In a high power forum chaired my Professor Tommy Koh, and with two key speakers in Law Minister K Shanmugam and Professor Thio Li Ann, the Law Minister repeated his position that the Elected President is not to be heard, or cannot express any views unless approved by the Govt. He said, ‘It is quite clear the president has no such power and that was not the role that was envisaged for the president.’ ‘The president,’ he added, ‘can speak on issues only as authorised by the Cabinet; and he must follow the advice of the Cabinet in the discharge of his duties.’
The only time the president can wield some influence on the PM is if he is on good terms with him, or if the PM finds him amiable and willing to listen to him. It is not the other way, that you have a president and the PM try to be nice to him and listen to him. Thus, a President that is pally pally with the govt is in a better position to be listened to by the govt. So the people should know who to vote if they want a president that can have influence on the govt.
What if the people want a president that does not need to be nice to the PM or the govt and want him to be firm and be ready to say no to the govt, should they then vote for someone that is more distant from the govt? To influence the govt or to check on the govt are two distinct roles that require quite a different character in the president.
But my main point is not all of these as they are immaterial. In more probability the president will have nothing of crisis level to do and spend his time writing his memoirs or raising funds for the disabled or shaking hands and waving at the crowd during NDP. Occasionally he may try to visit other countries to improve relations and trade. I am not sure that this is part of his portfolio, or if he is being advised by the govt to do so. Or maybe he is trying to give the Trade Minister a helping hand since he is not allowed to talk freely.
For such a role, do we need a president that should be as good as a permanent secretary, a chief justice material, or someone who manages a $100m paid up capital country when the PM and his ministers need not be that highly qualified? A butcher or a gardener can also be our PM under our constitution. And this must be the best part, the gardener PM is going to advise this high power president what to say and do. Does the country really need to pay him so many millions to perform such a role?
What is needed perhaps is a person of good conduct, dignified, good looking and respectable, and be given an honourarium of $500k per annum max. Of course a little commonsense and a tertiary education should be good enough as he would be advised by the Presidential Council and also the govt on what to do and what to say. No need to sweat the small stuff to find a super super talent and to pay him obscenely for the nature of the job. He may end up more dignified than the gardener PM who is going to tell him what to do.
Please feel free to disagree with me. If you don’t I will like to recommend some of the better and dignified looking Media Corp actors for the job. I am sure the people will love to shake their hands and feel good when they looked good standing side by side with kings and queens.
8/06/2011
So a fare hike of 1% instead of 2.8%
Rejoice, celebrate, the unhappiness of the people has been heard. The PTC must have taken heed of the general unhappiness of the people over the rising cost of living and came out with a smaller increase for public transport fare. A 2c increase per trip is negligible and well absorbed, may even be unnoticeable. There are still complaints. People are still unhappy.
The PTC quoted the profits of other private companies including non transport operators, to justify the increase. Other organisation’s profits ranged from 3 to 14.9%. These include companies like Hongkong’s Transport International and MTR, London’s Stagecoach Group. SembCorp Industries and Singpost. And the profits of SBS and SMRT were 7.8 to 11.2%, very reasonable and within the spread of the companies quoted.
There is no point trying to go into the details of the little data provided. For those who are sceptical, doubts on the credibility and relevance of the data are glaring. I could quote more transport companies and non transport companies running at a loss to justify that it is ok to run public transport companies at a loss or with little profit.
What is still seen as wrong or unacceptable with the minimal increase? What is 2c when people are earning millions? The issue here is the principle of public transport and how this is treated as any other organisation whose interest is profit. And the operators deserved to be making profits like any other organisation.
Is public transportation with the privileges of a monopoly attached, to operate without competition, any other organisation? A govt run public transport monopoly is a govt monopoly under any colour or stripe. And a public transport system is an essential service and should not quickly be swept away as any other business for profit.
Why is the govt so obsessed with the public transport companies making profit as its major concern to shareholders, and coming out to defend its right to such profits? Why is the govt so persistent in proclaiming that the govt officers are daft and unable to run a public transport system if it is returned as a stats board? It is unbelieveable that any govt would say such a darn thing, that they could not run a transport service unless it is run privately. What a profound statement to acknowledge an inadequacy in a govt filled with top talents. I just dunno what to say.
