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.

Why so mean? Here’s why

Abstracted From :-

Why so mean? Here’s why [onesingaporean Blog]

The New Paper’s front page on 31 March 2011 asks: “Why so mean?”. The question relates to the attacks on new PAP candidate, 27-year old Tin Pei Ling.

The answer to the question is manifold. But I will stick to one which I thinks is relevant.....

So, what Tin Pei Ling is going through is nothing compared to what the PAP itself – read: Lee Kuan Yew – did to those he hated.

The point here is this: The PAP needs to take a long hard look at itself and ask if it has become a party full of arrogance, complacency, and high-handedness.

A people subjugated and ridiculed by its own leaders must give vent in some ways.

And the Internet provides this now.....

----------

Or maybe the reason is simpler: Like me, perhaps many are aghast that someone of Tin Pei Ling’s “calibre” can just simply waltz into Parliament – perhaps without even a contest – while others like Low Thia Khiang, Chiam See Tong, Sylvia Lim, Chen Show Mao, Vincent Wijeysingha, Tony Tan, Hazel Poa, Jeanette Aruldoss – all of whom are more mature and qualified than her – may not.

And if the reason for the attacks is this, then it is a valid anger, is it not – though the expression of that anger may not be? It is anger directed, really, not at Tin Pei Ling, but at a GRC system which truly needs to be abandoned.....

Tin Pei Ling's baptism of fire: Should bloggers have lit the match?

Tin Pei Ling's baptism of fire: Should bloggers have lit the match? [journalism.sg - Cherian George]

Maid carry NSman’s backpack, Chok Tong carry general

Abstract From :-
Maid carry NSman’s backpack, Chok Tong carry general [onesingaporean Blog].

Then I realised this simple thing: BG Tan is an SAF general – you know, that kind who is suppose to lead from the front in a battle. The kind who is expected to face the devil, so to speak, face to face. The kind who is suppose to lay down his life.

The kind, you know, which is a perfect candidate to put in an SMC.

But here, our dear BG Tan – a “strong candidate” – is hiding behind SM Goh’s coattails. In fact, SM Goh is as good as carrying the little paper general into Parliament, given that Marine Parade GRC will most likely go uncontested.

A SAF general who is, apparently, seen as unfit to lead in his maiden battle in politics.

And maybe he could be your fourth PM too.....

And another question, even more pertinent in my opinion: Why should I respect someone who is shooed in from the back door, especially when he is a general in the army – the very same army with which I am suppose to lay down my life, and the army which he is suppose to lead?

[onesingaporean Blog]

Will Tin Pei Lin backfire?

Will Tin Pei Lin backfire? 

Abstract from TOC Editorial / TOC Election 2011

* Ms Tin and the continuing debacle of the shallow talent pool.

Querying how Ms Tin’s candidacy relates to her husband’s position at the right hand of the Prime Minister is legitimate. In fact, it’s so legitimate that even the pro-government Straits Times broached the subject.....

This question goes directly to the heart of the issue plaguing the candidates the PAP has unveiled so far: a remarkably shallow talent pool comprising of relatives of famous people or connected in some way or another to the PAP’s inner circle.....

Desmond Choo, the nephew of former PAP MP Choo Wee Kiang. Desmond Lee, son of former Cabinet Minister Lee Yock Suan. Mr Ong Ye Kung, the Prime Minister’s former PPS. And several more loyalists to come.....

Asked by RazorTV “if there was one PAP policy you would change, what would it be”, she answered: “to be honest I don’t have any specific policies I feel strongly against” before speaking vaguely about creating opportunities for the young children of Singapore and encouraging Singaporeans to care for their grandparents more without giving specifics......

* Highlighting the GRC’s failing

Ms Tin’s candidacy might prove to be the strongest argument for the death of the GRC system......

