I refer to the article ‘Chiam’s Still Standing’ (TODAY, 28th Feb 2009)
Uncle Chiam’s decision to reveal his cards at this stage is not a surprise to me. After all he was the master tactician who engineered the 1991 By-Election effect, which was effective enough, to see 4 members of the opposition camp entered Parliament, the largest ever, since the historical walkout by 13 Barisan Socialists’ MPs.
As the Chairman of WP’s Central Area Committee, tasked by WP’s leadership at the end of GE2006 to oversee cultivation of alternative grassroots mechanisms in Ang Mo Kio GRC, Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC & Yio Chu Kang SMC, (Especially in Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC, which has never been contested since the inception of GRC politics) naturally I read Uncle Chiam’s revelation with mixed-feelings.
Personally, Uncle Chiam is unquestionably my hero. He is someone whom I respect deeply. From May 1999 to April 2000, when I was an active member of Potong Pasir grassroots, Uncle Chiam was a fatherly figure to me, who mentored and imparted in me political values, ideals and principles. Few months back, both Uncle Chiam & his wife even took time off to grace my traditional wedding banquet celebrations.
Organizationally, I’m slightly disappointed. This is because quiet grassroots cultivation efforts have been put in by dedicated members of WP Central Area Committee over the past 20 months. Refer to some photos of our activism here. Recently, we even convened a WP Central Area Committee GE Task Force to plan for the possibility of snap elections.
Strategically, this is certainly a deliberately calculated move by SPP/ SDA. There are obvious strategic advantages in signaling their intentions early. Political watchers could easily point out the increased level of political activities over the last 20 months by several opposition parties within Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC. As such this revelation by SPP/ SDA will certainly result in opposition parties re-thinking about our strategic deployments.
Politically, I can understand where Uncle Chiam is coming from. I will do whatever within my ability to ensure that a three-Corner fight with SPP/ SDA is avoided in Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC. However in politics, there must a form of give-&-take. Between the SPP/ SDA & WP leadership level, we must commence informal negotiations soon.
Perhaps a gentlemanly switch between SPP/ SDA’s last contested Pasir Ris - Ponggol GRC and Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC would be ideal? Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps…
News Link:
Chiam’s Still Standing (TODAY, 28th Feb 2009)
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
If You Can’t Beat It, Join It
I refer to the article ‘Ready to use new media at next GE: PM’ (TODAY, 24th Feb 2009)Inspired by President Obama, the PAP regime is now ready to embrace new media at the next GE. Terming the World Wide Web, the ‘Wild Wild West’, PM Lee certainly tried his best to summarize, rationalize and demystify the complexities of the new media medium.
He gave the analogy that ‘it is like going from sea to land or vice versa, you’re changing your medium and you need to get comfortable with it. But we’re working hard at it.’ Frankly it is rather embarrassing for a purportedly world class government to take such a long time to learn, work hard and to get comfortable at a media medium which has been around for more than 10 years!
He further noted that there will always be a role for traditional media to present trusted, unbiased and informed opinions even if some may feel that the information generated by traditional media is rather tame compared to what’s online. However it is helpful to note that the traditional media in Singapore to a large extent has evolved with times. Many of these already have active web presences that are widely read by Singaporeans.
As such PM Lee has unwittedly acknowledged that the key issue here is not so much so about getting people to be comfortable with mediums. Rather the issue is that of the PAP regime trying to find its footing, in the uncomfortable position of its attempts to counter and taming the ‘wild wild west’ but had overall failed in varying degrees.
Fortunately for Singaporeans, the digital media medium has given rise to platforms where information can no longer be easily controlled nor monopolized by traditional media. Many of us would have recalled a GE2006 photo of a WP rally @ Hougang taken by the Yawning Bread, which ultimately forced our traditional mediums to eventually acknowledge the multitudes of people @ WP rallies.
Therefore the issue is NOT about traditional media versus ‘new’ media. Rather the issue is that of control, specifically the losing of information control by state-controlled media to alternative-digital media.
Unfamiliar to the lost of control, the PAP regime does not have much of a choice but to concede to the new media’s ability in circumventing information monopoly. Also the regime does hope that it may tap upon the new media’s scope and scale in reaching out to the people. However whether could the regime eventually harness the potentials of the ‘new’ medium remains much to be seen.
It is a familiar case of if you can’t beat it, join it.
Original Photo Source:
The Yawning Bread
News Link:
Ready to use new media at next GE: PM (TODAY, 24th Feb 2009)
Saturday, February 21, 2009
On Community Moderation of Blogsphere
I refer to the article ‘Get the wider community online, too’ (Straits Times, Review, Insight, 21 Feb 2009)In relation to the idea of community moderation of blogsphere by bloggers, the Straits Times’ Clarissa Oon contacted me yesterday for my viewpoints on the above and Internet flaming.
Below are my comments in full:
So long the Internet is there, such criticisms will exist because they come from people from all walks of life and with different ideological perspectives. If we believe in freedom of speech (& expression, enshrined in our constitution), they have the right to say what they think. What matters is the substance of the remarks. (Topics with merit and discussed in meaningful manner will definitely have a life of its own) If they are just rude or unsubstantiated, such remarks will just die a natural death. (Therefore) It is really very difficult to do community moderation of blog discussions and blog posts. (Their numbers are growing by the day). My recommendation is that blogs and forums/ (bloggers exercise personal-leadership and practice decorum in blogging ). (Let readers) exercise their own judgment on content.
