Well, its really a merry Christmas for taxi drivers in Singapore this festive season. And certainly a prosperous new year. I hate to take a Comfort cab nowadays, especially after 6pm EVERY day. From then till midnight, for all seven days of the week, the cabby will collect 1.25 times what the meter would read previously. That's pretty steep. So last Sunday evening after dinner at a restaurant, I opted to take the subway train home. As I was walking to the subway, I was looking out for a non-Comfort cab because their fares have (still) not increased. But alas, I reached the train station first. Well look at it the bright side - walking helped to burn off some of the carbs that I had downed not too long ago, and I saved quite a bit of money as a cab would have had to criss-cross the island from the southern tip to the north-eastern tip where I stay. I wasn't sure if I would not vomit the food when I looked at the final fare on the meter.
Predictably, now that the largest taxi company on the island has increased its fares, all the rest will follow suite. Actually not WILL, they HAVE followed. And the quantum of increases is the same - that's Singapore's version of competition for you. Its rather twisted, really. More like collusion, and all with the blessings of the government, it appears. Its not the first time. The bus and train companies have practiced this twisted form of competition for some time now, with the blessings of the authorities which are helmed by leaders who are "educated" in prestigious Universities the world over at taxpayer's expense, no less. This is really a merry go-around that will sadden Santa Claus this merry season. Its not a season of giving, it is a season of taking.
And the Competition Commission of Singapore (CCS), the PUBLIC Transport Council (PTC) and the Government are not raising a ruckus. The CCS says to the effect that if you are not happy, sue them. Nope, they are not going to front this. The PTC is rather silent as if they are party to this. And the Government insists that they just want to stay on the sidelines as this is a commercial issue. Unfortunately, Singaporeans are not in the habit of initiating class actions suites. We are a long-suffering lot. Perhaps timid. Mostly apathetic. But they pour out their frustrations on social media so that the World knows that Singapore really is not heaven on earth.
To be fair the authorities trotted out some numbers, and with the cooperation of the broadcast media, demonstrated how much cheaper it still is to take a cab compared to cabs in Hong Kong and London. Give me a break. They should know better. An apple is very different from an orange, no? But maybe to them, apples and an oranges are fruits, so the comparison is valid. Sheesh, you can't win. Or should I say the cabbies win. The cab operators win. The taxman (government) wins. And we the long-suffering consumers are the losers.
I really must get used to taking the bus and the train, not that those are without their own set of problems. Well, I'll TRY to be merry and look forward to the new year, though this December has brought more than its fair share of bad news, much of which are really avoidable.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Sunday, December 18, 2011
The take-charge minister
This must be a first. The North-South and East-West lines of the MRT system has been halted totally, from 5.30 to 10 today, Sunday morning, 18th December 2011! It can only take the might of a government minister, Mr Lui Tuck Yew, the Transport Minister no less, to order this stoppage. Without a doubt this is to avoid a likely 4th break-down of the MRT system operated by the SMRT, if events of the past 3 days are any guide.
Yes, I haven't heard of the SMRT system stopping operations for such a stretch of time. Fortunately, this is Sunday, a non-working day. However, people in the retail and services trade will still have to make their way to the shops to ensure that they open for business at 11am. Well, these people will have to take the bus, if they know or remember which buses to take, that is. And you can't call in "sick" because this is the last weekend before Christmas, and businesses need all "hands on deck". Employees can't take the first train out at 10 because it takes time to travel, and they literally will not be able to open the store on time.
That said, I must credit Mr Lui for taking over this problem so swiftly. You need ministerial muscle for this - to call time on one of the most important infrastructure on the island - to do what needs to be done, something that SMRT, to its discredit and shame, seem not to have nor been able to do. He has reportedly visited some train stations, checked the signs, the staff, the processes, etc. - something that really is not his job. Any lesser person wouldn't have done this. Just delegate someone to do the legwork. Monitor from the comfort of an operations control centre. Remember, the elections have been over more than half a year, when he was often seen on the trains. But now we know that it was not electioneering gimick. This guy is serious. Remember, he cut short his meeting in Cambodia to give this problem his personal attention. After all, the problem affects thousands of people everyday, and the businesses that rely on people moving around uninhibited. Mr Lui has got his priorities right, which is more than what I can say for the management of the SMRT. This enforced stoppage must really be a slap in the corporate face of the SMRT and especially its manageement, led incompetently by Ms. Saw Phaik Hwa.
Let's hope that with this due diligence check, we won't have another massive breakdown of the train system any time soon. People are entitled to a merry Christmas and a happy new year.
Yes, I haven't heard of the SMRT system stopping operations for such a stretch of time. Fortunately, this is Sunday, a non-working day. However, people in the retail and services trade will still have to make their way to the shops to ensure that they open for business at 11am. Well, these people will have to take the bus, if they know or remember which buses to take, that is. And you can't call in "sick" because this is the last weekend before Christmas, and businesses need all "hands on deck". Employees can't take the first train out at 10 because it takes time to travel, and they literally will not be able to open the store on time.
