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..

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.

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.

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.

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."

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 Senior Minister of State for Education Lawrence Wong also spoke at the Rally as part of a new Rally tradition, paving the way for PM Lee's Rally speech. 

Listening and then Acting

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.

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.

The Political Shenanigans in Hougang Never Ends

Singaporeans and those watching Singapore politics are being treated to a merry parade of shenanigans since the start of the year, all related to the state of WP dominance in Hougang.

WP-Bashing Media and the Opening Move

TRE, which gives a bad name to Internet voices with its brand of trash journalism from its anti-WP Wayang Party days to its anti-PAP TR days, started the ball rolling with its rumours about Yaw Shin Leong's extra-marital affairs. Yaw defiantly remained reticent. The newspapers, nation building as always, dragged on coverage of the affair for weeks and focused on Yaw Shin Leong's personal indiscretion and spun it as a question of political integrity, giving PAP the advantage as always. Shenanigan #1.

WP's Losing Silence and Winning Gambit

The Hougang MP's personal crisis exposed WP's management crisis. WP had atrocious public relations management and initially also chose to remain silent, pretending the matter did not exist, a classic PAP  style to stick its head in the sand. WP backed their Hougang MP, as they should until eventually, as news of Yaw Shin Leong's other extra-marital affairs popped up, the WP leaders realised that their Hougang MP was a political liability, and expelled him. Plunging Hougang into a by-election state in a political gambit which they were likely to win. Something like what the PAP did in the Marine Parade in 1992 where the by-election was just peacock posturing. Shenanigan #2.

PAP's Delay Tactic

The PAP obviously was fixed good as they preferred that Yaw Shin Leong remained as the MP and would be crippled with public doubts of his integrity. However, Low Thia Khiang and his fellow stewards of WP brilliantly sacrificed their knight and his hooks. WP knew that in any by-election in the post-GE mood where the PAP still has not solved the people's problems despite the pre-GE promises, and that Hougang is a WP stronghold since 1991, WP would win the by-election. PAP thus wanted to delay holding the by-election as long as they could to wear out the Aljunied GRC WP MPs who are taking turns to oversee Hougang as it is without an MP. The PAP planned that as Hougang turned into a neglected slum, the margin of PAP's loss in the coming Hougang by-election would be smaller than the loss in GE 2011. Shenanigan #3.

Ravi's Pawn

Seeing a chance to stir the controversy, M Ravi, the mad lawyer which even SDP has smartly kept a distance from in recent years, managed to "persuade" a presumably uneducated cleaner and Hougang resident, Vellama D/O Marie Muthu, to file a court application that the PM should convene a by-election within 3 months of Yaw Shin Leong's disqualification as a Hougang MP. Without a doubt, Vellama was probably Ravi's pawn to sting the PAP about the delay in a Hougang by-election. She is a cleaner who earns $300 a month, has 2 children and an alcoholic husband - an unlikely profile of a keen observer of politics who would file a court application. Ravi could have tried hard to pick a better stand-in. Maybe nobody else wanted to be associated with him. Shenanigan #4.

More Tomfoolery to Come

The parade of shenanigans is not over yet and we can expect more entertainment soon enough. From internet voices like TRE or TOC, from WP or PAP, from another party, the possibilities of tomfoolery are almost endless. I expect one other shenanigan would Tan Jee Say really taking part in the Hougang by-election when the beginning of the end game comes.

Another Old Guard Gone

PM Lee Hsien Loong himself admitted, "Without Dr Toh and his fellow Old Guard, this modern, prosperous metropolis that we now take for normal would not exist,".

Dr Toh Chin Chye is another selfless passionate Old Guard who has left Singaporeans and was laid to rest yesterday. According to many positive eulogies and seldom we hear of critical eulogies as people often don't disrespect the dead, he was a man with a sharp mind and tongue. Dr Toh was primarily lionised as a founding leader of PAP and also Singapore by default because of PAP's close ties with Singapore's independence.

In short, Dr Toh kicked out the leftists in the PAP, was PAP chairman from 1954 to 1981, was a former DPM and spent 22 years as a cabinet minister. Nonetheless, the late Lim Chin Siong, another co-founder of the PAP who fell on the different side of the fence later on, would have had different colourful insights to Dr Toh's role in nation-building.

Good bye Dr Toh, and thank you.

Promising MP and Civil Servants - From Sex to Scandals to Stupidity

Singaporeans were treated to sensationalism, sex and scandals over the Lunar New Year. First, there were rumours of WP Hougang MP Yaw Shin Leong going around the Internet, initiated by Temasek Review Emeritus, formerly known as Temasek Review. However, the name change did not change its sensationalistic tabloid style and agenda. Then Wanbao, the print cousin of TRE, ran news about the heads of the SCDF and CNB being investigated by the CPIB for corruption.


Supposed Scoundrels at Every Corner


More bits of the puzzle trickled out since then. MP Yaw Shin Leong chose not to comment on his supposed affair with a fellow female WP member who is also married. The WP also refused to comment on the rumoured Hougang MP's extra-marital affair and speculation is rife that this is tantamount to a confession of guilt. Reminds me of the Foo Mee Har allegations during her GE campaigning and that her refusal to sue or comment meant her flings were true. SCDF commissioner Peter Lim and CNB director Ng Boon Gay were involved with an unnamed IT executive and the cases appeared more to be about improper sexual relationships with women although speculation is still rampant on the details.

