SM Goh’s misdirected attack on the press

SM Goh’s misdirected attack on the press

Friday, 27 March 2009

Choo Zheng Xi / Editor-in-Chief

In an article in Monday’s Straits Times entitled, “Report Card on Class of 2006”, journalist Li Xueying previewed the newest batch of PAP MPs. One particular quote regarding the grassroots work of Member of Parliament in Marine Parade GRC, Dr Fatimah Lateef, (right) has been given undue national prominence, by none other than Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong himself.

In her article, Xueying wrote about the observation of an anonymous People’s Action Party (PAP) cadre:

“At the grassroots level, though, a party cadre observes that she (Dr Fatimah) has had some trouble connecting with the Chinese temples in her ward over issues such as the granting of permits for the holding of events like gods’ birthday celebrations.

‘This could be to the detriment of her standing with residents who are Buddhists or Taoists,’ he says.”

In comments to Channelnewsasia (CNA) on 26 March, SM Goh said:

“I do not like the inaccuracy because it suggested that a minority community MP, a Malay MP, could not reach out to the Chinese temple people, (and) the hint that maybe, she, as a Muslim, did not want to reach out to these people. That is the implication.”

He further went on to criticize the fact that the quote was anonymous:

“He said when someone is quoted on such a statement, the name must be given, because while the person may be giving his or her impression on the matter, there was also the likelihood that it was a mischievous observation.” (From CNA report)

Bullying the press

Source confidentiality is not inaccuracy. It is one tool journalists use to obtain information that may be of public interest: otherwise, the source in question might not speak at all. An inaccuracy would mean that the source in question was misquoted, or quoted grossly out of context.

It is understandable that Xueying would grant the source confidentiality at this source’s request: a party cadre is no ordinary grassroots member of the PAP. Cadres hold the right to vote for the Party’s Central Executive Committee (CEC). Source confidentiality does not mean a complete lack of journalistic accountability: Xueying has to account for the source’s identity and the quote’s veracity to her editor, and can be ordered to reveal the source in the event of a court case.

SM Goh’s use of the word “inaccuracy” unjustifiably puts the journalist’s professional credibility in question.

Contrary to criticism, such journalism needs to be encouraged. It is seldom that the public is privy to such frank comments about the PAP, and it is all the more impressive if the quote is obtained from no less than a PAP cadre. Reporters should not be bullied into shying away from obtaining sensitive quotes like these, and forced to write rosy reports about the PAP.

Scratching an open wound

SM Goh’s ire would be more constructively directed at the backbiting occurring in his grassroots organizations. The mischief he is imputing to the comment is no fault of the reporter: it was a quote sourced from a party cadre in his grassroots organization.

If this whole fracas is blown out of proportion, SM Goh would be firmly responsible for the fallout. What might have been an honest assessment of Dr Fatimah’s shortcomings has been given sinister undertones by SM Goh in his attempt to bully the press.

These dark imputations will now come home to roost where they belong: in his grassroots organization, not on the press.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25187.1

The Ugly Race Card

The Ugly Race Card

Apparently Geylang Serai has more than 100 clan associations, temples and civic organisations. So when some of them could not get a permit for their holding of events like gods’ birthday celebrations, they sought assistance from their Member of Parliament (MP). Land-use permits are issued by the Housing Board or the land office, a standard rubber stamping procedure in red tape.

So when the MP, in this case Dr Fatimah Lateef, did not produce the requisite piece of paper, the requestor can only conclude 1)she’s bloody useless; 2)she couldn’t be bothered; 3)she was bullshitting when she promised to “do her best to help.” After all, if the whole police force was mobilised over a phone call for fellow MP Denise Phua, including the assignment of personal protective escort, this permit request should have been a piece of cake. And if Fatimah did run into a roadblock with the HDB bureaucracy, she could have explained it better to the folks in her ward, and blame it on their (HDB/land office’s) complacency. But she obviously failed to do so, ergo, her “trouble connecting with management members of Chinese temples.”

Quixotically, like his wife’s red herring use of the word “peanuts”, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong is now waving the volatile racist card, an explosive exercise in multi-racial Singapore. For reasons best known to the man, Goh said:”..it suggested that a minority community MP, a Malay, could not reach out to the Chinese temple, peoples, (and) the hint that maybe she, as a Muslim, did not want to reach out…” Whoa, that’s two ethnic references in one sentence, enough already! When an MP can’t handle the clerical staff at HDB or the land office, that klutz deserves to be owned, regardless of race, language or religion.

But that’s not all. Goh is determined to go after the whistle blower of a PAP cadre, allegedly the source of leak about Fatimah’s troubles with her ward. Is the man acting out of insecurity, now that Prof S Jayakumar is also named Senior Minister? No wonder Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew once suggested he should go see a shrink.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25186.1

Cabinet changes - what does it mean for next General Elections?

Cabinet changes - what does it mean for next General Elections?

There have been many cabinet reshuffles in the PAP government’s history. The most recent one announced on 26 March 2009, coming just up to two years before the next general election is due, gives away some telltale signs of the election permutations that could pan out.

Pasir-Ris Punggol GRC

One PAP man, who had long been anticipated to become deputy prime minister (DPM), has finally been made one.

When then-RAdm Teo Chee Hean entered politics in the 1992 by-election, observers predicted that he would be DPM, along with Mr George Yeo, by the time Mr Lee Hsien Loong took office as Prime Minister.

That didn’t immediately happen, though, for after PM Lee was sworn-in, two DPMs who were older than him were already in place, one - Mr Wong Kan Seng - being incumbent.

The part about Mr Yeo becoming DPM did not happen, nor is DPM Teo likely to take over as prime minister, for he is merely two years younger than PM Lee.

In other words, this is the farthest DPM Teo will go in the Cabinet.

With Mr Teo’s appointment as DPM, Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC becomes a tougher “nut” to crack. Likewise, chances are he may meet with a stronger “adversary” in the next elections.

The PAP team in Pasir Ris-Punggol met a contest from a team from the SDA in the 2006 GE but there are indications that it would face a WP team the next time round.

East Coast GRC

Chances are now high that Prof S. Jayakumar will retire from politics in the next election. When the late Mr S. Rajaratnam became the first Senior Minister of the country in 1985, he retired at the next GE in 1988. As observers may discern, unless one is a former prime minister, he does not hold the SM position for more than an election term.

While the PAP cabinet is perceived to be bloated, the PAP is still wary of setting tongues wagging by having two SMs in a long-term period. Also, SM Jayakumar was relieved of his law minister portfolio in 2008. Therefore, even as SM Jayakumar leaves the Cabinet, SM Goh Chok Tong is likely to remain.

Another very likely exit in the same East Coast GRC that SM Jayakumar helms is Mr Abdullah Tarmugi, as he is one of the few PAP MPs in his 60s – a threshold at which PAP MPs are often retired.

Hence, the new leader for the PAP’s East Coast GRC team in the next GE can only be Mr Raymond Lim, the current Minister for Transport. Should the WP return to this GRC since in the next elections, it will face a new PAP anchorman.

Jalan Besar GRC and Hong Kah GRC

Another indicator of a political retirement is when a full minister steps down to become a backbencher. Normally, this is to allow him to complete his term as MP before a new PAP candidate is fielded in his place in the subsequent GE.

With that, Dr Lee Boon Yang, along with Mr Yeo Cheow Tong in Hong Kah GRC who stepped down as minister not long after the 2006 GE, are not likely to run for elections again.

Given that there is another Cabinet minister in Jalan Besar GRC - Yaacob Ibrahim - he is likeliest to be the one to replace Dr Lee as leader of the PAP team there. As Jalan Besar is a regular “turf” of the National Solidarity Party (NSP) - which contested under the SDA banner in the 2001 and 2006 GE - they are likely to face a now-independent NSP challenge in the next round.

Chua Chu Kang SMC

Now that Mr Gan Kim Yong, the SMC’s MP, is a full minister and with the absence of a full minister to helm Hong Kah GRC, one of Singapore’s longest-surviving SMCs may well be absorbed into a GRC.

In any case, Chua Chu Kang SMC is nearly surrounded by Hong Kah GRC, according to the electoral boundaries map, and such an occurrence would appear rather “natural”. Therefore, if former NCMP Steve Chia of the NSP is planning to return to the SMC for a third time, he may well need to develop a contingency plan.

Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC

As with SM Jayakumar, DPM Wong’s tenure as DPM is not likely to be much longer in lieu of his age and his most probable successor - Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam.

However, this is probably going to take place only after the next election.

