie Heng Lim
  58. Jamal Ismail
  59. James Weng Hong Lam
  60. Jason Soo
  61. Jeremy Tiang
  62. Jocelyn Teo
  63. Johannes Hadi
  64. Jolene Tan
  65. Jolovan Wham
  66. Jony Ling
  67. Joo Hymn Tan
  68. Joshua Chiang
  69. Keith Tan
  70. Kenneth Lin
  71. Kokila Annamalai
  72. Kuan Wee
  73. Lee Yi Ting
  74. Li Xie
  75. Lim Jialiang
  76. Lim Kay Siu
  77. Lim Xiuhui
  78. Linda Ong
  79. Lionel Deng
  80. Lisa Li
  81. Lita Patricio
  82. Loo Zihan
  83. Low Yit Leng
  84. Lucas Ho
  85. Lynn Lee
  86. Mansura Sajahan
  87. Mark Wong De Yi
  88. Matilda Gabrielpillai
  89. Megan Boey Sean Ching
  90. Melvin Wong
  91. Merv Tan
  92. Miak Siew
  93. Morgan Awyong
  94. M Ravi
  95. Muhammad Faliqh Rahman
  96. Muhd Firdaus
  97. Nathanael Tan
  98. Neo Swee Lin
  99. Ng Guohui Nigel
  100. Ng Yi-Sheng
  101. Niki Ng
  102. Nina Chabra
  103. Ong Sooi Eng
  104. Pak Geok Choo
  105. Robyn Yzelman
  106. Roy Tan
  107. Sam Lim
  108. Sam Ong
  109. Sathiya Moorthy
  110. Sean Francis Han
  111. Semangeline Teo
  112. Sha Jumani Basari
  113. Shelley Thio
  114. Shimin Wong
  115. Shirleen Chong
  116. Siauw Chong
  117. Siew Kum Hong
  118. Smith Adrian Jude
  119. Sonny Liew
  120. Stephanie Chok
  121. Stephen Baldy Ho
  122. Tan Elice
  123. Tan Tee Seng
  124. Tan Zong Xuan
  125. Tay Kheng Soon
  126. Teng Yong Ping Daryl
  127. Terry Xu
  128. Thum Ping Tjin
  129. Timothy Todd
  130. Trevor Chan
  131. Valence Sim
  132. Vanessa Ho
  133. Vivian Wang
  134. Wendy Chan
  135. Wong Souk Yee
  136. Yap Ching Wi
  137. Yap Hon Ngian
  138. Yee Kai
  139. Zee Wong
  140. Zulkarnain Hassan

How to solve the longevity problem. the Hard Truths way

In CPF on 02/06/2016 at 2:46 pm

The PAP administration is always warning us that CPF funds will not be enough for retirement because we are living longer. Its solution is to mahe CPF “not our money” while pretending that “it’s our money”: taz CPF Life esp the standard plan and Our money but CPF Life solvency is our problem .

S’poreans, except the die-die must vote for any PAP monkey Think Eunice Chia-lom and Ashok Shamar), see thru the smoke.

Here are two (connected) constructive, nation-building suggestions on the longevity problem hat the PAP may want to implement that are logical and reasonable in that they flow from the logic of Harry’s Hard Truths.

cartoon

From FT

Connected with the above is the solution in  the movie Soylent Green. Us plebs are encouraged to move on and our bodies then made into food for the other plebs.

See http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070723/synopsis

Pearl of Wisdom Dr Chee and other activists should heed, but don;t

In Uncategorized on 31/05/2016 at 6:14 am

I came across this morning in FT: GK Chesterton, “a few men talked of freedom, while England talked of ale”

When translated into Singlish this means, “A few ang moh tua kees talk of human rights and social justice, while 70%+ talk of EPL footie over kopi or beer.”

A reader of this on why PM will not follow the Japanese PM’s suggestion about focusing on the quality of life, not economic growth, put it thus

Sometimes you get the feeling the real problem is that guys like Chris K are not prominent enough. They don’t run for election, and leave it to the likes of s/o JBJ, GMS and Roy to do so. They are also not prominent enough in online commentary, and instead it is the likes of P Ravi, The Indies, Andrew Loh and the other Ang Moh Tua Kees who hog all the limelight over issues like Amos and Kho Jabing.

A pity really. Even on TRE, Chris’s comments will not doubt be drowned by the incessant useless noise of the cybernuts.

The trick for Dr Chee and friends is to connect with the swing voters, not the TRE nuts and otherb anti-PAP paper warriors. Happily for the PAP, they keep on playing to the rabble that will always vote against the PAP, ignoring the swing voters. They reach out to the swing voters only at election time. They should learn from the WP: ignore the loonies because they’ll always vote against the PAP.

Why PM won’t heed Jap PM’s tots

In Economy, Japan, Property on 29/05/2016 at 1:05 pm

Foreword: Chris K (A S’porean FT living in Japan) commented on Facebook on this piece. I’ve worked his comments into the original piece and added some background info. Hence this retitled piece which is an expanded and reworked version of the earlier piece.

…  ….

Prime Minister Abe … in his latest op-ed in the WSJ says that if developed countries are facing a future of low or no growth, and shrinking populations, then perhaps governments should focus on improving living standards and not simply chase high economic growth rates.

Well as S’pore is now facing a future of low growth and a shrinking population, unless FTs are let in by the cattle-truck load, the PAP administration should focus on improving living standards and not simply chase high economic growth rates?

After all Goh Chok Tong said we should be like the Japanese. And PM and ministers cite Japanese practices: here, here and here.

But then the PAP can’t let in its beloved FTs to eat S’porans’ breakfast, lunch and dinner and all snacks in between. FTs are needed to spur S’poreans to be as cheap to hire as FTs are, despite the higher cost of housing etc here. Hard Truths are more important than the well-being of S’poreans?

Here’s what Chris K says about life in a stagnant, past its prime Japan

Lived in Japan 1990-1995 and then again from 2006, the difference between the 2 periods in my view is that it is more livable today than before despite all the “bad news” of stagnation and deflation. Working hours have steadily declined despite shortage of labour. Total Fertility Rate has gone up.

(Btw, a few yrs ago I reported that HSBC showed that Japan was doing pretty well)

Life can be good in a country with a shrinking population and deflation. The PAP juz doesn’t like stagnation, deflation and a shrinking population.

Chris K then goes on to criticise the PAP’s administration policies here. Pay attention to (and think hard about) the section beginning the entire pension and healthcare proposition have under LHL been tied to ever-increasing real estate prices …

But I completely agree with Cynical Investor, the PM won’t be heeding Abe’s advice. Why? Just 2 simple things.

First the government salaries are marked to GDP growth despite the factthat in today’s digital economy GDP is a terrible measure of progress since many improvements and convenience in life comes free (think on-line shopping vs going to shops) or below cost, thus understating the impact on GDP growth. So nuts and bolts, brick and mortar still rule their head even if they have to accept the digital challenge.


Harry and Dr Goh has things easy when  running S’pore. They grew the economy and jobs and wage rises followed.

Nowadays GDP is decoupled from jobs and wages. I wish someone would do a similar chart for S’pore.

——————————

Second, far more importantly, the entire pension and healthcare proposition have under LHL been tied to ever-increasing real estate prices (think downgrades and LBS to finance you and your parent’s healthcare and pensions). That means forget about quality of GDP growth, quantity is the game where large increases in population are required not just for those nuts and bolts, brick and mortar but with the benefit of keeping real estate prices elevated.

If you think we have a real estate bubble that may or may not be deflating, then equally we then must have a bubble in the government’s projections for our retirement and healthcare. Both are inexorably linked, one cannot exist without the other because of the use of CPF for housing. So 6.9m is a done deal, 10m a very likely eventual outcome. More foreign labour supply to hold down wages, a more crowded country, more stresses and greater wealth disparity. At some point this will stop and then this country will have an almighty day of reckoning.

Long term, anything can happen

In Uncategorized on 29/05/2016 at 5:12 am

The PAP administration likes to boast that the PAP’s hegemony in local politics  enables them to plan for the long-term.

Some three-and-a-half centuries ago the Dutch shook hands on what is possibly the most misguided trade deal in history. Pursuing a monopoly in the spice trade, Amsterdam agreed to take one small island in eastern Maluku province from the British in return for another small island in the US — Manhattan.

(FT I think)

But in the short-term the Dutch were right.

Maybe PM should heed Jap PM’s tots?

In Economy on 28/05/2016 at 12:25 pm

Prime Minister Abe … in his latest op-ed in the WSJ says that if developed countries are facing a future of low or no growth, and shrinking populations, then perhaps governments should focus on improving living standards and not simply chase high economic growth rates.

Well as S’pore is now facing a future of low growth and a shrinking population, unless FTs are let in by the cattle-truck load, the PAP administration should focus on improving living standards and not simply chase high economic growth rates?

After all Goh Chok Tong said we should be like the Japanese. And PM and ministers cite Japanese practices: here, here and here.

But then the PAP can’t let in its beloved FTs to eat S’porans’ breakfast, linch and dinner and all snacks in between. FTs are needed to spur S’poreans to be as cheap to hire as FTs are, despite the higher cost of housing etc here. Hard Truths are more important than the well-being of S’poreans?

Making victims of cybercrime pay: So PAPish

In Banks, Humour on 26/05/2016 at 5:08 pm

But it’s the UK, not S’pore.

The FT reports that UK bank customers may have to cover cost of fraud under new proposals. Under the plans, individuals or companies with lax online security could find themselves  without banking services or even excluded from the system under which banks compensate customers whose accounts are hacked.

Bet u this will happen here first. It’s so PAPish. It’s a Hard Truth to favour big biz over the little people, is it  not? Harry must be turning in his metaphorical grave.

Big breasts like triple A status and budget surpluses have a downside

In Financial competency on 25/05/2016 at 1:53 pm

(I’ve juz binned the piece I did this morning and rewritten it.)

When a PAPpy boasts about S’pore’s Triple A rating, e-mail to that PAPpy or post a comment asking: “What benefits do the issuer get for a triple A rating versus a double A and what benefits do they give up?”. A bond strategist at BlackRock quoted by the FT asked this question in the another context. He was talking about corporations issuing bonds, but the reasoning applies to countries too.

Triple A status is a virility symbol like extra-big breasts or muscles. Btw, a UK celebrity (She was the partner of Dwight Yorke — Remember him?) with extra-large breasts had to undergo surgery to make them smaller. She was suffering from backache from her frontal heavy load.

Here’s two FB posts from Chris K who was a capital markets man, and self-confessed geek on the impacts of macroeconomic policies on capital markets that explain why triple A status and budget surpluses are not good for S’poreans. (Emphasis mine)

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office Chan Chun Sing also said at the rally that Dr Chee wanted to give the impression that “we are cheating Singaporeans”. But the market was not stupid, he said.

“Why is Singapore one of 11 countries in world that has triple-A ratings from all three credit rating agencies?” he pointed out.

I’ll answer it for Chan Chun Sing even if he avoided the essential truths of the triple-A rating. That rating is mainly based on

1. The constitution rule that forbids the government from running deficits over the parliamentary term.

2. The massive year-on-year budget surpluses ran by the government, amounting to an average of nearly 10% of GDP per year over the past 15 years alone.

Those budget surpluses that underpins the government finances do not appear out of the blue and they certainly do not result from some magical fiscal policy formula. Those surpluses results from selling land at ever increasing prices, excess returns from investing debt proceeds which includes CPF and low social expenditures.

In other words, those triple-A ratings are paid for by the people and by denying them financial security in retirement and healthcare.

And just to be clear, Norway and Singapore are the only ones among the 11 triple-A rated countries that have long term budget surpluses. That means countries do not need to have budget surpluses to be rated triple-A, sustainable deficits will be enough. Norway’s long term surpluses are from natural endowments, Singapore’s…… let’s put it this way, a transfer of wealth from households to the state.

And

Despite being backed by the nearly 10% of GDP a year long term budget surpluses, the triple A ratings have little direct to benefit to households. The surpluses are not without consequences to households since they are derived from land sales at increasing prices and denial of social benefits both leading to inadequate retirement and healthcare funding, and to an acceptance of high levels of inequality.

Do read the full post

https://www.facebook.com/notes/chris-kuan/tax-benefits-and-singapores-barely-useful-triple-a-rating/481998245323602

To conclude,  triple A status and budget surpluses, like big breasts can be a problem.

MU’s woes foreshadow S’pore’s woes post PAP

In Footie, Political governance on 24/05/2016 at 4:54 pm

José Mário dos Santos Mourinho Félix will according to a FT reader, based in his track record, do the following

year 1, build the team and squad that you want and get the players to bend to your will; year 2, win lots of trophies and years 3 or 4, move on. With the possible exception of Madrid, it’s worked every time.

I bet it won’t work for MU too. MU. like Barcelona, Bayern, Real and Milan, are in a different universe From Chelsea, Porto and Inter. The fotmer are clubs that have a history of success since year zero or thereabouts. Mourinho is a great manager of clubs with lesser traditions of success. Real shows he can’t manage the really great clubs.

Interestingly the FT just carried an interview with Munich-bound Carlo Ancelotti. He likes working in “family” footie clubs like Milan (where he won honours — Champions League, Serie A — as a player and manager) and Bayern. Surely that term fits MU?

I always tot he’d be good for MU.  But would MU be good for him? That I doubt because MU is rebuilding after a long period where one man dominated.

In MU. we can see what will happen to S’pore post PAP rule. A real hard slog for S’poreans with lots of trips down blind alleys, and lots of u-turns. And a lot of heart ache and loss of prosperity.

But keeping the status quo (i.e. PAP hegemony based on LKY’s Hard Truths as modified by the natural aristocrats to keep the S’porean rabble contented which is what is happening already what with the increases in spending of the rabble’s own money to keep them from voting for the Oppo) which Ferguson tried with Moysie is not a solution.

Everything has its shelf-life. Ask the USSR communist party or the US Republican Party. Even LKY expressed doubts that the PAP could like Old Man River keep on rolling.

He knows his history. The only party that has survived and thrived for centuries is the Conservative Party of the UK. It had been in power for long periods in the 19th and 20th centuries, and returned to government in 2010. It is successful partly because it had, time and time again, to reinvent itself or become irrelevant. Liberal democracy forced it to change. We know don’t we that the Hard Truths and liberal democracy are incompatible?

 

No need tea parties to recruit top PAPpies

In Uncategorized on 21/05/2016 at 2:21 pm

 

 

Can data crunching tell you the best candidate for a job vacancy?

Any established organisation will have a group of very successful people in it – employees who fit and perform outstandingly well.

They are already there, and every day they generate hundreds of bits of data about the way they go about performing so well – productive salespeople, for example.

So one way of recruiting is to use number-crunching computer power to assess the traits of the outstanding people a company already employs… and then shortlist potential new recruits by comparing them with established corporate high performers.

But doesn’t that lead to companies hiring only people who most resemble what the company is like here and now? Doesn’t the use of Big Data tend to drive out vital diversity?

Not necessarily, says Bill Nowacki, because of the subtlety of the analysis process. At KPMG they’ve built a model which incorporates 10,000 different data points generated by a single individual. That’s millions of bits of data about a group of individuals in a big firm.

Number crunch those intelligently, and important signals may emerge. Bill Nowaki calls that “training” the algorithm by reviewing the data generated by previous recruits and comparing that with the current results – who stayed, who was promoted, who performed well.

You see what’s emerging here? A new complex model of an organisation viewed through the Big Data prism that the people who work for it generate every day. The very practical aspects of their working life, obviously, but also the relationships and interests they mention in their social networking.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36129046

Chipping away at PAP hegemony

In Political governance on 15/05/2016 at 1:59 pm

But first, a truism: if the public are not buying the product politicians are selling, no end of stunts and clever tricks or lies will convince voters to change their minds. Tan Kin Lian, Goh Meng Seng, s/o JBJ, Roy Ngerng, Tan Jee Say, M Ravi, New Citizen Han Hui Hui. Lina Chiam and, of course, Dr Chee, can testify to this fact. Sadly so too can Dr Paul Thamby, Dr Ang Yong Guan, the WP teams in Marine Parade and East Coast and P Ravi.

Now, having reminded that voters are like consumers of beer or soap in that they have to be persuaded, here’s my constructive, nation-building solution on how to chip away at the PAP’s hegemony. Those challenged for time can skip the next three paras and start at “Cherian George …”

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

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

So being willing to accept reality waz to be done?