That said, I must credit Mr Lui for taking over this problem so swiftly. You need ministerial muscle for this - to call time on one of the most important infrastructure on the island - to do what needs to be done, something that SMRT, to its discredit and shame, seem not to have nor been able to do. He has reportedly visited some train stations, checked the signs, the staff, the processes, etc. - something that really is not his job. Any lesser person wouldn't have done this. Just delegate someone to do the legwork. Monitor from the comfort of an operations control centre. Remember, the elections have been over more than half a year, when he was often seen on the trains. But now we know that it was not electioneering gimick. This guy is serious. Remember, he cut short his meeting in Cambodia to give this problem his personal attention. After all, the problem affects thousands of people everyday, and the businesses that rely on people moving around uninhibited. Mr Lui has got his priorities right, which is more than what I can say for the management of the SMRT. This enforced stoppage must really be a slap in the corporate face of the SMRT and especially its manageement, led incompetently by Ms. Saw Phaik Hwa.
Let's hope that with this due diligence check, we won't have another massive breakdown of the train system any time soon. People are entitled to a merry Christmas and a happy new year.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
No Go
Singapore is looking like a third world country if the frequent breakdowns of its 'world-class' transport network is anything to go by. Yes, all of Singapore is pouring scorn on SMRT, the operator of the subway system, now that it has malfunctioned for the 3rd time within the space of a week! The first time was probably an accident. The second time just a fluke of nature. The 3rd time shows that whoever is in charge is sleeping on the job.
You couldn't ask for a more profitable business running Singapore's subway system. First of all, the government builds the infrastructure for the company. This comes to billions of dollars. Then the the government imposes heavy duties on owning and using a car so as to encourage more people to take public transport. The government, again, builds even more subway stations to to make it easier for people to get around on the subways. All the management of the SMRT just has to do is sit around and make sure that its trains run. No need for price and product promotion campaigns, No need for discount pricing. No need for expensive advertisements. No need to entice with a 'Singapore Girl' type branding exercise. Just sit back and see the money roll in, literary every second that the trains are in operation. Heck, you can spend more time at the golf course, or wherever you think best takes your mind off the mundane job of running the public transport rail network. The business won't stop and the money tap won't run dry.
Maybe this is why SMRT finds it so hard to recover from its problems. No, that's why problems keep coming up. Well, ok, both. And you know, we haven't had a lot of support from its CEO, Ms Saw Phaik Hwa, all these many years she has been on the seat, or in the golf course, wherever. She just manages to say the wrong things all the time that I wonder why she is still CEO. Its time for a change, and that change must start from the top. And you wonder why she is paid so much for doing so little. She is also the Chairman of the Risk Management Committee in SMRT. Clearly she is in the wrong job.
Perhaps before the year is out, it will happen. Only, we are not sure if the headline reads:
"SMRT CEO resigns", or
"SMRT CEO fired".
We commuters don't really care. We just want on-time and reliable service. Is that too much to ask?
You couldn't ask for a more profitable business running Singapore's subway system. First of all, the government builds the infrastructure for the company. This comes to billions of dollars. Then the the government imposes heavy duties on owning and using a car so as to encourage more people to take public transport. The government, again, builds even more subway stations to to make it easier for people to get around on the subways. All the management of the SMRT just has to do is sit around and make sure that its trains run. No need for price and product promotion campaigns, No need for discount pricing. No need for expensive advertisements. No need to entice with a 'Singapore Girl' type branding exercise. Just sit back and see the money roll in, literary every second that the trains are in operation. Heck, you can spend more time at the golf course, or wherever you think best takes your mind off the mundane job of running the public transport rail network. The business won't stop and the money tap won't run dry.
Maybe this is why SMRT finds it so hard to recover from its problems. No, that's why problems keep coming up. Well, ok, both. And you know, we haven't had a lot of support from its CEO, Ms Saw Phaik Hwa, all these many years she has been on the seat, or in the golf course, wherever. She just manages to say the wrong things all the time that I wonder why she is still CEO. Its time for a change, and that change must start from the top. And you wonder why she is paid so much for doing so little. She is also the Chairman of the Risk Management Committee in SMRT. Clearly she is in the wrong job.
Perhaps before the year is out, it will happen. Only, we are not sure if the headline reads:
"SMRT CEO resigns", or
"SMRT CEO fired".
We commuters don't really care. We just want on-time and reliable service. Is that too much to ask?
Saturday, November 05, 2011
Infamous Serenity
Singapore is a sad place, it seems. That's right. It is not heaven on earth in spite of its glowing reputation where everything works, that it is an economic miracle worth studying and emulating. Why so morose? After all, I live in Singapore, and to deprecate the place isn't a smart thing.
Well, the rest of Singapore is also wondering now. It was reported, again, that a dead body has been discovered in Bedok Reservoir - that place of serenity, I kid you not. This is one of those choice locations to have a house, better still if it is a high-rise apartment, for then you can wake up to the scenic beauty of the reservoir right out your window. Now people are not so sure. It appears now to be a favoured place to end one's life, whether voluntarily or not. The subway station (on the raised platforms of the MRT stations) used to be a favoured way of 'going', much to the inconvenience of everyone else who wish to go about their lives. It was so easy and straightforward for the killee. Just jump in front of a train coming into the station and its settled, though not for the longsuffering commuters, nost of whom will be late for work, again. But then SMRT, the operator of the train system put up barriers (after being given the 'push' by the government), and I suppose, it isn't easy to jump anymore. So where do these people go to now?