So there we have it. Sex and scandals. Where does the stupidity come in? Some might point to MP Yaw Shin Leong for being stupid to be involved in an extra-marital affair with someone from his party, assuming the rumours are true, jeopardising his personal and political life at one shot. There would be others who would say the SCDF and CNB heads were stupid to get sexually involved with a contractor.

However, the stupidity does not rest fully with MP Yaw Shin Leong, former SCDF chief Peter Lim or former CNB head Ng Boon Gay. The highest burden of stupidity lies with the people who jumped to clouded conclusions.


Setting the Records Straight


While it looked like MP Yaw Shin Leong had an extra-marital affair based on his reaction, what does it matter if he did? That is his personal life and however troubled it may be for his family, it does not necessarily impede his integrity as a politician or his party's effectiveness. Clinton was still a popular and relatively effective president despite being blown, and his ECA with an intern blown. Singaporeans should just learn to be mature and not be confused by revelations out to undermine Yaw Shin Leong's political ambitions. Under no circumstances should the thought of him stepping down and a by-election be entertained.

Similarly, many jumped to the conclusions that Ng Boon Gay and Peter Lim embezzled money and are CPIB's biggest aces since Teh Cheang Wan, Phey Yew Kok or Glenn Knight. Investigations are still in progress and there is no confirmation of taking bribes. Also while some jumped to the argument that it shows Singapore is full of corrupt civil servants, the very show that CPIB would catch big fish heads in MHA means that there is zero tolerance for any imagined or genuine corruption even.

This Lunar New Year variety show of sex and scandals just reminds us that we should be aware of the yapping jackals inside and outside the Internet.

Symbolism in Slashing Salaries and Lengthening Legitimacy

The obvious sign that the PAP government is worried about the weakening social contract with the voters is the commitment to take up the recommendations of the salary review committee. 

Make no mistake that the slashing of the salary is not a small amount, although the revised salary is still astronomical by any standard for any honest politician. According to The Guardian, despite the populist pay cut, PM Lee's pay is still three times that of Hong Kong chief executive, Donald Tsang, the world's next highest paid political leader in the world.

Slashing Pay by a Third and More

With the review, entry-level MR4 ministers, would get a 37% pay cut to about $935,000 to $1,100,00 if they just started off, while the PM would get a similar proportionate cut of 36% to $2,200,000. The formula for this distinction is that the PM's salary is pegged at twice the MR4 salary. MR3 ministers get the biggest cut of 39% in their salaries. However, the pay cut for higher grade ministers is generally less significant in comparison e.g. 35% cut for MR2, 33% cut for MR1 and 31% cut for DPM. The President, however, would get a more substantial pay cut of 51% to $1,540,000.

Also, contrary to what Leong Sze Hian in TOC wrote that the pay cut excludes bonuses to be paid, the Review Committee stated that after the recommended pay cut, ministers' salary for the entry MR4 grade with maximum bonuses of 7 months thrown in would reach $1,100,000 as the limit. Overall, the symbolism for the pay cut is there on the wall for all to see except the blind or the blindly anti-PAP. The symbolism of a deep cut of a about more than a third of the salary is a powerful one. A 30% cut is a potent attempt at reinventing quick legitimacy and to any rational observer it is not tokenism. Tokenism is when the salary is cut 3%. Would you the reader personally feel that it is a big deal if your salary is cut 30%?

Regaining Popularity

The salary slashing is sufficient symbolically as a first step towards a new social contract to the moderate observer. However it is expected that it is never enough for the hardcore PAP critic.

The slashing of the salaries is a good gesture, a shrewd move to show that the PAP is bothered to try forging a new social contract. It is weaved as part of the earlier populist package where rightly unpopular ministers like Raymond Lim, Wong Kan Seng and Mah Bow Tan were asked to step down even though they won their seats in the last GE. Similarly, the PAP need not have bothered to slash their salaries now, so soon after the GE and so far away from the next GE to score points. Yet, they did, to invest in political capital.

For both the PAP apologists and cynics, the timing of the commendable step towards a pay reduction actually shows that the PAP wants to listen, please and make amends, for now. Still, while appreciated, a hefty pay cut alone does not restore fully the PAP's legitimacy in our eyes. It was never really a matter of how much they pocketed, but what they did or didn't do in the context of the amount they earned.

The Anti-ISA Circus is in Town

It is strange that when Najib decided to repeal the ISA in Malaysia clearly for his own political survival, it stirred this hornet's nest in Singapore. Suddenly, our NGOs start clamouring for something similar and ex detainees start demanding redress for their "wrongful" detentions years past. What's worst, the liberal media starts imagining that there are hundreds of thousands of oppressed Singaporeans willing to go Bersih-like and start demonstrating down the streets.

