Pop-up protestor Gilbert Goh is planning a sequel protest on May Day to redeem himself and show that he is not a xenophobic activist. His main speakers so far are Tan Jee Say, Vincent Wijeysingha, Leong Sze Hian and Nizam Ismail. M Ravi, F8 and Jolovan Wham also said they wanted to speak in Part Two. This is a motley crew of activists and politicians who are again using using this event to rant on their pet topics. I can imagine what their speeches would be like.
Tan Jee Say: No to 6.9 million! I was a former presidential candidate and was trashed soundly. I was so hard up to be president despite my flop attempt losing out to the other Tans, except that NTUC Tan, that I rented an office at expensive Dhoby Ghaut area to be my shadow Istana, close to the real Istana a few hundred metres away. Even though it made me seem a megalomaniac. Even though it was really expensive that I was almost evicted because I could not afford the District 10 office space when a more humble Aljunied office would do just as nicely. Even though it showed that I could not manage my own finances let alone be the custodian of Singapore's reserves. So remember, No to 6.9 million!
Leong Sze Hian: No to 6.9 million! I am a super financial expert, take a look at my credentials that I must brag about. You know that I have at least 3 Masters, 2 Bachelors and 13 professional certificates right?. It is not that I am insecure and like the PAP I must always remind people about my sakti qualifications. The reason is because I know you people the public only think qualifications is important and I don't want to be like other activists or opposition politicians boh tak chek. You don't believe you ask Jolovan. His PSLE only 212, he himself proudly said so before in ST interview. If I were him I would keep quiet. OK please buy my book at the counter behind you and attend my paid talks next month, No to 6.9 million!
Vincent Wijeysingha: No to 6.9 million! I am openly gay, from SDP, and will take-over that hopeless Dr Chee Soon Juan in SDP who was luckily clever enough to shut up during the last GE. I also almost wanted to run back to England when Dr Chee dared to tell WP that SDP and WP can have a sham alliance for the Punggol BE where WP takes all the shit and we take all the glam. Also, my English is very good but not with a fake ang moh accent like the other Indian in opposition politics, Kenneth the embarrassing son of JBJ. Please vote for me and SDP in 2016. I promise SDP would kick out all the foreigners, including the ones who rented your HDB flat or condo. No to 6.9 million!
Jolovan Wham: No to 6.9 million! I love foreigners and some of you might have heard from rumours, one of the speakers here too. So if I love foreign workers, by being here, that means this event is not anti-foreigner. Recently I helped the SMRT bus drivers who went on strike. The Tiongs, I mean PRC nationals, do not deserve to be treated as second class citizens and should be paid as much as Singaporeans. So SBS and SMRT, please increase their wages and therefore bus and train fares. No to 6.9 million!
Nizam Ismail: No to 6.9 million! You don't know me, but you can Google my name anyway now. No to 6.9 million!
M Ravi: No to 6.9 million! I promise I won't have another mental breakdown now and burst into song and dance like the last time I was at Speakers' Corner, as I took my pills earlier. If I don't take them I might go a little teeny weeny mad like when I shouted in a mosque and a temple on different occasions. I think very few people want me to be their lawyer anymore as I make the case worse for them when I'm their lawyer because of my illness. People, including fellow gays fighting 377A, now rather go to Peter Low! That lawyer is stealing my business! No to 6.9 million!
Teo Soh Lung: No to ISA, ISD, MHA and PAP! Any chance for me to complain about ISD, ISA, MHA and PAP, I take! I support all those detained under ISA by ISD - the communists in the 50-70s, my fellow Marxist Conspiracy comrades from 1987 and all my jihad brothers detained in recent years for terrorism! I only know how to complain about ISD, ISA, MHA and PAP, and spot the PAP spies among you. You, you and you there in the crowd! The one using handphone to take pictures of the crowd. Don't bluff I know it is not for Facebook and you are ISD spy! OK OK Gilbert glaring at me now for digressing, No to 6.9 million!
Saturday, April 20, 2013
Friday, March 08, 2013
Disabled Drivers and Caregivers: Safe from New Car Loan Rules
Despite the rightful rage at the government for introducing the new car MAS loan rules that car buyers must have a cash down payment of 50% or 60% depending on the OMV of the car, and that the max loan tenure is 5 years instead of the current 10 years, there was some reasoned restraint in this new car tax.
Some Thoughtfulness and Exemption
Finance MinisterTharman Shanmugaratnam assured that the new loan rules are a temporary measure and would be reviewed in time to affect demand, and also that disabled drivers and their caregivers would be exempted from this onerous MAS policy to ostensibly restrict the number of cars on the road. The COE policy has obviously failed to deter people from buying cars.
The exemption that disabled drivers and their caregivers should not be penalised is a welcomed caveat to the policy. However, it is the details that matter. Presumably the conditions for the special lifting of the loan rules would be based on whether the car buyer has a Class 1 or Class 2 parking label according to the Centre for Enabled Living. Class 1 is for people who are medically certified as having physical disabilities to park at the disabled drivers lot. Class 2 is for caregivers and those who drive someone who is relatively immobile, and technically it allows for people to park the car at the disabled lot for up to one hour only.
However, there are frequent instances when the Class 2 label is abused e.g. parking beyond the one hour, did not ferry any disabled passenger but yet parked in the disabled lot. Similarly, people would try to work around this MAS loan rules by claiming to be caregivers and getting loan and tax breaks. This is possible as a Class 2 label can be spread up to 3 cars per label i.e. 3 cars exempted from the new loan rules?
So-Called Altruism Questioned
This begs the question. If the government was really generous about disabled drivers and their caregiver-drivers based on allowing them to be spared the new MAS rules, should these groups of people have been exempted from the COE policy at the onset?
Ignoring the technicalities of who is a disabled driver and who is a caregiver-driver and how many cars can be exempted per disabled person, it is obvious these people have a bigger right to own cars more than anyone else. Since the numbers are small, these people need their cars, and as a show of a caring government, all this while, why do disabled drivers surely, and their caregiver-drivers, need to bid and pay for an increasingly exorbitant COE?
Some Thoughtfulness and Exemption
Finance MinisterTharman Shanmugaratnam assured that the new loan rules are a temporary measure and would be reviewed in time to affect demand, and also that disabled drivers and their caregivers would be exempted from this onerous MAS policy to ostensibly restrict the number of cars on the road. The COE policy has obviously failed to deter people from buying cars.
The exemption that disabled drivers and their caregivers should not be penalised is a welcomed caveat to the policy. However, it is the details that matter. Presumably the conditions for the special lifting of the loan rules would be based on whether the car buyer has a Class 1 or Class 2 parking label according to the Centre for Enabled Living. Class 1 is for people who are medically certified as having physical disabilities to park at the disabled drivers lot. Class 2 is for caregivers and those who drive someone who is relatively immobile, and technically it allows for people to park the car at the disabled lot for up to one hour only.
However, there are frequent instances when the Class 2 label is abused e.g. parking beyond the one hour, did not ferry any disabled passenger but yet parked in the disabled lot. Similarly, people would try to work around this MAS loan rules by claiming to be caregivers and getting loan and tax breaks. This is possible as a Class 2 label can be spread up to 3 cars per label i.e. 3 cars exempted from the new loan rules?
So-Called Altruism Questioned
This begs the question. If the government was really generous about disabled drivers and their caregiver-drivers based on allowing them to be spared the new MAS rules, should these groups of people have been exempted from the COE policy at the onset?
Ignoring the technicalities of who is a disabled driver and who is a caregiver-driver and how many cars can be exempted per disabled person, it is obvious these people have a bigger right to own cars more than anyone else. Since the numbers are small, these people need their cars, and as a show of a caring government, all this while, why do disabled drivers surely, and their caregiver-drivers, need to bid and pay for an increasingly exorbitant COE?
Tuesday, March 05, 2013
By George! Media Lobbying, Transparency and NTU's Tenure System
Lobbying is part of the democratic process to advocate a view and to challenge another view. Those with more resources and networks would find it easier to rally each other to support each other in a you-scratch-my-back-I-scratch-your-back exchange of favours.
Drumming Up Support for Cherian
When NTU decided not to give Cherian George his tenure in NTU, Cherian's friends and networks got into action. They even produced a petition filled with academic and other luminaries to lobby that their friend deserves job security, as that is what a tenure is in essence. How many of those academics were also striving to get tenure and wanted to use Cherian's case to set a precedent that lobbying and petition for job secuirty works, is a big guess. NTU was however taciturn about why Cherian did not get his tenure citing that it was rightly confidential employer-employee information and were quietly afraid that other academics would rightly learn how to game the outdated tenure system. The lack of transparency on the part of NTU did not help NTU.
There were as a result engineered conspiracy theories from Cherian's friends that Cherian was denied his tenure because he was outspoken in his political views. Is he really that controversially outspoken? If anything and to be indulged in conspiracies, Cherian is in the PAP's books given his employment, wife and wife's background. Naturally Cherian's friends and supporters did not publicly question the former journalist's intellectual rigour as an academic in NTU which prized quantitative and positivist traditions given its engineering research slant. That is not what friends do, but what his former colleague did to set events in context. Courageously even, as nobody wanted to seen as remotely critical of Cherian's situation and going against the tide.
Cherian's Little Elves in Yahoo
Cherian's supporters which includes former students trained and savvy in the use of media, used the media to drum up support for their friend. Yahoo is one of those closely following Cherian's plight and the curious would Google that the Yahoo writers Elizabeth Soh and Shah Salimat were NTU mass comm students and in all likelihood former students and friends of Cherian. Doing their part as writers for the online media giant Yahoo, standing on the chair, "O captain my captain".
Hence, the whole lobby is an extended new media class on what the media can do and should do in lobbying. Cherian's case was reported as a scoop notwithstanding that many academics failed to get their tenure for various personal or office reasons. It helped that Cherian's network was willing and his friends and supporters were in the media to keep support up for Cherian, including a petition and open letter to make NTU open up. In many ways it is like how ST works to play up support for the PAP, this time the table is turned the other way. Control of the media is important in lobbying and engineering support. Ask Gina Rinehart about her Fairfax media ambitions.
Drumming Up Support for Cherian
When NTU decided not to give Cherian George his tenure in NTU, Cherian's friends and networks got into action. They even produced a petition filled with academic and other luminaries to lobby that their friend deserves job security, as that is what a tenure is in essence. How many of those academics were also striving to get tenure and wanted to use Cherian's case to set a precedent that lobbying and petition for job secuirty works, is a big guess. NTU was however taciturn about why Cherian did not get his tenure citing that it was rightly confidential employer-employee information and were quietly afraid that other academics would rightly learn how to game the outdated tenure system. The lack of transparency on the part of NTU did not help NTU.