News Link:
Get the wider community online, too (Straits Times, Review, Insight, Page A29, 21 Feb 2009)
Friday, February 20, 2009
On The Right to Vote
I refer to A/P Jack Tsen-Ta's letter ‘Make the implicit explicit’ (TODAY, 20 Feb 2009)
From a political defense point of view, I support the calls by both A/P Jack Tsen-Ta Lee & NMP Dr Thio Li-Ann to state explicitly in Part IV of our constitution, that all citizens should have the right to ‘be governed by a government of their choice, expressed by universal and equal suffrage and held by secret vote’
A/P Jack Tsen-Ta is correct to point out that Singaporeans’ implied right to vote may not be sufficient to prevent a future (*or even the present) government to alter the manner in which the vote is exercised to an unrecognizable extent, possibly in the areas of equitability and secrecy.
In the same letter, A/P Jack also gave some useful suggestions on incorporating important features of the conduct of election in Singapore into our constitution.
Law Minister Shanmugam gave Singaporeans assurance that ‘the right to vote is an inalienable right’ and he declared that his government is ‘committed to the rule of law’. Since this is so, there is nothing for the regime to fear or hide and Singaporeans' ‘right to vote’ should be explicitly stated down in our constitutional law.
* italicized inserts – my own
News Link:
Make the implicit explicit (TODAY, 20 Feb 2009)
From a political defense point of view, I support the calls by both A/P Jack Tsen-Ta Lee & NMP Dr Thio Li-Ann to state explicitly in Part IV of our constitution, that all citizens should have the right to ‘be governed by a government of their choice, expressed by universal and equal suffrage and held by secret vote’
A/P Jack Tsen-Ta is correct to point out that Singaporeans’ implied right to vote may not be sufficient to prevent a future (*or even the present) government to alter the manner in which the vote is exercised to an unrecognizable extent, possibly in the areas of equitability and secrecy.
In the same letter, A/P Jack also gave some useful suggestions on incorporating important features of the conduct of election in Singapore into our constitution.
Law Minister Shanmugam gave Singaporeans assurance that ‘the right to vote is an inalienable right’ and he declared that his government is ‘committed to the rule of law’. Since this is so, there is nothing for the regime to fear or hide and Singaporeans' ‘right to vote’ should be explicitly stated down in our constitutional law.
* italicized inserts – my own
News Link:
Make the implicit explicit (TODAY, 20 Feb 2009)
Thursday, February 19, 2009
On Registers of Electors & Polling Districts Tweaks
.jpg)
I refer to the reports ‘Updates to registers of electors before April 30th, is GE coming?’ (Lian He Wan Bao, 18th Feb 2009) and ‘Now, tweaks to polling districts unveiled…’ (Today, 19th Feb 2009). Lian He Wan Bao contacted me yesterday for my comments regarding the former report. Below is a translation of my response to the reporter:
‘There is nothing particularly special regarding mandatory updates to registers of electors. Hence Singaporeans need not get overly excited about it. However even if the General Elections are to be held today, the Workers’ Party is prepared and ready for the fight. Actually there is no such thing as a good timing or bad timing to hold the General Elections. Voters are discerning and can ascertain for themselves if political parties are working hard for them. Also, after the financial crisis (SWF mega-losses), our voters will have an even clearer perspective whether should political hegemony be tolerated.’
That evening, in the midst of a WP’s Central Area Committee’s strategic meeting on GE preparations, a friend from another party (but from the same-side of the political fraternity) contacted me too regarding news on the tweaking to polling districts. Upon verifying the situation, I assured this friend that it was actually ‘re-designation of electoral districts not boundaries’.
Regardless of the above happenings, here's my message for fellow WP members, helpers & supporters: Just relax for now, but do keep up with our on-going preparations and wait for mobilization and deployment. Together we will do battle against the PAP regime for the People of Singapore. What about you? Are you keen to do battle on the blue & right side of history?
WP welcomes you!
News Links:
Updates to registers of electors before April 30th, is GE coming? (Lian He Wan Bao, 18th Feb 2009)
Now, tweaks to polling districts unveiled… (Today, 19th Feb 2009).
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
The Call for an Independent Public Inquiry
I refer to the article ‘GIC lost $50billion last year: Report’ (TODAY, 18th Feb 2009)
The report in mention is originally from Dow Jones Newswires, which accordingly received the said information from two unnamed sources. However according to The Nation, in an earlier report, GIC’s projected loss range is even more startling, between the range of $190b -$200 billion.
Subjected to the eventual admission by GIC, Singaporeans can never ever find out the true extent of our massive losses. After decades of shrouding our SWFs in secrecy, the PAP regime MUST be held accountable for their actions. Singaporeans have had enough.
The regime’s typical arguments would be that our SWFs are long –term-investors and the entire globe is bleeding cut little ice. Singaporeans must put things in perspective. In mere few months, Singapore’s wealth painstakingly built up over 2 generations are massively wiped out via these paper losses.
Singapore’s SWFs to a large extent behave like empowered investment banks, which are given the ‘mandate’ to make money without the stress of direct pubic accountability.
Paper losses aside, the greater issue is the evident lack of public accountability mechanisms, which must be in place, as our SWFs MUST not be given a blank cheque to gamble away our taxpayers’ balanced sheet just like that.
