lim eng guan's questions on the crooked bridge

Johor's Bridge fiasco by Lim Guan Eng, Secretary-General of opposition Democratic Action Party (DAP) Apr 14, 2006 Media Statement Petaling Jaya - The cancellation of the scenic bridge is an expensive billion ringgit lesson for the BN government not to engage in reckless commercial adventurism that is contrary to professional and comprehensive planning and costing.... Finally Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi had no choice but to back down and cancel the scenic bridge due to legal complications and implications as well as negative response of Malaysians towards the trade-off in sand and air-space concessions demanded by Singapore to agree to the construction of the bridge. The question on every Malaysian’s mind is why were these legal complications and implications not considered before the government undertook construction of the CIQ for nearly M$1.3B. As the New Straits Times reported that even if Malaysia were to build the crooked bridge on our side, we would have to get Singapore’s consent before we even touch one brick of the Causeway to link it to the bridge. What is the use of paying so much money to appoint legal experts if they fail to give the proper legal advice?... However there should be proper planning, discussions and costing. Amongst the main objections, were that the Singapore government that upholds transparency did not know the cost of the bridge nor comfortable with the opaque nature of the contract that is estimated at billions of Singapore dollars. The above quote is only a small part of Lim Eng Guan's question on the crooked bridge saga. His first point about wasting expensive legal fees for poor legal advice is valid but looking for answers to a commonsensical problem that do not even need legal advice. Any layman would be able to tell him that if you want to build a bridge into another person's land, you will need his persmission. A bridge has two ends, not one end hanging in the air. His other criticism about Singapore not knowing the actual cost of the bridge is a little naive. If I have no need for a bridge and no intention to build it, why would I spend millions of dollars asking for quotes and paying engineering and professional fees? All Singapore needs is a ballpark figure just for discussion. This is the key difference between the Malaysian and Singaporean approach to an objective issues. Singaporeans plan first and do later. And also pay later. The Malaysians in this case chose to do first and pay first, then think later.

ge round 30: too many tigers in parliament

The whole slate of new PAP candidates have been put up for display. The line up is indeed formidable. Some of the best men and women available in the island. Who would dare say we need foreign talents? When we are prepared to look among ourselves, there are many diamonds to be found. But all it needs is for someone influential to say that they are not up to mark, and people would panic and run in circles looking for foreign talents to replace them. If we do not give our locals a chance, they will never stand out to show their best. This is best manifested in our tv and media circles. If all our artistes and media people were not given a chance, then people may ask, who is Zoe Tay or who is Sun Yanzi? The most impressive of yesterday's product is Tan Chin Siong. He recalled the racial riots when he was only 5. His memory is first class. No wonder LKY said the opposition is not up to mark. It all depends on what LKY was expecting. Is he thinking that one of the opposition candidates would be a PM and use himself as the yardstick? If that is the case, none of the opposition will be up to mark. Also, none of the PAP candidates, including Choktong and Hsienloong is up to mark. His shoes are too big for anyone. No country is blessed with such a leader in succession. Even when we compared the academic brilliance and personal achievements of the candidates, the opposition is still lagging quite far behind except for a few. But to parade such a pristine list of candidates has its own problems. As I have mentioned earlier, these people are not multi millionaires yet, not at the peak of their career, and still quite hungry. Pushing them into politics would mean either they will lose out making the millions and honing their professional skills, or they must be fed the millions to satisfy their hunger. It is costly to them, to the system and to the nation. You really can't pay these people peanuts. Oops! We have to assume that they are all humans and want to have all the good things in life, including the multi million dollar bank accounts. They can't be serving the people for free or for too little. And many of them are ministerial material. The other issue is the competition for a few high positions by a large group of equally good candidates and some must be left behind. This is not good for morale of the candidates. The next question is that if some of them are to be MPs only, do we need so high calibre material to serve just as MPs? At the MP level, many of them will be over qualified. And many of the opposition candidates will be good enough. The Chinese saying, you can't have two tigers in a mountain. Now we have several dozens, including existing ones in a small parliament house.

crooked bridge and straightens thoughts

The Malaysians have finally come to terms with their arguments for the bridge. They have eventually accepted that it was started based on wrong premises and unsound facts and cannot continue further without causing more harm to themselves and their own people and economy. What is important is the signalling by Badawi that the period of excesses and extravagance of mega projects of Mahathir is finally over. The bridge over trouble water is the last vestige of an era of wasteful policies. The scrapping of the bridge would probably strengthen Badawi's position and mark an end to all the crony companies and their projects to fleece the people and nation of their limited resources. It is good that all the shit on the table is wiped away together with the crooked bridge.

ge round 29: the youth factor

The engaging forum between LKY and the 10 young people from the media reflects the importance of the new generation in the politics of Singapore. There were 10 young people, opinionated, aware and informed of the political issues in the country, unlike the school kids that were featured before. Now, this group of people know what they were talking about. And for LKY to take them on in an open forum shows how serious he and the PAP is about the votes of the young. They are going make an impact in this general election, like it or not. And LKY was there to convince these young people and to convert and win them over to the PAP camp. Did he succeed in what he sets out to do? In the first place the 10 people were all of the same mind. That's what I perceived from their questions, body language and expression. They all have similar thoughts of what was wrong with the present systems and where the fault lies. Their questions were direct and unrestrained. Unlevel playing field, no mandate, restriction of expression, unfair upgrading, relevance of GRCs, a bullying govt, arrogance etc. LKY's response was to play hardball. Nobody plays fair in politics. These are the realities. The ruling party will not help the opposition. And when one of them made a general statement, he was mowed down by a clinical and precise argument on facts. It was a clever argument that will destroy and win a judgement in court. The young man could not substantiate his statement with empirical facts about the fear factor. He misquoted. But does winning that argument on technical ground win the ground? It will win a legal case or an argument. period. The listeners were not convinced, from their expression and rumbling. In fact that kind of statements, that people vote out of fear, can never be substantiated even if a proper survey is done. Not many will tell the truth, especially when they perceived the stakes were high. What ended up is the winning of an argument but losing the audience. This is politics. The explanations by LKY on the necessity for GRC did not address the question that GRC can be smaller. Neither was it convincing to say that GRCs were set up to test the ability of the opposition to run the country. The argument that because the opposition was weak or the walkovers, so the people are contented and there was a mandate for the PAP to rule did not cut any ice. It came across as winning by default, and supported the young people's point that it was due to the uneven playing field, apathy and restrictions placed on the opposition. As for the lack of good opposition, LKY said that all the good candidates were with the PAP. It is true that the opposition could not attract good quality candidates. But there are many excellent candidates that are not contesting for many reasons. What was not answered is why are good people not joining the opposition? But the answer was there. Did LKY manage to wind over the young people to his side? There were some reverence shown. But as to winning them over with hardball politics, the answer was obvious.

bash a path and leave a trail

'Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.' -Ralph Waldo Emerson- the above is quoted in a NUS business school advertisement. In no time this will be adapted to fit the singapore context and change to: 'do not find your own path, go instead and follow the trail we have laid for you.' -redbean-