Counting the 24 to go

Hsien Loong in his press interview confirmed that 24 new candidates would be introduced in the next GE, which also means that 24 of the current batch in Parliament would have to quit. Actually not, only 17 would be quitting if we count the 7 seats taken up by the WP.  Again it may not be 17 if the Gov thinks this country is too big and needs another few more MPs in Parliament. This is still an unknown variable.

Assuming that the Parliament remains at 87 seats then we can count on 17 PAP incumbents to vacate their seats and stand down in the next GE. Now who would be the lucky ones that could step down on a winning card, and not stepping down because they lost in a GE? Let me make a wild guess starting from the slate of ministers. If membership to the CEC is an indication, those ministers that were not in could be likely candidates to miss the boat when it leaves the port.

Of the 18 ministers, only 4 were not in the CEC, Lim Hng Khiang, Vivian, Lui Tuck Yew, Grace Fu, and Iswaran.  Lim Hng Khiang looks like a very tired minister after having been in office for more than 20 years. Vivian and Lui have been in the hot seats and affected by many bad publicities. These 3 could very well be stepping down. Iswaran is new and being out of the CEC is quite normal. On the other hand some ministers in the CEC may also offer to step down for health or personal reasons. Boon Wan and Swee Say have openly talked about it. So, all in we can count on a max of 3+2 ministers to leave politics.

This leaves 12 MPs to be let go. And again, those in the CEC are likely to be favoured MPs and can safely be counted to be in.  Assuming that the oldies would be the first on the list to retire, this would count MPs like Charles Chong, Arthur Fong, Cedric Foo, Chok Tong, Inderjit, LKY, Teo Ho Pin, Lily Neo and the ex ministers Wong Kan Seng, Mah Bow Tan and Raymond Lim, making a group of 11.

And we have a balance of 1 left to be dropped. Who is the possible candidate? Who is the likely one to make up the last of the 17? Anyone offering to step down for personal reasons? Anyone involved in controversies and bad publicity? Baey Yam Keng and Seng Han Thong have been heard to be considering retirement. That would leave the rest safe to stay on for another term.

I think the above list is likely to be the candidates that would be laid off in the next GE. Some may think of a few newer candidates that social media were unhappy with would likely to go, but I think they will be safe as there are already too many candidates that are due to quit politics for the above considerations. Intan would be safe, Tin Pei Ling, Lee Bee Wah, Irene Ng, Alvin Yeo, Lim Wee Kiat, and whoever that drew fierce criticisms by the social media would also be safe.

This is just my guess and I swear that I am likely to be wrong in 50% of these guesses. The above considerations do not take into account the Aljunied factor that may need a few of the existing MPs or Ministers to be specially retained just to take back the GRC or to spare the agony for being chosen to fight there.

GE2015/16 – Rules of Engagement defined?

Everyone is in anticipation of the next General Election that could be called anytime now, if not in 2015 then must be in 2016. All the political parties have been busy making plans and arrangements and strategising on how to engage in this once every 5 year battle for the right to form the govern and run the country. PAP, being the ruling party and the one in the know on when the election would be called, is in the best position to execute its election plans as it is calling the shot. Everyone is watching and second guessing what is in the mind of the PAP and the election date that is closely guarded. Their best hope is to watch the moves of the PAP, what they are saying and doing, to have a feel of when the GE will be called. And there are many signs surfacing over the last few months.

The latest political move is the letter by Chan Chun Sing to the Huffington Post attacking the Post for allowing Chee Soon Juan’s letters to be published. What is more important is the text of the letter, what it said and what are the implications. Chee Soon Juan is going to play a central figure in the next GE if he is qualified to contest and all the big guns of the PAP will be trained at him. This letter is perhaps the first cannon shot fired ahead of the GE and would set the tone of the debate, the mood, tactics and rules of engagement.

Taking the hints from this letter, the PAP has in a way set the standard of what can be said, what would be said, and what is fair game. Let’s take a look at the content of the letter, I have deleted the less relevant to allow the key items to stand out.

“Your website has given Dr Chee Soon Juan considerable but undeserved attention and space. You perhaps believe that he is a weighty political figure in Singapore. He is nothing of the kind.
Dr Chee has stood for elections thrice – and lost badly all three times, once receiving just 20 per cent of the vote.
The party he now leads, the Singapore Democratic Party, was once the leading opposition party in the country. …
Indeed, it was Mr Chiam who brought Dr Chee into the SDP in 1992. He mentored the younger man and promoted him. Dr Chee then proceeded to betray Mr Chiam, isolate him and force him out of the SDP, ….
In 1993, Dr Chee was dismissed from the National University of Singapore for misappropriating research funds and for other serious misconduct, including surreptitiously recording conversations with university staff.
He has been sued for defamation not only by ruling party politicians,…
And in 1996, Dr Chee and three of his associates were convicted of perjury by Parliament tor submitting false statements to a Special Parliamentary Committee. … It is because of these and other failings that Dr Chee is a political failure – not because he was persecuted,… voters do not regard its leader as an honourable man.
Dr Chee was disqualified from contesting the last two General Elections because he was declared a bankrupt in 2006 for failing to pay damages for libel to former Prime Ministers Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong. ….
Sincerely,
Chan Chun Sing
Minister for Social and Family Development, Singapore”

Some commentators have called this name calling or character assassination. (Full test of the article is available in all the main media and also at TRE). The letter was about Chee Soon Juan as a person and his character in question. It was about him as not honourable, a bankrupt, ungrateful, and misconduct. It related his affairs and encounters with politicians, govt officials and his employers that are negative.

