Chee Soon Juan will be standing as a candidate for the SDP in the next
GE. He has completely discharged his bankruptcy obligations after losing
several libel suits against the PAP politicians. It has been a long
time since he stood for a GE, best known or remembered when he
challenged Chok Tong with the call, ‘Where is the money?’ or something
like that. And that was followed by the sagas of postage fees and taxi
fare claims when his professor had to take taxis to confirm that his
claims were not in order. The thing that prevented him from standing in
past GEs was his bankruptcy status due to his inability to pay the
compensations awarded to those who brought suits against him.
Chee Soon Juan is back. Actually he never left. He was watching from the
sideline or sitting at the benches, acting as manager or coaches to his
team in every GE. How would the public view his return to the political
fray? What were the wrongs of this man that had kept him away from
political office for so long? He is no Anwar Ibrahim and less
controversial in many ways. Would the voters take his past as a price he
had to pay for being in politics at the wrong time when politics was
vicious and ugly? I am not sure if it is less vicious and less ugly
today. Only time will tell.
How would the PAP handle him this time with the old guards out of the
way? Would Chee face the likes of LKY and Chok Tong again and go through
the same political ordeal one more time? Or has time changed and the
political climate is more stable, more mature and less vindictive and
more civil? The PAP would likely put every obstacle they could find in
his way to keep him out of Parliament. And they would have a lot to say
about Chee Soon Juan. The only thing that matters is whether the voters
would believe them or would even view them in favour of Chee.
There are many good things to talk about this man as a politician,
tenacity, believing strongly in his cause and mission, offering an
alternative formula to the current mantra, a no fly by night operator or
fair weather politician. He would not go away after a defeat. He comes
back fighting. Above all, he is a great orator and would give all the
great debators in the PAP a run for their money in Parliament.
Would the people see the good things in this man to send him into
Parliament? Or would they believe in the PAP narrative of Chee Soon Juan
and turn away from him?
Kopi Level - Green
4/29/2014
How many PAP candidates will stand down in the next GE?
In every GE PAP will take the opportunity to do some self renewable with
some veterans or non performers being replaced. In the last GE 24 new
candidates were introduced while 18 were retired. How many new
candidates would be introduced this time and how many would be retired?
Given the 87 seats to be contested, the numbers are likely to be quite
similar plus or minus a couple.
Assuming the same 24/18 combinations will be used again, let’s see who would be the likely candidates to miss the party this time. The new faces are more difficult to have a few except for the inner circles in the PAP. As for the 18 to let go, can we consider that 6 had been let off during the last GE, ie one from Hougang and 5 from Aljunied GRC? If this be so, then only 12 more will be retired this time.
The obvious candidates would be LKY, Chok Tong and the three ex ministers of Kan Seng, Mah Bow Tan and Raymond Lim. That would bring the numbers left to 7. Anyone got any inkling of any MP that has been perpetually absent from Parliamentary sessions? That would be a good indication that they would not be fielded and thus don’t have to make their presence felt.
Another good possibility would be the veteran MPs like Charles Chong, Teo Ho Pin, Inderjit Singh, Seng Han Tong and Arthur Fong. If these 5 are out then it would be left with 2. Maybe PAP might want to take out a few more if they have enough new candidates to fill in. I think the new faces in the last GE would probably be allowed to stay on for another term and they can be counted out from the retirement list.
This will leave a few not so old faces like Yeo Guat Kwang, Alvin Yeo, Lily Neo, Irene Ng, Ellen Lee, Jessica Tan, Denise Phua and the popular Lim Wee Kiat and Baey Yam Keng for consideration for the last few retirement slots.
What do you think? What? Vivian? Did anyone say Vivian?
Kopi Level - Green. Nearly turn Blue.
Assuming the same 24/18 combinations will be used again, let’s see who would be the likely candidates to miss the party this time. The new faces are more difficult to have a few except for the inner circles in the PAP. As for the 18 to let go, can we consider that 6 had been let off during the last GE, ie one from Hougang and 5 from Aljunied GRC? If this be so, then only 12 more will be retired this time.
The obvious candidates would be LKY, Chok Tong and the three ex ministers of Kan Seng, Mah Bow Tan and Raymond Lim. That would bring the numbers left to 7. Anyone got any inkling of any MP that has been perpetually absent from Parliamentary sessions? That would be a good indication that they would not be fielded and thus don’t have to make their presence felt.
Another good possibility would be the veteran MPs like Charles Chong, Teo Ho Pin, Inderjit Singh, Seng Han Tong and Arthur Fong. If these 5 are out then it would be left with 2. Maybe PAP might want to take out a few more if they have enough new candidates to fill in. I think the new faces in the last GE would probably be allowed to stay on for another term and they can be counted out from the retirement list.