There were as a result engineered conspiracy theories from Cherian's friends that Cherian was denied his tenure because he was outspoken in his political views. Is he really that controversially outspoken? If anything and to be indulged in conspiracies, Cherian is in the PAP's books given his employment, wife and wife's background. Naturally Cherian's friends and supporters did not publicly question the former journalist's intellectual rigour as an academic in NTU which prized quantitative and positivist traditions given its engineering research slant. That is not what friends do, but what his former colleague did to set events in context. Courageously even, as nobody wanted to seen as remotely critical of Cherian's situation and going against the tide.
Cherian's Little Elves in Yahoo
Cherian's supporters which includes former students trained and savvy in the use of media, used the media to drum up support for their friend. Yahoo is one of those closely following Cherian's plight and the curious would Google that the Yahoo writers Elizabeth Soh and Shah Salimat were NTU mass comm students and in all likelihood former students and friends of Cherian. Doing their part as writers for the online media giant Yahoo, standing on the chair, "O captain my captain".
Elizabeth Soh in Yahoo
Shah Salimat in Yahoo
Hence, the whole lobby is an extended new media class on what the media can do and should do in lobbying. Cherian's case was reported as a scoop notwithstanding that many academics failed to get their tenure for various personal or office reasons. It helped that Cherian's network was willing and his friends and supporters were in the media to keep support up for Cherian, including a petition and open letter to make NTU open up. In many ways it is like how ST works to play up support for the PAP, this time the table is turned the other way. Control of the media is important in lobbying and engineering support. Ask Gina Rinehart about her Fairfax media ambitions.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
The Curious Case of Cherian George – Calibrated Coercion or Retardation?
The indelible mark that Dr Cherian George has contributed to socio-political vernacular is his ‘calibrated coercion’ treatise:
“Calibrated coercion provides journalists with periodic reminders of just who is boss, but also enough leeway to persuade enough of them that there is still a place in Singapore for the professional practice of journalism, and that the space is expanding.”
With a sour dose of irony, or perhaps poetic justice, Cherian would feel he is now a victim of this calibrated form of hegemony bearing directly towards his head. While presumably being denied his tenure as a sign of reminding him “who is boss” he continues to serve as the Director of the Temasek Foundation - NTU Asia Journalism Fellowship, and Adjunct Senior Research Fellow of the Institute of Policy Studies at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore. From what I understand, he was also recently promoted to the post of Associate Professor recently.
So is there really a case for student uproar and just how victimized is he really?
With a deluge of exciting university program collaborations, open universities, web-based publications tools and social media connectivity, how would the denial of tenure, prevent someone as purportedly brilliant and well-regarded as Dr Cherian George, from finding alternative career options, outside of the very sphere of political power and influence that he so loathes with a passion?
Cherian will probably be the first to disagree with me.
Firstly, he would take issue with my clumsy and ill formed sentence above. Secondly, he would likely argue that it is precisely the fact that he is brilliant and well-regarded, that not to receive his tenure is a travesty in itself; never mind the innuendo that he was ‘fixed’ for his political views and he cannot get an iron rice bowl job. And thirdly, what world would we live in, if the Rosa Parks and Nelson Mendelas of history chose to take the paths always followed?
On the flipside, one could argue that tenure-ship is an archaic and elitist practice that rewards academic exploitation and research paper production over academic teaching and the furtherance of all-rounded academic excellence. Any tertiary student that has ‘co-authored’ research work will understand fully what I mean. And with national sensibility moving away from privileged entitlements such as Ministerial pensions and exorbitant private sector bonus, can we really continue to argue the case for guaranteeing someone a job for life?
At times, I start to feel that we as citizens of the Internet are being victims of ‘calibrated retardation’. Having violently broken out from years of brain-washing by the Mainstream Media and a paternal state, we have become vicious cyber judges and juries. Calibrated with just a touch of retardation, and feed with sufficient promptings, we are easily mobilised into supporting any cause that allows us to show our government, just “who really is the boss”; whilst allowing just enough leeway to persuade the powers up there that their good work will not go unnoticed.
“Calibrated coercion provides journalists with periodic reminders of just who is boss, but also enough leeway to persuade enough of them that there is still a place in Singapore for the professional practice of journalism, and that the space is expanding.”
With a sour dose of irony, or perhaps poetic justice, Cherian would feel he is now a victim of this calibrated form of hegemony bearing directly towards his head. While presumably being denied his tenure as a sign of reminding him “who is boss” he continues to serve as the Director of the Temasek Foundation - NTU Asia Journalism Fellowship, and Adjunct Senior Research Fellow of the Institute of Policy Studies at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore. From what I understand, he was also recently promoted to the post of Associate Professor recently.
So is there really a case for student uproar and just how victimized is he really?
With a deluge of exciting university program collaborations, open universities, web-based publications tools and social media connectivity, how would the denial of tenure, prevent someone as purportedly brilliant and well-regarded as Dr Cherian George, from finding alternative career options, outside of the very sphere of political power and influence that he so loathes with a passion?
Cherian will probably be the first to disagree with me.
Firstly, he would take issue with my clumsy and ill formed sentence above. Secondly, he would likely argue that it is precisely the fact that he is brilliant and well-regarded, that not to receive his tenure is a travesty in itself; never mind the innuendo that he was ‘fixed’ for his political views and he cannot get an iron rice bowl job. And thirdly, what world would we live in, if the Rosa Parks and Nelson Mendelas of history chose to take the paths always followed?
On the flipside, one could argue that tenure-ship is an archaic and elitist practice that rewards academic exploitation and research paper production over academic teaching and the furtherance of all-rounded academic excellence. Any tertiary student that has ‘co-authored’ research work will understand fully what I mean. And with national sensibility moving away from privileged entitlements such as Ministerial pensions and exorbitant private sector bonus, can we really continue to argue the case for guaranteeing someone a job for life?
At times, I start to feel that we as citizens of the Internet are being victims of ‘calibrated retardation’. Having violently broken out from years of brain-washing by the Mainstream Media and a paternal state, we have become vicious cyber judges and juries. Calibrated with just a touch of retardation, and feed with sufficient promptings, we are easily mobilised into supporting any cause that allows us to show our government, just “who really is the boss”; whilst allowing just enough leeway to persuade the powers up there that their good work will not go unnoticed.
Saturday, February 23, 2013
Transitioning 6.9 into a Political Mass Orgy
So, after organising many unavailing gatherings in the name of the unemployed, Gilbert Goh has finally managed to pull off a successful event at Hong Lim Park despite shooting himself in the foot with a patronising summary of foreigner stereotypes. That was ironic, considering the event was supposed to be gathering of Singaporeans against the government's liberal immigration policies, not actually against foreigners themselves. I guess Gilbert missed the homing pigeon's message to "hate the PAP-yer, not the game" since the crowd appeared to relish in the delight of slamming the PAP. Perhaps he got too caught up with all the media attention, perhaps he is a closet xenophobe, but I digress.
With so much angst over the white paper, the huge crowd turn-out ,in hindsight, does not seem all that surprising. But it seems that the opposition parties (in particular SDP and NSP) caught that on early, and being the opportunistic vultures that they are, rode on the wave of Singaporeans' discontent for political mileage.
First, notice the number of speakers who are or were, associated with opposition politics. Mind you, these are not novices but heavyweight personalities such as Vincent Wijeysingha and Jeanette Chong-Aruldoss (I am loathe to include Tan Jee Say in the mix, although he did seem popular with the crowd). Take notice too of SDP-affiliated personalities amongst the crowd - former ISA detainees, left-leaning civil rights activists and NGO representatives. Second, I found it too much of a coincidence that the SDP had launched their own population and immigration policy paper just a couple of days before the event at Hong Lim. On top of that, Wijeysingha had opened his speech at the event promoting SDP's policy paper. He even took pains to mention NSP's own "robust" alternative policy report to reporters at the post-event press conference, though it was strange that he left out WP's proposals.
Considering the huge media coverage, especially from the foreign press, accorded to the event, it was smart of the SDP to leverage on the event to raise its political profile both locally and internationally. NSP resources went into the event presumably as Gilbert was or is NSP while SDP went along for a free ride. SDP recently preached about opposition unity like its generous offer of a SDP MP in parliament if it took part with WP in the Punggol election and won, and WP can administer the SMC chores, also has a protest culture and wants to portray itself as the leader of the opposition to the foreign press. Thus, the event fitted nicely with SDP's image.
In my opinion, it was SDP that benefited the most from the event, unfortunately at the expense of Gilbert and those who attended it. A pity for Gilbert as he was the one who had tirelessly initiated and organised the event. A pity for the crowd who naively thought they were part of a landmark occasion where 4,000 brave Singaporeans stood up for themselves, when they were in fact pawns in SDP's game of political chess.
With so much angst over the white paper, the huge crowd turn-out ,in hindsight, does not seem all that surprising. But it seems that the opposition parties (in particular SDP and NSP) caught that on early, and being the opportunistic vultures that they are, rode on the wave of Singaporeans' discontent for political mileage.
First, notice the number of speakers who are or were, associated with opposition politics. Mind you, these are not novices but heavyweight personalities such as Vincent Wijeysingha and Jeanette Chong-Aruldoss (I am loathe to include Tan Jee Say in the mix, although he did seem popular with the crowd). Take notice too of SDP-affiliated personalities amongst the crowd - former ISA detainees, left-leaning civil rights activists and NGO representatives. Second, I found it too much of a coincidence that the SDP had launched their own population and immigration policy paper just a couple of days before the event at Hong Lim. On top of that, Wijeysingha had opened his speech at the event promoting SDP's policy paper. He even took pains to mention NSP's own "robust" alternative policy report to reporters at the post-event press conference, though it was strange that he left out WP's proposals.
Considering the huge media coverage, especially from the foreign press, accorded to the event, it was smart of the SDP to leverage on the event to raise its political profile both locally and internationally. NSP resources went into the event presumably as Gilbert was or is NSP while SDP went along for a free ride. SDP recently preached about opposition unity like its generous offer of a SDP MP in parliament if it took part with WP in the Punggol election and won, and WP can administer the SMC chores, also has a protest culture and wants to portray itself as the leader of the opposition to the foreign press. Thus, the event fitted nicely with SDP's image.
