Ivangate: The PAP Are What They Practise Most

“You are what you practise most.” Richard Carlson, author, “Don’t Sweat the Small Stuff”

We can only wish for Ivan Lim to do some clear soul-searching of what should be a life-defining episode. Given that he brought his family and mother into the picture, we sincerely hope that, if not for himself then for their sakes, he will change – unless, of course, his character flaws exposed are ‘baseless’ as he claims. Only he knows. Maybe.

With the GE looming, we turn our attention to understand the responses of those who introduced Ivan to us voters.

Masagos Zulkifli’s
Bear in mind that Masagos is the minister who considered those who, out of concern, petitioned for home-based food-business to be allowed during the recent lockdown as “inciting”.

The vice-chairman of PAP, he was the first to respond to the online revelations about Ivan. He said, “it is important for the candidates who may have been alleged to be something or other, to also prove themselves,”

What? When people who are prepared to come forward as eyewitnesses state publicly what they witnessed about Ivan, are those not credible enough to take a step back instead of appear to defend your party’s choice?

“(It is) also an opportunity for them, if they have done something in the past, to redeem themselves.”

We have here a very senior PAP leader basically revealing that his party is entitled to use the time in parliament not to chiefly serve the electorate but for their successful MP candidates to redeem themselves, to ‘compensate for” their known, past faults of character.

Ho Ching’s
Here, the dowager must poke her nose into the then fast-developing Ivangate. She shared a 26 Jun FB post about the episode.

Her indirect message was to compare netizens’ mocking of Tan Pei Ling and Chan Chun Seng’s faux pas and their subsequent credible performance.

Yep, the woman sitting atop investment decisions using our hard earned money while earning untold state-secret salary and bonuses appear unable to differentiate between an individual’s deep character flaws (verified by more than just one or two eyewitnesses) and faux pas.

Or could it be also that the dowager had a hand in recommending and approving Ivan’s candidacy?

Heng Swee Keat’s response
To his credit but also given that he had more info as Ivangate gained greater traction by 27 Jun, he shrewdly called for Ivan to “address criticisms”.

He said he “would like to reach out to them (Ivan’s accusers) to understand better what exactly happened”. That is now postponed and remains to be seen if it is but a promise to be forgotten after the GE dust settles.

Lee Hsien Loong’s response
In accepting Ivan’s candidacy withdrawal, Lee said, “Ideally, there would have been a fair and deliberate consideration of these allegations.” Fair-minded people will not disagree with the PM’s view. We also agree that the allegations have eclipsed “the serious life and death issues we must grapple with”.

Unfortunately, the preceding 2 remarks are problematic since Ivan has been on Lee’s own personal radar since Aug 2018, when the PM singled Ivan out for praise during his National Rally speech. 2 years. And your PAP’s vaunted selection processes are found wanting over your candidate’s character that will impact on serious life and death issues?

Whilst much of what he said (on 29 Jun) are valid he couldn’t help fudging the issue with assertions of “trial by Internet” and people “simply write off and destroy people like that”.

They Are What They Practise
Firstly, Masagos’ response tells us that the PAP feels entitled. Were an Opposition party to say the same as Masogos, that their alleged character-deficient candidate will have the opportunity to prove or redeem themselves after being elected to Parliament, all hell will break lose with PAP bringing out their strongest condemnation. But if its PAP’s candidates, then they are entitled to use their elected office to “redeem” themselves – at voters’ expense.

Secondly, we have a dowager who cannot differentiate between alleged character flaws exposed by named, not one but a handful, witnesses who related specific events to back up their criticism. Well, good luck to all of us CPFers whose money are being used to let the dowager play with and whose salaries we still do not know.

Lastly, as the PM himself demonstrated yet again, PAP has the deceptive habit of framing a situation to fit their own narratives instead of accepting the plain reality. He simply pronounced Ivangate to be a “trial by internet” and that the named witnesses and others against Ivan “simply write off and destroy” Ivan.

Likewise, recently Grace Fu characterised citizens’ calling out the illegal behaviour of expats bar-hopping around Robertson Quay as a “visceral reaction”, implying xenophobia when law-abiding citizens raised legitimate concerns. Well, the PAP-appointed judge has found them guilty. And, her colleague, Jos Teo at MOM sent almost all the guilty ones packing, never ever to return to work in SG. Why policy-execute on “visceral reactions”?

Back to PM Lee’s assertion. Here witnesses against Ivan have stated their genuine concerns (with one Linus Chia prefacing, “when the stakes are so high”) of Ivan’s past behaviour being a mis-fit for an aspiring MP who has to be truly concerned for those they claim to want to serve.

How is that a “trial by internet” and “write off and destroy” Ivan? Does Loong expect witnesses to send letters or use a loud hailer? Did the witnesses seek to reveal relevant facts to inform fellow citizens or to explicitly destroy that, eh, “SOB” (…..a term or such that was never used by any witness)?

Voters, please compare the sweet words or the PAP and the ways and repeated default reactions to citizens’ concerns by the highest leadership within the PAP.

They are what they practise most. Not. What. They Say.

Ho Ching’s Salary: Hidden Fact = Open Falsehood?