People Care about Housing, Transport, Healthcare, Education, Not ISA

The funny thing is that most Singaporeans actually do not care; they did throng the streets but for the carnival of the F1. Despite the efforts of the esteemed TOC and even the oft-reviled Straits Times to create some kind of groundswell for this ISA issue, Singaporeans are just not talking about it. James Gomez and his Singaporeans for Democracy imported two foreign talent politicians to talk about the issue and it reached the ears of a ground-shattering 50 people in a pub. There is simply no buzz.

This is something of a lesson here for NGOs and ex-detainees alike; rather than flog a dead horse, they should focus on issues of greater currency and relevance? Ms Teo Soh Lung should know and have learnt by now surely? If Singaporeans wanted to take on her baggage and fight for her "wrongful" detention, the people of Yuhua SMC would have simply voted her into Parliament when she stood for election in May 2011. She had the entire stage in her numerous rallies to convince and persuade Singaporeans to her case but did she win? Nope. Was it even close? Nope again. But are Singaporeans blind, nope, when articulated correctly, Singaporeans disposed of a reigning PAP Foreign Minister and delivered a GRC into the hands of the Opposition. Most Singaporeans, like the constituents of Yuhua, have some sympathy for Ms Teo but that's about all.

COI and Much Ado About Nothing

Civil society in Singapore must know what are the issues that nauseate Singaporeans and not just ape vacuous liberal ideas that have no relevance in Singapore. We could be a monarchy for goodness sake and people will still be happy if their needs are met in a relevant manner. Trying to drum up some kind of Jasmine or Arab Spring in Singapore via this ISA issue is just downright silly. There is no groundswell over this ISA issue and even less over the "wrongful" detention of Ms Teo in Spectrum. And now, even the pre-Spectrum detainees have jumped on the bandwagon and are demanding their cases re-opened in front of a COI.

May I ask the question that no one seems to have thought of since most of the minority think that they are innocent ie what if the COI finds them guilty again despite all the show and tell they are allowed in the COI?? Do you think the ex-detainees will than suddenly see the light and quietly plead guilty again? Fat hope. If so, what then is the true motive of this COI but for this 16 to turn the COI into another platform for them to whine about their deeds and hopefully create a groundswell since they have failed in their numerous books, on the Internet and in the electoral hustings to awaken Singaporeans to their "grievances".

In the end, Singaporeans are not stupid. For Ms Teo and her comrades, perhaps if you can get the thousands of people who have been detained by the ISA and CLTP to sign this blood oath with you and get another hundred thousand Singaporeans to march behind you than maybe you will get the redress you crave; if not, just do the simple thing and move on, there are more pressing issues which Singaporeans need a voice for from their politicians and their civil society.

Why I am not a “PAP die hard”

Our recent presidential election (PE) had as much drama as any TV addict could hope for: four pre-qualified candidates (when all previous PEs after 1993 failed to produce even two!) and a recount that created a nation of temporary insomniacs.

Now it’s all over and the Net is awash with post-hoc analyses about why who got how many votes and so on. Much of it, however, lacks any real depth. (The only exception, perhaps, comes from Yawning Bread).

You see, I voted for TT; by some accounts, I am now labelled – along with 35% of my fellow voters – as a “PAP die-hard.”

I detest that label. I am not a PAP die-hard and had in fact voted opposition during the GE.

It was in fact a process of elimination.

First, as the president is an apolitical position, I tried to view each individual as such.

I could not in good conscience not vote for TKL because he appeared to be very much out of his depth. During the exchanges/debates, he was clearly outclassed by the other three candidates. He tried to be like a favourite uncle, but I was voting for a president, not an uncle.

I saw TJS as being divisive; sure, he had grand plans and promises, but the issues he raised are meant for Parliament. Given the role of the president as defined by the Constitution, I felt that there was a fundamental misfit between the person and the post.

I remained undecided between TT and TCB until polling day itself.

I did not buy TT’s claim that we need him as president because of the impending financial crisis. After all, in a fire, our best fire fighters should ideally be in the SCDF, not the Istana. Hence, he should have stayed in GIC. I also did not feel that he (or MINDEF) had adequately addressed the brouhaha over Dr Patrick Tan’s NS obligations.

TCB’s plan to boot the Prime Minister out of the Istana did not make sense to me. I did not see it as congruent with his claim that he would unify Singaporeans; after all, how can one unify a country if he feels he cannot stay and work in the same compound (and a very large one at that) as the Prime Minister?

My one vote was precious to me. I did my due diligence and thought over my decision carefully. I believe that many other voters likewise did not take their decision lightly. Those who are too quick to label voters as “die hard” fans (of either the PAP or anyone else) are guilty of shallow reasoning.

The Neutral, Non-Partisan and Natural Choice Tomorrow

For those who are not voting Tony Tan and Tan Cheng Bock for their ties to the PAP, that leaves us with only Tan Jee Say and Tan Kin Lian.

Tan Kin Lian started off well in the race and would have lured the opposition and moderate votes away from the PAP camp. Then Tan Jee Say got into the game and like the mythological Siren, he seduced away voters from the former NTUC Income CEO. All is fair in love, war and politics. This is a game of high political and personal stakes - salary, responsibility, foot-in-the-door opposition influence, and the future of the form and function of the presidency. Everyone has to be "mature adults" about the competition in the presidential elections as Tan Jee Say mentioned during the TOC Presidential Face to Face forum and CNA's Meet the Candidates.