The PTC quoted the profits of other private companies including non transport operators, to justify the increase. Other organisation’s profits ranged from 3 to 14.9%. These include companies like Hongkong’s Transport International and MTR, London’s Stagecoach Group. SembCorp Industries and Singpost. And the profits of SBS and SMRT were 7.8 to 11.2%, very reasonable and within the spread of the companies quoted.
There is no point trying to go into the details of the little data provided. For those who are sceptical, doubts on the credibility and relevance of the data are glaring. I could quote more transport companies and non transport companies running at a loss to justify that it is ok to run public transport companies at a loss or with little profit.
What is still seen as wrong or unacceptable with the minimal increase? What is 2c when people are earning millions? The issue here is the principle of public transport and how this is treated as any other organisation whose interest is profit. And the operators deserved to be making profits like any other organisation.
Is public transportation with the privileges of a monopoly attached, to operate without competition, any other organisation? A govt run public transport monopoly is a govt monopoly under any colour or stripe. And a public transport system is an essential service and should not quickly be swept away as any other business for profit.
Why is the govt so obsessed with the public transport companies making profit as its major concern to shareholders, and coming out to defend its right to such profits? Why is the govt so persistent in proclaiming that the govt officers are daft and unable to run a public transport system if it is returned as a stats board? It is unbelieveable that any govt would say such a darn thing, that they could not run a transport service unless it is run privately. What a profound statement to acknowledge an inadequacy in a govt filled with top talents. I just dunno what to say.
8/05/2011
The battle for cyberspace
Controlling the media by any political party or ruler is a strategic move to control a country. Control of the media means controlling what the people see and hear, controlling the agenda, saying all the good things on the right people and all the wrong things on the wrong people. The masses are easily swayed and manipulated in their thoughts and views. That is why advertising is such a powerful tool. Controlling the media the controls the minds of the people.
Most govts of the day have more or less a monopoly of the main media to do as they pleased. And their opponents were often denied such access, may be persecuted or rubbished repeatedly in the media with no ways of replying. It was a very comfortable position to be in, to be able to take potshots at political opponents at will and the other party unable to hit back.
Cyberspace is a free for all zone, and no govt is able to control much of it other than blocking it off from its citizens. This requires big machinery and an army of keyboard soldiers hammering at the buttons full time. It is a costly affair and a misuse of public fund. The nature of how the internet works makes surveillance that much more tedious and often unenforceable.
In the last few days there seemed to be a big battle going on in cyberspace. Many popular forums and blogs were subjected to unexplained down time or difficulties in access. Many links and videos that were provided were blocked and getting through them is a tough act. Even the NLB was down with some old news not retrieveable. But that was due to some internal updating issue. The popular political forum of TRE was purportedly under heavy attacks and was down most of the time. So were some other blogs and sites. Even my little blog is facing difficulties and many bloggers have complained that it is moving exceptionally slow and can be very irritating. There are many strange things happening in cyberspace lately.
Competition for the attention of readers is hotting up especially with the run up to the Presidential election. With the main media becoming a has been, when local news are no longer exciting but a regurgitation or rerun, they have lost the grip for readership. Who wants to read stale news that is no better than listening to an old tape recorder?
On the other hand cyberspace is fresh and exciting. And reporters/bloggers are given a free hand to post whatever they want, free from any restraints or editing. Investigative journalism is taking on a fervor that is hardly known in the main media. And these people are doing it without being paid. And the material is informative, controversial and thought provoking. It is an act that the main media finds difficult to replicate to the extent that they look like boy scouts. Or maybe they are all busy covering the National Day Parade.
While the main media are busy or on vacation, the internet is driving and firing all its engines. All systems are running at full speed. And the readership is flocking into cyberspace in increasing numbers. A small outfit like The Temasek Review Emeritus operated by a few volunteers are garnering more readership than many professional media with a huge budget. It has in a way becomes the primary alternative media here.
Who is winning this battle for readership, for the people’s mind? The battle of cyberspace has begun, and the winner will determine how the people think and look at things. The Presidential Election is likely to be the first test case of the power of alternative media to influence how the people will vote. Control of cyberspace is like control of the sky in military terms.