Cherian George had an insight that he never developed. In a piece last year he grumbled that the PAP had succeeded in persuading S’poreans that freedom of expression was not a good thing. Actually the list is a lot longer. The PAP has made  Western constitutional democracy, universal values, civil society, neoliberalism and “the West’s idea of journalism”*, progressives ideas allbad products, not suitable for sheep us.

Well if a brand is toxic, what do good marketeers do? Detoxify and repackage i.e, rebrand. Example: In the USA  shareholder [a]ctivism has gone from being frowned upon, something that marks you out as a rogue or a maverick, to almost socially responsible. The shareholder activists rebranded themselves as good responsible corporate citizens, not greedy corporate raiders.

But who can do the rebranding of progressive ideas here? Certainly not the two leading Oppo parties. The WP is too timid and its elected MPs only interested in protecting their sinecures, while the SDP is toxic, so long as Mad Dog Chee leads it. And the minor parties are also useless, the

— Chiams’ Party is only interested in slimimg Dr Chee;

— NSP is discredited so long as it has a president who never told voters of his criminal record and bankruptcy;

— SDA is asleep between election;

— RP, PPP and DPP are one-man shows and

— SingFirst is run by retirees for retirees.

—————————————————-

The French economy minister is ambitious but has no political base Mr Macron has never been elected—he was economic adviser at the Elysée before being appointed economy minister in 2014—and is not even a member of the Socialist Party. He has only a handful of parliamentary deputies behind him, and no local, grass-roots network.

And his party is way behind in the polls.So what does he do? He has started a movement: He insists that, for now, his movement is about ideas, not politics. The plan is to build a virtual network online and through social media, using public opinion to construct support outside traditional structures. Mr Macron, though, is known to harbour his own political ambitions, and France will hold a presidential election in 2017. There is a giant leap between a one-man thinking outfit, however refreshing, and a political movement that can gather sustained electoral momentum.

(Quote from Economist blog)

———————————————————

In S’pore, those who want political change have no representation in parly except for Leon the Lion and his fellow NCMPs and no local, grass-roots network. So they == I’m thinking of people like Richard Wan, Dr Ang Yong Guan**, Yeoh Lam Keong (the ex-GIC economist), Siew Kum Hong, P Ravi***, Dr Pauk Thamby****, Eric Tan (Remember him?), Peter Teo (WP’s go-to lawyer, Remy Choo (co-founder of TOC and now a lawyer) and Affin Sha — should get together and start a movement … about ideas, not politics. The plan is to build a virtual network online and through social media, using public opinion to construct support outside traditional structures. 

This movement’s big idea should be to market progressive ideas like Western constitutional democracy, universal values, civil society, neoliberalism and “the West’s idea of journalism” professionally and responsibly.  They should also market these values as a package that can promote material well-being not juz human rights.

This package should be marketed like an existing European heritage beer that is popular around the world but reviled here (bad marketing in the past and dirty tricks by the dominant players).

———————————————

Here’s an alternative marketing strategy — using a campaign based on shock tactics

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-36024782

But remember, its been tried here before by Dr Chee and JBJ. Remember Dr Chee’s civil disobedience activities? Remember JBJ’s allegations of PAP corruption? And the rabid stuff put up by TOC and TRE regularly?

——————————–

The main platforms will be social media and the internet which in S’pore are friendly to progressive ideas. TOC and TRE can play a big part but keep the sabo-king the Indian away. Remember how it fixed Dt Chee with the story about “a Dr Tan Wei Ling” supporting a petition in favour of Dr Chee, plastering a big picture of Harry’s daughter for better effect? She reacted by dissing Dr Chee. The PAP could not have asked for more from Balji, a shareholder of the Indi and an editorial adviser.

This marjeting of progressive ideas campaign will be a peaceful form of the guerilla warfare practiced by Mao, Fidel and Che.

The best insurgency strategy is to win the propaganda war, erode your opponents’ support base and offer an alternative that keeps your supporters onside: taz how I interpret what Mao, Fidel Che as saying about successful guerilla warfare.

They won didn’t they?


*Like the CCP, the PAP is worried about progressive ideas:Western constitutional democracy, universal values, civil society, neoliberalism and “the West’s idea of journalism”

In  China, the CCP’s concerns were made clear in a document that began circulating in secret in April 2013 and was later leaked. Document Number Nine, as it is called, describes “the current state of the ideological sphere” and identifies seven challenges to it. They include Western constitutional democracy, universal values, civil society, neoliberalism and “the West’s idea of journalism”

**I’m assuming he resigns from SingFirst.

***I’m assuming the Chiams kick him out of SPP for giving his backing to Dr Chee in the Bukit Batok by-election when it was clear that Lina Chiam was trying to destroy Chee’s credibility: Oppo sabo Oppo.

****I’m assuming Chee does what he usual does to those than threatrn his power. Think Jeremy Chen and Danny the SDP Bear.

Reasonable to mistrust Pinoys?

In Uncategorized on 14/05/2016 at 5:22 am

After S’pore said that a Facebook post showing Lee Hsien Loong appearing to endorse Mr Duterte was false, he talked about burning a S’porean flag.

Still 77% of the Pinoys working here voted for him.

So many hate us meh? Despite many stealing S’poreans’ breakfast, lunch, dinner, supper and in-between snacks.

Seriously, can we trust the Pinoys whenever they say anything nice about us?

The Pinoys say they adore Pope Francis and the late Corazon Aquino.

Yet Rodrigo “Digong” Duterte said, “Pope, son of a whore, go home. Do not visit us again.”. And in a row with the outgoing president, son of Corazon, he called the president, “son of a prostitute”.

Yet 39% of Pinpys voted for him (an overwhelming number, given there were five presidential candidates).

Reasonable to mistrust Pinoys? Be wary of them? Cut immigration of Pinoys here?

What do you think?

60-70% of the voters happy with trade-off?

In Humour, Political governance on 11/05/2016 at 1:40 pm

But first did you know the ratio of milk produced to manure produced?

2,500 prolific pedigree bovines were producing 30,000 litres of milk a day, as well as a staggering 100,000 kilograms of manure.

(Economist blog)

Translated into Singlish: Want PAP, got to put up with the BS: a lot of it.

But obviously most voters think the deal worth it.

Taz also my summary of  a chim, long-winded piece by a strategist for the M’sian DAP on why S’poreans vote for the PAP.

http://www.academia.edu/22666466/James_Chin_The_2015_Singapore_Swing_Depoliticised_polity_and_the_Kiasi_Kiasu_voter

S/o JBJ is absolutely right

Kenneth J: Stop Complaining, Singaporeans, You Get the Government You Deserve

But he forgot that most S’poreans are matured. They know that there is trade-off, just like between milk and turd.

 

Would this happen in a one-party state?

In Political governance on 10/05/2016 at 1:51 pm

Even in a country like the UK with its long tradition of fair play, an active and usually liberal civil society, and independent institutions, it took almost three decades to uncover a cover-up and a perversion of justice about 96 men, women and children who died in the Hillsborough stadium disaster in April 1989.

The cover-up has taken almost three decades to be torn down. A government inquiry, the Taylor Report, concluded that the disaster was caused primarily by a failure of police control. The inquest into the deaths of the victims was completed in 1991 and recorded a verdict of accidental death. The refusal of the families to accept the inquest’s findings led to a campaign to have the evidence re-examined. This eventually led to the formation of independent panel, which in turn resulted in a High Court decision in 2012 to order a new inquest. That investigation concluded on April 26th with the very different verdict of unlawful killing.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2016/04/economist-explains-18

The critics of the PAP administration would point to the SGH tragedy, the deaths during NS training, the frequent MRT breakdowns as examples of our Hillsboroughs that need exposing.

Even without going so far, the official response to the SGH tragedy “no one is really responsible” (my interpretation of what the Health Minister said in parly leaves a bad taste in the mouth. As does the failure of accountability in SMRT and other TLCs and GLCs when goof-ups occur (think NO and, SGX for starters).

In a one party-state, the party must be protected against the people.

In  China, a de jure one-party state the CCP’s concerns were made clear in a document that began circulating in secret in April 2013 and was later leaked. Document Number Nine, as it is called, describes “the current state of the ideological sphere” and identifies seven challenges to it. They include Western constitutional democracy, universal values, civil society, neoliberalism and “the West’s idea of journalism”

Now isn’t our very own PAP worried about Western constitutional democracy, universal values, civil society, neoliberalism and “the West’s idea of journalism”. 

To end, only in a de facto one party state,

— can the loser in a by-election who lost by 22 points can say “[I]t doesn’t feel like [a] loss”.

= and for anti-PAP cyberwarriots (more likely to be nutty than rational) to proclaim that the PAP should be afraid, very afraid because it only won by 22 points.

Dr Chee thinks we Pinoys isit?

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

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

—————————————-

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

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

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

————————————————-

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

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

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

——————————————————————

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

————————————————-

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Where Buffett & PAP agree

In Uncategorized on 09/05/2016 at 8:36 am

From NYT’s Dealbook last Monday

WARREN BUFFETT TALKS OF SHARING THE WEALTH Nebraska has just hosted Berkshire Hathaway’s annual meeting, also known as Woodstock for Capitalists, at a time when Bernie Sanders has beaten Hillary Clinton in the Democratic caucuses and younger generations are questioning the very premise of capitalism.

This has not passed Warren Buffett by, Andrew Ross Sorkin writes in DealBook.

“You should be questioning it at that age,” Mr. Buffett said in an interview.

He acknowledged that the system “left too many people behind,” but said Mr. Sanders’s solutions were “are very off base.”

As for those skeptical young people, he said “The conclusion shouldn’t be to kill the golden goose.” Instead we need to make more eggs and better distribute them.

Now doesn’t “[W]e need to make more eggs and better distribute them” sound like what the PAP is telling us about “Growing the pie”? What do you think?

NYT Dealbiil goes on: Indeed, there was talk at the annual meeting of the businesses that power the economy and spur employment that perhaps required a slightly broader audience.

Mr. Buffett has mostly managed to avoid becoming a political target, in part because he is described as a compassionate capitalist. But critics say his folksy image is just for show, pointing to his partnership with 3G Capital, a company known for running a lean organization, and the wealth he has tied up in Berkshire, which itself is run to limit his tax bill.

But for a new generation entering the workplace with reasonable questions about the opportunities available in the current system, Mr. Buffett could provide another perspective, Mr. Sorkin writes.

“Twenty years from now, there’ll be far more output per capita in the United States in real terms than there is now,” Mr. Buffett said. “In 50 years, it’ll be far more. No presidential candidate or president is going to end that. They can shape it in ways that are good or bad, but they can’t end it.”

White Mare bites Chee

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

More

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SMRT: Still no hati-kiri meh?

In Infrastructure, Political governance on 26/04/2016 at 3:07 pm

(Update at 4.30 am on 27 April: Came across a great comments on Facebook: When train services were disrupted in 2012, the Board said it hold the CEO and management responsible. A COI was subsequently called. Now trains break down ever so often plus the fact that two staff died on the job, What has the Board of SMRT got to say?

And this: Minister Khaw made a Facebook post about the 100 day achievement but has been oddly silent after the repeated breakdowns right after

But let’s be fair: maybe he realised that his previous “100 day” comment provoked Nemesis to punish him for his hubris. He didn’t want us to suffer because he talks cock.)

Let alone a deep bow of apology?

Mitsubishi Motors President Tetsuro Aikawa bows during a press conference on April 20, 2016 in Tokyo, Japan

(Japanese CEO of Mitsubishi Motors recently apologising for corporate misbehaviour )

Yesterday, when the SMRT reported what went wrong when two trainees died and where thetr was a massive failure of train services, I was reminded that the PAP administration talks the talk of about following Japanese values; while not walking the talk,

GCT was keen to stress Jap values so long as they didn’t apply to the PAP administration and Khaw only when they applied to the WP.

Where was GCT’s and Khaw’s Jap style of responsibility from the head of SGH and the senior official in MoH?

And why no bowing at SMRT?

Actually this is this the kind of Jap behaviour the PAP administration prefers? CEO takes cover.

But I’ll end on a constructive, nation-building note

Here’s something from the BBC on how to admit mistakes without admitting that one has personally made a mistake. PAP ministers and others should take note.

Going back further still, in 1961 John F Kennedy faced a news conference days after the failed CIA-sponsored invasion at the Bay of Pigs in Cuba.

Despite saying he had no more to add on the debacle beyond an initial statement, a reporter asked about conflicting information surrounding a “certain foreign policy situation”.

“There’s an old saying that victory has 100 fathers and defeat is an orphan,” Kennedy said in his reply.

That neither he nor his administration had anything more to say at the time was not to conceal responsibility, he said, because “I’m the responsible officer of the government”.
All in the wording.

Admitting fault is a political minefield. As political scientist Daniel W Drezner wrote in the Washington Post last year, it brings few benefits: an admission is unlikely to change critics’ minds and could damage supporters’ confidence.

While some commentators on the BBC website praised Mr Obama’s candour, others said he should have chosen the healthcare reforms as the focus of his contrition: something he instead picked as a highlight of his presidency.

And long before the 24-hour news cycle, presidents were careful when acknowledging faults.

In a 1876 report on his presidency, marred by political and financial scandals, Ulysses S Grant said “mistakes have been made, as all can see and I admit it”, according to Safire’s Political Dictionary.

Or in other words: “Mistakes have been made. But not necessarily by me.”

Catch-22 for PMETs

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

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

(FT article on Indonesia)

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

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

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

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

What to do meh?

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

Vote for Robin Hood anyone?

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

Feared by the bad, loved by the good

Robin Hood, Robin Hood, Robin Hood

 

He called the greatest archers to a tavern on the green

They vowed to help the people of the king

They handled all the troubles on the English country scene

And still found plenty of time to sing

 

Robin Hood, Robin Hood, riding through the glen

Robin Hood, Robin Hood, with his band of men

Feared by the bad, loved by the good

Robin Hood, Robin Hood, Robin Hood

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

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

HARD TRUTH that PM & sis must obey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should PM Lee sue his sister?

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

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

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

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

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

Related post

 

 

 

 

Why doesn’t Harry’s daughter object to this?

In Political governance on 13/04/2016 at 1:48 pm

Dr Lee thinks Pa’s wish not to be venerated is being ignored and that there’s an active campaign by the PAP administration  to venerate him.

As yesterday’s post showed, I take her concerns with a large pinch of salt, finding her rantings funny, in a black comedy way. I think she is genuine in her feelings, but the evidence she cited doesn’t support her.

I tot the u/m touching if kitschy

Two young children pose for a photograph against a mural made out of nearly 5,000 Singapore country erasers forming the likeness of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, during a tribute event in Singapore, 20 March 2016.

Ms Lee singled out the creation of a portrait of her father made up of nearly 5,000 erasers as a commemorative event which she felt uneasy about

Now if she had objected to the workbook titled “LKY: Follow That Rainbow, Go Ride It” (the book on LKY’s values etc that SPH published) that is being distributed to kids up to age 18 (publication run 200,000 copies), I’d agree with her on the issue of veneration. But somehow I don’t see her ever objecting to that book or others of its kind: “Pa” would surely have no problem about a book on him being used to perpetuate the PAP’s hegemonic rule  here.

Veneration, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

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

My favourite caroon on the subject

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

Or maybe she’s thinking like Humpty Dumpty?

“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’ ” Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’ ”
“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. “They’ve a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they’re the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!”

Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking-Glass

The book is not “veneration”, it’s to remind us of his values. Err, I’m sure the same was said of Sun Yat Sen’s mausoleum by those who wanted to revere him.

 

Are Dr Lee’s concerns about “Pa” being venerated justified?

In Political governance on 12/04/2016 at 2:04 pm

Or juz the imagination of a grieving child, used to getting her way?

Let’s look a someone who was venerated: Sun Yat Sen.

Taiwanese media has also reported on the spat between Singapore prime minister Lee Hsien Loong and his sister Dr lLe Wei Ling. Taiwan is a very relevant example. When the father of republican China Sun Yat Sen died in the 1920s, many Chinese mourned him, just as many Singaporeans mourned Lee Kuan Yew when he died one year ago. Sun’s successor, venerated Sun in a way that Lee Wei Ling objected to, by building a huge mausoleum for Sun and asking all chinese soldiers, students and officials to bow to Sun’s photo. Chiang’s idolisation of Sun did not prevent him from forfeiting the mandate of heaven and losing mainland China because of his incompetent and corrupt rule.

