Offer cheaper flats with a condition - sell them back to HDB

Oct 24, 2011

IN HER letter, Ms Chen Xinyi argued that restricting resale of three-room flats to only low-income earners, and pegging resale prices to the original sales price plus the annual inflation rate will disadvantage current as well as future three-room home owners, as they will be unable to leverage on capital gains from the asset to upgrade to a larger flat ('Restricting sale and price of resale 3-room flats won't work'; last Thursday).

There is a legitimate need to supply flats to citizens who simply want a place to live, and are not concerned about capital gains.

Yet if the Government continues to build more flats to keep prices at low levels, existing owners like Ms Chen, who hope for capital appreciation, will be out of luck. There is clearly a need to balance the interests of the two groups.

I suggest that a new restricted sale scheme be implemented for new HDB flats. Then those who buy flats directly from the HDB can choose to buy either under the restricted sale scheme or the current (open market) scheme.

Under the restricted sale scheme, buyers will pay a substantially lower price to the Housing Board. But they must sell the unit back to HDB at the original purchase price, depreciated for the length of stay and adjusted for inflation.

Additional rules like no subletting (regardless of how long the owner has lived in the flat) can also be imposed. In effect, it is a long-term prepaid rental scheme, but with looser income restrictions than existing rental schemes.

The intent of this scheme is to supply flats at a steep discount to citizens who want the flats to simply live in, while isolating their effects on citizens who wish to see the value of their flats appreciate.

The crux of the problem is that HDB flats' resale prices are directly affected by the direct sale prices. One cannot have the best of both worlds, but one should be allowed to choose the scheme that best suits one's needs.

Wah June Hwang

[Was going to critique the writer for proposing what would be better served by a rental scheme, and noted that the writer does recognised that it is a pre-paid rental scheme. Also good that the point is that this scheme would offer people options between just living in a flat and buying one for capital appreciation.

That said, the proposal seems like a unusually circuitous process for a pre-paid rental scheme. Why not just have a looser rental scheme?  A looser income criteria for renting flats would be more affordable and less onerous in terms of deposits and down payment.

If people can afford down payments, they might as well try to buy a regular flat. If the "buyer" still needs to pay installments, he might as well just rent. This just gives all the hassle of buying a flat with no real advantage over renting.]

Politicians need to be seen by voters

Sep 24, 2011
 
MY LIFE

A recent survey of 1,100 Singaporeans aged 21 and older found that three in 10 'do not trust politicians to act in their best interests'. YouthInk writers suggest why.
 
I AM a 'cynic' because I don't trust politicians, and one reason I don't trust them is that I rarely see my MP around - except during the elections.

Though I am still a minor, I like to be politically aware because I know in the future, I will play a part in choosing people to lead the country. But I don't believe the brief period before a general election is enough to convince us of the true capabilities of politicians who claim they can take Singapore to greater heights.

The process of scrutinising them has to start years beforehand, to ensure consistency in their actions. I have been to election rallies and heard fiery speeches, but once the hullabaloo of the elections dies down, the politicians seem to disappear.

They are probably working for their constituents but, unfortunately, a lot of it is not visible. One way to stay visible is through social networking, where I can see them responding to feedback and complaints. But that's not enough. Residents need to see their MPs in the flesh, and the best way would be through door-to-door visits. I understand such visits are taxing on MPs, but a visit more than once in five years wouldn't do much harm, would it? It would show us you are taking pains to visit us, and I would be assured that you truly have our best interests at heart.

Lim Shan, 16, is a Secondary 4 student at St Margaret's Secondary School.

[Politics is not just about going around knocking on doors and shaking hands. I don't see my MP, and I don't want to see my MP because I want him to help  the people who need help more than me. So no, I don't see my MP because I don't need to see him, but if I do need to see him, I know where to find him.  Really, if he comes to my door, I really don't think it is the best time to be discussing any problems I might have. Firstly, it may not be a convenient time for me.  I feel about MP walkabouts the same way I feel about door to door sales people.

The other role of the MP is precisely to be a member of parliament. He should be there to debate issues, to raise questions, to propose changes to make our lives a little better.

If he can do that, I don't need to see him at my door.

If you want to be politically aware, read. Find out how things are done. Find out why things are done in a certain way, or what considerations need to be taken into account to make good decisions. Understand that politics is about allocating resources according to policies. Good policies channel resources to where they do the most good for the most people. Bad policies causes more hardship than benefits.

All policies are good and bad. All policies have beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries, and all policies have costs, either today or tomorrow.

Understand that there is no free lunch, and that anyone who tells you there is, is lying and trying to con you into voting for him.

Then you would be politically aware.]

Meritocracy's shortcomings

Sep 20, 2011

THE bottom line is that meritocracy is a euphemism for institutionalising a caste system ("Meritocracy is the only way to tackle inequality fairly" by Dr Khor Swee Kheng and "Level playing field" by Mr Alex Tan; Sept 13).

[Hyperbole. A caste system is one where your position in society is determined by your parentage. The ideology of meritocracy is that one can find one's place in society based on merit. A poor student who can score as high or even higher than a rich student would have as many opportunities as the rich student based on merit.

Now we can agree that the rich student probably have more opportunities because daddy can buy him a place in some foreign university, but that is not because of meritocracy.

And meritocracy is not an euphemism for a caste system. That's just demagoguery.]

The corollary of the so-called positive aspects of meritocracy is that it provides an equal opportunity to also dump the least advantaged into socio-economic badlands in pursuit of individual advantage and influence for oneself above all others. Some call this elitism.

[Explain these  "socio-economic badlands" you speak of. A student who cannot make it to JC, has Polytechnics as an option. If that is also beyond his ken, there is ITE. Have you seen the ITE campus at Choa Chu Kang?  A veritable monument to the "economic badlands".

Or is everyone suppose to be University graduates? In the 70s, less than 5% of the cohort made it to university. Today, I believe the figure is closer to 26%, with another 43% going to polytechnics. 20% goes to ITE. There is some overlap (ITE may go onto Poly, Poly may go onto University). But taking this as an illustration, almost 70% of a cohort goes to university or polytechnic. This is elitism?

I must have been sick the day they redefined elitism.]

To claim that the alternative to meritocracy is communism is bizarre. Why would Singapore want to be communist?

[I'll accept that is also hyperbole. But the correct response is, then what is this alternative to meritocracy?]

To state that there is such a thing as "compassionate meritocracy" is to make as much sense as former United States president George W. Bush's "compassionate conservatism". Putting the term "compassionate" before an ideology does not suddenly add heart power to it.

Coming up with alternatives to a meritocratic system would involve allowing as much freedom to others as we would allow for ourselves, free and equal opportunities for all, and ensuring that we look out for the interests of the least advantaged in society.

[I have taken and defended a very narrow aspect of meritocracy - that of educational meritocracy. This is because this is public policy and practice, figures and statistics are open and transparent, schools are governed by govt policies and in particular the ideology of meritocracy, whereas trying to argue meritocracy in the workplace is a minefield of ego, perception and beyond the direct control of govt policies.

So when someone suggests alternatives to the meritocratic system, the first question is, "so we don't use grades anymore?" The danger is not communism, but American Liberalism. The US education system is still great - people still want to go study in their top universities. But many universities are average, and many schools are not working, particularly for the average children. Where the schools are more concerned about the self-esteem of the child rather than teaching the child skills that the child can be proud to master (and thus solving the self-esteem problem).

So what is the alternative to meritocracy? Assume everyone is equally good (and equally average) and teach at an average level? Or drop standards so even the least able can graduate?

Looking out for the interest of the least advantaged, heck let's call a spade a spade, the most disadvantaged in society is not an issue for meritocracy to address. That's barking up the wrong tree. An abused child is an abused child and the issues are abuse, neglect, absentee parenting, parents addicted to drugs, alcohol, gambling, work, success, etc. That has nothing to do with meritocracy.

An intellectually or developmentally  disabled child is a disabled child and yes meritocracy is going to leave him behind, but the problem is not going to be addressed by de-institutionalising meritocracy or leading an ideological charge against meritocracy as an unthinking, unfeeling, impartial, objective, heartless ideology. It is all that and all that is irrelevant. The disabled child needs specialised help and that is beyond the scope of meritocracy.]

We have to work these ideas out in a constructive manner between the citizenry, government, bureaucracy and other interest groups. This social, economic and political constructivist approach will allow us to create the reality we want.

It is this attitude of being free from ideological obsessions that helped make Singapore a successful state. But as we evolve into a well-ordered society that recognises the value of human beings beyond their talent or so-called economic merit, then we are on the path to creating a just and fair society.

[I suggest you get free of your obsession with meritocracy as the bane of Singapore society. Your concern is valid. Your solution, no so much.]

When we recognise the intrinsic worth of a human being irrespective of race, language or religion, then we are also learning tolerance, kindness and compassion.

Sanjay Perera

[When you can prove that meritocracy is also an euphemism for racism and religious intolerance, in addition to institutionalising a caste system, then we'll talk some more.]

