9 NCMPs up for grabs!

This is the carrot that the govt is waving at the opposition parties. They know that the opposition candidates will not win an election except for Chiam and Low. And Chiam is fading away with age. The opposition may be left with Low alone unless Chiam can find a worthy successor to replace him. So far none in sight. Chaim should consider Sylvia Lim if all else failed. But not all is lost. The opposition can now hope to contest for the 9 NCMP seats available. This is their best bet. Don't forget, we have yet to hear anything about ensuring better quality MPs, indirectly saying that the barrier could be raised. If that be the case, the opposition will have to scratch their heads botak to find better candidates to stand. They can approach Siew Kum Hong as a possible. Not to be distracted, let's return to this happy proposition that opposition parties should be gunning to be NCMPs. The govt can make this more attractive by increasing the allowance for NCMPs. Then perhaps the opposition can serious go for it. And perhaps the opposition can table a counter proposal in Parliament to have 50% of the contested wards be offered NCMP seats. That will ensure a greater presence of opposition MPs in Parliament, a livelier debate and maybe a better govt. And the ruling govt can continue to be the govt forever and ever.

Good MP, Good Govt and Good Debate

This is the heading of an article by Jeremy Au Yong that screamed across the ST yesterday. He was reporting on Swee Say's assessment on the new changes to the electoral system, that it will bring about these results. How many of you agree with this conclusion? We have good govt for many years and people are getting wealthier, buying million dollar homes without battling an eyelid. Singaporeans are very rich and and living very well. Will we be getting better govt with the changes? Will the people be better off than they were now? Some will and some will remain losers all their lives. Making any one sentence or one paragraph conclusion on this will be too simplistic as the answer can only be found across the whole population. Good MPs? According to who and to who standard of assessment? Slipper MPs are bad, that's quite obvious. What else, must be highly qualified, must be successful, must be rich, must have rich parents, must come from top schools, must have straight As? Would these be the criteria to determine good MPs? Or without these, the quality of MPs will be poor, the barrier to entry if too low will be bad? I am still pondering what is a good MP? Good debate? Do we have good debates, great debates? With 15 minutes of coverage on the TV, one can hardly form any conclusion about the quality of debate, if there was a debate at all. Most often it was either govt MPs praising the govt or govt MPs talking down to the 3 opposition MPs. The provision of more NCMPs is just a side show. Nice to have but mostly inconsequential. What the Parliament needs are MPs of the people's choice, elected by the people under a system that is fair and equitable to all parties. Go back to the single ward representation of the past, and lower the financial barriers to entry. Let the potential MPs stand out and present themselves to the people first, convince the people that they are worthy to be an MP and get voted into the Parliament. Only then will we have a real Parliament of the people, by the people and for the people. Only then can we have MPs defending the rights of the people and not defending the interests of their parties. Retain a few 3 member GRCs to ensure minority representation and the rest can go straight to the people and let the people decide what they think is good for them. The electorate is well educated and mature today. On the other hand, let me offer a simplistic view here, good debates do not guarantee good govt. So it is better to have a business like govt and a not so good debate in Parliament. To have good MPs, good debates and good govt, is like having the cake and eats it. Too good to be true.

MP, NMP and NCMP

The new changes to the electoral system and membership of parliament are going to be met with a dosage of cynicism. What would these terms MP, NMP and NCMP mean now? Members of Parliament, Non Members of Parliament and Not Counted Members of Parliament? In a way they could literally mean these. The Nominated MPs are nominated, not elected and have limited rights. So are the Non Constituency MPs. They are MPs but not MPs. What many have missed is Low Thia Kiang's point that the Parliament is a sitting of elected MPs. The MPs must be elected by the people to represent them. By all these tweakings, would our Parliament become a Parliament dominated by MPs that are not elected by the people? And they can talk until the cows come home, but they are inconsequential when come to voting for bills to be passed by Parliament. So to call the NMPs and NCMPs as Non MPs and Not Counted MPs are not too far off. Just another way of looking at things.

