Nuisance complaint against Siew Kum Hong

'My ministry and the police are not intending to let that asset be debased by allowing the police to become a tool for petty politics.' K Shanmugam He added, 'The integrity and impartiality of the police force should be beyond reproach and that has been and will be our policy.' Shanmugam was responding to Siew Kum Hong's complaint that while the latter was conducting a street survey, 2 policemen were watching him and he was later told to stop his survey. He was only allowed to do so half an hour later after checking with their superiors. It seemed that the police received some complaints on Siew Kum Hong causing a nuisance to the public. And Shanmugam assured him that the police has a duty to investigate all complaints even if they do not merit an investigation. I just got two nagging doubts. Who would complain about Siew Kum Hong conducting a survey? He looks like a very nice guy, very polite and very learned, as handsome as any of the MPs. He does not bear tattoes or carry a parang around. Who was the complainant and what was his background or intent? I think all the mothers will let him carry their babies. Secondly, would the police do the same if a nuisance complaint is made against any MP or the grassroot leaders or anyone walking along the street? Ok, MPs should be safe. Low Thia Khiang or Denise Phua need not worry. Correct or not? Hey, Siew Kum Hong is also an MP, albeit an NMP! Was Siew challenging anyone on the streets or carrying a loud hailer blowing at top volume?

3 cardinal sins committed by taxi operators

Premier Taxis MD, Lim Chong Boo, wanted to lower the $2.80 flag down fare during non peak hours. Johnny Harjantho, MD of Smart Taxis wanted the 35% surcharge for peak hour fares reviewed. And Neo Nam Heng of Prime Taxis wanted the authority to allow the operators to use used cars which are cheaper and can reduce operating cost. After fighting so hard to get the current fare scheme to be running without too much objections from the commuters, which increases their income by the way, how could the taxi operators want to turn the table to lower fares? Have they forgotten about the problems of the past when there were too many fares and too many taxis clogging the roads, and long queues? With the current high fares and surcharges, they need only pick lesser passengers and work lesser hours to get higher returns. And with a better paying passenger profile, lesser taxis need to run the roads, and traffic woes will be a thing of the past. The better paying passengers will definitely demand better quality or newer taxis since they are paying more for it. Second hand cars are old and not worth paying the high fares and surcharges. And don’t forget, with lesser passengers being able to afford to take taxis, the queues will be shorter and make taking taxis a privilege of those who can afford it. And that should be the way. Taking taxis is a privilege of the more wealthy commuters. They want the convenience, not to wait and wait.

Notable quote by Wong Kan Seng

'Whether Mas Selamat is in Singapore or he has fled our country, we will hunt him down as we did before.' Wong Kan Seng said in Parliament

The independence of an Indepedent Presidency

Low Thia Khiang raised the thorny issue of how independent is our Independent Presidency in Parliament. He reckoned that the two key system is as good as two keys opening simultaneously, or two keys working as one. This has led to the call for a more transparent process in the excercising of the presidential powers. Tharman replied that our system is sound, run by men of high integrity and challenged Low to question their ability to act as honourable men. We are in fact in a very privilege position at this moment in time to talk and debate over the issue of how independent is our Presidency and whether there is a need to be more transparent to let it be seen that the Presidency is indeed independent. At the moment it is all about faith, the faith of good men in office. Otherwise the issue would not even be raised, that there is no doubt in the people's mind. Now, what do we have in practice now? We have a President in office who was a candidate nominated and sponsored by the govt. A govt's candidate, and walked into the office by default because of the stringent criteria that ruled out the possibility of more candidates being qualified to contest for the position. And he is assisted by a Presidential Council of eminent citizens, also nominated by the govt. It is only natural that the independence of the President becomes an issue. We are fortunate that the President has not been called upon to exercise his powers on controversial issues. If there be a day, the President's independence will not just be discussed in Parliament only. It is obvious that for the President to work independently, he needs to be independent or not too closely linked with the govt. And this applies to the Presidential Council as well. We are all familiar with the chorus, 'All the King's men.' Parliament also raised the issue of the transparency in the process in which the Presidential Council and the President would have to walk through before coming to their decision. This is still not apparent to the people. The other point that I would like to raise is the possibility of the two keys opening the vault in the middle of the night. Is that possible? Would there be an alarm system when the vault was opened, by two keys, but without proper authorisation? Who guards the vault to prevent such a happening?

Sharing our reserves

The reserves were accumulated over many years, probably from 1965 onwards. Theoretically all the old citizens contributed to it one way or another and is a minority shareholder to this money. Now that we are using the reserves to share with the citizens, does it mean that every citizen, new or old, will be entitled to the same handouts, ceteris paribus? If yes, are the old citizens being shortchanged or the new citizens just being treated to a buffet from the accumulated reserves which they did not contribute a bit to it?