AWARE and Lee Kuan Yew

Sep 13, 2011
 
MARRIAGE, MOTHERHOOD AND CAREER
Aware disagrees with Mr Lee

THE stark choice between motherhood and professional advancement presented in Mr Lee Kuan Yew's comments to Ms Joan Sim is not new ('A PhD's fine, but what about love and babies?'; last Tuesday).

In 1983, he said: 'We shouldn't get our women into jobs where they cannot, at the same time, be mothers.'

In 1994, he said that 'attractive and intelligent young ladies' should go to finishing colleges so that they will be 'marvellous helpers of their husband's career'.

And now, Ms Sim has been advised to stop wasting time on her doctorate and find a boyfriend instead. These views contradict the recent statements by Minister of State for Community Development, Youth and Sports Halimah Yacob to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (Cedaw) that gender equality is central to Singapore's socio-economic growth and that 'maximising the full potential of every individual, male or female, is a priority'.

Under Cedaw, the Government is obliged to 'take appropriate measures to modify the social and cultural patterns of the conduct of men and women based on the idea of stereotypical roles of men and women'. However, state policies have not kept pace with social developments and changing gender roles.

Fathers are not entitled to paid paternity leave, reinforcing the social expectation that mothers should bear most of the caregiving responsibilities.

Flexible working arrangements attractive to mothers of young children are not widely available. Infant care facilities are inadequate for the country's needs. Such policies make raising children a daunting prospect for working women who want to continue their careers after becoming mothers. The State should take the lead in making family a more attractive option for these women, starting with a change of governmental attitude and the policies stated above.

The Scandinavian countries have shown that appropriate state policies that counter social norms can reverse declining fertility rates.

Public statements made by influential figures like Mr Lee are also important to shaping social attitudes.

Remarks that imply that women belong at home and men should be primarily providers undermine the efforts of men and women who struggle every day to meet the demands of family and working life.

Implying that marriage and motherhood are more important than education and work belittles the choices and contributions of women who prefer to be single or childless.

Such comments also perpetuate sexist stereotypes for a younger generation.

Nicole Tan (Ms)
President
Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware)

[And may I say misrepresenting the words of others in order to propel your own agenda is disingenuous at best, and a poor reflection of your reading and comprehension skills. You come out sounding like an over-sensitive harpy ready to pounce on any misperceived slight or misconstrued sexism with strident denunciation and accusation of perpetuating sexist stereotypes.

No. Lee Kuan Yew did not ask the PhD candidate to abandon her studies and get pregnant. (See the excerpt below for reference.)

That was your inability to comprehend simple English or your disingenuous attempt to twist his words to create a false assault on gender equality, allowing you to drag in CEDAW, paternity leave, childcare facilities, etc to further your own public agenda.

Mr Lee's advice to Ms Sim did not perpetuate sexist stereotypes.

Your ridiculous letter of complaint to the forum paints you and the association you head and represent as stereotypical strident feminists with no sense of reality and an over-developed sense of prostitution.]

Excerpt from:
A PhD's fine, but what about love and babies?
6 Sept 2011

The 27-year-old, who is pursuing a doctorate in biological sciences at Nanyang Technological University (NTU), observed that Singapore had accepted a large number of foreign immigrants within a short period of time. She asked what could be done to promote a greater sense of belonging among those here.

Mr Lee said that given Singapore's fast-ageing population and extremely low fertility rate, it needs to accept a sizeable number of immigrants each year, to ensure society has enough young and economically active members.

He then cited figures from projections done by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) in an exercise due to be made public later this month.

He said: 'The Institute of Policy Studies has a grim statistic of 60,000 migrants a year to keep our people young and economically active. We can't digest that; 20,000 maybe, 25,000 then you're stretched, but certainly not 60,000.'

He called the latter figure 'politically indigestible'...

Mr Lee then turned the tables on Ms Sim and started gently quizzing her about her personal life, to the surprise and amusement of the audience.

He asked her age and if she was married, to which she said 'no'. He asked her when she would finish her PhD, and she said 'in two years' time'.

He then asked if she had a boyfriend, and again she said 'no'.

He then gave her some advice on why she should try to have children by the age of 35.

'After 35, the dangers of having mongoloid children, Down syndrome, in other words, a dull person, rises. So my advice is, please don't waste time. It's more important and more satisfying than your PhD but good luck to you. I hope you get your PhD and your boyfriend.'

'Online chatter' not just chatter

Sep 5, 2011

I AM shocked by what political scientists passed off as prescient commentary in last month's presidential election.

Dr Derek da Cunha ('What observers say'; Aug 28) stated that 'online chatter' was irrelevant to the May 7 General Election and the Aug 27 presidential election.

Really? 'Online chatter' was how the People's Action Party (PAP) discerned how unhappy Singaporeans were with policies, personnel and politicking in the GE. 'Online chatter' was why a relative unknown like Mr Tan Jee Say grabbed a 25 per cent share of the votes on Aug 27. 'Online chatter' cannot be dismissed any more.

[Bullcrap. In the first PE, the virtual unknown Chua Kim Yeow won 41%. There was no internet chatter then in 1993. Tan Jee Say's 25% proves nothing other than the fact the 25% of voters were optimistic. Or pessimistic depending on your point of view.]

That is why the Government, wisely, used a light touch in navigating 'online chatter'.

Dr da Cunha said that the PAP vote held up on Aug 27. Again, really? In the first contested presidential election in 1993, Singaporeans gave a reluctant Mr Chua Kim Yeow 41.3 per cent of the votes against a PAP-backed Mr Ong Teng Cheong, who expected well over 65 per cent.

Dr Tony Tan, the favourite candidate and most closely linked with the PAP in this year's election, should have swept most of the 60 per cent pro-PAP GE votes. By obtaining only about one-third of overall votes, he was clearly affected by his PAP link.

[And I say 70% voted PAP - split between the two Doctors from PAP.]

The only certainty now is that the PAP must be repositioned to 'change the conversation' about itself, to quote from the TV series Mad Men.

[Go back to watching TV, you couch potato.]

Singaporeans like myself are asking ourselves why we, as a nation, are dazed, confused and frustrated now more than before.

[So you agree with the other commentary that we should have an electoral college system to elect the President? So as to avoid further confusing and dazing you.]

We need a catharsis and it will not appear because results come after the fact, or because the Prime Minister asks us to move on.

We seem to have just finished a huge family quarrel. We need time to cool down, settle and discover fresh sensibilities within the new order - winners and losers both.

For that to happen, mainstream media like The Straits Times must find the people's authentic pulse; visionaries and insightful individuals must ask probative questions and share valid views; comedians must nudge us and artists, inspire us.

[You have us confused with the US culture. We do not have an tradition of comedians nudging us or artists inspiring us. No Sharon Au hugging Tony Tan does not count. Seriously, you want us to take inspiration from Hossan Leong? Gurmit Singh? Sheik Haikel? Stefanie Sun? Fann Wong?

Not to say that their views are irrelevant, but how are they authoritative. Oh wait. You are a couch potato and so you believe everything TV tells you.]

We need leaders committed to creating a healthy public space where we can all agree to disagree but have the best for Singapore in our hearts.

What we don't need are political scientists who offer no clues.

[Or forum writers from an alternate TV universe.]

Anand A. Vathiyar


Sep 6, 2011

Beware of political opportunists online


MR ANAND Vathiyar's assertion that Internet chatter played a major role in our final choice of president cannot be wrong ('Online chatter not just chatter'; yesterday).



["Played a role" does not imply that the role was responsible, intentional, or had the intended effect. I would say that if internet chatter had an effect it was to create a bias view that Tan Jee Say was leading and may have drawn some voters to him instead of say Tan Cheng Bock, and leading to the unintended freak result of Dr Tony Tan winning the election. So yes, in that sense it "played a role". ]

From the upheaval in Egypt and Libya to the recognition of epidemics way before the health authorities were aware of their presence, online chatter has proven influential.

Unfortunately, a significant amount of Internet chatter comes not from the genuinely aggrieved, but from the politically opportunistic who hide behind a cloak of anonymity.

Half-truths and misinterpreted statistics are perpetuated and made believable because they are replicated thousands of times on the Internet.

There are many local insightful political blogs that provide discursive commentary on Singaporean issues. Read discriminately, they can complement The Straits Times in providing counterpoise in its political and social coverage.

Unfortunately, unlike The Straits Times, which allows only civil debate and riposte with editorial adjudication, Internet chatter is replete with uncivil name-calling, where contrary ideas are shouted down by threatening claques of naysayers and any meaningful exchange of opinions is not possible.

It is no wonder then that the blogosphere artificially amplifies pessimism, negativism and nihilism.

Dr Yik Keng Yeong

Proud of national service precisely because it is a sacrifice

Proud of national service precisely because it is a sacrifice

Sep 2, 2011

MS SERENE Wong ('NS is no burden'; Aug 22) was wrong when she rebutted recent presidential candidate Tan Kin Lian ('Kin Lian: Make NS a privilege, not a burden'; Aug 20).

How can military training that prepares a person for the highly complex and dangerous task of defending one's country not be a huge load to bear?

If it is no burden at all, I would question the quality of our military training.

Usually, the only ones who feel little or no burden are those in non-combat positions.

If Ms Wong remains unconvinced, she should ask why first-generation naturalised male citizens are not required to perform national service.

