Ravi Philemon

Workers' Party's proposal on Ministerial salaries is the clearest yet

2012-01-16T21:52:00.001+08:00

See my blog entries on Ministerial salaries HERE, HERE and HERE.

The points I was trying to make with these blog posts are that:

1. The fundamental for pegging the salaries of the Ministerial to the private sector is flawed.

2. The salaries of political office holders should be pegged to the salaries of Members of Parliament.

3. The Ministerial salaries must be uncluttered with unnecessary components like 'National Bonus'.

What I did with the second blog entry was to try and peg the MP's salary appropriately (to that of the employed households), so that the other political office holders salaries could be appropriately pegged to this figure.

But now after hearing all sides of the argument (SDP, NSP, PAP, WP and various voices from the blogosphere), I agree that we need not have complicated formulas for pegging the MP's salary. I agree with the Workers' Party's proposal that the Ministers salaries should be pegged to multiples of the MP's salary; and that the MP's salary pegged to the starting salary of entry-grade senior civil servants in the regular civil service.

The Workers' Party's proposal on Ministerial salaries suggests:

The starting salary of entry-grade senior civil servants in the regular civil service — a director of MX9 grade in the Management Executive Scheme of the civil service (outside of the Administrative Service) is approximately $11,000 a month.

In our proposal, MP allowance would be about $11,000 per month, Ministerial salary would range from $55,000 per month for entry-grade ministers to $99,000 per month for the Prime Minister.

WP's proposal would mean that an entry-level Minister would draw an annual salary of $715,000 ($55,000 X 13 months), while the Prime Minister will draw $1,278,000.

This would be quite close to the numbers I specified in the blog entry suggesting that an entry-level Minister be paid $724,750 and the Prime Minister $1,207,908.

1 month annual variable component and 2 months' performance bonuses (tied to Real Median Income Growth Rate, Real Growth Rate of the Lowest 20th Percentile Income, Unemployment Rate and Real GDP Growth Rate) could also be paid in addition to these salaries (this would mean that an entry-level Minister's salary would be in the range of $715,000 - $880,000; and the Prime Ministers salary would range from $1,207,908 - $1,584,000).

This would be a cleaner wage than that suggested by the Ministerial Salary Review Committee as it would not be cluttered with so many unnecessary components like 'National Bonus'.

More than the amount, the peg suggested by the Workers' Party will ensure that the fundamentals of Ministerial salaries remain right, with the emphasis being on public service.

--
--

How many in Singapore get 8 months bonus?

2012-01-04T17:12:00.002+08:00

A friend wrote on his Facebook, "As Singapore is no longer the "impregnable fortress" it was perceived to be, it is like any other cosmopolitan city with transport, employment, municipal, drainage, etc problems. Hence, I agree that we should also compare with other countries of similar size and density."

Yup, this post is about the Ministerial Salary Review Committee's report (see HERE).

When you take away the 8 months bonus assumption (13 month + 1 month annual variable component + 3 months performance bonus + 3 months National Bonus), the Ministerial salary review actually looks more acceptable.

For example, if you take away the bonus assumption, the salary recommendation for the Parliamentary Secretary is $20,900 per month, and the Prime Minister's salary recommendation is $110,000 per month.

Even if these still seem like HUGE amounts, anyone with a sense of proportion would tell you that when measured against the responsibility these individuals hold, the amount would be fair compensation.

It is the 8 months bonus which makes these (otherwise well thought out) Ministerial Salary Review recommendations out of whack.

I mean how many in Singapore get 8 months bonus?

The story of SMRT is the story of Singapore

2011-12-25T14:26:00.002+08:00

~pictures: Terry Xu~

I still remember as a young boy, in the 70s, waiting for more than an hour for the bus to arrive. I also remember that if you wanted to go to Sembawang (where some of my father's friends lived), there were no bus services.

In the 80s, I was in secondary school, and I remember the transition from a two-man operating system to the one-man-operating system and finally to the cashless system. The buses were often late and when they arrived, they were crowded.

When the trains finally arrived in the mid 80s, it was a wish come true! We had air-conditioned public transport. There were places to sit. But most of all we zipped through from point A to point B quite quickly. Suddenly there was a quantum leap in Singapore's transport capacity.

The effective and efficient trains were symbolic of Singapore. There was a certain pride in calling yourself a Singaporean - a city which had the will to make quantum leaps.

Fast-forward to the year 2011. 'Competition' injected into the public transport system by the government - to ensure that the public transport operators would not fall into inefficient operations and to minimise wastage - had spiralled out of control, because there was no real competition. The public transport operators operated like unregulated monopolies in their areas of operation. The PTOs quest for profit maximisation probably led to SMRT losing its "core competency in the management of train network while it was developing new and alternative revenue streams" (see Kumaran Pillai's speech).

"This is the reason why the profits of the two operators have risen manifold since 2003. In 2003, SMRT’s profit was $72 million, as at 31 March 2011, SMRT’s net-profit was $161.1 million. Comfort DelGro’s profit in 2003 was $134 million, its net-profit was $228.5 million, as at 31 December 2010.Despite these high incomes, generated by the PTO, PTC has never not approved applications for fare adjustments by the PTO. PTC has been heavily criticised repeatedly because of this and also because the regulator is perceived to be more pro-PTO than pro-commuters.For example, commuters who do not pay the correct fare on public transports, will be fined S$20, while those who abuse concession cards face a penalty of S$50. An additional penalty of S$1,000 will be imposed if the cheating commuter does not pay the fine; and repeat offenders may be fined S$2,000 or be jailed up to six months, or both.These penalties are many times more than the value of a single trip on the public transport, and it is meant as a deterrent for the fare cheats.The PTO however have no such effective deterrent for failing Quality of Services (QoS) standards. The penalty for each non-compliant day on each non-compliant route for both headway adherence and loading is only $100; which means that it is more profitable for the PTO to breach QoS standards instead of investing in capacity/infrastructure to meet QoS requirements.The PTO have enjoyed the carrot, but have never enjoyed the stick of punitive sanctions." - TOC Editorial dated 26 July 2011

From 2010, there have been over 40 disruptions in train services. Vandals had broken into SMRT train depot to vandalise the trains on two occasions, raising concerns of security. SMRT has never taken responsibility for any of these failures. In fact, SMRT has tried to shift the blame to the security company when they were questioned for the security lapse in their depot.

The question TOC editorial raised in July 2011 seems louder today, “Why are Quality of Service standards not linked to fare increases?”

In light of all these serious lapses in Quality of Service (QoS) standards by SMRT, the Public Transport Council (PTC) should reverse the 1 per cent fare increase they approved in August of this year. PTC should also tie future fare increases to QoS standards. And all future fare revisions must be tied to QoS standards.

TOC's head of Chinese section, Goh Meng Seng, said on his Facebook that SMRT perhaps spends only about 8 per cent of their revenue on repair and maintenance, while train service operators in other countries spend about 18 - 30 per cent of their profits for this. There is an absolute necessity for SMRT to give the people of Singapore a full accounting of what it spends on maintenance. SMRT must also release its maintenance records for the last 5 years with comparison to industry standards.

Why do I say that the story of the SMRT is the story of Singapore? Because the early leaders of the country put in place various rigorous systems for governing the nation, and the leaders who came after them assumed that these systems are fool-proof; that you only need to put in place trusted aides to maintain these systems and everything will be fine.

From Mas Selamat to the flooding; and now with the serious failure of the mass rapid transit system, we know now that these assumptions are flawed.

But the real sad news is that almost everybody seems to have no courage to say that 'the emperor has no clothes'. At the media interview with Saw Phaik Hwa a couple of days ago, it was a journalist from the foreign media who asked her if she would resign. The reporters from the local media were all too happy to print her response without asking her all the hard questions.

The trust in the infallibility of the old systems is so deep that it seems to have contributed to the lack of regulatory oversight. I mean, how can the Transport Minister say, "I do not know if these are isolated incidents or whether there are systemic and more serious underlying issues causing these breakdowns." How could he not know?

It is the safety and the health of the commuters that are at risk! A TOC reader wrote to us that her heavily pregnant sister-in-law was trapped in the train for 45 minutes. Two were hospitalised. Countless others were trapped in a train with no lights and no ventilation. People are walking on the train tracks...

This is not the Singapore I know! These trusted aides who are not doing what they ought to be doing have (in the words of a friend), "contributed to the system rot and atrophy".

Somebody must take responsibility for the failure of SMRT. At the media conference on Friday, SMRT's CEO, Ms Saw said that she will see to it that there will not be a recurrence of such breakdowns. But on Saturday morning, there was another such recurrence and services were disrupted from Ang Mo Kio to Marina Bay.

The CEO of SMRT must do the right thing, take responsibility for the failures of SMRT and resign. Her resignation will be highly symbolic and will go a long way in restoring the confidence of the people in the system - not just the MRT system.

And while they are at it, SMRT should not only refund the fares of the commuters who are affected by their service disruptions on Thursday and Saturday; they should also (as Eric Tan rightly pointed out in his speech today) give free, complimentary rides to all the affected commuters for one whole month.

And SMRT can certainly afford it!afford it!

There was no need for TOC to cry wolf

2011-12-23T16:49:00.000+08:00

When TOC first received the email about Seng Han Thong's comment past 6pm on Wednesday, 21 November, we were not sure if an MP would really make such a comment. The exact words used by the contributor were, " During the (BlogTV) episode, he (Seng Han Tong) commented that the reason why SMRT has a lack of communication between its ground staff and commuters was due to the Malay and Indian staffs having a poor command of the English language."

We asked the contributor if the exact video could be pointed out to us. The video pointed out was a CNA one which was embedded in Microsoft's Silverlight software. The video being available in this format made rewinding and listening to the exact words spoken that much difficult. (The Youtube version of the BlogTV programme only became available much later.)

In the end, we could not decide if Mr Seng had used the word "PR" and if he had, was he referring to his own PR or the PR department of SMRT. So we decided to err on the side of caution and publish that Mr Seng had said "some staffs are “Malay(s), they are Indians, they cannot converse in English good, well enough”."

One reason we did that was because with the recent failures of SMRT, we did not want the general public to be incensed unnecessarily towards the staff of SMRT. In this instance the staff of the PR department of the SMRT. We were angry with management of SMRT for the service lapse, but we are 100 per cent behind the SMRT workers. The disruptions were not their fault and we also mentioned that in our rally at the Speakers' Corner recently.

We reasoned that if he was quoting someone else, Mr Seng would write to us to clarify or post somewhere the accurate version, and when he did that we would put it up on our website. TOC did exactly that when Mr Seng later clarified that what he had actually said was, “I notice that the PR mention that, some of the staff, because they are Malay, they are Indian, they can’t converse in English good, well enough, so that also deters them, from but I think we accept broken English.”

There was absolutely no intention to do a (as Dr Cherian George says in his blogpost), "sensational report on what a PAP MP said". With the recent fiasco of SMRT, (if TOC was going for the sensational) it would have been more sensational to direct the anger at SMRT - never mind if it was the management or the staff. TOC did not do that!

Also TOC did not set-out to mislead the general public by omitting what Mr Seng said. We embedded the CNA video and left a time reference to the exact point at which Mr Seng's comments appeared.

With the benefit of hind sight, how TOC kept the article relevantly updated was good because the outrage did not become focused on the workers of SMRT.

TOC chose not to make any assumptions with reporting the article. Dr George however assumed that Mr Seng's "slip could have been due to political naivety rather than racism"; and in the first draft of the article (which is still available here), Dr George wrote, “As he spoke, he waved at the laptop screen facing the panelists, which presumably displayed comments from viewers. Seen in context, Seng was quoting the comment as part of a larger point he was making, that SMRT should have proper SOPs in place, and that in an emergency the drivers’ standard of English is no excuse for silence.”

I have been a part of TOC since August 2008, and I know that TOC is not always right. But we try to do what's right. In this issue, after the report went up, TOC published the clarification by Mr Seng (as an update to the same article), then we updated it with his apology. Then we further updated it with SMRT's response. Whenever we did an update we linked the update on our Facebook so that our readers could be appropriately informed. With all these care taken in reporting this story, Dr George still calls TOC reporting "loose" in his blog post today.

Well, TOC did not muddy the water by making unwanted assumptions. We don't have a need to paint Mr Seng as a racist. When we could not accurately verify what Mr Seng said, we chose to err on the side of caution.

And as it turned out, TOC did not misrepresent Mr Seng at all. SMRT in their statement on the episode that at no point did SMRT highlight any particular race was highlighted when SMRT tried to explain the challenges the organsiation faced in trying to train its drivers to make announcements, as not all of them are comfortable speaking in English.

Ministerial salaries - my view

2011-12-14T21:22:00.000+08:00

The following is my view on what the ministerial salary revision should look like and is calculated by using the table above as the base (the table is found HERE).

The MPs monthly salary should be calculated by averaging:

1 - 10th of Employed Household by Decile: $1400

41 - 50th of Employed Household by Decile: $5888

91 - 100th of Employed Household by Decile: $23684

(1400+5888+23684)/3 = $10324

Annual income: $10324 X 13 months = $134,212

The monthly salary for Ministers and Senior Parliamentary Secretaries should be calculated by multiplying $10324 (salary for MPs) by the average of real annual change in percentages for the:

1 - 10th of Employed Household by Decile: 4.9%

41 - 50th of Employed Household by Decile: 7.1%

91 - 100th of Employed Household by Decile: 4.1%

4.9+7.1+4.1 = 5.4%

10324 X 5.4 = $55750

Annual income: $55750 X 13 months = $724,750

The monthly salary for Administrative officers at SR9 superscale grade should be calculated by dividing 5.4% by 3 = 1.8%, and multiplying it by $10,324 = $18,583.

Annual income for AOs at SR9 grade: $18583 X 13 = $241,579

The monthly salary for the Prime Minister should be calculated as such:

(1.8 X 2) +5.4 = 9%

$10324 X 9 = $92,916

Annual income for the Prime Minister: $92916 X 13 = $1,207,908

The monthly salary for the President should be calculated as follows:

($92916 X 14)/13 = $100,063

Annual income for the President: $1,300,819

On top of this the MPs, AOs, Ministers, PM and President should also receive bonuses that are not higher than 3 times their monthly salary, reflecting the strength of the economy, as well as the performance and prospects of the nation in GDP, productivity growth, consumer price index and other relevant indicators.

PA will openly campaign for PAP

2011-12-08T15:25:00.001+08:00

Although PA's grassroots organisations are supposedly separate and independent from the PAP, many grassroots leaders are also PAP branch activists, and the PAP's defeat affected grassroots work in the GRC.Former PAP chairman Lim Boon Heng said in an e-mail to The Straits Times that 'after the May GE, there was a slowdown in (grassroots) activities. In some parts of Aljunied GRC, it has been less than what we normally expect post-elections'.Last week, The Straits Times reported that Mr Lim was assembling a PAP task force to 'take back' Aljunied GRC for the ruling party. He is also a special adviser to the chairman of the PA, who is Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.Mr Lim said he is working on ensuring that 'there is no let-up' in Aljunied GRC when it comes to grassroots activities, in the face of some grassroots advisers stepping down.'We will appoint new advisers. These will be people who can fill that role, not necessarily politician-wannabes.'

from: The Straits Times dated 8 Dec 2011

I helped Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss in her campaign in Mountbatten in the last General Election. There were many memorable moments and many invaluable lessons I learnt while helping her in her campaign. But one incident which stands out in my mind is the encounter with a People's Association (PA) leader from Mountbatten.

It was still early days and nomination papers have not yet been filed. But there was a lot of buzz that Jeannette was going to contest Mountbatten. A group of us met at the void deck of a block in Jalan Batu to discuss her campaign and after the discussion we walked to the hawker centre at Blk 4A for some snacks. As we were walking towards the hawker centre, Jeannette spotted someone she recognised (someone known to some of her family members as well) and stopped to greet him. The person was a PA leader for that constituency. He was wearing a PA T-shirt (red part added on 8/12/11 for clarity).

After asking her how she was, he said to her, "your mother is so proud of you. She keeps telling everyone that you are contesting in Mountbatten as an opposition candidate. But why are you contesting in Mountbatten? Lim Biow Chuan is a very good MP. You should consider contesting in some other wards where there are no good MPs" (paraphrased)

I was shocked! Here was a person from People's Association, which is supposed to be apolitical and he is openly campaigning for a PAP MP! And worse, he was asking someone not to contest in that area and so have a walkover (at least that's the message I got).

And today we read this piece of news from ST. Lim Boon Heng is a special advisor to the Chairman of PA (PM Lee Hsien Loong) and he is unashamedly going to use a tax-payer funded statutory board for a political purpose - to fight another political party.

Here we have the Workers' Party playing football with the incumbents to show that they will not oppose for the sake of opposing, and then you have someone like Teo Ser Luck (playing on the same team) who has said that he will "step into the breach" in Aljunied and with the help of the well-funded People's Association hope to unseat Workers' Party from that constituency.

Well you know what...for a start, I think the MPs from Workers' Party should stop playing soccer with these guys from the PAP. The PAP has absolutely no concept about fairness and no guilt-feelings whatsoever in using the institutions of the State for its own political advantage.

Complaint to CCS against NTA's anti-competitive behaviour

2011-12-07T15:30:00.001+08:00

UPDATE: Competition Commission has responded to my complaint and I reproduce it in full here:

CCS Feedback (CCS)
Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:16 PM
To: XXX

Dear Mr. Ravi Philemon,

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

2. CCS does not comment on individual cases because every CCS’ determination or finding is possible only after a thorough investigation of the detailed circumstances of each case. Neither does it comment on whether it is investigating a case. Having said that, CCS reiterates that price-fixing among businesses is illegal and opens them up to investigations and possible financial penalties under the Competition Act. Businesses are, however, free to determine their own prices independently. Trade or industry associations should not become the vehicle to facilitate price collusion or price-fixing.

3. CCS advises businesses and associations to familiarise themselves with the Competition Act which sets out the types of behaviour that are prohibited because they are considered to be anti -competitive. Any body or person who wants to know whether a specific behaviour is considered anti -competitive should seek legal advice, or file a notification for guidance or decision with CCS.

