The perpetual strawman for whacking

‘Only US can balance China’, why not ‘Only China can balance the US?’ Why is it necessary to keep the Americans interested in the Western Pacific to balance the influence of China and not keeping the Chinese interested to balance the influence of America? The inherent biased of a WOG or a western biased viewpoint of international balance of power is obvious. China is the perpetual strawman for whacking. ‘You can take Japan, Korea, Asean, and even include Taiwan and India, but you cannot balance China. It is too big. Only with the US and its superior technology can you balance China.’ Why not, ‘You can take Japan, Korea, Asean, and even include Taiwan and India, but you cannot balance the US. It is too big. Only with China and its superior technology can you balance the US?’ This western view has always placed China as the rogue nation, or the nation that is dangerous and all out to bully the smaller nations. In reality, the rogue nation is always the US. Look at the wars and the bullying of smaller nations across the world map. Who is bullying the smaller countries? But if one eats too many hamburgers and potatoes, one’s is gonna look at China like a potato or a hamburger, or think like a potato or hamburger.

Who shall decide who can be President?

Tan Cheng Bock is thinking of standing for the elected Presidency and has to meet the eligibility criteria of the PEC. The criteria include the following to ensure candidates are people of integrity, good character and reputation: 1. At least 45 years 2. Held key appointments such as minister, chief justice, speaker or permanent secretary for not less than 3 years, or been chairman or chief executive of a statutory board. 3. Or similar or equivalent positions in the private sector. The above criteria mean that one must be some big shot or else not good enough even if one is a person of integrity, good character and reputation. A school teacher, school principal, a GP, an accountant, a lawyer, a successful insurance or housing agent, a good social worker, an academic etc etc, will not be considered as good enough. Why? MP also cannot? Not perm sec also cannot? The criteria are actually PAP’s criteria. Do the people have any say in them? Who should decide the eligibility criteria for an elected President, the people or a political party that is in power?

Political appointments are not employments

There are so many views and suggestions on how the Ministerial Salary Review shall be conducted. From a human resource point of view, I think it is necessary to revisit the fundamentals. What is a minister or an MP? With that understanding, we may then approach the design of its compensation in a way that is appropriate to the nature of the position. A minister is not a job like any job, but a political appointment. Just like MPs, they are all elected representatives of the people but holding a higher office for a duration of 5 years. Period. It does not have an unending tenure of service. The fact that some of our ministers have been serving for decades is a peculiarity that may not happen in the future. Even if it does, each period of appointment is a new term of service, unrelated. Why are people talking about annual appraisal, salary increment, bonuses, pension etc etc that are part and parcel of an employee of an organization? What do these terms have to do with a political appointment with a short mandate from the people? A Prime Minister may want to appraise the performance of his ministers and reshuffle his cabinet as he deems fit. That is his prerogative. Is he also thinking of the annual appraisal of an employee which ends with a salary increment or performance bonus? Who is the employer and who is paying for the increment? If the employer is the ruling party, and the money is from the ruling party, by all means, do whatever they like. The employer of the politicians is the people, who voted them for a fixed term of 5 years. They will then have to seek the people’s mandate for another 5 year term. The people/employer will then decide if they want to give them another 5 years. It is like a contract for service with fixed terms. With this kind of contract, the remuneration for the ministers and all politicians shall be a fixed sum for the duration of the mandate. The issue of annual increment does not come into play. It is a package deal for 5 years. Bonus and pension too have no place in such political appointments. If there is any reward for politicians who have served for an exceptional long period of time, this may be provided as a form of one time gratuity to the deserving politician on a separate basis. The same could also apply to the head of govt or head of state as exceptions to the rule. It shall not be an across the board provision for every political office holder as if they are employees. The other important issue is who shall decide how much to pay the politicians? Obviously it is not right for them to approve their own pay cheque. A neutral Salary Review Commission can be appointed as what is already done. The approval shall come from the people through a referendum, something similar to shareholders approving the remunerations of the Board of Directors in an AGM. At most, this may be held once every 5 years or over a longer period if the economic condition or inflation has not deflated the value to of the compensation package to make it meaningless or unattractive. No political party must get away with the impression that once they are elected, the Treasury is their piggy bank and they can create as many appointments as they like to reward their members. Politicians going into politics, to be elected by the people are there to serve the people. They do not join politics as an employment with a career path and a life long pay package. If the current thinking is to go by, the govt will have to set up a human resource ministry to administer performance appraisal on the politicians, including the Prime Minister. Staff performance will become another job specifications for the Prime Minister and Ministers, and of course a salary scale, including a scale for the MPs, and all the terms of conditions of employment. After so many years of one party rule, the people have been distracted to think that ministerial appointments and political appointments are jobs, a career with career path and salary scale. Every year the incumbents can look forward to promotions, career advancement, annual increments and bonuses and pensions. Grandfather’s company? If the political climate is changed and after every election there is a change of govt, all the suggestions for performance appraisal, salaries, bonuses etc etc will become obsolete, irrelevant even if provided for. Please don’t get confuse. A politician and political appointment is not a job. Let the people decide how much they should be remunerated as a package for a fixed term of appointment. Nothing more, nothing less. If they want more, seek another mandate from the people and approval from the people. The current govt has been entrenched for too long to forget that they are not employees of the state like the civil servants. There is no contract of service and no terms of employment. KPIs are being booted by everyone as if it is the main factor to determine how much must a politician be rewarded. It is superfluous actually. The KPI, if useful, is to let the people judge the performance of the politician and whether to re elect him in the next election. It must not be an instrument to reward him with more bonuses or pay increases. The performance of a politician is not for the PM to tell but the people to decide. I hope the Review Committee will approach its task from the point of a 5 year mandate and not a life long employment. They must erase the current thinking that the package comes with all the perks and terms of an employee.