The reservoir, and in particular Bedok Reservoir, is now the hot place to exit this life, to heaven, or hell, or nothingness whichever faith you belong to. But beyond just dying, one has to ask what is wrong with life anyway. Are people increasingly unhappy, so much so that death is the only solution, the only release? Maybe Ms Sylvia Lim of the Workers' Party is right after all when she said in Parliament that Singapore should adopt a Happiness Index. Not a few PAP MP knee-jerked that economic progress is more important, for without it, there can be no happiness. I suppose, for them to say so, they imply that they are very happy people. Well, they seem to have been proved wrong about other people's state of bliss or lack of it, again and again, if these deaths are anything to go by. But of course, some died because they were murdered, which isn't any better compared to suicide. Why the need to end someone else's life? I guess they must not be very happy when they killed.
Yes, let's talk happiness and not productivity ad nauseum.
Well, the rest of Singapore is also wondering now. It was reported, again, that a dead body has been discovered in Bedok Reservoir - that place of serenity, I kid you not. This is one of those choice locations to have a house, better still if it is a high-rise apartment, for then you can wake up to the scenic beauty of the reservoir right out your window. Now people are not so sure. It appears now to be a favoured place to end one's life, whether voluntarily or not. The subway station (on the raised platforms of the MRT stations) used to be a favoured way of 'going', much to the inconvenience of everyone else who wish to go about their lives. It was so easy and straightforward for the killee. Just jump in front of a train coming into the station and its settled, though not for the longsuffering commuters, nost of whom will be late for work, again. But then SMRT, the operator of the train system put up barriers (after being given the 'push' by the government), and I suppose, it isn't easy to jump anymore. So where do these people go to now?
The reservoir, and in particular Bedok Reservoir, is now the hot place to exit this life, to heaven, or hell, or nothingness whichever faith you belong to. But beyond just dying, one has to ask what is wrong with life anyway. Are people increasingly unhappy, so much so that death is the only solution, the only release? Maybe Ms Sylvia Lim of the Workers' Party is right after all when she said in Parliament that Singapore should adopt a Happiness Index. Not a few PAP MP knee-jerked that economic progress is more important, for without it, there can be no happiness. I suppose, for them to say so, they imply that they are very happy people. Well, they seem to have been proved wrong about other people's state of bliss or lack of it, again and again, if these deaths are anything to go by. But of course, some died because they were murdered, which isn't any better compared to suicide. Why the need to end someone else's life? I guess they must not be very happy when they killed.
Yes, let's talk happiness and not productivity ad nauseum.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
I'm not lovin' it
I got horrendous service, if one can call it that, at McDonalds Compass Point today. Terrible is the word that comes to mind as I recall the encounter. I headed to McDonalds for a takeaway meal at around 6.30pm. There wasn't a queue, just a man in front of me who wasn't ordering but waiting for his order to be served. There were ample waiters/waitresses (cashiers?) around so I thought I was guaranteed to a really fast buy.
But wait, when the guy in front of me had gotten his order, I stepped up to the counter, ready to give my order. Well, nobody bothered a look at me. I began to think I was in a closed counter and debated whether I should switch queue. I persisted, and finally, a cashier asked to take my order. I told her that it was a takeaway order, she duly keyed in my order, then put the receipt on a serving tray, which she then pushed to one side. I was left to guess if I should stand aside and wait for the order to be deposited on that tray. Yes, that seems to be what I was supposed to do. The waitress just assumed I could read her mind. Ah well...
Some others (I'll refer to them as boys) took over the 'delivery' (yes, one was handling the burger and another the drink). I suppose because of the tray, the boy putting together the order together assumed that it was an eat-in order. I corrected him, and he turned to the cashier for confirmation. The cashier had to ask me again if it was a takeaway. I couldn't blame her for forgetting. She was already serving the next customer and probably had erased me and my order from her mind. So ok, the boy (he was really just a boy, probably a student doing this for extra pocket money) transferred my order, which included fries, to a plastic bag, and in the process, spilled a couple of fries onto the table. He didn't bother to replace them, nor apologise. He left the bag on the table for me to collect. Ditto the other boy who gave me the drink - collect it yourself, their body language seem to be saying.
Needless to say, this is no way to treat a customer. McDonald has been pretty innovative in the past year or so, experimenting with different ways to improve the process. An example was the hand-held ordering while people waited in a queue. But today, I really got the raw end of the deal. Is this a new innovation? If it is, it has left a bitter taste in my mouth.
But wait, when the guy in front of me had gotten his order, I stepped up to the counter, ready to give my order. Well, nobody bothered a look at me. I began to think I was in a closed counter and debated whether I should switch queue. I persisted, and finally, a cashier asked to take my order. I told her that it was a takeaway order, she duly keyed in my order, then put the receipt on a serving tray, which she then pushed to one side. I was left to guess if I should stand aside and wait for the order to be deposited on that tray. Yes, that seems to be what I was supposed to do. The waitress just assumed I could read her mind. Ah well...
Some others (I'll refer to them as boys) took over the 'delivery' (yes, one was handling the burger and another the drink). I suppose because of the tray, the boy putting together the order together assumed that it was an eat-in order. I corrected him, and he turned to the cashier for confirmation. The cashier had to ask me again if it was a takeaway. I couldn't blame her for forgetting. She was already serving the next customer and probably had erased me and my order from her mind. So ok, the boy (he was really just a boy, probably a student doing this for extra pocket money) transferred my order, which included fries, to a plastic bag, and in the process, spilled a couple of fries onto the table. He didn't bother to replace them, nor apologise. He left the bag on the table for me to collect. Ditto the other boy who gave me the drink - collect it yourself, their body language seem to be saying.