The Government is fully aware that it is not a small load and it does not want to deter potential new citizens from choosing to sink their roots in Singapore.

[Not just that. A new citizen may be a military spy or saboteur, or he may have divided loyalties. If we should have a military action against his former country, his loyalties would be unduly tested.]

I applaud Mr Tan for standing up for national servicemen.

His call for greater recognition of the sacrifice servicemen make is worth serious consideration by the Government.

Without that sacrifice, nationhood for Singaporeans would quickly become a thing of the past.

We should highlight the fact that national service is indeed a burden.

It is precisely because it is a burden - and defending our nation the responsibility of citizens - that servicemen are proud to be called upon to bear it.

Michael Ang

[But it sounds self-serving to ask for more recognition for National Service. TKL is wrong to do so. In asking for more recognition, he is in effect asking that we compensate NS men more completely, but it can never be adequately compensated. it is not a commercial transaction. The reason army speaks of duty, and honour, and loyalty and pride, is because these ideas drive and motivate people. If you replace it or attempt to compensate for these burdens of pride and loyalty, you exchange a sense of duty, with a sense of mercantilism. When your Sarge asks you to "Take that hill!" you're supposed to say, "yes sir!" not "How much?"

Men do march to war because they were paid well. Men do not face death because they will be amply compensated for their death.]

Dr Tony Tan wins Presidential Election with 35.2% of votes. Sore losers erupt.

ST Facebook post:

"It is disturbing that an elected president did not receive more than a 50 per cent majority of votes," says our reader. Do you agree?

Selected comments from Facebook (I've taken those that wanted a re-vote. There were also some who said, we should live with the results as it is. But there were sore losers. Seems like those from the TJS camp. The TCB camp were mostly pro-stable govt and would have wanted TCB, but accepted TT as president.)

"Ya 65% did not vote for TT! Re election ..TT vs TCB!"

"Yes, agree that there shuld be re-election among the two. only then, we'll see who's the real winner!!"

"I find hard to accept TT as our president as 65% of the voters didn't support him. It just goes to show how many Singaporeans dislike him."

"Should use the Altenative Vote or Instant-Runoff election methods. ALOT more fairer in a multi-cornered contest."

"TOC and TR FB voters liked for TCB and TJS. We were at one point did not know who to vote for. Therefore I disagree. TCB is the only candidate that appeals to both Pro and Oppositions parties."

My Comments:
In such an election, you choose who you think would be the best president. 25% thought TJS was the one. No one else agreed. 5% thought TKL was the one. no one else did. Everyone has one vote. One opinion. One choice. No "backsies". Welcome to the adult world. You're not in primary school anymore.

If you think TCB would have been the better choice why didn't you vote for him in the first place?

If you voted TJS or TKL as the best choice why are you now willing to back another? What happen to strength of conviction? Loyalty? Or now that you know the "crowd" is with TCB, you wanna follow the crowd? Where is your independence of thought you bunch of cows?

----

Tan Jee Say is one deluded candidate. He thinks (constitutional) rules don't apply to the presidency. Not surprisingly, he attracts people who are equally deluded, and thinks (election) rules don't apply. He lost the GE. He thinks the PE is a second chance. Nor surprisingly he attracts people who think life is a game, that you can always reload saved game if you lose and get a second chance.

The PAP warned about a freak election result if voters anyhow vote. Well, we got a FREAK election result, didn't we?

TCB should have won, but because TJS conned gullible voters into supporting his delusional presidential gambit, he pulled enough voters away from the real alternative.

And the TJS voters now say, "sorry sorry, I anyhow vote. Have a second election, can?"

If you truly believe in your candidate, do you stand and defend him even in defeat, or do you find the next credible challenger and back him? The candidate attracts the people that reflects his character. The TJS voters who now asks for a round 2 of voting are fickle fickle voters of no integrity. They used TJS and TJS used them. They deserve each other.

And the best part, TJS has the unmitigated gall to think that if he didn't stand for election, all his voters would have spoilt their votes. What utter chutzpah! What delusions! What an ego!

He is just trying to assuage his guilt of having help perpetrated a FREAK election result.

TKL has been humbled at the polls and he has accepted defeat with humility. For that, I respect him. And I wish he didn't have to lose his deposit. I don't support him, and I think if he had pulled out, perhaps some of his votes might have gone to TCB. Maybe even enough to make TCB president. But what is done is done.

Place limits on foreign pro runners

Jul 31, 2011

I refer to the article, 'Kenyan bags Shape Run 10k to make it two on the trot' (last Monday), which stated that Kenyan Eunice Muchiri (above) won all four races in Singapore in which she specifically came here for.

As much as she deserves to win, the reality is that a foreign professional runner has deprived worthy locals of a chance to shine, for they can in no way match the times of these professional runners.

It is meaningless to join these races when foreign professional runners arrive here with the sole aim of sweeping the top prizes, and then disappear from the local running scene.

While I understand the need for international events like the Standard Chartered Marathon to attract elite runners, the smaller local events - such as the Great Eastern Women 10K , Jurong Lake Run, Marina 21K Women's Open and Shape Run - are clearly to encourage local participation, so there is no real need to attract these foreign runners.

Organisers of such events should either limit the participation of these professionals - perhaps ruling that they can participate but not win prizes - or have a separate category of prizes for them.

Cindy Tan (Ms)

[To you it's a prize. To those runners it's a living. They are pros. This is what they do to make a living. Don't want to attract them, then the prize money should be reduced. For as long as the money is worth their while, they will come to make a living. Restrict to Singaporeans only? Then the prize will not be very much, and the prestige is not great either. The organisers want international recognition if they can get it.]

Public consultation not a populist measure

Jun 29, 2011

I REFER to last Saturday's report ('Getting all on board in steering S'pore'). The debate on how to resolve policy dilemmas is a tremendously challenging one, primarily because no single decision can please everyone.

[Right. Taxing cigarettes is neutral to most people but makes smokers unhappy. Taxing rich people more makes most people ambivalent or even slightly happy, but unlikely to make rich people happy.]

Socio-economic policy direction and discussion should not be perceived as being mutually exclusive.

[And here you miss the point totally. It's not about direction and discussion. It is about decisions, and the rationale for the decision.]

Policymakers must customise their methodologies based on the characteristics of the concerns, their level of urgency and the groups of Singaporeans involved.

[When the objective criteria should be the nature of the problem, the reasonable options and feasible solutions.]

Clearly, the actual decision-making process should continue to be managed by parliamentarians, who have been given the mandate to do so, and who will ensure that efficiency is not compromised. However, prior to that, they have to proactively solicit feedback from their constituents, so that different perspectives can be taken into consideration.

This particular role of the politician has remained largely unchanged throughout the years, but varying local circumstances - especially after the recent general election - have presented a significantly new landscape for our ministers and MPs.

First, there has been greater diversity in the stakeholders involved. Traditionally, feedback and opinions have been gathered from a select group of professionals - from academics to private-sector experts - through policy study workgroups and various feedback sessions. Now, given the rapid dissemination of information and the better-educated population, more individuals are desirous of having a say through engagement platforms.

[Just because they want to have a say, doesn't mean they have anything meaningful, intelligent, objective, informed or salient to say or add to the discussion. Just read any damn online comments on any news story.]

Second, there has been a rise in the number of platforms and corresponding responses offered by their users. Most notably, communication through the Internet has evolved to become more of a necessity than an option. Even though new media channels per se are not the most productive avenues to articulate public policies, their administrators should have the ability to sieve out constructive criticisms and raise consultation rates.

The trick is to develop a diverse range of feedback forums to cater to different groups of Singaporeans: Facebook pages, spontaneous e-mail messages and blogs would appeal to on-the-go professionals who simply want to give their two cents' worth, while carefully crafted online policy workgroups would attract serious-minded Singaporeans who wish to engage in sustainable conversations, and simultaneously develop recommendations or resolutions to the host of observations.

Public consultation cannot be casually dismissed as being populist appeasement.

[But it is. Two cents worth? Not even that at most time. Most feedback are self-serving at best.]

The proliferation of personal views has gathered pace even in the previous absence of government involvement; it would be a pity if the authorities refuse to acknowledge their value.

Kwan Jin Yao

[Opinions are a dime a dozen and during the GSS, buy 12 get 1200 free.  Most people are uninformed and are unmotivated to be informed beyond where they want to go for lunch and where's the best place to get a good deal on an iphone.  Ask anyone about nuclear power in Singapore and most will say NIMBY.  Politicians need to sell their idea, and more importantly, they need to get the people to buy into their idea. Consultation is one way to get buy-in.  If consultation is to get ideas, we obviously need to get better experts if the hoi polloi can come up with better ideas.]

A uniquely Singapore system based on first come, first served principle

May 29, 2011
 
Your letters

I am irked by people who question our uniquely Singaporean seat reservation system at hawker centres and foodcourts.

[And I am irked by your stupid letter and lack of comprehension.]

These places operate on a first come, first served basis.

[Ya, so I come first, see an empty space, go buy my food, come back and see packets of tissues "choping" the seats by people who came later than me.]

The people who find tissue packs placed on tables to reserve the seats are facing a fact: They have got there later than others. However, these latecomers refuse to accept this fact and, instead, start a flood of discussions and classify this seat-reserving behaviour as an embarrassment.

