Diary of A Singaporean Mind: Minister Mah attacks WP's affordable housing plan....

Diary of A Singaporean Mind: Minister Mah attacks WP's affordable housing plan....

Chen has done his share for Singapore

Chen has done his share for Singapore

What First World Parliament means: Sylvia

What First World Parliament means: Sylvia

What would have stopped the pay talk

What would have stopped the pay talk

PAP has blurred line between State and party

PAP has blurred line between State and party

Election Watch Part XII - 3 ROUNDS OF TEARS TO IMPRESS "NO GROUP-THINK"

The PAP Chairman shed 3 rounds of tears when he introduced the 7th batch of PAP new candidates. It was not to bid farewell as he would not be seeking re-election as an MP and Minister Without Portfolio in the PMO. He had to impress the media with emotional "constructive engagement" instantly when a reporter asked the 3 new candidates for their counter arguments that Singaporeans feared there was "group-think" decision making amongst policy makers within the PAP Govt. Minister Lim shed tears on these 3 issues :-

(a) the "casino" issue,

(b) the impact of globalisation on the the working poor,

(c) subject of falling low income and wage stagnation - implementation of Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) Scheme.

Source : CNA

But life had gone on "as usual" for the commoners - "No casino? I’ll kill myself’"..... for this  51-year-old woman.

After a two-hour stand-off on the third day of last Chinese New Year, the children's 51-year-old mother got her way and went back to the casino.

When she returned 24 hours later, she had lost S$7,000.

It was then the children gave up trying to get their mother to quit gambling. She had already racked up debts of more than S$300,000.

Nobody shed tears for this family. Nobody shed tears when Ministers' salary was increased in 2007and this year when the "Budget gives more than required - Ministers' Pay?" but "Ministers look away as Sylvia Lim spoke on Ministerial salaries".

Reference #01

Yahoo News - FTP , 11 Apr 2011
No casino? I’ll kill myself

Election Watch Part XI - Has PAP Started to Contradict and Disagree in this Match?

This article was contributed to the Singapore General Election Portal, SGEP.

Has PAP Started to Contradict and Disagree in this Match?

PM Lee said at the annual Kent Ridge Ministerial Forum [PM: "A-team" leaders needed to ensure S'pore's future; 5 Apr 2011 – CNA] that the strongest possible A-Team is needed to assure Singapore’s future and this A-Team could only be from the PAP because having a two-party system of politics is not feasible.

On leadership renewal, PM Lee said his party (PAP) is putting together the next A-Team for Singapore as the new PAP candidates in this Election will form “key members of this team”. Among the new slate of candidates, several have been tipped to form the core of PAP’s 4th Generation leadership.

PM Lee’s speech had contradicted the words by his current A-Team Ministers.

PM Lee used “football” as an example to explain his dream A-Team which should have depth and resilience, with competent ministers and people with expertise from different ministries. This does not sound different from Opposition MP Low Tia Kiang’s publicised visionary concepts for team renewal within his WP to provide also depth and resilience.

That PM had used “football” as an analogy is nothing new, as he has inherited his current “football A-Team” from his “old captain” SM Goh, who first started the “football” team analogy when he took over from MM Lee. What are possibly new were contradictions he articulated against his Ministers despite the “depth” of his current A Team.

Firstly, PM Lee sticks to his old argument that the two-party system of politics is not feasible because there is not enough talent to form two 1st-Class teams. He re-visited that “the most effective way to get a two-party system is to split the PAP in two because the talent is there”. This contradicts what Finance Minister Tharman said in “A political form for Singapore’s future” [CNA Political Forum – “Quick thoughts on TV debate between political parties”; 3 Apr 2011 – Yawning Bread], that “a strong opposition is good for the PAP”.

PM Lee also contradicted what his Foreign Minister George Yeo had said after an event at Madrasah Aljunied. - “While having a credible opposition is important, the People's Action Party must stay nimble to deal with changes in Singapore and the world.” [PAP must stay nimble to deal with changes: George Yeo; 5 Apr 2011 – ST Online]

PM Lee does not believe in a two party system of politics and wants to keep spare players in his A-Team which is not “nimble”.

"The A-Team should also include younger members who will be learning the job, so that as the situation changes and the country has needs, we can always find the right person for the right job. And if one person doesn’t work out, I can do a replacement, change my team member and the game goes on. That’s how soccer is played."

We should also not forget the number of old players PM Lee is now keeping in the PMO.

