Lee Li Lian made the right choice

She was elected in a by election by the people of Punggol East to serve them. She served them well, with all her heart and soul. She was devoted to the people and wanted to do everything she could for them.

In the GE the people chose to vote for a PAP candidate instead of her. The people decided that they wanted Charles Chong and not Lee Li Lian. She got the message. She was not wanted. Without the people voting for her, what credibility has she to go to parliament? This is democracy, the people’s choice. What credibility does a defeated candidate rejected by the people has to represent them, to put on a show that he/she is the people’s candidate by choice? The people had spoken and it is best for the loser to step aside and let the elected representative to speak for them in Parliament, to represent them in the constituency.

Lee Li Lian is not going to pretend that she is elected by the people and go strutting around as the people’s elected representative. A reject is a reject. A NCMP is a reject by the people. The loser of an election is the reject of the people.

There is still some dignity and self respect in Lee Li Lian to say no to the offer. This does not imply that the other NCMPs do not have dignity or self respect for accepting the NCMP offer. It is part of an inordinary system to tell the rejects that they can still be in Parliament to show that there are opposition voices in Parliament. It is an acceptance of reluctance, to live with a contrived system of democracy when the rejects of the people can still speak in Parliament, like representing them but not representing anyone, cannot go cut ribbons, give scholarships to students using public funds, not invited to grace govt organized functions, no proper place to meet the people, no everything except to be in Parliament to give a semblance of opposition presence. They are just trying to make the best out of a bad situation.

This neither here nor there NCMP system must be abolished when the right time comes. It is an anomaly. It should not be there in the first place. It is not democracy, it is not elected by the people, of the people and for the people.

Lee Li Lian said something so loud that many people missed totally.

Strange things will happen to our property owners

The 99 year lease, be it for private properties or HDB flats, would morph into a snow man when the time comes. When the lease expires or about to expire, someone who owns a 2 rm or 3rm flat with a balance of 50 year or 70 year lease would be richer than one owning a 5 rm flat or executive flat or even a private property with a 5 year lease or lesser. For at the end of the lease, the value of the no life lease property technically becomes 0. The land plus the property would go back to the owner of the land.

What this means is that 99 year leasehold owners are sitting on a time bomb, a vanishing asset. SG100 will see many properties go up in smokes and the rich owners, if their sole asset is the 99 year leasehold property that is slipping from their grips, be it $3m or $1m, will go pooh pooh.

Maybe this is a good thing, when wealth of one generation will not be passed down to the third generation to continue to be wealthy without having to work, just living on the value of a piece of appreciating property. The diminishing lease and value of 99 year leasehold properties will be like a reset every 2 or 3 generation. And that will be a time when 2 or 3 roomers still with a substantial lease remaining, will become richer than those whose lease expired. They would be looking at the new poor neighbours whose private properties or big HDB flats just become no more, homeless.

SG100 will be a time of reckoning, when the poor becomes rich and rich becomes poor. Things will turn upside down.

Good system for the average Singaporeans. Only those with freehold properties and not subject to estate duties will be rich forever and live happily ever after. The rich have it all thought out, the system will protect them and their wealth for generations to come.

GE 2015 – 2 confirmations

Let me revisit this shocking GE that knocked everyone out of his comfort zones. The results were not expected by all quarters. There were shocking disappointments and shocking disbeliefs in the camps of the losers and winners. The results of GE2015 confirmed two broad issues. The first is a near total rejection of the opposition camp. The mucking around of standing for election for the sake of standing for election is not going to be treated kindly by the electorate. Be serious, the electorate is not going to elect one or two persons to parliament to satisfy their egos. The electorate is looking for a serious contender, a real alternative party that can form the next govt should the time comes when the ruling party is no longer wanted. Getting one or two persons to parliament is meaningless. Getting a few people to parliament is useless. Come up with a strong party with a slate of good candidates that can mean business. No more merrymakers and party poopers.

The electorate is not writing off the opposition parties but wanting something that is real and effective, to present a real alternative to the ruling party. I have written about this and calling all serious minded politicians of all camps that want to see Singapore well and to serve the interests of the Singaporeans to get their acts together, discard all their inhibitions and historical baggages and party idiosyncrasies, personal pride and egos, come together on a new slate, with the best men and women available to form a new party or coalition for the next GE.

The second confirmation, if you want to agree with me, is the endorsement of the PAP, what the PAP has been doing and its policies. The GE was in a way saying that they were all or at least 69.8% were in support of the PAP and its policies. So the PAP can continue to do what it thinks is good for the people and country. The PAP can continue with the influx of more immigrants, towards 6.9m or more. The PAP can continue with the foreign talents are best to replace the lazy and no talent citizens. The PMETs can be trained to become taxi drivers, security guards or go overseas to earn their livings. The policies on the CPF, housing, high ministerial pay, high cost of living etc etc are all good and should continue.  The GE 2015 results said the electorate supported the PAP’s policies.

This is the second confirmation. More and more of the same, more scholarships for foreigners, more top jobs for foreigners, the people are happy with what is happening, the people are happy with the ruling govt.  We are heading in the right direction towards more good years till SG100. Just do what you think is right.