Most govts of the day have more or less a monopoly of the main media to do as they pleased. And their opponents were often denied such access, may be persecuted or rubbished repeatedly in the media with no ways of replying. It was a very comfortable position to be in, to be able to take potshots at political opponents at will and the other party unable to hit back.
Cyberspace is a free for all zone, and no govt is able to control much of it other than blocking it off from its citizens. This requires big machinery and an army of keyboard soldiers hammering at the buttons full time. It is a costly affair and a misuse of public fund. The nature of how the internet works makes surveillance that much more tedious and often unenforceable.
In the last few days there seemed to be a big battle going on in cyberspace. Many popular forums and blogs were subjected to unexplained down time or difficulties in access. Many links and videos that were provided were blocked and getting through them is a tough act. Even the NLB was down with some old news not retrieveable. But that was due to some internal updating issue. The popular political forum of TRE was purportedly under heavy attacks and was down most of the time. So were some other blogs and sites. Even my little blog is facing difficulties and many bloggers have complained that it is moving exceptionally slow and can be very irritating. There are many strange things happening in cyberspace lately.
Competition for the attention of readers is hotting up especially with the run up to the Presidential election. With the main media becoming a has been, when local news are no longer exciting but a regurgitation or rerun, they have lost the grip for readership. Who wants to read stale news that is no better than listening to an old tape recorder?
On the other hand cyberspace is fresh and exciting. And reporters/bloggers are given a free hand to post whatever they want, free from any restraints or editing. Investigative journalism is taking on a fervor that is hardly known in the main media. And these people are doing it without being paid. And the material is informative, controversial and thought provoking. It is an act that the main media finds difficult to replicate to the extent that they look like boy scouts. Or maybe they are all busy covering the National Day Parade.
While the main media are busy or on vacation, the internet is driving and firing all its engines. All systems are running at full speed. And the readership is flocking into cyberspace in increasing numbers. A small outfit like The Temasek Review Emeritus operated by a few volunteers are garnering more readership than many professional media with a huge budget. It has in a way becomes the primary alternative media here.
Who is winning this battle for readership, for the people’s mind? The battle of cyberspace has begun, and the winner will determine how the people think and look at things. The Presidential Election is likely to be the first test case of the power of alternative media to influence how the people will vote. Control of cyberspace is like control of the sky in military terms.
What should Tony Tan do?
It is not easy to be in Tony Tan’s shoe now. His shiny armour of a white knight is now smeared with tomatoes and eggs. It takes great effort and convincing to remove the grits. The thing is, how is this going to be done? Can god stand up and say Tony has done no wrong. Period. Let’s move on.
Even if god is to pronounce that Tony is innocent, the point is that would the people accept the judgement? If the people do not agree, then comes the election and Tony might get a real bruising, and this is no good.
On the other hand if there is no election, a walkover, unthinkable but possible, the smear will not go away. It will harden into a scar. Not only will Tony be affected, the whole institution will come under questioning and a big dark cloud will fall over the island. I don’t think this is an acceptable scenario, and the pus will keep festering and spread to the whole system.
There is another possibility, with a case that is like jumping into the Yellow River will not wash away the dirt, will Tony do the necessary and withdraw his candidacy for the EP? If this be the case, if Tony is no longer in the lime light like some of his contemporaries, the vibes may just fade away.
Well, what if Tony were to walk into the Istana uncontested, this episode is likely to be hanging in the air, in cyberspace, for as long as he is the Elected President, or by walkover. And the plot may thicken.
Which is a better or amiable scenario? An important point to note is that nearly every male Singaporeans has gone through NS and knew how the system should work. Any variation or deviation could be spotted from a mile away. Never try to bluff a NS man about NS. They can get very angry. They have given the best part of their lives to it.
PS. Another possibility. The PEC decides not to issue Tony with the COE in view of the controversies surrounding him and his son. Ok, this is really remote. Heheh. Whatever, once the election campaigns start, many of the concerns raised in the internet may spill over to the main media. It is not going to look good.
Even if god is to pronounce that Tony is innocent, the point is that would the people accept the judgement? If the people do not agree, then comes the election and Tony might get a real bruising, and this is no good.
