Planet Earth - A Poem (Heal the World)

Earth Hour on 26 March 11

do you care ? ..... have you a part ? ..... 

Sugar Coating of New PAP Candidates Part I - What questions would you like to ask them most?

Introducing the first 3 new candidates from the PAP, DPM Teo Chee Hean said they “represent Singaporeans and have lived the Singapore story”. [PAP introduces first batch of new faces; 22 Mar 2011 – TODAY]. What does this really mean? Do they represent Singapreans and lived the Singapore story or the PAP's own self-centred story?

Among the 3 new faces, 2 are the sons of former Opposition members. Beneath all the sugar coating demonstrated by the PAP new candidates, what would you really want to ask them?

Here are my own questions for each of them. What about you?

Mr Ong Ye Kung

The son of a former Barisan Sosialis MP, he said; “We are living in momentous times, with major forces changing the world we are in. I will try my best to play a part, however small, to shape Singapore’s future.” [It was an offer he could not refuse; 22 Mar 2011 – TODAY].

It was also reported in Mypaper 22 Mar 2011 on why he changed his mind on the IRs. He said: “I told the PM I was against the IRs. But after visiting some resorts, I was surprised they weren’t just casinos and had different facilities that could create many jobs. Considering the long-term benefits, I decided to support the PM on the IRs.”

But considering long-term adverse social ills from the IRs, perhaps we should get his long term views on this "true test of our social fabric" (My Blog Posting - 21 Mar 2011) since he seems to share same views of our PM, not forgeting PM Lee also has long-term plans to go 'nuclear" as alternative energy.

Dr Janil Puthucheary

The son of a PAP founding member and defector to Barisan Sosialis - was borned in Malaysia and came to Singapore in 2001, and took up citizenship only in 2008 at the age of 36. He broke a promise to his wife in entering politics and said, “The question is not where we come from. It’s who will be prepared to stay and fight … I’m that person. I am staying and fighting. I’m fully invested.” [He broke a promise to his wife in entering politics; 22 Mar 2011 – TODAY].

His father was among those detained under the ISA in 1963 and was exiled from Singapore until 1990. Considering his background, perhaps we would like to see the true depth to his logics for “contemplating a path of conflict”. While his father had “defected” from the PAP to Barisan Sosialis, and then stayed in exile from Singapore until 1990, Dr Puthucheary had “defected” from his country of natural birth which he had chosen not to ‘stay and fight’ on. What is it that he could not ‘invest’ on in his country of natural birth to contemplate this “path of conflict”?

DPM Teo Chee Hean said these PAP candidates “represent Singaporeans and have lived the Singapore story”, but in what ways; although Dr Puthucheary might have saved a few lives in his profession? Are we on the retrograde path back to Singaporean ‘quitters’? Imagine the average Singaporean male voter had fully invested at least 2 years on NSF and another 13 years in Reservist training cycles. Perhaps Dr Puthucheary would like to clarify what he had “fully invested” in Singapore. It would be honourable if he had taken this new route so as to avoid a 'collapsible' course similar to that in Dr Susan Lim’s case.

For someone who has never served National Service, it is hard to imagine the real feeling of a Singaporean who does. Imagine in an extreme real battle condition, the feeling could be as bad but true as if in the shoes of this accidental nuclear samurai  in The Fukushima Fifty when the top leaders go MIA or KIA. I wonder if he has even been put through a week of crashed course in our army's National Education programme. So what has he "fully invested" ?. Certainly not his youth for National Service.

DPM Wong Kan Seng said during the introduction of the second batch of PAP new faces, "But what is this election about? Is it about the interests and ambitions of political parties and individual interest to create a legacy and make history? That is what voters should ask themselves." Obviously, Mr Wong forgot about his young new comrade Dr Puthucheary and made him an instant 'accidental political samurai' even if Dr Puthucheary may not die under 'friendly fire' but may grace through under the 'support fire' of our GRC system.

If the first batch of new PAP candidates announced were not about the  "the interests and ambitions of political parties and individual interest to create a legacy and make history", what else is? Imagine DPM Wong is our Co-ordinating Minister for National Security and he could not even coordinate with his fellow DPM Teo Chee Hean who is also the Minister for Defence in their Election strategy to introduce the new PAP candidates.