The Straits Times explained

After the censure and comments in Parliament, Han Fook Kwang reluctantly explained the position of the ST's coverage of the Aware saga. He would not want to, for his view is that the ST only reports factually and correctly and the readers are left to their own conclusion. Then why were there accusations that the ST coverage was biased? Why would a non partisan reader like me found the ST coverage more on a single factor, the religious encroachment into a secular organisation and the skimming through of another major issue, the CSE curriculum that Aware was teaching to the children? Sure the ST did reported on this. But Han Fook Kwang also admitted that the coverage could have been better on this. The question is that the ST, the reporters and editors, are all professionals. Didn't they see or know that their coverage was lob sided until the public had to point it out? Lob sided articles are fair game in cyberspace where objectivity and professionalism are not the hallmark of netizens. Netizens mostly do not care a dime about being professional or being objective, being fair. Many do not claim to be. In the case of the professionals, such traits and approach are their bread and butter and cannot be lightly dismissed as another case of irrational exuberance. Did they got carried away by the event? Han Fook Kwang's letter in the ST claimed that 'Our job is to report accurately and fairly what is happening and to make sense of it for our readers so they can draw their own conclusions.' He also said this, 'We have also carried out our own internal review of our coverage and have found that we could have done better in several respects.' And he stands by the professionalism of his reporters. "The Straits Times has no hidden agenda to push this line or that, or to favour one group against another.' This is most assuring.

Of mollycoddled and mollycoddling

Why are Singaporeans taking issue with Sam Tan about them being mollycoddled by the govt? Singaporeans, especially the losers are quite sick actually. When they face a little difficulty they called for the govt to help, for free handouts. Why don't they stand up for themselves, tighten their belts, work doubly hard and create opportunities for themselves to make more money? There are so many successful people here, many earning millions and have millions in their saving accounts. The losers should learn from these successful people and stop expecting help from the govt. They must help themselves, be self reliant. If I only have a few millions in my savings account, I too will talk like that. And tell the losers off. Unfortunately I can't.

Say a word for the little people

Many Singaporeans are involved in the stock market. Some have fallen victims to the harsh and excessive penalties imposed by the SGX for small mistakes that they made while trading, ie, selling shares that they did not own. To err is human. A slight mistake like this will cause the small investors a $1000 fine! This may be chicken feed to the big boys in SGX who only know money in the millions and millions. So setting a $1000 penalty for a minor mistake may be very kind in their eyes, but it is a big sum of money to many people. The SGX’s justification is to curb short selling that will affect the market, or cause more work to buy in for their staff. What utter rubbish. The 5 lots or 20 lots that a small investor sold by mistake, intentional or otherwise, will have minimal or no impact on the price of the shares. It is the big boys that short sell in hundreds of thousands, or millions, that will distort the market in their favour. They should be the one that needs to be hauled up and punished. The second reason is more unreasonable. Buying in is the job of the SGX. They cannot penalize small investors with a sledgehammer because they did not like to do it, too many buy ins too troublesome. The more freaking thing is that the small investors are the customers of the SGX. And when they make mistakes, instead of helping them, they got slammed with a sledghammer. How's that for taking good care of your customers? What kind of attitude is this? Small investors tremble in fear when they make such a mistake and pay heavily for it. And they are not commiting a crime against anyone. I think in the courts of law, many more serious crimes could be fined for less than a $1000. Here we are talking about a human error. Now, while Parliament is in session, I can only hope that some MPs would raise this issue for the sake of the small investors. The small investors are simply helpless in the face of such unreasonable, disproportionate and costly penalty. Or maybe the sum of $1000 is also too small in the eyes of the MPs and no one thinks that this is an issue.