In the meantime, the GRC is likely to continue housing two Cabinet ministers - the other being education minister Dr Ng Eng Hen. This is especially so when Potong Pasir opposition MP, Mr Chiam See Tong of the SDA, has publicly announced that he will be leaving the seat he has held for six election terms to enter the fray in this GRC with a team.

Jurong GRC

One surprise retirement by the next election could be Mr Lim Boon Heng’s, who stepped down as NTUC secretary-general in 2006 in favour of Mr Lim Swee Say and currently holds no other portfolios apart from being a minister in the Prime Minister’s Office.

If that happens, the likely DPM candidate in the same GRC - Mr Tharman, as mentioned earlier - is poised to replace him as the PAP team’s anchorman. Jurong GRC was not contested in 2006 and in the 2001 elections, a Singapore Democratic Party team garnered only 20% of the votes.

It is another “tough nut” GRC to crack.

Nee Soon Central SMC

Another PAP MP who is in his 60s is Mr Ong Ah Heng. If he does quit politics, the SMC, also one of Singapore’s longest-surviving single wards, is likely to be absorbed into a neighbouring GRC.

The ward was captured by the SDP in the 1991 GE but Mr Ong, with his skills with the grassroots, defeated the opposition incumbent by 60% to 40% in 1997. While Mr Ong increased his margin to nearly 80% against another SDP candidate in 2001, an unknown and new candidate from the Workers’ Party slashed it by 15% in 2006.

This shows that the SMC has always been a potential hotbed for the PAP.

Yio Chu Kang SMC

Given the unfortunate incident involving the PAP incumbent Mr Seng Han Thong, there is a chance that he will not be seeking another term.

The SMC may be reabsorbed into Ang Mo Kio GRC, although chances put this as less likely to occur because the single ward is perceived by the PAP to be sound enough to “stand on its own feet” with any veteran PAP MP parachuted into it.

Aljunied GRC

Mrs Lim Hwee Hua, an MP of Aljunied GRC, has been appointed to the Cabinet and becomes the first female full minister.

Effectively, this increases the stakes of a second Aljunied GRC battle when the PAP meets its opposing WP team, expected to be led once again by another key woman politician - WP’s chairman Ms Sylvia Lim, whose stature has, like Mrs Lim, also since increased with her NCMP stint.

The GRC is presently anchored by another more experienced minister, Mr George Yeo.

The other to watch is whether Mr Zainul Abidin Mohamed Rasheed, a strong grassroots man capable of winning the Malay swing voters, would also call it quits after his post of Northeast CDC mayor was assigned to Mr Teo Ser Luck.

Mr Zainul Abidin is past 60 and ministers of state are normally retired younger but before an election.

Tampines GRC and Sembawang GRC

Yet another surprise retirement could be Mr Mah Bow Tan’s, who currently holds the position of national development minister. This is because Mr Mah is one of the oldest and longest-serving PAP minister in the cabinet.

Should that happen in the next GE, the only GRC with two cabinet ministers - save for the tough battlegrounds of Bishan Toa-Payoh GRC and Aljunied GRC - is Sembawang GRC.

In this hypothesis, law minister Mr K Shanmugam could be shifted to helm the PAP Tampines GRC team.

The PAP team’s leader in Sembawang, Mr Khaw Boon Wan, is unlikely to move, for he had already been shifted once - from Tanjong Pagar GRC - and he has shown himself capable of helming a GRC on his own in the 2006 election.

In conclusion, the above possible ministerial retirements are not to be unexpected and cannot be ruled out, for with the latest appointments, the government cabinet has further bloated from 18 to 21 ministers.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25293.1

PRESS STATEMENT FROM THE PRIME MINISTER ON CHANGES TO CABINET AND OTHER APPOINTMENTS

PRESS STATEMENT FROM THE PRIME MINISTER
ON CHANGES TO CABINET AND OTHER APPOINTMENTS

1 The Prime Minister will make several changes to his Cabinet and other appointments. These changes are part of continuing leadership renewal and testing out of younger office holders for broader responsibilities.

2 The changes will take effect from 1 April 2009, except where indicated otherwise. A tabulation of Cabinet members and other office holders and their portfolios is at Annex A.

CHANGES IN MINISTERIAL APPOINTMENTS

3 Mr Teo Chee Hean will be appointed as Deputy Prime Minister. He will be the Acting Prime Minister in the absence of the Prime Minister. He will continue as Minister for Defence.

4 Professor S Jayakumar will relinquish his appointment as Deputy Prime Minister. He will be appointed as Senior Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office and will continue as Co-ordinating Minister for National Security. He will also continue to oversee foreign policy matters which cut across different ministries and take charge of foreign policy issues which involve legal negotiation or international adjudication. He continues to chair the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Climate Change.

5 Mr Gan Kim Yong will be appointed as Minister for Manpower.

6 Mrs Lim Hwee Hua will be appointed as a Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office. She will be concurrently appointed as Second Minister for Finance and Second Minister for Transport.

APPOINTMENT AS ACTING MINISTER

7 Mr Lui Tuck Yew, Senior Minister of State, will relinquish his appointment in Education and will be appointed as Acting Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts.

RETIREMENT OF MINISTER

8 Dr Lee Boon Yang will relinquish his appointment as Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts and retire from the Government. Since being appointed a Parliamentary Secretary in 1985, Dr Lee has served in many portfolios including Environment, Trade and Industry, Finance, Home Affairs, National Development, Defence, and Manpower, before becoming Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts in 2003. The Prime Minister thanks Dr Lee for his many years of service and contributions to the Government and the nation.

CHANGES IN APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS OF STATE

9 Mr S Iswaran will be appointed as Senior Minister of State in the Ministry of Education, concurrent with his present appointment of Senior Minister of State in the Ministry of Trade and Industry.

10 Mr Lee Yi Shyan will be appointed as Minister of State in the Ministry of Manpower, concurrent with his present appointment of Minister of State in the Ministry of Trade and Industry.

NEW APPOINTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY

11 Mr Sam Tan will be appointed as Parliamentary Secretary in the Ministry of Trade and Industry and concurrently in the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts. His appointment takes effect on 1 July 2009.

OTHER APPOINTMENTS

12 Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed will relinquish his appointment of Mayor, North East Community Development Council when his current 3-year term ends on 30 May 2009. He will continue as Senior Minister of State in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

13 Mr Teo Ser Luck will be appointed as Mayor, North East Community Development Council with effect from 31 May 2009. This will be concurrent with his appointment as Senior Parliamentary Secretary in the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports and in the Ministry of Transport.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25167.5

Bloated cabinet and rank inflation

Bloated cabinet and rank inflation bear uncanny similarities to the Myanmar military junta

When Burmese Prime Minister General Thein Sein called on his Singapore counterpart last week, we can be sure they did not merely discuss about the name of the orchid our nation has so kindly bestowed on him (we hope that orchid has not wilted yet by the stench of its new name).

A few days later, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced a “cabinet renewal”. Well, it’s actually the same old stale soup except that quite a few climbed up the ranks. (read article here)

Did the Burmese general somehow impart their “art of governance” to our Prime Minister?

In a recent article published on Asian Times, the head of the Myanmar military junta Senior General Than Shwe was reported to have fostered rank inflation and growth of the flag officers corps to secure the loyalities of his men. (read article here)

This led to a bloated bureaucracy and rising government expenditure which threaten to saddle the state with an ineffective and expensive government.

The Prime Minister’s move to add more portfolios to an already bloated cabinet bears uncanny similarities to the Myanmar military junta’s self-preservation instincts.

After all, the PAP has admitted its difficulties in getting qualified Singaporeans to join its ranks. Those who do join eventually are probably enticed with promises of leadership positions in the government should they perform credibly well for an initial trial period.

Of the new faces introduced by the PAP in the 2006 general elections, three have been “fast-tracked” to become ministers - Rear-Admiral Lui Tuck Yew becoming the Acting Minister for the Ministry of Information, Communications and Arts, Gan Kim Yong as the Acting Minister for Manpower and Lim Hwee Hua being made a minister in the Prime Minister’s Office.

With the senior ministers remaining firmly entrenched in their positions, there is little choice but to create more new positions for the junior leaders to fill up.

The number of official positions within the cabinet is truly bewildering. Besides the ministers themselves, there are second ministers, acting ministers, senior ministers of state, ministers of state, senior parliamentary secretaries and parliamentary secretaries.

Some hold more than one position concurrently. For example, Mr S Iswaran will be appointed as Senior Minister of State in the Ministry of Education, concurrent with his present appointment of Senior Minister of State in the Ministry of Trade and Industry.