This will leave a few not so old faces like Yeo Guat Kwang, Alvin Yeo, Lily Neo, Irene Ng, Ellen Lee, Jessica Tan, Denise Phua and the popular Lim Wee Kiat and Baey Yam Keng for consideration for the last few retirement slots.
What do you think? What? Vivian? Did anyone say Vivian?
Kopi Level - Green. Nearly turn Blue.
4/28/2014
Chong Kee Hiong - PAP introduces a high flyer
I thought after the last GE PAP will be pulling more grassroot leaders
to stand in the next GE. Now we are seeing another of PAP’s elite in
Chong Kee Hiong as a potential candidate. His academic records and CV
are typical of the kind of quality expected of a top notch PAP
candidate. This one is another minister grade candidate for sure. He
came from RI, a scholar and a high performer.
The bloggers are having a bit of misgivings on the thoughts of this elite. A post in TRE quoting an interview with ST two years ago highlighted the disappointment he had when he got one academic prize instead of two at Primary 5. He scored top marks in Mathematics and Chinese but the Math’s prize was given to another student with half a mark lesser than him all because the teacher taught he had won one prize too many. ‘I didn’t argue with the teacher but I was very upset. The fact that I still remember it with such clarity shows that I am still disturbed by it…The episode went against the idea of fair play and meritocracy.’ The quotes were posted in the TRE article and claimed ST as its source.
I can understand how a Pri 5 kid felt when a prize he deservedly won was taken away from him. This Chong has all the right to be unhappy. Now, why was this reported in the ST as claimed in the TRE article? What kind of image would be projected because of this incident and how the public will view it? For the less talented masses, one thought is likely to be, share share a bit lah, why want to win so many prizes. To some elite, this is unacceptable. Meritocracy is meritocracy, it is about the best getting the best. They worked for it, they are talented and deserved it.
Somehow I got this nagging feeling that Chong or the ST was misquoted. The self centred elitist tag is not a comfortable one to wear for a person seeking political office. In politics, there are more to it than just black and white or getting what one is entitled to or deservingly so. And I am very sure this Chong is politically smart and sensitive enough not to make such a statement in public and draw unfavourable flaks.
What is happening?
The bloggers are having a bit of misgivings on the thoughts of this elite. A post in TRE quoting an interview with ST two years ago highlighted the disappointment he had when he got one academic prize instead of two at Primary 5. He scored top marks in Mathematics and Chinese but the Math’s prize was given to another student with half a mark lesser than him all because the teacher taught he had won one prize too many. ‘I didn’t argue with the teacher but I was very upset. The fact that I still remember it with such clarity shows that I am still disturbed by it…The episode went against the idea of fair play and meritocracy.’ The quotes were posted in the TRE article and claimed ST as its source.
I can understand how a Pri 5 kid felt when a prize he deservedly won was taken away from him. This Chong has all the right to be unhappy. Now, why was this reported in the ST as claimed in the TRE article? What kind of image would be projected because of this incident and how the public will view it? For the less talented masses, one thought is likely to be, share share a bit lah, why want to win so many prizes. To some elite, this is unacceptable. Meritocracy is meritocracy, it is about the best getting the best. They worked for it, they are talented and deserved it.
Somehow I got this nagging feeling that Chong or the ST was misquoted. The self centred elitist tag is not a comfortable one to wear for a person seeking political office. In politics, there are more to it than just black and white or getting what one is entitled to or deservingly so. And I am very sure this Chong is politically smart and sensitive enough not to make such a statement in public and draw unfavourable flaks.
What is happening?
Is SMRT a private or public company?
‘(Reuters) - Singapore's SMRT Corp Ltd , the operator of the
city-state's main rail network, asked the government on Wednesday about a
financing framework which would reduce its capital expenditure, The
Straits Times reported….25 Apr 14
SMRT has previously expressed interest in changing to a financing framework that was introduced by the government in 2010. Under this system, the government would own the assets, and be responsible for replacing them. This would free SMRT from having to incur huge capital expenditures on asset replacement.’
I dunno what to make out of this latest call from SMRT. The SMRT was built using public fund. It then went private, got listed and run as a profit making business. In the meantime, the money spent on the infrastructure, the land, did not become part of the computation of cost. And SMRT has been making millions annually and paying its management staff handsomely because of the great profits.
With this new development, with the govt bearing the cost of assets and asset replacement, SMRT could run an operation without huge capital expenditures and thus can register huge profits. How real is this profit? Is there anything wrong with this new formula? Where on earth can one run a private profit oriented business with the major part of the cost taken out of the equation, to be paid by the govt?
Who eventually have to pay for the cost and who will be benefitting from the profit without capital expenditure and asset replacement? Should SMRT be returned and run as a public service, a stats board?
SMRT has previously expressed interest in changing to a financing framework that was introduced by the government in 2010. Under this system, the government would own the assets, and be responsible for replacing them. This would free SMRT from having to incur huge capital expenditures on asset replacement.’
