Anonymous Craven

Happy Birthday, Singapore

2010-08-09T05:28:00.000-07:00

Just heard Kit Chan's Home on the NDP on TV moments ago, and it did bring back memories of me hearing it when overseas and how it made me homesick. I wonder - do we need to be away from Singapore to miss or appreciate our home?

Was reading "National Day must remain a day of pride" on The Online Citizen

I think that sometimes we accuse the government of mixing the state with the PAP, but some of us are guilty of the same by linking the dislike for PAP to the dislike of all things Singaporean.

If we do not have any pride in our country, if we do not have any pride in being a Singaporean, then we have given up completely, and do not have any will to work to improve our nation and our lot in it.

Stand tall, fellow Singaporeans! On this day of all days, let us all wish our country a Happy Birthday!

Would we be what we are now without LKY?

2009-12-15T02:59:00.000-08:00

Just posted another comment on the 10 reasons thread, in response to a poster (breaky) who asked : would we be what we are now without LKY? (see below)

When I think about the question, the first parallel that comes to my mind is Liu Bei of the three Kingdoms. Never mind LKY's personality seems more suited to be Cao Cao, but Liu Bei stands out in response to the question because his success is more the result of a superb team than a single omnipotent leader. He have superb planners and strategists foremost of which is the peerless Zhuge Liang, fearless warriors to carry out the strategies in the form of the Five Tiger Generals (Guan Yu, Zhang Fei, Zhao Yun etc).

In the earlier part of his career, he thrived in the role of a charismatic leader that recruited many capable man, and won the heart of the general populace. By drawing on the impressive talents of his team he created a strong kingdom that was prosperous and strong enough to resist the aggression of his neighbors.

But Liu Bei ended tragically when he attacked Wu against the advice of Zhuge and Zhaoyun to avenge the death of Guan Yu who was captured and executed when Wu retook the Jing province.

In this battle, Liu won several skirmish in the beginning, but failed to heed the advise of the advisor Ma Liang by moving his troops into the forest to escape the summer heat. The Wu general Lu Xun counter attacked by setting the dry forest on fire and ambushing the Shu troop's as they first sought water, then retreat. The Shu army was decimated, and Liu Bei became a broken man that died soon after of disease.

What's the moral of the story, one might ask?

A team's success comes from the strengths and contributions of many - if a leader mistake the team's ability as his own and overestimate his ability, he is due for a fall.

If the people mistake the work of many able men as the contribution of a singular charismatic leader, then they are due for a big disappointment.

Going back to the question that is this posting's title - it would be more apt to ask if we would be what we are now without our founding fathers... who seems to share very little in common with our current leaders beyond being affiliated to the same political party. More on this if the opportunity arises.

------------------

@breaky

The Singapore we have today is definitely not the result of the efforts of a single man. The success of early Singapore is the result of a charismatic leader with a superb team. The architect behind the economic growth was Goh Keng Swee, the man behind the HDB story is Lim Kim San, and the man working the ground and casting the key vote that made LKY into the PM for the first time is Toh Chin Chye. In according proper respect to each contributor, we must also realize that the Elder Lee is not quite as all knowing and all capable as he is often made out to be.

I think that there are no other political party that I can trust to lead Singapore now. But the issue at hand is not the casting down of the PAP, but the voting of more opposition into the parliament to curb the arrogance and monitor the investments made with our precious reserves.

Just because we are doing better than our neighbors is no excuse for complacency – we should be asking ourselves : are we in a better position than we are 10-20 years ago? Reports have shown the middle and lower income families facing wage stagnation and regression while our leaders’ pay eclipse the highest paid leaders of the first world.

A extended monopoly of power breeds stagnation and decay – history stands testimony to this stark truth. For the sake of Singapore, for the sake of Singaporeans, and for the sake of the PAP even, we need to get more opposition into the Parliament.

Reasons why we cannot vote for the PAP in the next election

2009-12-13T22:35:00.000-08:00

By all signs an election in the coming year seems inevitable.

It remains to be seen whether there will be any significant attempts mounted by the government to fight back on the alternative media of the Internet.

Below is a reply to a post on TOC titled "10 reasons why I cannot vote for the PAP in the next election"

More on it if the opportunity arises.

------------------------

AC on December 14th, 2009 2.31 pm

@My Views

You were saying that the Elder Lee have never made any comments about the Army being brought in, hence I bring up the article to provide an example and some perspective of the matter. Whether his remark is justifiable, or whether it is just a blatant attempt at fear mongering doomsday scenarios of an opposition victory, is a matter of opinion.

I find it ironic that while the Elder Lee is painting a picture of the opposition destroying Singapore’s reserves, the largest blows to our reserves in the last 2 decades occurred under his watch under his team while operating under a cloak of secrecy.

Were there sufficient due diligence, and were the investments reckless? We will never know the true answer, because our Finance minister have already stated that the people’s wish to know is not enough reason for disclosure, even when matters are brought up in our Parliament itself.

This, amongst other reasons as given in the article, should serve as a wake up call to Singaporeans of the need for more checks and controls on our existing government – the reasons why we cannot vote for the PAP in the next election.

Mahathir's Singapore fetish and the story of the 3 sens water

2009-06-16T17:48:00.000-07:00

Malaysia's ex-pm, Tun Mahathir Mohammed, recently posted in his blog a short article titled "The Modern Middle Kingdom".

The article can be summarised as his unhappiness that Singapore/LKY views itself as the centre of the universe; that Singapore's participation in the Iskandar development project will marginalise the Johorean Malays; that the Water agreements with Singpaore constitutes a grave injustice inflicted on Malaysia; and last but not least - that Najib is foolish for not carrying out his grand vision of a crooked bridge by forcing the demolition/replacement of the causeway.

Why did Mahathir agree to 3 sens per 1000 gallon during his time? (The period for the 2 windows for price reviews for the Water agreement fall during his 22 years term in office as PM). There are several good reasons, which he always conveniently leaves out whenever he beats the long dead horse of the Water agreements.

I posted a comment there too, but the blog's settings require comments to be approved - and its been more than 12 hours since the post count froze at 120. *edit* The comment went through, some posters took note of it, some others continued to ask "why 3 sens" - either they did not read other comments, or choose to ignore the points I put forth.

Below are my comments :

A few pointers lifted from an earlier posting in my blog :

1) The construction of the reservoirs, dams and pipe works to bring the water to Johor and to Singapore, as well as it's upgrading and maintenance is all paid by Singapore - over the years it came up to a cost of more than S$1 Billion.

2) Back then, for every 1000 gallons of water:

- Singapore pays 3 sen for the raw water from Malaysia

- Singapore pays RM2.40 to treat this water

- Malaysia pays 50 sen to buy this treated water from Singapore

- Malaysia sells this treated water at RM3.95 to Johor residents

Johor made a profit of RM128,000 every day by selling treated water bought at a much lower price from Singapore. That's a tidy net profit as the cost of construction is fully paid by Singapore (refer pt 1).

3) The two Water Agreements allowed for a price review after 25 years, that is in 1986 and 1987 respectively. But Malaysia did not ask for a review at that time. It was a calculated decision by Malaysia not to review. Johor State Assembly Speaker Zainalabidin Mohd Zain made this clear : "There was no point in doing so because Johor was dependent on Singapore for its treated water supply, and Singapore would have also increased its price of treated water sold to Johor." So, Malaysia did not ask for a price review then because it have benefited Malaysia more for the status quo to continue (refer point 2).

4) Despite Malaysia choosing not to review the prices during the periods where they could under the treaty (refer pt 3), Singapore is still open to a price review - if only the Malaysia government under Mahathir could make up his mind on the right price - Mahathir first agreed to the price of 45 sen for current water supply and 60 sen for future water supply in Sep 01. But in Mar 02, he increased their asking price to 60 sen for water sold from 2002 to 2006, and RM 3 for water sold from 2007 to 2011. Yet later, he increased the demand to RM6.25 for water from 2002. It can be quite hard to play football if the goal posts keep moving.