In generic terms, this also contradicts what DPM Wong Kan Seng said during the 2nd introduction of new PAP candidates [Wong Kan Seng fires salvo at Opposition; 23 Mar 2011 – ST Online].

Referring the Hougang MP Low Tia Khiang, etc.; DPM Wong said - “He argued that the opposition was wanting to capture a GRC for the wrong reasons.”

"Some say they are doing it for party renewal, some want to be the first ones to do so, but what is the election about? Is it about the ambitions of a political party or individuals to make history?". He also said this GE is about “evolution” and not “revolution”. Isn’t PM Lee now also talking about party renewal in PAP by forming the new A Team as his own ambition for the coming GE?

The greatest disagreement between PM Lee and SM Goh must be on the number of terms future Ministers would served. SM Goh said future Ministers may only serve 2 terms (about 10 years) [Goh Chok Tong boo boo again, what a clown; 4 Apr 2011 – onesingaprean Blog]. PM Lee disagreed that it should be 4 terms (20 years). That would mean that PAP’s 4G core Minister-designate Heng Swee Keat would have to serve till 70 years old and not 60 years, despite having spent the major part of his “learning curve” at the MAS. To an intelligent Electorate, it could mean just only 1 term for these Ministers to prove because the pace of globalization and competition is so fast that there just isn’t time for them to allow a Minister any “extra time” to try for a 2nd term.

To all these PAP talks, Workers' Party chief Low Thia Khiang's rebuttal is - "I think buying insurance is the right thing to do. If PM thinks we shouldn't buy insurance, then why do we buy MediShield? Should we wait till we fall sick before we buy it?

"Now is the best time to buy insurance. Conditions are now good for us - economic growth is not bad, Government is stable - to slowly build up a healthier political system ... I think everyone knows how to prepare for a rainy day. I think (his) is a logic that doesn't make sense." [Singaporeans will decide political system, not PAP; 7 Apr 2011 – TODAY].

Mr Low added a more optimistic note: "I think our PM shouldn't be so pessimistic about our future. Compared to 20 years ago. Singapore has more talent than before and educational standards are higher ... And I remember we've said before we're a city of possibilities. So, we must work towards different possibilities for the future governance model."

WP chairman Sylvia Lim, added that political competition will "empower citizens to have bargaining power against the ruling party", with all the Opposition parties disagreeing with Mr Lee's argument that a two-party system is not workable here due to a shortage of talent.

The Singapore Democratic Party called on the PAP to stop "belittling and patronising" the public.

Referring to the Prime Minister's revelation that the PAP had "seriously considered" splitting into two, the SDP said: "Singaporeans will decide the political system, not the PAP. There's no need for the PAP to do anything with itself but to ensure a free and fair election system and a free and pluralistic media."

Blogs and forums are now “Revisiting this Topic - Two-party system cannot work in Singapore”. Some were upset and confused by PM Lee. Is this what PM Lee was talking about? [PM Lee at NUS Ministerial Forum; "Dear Comrades" - 7 Apr 2011 – onesingaporean Blog].

As expected there will always be letters printed in the MSM to support and praise PAP’s stand [Single-party state works best for Singapore; 7 Apr 2011 - ST Online Forum Page]. One concludes as follows:-

"But what sets Singapore apart is that it has emerged relatively unscathed from the latest financial crisis. I believe it is because our single-party government steered the country in one direction. Bigger nations with a two-party or multi-party system can afford to falter and recover. For a small country like Singapore, there is no room for second chances."

It looks like a “standard” reply, otherwise to be written by a Minister’s press secretary, if there is not a coming GE. This writer might have forgotten about SARs and the economic crisis that followed. How Singaporeans were badly affected by Govt policies then could have resulted in their present unfavourable status quo today.

As a nation progressed beyond its initial attainment of “developed country” status, the same strategy of having a “single-party government to steer the country in one direction” may not work any more.

The fact that it works well in China as argued by the writer could well be due to the fact that China is still "developing". Although it has almost become the world’s biggest economic power in size but still needs that single “one direction” in making policies by studying our past economic success, certainly not our future stagnation. Hence, for a small developed economy like Singapore, a PAP without Opposition may well be the actual obstacle to our future development. Not forgetting PAP Chairman had said “PAP will fight for Singaporeans’ future”, and that may require giving up a one party system. [Sugar Coating of New PAP Candidates Part 2; 29 Mar 2011 – This Blog]. This is where we need alternative views to see through our policy weaknesses.