[So will you give up our tissue-choped seats to someone with a tray of food? Obviously if they have a tray of food, they were here earlier than you. Except that you plonked your tissue on the table first.]

In my experience, this tissue pack reservation system operates only in crowded places where there are insufficient seats available, such as in Shenton Way food centres during peak hours.

I seldom come across the practice in heartland areas like Ang Mo Kio.

I do not know if placing a 'reserved' card issued by the hawker centre will be any more acceptable to people who are against a reservation system. If they disagree with first come, first served as a principle, nothing will make them any happier - be it a card, umbrella, book or even bodies.

The tissue pack system is the cheapest to operate.

[But inherently rude and inefficient. If people got their food then look for their seat, there would be less space waste. As it is you see "empty" tables occupied by tissue packs while people with hot food unable to find a seat wander desperately about. This kiasu, kiaboh mentality is inconsiderate. But you don't see it, cos you are inconsiderate.]

If we decide that a First World country cannot practise such an 'unseemly' system and deem this an embarrassment, let's design one which includes issuing seat numbers and having a crowd manager. Then voila, we have a system resembling a restaurant.

Then my fishball noodles may cost $5 instead of $3.50.

But seriously, people should just live and let live, and let peace prevail.

Lam Wen-li (Ms)

No discounts needed if ministers' pay is set fairly

May 29, 2011
 
Your letters

I refer to last Sunday's report ('Ministerial pay to be reviewed'), which quoted Mr Gerard Ee, the head of a committee to review ministers' salaries, as saying that 'whatever we work out, the final answer must include a substantial discount on comparable salaries in the private sector and people looking at it will say, 'these people are serving and making a sacrifice''.

There is a jewellery shop here known for advertising huge discounts. But it is an open secret that its prices are highly inflated. The discount is only a marketing gimmick.

We do not need discounts if the salaries of ministers are set to fairly reflect the worth of their jobs. It is questionable to peg their salaries to inappropriately high pay, and then reduce these with 'discounts'.

One's pay should be commensurate with the job, and one should be held 100per cent responsible to deliver on it. We should have no qualms paying for performance, not because it is necessary to attract the right people, but because it is fair. What is currently lacking is the penalty when ministers fail to deliver. Ministers should have clearly publicised and closely monitored key performance indicators relevant to their jobs.

[With CEOs of corporations, where the bottom line is clearly profit, you can make such stupid, lame, seemingly intelligent statements with phrases like "pay for performance", "penalty for failure to deliver", "key performance indicators".  What the elections have show is that people want a more consultative government, which is not a KPI or if it were a KPI, would be subject to manipulation. Imagine, relentless consultation with the people and no decision or action. On the other hand imagine quick decisions and action but with complaints of no consultation. How do you balance such demands and reduce it to a KPI? or two contradictory KPIs?]

While the current pay formula already includes gross domestic product growth, it should also incorporate other economic indicators, such as inflation rates, housing price indices, employment figures and median wages of citizens in all income brackets.

These would better correlate the Government's performance, and thus ministers' salaries, with the well-being of the majority, rather than a small minority who benefit the most each year.

With the right salary formula, it will be bizarre to deliberately underpay ministers just so that people can see them as making a sacrifice - this makes a mockery of the meaning of sacrifice.

Chen Junyi

[But that is what the hoi polloi wants. And that is politics.]

Create cheaper class of flats

Peg price to three times median household income but with shorter lease, stricter conditions
May 26, 2011

Letter from Eric Tan Heng Chong

As the new Cabinet gets down to work pledging a fresh look at existing public polices and an innovative approach to policy-making, I would like to offer a proposal to address the Housing and Development Board (HDB) affordability issue.

The HDB should go back to its roots of focusing solely on providing affordable housing for the majority of Singaporeans, instead of the other current objective of asset enhancement of the flats as a financial asset for investment or retirement.

Firstly, we need to define affordability. The Government's definition of affordability is in terms of 30-year loans; a better definition would be in terms of a price that is pegged to three times the annual median household income. This suggests that a housing loan can be paid off within a 10- to 15-year time frame.

For example, a family with a median household income of about S$3,800 per month or S$46,000 per year would be able to afford a four-room apartment if it is priced at $137,000 (three times annual household income).

At this price, they can take a 15-year loan to pay for the flat and the family will be able to save for retirement, children's education and future medical expenses for the remaining 15 years of their working life. Currently, the average four-room HDB flat is priced at five to six times annual household income, which is in excess of about S$265,000, hence the need for 30-year mortgages.

To solve this problem, the HDB could create a new segment of flats similar to what we have done in the car market, where we have normal and off-peak cars.

For this new segment, the HDB could price its flats at three times the median annual household income of applicants but subject these flats to more stringent restrictions to reflect the price difference from normal flats.

These restrictions, which would be in additional to the conditions that apply to normal flats, could include the following: Owners of such flats cannot own private housing at all; no permanent resident can own these flats; no cash-over-valuation is allowed; and a shorter lease of, for example, 60 years.

In addition, owners could be allowed to sell the flat to upgrade but the prices would be set by the HDB, which would index the price increases to median income increases, to ensure the three-times ratio is maintained. The prices would go up if the median household income goes up.

[This measure to restrict the owner to selling the flat at the same price peg at the time of sale less wear and tear and other disamenities (if the owner had not taken care of the building) or with additional value that the seller may have invested is sufficient. So the owner can only sell it to another low income  applicant (pre-approved by HDB), just like a off-peak car must be sold as an off-peak car. No need shorter lease.]

This list of conditions can be expanded further to make it clear that this segment of flats is subsidised by the state for Singaporeans to live in and not intended as a financial investment for their retirement.

In short, Singaporeans would have the choice of buying a HDB flat at either a higher price based on the existing terms; or a lower price subject to more restrictive terms. This may not be the ideal solution but at least it helps to address affordability issues.

URL http://www.todayonline.com/Voices/EDC110526-0000359/Create-cheaper-class-of-flats

[My concern is that these "subsidised flats" will become ghettoes. Because the owner can never expect to profit from property appreciation, he would not have the incentive to maintain the value of the flat. It would become run-down despite the best efforts of HDB and town councils.]

Accord minister's pay to leader of opposition

May 26, 2011

WHILE I am delighted to read that the policy on ministers' salaries is being reviewed ('Ministerial pay to be reviewed'; Sunday), the review committee may also wish to consider paying the leader of the opposition a salary.

In Britain, the opposition leader, who carries the title of the Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition in its Parliament, is paid a salary equivalent to a minister's, on top of his MP's salary.

He is also given a chauffeur-driven car whose cost and specification is equivalent to the vehicles used by Cabinet ministers.

Workers' Party secretary-general Low Thia Khiang could take on such a role here. In a way, he and his colleagues represent about 40 per cent of our citizenry. His responsibilities and contributions should be recognised.

With the increased number of opposition members in Parliament and with the formation of a committee to review political office-holders' salaries, now may be the appropriate time to consider allocating a salary for the leader of the 'loyal opposition'.

This would reflect the inclusive government that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong aspires to have.

I would like to emphasise the words 'loyal opposition' as I feel that Mr Low and his party have always believed it is possible to be in the opposition and yet remain loyal to Singapore.

Lee Tow Kiat

[Yes. We should pay Low Thia Khiang the equivalent of a Minister's pay for being the leader of the opposition. Nevermind if we don't know what he is supposed to do. In the UK the Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition is like the Alternative to the Prime Minister, and is a member of the Privy Council and advises the British Sovereign. The incumbent also runs a shadow cabinet precisely because he is supposed to be an alternative to the PM. We don't have a Privy Council, but we do have a Council of Presidential Advisors. Low can be a member!

So what if there is only 6 elected opposition MPs? There's 3 NCMPs! That's nine opposition MPs who can form a shadow Cabinet. Just double-hat a little.

Low as Shadow PM and Minister for Defence, Sylvia as Shadow Minister for Finance and Home Affairs, Chen Show Mao Shadow Minister for Law and Foreign Affairs, Pritam Singh Shadow Minister for Education and Manpower, Md Faisal Shadow Minister for Community Development, Youth & Sports, and Environment & Water Resources, Yaw Shin Leong Shadow Minister for National Development, and Transport. NCMPs Yee Jenn Jong as Shadow Minister for Trade & Industry, Gerald Giam as Shadow Minister for Information, Communication and the Arts, Lina Chiam as Shadow Minister for Health.

Entirely workable. And now there is a back-up plan (shadow cabinet) if the PAP fails.

And the next time Sylvia stands up to criticise the Minister's salary, Low will also feel uncomfortable.

I thought the writer of this was a pro-WP supporter, but I realise now, he is a scheming PAP-supporter who seems to be innocently pushing for more resources for the WP, but is actually laying the foundation for the corruption and downfall of the WP!

Incredible!]

Aljunied delay remains inexplicable

May 17, 2011

MEDIACORP'S reply last Friday ("MediaCorp explains why Aljunied result came after 2am") will surely assist voters and viewers alike to better appreciate or understand the constraints and limitations under which it covered GE2011.