(This is a Facebook post by one Toh Han Shi,  an ex-ST journalist now working for the People’s Daily HK edition South China Morning Post (now owned by Jack Ma). I edited it because he doesn’t believe in using capital letters.)

Err somehow I don’t see the PM and the PAP trying to venerate Harry Lee like that.

—————————————

At least 100 events were organised for the one-year anniversary, ranging from solemn ceremonies and a candlelight vigil to tree-planting and kayaking events.

Wax statues of Lee – widely known as LKY – and his wife were put on public display with flowers laid at their feet, a schoolbook teaching Lee’s values was launched, while some ardent fans online even claimed to have seen his face in the clouds.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-36012257

Two young children pose for a photograph against a mural made out of nearly 5,000 Singapore country erasers forming the likeness of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, during a tribute event in Singapore, 20 March 2016.

Ms Lee singled out the creation of a portrait of her father made up of nearly 5,000 erasers as a commemorative event which she felt uneasy about

———————————————

Where’s the huge mausoleum? Where’s the mass forced bowing to LKY’s portrait. Yes I know the Indian alleged one such incident. But come on, the Indi is worse than Jason Chua’s FATPAP, ASS, TRS, STOMP! and TNP combined. And even if true, why no more reports meh?

And really, we wouldn’t stand for Sun style veneration. For starter’s we wouldn’t want to spend money on a huge mausoleum given the cost of land, labour and building materials here

Let me be very clear. I’m not saying that there’s no attempt to venerate LKY. There could be. Funnily Dr Lee doesn’t object to something that can reasonably be seen as deification veneration of LKY. More on this tom.

 

 

Too many Indians in the PAP/ Why no good Chinese?

In Uncategorized on 10/04/2016 at 4:13 pm
(Update at 4.25pm: If anyone is wondering why I’m not posting on the White Horse (mare actually) who is behaving like a bull in a china shop because she didn’t get her way, things are happening at warp-speed that a piece I was planning to post is already irrelevant. And her antics are so amusingly entertaining, that laughter prevents serious analysis. Wonder what “Pa” must think?)
When TRE republished this, it provoked this response from a TRE reader. Is he a racist? What do u think? And if so, one of those Indian supremacists ( In a real meritocracy all the leadership positions in the public and private sectors will be held by Indians)? Or a Chinese tua kee racist?  Upset that the Chinese don’t dominate the PAP and S’pore.
Jom:

I have nothing against our local Indians brothers
But I must add that Indians as a race is over represented in pap
And our elite class

We should be mindful that we should not evolve our country into another Bombay
Or Sri Lanka
Not should it evolve into another province of China
Singapore is apparently being dominated by the Indians
We had two Indian president
Chief Justice is an Indian
Chief of local corp DBS is a foreign born Indian
Dpm is an Indian
Law minister is an Indian
Ex foreign and deputy pm was an Indian
Another ex foreign was an Indian
Chief of mas was and is an Indian
Current foreign minister is any Indian
There are at least 4 mps who are Indians
attorney general is also Indian
Come on don’t tell me pap can’t find a good Local Chinese
Are there too many dumb Chinese
If there are it is the fault of one man
The man who killed all good men like chia thye prof
Lim hock sinew, poh see Kai, Francis seow
And many others
The Malays are under represented as well

I know that one man dislike of local Chinese esp Chinese educated and the Malays
Are we carrying on the legacy of this dead mans hatred
Are we perpetuating his cruel and unfounded reason for being biased towards a certain race and his own
I know the Indian community play a very important role in our society
There were and are brave Indians who made many sacrifices for the country who speak up
And fought for the oppressed, the defenceless
But nowadays it is a dying breed
Indeed it is true of all races
There are only a few good men left

Dr chee is the only one leftMost of them succumb to pressure, money, threats, and self preservation and selfishness
An Indian speaking Mandarin is nothing great to boast about
Character is more important than a snake charming
None of the opposition mps can hold a candle to Dr chee
None of them could even spoke up on issues of national concerns
Like unemployment , immigration
They are just there as a token to the delight of pap

Rating: +20 (from 20 votes)

Whoever wins BB, S’pore is the real winner

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

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

——————————————–

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

————————————————

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

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

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

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

———————–

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

 

White Horse fights White Horse

In Political governance on 05/04/2016 at 10:21 am

Who is really ignoring LKY’s wishes?

But first, the spat between Lee Wei Ling and Devandas Nair (example https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154269480746844&set=a.10150263346906844.370932.581221843&type=3&theater) is starting to sound like

Tweedledum and TweedledeeAgreed to have a battle;
For Tweedledum said Tweedledee
Had spoiled his nice new rattle.

And how did that end?

Just then flew down a monstrous crow,
As black as a tar-barrel;
Which frightened both the heroes so,
They quite forgot their quarrel.

Juz remember: White Horse fights White Horse. Two very privileged kids (who should know better) are rowing pub;ocly about who is upholding LKY’s wishes and who is dissing his wishes.

One White Horse (actually a mare) thinks she is the keeper of LKY’s flame (Funny that she never fulfilled his wish for her: that she marry and have a family.). The other White Horse (Gelding really?) is a paid-up member of the administration that Harry built and which turned on his dad.

—————————————————————————–

Gelding: a male horse that has had its testicles removed

———————————————————————

I’m still thinking about the rights and wrongs of both sides. But here are the two major themes that I’m meditating on:

— By claiming “Pa” was not anti free speech “For the cynics who complain that Pa restricted freedom of speech, you are wrong. If your statement is accurate, fine. If it is slander, l will have to defend my reputation in court.”, isn’t she guilty of building a monument to him? A false one with feet of clay?

— And isn’t the PM and the PAP really doing what “Pa” wanted: trying to ensure PAP hegemony forever and a day by propagating stuff like Follow the Rainbow? I mean he wrote self-serving books too didn’t he? DSC_0011

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I’ll end with her failure to understand the regime that Harry built:

My Facebook avatar asked, “She should ask herself why ST “censorsed” her? Fear of the administration where her dad formed and was a leading figure for many a year? She says “For the cynics who complain that Pa restricted freedom of speech, you are wrong.” sounds like something from Evelyn Waugh’s black comedy writings.”

He got two “Likes” from two ex-SPH editors who are pretty decent fellows.

High flyer takes pay cut

In Banks on 28/03/2016 at 10:21 am

CEO of a big UK insurer left to head a big Swiss bank: more prestigious.

He gives  the lie the to Hard Truth that got to pay big bucks to attract talent to be minister. Either that or being minister is not a pretigious job. Btw, I once remarked that ministers needed “danger” money what with LKY’s “Off with his head” attitude even after he moved to the shadows.

FT reported last week:

Credit Suisse’s new chief executive Tidjane Thiam took a big pay cut to join the Swiss bank.

The bank’s annual report shows he was paid SFr1.58m for the six months he worked last year as well as a bonus of SFr2.86m, a package roughly in line with his predecessor Brady Dougan writes the FT’s Laura Noonan.

It annualises to SFr4.57m, a lot less than the £11.8m – or around SFr16.5m – Mr Thiam got for his last year at insurer Prudential. Credit Suisse paid SFr14.3m to buy Thiam out of his Prudential shares, the report showed.

Mr Thiam asked the board to cut his first bonus by 40 percent to reflect the challenging environment the bank was facing, and in solidarity with colleagues including those in global markets where the 2015 bonus pool was cut by 36 percent.

Roy’s case Four questions

In CPF, Financial competency on 23/03/2016 at 2:17 pm

And possible answers

Since Roy had further bouts of verbal diarrhea, after a long spell of good health the noise from cyberspace was supportive of his verbal diarrhea.

Here are four questions that I’ve not heard any anti-PAP warrior, nut or rational ask.

— Why has PM given Roy until 2033 to pay up?

— If PM had not sued, what would have happened in GE?

— If PM had not asked for damages, what would happen in future?

— Why are S’poreans only aroused  when there are allegations of wrong-doing?

Why has PM given Roy until 2033 to pay up?Why has PM given Roy until 2033 to pay up?

In other words, why is PM making payments affordable?

To pay the S$150,000 in damages owed to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong for defamation, blogger Roy Ngerng will start with payments of S$100 a month for five years, his lawyer said on Monday (Mar 14).

These instalments will start from Apr 1, 2016. After five years – from Apr 1, 2021 – Ngerng will have to pay S$1,000 a month until the full sum is paid, lawyer Eugene Thuraisingam said.

In addition, Ngerng will have to pay S$30,000 by Wednesday, Mar 16 for the costs of the Assessment of Damages hearing.

If he pays all the instalments on time, Ngerng will complete paying by 2033.

Why is PM liddat? Answers please given that the “noise” is not giving him any credit for putting Roy on a “never-never: payment scheme, because to give him credit for making defamation ‘affordable” would imply that Ah Loong’s a really nice guy.

If PM had not sued, what would have happened in GE?

If PM had not sued, Roy and M Ravi, as Oppo candidates in AMK GRC would have been entitled to claim that PM did not sue because Roy’s allegations that he stole our CPF money were true.  And this was a good reason as any other not to vote for PM.

And the other Oppo candidates in other wards could also claim that the allegations “must be true” otherwise PM would sue. And this would be a good reason to vote Oppo, even if that Oppo were members of the NSP, a party led by someone who never told us about his criminal conviction and bankrupty.

As it is, almost as soon as PM sued, Roy apologised to PM, claiming that the allegations were untrue giving the lie that he had done research in the issue. Research? What research?

Related post: In 1959, the PAP alleged wrongdoing by a minister. He sat down and kept quiet. He lost his seat and the PAP thrashed his party.

If PM had not asked for damages, what would happen in future?

“… The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) reiterates that we deplore this practice by the Singapore government of using exorbitant and punitive civil defamation suits to silence its critics”

The problem with not pressing for damages is that it than makes defaming the PM a cheap, effective way of becoming a political “celebrity”. Today, Roy, tom Goh Meng Seng, then New Citizen Han Hui Hui, then s/o JBJ. There’ll be no end of those lining up to defame PM or other ministers because there’s no cost to defaming them. And we know how S’poreans love free things, don’t we?

Why are S’poreans only aroused  when there are allegations of wrong-doing?

Seriously, I think that there’s a more important issue than whether PM should have sued or the quantum of damages.

We all know that people* like Uncle Leong etc (self included) have been posting on the relationship of CPF funds and the monies managed by GIC etc for a long time. But the public never took an interest on a matter that should concern them :their retirement and mortgage payment money.

It took Roy’s allegations that PM stole the CPF monies that made the public aware that they could and should better returns than the average of about 3.3% on their balances**.

Surely shumething is wrong, very wrong with the way S’poreans behave? Only when there is an allegation of wrong-doing, do people get aroused and interested.

When my Facebook avatar posted something like the above, he received this totful response from a leading economist and critic of many a govt policy:

What this indicates is that first there is widespread public confusion and mistrust about the CPF, second the CPF system needs careful examination and reform and third until Roy made crazy allegations the government has not seen fit to respond adequately to these issues

I think it’s not just something wrong with Singaporeans but that it shows poor management of policy and public opinion by the government.

More importantly it indicates that in our polity, there are insufficient real channels of feedback on key areas of policy concern that government is genuinely responsive to.

————————————–

*Even one Harry Lee talked about it in the early noughties when he explained that the govt issued a special bond to CPF and the proceeds of the bond went into the govt’s Consolidated Fund.

*You know when an issue is safe to talk about when an NUS academic is reported in the constructive, nation building ST talking about a topic. Such a topic is the link between our CPF monies and the monies managed by GIC.

As the report on 12 January 2016 is pretty short, here’s almost the full monty from BT:

The government can consider partially pegging returns on the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Ordinary Account (OA) to returns generated by sovereign wealth fund GIC, suggested an academic.

National University of Singapore (NUS) economics professor Chia Ngee Choon acknowledged that GIC returns are already distributed to Singaporeans indirectly through, for example, Budget top-ups to CPF accounts.

But linking GIC to the CPF OA interest rate allows for a more direct channel for Singaporeans to enjoy GIC returns should it do well, she noted. “We don’t want to miss the opportunity of having a higher rate.”

Assoc Prof Chia made the suggestion at an academic symposium on social security at NUS on Tuesday.

——————————

Reminders

OA monies earn either the legislated minimum interest of 2.%  per annum, or the three-month average of major local banks’ interest rates, whichever is higher. 2.5% is currently paid out as bank interest rates have been “peanuts”, with the relevant three-month average at 0.21% from August to October 2015.

An extra 1% is payable on the first S$60,000 of a member’s combined balances, with up to S$20,000 from the OA able to attract the extra interest.
GIC achieved a 20-year annualised real rate of return of 4.9 per cent for the financial year ended March 31, 2015. In US dollar terms, including the effect of inflation, GIC’s portfolio generated an annualised return of 6.1 per cent over the 20 years ended March 31, 2015.

——————————————-

To get higher returns on CPF, Assoc Prof Chia also suggested that Singaporeans can transfer excess money from the OA, which is used for housing, to the Special Account (SA), which is used for retirement and which generally pays a higher interest rate of 4-5 per cent a year. The CPF Board can encourage Singaporeans to monitor their OA and SA account balances more actively through sending text message or e-mail reminders, she pointed out.

However, people mightbe wary of transferring OA monies to SA, because the transfer is irreversible. Those who transferred might want to use the money to purchase a more expensive house, she added. She suggested an option to transfer money from the SA back to the OA, perhaps with a penalty or administrative fee.

 

 

Keep calm, juz carry on masturbating mentally

In Political governance on 19/03/2016 at 10:45 am

A wannabe politican and interner celebrity recently poated on FB:

We need to be alive to the dangers of allowing our political leaders to have too much power. We are asking for trouble if we do not have in place sufficient checks, balances and curbs on executive powers. Writer Catherine Lim outlines the dangers in her recent blogpost*

http://catherinelim.sg/2016/02/28/the-next-pap-leadership-more-of-the-same-or-a-whole-new-game/   A super troll posted: Too late. They already have too much power. And how to claw back when they have 70% of the popular vote?

The super troll has a valid point.

Waz the point of KPKBing about the bloody obvious? Really people like these two wimmin and the cybernuts from TRELand give the lie to what this good-hearted kay poh (Btw her son did time for drugs: Doesn’t charity begin at home?) said recently

Former NMP and founding member of AWARE Dr Kanwaljit Soin talked to 938LIVE’s Bharati Jagdish about her peeves: biases and meritocracy in Singapore, and dealing with OB markers.

Kanwaljit Soin: Well, first of all, whenever you express something is not right in Singapore, the first response of the Government is, “Oh, being critical is not good enough. Give us a better answer.” A citizen, who expresses his or her view about something that he or she feels is not right in Singapore is taking the time and trouble to do that. So we have to listen to them respectfully instead of saying, “Oh, don’t be confrontational. Don’t criticise. Be glad that you are in a safe country and all that.” Because what is the role of a citizen? The role of a citizen is to speak up for his or her country. And whether the establishment agrees with that person is another matter.

As long as we don’t break any laws in speaking up against what we feel is not right in the country, we should be allowed to do that. But, to be dismissed with “Oh, you’re being confrontational. Oh, what better ideas do you have than that”…

You don’t necessarily need to give a better idea. I mean, if you have it, you can. The first thing is to express that things are not doing well here.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/ex-nmp-dr-kanwaljit-soin/2595546.html

With people like these wimmin and TRE rats as enemies, the PAP doesn’t need friends.

 

 

 

Cina president: Fixed our minorities?

In Political governance on 18/03/2016 at 5:36 am

When TRE republished this piece on the Malay PAPPy that can thrash Dr Tan Cheng Bock (I called him “Chin Bock” in the piece: can’t remember why, “An honest mistake?”), it provoked the usual nuts. But there was a totful response which contains an explanation of the “unwritten understanding” between the natural aristocracy and the serfs from the minority races, which really I should have blogged about.

harold:
March 18, 2016 at 12:53 am (Quote)
Singaporeans need to get this clear.

At Independence, the leaders then came to the agreement that the President shall always be appointed from a minority group, because it was assumed – and not wrongly – that the Prime Minister, being an elected position, would more likely than not be a Chinese.

So far, all Prime Ministers have indeed been Chinese.

That alone shows that given the opportunity to vote for their leader, Singaporeans do in fact vote along racial lines.

The elected presidency reneged on the promise made at Independence. Thus if the rules are changed so as to allow for minorities as president – and by that I mean QUALIFIED – minorities, and I say this because it is more often than not assumed that minorities are NEVER AS QUALIFIED as any Chinese, which is RACISM – then all the government would be doing is returning to the promise made at Independence.

