Post-election reflection #GE2020

The mood in the ruling PAP has changed somewhat. The PAP government's PM, Mr Lee Hsien Loong, has now recognised an official Leader of the Opposition and offered the position to Mr Pritam Singh, the Secretary-General of the Workers' Party (WP). This is as it should be. By so doing, it is giving due recognition to the electorates' sentiment that they want a more participative government, not one ruled by a few whose decisions are not to be questioned. This has been the pattern of behaviour among the 4G leadership. I have seen the bullying tactics of the PAP government in and out of Parliament, apparently without realising that the WP MPs' were in Parliament because they were invited to sit there by real voters, real people who live among us. I remember some of these:

1. Presidential "Election"

2. PAP Govt bullied WP over Aljunied-Hougang Town Council matters

3. MRT rail problems

4. Explosion of Public Housing (esp. in Sengkang and Punggol)

5. Population/Crowdedness

6. Mismanagement of COVID-19 (Dorms)

Hopefully, Parliament will be a more civil place where serious issues are discussed and the views of all Singaporeans taken into account. Matters not effectively dealt with in Parliament will spill over into the ballot box. We don't need a bulldozer which act as if its decisions cannot be questioned, and the Opposition's every view is ridiculed. I think this may be one of the reasons for the PAP government's reduced vote-share. That said, the PAP government has had a resounding show of support from the majority of Singaporeans by any global standard, and rightly so because it has always delivered "the goods". The only issue is whether these are the only goods that people want delivered and the manner in which they were delivered. 

I hope I am right that Singapore has just seen a generational change into a new normal, where we have a strong government and an effective Opposition in Parliament from now on. This will make for a more mature decision-making process which will work to the benefit of all Singaporeans.

Majulah Singapura! 

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/ge2020-pm-lee-congratulates-wp-for-strong-performance-12923594

A great political speech, said from the heart #GE2020

A friend sent me this. Said it was one of the best political speeches he has heard. I watched and I cannot agree more.

Mid-point view #GE2020

Even as GE2020 heads towards its last week of campaigning, the electorate needs to make up its mind soon. I suppose many would already have made up theirs. The rest is just theatre. You can go to for the entertainment or ignore it totally. The PAP claims that the WP's platform is PAP-lite - essentially no different from the PAP, implying that the WP is superfluous. Choosing the WP will make not an iorta of difference in the larger scheme of things. The SDP claims that it has made a difference already by forcing the PAP government to state unequivocally the non-existence of the 10 million population target, and even the 6.9 million target has also been disavowed. I remember 7 years ago, this 6.9 million figure was vigorously opposed by many Singaporeans. It appears to be settled, for now.

The PAP has introduced a whole slate of new candidates. It is using the GRC system, with its slate of veterans, to get these people elected into Parliament - people who have yet to prove themselves. Nothing new, you say. Well, Singapore, why can't that apply to the other Parties too? There are a few good men and women which are worthy of serious consideration. People like A/Prof Jamus Lim who is standing in the newly formed (reconstituted) ward of Sengkang GRC. Yee Jenn Jong and Nicole Seah are standing in the East Coast GRC. Both are earnest and intelligent individuals who I think can contribute to Singapore's future government. Of course, that GRC, suddenly, overnight, had a mini-earthquake and grew a mountain possibly named Heng Swee Keat Peak. Frankly, HSK parachuted himself into that constituency because it was one of the more risky GRC that could fall to the WP. The last time, the PAP won with a low margin of 55%. Low because there were relatively heavy-weight PAP government Ministers standing there then. With all due respect, people must understand that HSK is the PAP's chosen leader. Yes, he opened the country's foreign reserves and doled out billions of dollars. Do Singaporeans think that this couldn't be done by someone else? 

Unless Singapore identifies with the PAP unequivocally and completely, HSK becoming Singapore's future PM is not a foregone conclusion. The PAP would like you to think their thoughts and do its bidding. Are we slaves to a single narrative? I believe the PAP has the depth of leadership to easily throw up an alternative, like Mr Ong Yee Kang, who takes after Lee Kuan Yew more than most in the PAP.

Dr Chee Soon Juan has "matured" over the years and I think he will be a valuable addition to Parliament. He came out to defend his opponent when social media dug into the incumbent MP's family life. Yes, we can expect a lot more debate, which actually gives taxpayers their money's worth. Why settle for less? With his involvement in international fora, Dr Paul Tambyah can also enrich Parliamentary discussions and contribute more to Singapore than most of the new PAP candidates.