There several other questions too, such as:
1) Who exactly are our SWFs accountable to?
2) What are the check-&-balances mechanisms in our SWF reporting structures?
3) What should have been the risk appetite of our SWFs?
4) How can our SWFs up the transparency-level in their investment decisions?
5) What are the possible alternatives?
In view of the above, I strongly feel that an independent public inquiry must be commissioned to look into all of the above.
Two WP leaders, Eric Tan & I are ready to play our parts to build up a case behind the call for an independent public inquiry to our SWFs’ losses. We will be conducting several by- invitation-only FGDs (Focus Group Discussion) on this issue, commencing tomorrow on 19th February 2009 (Thursday).
Will you join us? Email us at eric@wp.sg &/or yawsl@wp.sg.
News Links:
GIC lost $50billion last year: Report (TODAY, 18th Feb 2009)
Temasek takes severe hit (The Nation, 9th Feb 2009)
The report in mention is originally from Dow Jones Newswires, which accordingly received the said information from two unnamed sources. However according to The Nation, in an earlier report, GIC’s projected loss range is even more startling, between the range of $190b -$200 billion.
Subjected to the eventual admission by GIC, Singaporeans can never ever find out the true extent of our massive losses. After decades of shrouding our SWFs in secrecy, the PAP regime MUST be held accountable for their actions. Singaporeans have had enough.
The regime’s typical arguments would be that our SWFs are long –term-investors and the entire globe is bleeding cut little ice. Singaporeans must put things in perspective. In mere few months, Singapore’s wealth painstakingly built up over 2 generations are massively wiped out via these paper losses.
Singapore’s SWFs to a large extent behave like empowered investment banks, which are given the ‘mandate’ to make money without the stress of direct pubic accountability.
Paper losses aside, the greater issue is the evident lack of public accountability mechanisms, which must be in place, as our SWFs MUST not be given a blank cheque to gamble away our taxpayers’ balanced sheet just like that.
There several other questions too, such as:
1) Who exactly are our SWFs accountable to?
2) What are the check-&-balances mechanisms in our SWF reporting structures?
3) What should have been the risk appetite of our SWFs?
4) How can our SWFs up the transparency-level in their investment decisions?
5) What are the possible alternatives?
In view of the above, I strongly feel that an independent public inquiry must be commissioned to look into all of the above.
Two WP leaders, Eric Tan & I are ready to play our parts to build up a case behind the call for an independent public inquiry to our SWFs’ losses. We will be conducting several by- invitation-only FGDs (Focus Group Discussion) on this issue, commencing tomorrow on 19th February 2009 (Thursday).
Will you join us? Email us at eric@wp.sg &/or yawsl@wp.sg.
News Links:
GIC lost $50billion last year: Report (TODAY, 18th Feb 2009)
Temasek takes severe hit (The Nation, 9th Feb 2009)
Monday, February 16, 2009
The Sixth Cornerstone
I refer to the article ‘Marking Total Defence Day’ (Straits Times 16th Feb 2009)
I am a hardcore nationalist who believes staunchly in the defence of Singapore. I also hold the view that at any point of time, the sovereignty of Singapore must not be compromised, be it psychologically, socially, economically, civil-wise or militarily.
Yet I am convinced that the current ‘Total Defence’ concept is inadequate. My chief reason is that a cornerstone of total defence (i.e. political defence) is distinctly missing. This is not a new issue, for I had first raised this during the press conference when WP introduced its first batch of candidates for General Elections 2006.
The PAP regime is not keen to incorporate political defence as a cornerstone in Singapore’s total defence. This is because it will possibly result in an erosion of power away from the PAP. Naturally no incumbent will like to lose whatever power it is current enjoying. In the context of Singapore, an almost complete political hegemony manifests in its highest decision making body, the Singapore Parliament.
Personally I have no issue with a 'party with a majority' (*), but I have major issues with political hegemony. The PAP regime has taken many regressive steps too far in this attempt to consolidate itself politically:
One key step it took was in 1988, where the PAP introduced the Group Representative Constituencies (GRC), which are typically helmed by some political heavyweights, flanked by lesser-known political personalities. Naturally, such a system favors the incumbent for GRC teams helmed by some heavyweights will always pit themselves against lesser known personalities from the political opposition.
The GRC system has been justified aggressively by the PAP citing it being the key to ensure a consistent ethnic-minority representation. However in 1961 & 1981 WP’s Ex-Chairman David Marshall (of Jewish origin) and Ex-Secretary General JBJ (of Sri Lankan origin), both won in Anson against other candidates in a predominately Chinese constituency without the assistance of any GRC system in place.
Furthermore the GRC concept is a flawed argument that goes against the sprit of equality as enshrined in our national pledge, which comprised of the words ‘regardless of race, language or religion’. Whilst the WP is currently fighting general elections based on the current rules of engagement, but a distant-future WP government must rectify this wrong by allowing democracy to return to its original form and to put in place, some form of semi-proportional representation in our electoral process.
The PAP regime claimed that it is not possible for Singapore to have a Two-Party System, as the talent pool in Singapore is way too limited to share beyond one party. This is precisely the reason why Singapore is currently staring at a staggering $58 billion paper loss due to the lack of SWF transparency and accountability in an almost One-Party Parliament.
Also the regime has cleverly fused politics with that of social defence. This can be seen via its politicization of its PAP-centric NTUC union, People’s Association (PA) and its respective Grassroots Organizations (GROs).