In my opinion, it was SDP that benefited the most from the event, unfortunately at the expense of Gilbert and those who attended it. A pity for Gilbert as he was the one who had tirelessly initiated and organised the event. A pity for the crowd who naively thought they were part of a landmark occasion where 4,000 brave Singaporeans stood up for themselves, when they were in fact pawns in SDP's game of political chess.
Thursday, February 07, 2013
The Engineering of Criticisms and an "Open" Debate in the White Paper
The beating of the drum by the former establishment cadres started again. This time, it is a criticism of the White Paper on population, a convincing criticism no doubt if one wants to be uncritical of what is being laid out in front of us, and not guessing about what is not laid out instead.
Donald Low, Senior Fellow and Assistant Dean (Research Centres) at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, formerly from the Public Service Division and from the Ministry of Finance, said that he would fail the White Paper if it was a student work handed to him for marking as it lacked scholarship and academic rigour. A fellow government scholar and former government colleague, Yeoh Lam Keong, dismissed the paper as sociologically and politically naive. Lam Keong who was, this is priceless, GIC Director of Economics and Strategy and Chief Economist from October 2000 to June 2011. Anyone vaguely following GIC and Temasek's lacklustre record in the 2000s would know that these sovereign funds lost money for Singapore in the public's eyes despte what the ministry of finance and its GIC and Temasek bedfellows said. They lost our taxpayers and CPF money even some might speculate.
There are Criticisms and there are Criticisms
So Donald and Lam Keong have this image of former establishment scholars and inner circle management who have even turned around on their former employers. Lam Keong even has an image of a HDB man, humble and frugal. But if he stood as a PAP MP, we would scoff his contrived humble background instead. Donald and Lam Keong are now in think-thanks backed by the government - IPS and the LKY school. How independent is their criticism in the grand scheme of things? Then we look at the criticisms, they are actually obvious and echo what we already think that the White Paper is a superficial coffee table book, nothing new, nothing really critical, and nothing really damaging of the White Paper. Excuse my cynicism, if they were academics out to damage the White Paper seriously, why no facts and figures on how businesses would benefit or not benefit from the increase or decrease of foreigners, as that is the main slant in the importance of GDP growth in the White Paper. They are thought leaders from the ministry of finance and GIC after all.
Healthy Cynicism
Hence, are they just planted criticisms to steer the debate and institutionalised dissent that Donald himself talked about recently? Just like we know that the media pretends to be objective but are really pro-establishment, we have forgotten that the local think-tanks are pro-establishment in the end although they appear to be independent. Some argue that those formerly from the establishment and left have the greatest insights into the machinery and are thus more credible. Maybe. However, have they ever left the establishment? We will never know.
Donald Low, Senior Fellow and Assistant Dean (Research Centres) at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, formerly from the Public Service Division and from the Ministry of Finance, said that he would fail the White Paper if it was a student work handed to him for marking as it lacked scholarship and academic rigour. A fellow government scholar and former government colleague, Yeoh Lam Keong, dismissed the paper as sociologically and politically naive. Lam Keong who was, this is priceless, GIC Director of Economics and Strategy and Chief Economist from October 2000 to June 2011. Anyone vaguely following GIC and Temasek's lacklustre record in the 2000s would know that these sovereign funds lost money for Singapore in the public's eyes despte what the ministry of finance and its GIC and Temasek bedfellows said. They lost our taxpayers and CPF money even some might speculate.
There are Criticisms and there are Criticisms
So Donald and Lam Keong have this image of former establishment scholars and inner circle management who have even turned around on their former employers. Lam Keong even has an image of a HDB man, humble and frugal. But if he stood as a PAP MP, we would scoff his contrived humble background instead. Donald and Lam Keong are now in think-thanks backed by the government - IPS and the LKY school. How independent is their criticism in the grand scheme of things? Then we look at the criticisms, they are actually obvious and echo what we already think that the White Paper is a superficial coffee table book, nothing new, nothing really critical, and nothing really damaging of the White Paper. Excuse my cynicism, if they were academics out to damage the White Paper seriously, why no facts and figures on how businesses would benefit or not benefit from the increase or decrease of foreigners, as that is the main slant in the importance of GDP growth in the White Paper. They are thought leaders from the ministry of finance and GIC after all.
Healthy Cynicism
Hence, are they just planted criticisms to steer the debate and institutionalised dissent that Donald himself talked about recently? Just like we know that the media pretends to be objective but are really pro-establishment, we have forgotten that the local think-tanks are pro-establishment in the end although they appear to be independent. Some argue that those formerly from the establishment and left have the greatest insights into the machinery and are thus more credible. Maybe. However, have they ever left the establishment? We will never know.
Monday, February 04, 2013
Seeing red over White Paper on Population
A 76-page coffee table book. That's how I would describe the latest White Paper. After 11 months of research, planning, and feedback from 2,500 Singaporeans, the National Population and Talent Division has nothing to show for - at least nothing that we don't already know. Just 2 weeks prior, DBS Vickers had pre-empted the paper by predicting that the population target will be raised to 7 million. By now, we are all too familiar with the usual government rhetoric on the necessity of foreigners to make up for our falling fertility rate, and most of us accept that. What we really want to know is how the government is going to walk the tight rope between the increase in alien population and the scarce resources that our small island can afford.
Maintaining a Strong Singaporean core
At the heart of a strong Singaporean core, is a strong Singaporean identity. Yet, it is hard to see how Singaporeans will form the core when they are projected to make up only half of the 6.9 million people squeezed in a little red dot in 2030. The trend of a declining TFR will also likely continue due to other intangible socio-economic aspirations despite monetary incentives dangled at married couples. Will this mean a possible dilution of the Singapore identity? Salt is further added to this gaping wound when the paper offers nothing more than a standard textbook solution to address the assimilation of naturalized citizens into Singapore. With all the brains from top scholars in the admin service, surely they can come up with more than just videos, booklets, and courses to integrate foreigners into the cultural norms and practices of the country?
Maintaining Good Opportunities for Singaporeans
Economic growth appears to be the main impetus behind the increase in population. However, the government has to balance the task of economic development with its social development. Just as how it would be difficult to plan and have children without a stable income, it seems equally difficult to plan and have children if people are treated as economic digits.
Maintaining a High Quality Living Environment
While it is heartening to know that plans have been made to upgrade Singapore's hardware, it unfortunately left out her software. Indeed, it is puzzling that the paper did not include a section on how the projected change in population numbers will affect the socio-political landscape in Singapore. Issues such as national security, law and order, nationality-race tensions and environment impact how we go about our daily lives. Already we are experiencing more cases of nationality prejudice (e.g. Chinese nationals vs Chinese Singaporeans), crime and strikes involving foreigners (e.g. SMRT strike by Chinese bus drivers), what more is to come in the future?
White Paper or Blank Paper?
After all that has been said and done by the government, it seems that the White Paper on Population raised more questions than it answers. Or perhaps it was poorly put together coupled with poor timing (riding on the burdened back of Lee Hsien Loong and his lack of 20/20 foresight). Either way, the paper did not go down well with Singaporeans and expectedly so. The government has to buck up on its policies and PR campaign if it wants to regain the trust and respect of its electorate.
Maintaining a Strong Singaporean core
At the heart of a strong Singaporean core, is a strong Singaporean identity. Yet, it is hard to see how Singaporeans will form the core when they are projected to make up only half of the 6.9 million people squeezed in a little red dot in 2030. The trend of a declining TFR will also likely continue due to other intangible socio-economic aspirations despite monetary incentives dangled at married couples. Will this mean a possible dilution of the Singapore identity? Salt is further added to this gaping wound when the paper offers nothing more than a standard textbook solution to address the assimilation of naturalized citizens into Singapore. With all the brains from top scholars in the admin service, surely they can come up with more than just videos, booklets, and courses to integrate foreigners into the cultural norms and practices of the country?
Maintaining Good Opportunities for Singaporeans
Economic growth appears to be the main impetus behind the increase in population. However, the government has to balance the task of economic development with its social development. Just as how it would be difficult to plan and have children without a stable income, it seems equally difficult to plan and have children if people are treated as economic digits.
Maintaining a High Quality Living Environment
While it is heartening to know that plans have been made to upgrade Singapore's hardware, it unfortunately left out her software. Indeed, it is puzzling that the paper did not include a section on how the projected change in population numbers will affect the socio-political landscape in Singapore. Issues such as national security, law and order, nationality-race tensions and environment impact how we go about our daily lives. Already we are experiencing more cases of nationality prejudice (e.g. Chinese nationals vs Chinese Singaporeans), crime and strikes involving foreigners (e.g. SMRT strike by Chinese bus drivers), what more is to come in the future?
White Paper or Blank Paper?
After all that has been said and done by the government, it seems that the White Paper on Population raised more questions than it answers. Or perhaps it was poorly put together coupled with poor timing (riding on the burdened back of Lee Hsien Loong and his lack of 20/20 foresight). Either way, the paper did not go down well with Singaporeans and expectedly so. The government has to buck up on its policies and PR campaign if it wants to regain the trust and respect of its electorate.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
BE2013: The Politics of the Underdog
The Punggol East by-election is proving to be a very interesting match to watch. Four parties have thrown their names into the electoral hat, but all eyes seem only to be focused on the tight race between the incumbent party's candidate Koh Poh Koon and contender Lee Li Lian from the Workers' Party. While Koh was unveiled as a fresh face of the PAP, Lee had previously contested in Punggol East during the 2011 General Elections.
David vs Goliath?
Opposition parties in Singapore are often perceived as the underdogs in a political arena dominated by the PAP. The tendency to root for the opposition stem not only from the perceived ineffectiveness and arrogance of the PAP, but also from the disadvantaged position that the opposition is placed in due to their lack of resources (e.g. funds, manpower) to compete on the same playing field with the PAP.
During the 2011 General Elections, when the WP successfully wrestled Aljunied GRC from the hands of the PAP, many saw it as a feat akin to David's defeat over Goliath. Yet two years on, some people are asking if David is slowly turning into another Goliath.
Turn of the Tide?
With 8 seats in parliament, many are questioning the passive role that the WP has taken in Parliament, and whether they could have done more to champion contentious issues such as LGBT rights and the repeal of section 377A of the penal code.
In addition, many did not take kindly to WP's stance on opposition unity, as Low Thia Khiang clarified that the WP will walk its own road because "uniting all the opposition parties is an unrealistic vision and an impossible dream". WP's reluctance to work with other opposition parties means that it will not shy away from future multi-cornered fights, as seen in the Punggol East by-elections, and this could potentially upset and sow discord with other opposition parties as well.
