Singapore’s old order ready for fall by 2016 – Tan Jee Say

This is an interesting title in an article from the South China Morning Post by Toh Han Shih and posted in TRE today. This is what Tan Jee Say believed as quoted in the article. For those who are waiting eagerly for the demise of the PAP after a long rein as the undisputed political party in the island, this must be music to the ears. Jee Say made this conclusion after his recent involvement in main stream politics as candidate for the Presidential Election and also in the last General Election.

Jee Say’s reasoning is mainly drawn from the electoral results of the GE and the by election which did not really prove much except for a bigger dent in PAP’s image of invincibility. To be fair, losing a few electoral seats is not a big deal, really. In the case of Singapore, somehow this is read as a major breakthrough particularly for the WP to take a GRC with an exceptionally strong PAP team.

Things are a bit shaky but would anyone really believe that the PAP will lose power in three years’ time? According to the oracle, PAP should be good for another two terms minimum. And no one would doubt this prediction before the last GE. But then, though there were a couple of slips, notably the poor showing of the Presidential Election in terms of popular votes for the PAP sponsored candidate and the trouncing of the last two by elections, things are not that bad right?

The swift and efficient passing of the White Paper on population increase to 6.9m was an easy victory for the PAP. And the handful of opposition MPs in parliament are unlikely to make any significant impact to say they have arrived and are ready to take over. Low Thia Khiang too did not feel too optimistic about being the PM of Singapore in 2016.

Could there be anything or event that could make such a great impact in the political scene to bring down the powerful PAP? Could the protest rally at Hong Lim be big enough to reshape the mindset of the electorate to vote opposition? A change of regime is highly possible given a 10 to 15 per cent swing in the votes as was seen in Punggol East. With bad leadership, bad policies and bad candidates, PAP will not be able to pull away with another resounding victory again.

So, is Jee Say’s prediction a likely turn of event comes 2016? Objectively and factually, PAP can lose 40 per cent of its candidates and still be returned as the ruling party. There are of course many imponderables that could upset every political scientist’s forecast of what could be possible. And if one is to look at the difficult problems that the govt is facing, problems that have gone from being mere irritations to intolerables, the exploitation of these issues and blowing them up in the face of the PAP intentionally or otherwise, could prove deadly to the ruling party. These problems have 3 years of gestation to become full blown crisis events and for the people to make up their mind to change or not to change the govt in 2016.

Never has Singapore domestic politics been at such state of uncertainties that a regime change is actually possible in three years time. Jee Say may be hoping for the moon, but it is not really that unreachable, really. The dark horse in the computation is actually the foreign element. They could prove to be the game changer, for good or bad, for the ruling govt.

Does the Govt respect the people’s elected representatives?

Apparently this is so. It must be, the MPs are elected by the people to represent them and their interests and rightly or wrongly, the Govt has no choice but to work with the MPs, to show some respect to the people. Anyway, this is only an issue when the MPs are from the opposition. An article by Chua Mui Hoong over the weekend raised this relationship between the Govt and the opposition MPs.

The problem is that many Govt initiatives are backed and funded by public money and the Govt cannot deprive the residents of opposition wards of the public funds. Allocating the funds to grassroot advisers smack of impropriety in the sense that the grassroot advisers often are the rejects of the people. The people did not want the grassroot advisers to represent and did not want to work with them. If the Govt is spending party funds, the opposition MPs have nothing to say and the Govt can make love with the grassroot advisers for as long as it wants.

This tricky problem arose again in Parliament when Chan Chun Sing announced that his ministry would be setting up 20 social service offices across the island. These offices are to provide social assistance to the residents and would require the combined effort of social workers, agencies and also the MPs. Chan went on to ask the MPs to work with his officials to identify suitable sites for such offices. Innocently an opposition MP stood up saying she would love to work with the Ministry of Social and Family Development,MSF on this, and Chan’s reply was that he would work with the grassroot leaders. Wasn’t it awkward?

Chua Mui Hoong did not let this matter go away. In her article she posed the question whether it is time that the Govt should put the money where the mouth is, and seriously work with the elected MPs of both sides. The past practice of ostracizing the opposition MPs did not work and was done in bad taste. Should there be a new start to our all inclusive society trumpeted by the Govt, inclusive of opposition MPs when delivering services to the people using public fund?

Does the Govt respect the people and their choice of their MPs and would the Govt show its sincerity to work with them, and be answerable to the people?