Thank you.

Regards

Pwee Inn

I lodged the following complain with Competition Commission Singapore against National Taxi Association's anti-competitive behaviour:

Download document to PC

See HERE to lodge your own complain.

Suddenly everyone's happy in Singapore

2011-12-03T12:50:00.001+08:00

In their debate on the President's Speech in October, the Workers' Party (Chairman Sylvia Lim), raised this with the government of Singapore:

In July this year, Bhutan initiated a resolution at the UN General Assembly titled “Happiness: towards a holistic approach to development”. There were a total of 66 co-sponsors of the resolution and the General Assembly adopted it without a vote.

The resolution’s preamble states that “the pursuit of happiness is a fundamental human goal”, and that “the gross domestic product indicator by nature was not designed to and does not adequately reflect the happiness and well-being of people in a country.”Member states have been invited “to pursue the elaboration of additional measures that better capture the importance of the pursuit of happiness and well-being in development with a view to guiding their public policies.”

With such international interest, is it now time for Singapore’s government to conspicuously focus on happiness as a national goal? Should policies be articulated to show how they will ultimately achieve happiness for Singaporeans as a whole?

source: http://theonlinecitizen.com/2011/10/sylvia-lim-asks-government-focus-on-happiness/

Then suddenly everyone's happy in Singapore!

Singapore workers are happier than they were compared to previous years, says a Jobs Central survey. (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1164500/1/.html)

Smaller HDB flats does not mean lower quality of life. "It can be a very comfortable living environment" says CEO of HDB, so Singaporeans must be happier. (http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC111111-0000071/Smaller-flats-have-not-lowered-quality-of-life--HDB-CEO)

I wonder how much more happier we're going to be in the months and years to come?

Internet lynch mob and community moderation

2011-11-28T18:43:00.001+08:00

Since TOC published Donaldson's story, some 'people' have been private messaging me on Facebook. They have all spoken up for Serena Lee the person highlighted in TOC's article (see HERE) and have chided Jewel (the writer of the article) and me for publishing the article without fact-checking.

The first 'person' to private message me was Andrea Tan:

I replied to her that TOC only reported from the police report (of which we have a copy). TOC also has a policy to give the person we write about, the right of reply, if they feel that they have been wrongly misrepresented or maligned in our article. For the record, Serena Lee did not contact me in any way (or TOC) to express her displeasure.

What has happened instead is 'various people' have gone on various platforms to speak up against Jewel, me and TOC. I am fine with differences of opinion, which is why after making clarifications on the matter on Gwee Li Sui's wall, I did not try to defend myself.

I also tried to find out who some of commenters on Gwee's wall were and instead of sending a note which could be misinterpreted, decided to see if I could initiate a face-to-face meeting with them. I called the organisation listed in one of the commenter Elle-Bee Tan's FB wall (which is public information) 'Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory' but the CEO of the organisation Dr Michael Chee said that there was no such person there.

Then this morning, I had a FB note from one Danny Tan (who I do not know), and he said:

"Do heed my gentle advice as this matter will not go away until the good reputation of the individuals are sincerely repaired. There are many of us who support Serena and know she is anything but a Muslim basher and she stated quite clearly that though she was anti-theism for the violence occuring in the world as a result, she was not anti-theists. One suspects that in your daughter's lazy reporting and her ignorance, led her to utterly and completely fail to recognise the seriousness of her boldness, believing that generating traffic superceded that of journalistic integrity.Worse, TOC editors still left the article there quoting Serena completely out of context up until this very moment.Many screenshots have been taken and circulated and with the help of the many enemies that TOC has made and the secular community, this matter will not go away until an apology is issued."

I offered to meet him in person to hear him out, which he declined. The subsequent conversation between us is below:

Then, later today I had the most worrying FB note from one Audrey Tan, which is below:

'She' threatened to lift pictures of my daughter's FB page, doctor them and release them on the internet unless I took down the article where Serena is mentioned in TOC and Jewel issued a public apology. 'She' also commented on Gwee Li Sui's wall that "we must shame Ravi and his daughter".

I was very alarmed and making a police report crossed my mind. But I thought I should 'walk the talk'. We so often talk about community moderation on the internet. I hope the blogging community would come out and censure these 'people'.

So far, only Alfian Sa'at has called them out. Of course I have had phone calls of support and private messages on FB. But for such cyber-bullying to stop, people must come out openly and condemn such acts. I am made of tougher-material (my daughter too) and we can withstand such attacks. I shudder to think what it would have been if it was another person.

Jewel and I are real people, with real faces. You can call us, meet us and talk to us in person. We are not cyber-trolls and certainly do not hide behind a cloak of anonymity. Should we now cower in fear because of these threats and make our FB profile and pictures private?

No, we will not do that! We have confidence in the ability of the online world of Singapore, to do the right thing.

But of course, I will also reserve my right to take appropriate action (legal included) if this cyber-bullying gets out of hand.

--
The full conversation between Donaldson, Amran, Serene and others on the racially offensive 're-post' is HERE.

--
Update: Serena Lee has since PMed me and our conversation is here:

Have blog will write

2011-11-27T18:07:00.001+08:00

Since New Asia Republic has published this article (see HERE), I think that it's important that I say the circumstances under which TOC decided to publish the article 'Racist posts on FB by blogger – police investigates'.

On 20 November, Amran who is a personal friend PMed me on FB and asked if I knew Donaldson and if I'd advise him to take down the offensive picture. He also said, "I really don't want him to get into any trouble, not at this period of time.Tried talking to him but he stand on his believe that he has the right to post things on his wall and that if I don't like it I can take out myself from being his FB friend".

By the time I saw the PM and tried to refer to the offensive picture, FB had already deleted it. Even if FB had deleted the offensive picture, Donaldson had continued to post insensitive comments on his FB justifying his right to post what he did.

When friends cautioned him against such postings and requested him to apologise for bad judgment on his part for re-posting that picture, Donaldson defended his action by continuing to say insensitive things about a particular religion. Although later Donaldson came out to say that he was only "whistle-blowing" and that some others who are Muslims had also posted the same picture on their Facebook but were not accused of trying to create ill will; but when a non-Muslim like him does it, he is accused of inflaming anti-Islam sentiments.

On late Monday afternoon, Amran notified TOC that he had made a police report. When I asked him why he did so, he said that he did it out of frustration as Donaldson continued to offend Islam even after the picture was taken down.

So with a lot of deliberation on the consequences of reporting something like this, TOC decided to go ahead and report it as it is. The main reason TOC decided to publish it was because we considered if we were not to publish that a blogger had offended religious sensitivities, when we had published earlier that a YPAP member and a national serviceman had done so, would it be construed that we were trying to protect one of our own (as Donaldson was formerly a TOC editor)?

Jewel, my daughter is a writer in her own right. I wonder what was the necessity to inject in the NAR article that she is my daughter, except maybe to flame her and me along with her. She only reported the facts, as they were given to her, and NAR being a group blog should know that whatever writers write, has got to be edited (and we adopted the most stringent standard for articles of this nature). So, she is not entirely responsible for the article. The editorial team is equally responsible.

The suggestion in the NAR article that TOC should not report on the article because investigation is ongoing is ingenuous because the media (not just TOC) have reported in the past that police investigations are ongoing in certain cases. An example being Tin Pei Ling being investigated for flouting election regulations (see HERE).

So is the writer from NAR suggesting that TOC should not have reported on Donaldson until investigations are concluded because he is a fellow-blogger, when anyone else including PAP members and national servicemen are fair-game for such reporting?

NAR to suggest in their article that the police reports were politically motivated by a certain opposition political party is even more worrying. Already, the Government is using cases like Donaldson's as an excuse to regulate the internet (see HERE), and now aspersions are cast on opposition political parties - that they practice divisive politics.

The question I have for the other editors of NAR is, did they advise Donaldson to moderate his FB 're-post' considering the ill-will it will generate for NAR? Those in the core team of TOC for example are very careful what we post in our own personal FB, for we are aware that readers will associate personal leanings to official positions. Also, who is 'Jay Sus' (the original poster of the picture)?

But having said all this, let me say here that I do not think that Donaldson is a racist. He could be an idiot - but certainly not a racist. I also certainly do not think that a police report should have been lodged against Donaldson. If Amran had asked me before he made that report if he should do it, I would have advised him against it.

Let me quote the NAR article on what I think about the article on NAR which prompted me to write this blog post - "what separates good editors from the bad ones is the ability to judge which stories deserve the light of the day, and which to turn away or keep in view". .

Dr Yaacob's excuse to regulate the internet?

2011-11-27T12:08:00.001+08:00

source: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1167815/1/.html

The CNA article 'Dr Yaacob commends community's response to racist bloggers', cast all 3 persons who seem to have made disparaging remarks about Islam as 'bloggers'. Where all 3 actually bloggers? None of the people who are alleged to have made the offensive comments, did it on their own or group blog. The comments and/or pictures were from their Facebook.

If anypne who posts something on Facebook is considered a blogger, then a large portion of Singapore (including some Ministers) should be identified as bloggers as well.

Actually of the 3 who allegedly made the offensive post on FB, only one can be identified as a blogger. And even he has made it quite clear in re-posting the picture on his FB that it was a 'repost' and was a 'flame-bait' by the actual person who posted it.

And when Mr Yaacob speaks of a 'code of conduct' for the internet, would this code be something like the Highway Code - which even if is called a code is actually law? If the Minister for Information, Communication and the Arts were to use these instances as an excuse to regulate the internet, it would be akin to using a sledgehammer to kill a fly.

And also as Mr Yaacob had rightly pointed out by saying,"The voices that came out from the Internet were not just Muslim voices, there were also non-Muslims that stepped forward and said 'this is not right. Let us do something about it'. Therefore it reflects the value that they place on the racial and religious harmony that we have in Singapore", there already exists a code of conduct (not legislated and yet effective) on the internet. So, why the need for a Code which may in fact be Law?

Can you really regulate the internet? If you do that, it will only further cast Singapore as an authoritarian State, less attractive to the investors from all over the world.

YPAP call for fairer fares and past precedence

2011-11-26T13:27:00.001+08:00

If past precedence is an indicator, this would be the response from the public transport operators to YPAP's call for 'fairer fares':

"...but both SBS Transit and SMRT said they are exploring the possibility of concessionary travel for the disabled. SMRT said that any concessionary travel is effectively cross-subsidised by full-fare paying commuters. Hence, there is a need to exercise prudence in granting travel concessions."

Source: Renewed calls for public transport subsidies for the disabled

(For the record, the public transport operators have been "considering" for about 2 years if people with disabilities should have concessionary travel.)

--
If the matter for fairer fares for polytechnic students goes to the Public Transport Council, the Council would say:

"The Council supports targeted help being rendered (to the polytechnic student) group. Currently, there are agencies which serve to provide various forms of transport help for the (polytechnic students). Examples include...Assorted constituency-based financial help targeted at the needy (polytechnic students)...If public transport operators choose to offer additional concession schemes to more groups of beneficiaries (such as the polytechnic students group), the PTC would welcome it."

Source: PTC responds to our petition

If the same matter goes before the Transport Minister, he would say:

“I’d be very slow in stipulating (to operators) how best to run the concession policy.”

Source: Raymond Lim once proposed a way for “completely free” public transport

--
At the Parliamentary sitting of 22 November 2011, Transport Minister Lui Tucjk Yew in response to MP Baey Yam Keng said that the purview of public transport prices mainly resided with the Public Transport Operators (PTO), and not with the Government.

Unhappy with the PTO's non-response to the disparity, Young PAP took to Speakers' Corner this morning to campaign for fairer fares, which was supported by about 40 participants.

Writing about their campaign for 'fairer fares' on their Facebook YPAP says:

"But will the PTOs’ respond? Can more be done if they do not respond or respond negatively? Whatever the outcome, the YP etched a milestone in supporting citizen activism today and will continue to do more."

That article on the senior citizen

2011-11-16T16:05:00.001+08:00

I wrote an article about a senior citizen recently for TOC (http://theonlinecitizen.com/2011/11/a-senior-citizen-asks-why-should-i-seek-help-now/). Some people were asking what my purpose was in writing it, because besides factually narrating the difficulties of that elderly person, I did not cast any of my own opinions in crafting it.

Let me say here why I wrote that article. I wrote it because I was angry. Angry that here is this older person who has sufficient money in CPF to pay for her medical needs, but is not able to do so. Angry that despite having sufficient savings in her Medisave (which was meant especially as a safeguard for the old age), she still has to depend on handouts to get herself treated.

I wrote that article because I was amazed at the resilience of that older person, and surprised that the Government besides talking about the need for people to be self-reliant, still attempts to keep them indebted to them through handouts such as these. Where is the walking the talking? It is as if she is being penalised because she is healthy enough to be treated as an outpatient. The CT-Scan that she has to go through would have been absolutely paid-for through her Medisave if she was an inpatient (meaning she becomes too sick and has to be hospitalised).

A few well meaning people wrote to me and said that there are a lot of help schemes available for this person. I wonder...why is it so difficult for some people to understand that people don't want to be helped all the time - especially if they have money of their own to help themselves.

And while we are on topic of the elderly, I was terribly upset by the report on Sunday Times about the Senior Citizens 'choosing to sleep in the streets' (dated 13 November 2011), I mean who would choose to sleep in the streets?

How many of us get along all the time with your mother, brother, sister, wife, children...? I mean even people who are so close and related by blood squabble over many issues like cleanliness, toileting habits...just because they live in the same house, and so share the same space.

And here you have a stupid HDB rental housing policy which specifies that only two adults (even if they are not related to each other), can rent a flat from HDB. They even do you a favour and give you a list of people who are in need of a partner to rent a flat. And if you cannot find a partner, then SORRY! you shall have no house of your own.

The article by Sunday Times could have been deeper and explored the deficiency in the HDB rental housing policy being the main reason why some elderly in SIngapore 'choose to sleep in the streets'.

What about Mdm Perumal who I interviewed for TOC? Since her daughter passed away last year, she has roped in a stranger (who seldom stays in that house) to be the co-renter of her rental HDB flat. A flat - no wait a minute...a HOME - she has lived in most of her life.

The filthy Indian rojak hawker

2011-11-04T17:17:00.000+08:00

I sent the following email to World Toilet Organisation today:

--
Dear Sir/Madam

I watched the video your organisation uploaded on youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AWMBdsBpGJk) and was very disturbed by it.

I was however not disturbed because the video suggests that hawkers ply their business without properly washing their hands after using the toilet, but because the video seems to stereotype Indian hawkers.

I wonder why you did this. Perhaps the incident in Geylang Serai Cooked Food Stalls's rojak incident which could be still fresh in people's minds is something that you wanted to tap on. But that is unfortunate besides being inaccurate, as the food poisoning in that instance happened not because of bad toilet habits, but because of rats (http://www.asiaone.com/Health/News/Story/A1Story20090409-134377.html).

The video is also inaccurate as most Indians do not use toilet-papers to clean up after themselves (as your video suggests), but they use water.

You could have easily used a Chinese chicken rice seller for the video and it would have been more appropriate, as the majority of hawkers in Singapore are Chinese, and also because Chicken Rice is a dish popular with all Singaporeans regardless of their ethnicity.

By depicting Indians in this manner, you may have inadvertently reinforced the perception (if any) that 'Indians are dirty' and/or that Indian rojak is filthy.

Stuff the IPS survey on PE did not report

2011-11-03T16:32:00.004+08:00

There was one question the surveyors from IPS asked which went unreported. The question is:

Whom did you vote for in the presidential election?

IPS did not report the findings from this question because they were not able to conclusively report on that question, as only 1000 people (from a base of 2025) chose to answer it.

But still it is interesting to note how these 1000 who responded to the question answered:

16.6 per cent of the respondents said that they voted for Tan Cheng Bock, 26.3 per cent for Tony Tan, 1.4 per cent for Tan Kin Lian and 5.1 per cent for Tan Jee Say. We all know what the actual vote tally was:

The surveyors at IPS asked another question, "Which party did you vote for in the general election held in May 2011?", for which they had inconclusive findings as well. The political parties those surveyed could pick from that question were, PAP, WP, SDP, SDA, NSP, RP and SPP.

Although I did not get to see the inconclusive findings to that question, I think I will not be too wrong to think that most people who chose to answer that question chose 'PAP'.

What these inconclusive findings tell me is that people who are supportive of the PAP and the candidates backed by the Party are less fearful of repercussions, and so could boldly answer who they voted for.

--
Picture: New Asia Republic

CNA's Talking Point: Policing the internet

2011-10-31T14:18:00.001+08:00

I represented TOC in Channel NewsAsia's talking Point programme discussing the topic 'Policing the internet', with MP for Tampines GRC, Baey Yam Keng and Prof. Ang Peng Hwa of NTU.

Minorities in Singapore and history of ancient China

2011-10-24T23:15:00.000+08:00

In their speeches to debate the President’s address, several Members of Parliament made reference to ancient history of China, and in particular to Emperor Tai Zong and his court official Wei Zheng.

Chen Show Mao, Ellen Lee, Sam Tan and Baey Yam Keng made references to this in choosing to focus on drawing lessons from this Chinese emperor’s governance.

I would like to remind these legislators that Singapore is a multi-racial, multi-cultural society, and so dwelling too much on ancient China’s history would be to make too much of an assumption that everyone understands this history.

What’s more important is, such over-emphasis may be construed as being insensitive to the other races that live with the majority here in Singapore – the Chinese. But then, how many Chinese Singaporeans know the ancient history of China?

People who hold public office should be mindful not to alienate the minorities in making references or drawing lessons from histories of other countries. It quite easy to forget the minorities who share the same space with the majority,

Will WP raise the ISA in parliament?

2011-10-10T17:35:00.003+08:00

Civil Liberties:
1. The Internal Security Act, which provides for detention without trial in cases of alleged subversion, should be abolished. Singapore shall be brought in line with international practices to try such cases, including espionage, with modified procedures to protect official secrets if necessary.