Alice in Water Wonderland

Alice in Water Wonderland. A masterpiece by Nature using Koi as painting material. More pics at Art of RAR Gallery on top right of page.

Daft Singaporeans are so easy to con

The COE is too expensive at $100k. Please make it cheaper. The seller says ok, I will sell it to you for $20k but for two years only. The daft Singaporeans will be so happy to grab it straight away. Woah so cheap, only $20k instead of $100k. This is the mentality of Singaporeans today. Despite the higher level of education, their ability to think clearly is still missing. What is the difference between buying a HDB that costs $400k with a 99 year lease and a $100k flat with only a 25 year lease? Oh yes, it is cheaper, can pay up the loan in 10 years instead of 30 years. Very affordable! This is the kind of suggestions that one forumer wrote in the ST today to bring down HDB price, to make it more affordable. He forgot about why the HDB price is so high in the first place, and whether it is justifiable. I am going to set up a car showroom to sell cars in pieces. The daft Singaporeans can buy the cars very cheap, but in pieces. They can buy two wheels or four wheels first. When they have more money, they can then buy the doors, the seats, and later the engine. And they will be so happy, running around screaming cheap, cheap, very affordable. Singaporeans are daft and for good reasons. Please, bring in more foreign talents to help these daft people. I feel like crying for Singapore.

Notable quote by Lim Wee Kiat

"If the annual salary of the Minister of Information, Communication and Arts is only $500,000, it may pose some problems when he discuss policies with media CEOs who earn millions of dollars because they need not listen to the minister's ideas and proposals, hence a reasonable payout will help to maintain a bit of dignity." - Dr Lim Wee Kiat, PAP MP for Nee Soon GRC, 24 May 2011 in Lianhe Wanbao PS. Lucky has posted an article on this. I just borrow the quote which says a lot about the mindset of our leaders.