To the poster who made the claim that Halimah Yaacob is not even qualified for the presidency (see what I mean about the racism?): She is.

The Speaker is equivalent to a cabinet minister, which then qualifies her as President.

I would fully support a President Halimah Yaacob.

Two good insights on the PAP’s “divide and rule” the races:

dusky landspace lordess:

Change We Must:
PAP is a divisive party, why brought up the issue of races. We are all Singaporeans.

Always felt the policies were along racial lines. The help groups are also along racial lines. Hiring policies are also along racial lines. Political candidates are also along racial lines etc …

But must put me at the top of the list when wealth distribution is done.

It cannot be along racial lines as fancied.

I will come and take my rightful share.

And here’s a good dig about that opportunist extraordinaire, TJS,

jojo:

TCB would be the current President had it not for the stupid Tan Jee Say. He was a bloody spoiler. He doesn’t know what he wants in Politics. Where is he and what is he doing now, by the way?

Have a good weekend.

Malay PAPpy that can thrash Chin Bock

In Political governance on 13/03/2016 at 4:15 pm

So Dr Tan Chin Bock wants to be president (For the record, Ftr, I voted for him in 2011.). He obviously hasn’t been reading PM’s lips: that the next president will be a Malay and that the choice of candidates for president will be limited to Malays.

———————————

Yes, yes, I know a nine-member Constitutional Commission led by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon is reviewing eligibility criteria for candidates, the role of the Council of Presidential Advisers, and steps to ensure minority candidates have a chance to be elected from time to time. Still hasn’t PM stated his govt’s preferences? And for the commission to go against the elected govt’s mandate (more than two-thirds of voters)  is to show disrespect to the govt and the voters.

——————————————–

Fair is fair as there has been no Malay PM since the first president (Ftr again, his widow lives a few houses down the street). Btw, wonder if PM means Malay-Muslim or juz Malay? Unlike in M’sia there is no legal requirement for a Malay to be a Muslim in S’pore.

The thinking behind any restriction is that us Cina would prefer any Chinese to any Malay or Indian, even if it’s someone like Tan Kin Lian who lost his deposit at the last PE. And if the Chinese man is Dr Chin Bock (a compassionate, intelligent,  generous, gentleman) even Indians and Malays will vote for him.

But this Hard Truth is false because there’s one Malay who can beat Dr Chin Bock. with very little effort.

Last December, an anti-PAP paper warrior and I discussed who could beat Dr Tan.

————————–

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

—————————

He of course said, “No-one”. I pointed out that there was one Malay PAPpy who could thrash Dr Tan and that he and I would vote for that person: he had commended her in the past.

Yes the person in Halimah Yacob. Going by her credentials, she’d sew up the union, core PAP vote (“Any donkey so long as he or she is a PAP preferred donkey”) and wimmin vote. And because she’s such an intelligent nice, no-airs, capable and compassionate person, she’d get a big share of the swing vote. Ftr, we attended the same law postgraduate class in 1978.

My friend could only sputter, “Malay men won’t vote for her.” I said, “So what? The Malay wimmin, all wimmin, NTUC members, hard-core PAPPy voters and many swing voters will.” I added that I tot she could get more than 59% of the popular vote (i.e. more than Ong Teng Cheong in 1993)

He kept quiet. Or rather he switched topics: to the persecution of Amos the Fantastic.

But as elections are no sure things, I doubt that we’d get the chance to vote in a Halimah Yacob versus Dr Tan fight. Sad because if I’m right and she wins, it’d  kill forever the Hard Truth that Chinese will only vote Chinese even if the better candidate is non-Chinese. But maybe the PAP doesnt want to show that this Hard Truth has feet of clay?

——————————

Origin of “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)

——————————

Better for the PAP to play games on racial, cultural matters with the aim of perpetuating its hegemonic rule.

I end by commending this post where a law professor points out that Nathan was never elected” he was an unelected president, same like Devan Nair etc. Only Ong Teng cheong was the real deal.

Putting Kee Chiu in his place

In Uncategorized on 29/02/2016 at 12:43 pm

When addressing university students, minister-without-portfolio and NTUC chief Chan Chun Sing chided S’poreans for being obsessed with academic grades.

He cited the example of the management team at the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), saying they do not have straights As results, and Singaporeans should emulate them by constantly thinking about “who is going to take their lunch”.

He grumbled,

I spoke to group of parents who said the system was too difficult, too rigid, too much tuition… So I asked, ‘Will you stop sending your son to tuition?’ And they said yes, they will stop if their neighbours stop first.

…Don’t become a yardstick society in which we aimlessly, blindly chase goals regardless of what we’re good at.

…This is something I fear for our society – where everyone goes after the same thing, the same yardstick, and we end up in what sociologists call a ‘prisoner’s dilemma’.

But the former SAF scholar and Chief of Army also talked about Singapore’s brand of “meritocracy” by citing himself as an example of “a single-parent family child” attaining success.

But what if he hadn’t scored good grades? As a TRE reader gvbhunjimk put it: Kee Chiu, in the first place you yourself try going to ITE/stop schooling right after secondary school/study in private see if you today still can get to become a minister and paper general with same speed/possible at all. If it can, then you come talk to us.

Another reader skin so thick put it this way: Why does this toy soldier general thinks he can lecture against the obsession with grades when it is his grades that got him the OMS & PS? Did he not himself all out pursue his quest for academic excellence = top grades in his salad days, knowing a scholarship will get him and his family out of the working class enclave of Macpherson HDB estate?

If he doesn’t feel awkward about giving such advice, there is something wrong about him. Maybe, as i see it, he came from the bottom 10%, single parent family, poor, no social status, no power, no authority, a nobody. Once he became a scholar, overnight, and on a fast track, everything changed for him. Now he has money, power, authority, career, political star. In between, there is a chasm, from nothing to everything. Perhaps it explains why sometimes, he seems … nouveau riche.

People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Someone who benefited (and still benefis) from the PAP administration’s fixation with academic results, should not tell “strivers” not to strive for similar excellence. Is he trying to close the door after he has become part of the natutal aristocracy?  Whatever, his remarks smack of hyprocisy and invites ridicule. Not the way to bcome a future PM or even a DPM.

Leave the clowning to s/o JBJ, Dr Chee or M Ravi.

Some other good comments by TRE readers

Xmen: The whole education system (e.g. streaming, admissions) is based on grades. What is he talking about?

eltmg: Monetary Authority of Singapore study of the top echelons, does this includes our GLCs, GICs, stat boards, cabinet ministers?

Which parents does not want to groom their children for the opportunity to have the career path you are on?

Mr Chan, pls share with us what you need to do to get a SAF scholarship. This would be a great guide to all parents in Singapore.

nihon: how stupid can he be?

first, he said, ‘the poor need concern not money.’

now, ‘no need 4 As’. so can psc award scholahsleep without considering the grades? hypocrite.

no one has 4 As at mas cos they are the older generation, where 2 As and 2 Bs could score a scholahsleep.

now, 4 As also can’t get any awards, unless with distinctions in s papers and eca/cca scores.

unless you belong …

people has broken the A level code. its just a rote learning exercise. the whole system does not develop thinkers, innovators and entrepreneurs. only exam smart clowns and useless bookworms.

 

 

Easy way of avoiding rogue presidents

In Political governance on 25/02/2016 at 1:31 pm

No need to change the constitution. Juz no preferred candidates who were NTUC secretary-generals.

The two presidents that disgraced the presidency were ex-PAP leaders who were NTUC leaders. Devan was drunk when he fondled the Chief Minister’s of Sarawak’s wife in Sarawak at an official dinner.

Ong had an unhealthy obsession about the extent of his powers as jaga in chief. I’ve always tot that he was wasting everybody’s time on the issue of immovable assets and the sale of POSB to DBS. One of these days, I’ll blog on his obsession about keeping the reserves locked up from S’poreans. He wanted us to starve while looking at the gold, noses pressed onto the reinforced plate-glass? See no touch isit?

Tony Tan is an ex-PAP leader and was a leading member of the cabinet. He is doing what the president should do. and (touch wood) he’ll end his presidency on a high note, making the PAP and S’poreans proud that we had an ex-PAP leader who dignified the office, not degraded it, something Ong and Devan did.

They may have been part of the nation-building team of the PAP but they ended their public careers on a really low note esp Devan. Perhaps they went mad in their NTUC days, trying to manage their role as the champion of the workers with their role as senior managers in Harry’s city?

As to the other presidents, non-politicians all, they all upheld the dignity of the office, performing their duties quietly without getting drunk, fondling women or picking fights with the government that had no legal basis. For the last,  there are others who can do the job. There was JBJ, and today there are s/o JBJ, M Ravi, Roy Ngerng and New Citizen and FT Han Hui Hui.

Double confirm, Ah Loong is lucky

In Economy on 24/02/2016 at 3:56 pm

Oil prices collapsed at the right time.

Here I pointed out how lucky Ah Loong was in calling a GE in 2015 before the global economy took a turn for the worse. Here’s another example of his luck.

Recently, while searching my online archives for some historical data, I came across a note to self that I wrote in very late 2014 referencing a piece in the constructive, nation-building media that reported the slow growth in wages since 2011. I commented to self on how this slow growth in real wages would affect the elections in 2015 (Remember by then I had predicted a  GE in 2015.). Nominal wage growth barely compensated for the growth in inflation. Inflation was a problem.

I tot that the slow real wage growth since 2011 reported in the article would mean that it would not be possible for the PAP to win big in coming GE.

But were the economists (they are still employed in the banks today) quoted in the report wrong, very wrong because in 2015:

The median Singaporean worker has seen “significant real income growth” in the last five years – a “really quite unusual” performance when most other countries have seen little or even negative income growth, said Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam.

Since 2010, after the global financial crisis, the median household income in Singapore has grown by 18 per cent in real terms – that is, after adjusting for the increase in the cost of living, he noted at a walkabout at Taman Jurong on Sunday (Sep 3) evening.

“We’ve seen very unusual sustained income growth in real terms, not just for the people at the top, but for the middle class – and in fact, the households in the low-income group have seen slightly faster real income growth than those in the middle,” he said. (CNA)

(I assume he was using the data summarised here.) Note this was said days before the GE.

— The bi-annual survey compiled by Towers Watson’s Data Services Practice also revealed that in real terms, salaries in Singapore will rise 4.4 per cent. The salary increase budget for 2016 is expected to increase 4.5 per cent, according to the survey. (CNA in May 2015).

The collapse in inflation in 2014 and 2015 due to the collapse in oil prices starting in October 2014 changed everything when it came to real wages because even if wage increases were “peanuts”, the collapse in inflation would ensure that wages went up in real terms. And the nominal increase in wages were not “peanuts”: The total wage increase in 2014 stemmed from a basic wage gain of 4.9% in 2014 (a slight decrease from 5.1% in 2013), while bonuses remained unchanged at 2.21 months of basic wages in 2014. (NWC Guidelines 2015/ 2016 published in May 2015)

If anyone is interested, here’s my note to self (Explanation: The Italic bits are the original article which paints a really gloom picture of real wages (remember oil prices had started falling only three months earlier in October 2014). The words in normal font were my comments at the time:

Why not possible for PAP to win early elections big

The PAP is deluded if thinks can win big in an early election. Real wage growth has been slow, really slow.

It’s not the usual suspects raising the issue but the constructive, nation-building media allied to the PAP administration.

For those who have placed the blame for slow wage growth squarely on cheap imported labour, this year’s headline figures in manpower would have been sobering  Despite sharp pullbacks in manpower inflows in the past few years – to the extent that the percentage of vacancies being filled by Singaporeans rather than foreigners this year hit its highest level since 2011 [Can believe Mom’s data meh?].- average pay cheques, after adjusting for inflation, grew by only 0.4 per cent amid tight labour market conditions.

And if Singapore’s struggles with boosting productivity persist, the picture on the wage growth front next year is unlikely to be any rosier, said economists, especially given the poor global economic outlook. The impending cessation of the Wage Credit Scheme (WCS), which subsidises firms for pay raises, will add another chokehold …

The reality

“Companies don’t want their margin to be squeezed. They want to save more, hold on to a profit margin, to prepare for the next year when there’s no more WCS,” said UOB economist Francis Tan. “Once you increase the wages, it will be hard to move them down again. And if the workers are still not as productive as you want them to be, it can be quite dangerous for the existence of the company.”

Labour productivity contracted 0.8 per cent year-on-year in the third quarter, worse than the 0.3 per cent fall in the first half, figures from the Ministry of Manpower showed. The first half of last year registered a 1.3 per cent decline, but this improved to 0.8 per cent growth in the second half.

Why productivity matters [Update in 2016: Still matters, low inflation not withstanding]

The repercussions of flagging productivity, as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has warned, could extend to the whole of the Republic’s economy. With the tightening of the tap on foreign workers pushing up wages more quickly than productivity, not only will firms pass on the higher costs to consumers, but Singapore’s potential growth and competitiveness could also suffer a blow, the IMF said.

FTs needed

DBS economist Irvin Seah noted: “Businesses are unable to pursue more orders because of this labour crunch. This will also prevent them from increasing their top-line, unless the productivity of the existing manpower is able to improve.”

Besides sluggish productivity growth, OCBC’s Ms Selena Ling said companies face pressure from higher rental costs. Singapore is expected to top the rental forecast for Asia-Pacific cities, with a 25 per cent increase in office rents from this year to 2019, based on a report from property consultancy Knight Frank in September.

In adjusting to these costs, business will take into account the differing flexibility of the various types of business costs. Between rental and wage costs, wages provide a “little bit more room for negotiation”, said Ms Ling.

Agreeing, Mr Tan said many companies have been moving towards higher variable components in wages to help buffer against economic cycles.

Workers who benefit from WCS – those earning below S$4,000 – are not considered as vulnerable as low-wage workers. But given the modest growth prospects next year, some economists speculate that the Government could extend the scheme.

“At this moment, it looks like the United States is showing signs of much more broad-based sustained recovery, while the rest of the world is in different stages of recovery and slowdown,” noted CIMB Research economist Song Seng Wun.

Mr Seah, however, noted that the WCS, which represents a form of government transfer, was never meant to last and that the more sustainable approach to boost workers’ pay is to equip them with the right skills.

PAP returns to its roots

“Although I think our fiscal policies are gradually becoming more socialistic in nature, I think the Government has continued to emphasise the need for self-sufficiency and the notion of meritocracy,” he said. “I think such principles should continue to remain the hallmark of our economic policies.”

Employers kanna pay and pay

Indeed, firms have had no choice but to paymore in the stretched labour market, which workers have been quick to capitalise on.

“And it’s not just the blue-collar workers, but the senior and middle management too,” said RecruitPlus Consulting’s managing director, Mr Adrian Tan.

But inflation is rising too, so no real wage growth/ Growth/ What growrh?

Mr Erman Tan, president of the Singapore Human Resources Institute, added that firms will face pressure to keep wage growth at least on a par with inflation. Core inflation, which indicates the rise in everyday out-of-pocket costs, has been estimated at 2 to 3 per cent next year, higher than the 2 to 2.5 per cent expected this year.

“Inflation is still putting pressure on staff. Firms have to make sure staff have the peace of mind to work, so you can change work procedures, change mindsets and invest in automation, leading to improvement in productivity,” he said.

in the push for wages to grow because of productivity improvement. In September, the cleaning industry became the first to adopt a skill-wage ladder as a criterion to secure licensing, representing a breakthrough in lifting the pay of a group of workers who have seen their income stagnate. The Progressive Wage Model was also announced for security guards and will be implemented in 2016.

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

In Political governance on 18/02/2016 at 2:11 pm

Dog outside Lampedusa reception centre

The mottled brown dog paws the heavy wire gates of the reception centre and whines to be let in, rubbing his mangy head on the mesh to try to attract the guard’s attention. The young officer grins as he opens the door;

“You just can’t get enough of these guys can you?” he says fondly as the stray dog makes a beeline for the lunch queue and trots expectantly towards a group of migrants who are spooning pasta from plastic pots.

Inside the reception centre, the brown dog chews contentedly on a sock he’s stolen from an asylum seeker. He rolls onto his back in the dust. Tonight these migrants may all be shipped off, but tomorrow, or perhaps the day after, he knows there’ll be more of them, so his future at least is certain.