That Tan

From the way Tan Jee Say presented himself since Nomination Day when his supporters booed away the PAP proxy, Tony Tan, the PAP and the public would expect a confrontational populist president if he is elected into Office. Expect brinkmanship and the stubborn PAP ignoring whatever the SDP-backed candidate might advise from his seat in the Istana. For the Cabinet, to treat a former civil servant who joined the SDP camp as the president would be a humiliating slap in their face. Furthermore, frankly, Tan Jee Say does not appear to have the composure and class to be a president. He was visibly upset with Tony Tan during the TOC forum, and Goh Chok Tong's former Principal Private Secretary actually raised his voice and pointed his finger at Tony Tan. Also during his CNA debate, Tan Jee Say stumbled during his opening statement. Right from the start he dropped the ball, although to be fair, chastised by public opinion, he was not so easily angered by then compared to the TOC forum outburst.

Tan Jee Say boasted his illustrious private sector employment. However, his employment history was questioned and Tan Jee Say later clarified that he was not involved in the demise of Peregrine or AIB Govett. This explanation was just like he was not involved in the Marxist Conspiracy although he was the top aide to Goh Chok Tong, a DPM in 1987. Certainly the former civil servant who struck out on his own was scrutinised and there might have been deliberate falsehood against him as part of the campaigning. However, Tan Jee Say was oddly quiet about the allegations that he was managed out of Standard Chartered and that he was shunned by the banking industry since 2006.

The Only Tan

In contrast, Tan Kin Lian is more amicable and less confrontational. He smiles often, is more casual in his appearance and reasoning compared to his competition. He wore batik during the TOC forum, is often seen in his casual high-five tee to emphasis his people-oriented branding. He is more of the people's president rather than an opposition's president. He stressed during his campaigning that while it is not within his constitutional powers, he would suggest a state pension fund and an added HDB grant for NSmen i.e. he knows his limits and does not go into esoteric debates like disbanding Temasek or debunking the Marxist Conspiracy. He goes for the heartland issues right away. More down-to-earth, more to the heartbeat of Singaporeans uncertain of their lot in life under the PAP government.

He is more accommodating and although his feel of socio-political moods is not there as seen from the TOC forum, this is compensated by his eagerness to help. He seemed more grassroot in his style and that would be a plus. Nobody should forget that he stood up and spoke up during the Lehman crisis at Hong Lim Park for those who were burnt. It is only one incident, one instance, his critics might voice. Indisputable allegation, but it was his big intervention in being the voice. Where was Tan Jee Say or for that matter, Tony Tan or Tan Cheng Bock, then? That demonstrated that he was concerned about people's money being safe and not risked away.

Furthermore, Tan Kin Lian helmed NTUC Income for 30 years. Tan Jee Say is a job hopper in comparison, perhaps unfairly presented if we were in a non-election period but fair in an election, someone who is not sure of what he wants. The stereotypical government scholar who cannot survive outside of his cushy fast-tracked government sector as critics like to gossip about. During Tan Kin Lian's leadership of Income, the NTUC leader grew Income to the large cooperative it is today, like or loath his leadership style. While the president does not have the mandate to do with the reserves as he pleased, his track record of prudence in Income is assuring and he views the reserves as both insurance and investment. Not something for the opposition to bargain with the executive and legislative.

Come 27 August, nothing as changed and I'm still doing a high-five for one particular Tan.

Presidential candidate Tan Kin Lian said he encountered two low points in his race to Istana, and both of them involved fellow candidate Tan Jee Say.

Speaking at a news conference, Mr Tan said the first low point was when Mr Tan Jee Say applied for a certificate of eligibility to become a candidate in the presidential election.

This allegedly took place after he invited Mr Tan Jee Say to be part of his think tank.

The second low point was when Mr Tan Jee Say received his certificate of eligibility.

Mr Tan Kin Lian said one of the criteria to qualify for the certificate is that the individual has to head a company with at least $100 million in paid-up capital, and he says Mr Tan Jee Say did not qualify in this area.

Mr Tan Kin Lian also shared two high points in his campaign.

The first was when he found out that many people are supporting him in the election.

Another high point was when his strategic team came up with the message for his campaign, which is to be the voice of the people, and the five values of positive attitude, public service, courage, fairness and honesty.

The Election Dilemma and the President Idol

In the recent general election, the majority of us did not vote for an MP. The GRC system meant that most of us actually chose between teams of MPs offered by the PAP and opposition parties.

The dilemma was that in some cases, to cast a vote for someone we wanted as an MP, we inevitably also had to support someone we would prefer not to see in Parliament. On the other hand, this could also drag his/her team down.

With the official nomination of the 4 Tans as presidential candidates, voters face a different dilemma at our upcoming presidential election.

Say you are firmly of the view that the president should be not be a former PAP MP or Minister, and would be happy to have either Tan Kin Lian or Tan Jee Say as president. You believe that a slight majority of Singaporeans share your view, and that the ideal outcome would be that either one of them wins the election.

But who would you vote for? As with the Prisoners’ Dilemma, you might want to take a stab at guessing how your like-minded citizens might vote. If the votes are split down the middle, it is unlikely that either candidate will win.