More strikingly, the said regime has strategically incorporated its lighting-in-a-circle logo in its foundational arm (PCF, which provides kindergarten services), where the said name of the logo become a branding and a by-word in the mouths of mere 5 & 6 years old children. I am not even referring to PCF contingents, with their poled flags during national day parades, beamed across state-controlled TV networks & other media. This is a clear-cut case of political socialization and mass propaganda immersion.
For total defence to be effective, it is time for Singaporeans to rise up a new political force in Singapore Parliament to hold the PAP regime accountable for all its decisions and actions. I strongly encourage my fellow Singaporeans to consider the WP. Being the leading political opposition, the WP is ready to develop the 6th cornerstone in Singapore's total defence collectively with fellow Singaporeans.
Yes, you have a choice.
(*) Upon receipt of feedback and to maximize clarity, the phrase ‘dominant government’ was replaced with the phrase ‘party with a majority’ on 17th Feb 2009 @ 5.40pm
News Link:
Marking Total Defence Day (Straits Times 16th Feb 2009)
I am a hardcore nationalist who believes staunchly in the defence of Singapore. I also hold the view that at any point of time, the sovereignty of Singapore must not be compromised, be it psychologically, socially, economically, civil-wise or militarily.
Yet I am convinced that the current ‘Total Defence’ concept is inadequate. My chief reason is that a cornerstone of total defence (i.e. political defence) is distinctly missing. This is not a new issue, for I had first raised this during the press conference when WP introduced its first batch of candidates for General Elections 2006.
The PAP regime is not keen to incorporate political defence as a cornerstone in Singapore’s total defence. This is because it will possibly result in an erosion of power away from the PAP. Naturally no incumbent will like to lose whatever power it is current enjoying. In the context of Singapore, an almost complete political hegemony manifests in its highest decision making body, the Singapore Parliament.
Personally I have no issue with a 'party with a majority' (*), but I have major issues with political hegemony. The PAP regime has taken many regressive steps too far in this attempt to consolidate itself politically:
One key step it took was in 1988, where the PAP introduced the Group Representative Constituencies (GRC), which are typically helmed by some political heavyweights, flanked by lesser-known political personalities. Naturally, such a system favors the incumbent for GRC teams helmed by some heavyweights will always pit themselves against lesser known personalities from the political opposition.
The GRC system has been justified aggressively by the PAP citing it being the key to ensure a consistent ethnic-minority representation. However in 1961 & 1981 WP’s Ex-Chairman David Marshall (of Jewish origin) and Ex-Secretary General JBJ (of Sri Lankan origin), both won in Anson against other candidates in a predominately Chinese constituency without the assistance of any GRC system in place.
Furthermore the GRC concept is a flawed argument that goes against the sprit of equality as enshrined in our national pledge, which comprised of the words ‘regardless of race, language or religion’. Whilst the WP is currently fighting general elections based on the current rules of engagement, but a distant-future WP government must rectify this wrong by allowing democracy to return to its original form and to put in place, some form of semi-proportional representation in our electoral process.
The PAP regime claimed that it is not possible for Singapore to have a Two-Party System, as the talent pool in Singapore is way too limited to share beyond one party. This is precisely the reason why Singapore is currently staring at a staggering $58 billion paper loss due to the lack of SWF transparency and accountability in an almost One-Party Parliament.
Also the regime has cleverly fused politics with that of social defence. This can be seen via its politicization of its PAP-centric NTUC union, People’s Association (PA) and its respective Grassroots Organizations (GROs).
More strikingly, the said regime has strategically incorporated its lighting-in-a-circle logo in its foundational arm (PCF, which provides kindergarten services), where the said name of the logo become a branding and a by-word in the mouths of mere 5 & 6 years old children. I am not even referring to PCF contingents, with their poled flags during national day parades, beamed across state-controlled TV networks & other media. This is a clear-cut case of political socialization and mass propaganda immersion.
For total defence to be effective, it is time for Singaporeans to rise up a new political force in Singapore Parliament to hold the PAP regime accountable for all its decisions and actions. I strongly encourage my fellow Singaporeans to consider the WP. Being the leading political opposition, the WP is ready to develop the 6th cornerstone in Singapore's total defence collectively with fellow Singaporeans.
Yes, you have a choice.
(*) Upon receipt of feedback and to maximize clarity, the phrase ‘dominant government’ was replaced with the phrase ‘party with a majority’ on 17th Feb 2009 @ 5.40pm
News Link:
Marking Total Defence Day (Straits Times 16th Feb 2009)
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Super Ultra Extraordinary Losses
I refer to the headlines ‘Temasek down 31% in 8 months’ (TODAY, 11th Feb 2009).
Now it makes even more sense regarding Temasek’s recently announced planned succession! Let’s work the sums: Temasek’s investment portfolio at end-November 2008 was at $127 billion, from $185 billion at end-March last year. This means Temasek is staring at a paper loss of $58b. If a $20.5b budget is extraordinary, $58b this paper loss should be considered as SUPER-ULTRA-Extraordinary losses.
This PAP regime always prides itself for being able to deliver the goods. Yet, this round, it scrambled awkwardly for valid explanations and justifications. One of the lamest justifications, being the reiteration that Temasek’s portfolio decline of 31% was less than the 42% drop in global equity market indices for 2008. This is what we call a ‘pot calling the kettle black’ situation.