Singaporeans lacked skills set, experience and track records

According to a FT HR consultant, Singaporeans lacked the skills set and experience to be employable in Singapore. She could only find such experienced people in India. And that could be the compelling reason why all her job placements for companies in Singapore come from India.

This is indeed a great revelation to the state of affair in Singapore. She did not mention which skills set were found wanting among Singaporean PMEs, but very likely these could be in finance, IT and engineering or may even be in medical science. So what does this say? Plenty.

In the first place the education system is not producing the required people with the necessary qualifications for employment, or it is producing too little of them. Our Minister of Education and the institutions of higher learning would need to do some reflection on their shortcomings. Two, the job experience of Singaporeans were inadequate or unsuitable. This could be a problem of Singaporeans not given the chance to gain job experience. But how could they gain experience without being employed first?

The remedy to this problem is simple. Singaporeans should study in Indian Universities as they have proven to be the best in producing graduates for the job markets in Singapore. They must know something we don’t or our MOE and tertiary institutions don’t. And the next step, after getting a degree from the Indian universities, they should stay in India to gain the needed job experience so that the FT HR consultants can place them for jobs in Singapore.

The whole process is now even made easier by the free trade agreement between India and Singapore and there will be no problem for their degrees to be recognized here. And being educated in Indian universities, they will learn the Indian culture and could, hopefully, integrate to the Indian expat and professional community here, and may even be earmarked for higher appointments.

Now that we know the shortcomings of our education system and the needs of the job market, it is easier to put this into practice. Forget about NUS, NTU or SMU or whatever U in Singapore. The road to success, to get a job in Singapore, is through India and Indian Universities.

Tensions in the Korean Peninsula

Who is threatening who? Who is the provocateur? Who is the cause of rising tension in the Peninsula?

If you read the western media, the answer is obvious, it must be the North Koreans. Last week’s first page headline in MyPaper carries a report by Reuters, ‘Tensions rise as North Korea threatens US again’.

What is the truth? North Korea tested its rockets to launch its own satellites. The Americans accused the North Koreans of testing missile technology. So threatened sanction against North Korea. But the Americans have been doing the same year after year and with a complete arsenal of missiles carrying nuclear warheads is ok.

Similarly, when the North Koreans tested their nascent nuclear bombs again the Americans threatened the same and Japan even talked about pre emptive strike against North Korea. Who is threatening who and raising tension? Why is it that the Americans can have all the deadly nuclear weapons and other countries are not allowed? Which is more provocative, test launching a rocket to launch its own satellite or the threat of a pre emptive strike by Japan?

The recent hiking of tension in the Korean Peninsula was started by the Americans and South Koreans conducting massive war games at the borders with North Korea. Why did the western media not report,’ American and South Korean war games provocative’, or ‘American South Korean war games raising tension in the Korean Peninsula’?

Then the Americans flew their nuclear bombs capable B52 in the Peninsula which was a show of force to threaten the North Koreans. Why didn’t the western media report, ‘Americans raised tension in the Peninsula with B52s’?

Then inside the same paper was a report from AFP titled, ‘N. Korea threatens US bases in Japan, Guam’. Why not a title, ‘US threatens N Korea with B52s’?

Who is the real culprit in raising tension in the Korean Peninsula? Depending on your sympathy and who is reporting the activities there.

Can a Cyprus visit this city state?

The big banks in Cyprus are in trouble and facing downgrading. And the EU is recommending robbing the depositors to bail out the banks. This is another case of too big to fail and bailing out the criminals and crooks in the banking industry by using the people’s money. Another twist to this whole dirty episode is that the EU is eyeing all the dirty or hot money from Russia and finds it convenient and appropriate to rob the Russians of their illegitimate wealth parked sinfully in this tax haven, a version of Switzerland and Singapore.

There are many similarities in the banking systems of Cyprus and Singapore. Too few but over size banks, financial centres, tax havens due to low corporate tax, rich foreigners parking their money under secrecy laws. But there are also clear differences like our strong corporate governance, our strong control over money laundering, our well managed banks by the best banking professionals money can buy.

And should the bank hit a crisis and needed more cash injection, Cyprus would have to look outwards, to the EU for help, our banks can always look internally instead. The Govt has huge reserves, SWFs have a lot of funds, and there is always the CPF to tap. There would be no need to rob the depositors in case of bank failures.

I think it is unlikely that we will be hit by a Cyprus and have to rob the depositors to bail out the banks. Our banking industry is very well managed and even if it got into trouble, we can rely on our national reserves and the CPF for interim bailout fundings.