5)In Dec 98, Malaysia under Mahathir decided the drop the price reviews approach as a singular negotiation (refer pt 4), and requested to resolve all the outstanding bilateral issues as a package. Singapore agreed. Then the Malaysian government unilaterally called off the package approach.

So all this ‘package approach’ linking sand, air space etc to water price reviews originated from Mahathir - not Singapore. Thus, both Malaysians and Singaporeans have the dear Tun to thank for the ‘creative’ approach of bundling multiple issues together.

Does strong language equate disrespect?

2009-02-23T19:56:00.000-08:00

Mr Tan Kin Lian, former chief executive of NTUC, has been enjoying some popularity writing as a columnist for The Online Citizen (TOC). Recently, he questioned the flak that Health Minister Khaw Boon Wah has been receiving for his suggestion for cheaper homes for the elderly in Johor. Following a flurry of exchanges in the comments section, (some of which criticised Mr Tan) he followed up with an article - "Respect other people's views".

I feel that given a person of Tan's worldly experience, he is surprisingly delicate - he was visibly miffed whenever he encountered strong language.

I think that it is unrealistic to expect political debates to be gentle, and that participants should refrain from any and all comments that could be construed as an attack any of the participants.

Below is the comment I posted on that thread :

"AC on February 24th, 2009 9.36 am

I think that while we should not deviate from the issue at hand into personal attacks and insults; we should not expect the polar opposite as the norm - that all communication have be respectful and polite before any exchange can actually take place. Let’s not be overly sensitive and delicate - political debates are hardly the realm of ’sugar and spice and everything nice’.

—–

I think that cheaper nursing homes overseas should be an option explored by the private sector instead of being spear-headed by our Health Minister. I think that as a minister Khaw should be aware that he represents the government, and that his words will be, rightly or wrongly, perceived as government policy inclinations.

Unless I am mistaken, Khaw himself had said strong words publicly condemning the lack of filial piety. For the same man to broach on the topic of not only sending one’s parents to a home for elderly, but a home that is in another country, is very inappropriate and borders on hypocrisy. Is it then surprising that Singaporeans take him to task?"

Sir Shoealot Jahnke vs Wen Jiabao

2009-02-10T04:33:00.000-08:00

Was reading a news article on the German student/researcher Martin Jahnke who threw a shoe at Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao when he gave a speech at Cambridge during his 3 day trip to Britain.

Following some internet search for more articles, I came across a European forum which actually ran a poll "Martin Jahnke, European hero or villain?" in which the majority polled called him a villian.

There was a discussion on the same thread on which I added my 5 cents worth :

I think that the issue to note is the consequence of throwing the shoe - instead of damaging the Chinese premier, the act ended up scoring sympathy for Wen from neutral observers and provides moral high-ground for pro-china factions.

If he had succeeded in baiting Wen in question and answer to inappropriate remarks or behavior, then Martin Jahnke would be truly be a hero to those aligned to his causes. But it seems that he lacks in not just oratorical skills, but good sense as well.

As things stand, the rash act of lobbing a shoe at an honored guest of the distinguished school dishonored not just the individual himself, but the reputation of the school is also tarred.

He can only be a hero to those at his same level or below.

Chee vs Lee, and the loser is Singapore's Judiciary

2008-06-10T00:25:00.000-07:00

Made some comments on TOC's article : Judging the Judiciary

AC on June 10th, 2008 3.19 pm

When the integrity of our judiciary is being judged by Singaporeans and foreign observers alike, it is even more important to handle the case in an impartial and neutral stance - so that observers can note the lack of prejudice or bias.

I felt that the conduct of the case, and the subsequent follow up actions failed to clear the doubts on the independence of our courts; and this failure is the loss of our judiciary, and the loss of Singapore.

Chee was never a real threat to begin with - the baggage of various mistakes has shattered any mainstream credibility he possessed when he first started. With Chee’s temperament, give him enough rope and he would have hung himself on the court of public opinion, and the judiciary would have come out smelling like roses.

Instead, we have senior government leaders stooping to exchange insults; and we have to kick a person when he’s down and on the floor – applying heavy fines to an already bankrupt to help him rouse public sympathy.

Let’s rope in the mass media too to vilify Chee too since we are at it – does anyone really think that Chua Lee Hoong’s article will persuade converts to condemn Chee? Or will her article provoke an adverse and opposite effect similar to the backlash to the establishment by the overkill on the James Gomez during the election form incident?

My impression is that our leaders are sorely lacking from lessons in subtlety. A nudge, some careful restrain and a step back at appropriate times will often reap more returns than blind headlong charges capitalizing solely on force superiority.

2008-05-29T20:47:00.000-07:00

Been writing a few responses on the issue of Singapore Malaysia relations and the water agreement between the two country.

The most recent comment is posted on Endoh's Dungeon :

I feel that Malaysia and Singapore's relations have always been underscored by rivalry - and for Mahathir's case it is a double rivalry – not just Singapore vs. Malaysia, but him vs. Lee Kuan Yew as well.

It could have been a matter of bitter regret for him that his stewardship of Malaysia ended with Singapore leading in most of the areas that the two countries is competing in; with him fading into obscurity and much of his influence over UNMO weakened.

In port and shipping Mahathir did pull off a coup by drawing Maersk and Evergreen away from PSA to the Johor Port of Tanjung Pelepas (PTP). With the participation of the two shipping giants, PTP did very well and currently stand as a strong competitor to our PSA.

If the Causeway is demolished, shipping could then go across the straits between the two countries in a shorter route without passing around Singapore. I am no shipping expert, but this could be a push factor to bring about significantly more ships to PTP; at least Mahathir seems to think that it is so – as early as the year 2000 he have brought up the topic of replacing the Causeway in the bilateral Water agreement talks.

There was much talk that accuses Mahathir of vested interests in the construction of a new bridge. Perhaps he have made promises to various parties and there is probably much money to be made from such a project – in the same manner that BN have been handling most of their Mega Projects. But I do not believe that Mahathir’s sole and primary intent was to plunder Malaysia – I think that there is a genuine wish to see Malaysia prosper and stand up tall.

In my opinion, it is probably a mixture of interest that steers Mahathir’s rhetoric’s on the matter of replacing the Causeway – not just greed, but hope and pride – the hope that with a new shipping route the PTP could outshine PSA and stand proud as a shining legacy of Mahathir for Malaysia and the Malaysians.

------

Earlier on the same blog, there was a minor debate in the comments section on whether Singapore was a bad neighbour sparked off by the Singaporean win on Pedra Branca.

My reply there was drawn heavily from the MFA's FAQ on the matter :
(posting the chunk here, as MFA's linking seems to be frequently broken - not quite the standard I would expect of it.)

Water

Q. Why can't Singapore be more reasonable and pay a little more for the sake of neighbourliness and good bilateral relations?

A. The water dispute is not about money but Singapore's existence as a sovereign nation. The Water Agreements are part of the Separation Agreement which guarantees Singapore's existence as an independent nation. If the terms of the Water Agreements can be changed by Malaysia at will, then Singapore's independence too could be called into question. This is the root dispute.

The issue is not how much we pay, but how any price revision is decided upon. The Water Agreements contain specific provisions on when the price can be revised and how the revisions should be computed. Price revision cannot be at the whim and fancy of a particular party. If Malaysia can change the terms of agreements solemnly entered into at will, where is the sanctity of agreements? Any future agreement we enter into with Malaysia will have no value.

Notwithstanding the fact that Malaysia has lost the right to a price review under the Water Agreements, Singapore was prepared to pay more for current water, in exchange for an assured future supply of water after 2061 and in the context of a package deal for resolving outstanding bilateral issues.