No wonder Mas Selamat could escape without 'all round defence' just because another Minister had not served National Service. I pray he would not escape again to return and work under disguise as a 'nuclear samurai' in future nuclear power stations to be built under PM Lee and the new cabinet, like the amateur Tobacco Farmer in The Fukushima Fifty.

What has Dr Puthucheary "fully invested" that he is "staying and fighting" ?


Mr Desmond Choo

At age 33; he must be the chosen in PAP’s long-term strategy to re-capture Hougang SMC due to his young age. Current WP MP Low had admitted that there is a need for political renewal even in the opposition camp. [Leadership renewal comes under the spotlight; 21 Mar 2011 – TODAY].

Mr Choo has chosen the PAP political route to alleviate himself from further “poverty”. The poverty trap is not for him. For the average poor Singaporeans, it concerns their daily upkeep with ever-rising cost of living. [“How the Poor cope with rising food prices in Singapore; 8 Mar 2011 - Diary of A Singaporean Mind and “Bring back medical fee guidelines”; 22 Mar 2011 – TODAY]. Perhaps, he should tell the voters in what ways he would provide for the poor, so as to answer his senior comrade Dr Vivian Balakrishnan’s multiple choice question on food choices – hawker centre, food-court or restaurant?

In contrast to these new PAP high-flying candidates, the Electorate must be amazed by how the “Old Guards” are campaigning. They are not sugar coating but had contemplated whether to burn more sugar.

The PAP veteran, MM Lee;  had chosen to 'burn less sugar' by touring to showcase the wetlands at Alexandra Canal as upgrading election “carrots” in a buggy [Tanjong Pagar GRC launches five-year masterplan; 19 Mar 2011 – CNA], while Chiam See Tong had chosen to  burn more sugar by climbing up a 30-step flight of stairs in an anticipated fight for Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC. [Chiam all geared up for GRC fight; 21 Mar 2011 – ST Online].

I hope to hear your own questions for these PAP new faces.

Visit the SGEP portal for more interesting links to Election articles and updates.

PM Lee : The true test of the social fabric will be a crisis ...

PM Lee said he is convinced that over the last 10 years, Singaporeans' sense of shared identity and cohesion has strenthened. He added that Singaporeans need to go through a crisis before they receive their 'report card' on social integration.

MM Lee had just admitted that he "stand corrected" on the integration issue of the Malay community in Singapore.

Perhaps PM Lee should also look at how major  fissures are already developing on our social fabric, due to bad policies and failures of the existing Govt., which Singaporeans had noted; as I mentioned in my earlier article "The Digital Warfare in Electoral Battle" (Contributed to SGEP).

These "deep fissures" are threatening to melt down the core of our social fabric, just like radioactive rods at the reactors of Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.



Would you take this true test of the social fabric?

Can the PAP Govt. wait for a real crisis to happen to receive our 'report card' on social integration? By then he would have to declare like Japan's Prime Minister Naoto Kan - "we will rebuild Japan from scratch". Obviously, PM Lee does not see the needs for "cooling systems" within the PAP's social softwares although he spoke about building nuclear plants for Singapore during the last N-day Rally and the Singapore International Energy Week.

Would you like to re-visit now what the IAEA director-general Yukiya Amano said in a public lecture at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy?

"There is not such a rule in the IAEA that a nuclear power plant should be constructed some distance from a populated area," said Mr Amano.

He cited two examples of nuclear power plants built close to urban areas in Japan to illustrate his point. One is the Shimane plant, located just 10km from built-up areas in the town of Kashima-chou in Matsue city in Shimane prefecture. The other, Tokai No.2, sits 15km from populated areas in the town of Tokai.

Addressing safety concerns, Mr Amano said that although it was not possible to eliminate risks of accidents completely, these should be contained in three ways to give “credible assurance of safety”.

Firstly, the design of reactors is much safer now and more advanced than it was, reducing the risk of a Chernobyl-like disaster in Ukraine, which killed 56 and caused thousands more cancer deaths.

The second measure is to have well-trained people maintaining the plants and third, having good construction work.