Why does a tiny island state of only 620 square kilometers in size inhabited by 4.5 million people need so many ministers to govern?

Such a bloated cabinet make governance a more complicated affair leading to reduced efficiency and it is an unnecessary toll on taxpayers as well.

Does a minister get separate salaries for the portfolios he or she is assuming? Is Lim Hwee Hua being paid for her concurrent posts as a Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office, Second Minister for Finance and Second Minister for Transport?

A minister is already being supported by a very capable civil service. Why does he still need a few senior ministers of state, ministers of state, second ministers, acting ministers and parliamentary secretaries to assist him?

These positions are absolutely redundant and can be do away with. If the Prime Minister wants to test out a particular MP, all he needs to do is to put him or her as an understudy to the minister in charge.

Having multiple and concurrent positions is both confusing and cumbersome. Though our PAP MPs are expected to multi-task, surely it will better for them to focus on their present job instead of dabbling their fingers in two or more ministries.

The root of the problem lies in the inherent structural weaknesses of the PAP system which necessitates a constant rewarding of positions to keep the allegiance of the newcomers.

The PAP has ceased to become a functioning political party where members are drawn by its ideals to join out of an innate desire and passion to serve the people.

It is a now a broken pseudo-corporate entity held ransom to monetary rewards in a desperate bid to recruit and retain talents within its ranks.

Talented Singaporeans will not join the PAP just to be an ordinary MP. They will rather ply their trade in the private sector. Therefore, the PAP needs to continue paying high salaries and offer government positions in order to recruit capable people to replace those who have left or retired.

The GRC system was put in place to ensure that these first-timers are not put through the rigors and heat of a political battle. As SM Goh Chok Tong once puts it succinctly, few people are willing to stand for elections under the PAP banner unless they are guaranteed a good chance of winning.

In 1968 when we were besieged by greater crises and dangers, we only have one Prime Minister and his deputy with 58 MPs running the country. Why do we need so many MPs and ministers now? Are we having an inferior team compared to the PAP old guard? If this is so, why should we paying them so much more?

This PAP system of governance is untenable in the long run and unfortunately Singaporeans will end up paying the price for an obsolete political entity which is bent only on preserving its own hegemony and power.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25180.1

Inherent structural weaknesses in the PAP system of governance is sowing the seeds of Singapore’s failure

Inherent structural weaknesses in the PAP system of governance is sowing the seeds of Singapore’s failure

In an article published on the Straits Times Review on 25 March 2009 titled “Can Singapore fail?”, Dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy Mr Kishore Mabhubani extolled Singapore’s “good governance” as one of its “big strengths.” (read original article here)

Wrote Mr Kishore:

“Singapore is unique; good governance is not the historical norm. Every society in the world, without exception, has experienced bad governance. Inevitably, Singapore will experience it some day. Can Singaporean society cope with bad governance?”

Mr Kishore is only half right. Compared to neighboring countries, Singapore did indeed enjoy relatively good governance for the last 50 years. I used the word “relative” deliberately to highlight the fact that while the PAP government has performed credibly well in governing the nation on the whole, there is still room for improvement.

One aspect of governance which the PAP has managed remarkably well lies in the defusing of racial tensions and fostering harmony in a multi-racial society like ours, a feat which is not seen anywhere else.

Singapore had the traumatic experience of a communal riot in 1964 during its brief stint as a member state of the Malaysian Federation when riots broke out between Malays and Chinese in Geylang leading to 4 people being killed and 178 injured. (read more here)

After Singapore achieved independence in 1965, the government took several measures to curb racial extremism and to promote peace and harmony amongst the different races in Singapore.

The English-educated Old Guards are largely blind to ethnic differences. They promoted the identity of being a Singaporean instead of fighting for the rights of each individual community.

Though 74% of the population are ethnic Chinese, the government ensured that the welfare of the Malay and Indian minorities are not ignored. They were allowed to practice their religions freely and generous grants were given out for them to build their mosques and temples.

When I brought a Sri Lankan friend to Chinatown recently, he was surprised to see an Indian temple and a mosque situated side by side to each other in a “China” town!

As we know, Sri Lanka is still fighting a bloody civil war against the separatist Tamil Tigers which erupted in 1982. The cost of loss in precious human capital and damage to infrastructure had set the once promising island for decades.

Across the causeway, the Malaysian political elite is still deeply divided along racial lines. The incoming Prime Minister Datuk Najib Razak is hugely unpopular amongst the ethnic minorities. Instead of campaigning for a “Bangsa Malaysia”, the country continues to be haunted by the spectre of a “Ketuanan Melayu” (Malay Supremacy).

We have a “Bangsa Singapura” (Singapore nation) today because the PAP is a strong government which is able to keep the vested interests of different races and groups in check. Unfortunately, a strong government also has inherent weaknesses which will lead to our nation’s eventual failure if they are not addressed promptly.

The PAP system is able to maintain its cohesiveness and strength over the years because it is heavily dependent on one strong leader in MM Lee Kuan Yew whose presence helps to curb factionalism within the party and prevent it from raising its ugly head.

A united, stable and strong leadership ensures continuity of government policies and minimizes disruption to governance by political upheavals and infighting.

However, such a system go against the grain of human nature because there will be politics as long there are human beings. Nobody can see perfectly eye to eye with one another all the time. There are bound to be disagreements, quarrels and even fights.

When MM Lee is around, he can keep the personal ambitions of the younger leaders in check because every one defers to him by virtue of his stature and reputation as the founding father of modern Singapore.

What if he is gone? Will Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong be able to control his party members? Will political differences previously swept under the carpet now erupt and split the party?

The biggest weakness in the PAP lies in the lack of a proper system of succession put in place to replace aging leaders. Neither does the PAP has any experience in electing its leaders for the top posts though it does allow a limited sort of election for its CEC.

I must admit I have no idea of how the PAP retires and promotes its leaders. It appears it all boils down to the personal wishes and will of one man.

The founding fathers of Singapore and fellow comrades of MM Lee Kuan Yew - Goh Keng Swee, Toh Chin Chye and Rajaratnam were “persuaded” by him in the 1980s to step down to make way for younger leaders.

There are no direct elections for the positions of Secretary-General, Chairman and their deputies within the PAP itself. Ordinary PAP cadres have a limited say in choosing their leaders. “Outsiders” like Dr Vivian Balakrishnan and Dr Ng Eng Hen were parachuted into important positions while others who are more senior than them are left on the fringes.

This is not how a political party selects and renews its leadership. The truth is, the PAP has long ceased to be a proper functioning political entity which views itself as just one of many registered political parties playing according to the rules set under the Constitution.

It has become a sort of “mandarinate” of one man who continues to call all the shots. The lack of democracy within the PAP itself partly explains why its leaders are so intolerant of political dissent and opposition to its rule.

The rule of man can only go as far as the man is around. In his absence, new players will emerge to take over him. The question is: will this new leader be as capable and honest as the founder himself? What if he turns out to be a Chen Shui Bian? There will be no way the PAP can remove him from power. We will become like another Zimbabwe where the tenacles of the ruling party extend through all facets of society that it is choking the country out of existence.

In Singapore where the line between the state and the party have been blurred beyond recognition, failure of the PAP itself will inevitably lead to Singapore’s demise.

There is still time for the PAP to reform itself. MM Lee should consider putting a system in place to ensure that future leaders are voted by members themselves to lead the party.

In the ongoing UMNO general assembly in Malaysia, there is competition for all the top posts in the party saved for the Presidency which is uncontested.

The UMNO system is grossly flawed and imperfect. Only a handful of 2,500 delegates are allowed to vote which fosters money politics and corruption. However, in spite of its inadequacies, there is some resemblance of democracy and ownership within the party.

MM Lee can no longer consider the PAP as his personal fiefdom. He should retire gracefully now and allow the party to evolve on its own terms. In a democratic institution, capable and charistmatic leaders will eventually be brought to the forefront by a natural process of Darwininan selection and elimination.

There is no lack of talent within the PAP. A real leader is not afraid of going through the baptism of fire. If one is unable to obtain even the support of his party members, how can one continue to rule the country with impunity?

Unless the PAP starts to implement much needed changes to its internal modus operandi and organizational structure, it may find itself either completely lost or bitterly split in the post-LKY era.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=sunkopitiam&msg=25180.1

First woman minister

March 27, 2009

First woman minister

By Aaron Low, Political Correspondent
		As full minister, Mrs Lim hopes to inspire more women to take up leadership roles.