As they said, food for the gander is food for the goose. Are these the lines drawn by the PAP as acceptable fodder for the GE campaign whereby political parties can dig out everything they could find about their political opponents and to use them freely in name calling and character assassination to win the votes? These were thought to be the OB lines in the past where anyone crossing them would be condemned as mean, unethical, hitting below the belt, dishonourable or unacceptable.

Now that Chan Chun Sing, signing off as the Minister for Social and Family Development and using them to attack a potential political opponent, does it signal to the opposition parties that they can do likewise? Of course they need to say things that are factual or risked being sue for defamation. Maybe immortals are flawless and blameless and there is nothing that the opposition parties could find to use in the GE. That may give Chan Chun Sing and the PAP the confidence that they could widen the OB markers to accommodate more juicy stuff and the washing of dirty laundry during the heat of the election rallies.  

The election rallies are going to be very interesting and going to be very well attended when all kinds of personal information would be aired to down an opponent. Insults, insinuations, name callings, sneerings, badmouthing, exposing personal gaffs etc etc are permissible? It would be good if the rallies could be put on live telecast. One thing for sure, youtube and webcast, mobile videos etc etc would be made available in all the blogs and websites to share the good stuff and great stuff of the election one upmanship, with many red faces to show.

This GE election rally must be something to look forward to, could be more exciting and part of the SG50 celebration.

Sin City the destination for the decadent rich

Everyday we are hit by reports and commentaries of turning this island paradise into a destination for the opulent rich to indulge in the worldly pleasures money can buy. Give them everything they want in exchange for their money. We are almost there. We have F1, casinos, Sentosa, the Durian, Garden by the Bay, 6 stars of everything, and we are going to get the must visit Jewel, and the next attraction, world class jungle paradise minus Tarzan and Jane, but all the animals that they can put into a confined space without the feeling of being caged, freedom for the birds and animals in an imaginary jungle paradise. It will cost a few billions though, just like the Garden by the Bay and the Jewel.

I still think something is missing. The rich and famous may not need all the artificiality of a desert or Antarctica here, or the African savannah or the Amazon jungle. They could simply whisk there for the real stuff at a moment of fancy. Those who would want to visit the imitations would be the peasants that cannot afford the real stuff, and grumble that the imitations are too expensive. The developers may not even recover their cost as the high price may deter the crowd.

A cheaper attraction to create would be a real Sin City in Geylang with all the amorous wants and desire of the flesh and the senses available to those who could afford to splurge without blinking an eyelid. That is where the money is. Turn Geylang into a lavish, grandiose and luxuriant paradise on earth where the super rich could have everything they desire or crave for, to satisfy their every indulgence and extravagance. It would be a real destination to cater for the hedonists with worldly pleasure. How about that as a start? Forget about the cheap foreign workers. They not only could not afford much, their presence is also unsightly for a world class city. They not only don’t fit in, they destroy the image of what this city is all about.

The developers could allow their imaginations to go wild and turn Geylang into a true destination that no one with the money would want to miss, must visit but would not want to leave once they are inside Geylang, the City of Sinful flirtation, exploitations, opulence and of human lust.

And I think it would be cheaper to develop but with unimaginable returns on investment, where the customers would never ask for the price but willingly pay for everything thing they fancy and to be pampered. Why waste money on the Jewel and an imitation jungle when the customers can have their satisfaction on anything of pleasure that they want in Geylang, and when they will be happy and grateful to part with their money, plenty of it?

Now if they really develop Geylang into a City of Sin, would I get any credit for it?

What, outrageous? Nothing can be more real and lucrative, and money well spent and well returned than a City of Sin other than a mini Jurassic Park in one of our islands. Want to spend a few billions watching a few wild boars and deer and antelopes running around?

Huffington Post, Chan Chun Sing and Chee Soon Juan

What is the issue? Is Chan Chun Sing chastising the Huffington Post for giving space to Dr Chee to publish his views? Or is Chan Chun Sing attacking Dr Chee as a person or disagreeing with his views in his papers? Or is Chan Chun Sing saying that he is a successful politician while Dr Chee is a failed politician?
 
What is the issue or what are the issues, I leave it to the readers to make their own conclusions. My question is why is Chan Chun Sing not happy with a foreign paper publishing the works of a Singaporean that as a minister, he has to write to Huffington Post to object to it? And what is the reason for objection? Is it because the points raised in the two papers were flawed and Chan Chun Sing is giving another version of the truth as his right to reply? Or is it because Dr Chee is a failed politician, someone who was charged in court, so he is not good enough to have his article published in Huffington Post?
 