"It is like a house: even though the design is nice, if the construction work is sloppy, then the plant is not good," he explained.

What, then, of the disposal of dangerous nuclear waste?

Having worked in the construction industry for over 20 years, and seen how both the Japanese and Korean construction industries worked,  I do not believe our construction standards here can measure up to such high expectations, especially if it means having to "squeeze every cent" out of the contractor. Moreover, the worst is that although our Govt has a Leviathan mindset to control daily lives, it does not ready itself to answer for any consequences of its own misadventures.  I doubt our leaders can do what the Japanese could not even do. The most obvious being its PM did not even visit the tsunami-hit sites, the way China's leaders had done so during the Sichuan 2008 quake.

Would you "ready yourself" to trust our PM Lee to take a bet on this "true test of our social fabric", just like the way the 2 casino projects were pushed through?

Reference # 01

Straits Times Online Mar 20, 2011

PM: Crisis is true test of people's cohesion

THE Prime Minister is convinced that over the last 10 years, Singaporeans' sense of shared identity and cohesion has strengthened.

But the true test of the social fabric will be a crisis, such as one caused by a terror attack, which Mr Lee Hsien Loong on Saturday said 'would be like a tsunami hitting our society'.

Speaking to 800 grassroots leaders at the National Community Engagement Programme (CEP) Dialogue at Raffles City, Mr Lee asked if Singaporeans would be as calm and resilient as many Japanese have proven to be in the wake of the devastating earthquake and tsunami which hit their country on March 11.

He showed a photograph of the Japanese queueing outside a supermarket after the tsunami and said: 'There is no scrambling, no jostling, no fighting. They passed the test.'

Singapore, though, has a shorter history than Japan and lacks experience with emergencies, he said.

Singaporeans need to go through a crisis before they receive their 'report card' on social integration, he added.

Reference #02

AsiaOne News Mar 18, 2011      

Japan PM says country will 'recover and rebuild'

Reference #03

Yahoo News FTP Aug 3, 2010

Nuclear power can be safe for Singapore: expert

Ministers look away as Sylvia Lim spoke on Ministerial salaries

The Online Citizen  - A recent video clip of Worker Party Chairman and Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Sylvia Lim’s 2007 speech on the ministerial salary had been circulating in Facebook.

You can watch the video here.
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150210155663765



Earth Hour returns on 26 March 11

Don't Just Let Them Perish From the Earth !

Reference #01 :-

Channel NewsAsia 25 Jan 11

Evelyn Choo

Earth Hour returns on 26 March

SINGAPORE: Earth Hour, the annual "lights out" event, will be back for the third time.

There will be live concerts and carnivals - all fuelled by recycled cooking oil - at the Promontory at Marina Bay in the early evening of 26 March.

And as the lights go out, participants will be going the extra mile for the cause - quite literally.

For S$15, they can sign up for a walk - as a sign of support for the fight against climate change.

The 3.5-kilometre route will take participants to Marina Bay Sands, The Float@Marina Bay, The Esplanade, One Fullerton, Clifford Pier and then back at the Promontory.

- CNA/ir

Election Watch Part IX - Will we stay a “kintaro-ame” nation, SM Goh?

A response to "SM Goh to S’poreans: Learn from Japan disaster".

Mr Goh said, “How many of you followed the latest tragic events in Japan with the tsunami… and then put into context our floods in Singapore against that kind of disaster.”

 "I am not saying we shouldn’t do anything about the flood. But the amount of noise you made with just sporadic flood compared to the Japanese. I saw them on TV. Very stoic-looking. You don’t see them crying. This has happened, just get on, that’s the kind of spirit you want to have and you call it nation-building."

In my early days with the construction industry, I had opportunities to meet several Japanese friends; whom I had lost contact after I switched to a Korean employer. I fear and pray for their safety in Japan as the earthquake and tsunami disaster worsen. At their invitation, I had visited Tokyo and Yokohama in Nov 1989. As the Singapore construction industry was very much in its "infant" stage then, it was an opportunity for me to appreciate first-hand what construction safety, workmanship, quality and productivity was all about in Japan. It was also "technology transfer", in a way; under our previous MNC economic growth model.