In a curious case of divine impartiality, the same applies to those on the pro-PAP camp.

Someone has suggested having two rounds of elections, the second being between the top two candidates in the first. While the proposal has its merits, it is clearly not going to happen on 27 August 2011.

To “neutralise” the huge difference in country audience sizes, SMS voters in the Asian Idol competition had to name two countries; it has been argued that Singapore’s Hadi Mirza won the title of Asian Idol not because he was the best singer, but because he was the “safe choice”.

It is not a close parallel, since voters for the Asian Idol were required to select two choices. Nonetheless, the “safe choice” theory suggests that the candidate who wins may not be the most-loved, but simply the least despised.

But this is not an ideal outcome for Asian Idol, and even less so for a presidential election.

Tan Kin Lian for President

The inaugural contested presidential election is here. This Wednesday would be a milestone in Singapore's history. For too long the presidents have been selected by the PAP, even after the elected presidency was enacted in 1991. This time, still smarting from the humiliation in the GE months ago and the spirit of soul-searching still in the PAP psyche, the PAP turned away for once and let the Presidential Elections Committee do its job. Consequently, there are four individuals who would stand for elections this Wednesday. All Tans, all hoping to be president, all have their flaws, all have their strengths.

The Room for Independents

I've always thought that there is ample space for independents in politics. Not only because of the romantic appeal of the underdog especially in a PAP-dominated Singapore, but also because independents don't have the baggage of party politics and history trailing them. Tan Cheng Bock, Tan Jee Say and Tony Tan have all offficially left their respective parties but around their necks, I still see the faint signs that say - PAP, SDP and PAP respectively. That Tan trio can never truly distance themselves from their political roots. Tony Tan and Tan Cheng Bock would still be loyal to some of their former PAP comrades at least, if not to the PAP itself. And the same would be so for Tan Jee Say, who flew the SDP flag merely months ago too at the GE. If a former PAP member is elected as the president after 27 August, he would draw disdain from segments of the public. Similarly for the former SDP member as there would be those in the crowd who would prefer a PAP man over someone from the SDP camp.

Community, Ceremony and Constitution First, not Party Prejudices

The president in Singapore performs constitutional, ceremonial and community roles and should he be beholden to any political party, he cannot carry out those roles to the best of his abilities. Party prejudices would cloud the president's office and undermine the office in the eyes of the public. Furthermore, Singapore is a parliamentary system and the president's office should not be backdoor for opposition parties to sneak into parliament.

With a president who is not aligned with any party, the opportunities of gridlock brought about by party politics is significantly reduced. The PAP-dominated parliament would be more open to listen to an independent president, partly as a public relations demonstration of their growing openness to win the voters over in time for their next election. Furthermore, in the eyes of the PAP, it is best that their henchman becomes president. But in the end with the expected anti-PAP resentment still fresh after the GE, preferable that an independent they can reason with who sits at the Istana rather than a card-carrying member of the opposition intent on blocking anything because of party agenda.

The Path Ahead for an Apolitical Presidency

Hence, to apoliticise the presidency, and in the spirit of the elected presidents from Ong Teng Cheong to SR Nathan, the choice is clear to voters like me who want to see the assertion of the political independence of the president's office. From Ong Teng Cheong who was a minister and NTUC leader, to SR Natan who was a senior civil servant, the natural evolution in the apoliticisation of the elected president would leave us with Tan Kin Lian, someone from a cooperative. He is qualified with regards to his Income stewardship and has remained independent through the GE and has no political ambitions in that sense or else he would have joined the opposition. His critics spread that he is a former PAP member and thus tainted. However, he left the PAP in the early 1980s and that is a long time ago for him to retain party loyalties.

When Tan Kin Lian officially commits himself to the presidential race in a few days, he would get my vote.

Internal Politics and Knifing

Fascinating to see political parties indulging in internal politics. During the GE, the parties were fencing with each other. Mostly gentlemanly except for the innuendos of gay agenda of a party by a minister and attacks on a bimbo politician who brandished a Kate Spade bag in a private photo. After the GE, the biting and scratching were not at other parties, but within parties. In particular, WP, NSP and PAP.

WP Tension

The tension within the Workers' Party was evident when Eric Tan who contested in the East Coast GRC, resigned after he was not offered the NCMP position. That coveted appointment, foot-in-the-door into parliament to showcase to voters in the next GE was given to Gerald Giam instead. Why Eric Tan, a veteran of the 2006 GE where he also stood in East Coast GRC, was not selected were for strategic reasons. Gerald Giam should be given the exposure in parliament as he has more years ahead of him. Disagree or agree, Eric Tan quit the party not 3 months later but immediately once the decision was public. The longer he delayed his resignation, the less he linked it with the NCMP chair passed to a younger inexperience candidate, and the less the damage to WP. Some called him petty and that he placed personal interests before party interests, the euphemism for "selfish". Not many emphatised with him and the fact that he was older, was around since the GE 2006 and thus had more experience to share in parliament compared to Gerald Giam.

The WP wanted to pander to the younger voters and Gerald Giam it was. Eric Tan's sense of betrayal was expected but the extent he was disappointed was unexpected. Would Eric Tan soon defect to another party to further show his resentment? Another party like WP which did well in the GE despite not winning any wards?