Singaporeans have been known for its bargain hunting ways. Why settle for less? Like what the WP said, with a non-PAP MP, you can be serviced by the PAP as well. It won't abandon you! Two for the price of one! Buy-one-get-one free. That's a language that many Singaporeans identify with.

Worth wisely, Singapore. 

Integrity and honesty in government #GE2020

DPM Heng Swee Keat is right that our national leaders must be people of integrity and honesty. This is one of the chief reasons why the Singapore electorate has returned the PAP to government in all elections held since Singapore's independence in 1965. One of things that the PAP has also done well over the years is to root out corruption within its party ranks and civil service, so much so that the PAP is reputed for being whiter than white.

However, it is disingenuous for the PAP to insinuate dishonesty and lack of sincerity in parties opposed to it, especially in the current hustings. The PAP has again said that the SDP lacks integrity and honesty over the issue of the 10 million population issue. I am not sure that I buy the PAP's line on this. This charge is nothing new - it has been saying this for years, especially referring to Dr Chee Soon Juan. Is there nothing else the PAP can say, especially now? The pot calling the kettle black? One of its new candidates withdrew his candidacy due to public disquiet about the person's supposed elitist behaviour and hint of unanswered questions regarding his involvement in respect of some Brazil projects. While the jury is out on the case of Ivan Lim, it seems hypocritical to call into question SDP's honesty and integrity. 

If the SDP has outmaneuvered the PAP in respect of the 10 million population issue, it cannot then turn around and call the SDP dishonest. It just goes to show that the PAP has no effective response to the issue.

Yes, I am beginning to become convinced that we need good opposition voices in Parliament. It will give us the best of both worlds - a proven government which is clean, and opposition voices which will keep the decision-making sharp to avoid the occasional mis-thinking that the PAP has been guilty of, and which may cost the country millions, no billions, of $ of unnecessary expenditure. Even its distinguished former member, Dr Tan Cheng Bock, advocates this.

Majulah Singapura   

Read:

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/ge2020-paps-heng-speaks-out-against-sdps-bogeyman-says-candidates-must-have-integrity-and

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/ge2020-pap-should-not-try-fool-frighten-voters-about-change-govt-says-tan-cheng-bock

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/ge2020-psp-tan-cheng-bock-two-thirds-majority-12894722

This is why he had to go #SingaporeElection

This is the reason why he had to go. Not opinion, not feelings, not political machinations. He lied, brazenly. And the PAP thinks that it is a positive life lesson. Well, if that is how the PAP chooses and shortlist candidates, the apply has fallen far from the tree. 

Like me at Another Say

On the up and up in Singapore, and crash #GE2020

2 years ago, and 3 years into the PAP's victory in the 2015 GE, the PAP government promised these:

1. Increase in GST rate - from 7% to 9% starting between 2021 and 2025
2. Increase in water prices by 30% starting July 2018
3. Increase airport tax - to build Changi Airport T5
4. Parking charges to be imposed at all public schools
5. Increase public transport fares (as alluded to by Khaw Boon Wan in Parliament in May 2018)

True to form, the PAP government does what it says it will do, baring circumstances like COVID-19 - a once-in-a-century phenomenon.

1. The GST rate increase will still take place between 2021 and 2025, probably later rather earlier. Maybe 2023.

2. Check - done

3. Changi Airport T5 has been suspended because there will not be demand due to COVID-19, so the Airport Tax will not be increased anytime soon

4. Check - done

5. Check - done

What is the state of play in the coming GE 2020?

In 2020, the PAP government spent nearly $100 billion of Reserves to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. Some feel that it could have been less, if only it had dealt with the elephant in the room early on instead of soaking in the adulation of the world about Singapore's success in containing the spread of the virus on the island in the early days. This elephant refers to the Foreign Worker community living in cramped Dormitories, which number no less than 200,000 - a figure hard to miss, but was missed. In retrospect, if we had insisted on masks like what Hong Kong has done all along, a couple of 10's of billions of dollars would have remained in the Reserves, and businesses will still have been able to operate for much of the time.