FROM April 1, a woman will join the ranks of Singapore's top political leadership as a full minister.

Mrs Lim Hwee Hua, 50, will become a Minister in the Prime Minister's Office, as well as Second Minister in both the Finance and Transport ministries, where she has been Senior Minister of State since last year.

BRING MORE WOMEN IN 'One hopes we'll see more women Cabinet ministers. We still have some way to go because she's not helming any ministry. It's certainly big progress, much as it is very incremental.' Mr Eugene Tan, law lecturer and political observer at the Singapore Management University, on Mrs Lim Hwee Hua's appointment as a Minister in the Prime Minister's Office ... more

Mrs Lim's promotion marks the end of a long wait for Singapore's first woman minister.

The last time a woman came close was in 1991, when Dr Seet Ai Mee was made Acting Minister for Community Development. She, however, lost her seat in the election later that year.

Since then, although there have been women ministers of state, none has risen to be a full minister, until now.

Reflecting on her appointment, Mrs Lim said she had benefited as a female Singaporean, with equal and easy access to opportunities in education and career.

She hoped her appointment would show that women could play key roles in politics, and inspire them to take up leadership roles.

'I hope this will signal that Singapore belongs equally to both men and women,' she said.

Mrs Lim said she was mindful of the expectations that people might have of Singapore's first woman minister, but was not unduly worried by them.

'I hope the expectations will be no different from what my male colleagues face, and be based against the responsibilities we will handle,' she said.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25171.1

Who wants a densely packed Singapore?

Who wants a densely packed Singapore?
I REFER to Wednesday's article, 'Pack them in, build them up'.

I am both shocked and dismayed by Professor Edward Glaeser's short-sighted and highly flawed opinion that a population of 6.5 million would be essentially beneficial for Singapore. His notion that there is nothing unhealthy about living in skyscrapers does not take into consideration the many Singaporeans who wish Singapore would lose its tag as a concrete jungle and focus on creating a city with more 'green spaces'.

He also welcomes the addition of more 'smart people', whom he defined as a typical man in his 40s with children, without considering whether these individuals would be able to assimilate into Singapore culture with no accompanying problems which are already plaguing many immigrants here.

He also mentioned that a city with high density would also serve people's needs but he has conveniently forgotten that the basic human need of privacy, comfort and space would be severely compromised in public spaces if the population hit 6.5 million.

As it is, many of my peers have expressed a sincere wish to emigrate, not because of the high cost of living or the stressful lifestyle. It is primarily because they are appalled by how Singapore has been transformed into a city where it is difficult to find a seat on the MRT on a weekday afternoon, or seek peace and solace even in the suburbs, when Sembawang Mall is now as crowded as Plaza Singapura. Homes are getting smaller and more expensive, and people feel blessed to secure a seat in a foodcourt at any time of the day.

Prof Glaeser also claimed that packing individuals close together in smaller homes would reduce transport costs and energy usage, but this is overly simplistic and short-sighted. There is every possibility that smaller homes may use more energy if more time is spent on home entertainment.

Prof Glaeser's view that a city with high population density would reduce transport cost is also problematic as recent research shows that individuals living in residential zones which are overly crowded have a higher tendency to travel out of their residential area to seek leisure arenas that are 'less congested' and where they are 'less scrutinised' than in flats built in close proximity to each other.

Prof Glaeser's comments are certainly not representative of most Singaporeans who seriously wish for a less crowded living environment.

Robin Chee

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25161.1

Singapore Cabinet Version 3.3

Singapore Cabinet Version 3.3 -- same old, same old?

As most of you all should already be aware by now, another set of changes have been made to Singapore's government line-up.

If I am not wrong, this is the third time since he took over as Prime Minister (PM) that PM Lee Hsien Loong has made collective changes to Singapore's government line-up; by collective changes, I mean that numerous changes are being made and not just one or two changes. Hence, I would see the latest set of changes as ushering in "Singapore Cabinet Version 3.3" ("Version 3.3" because PM Lee is independent Singapore's third PM and because the previous configurations of Singapore's government line-up would be "Version 3.0"and so on).

So what are my thoughts about "Singapore Cabinet Version 3.3"?

Well, I suppose that besides the somewhat noteworthy promotions of Mr. Teo Chee Hean to become Deputy PM and Mrs. Lim Hwee Hua to become Singapore's first woman minister, the rest of the announced changes were not all that significant.

The rest of the changes, e.g. the appointment of Mr. Gan Kim Yong to become Minister for Manpower and RADM(NS) Lui Tuck Yew's taking over of Dr. Lee Boon Yang as Minister of Information, Communications and the Arts, were perhaps, in my opinion, expected by people, in that there have already been talk/speculation about those promoted being earmarked for higher office.

In fact, I would contend that even the promotions of Mr. Teo to Deputy PM and Mrs. Lim to a full ministerial position are not all that unexpected. This is firstly considering that even as far back as when PM Lee was about to take over as PM, people were already expecting that he would be appointing Mr. Teo and/or Mr. George Yeo as Deputy PMs; I guess people were somewhat surprised that he did not do so but instead opted to have Dr. Tony Tan (whose position was later taken over Mr. Wong Kan Seng) and Professor S. Jayakumar as his first two Deputy PMs. Secondly, people have perhaps known that, sooner or later, there will be a woman minister and the list of potential candidates for becoming Singapore's first woman minister was not really that long.

Of course, as many observers have pointed out, PM Lee's strategy towards the renewal of Singapore's government leadership seems to one of preferring incremental and gradual change over radical overhauls. This strategy of PM Lee was perhaps evident as far back as his choice of line-up for his first Cabinet team (i.e. "Singapore Cabinet Version 3.0"), which, as pointed out in an earlier essay of mine, consisted "mainly, if not entirely, of ministers who have served under the leadership of his predecessors".

This strategy of incremental changes, rather than radical and sudden changes, is a prudent one which perhaps inspire confidence in Singapore's political stability in not only the eyes of locals but also that of foreign observers. Just imagine how upsetting it will be if Singapore's Cabinet suddenly jumped from "Version 3.0" to "Version 3.99"; it will be akin to suddenly changing from Windows XP to Windows Vista (or Windows 7, I suppose). [aside: I suppose a change in ruling party would then be akin to switching to Linux and/or Leopard from Windows; whether this would be a good switch, I would leave that discussion for perhaps another time]

However, while this strategy of incremental change is a prudent one, I cannot help but wonder if the current pace of change is adequate enough. I mean, to continue using my analogy about computer operating systems, even if "Windows 7" may be an improvement from "Windows Vista", the changes made in "Windows 7" would not be adequate if the outside world and how consumers use technology have changed dramatically; by then, people may have already jumped ship to "Linux" and/or "Leopard" because they got tired of waiting for "Windows" to update itself.

Hence, a pertinent question to ask would be: can we see "Singapore Cabinet Version 4.0" taking shape in "Singapore Cabinet Version 3.3"? Or would there be more iterations of "Version 3.X" before we start to see the genesis of "Version 4.0"?

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25230.1

Why good governance, may not be always good governance

Why good governance, may not be always good governance

As Singapore prepares to celebrate 50 years of “good governance” – it may be a good idea to just spend sometime asking ourselves whether Kishore is justified to adopt a “we have arrived” tone?

But before diving there – let’s just consider what is good governance? And is it really the magic bullet that can slay the bad and the seed the good in one go? Well, first of all you need to realize that good governance - has absolutely nothing to do with it’s dictionary meaning – it’s abit like dial a girl - it’s 10% effort and 90% imagination - so it’s a bag term that really defies pin point definition – I don’t doubt some people can rip out a bullet point list and tell you what it is – the problem is like all abstractions, it inspires the same problem with what’s often striven so hard for – it’s fails to pin down the nub.

If had to plumb for a definition of good governance it would be simply this – the need to establish accountability within government systems to reduce the abuse of power. Through - rule of law and not rule by law and.

The distinction is subtle and fine - so work in through your head, take your time, as the rest of this essay will not make sense - if it’s not crystal.

When the idea of good governance is applied judiciously - it works! For example if you look at the US system although it is radically divided over issues of how best to pursue the best end or means - none of them, no matter how fractious threatens the stability and legitimacy of the system - Americans may vilify one another as bigoted or morally depraved, but they know they will not be put up against a wall if their party loses a election or run out of the country on trumped up charges. Result: good governance shows that the cohesion of American society is stronger than its divisions - good wins over bad.