Project brief at the Hirakawacho Kyodo Building (Nov 1989)



The Japanese Project Manager explaining the construction of the Nikki-Sony Building in Tokyo (Nov 1989). Looking on (in black suit) was our Japanese delegation leader.


During that short trip to Japan, what impressed me was not only the high standard of construction project management in Japan, it was also about the many aspects of the Japanese culture. I recall one specific small incident which touched my heart deeply. The whole Singapore delegation was visiting a showflat. I remember vividly that as we entered the showflat, all of us just took off our shoes; left them at the entrance randomly and walked straight in. That must be courtesy by our standard especially for "rough" construction guys like us.  The project host then gave us a brief. When we left after the visit, we noticed all our shoes were arranged in pairs in neat rows and all facing outwards at the main entrance. We were shocked and shy to discover that the Japanese leader of our delegation who accompanied us for the trip had arranged our shoes in that orderly manner while waiting for the talk to be over. Would you expect the same here?

I feel SM Goh was wrong to draw conclusions due to the 2 totally different cultures. He has been taking potshots recently at lecturing Singaporeans, including his "chilli crab" analogy; to gain some political capital for the coming General Election.

While comparing on a wrong basis the "magnitude" of the Acts of Gods in these 2 events, which seemed totally different in context, does SM Goh actually understand Japanese culture? He could not blame Singaporeans for this lack of "culture". Only top leaders can influence "culture-building" and the PAP Govt is too concerned about economic development, GDP growth and survival. I am sure in Japanese culture he should take the blame for this failure as he was PM.

Bloggers and critics had commented if Japanese ministers were to make similar mistakes like the Great Orchard Road Flood and the Mas Selamat Great Escape, they would probably have to "bow and resign". Traditionally, they would have to "kamikaze". Certainly, PAP ministers would not "bow and resign" but just ask Singaporeans to "move on". I tend to agree with them. I think the Nicoll Highway Collapse incident would testify to it. The Japanese project managers had to "bow and leave", notwithstanding they would take  direct responsibilities to answer to our legal proceedings. With due respect to our legal procedures, if any one higher up on our side were to be responsible, in terms of organisational hierarchy; I doubt the same standard of responsibility would have been demanded.

So it is very unfair for SM Goh to expect the same cultural standards to be demanded and applied for Singaporeans generally. Should we then allow "double standards"? - A higher standard applicable demanded for Singaporeans generally and a more conducive and forgiving one for our political leaders?

But more important, who to call for a cultural change? What Singapore really wanted was only a transfer of technology and the infrastructures which the PAP often promised as election carrots.

Next, I like to share another perspective on Japanese's thinking about Singapore politics. In Nov 2008, I wrote to TODAY (Democracy a question of maturity?) about PM Lee's speech on "Adversarial two-party system not for Singapore". It attracted the attention of a Japanese interpreter who was working and staying here in Singapore then. He commented on the 2 articles in TODAY in his Blog, "In Vino Veritas Depressed Dog Journal". The other article, "What if PAP should falter?"; was written by Gerald Giam who is contesting in the coming Election.

This Japanese interpreter wrote:

Today’s “Today” printed two letters on the one-party system in its “Voices” section. One of them, from a ..... , says, “If the PAP ever becomes corrupt, there will be absolutely no time for a viable alternative party to suddenly “spring up,” since political organisations take years to build up credibility… [A] corrupt government with a firm control on the levers of power will tend to use that power to entrench itself, stifling any potential opposition from arising…"

"Another, a ..... , writes that “[the] very preaching in favour of a one-party system contradicts the basic principles and the real beauty of democracy – that such a decision should be left to a politically mature electrate to decide…"

"Quite true. But, a government will stifle any potential opposition from emerging? It’s not “will.” It’s been this way here for so many years by manipulating the drawing of constituencies, including the introduction of package-deal ones, and forcing serious and ernest but disobedient guys to bankruptcy. Being corrupt or not is not a fundamental issue. At the same time, those elite people seem to deplore a lack of talent. Why? That’s exactly because they, clean or corrupt, are stifling spontenious creativity and different perspectives. This lack of talent, imaginary or real, is their own creation. Nurturing of talent requires a “politically mature” electorate. This is just a “kintaro-ame” nation."