NRA Capital Managing Director Kevin Scully was most kind when he gave the consoling comment, ‘It was good for Temesak to disclose its losses because it shows the public… you still have some good investments to offset some of those not so good investments. After all you are still beating respectable benchmarks.’
The next lame justification is that Temasek and GIC were both long-term investors, and this was not the first major market decline they have seen. Strategically, the PAP regime justified that ‘Yet, over 20 years up till 2008, Temasek enjoyed 13% returns, while GIC produced 5.8%’. The operative words here are ‘up till’. Why not give us the figures up till 2009?
At least Ang Mo Kio MP Inderjit Singh was candid enough to feedback that, ‘There has been a lot of talk even at coffee shops, at the grassroots level and among our residents, about the losses by our SWFs and whether this government has undone what our past government has so painstakingly built up.’ (Indeed!)
When times are good, the PAP regime will accredited good times to its prudent policies and its competency. When times are bad, the regime will quickly push blame aside, for example, by quickly citing worse-off MSCI indices and how else where in the world SWFs have suffered too etc.
Singaporeans have HAD(*) enough.
* Amended on 13th Feb 2009 based on the feedback that 'had' should be inserted after the original 'have'. Apt indeed!
News Link:
Temasek down 31% in 8 months (TODAY, 11th Feb 2009)
Now it makes even more sense regarding Temasek’s recently announced planned succession! Let’s work the sums: Temasek’s investment portfolio at end-November 2008 was at $127 billion, from $185 billion at end-March last year. This means Temasek is staring at a paper loss of $58b. If a $20.5b budget is extraordinary, $58b this paper loss should be considered as SUPER-ULTRA-Extraordinary losses.
This PAP regime always prides itself for being able to deliver the goods. Yet, this round, it scrambled awkwardly for valid explanations and justifications. One of the lamest justifications, being the reiteration that Temasek’s portfolio decline of 31% was less than the 42% drop in global equity market indices for 2008. This is what we call a ‘pot calling the kettle black’ situation.
NRA Capital Managing Director Kevin Scully was most kind when he gave the consoling comment, ‘It was good for Temesak to disclose its losses because it shows the public… you still have some good investments to offset some of those not so good investments. After all you are still beating respectable benchmarks.’
The next lame justification is that Temasek and GIC were both long-term investors, and this was not the first major market decline they have seen. Strategically, the PAP regime justified that ‘Yet, over 20 years up till 2008, Temasek enjoyed 13% returns, while GIC produced 5.8%’. The operative words here are ‘up till’. Why not give us the figures up till 2009?
At least Ang Mo Kio MP Inderjit Singh was candid enough to feedback that, ‘There has been a lot of talk even at coffee shops, at the grassroots level and among our residents, about the losses by our SWFs and whether this government has undone what our past government has so painstakingly built up.’ (Indeed!)
When times are good, the PAP regime will accredited good times to its prudent policies and its competency. When times are bad, the regime will quickly push blame aside, for example, by quickly citing worse-off MSCI indices and how else where in the world SWFs have suffered too etc.
Singaporeans have HAD(*) enough.
* Amended on 13th Feb 2009 based on the feedback that 'had' should be inserted after the original 'have'. Apt indeed!
News Link:
Temasek down 31% in 8 months (TODAY, 11th Feb 2009)
Monday, February 09, 2009
On Uncle Chiam See Tong
.jpg)
I refer to the report ‘Mr Chiam See Tong’s Protracted Movements’ (Shin Min Daily, 8th Feb 2009, Page 4)Shin Min Daily contacted me yesterday for my comments regarding the above. Specifically, the reporter asked me whether Mr Chiam See Tong should retire from politics.
Below is a translation of my response to Shin Min Daily:
a)It is not for me to determine whether or not Mr Chiam See Tong should be retiring from politics. Rather this decision(*) can only be made by Mr Chiam and his Potong Pasir constituents.
b)Mr Chiam’s fighting spirit has been most inspiring and he is a role model to younger opposition activists. The least Singaporeans can do, is to give him our massive support
On 5th March 2001, I wrote a Politician Focus piece on Mr Chiam See Tong. 8 years on, the concerns raised in the article remain relevant. In additional to those concerns, let us pray hard for Uncle Chiam’s health and his complete recovery too.
* In this same Shin Min Daily report, Mr Chiam has indicated that he is willing & keen to carry on the fight.
Friday, February 06, 2009
Singaporeans Deserve Better
I refer to the article ‘Temasek CEO Ho Ching to leave; replaced by ex-BHP's Goodyear’ (Reuters, 6th Feb 2009)
It is reported that Temasek Holdings’ Chief executive Ho Ching will step down and be replaced by former BHP Billiton CEO Chip Goodyear on Oct. 1. 2009. According to Temasek’s Chairman S. Dhanabalan, he said:
"The team has already embarked on a different stance since mid-2007, and has begun to review its long-term plans under different scenarios prompted by the economic downturn," He added "If we are to bring in new leadership, it would be just as good a time as any to involve a new leader in this review."
I have 5 burning questions:
1)If it ain’t broken (In reference to Temasek's strategic directions) - Why fix it?
2)Does it mean that the Temasek board already had issues with its present strategic directions since mid-2007?
3)Does it also mean that the Temasek board had actually projected the possible dangers (of the current economic meltdown) but due to some considerations/ constrains (over the last 1.5 year) still pursued its current direction?