But where the public is concerned, the question still remains unanswered.

If, as reported, Mr George Yeo himself was preparing to concede as early as 11pm, and his opponent, Mr Low Thia Khiang, too was already preparing to celebrate victory, what was it that stood in the way of an earlier public announcement of this crucial result by the Returning Officer?

One could reasonably expect the results of small constituencies with around 20,000 voters (like Whampoa and Yuhua) with clear-cut majorities to be among the first to be announced.

Admittedly, Aljunied is not in this smaller group, but the winning margin was convincing and unambiguous enough.

Why then the inordinate delay in making public the polling result of this particular constituency, which was so eagerly awaited by the people?

Hopefully, the official body supervising the election exercise will now offer its explanation to clear the air on the matter.

Narayana Narayana

[Looking at a pile of ballots after it has been sorted, a candidate can see which pile is higher, and which is lower, and you would be an unmitigated optimist to think that maybe the count will be in your favour when you consistently have the smaller pile. Except with very close counts (like in potong pasir) or with very mixed results (some wards going one way, and others going the other way), would an observer be unable to estimate the final result.

BUT the election process (counting) will have to continue. Surely we do not expect the RO to say, pursuant to my eyeballs, I hereby declare WP the winner of Aljunied, because any idiot can clearly see their pile of ballot papers is obviously higher than that of the PAP.

So the ballots still have to be counted to the very last ballot, the resulted checked and confirmed. And with so many votes to count, there may well be errors to correct, discrepancies to resolved, and finally results to be reported by each counting centre, confirmed and finally recorded and announced by the RO.

Delays happen for many reasons. Most are not for devious reasons. Did the delay caused the results to be different?  Did the unduly long delay lead to intolerable excitement causing one or more over-anxious voter to have a heart attack and die?

Does Narayana Narayana (so nice, they named him twice) suspect foul play on the part of the PAP? How? Maybe they were so shocked the asked the RO to delay the announcement so that they have time to write their concession speech? Or maybe the WP asked for more time to write their victory speech. Or to bring more supporters to the assembly area. Or the police asked for a delay to allow them to deploy more officers for crowd control. Or maybe there was a technical problem or some sort or other (Maybe the RO needed to practice saying "Aljunied" properly).

In other words, what was the big deal? Does Nara-Nara write in to complain to the Academy Awards for awarding all the meaningless little titles for 150 minutes before announcing the best picture, best actor and best actress awards? What's his problem? He explained on May 11:]

From ST May 11:
MR NARAYANA NARAYANA: 'Sunday's article on the keen contest for Aljunied GRC ('From political gamble to election history') starts by recalling that Foreign Minister George Yeo called his wife Jennifer about 11pm on Polling Day and calmly told her: 'We have lost.' The report further informs that an hour later, his opponent, Mr Low Thia Khiang, was preparing for what would perhaps be the sweetest victory speech of his career. So, it must seem obvious that the Workers' Party had clinched the critical Aljunied constituency. But the hundreds of thousands of viewers who were not privy to such information sat glued to the designated TV channels awaiting the crucial outcome, which was not announced until after 2am, by which time I had decided to call it a night. A few minutes afterwards, I heard cheers in the neighbourhood and guessed, correctly, that the opposition had pulled off the near-impossible. Viewers deserve an explanation for the long delay (three hours) in what was arguably the most eagerly awaited result of the election. With the winning majority of over 12,000 votes, even a call for a recount was hardly likely to have changed the outcome. Don't viewers and voters need greater consideration in such supposedly 'live' and 'on-the-spot' coverage?'

[Well, I guess, if it's not important enough for you to stay awake, it's just not that important. You can check the news the next day. Or do you expect the RO at the next election to say, Pursuant to Mr Narayana Narayana bedtime which was set by his parents as to be no later than 2.00 am, and to all those supporters standing in the fields with poor cardiac health, and poor bladder control, I hereby declare... ?]

He came, he left, he's back and leaving again...

Apr 27, 2011

I LEFT my home country 16 years back in search of greener pastures and came to Singapore on a work permit.
I married a wonderful woman from Singapore, who has been my life partner for the past 13 years. I bought a home here and fell in love with Singapore for its safety, tolerance among the different races and convenience.
Five years ago, I had to leave for an overseas job offer based in London and thought that it would give us a better lifestyle. The adjustment was enormous, in terms of culture and standard of living. After two years, I decided to return to Singapore since this country had spoilt me in terms of its high living standards, efficiency, safety and ease of living, and I realised how much we missed "home".

Sadly, even though I have more than two decades of experience behind me, I have been doing odd jobs to sustain myself and all my funds have dried up in the past two years.

My wife and I have decided to leave, not because we are quitters but because we want to start a family and feel that the emphasis is now on getting foreigners to fill up the job market rather than taking care of citizens who have given a major part of their lives to the development of this country.
Virdi Bhupinder

[Oh the irony.]

Pragmatism shouldn't be only consideration

Apr 18, 2011

READING the many opinions for and against a multi-party government, I think we need to first re-examine the assumption that alternative parties will challenge the incumbent's policies blindly and that they do not have Singapore's interest at heart.

Members of the opposition parties are after all fellow Singaporeans, who had their education under the same system and grew up in a similar social and cultural climate. And theirs and their families' well-being will mirror the state of health of Singapore.

Granted, they have different ideologies and choose to look at issues through different perspectives, and they definitely do not have the experience that People's Action Party (PAP) members have of running a country. But does that mean their views are definitely always wrong?

Looking at the Parliament speeches, blogs and interviews of the members of these alternative parties, I must say there are interesting ideas raised which seem plausible and deserve further discussion.

While I am impressed by the rigorous process that PAP has put in place to identify its talent pool, there is always a concern that such a formulaic selection process will inevitably value some attributes over the others. So no matter how diverse the talents are as claimed, one cannot help feeling that they are just more of the same.

Although there may be no "groupthink" within the PAP, can it be that the group is so conditioned to think what is best for Singapore mostly in terms of economic values and social efficiency, that other less valued factors are not taken as much into consideration or given as much weight during the deliberation process?

Good deliberation can occur only when groups with truly different ideologies, not bound by one-party discipline, are able to come together to each present their perspectives and understand why it can or cannot work.

[Because this writer's tone is respectful, I shall restrain myself from my usual rant. 

I do not see how good deliberation can occur with members of the group with truly different ideologies. If one party believes that the free market is the best way for economic growth and government regulation just distorts the market, and the other party believes that while on the whole the free market does work, the natural greed and exploitative instincts of businesses needs to be controlled and regulated, the two parties will never be able to agree on how to regulate business. One will insist that it is necessary to rein in excesses, while the other will accuse the first of being an interventionist govt that will only distort and skew the market. How can there ever be a decision?]

Only then can the resulting resolution or compromise claim to have been fully looked at from all angles and not just based on the most pragmatic reasons.

As we have moved away from the survival phase of nation-building, pragmatism should no longer be the main or only consideration for policymaking.

[If not pragmatism, what? Idealism? Non-pragmatism? ]

For me, a good government does not necessarily equate a one-party government, but it is one which is formed by morally sound and competent individuals. I look forward to the day when competent and upright Singaporeans, with the same heart to serve, regardless of their ideologies, can pull their weight together for the betterment of Singapore.

[So are you saying that the current government is immoral, unsound, incompetent and made up of non-upright Singaporeans?]

Lee Jing Yng (Ms)

Don't judge system with Western eyes

Apr 18, 2011

RECENTLY, certain opposition groups have attempted to disparage our political system as being "Third World" just because political power here is largely in the hands of a single party ("WP's goal: A First World Parliament"; April 10).

Politics and economics are closely intertwined, like the relationship between mind and body. Just as a strong and healthy body needs to be sustained over the long term by a healthy mind, so too a country's economy needs a strong and healthy political system to nurture it on a long-term basis.

Each country should adopt the political system best suited to its needs. The two-party system may be more democratic and suitable for some countries, but for a country like Singapore with its historical development, small size, multiracial mix and lack of natural resources, the kind of system we now have is probably a better, if not the best, choice.

So we should not judge whether our political system is First World or Third World through Western eyes. If our economic and other achievements have attained First World standards, then our political system must also be First World, through our own eyes at least. It would be dangerous and foolish to discard something which has worked well just because it does not conform to foreign (mainly Western) norms.

Tan Gim Kheng

 

[I do not disagree with the conclusion, but with the process and the argument. Or perhaps the title.

 

To say that we need to judge not based on Western eyes, is to impute a cultural bias or a cultural content to governance and politics.

 

The difference I see is not about more democracy or less democracy, but the mechanisms of democracy. 

The two party system in the US, with the built-in check-and-balance is designed to slow down govt. That must first be understood. Their historical baggage is an inherent distrust of government. The two-party system has evolved into ideological opposites that sees working together and compromise as the betrayal of party beliefs.

The system is inherently unworkable.

Not because of Western values or perspective. 

But perhaps what the writer simply means to say is be courageous enough to see with reasonable and objective eyes and understand how the current system works rather than blindly following ideological principles which may be unsound.]

Flawed understanding of multi-party system

Apr 16, 2011

I REFER to Mr Daniel Yew's commentary on Thursday ("Is a multi-party system good for S'pore?"), in which he uses the analogies of a committee and an army to highlight the pitfalls of a multi-party system.