Opposition MPs deserved to be respected

Was it a coincidence, or Media Corp read what I posted about the lack of coverage on opposition MPs in the Parliament report? Both were unlikely. It was probably their way of scheduling whose turn to appear on TV, and last night I saw Sylvia Lim, Low Thia Kiang and even Chiam See Tong’s face on the news. So strange. For quite a while, opposition MPs were somehow treated in a less friendly way by the media and also in Parliament. They were kind of like the enemies of the people, out to subvert the govt, to do the country in. They were like thugs or gangsters, probably carrying guns and acid into Parliament. In short they were up to no good and should be kept at a dismissive distance. Actually the opposition MPs are also the people’s elected representatives to Parliament. They deserve to be respected and treated with some decency and decorum. Treating them otherwise, humiliating them, spitting at them, mocking at them, etc is as good as showing no respect to the people who elected them and whom the MPs were representing. By adopting such a negative stance, it will only accentuate a deep divide among parliamentarians in the highest house of the land. We do not want our parliamentarians to drift down to a state when they hurl shoes or throw chairs at one another. The parliament is a place to contest ideas in a honourable and respectful way. It is not a place to run down one another at the slightest opportunity, right or wrong, like little boys and girls do, to look smug. Our Parliament can be a model parliament where debates and issues are discussed seriously, vehemously, and logically, where parliamentarians fight vigorously over issues instead of taking snipe attacks at one another. We are a mature first world country and our parliamentarians should behave likewise, with great honour, graciousness and humility, while pursuing their political objectives and championing the cause of the people. Chok Tong has fired the first salvo to be fairer to the opposition, to listen to their views. Let’s make this real for once. We need to grow up and behave like adults.

Thank you Malaysia

Malaysia is keeping Mas Selamat for two years. This is the best favour that Malaysia can do for us. Now we don't have to house him in an expensive landed property in one of the choices part of the island. And we don't have to feed him, cloth him, make sure he is well. The best part is not having to worry that he will run away again. This will now be Malaysia's problem. For the next two years, it is unlikely that Mas Selamat will be able to escape from the Malaysian detention camp. He can only be free if Malaysia agrees to let him go, in two years time. The worry will start only then.

Changes to electoral system counter productive

The changes as announced will ensure more alternative views from NMPs. That is ok. As for the possibility of more opposition MPs or NCMPs, that may not be a good thing given that opposition MPs are mostly very simplistic in their views, of no substance and only opposed for opposition's sake. And by looking at the Parliamentary proceedings, it is clear that when NMPs talked, they will be listened to without much rebutting. But when simplistic opposition MPs talked, you can expect immediate rebuttals. Their views are just not worth anything. So the new changes may be a contradiction. The offering of more single seat wards may not see more than the current two opposition MPs. The better qualified and talented MPs that were selected through a thorough system of screening will definitely won in SMCs if they are contested. And they must all be very eager to take on the less talented opposition candidates. Let's see who is going to take on Low Thia Kiang and Chaim See Tong and win. If they can beat these two, then maybe they are really something. It will be quite embarrassing if they can't even beat MPs that are simplistic and say things that are not worth listening to.

Low Thia Kiang simplistic

Indranee Rajah said Low Thia Kiang was simplistic when the latter called for a stronger opposition to prevent and check a govt from becoming corrupt. The equally simplistic view is to believe that a strong govt will never be corrupt. Both views are equally simplistic without elaboration and qualification. By the way, what is the definition of corruption? Corrupt or not corrupt according to who? Yesterday in parliament I think most will agree that Low Thia Kiang was simplistic simply because when put to a vote, it is likely that there will be 82 MPs voting that it is so. So it is a numerical fact, a numerical truth. So a person can become simplistic in a situation when the majority point a finger at him and said, yes he is simplistic. The majority is right. Using the same logic, if we were to put it to a vote in cyberspace and the majority view will prevail, which view will be called simplistic? Low Thia Kiang's or Indranee Rajah's? Shall we have a vote on this? I think with the change that Chok Tong is calling for, maybe there will be less dismissive statements levelled at the opposition members. By being inclusive and willing to hear alternative views, maybe there will be more chances of opposition views being listened to and pondered over with without being brushed off immeidiately as superficial. Personally I don’t think Low Thia Kiang is being simplistic by making that remark. I think there is a lot of wisdom in his statement. Oh dear, now I will also be branded as another one with simplistic views. Pai seh man. Is our system beyond reproach for corruption? So far the most often spoken view in public is that our system is free of corruption. I am sure all Singaporeans will swear that this is the truth if they were asked to state their views. I too will swear that this is true. We should pat ourselves on our back to be able to tell the world that this is the pride of all Singaporeans. Would this view be changed some day?