Try a different thinking cap

While the Salary Review Committee is thinking, perhaps there should be a rethink on the underlying assumptions for the high ministerial salaries. One key component that was built into the salary is the amount to prevent ministers from being corrupt. The ministers’ salaries thus consist of a normal salary plus a corruption prevention factor that is undefined. Knowing how bad corruption can be at high places, the amount in consideration cannot be small to be effective. There are only 15 ministers plus another few ministers of state and parliamentary secretaries. The total would not be too big a number to monitor for corruption. Maybe we can take a different approach to this corruptibility issue. Remove the corruption prevention component, say X dollars from the pay check. Let those ministers or people in high offices try to be corrupt and let the CPIB go after them and make them pay for their bad behaviors. This approach could put to test how many genuinely good men we have and how many would turn bad. And the amount of savings can be quite substantial if the $X is big. Assuming this is $1m a year per minister, multiply by say 30, to include the other office bearers, and spread it to 50 or 100 years, my god, it is no small change. In practice, I don’t think there will be so many corrupt ministers to pilfer so much money from the system and without being caught. This is a worthwhile experiment to try. From the money to be saved point of view, it definitely makes sense. Another option is to declare the quantum provided to prevent corruption. The ministers may opt to accept this quantum to free them from the temptation. Those ministers who are confident that they will not be tempted even without this sum of compensation can opt out of it. In this way, the more righteous and upright ministers need not be forced to accept this sum of immoral money which they did not want in the first place. There will still be huge savings as many ministers are likely to refuse to accept such compensation and be seen as corruptible. You see, the rationale for this corruption prevention pay is pretty humiliating and self serving as it implies that none of them can stand firmly on the ground and resist the temptation to become corrupt. So the good ones too become tarred by accepting the payout. Time to take a new look at the rationale and a new approach to the tackling the problem of corruption.

Socialising and acclimatising the foreigners

Lately the vigour to welcome the foreigners has been neglected with focus turned to the election. Now that it is over, maybe this exercise to welcome and socialize the foreigners will take off again. I have just one suggestion to the committees organizing such programmes. And this is from the experiences of the past when the sinkehs were arriving in their cargo ships in the last century. When the early sinkehs came to this island, they were taken care of by their clansmen and they helped them to adapt and acclimatize to the local environment. Coming from temperate countries, the tropical heat can be killing. One of the mandatory rituals is to make them take early morning bath. This is to protect them from heatstroke. The side benefits were personal hygiene which actually was not of much concern in those days. Poor labourers were not too perturbed by dirty places and their sweaty and smelly bodies. They slept anywhere, wore clothes for days and bathing and washing to keep clean were furthest in their minds. Today, many new arrivals are still not conscious of their personal hygiene, the students, and the office workers included. From the smell you know that they have not taken their bath for days, or at best, in the morning before leaving for work. Imagine squeezing with them in the packed trains and buses. For goodness sake, all the programme coordinators incharge of foreigners, please do just one thing. Teach them to take bath daily, and the most important one, before leaving for work. It is not only healthy, it not only reduces heat stroke, it keeps them clean and not smelly. The locals cannot or would not want to talk to them or get near to them if the stench is unbearable. And it can become offensive and invite a negative feeling towards them. A clean and not smelling body will make them more pleasant and people will not avoid them. I have no intention to be rude. But I cannot help but to pinch my nose when the body odour from unwashed bodies is too offensive. I hope this message gets through. I want to be nice and polite to them too. I have to say it because many are suffering in silence and cursing behind their backs. PS. Wally should be happy with this.

Why are the people questioning govt policies?

The noise is getting louder. The people, well known to be daft, are questioning govt policies formulated by the top talents of the island. They are openly criticizing the high ministers’ salaries, the high public housing prices, the high influx of foreigners. My advice to the people is not to go over board. These are well though out policies that were good for the country and themselves. Without these policies in place, the island would have long turned into a big slum. It is time that they think deeply, if they can think at all, and say a big thank you for their good fortune. Don’t they want to have jobs? Don’t they want their property prices to keep going up? They need them for their retirement and to pay for world class hospital bills. Say thank you please.

