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.