2. In cases of alleged terrorism, the government should be enabled by a dedicated anti-terrorism law to make swift arrests and detain suspects without trial. However, these suspects must be afforded real avenues to challenge the legality of their arrests through the courts and an advisory board. These bodies should be empowered to order the person’s release if not satisfied as to the legality of the detention. - Workers' Party 2011 Manifesto

It will be interesting to watch if the Workers' Party (WP) will choose to speak about the relevancy of the Internal Security Act (in keeping with its promise made in their manifesto), in the 12th sitting of the Parliament.

There can be no better time then now for WP to raise this issue, as Malaysia has abolished its ISA and the Ministry of Home Affairs, has issued no less than four media releases since September, in response to the raging debate on this topic both online and offline.

Kudos to TIn Pei Ling

2011-10-06T15:40:00.003+08:00

Tin Pei Ling in her Facebook linked a Youtube video spoofing her now infamous 'I don't know what to say!' moment. This linking and her own comment to it, seem to suggest that Tin Pei Ling has come around to accept and handle criticisms well. You certainly need a lot of courage to laugh at yourself, and by doing so, Pei Ling has shown that she's neither highly sensitive nor insecure.

Kudos to Tin Pei Ling for making light of her idiosyncrasy without feeling that she may lose respect.

--

Opposition strongmen made of tougher material

2011-09-09T16:49:00.005+08:00

Former senior minister of state Zainul Abidin Rasheed writing in the latest issue of PAP magazine Petir said, "it is likely that many will shy from being possible future sacrificial lambs by standing in Aljunied." (see HERE)

The former-MOS only confirms many people's suspicion that candidates who stand for elections in PAP tickets, are afraid of standing up against tough opposition teams.

Who stood against Chiam See Tong when he was MP of Potong Pasir? Who stood against Low Thia Khiang when he was in-charge of Hougang? Almost nobodies.

Contrast this with Low This Khiang going up against George Yeo and Chiam See Tong going up against Wong Kan Seng. The strongmen of the opposition certainly seem to be made of tougher material, than their counterparts in the ruling party.

Will a high-flying PAP man ever lead the charge in opposition held wards come the next election?

Who am I voting for?

2011-08-26T12:00:00.002+08:00

I explained on June 27 that based on the choices that were available then, Dr Tan Cheng Bock was my choice to be the next Elected President. The eligibility of the fourth Tan - Tan Jee Say, changed all that. Of course TOC's 'Face to Face 2', the presidential forum, as well as Maruah's 'What do you do Mr President', also played a very important role in shaping my current view on who should be the President.

But I'm going to be tight-lipped about who I'm going to vote on Saturday. My vote is secret and I intend to keep it that way, Well, I may share with my family and close friends who I voted for - but that's it.

And just because I wrote something about Dr Tony Tan (HERE), it does not mean that I would vote for him.

I think in voting for the next President, people must be convinced who to vote for by making an analysis of what all the candidates have said - by reasoning what comes closest to their beliefs.

It's certainly very bad for SIngapore if a mob mentality is assumed in how we cast our vote.

So come 27 August 2011, cast your vote for the person who you think will be good for the future of Singapore. And make this decision not only with your mind but also your heart.

--
Picture: Courtesy of Shawn Danker and TOC

I cooked a pot of curry

2011-08-21T16:24:00.000+08:00

Well, not really a pot, but a wok of curry.

I cooked curry today to celebrate multiculturalism in Singapore. I shared the curry I cooked with my neighbours, a domestic worker from the Philippines and her employers.

Everybody should have a place in Singapore

2011-08-09T16:42:00.000+08:00

On 9 August 1965 in times of absolute uncertainty, when Singapore separated from Malaysia, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, then-Prime Minister of Singapore made a promise to people who suddenly were now citizens of an entirely new country - Singapore.

Mr Lee then promised. "Everybody will have a place in Singapore".

46 years later as the Nation celebrates that many years of being independent, this promise seems to ring hollow for many Singaporeans. There is a certain aversion in some quarters to flying the flag, in being proud of calling yourself a Singaporean.

Recently when I commented on my Facebook, "It's that time to fly the flag and be proud of being a Singaporean", one commented that it was just humbug; another said "there is absolutely nothing to be proud of being a citizen in a "FOERIGNERS' CITY"". Yet others were unsure if there was anything to be proud of in being a Singaporean.

I of course count the little things, the little things which remind why I should count my blessings in calling myself a Singaporean.

If someone were to knock the door to my apartment just a little longer, my neighbours who are Chinese peep out of their house to see if everything is ok.

When I was in the USA and was travelling from one city to another within the USA and was randomly selected to go for a full body check at the airport, one immigration officer had one look at my passport and said, "He's from Singapore, let him through".

But still, all this resentment towards foreigners is quite understandable. The floodgates of immigration were opened quite widely in a very short span, which meant that resources which are limited in a land-scarce Singapore would now have to be shared and Singaporeans would now have to compete unfairly with these foreigners.

But then again, we must always remember that those that are foreign cannot be faulted for the many woes Singaporeans face today. It is only human nature to go where there are more opportunities for your family and you; to try and make a better future for yourself is not wrong.

But as much as I agree that foreigners must continue to have a place in Singapore, I must emphasise even more that every Singaporean - the haves as well as the have-nots - must have a place in this country.

Our education, housing, healthcare, immigration and other policies discriminates unfairly and the government has got to do more to make narrower this gap that divides, so that no one gets left behind.

As a people, we should learn that it is ok not to sprint all the time, and that we can sometimes slow down for the stragglers to catch up - so that we can all move forward into the future as one people.

An incident I saw a couple of days ago, reminded me what it means to slow down.

I saw an older man trying to cross the road at a pedestrian crossing, but wasn't too sure because he walked with an aid and extremely slowly too. I also saw a young man who dashed across the road when the light turned in his favour.

But the young man turned back, and to my pleasant surprise, he started to help the older man cross the road. it took almost ten full minutes for the older man to cross the road and as the traffic lights kept changing, having someone beside him gave the older man confidence to ignore the oncoming traffic and just walk.

Whenever the lights were not on their favour, the younger man would lift up his hands to request the oncoming traffic to wait for the older man to cross. And all the drivers did stop till the old man finished crossing.

It struck me then, this is the true meaning of National Day, those that are more able, turning back to help those that are less, so that everyone has a sense that they have a place in this country.

For unless we turn back and let those that have slowed down catch up, the lines that divide are not going to be blurred; and unless these lines are blurred, the sense of belonging is going to get fudged.

The promise made at the independence of Singapore cannot be forgotten, for only keeping that promise will forge us into a nation - a nation we all can be proud of.

Majulah Singapura!

--
Picture 1 credit: Singapore Rebel

My opinion on the Tans

2011-08-06T23:21:00.006+08:00

I think that Presidential hopeful Tan Kin Lian is playing his game well in his bid for the Elected Presidency. Whether I like him, or if I will vote for him is another matter.

But he has continued to keep himself in the news and I think with his latest comeback that the President is not dumb, to Law Minister K Shanmugam's speech in IPS (that the Elected President cannot speak but with the advice of the government), he must have surely won the approval of a few of his detractors.

I had lunch with Dr Tony Tan and a few people who are opinion leaders in the online world and I asked Dr Tony Tan what his views were on the mandatory aspect of the death penalty. Dr Tan said to me that the President has got to decide on the advice of the Cabinet and that that is the Constitution. When I said to him that 'yeah I know that but what's your personal opinion on the 'mandatory' aspect of the death penalty', Dr Tan did not give a direct answer.

In this aspect, Mr Tan Jee Say is the only aspirant who has come out to say that he is against the mandatory aspect of the death penalty. I respect Mr Tan Jee Say for holding this views and for expressing them without fear. The people would like to know who the person they will elect as a President is and for that, the aspirants have got to come out and express who they are as a person, and that is very important.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock, I think besides the strong show of support which was displayed at the time he filed his application for COE, can do more to fire the imagination of the online world.

Of course Dr Tan Cheng Bock is a very colourful man, but he has got to let that colour shine through the cyberworld. Playing the ukulele and singing 'Count on me Singapore', is not my idea if letting the colour shine through. And engaging the online world is more than releasing smartphone apps.

--

--

Email exchange with Presidential hopeful Tan Kin Lian

2011-07-04T14:06:00.001+08:00

I had an email exchange with Mr Tan Kin Lian recently and I am posting the exchange here in its entirety without any edits whatsoever.

Basically, Mr Tan had emailed me and asked why I had posted negative views about him, and I replied that I had not posted any negative views about him; that all that I had done was to re-post his own views which he had expressed in 2005, and the views of a letter writer, who disagreed with Mr Tan's views.

I must state for the record that although I am inclined towards Dr Tan Cheng Bock as my choice to be the next elected President of Singapore at the moment, (I haven't decided for sure, as Dr Tan has yet to get his Certificate of Eligibility to stand in the next Presidential Election) I have no personal feud with Mr Tan Kin Lian and have no intention of smearing any Presidential aspirant.

My intention in posting some of Presidential hopefuls previous comments and in asking them hard questions, is to contribute to the debate that Singaporeans are having as to who they would have as their next President.

For example, it was me who asked Dr Tan Cheng Bock pointedly, if he still felt the 'Marxist conspirators' were guilty. The question to Dr Tony Tan, 'you have won damages from opposition candidates who contested against PAP. What is your view on using defamation suits to quell opposition?' is mine.

I hope through such hard questions and by placing the past comments/actions of the hopefuls in the spotlight, the electorate would have a peek into the mindset of the Presidential hopefuls.

---The Email Exchange---

TKL: Ravi,I find that you are taking a stand against me. It is all right for you to support TCB but it is not necessary for you to post negative views about me. I refer to your podcast here and to a few articles that you have written. http://pdfcast.org/pdf/penalise-those-that-resign-early-says-tan-kin-lian

Ravi: Dear Mr Tan, thank you for this email, but I did not post negative views about you and neither is the podcast linked here my views. These were your own views and the views of another letter writer to the Today Newspaper in 2005. I merely linked your own views and the rebuttal you received for expressing those views on TOC's FB. If you deem that they are negative, they are not my making nor the making of TOC. I expressed my own views here on the 3 presidential hopefuls: http://www.raviphilemon.net/2011/06/why-dr-tan-cheng-bock-is-still-my.html, and I believe I did not make any disparaging remarks about you; and that my observations on you were fair. I personally feel that all voters, have got to know the views of the Presidential hopefuls better, to make an informed decision come voting day. Although at this moment I do have a leaning towards Dr Tan Cheng Bock, I do not know yet if I would support him for the Presidential election, because he has not gotten his COE yet. But even then, my leaning towards TCB is my own and not that of TOC's. TOC may put out an editorial on the candidate for the Presidential election once the COE has been issued. I also hope that this email is not an attempt at asking me (or TOC) to self-censor our views, opinions and reporting which you perceive may be harmful or damaging to your bid to be the next elected President of SIngapore.

TKL: You have posted a few negative and unfair views about me. I know that you support Tan Cheng Bock but it is not necessary for you to be hitting me - especially in this podcast - where I do not have the chance to give a reply.

Ravi: Mr Tan, now you are just making assertions without any basis whatsoever. As I have pointed out in my earlier reply, what I have posted is NOT my podcast, I have NOT posted any negative or unfair comments about you, neither do I have any intention of 'hitting' you. Unless you have some proof of this, I would suggest you not make baseless accusations such as this, which attacks me unfairly. If you wish, you may post this email exchange in its entirety on your blog and so have your chance to give a reply. Thanks.

TKL: I have said my piece and do not wish to engage you further on this matter.

Why Dr Tan Cheng Bock is still my choice to be the Elected President

2011-06-27T15:58:00.001+08:00

This Presidential Election (PE) is turning out to be the 'Battle of the Tans'. Of the 3 Tans who have put themselves forward for the race, I am still inclined to vote for Dr Tan Cheng Bock in the coming election, and my reasons are very rational.

Dr Tony Tan
Yes, I am happy that he invited the bloggers to the media conference where he announced his intention to run in the PE. But that invitation happened because by his own admission, bloggers cannot be ignored any longer because they have a "role in news dissemination and commentary in Singapore".

Although Dr Tony Tan said that he is running as an independent candidate, everyone from the government, from the current President to the Prime Minister, have come out and endorsed him (even if it is not explicitly). I suspect what will happen next is the NTUC Chief Lim Swee Say, will come out to say that Dr Tony Tan is a suitable candidate and that the labour movement will support his candidacy.

I wonder why PM Lee says that Dr Tony Tan "will be a unifying figure for all citizens"?

The last General Election showed that Singapore is quite polarised between the supporters of PAP and the supporters of the opposition. What has Dr Tony Tan done for the opposition, when he was in the government or since his retirement? Of course, he has successfully sued opposition politicians for damages on charges of defamation.

Mr Tan Kin Lian
Although I know Mr Tan Kin Lian personally and must say that he comes across as a very concerned person, I am not convinced that he will be a very good Elected President; and I say that because he seem to be too closely associated with the opposition.

A candidate from the Workers' Party, Png Eng Huat picked up his certificate of eligibility forms, the former secretary-general of National Solidarity Party, Goh Meng Seng is among his list of volunteers, and he has spoken at Singapore Democratic Party rallies (just to name some instances of involvement with the opposition).

And I am also concerned that his intention to "issue an annual report to show how much reserves" Singapore has, may not be in the best interest of Singapore, lest we become targets of global raiders.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock
Dr Tan Cheng Bock on the other hand, has been a PAP man for many years, but even there, he had a reputation for being the 'opposition' within the PAP. He has also not failed to understand concerns of the opposition since he left the PAP. During the last GE he attended a few opposition rallies. He also attended TOC's appreciation dinner for Mr Chiam See Tong.

I think that the President who will be elected has got to be a "unifying" person. A person who can unify the gulf between the PAP supporters and the those of the opposition, so that Singapore can go forward as a society. And my gut feeling says that Dr Tan Cheng Bock, can be this man.

In his exclusive interview to TOC, he also said that he will strike a balance between ensuring Singaporeans that the reserves are safe and full disclosure.

Of course I am not saying that Dr Tan Cheng Bock is a perfect candidate. He could have fielded the questions on preventive detention (during the exclusive interview with TOC) better. He could have gone up to Teo Soh Lung to acknowledge her as not being a Marxist conspirator at Mr Chiam See Tong's appreciation dinner...

But of the three who have come forward, Dr Tan Cheng Bock is as good as we could get (for now), to be the Elected President.

Of course the high-fliers in the PAP are not going to come out and endorse him openly (as they have done for Dr Tony Tan), because Dr Tan Cheng Bock's "I refuse to compromise" character is something they would not be able to handle. And the opposition is not going to come out and openly support Dr Tan Cheng Bock in his bid to be the Elected President, because to them, no matter what he has done, he is still a PAP man.

Which is why it is very important for Singaporeans who think clearly, to come out and openly support, endorse and vote for Dr Tan Cheng Bock, if he gets his certificate of eligibility for the PE.

Ultra-nationalism, xenophobia, rage and hatred

2011-06-25T22:26:00.003+08:00

This is just a personal note to say that I am quite uncomfortable with the polarisation that seem to be happening in Singapore. Ok, people went on a frenzy in the lead up to the General Election and that is fine. But now, since the GE is over, there is absolutely no necessity to remain in gear five. A good driver would know that you cannot remain in gear five all the time and not avoid accidents; and that you cannot negotiate turns without switching gears down.

I am not saying that the perceived injustices have already been corrected or that there are no issues to be discussed. I am not even saying that we should opt for quiet diplomacy to change status quo over loud activism. What I am uncomfortable about is how these issues are highlighted.

I did say something about the Black Sunday movement some weeks ago on TOC. One of the reasons I said what I said, was not to intimidate anybody or to monger fear; but because I was concerned that people would go into events such as these and not know what they are getting in to. I felt that the organisers of such events should do proper homework and give enough information to the people who would turn up, to make an informed decision as to whether they should support such protests actively, or remain passive sympathisers.

I must say that I am also uncomfortable with colour-coded activism. I am reminded of the problems in Thailand over such colour-coded political activism, where the red shirts are pitted against the yellow shirts. I am convinced that a country like Singapore, cannot afford to go into such a situtation, and that such a movement would be detrimental to Singapore.

It seems to me that more thought could have gone into the planning of the events to highlight such grievances, lest you fan ultra-nationalism and xenophobia. I think politicians too must refrain from being opportunistic, by further fanning such unhappiness from certain quarters of the community.

Injusctices and wrongs are here to stay with us. Even if the opposition forms the next government, there will be other injustices and perceived wrongs which activists must continue to fight.

I know that I may be criticised for writing this note. Maybe even flamed somewhere, but I must say what I have to say.

I have supported and personally championed many issues in the past few years, and have not shied away from something out of fear. Yes, I do get angry when I see injustices, but I do not rage all the time. I also am not hateful towards anybody.

Rage and hatred are bad for society and that is not the kind of Singapore I want my children and their children to grow up in.

Utter disgust of TR's article

2011-06-15T13:52:00.001+08:00

I am utterly disgusted by Temasek Review Emeritus' latest article "TOC (The Online Conning) Continues". Of course, there is this serious allegation of mismanagement of funds at TOC (which the core team at TOC will reply to soon), but they have also attacked a person I call my friend - Andrew Loh.

Andrew Loh is one of the most selfless person that I know. The article to suggest that Andrew "couldn't let go of the money", that "he milked TOC as far as he can", and that he absconded with the money, is to say the least, absolutely repulsive!

Andrew used up a lot of his own money to keep TOC going for more than 3 years. I mean thousands of dollars out of his own pocket. I can personally witness to this.

Why Andrew left TOC, is anybody's guess. Yeah, we may have had our differences, but why would anyone assume that we did not? The people who are affiliated with TOC are after all very opinionated people, who feel very much about this tiny nation we call Singapore, and sometimes, there will be spillovers because of these marked differences in opinion.

But at no point in time where the differences even remotely about money.

Since 2006, Andrew has contributed so much to Singapore. For some faceless guys to now come and make all these kinds of baseless accusations against him, is absolutely disgusting! And for TRE to publish the article (even with a disclaimer), without trying to verify if there is any truth to it, is even more!