A lot of questions ran through my thoughts. When a newspaper published an article, what is the basis or reason for the editor to decide otherwise? The Straits Times would have its own guidelines on who and what articles it deems fit to publish. Should the Huffington Post also use the same principles and guidelines for its publication or can it used a different set of guidelines?
 
I am wondering what Huffington Post editor would say to Chan Chun Sing’s objection. What do you think they would say? Would they reply?
 
As to the issues that Chan Chun Sing raised about Dr Chee as a person, as a failure, maybe this can be put to a test by the two standing in a single constituency ward to fight it out. Then we would know who is a winner and who is a loser. And the judge as to who is a success or a failure would be the people.
 
How to measure the success or failure of a person in politics? A simple yardstick would be the person in power, who won the election. The winner is allowed to sing his song and write his success story. Chee has lost three elections. Chan Chun Sing won his election? Chan Chun Sing is a success as he is a minister and Chee is not.
 
I think the courts of public opinion will have a field day talking about Chan Chun Sing’s letter to Huffington Post. I find the need to write such a letter a bit bizarre.
 
What do you think?

A new and economically ascendant Southeast Asia

It is heartening to read about the uneasiness of the Malay Malaysian elite and their urgent call to restructure Malaysia for the future instead of being stuck in the past of racial and religious politics. There is a sense of frustration and despair among this Malay elite who wanted to do so much, who knew that Malaysia cannot remained stagnant in economic growth and wasting time and resources in unproductive hackling on religious and racial issues drummed up by the respective leaders. There is a time and place for religion. Leave them to the religious leaders and leave them in their place in the mosques and not to be bucking around with matters of the state. And political leaders must rise above the insidious past of race politics, to think secular and think development. Malaysia can do better given the right leadership, and UMNO and its present batch of leaders are not the one to lead Malaysia forward.

While Malaysia is still bogged down with trying to be more religious and more racist, and a shrinking economic pie, the Indonesians have embarked on a new journey of change. Ever since the Presidency of Abdurrahman Wahid or Gus Dur, race politics have been taken out of the equation, or at least kept in the cupboard, hopefully not to reappear. Megawati continued to play down on racial politics and allowed the Indonesians with Chinese ancestry to participate more actively in the economy. Yudhoyono did the same and the Chinese Indonesians expanded their participation in the main stream of Indonesian polity, in business and in politics, culminating in the unprecedented election of Joko Widodo as the new President and Ahok as the governor of Jakarta, both with ethnic Chinese origin.

The path to accept the Chinese Indonesians into the main stream of Indonesian life without discrimination is putting Indonesia on a clean slate to take full advantage of the industries of the Chinese Indonesians to grow its economic pie. Without the legacy of the Suharto regime in its way, Indonesia can embark on any economic model, tap on all the resources of its able citizenry to grow the economic pie. Allowing the Chinese Indonesians an unrestricted role is like starting another engine of growth in a capitalist modelled economy.

Indonesia is now free from its historical baggage of racial politics and political bickering to move forward confidently, to embrace all the positive elements of a secular state, to raise the standard of living of its people, through industrialisation and scientific modernisation. Without harping on the fear of a Chinese minority playing a bigger role than its population, the country could benefit greatly without compromising on the economic well being of its population at large. Indonesia is set to be the next economic powerhouse of Southeast Asia and could leapfrog the rest to stake its rightful claim as the biggest economy and biggest regional power in the region.

Malaysia could do likewise by tapping on the industries of the minority groups to grow at a faster pace. But the shackles of racial and religious politics are not easy to remove especially with the ultras in charge in UMNO. They have no new ideas on how to grow the economic pie other than to constrain the growth of the minority groups in the economy and enterprises just to prove that they are in charge. While Indonesia is tapping on a new growth engine in its ethnic minority, Malaysia under UMNO is preventing this engine of growth from being ignited to grow the economic pie.

What is UMNO afraid of? The dynamic non bumi minorities generating more economic output that put them to same or they could not manage to do likewise? With full control of political and military power, the Malay rights and interests would never be challenged and UMNO would be in a better position to distribute the new wealth generated by the non bumi minorities. Is that bad? Why is UMNO seeking to tie chains and shackles to prevent the non bumi minorities from doing what they could do best for the economy to benefit the country and people? With the non bumi minorities being curtailed in their economic endeavours, Malaysia is as good as firing on two cylinders.

The UMNO leadership is more interested in protecting its power than in the general well being of its populace. Would the new Malay elite be able to strip the UMNO leaders from its pole position in govt and lead Malaysia into a new path of economic growth, prosperity and secularism? Or would it remain locked and restrained by its past unenlightened policies while watching Indonesia run away uncontested and unchallenged to be the richest country in Southeast Asia? Malaysia has squandered away its lead in the economic fields and unlikely to move forward. It is wasting all its potential to be a much richer and prosperous nation, but instead to become a more religious and racist country with one foot in the mud, dragging and compromising on its economic development.

The new Malay elite have a tough road ahead to replace the backward looking UMNO leadership.