Going forward, COVID-19 will still hog the limelight, at least for another year. Would more diverse voices in Parliament with teeth be needed to see the country through more successfully and saved us a couple of 10's of billion of dollars? Based on what has happened, the answer must be an unqualified "yes".

Like me at Another Say

Mdm President

Singapore has been slow to the game. Many countries have had their female heads of state, whether executive or ceremonial. There is India's Indira Gandhi, Indonesia's Megawati Sukarnoputri,  Thailand's Yingluck Shinawatra, Philippines' Corazon Aquino, Myanmar's Aung San Suu Kyi, and lately, Hong Kong's Carrie Lam. 

Now Singapore has its first female President, Mdm Halimah Yacob. Elected via a disqualification of potential opponents - 4 of them, questions have been raised about her legitimacy. Right now, her legitimacy can only be based on the strength of the ruling government of the day, which set (or changed) the rules to ensure that few, if any, opponent can qualify to stand, nevermind that there would be no contest and, in the same breadth, anoint her as 'duly elected'. If you want to be unkind, Singapore is looking like a banana republic, in the same mould as Cambodia, Cuba, Djibouti and DPRK (yep, the bomb-astic nation). How far the apple has fallen from the tree.

To its credit, LHL and his government is well aware of the disquiet about the whole Presidential Election and the way it has been conducted. Nevertheless, it believes that this is good for Singapore 50 years hence, although non of them will be around to answer for the truth or folly of this belief. We can only say that LHL's government is sincere in wanting the best for Singapore and its future, and their belief that this is the best way of going about it. We cannot fault sincerity. They said that it will be willing to bear the consequences, possibly in the next GE. Well lets see. It isn't going to be 50 years from now, only 4 years, in 2021, or earlier.

From social media postings, both before and after the 'election', private postings, and more private conversation, coffee shop talk and street conversations, some of which I have witnessed and been party to, there is tremendous unhappiness, and even ridicule, over the whole 'election'. And now, a lot of the unhappiness continue to be expressed about President Yacob's decision to live in Yishun instead of the Istana, never mind that tax payers have to foot the bill for the security, the car park space (its not going to be just one car and all of them do not incur season parking fees - wait till the Auditor General hears about this), expenses of outriders and police blocking traffic as the President travels between her house and the Istana almost everyday. Yishun is quite a distance away from the Istana. It is regrettable that the first act of the newly 'elected' President is to impose unnecessary additional expenses and incovenience on tax payers. I hope, sooner rather later, that she will dignify her office by moving into the Istana, or otherwise, get a private and suitably remote location to stay (why not the Istana then?)

Gaming from home

Its a sad day for Singapore, or is it a day of celebration? Well, depends on your inclinations. For those who gamble, albeit small timers, legalizing online gambling in Singapore spells convenience (Today, 30 September 2016, pages 1-2). No more need to line up at the supermarkets or neighbourhood shops to get that daily/weekly fix of hope.

For the rest of us, it just confirms that we are now in free-fall down that slippery slope when the Singapore government made gambling on 4-D and Toto a respectable pass time and blessed casino gambling. While 4-D and Toto are not as financially draining compared to gambling at the table in Marina Bay Sands and Resort World Sentosa, I believe that one feeds on the other, resulting in increased gambling activity. It would appear that, with the latest 'licence', the government has blessed the gambling lifestyle even more. And why not? It rakes in a lot of money for the government coffers from these legalized betting, and will be raking in even more with online gambling. I for one am not enthusiastic of using money gained from gambling to fund social causes.

Sure, people have been betting online for ages, but these have been the exception rather than the rule. With the latest initiative, online gambling will go mainstream in Singapore. Now there is a reason for everyone, including our senior citizens to learn to use the computer, or own a tablet, or what the heck, make better use of their handphone besides sms'ing, facebook'ing and whatsapp'ing. Yeah, there is still this hassle of registering for the use of the online platforms, but considering that people are willing to queue up to buy the draw tickets every week, this will just be a one-time hassle. Heck, it wouldn't be far-fetched for someone to set up a business helping gamblers to fill in the forms and other paperwork so that all the applicant has to do is show up in person to start the ball rolling.

In case the reader is not certain about my stand, I'll be clear. I do not agree with this latest government initiative (whose else can it be?) to permit online gaming. I have added my name to the petition to "Stop the Legalisation of Online Gambling in Singapore".