I am not afraid to call this article for what it is - one big farce!

I hope others will be brave enough to voice out their utter disgust to TRE for continuing to publish articles such as this.

Rat infestation and cleanliness/maintenance problems in Ang Mo Kio

2011-06-07T18:47:00.000+08:00

I sent the following email to Mr Seng Han Tong, the MP re-elected from the constituency of Ang Mo Kio.

---

Mr Seng Han Tong
MP for Ang Mo Kio GRC

Dear Mr Seng

Congratulations on being re-elected at the last General Election.

I am writing to you as you are the Member of Parliament for my constituency and so, to highlight to you the problem of maintenance and cleanliness again in my neighbour. I have written to you in past about similar problems. Although the problems highlighted were rectified by the town council, you did not acknowledge my communication with you. Being a resident in your constituency, I would have appreciated a personal acknowledgement, even if it is a simple one saying that your town council members are looking into the problems highlighted.

The problems I have highlighted in the past, have come back again.

The rat infestation has grown worse and the recent heavy downpour has flushed out the rats from their burrows and their menace is unbearable. They are huge and are not even afraid of humans.

The coffee-shop below my block, has again left the cover to the rubbish-bin opened. The uncovered rubbish bin has become a feeding ground for rats, crows and mynah.

The lift as well as the lift lobby in my block is not cleaned every day. Sometimes, the debris and the lift stinks for a few days before it gets cleaned out.

The block next to mine has lots of cardboard boxes stacked against a tree. Besides being unsightly, it is also a fire hazard (please see attached picture)

In the morning when I leave to work, one of the elderly cleaners greets me and on two occasions have asked me for a dollar to have something to eat at the coffee-shop. He is a Singaporean but I presume does not earn enough. I have obliged him on the couple of occasions he had asked me.

I think it is very important that the town council takes care of the welfare of its workers, even the cleaners. A worker who is hungry will of course be unable to do a proper job in keeping the estate clean and well maintained.

Please do look into these pressing problems that I have highlighted to you in my estate. I would appreciate if you would acknowledge this email.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Ravi Philemon

Transport Minister takes public transport - where's the surprise?

2011-06-03T12:49:00.007+08:00

I honestly cannot understand what the big deal is for the Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew to be taking the public transport. He is the Transport Minister isn't he?

Would anyone be surprised that the pastor actually reads the Bible, that the plumber actually opens the clogged sink drain, that the mee goreng man actually makes mee goreng?

Why then make comments like "Hurray, Mr Lui Tuck Yew is so down to earth", when Mr Lui was just doing his job when he took the bus and the MRT?

I however, cannot understand how the Transport Minister can open the Today newspaper fully to read on the bus. He seems to be sitting in the back seat and so probably had enough space to fully open the paper. But the driver must also have been driving very carefully, without braking too much or making sudden stops, so that the Transport Minister does not fall forward.

If only all of us could have such fantasy rides on our public transports.

Mr Lui (who was the former Minister for Information, Communication and Arts) has also done a good job of promoting the mainstream media (Today and My Paper), on his rides in our public transports.

Err...who is the photo taker ah?

---Afternote---

Some people commented on the link of this post on FB that "the CEO of pizza hut does not make pizzas" and that the "CEO of taxi company does not ride taxis". They are missing the point of this post. What I am saying is that there is really no surprise if the pizza chain boss tosses pizza, or the taxi company chief drives taxi.

But wait, perhaps Mr Lui was trying to play undercover boss.

The only thing is, almost everyone recognised this new boss of public transportation.

Picking up where Ong Teng Cheong left off

2011-05-31T17:31:00.004+08:00

I said on my Facebook page a few days ago that “I am one of the many Singaporeans who urged him (Dr Tan Cheng Bock) to stand for the upcoming Presidential Election.”

I think that it is important to say why I support Dr Tan’s bid for the elected presidency.

Let me start by saying that I am not very young (neither am I that old), so I have followed Dr Tan’s work as a backbencher in Parliament and he has always struck me as an MP who speaks from his heart.

For example, in 1988, Dr Tan who then headed the Government Parliamentary Committee for Education, suggested that the government consider extending CPF’s Extended Investment scheme to include education. He argued that education should be considered an investment in human resources which would result in a better educated, better skilled and better quality workforce.

Then Minister for Labour, Dr Lee Yock Suan, opposed it because he feared that CPF savings of members may be squandered in expensive studies at unknown foreign universities. The then MP for Kebun Baru, Mr Lim Boon Heng, objected to Dr Tan’s proposal on the basis that it was a populist move.

Dr Tan rebutted Mr Lim then by saying, “The MP for Kebun Baru called this a popular move, a popular issue. Is it because you think it is popular, you think it is wrong to bring it up? Or are popular decisions wrong decisions?”

Dr Tan also spoke up against Singapore hospitals becoming more profit-oriented. This he believes will alter the practice of medicine and the values of some doctors, leaving the door open to abuse. Noting that the 1993 White Paper on Affordable Health Care used the term ‘industry’ to describe medicine, Dr Tan lamented, “Medicine is (now) treated less as a profession and more as an industry.”

In 2005, during the re-emergence of dengue in Singapore, Dr Tan spoke up against the shortage of hospital beds. He said, “If you say you have no choice but to turn away patients because of lack of beds and other resources, you haven’t planned enough.”

In 1993, when the government of Singapore, went on an overdrive on upgrading, Dr Tan urged restraint in basic areas like housing, education and health. The government, he said, must continue to provide three-room apartments and ensure that there are sufficient ‘C’ class and ‘B2′ beds in public hospitals.

As far back as 1999, Dr Tan highlighted the growing resentment of Singaporeans towards ‘foreign talent’ in Parliament. He urged the Government to tone down its insistence on the value of attracting foreign talent, “in order to protect our citizens and give them a better chance”.
In July 2002, when the Minister for Transport decided to hike public transportation fares, Dr Tan was one of the few in Parliament who urged a review of the price hike.

Yes, in 1987 Dr Tan seemed to have supported the detention of the alleged ‘Marxist conspirators’, but I believe that like most Singaporeans (including me) at that time, he believed the misinformation that was fed to him by the government of Singapore. But what’s notable is that even then, Dr Tan did not brush aside those that detracted from his views (and the views of most Singaporeans at that time) by labelling them ‘Marxist sympathisers’, but instead acknowledged them as “solid citizens”.

More importantly, I urged Dr Tan to consider standing for the Presidential Election and intend to support him in his bid because as MP Inderjit Singh rightly said, “For Presidential Elections, there’s always been a candidate that the Government supports … it’s quite clear that we will be fully behind this person so it will be very awkward (to have Dr Tan in the contest).” This makes it even more important for ordinary Singaporeans like me to support Dr Tan in the contest.

In a culture where it is natural for any backbencher not to criticise the policies of their bosses aggressively (perhaps with an eye on the front bench and their own career path), Dr Tan is a rarity. His ears are on the ground, he is intellectual, he speaks his mind and he has won the respect of many Singaporeans.

The late President Ong Teng Cheong said in an interview, “Even in my last year as president, I was still not being informed about some ministerial procedures.” I hope that Dr Tan, if elected, will finish this unfinished job of President Ong.

Why I support Dr Tan’s bid to be the Elected President of Singapore is because I believe what Dr Tan recently said, that he will be a “unifying figure for all Singaporeans of whatever political affiliation, race or religion.”

NSP chief should know that there is such a thing called 'designated donation'

2011-05-24T14:17:00.003+08:00

I refer to NSP's secretary-general's response to Nicole Seah's fund-raising method (Link: Nicole Seah's fund raising).

I am particularly disturbed by his comment, "It would be technically tedious for us to differentiate between funding meant for the Marine Parade team if donations are made to the party's bank account. Besides, financial reporting for the party will be very complex if every team or individual candidate utilise the party's bank account for their fund-raising activities".

I am surprised that NSP's secretary-general does not know that there is such a thing called 'designated donation'. A designated donation is one which's use is stipulated by the donor at the time of the donation, where the donor express wish to designate the contribution to a specified use. Which means that in the case of Nicole Seah and the team that contested in Marine Parade, the donor could write out a cheque or give cash direct to NSP, but designate it to the expenses the team at Marine Parade incurred for campaigning in Marine Parade GRC.

People join political parties because they believe besides other things, that the party they join will help to protect their integrity or the public's perception of it. Even more should the party do to protect the individual, if they stood as a candidate on the party ticket.

For political parties, to not help its candidates protect their image citing 'technical tediousness and complexity', is pure let-down. People join political parties precisely because they need help in manoeuvring through technical tediousness and complexities of the electoral process.

I also think that NSP's chief has too quickly slammed the people who have questioned Nicole Seah's solicitation of donation as "slander". NSP should not shy away from scrutiny of the public; the same scrutiny they have asked the public to cast on PAP.

Although I am not trained in law, I do believe that it is perfectly alright for candidates from NSP to solicit funds to defray the cost of election expenses under their own names. But even if the whole process of fund-raising by the politicians in their own name is conducted in a totally transparent manner, there is still this issue of perception by the public.

Sometimes, it is this perception that becomes the hardest to manage. And in my opinion, NSP as a Party could have done more to support its members, especially its candidates from the last General Election.

Ministers' salaries - what's up for review is the mechanism - not the fundamentals

2011-05-23T23:00:00.008+08:00

There's been a great rah-rah about Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's recent announcement about salary revision to the Preseident's, Ministers' and top civil servants salaries lately.

But if we pay close attention to what is actually being said:

"Whatever we work out, the final answer must include a substantial discount on comparable salaries in the private sector..."

we can deduce that what's being reviewed is the mechanism for the calculation of the salaries; but not the fundamentals.

In 1994, the former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew proposed that salaries of Ministers, judges and top civil servants be linked to the salaries of top professionals in private sector, saying that Ministers should be well paid so that a clean and honest government can be maintained. He also argued that such pegging of salaries would help recruit and retain talent in the public sector.

This fundamental IS NOT UP FOR REVIEW.

What's being revised is the mechanism of the pegging of the salaries to the public sector. Currently,income benchmark for ministers and top civil servants is pegged at 2/3 the median income of all the top 8 earners in the 6 professions of lawyer, accountant, banker, MNC executive, local manufacturer and engineer.

And there is absolutely no disclosure about how much each Minister is paid. But in 2009, the Public Service Division released some statistics, and according to that data, the President's paid $3.14m, the Prime Minister $3.04m and the Ministers and Senior Parliamentary Secretaries $1.57m.

Because the fundamentals are not being re-looked the peg is still to the private sector and will not be to the public sector anywhere else in the world. Hence, the "substantial discount" Gerard Ee spoke about becomes very, very subjective.

The team led by Gerard Ee who is reviewing the salaries, will probably not question Lee Kuan Yew's logic for the peg; that such a linking will draw the wrong type of people into the public sector. Without this logic review the team reviewing the salaries may decide that the Presidents, Ministers and top civil servants salaries could be pegged to four-ninths of the median income of all the top 8 earners in the 6 professions of lawyer, accountant, banker, MNC executive, local manufacturer and engineer; and even though the the salaries of the public sector employees will still be in the $2m range, it can be considered a 'substantial discount'.

Why must the salary of Ministers and top civil servants be linked to the salaries of top professionals in private sector? Why can't the salary be pegged to the average salary of the top 20th percentile and bottom 20th percentile of income?

What do I think is a fair amount for public servants holding high office? Although I think that the range should be between $750,000 to $1.2m, what's more important in my opinion is that the fundamentals for the peg must be re-looked.

Remembering the 'Marxist Conspirators' of 21st May 1987

2011-05-21T00:00:00.005+08:00

Singapore Parliament sitting on 11 Jan 1988

MARXIST DETAINEES

(Right to constitutional political activities)

The following Question stood in the name of Mr Chiam See Tong -

    8. To ask the Minister for Home Affairs why is it that the recent detainees, after having given written undertakings not to take part in 'Marxist activities', should be deprived of their constitutional rights to participate in constitutional political activities.

    Mr Speaker: Mr Chiam.

  Mr S. Chandra Das (Chong Boon): Question No. 8.

    The Minister for Home Affairs (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, although the Member for Potong Pasir is not here, I think it is right that the Member for Chong Boon has stood up to ask the Question so that it can be given an answer.

    Sir, in reply to the Question. It is not true that the released detainees have been deprived of their constitutional rights to participate in constitutional political activities.

    If the Member is convinced that a matter is unconstitutional, which is a question of law, he can easily have this tested in the Courts of law. He can offer himself to any of the detainees, as a public service, to be their constitutional law expert and to take their case up. If the Member was present here today, I would have asked him whether he can inform us which detainee has been so deprived and which specific provision of the Constitution has been transgressed.

    In fact, the Member ought to know that six ex-detainees had contested in elections previously.

    Mr Speaker, Sir, Members may wish to know what are the restrictive conditions. First, it is that he or she shall not travel beyond the limits of Singapore without the prior approval of the Director of the ISD. Secondly, he or she shall not, except with the written consent of the Director of the ISD, be a member of any society within the meaning of the Societies Act or in any way assist in the activities of any society. And third, he or she whall not associate with or take part in or in any way assist in the activities of any organization which, through its publications, statements or other activities, has shown itself to be used in propagating Marxism or Communism.

    Sir, these restrictive conditions are necessary to prevent the released person from acting in any manner prejudicial to the Republic's security. There is nothing unconstitutional about these conditions. They are imposed pursuant to the Internal Security Act. Article 14 of the Constitution which deals with freedom of speech, assembly and association, expressly authorizes Parliament, by law, to impose restrictions necessary in the interests of the security of Singapore or of public order.

    The three restrictive conditions do not prohibit them from taking part in constitutional political activities. In fact, they are free to stand for elections as independent candidates. They can even join a political party and take part in the activities of that party. But as the Member would know, and all Members would know, the whole objective of the Communist United Front is to penetrate and manipulate lawful organizations for its subversive acts. Therefore, he must obtain the approval of the Director of the ISD, and this requirement applies to all societies, not just political societies. And it is a necessary control so that the ISD can make its professional security assessment whether the person will pose a security threat or risk if allowed to join a society, or whether he will abuse it or will be made use of. Once he joins a political society, no further consent of the Director of the ISD is needed if he wants to stand for elections.

    Finally, Sir, under the Internal Security Act, the Government has the power to prohibit absolutely any released person from taking part in any political activities. We would not have hesitated to impose this condition for the recently released detainees if we felt it necessary to do so on security grounds. But we did not consider it necessary.

New generation, new leaders, new social contracts

2011-05-20T14:59:00.002+08:00

I said yesterday that "I suspect that the Prime Minister's reluctance to break away from the old, will be the one main factor which will gnaw away the trust the people of Singapore still have in the PAP."

I chanced upon Dr Tan Cheng Bock's blog today and his entry titled "A Radical Cabinet Reshuffle For the Better", confirmed my suspicion.

In his blog entry Dr Tan said "It is a big challenge for the new ministers. These are policies evolved over a long period of time and influenced by and under the watchful eyes of strong hard core old politicians. Thus in the past a softer option policy is deemed to be pandering to the people and is not the right thing to do. So policy makers then are always looking behind their backs to see if a nod had been given. This can be a big obstacle to change. It stifles creativity and initiative. A mind set change is necessary and this include civil servants, the implementers of policies."

When Dr Tan says this, he is not speculating like me. He was the Member of Parliament for Ayer Rajah from 1980 till 2006. And more importantly, he was an elected member of PAP's Central Executive Committee for ten years, from 1987 - 1996. So, he should know first-hand, how things work within the PAP.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew was right in recently saying, ""2011 has seen a generation that does not remember from whence we came, but that is to be expected." The PAP would only stand to lose even more if it chooses to strengthen the 'old' or perpetuate it.

This generation, and the generations to come, will look for something more than renewal, because renewal might just mean that the old got repackaged. They will look for something beyond reform, because reforms have been implemented time and again with limited marginal, or no success. Because reforms often leave the system intact, with slight modifications but refrain from addressing the larger structural issues associated with the policies.

The new generation will want a resurrection. A resurrection of nationalism, of national identity, of nation-bonding. Diluting patriotism to Singapore spirit, will just not do.

This generation looks for a bunch of leaders who will be one among them. A bunch of leaders who will lead them not only with their head, but also with their heart. A bunch of leaders who inspire them with new ideas. And a bunch, the people are able to trust enough to go with them into the new era.

It is towards these new type of leaders, will this new generation gravitate more and more towards. Towards those who will make this new social contract with them.

Sum of PAP's new cabinet

2011-05-19T15:27:00.010+08:00

On the one hand, you have a Deputy Prime Minister who turns his back to critical engagement and on the other, you have another who welcomes a strong opposition. The appointment of the two Deputy Prime Ministers quite sums up the new cabinet of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

This straddling of the conservatives and the progressives is seen in the rest of the cabinet as well. On the one side you have people who are perceived to be conservative hardliners like K Shanmugam and Lui Tuck Yew; and on the other you have those that come across as being moderate progressives like Khaw Boon Wan and Yaacob Ibrahim. Even among the newbie Ministers, you have someone like Chan Chun Sing and then, there is Tan Chuan Jin.

I think the Prime Minister intends to bestride the conservative-progressive divide in the People's Action Party (PAP), with his new cabinet line-up and through this straddling take a more interventionist stance in the nation's political, social and economic scene.

One can also see whose side the Prime Minister would be on if the push comes to shove between the conservatives and the progressives. Although Tharman appears to be holding more portfolios than the other Deputy Prime Minister, he will not be the Acting Prime Minister in the Prime Minister's absence. While Chan Chun Sing is made an Acting Minister, Tan Chuan Jin is only a Minister of State.

The no longer rookie Member of Parliament Baey Yam Keng recently said that in the past, he has been discouraged by senior Members of Parliament and/or Ministers from speaking up or pursuing policy issues they disagree with. It will indeed be interesting to note if MPs from the ruling party will be given more leeway to debate issues robustly and vote according to their conscience and according to the desires of the majority of their constituents. Or if they would vote according to the Party Whip.