The problem with good governance as an idea, concept or even school of thought is when its given perfunctory treatment - that’s to say form takes precedence over function – where people aren’t so sure, if they cross the line, maybe they will get kicked out or bankrupted or have some part of their privacy revealed to their greater detriment – when that happens; good governance as an idea becomes not only a means to express contempt for the rule of law; but it also degenerates into a farce.

Why’s that?

Simple - good governance can really cut both ways – and this dichotomy bears out only too clearly when we peruse through the history of good governance; don’t be surprised, if instead of seeding the good, it even kills it dead and instead rubber stamps a whole lot of undesirable practices.

Don’t believe me, then consider this: why did the US invade Iraq? Good governance. Why is Najib Abdullah clamping down on the opposition just up North? Good governance. Why did China block Youtube? Good governance. Why did the Thai elites kick out Thaksin and declare martial law? Yes, you guessed it.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25229.1

Singapore Cabinet

PM Mr LEE Hsien Loong

SM Mr GOH Chok Tong
SM and Co-ordinating Minister for National Security Professor S Jayakumar
MM Mr LEE Kuan Yew
DPM and Minister for Home Affairs Mr WONG Kan Seng
DPM and Minister for Defence Mr TEO Chee Hean

MFA Mr George Yeo Yong Boon
MND Mr MAH Bow Tan
PMO, Second Minister for Finance and Second Minister for Transport Mrs Lim Hwee Hua
MTI Mr LIM Hng Kiang
PMO Mr LIM Swee Say
MinEnv and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs Dr YAACOB Ibrahim
MOH Mr KHAW Boon Wan
MOF Mr Tharman SHANMUGARATNAM
MOE and Second Mindef Dr NG Eng Hen
MCYS Dr Vivian BALAKRISHNAN
Minister Transport and Second Minister for Foreign Affairs Mr Raymond LIM Siang Keat
MinLaw and Second Minister for Home Affairs Mr K Shanmugam
MOM Mr GAN Kim Yong

Acting Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts Senior Minister of State Lui Tuck Yew

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25149.1

Can Singapore fail?

Can Singapore fail? Deih Kishore! Singapore already failed already lah!

Well let’s turn the question on its head and repose it this way: hasn’t Singapore already failed?

I don’t know; and though I did attempt to delve into the minutiae of Kishore’s “Can Singapore fail? I can’t say I gleaned any valuable insights – to be honest, it left me quite perplex. Now don’t get me wrong – I appreciated his candor like his enthusiastic endorsement of how we should all pick up tissue paper and plumb for dosai instead of English breakfast – only something seems to be sorely missing from this whole valecditory narrative.

Fact: Singapore has failed! In my humble opinion at least.

This hardly requires any elaboration; you could just as well draw on a host of motifs ranging from whether the 1st division team really delivered the goods to the whole idea of how Temasek and GIC decided to plumb for banks when the clever money decided to go somewhere else – in my mind, there’s no shortage of examples testifying to the fact; Singapore has failed in every conceivable way imaginable.

Why have we failed isn’t the main phalanx of this essay – I will probably have to write about it another time (as time is short and I am typing this on the train) – only let us all agree on the start line: we have failed – the reasons are multi factorial; could well be our fixation of the scholar system and the whole idea of leaving it all to the cult of infallibility – the very idea that only a select few can deliver the good life – or maybe it has something to do with our corseted view of how we usually define personal and organizational success; which sets us apart from countries such as Taiwan, Hong Kong and Malaysia – where the effective power that drives the economy isn’t really the elite or technocrats; but rather the armies small of entrepreneurs – this came to me quite by chance when I found myself sitting next to kid on a business trip recently. I asked him, who do you most want to be when you grow up? – he just answered nonchalantly: “Li Khan Shin of course…that’s a dumb question.” Ask the same question in Singapore and you realize why the problem with our age has nothing to do a wider universe of how success can be attained; but rather the answer lies somewhere in the narrowed down version of what I term the tried and tested yellow brick road to success; where most people have in effect bought into the myth the only way to get the good life is to land yourself a scholarship instead of striking out on your own.

That in a nutshell sums up our lot – we are really the victims of our own scripting; by astudiously nurturing the myth that the good life can only be purchased by keeping to the apparent safety of the yellow brick road; most of us by default have inadvertently leveled off the field of possibilities to only perhaps a few ways to “succeed” in life.

Contrast that if you may with the American dream – where everyone and anyone can really strive for the idea of rugged individualism in a whole variety of ways which I can only describe as untraditional, unconventional and exciting – tell me how far would either Bill Gates or Steve Jobs get in Singapore?

I rest my case.

It may sound like a flippant question but its jugular when what’s really on the table is the idea of creating a new generation of trendsetters and not followers along with perhaps the whole idea of craving out competitive advantage, by all accounts – it has to be said, the American model provokes discussions on whether we have been too scripted by keeping to the idea of form while throwing out the valuable function. For all we know redemption on a national scale lies in the latter?

Its even conceivable part of that whole idea of being straight jacket requires us to ask whether the custodians of power have been “preaching” too much, which is quite different from teaching and mentoring. Ultimately, what really needs to be discussed isn’t the valedictory idea of whether Singapore can fail? But rather can we even come to terms with the idea we may have perhaps already failed?

The question acquires a renewed sense of urgency when you consider how so often failure is often sidelined, white washed and even given the mind bending treatment to suggest everything is still humming along happily as planned – no doubt this is done with lashings of no regrets or deflecting the whole idea of blame by suggesting Singapore is really too small to tack its destiny in the broader world of globalization. Or even leveraging on the whole idea of good governance by trumping it as the only thing that really matters in the greater scheme of things – but nonetheless, it underscores our morbid fear of confronting failure head on – and that surely must be the greatest consternation to thinking folk as:

In business, like in statecraft - failure is the teacher - and admission of failure remains the key. My feel is the real challenge - has absolutely nothing to do with juxtaposing the minstrel question: can Singapore fail? But rather can we really afford NOT to analyze what went wrong so that we don’t make the same mistakes again. Can we really afford to elide wholesale the whole idea of how we have miscalculated the resilience and durability of the free market enterprise?

I’m not sure how this could be done if even in the face of incontrovertible evidence that suggest we should press the pause button and relook at many of our time honored assumptions – the prevailing mood is still on of - business as usual – or we did the very best we could under a given set of conditions and there is no scope further scope for improve - we are the best in the world - the masters of the universe – my point is simply this: its hard, if not impossible to imagine a group of people who still cling stoically to the departmental mindset sitting around a table discussing a failed policy, strategy or investment and reaching conclusions that don’t have negative impacts on certain members – in short, the opportunity to learn, improve and set a new course is squandered.

The real lesson here could well be not whether Singapore can fail as Kishore suggested? But rather; its less desirable twin that so often hides behind all great failures - can we really afford to admit that we have not already failed? And this should prompt us to consider whether perhaps the only real failure is failing to learn from failure it’self? – and there lies the shattered dream and the firmament of all our hopes in the sign of our times.

I have to step off the train now; its my stop – if only coming to terms with failure could really be that simple.

If only…..yes, it’s better if we contend ourselves with the sobriquet question: can Singapore fail?

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25228.1

PM Lee reshuffles Cabinet as part of continuing leadership renewal

PM Lee reshuffles Cabinet as part of continuing leadership renewal
By Asha Popatlal, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 26 March 2009 1802 hrs

SINGAPORE : Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has announced several changes to the Cabinet and other appointments, as part of continuing leadership renewal and testing out of younger office holders for broader responsibilities.

Among the major changes is the appointment of the country's first full-fledged woman minister.

Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean will be promoted to Deputy Prime Minister with effect from April 1. He will be one of two deputy prime ministers alongside veteran Wong Kan Seng, who is concurrently the Home Affairs Minister.

Mr Teo will continue as Minister for Defence, and be the acting prime minister in the absence of the prime minister.

Professor S Jayakumar will relinquish his appointment as Deputy Prime Minister, and will hold the post of Senior Minister in the Prime Minister's Office alongside Mr Goh Chok Tong. Professor Jayakumar will also continue as Co-ordinating Minister for National Security.

Mr Gan Kim Yong will be appointed Manpower Minister. He is currently the Acting Minister.

Mrs Lim Hwee Hua will hold the post of Minister in the Prime Minister's Office. She will concurrently serve as Second Minister for Finance and Second Minister for Transport.

The last time there was a woman minister in Cabinet was 1991 when Dr Seet Ai Mee became Acting Minister for Community Development. However, she lost her seat that year when she was not returned to Parliament in the 1991 elections.

Senior Minister of State Lui Tuck Yew will be appointed as Acting Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts. He will relinquish his appointment in the Education Ministry.