More foreigners snapping up private properties

Is this news? It does not take much to buy up this piece of rock. And if the property market is open to foreigners all over the world, what is there to stop them from throwing their spare cash to wipe up everything? The foreigners in this case are the super rich, and there will always be the super rich. Let’s take a bet when the whole island will be sold to foreigners, I mean the private properties.

Different views on the ministers’ salaries

Even when Hsien Loong appointed a review committee to look at the ministers’ salaries, an indirect admission that something is not right, there are still some quarters willing to accept what it is. A letter in the ST forum talks about provisions of KPIs and measuring performance to justify the loony salaries. Really, if you let the loonies do what they want, they will pay themselves not just a few millions, but tens or hundreds of millions. I called them robbers. They are found mainly in New York where the top executives of the financial industries are exactly doing that. Even the CEO of the stock exchange was grabbing hundreds of millions at one time. There are no jobs, I mean as an employee drawing a salary, that should be paid hundreds of thousands a month except in gambling or maybe in sales. Leave aside the specialized skills, especially those involving life and death, when the practitioner can demand anything under the sky if there is a willing customer to pay for it. How could a CEO whose tasks are mainly administrative and decision making justify a $500k or $1m salary a month? Oh, his decision involves millions and billions. So by saying yes or no to billions, he must be paid a percentage of it? This has been a key justification so far. There will be different views on this. Fair enough, if the decision is right, he gets his percentage cut. What if it is wrong, is he willing to cough out a percentage of the mistake? The other justification is always the market. Let the market forces decide. Shouldn’t that be the case? In the case of political offices, there is an international market that could be used to give a reference point, at least on the upper limits and lower limits. Why is this not used? No matter how exceptional, how unique, no one in his right mind will think it is not loony to pay the head of govt in a little piece of rock more than the head of the US or any major developed country. Our talents are super talents, world best? I have no delusion about that. Our problems are exceptional and demanded extraordinary human feats. I too have no delusion about that. While the two camps are throwing out their views in the media, new media versus old media, we will have to wait for the Review Committee for their recommendations. In the meantime the supporters of loony salaries will get their views heard. The detractors too will know where they can get their views published and heard.

It's over

The lady is walking away, sad that the relationship is over. The guy is in shock. How could it be? How they felt were written all over their faces. This is an image formed by Koi fish. More pics in Art of RAR Gallery at top right.

Indians are the best financial brains

Tharman is not only the Finance Minister, he is also Chairman of MAS. And he is also Chairman of IMF’s International Monetary and Financial Committee. The MD of MAS is also an Indian. The CEO of DBS is an Indian. The CEO of CitiBank and probably several American banks and financial institutions are also of Indian origins. And the finance graduates of Indian Universities are in great demand both in the US and Singapore. The Indians have crafted a niche in the American finance industry, occupying many top and senior positions. Needless to say, many Indians are in the top echelons of the UN and IMF. The Indians shall be very proud of their finance talents and their achievements, especially Tharman, who is widely tipped as the next minority PM of Singapore.

Politicians are servants of the people too

Politicians are servants of the people. Are civil servants also servants of the people? Why should civil servants serve the people in the comfort of govt offices built and paid by the public coffers while politicians have to meet the people in void decks or in places at their own expense? Is the work and service of politicians less important than those of civil servants? We have built comfortable office buildings for Town Councils and Community Clubs for the PAs to serve the people. Is it too much to provide a reasonable office place for the MPs to serve the people in these institutions? The allowance paid to MPs will not be enough if they have to pay for an office space just to look after the people. In principle it should not be so. It is public service, and free service to the people. It is also a duty to the people. The MPs are elected by the people to serve the people and solve their problems. If the civil servants are entitled to proper office space, why can’t the elected representative of the people be entitled to one as well? It is pathetic to see the people meeting their MPs in void decks which are not meant for such purposes. Would there be a mindset change? Maybe we cannot afford such basic necessities for a servant of the people. The servants of the people can only meet the people in void decks or any little corners that are permitted by the authorities, or they will have to pay for the place. How many would accept this kind of logic inherited from the past? Change? Change is a very difficult thing to do if the heart is not there.