Please add your name to this petition if you feel the same way. It may not make a difference at the end of the day, but it wouldn't be on our conscience for ignoring the evil that this licence to gamble online really is.

Link:
https://www.gopetition.com/petitions/stop-the-legalisation-of-online-gambling-in-singapore.html

Murky Broth

Of late, for every 10 SMS messages that I have received, 8 o f then begins with the qualifier <ADV>. Needless to say, I have become very annoyed with these unsolicited messages. SMS is not like Email. Its something that you would want to check in on because it is more immediate and the person who sends it probably wants to get your immediate attention. Nowadays when I fish out my phone to check my SMS, I often only do one thing - delete the SMS. Its ridiculous. I have to pay to receive something that I never asked for. Some might even call this cheating. Its really getting on my nerves, the same reason why I NEVER answer my handphone calls when the number is one I do not recognise. Experience tells me that 10/10, that call is a telemarketing call, or a call to sell my house, or someone suggesting that I protect myself, my family, my house, my car, and yes, even my dog. Now I have nothing against people selling insurance. They perform a vital advisory service and I have benefitted from such advice. If on the off chance it is a call from someone I know, that person will call back. But this SMS spam is not so easy to deal with. You don't have spam filters that email systems have that will send them to the trash bin immediately. You become a virtual hostage to unwanted and uncalled for messages. But what is upsetting is that  it appears to have the blessings of the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC). As far as I can tell, everyone except the self-interested stakeholder businesses are up in arms and crying foul.

The point is that the PDPC, as CASE puts it, "has back-pedalled and diluted the intention of the DNC (Do Not Call) registry". The PDPC has now allowed for SMS and Fax messages sent by businesses, or whatever entity, to bypass the DNC restrictions so long as there is an "ongoing relationship" between the business and its customers. How does one define "ongoing relationship" anyway? If we adopt the PDPC's understanding of the term, it can be used to define ANY number of transactions between a business and it customers, even "one-night stands". It will be no stretch of the imagination that a business can stalk a customer simply because the PDPC has given its blessings. The PDPC says that an organisation that breach any of the data protection provisions in the PDPA may be liable for a financial penalty of an amount not exceeding $1m. But how can such violation be proved and acted upon if the exceptions and exemptions can be made post-PDPA?

I am in no way suggesting that businesses that engage in direct marketing be banned. By all means communicate with your customers in whatever way that customer chooses provided that he has explicitly and clearly given consent. Now, anything beyond that is ambiguous, and laws are not meant to be ambiguous, are they? It appears that in Singapore, when the government jumps into bed with businesses, a murky broth can surface, to the extreme discomfort of the people to whom it has given its word to care and protect.

Blackout

The day my blog blacked out in support of FreeMyInternet.

This means that I am against the MDA ruling to require Singapore news websites with 50,000 unique hits a month over two month to be individually licensed and post a performance bond of S$50,000.

Be careful folks, the paths get slippery here if we stand for this thoughtless and certainly unpopular ruling. But then the PAP government always prides itself on making and imposing unpopular policies, whether they are inane or not.

Read also the news report 

Mind your own IT business

Singaporean, or at least those politically-aware, would have seen it coming. A reportedly shell company owned entirely by the PAP buying up a software system that was developed with tax-payer money for the sake of maintaining a software system that experts have judged as "obsolete and unmaintainable" defies every rule of business logic. But let me not be accused of repeating anything libelous. After reading through whatever is there on the internet regarding the AIM-AHTC saga, both from AHTC and AIM, I came away with the distinct impression that AHTC has not explained the situation clearly and fully, and AIM has not been convincing at all with its explanation.

This is why the blog posts on this subject by Mr Alex Au on his Yawning Bread blog has not only captured the attention of the social media, it has been vetted through a fine toothcomb by the PM's lawyers, who have determined that parts of the posts are libelous and threatened to sue. Truth be told, I don't read Yawning Bread at all, but due to the publicity that has been stirred up, I have also begun my "fine toothcombing" of the posts, some of which are quite lengthy and appears to have been a product of extensive research. Dr Teo Ho Pin's explanation (defence) of the issues raised by both WP's Sylvia Lim, bloggers and social media, pales in comparison. To me, his explanation raised more questions that it answered. Quite obviously, he has never been an IT professional, but trying to explain an IT business. It's like expecting Ms Saw to run a train company, no?