"Technocrat” politicians and writers can always find means to argue that a “single-party government” works more effectively during the Election campaign to avoid losing votes but in reality does it work? Hence, an argument supporting that “a single-party state will work best for Singapore forever” at best is just an academic exercise, if not only a thesis statement which has yet to be proven true. The increasingly wide "income divide" and accelerated pace of globalization and competition will testify to this.

Is PM Lee employing “time delaying” tactics before the final whistle is blown for his game of “football”, realizing well that “offside traps” and “obstructions” are now fouls in the eyes of the new media? Is it time for the Opposition to score the “equalizer”, if not the final goal; as the PAP may well be into “extra-time” by now? Anyway, an intelligent Electorate would know that you would need 2 teams to play “football” and compete.

If you want to know what colours the players should wear in their jerseys, you may watch this video.

Visit the SGEP for more interesting links on the GE.

The Property Bubble & Investment Trap - GE Update

Due to the current STUPOR of the property market following the last set of control measures, I have not been posting on this topic, but on the hotter GE issues.

I have received two emails asking for my personal views on Properties with the GE imminent. I take note that property agents are trying to push the market upwards. And there were some recent high land bids by large developers (even GLC ones) and expensive launches. After the GE, if the PAP wins by good margin; we can expect the new Govt to try to please the Developers more than the voters.

As a note of cautious, I thought it would be appropriate to re-post this letter from the ST Online here as we ponder on the effects due to the recent crisis in Japan, which may continue to drag the market sidewards for some more time as it awaits other external drivers to set the market direction.

Do remember that what our Govt or even agents could do is on the "push" factor, whereas what the market really need could be a stronger "pull" factor to get it out of the stupor. Any adverse external driver would force the market downwards.

Reference #001
Abstracted From :-

ST Forum  Apr 11, 2011

Think before hopping on property bandwagon

IT HAS been reported that property prices are moderating, with a reduced pace of price increases and drop in cash over valuation (COV) of HDB transactions ('Property cooling steps working: Mah'; April 3).

The reality is that prices are showing a net increase albeit at a slower pace. As HDB has been known to use market subsidy pricing pegged to open market transactions, current conditions mean higher absolute price levels for new flat buyers.

The downward trend in COV simply means out-of-pocket cash outlay has decreased. But if the average reduction in COV is $5,000, and average valuations have increased by tens of thousands, the absolute price point of HDB flats would have actually risen, requiring a larger debt quantum to be serviced, even though they may be arguably classified as affordable.

Economic cycles of late have shown there are few iron rice bowl careers now. When there is market exuberance, it is psychologically easy to join in the frenzy of acquiring homes simply based on affordability over the next few years. But loan terms span 20 to 30 years and the crunch comes during downward economic cycles when Central Provident Fund (CPF) rates are tweaked, salaries are frozen or reduced, and unemployment becomes prolonged. Many here tend to be asset-rich and cash-poor. This is partly because a large debt quantum translates to a larger loan interest payment, coupled with the opportunity cost of not getting the interest generated had the funds gone into CPF accounts.

This effectively diminishes the cash asset build-up for retirement. Should the home asset need to be realised for any reason, whether it would have sufficiently appreciated to cover all expenses incurred will depend on the luck of timing.

Some are benefiting from the market trend, especially those who downgrade, as they encash their assets, which have appreciated, and acquire lower-priced homes.

Many others are hopping on the bandwagon at entry points where home prices have escalated way beyond economic growth over the last few years. Hopefully, the 'soft landing' looked forward to in the property market balances the myriad factors in the property supply chain.

Otherwise, this may inadvertently contribute to the widening wealth gap.

Rafiq Hamjah

Team walkovers

Letter by MR GOH KEE CHUAN, "Team walkovers " - ST Online

'Retiring Minister of State for Defence Koo Tsai Kee deserves recognition and respect for his patriotic contribution over 20 years to defence policies and service to the constituents ('MPs Koo Tsai Kee and Ong Ah Heng to retire'; March 30). Unfortunately, he did not win a single vote directly from any voter. A few other MPs may have more walkovers but they must face the baptism of fire at some point in their political journey.

Insurance Definitely Required

"Insurance Definitely Required" - Singapore Notes

Retired top civil servant Ngiam Tong Dow once called for an alternate leadership that would keep the current leaders on their toes and stave off inevitable decline. Accusing fellow civil servants of "a particular brand of Singapore elite arrogance" and "believing our own propaganda", he said that unless Lee "allows serious political challenges to emerge from the alternative elite out there, the incumbent elite will just coast along. At the first sign of a grassroots revolt, they will probably collapse." If an insider has such concerns, is there still doubt for an insurance policy to be in place?

