Hock Lee Bus Riots revisited

Not too long ago, Channel News Asia had a documentary "Days of Rage" on the Hock Lee Bus riots of 1955. Pretty much as expected, it was a one sided affair demonizing the Communists while ignoring the fact that the PAP are partners with them then, with Lim Chin Siong being a founding member of the PAP together with Lee Kuan Yew (Lim broke up with Lee's PAP in 1961 to form Barisan Sosialis).

Historian Dr Thum Pingtjin rejected the narrative of the CNA piece; according to him the antagonist is not the Communists, but the Hock Lee management, who repeatedly reneged on their promises to the workers, and directed drivers to drive out over the picket line, resulting in scores of unionists being injured. His interview with TOC can be see here (Part 1) and here (Part 2).

Of particular interest is that Dr Thum refers to the Singapore Parliament Reports to support his version of the events.

Here are some excerpts quoting the words of Lee Kuan Yew (who was the lawyer of the Bus unionists then), pointing to why the Unionists and the Chinese population got so angry :

"... Sir, the Chief Secretary has complained about the attitude of some sections of the Chinese Press in their presentation of the events of the last week. I do not have any complaint. I just wish to record a fact - that we are really living in different worlds: those who read the English Press, those who read the Chinese Press, those who read the Malay Press, and those who read the Indian Press. In the Chinese Press, in the Malay Press and the Indian Press, everyday, was published the evidence presented before the Commission of Inquiry, the evidence of how the workers were cajoled, were coerced, to join the employer's union on recruitment. Evidence was heard of how the employer tried to buy trade union leaders over with rewards, and of all the other disreputable tactics which readers of the English Press were so happily spared... 

...I think the Chief Secretary's very efficient C.I.D. could have told him this - the Chinese-speaking people were talking about the Hock Lee Bus workers. They knew the Hock Lee Bus Company. They knew what was happening, and the thing was before their eyes everyday...

...It was a straight fight between an employer who had decided, the day the union was formed in his company, that he was going to crush it, and who then systematically set out to recruit redundant workers whom he fed at two dollars a day, whom he forced into his own union. He just waited for the time which he knew was coming when wage claims would be made, and an industrial dispute would arise, and either they would go on strike, in which case he would just carry on with his new workers; or he would dismiss them, which was what he did. It was a plain straight fight for survival. That was the basic cause of the bitterness, the hostility, the anger in the dispute... "

Lee's account in that Parliamentary report can be read from columns 200-218.

Empathy in a cold concrete jungle

2014.

Been quite sometime since I last posted anything.

Recently there's quite a commotion over the antics of the Brit Anton Casey who joined the ranks of many other fools in risking reputation, career, life and limb with reckless postings on the pages of his Facebook.

What is even more bewildering than the rank stupidity of Anton is the appeals of William Wan, general secretary of the Singapore Kindness movement for Singaporeans to show kindness and graciousness to that capering cretin.

In his opinion article to the Straits Times he asked Singaporeans to show understanding and empathy to the pompous prick; he compared that arrogant ass's suffering to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and he lamented about the herd mentality of the many critics of that insufferable idiot.

I find William's misguided benevolence... deeply disappointing.

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


Commented on the Kindness.sg blog article that is a replica of the ST article, though the comment awaits moderation :

"The bottom 20% of our population struggle on a daily basis with stagnant or negative income growth against back breaking inflation, and the men on our streets face transport and housing woes while having to fight tooth and nail for jobs against foreign workers with families that cost a fraction of we need to sustain ours here. And there are plenty of old and sick that lie forgotten in old folks home and hospices while shunned by our mass media … until the next fundraiser arrives.

So many people in need of empathy and support, and the best story you can come up with is Anton? You can have your compassion for the arrogant lout facing the consequences of his action; for me I’d rather reserve my empathy for folks who deserve it."

SDP's masterful pie splitting - I get the pie, you get the crumbs

Michael Palmer, Speaker of the Parliament and MP of Punggol East has fallen to sexual indiscretion and resigned. After some pressure and much speculation, the PM announced the Punggol East by-election.