[Update at 5.oo pm: Dogs are really smart

— “They hitched themselves to us, which was a pretty good gamble as it turned out, because there are about a billion dogs in the world today and probably not even 10 million wolves.”

— I read somewhere that mature dogs are more intelligent than kids below 5.  So dogs are smaerter than a recently built AI  machine rhar has intelligence of  4 yr old kid.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-34464879%5D

When I read the above, part of a BBC article, I couldn’t help but think of the S’poreans who voted for the PAP. They like this dog want an easy life and so are happy to remain behind barbed wire and fences and be dependent on the PAP. They know the PAP will take care of them. After all they can (and rightly)  point out

— Pioneer Gen healthcare benefits which make medical treatment and retirement home care  almost free for the elderly. This is a great saving for the elderly and their children.

— Blended CPF rate of about 3.3%. Try get that kind of risk-free return anywhere.

— Govt is trying to ensure that the BTO flat does not lose value. And trying hard to ensure hat private housing and resale HDB flats don’t suffer big falls in value.

— Public tpt system is being improved.

— Employees get a real wage increase by increasing employer contributions.

Except for the last, remember that it’s our money that is paying for the goodies. Whereas the dog really gets goodies for free, we don’t. We paid for them in advance. It’s like using yr prepaid mobile card.

The dog gets fed because of human kindness. The only reason the PAP is being generous to us with our money is because in 2011, unhappy voters whacked it real hard twivce. In PE 2011, its preferred candidate (a decent, good man) won by only a few hundred votes from another decent, good man.

Take the goodies. But let’s not be grateful for them. We are entitled to them because it’s our money and the PAP wants to maintain S’pore as a de-facto one party state.

Finally if the administration was less fixated on budget surpluses and doling out goodies, we’d have lower taxes. GST could still be at 5%. [Update at 6.00pm: GIC’s ex-chief economist estimates that S’pore’s budget surplus calculated the IMF way is 7% of GDP.]

So for the swing voters who voted for the PAP out of gratitude, juz remember it’s yr money. If you like me are one of those who are not hard core anti-PAP nuts but don’t vote for the PAP, juz take stuff on offer and remember it’s our money.

Related post: Why people vote for the PAP? Appealing to greedy but gullible people works?

PAPpies keep trying trick that’s obsolescent

In Political governance, Public Administration on 16/02/2016 at 3:27 pm

The internet, new media and social media makes the trick ever easier to detect. Yet they persist in treating this trick as a Hard Truth, even though when caught out it makes them look like Phey Yew Kok and friends. Why do they persist? That stupid and complacent isit? Why liddat?

The above were my tots when GIC’s ex-chief economist (now with the Institute of Policy Studies) highlighted this bit in SunT’s report on an environment assessment report which said the effect of soil testing works on animals and plants in the Central Catchment Nature Reserve could be kept to “moderate” levels if measures to reduce impact are strictly implemented when building MRT tracks in the area.

What does “moderate” mean? The roughly 1,000-page report, seen by The Sunday Times, said a moderate impact “falls somewhere in the range from a threshold below which the impact is minor, up to a level that might be just short of breaching a legal limit”.

Assistant Professor Chian Siau Chen of the civil and environmental engineering department at the National University of Singapore said there are usually five categories under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) framework: Major, moderate, minor, negligible and beneficial.

My FB avatar posted

Thanks for highlighting the scale. So Moderate comes after Major ((((( Reminds me of what Financial Times wrote: “The practice of “reservation” — giving answers that are technically accurate but tactically misleading — was honed by medieval Jesuits ….

‘There is a problem with Jesuitical equivocation, as select committee hearings may show. It makes exponents look shifty if they are rumbled.” In the age of the internet the PAP govt should be learning new tricks, not try to use old tricks that no longer work.giving answers that are technically accurate but tactically misleading

(Emphasis mine)

This reminded me about another recent incident where the literal truth misled and S’pore Technologies was made to look shifty.

Remember the story that we we had PRC parachute riggers?

The u/m appeared on a senior lawyer’s wall

“The SAF continues to fully employ its Riggers, particularly for key operations and training. In order to optimise our resources, we have outsourced the parachute-packing function to Singapore Technologies (ST)”.

Question : If the parachute-packing is outsourced to ST, what do the riggers do?

Answer : Dunno. Answer is (probably intentionally) obscure. One possibility is that the riggers check the parachutes – but the SAF’s answer is far from being a model of clarity.

Question : Has the outsourcing of packing to ST reduced the SAF’s need for riggers?

Answer : Almost certainly.

Question : Are there PRC nationals employed by ST to pack parachutes.

Answer : SAF doesn’t say. Who knows.

Question : Do ST packers have to jump with a chute they’ve packed themselves?

Answer : SAF didn’t say.

And

A very direct allegation (that parachute packing is now being done by PRC nationals) was made, and the answer was vague, and did not contain a denial…… Hmmmm.

Why didn’t the SAF simply state that no foreign nationals are employed to pack parachutes? I hope it’s ineptness in public relations rather than clumsy 1MDB style non-denials.

The rather sad thing is that the newspapers pick up on the SAF response and repeat it verbatim as news, without asking any follow up questions trying to understand what it really means in simple terms.

This is the ‘uncritical’ media culture we have … In today’s day and age, where Singapore is trying to promote risk taking and value creation, the newsmedia culture is somewhat outmoded ,,,

My FB avatar chirped:

Someone in another group informed of a deleted comment. It could explain why SAF aswered the way it did./// “I checked into this. Here’s what I was told:
“There are a couple of PRC Riggers who are under IWF (Integrated Work Force) and work for ST. These Riggers are US certified and will be certified again by the SAF if they have met the requirements and standards. Their pack jobs are certified by SAF Riggers who approve that the parachutes are ready and good for jump. They are only basic trained and perform their job according to their level.””///

The internet, new media and social media make giving answers that are technically accurate but tactically misleading easier to catch and this makes exponents look shifty if they are rumbled. In the age of the internet, the PAP administration should be learning new tricks (like telling the tral truth, not just the literal truth), not try to use old tricks that no longer work like giving answers that are technically accurate but are misleading.

 

 

Why ministers feel poor

In Uncategorized on 29/01/2016 at 12:52 pm

They compare themselves to the Clintons and feel poor beside them: remember a PAP MP implied he did not respect people with low pay? From NYT Dealbook

Mrs. Clinton and her husband have earned more than $125 million in income from speeches since 2001 – one-fifth of that in the last two years. Mrs. Clinton’s speechmaking has been a tour through high finance from GTCR, the Chicago private equity firm that the Republican governor of Illinois, Bruce Rauner, helped found, to Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.

Btw, even Americans think the Clintons made too much money

“Although they needed money, I think that Bill was raking in enough that Hillary didn’t have to do it,” said Ed Rendell, a former Pennsylvania governor, who has supported Mrs. Clinton. “To people who earn $200,000 in seven years, it looks ridiculous.”

And tememmber that M’sia’s PM got US$680m and “kept” only about  US$61m.

How he going to respect our PM if he like the PAPpy eye doctor?

Why U-turn on elected president

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hence the apologists are out prostituing their mental deficiencies.

————————————

We the voters will decide what kind of president we want

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– he gets elected;

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

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

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

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

—————————-

 

Wanted President: Must not embarass the PAP

In Political governance on 21/01/2016 at 1:16 pm

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

The assumption is that the elected president can do serious damage to S’pore. The last time a PAP minister addressed the issue before PE 2011, the Pet Minister made it clear that the constitutional position of the president was jaga only. He has very limited powers that he could exercise by himself. And these are of a custodian nature i.e. jada work. So at best a rogue president can embarrass S’pore.

Well, we had one such appointed rogue president, Devan Nair, who behaved inappropriately when drunk in Sarawak. And he was appointed by parliament wasn’t he? Turned out badly didn’t he? A real disgrace to S’pore and S’poreans. Worse, he alleged he was fixed.

(Related post: The other PAP apologist, one Herod Cheng, on the issue of the presidency)

What Kishore and Cheng should tell us is that history shows us is an elected president can embarrass the PAP administration. Think Ong Teng Cheong and the wayang he staged over inmovable state assets to show us he was a good jaga.

That row made Ong Teng Cheong the hero of the anti-PAP nuts. Funny thing is that if he had his way, the reserves cannot ever be touched. Interest, dividends and capital gains would be locked up in the name of capital preservation. And he’s a hero to the anti-PAP mob? They bleat that the PAP steals our CPF. OTC wanted to locked away from use.

So if the two PAP apologists had argued that the elected presidency should be scrapped because a “rogue” president can embarrass the PAP administration, I’d sit down and shut up because they have a point. But they argue this way because it’d mean that they will no longer be able to grovel, “The PAP is always right.”

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

Ownself contradict ownself. Or should it be Ownself argue against Ownself.

The other black comedy will be to see the Worthless Party of very highly paid social workers (Kate Spade Tin is their poster gal: social work more impt than talking cock in parly) sit on their hands leaving Lion Man to savage the PAP. Yes I’m hoping the WP will not castrate Leon the Lion. Rumour has it that he had things he wanted to say about the internal review of the SDH tragedy that was made public but was told to sir down and shut up by the WP leaders. Let’s see if he speaks up when the tragedy is discussed in parly. If he doesn’t, then there’ll be some truth to the rumour of Low muzzling the Lion Man.

————————————-

*He accused a US regulator of being a rogue regulator, after the regulator went after StanChart. Shortly, thereafter StanChart admitted it was a rogue bank.  The PAP apologist looked like a real cock.

Anti-PAP people, don’t get excited by DPP victory

In Political governance on 19/01/2016 at 10:25 am

In cyberspace the PAPpy nuts are busy slimimg the DPP and calling the Taiwanese stupid, showing how insecure the nutty PAP 35 points are (expect Herod Cheng to comment on the DPP victory, once he’s told what to think)  while the anti-pAP folks (nuts and rational) are drawing parallels between the DPP and the SDP. Remember that once upon a time, Mad Dog Chee was a puppy beside his DPP counterparts. The DPP and SDP have become responsible adult sheep dogs, intent on protecting their flocks.

Two reasons why the DPP won big time

Taiwanese voters have become wary about giving China too much influence over their island, which was one reason for the KMT’s defeat.

The other was the economy. The elections were mainly fought on bread-and-butter issues, such as stagnating salaries and skyrocketing housing prices. Mr Ma’s inability to use ties with China to revitalise the ailing economy, along with party infighting and a badly run campaign, explains the KMT’s worst-ever defeat. Its candidate, Eric Chu resigned as party chairman. The election showed Taiwan wants change; crowds of Ms Tsai’s supporters roared “New politics, new economy, a new Taiwan” during the vote count.

(Economist blog)

All the focus is on the first reason but think about the second; the economy. If the govt had managed to alleviate or mitigate the effects of stagnating salaries and skyrocketing housing prices could it have won?

I don’t know but S’pore has had the stagnating salaries and skyrocketing housing prices but the PAP administration increased its share of the popular vote by 10 points to 70% despite a slowing economy caused by global problems.

The stagnating salaries problem was mitigated by increasing employers’ CPF contributions by one point and by intriPioneer Gen benefits especially in healthcare. This meant that families spent less on their aged parents (examples here), giving them more cash for other needs.

As to the  skyrocketing housing prices, the govt has built more public housing and introduced measures aimed at reducing the attraction of investing or speculating in property.

It could spend more on us because budget surpluses are equivalent to  7% of our GDP. A budget surplus is seen as a virtue even by Western govts (except those the SDP admire) but in S’pore, it can (and should) be seen as a way of keeping goodies* from the voters in “normal times” so that when the rabble are really unhappy (not juz mutinious) with the elite, there’s the rabble’s money to be spent. Ownself spend other people’s money?

Until people like Dr Paul Thamby, Dr Ang Yong Guan, Terry Xu, P(olitican) Ravi, Alex Au and Richard Wan (remember him?) and other intelligent, agood-hearted kay – understand how the PAP games the budget and reserves ecosystem, and communicates this insight to the swing voter, the PAP will remain in power, forever and a day.

—–

*Don’t spend so much, cannot reduce GST meh? Why liddat?

 

PAP’s fault? Pinoy cons target 55%

In Uncategorized on 14/01/2016 at 12:38 pm

I Iot the above when I read on CNA’s website

Online scams: Singaporeans easy targets, says one scammer

Janice* told GET REAL why Singaporeans are easier, more “gullible” targets for scammers like her both in and out of the country.

“Australians are quite difficult and snobbish, so I need to adjust to them a lot. I have to sound extra sweet and very loving, unlike Singaporeans. With them (Singaporeans), I can just say anything and they will easily believe me,” said Janice.

Online dating sites are a common choice for scammers who tend to target men.

Even though a large number of Singaporeans are considered relatively Internet-savvy, some seeking companionship turn to online dating sites where many “love scammers” operate, said experts.

The lack of a language barrier has also made Singaporeans particularly easy targets for international cybercriminals to approach for scams, said experts and scammers like Janice.

According to Norton Cyber Security, victims of online crime in Singapore have each lost an average of US$545 in the past year, higher than the international average of US$358 a victim. Note the local average loss is 52% more than the int’l average.

As to the 55% figure, as I see it, 35 points of this 55%  are, based on PE 2011. hard core PAP voters, while based on GE 2015 about 20 points arethe hard core Oppo voters. The former will always believe the PAP, for example when a miniter says “CPF is yr money”, they’ll believe him and forget about the restrictions on its use.

Or they agree with ministers and the HDB that “HDB flata are affordable” because new HDB flats have remained affordable, HDB said. After all, 2014, first-time home buyers used less than a quarter of their monthly income on average to pay for their housing loans, below international affordability benchmarks of 30 to 35%, HDB said. Adding that about 80% of the first-time new flat buyers also service their monthly installment using only their CPF savings, with no cash outlay required.”

Or worse say “PAP knows better than us our needs”.

The hard core anti-PAP voters are happy to vote for clowns like s/o JBJ, Goh Meng Seng, Roy, and M Ravi because they believed Roy when he said PM stold out CPF money. They even still believe it after he said he had talked cock when making the allegation. He’s so ashamed that he has moved on to photography?

These 55%  are the gullible S’poreans that Janice and others target successfully for their bread and batter.

The kaya is provided by the really guilbe men who voted for New Citizen Han Hui Hui because they think she is good-looking or brainy or both. They are the ones that make Janice rich.

Seriously the remaining 45% of S’potean should be asking ourselves why 55% of us are gullible retards. Having ruled S’poe since 1959, the PAP must surely take some (if not most) of the blame for turning 55% of the people into sheep, or keeping them that way?

After all the education system priduces a headmaster like Mr Chia who can’t analyse a simple issue and who resorts to name-calling (like another famous product of the education system: Amos theBoy Fantastic

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

* Who is she? Janice (not her real name), a 27-year-old wife and mother in the Philippine capital Manila, carries out online scams on a full-time basis. Like many online scammers, Janice was introduced to the business of online scamming by her friends. The attraction of financial rewards was something she could not ignore. Through online scams alone, Janice makes an average of US$2,100 monthly. In the Philippines, that is equivalent to a senior manager’s monthly salary. So lucrative is her trade that she has since introduced the skill of scamming to her neighbour.

Win, win for PAP and Oppo areas

In Political governance on 04/01/2016 at 10:18 am

The PAP administration’s policy of denying residents (even die hard PAPies ans PAP voters) of Aljunied and Hougang goodies funded by tax-payers (including residents of these areas) has failed miserably. Hougang has remained WP since 1991

 

 

 

. Aljunied still remains WP despite the efforts of the PAP and civil servants.

And Potong Pasir may not have fallen in 2011, if Chiam had stood there yet again. The swing voters seemed to have a personal loyalty to him, and didn’t believe that a vote for Lina Chiam was still a vote for Chiam. And then there were the unhappy grass-root activists and voters who didn’t like how the Chiams treated Desmond Lim.

As for putting the fear of other areas turning against the PAP lest they become slums, didn’t work in Punnggol East and Aljunied did it?

Voters know private property and HDB prices are NOT better in PAP areas. Hougang and Potong Pasir house prices didn’t suffer despite the lack of PAP goodies funded by S’poreans.

Maybe if the PAP wants to win 100% of the seats in parly again* and have 78%  again of the popular vote, it should heed the words of the UK’s Former Deputy Prime Minister Lord Heseltine on how to be the dominant party for over three centuries.