Teo Chee Hean and his nonsense

"Teo Chee Hean and his nonsense" - onesingaporean Blog

"By the opposition’s own admission, if you ask them, are you ready to form a government… they say, no, no, we’re not ready.” - DPM Teo Chee Hean, Straits Times, 8 April 2011.

"Mr Teo should remember that it is his own PAP which has been telling Singaporeans this past few weeks that its new candidates are also not ready – not even ready to be MPs.....

That is why they have to be “understudies”. Like Tin Pei Ling and even army general BG Tan Chuan Jin......

Mr Teo :

"So what they’re actually asking you to do is to pay a very high premium for a so-called insurance, which.. they can’t deliver."

"What Singaporeans will actually be paying a high premium for are “understudies” who aren’t ready to be MPs and to pay S$15,000 a month for each of these 20-plus “understudies”.

Do the maths.

$15,000 a month per “understudy”, is equal to S$900,000 for each of them for a five-year term.

Multiply that by say 24 new PAP “understudies” and you and I will be paying a premium of : S$21,600,000 !!! "

Election Watch Part X - Tin Pei Ling - I Started A Joke .....SM Goh Joined In.

The Tin Pei Ling Saga reminds me of the lyrics of a beautiful song by Bee Gees - "I Started A Joke ...., which started the whole world crying, but I didn't see that the joke was on me, oh no."

I decided to write this piece after a "cooling-off" period. Without going into details on what I might perceive as her personal weaknesses as an Election candidate on a PAP ticket, I wish to point out that Ministers are avoiding the wider context of the new media discussions which adds to the "anger" or "noise" of netizens.

Ministers are all coming out in full support of probably PAP's youngest and weakest candidate for this GE. 

Ministers defended her because of so called "gutter" comments. I am not sure if she is indeed "a tall tree" as described by Mr Khaw to a Chinese press and chosen by PAP to attract and test "strong winds". Putting my own reservations aside, I note all the Ministers had chosen to ignore the bigger flaw which is our GRC system.

If she is put in an SMC for a fair fight to let the Electorate decide, it would be fair. Mr Khaw believes Singaporeans are mature enough to tell the difference between truth and lies. However, the Electorate may not be given this chance to decide whether or not to vote her in. Instead she might be given an express ticket on the GRC joyride to be that "rare flower that will bloom in the winter of adversity" to quote Minister Lui Tuck Yew.  She is not taking this joyride at RWS Universal Studio with her mum to overcome her greatest regret, this joyride is most likely taken at the expense of a deprived "mature enough" Electorate. Has the PAP started a joke and not realised the joke is on the PAP? Why not let her take the NMP route?

With the introduction of Ms Tin, we are beginning to see through her in a new PAP candidate a retro mix of the shadows of younger Singaporeans my earlier postings had highlighted in this blog - (i) Election Watch Part I - A Response To Yu-Kym’s “DO YOU HATE SINGAPORE?” (ii) Election Watch Part V - In Search of the Young Voters. In each of them we could a tinge of materialism in their own life while they boldly stood up on a pro-PAP stand? If this is what evolution of politics in Singapore is all about, we should also look at their critics to the contrary.

To appreciate the whole controversial issue of Ms Tin Pei Ling as a political candidate in the evolution of Singapore politics from several different perspectives, you may want to sequentially visit some of these links highlighted below :-

(a) "Mixed views on youngest PAP candidate in three decades"; 29 Mar 2011 – TODAY

(b) “Tin Pei Ling v Chen Show Mao - and a very scary thought”; 29 Mar 2011 – Blog / onesingaporean

(c) "Ms Tin dumped her ex-boyfriend to marry PM's Principal Private Secretary?"; 29 Mar 2011 – Blog / The Temasek Review

(d) “This is not what I want S'pore politics to be like”; 29 Mar 2011 – Blog / Siew Kum Hong

(e) “A handbag and a pack of wolves”; 30 Mar 2011 – Blogs / onesingaporean

(f) “Will Tin Pei Ling backfire”? 30 Mar 2011 – Blogs / The Online Citizen GE 201

(g) “Field Tin Pei Ling in an SMC and let voters decide”; 31 Mar 2011 – Blogs /

(h) “Ng Eng Hen : PAP not looking for yes-men... [or yes-women]”; 31 Mar 2011 - Blog / Diary of A Singaporean Mind

(i) “Tin Pei Ling's baptism of fire: Should bloggers have lit the mat” 31 Mar 2011 – Article / Journlaism.sg