4)If so, what were these considerations/ constrains?
5)Is the change of CEO tantamount to Temasek's admission of its massive investment failures?
In the same report, it was reported that Temasek had S$185 billion ($123.2 billion) in assets as at March 2008, has been hit hard due to its 40 percent exposure to banks that have slumped in value due to the global financial crisis. Sigh, these are our hard-earned monies.
Singaporeans certainly deserve better.
News Link:
Temasek CEO Ho Ching to leave; replaced by ex-BHP's Goodyear (Reuters, 6th Feb 2009)
It is reported that Temasek Holdings’ Chief executive Ho Ching will step down and be replaced by former BHP Billiton CEO Chip Goodyear on Oct. 1. 2009. According to Temasek’s Chairman S. Dhanabalan, he said:
"The team has already embarked on a different stance since mid-2007, and has begun to review its long-term plans under different scenarios prompted by the economic downturn," He added "If we are to bring in new leadership, it would be just as good a time as any to involve a new leader in this review."
I have 5 burning questions:
1)If it ain’t broken (In reference to Temasek's strategic directions) - Why fix it?
2)Does it mean that the Temasek board already had issues with its present strategic directions since mid-2007?
3)Does it also mean that the Temasek board had actually projected the possible dangers (of the current economic meltdown) but due to some considerations/ constrains (over the last 1.5 year) still pursued its current direction?
4)If so, what were these considerations/ constrains?
5)Is the change of CEO tantamount to Temasek's admission of its massive investment failures?
In the same report, it was reported that Temasek had S$185 billion ($123.2 billion) in assets as at March 2008, has been hit hard due to its 40 percent exposure to banks that have slumped in value due to the global financial crisis. Sigh, these are our hard-earned monies.
Singaporeans certainly deserve better.
News Link:
Temasek CEO Ho Ching to leave; replaced by ex-BHP's Goodyear (Reuters, 6th Feb 2009)
Najib's Masterstroke
I refer to the article ‘BN man to head Perak’ (TODAY, 6th Feb 2009)
This is a case of DPM Najib’s successful manipulation at the Perak state level, outplaying the PKR, ironically by mimicking PKR’s earlier claims of possible defections from UMNO at the federal level.
The only difference is that DPM Najib seems to have made it happened whilst Encik Anwar has yet to achieve so. Therefore PKR must now tread very cautiously.
Ground dynamics aside, this is a political masterstroke by DPM Najib which contains elements of a successful counter-offensive and (depending on PKR’s next moves, may potentially form) the cornerstones of UMNO’s immediate defense against PKR’s future maneuvers.
Therefore at all levels, impressions of political double standards must be strategically and tactfully dealt with by the PKR.
News Links:
BN man to head Perak (TODAY, 6th Feb 2009)
BN Claims Perak, Opposition cries foul (TODAY, 5th Feb 2009)
This is a case of DPM Najib’s successful manipulation at the Perak state level, outplaying the PKR, ironically by mimicking PKR’s earlier claims of possible defections from UMNO at the federal level.
The only difference is that DPM Najib seems to have made it happened whilst Encik Anwar has yet to achieve so. Therefore PKR must now tread very cautiously.
Ground dynamics aside, this is a political masterstroke by DPM Najib which contains elements of a successful counter-offensive and (depending on PKR’s next moves, may potentially form) the cornerstones of UMNO’s immediate defense against PKR’s future maneuvers.
Therefore at all levels, impressions of political double standards must be strategically and tactfully dealt with by the PKR.
News Links:
BN man to head Perak (TODAY, 6th Feb 2009)
BN Claims Perak, Opposition cries foul (TODAY, 5th Feb 2009)
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Utopia Not Too Far Away
The time now is 2.08am. I just came back two hours ago from the Hougang Single Member Constituency’s Meet the People Session (MPS). It has been a rather long day of back-to-back lectures, but with intermittent breaks in between.
Gazing out my study room’s window, the cold wind of the northern sky converged gently upon my face. The night sky seems hazy, probably caused by incense burnings? Or could it be due to mist? I’m not sure. My wife has already fallen asleep. Surprisingly I’m not overwhelmingly tired yet.
Rather my mind is vastly active still, thinking of the happenings at the MPS. Vivid accounts of unemployment, financial challenges, medical conditions, duress and upsetting happenings in individuals’ lives.
These are perceptible pains and quiet desperations. Could many of these sufferings been due to the prevailing economic circumstances? Or perhaps these could have been due to the varying gloomy contexts of life’s familiar situations? Or perhaps these could have been due to never ending quests for utopia? Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps…
Is it my idealistic state-of-mind aspiring for an idealistic state-of-the-matter? Now my vision seems to be distorting… though my mind seems to be functioning still, even prophesying of utopia not too far away! How reachable this utopia seems to be!
Now with half-closed heavy eyes, the cold wind of the northern sky seems to have come to a halt… or is it the imaginations of my mind? The time is now 2.29am.
Gazing out my study room’s window, the cold wind of the northern sky converged gently upon my face. The night sky seems hazy, probably caused by incense burnings? Or could it be due to mist? I’m not sure. My wife has already fallen asleep. Surprisingly I’m not overwhelmingly tired yet.
Rather my mind is vastly active still, thinking of the happenings at the MPS. Vivid accounts of unemployment, financial challenges, medical conditions, duress and upsetting happenings in individuals’ lives.