Q. How and in what way has Malaysia been twisting and turning during the negotiations?

A. The documents released in Parliament show clearly that Malaysia has repeatedly changed its mind on the price of water and shifted the goal posts whenever we were close to an agreement. They first agreed to the price of 45 sen for current water supply and 60 sen for future water supply in Sep 01. But in Mar 02, they increased their asking price to 60 sen for water sold from 2002 to 2006, and RM 3 for water sold from 2007 to 2011. Later they increased their demand to RM6.25 for water from 2002. This is a 200-fold increase! The Malaysians also refused to discuss future water supplied to Singapore until 2059, two years before the 1962 Water Agreement runs out.

In Dec 98, Malaysia requested to resolve all the outstanding bilateral issues as a package. Singapore agreed. But Malaysia's constant flip-flops in position made it hard to reach any agreement. Finally, it became clear Malaysia did not want to sell future water to Singapore. They even unilaterally called off the package approach. So there was nothing left to negotiate.

Q. Didn't the Water Agreements provide for a price review after 25 years? If so, why cannot Malaysia ask for a review now?

A. Malaysia has lost its legal right to a price review under the Water Agreements. The two Water Agreements allowed for a price review after 25 years, that is in 1986 and 1987 respectively. But Malaysia did not ask for a review at that time. It was a calculated decision by Malaysia not to review. Johor State Assembly Speaker Zainalabidin Mohd Zain made this clear : "There was no point in doing so because Johor was dependent on Singapore for its treated water supply, and Singapore would have also increased its price of treated water sold to Johor." So, Malaysia did not ask for a price review then because it would not benefit them at that time.

Q. Is it true Singapore is "profiteering" by buying raw water cheap from Malaysia and selling treated water to Malaysia at a high price?

A. No, on the contrary, we are selling treated water cheap to Malaysia and Malaysia is reselling that to Malaysians for a big profit.

The arithmetic is quite simple. For every 1000 gallons of water:
Singapore pays 3 sen for the raw water from Malaysia
Singapore pays RM2.40 to treat this water
Malaysia pays 50 sen to buy this treated water from Singapore
Malaysia sells this treated water at RM3.95 to Johor residents

Singapore pays 3 sen for raw water, but the real cost to us for raw water is much higher because we pay for all the construction costs to build the reservoirs, dams and pipeworks to bring the water to Singapore.

On the other hand, Malaysia makes money from the treated water they buy from us. Each day, Malaysia buys 37 million gallons of treated water. This means that we lose to Malaysia RM70,000 a day for treated water, and Johor makes a profit of RM128,000 every day by selling treated water bought cheaply from us. That's a profit of RM47 million each year!

Q. Is it true the Water Agreements and the low price of 3 sen were all "fixed by the British" in 1927, working in favour of Singapore as Malaysia has claimed?

A. No. The 1927 Water Agreement did not cover the price of water supplied to Singapore. So it is absolutely wrong to say that the 3 sen price was fixed by the British who "favoured" Singapore. The price was set under the 1961 and 1962 Water Agreements signed by the Johor State Government and the Singapore City Council. By then, Malaya was already an independent nation, and Singapore had achieved self-government. It is absurd to suggest that the Federal Government of an independent and sovereign Malaya would have allowed the Johor State Government to be manipulated by the British to sign an agreement that was against Malaya's national interests.

Q. What about Malaysia's claim that Singapore is "underpaying" Johor for raw water because Hong Kong buys water from China at RM8 per 1,000 gallons?

A. This is like comparing apples with oranges. Hong Kong pays China RM8, but in turn, China pays for the construction, upgrading and maintenance of the reservoirs and the water pipes to deliver the water to Hong Kong. Singapore, on the other hand, pays for all these costs. Over the years, Singapore has spent over S$1 billion on such projects, and continues to pay for their upgrading and maintenance. Malaysia did not have to spend a cent.

Pedra Branca

Q. What is the dispute with Malaysia over Pedra Branca all about?

A. The dispute arose in 1979, when Malaysia for the first time published a new map which claimed the island. Prior to that, Singapore had occupied and exercised full sovereignty over the island for more than 150 years since the 1840s without any protest from Malaysia. Previous Malaysian maps, even as late as 1974, showed Pedra Branca as belonging to Singapore.

Q. Why did Singapore and Malaysia decide to put the dispute on Pedra Branca before the International Court of Justice (ICJ)?

A. In 1981, both Singapore and Malaysia agreed that the ownership of Pedra Branca be resolved through an exchange of documents. However, Malaysia did not respond when Singapore informed Malaysia that we were ready to exchange documents. In 1989, Singapore then proposed to resolve Malaysia's claim through the ICJ process. Malaysia agreed to this in 1994 and both countries settled on the text of a Special Agreement to refer Malaysia's claim to the ICJ in 1998. Malaysia did not make any serious attempt to pursue the signing and ratification of the Special Agreement to start the process until 2003.

Q. What is the current status of the Pedra Branca case?

A. On 6 February 2003, the Foreign Ministers of Malaysia and Singapore signed the Special Agreement to submit the dispute to the ICJ. Having regard to the terms of the Special Agreement, the ICJ ordered each side to submit three rounds of written pleadings. These were submitted in March 2004, January 2005 and November 2005, respectively. Having decided in May 2006 that no further written pleadings were required and the written phase of the proceedings was closed, the ICJ has since informed the parties that the oral proceedings will take place from 6 - 23 November 2007.

Why is Singapore chasing away Malaysian vessels from Pedra Branca? Does Malaysia not have a right to patrol at Pedra Branca before the ICJ's ruling?

A. Singapore has exercised exclusive control and sovereignty of Pedra Branca since the 1840s. This is the status quo. Until Malaysia's claim is decided by the ICJ, the status quo must remain.

Malaysia took the same position against Indonesian naval intrusions during the Sipadan and Ligitan dispute. In that case, Malaysia took the position that as it was in possession of the islands, the status quo should prevail. However, Malaysia has taken a contradictory position on the Pedra Branca issue by disregarding the status quo and intruding into Singapore waters.

Loose Talk Of War

Q. What is this talk of war over the unresolved bilateral issues?

A. It was started by Malaysian leaders and media. Such loose talk of war is irresponsible and dangerous. It whips up emotions that could become difficult to control.

Singapore wants to have good relations with Malaysia. There is much that both countries can gain by working together. Our common interests far exceed our differences.

The Way Forward

Q. What next, now that the talks have reached an impasse?

A. It is in the interest of both countries to settle our differences through negotiations. However, as it is clear that we cannot expect renewal of water supply after 2061, the basis for future negotiations on water no longer exists. We are ready to have the dispute resolved through arbitration according to the laws of Johor, as provided for by the two Water Agreements.

An internet offensive - The Online Citizen under seige

2008-02-12T19:42:00.000-08:00

Since the demise of the old Sintercom website, there have been a scarcity of websites with decent Singaporean political discourse.

In recent times The Online Citizen have came across to me as a website with in-depth analysis of various government policies / statements. There's a perceptible oppposition slant, but they do try hard to back their criticism with research and I give them props for their efforts.

------

In the last few days there have been multiple accusations floating on Singabloodypore, soc.culture.singapore and La Nausee etc that TOC have been compromised with "PAP Moles", and that the website have somehow been hijacked and controlled secretly by the PAP.

Personally, I feel that the accusations are all hogwash.

PAP paying people to criticise itself in a credible matter, with the criticism backed by research than by mindless ranting? Pardon my lack of imagination, but I think that it is far easier to link the accusers to conspiracy than the TOC itself.

My comments on one of the websites linked to the accusers - the Wayang Party :

"Came to this site after reading all the accusations against the TOC at La Nausee.

Like I commented there, why is the editor of wayangparty insisting that the staff of TOC publish complete disclosure on their entire personal history when there is zero disclosure on this website to begin with? Clicking ‘about us’ on this blog gives me zero information about how many people are behind this blog, and who they are and what have they done before.

This wayangparty websites hoists the anti government flag and yet proceeds to attack the strongest opposition party, the Workers Party - even the name of this blog could be interpreted as an attack on the workers party.

If we were to follow the same line of reasoning that was used to attack the TOC, should we not ask for the identities of the owners of this blog, and speculate wildly whether they are in the payroll of the PAP, and what secret agenda this website have in the first place?"