I had tried to look up the meaning of “kintaro-ame” nation. I found one explanation here. It means :

A kind of candy with a cylinder shape:
Wherever you cut it, you will see "Kintaro" face in the cross section (See the photo).
From this feature, there is a famous "figure of speech".

"Just like a Kintaro-ame"



means "no personality, therefore not attractive".

This Japanese interpreter must have attended lots of meetings and assignments. I note his latest postings are "Kesenmuma Being Engulfed Now!!" and "Nuke Concern: Possible Meltdown and Any Water to Wash away Radioactive Materials". He must be OK! Do pay his blog, "In Vino Veritas Depressed Dog Journal"; a visit. There is also another interesting recent posting "Japan's Mr. Clean Prime Minister Sleeps through Summit".

To him and other old Japanese friends, I wish they are well, but will Singapore stay a “kintaro-ame” nation, SM Goh?

Reference #01

Yahoo News  Mon, Mar 14

Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong has urged Singaporeans to learn from Japan’s example in dealing with nationwide catastrophes.

By Ewen Boey

Speaking to local media at the annual REACH Contributors Forum on Saturday, he encouraged Singaporeans to consider the flash floods that plagued Singapore last year and put them into proper context.

Mr Goh said, “How many of you followed the latest tragic events in Japan with the tsunami… and then put into context our floods in Singapore against that kind of disaster.”

"I am not saying we shouldn’t do anything about the flood. But the amount of noise you made with just sporadic flood compared to the Japanese. I saw them on TV. Very stoic-looking. You don’t see them crying. This has happened, just get on, that’s the kind of spirit you want to have and you call it nation-building."

His comments have since triggered a flurry of comments from Singaporeans online. Most criticised the Minister for comparing the Japan tsunami, a natural disaster, to Singapore’s flash floods.....

Reference #02

Blogger "In Vino Veritas Depressed Dog Journal"

On the "Adversarial two-party system not for S’pore"

http://invinoveritasddj.blogspot.com/2008/11/3-week-interpretation-work-is-coming-to.html

These two articles are available in this blog : Little People Press

Democracy a question of maturity?

http://160.96.186.100/lib/pdf/2008/Nov/T1914.pdf

What if PAP should falter?

http://160.96.186.100/lib/pdf/2008/Nov/T1913.pdf

This Should Make You Puke

Singapore Notes : This Should Make You Puke

While the whole wide world braces for the impact of price increases in oil, food and commodities, Parliament has quietly moved to increase the selected president's salary to $4,267,500, a hefty 20.8% quantum jump of $890,700. That's double the percentage increase of the financial assistance package for the poor, which was recently adjusted from $360 to $400 per month.....

TODAYonline | Voices | GE's about how each of us wants to be governed

TODAYonline Voices GE's about how each of us wants to be governed

Election Watch Part VIII - The Digital Warfare in Electoral Battle

The following article is contributed to the Singapore General Election Portal (SGEP). The articles refered to herein can be found in the SGEP.

The Digital Warfare in Electoral Battle

The Editorial , “The Electoral Battle Is Shaping Up” [Editorials (In Focus) – Archives]; highlighted an article in The Star Online, “PAP enters the digital warfare” [5 Mar 2011 – Malaysia Media].

While both the Incumbent and Opposition parties are adopting the new media to varying extent in their electoral battle, how is the external environment influencing this media to shape the electoral battle ground? To what extent will the final outcome be influenced by “digital warfare”?

The Singapore Social Media Training Blog [Government & Social Media; 7 Mar 2011] said:

“For the past few years, The Singapore Government has been trying to get on social media. However, they do not welcome feedback and censor comments”..... “if any nation, company or individuals is interested in Social Media, they need to be prepared to engage -- accept both positive and negative feedback, and willingly resolve the issues transparently”….. “With the coming elections, there are more ministers with blogs and Facebook pages, but the engagement is heavily moderated, and the types of posts do not seem genuine and engaging as well.”