I do not propose to jump into the fray to add my 2 cents worth, for it is only 2 cents after all. I have no first hand contact with either party that I can add meaningfully to the unfolding events. The only thing I want to say is that it appears that the PAP has become rather petty of late. It used to be that they were focused on winning the hearts and minds of Singaporeans, never mind that similar libel laws have been used in the past. I don't know about Mr Au's political affiliations, but he appears to be a private citizen expressing his opinion publicly in a medium that even PAP stalwarts and Ministers have embraced with a vengeance. And anyone who have read those posts will come away with the impression that it is not all rant. Is this precisely the reason why he is being sued, that he is being too honest? (Brazen is another word to substitute for honest).

Unfortunately, those who are late to the "game" will never be able to judge for themselves as the offending post has been removed from the blog. How to have a conversation like that?

Read AsiaOne for reports around this saga. Then trawl the internet for the details.
Is this AIM or is that AIM?

Face it, PM

It's nothing new, really. Since Mr George Yeo went a blogging some YEARS ago, the trend for other government-types to go online was inevitable. For those who have read George Yeo's blog, it was, well, rather officious. It adopted the civil service style of writing - para 1, para 2, para 3...But it caught netizens' attention, nevertheless. The blogging Minister.

Now no less than Mr Lee Hsien Loong, the Prime Minister of Singapore, has taken to fronting his own FB page. That's great, though he is late to the game. Nevertheless, within a day (or less), his FB page has garnered more than 20,000 likes, though I don't know what there is about it to like at this point in time. Even the Wall Street Journal has seen fit to publish the event. I suppose power attracts, or you just want to be seen hobnobbing with the rich, the powerful, the famous/infamous and the politicians. PM Lee fits all of these descriptors so it is no wonder the overwhelming strength of the magnet of the man. As an aside, George Yeo's Facebook likes lead PM Lee's by a wide berth. But this is to be expected. George has had a head start.

Frankly, I couldn't care less about whether he's had his dinner, but apparently many in Singapore have no other past time than to kay-poh and boast to one and all about when he/she learnt that LHL has had his dinner. Now don't get me wrong. I am not belittling anyone, not least the PM. He has done himself a favour by engaging his stakeholders on the universe's most significant media. Not through a group of admins who purport to speak on his behalf.

But, and this seems never too far away - the perceived threat of action against detractors and abusers of LHL's FB page. No, the law of the internet does not apply. Singapore's Laws do. Just read the House Rules on his FB page, reproduced below for your convenience.

I don't think those were LHL's words. Perhaps his lawyer's, or some smarts in the PMO. But you will agree with me that those words sound ominous.

Yes, Prime Minister! No dirty or abusive words. Otherwise...

OK, we get it.

Somehow these words just take away some of the personal feel of the page. I doubt any netizen puts up those kind of rules. It is live and let live on the internet. You want to join in, then you have to be prepared for the occasional abuse. I have been abused before, and called all manner of the most un-nice things when I took a position that basically agreed with the government's stand. You don't really have to send your lawyers after them. There is a certain intelligence of the crowd, or rather decency of the crowd. On balance, we look after each other. We will wack down anyone who is abusive, unfair, unreasonable and downright abnoxious, no expensive lawyers needed. You just have to trust the crowd, Prime Minister. Look at George. No threats. No House Rules. And he is doing just fine.

Welcome to the Wild Wild Web.

That Brown Mount

Bukit Brown - a cause célèbre among civil society and special interest groups nowadays. All these over a cemetery that nobody cared about, much less heard of, before the Singapore government announced its intent on building an expressway through this piece of land. True to character, the government is planning ahead and it deemed the exhumation of graves, some dating back a hundred years, small sacrifice for the here and now, and probably for the future too. After all, they have done it before. The Bidadari Cemetery along Upper Aljunied Road was removed to make way for the then new Woodleigh MRT station. Much of the land above ground has yet to be redeveloped, which has proved to be a boon to the living. It has become a favourite jogging place for the health conscious exercise enthusiasts. What's not to like about clean clear spaces in an otherwise congested city?