How much did GIC lose?

The amount lost by Temasek, 31% or about $58 BILLION has been well reported. In Parliament yesterday, this amount was again confirmed, from S$185b to S$127b. How much did GIC lose? The figure quoted in Parliament was 25%. 25% of what? How much was GIC managing? S$100b, $200b or $500b? Presumably GIC was managing more than Temasek. At $200b, 25% is $50 BILLION. At $500b, 25% will be $125 BILLION. So what is the actual amount lost by GIC? The MPs were asking for more transparency. Will more be made known given the changing mindset towards a more transparent and more accountable system? The leader of the opposition, Inderjit Singh, was speaking in his usual role and supported by several MPs on this issue.

Where are the opposition MPs?

I watched the Parliament report on Channel 5 last night hoping to see Chiam See Tong or Low Thia Kiang speaking in Parliament. No clips on them and Sylvia Lim either. I saw a lot of Siew Kum Hong. But yesterday's Parliament appeared to be hosted by Amy Khor. She was everywhere. So the opposition MPs must all be sleeping. Then I turned on the ST today. Oh, Low Thia Kiang did make a pretty long speech. At least the ST was generous enough to offer him some space, but no picture still. Can Channel 5 be generous enough to give a little coverage to the opposition MPs? If not, if they are not seen, people may think that they are all sleeping.

Vote the LGBTs to Parliament

I was reading Yawning Bread and the author lamenting why the conservatives could not be persuaded by reasons and wanted their conservative way of life. I would like to suggest to the LGBTs to form a political party, get themselves into Parliament and amend the laws for a more liberal lifestyle, more alternative choices for the future. That will settle once and for all the angst that they are feeling from the pressure and pain inflicted on them by the conservatives. If the LGBTs feel strongly that this is the direction for the new world, be brave and passionate, go forth and push their agenda in Parliament.

Change must be fair, says Chok Tong

Chok Tong has spelt out three fundamental principles for change in the political system. First, 'they must be fair to all contesting parties and "not be biased in favour of one party or the other".' Second, 'they must result in a strong, effective Govt.' And third, they must 'facilitate representation for diverse views in parliament, including views of Opposition parties.' For Chok Tong to talk about a fairer system and the representation of diverse views, including opposition views, is a sign that there is an opening up, a change in the PAP's dominant ideology. Before this, the PAP's position is to win all the seats at all costs, be there opposition in Parliament or otherwise. Perhaps PAP has become wiser, knowing that there are values to have real alternative views, and that they really do not have the monopoly of talent and wisdom. Perhaps they also realised that a time has come when the people forming the opposition parties are decent and respectable people that will contest the election fairly and not to do Singapore in. And many could have very similar values with the PAP except with some differences here and there. Now we will have to see what are the changes and whether they conform to this new paradigm shift, to be more inclusive, more willing to listen and accept opposition as part and parcel of a mature political system. In the first principle above, it wil be interesting to see how this could be done to be seen as being fair by the opposition parties and not fair according to what PAP thinks is fair. The third principle is much easier to attain by working out some formula for greater participation in Parliament. The most tricky part is the second principle. How could a system ensure that there will be 'a strong, effective Govt?' Strong means a big majority. Effective means the candidates must be straight As material. To make these compatible with the second principle will not be easy. We will wait and see the details.