On the other hand if there is no election, a walkover, unthinkable but possible, the smear will not go away. It will harden into a scar. Not only will Tony be affected, the whole institution will come under questioning and a big dark cloud will fall over the island. I don’t think this is an acceptable scenario, and the pus will keep festering and spread to the whole system.
There is another possibility, with a case that is like jumping into the Yellow River will not wash away the dirt, will Tony do the necessary and withdraw his candidacy for the EP? If this be the case, if Tony is no longer in the lime light like some of his contemporaries, the vibes may just fade away.
Well, what if Tony were to walk into the Istana uncontested, this episode is likely to be hanging in the air, in cyberspace, for as long as he is the Elected President, or by walkover. And the plot may thicken.
Which is a better or amiable scenario? An important point to note is that nearly every male Singaporeans has gone through NS and knew how the system should work. Any variation or deviation could be spotted from a mile away. Never try to bluff a NS man about NS. They can get very angry. They have given the best part of their lives to it.
PS. Another possibility. The PEC decides not to issue Tony with the COE in view of the controversies surrounding him and his son. Ok, this is really remote. Heheh. Whatever, once the election campaigns start, many of the concerns raised in the internet may spill over to the main media. It is not going to look good.
8/04/2011
The Chinese fools in Fangzheng, Heilongjiang
When Japan was colonizing China, they did what the Israelis are doing today, by sending thousands of Japanese settlers into Manchuria. By a stroke of ill fate, they lost the war and these colonialists fled Manchuria after the war. Many died in the process, at least 5,000 on record.
Zhou Enlai did the humanly decent thing by giving them a proper burial. Today, the local govt of Fangzheng went one step further by erecting a monument on the grave site of these occupiers. This act has incurred the wrath of a nation that suffered the brutality of Japanese occupation forces when millions were killed and maimed, when the country was devastated and the dignity of a people erased from their faces.
The foolish people of Fangzheng have forgotten that if the Japanese had won the war, they would be victims of these dead Japanese and their atrocities as conquered people. No country in the world is silly enough to build monuments to honour their conquerors. I doubt Singapore would dare to put up a monument to honour the Japanese soldiers killed in the island during the Japanese Occupation.
The Americans too did not set up monuments to honour the millions of Red Indians decimated during their conquest and occupation of Red Indian country. The Indians and Africans too did not build such monuments to honour the dead colonialists. Many even tore down buildings and landmarks of their colonial rulers.
How much sillier can the Chinese be?
Zhou Enlai did the humanly decent thing by giving them a proper burial. Today, the local govt of Fangzheng went one step further by erecting a monument on the grave site of these occupiers. This act has incurred the wrath of a nation that suffered the brutality of Japanese occupation forces when millions were killed and maimed, when the country was devastated and the dignity of a people erased from their faces.
The foolish people of Fangzheng have forgotten that if the Japanese had won the war, they would be victims of these dead Japanese and their atrocities as conquered people. No country in the world is silly enough to build monuments to honour their conquerors. I doubt Singapore would dare to put up a monument to honour the Japanese soldiers killed in the island during the Japanese Occupation.
The Americans too did not set up monuments to honour the millions of Red Indians decimated during their conquest and occupation of Red Indian country. The Indians and Africans too did not build such monuments to honour the dead colonialists. Many even tore down buildings and landmarks of their colonial rulers.
How much sillier can the Chinese be?
Dr Patrick Tan – A bigger issue at stake
The public scrutiny of Tony Tan and Patrick Tan has led to a bigger issue, the integrity of the system as a whole, particularly Mindef. A doubt has been created in the minds of the public and all NS men and their families are feeling very uneasy. It is very important that this be led to rest quickly before the election of the President takes place.
No matter what Tony Tan and Patrick Tan said, no matter what Mindef tries to explain, there will be all kinds of innuendoes and perceptions, rightly or wrongly. The longer this issue is dragged on, the more perplex it will become and wild imaginations in the minds of the people can be expected.
What I think would be a better way to clarify this confusion, which is not going to do good to Tony and Mindef, is to state clearly the milestones of Patrick’s scholarship, deferment, enlistment and reservist training, including ICTs and IPPTs. List the events and dates clearly and let the people see for themselves and make their decisions based on facts. Mindef can include some explanations along the way to clarify on why the decisions were made and the policies of the day.