The government is doing this, amidst strong dissenting voices from mainly environmental and civil society groups, for the motorists, which is becoming associated with the rich and the pretenders in this country. With a new small car costing no less than S$80,000, it's become a luxury (again) to own a car. That is the rub. Why must our heritage be destroyed just so the rich blokes (yeah, that's what you are when you own a car on this island) can zip around unimpeded, that they can go from point A to point B in a quarter of the time that we poorer public commuters have to spend doing the same? But of course it is impossible to restrict car ownership any further in an increasingly unequal society that is Singapore today. You'd be asking for a revolt at some point in time, likely through the ballot box. Unlike Hong Kongers,  Singaporeans who gather without a permit, except in designated places, face arrest. So nowadays, they congregate online to make their voices heard. Unfortunately, these voices are a mixed bag. Some are rational, considered, some vociferous, others are rude and abusive, yet others hawk semi-truths and parrot others without verifying the veracity of what they are repeating. This isn't doing their cause any good because the powers that be will treat them as such - noise of the rabble-rousers.

Of course, there are those who are sincere and wish to engage the government. I think the authorities have accommodated these views with a re-design of the new expressway, but not a cancellation of their original intent to build that road. You can't please everyone. Some are still smarting from feeling that they have been run over by a government bulldozer, unhappy that they didn't get what they want. Uncharacteristically, the government has reflected on the episode and admitted that it could have done better to manage expectations. I began with disapproving the building of the expressway. After all the debates, I still think that it shouldn't be built, not for the sake of preserving our history and heritage, but because the plan smacks of elitism. Why spend millions of dollars building something that I am not ever likely to use since I don't drive? The taxi you say? That's also becoming a luxury. If anything, nowadays I pop down a hole at one part of the island and emerge from another hole somewhere else, much like a gopher, then take a short bus ride or walk the rest of the way to my destination. Why do we need new expressway bridges anyway? But I can also see that more land will be freed up for the living. I only hope that these added land will not be for the benefit of the rich only. Sadly I am not optimistic about this.

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, ஒன்றுமில்லை, 无. 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.

Point of inflexion

As post-mortems and celebrations are going on island-wide over the results of the General Elections, some people are still quite sore about Ms Tin Pei Ling becoming MP-designate. There is even now a Facebook petition to remove her from this honorable position, such is the extreme dislike for her.

Well, I don't think it will happen, much as we wish for it, unless she voluntarily tells her shi-fu (Master or Teacher), Mr Goh, that she wants to do the right thing and quit. But I don't think Mr Goh will have any of it. Instead, he will probably tell his tu-di (student) that lessons have begun. Mr Goh mentioned that it will take a good 3 years for her to graduate. But  never mind, the tax payers are picking up the tuition fees, which amount to at least $15,000 x 12 months x 3 years, which is $540,000, You know how many zeros there are in that number? And for just one unproven person? The rest of us have to mug multiple sleep-deprived years for a scholarship which may not even pay that kind of money and comes with a title to boot. But well, its an unfair (PAP) world, something that MM Lee Kuan Yew keeps saying in the book, "Hard Truths".

For much of the vaunted incorruptible system that the PAP government has spent the better part of 40 years putting in place, they have now arrived at the point of an 'inflexion', a point in which the level ground is starting  to slope ever gently downwards...

God help us all, and especially our children and children's children if this continues...

Stand down

PM Lee Hsien Loong has done well. Like his father, MM Lee Kuan Yew, he has apologised, but in this instance, on behalf of the Singapore government. He said that the PAP government has not done well in planning for the upsurge of foreigners arriving in Singapore (housing and transport), about the flood in Orchard Road and even Mas Selamat's escape from custody in 2008. This comes on the heels of Minister Khaw Boon Wan's candid admission of "gaps and deficiencies in the system after many opposition parties criticised the lack of hospital beds and medical personnel in their rally speeches" (Yahoo News - 4 May 2011). Minister Mah Bow Tan should listen up.

All these complaints have been raised and given free airing during the last few days of campaigning for the General Elections. That's another plus for the PAP government. No gagging, no censorship although there has been veiled threats. So the democratic process is alive and well in Singapore. The PAP deserves to be returned to power, especially with PM Lee still in charge. Making a mistake is not necessarily a bad thing, so long as the lessons are learnt and steps are taken not to repeat them, as PM Lee has pointed out. And I think the PAP government, with their track record, can just deliver again.