It also quoted a deputy director of LTA to have said in a different context:

“The Singapore government, as a whole, is not averse to using new media. We’re not ruling out the opportunities it presents us. But we’re not completely sure how to use it yet.”

If this is so, will the new media be restricted only to the few MPs and Ministers who are familiar but are still afraid to engage or have heavily moderated their postings? The adverse publicity of the YPAP in some past events could be a deterrent.

If we judge the Blogosphere, it looks certain the PAP will continue to use the mainstream media (MSM) to anchor its campaign and leave the MSM to decide whether to adopt the new media. Hence, the outcome will be left more to conventional campaigning and rally.

Too much reliance on the MSM would tilt the playing ground if they were managed by the incumbent PAP Govt. The new media is now looked upon as the better tool and place for “freedom of expression”, as demonstrated by Netizens craving to flood the Blogosphere with a never-ending stream of opinions.

Although the new media is freer for expressing opinions, it becomes pertinent to interpret “opinions” to see the logics within.

The TODAY newspaper published a commentary captioned “Deep fissures behind Opposition bravado” [7 Mar 2011- Local Media] by Mr. Eugene Tan, an SMU Assistant Professor of Law. Let’s take a closer look at the choice of words.

While first part of the article provides a good analytical review of the Electorate in general, the second part of the critical review with a sub-title “STALEMATE AND DISARRAY” together the main caption “Deep fissures behind Opposition bravado” would have casted doubts, or even aspersions; to put the Opposition in deeper waters. Why is it so?

Firstly, “deep fissures” would suggest “irreparable damage” within the Opposition parties. An intelligent Electorate must look deeper, wider and even beyond what an analyst has to say. Are the signals really “deep fissures” or are they just “superficial hairline cracks”? His commentary was written after the second pow-wow last Saturday (5 Mar 2011) evening [Opposition Inter-Party Conference 2; 3 Mar 2011 - Events]

As pointed out in the last posting of In Focus, the interesting thing is whether a sequel will develop further to the initial infighting. But just look at the relative ease the SDA had given up a 3-cornered fight at Potong Pasir out of "goodwill basis" and “doing it for the purpose of opposition unity and also to give due respect to Chiam See Tong." The “disarray” might look irreconcilable to an analyst, but its final resolution was so “organic” and this is probably the way how our Opposition Parties work. [SPP to fight PAP 'one-to-one' in Potong Pasir SMC; 7 Mar 2011 – Local Media]

SPP Walkabout [Source : TODAY]

A layman understanding the basics about strategy will know what “element of surprise” is all about, having seen enough war movies. While PAP can play “wild cards” by not declaring the Election date or their new candidates earlier, the Opposition is not new to this game of “element of surprise”. There is no need to parade their traded horses. Nobody knows what are up their sleeves until Nomination Day. [Potential roadblock for SPP-RP alliance?; 5 Mar 2011 – Local Media]. The basic fact remains that as long as they do not belong to the same party, they have chosen to compete with each other. While it is good to avoid 3 cornered fights, the heavier responsibility now may rest on the Electorate.

Strangely, while political analysts might make “deep fissures” out of “hairline cracks” and disagreements between Opposition Parties, they are less willing to criticize “deep fissures” identifiable with our existing social fabric for fear of offending the Govt. These are great issues of concern to the Electorate, especially for voters who were never given a chance to vote in past Elections, due to marginalization by our GRC system.

Just when many had never vote before, the new media is abuzz with critics on major “deep fissures” observable on our social fabric, due to bad policies and failures of the existing Govt. Take for examples:-

(a) “Shocking revelation from Dr. Susan Lim's case” [27 Feb 2011- Letter to SGEP],

(b) “Ex-MOE scholar taught at school despite child porn charge” [11 Dec 2010 – Local Media],

(c) “Youth Violence and Gangsterism: one reason why” [18 Nov 2010 – Local Media],

(d) Budget gives more than required - Ministers' Pay? [ 5 Mar 2011 – Blogs],

(e) Elect Them? [7 Mar 2011 – Blogs ],

(f) Falling Birth Rates : Doing Nothing Is Not The Way Either [4 Mar 2010], etc.

