Another complaint letter on unreliable public transport

Another complaint letter on unreliable public transport Raymond Koh Joo Guan wrote a letter in My Paper complaining about all the shortcomings of our public transport system, from trains to bus and taxis. The solution is so simple. You want better service, pay more. 'Mm Chai Si', any how complain. Try reading these in Hokien.

More feel good factors needed

Read in the ST, Vivian Balakrishnan said, 'If someone needs help and isn't getting it, tell me.' And another headline, CEOs' shrinking pay, telling the story that CEOs of Singapore listed companies are collecting lesser pay, ie, less than $5million. In the Vivian case, the people should feel better that the minister cares and will extend a helping hand to those who are in need of help. In the second headline, there is a report on the comparative salaries of some of the top honchos. Lim Cee Onn, Keppel Corp, $10m - $10.25m, Tang Kin Fei, Sembcorp Industries - $8.85m, Kwek Leng Beng, City Dev, $7.75m - $8m, Hsieh Fu Hua, SGX, $7.18m, Wee Ee Cheong, UOB, $5.5m - $5.75m, Tan Kwi Kin, Sembcorp Marine, $5.12m. Down the ladder were those getting around $3m - $4m, were David Conner, OCBC, Wong Ngit Liong, Venture Corp, Chua Sock Koong, Singtel, Chew Choon Seng, SIA, Kuok Khoon Hong, Wilmar and Cheng Wai Keung, Wing Tai. What is interesting is that those that are part owners or majority owners of their respective companies appear to be more stingy in paying themselves huge salaries. I thought they should reward themselves more, after all they are the majority owners and built the companies themselves, with their own monies. Kwek Leng Beng is only the third highest paid and Wee Ee Cheong is the fifth. Then Wong Ngit Liong, Kuok Khoon Hong, Cheng Wai Keung paid themselves a miserly $3m - $4m. The worst paid majority owners is Olivia Lum who paid herself only $250k - $500k. And this amount is even lesser than most employees in the public sector. Very unbecoming. One notable absentee is Liew Mun Leong who was rewarded with a $10m bonus on top of his salaries. Shouldn't he be number One? My conclusion is that it is more rewarding to be just an employee and not an employee cum major shareholders.

Blogging is not a waste of time

At least in China, blogging is playing a huge role to curb abuses of civil servants and authority. In the absence of free press and a huge govt machinery, the ordinary people are often trampled by high officials and their little pet dogs. Today's My Paper frontlined an article on how the internet became an important tool for the ordinary Chinese to shame the authority by exposing their abuses and corruption in cyberspace. Other than blatant abuses, state departments are also famous for cooking up skewed information and statistics to paint a distorted picture of the truth. And 'crazy rules are often snuffed out by waves of online scorn.' Chinese netizens have been very effective in their postings to embarrass country officials and also to overturn or stop some of their nonsensical rules and practices. Our netizens may not be as vocal in cyberspace for many reasons. Maybe there were lesser abuses of authority and corruption to start with. And our rules and practices are very well thought out and implemented and netizens have little reasons to scorn or embarrass our govt officials. Even then, there is a role for netizens to play to point out the minor infringements or irregularities that are bound to have. If there is no netizens, the silence shall either explode some day or be lost at the misfortune of those who are at the wrong end of the stick. I remember someone said this a couple of days back. Oh he was quoting Lu Xun of Ah Q fame. The people's voices of conscience must be heard and there must be an outlet for it. Blogging is never a waste of time. It takes effort to look at issues, to understand them and to nit pick problems that are blind to many people, especially the people who write the edicts.

Conning Asean

The effort to squeeze themselves into the Asean fold has increased in intensity. First Australia and now Japan, two hardcore allies of the US, are putting their grand plans to Asean for a bigger bloc. By hook or by crook, the US must be a member of a bigger organisation with Asean members in it. Only then can the US lead this bunch of little countries along, as their leader. The Asean countries must not be allowed to run and operate independently. They are just incapable of looking after themselves. It is for their own good that the US should come in and nanny these 'never to grow up' adolescents. Asean has been in existence for several decades, rising from the hubris of the Cold War to strike out on its own, to be neutral from the big powers, to be a zone of neutrality. Why should Asean allow itself to be subsumed by the big powers and lose its identity and independence? Why can't Asean exists as an organisation without the presence of big powers, without their meddling in Asean's affairs? The present arrangement of engaging big powers on an Asean plus basis is perfect, the best for the Asean and its smaller members. Becoming a bigger bloc, which is desired by the big powers, will cripple Asean as a regional grouping of smaller independent and neutral countries. Asean should think very carefully not be dragged to play in the big league, to play beyond its level, like the S League trying to play in the EPL or in the European League. It is flattering to be in the big leagues, but the inadequacy will stand out like a sore thumb and very embarrassing. Would Asean be easily conned to invite the wolves into its fold?

More thinking needed

Last week we have Sue Ann Chia from the ST examining critically the reasoning of HDB on the LUP programme in the two opposition wards. Today, ST's Jessica Cheam is re examining the numbers and claims of HDB on the 96% success rate of first time applicants for HDB flats. The numbers were quoted to prove HDB's position and looked quite convincing. What is important is to look carefully at the different sets of numbers and how they came about, how they were used to present a point. One example given by Jessica Cheam is that if 200 units were offered and there were 600 applicants, it was obvious that only 200 could be successful and 400 would be unsuccessful. How many percent will be the success rate? Definitely not 96%, not 50% but 33%. In the recent application for balance flats, 2132 flats were put up for sale and attracting more than 20,000 applicants. The success rate could only be around 10% with 90% balek kampong, come again next time. This brings out another issue about meeting the demands of flat buyers. If there are 20,000 applying in one exercise, how many flats must be built to meet this demand? At 2000 units annually, the demand, if static, will take 10 years to clear. Is HDB meeting the demand of the people?