$10 horror movie in Woodland

The discovery of a maid who was killed and dumped into a water tank in Woodlands is turning into a horror movie. Many residents ended up bathing with the water from the tank, some boiling green bean soup, making milk for the babies, general cooking, using the piped water when the body was still in the tank. The Town Council had acted quickly to remove the body, flush and clean the tank before telling the residents that the water is safe for drinking. The residents are not happy. They have signed a petition for the tank to be changed. Some must have found this request too sensitive and unreasonable. The tank has been cleaned, no more dead body. What’s wrong with it? The Town Council has offered a $10 waiver on the conservancy fees. This has infuriated the residents even more. The cleansing and prayers for the dead maid is one thing. Normally these could let the matter to rest. What the authority fails to understand is the emotional, religious and psychological part of the affected residents. The phobia and psychological attachment to what had happened in the water tank would not simply go away to some people. Some will be terrified every time they turn on the tap, take a bath, or cook a meal. This cannot be easily explained away. Neither can those badly affected be persuaded to accept things as normal. To the extreme, some could repeatedly visualize the maid’s body still in the tank, or seeing blood when the tap is turned on. Too much horror and ghost stories, yes, and they will play on their imaginations for as long as they are living there. It is something that cannot be removed by a mere $10. The horror movie will keep on replaying in the minds of some residents, and some may even move out for a little peace of mind. Finally it was reported last night that the water tank will be removed. PS. Water is a strategic and important resource. Think of the possibilities if our water security is in the hands of wicked minds, terrorists etc? How many of our strategic and sensitive resources are in the hands of ‘harmless’ uneducated foreign workers and educated foreign talents? Keys to our drinking water in the hands of foreigners! Then, how many of our strategic installations and institutions are in the hands of foreigners? Is it a sensible thing to do? Do we have complete faith in foreigners to manage and control our sensitive and vital installations and institutions?

Ministerial Salary Review

Just a few points to add to the discussion. The appointment of the Chairman of the Review Committee desirably should be someone that is not only independent but must be seen as independent from all the parties affected. A foreign academic, a professor of some international standing can also be considered. Ideally the committee should be free to deliberate with absolutely no worries about breach of confidentiality. The concept of life long pension for elected people’s representative shall be scrapped. Elected representative of the people is not an employment where there is a career path, a route of advancement, annual appraisal and a performance bonus. It shall be a fixed allowance for the 5 year term of office. A one time gratuity may be offered to those who served at ministerial level and above and after a certain number of terms. It has been proven that many good and able citizens are willing to step forward to run for political office without the attraction of a huge payroll. A huge payroll will attract the wrong kind of people with wrong motivation. The myth that there are no good candidates without big dollars has been debunked. For comparison, the portfolio of a politician is very different from the CEOs in the private sector. The latter can be used as a kind of a guide, but one cannot totally ignore the remuneration of politicians in other countries. They are relevant and comparison with them will provide a better perspective of what public office is all about. Pay well, no one is against that. Pay well enough so that they are not tempted to be corrupt. This is a bit controversial but the people would go along up to a point. No need to pay excessively for this. If any public officer is tempted to put his fingers in the cookie jar, let the CPIB take care of it. No amount is good enough to keep a greedy person from turning bad. As for the Presidency, a totally new mindset must be applied as the current premises are far from what that office represents. A ceremonial President with no executive role except a custodial role, should remain more or less a ceremonial role. The remuneration shall be assessed accordingly. The Presidential Office shall not continue to be the joke of the people because of its grossly overpaid salary. It is already a great honour for any citizen to be elected into the Office. A decent and respectable allowance is more than adequate. Citizens seeking this office must not be attracted by the money. Some will even be willing to pay to have this honour. The dignity of the Office of the Presidency must not be tarnished by the controversy over money. An impartial and independent Review Committee is necessary to serve up a recommendation that is relatively more objective and appropriate for those in political office. There will be less doubts and controversies than what it is now.