Needless to say, this is no way to treat a customer. McDonald has been pretty innovative in the past year or so, experimenting with different ways to improve the process. An example was the hand-held ordering while people waited in a queue. But today, I really got the raw end of the deal. Is this a new innovation? If it is, it has left a bitter taste in my mouth.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Speaking for Pappy
Frankly, I don't think the PAP needs anyone to speak for itself. However this is what the Facebook page, Fabrications about the PAP purports to do. When a party is not able to convince the electorate anymore, and part of the electorate needs to speak up for them, then something is very wrong with the PAP, seriously.
Don't get me wrong. I am not an hardcore blame-the-PAP for anything and everything person. If you have followed this blog all these many years, you will note that I support certain government policies and initiatives. But equally, I express my disagreement and sometimes, displeasure, when I, well, don't agree. I try to take a balanced stance. The Fabrications Facebook page writes about truth and lies. Sometimes, even with the best of intentions, it is really difficult to tell the difference and point to something as belonging to one or the other. We ordinary citizens have no access to government papers and discussion, and lets be frank about it - I don't trust anyone and everyone, at least not all the time, and this applies to the PM and the ESM. That's their job, the government machinery, to convince me of their sincerity and truthfulness. I promise to lend my ears, and I will make up my mind based on the balance of evidence. I may be wrong, but nobody can accuse me of blind trust. Truth be told, I have been ridiculed and reprimanded by my kopi-buddies when I openly supported Tony Tan. I have been given the scold stare when I openly rejected Tan Jee Say. And I have been criticized similarly in these pages as well. You note that I have never deleted any of the comments which contain criticism, It is the lay of the land. You give and you take. I am not better than you and neither are you, I believe, better than me. Many silent in the majority, some vociferous in the minority. Either way, all have reasons for their point of view, whether you agree or not.
I do not claim to be anything more than a voice, subject to abuse and the occasional praise. It's just that I try to be as reasonable as I can, for the sake of country and society, and yes, for change when necessary. A party that thinks it is always right, and refuses to change when it is manifestly wrong is just delaying the day of its demise.And that applies to the Opposition as well.
One thing though - why do I need to be anonymous? Frankly, fear of the inconvenience of having to explain myself to certain overzealous 'officials'. If you think I am reasonable, then good. If you think I am spouting nonsense and wasting my, and your, time, that's your privilege to do so.
My $0.02 worth.
Sunday, September 04, 2011
PAPolitical Association
I agree with the good professor, Tan Ern Ser. He said that "PA's actions may erode the moral ground of the PAP and dilute its political capital". (reported in Yahoo News Singapore, 2 Sep 2011). He is referring to the People's Association's (PA) policy not to appoint Opposition MPs as advisers to its grassroots organisations because they cannot be expected to implement government policies, for which the PA was set up in the first place. This would have been non-controversial, say 20 or 30 years ago when the PAP dominated the government, and thereby any state organ and statutory board, of which the PA is one. In these many years, we have had an enlightened government which, for the most part, put the people in its centre as it built up the nation's hard infrastructure, and its soft infrastructure, such as the PA. Almost all constituency wards were held by the party and it made sense to have its own MPs become advisers to this grassroot organisation in its constituencies to promote the governments' policies. This is all nice and dandy, and nobody should fault this government strategy to win the hearts and minds of the people. After all, should the Opposition one day come to power, they would want to also make use of this powerful organ to its own advantage.
But what is good in one era may not be so in another for the PAP government. PM Lee had said in May 2011, after the PAP won with reduced margins and lost 6 seats, including a supposed impregnable GRC, that today's electorate is different, and that the PAP government has to do some "soul-searching and studying". He also said that the call for a "transformed PAP...would not go unheeded". That is 3 and half months ago. With this latest PA saga, those words appear to be quite empty. But wait, just this fortnight, DPM Tharman Shanmugaratnam, commenting on Dr Tony Tan's slim margin of victory in the Presidential election, said that "politics here has become more pluralistic and the trend will continue...". And what has the PAP done about this? From the same said saga, nothing, zilch, tiada, ஒன்à®±ுà®®ில்லை, æ— . It does not appear that anything will change at all, as far as the PAP is concerned.
Perhaps history will record this PA incident to be a turning point in politics in Singapore. Faced with a near lost election and government inertia, erstwhile fence-sitters and moderate conservatives will switch their allegiance to Opposition Parties staking moderate and sensible views, such as the Workers Party. The elephant has started to move, as the electoral pattern in the Presidential elections has shown. When they stampede, there will be no stopping them. And the tragedy will be that the PAP does not know what hit them.
Saturday, August 27, 2011
A few good men
Mr Tan Kin Lian has conceded defeat already? Well, I suppose he has been seeing early returns and they don't look good. If he doesn't secure at least 12.5% of the votes, he will lose his deposit of $48,000. I hope he gets to keep it. And even if he does not secure the minimum number of votes, he should get his money back. After all, he didn't throw his hat into the ring on a whim. And he has been described, with the other 3 candidates as honourable and honest. He has run an earnest and clean campaign. So why should the State keep the money?
Give back the man his money!
Give back the man his money!