Iskandar Development Region (IDR)

2007-07-08T22:50:00.000-07:00

Today I read in the news of JB's UMNO Youth passing an unanimous emergency resolution to press Lee Kuan Yew to retract his comments that advise investors from Singapore to question whether the attitudes (of Johor politicians) will change, and to consider how welcome their investments will be (in the IDR).

Whether the comments sprang from concern or malice, they are very pertinent as history have shown that senior politicians like Abdul Ghani harbor deep distrust and enmity towards Singapore, and it is indeed questionable whether the interests of the IDR can overcome the historical baggage that are carried on both sides of the Causeway.

The IDR is a topic of interest to me, because it represents a promise of changes set amidst a history of inflexibility; a promise of new friendships set amidst a history of conflict and hostility.

The most critical changes proposed for the IDR, is to set aside the requirements for Bumiputera quotas as well as the creation of a high level committee to oversee the zone and make sure that its needs are handled directly from the very top.

Already there are comments that the project have sold out to Singaporean interests, and there have been already hasty explanations that the high level committee did not meant that Singaporean approval must be sought for decisions regarding the IDR.

To me, the lifting of the Bumiputera quotas are a sound move that is necessary to attract mobile capital in the world today - the question is whether this rule will extent to other aspects of the Malaysian economy, and whether the success of the IDR (if it happens) will lead to more exemptions or the end of the exceptions.

The hysterical commotion arising from the news of the formation of the joint Committee between Singapore and Malaysia for the IDR show off the paranoia and hostility of the Johor politicians perfectly - a measured approach would have been an internal clarification followed by an external clarification; instead, various parties go shooting to the press direct.

In my opinion, Singapore-Malaysia cooperation would be an important catalyst that could spark off the success of the IDR, diverting it from the fate of obscurity that have befallen previous mega projects like the Cyberjaya.

The question is - can existing mindsets really change to push for a new era of cooperation, or will the mindsets remain to poison and cripple progress despite lip service to the contrary

The Kway Teow Man on Moral Authority and a million plates of ($2.2) kway teow to feed a hungry Minister

2007-04-04T01:48:00.000-07:00

The Kway Teow Man recently did a guest article on the Singapore Angle.

I don't usually agree with his views, but this article really struck a chord with me.

Beyond going through the usual points on the matter he brought up the issue of the moral authority of a government to lead a country through thick and thin. His article is as follows (copied in full for archive purposes too):

Sadness over Ministerial Salary Increase

by The Kway Teow Man on April 3, 2007 9:46 PM

Ben asked the KTM why he said the debate over the impeding salary increase is sad. The KTM collected his thoughts and realized that it is sad for a number of reasons.

The KTM explains his sadness....

Cracks in the System

Governance is complicated. There are no right answers in public policy. Policy policy is always a trade-off in between various competing demands. The role of the administrators is to balance the competing demands and to decide on a course of action that is most beneficial to the greater good. While the definition of the greater good is often contentious, but someone has to make the call. In almost every policy, someone will get screwed over. To put it bluntly, the administrators get to decide who to screw over. How pleasant a job is that? :-(

In this light, it's tough. There are times where we will need to adopt tough and unpopular policies. The common man may not appreciate and/or understand why something has to be done (because many issues in governance are significantly more complex than what's commonly accessible), but what has to be done, has to be done. While the KTM still hasn't completely understood the rationale for increasing the GST by 2% to change the underlying taxation system, he can persuaded that perhaps the GST is good for the economy and it will lead to greater growth and thereby there will be trickle down effects and the Government can do some re-distribution to cushion the impact on the poor. Yeah, the middle class fellas get squeezed a bit, but tough luck.

The point here is the following: in order for the Government to push through tough policies, it does require moral authority, like it or not. The present pay increase is certainly a tough policy to sell as well --- but it's really cannot be compared to GST in the same breath. The Government says that without pegging the pay of the Ministers and top civil servants to the riches fellas in Singapore, the Government will collapse because all the talent will leave. While the KTM has been criticized for being pro-PAP, even the KTM doesn't buy this argument.

As PCK will say, "got no blain huh? People are still pissed that you just rammed through a 2% increase in GST down their throats and now you want to raise your own pay?" Brilliant. Such sensitivity. Lim Swee Say said recently that there's no good time to raise Ministerial salaries. The KTM thinks he's right. He also said there's no bad time to raise salaries. The KTM thinks that's bogus. If we need to give out medals for brilliance in choosing a bad time, the Government deserves a truckload.

And what's the worst thing about this brouhaha? This salary problem really isn't a big national crisis or concern at all in the KTM's opinion. We are facing significant challenges in terms of globalization, in how to revamp our education system, in managing issues of aging and healthcare, etc. etc. But no, we're wasting time getting all distracted over this one stupid issue.

Realistically, the total increases represents quite an insignificant portion of the Budget. Politically, it is a HUGE emotional problem with the masses. Ministers starving huh? Children got no money to go to school izzit? Why piss off practically the whole population over this?

Lousy Reasons

The claim here is that without the proposed increases, more AOs and talented Ministers will leave the Government to join the private sector. However, only the MR4 benchmark has really gone up. The SR9 benchmark has remained relatively stable. In fact, the SR9 benchmark is lower now than that in year 2000. Er, this means that the young AOs will actually be getting lower pay soon isn't it? Unless they are thinking of changing the SR9 benchmark. Are they?

Now, if they claim that the increase in pay is to keep talent, then there must be proof that pay is what is keeping people from leaving. There have been reports of young AOs quitting and getting cushy jobs outside. Good for them. Perhaps proves that the AOs are not as useless as some claim, but doesn't prove that pay is a factor either.

If you listen to what the young ex-AOs say about why they leave, NONE of them said anything about not being paid enough what. The KTM hasn't quite done his homework, so people are welcome to quote ex-AOs who left because of better pay and prove him wrong.

Next question: are the old fellows who are near the MR4 benchmark leaving the Admin Service in droves? How many Ministers have we seen in recent times quit to join the private sector because they didn't have enough to eat? Public policy must be made based on evidence. Please show us the data so that we can believe.

Lousy Benchmark?

The KTM has no quarrels with the SR9 benchmark. He actually thinks it's reasonable. What seems to be a problem is the MR4 benchmark. Why is it a problem? Well, many reasons, but let's talk about a glaring one which dunno why nobody seemed to have picked out.

It turns out that although the benchmark has been set, the actual number that is used to compute MR4 has never actually been AT the benchmark for a long time..... which is why there's supposedly a need to play catch up now. This begs the question: how come like that? Given the army of scholars and engineers we have in the Government, why can we not come up with a benchmark that we can just follow every year. Why are we wasting time arguing over this year in year out? Not tired huh?

If the claim is that it was not political viable to follow the benchmark, then isn't it obvious that there's something seriously wrong with the current method of benchmarking and that perhaps we should go back to the drawing board and come up with a new one so that we can avoid wasting time in the future? Are our politicians very free, got no better Bills to pass and like to talk about pay?

The KTM is baffled that people can invent a formula that cannot be used. If the intention was to come up with a benchmark that yields bigger numbers and then adopt a smaller number to demonstrate "sacrifice" on the part of the Ministers, then the KTM must say that this strategy isn't working well at all. It isn't working period.

Truthfully, we shouldn't expect the Ministerial salaries to stay constant and the pay should be adjusted for inflation and perhaps even GST(!), but the KTM believes that this pegging to the richest dudes in the country is something that many Singaporeans seriously cannot stomach.

Singaporeans Should Decide How Much to Pay their Leaders

People say that Singapore is run like Singapore Inc. The KTM actually doesn't have any real issues with that. Efficiency is actually not a bad thing -- though our public service often takes the concept of "cost recovery" to the extremes.

However hor, even in companies, the management doesn't anyhow humtum their own pay when their shareholders are screaming away. Point here: even companies aren't run quite the same way and it's scary to say the least.