Both analogies are flawed.

Having a multi-party system is not akin to increasing the size of a committee. Rather, it is analogous to the view that a committee should be made up of different members of the company. Whether it is for a dinner and dance event or improving productivity, committee members are usually appointed from different departments to ensure proper representation of the company.

Similarly, his suggestion of widening the input of ideas in the army by consulting every soldier, as an analogy of a "many views" system gone wrong, is like asking the Government to consult every Singaporean. No, this is not what a multi-party system entails.

[So far so good. Multi-party system is not the same as direct democracy.]

He also mentioned that an army is best led by an able general who draws upon the advice and experience of his general staff. But isn't this a fine example of a multi-party system? The commanding officer listens and consults not just his rifle company commanders who lead the fighting forces, but also the support weapons and logistics commanders on support, back-up plans and contingencies. Isn't that what a multi-party system is for?

Khong Kiong Seng

[No. A general who consults all his unit commanders is like the Prime Minister who consults all his Ministers, who by the way are from the same party. A less dominant party with more opposition MPs is like a general with fewer advisers as unit commanders are lost to the enemy, or units are commanded by whichever is the most senior officer as key commanders (Minister-calibre MPs) are lost in battle.

But I take the point that the army is a bad analogy, as is the committee analogy.

Because the opposition party in  parliament has no role other than to question and to object to the proposals of the ruling party. They can of course agree and support some of the ruling parties proposals but if they support ALL the ruling party's initiatives, why are they in Parliament? How are they opposition? They can of course offer suggestions and amendments that they believe will improve the ruling party's bills, or they can even propose their own bill for debate (just as Walter Woon did for the maintenance of parent's bill, and he was just an NMP). BUT the ruling party is under no obligation to accept their suggestions or amendments, and they have no leverage to force the ruling party to amend or withdraw the bill for those requiring a simple majority. For those that require a two-third majority, if there are enough opposition, they can block such proposals (usually to amend the constitution).

So if the previous writer has misunderstood the scope of a multi-party system, this writer has not shown a clearer understanding either.]

Apr 16, 2011
Multi-party system can address talent shortage

MR EUGENE Tan gave examples of countries having two- or multi-party systems that failed miserably or ran into trouble and concluded that a one-party system is better ("UK, US? Give him a S'pore MP any day"; Wednesday).

But is it simply because of the nature of a multi-party system or are there other reasons? I doubt converting to a one-party system would help those countries to do better than they are today.

I think it is down to the quality of people chosen as leaders rather than the failure of the system itself. If you had ineffective people operating in a one-party system, it would failed as well.


[True! Very true! Signs of higher order thinking? Or just pure fluke? After all, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.]

Singapore has done well thus far because of the quality of its leaders rather than the system itself. But can we guarantee that this will be so in the future?

Indeed, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has said that there is a lack of talent in Singapore. If that were so, all the more reason we should adopt a multi-party system so that we can cast the net wider in search of talent.

We should not accept a one-party system simply because there is a shortage of talent. Rather we should find ways to solve the shortage problem.

Tan Wei Cheng

[And... this is a stopped clock apparently. ]

Chinese may forgive, but not forget

Apr 11, 2011

I SUPPORT greater rapport and cooperation between China and Japan ("Give credit where it's due"; March 28). However, the crux of the matter is that until today, the Japanese government has never openly admitted to nor fully apologised or expressed sincere remorse for the atrocities or inhumane war crimes it committed during World War II.

In contrast to Germany, whose leaders have sincerely apologised for and admitted to WWII crimes, the Japanese government rewrote their school history textbooks and described the invasion of China as an 'in and out' military manoeuvre, and they have even denied that the Nanjing Massacre happened despite the historical evidence.

Historically, China and Japan's relationship has been wrought with events that have left deep wounds on China's psyche that cannot be easily erased. Such incidents include the Japanese invasion prior to and during WWII which caused millions of Chinese casualties, the infamous Nanjing Massacre, biological and chemical warfare and experiments conducted on the Chinese people by the Japanese Army (for example, by their notorious Unit 731) and lesser known events such as the Jinan incident.

This occurred in 1928, when Japanese troops attacked, killed and injured thousands of Chinese civilians, including diplomats, just five years after China had rendered generous aid to Japan following the Great Kanto earthquake. This was then a show of ingratitude and treachery by Japan towards China.

China bureau chief Peh Shing Huei's suggestion to China seems to be that instead of reminding its younger generations of the facts of the Japanese atrocities of WWII, it should educate its people on being grateful to the Japanese for its loans and grants since 1979.

This seems to endorse the thinking that giving such loans is considered enough to redeem whatever crimes committed by Japan.

Japan's loans are merely payments in lieu of monetary wartime reparations, as Mr Peh has pointed out.

Although China's government has reached out diplomatically to Japan, short of a proper apology and admission of guilt, the Chinese people may forgive, but not forget, Japan's WWII atrocities and crimes.

Chiang Kwee Seng

[I do not intend to defend Japan, or to explain culture, context, or history. But this is history. For the writer to be alive at the time of the Nanking Massacre, he would have to be at least 83 yrs old. For him to be aware of the brutality about him if he was indeed in Nanking, he would have to at least 2 yrs old, so he would be 85 today. For him to be elsewhere and to hear and to understand the horrors of war, he probably need to be at least 5 years old then, and 88 today, and I would wonder what kind of adults would tell horror stories to a 5 year old.

My point is, I do not believe the writer is an 83+ year old survivor of Nanking. I believe if he was he would have stated that up front.

What drives a person to bear an 83 year old grudge for things that happen to a group of people ethnically the same as the person, but with no other explicit connection?

The Japanese may not have apologise for the atrocities to the satisfaction of some, many, or most Chinese. If some, many or most Chinese feel the need for the Japanese to apologise and would die unhappy if they do not hear that apology, then I am very sad to inform them that they will die unhappy.

But understand, that the Japanese are not holding you back to those days in 1928. The people who personally carried out those atrocities are in all likelihood dead. The people to whom those atrocities were done, died then or soon after, or if they survived those years, have since passed on either peacefully, or with great disgruntlement in their hearts. And the people who resurrect and relive the horrors of those days, even tho they were not there, are re-victimising themselves, it seems to me, to no good purpose.

I do not understand these people.]

Thai teen's tragedy: Will SMRT help her?

Apr 9, 2011

I AM saddened by the photograph of Thai student Peneakchanasak Nitcharee yesterday ('I want to see my family').

The 14-year-old's hopes and dreams have been shattered by a horrific accident, which should not have happened had appropriate safety measures been taken swiftly on the Ang Mo Kio train station's open-deck platform.

Her parents, whom I gather from yesterday's report are from a low-income background, have stated that they are not in a financial position to pay for the hospitalisation costs.

While I have no doubt that kind Singaporeans will rally to assist them financially, as they have so often done, I am curious to know whether SMRT will do likewise - if not from a point of legal liability, which has never surfaced in all the past fatalities, at least because of a strong tug at the heartstrings in this case.

Ralph S. Lesslar

[Good-hearted but stupid. Moral hazard. Recall the man who committed suicide at Clementi MRT Station (Oct 2006). His sob story tugged at heartstrings and his family received a lot of donations. Rumours was of about half a million. Some other rumours went as high as a million. In any case it was in the hundreds of thousands from verifiable sources.

Two weeks or so later. Another man killed himself in the same way. The media decided to play down this one. Or we would have a flood of suicide to invoke public sympathy.

While I have no doubts that this was a tragic accident. This accident can easily be recreated with unpredictable outcomes.

SMRT has no legal liability here. But paying compassionate compensation is a moral hazard.]

A single party can't represent all views

Apr 8, 2011 PRIME Minister Lee Hsien Loong's argument that 'if the PAP can't assemble a second team, I don't think the opposition will find it easier' shows a misunderstanding of multi-party democracy ('Not enough talent for two A teams'; yesterday).

It is not the job of the ruling party to assemble a second 'A team' - it is the opposition's. A two-party system is not about providing just two competent teams but also two different policy options.

Voters would not simply want two 'A teams', each with similarly impressive credentials but from the same party and holding largely similar views.

The point is to have two 'A teams' that represent different views and needs of constituents. The dialogue of these multiple viewpoints in Parliament is what refines national policy, ensuring all sectors of society have their interests considered.

Scarcity of talent is a poor argument for not having a multi-party system. No one party can presume to speak for the needs and views of the entire populace. In the last general election, the People's Action Party (PAP) garnered only 66 per cent of the vote. This means there is a sizeable minority of the population wishing to be represented by a different voice in Parliament.

The PAP may call itself a 'pragmatic party' that is 'ready to take in good ideas', but being pragmatic does not mean it does not have its own underlying ideologies and principles - meritocracy, for instance.

[I understand the point, and I understand the problem. Saying the PAP has an ideology such as "meritocracy" is like saying the PAP have an ideology like "rationality", or "fairness". What I mean by understanding the problem is that a two party system requires -- no, practically demands ideological absolutes. One pro-life. One pro-choice. One for hands-off govt, one for govt intervention. But PAP is not ideological except for its stand on integrity (non-corruptibility), and meritocracy. How does one take a viable stand against those position.]