One online commentator pithily summed up the travesty the GRC might be shown up as by posing the simple thought experiment: imagine Ms Tin entering Parliament through a walkover in Marine Parade GRC, but eminently more experienced and qualified opposition candidates like the Worker’s Party Mr Low Thia Kiang, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Chen Show Mao failing to make it through.....

* Patronizing? 

Ms Tin’s first lengthy video appearance on RazorTV has drawn critical reviews and derision from her peers.....

When asked what her greatest regret was, Ms Tin said that it was not being able to take her parents to Universal Studios before electioneering got into gear. In another clip on the Young PAP website, she’s seen stamping her feet petulantly..... 

This is not what I want Singapore politics to be like

This is not what I want Singapore politics to be like  [Siew Kum Hong's Blog].

"The PAP recently unveiled 27-year-old Tin Pei Ling as a potential candidate in the upcoming elections. What has been happening on the Internet (especially Facebook) since has been nothing short of disgusting" .....

A handbag and a pack of wolves

A handbag and a pack of wolves - onesingaporean [Blog]

The attacks on Tin Pei Ling are of course unwarranted, especially those directed at her personal life. But before we go being all self-righteous and condemn these attacks, lets pause.....After all, isn’t that how the PAP itself behaves? ..... One cruel deed begets another.....

Sugar Coating of New PAP Candidates Part 2 - What questions would you like to ask them most?

THE People's Action Party (PAP) chairman Lim Boon Heng said at the unveiling of the party's third batch of candidates that a key issue the party will fight on in the coming election is "the kind of future" Singaporeans want for themselves and their children. He said,

"Given the environment surrounding Singapore and the competition it faces, what kind of future do we want?"

He sounded as if he was speaking as the Chairman of an Opposition Party. The kind of future Singaporeans want for themselves and their children should have arrived for Singaporeans and already there in the minds of all  PAP Ministers, MPs and members first of all, with the PAP fully in control all these years. It was not something for the Opposition to provide, but the ruling party had or has to. However, it is something for the Opposition, as well as an intelligent Electorate, to fight for Singaporeans generally. We had a confused DPM Wong in the second introductory session and now we are seeing a confused PAP Chairman.

The headlines screamed "PAP will fight for Singaporeans' future". But it seems PAP has no clear imminent answers to issues the new media is crying about - affordable housing, foreigners and cost of living issues with income stagnation. Unless these issues are promptly addressed, the PAP is just hiding under the "Singaporeans' future" banner. Whom are the PAP fighting to solve all these problems? Is there a division within the PAP?

Or is Mr Lim pinning the blame for the lack of stratgey to help the common people as the fault of the 2 lonely opposition MP plus 1 NCMP? Is Mr Lim admitting PAP's current economic and social polices are failures, and waiting for the 2 lone-ranger opposition MPs to increase to 20, before it would think out a strategy? Or is the PAP counting on the creativity of these young innocent politicians Mr Lim had just introduced to come out with new solutions to "fight for Singaporeans' future"?

While the common Singaporeans are feeling the pain of inflation with stagnant income, the PAP Govt had not forgotten to hike its own salaries and bonuses. We hit the issue of "sustainability". The PAP leaders know how to sustain its own immediate party interests with higher salaries and bonuses, GRC system with or without gerrymandering, etc. But does it know how to sustain the interests of the common Singaporeans with or without and against the huge influx of foreigners (individuals plus corporates) ?

Presumbably, the economy will then be sustainable. But the PAP Govt is asking for Singaporeans to slave for the next 10 years in order to push up their income by 30%, that is; if they could boost productivity by 2~3 annually.

PM Lee said "I think if we had known how quickly the pace of change would accelerate and how much our people would be under pressure from globalisation, we would have prepared them for it earlier," said PM Lee, in reply to CNN International Asia-Pacific managing editor Ellana Lee's question on whether he would have done anything differently on hindsight for the past decade during a dialogue session as part of CNN's 30th anniversary celebrations. If the common people’s welfare and aspirations could be missed out in a New Millennium Dream for our country, especially if more cheaper foreign workers are then imported in to spur and sustain our economy, it is "BACKLOG" and not "what kind of future do we want"?.