And at the sight of this tasty single seat constituency all notions of Opposition solidarity flies out of the window and they all scramble in haste to make a grab to lay their claim. SDP in particular made a gaffe by publicly announcing a shocking offer to WP for their idea of a collaboration for Punggol-East - that the SDP's candidate gets the endorsement and support of the WP, and the Parliamentary seat as well if they win, while the WP get the dubious honor of running the Punggol town council.

Predictably, the WP rejected SDP's offer after careful consideration - they probably spend more time crafting the words of the rejection than actually considering whether there's a glimmer of feasibility in it.

Some parties, however, are not so happy. They seem hang on to a notion that the opposition parties are in a grand alliance alike Malaysia's PKR, that they all should make sacrifices and work towards the noble goal of bringing down the ruling party. WP, by virtue of being the strongest opposition party, got alot of flak for not working with the other parties to avoid a unavoidable multi-cornered fight at Punggol East. 

I was reading this article, which actually attempted to talk some sense into the SDP's proposal. The author tried to explain that the split is actually quite fair - by highlighting that the SDP is know for being outspoken, hence they can contribute by bringing a stronger message in Parliament, while the WP is particular known for their extensive efforts at the ground level, hence they can continue and expand on that by taking over the Punggol East Town council.

I pretty much disagreed with the author - fair splitting is one party doing the splitting and the other party getting to choose from the split portions, not a single party doing the splitting and choosing. More importantly, I feel that while the WP's favoured approach is to work the ground of the constituency, I doubt that they have  a fetish for estate management (ie town council work) - the ground work is a means to an end, which is getting the seat in the Parliament.

In the comments section of the webby above, one of the posters commented : 
"Now if the SDP pushes into a multi-cornered fight, then its overarching goal would be to demonstrate that it will not put up with bullying. (And I'm told, that a few other political parties are backing the SDP up on this.)"

How does WP's refusal to accept SDP's proposal make WP a bully? 

It is the right of SDP and other parties to compete in the PE by-election - did the WP declare somewhere that the other parties cannot take part? Did the WP take any action to negatively impact the other candidates from taking part?

Unlike the general election where there's a broad electoral map to make compromises, this time round there's one and only one battle ground and very little space for concessions to be made over it. If the WP is committed to contesting, there is case to argue that it's possibly pointless to meet up with SDP, opening them to the onus of also consulting other parties and even independent candidates. How then can the pie be split amongst 5+ parties? 

Operation Spectrum - a dark page in Singapore's history?

SingaporeKopi Tok, a blog writing in Singaporean matters, have a posting questioning Alex Au's article  where Au brought up that the Archbishop Chia had written a letter of support for Function 8 (a group of Ex-detainees of the ISA that are fighting for the abolition of the ISA), but was subsequently invited for lunch with DPM Teo. After the session he abruptly asked for the letter to be withdrawn.

I wrote under the comments :

"All these letter and retractions tie back to the ISD's Operation Spectrum in 1987. Function 8 and Alex Au's assertion is that the social workers arrested then was falsely accused of involvement in a Marxist conspiracy.

Amongst those arrested was Vincent Cheng, a full time church worker who was previously studying to be a priest. Catholic Priests issued statements questioning the detentions, and Church services were held for the detainees, leading to the build-up of tension. A meeting was arranged between then PM Lee Kuan Yew and Archbishop Gregory Yong which led to the Church backing down and suspending the priests who issued earlier statements.

Was there a Marxist Conspiracy? So far the consensus seems to be doubtful of such - the few sparse government statements so far have nothing in reply to accusations of torture and ill-treatment to obtain confessions; and even Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam, speaking in 2001, declared, “Although I had no access to state intelligence, from what I knew of them, most were social activists but not out to subvert the system.” Indeed there have been repeated calls for the government to unveil their evidence of the Marxist Conspiracy, or to have an independent commission - so far the government have resisted any and all calls for transparency on this matter.