The above (not a comprehensive listing) are not problems due to our economic standing or affluence which asked for more or less spending on Budget goodies, GST at 7% GST or lower rate, etc.; they are problems showing failures of our “SOFTWARES” resulting in “deep fissures” under our nation’s social fabric.

Just as the Kent Ridge Common Blog said, [Enough of political opinions from Eugene Tan? 8 Mar 2011 – Blogs]; “is there danger in repeatedly soliciting viewpoints from a single source in a news coverage on any issue? Common wisdom teaches us that the more diverse sources of opinion we seek, the more balanced our perspective on an issue, whatever it is, will tend to be.”

“Despite the prevalence of a wealth of opinions elsewhere, on what grounds should the media only solicit the viewpoints of a few select individuals, no matter how brilliant they may be?”….. “‘Expert’ opinion on a particular issue should always be balanced by yet another ‘expert’ opinion on the other side to avoid potential myopia.”.

If the Govt sought to avoid the new media, and if some daring engagement by PAP MPs and Ministers is heavily moderated, and if ‘expert’ opinions are only sought from preferred sources, this will accelerate the further deepening of “deep fissures” in our community.

Now, let’s re-visit this article, “Facebook Democracy” cited in the Editorial on 18 Feb 2011. [ In Search of the Older Voters and The Impact of Facebook (FB) Democracy; Editorials (In Focus) – Archives]

“To have a functioning democracy, you need a functioning civic community. And community is all about the small things. It’s about the incremental increases in trust when you help someone out; the sharing of new ideas with new people; the building of a collective identity. Community helps a democratic society work out its shared values, and through this process, to ratify rules (and rulers) as legitimate. That process of communal affirmation is what democracy is all about, and while guns are an important part of all this (as coercion power), the process is ultimately discursive and imagined — which is to say, it happens through the sharing of information.”

What SGEP attempts to do as an aggregator in “a functioning civic community”, is to present voters a mix of “balanced” news, as in “sharing of new ideas” for “the building of a collective identity”. It facilitates voters to see alternative discerning views to allow them a wise informed decision later on when they cast your votes. In this way, the playing field is more leveled.

Ultimately, logics must kill arrogance; be it in the electoral battle or reality in life. And Hard Truths must “stand corrected” [MM Lee: "I stand corrected"; 8 Mar 2011 – Blogs], for a desirable outcome we see fair in the Election process.

More links to interesting articles are available at SGEP.

Is MM Lee's Induced Correction Sincere?

Singapore Recalcitrant : Is MM Lee's Induced Correction Sincere?

Summer Night In Riviera

Lyrics

Budget gives more than required - Ministers' Pay?

In March 2007 while the Budget was debated, I wrote to TODAY regarding benchmarking of top civil servants and Ministers' salaries. That was several months after the 2006 Election and then our Govt increased the pay of top civil servants and Ministers.

Specifically in the conclusion of my letter (Reference #01), I wrote :-

"Perhaps, a new benchmark should have another factor linked to how much the average Singaporeans' real income and quality of living has improved. Thus, if the life of the average Singaporean improves, so will the pay of ministers and top Government servants."

On Monday, Opposition leader Low Thia Khiang also referred to the salaries of political leaders during the Budget Debate. Mr Low noted a 30-per-cent increase in FY2010 in the estimated salary for political appointments.

"Unfortunately, the incomes of Singaporeans do not grow 30 per cent just like that," Mr Low added.

In contrast, just imagine the Govt now trying to "increase real income by 30% over the next 10 years" for Singaporeans by boosting national productivity by 2~3% annually. Let me repeat, it is over "10 years" not in "1" year.  Is our real income improving and our quaility of life any better?

Now just because productivity rose by 10.7% last year on the back of our stellar economic recovery, the senior government officers are entitled to "GDP-based" Bonus equivalent to 30% more salary. The DPM explained :

"GDP bonus is zero if GDP growth is 2 per cent or below, but accounts for a maximum of about 1/4 of the annual salary of senior officers, or 8 months, when the GDP growth exceeds 10 per cent. This links the annual salary automatically to GDP growth, which makes it more responsive to actual market rises and falls than having the salary relatively fixed."

