Burning money

Bishan Town is in the news again. No, it's not just about its newest landscaping, though that is noteworthy. But more than anything else, Bishan is known for its expensive public housing. Many years ago, in the 1990s, during the height of the housing bubble, someone paid a million dollars for a public housing apartment there-an astonishing sum in those days! Today, one of its new private condominium, the Sky Habitat @ Bishan, is reportedly asking for S$1,700-S$1,800 psf  for its apartments. For a 1,200 square foot apartment (about the size of a 5-room public housing  apartment), the price will come up to S$2.04m - an insane price. For comparison, a 5-roomer public housing apartment could be got for $500k plus or minus $100k As our politicians have explained, that is not including the generous subsidies that they routinely dole out for 'needy' people. One wonders if it is the property developer who is insane, or the prospective buyer is, or both of them are, based on the willing-buyer/willing seller principle? What's so insane, you ask?

Well, first, it isn't a landed property. If it were, in land-scarce Singapore, that will make sense in the long run. Second it doesn't sit on free-hold land. Its only a 99-year leasehold property. Third, it isn't in a prime district like Bukit Timah. It is located in a suburdan part of Singapore, somewhere in the middle of the island and is surrounded by plenty of public housing apartments. It doesn't boast of fantastic scenery (yeah, don't believe the advertisements which invariably paint a scenic picture of the locality). In fact, within living memory, this place used to be a cemetery,  not that I have anything against that. I used to, as a boy, visit some relatives who lived in the kampongs in Bishan (Peck San Theng, I remember my father calling the place where the relative stayed) then during the Lunar New Year. And I do remember the small bridge made of wooden planks over the stream that I had to go over to get to my relative's house.

Over the years, it has developed into a much sought after place to live in, but it isn't exclusive in any way. There are those who say it is served by the MRT station. That's true of and increasingly true of every town in Singapore. I know of other places where it is even more well-served by the MRT. Others say that the island's premier Raffles Institution (RI) being nearby is a big plus. Yeah, it probably is, but how many years do you expect your child to stay in RI for this to be remain a 'plus'? Of course, there is more than an even hope that others may be looking to move in, so you may have a sale-able apartment location. But at this price, I wonder what margins you will gain, anyway? Yet others point to the brand name designer behind the condo. Well, I don't know who he is, I am not in this line, but the visual are quite attractive, which is true of other developments elsewhere on the island.

So really, I see no reason beyond insanity to buy this place at this kind of prices. The only reason one would do so is if you have money to burn, and these are not those that you bring to the cemetery.

The right stuff

I had a very bad experience when I visited Beijing some years ago. You see, my friend used a public toilet. We were in a place where tourists go to. I just can't recall which one that was. Anyway, she exited the toilet looking choked and on the verge of spilling her guts outs. What was the reason for this? The toilet. It was damned  damned damned (pardon the word and the emphasis) smelly. It looked ok from the outside though. I may not have used the toilet myself, but I believed her 100% when I saw the 'pain' she was in.

So toilets, dirty, messy and stinking ones, are not the preserve of Singapore. Yes, we do have them, and in a First World country that we have become, now for more than 10 years, we are damned ashamed of it. Truth be told, there are probably well kept toilets for every dirty stinky ones. In fact there are probably more than a 1:1 ratio. I would hazard that for every stinking ones, there are probably 2 well maintained ones. If you lived in Singapore, like me, you might not agree. Perhaps I don't visit public toilets all that often nowadays, at least not those in our hawker centres. I'd use the ones in the shopping malls, which if you consider the prices that shops there charge for their merchandise, you sort of expect better treatment in their loos.

Now Singapore is considering building more hawkers centres that will not be parceled out to commercial operators such as Kopitiam and Koufu to operate. Hooray! Lower prices of food, but I hope that the toilets would be 21st century quality also. Or are our designers of our new generation hawkers centres going to retain this aspect of our dirty toilets, for nostalgia's sake? Nooo, social enterprises will be running these places, surely they are more socially conscious and will have a heart not to cause a person to retch upon existing that most essential of places?

But who know? There's nothing like nostalgia.

The Bitter and the Sweet

Well, finally the boss has spoken. The earlier foray into this subject by his henchman hadn't gone down well with many people, not least with this blogger. But I am disappointed. Somehow, PM Lee Hsien Loong's pronouncement on the subject of calling for/not calling for the widely anticipated Hougang by-election came across as less than Prime Ministerial. If he were in the hustings, it would have been expected. But in a Parliament where he is the Prime Minister and his party, the PAP, commands an unassailable majority, it grated on the ears when he all but blamed the WP for the loss of its MP in Hougang, that the people of Hougang are now without an MP because of the WP's thoughtless action in sacking Mr Yaw. Which is true, but it is not as if the WP wantonly and recklessly sacked its Yaw Shing Leong thereby causing the Hougang seat to be vacated and the residents of Hougang unrepresented. I believe them when they said it was a difficult and a non-unanimous decision to sack Mr Yaw. (Hmmm...why is it easier to believe the WP than the PAP nowdays?).