So, if we were to approach this matter from the angle that the detainees of Operation Spectrum might be innocent, is it then far-fetched to see Archbishop Chia write them a letter of support, since it will also mean that the Church have abandoned their own back in 1987?"

In my opinion, the heart of the matter is whether the detainees under Operation Spectrum are guilty as charged or innocent victims. If the detainees are guilty as charged, the Archbishop then should be praised for standing with the government and reining in parties within the church that supports subversive elements out to undermine our society.

However, if the detainees are just innocent social workers, the outlook of the matter changes dramatically - not only would the ISA had been grossly abused, the Church leaders at that time would have abandoned and forsaken their own, because of direct intimidation from the then PM.

Why would the government arrest a handful of social workers in 1987 for nothing? Speculations was that the detainees were open in their support for the Workers Party, and that most of them were English educated professionals and graduates - if they were to stand as candidates for the WP they will be a force to be reckoned with, especially with their ties to the ground as social workers, and ties to the Church, for parties like Vincent Cheng. (In perspective, the GE was called in 1988, and that was the GE where GRCs are introduced. The PAP still lost 1.6% of the total votes as compared to 1984.)

  

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

Looking back at the MHA statement in regards to this matter, it was mentioned that "As part of building trust and understanding and to maintain religious harmony in Singapore, government ministers meet regularly with various religious leaders in Singapore." - we can say that it is a fact Chia had met up with DPM Teo. Interestingly enough, the MHA statement did not challenge Au's sequence of events - i.e. that after Chia have sent his letter, he was summoned to meet DPM Teo.

So with the above perspective - I personally find it believable that DPM have indeed intervened with the current Archbishop Chia, who backed down like Archbishop Gregory Yong did in 1987.

 

To be fair, if the allegations of a Marxist Conspiracy are true, the government are doing themselves a disservice by being so tight lipped. They owe it to the people and to themselves to expose the evidence they have - in a single stroke they would be able to vindicate themselves, instead of leaving the shadow of this matter to fester as a dark page in Singapore's history.

The sentence on Sun Xu - overly harsh, or simply too lenient?

Just read a blog discussing the fate of the infamous Sun Xu.

The author argues that Sun was fined around $11k for what was basically a private message that was exposed. He questions whether the fine is proportionate to the 'crime', and whether there are any real 'victims' to justify a harsh punishment.

My comments which was posted in facebook, and in the comments section of Ben Leong's blog (awaiting moderation - tsk tsk seems like a trend) :

You argue that it’s a 11k fine for a private message. I would argue for another perspective,

The 11k comes from a much larger amount that was given to him by a organization with a code of behavior for recipients of that monetary benefit. He was caught breaking that code of behavior, hence resulting in the said penalty.

It’s the same if an employee is sponsored by a company for an expensive course, but is caught making disparaging comments on the company (e.g. referring to co-workers as dogs?) and the matter escalated to management. It would hardly be shocking for part of the sponsorship to be revoked, and entirely possible that the person be given the sack.

Overly harsh punishment? I don’t think so.

Comment on NSP page

Just made a comment on the NSP homepage in regards of their official response of no response in regards to requests for them to clarify their position on the Hougang by-election.

AC→

March 27, 2012 at 9:43 am #

The choice to not announce NSP’s intentions to dispel/confirm the rumours created by Goh Meng Seng is an action by itself.

As seen from the public reaction, these rumours have affected the image of the NSP. By not actively refuting Goh (if there are no intentions to contest), this lingering doubt festers and further erode the NSP’s credibility to opposition supporters.

Inaction by itself is an action. And as of all actions there is always a price to pay.

The comments are awaiting moderation after 2 days. Maybe non-supportive comments are not welcome to NSP.

*Edit* The Hougang By election came and went. WP won, and NSP did not participate as a spoiler.

Happy Birthday, Singapore

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?

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

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

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?

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

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

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

1. 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.

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.

Back to top

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.

Back to top

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.

Back to top

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

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)

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

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

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.