However open a party may be to new ideas and differing opinions, it has its own party line to toe and cannot possibly stand for a plurality of viewpoints, especially when they are contradictory. Voters would be unreasonable to expect a single party to represent all viewpoints; that is why we have multiple parties.

[Yes, there will always be multiple viewpoints. What does that mean politically? This is what happens in the US: When the democrats are in power, businesses are tax, and welfare is provided. Then a few years later the republicans take over and reverse the policies... and then some. Then the democrats come back, reinstate their policies, reverse other new policies enacted by the GOP, etc. Two steps forward, 3 steps back. Legalise abortion, cut funding to planned parenthood. Allow gay marriages. Cancel it. Does this remind you of our northern neighbours political decisions and announcements?

The solution to this is to based policies not on ideology, religion, faith or even philosophy, but on rational consideration of the facts and the effects. Which is not to say that policies have not changed under the PAP. From family planning to pro-marriage and fertility. From no casino to two IRs. But such reversals are publicly discussed and all views are aired. There were strong religious resistance to the IRs, but secular reasoning prevailed, despite the presence of some religious people in the Cabinet.]

It would also be wrong to characterise the job of the parliamentary opposition as 'waiting and watching just in case the PAP screws up'.

[PM Lee was not saying the role of the opposition was to watch and wait. His example was of someone who is competent, talented and wants to contribute. He can either join the PAP and start contributing immediately, or join the opposition and wait for the PAP to fail so that he can start to make policies.]

The very point of the multi-party system is that opposition politicians, though not forming the government, can still contribute to policy discussion and refinement in a very real way, which is through Parliament.

[Idealistic at best. Look at the US with its mature two-party system. Opposition obstructionist tactics do not "refine" policies or bills. They weaken, distort, dilute, and divert efforts and initiatives leading to compromise that waste time and resources. The US govt will shut down on Friday (Sat noon SG time) because their partisan and gridlocked Congress cannot agree on the budget.

Realistically, opposition can raise discussion on issues, and if in the course of the discussion, the PAP or ruling party fails to answer to the satisfaction of the people, this can be pointed out during election to remind the people of the inadequate response of the ruling party and perhaps persuade the people that it is grounds to vote out the party.

But if that is the role, then NCMP and NMPs can perform just as well if not better. I always felt that Siew Kum Hong and Walter Woon were great NMPs and perform better than opposition MPs.]

The parliamentary opposition's raison d'etre goes far beyond whether the ruling party 'screws up' or not. So long as there are different views in society and voters who do not wish to be represented by the ruling party, there is a need for more than one party in Parliament.

Michael Cyssel Wee

[Let's just say I disagree. Not every view is worth a party. Some views are so narrow, they become one dimensional caricatures. Some views are temporary. Some views are irrational. Some are misguided or dumb.]

Minister's Salary - The Price of Honesty?

Apr 2, 2011

Pricing honesty misses larger concerns

THE reasons cited by Mr Kanagasabai Haridas to support ministerial salaries miss the larger concerns of many Singaporeans ('Singapore has priced honesty correctly'; last Saturday).

Mr Haridas states that financial incentives are necessary to entice leaders because we are a young country.

Singapore will always be young compared to others with a long history. Does that mean financial incentives will always be necessary?

Even if we view youth as an absolute value, at what age can we wean ourselves off financial incentives?

Just as we would not teach our children that wealth is all that matters, we should not entrench the pursuit of financial incentives in political office.

Second, Mr Haridas argues that the extended political life of a minister in Singapore makes it necessary to pay honest ones sufficiently.

The thinking that ministers must be rewarded handsomely if we want them to serve honestly is not the way a government should operate. The political lifespan of a minister should instead depend on the people's mandate via free elections.

Third, Mr Haridas suggests that only those who have already made their fortune can afford to serve their country out of conviction alone.

Such a view perverts a minister's responsibility to dedicate himself to the betterment of the lives of the people, and not seek office for monetary gain.

Finally, Mr Haridas notes that ministers do not have a lucrative lecture circuit after their political career.

This statement assumes that the ultimate reward for serving the people is wealth. It ignores the satisfaction gained from knowing that the people have been served well, and that the country has been steered in the right direction.

It also ignores the respect the people have for a minister who has selflessly served them.

The first priority for ministers anywhere is to serve the people and the country.

Tim Mou Hui


Mar 26, 2011
Singapore has priced honesty correctly

AS THE general election looms, ministerial salaries are once again being discussed with renewed vigour on various Internet platforms.

My view is that the current pay structure is appropriate for Singapore simply because it is the price of honesty.

We have had a government ranked among the highest for being corruption-free. There is certainly no need to grease any wheels in Singapore to get things done: That validates the strategy of pricing 'honesty' appropriately.

Of course, this then begs the question why the price of honesty is so much lower in other comparable countries with a relatively honest government. Surely, the price in such countries should not be vastly different compared to Singapore? There are, however, several plausible reasons for this divergence.

# First, we are still a young country and we have a long way to go before we create a solid identity and a deep sense of belonging that will act as a counterweight for financial-related benefits. This will come only with time.

# Second, the turnover of ministers in comparable countries is relatively much faster compared to Singapore, where a minister can be in the Cabinet for decades with no fixed term limit.

When you stretch the political life of a minister that much longer, the price of honesty via remuneration must be greater to ensure that the government remains, well, honest and incorruptible.

# Third, the candidates who enter politics, as is often seen in countries like the United States, may have already made their fortune, as in the case of former US treasury secretary Hank Paulson, who was chief executive officer of premier investment house Goldman Sachs before he joined the White House Cabinet.

Such holders of high office can afford to serve their country out of conviction alone.

Yet others may enter government early with the long-term aim of leveraging on the experience and influence they so gather when they leave to join the private sector.

Singapore does not offer such luxuries because we are a small country with a small pool of talent that can be considered for key government positions.

# Lastly, Singapore ministers or prime ministers do not have a lucrative lecture circuit that they can embark on at the end of their political careers like some of their counterparts elsewhere.

Kanagasabai Haridas
Denver, Colorado

[These are two civil, mostly thoughtful letters with valid if incorrect concerns.

Let's get the usual quotes and corollaries out of the way: Power tends to corrupt and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. Power attracts the corruptible. And my own thoughts: "The real power tends to ensure that the nominal power positions are taken by those they can influence and corrupt to their own advantage."

What do I mean?

If you are making $5m a year as a CEO or a professional (lawyer, doctor, banker) all you really want is to be left alone to continue to make your money not simply for yourself, but to ensure that your family is well provided for.

What you want is a stable environment to work and raise your family. You want this to cost you as little as possible.
And you want to be left alone to do your work.

For this to happen there is a need for stable government. Maybe even good government.

If ministers salaries are say $100,000 a year, you can expect that very few professionals at the top of their career will want to make the sacrifice. Why should they? They would rather find someone they can influence, and finance their political campaign so they they "own" them and can influence if not control them when they are in power.

Or if they do take up the political leadership, it is so that they can directly plunder the resources of the country, or use their power to corruptly fleece the citizenry.

So look at the world.

There are some countries where the corrupt are in power, because that's the best way to control the natural resources of the country and channel revenues into their own pockets. Gaddafi in Libya is one.

There are other countries where businesses finance politicians in order to ensure that their politicians get into power and can be pro-business. The Republicans in the USA are basically that. Look up John Boehner and his connection to businesses.

In either cases, the actual salary from their political position can be very modest. But their lifestyle shows that they have alternative, possibly undisclosed income.

The US President's salary is like $400,000. But to get elected, they are willing to spend HALF A BILLION for their campaign. EACH! Why? To do volunteer service? Give back to the country? It takes a multi-millionaire to run for president or at least someone with serious backing from rich people or corporations. Hilary Clinton spend millions of her own money to try to get the Democratic Party's nomination for presidential candidate.

(Afternote: For our Presidential Elections, for the over 2 million voters, the candidates spent a total of just over $1.3m, or about 65 cents per vote. )

So which is the corruption in Singapore. Are the leaders accumulating wealth from our natural resources? We are blessed with no natural resources. Have they been bought by the rich and wealthy? If they have there will be signs.

In the US, the rich corporations get lots of tax loopholes. Are there any here?
In M'sia and other corrupt govts, the usual suspects get all the govt contracts often by closed tender or direct awarding of the tender. Is this done here?

The answer is no. Singapore is clean by independent assessment. Transparency International Corruption Perception Index lists Singapore, Denmark and New Zealand as the 3 countries with the highest rating (i.e. least corrupt) of 9.3.

So it is not about young or old country. It is about clean govt, properly priced.]

Update Jul 2013: Latest CPI:
http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2012/results/
Singapore ranked 5, with score of 87.

Stop meddling in Libya

Apr 4, 2011

JUST like the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the world is again witnessing another illegal invasion spearheaded by the United States.

[Illegal? No. It was UN sanctioned at the request of Libyans.]