Even then, the PM is still happy to continue playing the cat-and-mouse game, saying in a rejoinder to Opposition Leader, Mr Low Thia Khiang, that he will inform the House the period in which the by-election will be called "as soon as I have finished considering all the factors". This is as blank a cheque as any I have seen. As some sensible people from the public have commented, what crisis is the nation facing now that it has to put the issue of a by-election on the back-burner? It may be true that Cabinet has more information than any person in Singapore and they are cognizant of the dire situation facing Singapore economically. They may be hunched over thinking through the strategy, options and responses so much so that 24,560 Hougang residents aren't all that important. Of course they are not important. It's the WP's sh*t-h*le and they are not in a hurry to step into it. One might even think that the PAP government has all but given up on winning Hougang back to its fold. Its a lost cause, so why give the WP the satisfaction of a victory so soon? Let them sweat and double up serving both Aljunied GRC and Hougang SMC. That'll deplete their energies and resources, surely?

I think that's the strategy. The PAP knows it is a lost cause, so it is better to exact as much damage on the WP resource-wise. But of course, it will suffer collateral damage, they are not stupid. More Hougang residents will be turned off by a PAPty that doesn't care. The real unknown is how much collateral damage it will sustain from the rest of Singapore, which is watching the drama as it unfolds very publicly?

I, for one, am put off and disappointed with the PAP over this incident, never mind that it put out significant sweeteners in Budget 2012. By the way, I don't live in Hougang.

Balancing the People

Senior Counsel and the honorary MP for Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC (etc. etc.) Mr Hri Kumar Nair has been crossing swords with Asst Prof Eugene Tan of SMU over the issue of the need to hold a by-election at the Hougang single member constituency (SMC). Prof Tan argued that the government is obliged to hold one. Mr Hri Kumar said no. That's what Mr Kumar's legalese amounted to anyway. You know what? I may be able to follow the argument, but I am no more enlightened by it all, especially Mr Kumar's arguments, which seem to fit chambers, but are lost with us common folks.

But one thing I can discern, and that is the PAP, which Mr Hri Kumar so likes to point out that he is beholden to for his present position in Parliament, has still not learned from last year's elections. Well, let's set aside all the intellectual crossing of swords and ask ourselves: if I were a resident, if Mr Kumar is a resident, of Hougang, would he much prefer to have an MP represent him? Honestly? A 'yes' or a 'no' will do. I would say 'yes'. If nothing, having an MP working for you is an entitlement as a citizen. I don't pay more nor less for an MP's allowance, so why deprive me? But above all considerations of money, can I trust the PAP government to look after me? Not if it pussyfoots on holding a by-election, as it appears to be doing now.

So my question is, does the PAP government even have a heart for the people? Right now, the answer, going by Mr Hri Kumar's eloquence on the national stage and in the newspapers, is NO. Its the law, you see. Its about "may" and "should" or "could" or whatever, that is important. He admires and trusts the law, whether it is British Law or Singapore Law, to cover the PAP's collective behind. And all said in learned sentences that probably three-quarters of Singaporeans don't understand. I daresay that if Mr Kumar comes out to contest in an SMC tomorrow (why not Hougang"), he will have his figurative tail between his legs when the votes are tallied. Maybe that's the REAL reason for prevaricating? (see I also know some cheem words, don't play play).

So we have another PAP man who rides a high horse and seems to be having a good time talking it up. The people, nahhh...neigh..., they are not important. Where are the people in Mr Kumar's learned opinions? Sadly, they don't exist. The PAP might as well drop the first 'P' in its name.

If the PAP is listening, the problem with you is your arrogance. Period.

P.S. I fear that I will be accused of putting words into someone's mouth. I apologise if I have offended anyone, or deigned (there's another cheem word) to criticize duly elected and learned members of national institutions.

Moral Glass Houses

What's that they say? Those that live in glass houses should learn not to throw stones. National Development Minister, Mr Khaw "$8" Boon Wan reportedly "reminded voters to consider a person's character when they go to the polls, adding that there is no difference between a person's personal and professional life once he or she enters politics..."


Well, nobody is perfect, and nobody can know a person perfectly. Often not even the person whom he/she shares a bed with every night knows each other perfectly, no matter what Valentiners would have you believe. Dare Mr Khaw claim that he and/or the PAP knows all its elected MPs all that well? Mr Khaw's remarks called to mind the tragic case of Mr Teh Cheang Wan, coincidentally also the National Development Minister in MM Lee's cabinet in the early 1980s. Teh had been highly rated by MM then, and he was fast-tracked into the Cabinet. Unfortunately, he managed to fool MM and his government. He was on the take, and when confronted with this, he committed suicide. Perhaps Mr Khaw was too young to remember this (nah...can't be, he's easily older than me), or, more likely, he has a case of selective amnesia.


The Yaw affair is a sad one. But I think the WP did right to claim the moral high ground even though it knew that the people in the PAP, and maybe others, will ridicule them and say all manner of ill about them as if these same stone-throwers are angels sent from God.


Mr Khaw also reportedly said that it (the sacking of Mr Yaw) "was a sad development to learn that an MP’s character was deemed insufficient by his own party". Yes, it is indeed tragic, but the PAP would have done no less to its own, and did no less in the past. So Mr Khaw should get off his high horse. It can happen to you or me. People whom we may have trusted for a long time may turn out very different and disappoint us thoroughly.


Get this right: There is nothing wrong about being the "cheatee". It is the cheater who is wrong.  

Merry-go-round

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 from 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 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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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?