Something also has to be said about the poor conduct of WP supporters. The increasing popularity of the party seems to be getting into the heads of its supporters as they are emboldened into making gratuitous insults not only at the PAP but other opposition parties as well. During nomination day, nasty jeers were directed at SDA's Desmond Lim from the WP crowd despite party members' attempts to restrain them. While it may be impossible to stop all taunts, perhaps party leaders could have done more to speak out against such bad behaviour as it not only reflects badly on the supporters, but on the party as well.
Underdog No More?
Stringing together the perceived ineffectiveness of the WP in parliament, its status as a lone ranger among opposition parties, and the perceived arrogance of its supporters, it is not hard to see why WP's status as the underdog is under threat. This is especially so when it is compared to other parties with less political capital (e.g. SDP, SDA, NSP etc). For them, they will now not only have to compete against one Goliath, but two.
But for now, the WP will still be perceived by most Singaporeans as the underdog against the PAP. Yet, it remains to be seen if it will continue to enjoy the support of Singaporeans if it allows itself to be overwhelmed by its own success and arrogance.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
What is a By-Election?
It had to happen after all. Despite all the friendly handshakes, all the calls for dignified campaigning, the big AIM bonfire has been lit; it is like that pent-up pee finally gushing over and every one of us in the online world put our hands up in glee.
Such a devilishly Machiavellian tactic, to hit the AIM button looks like an election tactic right out from the good ol LKY days. Bu this time, surprisingly, it came from the men in blue, and for that matter, that woman in blue, Sylvia Lim.
Before we all start popping our champagnes and seeing visions of an unraveling of the PAP government in Punggol East, let me sound a word of caution, because hopes held too high means a harder fall and bump into reality.
This AIM issue is fundamentally a political card. It is a pretty damn useful card. And with all useful cards, you only play it when it is necessary. Sometimes you play it with a flourish, as the final climax to secure your win. Other times you use it, because if not, you are assured of defeat.
So what scenario was it that prompted Sylvia to use the AIM card last night? To win with a flourish or to avoid a sure defeat? My guess is inclined towards the more pessimistic scenario. The WP must have sensed that the ground is not moving their way fast enough. A by-election is not like a GE, it is easier to sense the mood of the constituency, all eyes and ears are zoomed into one small finite space. Within the first few days of campaigning, the instincts can tell you whether you stand a chance. And it appears that the vibes for the WP is not too good; hence the decision to use this card. Pure politics as it is supposed to be.
So while we all go into the now almost ritualistic online adulation for WP and derision of the PAP, let us not get maimed by this false euphoria because the Punggol East resident is not the cyberspace. They want covered walkways, more neighbourhood shopping centres, better LRT connections and so forth. This is a by-election after all.
Such a devilishly Machiavellian tactic, to hit the AIM button looks like an election tactic right out from the good ol LKY days. Bu this time, surprisingly, it came from the men in blue, and for that matter, that woman in blue, Sylvia Lim.
Before we all start popping our champagnes and seeing visions of an unraveling of the PAP government in Punggol East, let me sound a word of caution, because hopes held too high means a harder fall and bump into reality.
This AIM issue is fundamentally a political card. It is a pretty damn useful card. And with all useful cards, you only play it when it is necessary. Sometimes you play it with a flourish, as the final climax to secure your win. Other times you use it, because if not, you are assured of defeat.
So what scenario was it that prompted Sylvia to use the AIM card last night? To win with a flourish or to avoid a sure defeat? My guess is inclined towards the more pessimistic scenario. The WP must have sensed that the ground is not moving their way fast enough. A by-election is not like a GE, it is easier to sense the mood of the constituency, all eyes and ears are zoomed into one small finite space. Within the first few days of campaigning, the instincts can tell you whether you stand a chance. And it appears that the vibes for the WP is not too good; hence the decision to use this card. Pure politics as it is supposed to be.
So while we all go into the now almost ritualistic online adulation for WP and derision of the PAP, let us not get maimed by this false euphoria because the Punggol East resident is not the cyberspace. They want covered walkways, more neighbourhood shopping centres, better LRT connections and so forth. This is a by-election after all.
Monday, January 14, 2013
Civil Servants, Public Servants, Public Servants for Purpose of Penal Code
A recent discussion on town council staff as public servants "for purpose of the penal code" opened questions on whether a town council is a government, political or even a corporate organisation.
"Public servants for purposes of Penal Code
56. All members, officers and employees of a Town Council and all employees of its managing agent shall be deemed to be public servants for the purposes of the Penal Code (Cap. 224)."
Town Council Staff are Not Public Servants...
The above quote was circulated about that town councils and their members are not political associations but a public service and made up of public servants. However, the caveat "for the purposes of the Penal Code" is a curious one. The loud qualifier, a caveat, is clear to all is that there are situations when the town council staff or member is not regarded as a public servant. Town council staff are not categorically public servants unless to an unschooled person in English which are surprisingly legion in the Internet. If town council staff are categorically public servants, the Act would have just been,
"56. All members, officers and employees of a Town Council and all employees of its managing agent shall be deemed to be public servants"
So when is a town council staff a public servant and when he is not, and similarly as a result, are town councils categorically public service organs, or not and actually political organs as Baey Yam Keng said? The safe answer is that it all depends.
Other Cases of "Limited" Public Servants in Acts
This caveat appeared in other Acts besides the Town Councils Act. It also appeared as a common caveat for the particular staff in the Building and Construction Authority Act, the National Heritage Board Act, the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority Act, and even the Commercial and Industrial Security Corporation Act. So the idea of public servants covered those in the statutory boards, but also CISCO security guards. CISCO is a commercial company so how can they be public servants in the sense we understand.
Unless "for the purpose of Penal Code" means they, Town Council, CICSO, BCA etc have the power of public servants and can exercise powers of enforcement under Penal Code?
Public and Civil Servants More than Semantics
What then are public servants and are they the same as civil servants? There is confusing conflation of civil and public servants in everyday use of the terms. Even in the UK civil service, there is confusing employment and political distinction between those in Her Majesty's Service as civil servants, and other public servants like politicians. The military are traditionally not part of the civil service, and also not the public service. The BBC is seen as a public service company and funded by the UK government, but its staff are neither civil servants nor public servants.
In the Singapore context, civil servants and the civil service are public servants and part of the public service. But public servants and the public service do not only refer to the government, but to statutory boards as well. The confusion is compounded when civil servants are managed by a government department called the Public Services Division, rather than called the Civil Service Division.
If anybody can explain this semantics labyrinth of civil and public servants, please have a go.
"Public servants for purposes of Penal Code
56. All members, officers and employees of a Town Council and all employees of its managing agent shall be deemed to be public servants for the purposes of the Penal Code (Cap. 224)."
Town Council Staff are Not Public Servants...
The above quote was circulated about that town councils and their members are not political associations but a public service and made up of public servants. However, the caveat "for the purposes of the Penal Code" is a curious one. The loud qualifier, a caveat, is clear to all is that there are situations when the town council staff or member is not regarded as a public servant. Town council staff are not categorically public servants unless to an unschooled person in English which are surprisingly legion in the Internet. If town council staff are categorically public servants, the Act would have just been,
"56. All members, officers and employees of a Town Council and all employees of its managing agent shall be deemed to be public servants"
So when is a town council staff a public servant and when he is not, and similarly as a result, are town councils categorically public service organs, or not and actually political organs as Baey Yam Keng said? The safe answer is that it all depends.
Other Cases of "Limited" Public Servants in Acts
This caveat appeared in other Acts besides the Town Councils Act. It also appeared as a common caveat for the particular staff in the Building and Construction Authority Act, the National Heritage Board Act, the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority Act, and even the Commercial and Industrial Security Corporation Act. So the idea of public servants covered those in the statutory boards, but also CISCO security guards. CISCO is a commercial company so how can they be public servants in the sense we understand.
Unless "for the purpose of Penal Code" means they, Town Council, CICSO, BCA etc have the power of public servants and can exercise powers of enforcement under Penal Code?
Public and Civil Servants More than Semantics
What then are public servants and are they the same as civil servants? There is confusing conflation of civil and public servants in everyday use of the terms. Even in the UK civil service, there is confusing employment and political distinction between those in Her Majesty's Service as civil servants, and other public servants like politicians. The military are traditionally not part of the civil service, and also not the public service. The BBC is seen as a public service company and funded by the UK government, but its staff are neither civil servants nor public servants.
In the Singapore context, civil servants and the civil service are public servants and part of the public service. But public servants and the public service do not only refer to the government, but to statutory boards as well. The confusion is compounded when civil servants are managed by a government department called the Public Services Division, rather than called the Civil Service Division.
If anybody can explain this semantics labyrinth of civil and public servants, please have a go.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Palmergate: Of politics and sex scandals 2012
Barely 10 months has passed since Yaw Shin Leong was expelled from the Workers' Party over his personal indiscretions and it seems that another MP has fallen prey to sexual temptations - this time from the ruling party. Michael Palmer, Speaker of Parliament and MP for Punggol-East SMC, has tendered his resignation from the PAP over "improper conduct" with a former employee of the People's Association.
PAP to dance to its own tune?
In some way, Yaw's affair has set a precedence for things to come and all eyes will now be on the Prime Minister and his party to see how they will manage their way out of this political calamity. This is especially so since the PAP had been very quick and vocal in criticizing the WP for letting its Hougang constituents down and for the lack of transparency and accountability in the way it handled the fiasco. Little would the PAP expect that the tables will be turned on them months later, and that they would have to hold themselves to the same standards imposed upon the WP.
To their credit, Palmer has taken responsibility over his indiscretion with his resignation and the PAP appears to be in control of the situation by nipping it in the bud with a swift response. This is a stark contrast to how Yaw refused to admit his blunder and the temporary lapse of accountability by the WP before it decided to take action against Yaw.
Yet, it remains to be seen if the PAP will continue to walk the talk and reclaim political ground lost in the last by-elections. As it is, Low Thia Khiang's reactions to Palmer's affair has been nothing but fair and distinguished, and this strategy of political magnanimity will not only make PAP's reactions to Yaw's affair appear as petty attacks, but more importantly allow WP to claim the moral high-ground.
On the prospect of another by-election
Besides looking to see if the PAP would dance to its own tune, Singaporeans will also want to know if the PM will call for a by-election in Punggol-East SMC, and if so, when. While the judiciary had recently clarified that the PM has the unfettered discretion over the decision of a by-election, it will not reflect well on him should he decide against it or postpone it indefinitely. On the other hand, this prospect of another by-election would mean that Singapore would have undergone 4 election processes in 2 years, each within months of each other. Election fatigue and unresolved issues such as transportation, housing and an increasingly foreign population would mean that the PM would have to play his cards very carefully if he hopes to win the game.