Dr Lee Boon Yang will relinquish his appointment as Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts and retire from the government.

Since being appointed a Parliamentary Secretary in 1985, Dr Lee has served in many portfolios including Environment, Trade and Industry, Finance, Home Affairs, National Development, Defence, and Manpower, before becoming Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts in 2003.

The prime minister thanked Dr Lee for his many years of service and contributions to the government and the nation.

In changes to the posts of Ministers of State, Mr S Iswaran will be appointed Senior Minister of State in the Education Ministry, in addition to his current post as Senior Minister of State in the Trade and Industry Ministry.

Mr Lee Yi Shyan takes on the role of Minister of State for Manpower, in addition to his present post as Minister of State for Trade and Industry.

Mr Sam Tan will be appointed as Parliamentary Secretary in the Trade and Industry Ministry and Information, Communications and the Arts Ministry. His appointment takes effect on July 1.

Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Community Development, Youth and Sports Teo Ser Luck will be appointed as Mayor of North East Community Development Council with effect from May 31.

The current mayor, Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed, will relinquish his appointment when his current three-year term ends on May 30. He will continue as Senior Minister of State in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. - CNA /ls

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25116.2

PM renews Cabinet

March 26, 2009

PM renews Cabinet

		Mr Teo Chee Hean (far left) will be appointed as Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence. Mrs Lim Hwee Hua will be appointed as a Minister in the Prime Minister's Office and concurrently appointed as Second Minister for Finance and Second Minister for Transport. -- ST PHOTOS: BRYAN VAN DER BEEK, WONG KWAI CHOW

View more photos

PRIME Minister Lee Hsien Loong has reshuffled his Cabinet, making several changes and appointments as part of continuing leadership renewal.

The changes are also to test out younger office holders for broader responsibilities, said a statement from the Prime Minister's Office on Thursday.

RELATED LINKS CABINET AND OTHER OFFICE HOLDERS

The changes will take effect from April 1.

Changes in ministerial appointments
Mr Teo Chee Hean will be appointed as Deputy Prime Minister. He will be the Acting Prime Minister in the absence of the Prime Minister. He will continue as Minister for Defence.

Professor S Jayakumar will relinquish his appointment as Deputy Prime Minister. He will be appointed as Senior Minister in the Prime Minister's Office and will continue as Co-ordinating Minister for National Security. He will also continue to oversee foreign policy matters which cut across different ministries and take charge of foreign policy issues which involve legal negotiation or international adjudication. He continues to chair the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Climate Change.

Mr Gan Kim Yong will be appointed as Minister for Manpower.

Mrs Lim Hwee Hua will be appointed as a Minister in the Prime Minister's Office. She will be concurrently appointed as Second Minister for Finance and Second Minister for Transport.

Mr Lui Tuck Yew, Senior Minister of State, will relinquish his appointment in Education and will be appointed as Acting Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts.

Dr Lee Boon Yang will relinquish his appointment as Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts and retire from the Government.

Since being appointed a Parliamentary Secretary in 1985, Dr Lee has served in many portfolios including Environment, Trade and Industry, Finance, Home Affairs, National Development, Defence, and Manpower, before becoming Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts in 2003. The Prime Minister thanks Dr Lee for his many years of service and contributions to the Government and the nation.

Changes in appointment of Ministers of State
Mr S Iswaran will be appointed as Senior Minister of State in the Ministry of Education, concurrent with his present appointment of Senior Minister of State in the Ministry of Trade and Industry.

Mr Lee Yi Shyan will be appointed as Minister of State in the Ministry of Manpower, concurrent with his present appointment of Minister of State in the Ministry of Trade and Industry.

New appointment of Parliamentary Secretary
Mr Sam Tan will be appointed as Parliamentary Secretary in the Ministry of Trade and Industry and concurrently in the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts. His appointment takes effect on 1 July 2009.

Other appointments
Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed will relinquish his appointment of Mayor, North East Community Development Council when his current 3-year term ends on 30 May 2009. He will continue as Senior Minister of State in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Mr Teo Ser Luck will be appointed as Mayor, North East Community Development Council with effect from 31 May 2009. This will be concurrent with his appointment as Senior Parliamentary Secretary in the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports and in the Ministry of Transport.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25116.1

Time to review executive rewards for CEO

Time to review executive rewards for CEOs and political leaders in government-owned companies

In a letter to the Straits Times Forum today, Mr Liew Kai Khiun expressed his outrage at the bonus of $20 million paid to CapitaLand chief executive officer (CEO) Liew Mun Leong . (read letter here)

Mr Liew wrote that “such remuneration concentrated on certain individuals would widen income disparities and demoralise the public by creating a winner-takes-all climate”.

While I do not begrudge CEOs of major corporate companies their due entitlement to a hefy bonus as a reward for their performance, questions must be raised about the salaries and bonuses of government leaders who are holding positions in government-linked companies.

There should be a clear line drawn between the ruling and business classes. The government should not be involved in the corporate sector in the first place.

Since the government is now deeply entrenched in all sectors of Singapore’s economy, it should adopt certain basic standards of corporate governance such as releasing the salaries and bonuses of its top honchos.

To be fair to Mr Liew, he is brave enough to put himself under public scrutiny by declaring the bonuses he received last year.

Capitaland is owned by Temasek Holdings. If Mr Liew received $20 million dollars of bonuses, what about his superior, Madam Ho Ching, the CEO of Temasek?

What is the Madam Ho’s annual salary and will she receive any severance package after leaving Temasek in October this year? Does she deserve any bonuses last year at all for the dismal performance of Temasek?

Her father-in-law Mr Lee Kuan Yew is already receiving an estimated sum of S$3 million dollars a year as the Minister Mentor of Singapore on top of the annual pension he is entitled to receive (if I am not wrong, it is about two-thirds of his annual pay). Is he being paid for as Chairman of GIC and how much were his bonuses, if they are any last year?

Regardless of whether Temasek and GIC are independent corporate entities owned by the Ministry of Finance or the government’s investment vehicles to manage the country’s reserves, either way, they are expected to be accountable to the public.

In major corporate firms, the shareholders decide on the amount of bonuses to be paid to its Chairman. Who determines the bonuses of the GIC Chairman?

Where does GIC and Temasek obtain their funding from? Do they come from the pockets of the Lee family or from every tax-paying citizen of Singapore? Why are Singaporeans being kept in the dark about the salaries and bonuses of its top honchos when we are in fact their paymasters?

I agree with Mr Liew that significant additional taxes should be imposed on individual bonuses of high earners to give the public a greater sense of fairness and decency.

For a start, I propose the government reveal the following information of public interest which is long overdue:

1. The salaries and bonuses of all the staff of GIC and Temasek Holdings.

2. The identities of PAP ministers and MPs who are holding directorships in government-linked companies and their renumeration packages.

3. The assets of all PAP ministers and MPs, including shares owned in government-linked companies and properties.

If the government of Singapore is indeed as incorruptible, transparent and accountable as it often claims, then its leaders should not be afraid to reveal their salaries and bonuses which after all comes from Singapore taxpayers.

How can you expect us to pay for something and yet not tell us how much we are paying for? Are Singaporeans getting a good deal from the government?

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25110.1

So, what did change?

So, what did change?

Associate Professor Bilveer Singh from NUS political science department says, "Temasek is a strategically important company and for a foreigner to manage it can be seen as humiliating". Although the truth may truly be that "there (is) nobody inside Temasek equal to the job", the appointment of Charles Goodyear as the CEO of Temasek Holdings is most certainly a negative development.

Mr. Dhanabalan rightly remarked in 2002 that sensitive job of Temasek's CEO is not for foreigners. Even while being led by a Singaporean, larger and larger proportion of assets were invested in the financial sector by Temasek Holdings; supposedly spurred by foreign advise. Besides worrying if our CPF funds have disappeared with GIC's and Temasek's recent losses, one cannot help but also wonder "what now since not just the advisors are foreign but the lead person himself is a foreigner?

Senior Minister of State for Finance Lim Hwee Hua in addressing this recently in parliament, remarked, "Temasek today is completely different from the Temasek at the time of Mr Dhanabalan's". What she failed to address was, "So, what did change?"