I was often asked when I was in Liverpool why do you bother, there are no votes for us there. [He was referring to his govt’s attempts in the 1980s to rejuvenate Liverpool, a stronghold of the militant left-wing of the Labour Party. Still controlled by Labour]

“First of all it was right to bother. And secondly, if you are seen to be bothering in areas which are not traditionally your heartlands, it influences the judgment of people on a much wider constituency basis, often way away from the actually affected areas.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35189867

He should know. As he says of his party,

“It is the most successful political force in the history of democracy. It has held power longer than any other equivalent anywhere in the world.

“They have a nose for power and winning it. I doubt if it will desert them.”

(What he doesn’t say is that party is ruthless in getting rid of leaders once they pass their expiry dates. He played a leading role of getting rid of Thatcher, when she lost her touch of winning elections.)

It is a fact that since the 18th century, the party has seen off the Whigs (extinct), Liberals (almost extinct) and Labour (now in crisis again): a record the CCP, PAP, UMNO and LDP will find hard to match.

So maybe time for the PAP to be the “nice” party, not the “nasty” party, even if the PAP vermin are as nasty as the TRE’s nutty rats. 

And if it does, this guy could be a future minister in a PAP cabinet. 

—–

*But then Even the Ethiopian government looked a little sheepish when the ruling EPRDF party and its allies won every single seat in this year’s parliamentary election. 

The same BBC report ends

Two African countries which have undergone serious conflict in the recent past and are now doing well in terms of economic growth and lower corruption rates are Ethiopia and Rwanda.

Is it a coincidence that both, especially Rwanda, are highly disciplined and place severe restrictions on political and media freedom?

Why do PAPpy vermin hate S’poreans?/ Related to TRE’s cybernuts?

In Uncategorized on 03/01/2016 at 1:11 pm

A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away an emperor of a little red dot said, “Those who go on the internet are unhappy people.”

Three incidents in December reminded me of this saying. And who are the really unhappy people on the internet? They are PAPpies who worship the greatest Sith Lord of all; one Harry Lee. DSC_0011

Remember this? Many S’poreans (self included) were wondering what was a beefy, hulk doing on welfare? But before we found out he was a sick man, the PAPpy dogs (Sorry, my dogs growled) rats and vermin went wild in cyberspace.

They called him and his wife “lazy”, “scroungers” etc and wondered how they deceived their way into getting welfare.

What I found tragically amusing is that these PAPpies had so little faith in the public servants handling the case. It was clear from the video that whatever their failings (and I think there were none), they acted in the belief that he and his wife needed help. If the PAPpies don’t trust public servants administering the welfare policies policies of their beloved 9th immortal, why should the anti-PAP voters trust public servants? DSC_0029

 

 

 

 

Fabrications about the PAP came up with a piece pointing out that although Mrs Chee didn’t work, the family could afford overseas hols. Again the rabid PAppies came out, strong and abusive. Even though I had posted that the Chees could not related to ordinary S’poreans given Mrs Chee’s attitude to “work”, my Facebook avater and other fair-minded S’poreans) pointed out to the vermin that

— the Chees were not on welfare;

— it was the Chees’ choice how they spent their money; and

— maybe Dr Chee was working smart, in line with the govt’s exhortations on producitity.

Surprising the PAPpies fell silent, not turning their abuse on us.

Finally there was the “flag as a table cloth” incident.  Fabrications about the PAP denounced the photos as a fake and made many a seditious statements. Jason Chua’s morons were cheered on by the PAP vermin.

Then Israel apologised after a junior diplomat working at its embassy in Singapore reportedly used the country’s flag as a tablecloth at a party.

You could hear a pin drop as Jason Chua and friends were publicly castrated, and their tecticles hung around their necks.

My question is why the anger and hatred against fellow S’poreans?

I can understand the hatred and anger of s/o JBJ, Mad Dog Chee, Goh Meng Seng, Roy Ngerng, New Citizen Hui Hui, M Ravi, Gilbert Goh, Amos Yee, Constance Singham, Balji (retired imperial stormtrooper general, paper division not happy with his “peanuts” pension?), Tan Wah Piow, Tan Kin Lian, New Old Citizen Pussy Lim, and the cybernuts from TRELand (like Ng Cock Lim, Philip Ang, Dosh and grave-dancer Oxygen).

They are frustrated that 70% of the voters rejected their anti-PAP BS and voted for the PAP.

But the PAP vermin like Jason Chua and friends? What do they have to be angry and unhappy about? They are part of the 70%, so waz there to be upset and angry about? And better still, are the true believers of the Hard Truths* about CPF, and public healthcare, transport and hiusing, keeping the faith when others started having doubts after 2006 GE.

Going by their comments about the Chees and the sick man, I get the sense that despite their chanting of the Hard Truths, they know that they are only one small step ahead of disaster because of the following (Extracts from http://www.aceprofitsacademy.com/5-things-stopping-you-from-retiring-early-s/?cam=outR3hurtS):

Spend too much too soon

Many Singaporeans keep spending away their money, sinking into debt and setting themselves for an insecure financial future. Even without realising it!

And what do many people commonly splurge on? Nice clothes, nice shoes, watches, cars, branded bags. Just so they feel they can keep up with their friends. Or to show off to others.

Or they will feel like they have earned the right to indulge after working so hard. Shopping, restaurants, clubs, bars, and expensive holidays.

And

Letting debt accumulate

Start clearing your debt ASAP, before they creep up on you. Don’t let unsecured debt punch a big hole in your early retirement plans. Most people think they can ‘wait’ till they have enough money to clear their debts. That will never happen, because you’ll end up spending more and more on different things down the road as your lifestyle changes.

And

Lifestyle inflation

Many Singaporeans will spend more money when they have more money to spend. This is called lifestyle inflation and it can do serious damage to your financial future.

They feel entitled, thinking that the more money they can make, the more they have earned the right to treat themselves and their family to better things in life.

I know people who buy better cars after a few years, moved into condos, or travelled further to more exotic destinations.

Even people who are prudent can’t escape lifestyle inflation. For example, after the birth of a child, you need to get a car so it’s way easier to transport your family around. Or after your child starts school, that would mean more money spent on books, allowances, etc. Your situation will change over time and a certain amount of lifestyle inflation is to be expected as your work and family obligations evolve.

And most importantly because of the CPF system, and the public housing and public healthcare systems they worship:

No emergency fund

You need to have plenty of extra money for an emergency fund. This is the money that you need to reserve, in case something bad happens to you. Like getting retrenched, quitting your job, or getting an injury or illness and being forced to stop work. Or the same thing could happen to your family members. And you’d need a large sum of money to tide them over.

(Related post on the fragility of everything)

And maybe also they are long lost siblings of the other bunch of born losers: s/o JBJ, Mad Dog Chee, Goh Meng Seng, Roy, New Citizen Hui Hui, M Ravi, Gilbert Goh, Amos Yee, Constance Singham, Balji (retired imperial stormtrooper general, paper division), Tan Wah Piow, Tan Kin Lian, New Old Citizen Pussy Lim anfd the cybernuts from TRELand (like Ng Cock Lim, Philip Ang, Dosh and grave-dancer Oxygen).

Both groups are the socially excluded of S’porean society, united (without their knowledge) by their envy of other S’poreans, and the belief that they, like Harry Lee, know what is best for S’poreans.

————

*Note “Hard Truths” not the “truth” or the facts on the ground.

 

Rating our public servants

In Public Administration on 29/12/2015 at 6:21 am

A family of kids in the US traumatised by a police raid (the police came in with revolvers drawn thinking that there was a captive in the house: seems the police got a hoax call) developed an app, called Five-O, intended to help improve police behaviour and community relations. It lets citizens rate their experiences with officers, record both parties’ race and sex and the purpose of the interaction, and find aggregate scores for county forces.

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21684687-high-school-students-want-citizens-rate-their-interactions-officers-how-three

Hmm maybe our human right kay pohs (think Maruah, Aware, Community Action Network*, Dr Chee) should bring this in? But given that an app of this nature to rate the police, SingHealth staff and other public sector workers will likely show that the public satisfaction with public services is pretty high (think 70% who voted for the PAP), bringing this in wouldn’t suit their agenda of oppression, bad service and intimidation?

Err what about the PAP bringing it in? Or the Institute of Policy studies? Or even Home Team?

Could even give the PAP 75% in next GE.

—————————–

*CAN: Shelley Thio, Lynn Lee, Joshua Chiang, Jolovan Wham, Jennifer Teo, Woon Tien Wei, Rachel Zeng, Roy Ngerng and Martyn See. This was formed to support Amos the Fantastic but whennhe dissed them for letting him rot in remand, they moved on.

(Related post: https://atans1.wordpress.com/2015/06/15/fool-them-once-shame-on-amos-fool-them-twice-shame-on-them/)

Why PAP (and PMs) sue and sue

In Political governance on 28/12/2015 at 9:20 am

The decision of the High Court ordering blogger and wannabe politican Roy Ngerng to pay damages to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong following a civil defamation suit brought in 2014, brought an outcry from the overseas kay pohs like ICJ and their local groupies (people like Cat Lim, TOC and the cybernuts and rats of TRE like grandfather Dosh*, Oxygen etc).

While neo-colonial and CIA-front organisations, and good-hearted ang moh kay pohs can be forgiven for not knowing our history, their local groupies cannot. They should know better why the PAP sues. And that it has nothing to do with freedom of expression. It’s all about credibility and winning votes. (But maybe they do know their history and are being intellectually dishonest.)

But for the purpose of this rant, I’ll asumme they are ignorant.

Cat Lim’s rubbishy comments shows her ignorance of S’porean history is one reason New Citizens must be taught our history.

Actually this goes for most S’poreans too (Pioneer Gen excluded).

Why PAP sues and sues? It is because it doesn’t want history to repeat itself. At the very least, the failure of a govt minister to sue one Harry Lee in 1959 is a PAP Hard Truth* as to why the PAP won power in 1959.

The PAP administration’s version as articulated by that fount of knowledge, the National Library Board, a govt agency:

During the 30 May 1959 election campaign at Hong Lim Green, the PAP dealt its knockout blow to the SPA (the coalition of the Labour Front and Liberal Socialist Party) by disclosing that the SPA had received large sums of money from foreigners. The scandal which led to the resignation of Chew Swee Kee, who was then the Minister of Education, gave the perception that the SPA was corrupt and had sold Singapore to the foreigners. The SPA was trounced in the election. In the 1963 general election, the party was wiped out. It was dissolved when Singapore became independent.

http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_1149_2010-06-14.html

Actually the article is wrong about the 30 May date: really sloppy work by a govt agency.

In early 1959, Chew was accused of corruption by the PAP. The claim was that Chew accepted around S$50,000 from “an American source” in New York as a “political gift” in September 1958. Chew resigned from his posts on 3 March, 1959, just before a legislative assembly debate on the matter. He had earlier promised to defend himself. But he sat down (ie resigned as a minister and assembly member) and kept quiet. Not content, one LKY repeated the accustation and went on to make further accusations that again were met by silence by Chew and the govt. The named American bank (today known as Citibank) and US consular officials here denied the initial allegation. LKY accused them of lying and they kept quiet.

The unanswered accusations are credited for causing the Singapore People’s Alliance’s downfall. My primary source is Comber.

Update at 10.00am: A reader who knows his history pointed out that the money was established not to have come from the CIA but from the KMT. I should have reported that.

You should do better than regurgitating the false allegations against Chew Swee Kee. They were exposed as untrue by the Lim Yew Hock government which faced them publicly by appointing the late Justice Buttrose to head a Commission of Inquiry into affair. Kenneth Byrne who spread the rumour was grilled by Mr. Winslow (later the Solicitor-General and High Court Judge ) who led the inquiry for the government’ resorted to lying about being informed by a source in the Income Tax department. He related this to both Dr. Toh Chin Chye and LKY who then raised it in the Legislative Assembly. The money, $500,000/-, was from the Kuomintang, and deposited with Chew Swee Kee, who declared it in his income tax returns. The whistle blower, suspected to be a PAP snitch who rose to high position later, was never brought to justice under the Official Secrets Act. Dr. Toh himself breathed a sigh of relief in his later statement to the editors of the book on the early leaders at the close call. Read the Report of the Buttrose Commision which should be available in the National Library. By the way, JBJ represented the Controller of Income Tax in the Inquiry.

The question remainns why the deposit? Never explained.

———————————————————————————–

Singapore Correspondent. Political Dispatches from Singapore (1958-1962)
(http://artsonline.monash.edu.au/mai/new-book-singapore-correspondent/)
by Leon Comber*

Publisher:  Marshall Cavendish International Asia

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

* MAI Adjunct Research Fellow
 

He was Han Suyin’s second husband and was the head of the Malayan Special Branch (one of it’s succesors is our very own ISD). He was asked to resign after she published in 1956 And the Rain My Drink, whose description of the Chinese communist guerillas against the British was very anti-British. He, in a 2008 interview, said: “The novel portrayed the British security forces in a rather slanted fashion, I thought. She was a rather pro-Left intellectual and a doctor. I understood the reasons why the communists might have felt the way they did, but I didn’t agree with them taking up arms.”

  ———————————————

Imagine if PM hadn’t sued Roy Ngerng: Roy and the other oppo politicans (think Mad Dog Chee, s/o JBJ, M Ravi, Goh Meng Seng and New Citizen Han Hui Hui) would have been able to say that Roy’s accusation that PM had stolen our CPF money was unchallenged by the PM.

As it is, before the GE, Roy admitted that he was wrong to accuse PM of stealing our CPF monies.And despite the admission by Roy, Dosh and friends are still alleging their CPF monies were stolen.

Related article:

The Chew Swee Kee affair revisited: querying the American involvement in Singapore

Abstract:

In the run-up to the 1959 general election in Singapore, People’s Action Party politicians alleged at election rallies that the incumbent Singapore People’s Alliance government had received monetary gifts from ‘Americans’. Allegations that the government was in the pay of a Western power and the subsequent revelation that Education Minister Chew Swee Kee had misappropriated the funds, critically eroded the integrity of the Singapore People’s Alliance. The incessant emphasis on betrayal and corruption did much to advance the political fortunes of the main opposition party, the People’s Action Party, which eventually carried the election. While the political consequences of the Chew Swee Kee affair have received much attention from historians, the veracity of the charge that the USA had funded the Singapore People’s Alliance remains unexplored. Utilizing American archival documents, this article examines the extent to which the United States government was involved in the Chew Swee Kee affair.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ip/sear/2002/00000010/00000002/art00004

—————————————–

*He prefers, on his own admission, to spew anti-PAP BS on the internet, than play with his only grandaugter. How more looney can a person get? This?

**Or at least one of the reasons why the PAP won.

 

PAP must have done shumething right since 1990

In Economy on 15/12/2015 at 4:44 pm

The PAP administration gets whacked regularly for a focus on GDP growth. Well by this alternative measure, it hasn’t done too badly by us has it?

Wage growth: three “myths” are true

In Economy, Financial competency on 10/12/2015 at 5:19 pm

Dollars & Sense a usually financial literate site, published the following PAP administration propoganda on wage growth http://dollarsandsense.sg/debunking-3-myths-about-singapores-wage-growth/?fb_action_ids=429056360617791&fb_action_types=og.comments. Has the site become part of Fabrications About the PAP? Money that good meh? Seriously, a little knowledge (especially of stats) is a dangerous thing.

Myth 1: Wage Growth Has Been Lower Than Inflation

Picture 1

Myth 2: The Lowest Income Families Are Worst Off Because Of Inflation

Picture 2

Myth 3: The Rich Benefitted The Most Compared To The Rest Of Us

Picture 3

Well the myths are not Hard Truths but facts. And the rebuttals rubbish. They are not based on economics.

My friend Chris K*(a retired financial enginner and rocket scientist, once based in London) writes:

Myths 1 and 2 completely failed to account for what is commonly known as hedonic price adjustments. Hedonic adjustments are marginal variations to the inflation rate in advanced, matured economies but are significantly higher for developing nations or those who have transit from developing to developed status like Singapore. Hedonic price adjustments are the increase in prices due to qualitiative and esthetic changes in a product or service. An example is the difference in prices between a hawker centre and a food court. The increase in prices when one transit to the other is NOT included in the inflation rate.

Once you understand the effect of hedonic price adjustments, you can then understand why the increase in the CPF Minimum Sum to account for cost of living runs significantly higher than the inflation rate.