But this is not to say the opposition parties should lose. Quite the opposite. If not for the opposition's criticisms of and exposing the shortcomings of the government, I am sure PM Lee would not have been forced against the wall to be contrite. So PM Lee has demonstrated that Singapore needs an effective opposition to help it govern even better. In this respect, these days of campaigning has brought about a positive process to improve Singapore all round. I hope the PAP government now acknowledges that having real opposition voices in Parliament can only be good for Singapore in the long run, which is the point that the Workers' Party has been making all along.

Majullah Singapura!

Juvenile 2

I wonder why, of late, government or government-related agencies and organisations are becoming so juvenile? First there was Singapore Tourism Board's (STB) contribution to the Singapore Pavilion at this year's Shanghai World Expo - Liu Lian Xiao Xing, or Durian Star - a totally juvenile contribution. So much so that I speculated that STB had an extremely small budget, so smaller that it could only engage a juvenile (who else) to come up with the drawing. Now, there is the equally juvenile but more sinister act of vandalising the much venerated Singpost mailboxes, with the total blessing of no less than Singpost itself. This cause such an uproar that I got to learn of it on the printed and broadcast press and the internet. Otherwise, I would be non the wiser because only 6 of these mailboxes were deliberately vandalised, none of which were located near where I lived.

One wonders if Singapore is not going overboard in celebrating its youth (Youth Olympics, youthful swimming champs from the SEA Games, etc. etc.) that even government agencies, once the bastion of propriety, order and seriousness, have surrendered its top executive minds to juveniles. If so, that is a abdication of responsibility for which taxpayers ultimately foot the bill - these executives' pay, the police's pay and the cost to societal peace. Somebody in SingPost should probably resign to take responsibility for this serious and negligent oversight, for we, the tax-paying public expect more of people in such high places. Merely organising a press conference to explain and apologize may not be enough. But of course, this is not the Singapore culture - it will happen in Japan, and maybe in the US, but Singapore officials are apparently a protected lot. Well, ok, let me not be-labour this because somebody's rice bowl is on the line...

But, much as our young should step out to learn and lead, the older among us should not surrender our prerogative to guard against ill-conceived ideas.

Time to go

I marvel at Mr Loh Lin Kok, erstwhile President of the Singapore Athletics Association (SAA). But I don't envy him. It is amazing that this man is taking such an nonchalant attitude towards it woefully underachieving group of athletes under the SAA umbrella - the biggest and probably the only group that brings together the athletic fraternity in Singapore. That he has been at the helm since 1982 without being challenged is also damning of the more capable athletes who should have stepped up to the plate to dislodge a President that has presided over the steady decline of athletics over the last 28 years. It had to take a crisis, such as their failure in the just concluded SEA games in Laos, for someone to step up to the plate to challenge his almost uninterrupted reign at a key national athletics body. Only 2 golds were won, with one coming from an ageing athlete.

Personally, I thought Mr Loh should have stepped aside voluntarily ages ago, or at least made a real effort to find someone more capable than himself to take over. But his heck-care attitude, and derisive stance, even in the face of auditors findings of serious lapses in the way the Association has been run just demonstrates why athletics has slid so far. He ridicules the Singapore Sports Council (SCC) and anyone else who tries to help, and he always blames the SCC for withholding its funding, but seems to forget that this money comes from the taxpayer. He seem to imply that the SAA is entitled to this money, but I think the SCC has done right in demanding more accountability towards the use of public funds. Looking at Loh's behaviour, I, as a taxpayer, wouldn't even trust one cent of my money to his management of it in the SAA. Who cares if you have put out your own money for entertainment and the like on behalf of the SAA? SAA doesn't belong to you, Mr Loh. It is not your personal fiefdom. If Mr Loh wants to boast about his generosity and self-sacrifice, then let him really be generous - don't put those money he has spent on SAA's books. The man cannot see where he may be wrong. He doesn't know how 'shame' is spelled.

Mr Loh, it is time to call time and fade into the sunset. Otherwise, you will likely get booted out, which is already too kind a gesture for your mismanagement of athletics in Singapore.

P.S. I don't know Mr Loh personally, nor am I an athlete. Whatever views and opinion expressed here has been formed from various local media reports. I am just an interested Singaporean who is concerned about Singapore athletics.

Ballshit

Here we go again. This time, the really big one, the mother of all ball games - the 2010 Fifa World Cup South Africa next year, no less. (Sheesh, that phrase is trademarked). What event can be bigger than that for a world crazy about 11x2 (minus the occasional red carded) people kicking an inflated rubber ball around a rectangular field?