The free market economist in the KTM says:

The whole point about salary should really be about "how much is this job worth"? KTM believes in the free market. Singaporeans should be able to decide how much the want to pay their political leaders. If they pay too little and they get monkeys, that's their choice.

But seriously, the KTM doesn't believe that Singaporeans are unreasonable and truly want monkeys on the cheap. The existing numbers for example have generally been accepted, so why can't the Government be more sensitive? Or politically savvy?

The Sadness

Why is the KTM sad? He looks at what's happening and he is seriously concerned. Things are really not going well. It feels like the society is descending into chaos(?).

But the really sad part is, it doesn't have to be this way.

We are small and we are insignificant and we are a little red dot. Against all odds, we have come a long way and we can be proud of our achievements. BUT, the future is really not a bed of roses. If, as a country, we cannot get our act together, we have nowhere to go, but down. :-(

Pragmatism aside, a Government needs moral authority. Without that authority, how can it lead the people in facing the challenges of tomorrow? It's not "talent" that we need in Government today, we need leadership.

To conclude, let's play the Devil's advocate. Let's say the Government is right and we are grossly underpaying these Ministers and civil servants. Nevertheless, it should be clear that increasing pay, reduces moral authority to lead --- and therefore, in the grand scheme, boh pian just have to make that "sacrifice". Maybe every one just serve one five-year NS term and then move on to the private sector to make their big bucks loh. It's not clear to the KTM that we have anyone so incredibile bright and indispensible around.

Perhaps the KTM is being excessively pessimistic today.... There are good days and there are bad days. Maybe tomorrow will be a better day. Or maybe not.

Articles Archives

2007-04-01T19:30:00.000-07:00

Article archive 01. Outstanding articles, keeping for storage.

Leaders and Managers by Insanepoly

For the past couple of weeks the singapore internet has been abuzz with chatter over the “proposed” pay hike for ministers and senior civil servants. Certainly more so than it would appear in the mainstream media. First, let’s just get a few things straight- one, the pay hike is pretty much a done deal, all the so-called debate is just a wayang show. Two, this pay hike is not a general pay hike for every single civil servant out there, mostly it will be the ministers and the senior grade civil servants who will be seeing a pay hike.

Its the same arguments on both side of the fence since the day the government decided to benchmark their payscale according to the private sector. I don’t think both sides will ever come to an agreement. It is what it is.

I can understand the need to pay a fair wage. Afterall, this is what everyone is working for isn’t it? But how do you decide what is fair wage? The world has become a topsy turvy world. Our priorities are all screwed up. I mean, an american soldier fighting in iraq, who puts his life on the line everyday, what does he get in comparison with Kevin Garnett or LeBron James. Those 2 guys who plays a children’s game will get paid more playing one game of basketball than a soldier probably ever will in his lifetime. Even within the same profession you can find people who sometimes due to luck and circumstances are paid far more than what they are worth. David Beckham who makes more money than anyone other football player is probably not even in the list of top 10 football players in the world. So is that fair?

Yet, our ever pragmatic government has decided, they must be paid a fair wage and they have all the facts and statistics to back them up. If you look at it purely from a pragmatic and economical viewpoint, I am sure its pretty much impecable and ironclad. I am not so unreasonable as to not see the logic within their argument. But ofttimes, in this world of ours, things usually go beyond black or white, right and wrong. There are always shades of grey. Sometimes being too pragmatic and logical can be detrimental to yourself.

The leaders in the government wants to be paid like executives. So is it any wonder that singapore is being runned like a corporation. Singapore Inc. Well, its hard to feel anything for the country when you find yourself being treated more like an employee than a citizen. At times, I wonder if the people within the government even knows the difference. They can talk all about national pride, loving your country and making sacrifices, but all it is is just empty talk and hollow rhetoric if they continue to treat people like economic units.

I no longer harbour any illusions about singapore. I know I am appreciated and tolerated as long as I am economically productive, but the day wil come when I will outlive my usefulness. What then? Already the government is talking about shipping the old and elderly out to nearby countries. Hey, its all about being pragmatic isn’t it. Out of sight, out of mind.

If you ask me today, will I lay down my life for singapore, I might ask you to fuck off if I am in a good mood. Where’s my sense of patriotism? Well, I am just being pragmatic like Lee Hsien Loong. Afterall why should I lay down my life for this country. Whereas, once I wouldn’t think twice about it, now, I know better. Our “leaders” have shown the way for the rest of the nation, who am I to say different. If they think being paid $1.2 million for their troubles is too little, who are they to start asking me to make sacrifices. They are looking out for number 1, so why shouldn’t I?

And if I call them leaders of the country, I am just being overly generous. They may think they are leaders, but all they are is just managers. They don’t lead the country, they manage it. There’s a difference. Think leader, think Leonidas in 300. Leaders will make you willingly do the things you don’t want to do. Leaders will inspire you to be better than you are. Leaders will make you want to put your life on the line for a greater cause. Leaders will give you courage when before you have none.

Look at the people in the government, anyone strike you as particularly leaderlike? I can understand zyberzitizen when he says he don’t feel inspired when looking at the current generation of leaders. These guys aren’t leaders, they are managers. Managers are people who you listen to because you have to, not because you want to. Managers are people who you don’t give a fuck about once they are not around. Managers are people who you obey only beause you have to and not out of respect. Not every manager is a leader. And not every leader is a manager. Sometimes a leader can simply be your peer, but who commands some much respect that you can’t help but want to be led by him.

Somewhere along the line I think Lee Hsien Loong has confused management with leadership. So I guess, we ought to start paying him like a manager, just don’t ask me to look at him as a leader. Sometimes you just can’t have it all.

Why're we like that? by zyberzitizen

It is quite depressing to hear what has been said lately – by government officials and some others – about how so many are leaving the civil service, how we must essentially seduce them with money, and how much exactly (down to the last dollar) we should be paying them to stay in service of their country.

As I said in my blog, one glaring aspect missing in this whole discourse is the question of what kind of leaders we have and we want to have, actually.

My mom, who is in her 70s, is not highly-educated. She only has primary school education. But she speaks more sense than most people I know. So, she asked me the other day, after watching the news:

“Why’re we throwing money at every problem we face? We have traffic jams, we increase ERP. We don’t have enough teachers, we throw money to increase their salaries. Not enough nurses, we throw money. Helping the poor, we increase GST. Old age population? Increase GST. People going to JB to fill up petrol, we fine them. Don’t flush toilet, fine them. Now, want people to serve their country must have millions of dollars salaries. Why are we like that?”

It’s a simple question – “Why’re we like that?” – but it got me thinking about fundamentals.

The earlier leaders

Recalling the generation which my mom grew up in, our leaders then were men and women of real passion, drive, humility and nobility – with nothing more than a desire to help their fellow men survive. Of course, our separation from Malaysia and being thrown into the “deep end”, as it were, without any natural resources to exploit economically, no doubt contributed to the very human desire and instinct to survive. Thus, our leaders then had to dig deeper within themselves to succeed. And they did so admirably.

So, there is one thing which I find missing between our present leaders and our pioneering leaders of the 60s and 70s.

And that is : The ability to inspire.

The present leaders

Personally, I find no inspirational leaders in our present cohort of leaders or ministers. Compare this to our earlier days when we had quite a few: the younger and earlier Lee Kuan Yew, Toh Chin Chye, S Rajaratnam, Goh Keng Swee, Hon Sui Sen. (Come to think of it, even Quah Kim Song, Samad Alipitchay, Junie Sng and others in the sporting world were more inspiring than our present leaders!)

When we speak of national leaders in government, we must have people who can reach into your psyche and inspire you from within.

The question to ask is therefore: How many of our present leaders can do this?

It is all fine and good to be able to provide data, figures, charts and numbers to back up a policy or an argument. Nothing wrong with that, really. But when we talk of leaders, we must also keep in mind that they must be quite different.

Fire in the belly

The proverbial “fire in the belly” comes to mind. Even Lee Kuan Yew himself was concerned that new PAP leaders do not have that – because they do not go through the ‘baptism of fire’ during an election.