Same with Myth 3 which also failed to account for the role of investable income in relation to total income. The top percentile has a much higher proportion of investable income because of the cap in CPF contributions. In an era of elevated real estate prices, those who can invest in a 2nd or 3rd property are those in the top percentile and they earned outsize returns om their investable income. This is why the labour policies of the present government favours the top percentile because the rate of return on investment exceeds wage growth for the rest of the income distribution.

————————————–

*Chris K describes himself thus: Chris is a retired executive director in the financial industry who had mostly worked in London and Tokyo. 

 

 

 

Ministers’ salary benchmark is flawed

In Corporate governance, Political governance, Public Administration on 07/12/2015 at 1:53 pm

So what value the link?

Below is the Letter from Lex of two Saturday’s ago. It’s another nail in coffin of the argument that our ministers and senior civil servants deserve their multi-million salaries which are benchmarked against the private sector. The pay structure at the top of the private sector is flawed, badly flawed.

Letter from Lex: Let’s spin the wheel!
Readers,
It may indeed be better to be lucky than good; don’t assume you can tell the two apart. There is a good-sized pile of academic research devoted to determining what part of corporate success (measured by return on capital, margins, or what you will) is down to the skill of the boss. Social scientists and statisticians stagger towards consensus along a twisting path. Most of the studies do, however, seem to converge on a couple of points: (a) management skill is a wickedly slippery thing to measure and explain, yet (b) skill seems to make a small but significant difference to performance on the margin, although (c) luck plays much bigger role most of the time. Raising these points often elicits one of two responses. The first: “You damn pinko academics/journalists hate capitalism and will say anything to undermine it.” Alternately: “Anyone who has actually worked in a big company knows that a CEO is a dart-throwing chimp whose characteristic skills are climbing the greasy pole and looking good in a suit.”

Both responses may contain elements of truth. In any case, this week gave the Lex column various reasons to reflect on luck, skill and the grey abyss in between:

Emphasis mine.

Three cheers for the PAP

In Corporate governance, Economy, GIC, S'pore Inc, Temasek on 07/12/2015 at 6:21 am

(Or “Why our GLCs work”)

Talking of the UK (where remember LKY and Goh Keng Swee and Toh Chin Chye- the trinity- studied. I’d describe Lim Kim San, from Raffles College, now NUS, as their archangel who did the work they ordered):

There were significant efficiency improvements in nationalising the postal system and the telegraph network, but the nationalisations of the 20th century were much less successful. This was in part due to the rise of trade unions and the move towards a fully democratic political system. While nationalised companies were left to be minded by technocratic-minded officials in the 19th century, politicians with their eyes on elections started fiddling with them in the 20th. Whenever politicians needed tax cuts to win elections they tended to hack back investment in state-owned firms. They also had a free hand to bloat their payrolls in order to help governments achieve full employment in the economy overall, protected by a system of tariffs and monopolies designed to shield them from competition. And trade unions started to demand excessive pay rises and oppose efficiency improvements, knowing that the state, as owner, would always pay the bill to avoid a fuss at election time.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/12/economist-explains-1

Democracy? What democracy? Unions fighting for workers? What are they? Three cheers for elitism.

But this also rings true: parastatals like national airlines tend to be a handy way for government officials to dish out jobs to cronies. Neither the beneficiaries nor the benefactors of this illicit set-up want to ground the gravy plane.

(From anotther Economist blooger)

E-petitions: Democracy with S’porean characteristics?

In Political governance on 25/11/2015 at 4:52 am

S’poreans love to petition the PAP administration when they are unhappy, not that it does any good. Between the 2006 and 2011 elections, there were petitions* galore with Tan Kin Lian becoming known as the “Petition King”: he even asked people to petition him to stand for president. They didn’t but he still stood for election, and lost hus deposit.

After GE 2011, the PAP administration woke-up its ideas, realising that the swing voters S’were really unhappy

The drubbing the PAP took in 2011 was taken to heart: faced with rising discontent over housing, immigration and transport, it resolved to rectify its ways. In just four years, 100,000 flats were built, rules on foreign workers tightened and billions of dollars spent on expanding transport services.

http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1858123/after-easy-election-victory-real-work-begins-singapore

(I reported here). And we saw a drop in petitions to Ah Loong.

It is conventional wisdom that internet and social media in make it much easier for members and constituents to hold their representatives to account, so if the PAP had used internet and social media more intelligently after 20o6, it could have avoide the humilation of 2011.

All this came to mind as I recently read that earlier this yr, the UK re-launched an e-petition scheme that had gone into the land of the living dead.

Now when a petition that passes 10,000 signatures, it receives a response from the government, and there’s a new cross-party committee of MPs which will look at each petition that gets 100.000 signatures and consider it for a parliamentary debate. More at **

Here, very clear that comments from Tharman notwithstanding, the PAP administration intends on ensuring its hegemony in a de facto one party state.

The problem for the PAP administration is discerning the BS from the likes of Goh Meng Seng, M Ravi, Constance Singham, Balji (Imperial storm troop general turned wannabe Jedi. He didn’t get what he tot he should get isit?), s/o JBJ, Roy and New Citizen Han Hui Hui, Kirsten Han etc and the concerns articulated by people like Terry Xu, Gilbert Goh, P Ravi, Siew Kum Hong (though he’s been a bit quiet recently counting his share options isit?), Chris Kuan, Donald Low amd Yeoh Lam Keong, and ordinary S’poreans.

Well the response to e-petitions would be a good way to gauge the level of support for any idea or proposal. And show S’poreans that S’pore doesn’t need the Worthless Party or Mad Dog Chee To check the PAP adminidation.

Ownself can check ownself with the help of the internet and social media

Who knows? Maybe one day there may be an e-petition asking for the Constitution to be changed to make the PAP the ruling party forever and a day.

All to play for PAP.

——————————————–

*Interestingly Lord Lisvane, the former clerk of the House of Commons, and an now a crossbench peer, said that petitions had been around for “almost as long as parliament has been around”.

“Petitions were the origin of legislation, and were a way of saying ‘fix this’

“The secret ballot, universal male suffrage, the abolition of the slave trade – they took a long time to come about, but they started through a process of petitioning.”

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34476264

**Labour’s Helen Jones, who chairs the Petitions Committee, said the committee will also be able to consider whether to hold debates on subjects that fail to reach the 100,000 threshold but are “worthy of debate but would not get time elsewhere”.

“We’re going through a process of learning ourselves how to deal with petitions, but also of engaging the public to allow them to understand what can be done and what can’t be done*.

Anyone can start a petition, as long as they are a British citizen or a UK resident.

More than 1,400 have chosen to so far, on topics as diverse as the introduction of mandatory drugs tests for MPs, the introduction of a UK national day, and minimum prices for milk.

Experience has shown that campaigns can quickly go viral on social media, gathering thousands of supportive signatures in a few hours.

 

 

 

PAP voters are like M’sian Malays?

In Malaysia on 24/11/2015 at 5:15 am

When TRE republished this, there was an interesting response from a reader comparing the M’sian and S’pore body politick. I like the comparison (“similarity” a better word?) between the majorities in both countries. And do read the last para, it’s a gem.

Daemonic:

The Malaysian political/judicial/economic system as it is today is in a mess. Forward looking Malaysian Muslims are aware and deeply concerned so much so that some are joining the DAP, a supposedly Chinese dominated party.

But the majority of the Muslims are either apathetic, unconcerned or too brain-washed by their leaders (political and/or religious) to understand the issues. Unfortunately, here lies the similarity between them and many Singaporeans.

If the DAP succeeds in showing Malaysians that a country can be ruled with competence, accountability and transparency (their proposed CAT system of governance) then it will be a blessings for all Malaysians, present and future.

But there is a lot of caveats. Can the DAP itself avoid the scourge of corruption from appearing among its own leaders and ranks? Can it avoid the stigma of being a “Chinese controlled” party amongst the Malays? Can it convinced the majority Malays that it does not have any hidden agenda but is a truly credible and competent party?

Again here-in lies similarities between the DAP and our opposition parties. Can our opposition parties maintain a high level of integrity and competency once voted in? For those not yet in parliament, do they have hidden vendetta and are truly out to serve the people (or themselves)?

The difference between Singapore and Malaysia is that we are not in as big a mess as they are. But it is scary to see the same level of complacency amongst the majority from both countries. One majority made up by race while the other made up by political affiliation.

Here’s how confusing the situation is there http://www.asiasentinel.com/politics/could-malaysia-najib-pull-off-snap-election/ that an ang moh thinks that Najib will call a GE soon.

My Facebook avater responded: He’s got 2 and a half yrs in office unless UMNO kicks him out.. If he goes for GE and loses, likely to be prosecuted. Waz that in the context context of adding two and a yrs more?

I’ll add that even if he (or rather his wife otherwise knowwn as FLOM: First Lady of M’sia) wants to double down and wins a GE, he might not last another five yrs. UMNO could still kick him out. And if he (or rather FLOM ) wants to call GE and the IMNO regional leaders disagree, he’ll be out of a job. This ang moh talks cock.

Somewhat related Post: We forgot these lions

PAP are juz gd marketers?

In Uncategorized on 21/11/2015 at 4:55 am

Robert Shiller and his fellow Nobel laureate George Akerlof, have written Phishing for Phools, about how the sellers of cat food and thousands of other products and services “phish” us into buying things we do not want or need.

“Of course they do it,” he says. “If you had a cat food company you wouldn’t say ‘Dried Dead Fish’ on the label…we live in a constructed world that’s filled with deception like this.”

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34788197

When I read the above, I wondered if maybe, juz maybe, the PAP are juz good at marketing. And 70% of us S’poreans fall for their marketing tactics?

No wonder why Goh Meng Seng, s/o JBJ, Roy, New Citizen Han Hui Hui, Dr Chee and M Ravi get so upset? While the WP MPs juz take the money and keep quiet.

30% keep on KPKBing– Don’t despair

In Political governance on 09/11/2015 at 5:33 am

Be brave and of good cheer. History is on yr side. PAP is doomed: by demographics and S’pore rising levelsw of education.

I’m not joking.

That’s a reasonable conclusion to draw from the survey* by the PAP administrations’s very own Institute of Policy Studies that shows that respondents who viewed the SDP and WP as credible were mainly those aged 39 years and below, and mainly had a university and diploma education.

As for the PAP, it was the pre-independence generation, or those aged above 55 years that mainly saw the party as credible.

Reasonable conclusion: only the dying, about to die and the uneducated really support the PAP. Goh Meng Seng, Roy Ngerng, Han Hui Hui, Kirsten Han, Lynn Lee and TRE cybernuts are not representative of the 30% even if they behave as though they represent the 30%. SDP’s Dr Paul Thamby, and Leon the Lion are?

No wonder Ah Loong says the PAP must change, and the PAP’s already preparing for the next GE (I’ll blog soon on what its a doing in my area, a safe PAP area according to the WP), and the acting minister of education plays down the PAP’s success (my take).

So Oppo activists and anti-PAP cybernuts should look on the right side, and look beyond the trashing they got and in the case of the latter fully deserved.

And Dr Chee (and the ang mohs backing him) must really be be happy that the percentage of people who found the party credible** more than doubled from 20% in GE2011 to 42% in GE2015. The PAP saw an increase of credibility of only 20 percentage points, while the Worthless WankersP’s credibility in the eyes of voters increased by 15 percentage points. Too bad for Khaw and his ministry’s civil servants, no performance bonus for sliming the Wayang Party over the AHPETC accounts. It didn’t work. WP’s cred did not fall.

Related post on what stats really mean: they are not facts.

———————————

*2,015 S’poeans were interviewed for the survey, by phone from 12 to 26 September. IPS senior research fellow Gillian Koh was in charge of the survey.

**But he can’t afford too many of things like this

The news that Jeffrey George was arrested by the Central Narcotics Bureau comes as a shock. I have known Jeff for many years and all this time he has discharged his duties as an SDP member and leader with professionalism. He is respected and well-liked by his party colleagues. This is why the matter is all the more a complete surprise.

At this time, the family members need support as they go through a difficult period. They should be left alone to sort things out.

Chee Soon Juan

Secretary-General
Singapore Democratic Party

Guy was SDP chairman until juz before his arrest it seems. Very convenient for SDP.

 

 

 

What the SDP, activists and analysts don’t get

In Political governance on 15/10/2015 at 3:45 am

Below is an extract from a piece by the FT’s Gideon Rachman on the difference between the US and China written on the eve of Xi’s visit to the Hegemon’s capital.

4. Individual v community: American leaders stress the rights of the individual. Chinese leaders stress the interests of the community. The difference between American individualism and Chinese communitarianism filters into their attitudes to the state. In the US, the ideas that the individual needs to be protected against an over-mighty state is built into the constitution and into political rhetoric. In China, it is more normal to argue that a strong state is the best guarantee against “chaos” that has led, in the past, to civil war and bloodshed. Many Americans assume that this Chinese rhetoric simply reflects the self-interest of the Communist party. But it also has deep historical roots. Americans might trace their emphasis on individual rights to the War of Independence in the 18th century. By contrast, in stressing the need for a strong state, Chinese leaders unselfconsciously refer to the “Warring States” period, which began in 476BC.

5. Rights v hierarchy: Different attitudes to the state lead to contrasting views of what holds a society together. Americans stress individual rights and the law. But while there is now much more talk in China of the need for strengthened “rule of law”, the Communist party is also promoting the Confucian tradition, which stresses a sense of hierarchy and obligation, as crucial to the smooth functioning of society. Once again, this has implications for international relations — since it affects China’s view of the proper relationship between big countries, such as China, and their smaller neighbours.

Given that S’pore is 7o% ethnic Chinese is a de-facto one-party state, and has a conservative society*, is it not surprising that

— communitarianism and 

—  the Confucian tradition, which stresses a sense of hierarchy and obligation [the PAP listens to our grouses, does something about them, so we should reciprocate by voting for the PAP and not as the WP suggests vote against the PAP. PM said said this argument against “numan nature”: I’d say against the Confucian tradition. ], as crucial to the smooth functioning of society

means that 35%** of the voters think the PAP deserve their votes in 2015? In 2015, the percentage was 25%.

Whatever Sr Chee, his SDP, s/o JBJ, Western-educated activists and analysts should stop looking at S’pore from a Western perspective. They should “Seek truth from facts”.

WP’s success has been built on Low’s insight as a man of Tao that the vast majority of S’poreans are comfortable with the PAP. Sadly a strategy built on that insight has its limitations both for the WP’s and S’pore’s prospects.

———————————

*Btw, I’d argue that Taiwan because of its history of colonisation by the Japanese and repression by the KMT is a more radical place than S’pore. Likewise South Korea because of Japanese colonisation and the Korean war.

**I’m assuming based on PE 2011, 35% of vthe voters will  die die vote PAP and 30% will vote for any donkey, so long as it’s not a PAP donkey, even if it turns out to be Tan Kin Lian advised by Goh Meng Seng.

Another Foreign Trash?/ GE2015: How 5 becomes 10

In Uncategorized on 13/10/2015 at 4:52 pm

A Fellow from the Institute of Policy Studies, one Johannis Aziz wrote on IPS Commons (“Where Minds Meet”), Singaporeans voted in a general election that saw the incumbent PAP government enjoy a 9.8% vote swing in its favour.

Hello what “9.8% vote swing”? While this kind of garbage is common on TRE, TOC or social media, a Fellow of the Institute of Policy Studies should know better. He should not be as financially illiterate a TRE cybernut like Oxygen. And if he’s no moron, he should not use words sloppily, again like cybernuts.

I’ve rebuked cybernuts on TRE, TOC and Facebook for the wrong use of “%”. The swing is 9.8 points or 9.8 percentage-points, not “9.8%”.

I pointed out to them that if they can’t get this simple terminology right, why should anyone trust their analysis? I say the same to Johannes Aziz, a Fellow of IPS. Another FT where the T stands for “Trash”? Like the ex-CEO of SGX and the present president and head of IT at SGX? SGX: the rats’ nest of Foreign Trashes.Maybe, he’ll get a job at SGX soon.

On to something more serious. There is of angst by the anti-PAP crowd about the 10 point swing to the PAP by those who voted the Oppo in 2011. Actually. only voters amounting to 5 percentage-points voted for the PAP instead of the Oppo parties. But this becomes a 10 percentage-point swing because the Oppo lost 5 points and the PAP gained 5 points.

Not that bad leh as a 10% loss.

S’poreans delusional?/ Oppo don’t win elections, govt loses elections

In Economy, Political governance on 07/10/2015 at 5:48 am

According to a recent poll of 200 students by Singapore employment website STJobs, 70% of all graduates surveyed expect a starting salary of up to 4,000 SGD (£1,800) a month at the very least.