Calls for a by-election have already been made by opposition parties (WP, SPP, RP, SDP) and Singaporeans, both itching once again to exercise their democratic rights to vote. The ball is now in your court, Prime Minister.
On the relationship between the PAP and PA
Despite the official rhetoric that the PA is a non-partisan organisation, it is commonly perceived by Singaporeans to serve the political interests of the PAP, and it is not hard to see why. From the denied use of community facilities by opposition parties, to the clandestine affair between a PAP MP and a PA employee, the PAP appears to be figuratively and literally in bed with the PA. This impression that the PAP abuses its position and authority to gain political mileage at the grassroots level not only goes against its pillars of intergrity, accountability and transparency, but could even go as far as to augment Singaporeans' support for the opposition parties with their underdog status. As such, it would be prudent for the PAP to maintain its distance from the PA, or at least be perceived to be so.
PAP to dance to its own tune?
In some way, Yaw's affair has set a precedence for things to come and all eyes will now be on the Prime Minister and his party to see how they will manage their way out of this political calamity. This is especially so since the PAP had been very quick and vocal in criticizing the WP for letting its Hougang constituents down and for the lack of transparency and accountability in the way it handled the fiasco. Little would the PAP expect that the tables will be turned on them months later, and that they would have to hold themselves to the same standards imposed upon the WP.
To their credit, Palmer has taken responsibility over his indiscretion with his resignation and the PAP appears to be in control of the situation by nipping it in the bud with a swift response. This is a stark contrast to how Yaw refused to admit his blunder and the temporary lapse of accountability by the WP before it decided to take action against Yaw.
Yet, it remains to be seen if the PAP will continue to walk the talk and reclaim political ground lost in the last by-elections. As it is, Low Thia Khiang's reactions to Palmer's affair has been nothing but fair and distinguished, and this strategy of political magnanimity will not only make PAP's reactions to Yaw's affair appear as petty attacks, but more importantly allow WP to claim the moral high-ground.
On the prospect of another by-election
Besides looking to see if the PAP would dance to its own tune, Singaporeans will also want to know if the PM will call for a by-election in Punggol-East SMC, and if so, when. While the judiciary had recently clarified that the PM has the unfettered discretion over the decision of a by-election, it will not reflect well on him should he decide against it or postpone it indefinitely. On the other hand, this prospect of another by-election would mean that Singapore would have undergone 4 election processes in 2 years, each within months of each other. Election fatigue and unresolved issues such as transportation, housing and an increasingly foreign population would mean that the PM would have to play his cards very carefully if he hopes to win the game.
Calls for a by-election have already been made by opposition parties (WP, SPP, RP, SDP) and Singaporeans, both itching once again to exercise their democratic rights to vote. The ball is now in your court, Prime Minister.
On the relationship between the PAP and PA
Despite the official rhetoric that the PA is a non-partisan organisation, it is commonly perceived by Singaporeans to serve the political interests of the PAP, and it is not hard to see why. From the denied use of community facilities by opposition parties, to the clandestine affair between a PAP MP and a PA employee, the PAP appears to be figuratively and literally in bed with the PA. This impression that the PAP abuses its position and authority to gain political mileage at the grassroots level not only goes against its pillars of intergrity, accountability and transparency, but could even go as far as to augment Singaporeans' support for the opposition parties with their underdog status. As such, it would be prudent for the PAP to maintain its distance from the PA, or at least be perceived to be so.
Friday, December 07, 2012
Teo Soh Lung's Dysfunctional 8
For a single-issue group that names itself after an outdated troubleshooting key, Teo Soh Lung et al. do not seem to be doing much introspection to deal with the ghosts of their past and to find closure to live in the present. It is sad to see that after 25 years, Teo Soh Lung is still sticking her finger into every major issue pie and contaminating it with the germs of Operation Spectrum.
When members of the Law Society tried to censure M Ravi as mad and incompetent as a lawyer, she brought up her arrest under the ISA. During Hari Raya, she talked about ISA detentions. When James Minchin was barred from entering Singapore, she talked about ISD intimidation. During the criticism of ST's racism and racial profiling, she talked about ISA detainees demonised.
On the recent SMRT bus strikes.
While it is commendable of the various NGOs to stand up against the exploitation of migrant workers by profiteering corporations, those with links to the government even, Teo Soh Lung should refrain from getting involved due to her political baggage that she brings to SDP's table.
This whole episode is reminiscent of past events that led to Operation Spectrum. Disgruntled migrant workers, check. Political voice, check. All that is left is the appearance of a hidden hand or foreign intervention, which will give the government the perfect excuse to clamp down on the NGOs and political parties associated with it.
Deja vu anyone?
On the Catholic Church and the Archbishop.
It was unfortunate that the Catholic Church was implicated in the 1987 Marxist Conspiracy and deeply regrettable that in 2012, was used as a pawn by Function 8 in their game with the government. Whilst the bitterness and resentment harboured by the ex-detainees towards the government is understandable, it is simply disingenuous to drag the Archbishop through the political mud again, for personal politics.
If you have a grudge to bear against the government, take it up with them mano-a-mano and leave the Church out of it. Religion and politics should not intertwine in a secular society over secular issues, period.
On Terrorism and the ISA.
It is one thing to champion for the repeal of the ISA, but it is a completely different thing to champion against the ISA because it deprives potential terrorists of their freedom without any evidence against them to show for in open court. It is unfathomable how Teo Soh Lung, in good faith, is able to speak on behalf of terrorists.
According to her, the whole JI is but a figment of the government's imagination. JI members such as Mas Selamat, Abd Rahim bin Abdul Rahman and Husaini bin Ismail who fled Singapore are "political exiles" who were accused of "serious unproven claims that will affect the men's careers and status in society" and "their arrests serves as a reminder to all political exiles that returning to Singapore may cost them their freedom no matter how long their exile is." In her blindness and baggage, terrorists on the run are political exiles. If this example does not show that she has lost it, I don't know what else can.
When members of the Law Society tried to censure M Ravi as mad and incompetent as a lawyer, she brought up her arrest under the ISA. During Hari Raya, she talked about ISA detentions. When James Minchin was barred from entering Singapore, she talked about ISD intimidation. During the criticism of ST's racism and racial profiling, she talked about ISA detainees demonised.
On the recent SMRT bus strikes.
While it is commendable of the various NGOs to stand up against the exploitation of migrant workers by profiteering corporations, those with links to the government even, Teo Soh Lung should refrain from getting involved due to her political baggage that she brings to SDP's table.
This whole episode is reminiscent of past events that led to Operation Spectrum. Disgruntled migrant workers, check. Political voice, check. All that is left is the appearance of a hidden hand or foreign intervention, which will give the government the perfect excuse to clamp down on the NGOs and political parties associated with it.
Deja vu anyone?
On the Catholic Church and the Archbishop.
It was unfortunate that the Catholic Church was implicated in the 1987 Marxist Conspiracy and deeply regrettable that in 2012, was used as a pawn by Function 8 in their game with the government. Whilst the bitterness and resentment harboured by the ex-detainees towards the government is understandable, it is simply disingenuous to drag the Archbishop through the political mud again, for personal politics.
If you have a grudge to bear against the government, take it up with them mano-a-mano and leave the Church out of it. Religion and politics should not intertwine in a secular society over secular issues, period.
On Terrorism and the ISA.
It is one thing to champion for the repeal of the ISA, but it is a completely different thing to champion against the ISA because it deprives potential terrorists of their freedom without any evidence against them to show for in open court. It is unfathomable how Teo Soh Lung, in good faith, is able to speak on behalf of terrorists.
According to her, the whole JI is but a figment of the government's imagination. JI members such as Mas Selamat, Abd Rahim bin Abdul Rahman and Husaini bin Ismail who fled Singapore are "political exiles" who were accused of "serious unproven claims that will affect the men's careers and status in society" and "their arrests serves as a reminder to all political exiles that returning to Singapore may cost them their freedom no matter how long their exile is." In her blindness and baggage, terrorists on the run are political exiles. If this example does not show that she has lost it, I don't know what else can.
Monday, December 03, 2012
The Strike and an Industrial Relations' Awakening
This strike is historical. The 5 bus drivers who were charged for an illegal strike and 29 other colleagues who were repatriated did not expect they would be penalised for voicing their dissatisfaction and going on a "strike". A word that was not uttered in the media in the first day, as if by not calling it a strike it would make it disappear and deny its existence,
Calling a Strike a Strike and the Consequences
However, calling it a "strike" would had implications on insurance claims if any, read AXA's argument of "collision" vs "accident" in the Ferrari case, and the type of legal action against those who went on strike. As it turned out, once it was sealed as an illegal strike since the workers did not give their employer 14 days notice, those who went on strike had their legal fate sealed. It was not malingering, it was a strike.
The 14-days notice is a fair brinkmanship warning and gradual escalation of the stakes before workers down tools, or in this case, hands of the wheel and foot off the pedals. SMRT management would have started serious negotiations or called the drivers' bluff. As those SMRT bus drivers were not union members as reported, it was still unlikely that SMRT would have taken any strike threat seriously anyway. The SMRT bus drivers painted themselves into a corner whether their grounds for complaints were valid or not because their action was illegal and they were not part of a union.
Singaporean First is a Laudable Policy
In the end, SMRT adopted a Singaporean First employment practice by paying locals more and that is too be lauded. Putting locals first before others is not exploitation. Should foreigners be paid just as much? The general sentiment from the public about foreigners in recent times is that they should not, so SMRT should not be blamed for its profit-centric-nationalistic policy mix and should continue this salary discrimination as long as their SMRT foreign workers rely on SMRT quarters and other facilities as part of their contract. If these disgruntled workers don't like it they can quit, not strike.
A Sharing of Blame - Drivers and SMRT
Were the SMRT bus drivers' concerns e.g. living conditions, valid? SMRT by their without prejudice admission that they should have engaged their bus drivers more and earlier, says plenty. SMRT is not without culpability in the strike and they were just as responsible, albeit indirectly, in the bus service disruptions on 26th November. The extent of the route disruption was not divulged by SMRT but that only 29 were deported, it meant that 29 was a number SMRT was comfortable with deporting and anymore would be severe disruption of bus services. Whether SMRT was more culpable than the bus drivers - legally no, contractually no, ethically maybe depending if you are more a xenophobe or a bystander with no stake in SMRT shares. Nonetheless, there should be zero tolerance on illegal strikes like this SMRT strike as this is a bad signal to investors and businesses.