Shambolical sagas awaiting closures

The two sticky sagas that were the preoccupations of Singaporeans for all the wrong reasons are still alive and awaiting a proper closure. The avoidance of giving each of them a decent burial is unacceptable and shows an arrogance of power or an escapism, that given time they will fade away and forgotten. I am referring to the way the national table tennis coach was given a miss from the Coach of the Year Award that many feel he rightly deserved and the role of educating children on sexuality. In the Liu Guodong case, a little grace and magnanimity, a little humbleness, would have gone a long way. What happened and dragging the issue for so long is pride, personal pride and pride of an organisation. For such a happy event, the winning of an Olympic silver medal to become a political tussle and the victim, as seen in the eyes of the public, was Liu Guodong, is regrettable. This impression will not go away by keeping quiet and not facing the issue. If from the beginning there was a little graciousness, a little forgiveness, there could have been a happy ending despite the little mishaps along the way. It may be a little late now, but still not impossible to have a good closure. Until then, officialdom appears to have won, but in contempt of public feelings. Why is there no proper closing of the sexuality education saga? Until today, some sectors of the population, some organisations, still think that they have the right to invade into the role of parenting. And they think that whatever values that are good in their eyes should be taught to other people's children. And yes, they think they are the guardians, the beacons of light for the education of the young in controversial values like pre marital sex and homosexuality. And parents should shut up and leave it to them to do the job, to bring up their children. And none of them has expressed any remorse in overstepping their roles and violating into an area that is not theirs in the first place. To some parents, this intrusion is unwelcome and offensive. Your lifestyle is your lifestyle, your own choosing. What is good, what makes you happy, is based on your own subjective morals of the good life. Other people have their own versions of the good or normal life and patronising them or chastising them that they are wrong smacks of sheer arrogance. Parents, working with the MOE, should reclaim this right to educate their children in the values that they believed in. No group is superior and have the superior values to think that they should be the right people to do this job. This message must be made loud and clear. The MOE should also put in place a system that will not allow individuals or groups to hijack the education programme to push through their private agendas, to implant a new set of values to the young in violation of the official objectives. So far no one seems to have done this and the cane has not been used. Would there be an inquiry on how it could have happened? We need a closure on this.

The warming up after the thaw

Singapore's relationship with Malaysia was mended and set in order during the premiership of Badawi. After several decades of Mahathirism, when relationship between the two states went on a roller coastal ride, of extreme highs and lows, but mostly lows, it took Badawi several years to thaw the thick ice built by his predecessor. The last few days we have played host to Najib in a much friendlier atmosphere with great promises of more cooperation and cosying up to each other in economic and international affairs. Badawi took a brave stand to dismantle the crooked bridge that was more a hindrance than an improvement in facilitating communication of goods and people through the causeway. If it was allowed to replace the causeway, it would become a major obstacle course for the people trying to cross the Straits of Johore. It is near impossible to think of walking across as conveniently as what they are doing now. Najib has more or less driven the last nail to this bizarre concept of a crooked bridge. The possibility of a widen causeway, the most logical and economical option, is now on the table. But a bridge still must be built and Najib offers a more logical and sensible proposal, a new bridge to the east of the causeway to facilitate and promote economic development and growth to a neglected region. The south eastern corner of Johore offers huge potential for development and tourism. Both the widening of the causeway, a new bridge in the east, are practical proposals that will surely be met with equal enthusiasm from the Singapore side. Throughout Najib's visit, the undertone of the message coming through is one of a very careful and pragmatic man wanting better cooperation and relations that will benefit the people of both countries. Najib is looking into a new future, taking off from a stronger foundation laid by Badawi instead of going back in time to a creaking structure of Mahathir. From the reactions of the Singapore side, my assessment is that Najib will be a welcomed PM to build better ties, and his proposals will be taken up seriously. He is the best bet to continue the work of Badawi and for the two countries to mend ties and move forward together. The question is whether the Mahathirism that is still alive in many of his cabinet members and in Johore will allow Najib to open up a new era of cooperation and mutual prosperity between the two countries. Have the bad blood been cleansed? If not, Najib would need a major blood transfusion exercise to clear his administration before he can move forward with his new vision and style of govt. The future of better ties is much more brighter. The thaw is now warming up. This is a great moment to seize for both Hsien Loong and Najib to quickly move forward and dismiss the past to history.