And that, in my opinion, is where the crux of the problem is.

While we may think that civil servants leaving the civil service is a matter of dollars and cents, I prefer to see it as a political issue. How so?

The fact that the PAP – both as an all-encompassing government and as the biggest political party in Singapore – finds it hard to get people to join them tells me that there is something inherently wrong with our political system. My guess is that Singaporeans may not want to join the PAP or the government, but they will do so if the system is different.

Selfless Singaporeans

Men and women can be inspired to step forward without even thinking of monetary compensation. (Lets not go into the issue of them being paid “adequately” because there is no question of that.) Even though we are a country which is perceived to worship the God of M (Money), I do not believe that our people cannot be inspired to step forward in spite of that.

Indeed, the government itself had praised Singaporeans for stepping forward during the SARs outbreak, when the New World Hotel collapsed in the 80s. Many Singaporeans stepped forward to help the Indonesians when the tsunami hit. There are also many Singaporean volunteers in diverse areas such as the environment, aged homes, homes for the disabled, and so on.

And look at the hundreds of thousands of NSmen serving the country. And also look at the opposition parties’ members who do what they do for nothing more than a belief.

A gaping chasm

Compare all of the above people with those in government and you see a huge gaping chasm. Consider this:

“If the system can remove as many impediments as possible, then the political system will be able to get more people to join.” - PAP MP Lee Yi Shyan

And this:

“Without some assurance of a good chance of winning at least their first election, many able and successful young Singaporeans may not risk their careers to join politics.” – Goh Chok Tong

And this is where the problem is. “Leaders” who want , essentially, to have the road paved for them, and all “impediments” removed before they step forward.

And when this cycle of thought continues, as it has and does, we have a whole set of leaders who have this same belief. That is, they are looking for new “leaders” who do not want to step forward until and unless “as many impediments as possible are removed”.

Ironic, isn’t it?

“Leaders” who are afraid to put themselves forward – but who want multi-million dollar salaries.

A political problem

It is a political problem. It is a political problem which, long term, can only be solved with changes to the political system. And yes, I am talking about the GRC system, the media, the electoral process and all other attending issues.

We need a leader who can inspire others to step forward in the noble idea of doing something for their country. We need leader(s) who truly dare to change the system – because it is necessary for the country’s survival, even if it means diminishing the power of his/their own party.

But in order to have such a leader, the leader himself must be put through the baptism of fire. And there is no better “baptism of fire” than the electoral process – one which is robust, rigorous and competitive, one which is fair – and seen to be fair.

Only then perhaps, would our leaders – duly elected – find that serving the people is something which is indeed noble and totally satisfying to the human desire of seeing to his fellow men’s well being. And his personal example would inspire a whole generation of Singaporeans. Just as Lee Kuan Yew did.

And that, I would say, is more of an accomplishment than a multi-million dollar paycheck.

Just ask our pioneering leaders.

But first ask ourselves:

“Why’re we like that?”

Wurk Wurk by a XenoBoy in SG

During the days before WarCraft became MMORPG, you played God, built a fortress, built an economy, raised an army and basically then crush the opposition, the enemy. The most basic unit then was the peon, the peon who automatically collects gold from the mine, chops the trees for wood, construct the buildings and repair stuff. When you clicked on these peons, they had this range of very cute auto replies "yes master?", "wurk wurk".

Peons were very important even though they were infinitely less sexy than an ogre mage or a death knight which had replies like "who u wanna kill?". These wurk wurks collected the stuff that made it possible for God to achieve his final objective of territorial domination. If you played LAN multiplayer WarCraft then, one strategy to strangle your opponent was simply to ghost some mages near the enemy's gold-mine and cast some tornadoes or hexes around the area where the endless stream of peons enter and exit from. The peons died fairly quickly. They did not really have much life-points. So, kill the peons, gain a strategic advantage in resource building. No one can wurk wurk. And you win the game.

-----

In the time before the British came to SEA, wars between different kingdoms, for example the Thai and the Burmese, were interesting conflicts. Forget for a moment the romanticised image of thunderous charging elephant armies and wild carnage. Whenever an army succeeded in conquering a city, they sacked it. They took the treasures (an example is the famous Emerald Buddha residing now in Bangkok) and then they took the people. In those pre nation-state days, there was no point really in holding on to land. Boundaries were non existent. Forest and jungles lay between jewel cities. Land was abundant. But people were not. Each conflict, whatever the lofty justifications, was an exercise in mass kidnapping. Exodus wars.

----

Came into Changi last week amidst the glow of the Budget. It was quaint, flipping through an actual copy of the Straits Times. Speed reading through a book of Hallmark cards labeled Hope and Inspiring. Info-graphics, numbers, choice quotes in an almost surreal holographic presentation. The paper glowed. The poor are saved. No more leaping on the MRT tracks. The paper was heavy with happiness. Heavy with glow. Walking towards immigration, a huge embracing sign "workcome home" beckons. Workcome to Singapore.

Two percent GST increase. To save the poor. It almost makes sense now.

Two percent corporate tax cut. Its an actual tax cut in a climate of a major consumption tax increase and hand-outs to the deserving poor. Two percent. Corporate tax. You see rising transport costs, rising cost of living and there is a God-given two percent corporate tax cut. Happiness.

Corporate tax decrease Goods Services Tax increase the Deserving Poor are Saved.

Workcome to Singapore. wurk wurk.

----

In the taxi, the driver is not very happy. In Hokkien, hor li kway tui, gia doe deng kway. Gives you a drumstick but takes back a chicken. Followed by that same old same old chuckle. Anger? Resignation? Frustration? lies dormant. Or is this hollow chuckle just dormant lies? This same old chuckle, hapless happiness perhaps.

----

Recently received a snail mail that was not from a bank. It was an aerogramme. A piece of paper that you can write something on, fold it into an envelope and send to wherever in the world. When having pen-pals was in. The aerogramme contained CNY greetings and this line "... remember water pump we build down hill? It broken now. :-) but ok, we know to make pump ok next month. Now we pump water with leg haha ..." This aerogramme glowed too. Made it much lighter than a gramme.

----

When you play WoW or DOTA now, peons no longer feature. They did away with this unit. Re-ordered the game economy. Made it faster and more real. No more wurk wurk. In DOTA and WoW just jazz up your heroes. Hurl the sacrifice troops. Keep the heroes alive and all will be fine. You win.

----

It was a relatively quiet CNY this time round. Same questions about wurk wurk from the retired parents. The inevitable slant towards Singapore, but even then, the anger, once expressed with countless classical Chinese analogies, seemed to have become slightly more empty, more hollow. Anger remains but despair has perhaps set in. Helplessness probably.

The true meaning of Bumiputra

2007-03-30T08:18:00.000-07:00

Updating new posting on Infernal Ramblings.

The author, John Lee, have a large number of articles on Malaysian politics which I find quite insightful. In particular, I liked The Death of Malaysia.

In that article, the author detailed his disappointment with both the BN government, as well as the opposition in Malaysia. In a way, I feel that his criticisms on the opposition could very well be translated verbatim upon the opposition here in Singapore.

Anyway my earlier post turned out to be a mistake - it was sent out instead as an email to John, who used it to write an article titled : "Will There Ever Be A Chinese Prime Minister?"

My comments in that thread :

I mailed John Lee as AC, mistaking the ‘mail the author’ option as message posting.

My original words was meant for Kufar - specifically on his views that he will be embraced as a full Bumiputra without any discrimination whatsoever simply because he fully embraced Islam.

I think the Kufar is mistaken and misguided in this assumption. The political elite is clearly reserved for both Malay and Muslim. Muslim without the Malay won't quite cut it.

Yup, forgot about Tan Siew Sin. But let us recap some facts about him - he came from a very influential background - he was the only son of MCA founder Tan Cheng Lock, and he subsequently became the president of MCA as well. Possible reasons on why he was holding such an important position could be due to his political clout with the Chinese, the infancy of the NEP/Bumputra policy which was newly started then, and that wealth in Malaysia then was mostly controlled by the Chinese.