I dunno what to make out of this latest call from SMRT. The SMRT was built using public fund. It then went private, got listed and run as a profit making business. In the meantime, the money spent on the infrastructure, the land, did not become part of the computation of cost. And SMRT has been making millions annually and paying its management staff handsomely because of the great profits.
With this new development, with the govt bearing the cost of assets and asset replacement, SMRT could run an operation without huge capital expenditures and thus can register huge profits. How real is this profit? Is there anything wrong with this new formula? Where on earth can one run a private profit oriented business with the major part of the cost taken out of the equation, to be paid by the govt?
Who eventually have to pay for the cost and who will be benefitting from the profit without capital expenditure and asset replacement? Should SMRT be returned and run as a public service, a stats board?
How much do you know of your CPF nomination?
It was meant to be a simple straight forward procedure to make a
nomination for someone to inherit whatever savings that is left in your
CPF upon your demise. And the nominee will simply be presented a cheque
for all the cash balance and the account closed. Someone has raised a
query on why some of the deceased’s CPF balance is being transferred to
his Medisave Minimum Sum Account. I have made an enquiry with the CPF
and awaiting their reply on this matter.
When I wrote an article posing this new development, I also discovered that actually there are many changes to the issue of making a nomination and the complexities on how the savings of a deceased will be distributed. Effective 1 Jan 2011, there is a new scheme called the Enhanced Nomination Scheme, ENS. According to CPF’s website, I quote,
‘Previously when a member passes away, the Board will distribute his CPF savings to his nominees as a lumpsum in cash according to the proportion indicated in his nomination form.
The new ENS option enables CPF members to transfer their CPF savings to their nominees’ CPF accounts when they pass away, subject to the prevailing Minimum Sum limit and Medisave Contribution Ceiling (MCC).’
I went through the explanations in the CPF website and am still confused by the number of variations that could take place once a member elected the ENS. I am also not sure how the Minimum Sum limit and Medisave Contribution Ceiling comes into play. I would need some time to try to figure out what these changes meant and how they would affect savings of a deceased when returned to the nominee/nominees.
What about those who made a nomination before 1 Jan 2011? As in the case mentioned above, how did the transfer into the Medisave Minimum Sum thing comes into play? Is it a voluntary choice or it is a change made by the CPF without the consent of the deceased and nominee? I am still not clear on this. If this is a new thing, that the Medisave balance will be transferred to a nominee’s Medisave, it will be a no ending transfer from one Medisave to another and to another. I am waiting for CPF Board to reply on this. And I hope this Medisave Minimum Sum does not affect those who made a simple nomination to receive all payments in cash, every cent of it without having to transfer some money into the Medisave Minimum Sum.
There may be people who for some reasons chose to have the balance of a deceased’s savings transfer to their CPF accounts and may subsequently also to their nominees CPF accounts. I can’t think of a good reason to want to do so.
This CPF nomination to receive the balance of a deceased’s savings is getting to be a very complicated matter indeed.
Kopi Level - Yellow
When I wrote an article posing this new development, I also discovered that actually there are many changes to the issue of making a nomination and the complexities on how the savings of a deceased will be distributed. Effective 1 Jan 2011, there is a new scheme called the Enhanced Nomination Scheme, ENS. According to CPF’s website, I quote,
‘Previously when a member passes away, the Board will distribute his CPF savings to his nominees as a lumpsum in cash according to the proportion indicated in his nomination form.
The new ENS option enables CPF members to transfer their CPF savings to their nominees’ CPF accounts when they pass away, subject to the prevailing Minimum Sum limit and Medisave Contribution Ceiling (MCC).’
I went through the explanations in the CPF website and am still confused by the number of variations that could take place once a member elected the ENS. I am also not sure how the Minimum Sum limit and Medisave Contribution Ceiling comes into play. I would need some time to try to figure out what these changes meant and how they would affect savings of a deceased when returned to the nominee/nominees.
What about those who made a nomination before 1 Jan 2011? As in the case mentioned above, how did the transfer into the Medisave Minimum Sum thing comes into play? Is it a voluntary choice or it is a change made by the CPF without the consent of the deceased and nominee? I am still not clear on this. If this is a new thing, that the Medisave balance will be transferred to a nominee’s Medisave, it will be a no ending transfer from one Medisave to another and to another. I am waiting for CPF Board to reply on this. And I hope this Medisave Minimum Sum does not affect those who made a simple nomination to receive all payments in cash, every cent of it without having to transfer some money into the Medisave Minimum Sum.
There may be people who for some reasons chose to have the balance of a deceased’s savings transfer to their CPF accounts and may subsequently also to their nominees CPF accounts. I can’t think of a good reason to want to do so.
This CPF nomination to receive the balance of a deceased’s savings is getting to be a very complicated matter indeed.
Kopi Level - Yellow
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)