Singapore must Win
Today is polling day to elect Singapore's next President. By tomorrow, Sunday morning, Singapore will know who its next President is. There is a certain air of excitement - at least that is what I sense in some of my colleagues yesterday as they looked forward to today, never mind that the consequence of the results is, well, inconsequential - nation-wise. We are, after all, electing a figurehead. Though there has been much talk of the President's powers in guarding the reserves and policing senior appointments to government, I would think that the first is an exceptional situation and the second a formality. In a sense, it is no more than buying insurance for that rainy day. I am sure some would lambast me for belittling this whole process and event. My stand is that there should never have been a need for an elected Presidency in the first place. Parliament should just convene and nominate one that is acceptable to the majority in Parliament, and therefore the people. But in Singapore, because the composition of Parliament is not truly representative of the people, we end up with another national election within the space of 4 months, and unlike in years past, 4 candidates are contesting. Some of the candidates assume that they will do what Parliament has failed, or will fail to do - to check on the government and be more active in the formulation of national policies and laws. Since it is illegal not to vote, I'll be heading to the booths this morning to silently voice my choice of a President, however inconsequential.
At his point in time, it appears that Mr Tony Tan and Mr Tan Cheng Bock are front runners. TT hinted that he might lose during his Boat Quay rally speech - "I might not win...but at least I tried..." He must admit that his sons' NS records have done tremendous damage to his bid. Mr Tan Kin Lian almost self destructed yesterday when he hinted that Mr Tan Jee Say was not an honorable man. And I heard in the office yesterday many voices against voting for Mr Tan Jee Say. 'He is a loose canon', 'cannot be trusted', 'too confrontational', 'aiyeerrr', were some of the reasons cited for dropping him from consideration. Perhaps only the opposition politicians and their die-hard followers will cast their vote in his direction. Overall, it appears that only TCB has come through relatively unscathed in the 9 days of campaigning - from being quaint and dowdy to become a credible, warm and sensible man with a Presidential bearing.
So the word on the streets is that the real contest is between TT and TCB - ironically 2 former PAP men. They would likely share 70% of the votes, with the rest split between TKL and TJS.
May the best man win. I hope that all of them will take back their not insignificant $48,000 deposit.
In any case, however voters vote, Singapore MUST win.
At his point in time, it appears that Mr Tony Tan and Mr Tan Cheng Bock are front runners. TT hinted that he might lose during his Boat Quay rally speech - "I might not win...but at least I tried..." He must admit that his sons' NS records have done tremendous damage to his bid. Mr Tan Kin Lian almost self destructed yesterday when he hinted that Mr Tan Jee Say was not an honorable man. And I heard in the office yesterday many voices against voting for Mr Tan Jee Say. 'He is a loose canon', 'cannot be trusted', 'too confrontational', 'aiyeerrr', were some of the reasons cited for dropping him from consideration. Perhaps only the opposition politicians and their die-hard followers will cast their vote in his direction. Overall, it appears that only TCB has come through relatively unscathed in the 9 days of campaigning - from being quaint and dowdy to become a credible, warm and sensible man with a Presidential bearing.
So the word on the streets is that the real contest is between TT and TCB - ironically 2 former PAP men. They would likely share 70% of the votes, with the rest split between TKL and TJS.
May the best man win. I hope that all of them will take back their not insignificant $48,000 deposit.
In any case, however voters vote, Singapore MUST win.
Monday, August 22, 2011
Seeing is believing
So how is one to choose the 'correct' person for President of Singapore? You shouldn't apply a political yardstick in making your choice. And there isn't much of a choice if one were to make the decision based on looks. Perhaps if we had a female candidate among the lot, it would be easier, though not necessarily in the looks department. You can attend rallies. There is only one for each candidate, so if you miss it... Listen in on their debates though in the last one organised by The Online Citizen, you might not have found it any more enlightening.
At the end of the day, you can vote for one because your friend is voting for that candidate, although this presents a chicken-and-egg dilemma. Or you do your ini-mini-mai-ni-mor - which is what you probably do at the gambling tables, turning the presidential election into a 'gaming' event. Yet another is by way of elimination - "anyone but this and/or that candidate". This is choosing by not choosing. Or, if you are not satisfied with any of these options, then just combine all these strategies in any meaningful way and some ONE must surely pop up for you to cast your vote for come 27 August 2011.
If you are still lost, may I suggest you go visual. Cast your vote based on your preference for the symbol of each candidate. They are there for a purpose, you know. This is my assessment of each of the candidate's symbols and their meanings:
The Tan Kin Lian hi-5 - This must surely be the most imaginative symbol of the lot. While the hi-five thing is a bit corny, and un-Singaporean, the picture showing a hand within the talk blurb tells me that the candidate behind this symbol not only is a talker, he is also a do-er. And we want a President who not only is eloquent, but does what he says he will do. TKL can do with much improvements in his diction, though.
This one, in my opinion, wins hands down, errmmm, up.
The Tan Jee Say heart: This must surely be the most boring of the lot. In fact, a charge of plagiarism can even be brought against the candidate, i.e. if someone had copyrighted the symbol. Obviously a lot of effort has been spared on creating a meaningful symbol. This universal symbol of love is applicable to everyone and anyone. Unfortunately, many people have used it for both heavenly as well as derogatory purposes, so one is left wondering... Well, give him a ear to find out more about his stand, though not necessarily your heart.