Benjamin Lim: A boy died, a father’s cry

I reproduce part of Benjamin’s father’s open letter posted in the TOC here. It broke my heart. I don’t care how many people are happily celebrating their CNY. Benjamin’s family are going through hell now reflecting on the agonizing and harrowing moments poor Benjamin had to go through it, all alone, trembling in fear, in the hands of strangers that have full authority over his freedom and the fate of his life. Let this never happened again to any child in this country.

‘There are now reports and statements from the relevant authorities that procedure will be subjected to review in regard to police questioning of minors without the presence of an adult. As Benjamin’s father, I felt this is necessary, but it came too late. It is necessary because we pray that the same treatment my son received from the police, will never ever happen again to another child.

The school, in my opinion, should never have handed over my son to five police officers during recess hours without having to wait for the arrival of family members. I hate to think of the amount of fear he had at that moment, how helpless he was then. To be escorted to the car park from the principle’s office, one student in uniform accompanied by a few adults in civilian clothes with police ID cards, how discreet this could be? I felt the embarrassment and the shame my son was subjected to.

As Benjamin’s father, it broke my heart when I later found out that my son was brought to the principle’s office with one bun on his hand; and a drink on the other from the school canteen.

I cannot understand why the teacher; or office staff did not allow my son to at least finish his food at the canteen before s/he brought him to the principle’s office. It was reported that my son was allowed to finish his breakfast before being taken to the police station. But that was after the interview. My boy had his last meal in the school, a cold bun.

Those adults that were with him at that moment, the police officers and staffs of Northview Secondary School, may I take this opportunity to tell you that my son would prefer to have his meal when it is hot.

When Benjamin finally left the police station at 2.50pm, he told his mother and sister that he was not given anything to eat, nothing to drink throughout the 3 or more hours of engagement with police investigators in the police station. At his age, my son gets hungry very fast after one meal. Just a cold bun and a drink, and we cannot be sure if he did finish the bun because he was under pressure then. Benjamin must be feeling hungry, thirsty, throughout the few hours he was with the police investigator. I can imagine the anxiety felt by my son throughout the ordeal.

As Benjamin’s father, it is now my duty to seek justice for my son. We do not know if he has indeed committed the alleged offence of “outrage of modesty” of the 11-year-old girl. Until the coroner hearing, we do not want to speculate whether the offence has indeed taken place.

That said, as parents we cannot forget and we cannot forgive the way my son was treated, from the school to the time he was in police custody. I have this to say to the school authorities. We as parents we entrusted our children to you. You have a duty to ensure that our children are appropriately taken care of, reasonably protected and have their interest in your priority.

To the police, I have to tell you that by sending 5 plainclothes officers to one secondary school in 2 unmarked police vehicles are never discreet. You are there to look for one secondary 3 student. You are not there to apprehend an adult suspect with full ability to escape or capable in single combat.

To Benjamin’s friends and team mates from the National Police Cadet Corps, thank you for the lovely cards and your encouraging words to SGT (NPCC) Benjamin Lim. To his colleagues from McDonald’s, he loved his job and he was grateful to be part of the team. If the branch manager would allow, please give your consent for him to keep his staff’s ID card.

Last but not least, on behalf of the family, I thank everyone for coming forward to show their support to Benjamin. We have created an email account dedicated to Benjamin, benjamin26012016@yahoo.com.sg. Friends and members of public are welcome to write to us.’

It is so painful to read the letter and to imagine what went through the mind of a 14 year old boy, alone, helpless, no one to turn to, gripped in fear, at the mercy of strangers in the name of the law of the country. Benjamin must be hoping that papa or mama was there with him, or at least a caring teacher to hold his hands, to support and comfort him during the harrowing hours in the police station.

This traumatic ordeal is going to haunt many people through the lunar New Year festivities.

Why so much deference to the PAP?

I quote this comment from Low Thia Khiang from the Statestimes Review, ‘“I have seen how the PAP works. And of course the rejection is because we don’t allow political parties to use common areas. You use the PA – the People’s Association, you use grassroots advisers – come on, let’s be honest about that.

…We understand the political reality. We understand that the struggle for functional democracy by a loyal opposition must be fought from within the existing system, under the law legislated by Parliament, even though we disagree with them.”

says Workers’ Party Low Thia Kiang, who lamented about the state of Singapore politics in Parliament today (Jan 29).’

I am not sure if this was the exact words of Low Thia Khiang quoted verbatim. I find the phrase ‘loyal opposition’ so creepy. What is there to be loyal or not loyal to be in the opposition? Opposition parties should only be loyal to Singaporeans, and that includes the PAP.  There is no need to be loyal to a ruling party. What does Low Thia Khiang meant by calling himself ‘loyal opposition’? What if he is not a ‘loyal opposition’? Should the opposition parties by ‘loyal opposition’ ie loyal to the ruling party or loyal to the state?

Is this phrase superfluous, unnecessary, a sign of weakness, meek? An opposition is an opposition and should disagree when it disagrees with the ruling party. The disagreement should be based on the national good, national interest and the people’s interest. It could be just a different way of looking at things and wanting to do things differently, no one knows which is the right way or wrong way except to look at it from the interest of the people as first principle.

So, when oppose just oppose lah. There is no necessity to claim to be ‘loyal opposition’.  What do you think? Tiok boh? No need to be ‘khek kee’ mah, as long as one is not saying or doing anything wrong to the country and citizens.