(j) “Tin Pei Ling and the Real Reason Why Singaporeans Are Annoyed”; 1 Apr 2011 - Blog / Mr Wang Says So

(k) "Social Media Smucks" - 4 Apr 2011 - Blog / Singapore Notes

The above are just some of the postings I searched using the SGEP portal. There are a lot more in the Internet which are unnecesary for us to determine the framework for discussion. Should evolution of politics revolve round the entry a rookie PAP young woman candidate or should it force a re-think on the effectiveness of our GRC system? Has the PAP chosen the wrong political platform for Ms Tin to enter politics? Perhaps she should have opted for the Nominated MP route into Parliament and not to contest in a General Election?

"Gutter" politics could and should always be dismissed but should a strong response from the new media be silenced when the discussions hit a threshold to look at the wider context and at a higher order for more positive development? - Certainly not, if we want politics to evolve in the positive direction. But Minister Lui Tuck Yew advised Ms Tin to "shut out the noise", focus on the task at hand and prove herself.

The Chinese says, "A seed's sprouting shoot may burst through the melting snow in Spring while the shepherd may still freeze to his death", so to Mr Lui; that "rare flower that bloom in the Winter of adversity" may not even make it through till Spring.

If some of the above should be viewed as a setback of our Singapore education system under the PAP which leads to a more politically apathetic and culturally weaker generation, it was ironical that our Education Minister had to come to the belated defence of Ms Tin during the fourth introduction of PAP new candidates.

Has PAP started a political joke, only to discover the joke was on themselves?  It is still not too late now to let Ms Tin be a Nominated MP under the NMP scheme crafted by the PAP. Or will the PAP dare to let Ms Tin fight a lone electoral battle in a SMC as suggested by a blogger? That she has nothing specific against the PAP policies thus far would suggest that she will accept any of such better existing arrangements. If not, she is certainly banking on a free GRC ride.

And isn’t it sad to say the reality of politics here in Singapore is uniquely as the above seems to be as before but now with a more sophisticated and activist Electorate and new media? This should force a re-think on our GRC system which was crafted to ensure minority race representation. And now that MM Lee has "stand corrected" that the Malay community are already well integrated into our Singapore society, is there still a need to ensure minority representation via the GRC system without a free open electoral battle, while permitting it to be abused for admitting a weak candidate who is not of the minority race through a free ticket for the ruling party?

On a lighter note, I must compare PAP's selection process with the current buzz of the dating show If You Are The One (Fei Cheng Wu Rao)  on Jiangsu Satellite Television. In this reality dating show, no matter how qualified and outstanding a male candidate could be with a well established career, he could still be rejected  under a jury of 24 single women. If he succeeded Part 1 of the trial he would be given a final chance whom to select from the match of 3 single female participants including the one he picked on first impression. It is a true test of psychology but each male and female participants is given the chance to accept or reject up till the final stage. Even after the show, they are have the chance to accept or reject each other in reality. Hence, it is seen to be a fair dating game and the reality show catches the audience attention and gained popularity all over China.

We are now on a stricter topic on the politics of Singapore. While Minister Lui had asked Ms Tin to "shut out the noise", SM Goh has now joined this political joke. He said "Give young the chance". Some critics in the MSM also said, "Give Tin a chance to prove herself". These arguments had all taken the wrong focal point.

If you say "Give the young like Ms Tin a chance", I would ask "Is the PAP also giving a fair chance to the young from the Opposition too?", not to mention say a fair chance for "Ms Tin vs Any experienced Opposition leaders or candidates" under our GRC system. In giving Ms Tin a chance, the PAP must not deprive the Opposition of a fair chance too. Similarly the PAP must not deprive the Electorate of their choice whether to accept or reject Ms Tin as an MP, as she could be given the advantage of a free ride under the PAP's GRC ticket. Unfortunately, the our GRC system does so.

Does it spell the death of the GRC system and a highly managed MSM?

Minister Khaw had said that the Electorate is "mature enough". Are you then wise enough to see through this flaw of our GRC system? If the PAP system of selection for candidature and our GRC system cannot even match the "fairness" of a reality TV dating show in China, what evolving democratic process are we talking about in Singapore? This illustrates the risks the PAP and Singapore is facing within a "closed" system without alternative voices.

We should not be fighting a battle for the PAP or the Opposition, but an intelligent Electorate must see through this mess to ensure acceptable GE results which are fair to them and not dictated to them as a model answer or DS solution.