The Tony Tan spec: Perhaps the most recognizable symbol vis-a-viz the candidate. Simple, personal, and I like the spin that has been given to it - taking a long term view, something that is so characteristic of his political career. Obviously this is a spectacle for the long-sighted, the person who is not rash, not impulsive, but one who is reflective, looks at things from all angles. Great symbol, though it doesn't have a winning 'ring' about it.
The Tan Cheng Bok fan: I must say this is the most conventional of the lot. It reminded me of a coffee table book about the Singapore story which featured the stems of a palm tree characteristic of this part of the world that was published a long long time ago. His spin on it is pretty un-imaginative - he might well have used other similar objects such as a hand (well, that is taken), a traditional chinese-type fan, a wind-screen wiper (naah...too few 'leafs'), a rainbow or any semi-circular figure. It was thoughtful though and he does relate it back to his own name though you have to know Chinese to appreciate this point.
A safe bet.
There you have it. Bring your own spin to these and see if it resonates with the candidates'. The choice will then be obvious, don't you think?
At the end of the day, you can vote for one because your friend is voting for that candidate, although this presents a chicken-and-egg dilemma. Or you do your ini-mini-mai-ni-mor - which is what you probably do at the gambling tables, turning the presidential election into a 'gaming' event. Yet another is by way of elimination - "anyone but this and/or that candidate". This is choosing by not choosing. Or, if you are not satisfied with any of these options, then just combine all these strategies in any meaningful way and some ONE must surely pop up for you to cast your vote for come 27 August 2011.
If you are still lost, may I suggest you go visual. Cast your vote based on your preference for the symbol of each candidate. They are there for a purpose, you know. This is my assessment of each of the candidate's symbols and their meanings:
This one, in my opinion, wins hands down, errmmm, up.
A safe bet.
There you have it. Bring your own spin to these and see if it resonates with the candidates'. The choice will then be obvious, don't you think?
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Un-Presidential
'Crowd control is a function of the police, it is not the function of the President', Mr Tan Jee Say reportedly said in response to a question from a member of the Hainan Tan clan association on his inability to control his supporters when they jeered at his rival, Dr Tony Tan, during Nomination day on Wednesday. The member questioned his ability to control a country if he cannot control his own supporters.
And Mr Tan's answer? It is not the job of a President to do so, that this job belonged to the Police. So he thinks that he is already the President? I am very concerned. What if he really became President? He would be shirking responsibility left, right, up, down, centre and just about anywhere else except himself on anything he wishes to avoid responsibility. Does he not know that as the big boss, the buck, as the Americans say, should stop with him?
I will be concerned, nay, very concerned if Singapore chooses him as President. The last thing Singapore needs is Emperor Tan Jee Say.
And Mr Tan's answer? It is not the job of a President to do so, that this job belonged to the Police. So he thinks that he is already the President? I am very concerned. What if he really became President? He would be shirking responsibility left, right, up, down, centre and just about anywhere else except himself on anything he wishes to avoid responsibility. Does he not know that as the big boss, the buck, as the Americans say, should stop with him?
I will be concerned, nay, very concerned if Singapore chooses him as President. The last thing Singapore needs is Emperor Tan Jee Say.
Your President
I'll be up front about this. The Singapore Presidential Election has been blown way out of proportion to its significance and its purpose. If it is to elect a representative to give voice to the political aspirations of the people, then Parliament has failed. All the elected MPs have failed to do their jobs. That's because this is what MPs and Parliament are meant to be and to do. And the 'louder' the noise in this election, the greater these are a reflection of these failures.
Once upon a time, the Presidential election was a dignified, if boring event. This is the first time in 18 years that Singaporeans go to the polling booth to cast their votes for a president. So I can understand the excitement, particularly so soon after the Parliamentary elections in May 2011. Obviously many feel that they have not been heard clear enough, or that the results did not reflect that proportion of votes that went either way. So many people, including a particular Presidential candidate, have this delusional impression, that the President can make a difference in the entire political process. Heck, Mr Tan Jee Say and company are treating this contest as an extension of his lost election bid in May. One must be blind not to see this. Surely there was no need for the jeering, which Mr Tan JS' supporters resorted to when Mr Tony Tan introduced himself as a presidential candidate on nomination day. I can understand, and expect this in an American Presidential election, but that's not what Singapore's President is about. I must say that the PAP government made a big mistake in making the Presidency an elected position. Well, they have the majority power to repeal this law and set everything back to what it should be - an appointed position acceptable to Parliament, and therefore the people. And don't anyone go around to say, like Mr Tan Kin Lian, that Parliament is toothless since the PAP government dominates it. Does this mean that we should all give up on Parliament as the true voice of the people and just have the President as the alternate voice? Is this why Mr Tan Kin Lian has never bothered to stand for elections to Parliament?
Yes, we can move in the direction of an executive president, but it involves changing Singapore's system of government away from Parliamentary democracy towards the American model. Maybe we are evolving, so fond is the PAP government in innovating unique features in government, which includes the Group Representation Constituency - another feature that will come to haunt them one day, and lead to the inevitable dismantling of this most undemocratic of institutions.
So to fellow Singaporeans I say - forget about the politics. Choose the one whom you think is best able to represent you as an independent figure above politics, one who will be able to unite and not divide, one who can speak well and present you well as a citizen of Singapore, and guard your interests not only in Singapore but the world as you travel the length and breath of it. Choose the one whom you think can be the face of Singapore regardless of race, language, religion, and, more importantly, regardless of politics (if this is even possible).