I am not sure if nearly half of the $1 billion in National Productivity Fund disbursed so far has helped to boost productivity by 10.7% last year. Even given benefit of the doubt, I doubt its impact is so fast and great when its "ripple effect" is yet to materialise and with more than half the Productivity Fund still not yet disbursed.

Imagine S$1 billion of taxpayers' monies is used to boost productivity leading to GDP growth which then help the PAP Govt to be paid as much as 8 months of GDP Bonus when the ordinary Singaporeans have to slave for 10 years to enjoy a 30% increase in real income. This is notwithstanding that our Ministers' salaries are already the highest in the world.

Imagine the further shock when Mr Low asked if gambling revenue could be used to reduce reliance on GST revenue, the Finance Minister echoed Jalan Besar GRC MP Denise Phua's call against an addiction on betting taxes, and I quoted :

"Don't bank on large casino revenue forever and base your fiscal policies on that, and make permanent changes that assume casino revenue will continue to roll back."

Why Govt's bonus is directly linked to revenue from the 2 casinos which contributes to GDP?

All Singaporeans would know that the stellar GDP growth last year must be significantly due to the opening of the 2 casinos, so why is the PAP Govt banking on the casino revenue to determine and pay its own BONUS and pay hikes which are linked to our fiscal policies?

Ironically, TODAY's article is captioned "Tharman : Budget gives more than required." He certainly did.

It is no wonder that Harvard management guru, Professor Michael Porter; commented in 2006 that :

"the era in which Singapore's Government could drive its economic development was passe" and that "top-down from the Government is not working any more".

Hence, will the "top-down" approach work for boosting productivity and then real income?

When the private sector is usually more hard-driving, is it then fair for top civil servants' and Ministers' salaries to be benchmarked to the private sector's top earners. Imagine also the extremity in the current court case involving Dr Susan Lim who is also amongst our top earners?


Visit the Singapore General Election Portal (SGEP) for more interesting reads.

Reference #01:-

My Letter to TODAY

Wednesday • March 28, 2007

Ministers' pay should be performance-based

I REFER to the commentary, "One missing piece in the jigsaw puzzle of civil service pay" (March 26), and Mr Tan Kin Lian's letter, "Try different benchmark for ministers' pay" on the same day. I tend to agree with Mr Tan's comments that the Government should search for a good benchmark.

I recall with interest an article in this newspaper last year, "Bigger strides on smaller legs" (Nov 29), in which Professor Michael Porter from Harvard University commented that "the era in which Singapore's Government could drive its economic development was passe" and that "top-down from the Government is not working any more". The professor saw the increasing need for "a mobilisation of the private sector itself".

Losing a few bright sparks from the civil service to the private sector may well see Singapore's economy performing better to sustain growth as this brain drain is necessary to ignite this new "mobilisation" in the private sector. When ministers retire from politics and join big corporations, the private sector gains.

But who will initiate this transformation for a breakthrough in our economic action plan?

In light of what the learned professor said, it is hard to reconcile the latest proposal for another revision of civil service pay to match more closely that of the private sector.

The Government has advocated that pay should be "performance-based". The civil service should also follow this maxim. Hence, there is a need for a new benchmark based on transparent key performance indicators. Basing it on the median of the top eight earners from the private sector would be ambiguous.

Within the private sector, there are differences in wage levels between different industries. One sector's pay can never be effectively linked to another sector. Similarly, civil service pay should be de-linked from the private sector unless new key performance indicators and a new transparent benchmark can be identified.

Why should civil service pay be directly linked to an external factor that is not truly reflective of its actual performance?

The top management staff in the private sector are directly answerable not just to the board but also their stakeholders. The civil service has the primary function to serve the public.

Perhaps, a new benchmark should have another factor linked to how much the average Singaporeans' real income and quality of living has improved. Thus, if the life of the average Singaporean improves, so will the pay of ministers and top Government servants.

Reference #02:-

TODAY Mar 03, 2011

DPM Teo on salary issue

Low supported benchmarking and variable pay for Civil Service

Reference #03:-

TODAY Mar 03, 2011

Tharman : Budget gives more than required

Visit the SGEP for more interesting reads.