I think this should be QED to clear the air.
No matter what Tony Tan and Patrick Tan said, no matter what Mindef tries to explain, there will be all kinds of innuendoes and perceptions, rightly or wrongly. The longer this issue is dragged on, the more perplex it will become and wild imaginations in the minds of the people can be expected.
What I think would be a better way to clarify this confusion, which is not going to do good to Tony and Mindef, is to state clearly the milestones of Patrick’s scholarship, deferment, enlistment and reservist training, including ICTs and IPPTs. List the events and dates clearly and let the people see for themselves and make their decisions based on facts. Mindef can include some explanations along the way to clarify on why the decisions were made and the policies of the day.
I think this should be QED to clear the air.
What would the PEC be looking at?
All eyes are now on the President Election Council where three wise men are supposed to pass an edict on who are the presidential hopefuls that will get their blessings to receive a COE. What they have to fall back on is a list of criteria in an Act to make their godly decisions. The terms are public knowledge today, but though everyone thinks they know what they meant, everyone is also at a lost as to what they meant. Everyone is having an opinion as to who will qualify and who will not.
Some of the criteria are quite specific, a permanent secretary or equivalent, CEO of a public company with a paid up capital of $100m and at least three years in the job. With these conditions, some have already pronounced that only Tony Tan qualifies while the rest are doubtful starters if the PEC applies them stringently. It seems quite an easy task if one is to act like an unthinking robot and goes by the letters in the legislation. And if that be the case, only Tony will qualify. Anyone with any objections can be asked to read the Act themselves. See, must be a permanent secretary or a CEO of a public listed company with $100m paid up capital. Anything else is outside the law.
The PEC can also attempt to try to read the spirit of the Act, as to what was the intention of the provision. As in all legislations, the words are limited and cannot cover all conditions, variations or exceptions. What was the intent of the people who passed the Act? Do they really mean that only those few people as indicated qualify to stand as a candidate, or is the provision meant to cover a wider area to include more able people for the Presidency? To many laymen, that must be the case and the provisions are just guidelines to ensure that people of good character, with sufficient intellect and abilities to decide on the use of the nation’s reserve be allowed to stand. The Act cannot be so rigid, a straight jacket, that will rule out anyone that do not fit its brief descriptions to the T.
The four/five candidates, with their qualifications and experiences, are good and able men that would have no problem in performing the duties of the Elected President. They are more than the average men on the street. They have good credentials and no one is saying that they are not good enough unless it can be proven that they have character flaws or did anything that is unbecoming of the office of the President.
The job of the PEC should be quite easy actually if it is just the interpretation of the Act. Unfortunately there are other political considerations and complications that will affect their final edict. The people all knows what the considerations are. There are the interests of the ruling party and also the interests of the country and people to take note of. We have heard comments about a neutral President that is not beholden to any political party. A President that has the courage and stature and toughness to take a stand against the ruling govt. After all he is to check on the govt when the use of the reserves is placed on his table. He is also expected and some say good, to be able to work closely with the ruling govt while able to say no if necessary.
See, things start to get messy here, to be friendly, pally, to be nice but also to be able to stand up to the govt. Or to be not so friendly and to be not so nice and glad to have the opportunity to say no. As far as the govt is concerned, they would want someone nice and pally, someone that would give them the least annoyance. Maybe someone that will say yes when the govt wants to dip into the reserves. In this case, an ex party member with close ties would be ideal. Strange relationship huh?
On the other hand, the people would want a President to be really, truly, and strongly independent minded, independent of the govt, and happy to be objective and ready to say no to the govt. In this case, a non ruling party member, someone who has never slept in the same bed before must be the chosen one.
So, how would the PEC decide then, given the unspoken interests of the ruling govt to take care of and the interests of the people who are more comfortable with a really independent President, not just by words alone, or personal claims, but to be able to act independently of the ruling govt? Would the spirit of the Act hold sway and a broader interpretation be used by the PEC? Or would a different kind of spirit takes an upper hand and every letter in the Act is taken literally with no rooms for exception, leading to the disqualification of several candidates?