And to fit the size of the event, Fifa, the world football governing body, has seen fit to extract that pound of flesh from the very people that give life to this activity. In Singapore, the main broadcast providers, Singtel and Starhub, have very sensibly colluded to get the best deal they can from the licensing people in Fifa. Yet even this collusion might not guarantee a sensible price at which armchair footballers might be willing to cough up. I hear that Fifa is expecting everyone to serve up an arm and a leg for the rights to broadcast the World Cup matches. Talk about profiteering. The price for watching club football in Britain's EPL is bad enough. They routinely also extract that pound of flesh for broadcast rights, which football crazy fans so willingly offer on the altar of the mother of all balls. I suppose Fifa has wised up to the game and wants in too. The colour of money excites more than balls, stupid! What they will do with that money is beyond me. Maybe fly first class to any and all meetings around the world to start with. They say money corrupts. Are we witnessing the beginning of the fall of soccer once the greed sets into every part (read: people) of the game? Well, ok, they did SAY they will donate the proceeds, but when you cause pain to countless so that you can appear generous to some...I am not so sure where the charitable spirit lies...(Hmmm...I wonder if Fifa's accounts are audited, and if so, by whom?)

Many say soccer is the beautiful game. Well, I agree. Its a beautifully 'green' game, and I don't mean environmentally friendly. I can see where some people can spot the beauty in the game. Soon the officials will be so swamp with the cash that they wouldn't even care what a ball looks like, or care if it is made of bullshit, much less what to do with it (handle it? - yeah this is accepted in FOOTball nowadays - the rote has set in, led by some of the world's best footballers like Diego Maradona and Thierry Henri, who win matches with their hands, whether sanctioned by God or not).

So when this happens, people will be knocked to their senses to see how they have been fooled all these many years into coughing up blood money to people who just kick a ball (and handle it once a while) and people who just organise these kicking ballfests.

Have the rest of us humans become so dumb that we willlingly let others swindle us in broad daylight? Yeah, blame the balls.

Truth and pragmatism

"We the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as...."

This National Day, our 44th, much was made of it. We got as many people as possible to recite that pledge at 8.22pm during the National Day celebrations at the Marina Bay and everywhere else. Many would have reflected on the words in the pledge, what it really meant to them, why, as a student, they had to recite it every school day (except when it poured rain or H1N1 or SARS), and whether they even meant what they say.

It would appear that there are some who are dead serious about it. NMP Viswa Sadasivan spoke about squaring our public policies with the words of the pledge, something that, one would say, is obvious. You say what you mean and mean what you say, so the saying goes.

But, as any citizen and long-time resident would know, this is not exactly how Singapore works. There is what the Americans would call affirmative action - positive discrimination in favour of a particular race in Singapore from the very first day it was founded as an independent nation. So it isn't regardless of race. Maybe language, maybe religion, but certainly not race. The Chinese race is dominant but it has been pragmatic enough to realise that it lives in a sea of countries dominant in a race that is a minority on the island of Singapore. And that therefore, it must pay especial attention to this fact - discriminate, regard the race, in order to move forward toward happiness, prosperity and progress.

Some would disagree, as the honourable NMP does, because we would want to be true to ourselves and what we say. But ironically, we have to be schizophrenic if we want to maintain a semblance of sanity and order. On the other hand, when you think about it, a mother does not neccessarily treat all her children the same. One may born less well endowed. Another may be stronger. So a good parent will discriminate against the stronger in favour of the weaker because she knows that the stronger can fend for himself, whereas the weaker needs more support. Of course the wish is that one day, the weaker one will be able to stand up for himself and find his own place in society, confident, independent and contributing in his own way to others. This is called paternalism - a label that Singapore has had for a very long time. So all these are nothing new. MM Lee Kuan Yew reminded Singaporeans in Parliament on Tuesday.

Is this the best state of affairs? I think few would say 'yes'. Those who say 'no' look for a day when it will be. MM says it will take tens, if not hundreds of years, and even leaves it open if it will ever be reached. Many will agree that we are on a journey, that the journey is more important than the destination, because if and when we reach the destination, then what? Is it even a desirable goal in the first place?

But I must give credit to NMP Sadasivan for bring up the issue. I suppose that is what NMP's are for - to challenge the status quo, push the boundaries and provoke thought, whether one agrees with the proponent or not.