Deterring Strikes (and Lockouts)
As Singapore continues to need foreigners in the various service and industrial sectors, and as the first strike was struck last week, the industrial relations map of Singapore is changing. There have been many complaints of exploitation by construction companies of its foreign workforce and cases of PRC workers protesting outside MOM, as they are not unionised, are not rare. News of this feat by the SMRT bus drivers and regardless that some were rightly arrested and deported, would have settled into the psyche of foreign workers here. The seeds of strike as a disruptive bargaining tool and even its antithesis, a lockout, are being sown unless the authorities can send a strong enough deterrence to both workers and employers to behave. LTA and the court would have to be tough on both SMRT and the 5 arrested if they want to show that illegal strikes are not tolerated.
Calling a Strike a Strike and the Consequences
However, calling it a "strike" would had implications on insurance claims if any, read AXA's argument of "collision" vs "accident" in the Ferrari case, and the type of legal action against those who went on strike. As it turned out, once it was sealed as an illegal strike since the workers did not give their employer 14 days notice, those who went on strike had their legal fate sealed. It was not malingering, it was a strike.
The 14-days notice is a fair brinkmanship warning and gradual escalation of the stakes before workers down tools, or in this case, hands of the wheel and foot off the pedals. SMRT management would have started serious negotiations or called the drivers' bluff. As those SMRT bus drivers were not union members as reported, it was still unlikely that SMRT would have taken any strike threat seriously anyway. The SMRT bus drivers painted themselves into a corner whether their grounds for complaints were valid or not because their action was illegal and they were not part of a union.
Singaporean First is a Laudable Policy
In the end, SMRT adopted a Singaporean First employment practice by paying locals more and that is too be lauded. Putting locals first before others is not exploitation. Should foreigners be paid just as much? The general sentiment from the public about foreigners in recent times is that they should not, so SMRT should not be blamed for its profit-centric-nationalistic policy mix and should continue this salary discrimination as long as their SMRT foreign workers rely on SMRT quarters and other facilities as part of their contract. If these disgruntled workers don't like it they can quit, not strike.
A Sharing of Blame - Drivers and SMRT
Were the SMRT bus drivers' concerns e.g. living conditions, valid? SMRT by their without prejudice admission that they should have engaged their bus drivers more and earlier, says plenty. SMRT is not without culpability in the strike and they were just as responsible, albeit indirectly, in the bus service disruptions on 26th November. The extent of the route disruption was not divulged by SMRT but that only 29 were deported, it meant that 29 was a number SMRT was comfortable with deporting and anymore would be severe disruption of bus services. Whether SMRT was more culpable than the bus drivers - legally no, contractually no, ethically maybe depending if you are more a xenophobe or a bystander with no stake in SMRT shares. Nonetheless, there should be zero tolerance on illegal strikes like this SMRT strike as this is a bad signal to investors and businesses.
Deterring Strikes (and Lockouts)
As Singapore continues to need foreigners in the various service and industrial sectors, and as the first strike was struck last week, the industrial relations map of Singapore is changing. There have been many complaints of exploitation by construction companies of its foreign workforce and cases of PRC workers protesting outside MOM, as they are not unionised, are not rare. News of this feat by the SMRT bus drivers and regardless that some were rightly arrested and deported, would have settled into the psyche of foreign workers here. The seeds of strike as a disruptive bargaining tool and even its antithesis, a lockout, are being sown unless the authorities can send a strong enough deterrence to both workers and employers to behave. LTA and the court would have to be tough on both SMRT and the 5 arrested if they want to show that illegal strikes are not tolerated.
Monday, November 12, 2012
PAP Turfing Out Foreigners, Exit James Minchin
Well, that is the government's argument and let's see.
The Home Affairs Ministry's Excuses
According to the PAP, an Australian clergyman was turfed out of Singapore for interfering in domestic politics. This Anglican priest from Christ Church St Kilda in Melbourne, James Minchin, has irritated the pensive PAP way before in his book on former PM Lee Kuan Yew, No Man is an Island, where he resented the myth of the philosopher-king who led Singapore from 1965 until 1990.
In the SDP video Let's Talk, SDP interviewed Father James Minchin and he also makes no pretense that he is a political and social activist. Stressing his moral authority as a priest, James Minchin also made it a point to wear his white priest collar and black shirt. So there is no smoke without fire in the PAP being irritated with him subtly using religion to assert, and his affinity with SDP.
The Ministry of Home Affairs elaborated in its statement on barring the priest from entering Singapore that Father James Minchin came last year and shared openly his view that the law was corrupted and the clergy's integrity and independence questionable.
Hypocrisy, SDP-PAP and Politics as Usual
Was Father James Minchin interfering in Singapore's politics as the government claimed he was? He certainly is no apologist for the PAP government and the injustices he saw e.g. he said in the SDP Let's Talk about the government selling power generation to foreign investors, "for the government to allow foreign forces whether from the east or west, market forces to come in and control key sectors of the economy, key sectors of the social fabric, seems to me to be quite counter to the whole sovereignty of Singapore shaping its own future."
There is double hypocrisy here by both the PAP and Father James Minchin. The PAP allowed foreign investors into the economy but not foreign observers into Singapore saying what they think about Lee Kuan Yew's politics. On the other hand, Father James Minchin complained about foreign investors undermining the economic sovereignty of Singapore but not foreign observers like himself talking about social injustice in Singapore and undermining its political sovereignty.
However, the simplest reason obvious to all on why Father James Minchin was abruptly made to fly back to Australia was not because he was complaining about the PAP as there are hordes of foreigners who do that e.g. the foreign talent academics in the local universities. The reason was because he was allied with the SDP while he was complaining about the PAP. If it were not for his SDP links as can be seen by the backing loud calls of injustice by SDP members criticising Father James Minchin's persona non grata status, the Anglican priest would have been unmolested and left alone.
The Home Affairs Ministry's Excuses
According to the PAP, an Australian clergyman was turfed out of Singapore for interfering in domestic politics. This Anglican priest from Christ Church St Kilda in Melbourne, James Minchin, has irritated the pensive PAP way before in his book on former PM Lee Kuan Yew, No Man is an Island, where he resented the myth of the philosopher-king who led Singapore from 1965 until 1990.
In the SDP video Let's Talk, SDP interviewed Father James Minchin and he also makes no pretense that he is a political and social activist. Stressing his moral authority as a priest, James Minchin also made it a point to wear his white priest collar and black shirt. So there is no smoke without fire in the PAP being irritated with him subtly using religion to assert, and his affinity with SDP.
The Ministry of Home Affairs elaborated in its statement on barring the priest from entering Singapore that Father James Minchin came last year and shared openly his view that the law was corrupted and the clergy's integrity and independence questionable.
Hypocrisy, SDP-PAP and Politics as Usual
Was Father James Minchin interfering in Singapore's politics as the government claimed he was? He certainly is no apologist for the PAP government and the injustices he saw e.g. he said in the SDP Let's Talk about the government selling power generation to foreign investors, "for the government to allow foreign forces whether from the east or west, market forces to come in and control key sectors of the economy, key sectors of the social fabric, seems to me to be quite counter to the whole sovereignty of Singapore shaping its own future."
There is double hypocrisy here by both the PAP and Father James Minchin. The PAP allowed foreign investors into the economy but not foreign observers into Singapore saying what they think about Lee Kuan Yew's politics. On the other hand, Father James Minchin complained about foreign investors undermining the economic sovereignty of Singapore but not foreign observers like himself talking about social injustice in Singapore and undermining its political sovereignty.
However, the simplest reason obvious to all on why Father James Minchin was abruptly made to fly back to Australia was not because he was complaining about the PAP as there are hordes of foreigners who do that e.g. the foreign talent academics in the local universities. The reason was because he was allied with the SDP while he was complaining about the PAP. If it were not for his SDP links as can be seen by the backing loud calls of injustice by SDP members criticising Father James Minchin's persona non grata status, the Anglican priest would have been unmolested and left alone.
Monday, October 29, 2012
The Road Ahead for Public (Mini)Buses
SMRT was fined $100 for overloading one of its buses in the Woodlands-Choa Chu Kang route. Granted safety is paramount and overcrowding of a bus is a safety concern. However, the underlying problem is that there were probably not enough buses during peak hours - an unfortunate combination of demand greater than supply during busy times, and supply greater than demand during non-peak hours. The easy answer is for private minibuses to fill in routes and times when there is demand for it.
Going Full Circle
Before 1970, there were 10 bus companies. These underwent M&A until SBS was formed in 1973. In 1982, TIBS joined the network and these two companies complemented rather than competed with one another. This cosy relationship has survived until now and even replicated in how the MRT is run in the NS, EW and NE lines for example. Again, on paper and on the roads, there is room for minibuses to zip around on Singapore's roads again especially as feeder buses in industrial and housing estates, as well as the main housing estates to city lines. The old CSS yellow buses which had cheaper fares than SBS and under NTUC, scrapped its fleet in the late 1980s as MRT rolled out into residential areas. However, with increased population, cost of private cars, inadequacy of the current train and bus capacities, it is time to rethink now the entry of small-medium-sized bus companies.
The Hong Kong Story
The Hong Kong example was recently mentioned to compare how Singapore can do different and better. In Hong Kong, there are five bigger companies and the red and green minibuses that ply the back streets and far flung places. Safety is an issue as minibuses are more aggressive in fare collection as they could be self-employed like taxi-drivers, but with Singapore's track record of regulation and enforcement, safety is typically not a worry for public transport passengers.
The Experimental Role of Town Councils and Minibuses
The fact is that public bus transport system in Singapore can be improved and the best experiment is to re-introduce more niche or specific route players into the networks to compete with the heavyweights. Town councils should be allowed to easily run their own ferries for within their GRC or SMC if they are up to it for a start, and WP in Aljunied or PAP in Ang Mo Kio can set the pace as trailblazers in locally running minibuses that drop and pick up in larger car parks or under the blocks even, competing with the feeder bus services by SBS which are probably unprofitable because of the way it is run.
Apart from town council starting local, operators from the Singapore School Transport Association can be the ready fleet to draw from especially during the school holiday periods to experiment in the minibus network concept. If the project takes off, then there is push for SME bus companies to operate and expand into 365 days and more routes. Easier said than done as there are probably regulations about SME private operators, but something that should be included in the so-called ongoing national conversation if there is public, commercial and government interest in improving public transportation..