So yes, Tan Siew Sin was exceptional, and possibly the exception. Unless I was gravely mistaken, he did not convert to Islam.

The point I was making was that capable Chinese or Indians are systematically discriminated against in the government, and prevented from holding real and significant power because they were first and foremost not Malay, and not quite because they were not Muslims.

Ask not what your country can do for you: Ask what you can do for your country...

2007-03-29T20:50:00.000-07:00

Reply to Edward in YPAP blog:

The question becomes whether we want the best people to do the job. It is not a question of leaders being materialistic but more one of whether we should pay them their dues.

I want great leaders too.

But I think that a person who do not want the job; a person who needs the political selection process circumvented to roll him/her in on a red carpet; a person who would reject the opportunity to serve his nation because a million dollar salary represent a pay cut he/she can't accept - such people DO NOT represent the best.

We need intelligent, gifted people. We need passionate inspired people who have a genuine wish to contribute. We need people who value what they are doing for the country.

What’s the use of the smartest if their hearts are not in what they are doing?

The comparison with other countries is irrelevant. Do we want a situation where only the aristocracy and landed gentry are willing to step forward? Or worse still, the opportunists who are unable to make it in the real commercial world? Just recently, a cabinet secretary in the US asked to be allowed to step down because he could no longer afford to do national service. I personally would not want Singapore to be in such a situation.

The comparison with other countries is most relevant. Are the government of NZ, Netherlands and Switzerland all aristocracy and landed gentry? Are they opportunists?

The fact is, they are paid on par with political leaders of first world countries - which are a tiny fraction of what our leaders are paid. They produce excellent result - and they score as high or higher on incorruptibility. And they are far from living in abject poverty.

Instead of looking to the cheque book as the source of all solution - should we not study people who have managed to do well and ask the question of how did they manage to do it?

Also, Singaporeans males do NS, and I have seen countless cases of people who suffer financial loss to grub in the jungle to serve the nation. Here we pay our Ministers 1.2m and can they find the balls to come out and say that they need to step down because they cannot afford to do National service? PLEASE let whoever who say this go, because I can’t accept someone like that as my leader as well.

One fallacy here is firstly the assumption that one driven by passion is necessarily. going to do a better job than one driven by money. The other fallacy is that just because one is driven by passion, we would necessarily take advantage of him and not pay him his dues.

It is also easy to belittle the sacrifice that comes with holding public office being perpetually under public scrutiny.

One fallacy here is to assume that money is the primary and only reason why the PAP is having problems in recruiting talented people. Are there other reasons - like the way politics are run in Singapore; the inflexibility of the political process?

The part about public scrutiny is a joke - our media is one of the most muzzled and compliant amongst developed nations. When is the last time you see/hear of our leaders being hounded by the paparazzi?

Please rebute our comments points by points if you have the guts like Phillip Yeo.

Yea, please rebute my comments point by point too. Thank you very much.

Please give us prove of how much each minister will get if they are now in private sector. So far, we only have the word of the PM that our Ministers are worth double of what they are getting now.

I am unconvinced.

Everyone I spoke to is unconvinced too.

Perhaps the critics of the ministerial pay raise will be silenced once and for all if the government can come out with convincing prove that the Ministers are able to command such a high price if any of them "step down since they cannot afford to do national service"

A Tactical Retreat, or a Quitter?

2007-03-28T20:34:00.000-07:00

More postings in the YPAP blog in response to Elaina Chong's response, which also seemed to be her closing remarks after a firestorm of criticism following her article.

One wonders if it will be the last we shall see of her.

AC :

Thanks for the welcome, Elaina.

I do get the attributes that you are trying to link to our Ministers. The problem is that the level of self-sacrifice, compassion and altruism of Mother Theresa is worlds apart when compared to our ministers. To suggest a basis of similarity between the two is ... absurdity bordering on insult for those who honor the memory of the late Mother Theresa.

The bit about bankers being axed is all about 2 things. Risk and Responsibility.

Big winners in the private sector are often playing around big risk. When one does well one gets very well rewarded - and on the flip side when things go wrong you sometimes lose the meal ticket. To tie Ministerial remuneration to top winners while discarding the risk factors that those winners face is unbalanced, unrealistic and unacceptable – I am flabbergasted by the very thought.

CEOs take credit for successes and they also bear responsibility when their company does badly. Whether it's an apology or a resignation, I expect our leaders to come out clear when mistakes are made or when oversights occur. “It’s a honest mistake” just does not cut it. There is far too much obsession to preserve a facade of perfection where our leaders cannot be seen to be flawed or making mistakes.

Top private sector wages are accompanied by exposure to risk, and the adoption of responsibility over developments under one's stewardship. Are our ministers demanding for the best of two worlds?

The lawyer who feels the pain of our Ministers

2007-03-28T18:00:00.000-07:00

A lawyer tries to put his version of the spin on the matter of ministerial pay raise via his writing - the green eyed monster.

I felt that the article was very undiplomatic - basically it’s suggesting that a significant number of the critics are jealous of the Ministers pay and are opposing the raise simply because of their jealousy.

The author believes that lawyers deserve their high pay because of 2 main factor - they really studied hard through a long, labourous process; and their work requires them to be very careful and extremely meticulous.

I think that his views are quite misplaced. Most professionals are trained over significant time - some require constant retraining even; all professionals need to be very careful and meticulous when going about their job if they want to do survive and prosper in their respective industries.

The lawyer's pay is by and large a result of demand and supply - there is demand, and limited supply. Part of the problem is that some years back our government predicted wrongly that there will be a glut of lawyers - the opposite happened, there were no enough lawyers. The supply problem is further worsened by the relatively specialized nature of the job - one cannot simply import Chinese or Indian lawyers because they are not versed with local law. My friends told me too that the pay of Singaporean lawyers lag behind many nations including China even, and that the steady leak of lawyers overseas as a result is compounding the supple issue.

This shortage is the reason why lawyers get higher pay when compared to other professions.


In the comments section of this thread, Joel Leong said...: Just my little observation/opinion.

1. Staff look forward to pay increment and market adjustment.

2. Bosses frown on staff 's pay rise. But will oblige if staff can perform well.

3. Taxpayers unhappy with Ministers' pay rise. Taxpayers still willing to vote for the Ministers if the country is doing well.

So at the end of day, if one can perform he should be duly rewarded.

anonymous craven said...: Joel Leong :

Firstly, who acts as the 'bosss' of the government? According to our constitution, the people of Singapore is supposed to be the 'boss', and surely the people's inputs should factor in when it comes to judging the performance, as well as the quantum of pay adjustments.

Following your example it will be akin to the staff deciding unilaterally that they have done a great job, and rewarding themselves with pay raises. Does it make any sense at all?

Second. Pay raises in the private sector are calibrated with whichever sector/discipline one finds themsevles in. There is no job out there where one can pay hop to to be tied to whichever sector that is doing best at that time : such a pay system is completely out of this world - its almost like a guaranteed pay raise, for so long as the top earners out there are being paid more for their efforts, you get to partake in their gains as your pay is tied relative with theirs.

Following your example it will be similar to the staff telling their boss that for that year they want their pay to be tied to banker pay as the market is doing very well this year. Can you imagine the response of the boss to such a demand?

Mahathir - Zero or Hero?

2007-03-27T23:58:00.000-07:00

Been reading a Malaysian blog - their politics interest me - it have been a long standing view of mine that despite being a minority, despite being marginalised by consitution, the Malaysian Chinese plays a more active and pivotal role in Malaysian politics than the typical Singaporean - Chinese or not.

Here's an interesting article there commenting that there is no reason to treat Mahathir as a hero, simply because he is attacking the government now he have left it.

A poster named Kufar posted some rather fundamentalist opinions - that chap is advocating that all Malaysians should convert or ship out of Malaysia; and he seems to believe that he will be treated like a full Bumiputra simply because he embraces Islam. So I went in and added my 5 cents worth on his misguided belief.