In reality though, a starting salary for a young graduate is closer to a little more than half that amount. (BBC report)

The 70% figutre reminds me that 70% voted for Ah Loong. So maybe when Dr Chee called for the 30% anti-PAP vote not to be ignored*. he has a point. Maybe as a psychologist, he has come to the conclusion that 70% of the voters are delusional, juz like 70% of the grads (who must have voted for the PAP)?

What do you think?

Are the 70% of voters delusional?

After all GDP growth has been on the downtrend since 2011

GDP growth: 15.2% (2010), 6.2% (2011), 3.4% (2012), 4.4% (2013), 2.9% (2014)

Look at the large fall after 2011. As for 2011, DBS Bank and international ratings agency Moody’s are among those to have cut their outlook for Singapore’s GDP to below 2%. The official range forecast by the government is 2% to 2.5%.

Recession coming?

But let’s be serious. Maybe despite the slow-down in GDP, life has gotten better for the voters who voted for the PAP, especially the ones that gave ah Loong the 10 point swing?

The drubbing the PAP took in 2011 was taken to heart: faced with rising discontent over housing, immigration and transport, it resolved to rectify its ways. In just four years, 100,000 flats were built, rules on foreign workers tightened and billions of dollars spent on expanding transport services.

http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1858123/after-easy-election-victory-real-work-begins-singapore

It could have added the goodies (especially in healthcare) for the Pioneer Generation. An activist who during the GE went round talking to the old folks (many there in the HDB estate) in Mountbatten SMC, told me that they appreciated the benefits. The Chiams’ Party lost badly.

Which all shows that where the PAP goofed between the 2006 GE and the 2011 GE and PE was not to spend our money on ourselves:

https://atans1.wordpress.com/2012/08/31/pms-speech-not-juz-a-change-of-format/

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

https://atans1.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/time-for-opposition-to-rethink-assumptions-lest-it-repents-after-next-ge/

“Oppositions don’t win elections, govt loses elections,” I once heard Dr Goh Keng Swee say. He was echoing the tots of politicians, analysts and strategists down the ages

——

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

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

The next PM has been unveiled

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

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

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

Look at the evidence

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

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

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

Which other minister has been given so much public exposure?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brain structures of PM, ministers & TRE cybernuts

In Political governance on 01/10/2015 at 5:26 am

Trying to understand why some people are incapable of learning from their mistakes, neuroscientists in Albuquerque, New Mexico, scanned the brains of 96 convicts. In repeat offenders, they discovered, an obscure quarter of the brain known as the anterior cingulate cortex was barely active, the Economomist (the PAP’s go-to manual) reports.

It would be interesting to carry out the experiment on the brains of anti PAP paper warriors like Oxygen* and his the cybernuts from TRELand. Going by the comments on TRE, they are still in denial, believing that the economy will collapse before the next GE, and that the voters will turn against the PAP.

Oxygen’s latest rant is a good example

The margin is, therefore, much smaller and vulnerable to reversal than the media hype portrays. Neither the intensity of pain nor the gaping wound festering since the 2011 GE is healing. Beneath the anger and fear driven swing, the burning issues of immigration, healthcare, CPF, costs of living escalation etc, etc is still in the boiling cauldron – nothing dissipated after the election. [He means that the 30% are still upset. Why should that matter, they are the born losers.)

The result gave PAP a fractured angry landscape [He ignores the 70%] to work on another 5 years. You still got another 5 years to show real performance or else! Those election lollies you gave us and cosmetic policy adaptations like PGP and CPF tweaking since 2011 won’t necessary save your skin the next round.

… Remember, PAP is in the driver’s seat.  It is its sole pallbearer now – for better or worst.

Until the next 5 years, I see PAP as very much in the mould of a lone walking political corpse waiting to be buried if it does not perform for this much-celebrated “ringing endorsement” of mandate, granted grudgingly and accidentally of a pushback from a mob of aggrieved voters in a freak election outcome.

Contrast this ranting with the actions of PAP after GE 2011

The drubbing the PAP took in 2011 was taken to heart: faced with rising discontent over housing, immigration and transport, it resolved to rectify its ways. In just four years, 100,000 flats were built, rules on foreign workers tightened and billions of dollars spent on expanding transport services**.

http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1858123/after-easy-election-victory-real-work-begins-singapore

The above was written in the South China Morning Post, no fan of the PAP (It’s one those ang moh tua kee papers in HK. It was a cheer leader of the British wgen they ruled HK, and is now irrelevant. I quoted it to show that critics (if they are rational) have conceded that it changed.

Clearly, the brain structure of Oxygen and his fellow nutters resemble that of the repeat offenders. They never learn. But taz why they are born losers, part of the 30% angry at everything except their own stupidity.

————————————–

*When S’pore was sharing the grief of the parents whose children died in Sabah, he was dancing and screaming that they (the parents) got what they deserved. Why? They signed the indemnity forms.

**Interesting it went on to put the margin of victory down to regional uncertainties  and the “trust” factor. Of course it uses the term “fears for the future”.

But even then, amid the clamour by young voters on social media for change and the determination of opposition parties to make an all-out bid for power by for the first time contesting most parliamentary seats, there was no assurance of regaining lost ground. Timing the snap poll amid the sentiment evoked by the passing of the elder Lee, Singapore’s founding father, and in the 50th year of nationhood, was not in itself a winning strategy for the PAP. What tipped the result was the silent majority’s fears for the future. The outlook for the economy amid China’s slowdown is less than rosy. Nor is there certainty for the region, with political turmoil in Malaysia, the source of most of the island’s water, and rising Indonesian nationalism.

 

Haze, 9/11 & TOC

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

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

DSC_0080

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DSC_0029

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

———————————

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

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

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

Yes, the truth is stranger than fiction.

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

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

 

 

 

 

Png the troubleshooter

In Accounting, Corporate governance on 25/09/2015 at 4:43 am

But first: when I read the following extract http://m.todayonline.com/ge2015/wp-activists-help-party-grow-grassroots-network

“This is very much (Mr Low’s) style, he wants to give residents as much face time as possible, and they are also willing to wait to speak to him,” said Ms Ivy Tan, who has been helping out at the Bedok Reservoir-Punggol division since 2012. As such, their MPS often stretch past 11pm.

Mr Chen Show Mao (Paya Lebar) and Mr Muhamad Faisal Manap (Kaki Bukit), meanwhile, set up several stations at their MPS, which are manned by party activists who help to interview residents, transcribe their cases and draft relevant letters..

I couldn’t help but wonder about PritamS style of looking after his constituents. I read the article several times and couldn’t the answer.

Ah well.

Have you noticed that in the last few months, Png Eng Huat is the man beside Auntie, when it came to AHPETC matters? Before that it was always Auntie (chairperson) and Pritam (Both Png anf Pritam are vice-chairpersons). But ever since after the AGO’s report was published, it has been Png beside Auntie. Seems he has been tasked to sort out the mess created by the lack of oversight.

———————————————————————————————-

What did the Auditor-General’s report say?
The report found five key lapses in the AHPETC’s accounts:
1. Lack of governance over transactions with related parties;
2. Poor monitoring of S&CC arrears;
3. Poor record and accounting system;
4. Non-compliance with rules on sinking fund;
5. Insufficient internal controls

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-ahpetc-saga-070752226.html

—————————————————————————————-

The PAP had bayed and howled for the the WP to “come clean” (produce the documents), or if the WP was really concerned about its finances, it bring a forensic accountant to reconstruct the accounts. Pritam retorted that they needn’t answer to Parliament, but to residents.

There was  no production of the documents (AWOL? MIA?), and no forensic audit (Too expensive? Concerned about the probable findings?). Instead Png worked with the AHPETC’s auditors and another newly appointed accountant to sort out the mess. The end result was that Auntie could write in the report to the 2014/ 2015 report:

AHPETC has continued to improve its financial processes and management.

AHPETC has cleared most of the disclaimers from the previous annual audits. The remaining observations relate mainly to opening balance issues for which there are still information gaps and legacy issues. There are still areas to work on. AHPETC will continue to improve its financial management.

Still even by the WP’s admission, there’s plenty of work to be done. And the use of the word “mainly” gives the lie to the claim that it’s all the fault of the PAP and PA. Makes one wonder if the WP is afraid of what a forensic audit will uncover?

Never mind the PAP may still force one. https://atans1.wordpress.com/2015/09/21/wps-punngol-east-problem-paps-excuse-king/

Oppo areas are NOT slums

In Property on 24/09/2015 at 4:35 am

Private property and HDB prices are NOT better in PAP areas.

Research by property website 99.co shows, it doesn’t matter whether a property (HDB or private) is located in a constituency held by the PAP or the WP or the Chiams’ Party.

Today reported:

Amid perceptions that Opposition-held constituencies are not upgraded as much as ruling party wards and get fewer amenities, and thus may be seen as being less attractive as a residential area, 99.co studied housing price data from the past 10 years and laid to rest concerns among some residents of their homes being undervalued.

The first two graphs show how private housing prices in the four constituencies — Aljunied, Ang Mo Kio, Potong Pasir and West Coast — have changed from July 2006 to July this year.

Both Aljunied and Potong Pasir outperformed the Singapore average in terms of the property price appreciation, 99.co noted. In fact, both constituencies are among the best performing areas in Singapore, with its properties more than doubling in price on average over the last 10 years — a growth rate of over 100 per cent.

What about PAP territory?

Choosing Ang Mo Kio and West Coast … , 99.co noted that home prices in the former have performed just as well as those in Aljunied, but those in the latter lagged quite a bit behind the national average, growing only about 50 per cent in the last 10 years.

Importantly, the price movements and trend lines in the constituencies have remained in sync with the national average and other wards despite control of Aljunied and Potong Pasir changing hands in 2011.

“The rise or fall of property prices is not dependent on whether the property is in a PAP or an Opposition ward. Rather, the property prices are a factor of the location, and the corresponding supply and demand characteristics at the given point in time,” said Mr Eugene Lim, key executive officer of real estate agency ERA.

What about HDB flats?

99.co reported that over the last 10 years, HDB resale prices in almost all wards have appreciated 80 to 100 per cent. With the exception of the spike in Tanjong Pagar due to Pinnacle@Duxtonhaving matured for resale in 2014, the graph lines for all of the wards have been pretty much the same.

HDB resale prices show that whether an estate is in a PAP or Opposition ward doesn’t matter. Prices move in line throughout S’pore, unlike private housing, where the price appreciation has varied widely from 50 to 150%.  99.co explains: “The data from 99.co clearly indicates that there is no difference in the valuations of residences between neighbourhoods. This likely indicates that common areas such as pavements, drainages and landscaping are being managed to similar standards. Otherwise, over two to three years, the differences will show and valuations in badly managed districts would drop,” said Mr Ku Swee Yong, chief executive of property agency Century 21 Singapore.

http://m.todayonline.com/ge2015/pap-or-opposition-ward-no-difference-home-value

 

 

Denial continues/ Swing voters not stupid, WP

In Economy, Political governance on 22/09/2015 at 5:14 am

Retired (axed?) FT MP, Irene Ho wrote on her Facebook

The “hot” topics at the election rallies that some opposition parties said they would champion are issues that many of us, including the PAP MPs, have raised before – the widening income gap, social mobility, help for single mothers, job opportunities for Singaporeans especially the middle-aged and above, helping the vulnerable groups, the cost of living, and improving public transport. Indeed, I have spoken on all these and more, and so have other PAP MPs. Here is a selection. The question is not how fiery the debate is in Parliament, but how effective is the MP in pushing for change.

Over the last 15 years as a backbencher, I do see change within the PAP – and it is not because of the opposition. It is because of your support for PAP MPs who speak up for you. I myself have benefitted from the support that you have given me, as it gave me the courage and confidence to fight for what is important to you and to the country. Please support the PAP so that it can be in a position of strength to serve you better. ‪#‎GE2015‬‪#‎PAP4SG‬

If she and other PAP MPs are so good at bending the administration’s ear, why did PAP administration after 2011 GE and PE

— stop being in denial that the public tpt system sucked;

— start that building more HDB flats raided the reserves;

— introduced the Pioneer Package etc;

— in the process spend more of our money on ourselves; and

— curb FT inflows.

If the PAP MPs were really being listened to, the first four measures would have been introduced in the early noughties, and the last after the 2006 GE.

The PAP listens to the swing voters not to its MPs.

But let’s be fair, the Oppo groupies are in denial too

Someone posted this on Facebook

How PAP won PE back in GE2015

http://anyhowhantam.blogspot.sg/…/the-punggol-east-fix-how-…

Why I am not even surprised? PAP is master at this fixing game by shifting the goal post whenever they stand to lose the election which they want to win badly.

However, PAP Mandarins do not understand this simple logic – by winning PE at all costs, they stand to get exposed even more in AHPETC-gate and AIM-gate.

Wait and watch – PAP will find more cow dung on their white attires in time to come. It is not a question of if but when.

I had told MP Tin Pei Ling on the counting day at Kong Hwa school that PAP’s #1 enemy is not WP but some hot headed brain swollen PAP Mandarins who do not understand this simple fact:

Karma is bitch – whether one is Hindu, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Taoist, Jew, Sikh, Jain, Atheist or Agnostic.

By the way, on the counting day, the only PAP MP I found very relaxed and self assured was Tin Pei Ling. She has long future in politics for sure because she is able to win without “help” (???) of out of date and out of tune GCT.

On 9 Sep, I had Polling agent duty (as WP volunteer) for 6 hours (2 to 8 PM). Later I followed the sealed ballot boxes (together with another WP volunteer) on the bus to Kong Hwa school counting center. I was at Kong Hwa counting center until midnight while counting was still on but the sample counting results were already announced by 9:30PM.

Around midnight, I left Kong Hwa counting center to go home – tired, exhausted and also disappointed with the results. A senior PAP Activist (PA) also left Kong Hwa school at the same time feeling satisfied with the results and sweeping victory for PAP.

I congratulated PA and we had nice chat on the way out. PA offered me ride in his car until Haig Road. I had left my car at HDB car park next to Haig Road Community Center. On the way home, I was surprised to hear that gentleman (PA) wondering whether the voting results will send wrong signals to PAP Mandarins and whether PAP will interpret the results as license to increase GST to 10%.

I was baffled. I asked PA why he thinks GST may have to go up to 10% when the Government has such huge reserves and all social spending is being spent from returns of Temasek / GIC etc. He just smiled at me.

I think that poor PA gentleman doesn’t understand the bigger problems PAP has on hand now.

Not only PAP’s bluff will be called out in AHPETC-gate / AIM-gate but now they have to deal with significant number of foreign born citizens who will also be interested in joining politics to run for political office and they will vote only for those party that protects its interests.

I am tempted to yet again share a Gujarati (my native Indian language) idiom which reads as “જે ખાડો ખોદે તે પડે” <– unreadable on Android (transliteration “je khaDo khode te paDe”) which means – the one who digs hole for others, will find himself falling in the same hole…

And that is THE problem for PAP…

My FB avarar posted: Someone still in denial. PE victory means that a forensic audit of AHPETC accounts will have to be done to determine PE’s fair share of assets and liabilities https://atans1.wordpress.com/2015/09/21/wps-punngol-east-problem-paps-excuse-king/.

Let’s give three cheers for the swing voters. They balance things they admire* about the PAP against things they deplore** and voted accordingly. The PAP listens to the swing voter, not its MPs or to Oppo MPs and parties. The swing voters are not stupid and didn’t buy into WP’s self-serving message of voting in more WP MPs. They saw that Show Mao*** was taking the money and keeping quiet.

Related post: https://atans1.wordpress.com/2015/08/14/the-great-wall-the-oppo-has-to-climb/

(When this was republished by TRE it attracted a lot of abuse.)

*Like its new-found willingness to spend S’poreans’ money on S’poreans. And it’s decent economic record.

**They don’t give a hoot that Amos kanna takan so hard that he had to beg foe mercy****; or that ang moh tua kees like Cherian George and Kirsten Han shout “repression” juz because some fourth rate trashy sites are forced to close. They notice that TRE is unmolested.

***I know he’s a good social welfare officer in his ward (like Kate Spade’s in hers) and I hear he’s being groomed to succeed Low. But that doesn’t make it any easier to accept that he’s doing bugger in making the case for WP, and in helping managing the town council.

****I’m sure many were cheering on the AG: quietly of course.