Once upon a time, the Presidential election was a dignified, if boring event. This is the first time in 18 years that Singaporeans go to the polling booth to cast their votes for a president. So I can understand the excitement, particularly so soon after the Parliamentary elections in May 2011. Obviously many feel that they have not been heard clear enough, or that the results did not reflect that proportion of votes that went either way. So many people, including a particular Presidential candidate, have this delusional impression, that the President can make a difference in the entire political process. Heck, Mr Tan Jee Say and company are treating this contest as an extension of his lost election bid in May. One must be blind not to see this. Surely there was no need for the jeering, which Mr Tan JS' supporters resorted to when Mr Tony Tan introduced himself as a presidential candidate on nomination day. I can understand, and expect this in an American Presidential election, but that's not what Singapore's President is about. I must say that the PAP government made a big mistake in making the Presidency an elected position. Well, they have the majority power to repeal this law and set everything back to what it should be - an appointed position acceptable to Parliament, and therefore the people. And don't anyone go around to say, like Mr Tan Kin Lian, that Parliament is toothless since the PAP government dominates it. Does this mean that we should all give up on Parliament as the true voice of the people and just have the President as the alternate voice? Is this why Mr Tan Kin Lian has never bothered to stand for elections to Parliament?
Yes, we can move in the direction of an executive president, but it involves changing Singapore's system of government away from Parliamentary democracy towards the American model. Maybe we are evolving, so fond is the PAP government in innovating unique features in government, which includes the Group Representation Constituency - another feature that will come to haunt them one day, and lead to the inevitable dismantling of this most undemocratic of institutions.
So to fellow Singaporeans I say - forget about the politics. Choose the one whom you think is best able to represent you as an independent figure above politics, one who will be able to unite and not divide, one who can speak well and present you well as a citizen of Singapore, and guard your interests not only in Singapore but the world as you travel the length and breath of it. Choose the one whom you think can be the face of Singapore regardless of race, language, religion, and, more importantly, regardless of politics (if this is even possible).
Monday, August 15, 2011
Sleeping Parliament
There has been much debate, talk, threats, admonishments, etc. regarding the elected presidency in the last month. Electing a President in Singapore used to be a done deal, nothing much to look forward to, no need to cast any vote. In the past, the ruling party, the PAP, has always had it way. The candidate which it endorses always became President, and that includes President Ong Teng Cheong and the present President SR Nathan.
This time, it is different. No less than 4 have put their names name. They are informally referred to as establishment candidates such as Dr Tony Tan and former long-time PAP MP Dr Tan Cheng Bok. Add to that the anti-establishment candidates that are Tan Kin Lian and Tan Jee Say. No one really is independent, when you come to think of it. But more of this can be written in the coming days.
My concern is that the Singapore Parliament has not sat since the end of the last GE in May 2011. I wonder why. No issues since then to discuss? It is odd if this is the case. Singapore is going into unchartered territory, economy-wise, so the governement reminds us. Does this not merit sitting? But more so, non of the elected MPs have been sworn it, 5 months after their election. I wonder about the significance of this swearing in ceremony, since MPs would have gone about their constituency work by now, listening to the people, advising them, writing letters to the powers that be, etc. etc. Does not being sworn in mean that they have any less validity or authority as MPs? Can they, in fact, go about their Parliamentary duties, and that includes seeing people and making representatons on their behalf? If the answer is yes, then it would appear that the swearing in ceremony is dispensable. But if our MPs are doing less for the last 5 months, they would have saved a pretty penny related to being in Parliament for meetings and discussion. Can we ask for some of the allowance back? Its like being on half pay, you know.
The Thai Parliament convened within a month of its election. Of course there was a change in government, which perhaps necessitated the convening of Parliament, but does Singapore has anything less that its law makers can afford to take such as 'long holiday'? No wonder the elected Presidency is being viewed as a GE proxy. Parliament has been as silent as a Church mouse thus far.
This time, it is different. No less than 4 have put their names name. They are informally referred to as establishment candidates such as Dr Tony Tan and former long-time PAP MP Dr Tan Cheng Bok. Add to that the anti-establishment candidates that are Tan Kin Lian and Tan Jee Say. No one really is independent, when you come to think of it. But more of this can be written in the coming days.
My concern is that the Singapore Parliament has not sat since the end of the last GE in May 2011. I wonder why. No issues since then to discuss? It is odd if this is the case. Singapore is going into unchartered territory, economy-wise, so the governement reminds us. Does this not merit sitting? But more so, non of the elected MPs have been sworn it, 5 months after their election. I wonder about the significance of this swearing in ceremony, since MPs would have gone about their constituency work by now, listening to the people, advising them, writing letters to the powers that be, etc. etc. Does not being sworn in mean that they have any less validity or authority as MPs? Can they, in fact, go about their Parliamentary duties, and that includes seeing people and making representatons on their behalf? If the answer is yes, then it would appear that the swearing in ceremony is dispensable. But if our MPs are doing less for the last 5 months, they would have saved a pretty penny related to being in Parliament for meetings and discussion. Can we ask for some of the allowance back? Its like being on half pay, you know.