NSP Intrigue

Another post-GE internal politics fallout is based on rumours, but there is no smoke without fire as they say. NSP members, among them Gilbert Goh and Goh Meng Seng, supposedly met Joseph Ong who is an associate of the disreputable Temasek Review. Goh Meng Seng denied there was a meeting while someone else refuted the NSP secretary-general's denials. This someone called himself "NSP Insider" and added that Joseph Ong wanted to pay for the legal fees of NSP Nicole Seah to sue Shin Min, for reasons unknown. However Goh Meng Seng was against it.

The backstabbing here in NSP is that there might have been a meeting that Goh Meng Seng disallowed but Gilbert Goh and others had a Faustian deal with Joseph Ong behind the NSP leader's back. It was a symptom of a larger problem of a breakdown in party cohesion. NSP is not disciplined like the WP and some factions in NSP probably were unhappy with NSP's lacklustre performance in the GE and the way NSP was heading from now.

PAP Factions

With regards to where a political party is heading from now, and forgetting its proletariat roots, can be seen in the infighting in the PAP camp in the run-up to the presidential election. Tan Cheng Bock jumped into the race, to the surprise of his former comrades. Lim Boon Heng pulled the rug from under Tan Cheng Bock's feet by not giving him a clean bill of health as he doubted the former Ayer Rajah strongman's credentials. Fearing that popular Tan Cheng Bock would become like Ong Teng Cheong in asking uncomfortable questions in parliament, the PAP looked like they had to drag out Tony Tan from retirement to run for office as a counterweight to Tan Cheng Bock. Rather that retired Tan over the other retired Tan.

Just when political shadow boxing within the PAP cannot become any more complicated, George Yeo who earlier said after he was humiliated in Aljunied GRC that he did not have the temperament to be president, hinted that he might give it a shot too. The PAP would not have supported George Yeo as his about-turn on running for president made the PAP looked like they wanted a puppet president too obviously and without finesse. Abdullah Tarmugi was probably the original puppet for the PAP but Tan Cheng Bock and George Yeo ruined the opening game for the PAP. This public display of internal politics only means one thing - they know that Lee Kuan Yew is losing his hold over the party. His eventual demise might actually spark off a breakaway PAP faction as speculated.

PAP’s GE2011 Post-mortem

Clearly, there must be, by now, a document with this title being circulated amongst PAP’s top cadre. The following is just my own stab in the dark – and if you’ve been (mis)led here by a keyword search, thinking it’s the real McCoy, I’m sorry. (And I’m not alone in saying so).

Traditionally, in Singapore politics, we can almost expect opposition politicians to trip up. In GE2001, it was Chee Soon Juan heckling the PM. In GE2006, it was the James Gomez saga. This year, we had Kenneth Jeyaretnam misquoting PM in a condolence letter.

Conversely, it was a given that PAP would roll a near-perfect score. Candidates with impeccable resumes would be trotted out; not all are eloquent but by-and-large, all generally somewhat likable. If all candidates were stripped of party affiliation, it would be a fair statement that the majority would chose the PAP candidates. Add the party’s huge resources, and every move is strategically-motivated and ably executed, leaving very little to chance.

But the tide seems to have turned in GE2011, with a 6.5% slip in votes and the loss of a GRC. Did the PAP play its cards wrongly this time? Or is the PAP’s new vulnerability a result of the shifting sands?

Let’s look at what I consider to be the three key mistakes in PAP’s GE2011 campaign.

[Note: Here, I define a “mistake” as something that – on hindsight – one wishes that one had not done; even so, I understand that you may not agree with what I consider a mistake, and if so, I’m sorry (again).]

Mistake 1: Fielding Tin Pei Ling. With the massive negative reaction following TPL’s introduction, the PAP could have shelved her candidature for one term; by their own admission, PAP has a slate of reserve candidates which included at least one surgeon. But, no, PAP chose to drive her into Parliament in the armoured convoy known as Marine Parade GRC. The convoy made it, but not without significant battle damage; SM Goh Chok Tong has announced his retirement from the Cabinet’ speculation is that it is linked to his GRC’s low share of votes.

Mistake 2: The Steve Tan faux pas. Clearly the PAP’s due diligence process is showing some cracks; perhaps there are some things that do not come up in polite conversation over a cuppa. In any case, Tanjong Pagar MP Baey Yam Keng was sent east to fill the ranks while overnight MP Dr Chia Shi-Lu got to walk(over) into Parliament as part of MM Lee Kuan Yew’s armoured convoy. (MM has since announced his retirement along with SM Goh, which makes one wonder if it has anything to do with his remarks on the Muslim integration or about Aljunied voters repenting).

The biggest mistake, IMHO, is to play for broke in Aljunied. With the GRC system, the nomination of candidates is akin to the game of Chinese poker. You can either spread out your chances or go for broke. It is not necessary a winning strategy – WP won both in Aljunied and Hougang; SPP lost both Potong Pasir and Bishan-Toa Payoh.