What kind of spirits would rule the day and lead the PEC to go about their work? I can see that people are praying everywhere in the streets for good blessings from the spirits. The govt can be angry, the spirits too. And there is the wrath of the people to consider. This is a non political appointment, a non political President and the election must be devoid of politics. So some wise men would say. Non political? Can that be?
The least that the people can expect is that this election is done with great respect, decorum, honour and decency. And it starts from the moment the application for a COE is submitted. This election must be clean and free from all the ugly accusations of a GE where all kinds of perceptions were present to discredit or cast doubt to the whole affair. The PEC and its three wise men have a very vital role to play to set the tone for the election of a President that is not tainted with political undertones.
Some of the criteria are quite specific, a permanent secretary or equivalent, CEO of a public company with a paid up capital of $100m and at least three years in the job. With these conditions, some have already pronounced that only Tony Tan qualifies while the rest are doubtful starters if the PEC applies them stringently. It seems quite an easy task if one is to act like an unthinking robot and goes by the letters in the legislation. And if that be the case, only Tony will qualify. Anyone with any objections can be asked to read the Act themselves. See, must be a permanent secretary or a CEO of a public listed company with $100m paid up capital. Anything else is outside the law.
The PEC can also attempt to try to read the spirit of the Act, as to what was the intention of the provision. As in all legislations, the words are limited and cannot cover all conditions, variations or exceptions. What was the intent of the people who passed the Act? Do they really mean that only those few people as indicated qualify to stand as a candidate, or is the provision meant to cover a wider area to include more able people for the Presidency? To many laymen, that must be the case and the provisions are just guidelines to ensure that people of good character, with sufficient intellect and abilities to decide on the use of the nation’s reserve be allowed to stand. The Act cannot be so rigid, a straight jacket, that will rule out anyone that do not fit its brief descriptions to the T.
The four/five candidates, with their qualifications and experiences, are good and able men that would have no problem in performing the duties of the Elected President. They are more than the average men on the street. They have good credentials and no one is saying that they are not good enough unless it can be proven that they have character flaws or did anything that is unbecoming of the office of the President.
The job of the PEC should be quite easy actually if it is just the interpretation of the Act. Unfortunately there are other political considerations and complications that will affect their final edict. The people all knows what the considerations are. There are the interests of the ruling party and also the interests of the country and people to take note of. We have heard comments about a neutral President that is not beholden to any political party. A President that has the courage and stature and toughness to take a stand against the ruling govt. After all he is to check on the govt when the use of the reserves is placed on his table. He is also expected and some say good, to be able to work closely with the ruling govt while able to say no if necessary.
See, things start to get messy here, to be friendly, pally, to be nice but also to be able to stand up to the govt. Or to be not so friendly and to be not so nice and glad to have the opportunity to say no. As far as the govt is concerned, they would want someone nice and pally, someone that would give them the least annoyance. Maybe someone that will say yes when the govt wants to dip into the reserves. In this case, an ex party member with close ties would be ideal. Strange relationship huh?
On the other hand, the people would want a President to be really, truly, and strongly independent minded, independent of the govt, and happy to be objective and ready to say no to the govt. In this case, a non ruling party member, someone who has never slept in the same bed before must be the chosen one.
So, how would the PEC decide then, given the unspoken interests of the ruling govt to take care of and the interests of the people who are more comfortable with a really independent President, not just by words alone, or personal claims, but to be able to act independently of the ruling govt? Would the spirit of the Act hold sway and a broader interpretation be used by the PEC? Or would a different kind of spirit takes an upper hand and every letter in the Act is taken literally with no rooms for exception, leading to the disqualification of several candidates?
What kind of spirits would rule the day and lead the PEC to go about their work? I can see that people are praying everywhere in the streets for good blessings from the spirits. The govt can be angry, the spirits too. And there is the wrath of the people to consider. This is a non political appointment, a non political President and the election must be devoid of politics. So some wise men would say. Non political? Can that be?
The least that the people can expect is that this election is done with great respect, decorum, honour and decency. And it starts from the moment the application for a COE is submitted. This election must be clean and free from all the ugly accusations of a GE where all kinds of perceptions were present to discredit or cast doubt to the whole affair. The PEC and its three wise men have a very vital role to play to set the tone for the election of a President that is not tainted with political undertones.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)