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25109.1

Money Does Buy Happiness

Money Does Buy Happiness

Professor Lee Wei Ling, on subject of disquiet about the amendment before Parliament to reimburse organ donors, fingered public-sector renal physicians and transplant surgeons as the spoilers, positing that “they are more concerned about being treated as pariahs by international or American medical societies of their specialities.”Merriam-Webster defines the word as such:

Main Entry: pa·ri·ah
Pronunciation: \pə-ˈrī-ə\
Function: noun
Etymology: Tamil par_aiyan, literally, drummer
Date: 1613
1 : a member of a low caste of southern India
2 : one that is despised or rejected : outcast

Speaking up for the Singapore Urological Association, Professor E.Kesavan first pointed out that the majority of their members are in private practice. He then highlighted that unpaid volunteers surgeons within their membership have supported the national transplantation programme for more than 20 years, without any thought of recognition or reward. Needless to say they take umbrage at the insinuation that these doctors place their interests before those of the community, “as was implied in the (Lee’s) letter.” But why the pariah label?

Perhaps Lee missed out on the crucial argument against the amendment, which is that the new law lacked details to regulate payment amounts, to ensure that it is kept “not-for-profit, transparent and devoid of abuse,” to quote dissenting PAP MP Christppher de Souza. NCMP Sylvia Lim put it more starkly: “The new formula leaves room for profit.” In particular she referred to a clause that allows for defraying or reimbursing costs which may include travel, accommodation, cost of domestic or child care, loss of income and long-term-medical care. One could almost hear Vivian Balakrishnan query the accommmodation - is it 5-star, budget hotel or rent-by the-hour? Unvoiced in parliament, but probably lurking in the minds of everybody inside and outside the house, is the explained mechanism of how retail tycoon Tang Wee Sung jumped the queue for his organ transplant, and so soon after he was convicted for illegally buying a kidney from a Indonesian.

The way Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan brushed aside the concerns about reimbursement caps or formulae by stating that he preferred not to “hardwire technical matters” into the act leads only to further misgivings about potential abuse. Like most legislations in Singapore, there is this provision: “at the Minister’s pleasure.” It is no comfort that the proposed crucial gatekeepers will be the hospital’s transplant ethics committee, probably the same committee that approved the harvesting of the Indonesia sourced kidney for Tang in the first place.

Khaw made it clear on aspect of compensation: Foreign donors will get a “much lower reimbursement cap,” due to the lower cost of living in their home countries. In other words, forget about a kidney from America, United Kingdom or Japan; sourcing from pariahs is much cheaper. If you got the cash, anything is for sale - even a heart.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25107.1

What Sun Tzu might have done if he was in Singapore politics instead

What Sun Tzu might have done if he was in Singapore politics instead

SINGAPORE - What do Tiong Bahru Group Representation Constituency (GRC), Cheng San GRC and Eunos GRC have in common? First and foremost, they were the scenes of closely contested electoral battles, which saw the opposition losing by thin margins. And, the three of them are now defunct, at least they are now part of the chapter within the annals of Singapore’s electoral history. The same goes for Braddell Heights, Anson and other Single Member Constituencies (SMC). It isn’t a big mystery that these constituencies are consolidated within a GRC helmed by a PAP minister.

And it goes without saying that the PAP were beneficiaries after their disappearance. Undoubtedly, the opposition was derailed by it. When boundaries shift, i.e. when an opposition stronghold is integrated with another PAP-supporting area, the odds of winning decreases significantly, more so if the GRC is helmed by a heavyweight minister. And this is further exacerbated by the fact that the election deposits keeps increasing all over the years. During the last General Elections, the election deposit for every candidate was a whopping $13500.

However, does the PAP always gets its way? The fact remains that an opposition stronghold is after all an opposition stronghold assuming the residents are not re-located. And this could end up being a minor shot in the PAP’s foot. Recall during the General Elections of 2006, expectations of Mr Lee Hsien Loong winning by a huge margin was high, at least from the PAP’s perpective because they were pitted against a team of newcomers from the Worker’s Party. There was even some talk of the newcomers losing their electoral deposits.

Thus, the billion dollar question before every election is how has the boundaries changed as compared to the last elections. And, it is understandably easy to get carried away with worrying about the boundary changes as the opposition candidates are likely to weigh their chances.”

What the PAP couldn’t count on was the Cheng San bogeyman lying in wait at Ang Mo Kio GRC (Ang Mo Kio GRC absorbed Cheng San GRC). The results? Mr Lee turned in an average performance relative to his party mates, and couldn’t meet his expectation of “completely thrashing his opponents”. Arguably, the results at Ang Mo Kio could be attributed partly to the Cheng San effect. Of course, there were other factors that could have influenced the outcome too.

Thus, the billion dollar question before every election is how has the boundaries changed as compared to the last elections. And, it is understandably easy to get carried away with worrying about the boundary changes as the opposition candidates are likely to weigh their chances.

The changes are so unpredictable that it is futile attempting to predict the changes in boundaries. What can the opposition do about it? Nothing, and why they should even bother? The most basic, yet prudent move by the opposition will be to build on their influence around these stronghold areas, and this should start immediately after the current election in preparation for the next one. Thus, the opposition should be setting up “base camps” in such areas to consolidate their support and spread their influence, instead of worrying about the new boundaries. And if they manage to set up a massive sphere of influence, no amount of massive re-drawing is going to give the PAP any advantage.

And there are potential stronghold sites where the opposition can establish their “base camps”, all of which saw close fights in previous years. Cheng San, Eunos, Tiong Bahru, Anson, Braddell Heights, Aljunied, Changi, Fengshan, Paya Lebar, Bukit Batok and others have received 40% or more votes for the opposition. Low Thia Khiang and Chiam See Tong are prime examples of candidates who successfully build their “base camps” in their stronghold, although it could be argued that the dynamics of competition in a GRC is far more complex than that of an SMC. That being said, there is no harm expanding the sphere of influence within a stronghold, no?

Although, the re-drawing of boundaries may technically disadvantage the opposition, this can be negated if the opposition adopts the appropriate strategy. Even Sun Tzu himself said:”The art of war teaches us to rely not on the likelihood of the enemy’s not coming, but on our own readiness to receive him; not on the chance of his not attacking, but rather on the fact that we have made our position unassailable.” And this position that Sun Tzu speaks about is the sphere of influence radiating from the opposition’s stronghold.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=sunkopitiam&msg=25190.1

An Uphill Task

An Uphill Task

Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan is taking flak again, this time for ramming through a legislation that is so blatantly lacking in details to prevent abuse that it practically screams: “Rape me”. But should we fault Khaw for the incompleteness or the legal team who drafted the law?

Khaw is one of the few Ministers that will not make you puke your breakfast, or prompt one to associate the arrogance, incompetence and greed trait with some party other than AIG.

He was last lambasted for abandoning the elderly offshore when he talked about the option of sending them to nursing homes in Johore Baru. The spirit of his message is clearer when you listen to his delivery in this video.

However, the clarification posted on the Ministry of Health (MOH) website brings back that sickening feeling in the stomach that the sincerity of the government initiative is suspect.

“We should try, but it would be a challenge. According to the Singapore investor in an upcoming nursing home in JB, his total cost for putting up the facility of 200 beds, including land, was estimated at S$10 million. This is less than the cost of putting up an outpatient polyclinic in Singapore, even excluding land cost.

And it is not just capital cost. Nursing homes are labour intensive. The wages of nurses here are more than double the wages in JB.”

It is mind boggling, to borrow Khaw’s own words, that an outpatient polyclinic can cost $10 million. But has anyone asked why the Singapore polyclinic has need of frills like flat screen displays in the waiting areas? Ever notice the fancy computers and PDAs the doctors are using? And there are the layers of overpaid civil service staff tugged away behind closed doors, racking up brownie points for 8 month performance bonuses. If ever land cost is added to the equation, you can bet it will be marked-to-market, just like the way Dhanabalan used opportunity cost to explain away the market level pricing of HDB flats.

The gross perversion of the truth here is that “the wages of nurses are more than double the wages in JB.” A well run nursing home in Singapore that charges the higher end rate of $2,000 a month employs Filipina nursing help at around $500. Proficiency in English is essential for dispensing daily medication. Cleaners
from Myanmar and China are probably paid less. The “in-house” doctor is Singaporean, but his consultation charges are a $40 extra, cost of medicines excluded. You don’t want to know the about the quality and quantities of the staffing in cheaper nursing homes here.

Khaw may be trying to do his best within the constraints of the government budget, a budget that allocates more taxpayers’ dollars to military toys like F-15 Eagles ($40 million each, depending on configuration) and Leopard tanks (estimated $13 million each for refurbished ones).

http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=sunkopitiam&msg=25185.1

Singapore's shame 0: Introduction to Self-censorship

Introduction to Self-censorship: Singapore’s shame

James Gomez

Even though a variety of global incidents such as the 1997 Asian economic crisis, the 2001 September 11 incident, SARS, the global financial meltdown of 2008 have been touted at varies times as catalysts for political change
in the region, the wave of democratization has yet to reach Singapore’s shores.