It was politically unfeasible to move FM George Yeo into a ‘safe’ ward. PM upped the ante in Aljunied with the announcement that MP Zainal Abidin would be Speaker of Parliament. Newbie (and touted 4G leader) Ong Ye Kung was probably sent there on account on his being more charismatic than the other new recruits. Still, this set proved no match for the WP’s A-team.

During the fog of the hustings, it was passé to praise but kosher to criticize. It was too easy to overlook the successes of the PAP administration over the past 5 years, especially during the Global Financial Crisis, where the introduction of Workfare and Jobs Credit effectively staved off unemployment, or new developments such as the Marina Bay area, Sentosa’s Resort World and the F1 night race.

In GE2011, PM Lee earned a mixed mandate. While PAP as a whole has lost points, PM’s Ang Mo Kio GRC enjoyed one of the strongest returns, providing him with moral authority that was not available to him in GE2006. The departure of MM Lee, SM Goh, Wong Kan Seng, Mah Bow Tan and Raymond Lim further heralds the possibility of changes, and the one clear message from GE2011 is that changes need to be made. Not only in the Cabinet, but also within the PAP itself.

GE: One Week Later

Things are still falling into place about one week after the milestone 2011 election in Singapore's opposition history, besides other significant periods. 1968 and the irresponsible Barisan Socialis boycott and the chance for PAP to monopolise parliament until 1981. 1981 and the Anson By-election. 1984 and Anson and Potong Pasir. The breakthrough 1991 and 20 years later, 2011.


PAP Looking Ahead and Making the Right Sounds For Now

On the PAP front, the most startling and welcomed news is that MM Lee Kuan Yew and SM Goh Chok Tong are finally giving up their Cabinet positions, if the PM accepted their resignations. Finally, and it is about time. Looking at the recent political damage done by the two former PMs of Singapore to their own party especially, their departure from cabinet is long overdue. MM Lee's hard truths on the supposed lack of Malay integration which is perhaps partly true and partly false depending on perspective, did not sit well with politically correct Singaporeans. SM Goh also did his fair bit to provoke Singaporeans in October 2010 when he mused why he should continue to work for Singaporeans who felt that they didn't belong to Singapore. Nobody wanted him to work at all and for him to be paid millions if you asked me. The GE period recently also showed how these two old men managed to sabotage PM Lee's PAP's campaign which was already being shaken. MM Lee's repent ultimatum to Aljunied residents and SM Goh's desperate attempts to protect George Yeo at the expense of other cabinet ministers showed that PM Lee was not using the Whip enough, if at all.

The resignations suggested that the PAP has got it into their thick heads that Singaporeans are frustrated with retired PMs who are holding cabinet positions and getting million dollar salaries. Naturally if the two former PMs want to contribute, they can contribute pro bono or at an MP allowance which is what they are proposing to do now. It is assuring that the PAP is making quick moves to demonstrate that they are trying to win back Singaporeans, after winning the recent GE by one of the lowest winning margin in years.


WP is Already Ahead and Looking Good

Lots have been said on the WP and the WP is basking in its glory as it rightly should. They were good sportsmen when they won Aljunied, just like the PAP Aljunied team was also quite gracious when their faces were pushed into the mud. However, the Eric Tan debacle showed that while WP's pre-GE and GE discipline is exemplary, cracks are surprisingly beginning to show post-GE. Coldly calculated, the choice of Gerald Giam over Eric Tan as NCMP actually underlined WP's strategic view and its willingness to offend its key party members for the party's long term good. The whole of Singapore would be watching when WP sits in parliament soon and how WP is going to use not only the 6 MPs, but the 2 NCMPs as well. Former NCMP and now MP Sylvia Lim already left big shoes for her WP NCMP cadres to step into.

The Other Opposition Merely Looked Good

The other political parties are also coming to terms in their defeat in the 2011 GE. Some might have improved in their performance from GE 2006 but in a GE and as long as the opposition candidates were not elected into parliament, it does not mean anything significant despite anything consoling pundits say.

The Reform Party marched into the scene with much celebratory fanfare last year but its GE performance was horrible. Kenneth Jayaretnam has been relatively quiet on his loss so far. In contrast, Goh Meng Seng from the NSP was more forthcoming on his reflections of his defeat and he gentlemanly has taken full responsibility for it. He had a good team, made up of former Reform Party members but his party's branding was hijacked by the Nicole Seah phenomenon and this showed that he might have to crack his party whip on his members like Nicole Seah who looked like they have their own independent media campaigns.

SDP despite its rebranding and hooking of a former PPS to Goh Chok Tong and the eloquent Vincent Wijesingha also failed to win any seats. SDP's performance was actually disappointing as they had a strong new media campaign as well which surpassed that of the other parties including WP. However, in the end in SDP's case, there was a limit to how much Internet campaigning and popular culture branding worked in getting votes. SDP's Danny the Bear was also a novelty at best and a cheapening and trivialisation of SDP's political message at worst.