But with the Election fever rising, PAP's new candidate such as NTUC's Mr Ong Ye Kung (Assistant Secretary-General NTUC) could do miracles or cast magic with "McDelivery 24/7" [trademark ©2007 McDonald's Corporation] on productivity issues for Uncle McDonald and crews' salaries could "upsize" by  at least 20% from $900 to S$1100.  Mr Ong Ye Kung should ask the former Labour Chief and his party Chairman Lim Boon Heng how gross monthly salaries for crews could have stagnated at McDonald at $900 per month for the past years to shoot up by 20% now? Was it mechanisation or human productivity first of all? No wonder he was placed in the first introduction press conference and not when Mr Lim was present (LOL)..... and I hope he had not breached McDonald's Corporation 's trademark for franchising for this "re'engineering" feat through appearing on national TV.

To be "sustainable" for ordinary workers and other Singaporeans, workers are concerned how much money they have to spent (cost of living). And so the general public is concerned how much the price of Big Mac would be, not how well if new PAP candidate Mr Ong Ye Kung  had contributed to this feat.

And this is how issues on the ground such as affordable housing, foreigners and cost of living issues with income stagnantion are manifesting and affecting Singaporeans. Nobody would seem to be bothered if Uncle Mac would make more money and McDonald's Corporation would be sustainable. Could Mr Ong Ye Kung ensure Big Mac will stay cheap and affordable, say just for his immediate term as MP to be.

I wonder how long would a YP Leader like Ms Tin Pei Ling take to fully appreciate and understand these "confused" mechanics her PAP leaders are trying to convince Singaporeans, in order to earn their precious votes. If she visits the Singapore Hardware Zone. Com site and the NTUC site, she will understand what this mess the PAP has created is all about to perfect what seems like "sugar-coating" over "Big-Mac", which nobody wants to eat. And then PAP Ministers' salaries still have to be make "sustainable" for themselves (probably Ms Tin Pei Ling future MP allowance too, as she takes a ride on our GRC System) despite the mess.

Too much sugar-coating isn't healthy !

Hence for all the following new PAP candidates introduced so far, and those to come; my own question for them is < What and how are they going to "fight for Singaporeans' future"? >. Just 2 of the 5 Ws. What about you ? What questions would you like to ask them or the PAP in order to "secure" your own future?

* Mr Ong Ye Kung

* Dr Janil Puthucheary

* Mr Desmond Choo

* Mr Steve Tan Peng Hoe

* Mr Desmond Lee Ti-Seng

* Ms Foo Mee Har

* Ms Tin Pei Ling

* Mr Zainal Supari

* Mr Gan Thiam Poh

Yes to Evolution, No to Revolution?

While introducing the second batch of PAP new candidates, DPM Wong Kan Seng said, “We don’t bring new people here to conduct a revolution,” and that a revolution might have its place in other countries, it is not suitable for Singapore.

"I think Singaporeans, too will not welcome a revolution that will shake up everything and get them completely disrupted," Mr Wong said in response to a reporter’s query on how the new PAP candidates can make a difference.

"DPM Wong throws down gauntlet to Opposition" [24 Mar 2011 – TODAY] by questioning their motivation to contest and win a GRC. He added: "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."

His controversial statements seemed to be ‘out-of-sync’ with DPM Teo Chee Hean’s earlier opening conference, all with foremost intention to showcase the calibre of PAP new candidates. [Sugar Coating of New PAP Candidates Part 1]. His first salvo against the Opposition spiked a flurry of adverse comments in the blogosphere against himself rather than the PAP novice he was introducing. [Wong Kan Seng fires salvo at Opposition; 23 Mar 2011 – ST Online].