These are perceptible pains and quiet desperations. Could many of these sufferings been due to the prevailing economic circumstances? Or perhaps these could have been due to the varying gloomy contexts of life’s familiar situations? Or perhaps these could have been due to never ending quests for utopia? Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps…
Is it my idealistic state-of-mind aspiring for an idealistic state-of-the-matter? Now my vision seems to be distorting… though my mind seems to be functioning still, even prophesying of utopia not too far away! How reachable this utopia seems to be!
Now with half-closed heavy eyes, the cold wind of the northern sky seems to have come to a halt… or is it the imaginations of my mind? The time is now 2.29am.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
On Etiquette & Restraint
This morning (3rd Feb 2009) Chinese Premier Wen Jia Bao narrowly avoided being hit by a flying shoe. This was a copy-cat Iraqi-style attack on US President George W Bush, who had to duck a flying shoe situation last year (14th Dec 2008).
Closer home, last month (11th January 2009) Mr Seng Han Thong, MP for Yio Chu Kang Single Member Constituency suffered 15 per cent burns to his upper body after he was set on fire by a constituent at a constituency event. On a positive note, Singaporeans are relieved to know that MP Seng is recovering.
Such attackers possibly could be driven by desperation to make known their viewpoints, or possibly to highlight the plight of particular issues-at-hand. However to express oneself via such lack of restraint (Or for that matter, via any forms of terror) is absolutely unacceptable under all circumstances.
During peace time, etiquette & restrain sets humanity apart from the animal kingdom. Even during times of conflict & war, there are stipulated rules of engagement. Let’s us remember this.
News Links:
Wen Jiabao seeks closer ties - despite flying shoe (Times Online, 3rd Feb 2009)
MP Seng Han Thong ‘progressing well’ (TODAY, 24th Jan 2009)
SM Goh says fire incident involving MP should never have happened (CNA, 18th Jan 2009)
Bush ducks flying shoes flung at him; reporter in custody (USA Today, 14th Dec 2008)
Closer home, last month (11th January 2009) Mr Seng Han Thong, MP for Yio Chu Kang Single Member Constituency suffered 15 per cent burns to his upper body after he was set on fire by a constituent at a constituency event. On a positive note, Singaporeans are relieved to know that MP Seng is recovering.
Such attackers possibly could be driven by desperation to make known their viewpoints, or possibly to highlight the plight of particular issues-at-hand. However to express oneself via such lack of restraint (Or for that matter, via any forms of terror) is absolutely unacceptable under all circumstances.
During peace time, etiquette & restrain sets humanity apart from the animal kingdom. Even during times of conflict & war, there are stipulated rules of engagement. Let’s us remember this.
News Links:
Wen Jiabao seeks closer ties - despite flying shoe (Times Online, 3rd Feb 2009)
MP Seng Han Thong ‘progressing well’ (TODAY, 24th Jan 2009)
SM Goh says fire incident involving MP should never have happened (CNA, 18th Jan 2009)
Bush ducks flying shoes flung at him; reporter in custody (USA Today, 14th Dec 2008)
Monday, February 02, 2009
Oh Yeah, Tell Us About It
I refer to Straits Times ‘PM vows help for needy’ (2nd Feb 2009)
PM Lee has vowed that everyone who needs help in these tough times will be given help, especially poor pupils, needy families and retrenched workers. He touched upon the importance of staying united and stepping up efforts to help those who are struggling as the central themes in his speech in which he made his pledge.
However PM Lee’s political rhetoric aside, I really wonder how PM Lee could have blatantly talk about staying united, when he and his team are drawing ostentatious salaries compared to the median wage of Singaporeans, and even for the matter, fellow ministerial counterparts in other developed countries?
According to Wikipedia, PM Lee’s monthly salary is SGD 322,500. (This means 129 times the median wage of a fellow Singaporean). Possibly Wikipedia’s figure has yet to take into account of the proposed 20% pay cut announced last month. After computing this, PM Lee will still be drawing a whopping SGD 258,000 per month. (This means 103 times the median wage of a fellow Singaporean still!)
Then again, for fairness in comparison, let’s compare PM Lee’s salary with that of a first-amongst-equal. Let’s compare PM Lee with President Barrack Obama who presides over a country, with a GDP that is at least 58 times that of Singapore.
According to the same Wikipedia report, President Barrack Obama’s month salary is approximately SGD 50,000. (This means PM Lee is earning 5 times more than President Obama!) Interestingly, President Obama’s SGD 50,000 month salary already drew sharp criticisms. Refer to the article ‘It’s time for belt-tightening’ by the Philadelphia Inquirer (6th Jan 2009).
Perhaps, PM Lee should take cue from what President Obama said. ‘The American people understand that we have got a big hole we have got to dig ourselves out of,” said the president, “but they don’t like the idea that people are digging a bigger hole as they are being asked to fill it up.”
Similarly, fellow Singaporeans understand that we have got a big hole we have got to dig ourselves out of, but we don’t like the idea that (our ministers) are digging a bigger hole as we are being asked to fill it up.
As President Obama observed, there is a time for profits and bonuses, but not in the midst of a financial crisis. Specifically PM Lee & his Ministers must lead by example. Pay cuts of 20% are but mere token actions. Singaporeans look forward to real gestures (rather than rhetoric) of our leaders staying united together with the people in hard times like this.