The Thai Parliament convened within a month of its election. Of course there was a change in government, which perhaps necessitated the convening of Parliament, but does Singapore has anything less that its law makers can afford to take such as 'long holiday'? No wonder the elected Presidency is being viewed as a GE proxy. Parliament has been as silent as a Church mouse thus far.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
To preside or not
The other day, a friend of mine made the point that a duly elected President in Singapore probably has a greater claim to being the people's representative compared to our Members of Parliament who were elected not too long ago. The reason? Well, many MPs were part of a group of candidates, and the group (known as Group Representative Constituency, or GRC for short) might get elected even if you don't think some one or two of its members deserve your vote. That is why MPs such as Tin Pei Ling would have lost if she had stood on her own.
So this will be proven true in 13 day's time when Singaporeans go to the polls once again, to elect the President of Singapore. There are now 4 contenders - whittled down from 6 due to the extremely stringent qualification criteria. In fact, at one point, there was even speculation that all 6 except one of the candidates would be dis-qualified. It now appears that having a contest is preferred over a walkover. Thus candidates Tony Tan, Tan Kin Lian, Tan Chen Bock and Tan Jee Say - all from the Tan clan - will put forward their reasons for people to elect them next week. It is GE reloaded! Interestingly, after spending so much time and effort in securing qualification, Mr Tan Kin Lian has hinted that he will not, after all, be running. One wonders if this whole thing is about electing an individual to become President, or electing a party/platform to make up for the losses in the last Parliamentary elections? If it is the latter, then Mr Tan Jee Say's candidacy is puzzling. If he wins the Presidency, he will effectively be 'gagged' by the Constitution. Yes, the Government will try its hardest to do that if it thinks you are 'out of line'. He will miss the next GE scheduled in 5 years' time, in 2016, or earlier. A President's terms is for 6 years. Isn't a voice in Parliament more 'free' and effective than that of a President? At least there you can be partisan and push your agenda. As President, you should be above the fray, not siding one way or another, at least not openly. Of course he can resign as President and take part in the GE, should he feel that he has made no headway in the highest post in the land.
Mr Tan is reportedly only 57 this year. I would have wished that he contest the next GE to improve the chances of increasing the number of opposition parliamentarians but this is not to be, unless he can wait another 10 years. By then he will be 67, which is really when he should be standing for President.
Let's see what happens this coming Wednesday, Nomination Day.
So this will be proven true in 13 day's time when Singaporeans go to the polls once again, to elect the President of Singapore. There are now 4 contenders - whittled down from 6 due to the extremely stringent qualification criteria. In fact, at one point, there was even speculation that all 6 except one of the candidates would be dis-qualified. It now appears that having a contest is preferred over a walkover. Thus candidates Tony Tan, Tan Kin Lian, Tan Chen Bock and Tan Jee Say - all from the Tan clan - will put forward their reasons for people to elect them next week. It is GE reloaded! Interestingly, after spending so much time and effort in securing qualification, Mr Tan Kin Lian has hinted that he will not, after all, be running. One wonders if this whole thing is about electing an individual to become President, or electing a party/platform to make up for the losses in the last Parliamentary elections? If it is the latter, then Mr Tan Jee Say's candidacy is puzzling. If he wins the Presidency, he will effectively be 'gagged' by the Constitution. Yes, the Government will try its hardest to do that if it thinks you are 'out of line'. He will miss the next GE scheduled in 5 years' time, in 2016, or earlier. A President's terms is for 6 years. Isn't a voice in Parliament more 'free' and effective than that of a President? At least there you can be partisan and push your agenda. As President, you should be above the fray, not siding one way or another, at least not openly. Of course he can resign as President and take part in the GE, should he feel that he has made no headway in the highest post in the land.
Mr Tan is reportedly only 57 this year. I would have wished that he contest the next GE to improve the chances of increasing the number of opposition parliamentarians but this is not to be, unless he can wait another 10 years. By then he will be 67, which is really when he should be standing for President.
Let's see what happens this coming Wednesday, Nomination Day.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Stratospheric Air
A HDB apartment owner is asking for $900,000? Shocking? Well, not really. I once owned a HDB Execute Apartment (a 5-roomer). In the heady days of 1996, it was not inconceivable for me to fetch $700K on the market for it. My brother actually sold his for a cool $600,000. That was the price at which it was valued at that time. Fast forward 15 years today. $900,000 looks right, in a red hot property market where all rationality has gone out the window. But when you consider how people have been willing to pay the high prices for DBSS apartments although they have the same restrictions as a public HDB apartment, you know the time is now to make a killing on your humble public housing apartment.
Why should anyone begrudge another about making good money on their properties? If I had the same opportunity, I'll put out my apartment too on the market at stratospheric prices, so long as people are willing to pay the asking price. And you say it's crazy? Honestly, who do you think is crazy? The one who can make half a million on a single property sale, tax free mind you, or the one standing red-eyed thinking about it? Come on, don't be hypocrites! Say you love the money. It'll certainly come in useful, if not for yourself, at least for your children?
How I love the Singapore property market. The only thing left to do is to cash out of the country and go find a more down to earth place to live.
Why should anyone begrudge another about making good money on their properties? If I had the same opportunity, I'll put out my apartment too on the market at stratospheric prices, so long as people are willing to pay the asking price. And you say it's crazy? Honestly, who do you think is crazy? The one who can make half a million on a single property sale, tax free mind you, or the one standing red-eyed thinking about it? Come on, don't be hypocrites! Say you love the money. It'll certainly come in useful, if not for yourself, at least for your children?
How I love the Singapore property market. The only thing left to do is to cash out of the country and go find a more down to earth place to live.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)