First it prompted a commenter on TODAY’s article to say, “DPM Wong shouldn't be throwing down the gauntlet. He should be throwing in the towel.”…“This country is in a terrible mess now because of so many wrong policies. However, when I see DPM Wong, the only thing that comes to my mind is how could you let Mas Selamat escape?” A blogger said “DPM Wong is firing blanks” [24 Mar 2011 – Temasek Review]. Another blogger coaxed, “Mr Wong Kan Seng, please don't score your own goal!” [24 Mar 2011 – FOOD fuels me to talk] , referring to the story of Dr Seet Ai Mee washing her hands on the eve of the 1991 general election and SM Goh’s ‘own goal’ which was re-visited in the MSM the previous weekend.

DPM Wong’s flurry of words was certainly enough to cause a “revolution” and not “evolution”. His pathetic response, so to say; must be a letter through his press secretary to say, “DPM Wong: Headline could have been clearer” [25 Mar 2011 - ST Forum] on the comments to a question on the PAP's Chinese-educated Members of Parliament who may be retiring.

Next, let’s pay some close attention to the PAP novices he had introduced. Had DPM Wong not caused a stir, the greatest attention must have been on the first female PAP candidate introduced, who is also a new citizen – Ms Foo Mee Har.

The Editorial in the TOC Blog said :-

"Ms Foo’s CV shows an impressive array of local and overseas experience at the top rungs of the corporate ladder….. Unfortunately for the PAP, the rest of the candidates put forward so far pale in comparison." [Foo Mee Har's strength highlights PAP's weakness; 24 Mar 2011 – TOC].

Another blogger said, “Not Another New Citizen Please!!!” [24 Mar 2011 – Personal thoughts of Singapore Political, Social and Immigration issues].

Will the Electorate judge a ‘new citizen’ candidate differently? We would not know as they are given a ride on our GRC system, especially if a heavy-weight Minister is tagged along. So is the young politically innocent Young PAP likely candidate Ms Tin Pei Ling who is very likely to contest. [Young PAP learning the ropes in MacPherson; 28 Mar 2011 – TODAY]. Should Parliament then become a training ground for PAP young candidates riding the GRC free ticket while experienced Opposition leaders are forced into NCMP seats? This is not evolution but retrogression.

DPM Wong had caused a stir. PM Lee now says that Singaporeans should ‘Think about long-term future’ and vote calmly [Think about long-term future; 28 Mar 2011 – TODAY]. In response to a reporter's question on whether there had been too much hype over the elections, Mr Lee noted that some newspapers were "getting a bit breathless" in their coverage. Are newspapers really getting “breathless” or is it a sign that the new media and the blogosphere are exerting great pressure to ‘spur’ on our state-managed MSM?

In our political system with the GRC as its anchor-weight, which already deprives many of a chance to vote, can Singaporeans really vote calmly with what PAP can simply wish to inject into our political system, such as new citizens and young immature candidates? Should we vote for the imaginary “long-term future” when the PAP is unable to deliver short-term goals, such as lowering the cost of living and to alleviate income stagnation? [Middle income worry over cost of living; 28 Mar 2011 – TODAY].

If this Election is not about “revolution” but “evolution” as what DPM Wong had said, should Singaporeans then vote calmly for “Revolutionary CHANGE” as called for by the Opposition [An Open Letter To Singaporeans; 28 Mar 2011 – Political Parties] and this worried citizen [PM Lee - Think of the future; 28 Mar 2011 – Letter to SGEP] or else would the PAP be 'short-changing' the Electorate?

THE People's Action Party (PAP) chairman Lim Boon Heng said today when introducing more new candidates that a key issue that the party will fight the coming election on is the kind of future Singaporeans want for themselves and their children. The headlines screamed "PAP will fight for Singaporeans' future". But it seems PAP has no clear imminent answers to issues the new media is crying about - affordable housing, foreigners and cost of living issues with income stagnantion. Unless these issues are promptly addressed, the PAP is just hiding under the "Singaporeans' future" banner.

To vote wisely and calmly visit SGEP for more good reads about GE 2011.