Change is in the air

Everyone is talking about change, about throwing out old practices and policies. No sacred cows, nothing is sacrosanct. A wave of fresh air is blowing swiftly through the stale political landscape of everything is fine and everything is the best there is. The message of this new drive is that many things are not fine. But that was only a few weeks ago when everything was fine. Would the daft Singaporeans again be told that one party dominant political system is the best for them, that we are unique and cannot have multi party democracy? Would the people be told that there is no need for checks and balances, that a ruling party can check itself? Would the people be told that opposition parties are bad, the opposition politicians are out to destroy the country? There are many old mantras that are not looking like old follies. Would the daft Singaporeans still be saying ayes, ayes, we want more of the old ways? Now that the obstructing wall towards a new future is being torn down, would the Singaporeans look ahead with optimism that the future can be better, or still stuck with the old mindset that change is bad, fearing change, and crawling back into the old comfort zone? What do the Singaporeans want? Be a well fed bird in a cage, be birds in the bird park, where some are kept in cages, some allow to fly freely, within the park’s bigger net, or will they want to soar like eagles, where the limits to where they can go are limited by their own vision and resourcefulness?

The naked truth

At long last, the emperor knew that he was naked. After all the years of deception, with his merry men telling him how beautiful his clothes were, he finally knew that it was all a lie. George Yeo did his part by being the first brave man, out of desperation, to tell it right at Hsien Loong’s face. This was George’s last and most valuable contribution to his party. Reading the Sunday Times today on the slaying of the sacred cow is comical and sickening. I wanted to throw out. Was it hindsight that everyone’s comment on the outrageous minister’s salary was spot on, that it was flawed from the onset? No, it was not hindsight, it was the emperor’s new clothes that no one dared to say differently. It did not help when it was resolutely defended by the undisputed power of the land. Would any sensible person dare to defy the living gods? The minister’s salary was not the only piece of emperor’s clothes that was defended furiously. The high HDB prices, high medical fees, huge income gap, were stoutly pronounced as sound and well till the eve of the GE. The volteface, the grudging admission of failures, and the reluctant apologies, only came about when there was no way out. The emperor has spoken, face the music, admit to one’s mistakes, and no more thumping down at the people, is perhaps a bitter pill to swallow to some. The years of high and mighty, and ruthless dismissal of discontent are over. At least it appears to be so. A more accommodating and earnest approach to deal with the people is emerging. This change of heart and change of style are at a nascent stage and can end up a stillbirth. The risk is high if the reform is not resolute, to back track to the old ways. Please, let the past go, let the yodas go. Still there are many voices clamouring for the yodas to continue with their influence. Do the people really want to revisit the days of brash, unforgiving and vindictive style of politics and flawless schemes concocted in seventh heavens? The yodas pervade the establishment at all levels. They were the power wielders, having tasted power and dispensing them at the misfortune of their opponents. The old thuggish way of political contest is inimical to a gentler, more gracious and less confrontational political system and culture. Let the past go. Start with a new slate, with new people and new mindset, for a new nation, more agreeable, more listening and more consultation, when everyone with a different view is not necessary an enemy. Would there be a new dawn, or the same old morning sun?