It seems from the article "Lifting the Party Whip: PAP MPs share their views" that the Party Whip was lifted only twice in the last ten years. The result being (in my opinion) PAP MPs are parlaysed from voting without the Party Whip.

Despite what MPs like Lim Biow Chuan says, one can only debate as robustly as he feels convicted enough to vote. If PAP MPs already know beforehand that they would have to vote a certain way because of the Party Whip, why even debate?

The Prime Minister's 'radical change' is only as radical as the monolith, PAP would allow him. His actions even in the new cabinet line-up, seem to suggest that he will be hesitant to break away from the old. Despite accepting the resignations of Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong, the PM still retains Lee Kuan Yew as Senior Advisor to GIC and Goh Goh Chok Tong is appointed as Senior Advisor to MAS with the honorific title of Emeritus Senior Minister. Which make one wonder, why wasn't the title Emeritus Minister Mentor given to Lee Kuan Yew and what kind of advisory roles are in store for Wong Kan Seng, Mah Bow Tan and Raymond Lim?

I suspect that the Prime Minister's reluctance to break away from the old, will be the one main factor which will gnaw away the trust the people of Singapore still have in the PAP.

Anyway, no one who has been in the old, straightaway desires the new. "The old is better", they say.

Political parties should engage on all platforms

2011-05-18T15:08:00.001+08:00

I was interviewed by Hoe Yeen Nie of Channel NewsAsia for her report on "The impact of new media on GE 2011".

At the interview, I said that if you go by what's reflected on the internet, you would think the opposition would win hands down. But that did not happen". I said that those that supported the opposition on the internet, either on their social media, websites, blogs or other mediums of communication,probably did vote for the opposition. But that the electorate is much bigger than those who went online to express their support to one Party or another. So, the Parties should discount the feedback of support they receive online by at least seven-tenths.

I also said that some Parties like the People's Action Party and the Workers' Party, were relatively conservative in their outreach over the new media and that Parties such as these could have done much better if they were better able to optimise the online tools.

CNA reported me saying, "Although it may seem like TOC is leaning towards one side, we have not supported any political party", but they omitted the part where I said that we work with whoever would respond to us (The Online Citizen). Because the opposition responded to us more often than the PAP, we reported the views and opinions of the opposition more than the PAP's.

I said to to Yeen Nie that it is important for political parties (including the PAP) to make use of all platforms that are available to engage the citizens. Even the platforms that seem to be critical and/or skeptical. You can win over the critiques and skeptics by sound debate. But if you do not engage, you make cynics out of them and it will then be impossible to win them over.

CAN! appreciate Sylvia Lim

2011-05-06T14:39:00.000+08:00

Members of CAN! where at the Workers' Party rally last night to show their appreciation to Sylvia Lim for for raising the issue of parity in public transportation for the people with disability in Parliament. Shamsiah who is intellectually disabled garlanded Ms Sylvia Lim, while Rahamatullah who is blind, garlanded Mr Low Thia Khiang.

CAN! asked me to be their spokesperson and they said that they are thankful to Sylvia Lim for speaking up for the people who are disabled twice in Parliament. The second time, she called on the government to better integrate people with disability with society.

CAN! hopes that the Minister for Transport will not be "very slow in stipulating (to operators) how best to run the concession policy", in the new Parliament. And that the new government will do their part in helping the people with disability get the dignity they deserve.

People will vote against PAP's arrogance

2011-05-05T23:55:00.008+08:00

I am not anti-PAP. But the more I see the high-handedness of the government, the more I witness the arrogance of those that are in power, the more I encounter their lack of compassion, the more I started resenting them.

When the people with disabilities tried to hand in a petition to the Minister for Transport, Raymond Lim, urging his Ministry to recommend transport subsidy for them to the public transport operators. Mr Raymond Lim, not only refused to accept the petition of these people with disabilities but when Sylvia Lim raised the matter in Parliament, Raymond Lim responded that he will "be very slow in stipulating (to operators) how best to run the concession policy".

When I email Member of Parliament Penny Low to ask if she did say that the people who are homeless in Singapore are so because of mental illness, or because they choose to be so, I get no response.

When I write to the MP for Yio Chu Kang constituency Seng Han Thong, to raise concerns about my constituencies cleanliness and maintenance, he does not even acknowledge me.

Then you read incidents like Minster for Information, Communication and Arts Lui Tuck Yew alerting the police just because a management committee member protested loudly against Lui Tuck Yew, for coming into the private property compound he is responsible for without permission. So what if he ran after the Minister and said the PAP is "the worst government in the world"? Did the Minister at anytime feel that his life was threatened? The management committee member had every right to be angry, for the Minister tried to enter the property without getting permission from the management committee. How can they claim that they got permission from a resident?

From Wee Shu Min'e elitism controversy to Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's pronouncement that the people of Aljunied will "repent" if they chose Workers' Party, the PAP reeks of arrogance of the highest order.

It is this arrogance that I despise. It will be against this arrogance I suspect, the people of Singapore will be voting against come May 7.

Lee Hsien Loong and Shanmugam were probably thinking of SBS or SMRT

2011-04-30T14:30:00.003+08:00

Workers' Party (WP) chief Low Thia Kiang called for greater checks and balances in Parliament during a rally on Thursday, where he had said a co-driver was essential "to slap the driver when he drives off course or when he falls asleep or drives dangerously".

In responding to him, Mr Lee Hsien Loong said, "When you drive a car or a bus, you don't rely on two drivers. You find the person you trust, who has experience, skill, and is responsible, and you put him in charge, and then you watch him as he takes you on your journey, a safe journey. You don't want to have two because what if they quarrel with each other - one says turn left, the other says turn right, or what if one grabs the steering wheel and the other one steps on the brakes or the accelerator and everything at the same time. Better choose the best driver, rely on him for five years. If he performs, you support him and you give him the mandate to do it again."

In expanding on Mr Lee's analogy, Mr Shanmugam added, "How often have you seen a car being driven by two drivers, fighting with each other for the wheel? I can see why the WP called its vision 'unique'. This unique vision will lead us to a crash, and not the smooth drive that the WP promises. And this co-driver wants to keep slapping the driver. Just like what they do in the Taiwanese Parliament. I suppose hair pulling and kicking would be a natural progression."

Mr Shanmugam said nothing new by using the analogy of the Taiwanese Parliament. He, like all Mr Teo Ser Luck and Mr Lee Hsien Loong, invoked the bogeyman of a violent Parliament.

I want to ask Mr Lee Hsien Loong and Mr Shanmugam something. Mr Low Thia Khiang has been a Member of Parliament for 20 years, since 1991. Ms Sylvia Lim has been a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament since 2006. How often have they pulled someone's hair or kicked someone in Parliament?

And Mr Lee Hsien Loong and Mr Shanmugam seem unable to comprehend a co-driver system because they both are probably thinking of SBS or SMRT buses. Yes, these buses are driven by one driver but they are only driven short distances. Even if one particular SBS or SMRT bus were to go from Bedok in the east to Bukit Batok in the west (although with distance based fares being implemented by SBS and SMRT such long rides have become an exception) it will still be a very short ride when compared to the buses which go long distances, from Singapore to Penang, or Singapore to Hatyai.

Such bus rides lasts anywhere from 9 - 14 hours and can you imagine a bus going on such a long drive having just one driver without a co-driver?

It will be very irresponsible of the bus company to insist that only one driver drives the bus on such long road trips. Just because there are two drivers, it will not mean that these buses go to two different destinations. The two drivers compliment each other to ensure that the other does not fall asleep while he is on the wheel and more importantly that the passengers of the bus reach their destination safely.

Such long road-trips, can be likened to having a long-term vision and the bus rides in SBS and SMRT buses can be compared to being short sighted.

Mr Lee Hsien Loong and Mr Shanmugam probably only thought of SBS and SMRT bus rides when they spoke that a bus cannot be driven by two drivers.

PM Lee Hsien Loong invokes the bogeyman of the violent Parliament

2011-04-29T23:49:00.001+08:00

Yesterday Teo Ser Luck said that he was not a natural politician. That he has been to Taiwan and knows how a natural politicians behave. Without trying too much, one can easily understand that Mr Teo is alluding to Taiwan's legislature, which is probably the most acrimonious and violent the world over.

One can easily make out that Mr Teo is trying to scare the people not to vote the opposition into Parliament or they would make a mockery of Parliament, by behaving the way Taiwanese politicians do.

Today, it is Mr Lee Hsien Loong who said the same thing. He said, "We have serious debate in parliament. You don't see people throwing things at one another." Is Mr Lee trying to say if more opposition politicians are elected into Parliament, then Parliament will turn into a general melee?

Mr Lee, Mr Teo and all the other PAP candidates who are trying to scare the people from voting the opposition into Parliament, saying that this will only only create ruckus in Parliament, should remember the recent Forum on Channel NewsAsia where Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Dr Vincent Wijeysingha, Mr Gerald Giam, Mr Nazem Suki, Ms Jospehine Teo and Mrs Lina Chiam engaged in a debate where everybody (including the opposition) debated the other fairly without it degenerating into a free-for-all.

Or perhaps, Mr Lee is still spooked by the TV debate he had with Mr J B Jeyaretnam 23 years ago in 1988.

But even this debate, though fierce, did not deteriorate into fisticuffs.

The voters are now matured enough to know that parliament is not going to degenerate into fist-fights just because more opposition members have been elected into Parliament.

Please stop treating voters like little children, egging them on not to vote for the opposition by invoking a bogeyman who does not exist - the bogeyman of a violent Parliament.

George Yeo in the hotseat

2011-04-28T00:38:00.003+08:00

"I recall how few years ago you reported on a session I had in McDonald's with individual young people and you asked me a question on the policy on Myanmar. You reported on it (and) there was a little bit of controversy. I thought we had a very good exchange. Some points, I felt were inaccurate; other points I happily considered. I must say that some of those ideas which you yourself put forth, have been incorporated into Singapore's foreign policy on Myanmar." Singapore's Foreign Minister George Yeo

NYK George Yeo in the Hot Seat from clicknetwork on Vimeo.

'Suppressed' video of Vincent Wijeysingha

2011-04-24T14:47:00.002+08:00

This is probably the video which Dr Vivian Balakrishnan said will raise "some very awkward questions" and the video which the Singapore Democratic Party is supposed to be "suppressing".

But in all fairness, this video is not SDP's. And if Dr Vivian thinks that the voters will feel "awkward" with a candidate who is "openly gay" (according to lawyer M Ravi), I think he should just plainly say so, for the sake of a proper discourse.

The extremely talented NTUC's sub-unit

2011-04-23T00:31:00.001+08:00

There is a teeny-weeny sub-unit within the NTUC's Admin and Research Unit called Youth Development Unit. This sub-unit is tasked to look after the interests of more than 150,000 NTUC members who are below 35 years of age. Although details of how many staffs are employed within this sub-unit appears sketchy, sources say that there are only about 10 staffs employed in that sub-unit.

What's remarkable is that this tiny sub-unit of about 10 staffs has produced 3 new candidates for the People's Action Party (PAP) for the 2011 General Election; Steve Tan, Desmond Choo and Alex Yam. Steve is the Executive Secretary, Alex Yam is the Head of Strategies and Desmond Choo is the Deputy Director. The Director of this tiny sub-unit is none other than Josephine Teo, who is the Member of Parliament for Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC.

It's truly amazing how talented the staffs in this tiny sub-unit must be for about half of the staffs to be nominated to stand as candidates in the coming General Election. And you know, this sub-unit is currently searching for a Principal Executive (see HERE).

Why don't you apply? Who knows, you may get selected to stand on the PAP ticket in the General Election, the next time it comes around

PAP candidates and msm - please grow up

2011-04-21T11:30:00.001+08:00

There is a mantra on the lips of almost all People's Action Party (PAP) candidates being fielded in the coming General Election; "We welcome competition".

But does it matter whether you welcome competition or not? You make it sound as if you are being so magnanimous in allowing the opposition to challenge you.

The General Election IS a contest. Which means that you WILL be challenged. So, now would you please stop sounding like you are doing the opposition one big favour?

And the mainstream media, what is the news-worthiness in the PAP candidates saying that they welcome competition, that you have to give so much prominence to it?

Would the PAP candidates and the mainstream media please grow up?

Jeannette for Mountbatten

2011-04-19T17:45:00.001+08:00

Although I am not a member of National Solidarity Party (I am not a member of any Party for that matter), I am supporting Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss' bid for Mountbatten single member constituency. I decided to support her because she is my friend and she stands for many of the things that I believe in, like a sense of fairness, rights and equal opportunities for all Singaporeans.

She is not only an established career-women, but is also a very committed family-women, who has raised four fine children. In-between raising her family and running a successful legal practice, Jeannette has found time to give back to society. She serves in the management council of a residential estate, has served in a church's management council and also provides pro-bono legal advice.

Being a committed family-man who is also socially active, I know how much more difficult it must be for a women to juggle both family and career; and yet find time to volunteer in other worthy-causes. And because Jeannette has done just that and done it well, I am sure that she will do good for Singapore, if she is elected.

These are the reasons why I support Jeannette's bid for Mountbatten SMC.

George Yeo's response on my comment that it is unfair to ask for Workers' Party's track record

2011-04-19T15:38:00.000+08:00

Ravi Philemon
Dear Mr George Yeo, you are one of the few PAP Ministers I appreciate for your sense of fair-play. But questions like this are cheap-shots and perhaps you already know that. You are the MP of Aljunied GRC not WP. It is you who have to show your track record.

GE Workers' Party urged to show track record - Channel NewsAsia

www.channelnewsasia.com

Foreign Affairs Minister George Yeo has challenged the Workers' Party (WP) to show what it has done for the residents in Aljunied.

Sunday at 1:44pm ·
George Yeo Ravi, puzzled by your comment. My track record as an MP of Aljunied GRC is an open book since 1988. Never made promises lightly and always tried to carry them out faithfully. For the coming 5 years, we have laid out our plans in some detail. Why is it a cheap shot to ask Opp for its track record and plans for the future? Surely the residents of Aljunied should know.
Sunday at 11:26pm · · 1 person
- Ravi Philemon
  Hi Mr George Yeo, thank you for your reply. I do not doubt that you have a track record in Aljunied, that you have a future plan for Aljunied and that you do not make promises lightly. But the Workers' Party besides walking and working the ground, will not have as much a track-record as you because they will not have the resources of the elected MP to implement their plans. And that is why I feel that it is unfair to ask the opposition for their track record. A candidate from PAP who loses an election, also gets to stay on in the ward as an advisor of the grassroots and will have access to funds through PA. But the losing opposition candidate has no such luxury. He/She has to utilise his/her own monies even for the walking and working in the ground. As for plans for the future, yes, they should and I believe have it already. The election should be about who has the better idea. An idea which the majority believes should be where they want to be in the future.
  Yesterday at 12:20pm ·  ·  5 people
  George Yeo Ravi, thanks. It is not just about ideas but also about trust. It takes time to trust someone, and a track record, even if it is about work in an NGO, or attending to small things, is important. If I had not interacted with you in the last two or three years, this exchange would have a different quality.
  Yesterday at 12:57pm ·  ·  1 person
  Ravi Philemon
  Yes, I agree Mr George Yeo. It is about ideas and trust. So, the track-record that you are asking for is not necessarily their track record in the GRC, but it is a track-record of the types of issues that they have raised and the kinds of engagements they've had. If those are the types of track-record you are asking of your opponents, that would be fair enough. But many of the new candidates from PAP, would not have such 'track-records' either.
  23 hours ago ·
  George Yeo For Aljunied GRC, Ong Ye Kung is the only new candidate. He has a good track record and I'll happily vouch for him.
  22 hours ago ·
  
  Alex Waipang Au Ravi, you wrote above "the track-record that you are asking for is not necessarily their track record in the GRC". If that's what George is now trying to say then he should publicly take CNA to task for misreporting this in its opening sentence: "Foreign Affairs Minister George Yeo has challenged the Workers' Party (WP) to show what it has done for the residents in Aljunied." So which is it?
  
  Ravi Philemon Hi Mr George Yeo, I agree with Alex Waipang Authat if the the track-record that you are asking for is not necessarily their track record in the GRC, than CNA seem to have misrepresented you in saying "Foreign Affairs Minister George Yeo has challenged the Workers' Party (WP) to show what it has done for the residents in Aljunied".
  
  George Yeo Ravi, that too. I'm not asking about big things which need government funding. Good for Aljunied residents to know, surely.
  2 hours ago ·
  
  George Yeo Ravi, btw, I never used the word 'challenge' in the interview.
  2 hours ago ·  ·  1 person
  
  Ravi Philemon Mr George Yeo, then, by that definition, Ong Ye Kung would not have a good track-record in Aljunied GRC, because he only started accompanying you in your GRC since February 2011.
  2 hours ago ·
  George Yeo Ravi, it is true that Ong YK has no track record in Aljunied GRC but has a strong record record in the Civil Service and NTUC, and an interesting father who was a Barisan Legislative Assemblyman. As for WP, we'll soon know what are their track records in Aljunied GRC now that Parliament has been dissolved. Regards, George
  8 minutes ago ·  ·  1 person
  George Yeo Aljunied GRC and nationally
  8 minutes ago ·

Did the Prime Minister answer my questions? Nah!

2011-04-15T13:33:00.003+08:00

Ok, Channel NewsAsia (CNA) asks Singaporeans to send in questions to the Prime Minister (PM) saying that he will answer them during CNA's 1-hour programme. Being a concerned Singaporean, I sent in my questions. Did the Prime Minister answer my questions during the programme? Nah!

Well, I did not even get an acknowledgement from CNA, for sending in my questions. I am not asking for a 'thank you', you know? Which makes me wonder, did the PM get to see the questions Singaporeans sent in to him or did the 'higher-ups' in CNA self-censor for the PM, thinking these are the questions the PM should not see. This is not improbable seeing how Melissa Hyak plotted the trajectory of answer for the Prime Minister in the programme.

Or, did the PM see my questions, but decided not to answer them. Or perhaps he had valid reasons for not answering them because questions such as mine, should not be debated openly for national whatever reason?