Is this act of aggression justified? While the US and its allies may point to the United Nations' mandate as justification for their actions, often, they use the carrot and stick approach to persuade smaller, more vulnerable, non-permanent members of the UN Security Council to vote in their favour. It is all too easy to get countries like Lebanon, Gabon, Colombia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Nigeria to vote in favour of the UN resolution in exchange for "goodies".

In contrast, it is interesting to note that the five abstaining countries - China, India, Brazil, Germany and Russia - are larger countries that can withstand the pressure from the US and its allies to vote in favour. Together, the abstaining countries make up almost half the world's population. And yet, they are powerless to stop the mindless aggression unleashed against Libya by the US and its allies.

[Or perhaps for countries like Bosnia, Nigeria et al, the plea for help to prevent violence and genocide is one they can readily identify with because of their history? Perhaps they wish there were outside help for them?

As for the abstainers, China will of course object to any foreign intervention even at the request of the citizens under attack by the leader. Do you remember Tiananmen Square? If China approves of such action, they open themselves to such options if ever they need to clamp down or use violence on protesters in their cities, or in Tibet, or Mongolia, or any other restive province. Same for Russia.]

The 2003 invasion of Iraq has been shown to be an illegal act of aggression that resulted in the unnecessary and brutal deaths of at least a million Iraqis. No weapons of mass destruction have been found in the country. The US had deliberately misled the rest of the world in order to pursue its personal agenda of overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Sadly, we are now seeing the same scenario unfold in Libya.

Where is the evidence that Colonel Muammar Gaddafi is massacring civilians as claimed by the US and its allies?

[See story below. Open your eyes. Read widely. And not just from US Conservative media. So what lies are you claiming the US are telling now?]

The real agenda here is the removal of Col Gaddafi himself (under the guise of supporting the Libyan people in their fight for more democracy) because he has been a thorn in the side of US designs in the area for years, given his consistent opposition to US policies.

The US and her allies must stop meddling in Libya's internal situation. Real change for the country must come from within, not without.

Siow Jia Rui

[So why are you writing to the ST? You are uninformed, misinformed, and biased. I do not even see the point of your letter. Unless you believe the ST is an agent of the US.]

Apr 4, 2011

Ship brings rare glimpse of Libya's bloodiest front

BENGHAZI (Libya) - THE wounded men on the aid ship from the besieged city of Misrata, most of them torn apart by shrapnel and bullets, tell of the bloodiest front in the revolt against Libya's Muammar Gaddafi.

They speak of a city under lockdown that has gone weeks without electricity or running water, where snipers have cleared the centre and mortar rounds and rockets rain down at random on residents huddled inside their homes.

The more than 250 patients were brought on Sunday to the rebel port of Benghazi on board a Turkish aid ship, which was to pick up another 100 or so wounded people from the eastern front before steaming on to the Turkish port of Cesme.

On board, a pale Mohammed Muftah, 34, describes how he was sitting at home on a quiet Friday morning when a barrage of mortar rounds fired by Gaddafi's forces slammed into his residential neighbourhood.

'They killed entire families, women. I have a neighbour who lost his wife and his three children,' he said. 'They did it just to terrorise people.' Mr Muftah has shrapnel wounds up and down his legs and in his back and neck, but soon he will receive further treatment in Turkey. His wife and six children are still in Misrata.

Mohammed Ahmed, who sits on the mattress next to his, has a thick bandage around his right arm with surgical pins sticking out. He was standing outside his home with friends and neighbours when a mortar bomb exploded next to them, the shrapnel killing six of his neighbours and carving off most of his upper arm. 'The doctor said it's serious... it's down to the bone,' he said. 'I'm with the revolution, but I don't have a gun,' he said, as tears streamed down his face and his voice broke into sobs. -- AFP

[If the US wanted to illegally invade Libya, they had reason or excuse over a month ago.]

http://theweek.com/article/index/212363/violence-in-libya-should-the-world-intervene

Are high-rises in S'pore quake-proof?

Apr 3, 2011
YOUR LETTERS

Last Sunday's article, '1,200 buildings in Bangkok 'at risk'', made me wonder how safe Singapore's high-rise buildings are, especially in the light of recent earthquakes in Japan, New Zealand and Myanmar.

I am curious to know if the Government has looked into and evaluated the robustness of the structures of the many high-rise buildings here.

Are these quake-proof?

Singapore has experienced light tremors arising from quakes in Indonesia in the past, and although it has no record of natural disasters, nothing is certain now.

If a natural disaster were to occur unexpectedly, will Singapore be ready? I worry that we may be taking our safety for granted.

Sharon Lo (Miss)

[You're RIGHT! the buildings in Singapore are NOT quake-proof! RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!!!

Is she gone? Good. One less stupid person in Singapore.

But the Forum Page Editor is still making money being stupid.]

MPs should focus on national issues

Apr 1, 2011

THE parade of candidates for the upcoming general election has begun and they all pledge to serve their constituencies.
What has been left unsaid is their opinion on national issues.
Are we voting for local municipal councillors or parliamentarians?
Local councillors focus on neighbourhood matters while parliamentarians have a duty to address greater matters of state.
Are our candidates satisfied merely with ensuring that their housing estates are clean and the lifts are working, and writing letters on their constituents' behalf?
If that is so, why would we need so many Members of Parliament? Why not a separate slate of local councillors?
Our parliamentary sittings are a bare minimum and done with swift dispensation that suggests more of going through the formalities.
Question time is limited and speeches have been shortened. Given the increased number of MPs, some may not be able to speak or present their views.
Parliament is the country's highest institution. There are many issues of a higher order that challenge Singapore - from population policies to housing and cost of living, and the nature of our society.
Where does each candidate stand on key issues? We should do away with a general election if it is merely aimed at electing a cohort of like-minded MPs.
Parliament should be reserved for politicians who can envision the nation's future, challenge the status quo, influence policies, effect change, and dwell on the larger issues at stake.
Singapore has been blessed with good, honest and capable government, but there is no guarantee that this will always be the case.
Changes made to constituencies and Parliament have over the years been more designed to entrench an existing government than to allow for change.
A good, fair, honest and effective government need not fear losing an election. In fact, any fear of losing its privilege to govern should spur it to remain so.
Michael Seah

[What a load.

This letter writer is simplistic, naive, idealistic, and uninformed.
The MPs are your representatives. The American revolution ran on this slogan: no taxation without representation. The PAP strive to provide a wide range of representatives to represent Singaporeans of all diversity: the young, the old, the various ethnicities, and the different languages, religions and cultures. You want less of them?
From the MPs are drawn the Ministers. These are the ones focusing on the national policies. But lest they end up myopic or cross-eyed, there are also Government Parliamentary Committees which are drawn from the MPs. These GPCs study, examine, scrutinise the policies of the respective ministries for effectiveness, accountability, relevance, and perhaps even value for money.

But the reality is that given the chance, our MPs will become less diverse.
When Chiam See Tong was contesting against Mah Bow Tan, MM Lee (then PM) campaigned for Mah. He compared Mah's brilliant scholastic achievement vs Chiam's "late bloomer" life. Big mistake. Chiam was a grassroot MP, who had worked to build up his support base. Mah only had the branding of the PAP. The people of Potong Pasir voted for Chiam and that was history.

Look at the opposition MPs - Chiam, Low, and in the 1991 election, Cheo (Chai Chen) and Ling (How Doong). These are all grassroots/ heartlanders MP. Low's ace is his ability to connect with the people in Teochew. Ling or Cheo (can't recall which, or maybe both) have "gutter mouth" and used less than polite language in Parliament when they were not campaigning in dialect. Chiam is a man of the people. Even JBJ was respected for championing the common man/heartlanders.

This has forced PAP to ensure that the heartlanders are represented by the likes of Ang Mong Seng, Seng Han Thong, etc. But the PAP also need "brains". Very few MP/Minister can be like Khaw - a man of the people, as well as smart. So the GRC is probably as much to ensure that the "brains" are paired with the "grassroots/heartlander" as well as the minority.
Without the GRC, we would ALL be represented by Chinese, dialect/mandarin-speaking heartlanders MP from PAP as well as the opposition. And our parliament will become like Taiwan.

Kenneth Jeyaratnam will probably not win. He's not his father. Chee also can never win. He has a bloody stupid accent. Probably can't speak dialect or even mandarin. SDP's new recruits, Vincent Cheng and Fernandez are also not heartlander types and old to boot. Sylvia Lim would make a good opposition MP and I hope she looks for a vulnerable SMC and wins the seat. *BUT*, I also don't think she can win because she doesn't have the heartlander appeal. A bit too "atas".

Interestingly, if PAP allows Michael Palmer to stand in an SMC and he *wins*, I will be pleasantly surprised. 

So the suggestion that an honest effective govt need not fear losing is a load of bull. People vote for who they think they can bend, if not corrupt.
They want MPs they can "trust", and by "trust" they mean speak their language, understand and share their fears and help them protect what they have. That is why Mah lost to Chiam. Chaim was someone they could identify with. Mah is a scholar, an elite and may not identify with them.
In other countries, those who can, do; those who can't, teach; and those who can't neither do nor teach, become politicians and peddle their influence to whoever can pay them best. In SG, those who can govern, should govern, are deliberately chosen to govern, and are paid well to govern, because if they are not, they would go back to doing what they do best because they can.]