'It is not just Islam that opens doors in Malaysia. It is about race. It is about political background. It is about patronage and it is about connections.

As the dominant race is Malay, and most Malays are Muslims - Islam gets tagged in as well - as a convenient means to reach out to the masses; and a convenient means to package and sell one's politics.

There will never be a Chinese Defence Minister in Malaysia regardless of whether a conversion to Islam have occured; and there will never be a Chinese Foreign Minister, Finance Minister, Deputy Prime Minister or Prime Minister.

And yes, Kufar will be discriminated against for being Chinese no matter how much of Islam he embraces, no matter how he forsake his roots.'

What does Bill Gates, George Soros, Mother Theresa and a PAP minister have in common?

2007-03-27T20:23:00.000-07:00

Just posted a reply on the YPAP blog. Keeping a copy here for archive

"A platoon with the acumen of Bill Gates, risk appetite of George Soros and the heart of Mother Theresa, I would think. And the compensation? Priceless."

I find the comparison to Mother Theresa offensive. She was revered for giving unreservedly to the society while asking nothing in return for herself - to mention her name in the same breath as an article trying to justify that 1 million is still not enough for some... is simply ghastly.

The business acumen/risk appetite bits are simply ironic given the track record of massive investment disasters. The key point to note is not that investments are without risk. The crux of the matter is that top bankers get axed when they make massive losses - we have yet to see or hear of a single high ranking official take responsibility when things go horribly wrong. (i.e. it's a honest mistake etc)

MULTI-MILLION-CHURCH.COM

2007-03-06T19:37:00.000-08:00

Just posted a comment at :
http://wecangetthemforyouwholesale.blogspot.com
/2005/05/to-marketplace-my-minions.html

The author wrote of his visit to the City Harvest Church, where he was overwhelmed by the sound and fury while being somewhat less than impressed about the substance and the soul of the Church.

A particularly memorable bit from the article was the part where the author recounts

"...this example Rev. Kong Hee gives, this businessman wants to build a super stadium dedicated to God in the middle of urban Jakarta. He owns a field with tons of coal underneath but the price of coal is so low it's not worthwhile to mine it and make money.

So how? (This is where Rev. Kong Hee sounds really excited) God answers this guy's prayers. Hundreds of miners in China die in multiple mining accidents forcing all the mines in the country to close. The price of coal goes up, giving the guy a profit margin to mine his coal! Hallejulah!"

His comments section soon received several visits from supporters of the church, who then criticised him for a variety of failings...

My earlier comment on the article :

I thought that this was a pretty well written article. It sums up what the critics of CHC feel is amiss in the manner which Pastor Kong is running his show, and it does so in a witty manner - perhaps not so funny to the CHC hardcores, but I would guess that others might be more amused.

Simply put, Rev Kong seems to be putting too much emphasis on growing the material aspect of the church. This materialism is felt from the moment you enter to church; to the manner they solicit money.

CHC is extravagant - there is no doubt about it. And while the contributors were willing, there remains stories of how the peer pressure within the CHC works when one does not tithe regularly, or when one does not contribution much in their fundraising.

I personally knew of parents who lamented about their children not giving them and their family what they give monthly to the church. I feel that something is very wrong when money for the family, money for the parents who raised you, is put on a lower priority than contributions to fuel the extravagant visions of a CEO-Pastor.

I feel that CHC have degenerated from a house of God, to become a corporation driven endlessly to expand and make more profits. I feel that they prey excessively upon the youthful and impressionable. I feel that CHC and Pastor Kong are in dire need for a dose of humility, and I pray that he gets back to the ground before he leads his enthralled congregation astray.
AC | 03.06.07 - 10:29 pm | #

My second comment on the criticisms directed at the author:

I think that it is way more insensitive to refer to the deaths of hundreds of miners as a God-given miracle to help increase the price of coal, as compared to the remark you mentioned.

The barb of the remark was directed at the allegation that Christ was very well connected - not just popular amongst the townsfolk but well-linked to businesses and political leaders (according to Pastor Kong's Market Theory). Yet He was crucified soon after - something thats quite contradictory.

The pastor reaches out to far more people than the typical teacher : thousands, tens of thousands in fact. He should pay even more care to the words he used - his words and his influence on his congregation have a far wider impact on religious harmony in Singapore than any single teacher out there.
AC | 03.07.07 - 9:47 pm | #

Nguyen case Part 2

2005-11-07T18:09:00.000-08:00

New thoughts on the same thread.

Methinks that many harping about the Nguyen case are arm chair critics looking for a fight.

What the the other important issues in the case? How about the presence of drug dealers in Australia? How about the problem of asian immigrants being targetted to be forced to become runners?

How about issues of poverty? Of employment discrimation?

Let he who is sinless cast the first stone.... I think that the Australian media should engage in some self reflection upon the problems existing in their country instead of blaming anything and everything except themselves.

The posting at Mr Wang.

3 more points to consider.

First. Life imprisonment in Singapore in reality is hardly ever imprisonment for life. How so? In practice, after 20 years served, the prisoner is evaluated for suitability for release in periodic reviews in periods less than 12 months. In practice, after remissions it the prisoner can be released as early as after 14 years of jail.

14-20 years may be a long time in jail. But it can never be equated in deterrent effect to a death sentence. And there is the distinct risk that the released drug trafficker will return to their former trade.

Second. Society vs. traffickers - I don't think that Mcdarren disputes the fact that the current anti-drug measures are very effective in dealing with the drug menace. He proposes to change the existing equation simply to be more humane to the traffickers.

The issue of drug control has serious repercussions on the Singaporean society. Are we willing to take the risk of worsening the drug situation in Singaporean simply to be more humane to drug traffickers? If more traffickers infiltrate Singapore, and released traffickers return to their trade, how do we answer to their victims?

Third. The Nguyen case has been blown out of proportions by special interest groups and the Australian media. But have those compassionate souls considered other means of helping out?

Have they raised funds to help Nguyen's family since they are supposedly in dire circumstances?

Have they dealt with the criminals that were threatening Nguyen's family?

Have they studied the conditions of the Asian immigrants of Australia and addressed issues of poverty and employment discrimination?

Or are they simply more interested in using Nguyen as an excuse for a pointless exercise of state bashing, name-callings and loud accusations.

11/08/2005 10:00 AM

Nguyen case Part 1.

2005-11-06T22:51:00.000-08:00

Newly created.

Made the account to reply on the Nguyen death sentence issue on Mr Wang’s blog.

The discussion carrying on under the comments section was quite passionate, with some arguing against the death sentence as being both cruel and unnecessary, while others argued that Australia's protests / Nguyen’s mitigation pleas have no merits.

Personally, I felt that the crux of the case was that there were insufficient factors to set the precedence of saving Nguyen.

If he was saved, then many other traffickers will refer to his case to beg for clemency – a most dangerous exception to make.

Here’s the three points I wrote :

“First. Even if Singapore were to consider changing the penalties for drug trafficking, it should occur under proper parliamentary procedure in due course. Commuting Nguyen sends out the worst possible signal possible - that expats can escape the drug trafficking penalty that applies to Singaporeans; or that our sovereignty is easily compromised by external pressure.

He have to die, even if future convicts may escape the death penalty under revised legislation, and there's no other way about it.

Second. The argument about Nguyen being in transit is flawed. If the laws against trafficking does not apply to the transit lobby, then does it mean that we should tolerate traffickers swapping drugs and arms in there? Either our laws apply, and apply fully, or it doesn't.

Clearly it needs to apply, and apply fully.

Third. Whether the death penalty is appropriate for drug trafficking is a matter of differing opinions. There are no conclusive studies that can prove whether the abolishing of the death penalty will improve or worsen the drug situation in Singapore, in the short term and the long term.

What is apparent though, is that the current laws did create a Singapore that is largely clear of the scourge of drug addiction. For changes to apply to something that works, there is a need for conclusive evidence as well as compelling circumstances.

So far there are none.”