Singapore remains one of the few countries in Southeast Asia that has not witnessed meaningful political reform that can lead to regime change. This is not from a want of effort over the years by a range of activists from all walks of life.

Apart from being persecuted by the PAP government, these activists have not been able to stir the citizens into mass democratic action, because most people in Singapore self-censor themselves and censor others who are sympathetic to the democratic process.

Many Singaporeans disillusioned with the state of political development in the city-state have increasingly opted to emigrate, but they are being replaced by the PAP government with new citizens and resident workers who buy into this self-censorial, hence ensuring there is a dominant political culture in Singapore that will not facilitate democratization.

Numerous commentators have noted that the structural constraints of Singapore’s political system are responsible for hindered political development in the Republic. Its geographical size as well as the penetration and domination of the ruling Peoples’ Action Party (PAP) in all sectors of society have been cited as reasons. Control is almost complete.

The party has over the years placed many of its political allies both local and foreign in elite positions. It has grown to such proportions as to become an oligarchy. It is not a political party in the traditional sense. It has merged government, state structures and para-political organisations, and has co-opted and sponsored civil society actors.

The new area of co-option is the integration of foreign residents in Singapore as well as foreign governmental representatives to buy into the PAP style of managing Singapore. Such explanations of the PAP’s hegemony have been often supplemented with examples of the party’s encroachment of civil and political rights and its acts of persecution.

It has been noted that opposition politicians and selected members of civil society have suffered detention without trial, defamation suits, the application of tax evasion charges and others less visible methods of pressures that operate in the background such as denial of job opportunities.

Since 2000, the PAP has also opened a new front to respond to the small but increasing acts of online and offline civil disobedience acts. Through the PAP`s persecution, repressive methods and techniques, livelihoods and careers of activists have been broken and destroyed.

The net impact is that many of these activists have become disillusioned and dropped out of the scene. Such actions by the PAP government have also kept away a substantial number people from stepping forward to take on the regime. Collectively, these repressive features are regularly offered by commentators as explanations why the pace of political liberalisation in Singapore has been slow.

As a result, discussions on political development often center on sharing political governance. The PAP is often placed at one while on the other, actors such as opposition parties, civil society or individuals are lined up
as contenders for political and policy influence.

The ruling party’s reluctance to share governance in real political terms has been offered as the main impediment towards reform, in particular in the area of electoral reform. The PAP is the foremost feature on people`s minds when they speak of political development.

There is a failure to see and acknowledge that after nearly five decades of centralised rule, there has developed among the citizenry (and a majority of new citizens and resident workers buy into this), a censorial political culture that acts as an equally important obstruction.

The structural constraints and punitive actions that impact on the people’s behaviour have not been adequately recorded and debated. Neither have the people’s culture perpetuating the very features that support restrictions against alternative political expression and action similarly considered.

This focus on the people and how they contribute to the state of political conservatism in Singapore is an important variable for analysts and activists to ponder alike. This feature of political culture to some extent determines the success or failure of political endeavours by individuals or groups. Thus, an in-depth understanding of the people’s behaviour is vital in formulating any strategy for political action.

The prevalence of this self-censorial culture among the elite and the masses shows how the PAP administrative state has, over the decades, been able to effectively expand its control over the hearts and minds of its citizens. It has been able to foster a self-censorial political culture that can also be similarly seen in countries in the region such as Burma, China, Laos and Vietnam which are either one-party states or military dictatorships.

I thought in my initial analysis in 1999 that this Singaporean political culture was unique not only to the region but also unique globally. In spite of similarities elsewhere I continue to hold this view. For me, in the Singapore case, it is the paradoxical combination of high economic growth, small size, modernity, global outlook, high inflow of foreigners, and a technically non-communist political system that makes it stand out from the authoritarian regimes.

The oil rich Middle-Eastern or Muslim states, dictatorship and military commands in Latin America and Africa, the
remaining communist regimes scattered around the world and the countries listed above in the region where self-censorship also prevails do not have these similar features as Singapore.

The emergence of a dominant one party state and its harsh response to alternative political viewpoints and action has fostered a negative perception towards political expression over the year in Singapore. Even with the arrival of the internet in Singapore since the late 1990s such negative perception also holds true to some extent to online political
expressions especially when they are brought into the offline world.

This situation causes the majority of the people to see individuals and groups engaged in alternative political discourses as illegitimate beings, not to be encouraged but stopped or sidelined. Such an attitude is manifested through the people’s act of self-censorship and/or the censorship of others.

Given this backdrop, in the immediate short to mid-term, broad-based political support from the ground for a progressive politics in Singapore remains weak. While the internet has provided a new platform, and there has
been some growth in political expression and action, the more progressive elements are unable to garner mass public support.

The self-censorial political culture prefers to err on the side of caution and support the more conservative portion of these elements. Support for alternative political action such as civil disobedience remains weak and sporadic. There is some space to articulate a political problem, draw attention to it, and perhaps even make suggestions for change. However this remains at the level of rhetoric, taking place on “sponsored” or “non-partisan” platforms, and is
restricted to calls for a civil society to operate within the boundaries of the current law.

Even within civil society this space is heavily constricted by the laws of the self-censorial political culture that penetrates and operates there very effectively among its various sectional interests. Although discussion,
criticism and activism related to explicit political issues such as human rights, the electoral system, opposition political parties and the constitution (almost non-existent in Singapore along non-political party
lines ten years ago) are now more evident with the arrival of the internet, the pressure is to pursue it along “non-partisan” lines.

Singapore`s civil society is held ransom by a bunch of offline pre-internet activists weaned on the philosophy of non-partisanship who immediately counsel individuals associated with new online initiatives through their tea and advice sessions. When die-hard new and old activists reject such measures, these advocates run the risk of immediate censorship (nowadays done more subtly), rejection, marginalisation and name-calling. Given these dynamics of political culture attitude and behaviour, the political system continues to be upheld in its censorial form.

Under these circumstances, political change in Singapore cannot be expected if any strategy towards this end opts to target citizens. Instead, it would be more effective to focus on needs of a small group of political progressives and construct some kind of platform for this group to articulate its vision. In 1999, this resulted in the founding of the Think Centre. The aim then was to create political awareness.

While the Centre made some gains and set the pace and tone for online-offline activism in the early years, the Think Centre has been unable to hold its own as a multi-partisan political NGO in Singapore. In this regard it has succumbed to the offline pressures of non-partisanship. Due to internal limitations it has gone off tangent to its original purpose and aims (which is off course the prerogative of its caretakers) and has been either unable or unwilling to execute a change of leadership at the helm (since I stepped down).

Singapore`s political civil and political landscape has since changed. To move any new political agenda forward it is now important and necessary to draw support from like-minded sympathisers and partners to explore strategies for political engagement in a change environment.

In 1999 when I broached the idea of setting up a political NGO it seemed a catch like 22 situation - asking people to take risks in a politically punitive environment. At that time I felt such a strategy was nevertheless important in the long-term for the creation of greater political space and the interim, it could provide the means for like-minded people to form their own political community.

Since then the situation has changed. A set of people in the last ten years have come forward, taken a political stand and have acted upon them on a civil society platform. What is needed now is an organisation or network of people with activist experience from a broad spectrum of backgrounds, issues and organisational experience including those who have been active some 20 years ago to led the way forward. Such an entity needs to go beyond local politics and think globally in terms of its network and reach for democratization in Singapore. Such a move is important, as Singapore needs to widen the pool of people who will be politically creative and innovative enough to carry the country into the next century.

The absence of a risk-taking class at the philosophical and political level is a key problem. The PAP government’s call for the people to be active and to take matters into their own hands has not taken off the ground due mainly to the censorial behaviour of the majority and reluctance on the part of the PAP to endorse the legitimate co-existence of
political difference.

Over the years a small group of people have been successful in gaining legitimacy for their alternative philosophical and political expression but they do have to face a conservative majority that constantly tries to censor
difference.

That there is a need for a risk-taking culture to permeate the political and social infrastructure of Singapore is clear and some have taken this risk. But at the same time is important that if we want to succeed that such an organization or network is well managed and run by individuals who are clearly aware that even in politics, professionalism and
commitment to deliverables are important qualities to determine success. This is the important feature for the next phase for Singapore`s political society.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=25034.1