Going Full Circle
Before 1970, there were 10 bus companies. These underwent M&A until SBS was formed in 1973. In 1982, TIBS joined the network and these two companies complemented rather than competed with one another. This cosy relationship has survived until now and even replicated in how the MRT is run in the NS, EW and NE lines for example. Again, on paper and on the roads, there is room for minibuses to zip around on Singapore's roads again especially as feeder buses in industrial and housing estates, as well as the main housing estates to city lines. The old CSS yellow buses which had cheaper fares than SBS and under NTUC, scrapped its fleet in the late 1980s as MRT rolled out into residential areas. However, with increased population, cost of private cars, inadequacy of the current train and bus capacities, it is time to rethink now the entry of small-medium-sized bus companies.
The Hong Kong Story
The Hong Kong example was recently mentioned to compare how Singapore can do different and better. In Hong Kong, there are five bigger companies and the red and green minibuses that ply the back streets and far flung places. Safety is an issue as minibuses are more aggressive in fare collection as they could be self-employed like taxi-drivers, but with Singapore's track record of regulation and enforcement, safety is typically not a worry for public transport passengers.
The Experimental Role of Town Councils and Minibuses
The fact is that public bus transport system in Singapore can be improved and the best experiment is to re-introduce more niche or specific route players into the networks to compete with the heavyweights. Town councils should be allowed to easily run their own ferries for within their GRC or SMC if they are up to it for a start, and WP in Aljunied or PAP in Ang Mo Kio can set the pace as trailblazers in locally running minibuses that drop and pick up in larger car parks or under the blocks even, competing with the feeder bus services by SBS which are probably unprofitable because of the way it is run.
Apart from town council starting local, operators from the Singapore School Transport Association can be the ready fleet to draw from especially during the school holiday periods to experiment in the minibus network concept. If the project takes off, then there is push for SME bus companies to operate and expand into 365 days and more routes. Easier said than done as there are probably regulations about SME private operators, but something that should be included in the so-called ongoing national conversation if there is public, commercial and government interest in improving public transportation..
Tuesday, October 09, 2012
Between a Neighbour and Man's Best Friend
As a dog lover, there is nothing more upsetting then the wilful neglect of man’s best friend. All too often, people decide to buy a dog on a whim without realising the lifelong commitment, love and sacrifice it involves. Dog ownership is a decision that warrants careful consideration as the responsibilities transcend beyond the new owner. Like it or not, the new owner’s entire family and proximate community are inadvertently affected.
HDB and Backyard Pounds
The biggest challenge that organisations such as the SPCA and SOSD face is the abandonment of dogs by irresponsible pet owners. The first line of defence in battling the issue of strays is to educate potential dog owners of the importance of buying dogs at licensed and reputable pet shops. A recent stomp article on 17 September, “Are HDB residents allowed to breed dogs in their flats for sale?”, highlights errant behaviours that must be addressed swiftly and unequivocally. The authorities have to come down hard on ‘backyard’, unlicensed breeders to ensure that the important steps of sterilisation and microchipping are taken.
Small HDB Flats and Big Dogs
Other worrying trends of dog ownership in HDB flats is the size of the dogs in HDB flats. Many HDB dwellers have over the years, pressured HDB to relax the guidelines on keeping big dogs in flats; some choosing to quietly flout these rules all together. With shrinking HDB flats and public spaces, the rearing of large breeds in ever more confined spaces is contributing factor to dog abandonment when the novelty of puppies wears off. Also, I'm not too sure if it is cruel to the dog to keep a bigger sized dog like a labrador in our pigeon-hole HDB flats.
Responsible Dog Owners and Neighbours who Don't Like Dogs
Living in HDB flats is about give and take with the neighbours and the balance can be upset if residents have a noisy or fierce dog, or worse for neighbours intolerant of canines, more than one dog. I cite the case of Mr Tan Cheng Chu in the Singapolitics article “Minister intervenes in bid to let dying man keep his dogs”. I applaud the efforts of Law Minister Shanmugan and the SOSD to check on the well-being of Silver and Rover, and to offer to mediate with Mr Tan’s neighbours, although the law is on the side of those neighbours who complained probably because they had a history with Mr Tan.
While it would pain me to see Mr Tan being forced to part with one of his dogs, I would like to see the original owner of the dog, Mr Tan’s daughter, step forward to take responsibility for the dog she bought and had left at her father's place after she moved out. She is the solution to the mess assuming that HDB is afraid to create a precedent of a stop-at-one dog policy - keep her Rover at her house and bring over and take him home at the start and end of everyday. Just like how parents leave their children at their parents' home during the day for childcare. It is the least she can do as a filial daughter to help her cancer-stricken dying father and appease neighbours who need not put up with supposed noisy dogs at night.
If not, with Mr Tan’s critical condition, I fear that in not too long, both 3-year old Silver and 7-year old Rover will be stepping through the kennel doors of SPCA.
HDB and Backyard Pounds
The biggest challenge that organisations such as the SPCA and SOSD face is the abandonment of dogs by irresponsible pet owners. The first line of defence in battling the issue of strays is to educate potential dog owners of the importance of buying dogs at licensed and reputable pet shops. A recent stomp article on 17 September, “Are HDB residents allowed to breed dogs in their flats for sale?”, highlights errant behaviours that must be addressed swiftly and unequivocally. The authorities have to come down hard on ‘backyard’, unlicensed breeders to ensure that the important steps of sterilisation and microchipping are taken.
Small HDB Flats and Big Dogs
Other worrying trends of dog ownership in HDB flats is the size of the dogs in HDB flats. Many HDB dwellers have over the years, pressured HDB to relax the guidelines on keeping big dogs in flats; some choosing to quietly flout these rules all together. With shrinking HDB flats and public spaces, the rearing of large breeds in ever more confined spaces is contributing factor to dog abandonment when the novelty of puppies wears off. Also, I'm not too sure if it is cruel to the dog to keep a bigger sized dog like a labrador in our pigeon-hole HDB flats.
Responsible Dog Owners and Neighbours who Don't Like Dogs
Living in HDB flats is about give and take with the neighbours and the balance can be upset if residents have a noisy or fierce dog, or worse for neighbours intolerant of canines, more than one dog. I cite the case of Mr Tan Cheng Chu in the Singapolitics article “Minister intervenes in bid to let dying man keep his dogs”. I applaud the efforts of Law Minister Shanmugan and the SOSD to check on the well-being of Silver and Rover, and to offer to mediate with Mr Tan’s neighbours, although the law is on the side of those neighbours who complained probably because they had a history with Mr Tan.
While it would pain me to see Mr Tan being forced to part with one of his dogs, I would like to see the original owner of the dog, Mr Tan’s daughter, step forward to take responsibility for the dog she bought and had left at her father's place after she moved out. She is the solution to the mess assuming that HDB is afraid to create a precedent of a stop-at-one dog policy - keep her Rover at her house and bring over and take him home at the start and end of everyday. Just like how parents leave their children at their parents' home during the day for childcare. It is the least she can do as a filial daughter to help her cancer-stricken dying father and appease neighbours who need not put up with supposed noisy dogs at night.
If not, with Mr Tan’s critical condition, I fear that in not too long, both 3-year old Silver and 7-year old Rover will be stepping through the kennel doors of SPCA.
Friday, September 21, 2012
The Archbishop Letters
This whole
episode of the Archbishop’s mysterious letters to Function 8 is very amusing.
It starts
with, of all people, Alex Au, a well-known gay rights activist who publishes a
blog post claiming that his source had informed him that many months back, the
Archbishop sent Function 8 an unsolicited letter, giving them moral
support. Function 8 then wanted to use
this letter in a Hong
Lim Park
event to say that finally the Church or God has forgiven them for their “sins”
in the 1987 Marxist Conspiracy. The Archbishop than retracts the letter,
supposedly after having lunch with the DPM and here, according to the great
“source” of Alex Au, the Archbishop was
arm-twisted to do so.
Conspiracies
Then the
Archbishop puts out another statement saying that he retracted the letter on
his free will after realising that the letter was going to be read out loud and
the political implications of the letter being that it will disrupt social
harmony. Alex Au then says that
Archbishop is basically lying and insinuate again that he is pressured by some
shadowy government force to come out with statement (yes another tip-off from
his great source). The problem with
claiming everything has a conspiracy behind it is that it gets a bit stale
after a while. It’s a never-ending
spiral; which is why probably the government never wants to give the Marxist
people a new hearing; because if the independent panel finds that the Marxist
people were guilty as charged … guess what? Yes ….. conspiracy again.
Back to
this story … Function 8 and then Maruah (yes it’s that confusing) comes out with
statements attacking the Archbishop over this letter and even MHA gets into
this statement war by defending the Archbishop and saying that all these people
are disrespectful to him. Alex Au goes
on a roll chronicling all these statements and basically attacking the Church
for caving in to Government pressure.
Judas
Even if we
ignore the fact that Alex may have some grievances against the Church, he is
the champion of LGBT rights in Singapore after all, and the Church whether
Catholic or Protestant is not exactly very gay-friendly; the fact remains: who
is this great source of his?
From
Function 8? Maybe and probably but then how would a source from Function 8 know
so much of the Archbishop and his lunch meetings even? A source from the Church? Maybe, but than why
would a source from a Church want to do this?
How about this possibility? A source that is both close to Function 8
and to the Church? Whisperings in the
Church have more or less already narrowed down who could be this great source.
The problem
with Alex is that no matter how hard he tries; he cannot be really
objective. And probably his “source”
knows that too. So in the end, who to
believe? The real story is always the
simplest, maybe the Archbishop blindly signed on a letter given to him by this
Alex Au “source”, found out that it is a problematic letter and got it
withdrawn with or without government arm-twisting. The “source” and Function 8 got angry and
found someone who is willing to be their champion. And it so happens to be Alex Au.
Splinter in Your Eye, Log in Mine
This quote by Alex Au is golden: “, “I also stand firm, like the great majority of
Singaporeans, against any attempt to mix religion with politics, which
agenda partly explains why the new guard at AWARE have to resort to stealth”
He should really be careful and aware that stealth is
not monopolized by government only; maybe stealth is also being used by this
great “source” of his.
Friday, September 14, 2012
Dr Chee's Bankruptcy
Dr Chee Soon Juan will have his bankruptcy annulled if he can come out with $30,000 from book sales or donations. There can finally be closure for the SDP sec-gen in this case that began in 2001 when the SDP leader shouted at then PM Goh Chok Tong during the 2001 GE, about money lent to Indonesia. According to the PAP lawyers, Dr Chee had questioned their integrity during the hustings, and was thus sued for defamation.