A brilliant strategy gone awry

The concept and strategy to invest in some of the biggest financial institutions by GIC and Temasek were a brilliant move. These financial institutions are the strategic centres in the movement of funds across the world, and proxies to the world economy. Having an interest in them, a controlling stake, is akin to the days of the British Empire when they controlled all the strategic sea ports. If GIC and Temasek were successful in this endeavour, we would have transformed ourselves as the controller and master of the world financial system. Unfortunately things did not turn out as planned. I can superficially see three possible reasons for the disastrous loss of billions of our savings. 1, it could be professional incompetence. But this is unlikely to be acknowledged as everyone involved in the plans are professional trained and experts in their fields. And they must have done their due diligence. 2, and very obvious, is the blinded trust of the American system and corporate chiefs. We looked like bright eyed little children in awe of the Americans, and believing in everything they said and did, thinking that what we see would be what we get. And we bought cart loads of rotten eggs. Then when the smell came forth, the Americans came with more baskets of rotten eggs, and we bought again, trusting them completely. Now we knew that the system was rotten and the salesmen were crooks, selling rotten eggs without telling us so. 3. The third reason is providence. When the mandate of heaven is passe, no matter how brilliant and able our people are, things will go wrong, and go disastrously wrong. Man proposes, heaven disposes. Having said that, the concept and strategy are still sound and should not be forsaken just because of the failure. With the experience of all the bunglings, we could be wiser in making our next move. Of course, hoping at the same time that providence is kinder and in our favour.

So, it is Aware's fault?

Eng Hen has spoken and that Aware's programme can only be reintroduced after it has regained the public's trust. That settles one part of the issue. The second part is how the Aware programme was allowed to be taught in the way it did for so long, and actually accepted as normal without anyone from the MOE raising an eyebrow? In fact the initial reaction from MOE official is that there were no complaints or the noises put up were groundless, unjustified emotions. Who gave the go ahead or why was there no ongoing assessment and auditing to make sure that the content was safe or acceptable? If not for the hooha, the programme would still be taught to the children without anyone getting wiser. Would there be a review and an explanation on this second part of the issue? Are the confidence and trust in MOE affected by this slip? Or MOE is totally free of blame, nothing to do with it?

HDB to build more 2 and 3 rm flats

Is this progress or regress? Or are we telling the Singaporeans that My endearing home is a 2 or 3 rm flat? Of course not. My endearing home is a freehold landed property, 20,000 sq ft, in district 10 or Sentosa. 2 and 3 rm flats are for the losers. In fact all public flats are for losers. the 2 and 3 rm flats are for those who can't even buy a 4rm flat. How many can afford to buy a 4 rm flat these days when the price is $300k to $400k or more? In my time, a single income family, a young graduate with 3 or 4 years working experience could even buy a 5 rm flat. Today, with 2 incomes, two graduates would have problems buying a 4 rm flat. Is the life of Singaporeans getting better? Of course, depending on who you are asking.

My bizarre interpretation of the 36 injuries

The coroner's report is out and it confirmed that David Widjaja died from falling. But how to explain the 36 injuries on his bodies and trunks, and a bruise on his neck. Let me to emplain, assuming that he died from the fall. David must be one of those kids that like to cut themselves. So all the wounds and lacerations must be self inflicted, cutting left, cutting right, change hand, cut and cut, all 36 times. With so many cuts, blood must be dripping all over his body and the places he walked through. As for the bruise on his neck, a karate expert chop would probably kill him or broke his neck, and leaving behind a big bruise. But if the chopper is not a karate expert, then the bruise may not kill him and will be lighter. And for the many other bruises and abrasions, he must have rolled and rolled as he landed from his fall, like a judoka trying to break his fall. My interpretation is not meant to be true. Just bizarre.