And did I mention the ~~suck-up~~ back-up the PM had in the union leader for answering the questions in that programme. And was the PM raising his voice just a notch higher when he felt uncomfortable with certain questions?

But I think overall, I will give a 5/5 for this programme, 'Question time with the Prime Minister', for having the Prime Minister speak without saying much. For reinforcing the notion that in Singapore, "You either catch-up or you die".

Question Time with the Prime Minister

2011-04-08T15:31:00.001+08:00

I sent in this question to Channel NewsAsia for their 'Question Time' programme where the Prime Minister of SIngapore has promised to answer the questions of Singaporeans.

---

Dear Mr Prime Minister

A large segment of Singaporeans have secondary school or lower education. Many in this segment have such lower qualifications because higher education was not encouraged in the past as there were fewer industries which would support graduates of tertiary institutions. These people now have poor marketable skills, which will mean lower salaries and which is further mitigated by the lower salaries that foreign workers ask for doing a similar job. The lower earning capacity of this segment of Singaporeans, contributes very little to their upward social mobility.

In your 2009 National Day Rally Speech, you mentioned 3 areas of future growth which may create jobs and hence benefit this segment of population:

1. Interactive Digital Media (IDM)
2. High-end manufacturing
3. Integrated resorts

The IDM is a niche industry and this segment of Singaporeans may not adequately benefit from job creation in this sector. The high-end manufacturing industry may employ fewer workers than the traditional manufacturing sector, because of their greater reliance on automation and technology. Which leaves the integrated resorts as the only industry from which a major portion of this segment of population expect to find employment in in the future.

Against this backdrop, my questions are these:

1. Is there a forecast for other growth industries to come to Singapore, to create future jobs for the benefit this segment of Singaporeans? If so, what industries are these?

2. How many jobs have the two integrated resorts created so far, how many more jobs will they create in the future and what percentage of these jobs have gone to Singaporeans and will go to Singaporeans from this segment of the population.

3. The new jobs created, will they provide better salaries, with better yearly increments for the Singaporean workers, so that these workers median wage can rise by thirty per cent in ten years as indicated by the Finance Minister in this year's Budget debate in Parliament?

I personally know of people who have post graduate qualifications but are now applying for jobs which would pay them less then $1500. I also know of people who have upgraded and re-skilled under the Workforce Development Authority's WSQ programme only to find that they are unable to land a job or if they landed one, that the new job pays them significantly lower than their previous job.

My concern is that these talks of better salary for a better life through upgrading, re-skilling and higher productivity, must turn out to be empty promises which will only serve to dash the futures of these people.

--
Live Like a Legend!

Ravi Philemon

The poor must be less poor

2011-04-01T16:20:00.000+08:00

TOC's April Fool's Day article was picked up and reported by the Chinese Press.

The original article is HERE.

Not only the PAP's voice

2011-03-17T17:13:00.000+08:00

It is important to have accountability, checks and balances. Without that, the government can push through any issues even if they do not have the consensus of the people. For example the elected presidency was thrust upon the people without a referendum. The casino was thrust upon the people even when there was widespread disagreement against its set-up. With no accountability to the electorate and with no checks and balances, tomorrow the government may push through the nuclear energy programme using the excuse that it is needed to meet Singapore's need for base load energy. In the aftermath of Japan's nuclear energy programme, in a land constraint country like Singapore, such a programme if pushed through without proper checks and balances will be extremely dangerous.

The article 'Nuclear energy option for Singapore still far away' says that the government is unlikely to derail from doing the feasibility studies, even when a professor from Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy has said that there have been lots of accidents and that it's not just earthquakes which causes these accidents.

It is important to ensure that the experts Ministry of Trade and Industry engages to do the feasiblity studies are not only those that have 'pro-nuclear' leanings.

A lot of questions will have to be considered in the feasiblity studies. Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew in the book 'Hard Truths to keep Singapore Going' said, "We've got friendly neighbours? Grow up", which seem to suggest that our neighbouring countries (even if they are not hostile) do not view Singaporeans very favourably either. What big an instability factor would that be in Singapore's nuclear energy deliberations? What about the threat of terrorism? Does the government have intentions to sell the nuclear energy plant(s) (if they become operational) to the highest bidder (even if they are foreigners)? They did this to our power companies.

We cannot continue to give the government a blank cheque to run Singapore as they deem fit, without consulting the man in the street. Singapore cannot continue to exist as a technocrats paradise - it must be a place where every Singaporean has a stake.

And for that to happen, we need to have voices in the parliament which are not only those of the PAP's. We need the voices of ordinary Singaporeans.

PAP candidate for Mountbatten thought Singaporeans were noise makers too

2011-03-14T15:47:00.002+08:00

It certainly does not look like Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong's impression of Singaporeans as noise makers, is a one-off comment. In August 2010, he exhorted Singaporeans not to drone on like vuvuzelas as well.

But is SM Goh the only one from his GRC who seem to think that Singaporeans are noise makers? In 2006, one of the MPs in SM Goh's very own Marine Parade GRC, Lim Biow Chuan said that 'Singapore is fast becoming a nation of complainers'.

I am not sure if Mr Lim's impression of Singaporeans as noise makers is something he caught from his mentor, SM Goh, but Mr Lim has now been announced to be the PAP's candidate for Mountbatten; and in the event where Mr Lim was announced as the candidate, he reportedly said that the electorate should judge him on the things he has done over the past five years. And the electorate should judge him and judge him by first asking him if still thought that Singaporeans were noise makers.

It is also noteworthy that at the height of filmaker Jack Neo's sex affair with a model, Mr Lim showed support for Mr Neo saying, "since he is remorseful over this incident, he should be forgiven. Actually, a man who has a good career development would find such scenarios unavoidable". Mr Lim later claimed that he had been misquoted by the press.

By-Election strategy is flawed

2011-03-04T10:56:00.002+08:00

My letter to The Straits Times was published in their forum online. The link is HERE.

---The unedited original letter---

I refer to Mr Lim Jit Chaing’s article ‘Disunity is obstructing an effective by-election strategy’. Even in the 1991 General Election (GE), the so-called ‘opposition unity’ was suspect, because in Jurong Single Member Constituency (SMC), there was a 3-cornered fight between the incumbent PAP candidate, Mr John Gan Eng Guan who stood as a Workers’ Party candidate and Mr Mohamed bin Awang who was PKMS’s candidate. Mr Mohamed bin Awang lost his election deposit in that contest. So to attribute the success for the opposition in the 1991 GE to the ‘by-election strategy’ is not totally accurate.

Six political parties contested the 1991 GE, which is not too far away from the seven political parties which are expected to contest the coming GE, so it is inaccurate to say that there are many more opposition parties today. The leaders of the opposition parties too cannot be considered self-centred just because they disagree with the writer of that letter that the by-election strategy (if there truly was one) will work this time around as it did in 1991.

In my opinion, the by-election strategy is a self-serving strategy because even if that was the reason for more opposition members to have been elected in the 1991 GE, it also deprived the voters from having a say in who they would have to represent themselves in parliament.

In the past GEs of 1991, 1997, 2001 and 2006 (with the exception of Mr Tan Lead Shake), all the opposition candidates who have lost their election deposits did so, when they went for three or four cornered fights.

Even the team that went up against the Prime Minister in the last GE (who the Prime Minister himself labeled the ‘suicide squad’ and said that even the bookies would not take bets on the outcome of that contest), did very well to garner about 40 per cent of the votes in that contest, because there were no three or more cornered fights in that constituency that time round.

The reasons for Tan Lead Shake losing his election deposit were something more complex. Mr Tan Cheng Bock the PAP candidate who he contested in Ayer Rajah SMC was very popular with the residents there and had been returned to parliament with very high vote margin in most of the elections he had contested. And there was a opinion swing of the voters against Mr Tan Lead Shake because he was always depicted as the ‘Slipper Man’ by the mainstream media for having appeared in the 1997 nomination day with his slippers.

In his letter Mr Lim indicated that the opposition should choose their candidates carefully and by carefully he meant candidates over 60 and candidates who have lost two elections should not be fielded. By that standard of 'carefulness' some of the PAP's candidates including Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Mr Goh Chok Tong and Mr Sitoh Yih Pin will not qualify to be fielded as candidates in this coming GE. The term ‘effective candidates’ that Mr Lim uses to describe the type of opposition candidates he would like in a GE is also suspect, because how can you measure what is effective and what is not unless they have been given a chance in parliament? To ask that all the candidates be like Sylvia Lim is also unreasonable as there can but be only one Sylvia Lim.

---The edited version on ST Forum Online---

Unfair demands on opposition

IF I recall, even with the by-election strategy employed during the 1991 General Election (GE), the opposition was not that united ("Disunity is obstructing an effective by-election strategy" by Mr Lim Jit Chaing; Wednesday).

Opposition parties failed to agree to a straight fight against the People's Action Party (PAP) in the then single-member constituency of Jurong, which saw a three-cornered contest when the Workers' Party's John Gan Eng Guan and Singapore Malay National Organisation's Mohamed Awang threw in their nominations.

Six political parties contested the 1991 GE, which isn't much fewer than the seven which are expected to contest the coming GE, so it is inaccurate to say that there are many more opposition parties today. The leaders of the opposition parties, too, cannot be considered self-centred simply because they think that the by-election strategy will work at the next election as it did in 1991.

To me, the by-election strategy is self-serving, for while it sent more opposition politicians into Parliament, it deprived the voters of having a say in who they wanted to represent them.

In the GEs since 1991, virtually all opposition candidates who were mired in three- or four-cornered fights lost their election deposits.

Compare this with the fact that the opposition team which contested Ang Mo Kio GRC in 2006 in a straight fight garnered a respectable 34 per cent of the votes cast, despite the fact that the opposition was virtually written off as a "suicide squad".

Advising the opposition to field effective candidates is ambiguous as one cannot tell if a candidate is effective until he has been given a chance to perform by being voted into Parliament.

To require opposition candidates to be like Workers' Party chairman Sylvia Lim is unreasonable as well, as there can be only one Sylvia Lim.

Goh Meng Seng the koyok seller

2011-03-01T17:11:00.003+08:00

In this series that I am writing about a few good men, who I think will do good for Singapore if they are fielded as a candidates in this coming general election, get elected and come to represent the people of Singapore in parliament; the next person I want to write about is Goh Meng Seng.

Goh Meng Seng is one of the few people that I feel utterly comfortable sitting down with a cuppa coffee, cracking a few jokes while talking about the more serious stuff. He takes criticisms very well and does not try to justify things just to 'save face'. I like that in a person.

Although first impressions may suggest that he is 'Ah Beng' or the Chinese neighbour next door, he is actually quite quick-witted and I am sure he will give the People's Action Party a good debate in parliament if he is elected in the next General Election. Just watch this video:

Meng Seng throws a curveball at Michael Palmer, which Michael couldn't handle and eventually Talking Point's host Debra Soon had to come to the rescue of PAP, to defend an indefensible system.

Whenever I meet Meng Seng, he is always trying to sell me his 'koyok' and recruit me into his Party. Although I have managed not to fall for his sales pitch so far, I must say that he is a very good 'koyok' seller.

I only wish all the best for this wonderful human being and a person I am proud to call my friend - Goh Meng Seng.

Think out of the box to solve social issues as well

2011-02-23T17:05:00.003+08:00

The governments solution for solving social problems is by either throwing money at them or by taking money away from them. You have a TFR (total fertility rate) problem and what do you do? Throw money at the married people to induce them to have children. You have a problem with employers relying too much on foreign workers and what do you do? Take more money from the employers for hiring the foreign workers. That is as creative as the government gets in solving social problems.

Why can't they be as creative as they are with commercial problems? They run out of space for oil storage and what do they do? They build caverns under the sea to store them. I mean we need more out of the box solution like the caverns under the sea thing for social problems as well. Don't just try to solve everything by throwing money at it or by squeezing money out of it.

Thinking out of the box, I think the TFR problem can be solved if you provided free education from pre-school right up to college. By providing 2 months of maternity leave and 4 more months of childcare leave (which can be taken by either the father or the mother) for every child born. And by providing free medical care for the child until he or she turns 21. On top of this, you throw-in free childcare and/or student-care with free tuition for the weaker students. And don't forget to create more open spaces for the young ones to run, play and have fun. I am pretty sure that these will be far better inducements for Singaporeans to go forth and multiply.

Instead of relying on simplistic solution to solve the problem of too much foreign worker, the government could have adopted a quota system where the need of foreign labour is determined by supply and demand for labour in that particular industry. The shortfall between the estimated demand and domestic supply would represent the foreign labour requirement, which will then form the basis of determining the quota level.

And is the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) scheme (a tax rebate scheme to encourage companies to raise productivity) going to help mitigate the higher levies for the employers? I doubt because PIC favours those in high-value sectors like pharmaceuticals more.

More of my thoughts on Singapore Budget 2011 is HERE.

How not to run a Facebook page - Why I wrote it

2011-02-17T13:22:00.002+08:00

I wrote the article "How not to run a Facebook page" (see HERE) because I am a resident of Ang Mo Kio-Yio Chu Kang GRC/SMC. I had participated actively in the discussions on the facebook page initially (as any resident wanting to take more ownership of the place he lives in should), only to have my feedbacks deleted indiscriminately (see below) even though they were not even political.

So, I kept track of this Facebook page for the last 6 months and decided to write something on it when I concluded that it had gone the way of the dodo bird.

Tony Tan - A servant-leader

2011-02-13T13:34:00.001+08:00

Another person I want to write about in this series is my friend Tony Tan. I honestly have forgotten where I first met Tony, but I suspect it must have been in one of Reform Party's rallies at the Speakers' Corner. But we soon became friends and I have admired him not only for his keen mind but also for the heart of compassion which accompanies the keen mind.

He has walked with me on the beaches of Singapore distributing essential supplies for survival to the homeless. He listened with empathy to the plight of the less fortunate on these instances. He thought through what was the best way to assist them with the rest of us. He was even willing to take a step back when we requested him to do so for certain reasons. I think to defer to the wish of the leadership (or the majority) despite the fact that he would probably have a better solution is perhaps the greatest strength of Tony.

Tony is also a very hospitable person who never forgets his friends. I have also visited Tony in his home and got to see first hand what a wonderful father he is to his sons. Tony is the type of servant-leader Singapore needs to bring her forward into the future.

Gerald Giam my friend

2011-02-09T17:33:00.000+08:00

I want to write about a few good men, who I think will do good for Singapore if they are fielded as a candidates in this coming general election, get elected and come to represent the people of Singapore in parliament.

--------------

The first person that I want to write about is my friend Gerald Giam. I first met Gerald when he came to meet me with his friend about volunteering with the homeless in 2008. He seemed very sincere, focused and pragmatic. About a month later, I was introduced to him again by Andrew Loh (former Chief Editor of TOC) as being one of the editors of The Online Citizen.

Since then, I have got to know Gerald a little better. He is a committed family man, a devout Christian but most of all someone who truly cares about the future of this tiny nation we call Singapore, and wants to do his part in shaping a better Singapore.

I have worked with him on a few projects, including brainstorming sessions about how to assist the disadvantaged in a more coordinated and yet sustainable way. We called that project 'Way Forward Singapore'. In all the projects that I have worked with him, he struck me as an awesome team-player and an intelligent critique whose arguments are hard to rebut.

Knowing him, I think he is a reluctant leader, but will lead with resoluteness and steadfastness of mind if he had to. I am proud to call Gerald Giam a friend. I am sure that he will do Singapore proud - elected to parliament or not.

If you like me you want to support Gerald Giam, you may support him by buying his book Singapore version 2.0.

I don't want Dr Chee to go to prison because...

2011-02-05T16:38:00.001+08:00

I have decided to contribute $100 to "Stop Dr Chee from going to prison this election". I have decided to contribute this amount because the Party feels that they cannot go into the General Election (which is impending) without Dr Chee.

Although I disagree with Dr Chee's views that "democratic change is not going to come just from taking part in elections", I decided to contribute to this campaign to keep Dr Chee from going to prison because his Party seem to indicate that they take a somewhat different view from Dr Chee - that he is needed so that the Party can do well in the coming election.

Cherian George says that the voters rejected Singapore Democratic Party at the last General Election in 2006 by giving it only 2.2 per cent to the People's Action Party's (PAP) vote share. The PAP too has often alleged that Singaporeans have “repeatedly rejected Dr Chee, his politics and his party”. The absence of Dr Chee should not be another obstacle for SDP not to do better in the coming General Election. And it is for this purpose that I am contributing to the fund.

If you too would like to help keep Dr Chee out of prison during this election time, click HERE to contribute.

We must save humanity - Dr Jacques Attali

2011-01-19T10:00:00.000+08:00

“We are not out of the crisis yet”, said Dr Jacques Attali, a professor, writer and economist (named by the Foreign Policy magazine as one of the top 100 public intellectuals in the world), at the recently concluded public talk organised by the Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF), and titled “Is the Global Economy Still in Crisis?”

In his talk filled with much research and delivered in the most irreverent manner, Dr Attali emphasised that the real problem of the economic crisis is still in America, and not just in the American government but also in the American financial institutions. He observed that “the economic situation in the US is worse than ever before, especially as the US debt is still 350% of the GDP, and with 650,000 Americans still homeless.”

“G20 is a meeting of alcoholic addicts”, said Dr Attali in emphasising why the G20 submit will be almost useless in mitigating the global economic crisis. “And the G7 is slowly being replaced by the G2 – the American and the Chinese”, he added. But China he feels would “never be a substitute for America for many decades”, as they are very inward looking.

Dr Attali believes that the real power in the world today is held by the financial institutions and they do not want to see any solution to the global economic crisis because “even in a crisis, they make money”.

“I believe we are going to see a crisis of mega size in the western world in a matter of months”, he reiterates and he trusts that only a “global rule of law” would be able to solve this crisis.

The crisis is exacerbated because of the inability of the private banking sector to respond adequately to the excessive demand for loans. Insolvent banks that have had their liabilities absorbed by the public sector have also caused a rise in public debts. There needs to be a system-wide overhaul he feels, but adds that “as long as people trust a system, the system will last”.