Entrenched power, entrenched mindset

The Qing Dynasty ruled China for nearly 400 years. In its dying days it was all about power, holding on to power at all cost, no means was too harsh or brutal, as long as they could hold on to power. An entrenched power would only seek its own interest above all else. Our history has also seen a similar but shorter period of entrenched power. It has developed a mindset among the ruling class that they indeed were the rulers, destined, mandated by heaven, to be at these supreme and privilege positions. And the ruled also acquired a mindset of hopelessness, that it was their fate to be ruled. The years of ‘democrazy’ did not educate the people and the rulers that the country belongs to the people and the people are its real masters. A few weeks after the watershed GE, the old mindset of a ruling class is clearly prevalent. The rulers would not go away. They are so entrenched in their lifestyle as rulers, and it must continue to be so. The children of the ruling class and the elite too acquired a dismissive and unforgiving attitude towards the ruled. We have seen and heard it before. In the midst of an outcry for change, some quarters of the ruling class claimed to have heard, and are giving out signals for change and reform, like the Qing Dynasty. In the latter, many reformers lost the battle and were either killed, imprisoned or ran away. Reforming a dynasty from its old ways is not as easy as it thinks, as long as power still resides in the hands of the old ways. A few selected letters in the ST forum deemed worthy, or the prevalent views of the people, are calling for the retention of the yodas, and an unwritten consent for the old Machiavellian ways of knuckle dusters, threats, fears, law suits, just do what I say but don’t do what I do. Be content and be grateful, and shut up. The yodas no doubt are still good and able for many good years. They don’t become dummies overnight. They are still what they are, still entrenched in their old mindset and old abrasive styles. Is this what the people want? More haughty and cocky top down approach of father knows best, and carry a cane ready to strike at the wayward kids? In the new line up of younger leaders, there are several very promising young men that have entered the ring, with a clean slate, and a new mindset. If there is any hope of reform and transformation to a more gracious ruling class, less vindictive, more forgiving and generous, less thuggish, it must come from these new faces. Among the older reformers, perhaps a small handful could be sold to the idea of reform, and genuinely want to take a new approach. As for the rest, the entrenched mindset of ruthless and absolute executive power remains intact, waiting for the day to say, ‘I told you so, we must do it the way we knew better. The ruled only understand the rule of power.’ We are at a threshold of a new incoming tide and a receding old tide, refusing to go away. There can be no real reform if the yodas will not go away. Yes, the leopard will not change its spots. Who will triumph in this tussle for power and change, and how long will it take? The decadent Qing Dynasty dragged on for decades before a revolution finally sent them to oblivion, and before they struck havoc and destruction to lives and the country in general.

No political capital left

In one GE, the PAP has practically spent every cent of its political capital to ride back to Parliament, but with only 60% of popular votes. Many ministers in GRCs managed less than 60% of the votes. They pulled through not on their own merits, for many there were none, but on the goodwill of the party built over the decades. It is quite clear that whatever political capital there was, all has been expended in this election. And comes 2016, there will be nothing left to fall back on. The last 10 years of arrogance, aloofness and unpopular policies that were not well received would be in the track record as deficits. Also by then, the party cannot think of depending on the goodwill of LKY to give them a lift. What a coincidence that both the party and LKY would be spent force then. 2016 will be a defining year, to determine if PAP will still be in power or in the opposition. And it has to rebuild its tarnished reputation and political capital from this very moment. This GE it only has a margin of 20% majority vote which means a 10% swing will become a make or break result. This is how precarious its position is now. The ground sentiment favouring the PAP has shifted and leaving only a few hard core believers in the camp. With more than 30% already entrenched in the opposition camp, with probably another 10% gone, there is barely 10% left of swing votes to convince. What makes matter worst is that the core of PAP supporters will be adopting a wait and see approach. Many no longer believe in the party wholesale like before. They have become more wary of a self serving party, and unless the party can prove otherwise, their votes cannot be taken for granted. The fortune of the PAP has changed, in just a short few days. Amazing indeed! The invincibility, the diehard believers that would simply vote for the party, will be no diehards anymore. There is a flutter in their hearts. The talk of another 10 or 15 years is now looking like wishful thinking. 2016 is going to be a new ball game and the electorate will have little emotional attachments to the PAP. The brand has lost its glamour and devotees. And with the pressure for more disclosure on how much the ministers are really getting mounts, the lack of transparency, to come clean, will bear heavily on the little trust that is left on the party.