As the leaders of the US banks hurried to justify the payment of the bonus to their top job executives, that bonuses are essential tool for recruiting, rewarding and retaining talented executives. (Doesn’t this sound like the typical PAP justifications?) The banks are heavily criticized for that as their top dogs did not produce the remarkable results that warrant such pay compensation, but rather being a direct cause for the current global financial meltdown.
The Singapore Government ought to heed WP’s call to benchmark ministerial compensation basing on their performance on their ability to uplift the conditions of our bottom 20% income percentile. Alternatively, they should consider a US Democrat senator’s proposal to limit their executives’ compensation to SGD 50,000 a month as our ministerial team’s compensation package. This would then be a REAL concrete step in staying united in times like this.
News Links:
PM vows help for needy (Straits Times, 2nd Feb 2009)
Median wage of Singaporeans @ $2500 (Budget 2009)
It’s Time for Belt-Tightening (The Philadelphia Inquirer, 6th Jan 2009)
Wikipedia on Lee Hsien Loong
Singapore’s Minister’s Pay May Be Cut 20% This Year (Yahoo News, 20th Jan 2009)
Era of fat bonus over? (Straits Times, 1st Feb 2009)
PM Lee has vowed that everyone who needs help in these tough times will be given help, especially poor pupils, needy families and retrenched workers. He touched upon the importance of staying united and stepping up efforts to help those who are struggling as the central themes in his speech in which he made his pledge.
However PM Lee’s political rhetoric aside, I really wonder how PM Lee could have blatantly talk about staying united, when he and his team are drawing ostentatious salaries compared to the median wage of Singaporeans, and even for the matter, fellow ministerial counterparts in other developed countries?
According to Wikipedia, PM Lee’s monthly salary is SGD 322,500. (This means 129 times the median wage of a fellow Singaporean). Possibly Wikipedia’s figure has yet to take into account of the proposed 20% pay cut announced last month. After computing this, PM Lee will still be drawing a whopping SGD 258,000 per month. (This means 103 times the median wage of a fellow Singaporean still!)
Then again, for fairness in comparison, let’s compare PM Lee’s salary with that of a first-amongst-equal. Let’s compare PM Lee with President Barrack Obama who presides over a country, with a GDP that is at least 58 times that of Singapore.
According to the same Wikipedia report, President Barrack Obama’s month salary is approximately SGD 50,000. (This means PM Lee is earning 5 times more than President Obama!) Interestingly, President Obama’s SGD 50,000 month salary already drew sharp criticisms. Refer to the article ‘It’s time for belt-tightening’ by the Philadelphia Inquirer (6th Jan 2009).
Perhaps, PM Lee should take cue from what President Obama said. ‘The American people understand that we have got a big hole we have got to dig ourselves out of,” said the president, “but they don’t like the idea that people are digging a bigger hole as they are being asked to fill it up.”
Similarly, fellow Singaporeans understand that we have got a big hole we have got to dig ourselves out of, but we don’t like the idea that (our ministers) are digging a bigger hole as we are being asked to fill it up.
As President Obama observed, there is a time for profits and bonuses, but not in the midst of a financial crisis. Specifically PM Lee & his Ministers must lead by example. Pay cuts of 20% are but mere token actions. Singaporeans look forward to real gestures (rather than rhetoric) of our leaders staying united together with the people in hard times like this.
As the leaders of the US banks hurried to justify the payment of the bonus to their top job executives, that bonuses are essential tool for recruiting, rewarding and retaining talented executives. (Doesn’t this sound like the typical PAP justifications?) The banks are heavily criticized for that as their top dogs did not produce the remarkable results that warrant such pay compensation, but rather being a direct cause for the current global financial meltdown.
The Singapore Government ought to heed WP’s call to benchmark ministerial compensation basing on their performance on their ability to uplift the conditions of our bottom 20% income percentile. Alternatively, they should consider a US Democrat senator’s proposal to limit their executives’ compensation to SGD 50,000 a month as our ministerial team’s compensation package. This would then be a REAL concrete step in staying united in times like this.
News Links:
PM vows help for needy (Straits Times, 2nd Feb 2009)
Median wage of Singaporeans @ $2500 (Budget 2009)
It’s Time for Belt-Tightening (The Philadelphia Inquirer, 6th Jan 2009)
Wikipedia on Lee Hsien Loong
Singapore’s Minister’s Pay May Be Cut 20% This Year (Yahoo News, 20th Jan 2009)
Era of fat bonus over? (Straits Times, 1st Feb 2009)
On Cats’ Sterilization
.jpg)
I refer to TODAY’s ‘Give Sterilization a Chance’ (2nd Feb 2009) A cat enthusiast myself, I support and agree completely with the pointers raised in Joanna’s letter.
Culling of community cats by the authorities should not be an option in the first place.
Sterilization will reduce much of cats’ aggression. Behaviorally-wise, sterilization sculpts cats to become human-oriented, shy and reserved.
Community cats’ sterilization must be the fore-most option, therefore abolishing with immediate effect, the culling option.
Also the time is ripe to repeal AVA’s archaic policy of not allowing HDB dwellers to keep cats.
A cat licensing scheme (together with a sterilization requirement) can easily be put in place to cultivate responsible cat-ownership in HDB flats.
News Link:
Give Sterilization a Chance (2nd Feb 2009)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)