By noting that 80% of the economic growth in the last decade went to 1% of the population, Dr Attali asserts that “we must save humanity by creating a bit of equality”.

-------------------------

Dr Jacques Attali, a professor, writer and economist was named by the Foreign Policy magazine as one of the top 100 public intellectuals in the world. He was the founder and first President of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development from 1991 to 1993. He was Special Adviser to the late French President François Mitterrand from 1981 to 1991. He was also appointed by French President Nicolas Sarkozy in August 2007 as head of the Commission for the promotion of French economic growth. Dr Attali has written 54 books with over six million copies sold internationally. His works include essays on a wide range of subjects such as mathematics, econometrics, music, biographies and plays.

This public talk was organised by ASEF in partnership with the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS).

BLYC - PAP enough for inclusion in PETIR

2011-01-18T12:58:00.002+08:00

The People's Association's Deputy Chairman (who also happens to be the Chairman of the People's Action Party) declared that the grassroots work done in Boon Lay by Raffles Institution (Junior College) (RI(JC)) students is not political activity.

But if Boon Lay Youth Club (BLYC) set-up by RI(JC) should not be described as partisan activities that favour a specific political party or politician, why was it included in the September/October 2010 edition of PETIR magazine, which is the official organ of the People's Action Party? Through publicising the activities and accomplishments of BLYC, Petir has clearly identified BLYC to be a part of PAP.

In replying to Siew Kum Hong's charge that the Ministry of Education and the schools must remain impartial and stand clearly above the political fray, MOE said, that BLYC was appropriately recognised as an official co-curricular activity (CCA) because the main objective of BLYC is to give its members opportunities to volunteer at community level.

Kum Hong's suggestions that BLYC may not have survived without the intervention of Madam Ho Geok Choo (Member of Parliament in Boon Lay ward of West Coast GRC and the mother of the President of BLYC) and without MOE's and RI(JC)'s official support, were not at all addressed in MOE's reply.

Even The Straits Times seem to think that BLYC is an initiative of West Coast GRC (they first ran the story as a sidebar to an an article on West Coast GRC), but somehow despite all these facts, PAP (or for that matter MOE) refuses to acknowledge that BLYC is partisan grassroots activity. Because if so acknowledged, it would be an admission that the schools are not impartial and stand above the political fray.

Many of our opposition politicians' children also go to our local schools. If suppose one of their children want to start a youth club to give its members opportunities to volunteer at community level, would such a club be supported by MOE? Will the public schools in Singapore recognise such activity as CCA?

Interview with Sin Kek Tong

2011-01-08T10:38:00.000+08:00

I interviewed veteran opposition Mr Sin Kek Tong for The Online Citizen and his interview is here: Stronger ties with RP? SPP’s Chairman speaks.

In the interview Mr Sin speaks candidly about why he feels he has the right to contest the Chua Chu Kang SMC (if it still remains intact after the re-drawing of boundaries), while stating categorically that he wants to avoid a 3-cornered fight as it is not good for the cause of the opposition.

Part of the interview was conducted at Singapore People's Party's Satay Christmas party and the other part of the interview was done via phone conversations.

Opposition figures air key issues at dialogue

2010-12-17T13:31:00.006+08:00

It (Face 2 Face forum) was also a platform for political parties to outline their respective positions on key issues ahead of the next general election, said Mr Ravi Philemon, a TOC writer.

ST Report on F2F

Straits Times: Willing bedfellows of the State

2010-12-16T13:36:00.000+08:00

Ms Tessa Wong who is a journalist at The Straits Times commented on The Online Citizen’s Facebook page that “ST has always maintained it is a pro-Singapore paper. Some people have equated that to be pro-PAP, but I can say for a fact that increasingly this definition of pro-Singapore has broadened to include a variety of views”.

On the surface it looks like it is indeed a fair statement, that The Straits Times and the Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) is indeed only pro-Singapore and not pro-PAP. But that is until you look at who’s who in the Board of Directors at the Singapore Press Holdings.

The current Chairman of SPH is Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam. Dr Tan a member of the People’s Action Party (PAP), was elected Member of Parliament in 1979. Besides holding various key positions in the government, he was also Deputy Prime Minister from 1995 to 2005.

Another member in the Board of Directors is Mr Alan Chan Heng Loon. Besides serving in the Transport Ministry as a Permanent Secretary and in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as Deputy Secretary, Mr Chan was also the Principal Private Secretary to then Senior Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

Yet another Board member is Mr Lucien Wong Yuen Kai, the Managing Partner of Allen & Gledhill LLP. This law firm has often acted for key people in the government like Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Mr Lee Hsien Loong and Mr Goh Chok Tong. The current Law and Home Affairs Minister, Mr K Shanmugam was a Senior Partner in this firm.

The PAP has a long history of dominating the press in Singapore. For example, Mr S R Nathan (now President of Singapore) a former Director of the Security and Intelligence Division with the Ministry of Defence, was appointed Executive Chairman of Straits Times (ST) in 1982.

When Mr S R Nathan was appointed Executive Chairman, one of the directors of the then Board of ST Sir Keith Macpherson resigned from the Board saying, “it is not possible for us to continue an association with a newspaper which is now clearly government dominated.”

During a budget debate in March 1982 the then opposition MP Mr J B Jeyaretnam opposed the appointment of Mr S R Nathan and claimed that Mr Nathan “had no newspaper experience, but had been head of intelligence and had worked for the Japanese police during the occupation”.

Mr Nathan then claimed that he had been “maliciously and viciously slandered” and challenged Mr Jeyaretnam to retract or repeat his comments outside parliament. When Mr Jeyaretnam did not oblige him, Mr Nathan issued an open letter to Mr Jeyaretnam complaining of abuse of parliamentary privilege “to insinuate a connection (between Mr Nathan) and Kempeitai atrocities”.

Besides Mr Nathan, others in the Board of Management or the editorial team of SPH continue to have links with the PAP government. The former Executive President of SPH Tjong Yik Min was the head of Internal Security Department (ISD) before he was appointed to SPH. Former journalists Irene Ho, Susan Sim and current political editor Chua Lee Hoong are all former ISD employees.
In her comment on TOC’s Facebook, Ms Wong also said that she has written articles on the opposition parties that paint them in a fair and arguably favourable light.

An article co-written by Ms Wong, “Is the opposition ready to rock?”, seems to insinuate that the candidates of quality from the opposition may not have the perseverance to stay in opposition politics if they lost the next election. Is this the fair and favourable light of the ST?

After careful scrutiny, one can only come to the conclusion that SPH and ST do believe that being pro-Singapore and being pro-PAP are both one and the same. One can also argue that even the recent ‘fair and favourable’ reporting by ST of opposition parties is because PAP is now singing a different tune, that opposition parties have made their contribution to national debate.

SPH and the mainstream media in Singapore in the words of Cherian George is “at least in part, willing partners of the state”. It is indeed sad if journalists like Ms Wong has not realised this.

The question to ask then (with J B Jeyaretnam) is if a ‘castrated’ and ‘manacled’ press consistent with Singapore being a vibrant and competitive economy in the 21st century?

How do they survive?

2010-12-08T15:59:00.001+08:00

For basic survival for a family of 4 in Singapore, the family would need:

Food - $780 ($24 X 30 days, calculated at $6/person for lunch and dinner + $2 for bread as daily breakfast)
Transport - $300
Utilities - $100
Telephone/Internet: $65
Service & conservancy charges: $40 (approximate for a 3 room flat)
Property tax: $20
Television license: $10
Medical 10 (polyclinic)

Total: $1325/mth

This calculation does not include costs for tuition (if the children need any), costs for entertainment (the occasional McDonald's or movie), insurances or emergencies.

According to this article (http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/11/over-30-earn-less-than-1200/) 30% of Singaporeans earn less than $1200 per month. With deductions for CPF the take-home salary for these people will be less than $960 (not included are deductions for CDAC, MENDAKI or SINDA). Which means that even if two persons in such households of four members are employed, they merely live from hand to mouth.

According to Key Household Income Trends, 2009, those living in 1 and 2 room flats had a median income of only $1091. I wonder how these families survive month to month?

Human rights: Slow, difficult steps to acceptance

2010-12-03T11:11:00.000+08:00

----- An excerpt from the Moon Observer -----

While organisations face constraints when it comes to funding restrictions, social activists in their individual capacity are unaffected by the classification of human rights organisations.

One of them is Mr Ravi Philemon, who works with like-minded people in a collective effort to speak out for the disadvantaged in society.

“We come together when our interests collide,” he said. “This is issue-based and not a collective effort because of friendship.”

On December 12 last year, Mr Philemon helped organise a gathering of 30 Singaporeans at Speaker’s Corner, urging the government and Singaporean society to do more for the disabled.

His efforts attracted the attention of mainstream media and led to a debate over the disabled in parliament.

Nonetheless, an individual’s capability is limited in terms of resources, Mr Philemon said. That is why individuals like him need a vehicle like Maruah to expand their reach.

A registered society would also have a stronger position to converse with the government, he said.

-------------------------------

The entire article here: MOON OBSERVER

Upward salary revisions in people sector because of higher funding by MCYS/NCSS

2010-12-02T16:50:00.000+08:00

ST FORUM - Higher Funding

An open letter to DPM Teo Chee Hean

2010-11-10T13:20:00.003+08:00

I posted this open letter on the Facebook wall of Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean today, with reference to his comment on the larger role the new media is expected to play in the next general election of Singapore.

An Open Letter

The homeless suffer from mental illness?

2010-11-08T12:48:00.002+08:00

According to reliable sources, Ms Penny Low (Member of Parliament for Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC), allegedly commented that the people who are homeless in Singapore are so because of mental illness, or because they choose to be so.

Did she really make such a comment? If she did, what were her reasons for arriving at such a conclusion? If she did not make that statement, what was her position on the people who are homeless in Singapore? We asked Ms Low these questions in an email enquiry, to which she chose not to reply.

Pastor Andrew Khoo, the Executive Director of New Hope Community Services (NHCS), in response to The Online Citizen’s query, said that its Shelter for Men-in-Crisis do receive referrals from IMH, but the referrals were the “mild cases” who need a second chance at living independently. NHCS’s website states that their shelters will not accept referrals who are suffering “from serious psychiatric disorders and/or serious behavioural problems that require close individual supervision or nursing care”.

Dr Muni Winslow a psychiatrist and Executive Director of Promises (a mental health and addictions consulting and training company) responded to our queries, questioned if people who are homeless do indeed suffer from mental illness. He says that homelessness does correlate to mental illness, but that people do also become homeless “if they fall into bad times, lose their job or go to a casino and lose all their money.”

Dr Winslow acknowledges that it is possible for people to pretend to be mentally ill but that “there are ways to pick up people who are faking.”

In July this year when speaking about a Bill introduced in Parliament to prevent licensed moneylenders from laying first claim to the proceeds of HDB flat sales, Jurong GRC MP Halimah Yacob said, “When people sell the flats, they get nothing and still have to pay high interest on their loans. Some even become homeless.” This clearly implies that people do become homeless for various other reasons besides being mentally ill, and mainly because of financial hardships.

And some of these people who are homeless suffer from chronic (not transitional) homelessness because of certain govenment policies. See here.

When asked for her view on the alleged comment of Ms Low, Esther (not her real name) who is homeless says, “That means that everyone in my family including my 3-year old son and 8-year old daughter is mad, or we are pretending to be mad.”

It is important for legislators like Ms Low to be properly informed about issues like homelessness and not hold on to preconceived biases and/or prejudices (if she did make such a statement) so that they will not unfairly discriminate between their constituents – so that legislators like her can initiate and support appropriate policies which will benefit the disadvantaged and the needy.

Blame the gahmen lah!

2010-11-03T15:02:00.003+08:00

It was sheer madness that a 19 year old young man was slashed to death in broad daylight on Saturday.

A friend who lives a stone throw away from Downtown East shopping mall says that she was very disturbed by the teen's murder, which happened so near her home. She says, "this goes to show how selfish Singaporeans are. I am sure there were more than 10 people in that overly crowded place. They could have together prevented, helped or done something. All just stood around watching a youth being hacked to death!"

From the some of the photos published in the mainstream media, it seems that many people continued eating at the Sakura restaurant even when the youth collapsed from his fatal wounds.

So how? Do you really blame the people of Singapore for not doing more in a situation like this?

I say, "don't blame the people but...BLAME THE GAHMEN LAH!"

The people in Downtown East were probably waiting for the gahmen to come and put an end to the sheer madness they were witnessing. But sadly, the gahmen people only came after the poor guy died. The diners in Sakura restaurant must have probably thought that the gahmen people will come before something bad really happens. But no lah, by the time they came, the 19-year-old had already died.

The people of Singapore have been conditioned for the longest time that "if you elect me, you don't have to worry about anything. We will have everything covered", that the people of Singapore have been conditioned to become 'paralysed' without the government.

This is what happens when you govern a first world country with third world mindsets. The people who are governed will also adopt a third world mindset, which typically thinks like this, "i eat, i live, i shit - goal achieved - purpose of birth met. Others die, not my problem".

But do we blame the people for adopting this mindset? No lah! How can! This is survival 101. If you don't adopt a third world mindset, how to survive in a country which is governed like the third world?

So I say, "don't blame the poor shoppers at Downtown East. Don't blame the diners at Sakura. If you must blame somebody...BLAME THE GAHMEN LAH!"

-----

My deepest condolences to the family and friends of Darren Ng.

Election in Burma a sham unless...

2010-10-30T21:48:00.002+08:00

I organised the 'a vOte...bUt CHoice?' postcard campaign and demonstration at Speakers' Corner for MARUAH.

More than 25 people attended the demonstration at Speakers' Corner today. The speakers, Braema Mathi, Siew Kum Hong, Choo Zheng Xi and Leong Sze Hian spoke at the demonstration (Seelan Palay could not speak at the event as he was unavailable). I moderated the event.

The stand of MARUAH is closer to what the Indonesian Foreign Minister said, that there is a credibility deficit in the elections in Burma, but that it's not too late for the ruling junta in Burma to make the upcoming election in November more inclusive and participatory by freeing all political prisoners (including Aung San Suu Kyi), by allowing international observers from United Nations to watch over the elections process and by repealing all laws/regulations which interfere with free and fair elections.

That unless these conditions are met, the elections in Burma will be a sham. All the speakers emphasised this point.

MARUAH also used this campaign to urge the government of Singapore to support the call made by United Nations to establish a UN Commission of Inquiry into the international crimes in Burma.

It is still not too late for you to show your support and participate in this campaign. The postcards can be downloaded and printed from HERE.

Through this campaign we the people of Singapore, may ensure that the upcoming election in Burma becomes a part (even if it is just a very tiny part) of the solution to the problems in Burma, and not create more troubles ahead.

a vOte...bUt CHoice?

2010-10-28T21:00:00.004+08:00

The Philippine Foreign Secretary has already blasted the elections in Myanmar as “a farce to democratic values of transparency, fairness, provision for ‘level playing field’, credibility and all-inclusiveness”.

On that note, I wrote to the Foreign Minister of Singapore, Mr George Yeo, and asked him if he has a view on the upcoming elections in Burma, considering the fact that the ruling junta is not allowing foreign journalists or outside observers for the elections to be held on 7 November 2010.

Mr Yeo replied to me that the “fact that there are elections is a major step forward, however imperfect”. He further added that the ASEAN embassy officials will be able to observe the election process: and that they could visit whichever polling station they wish. He said that Singapore will coordinate within ASEAN to be observers of the election in Burma.

Considering the fact that the United Nations chief has expressed his “frustration” with the junta in Burma in recent weeks, and the fact that he called on ASEAN to be more aggressive with Burma or risk tarnishing their own democratic credentials, the reply by our Foreign Minister was a major disappointment for me.

The Indonesian Foreign Minister too has spoken up against the upcoming election in Burma when he said “there is a perception of a credibility deficit”. The Foreign Minister of Singapore however, seems to be singing a different tune from his counterparts in ASEAN.

The response from the Foreign Minister of Singapore certainly does cast a grave doubt on the validity of ASEAN, and makes one question if the various ASEAN meetings are a complete waste of money considering that they seem to have achieved little. It also seems that contrary to what the Foreign Minister said in July 2008 – ASEAN is not only toothless, but it also does not seem to have a tongue which is sharp.

If indeed ASEAN is not only toothless, but also lacks a sharp tongue, what good would it do if it observes the election in Myanmar/Burma?

How can the Burmese election be inclusive, participatory and a “major step forward”, when Burma has more than 2000 political prisoners (including Aung San Suu Kyi) in detention and denied participation in the upcoming election?

This is the reason why I feel that the people of Singapore, who feel strongly about free and fair elections in Myanmar/Burma, should participate in the postcard campaign and demonstrations at Speakers’ Corner organised by MARUAH, and call for rigour in Burmese election.

The campaign is an excellent means to show our concern for the people of Burma. A means to ask the government of Singapore to join the international community in demanding that the military junta in Burma release all political prisoners, allow international United Nations observers watch over the election process, and repeal all laws and regulations which interfere with free and fair election.

Through this campaign we the people of Singapore, can say to our government that we want our government to support the call made by the United Nations to establish a United Nations Commission of Inquiry into international crimes in Burma.

Together, our collective action may ensure that the upcoming election in Burma becomes a part (even if it is just a very tiny part) of the solution to the problems in Burma, and not create more troubles ahead.

TR and SDP's allegations about Singapore Police Force

2010-10-10T22:39:00.001+08:00

Both the Temasek Review (TR) and the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), have said that the Singapore Police Force has given confidential information from a closed investigation to a journalist from a newspaper (TR's article is HERE and SDP's article is HERE). These are serious allegations, which if true will undermine the confidence the general public have on the good image of the Singapore Police Force.

I have written to the Commissioner of the Singapore Police Force (SPF) with a copy to the Home Minister, to ask if these allegations are true. In the email I asked if true what courses of actions are being taken by SPF to prevent such incidents from happening again. And if untrue what course of action SPF will take to refute these allegations.

In fact TR itself has supported the call for "the authorities concerned to conduct a fair and transparent investigation into the alleged leak of classified information by the police" so that the public confidence in the Singapore Police Force will not be eroded.