As he lost, Dr Chee owed former PM Goh and former PM Lee $500,000 in damages ($200,000 to Singapore's first PM and $300,000 to the country's second PM) Recently, Dr Chee had made an offer of $30,000 instead to move on and the two former PMs accepted it. This paves the way for Dr Chee to stand in the next GE, assuming that he does not give the PAP another opportunity for him to be sued for defamation.
This is a surprising new twist to the plot as Dr Chee probably did not expect the PAP stalwarts to accept his offer. If he knew that it would have been so easy, he might have dangled it before GE 2011 so that there was a chance he could compete in that, in retrospect, watershed election. Furthermore, if the PAP had rejected his offer of composition then, he and SDP could have easily depicted it as PAP fearing to fairly face Dr Chee as a candidate during the GE.
Can $30,000 be Raised Easily and Quickly?
As it is, if Dr Chee can raise his $30,000, it would show that SDP still has some support left despite its the rise of WP as the leading opposition party. The reverse is also true. If Dr Chee takes too long to find the funds, it would mean he and his party are not popular enough.
As he lost, Dr Chee owed former PM Goh and former PM Lee $500,000 in damages ($200,000 to Singapore's first PM and $300,000 to the country's second PM) Recently, Dr Chee had made an offer of $30,000 instead to move on and the two former PMs accepted it. This paves the way for Dr Chee to stand in the next GE, assuming that he does not give the PAP another opportunity for him to be sued for defamation.
This is a surprising new twist to the plot as Dr Chee probably did not expect the PAP stalwarts to accept his offer. If he knew that it would have been so easy, he might have dangled it before GE 2011 so that there was a chance he could compete in that, in retrospect, watershed election. Furthermore, if the PAP had rejected his offer of composition then, he and SDP could have easily depicted it as PAP fearing to fairly face Dr Chee as a candidate during the GE.
Can $30,000 be Raised Easily and Quickly?
As it is, if Dr Chee can raise his $30,000, it would show that SDP still has some support left despite its the rise of WP as the leading opposition party. The reverse is also true. If Dr Chee takes too long to find the funds, it would mean he and his party are not popular enough.
Tuesday, September 04, 2012
The National Conversation and the Education Sector
With the National Conversation, the National Day Rally this year was a significant milestone in government nation-building speeches.
"So I asked Heng Swee Keat to lead a national conversation on Our Singapore to define what sort of country we want and how we can achieve it. So please join in this national effort, think seriously about our future, contribute your ideas, work together to make it happen. In a rapidly changing world, Singapore must keep on improving because if we stand still, we’re going to fall behind."
The word "national conversation" was mentioned only once in his entire speech but it became the buzzword of the month, something like an "open and inclusive society" was in the period after PM Lee's swearing-in speech in 2004. Twelve years on and still that phrase rings loud and true in questioning whether the PAP consulted in policies in the Casinos, CPF or COE (they do, just a matter of extent and whom).
Coincidence or not that the National Conversation is headed by the Education Minister, among the most significant policy changes to be introduced are in Education. The other signs of Education leading the national conversation were that Education Minister Heng Swee Keat and
With complaints of shortage and even substandard preschools becoming a national concern and that children are not prepared enough for Primary One, the Education ministry would look into the preschool sector. They would not nationalise it, but would watch and nudge closely, giving the sector and its schools some quality control. PCF already is striving to have its 330 childcare and kindergartens accredited by SPARK (Singapore Pre-school Accreditation Framework). There would even be a statutory board overlooking the preschool sector.
The contradiction inherent in the government sticking its nose into the preschool sector is that it would make schools more academic and as the foundation for primary school. Inevitably this would make preschool stressful. Furthermore, PCF and NTUC are the anchors already. With the talk of more preschool anchors in the industry and setting of academic standards, would that pave the way for more GLC ventures in the preschool sector at the expense of the SMEs or religious-run centres who are into preschool as play and character building? Beware of what you wish for from the government in this "national" conversation.
Talking and Listening to the Silent or the Shouters
So despite the "national conversation", not everyone can be pleased. Some wanted more government interest in the preschool sector, while others resented the intrusion, all for various valid reasons. The government listened but who did it talk and listen to in the end? What is the national conversation all about? The government listening to those who lobbied the best, shouted the loudest regardless if the interests they represented were really representative of the "national" or not.
"So I asked Heng Swee Keat to lead a national conversation on Our Singapore to define what sort of country we want and how we can achieve it. So please join in this national effort, think seriously about our future, contribute your ideas, work together to make it happen. In a rapidly changing world, Singapore must keep on improving because if we stand still, we’re going to fall behind."
PM Lee Hsien Loong
The word "national conversation" was mentioned only once in his entire speech but it became the buzzword of the month, something like an "open and inclusive society" was in the period after PM Lee's swearing-in speech in 2004. Twelve years on and still that phrase rings loud and true in questioning whether the PAP consulted in policies in the Casinos, CPF or COE (they do, just a matter of extent and whom).
Coincidence or not that the National Conversation is headed by the Education Minister, among the most significant policy changes to be introduced are in Education. The other signs of Education leading the national conversation were that Education Minister Heng Swee Keat and
With complaints of shortage and even substandard preschools becoming a national concern and that children are not prepared enough for Primary One, the Education ministry would look into the preschool sector. They would not nationalise it, but would watch and nudge closely, giving the sector and its schools some quality control. PCF already is striving to have its 330 childcare and kindergartens accredited by SPARK (Singapore Pre-school Accreditation Framework). There would even be a statutory board overlooking the preschool sector.
The contradiction inherent in the government sticking its nose into the preschool sector is that it would make schools more academic and as the foundation for primary school. Inevitably this would make preschool stressful. Furthermore, PCF and NTUC are the anchors already. With the talk of more preschool anchors in the industry and setting of academic standards, would that pave the way for more GLC ventures in the preschool sector at the expense of the SMEs or religious-run centres who are into preschool as play and character building? Beware of what you wish for from the government in this "national" conversation.
Talking and Listening to the Silent or the Shouters
So despite the "national conversation", not everyone can be pleased. Some wanted more government interest in the preschool sector, while others resented the intrusion, all for various valid reasons. The government listened but who did it talk and listen to in the end? What is the national conversation all about? The government listening to those who lobbied the best, shouted the loudest regardless if the interests they represented were really representative of the "national" or not.
Friday, April 27, 2012
Can Meritocracy and Equality co-exist?
Lim Chong Yah’s “shock therapy” proposal has kick-started a much needed rethink on economic restructuring.
(There has been speculation, with family link even, that the impetus for this rethink might have be a deliberate strategy anointed by the highest levels of government.)
It would be easy to blame the media’s tendency to portray life at either end of the scale – because after all, who wants to reach about Mr and Mrs Average Tan just comfortably getting by in their 4-room HDB flat? – as having given rise to perceptions of increasing income disparities.
However, these are not just perceptions, but a reality that is statistically supported by a widening Gini coefficient. Our pledged national goal of building a society based inter alia on equality has indeed been slipping away this past few years.
This is the thing. Singapore has long been positioned as a meritocracy. At the same time, we also want to build a society based on equality. Can the two co-exist?
Meritocracy, in a nutshell, means that the people get chosen for jobs based on their own merits. In the context of filling jobs, merits could include professional qualifications, inherent abilities/skills/traits or ability to work certain hours.
Pay is decided by a combination of factors – productivity is one factor, but the level of training/investment required and demand/supply for the said abilities/skills are also determinants of one’s income. Consequently, some jobs pay more than others.
And because people have different abilities and take on different roles, a meritocratic society is inherently an unequal society.
This said, an unequal nation is an unstable nation, and the government should take decisive action to curb this growing divide. I would suggest 3 basic steps – they are by no means new, but IMHO, will have to be applied in larger doses if we are serious about our economic restructuring efforts.
1. Abolition/reduction of GST, which places a disproportionate taxes on the lower income; instead, introduce more progressive taxes on income (including passive/investment income).
2. Increase/extend education subsidies to all citizens who qualify for local universities/polytechnics/ITE colleges– to ensure those with the ability will have to educational opportunities to break out of the poverty trap. Continuing Education for Singaporean adults should also be heavily subsidised.
3. In specific industries/sectors which have retrenched/unemployed Singaporeans, introduce (higher) levies for hiring foreign workers, such that the cost of hiring a foreign worker would be the same as hiring a local worker. This would have the impact of either (a) increasing productivity and/or (b) setting “minimum wage” for local workers in that industry.
(There has been speculation, with family link even, that the impetus for this rethink might have be a deliberate strategy anointed by the highest levels of government.)
It would be easy to blame the media’s tendency to portray life at either end of the scale – because after all, who wants to reach about Mr and Mrs Average Tan just comfortably getting by in their 4-room HDB flat? – as having given rise to perceptions of increasing income disparities.
However, these are not just perceptions, but a reality that is statistically supported by a widening Gini coefficient. Our pledged national goal of building a society based inter alia on equality has indeed been slipping away this past few years.
This is the thing. Singapore has long been positioned as a meritocracy. At the same time, we also want to build a society based on equality. Can the two co-exist?
Meritocracy, in a nutshell, means that the people get chosen for jobs based on their own merits. In the context of filling jobs, merits could include professional qualifications, inherent abilities/skills/traits or ability to work certain hours.
Pay is decided by a combination of factors – productivity is one factor, but the level of training/investment required and demand/supply for the said abilities/skills are also determinants of one’s income. Consequently, some jobs pay more than others.
And because people have different abilities and take on different roles, a meritocratic society is inherently an unequal society.
This said, an unequal nation is an unstable nation, and the government should take decisive action to curb this growing divide. I would suggest 3 basic steps – they are by no means new, but IMHO, will have to be applied in larger doses if we are serious about our economic restructuring efforts.
1. Abolition/reduction of GST, which places a disproportionate taxes on the lower income; instead, introduce more progressive taxes on income (including passive/investment income).
2. Increase/extend education subsidies to all citizens who qualify for local universities/polytechnics/ITE colleges– to ensure those with the ability will have to educational opportunities to break out of the poverty trap. Continuing Education for Singaporean adults should also be heavily subsidised.
3. In specific industries/sectors which have retrenched/unemployed Singaporeans, introduce (higher) levies for hiring foreign workers, such that the cost of hiring a foreign worker would be the same as hiring a local worker. This would have the impact of either (a) increasing productivity and/or (b) setting “minimum wage” for local workers in that industry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)