In contrast to the WP victories in Aljunied and Hougang, SPP's defeat in Bishan-Toa Payoh and Potong Pasir did mar Singaporeans' optimism in opposition strongholds lasting forever. What rubbed salt into the wound in Potong Pasir, albeit SPP did what they could to calm their people, was the petty petition by some Potong Pasir residents who insinuated there was unfairness and were in denial over PAP's win in their SMC. Those who participated in the petition were the proverbial sore losers and their incredulous reaction from their doubt mocked the entire voting system. SPP themselves accept the results and that should be the end of it. On SPP's rocky future, Lina Chiam accepted the NCMP offer. Looking at her dismal maiden debate among political peers during the CNA panel discussion last month, the chances of Lina Chiam standing tall and toe-to-toe with PAP MPs in parliamentary debates are horribly slim. From the quality of Lina Chiam as a poltician, that NCMP slot could have been controversially surrendered and offered to WP instead, although that is a politically naive move if SPP did that.

A Tale of Two Opposition Parties

SDP Rally at Yuhua on 29.4.11 8pm


Workers' Party and Singapore Democratic Party. One is an old brand, the other is being rebranded. The former has a more substantial manifesto. The latter's manifesto is considerably weaker in content. One has entrenched itself in a SMC and is on the verge of winning a GRC. The other is trying to reclaim its lost glory days and get a seat in parliament. One is filled with good speakers who make sense. The other is filled with mediocre speakers at best, and of which some just have rally rhetoric and made little sense. This is my experience from comparing the WP rally on 28.4.11 and the SDP rally on 29.4.11.

A Class Apart

Between the two parties, WP is more likely to beat the PAP than SDP from the way the crowd behaved. I attended the WP party Hougang SMC rally on the 28th and there was chanting of "Workers' Party", cheering and clapping. Low Thia Khiang, Sylvia Lim and the newcomer fresh off the plane Chen Show Mao had an electrifying hold over us. When Chen Show Mao appeared and greeted the crowd in Malay, Tamil, Mandarin and English, the crowd roared in approval. Low Thia Khiang wove his charismatic magic and it was clear that the crowd which numbered in the thousands that filled the field about 2-3 times a football field all backed him. I bet even the PAP supporters among them too. Especially when he said the WP as a figurative co-driver was there to slap the PAP in parliament if the PAP drove dangerously. Low also had a nice touch of formally introducing Yaw Shin Leong, ensuring a proper and official handover of Hougang.

The frenzy in the WP rally was not seen in the SDP Yuhua SMC rally on the 29th. At about 8pm on Friday night, the stadium where the SDP rally was held was sparsely populated. This was in sheer contrast to the Hougang experience where it was already packed one hour into the rally. None of the SDP speakers could move the crowd like how the WP candidates did. Ang Yong Guan from SDP tried his best to work up the crowd but his crass efforts were futile. Teo Soh Lung who was going to wrest the SMC from PAP's Grace Fu just appeared nice but she couldn't connect to the crowd particularly because of her poor command of Mandarin. One thing oddly different was also that in the SDP rally, only the speaker was on stage and everyone else was somewhere resting perhaps. Bad form. In contrast, in the WP's rally, the various candidates sat on the stage, behind the speaker, implying that they bothered to sit there, however uncomfortable it was, to try connect with the crowd and show support for their fellow candidates.

Hopes and Fat Hopes

Is the WP's A-Team going to take over Aljunied GRC at least? If the crowd reaction is any indicator, probably. No amount of upgrading promise can keep Aljunied residents voting for PAP. Unless the PAP becomes creative in its pork-barrel politics e.g. cheaper better faster childcare, elderly care and other services beside physical infrastructure.

Is SDP's A-Team going to win Holland-Bt Timah GRC? Judging from the crowd reaction and performance of the speakers, their chances are quite dismal, especially if the Holland-Bt Timah residents are confident that WP is taking over Aljunied anyway and why have an opposition like SDP in their turf?

My Fellow Bloggers...

My fellow Singaporean bloggers

I am proud to be one of you.

In a sentimental mood (and blessed with some free time), I read through some of the blog postings written ahead of the 2006 GE, and compared them to our discussions in the blogosphere today.

By and large, the quality of our discourse has improved significantly. Name-calling has (mostly) given way to robust debates on hard issues. There is an increasing segment which supports a candidate or party on the strength of its ideas and policies, not its rhetoric and personality. Consequently, the online political conversation has become a lot more substantive.

We still know how to have fun, and this wit often reflects a deeper realities a la Animal Farm. Far more than just a song and dance, we use humour to mask hidden messages about the fundamental issues at stake. Or maybe we just enjoy making each other laugh.

In any case, I am convinced that we bloggers today have a bona fide role in national discourse.

Separately, I came across this quote by the late US senator Robert F Kennedy:

“Our gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it can tell us everything about America except why we are proud to be Americans.”

I would argue that a high GNP would actually help pay for our children’s education and healthcare. But otherwise, I think Senator Kennedy has effectively captured the essence of what Americans’ real priorities were. And they had little to do with numbers.

One of the issues that appears to be shaping our upcoming GE is whether we should have cheaper HDB prices or more national reserves. Another “hot button” issue is the influx of foreigners.

While both issues can be expressed in numbers, the real question that should be addressed is: “What makes life in Singapore worthwhile?” Is it worthwhile to have flats which are worth less in future in order to have more case in hand now (or for retirement)? Is it worthwhile to have more space (and jobs) for Singaporeans if it means slower growth as a whole?