I will update my blog when (or if) I get a reply.

Competition of ideas is needed for a workable democracy

2010-09-28T13:13:00.002+08:00

I sent this letter to The Straits Times forum, rebutting Mr Theodore Yeo's letter titled, 'What matters is a democracy that works', but it was not published. The Straits Times seems so blatantly biased when it chose to publish 5 rebuttals (including Mr Yeo's piece) to Gerald Giam's letter :"What makes a democracy".

---The unpublished letter---

Mr Theodore Yeo was wrong in comparing the democratic model of the United States of America with that of Singapore in his letter titled “what matters is a democracy that works” (ST forum dated 25 Sep 2010). You cannot compare apples with oranges.

Although both Singapore and the United States of America are representative democracies, the American democracy is different as the President of the United States of America is elected from a electoral college (not by the people) and the power of the President (the executive) does not come from the Congress (the legislature).

In the political system of Singapore the legislature (parliament) selects the government (the executive power) - a prime minister, along with the cabinet ministers - according to party strength as expressed in elections. In this system, the executive acquires a dual responsibility: to the people as well as to the legislature.

The difference in the executive branch creates the key difference between the two systems. In the American system, if the executive and the legislature branches are controlled by members of different parties, the end result is usually partisan politics, with each side blaming the other for the the coutry's problems and lack of action.

This is unlikely to happen in the parliamentary system like that of Singapore, as the executive and the legislative branches have to be from the same party, hence creating more accountability.

It is precisely because the elected officials in a parliamentary democracy forms both the legislature and the executive powers, that vigourous competition of ideas by various parties, becomes absolutely essential. For by voting for competing ideas, the electorate express the kind of future they want for their country.

And no political party can compete for the vote of the people without putting forth their ideas for a better Singapore. One cannot fault any political party that they have not put forth any alternative viewpoints, when it is they who has failed to look up what the party actually stands for.

For this to happen, we need a civil service which is not only strong and efficient, but is also non-partisan.

According to the Department of Statistics’ Report on the Household Expenditure Survey 2007/08 released in December 2009, the Average Monthly Household Income of the poorest 20% decreased from $1309 to $1274 while the next two quintiles increased by merely 1.7 and 1.3% (after adjusting for inflation) from 1997/98 to 2007/08.

To make things worse for the poorest 20%, their Expenditure at $1,760 in 2008, was 38% more than their Income of $1,274.

Perhaps with a competition of ideas, Singaporeans could have voted for a party which stands on the platform of a better equality of incomes and that of arresting the income divide.

My support for the School Pocket Money Fund

2010-09-18T13:32:00.000+08:00

Read the entire Straits Times article here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/37661425

Beyond minimum wage

2010-09-15T16:01:00.002+08:00

Even though Singapore has accelerated from being a ‘third-world’ country to being a ‘first-world’, high cost society in less than half a century, many Singaporeans continue to live in this high cost society while accepting lower salaries.

The call for minimum wage is not new (See HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE). In January 2009, even the People's Action Party MP (Member of Parliament)), Inderjit Singh commented that, “If we would like to see Singapore moving up as one of the most developed countries in the world, and costs increase accordingly, lower income Singaporeans might need a minimum wage to survive.” Mr. Singh also suggested that the government should “incentivize companies to implement it (minimum wages), or the government has to supplement wages to a minimum level.”

Of course minimum wage is a great tool which would force the employers to maximise productivity, rather than undercutting each other with cheap labour. It is also central in getting people off benefits and in being self-reliant.

But the debate and advocacy for raising sub-standard wages should go beyond the minimum wage to advocating for living wages. Mr Tan Kin Lian (former Chief Executive Officer of NTUC Income) is one of the first proponents for living wages in Singapore. In his speech in December 2008, at the Speakers' Corner, Mr Tan reportedly said, "In the present economic environment, those who lose their jobs find it difficult to find another one. He said that we need a living wage, not just a minimum wage, that enables the recipient to pay for his or her housing needs and food as well as live a humble but dignified life. Some people now have to work 16 hours a day or get two jobs to survive. Is this social justice?"

What is a living wage? A living wage is an income which will provide the disadvantaged segment of the population with minimally satisfactory living conditions, to the context of Singapore. It is different from minimum wages, as those drawing minimum wages, could still live in poverty. Living wages, will give the disadvantaged a right to life, liberties and opportunities.

The living wage should be tied to the price of renting a room from the open market (cost of average room rental in the open market - divided by 30 - multiplied by 100). Why? Because, nobody should spend more than 30% of their income on accommodation, as then they become cost burdened and may have difficulty affording necessities such as food, clothing, transportation and medical care. In the current context of Singapore, with the open market rental for common rooms hovering around $400 - $450, an appropriate living wage would be $7.95 per hour; or $1400 per month for a 44-hour work week.

By paying people a `living wage,' we show respect for them and what they do. We enable them to give something back. They have the income to spend more, local businesses, professionals, schools and even religious organisations, benefit. We also benefit as a community because people who are able to meet their basic needs by working a 44-hour week have time and energy for their family, their faith community, and civic life.

Burma's election and ASEAN's inaction

2010-09-09T17:55:00.004+08:00

Any election has to adhere to the norms of international principles guiding an election process. But a number of developments in Burma before and after the announcement of the election date are cause for concern. As Burma (like Singapore) is part of ASEAN, Singapore has to take a clear position on the “multi-party elections” called by the Union Election Commission (UEC) of Burma, which is to be held on 7 November 2010.

The three basic tenets of democracy – freedom of expression, assembly and association – have to be upheld at any cost. There have been reports that undue restrictions have been placed on campaign by certain political parties and alliances, which violate these three basic tenets of democracy.[i]

The Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), the proxy of Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA) and the military, has allegedly broken election laws, used resources of the State in unfairly raising its political profile over other political parties unaffiliated with USDA and the military.[ii]

There is also the lack of press freedom in Burma, even before the elections take place.[iii] The almost total control of the media by the junta with the lack of freedom for both Burmese and international media, are all completely incompatible with a free and fair elections.

Besides Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, who has been detained for over 15 years, over 2000 people remain in Burmese prisons today for political reasons[iv]. The National League for Democracy (NLD) (which Suu Kyi heads) is now ‘forcibly’ disbanded and has been made ineligible to contest the Burmese elections in November 2010.

Without the participation of Suu Kyi and the NLD, the upcoming Burmese elections can only be considered a sham and merely an exercise in entrenching the generals in power. The donning of civilian garb over military uniforms is not going to give the regime any legitimacy just because an election was held.

The 17 commissioners of UEC are selected by the ruling junta and there is no possible appeal of their decisions in an independent court. This means that the elections even if free and fair will certainly not be inclusive or credible.

Further to this, 12 elections monitoring organisations have indicated in their joint statement, “Asian Elections Monitoring Organizations questions unfair practices in the Burma electoral process”, dated 31 August 2010[v]that the upcoming elections in Burma will not be credible owing to the following reasons:

The military is too involved in the elections.
The media is not free and under total control and censorship.
Lack of transparency in absentee voting, advance voting and counting ballot papers especially the restriction on local observers.
Absence of a mechanism in checking the voter list to prevent phantom voting, double or multiple votes.

Singapore should echo the 12 elections monitoring organisations’ call for “ASEAN to review such doubtful forms of electoral processes and ensure that any democratic election must be more inclusive.”

ASEAN must support the United Nations commission of inquiry into war crimes in Burma[vi], for only a collective international action as this would force the ruling junta into opening up its authoritarian political system and into freeing thousands of political prisoners.

[i] http://www.altsean.org/Research/2010/Indicators/CAM/CAM1.php?Submit=Developments

[ii] http://www.mizzima.com/news/election-2010/4287-nup-lodges-complaint-against-usdp.html

[iii] http://en.rsf.org/burma-no-credible-elections-without-26-03-2010,36847

[iv] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?language=EN&type=IM-PRESS&reference=20100212STO68928

[v] http://www.scribd.com/doc/36882413/ASIAN-Election-Monitoring-Organizations-question-unfair-practices-in-the-Burma-Electoral-process

[vi] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/17/AR2010081706026.html

I support YOG

2010-08-26T17:33:00.004+08:00

The international Olympic Committee, created the Youth Olympic Games on 5 July 2007, so that the youths of today and tomorrow, would have an event that they could call their own, which will also be in the spirit of the Olympic Games.

Singaporeans must be proud that we got to host the first ever Youth Olympic Games – a real Olympic event, with torch relay, anthem, flag and all.

Of course the public generally wants to watch athletes who are in their prime and not those that are in the process of getting there. But not even the detractors can disagree that the Youth Olympic Games (YOG) is an excellent platform to inspire the young sportspeople from all over the world to become better than the sports men and women of today who are in their prime.

And what about YOG’s budget overrun? Of course it ballooned from the original bid of US$75 million to US$284 million. But in my opinion, if it was spent so that Singapore could put its best foot forward in welcoming the young athletes from all over the world then, it was all well spent.

And we cannot even compare the money spent on YOG with the money spent by Ministry of Community Development Youth and Sports (MCYS) on COMCARE, for it will be like comparing apples with oranges. For one, the expenditure for YOG is a one-time thing, but the budget for COMCARE ($92 million annually) is an annually recurring one.

What about the food poisoning issues and the other hiccups? Food poisoning at international sporting events are not new. Several members of the United States’ track team became ill during the Beijing 2008 Olympics. And perhaps not many can recall how New Zealand’s All Black (national rugby team), suffered an outbreak of food poisoning at the 1995 Rugby World Cup Final.

Hiccups are inevitable when hosting events of international magnitude like the Youth Olympic Games, and no matter how well you plan for it, it is almost impossible to avoid hiccups; especially when Singapore has never had an opportunity to host such mega sporting events.

Of course the mainstream media could have tried a little less to conjure up an imaginary euphoria for YOG. Who can forget Rohit Brijnath’s “history filled the nostrils” article and Associate Professor Ang Swee Hoon’s “More importantly, we should feel in our hearts a sense of awe that our country has been chosen to initiate this new series of games.” (The YOG is coming, Are you excited yet?).

And the blogosphere should have tried a little more to be more supportive of this inaugural event.

It seems that it is but politics which has divided the mainstream media (which seems largely more aligned with the establishment) and the blogosphere (which is more sympathetic towards the opposition), from coming together in a concerted effort to promote an international event like YOG.

If so, it is indeed sad that this divide remained an obstacle against promoting the principles of the Olympic Games – the principles that merit should be the sole criterion and that there should be no discrimination based on race, religion or political affiliation.

The YOG was a perfect event for people of all party affiliations, political leanings and ideological differences, to have come together to show the solidarity of Singapore to the rest of world. But alas, this was an opportunity missed.

For me, my stand is clear. I support YOG. I say a big “thank you” to the people who were behind the successful bid to bring the YOG to Singapore; and a big “thanks” to the athletes from all over the world, the volunteers and the organisers.

Singaporeans and Singapore must surely feel proud to have hosted the inaugural Youth Olympic Games.

And off I go now to the Closing Ceremony of the Youth Olympic Games – to show my support of the Games.

Watch the other YOG videos here: VDO1, VDO2, VDO3, VDO4, VDO5, VDO 6

Donation to Straits Times School Pocket Money Fund

2010-08-24T17:25:00.000+08:00

I had placed an ad on my blog, asking the visitors to my blog to consider donating $2.00 for downloading an absolutely free e-book from my site, saying that I would donate the monies raised through this for worthy causes.

To date, I have raised $30 through this ad. I added another $30 to this amount raised, and donated $60 to the Straits Times School Pocket Money Fund.

I personally know of children who go hungry in school because their parents cannot afford to give them pocket money for lunch, and students who skip school because they don't have money to take the bus or train to school.

The Straits Times School Pocket Money Fund which is a financial aid scheme for needy children in Singapore, is truly worthy of support.

National Day must remain a day of pride

2010-08-08T17:16:00.000+08:00

It is the season to celebrate the 45 years of independence Singapore has enjoyed. Being almost as old as Singapore, I have lived through the transformation of Singapore.

I remember sitting on my father’s shoulders to catch the march-pass along Tanglin Halt Road in the ‘70s. I have never missed watching a single National Day parade on TV from as far back as I can remember (except for the years that I was away in the USA).

This is the season to be proud of being a Singaporean.

I pay tribute to my mother this National Day, for she is the type of resilient, selfless Singaporean, who built the Singapore we have today. When we were rendered homeless through a series of unfortunate events, my mother held down three jobs, to put us three children through school. She knew that education will provide the chance for her children - her future, to claw back from the misery we were in.

This National Day, the more I ponder about the kind of future we will have the, more unsure I become of the tomorrow of Singapore.

For one, there is the growing income gap - the gap between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots'. The root cause of this problem I feel is the Singapore education system which has disadvantaged the 'have-nots'.

Even though students in Singapore do exceptionally well in Maths and Science test, 10 - 20 years later, there are just a handful of them who turn out to be 'world-beaters'. To remedy this, we must move from being an 'exam meritocracy' to being a 'talent meritocracy'.

We must move from the culture of "work hard! memorise! test-well!' to a culture of learning that challenges conventional wisdom; even if it means challenging authority. Only this shift in the learning culture will enable our students, who are the future of Singapore to be creative, curious, have a sense of adventure and ambition. Streaming which happens at a very early stage of education in Singapore is a major culprit which impedes this shift in the culture of learning.

Streaming is a form of social class stratification, where those in the Gifted Education Programme would go on to be leaders in whatever fields they might enter, be it government, medicine, science or anything, where the Special students would go on to earn university degrees and seek well-paid soft collar jobs, and the Express students would go on to Polytechnics and serve as associate professionals and clerical workers, and the Normal stream students would end up as technicians, hawkers, and road sweepers.

And this segregation by the way of streaming happens at a very young age, based on who is the most 'exams-smart'. Even those that are smart, but cannot test well despite trying to rote-learn are streamed down. Those without the 'right' paper qualifications are labelled as 'failures'.

According to the year 2000 census, there are 116300 such ‘failure’ families in Singapore, who earn below $1000 per month. Six in ten of these households, are headed by someone with only primary school education or less. And they work as cleaners, labourers or as service workers.

The government’s policy of excessively streaming the students at a very young age and causing unnecessary stress not only to the students but also to their parents, right from primary school, to secondary school to places of tertiary education must be re-looked.

And re-look this policy of streaming we must so that we can go daringly into the future Singapore, knowing that we have given the younger generation the gift of being lifelong learners, so that they can adapt and overcome the challenges the future may throw at them.

Another reason why I look at the National Days of the future unsurely is because of those that are over 40 and are (or become) unemployed. Unlike the time of my mother, it may be more difficult for these to get a job, so that they could be self resilient. I personally know some people who despite going for WSQ courses have not been able to get a job.

Although this problem is found in the unskilled workforce, it is especially impedes the skilled labour force. Ironically, it is but the skilled workforce, that not only has the right education and skill-sets but also the experience; but there seem to be a prejudice by the employers in hiring skilled workers who are over 40.

Those that are in the 40s are in their prime and have many more years of being able to contribute to the growth and well-being of Singapore. We cannot just expect them to take any job that comes by their way; a job which may not pay them sufficiently to meet their burden of living costs and commitments as sons, daughters, fathers and mothers and becomes a cost of opportunity.

Besides the relevant ministries embarking on a campaign to educate employers to forgo prejudices of hiring older workers, the older workers themselves, must be given time to search for an appropriate job.

Although we see good GDP growth today and seem to have rebounded from the deep economic crisis, as we go into the future, nobody can guarantee that there will not be another economic crisis and no one can guarantee that there will not be another round of lay-offs. The welfare of the workers must be protected for the next down-turn.

The government must use part of the CPF restoration exercise for a national employment insurance scheme, where every worker will be insured against job-loss or retrenchment. The mechanisms of such an insurance scheme to benefit every worker, including the duration and amount of payouts, can be further studied once the scheme is given approval in principal.

This will be the best National Day gift to the workers in Singapore, without whom we will not have the Singapore that we have today.

Happy National Day Singapore!

MDA gives a non-answer for my query on Dr Lim Hock Siew

2010-07-22T14:37:00.000+08:00

I asked MDA questions on their press release (see THIS) about the ban on the video recording Dr Lim Siew Hock's speech in a book launch. Please see my initial query HERE. MDA answered me today with their press release.

Can anyone's reply be stupider than this?

Where are the MPs?

2010-07-17T21:40:00.002+08:00

I was walking around my neighborhood this evening and saw the pavement littered with broken branches and sidewalks awash with mud because of the flash floods this morning. What crossed my mind immediately on seeing the debris was, "where is the MP?"

We had many flash floods in the past few days. The media, even the online ones, were quick to point their fingers at the Minister of Environment and Water Resources and also the PUB. But what about the MPs of the various affected constituencies? I did not see the MP for my constituency, Seng Han Thong do a walkabout around after the flash flood in his constituency, to access the damage caused by the natural disaster and to re-assure the affected residents.

We don't need bureaucratic MPs, who sit behind their desks oblivious to the troubles faced by their constituents. Or MPs who come to meet their constituents once a week for 2 - 3 hours, to write petitions for them. Or even MPs who send their grassroots leaders and civil servants to fix a problem when it arises. We need an MP, who will walk his grounds. An MP of the people for the people.

Nobody can control nature. Yeah sure, 'once in fifty years freak floods' do happen. But that does not mean that MPs must only come out once in a few years, just before the elections.

And what about the opposition candidates? The recent problems caused by the freak weather, was a perfect opportunity for the opposition candidates to do what the MPs of the various constituencies failed to do in the constituencies that they intend to contest. But I think they too overlooked the obvious.

The people must demand the MPs of their constituencies to stop bureaucratic and be more engaged with the welfare of their constituencies. And they must only vote for candidates who show genuine concern for their constituency.

MDA please clarify how ban served public interest

2010-07-14T15:23:00.002+08:00

I emailed the Media Development Authority (MDA) of Singapore, today to ask how banning the video recording of Dr Lim Hock Siew, served public interest.

You may ask MDA how banning the film served public interest through the MDA Online Feedback Form.