In any country and business, a boss/owner will know — or has the unfettered right to know — the salaries of all his employees. The management who are appointed to manage state resources, invest tax monies, and citizens’ hard earned life savings are therefore, to all intents and purposes, the citizens’ employees.

Like Norwegians or Malaysians, Singaporeans as citizens of a democratic country, collectively own every cent of the country’s commingled reserves, surpluses and CPF monies there are at any time.

Temasek Holdings (Temasek) was incorporated on 25 June 1974 to manage its investments in government-linked companies (GLCs). Temasek is wholly owned by the Minister for Finance.

Ho Ching, wife of Lee Hsien Loong, the current prime minister of Singapore, was appointed the company’s executive director on 1 May 2002, and has served concurrently as chief executive officer since 2004. As of 2019, it manages S$313 billion of funds and assets.

Given that it is a sovereign wealth fund, why do we even have to ask how much Ho is paid for her services? Particularly since it’s a piece of information that poses absolutely no existential threat to the country.

There are two separate but related issues here.

First, there is the issue of the plain vanilla information on her full compensation. Secondly, whether her salary is justified.

On the first point, I repeat, it is our citizens’ right to know the kind of money we are paying our manager-employees. After all it is not her own or her mother’s or mother-in-law‘s money, nor is it her husband’s.

As to the second, I don’t think Ho’s annual salary is S$100mil. If it is, then we are all suckers to pay for her level of talent (not that she hasn’t any) compared to those in similar roles.

But given all the obfuscations through all these many years on the matter, the likelihood of her true remuneration has invariably become a political hot potato. Which may be basically why the People’s Action Party (PAP) administration refuses to come clean with the exact figures.

The Gold Standard of Sovereign Fund Management: Norway Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG)

To compare apples with apples, let’s look at Norway with a population of 5.54 mil and a GDP of USD$417.6 bil (S$589.6 bil) (2019) while Singapore has a population of about 5.8 million and a GDP of USD$362.8 bil (S$512.3 bil).

The GPFG is a Norwegian fund into which the surplus wealth produced by Norwegian petroleum income is deposited and not pension contributions. The Petroleum Fund was established in 1990 after a decision by the country’s legislature to counter the effects of the forthcoming decline in income and to smooth out the disruptive effects of highly fluctuating oil prices.

Here’s the relevant information that any Norwegian or anyone on earth can freely access from the GPFG 2019 Annual Report (AR):

• Total value of fund managed: approx US$1 trillion (10.088 tril kroner at the end of 2019)
• Total returns 2019: US$164 billion (19.9% profit) vs US$47 bil losses (6.12% loss in 2018)

Feel free to read through the very clear and easy-to-understand information in the AR here.

Now, the interesting part that relates to Ho Ching’s very, very state-secret-level salary information. It’s noteworthy that it is not only the CEO’s but all the key managers remuneration details that are published for the whole world to go through with a fine-toothed comb.

On page 93 of the AR under Management Cost, we see this table:

As clearly shown, Mr Yngve Slyngstad, CEO of GPFG, draws an obscenely modest salary of 6,721,094 Norway kroners (S$930,000) per year for his leadership over a 10.088 tril kroner fund (S$1.38 tril).

For the record, Mr Slyngstad holds 4 Masters in Law, Economics, Biz Mgt & Political Science and more than 10 years in investment and equity management prior to his CEO appointment 1 Jan 2008. He is supported by a team with impressive and role/sector-relevant backgrounds. Without exception, ALL the key executives come with sterling academic and real world experience relevant to the portfolios they have been assigned.

You should be interested — and deeply concerned — to find out if the same is true of Temasek.

So, my fellow Singaporeans, however the PAP government tries to justify hiding the information from us, please ask yourselves why Norway is capable of being upfront and uncovered with her citizens whose money the GPFG manages for their benefit.

Remember this, “Hiding the truth that we are entitled to is no different from openly lying to us.”

We won’t be getting straight answers unless and until we vote more opposition MPs (credible ones) into parliament to end the PAP’s total dominance. Otherwise, they can and will ride roughshod over our legit concerns and questions and treat the parliament like their own private Members Only Club on reality TV for our entertainment — paid for with our insufficient provident funds to retire with.

By the way, Mr Slyngstad has resigned from GPFG  effective of end-Aug 2020. Maybe, we should petition that Mr Slyngstad be head-hunted at 3 times his last salary?

O Josephine! Queen of Spin!

New Zealanders have J Ardern, the Queen of Political Syn- (prefix: acting or considered together; united). Singaporeans are blessed with J Teo, our Queen of Political Spin. With Ardern, her leadership (@ USD326,000/yr) gave her citizens an early, decisive hard lockdown but rewarded them with the earliest return to normality this CoVid19 season – and accolades aplenty worldwide. While with Teo (@ USD1,000,000/yr salary, it was work-in-regress followed by work-in-progress costing taxpayers not-to-be-disclosed $billions…..and counting.

Before we discuss her majesty’s spin, let’s first remind ourselves of her foot-in-mouth utterances

“That’s why our ability to respond when things don’t go as well as we would like them to, has been affected. Sometimes we also scratch our heads and say: ‘Why are people so angry?’” [Straits Times, 11 Jan 2014]…..as if our justified anger would hinder this government’s delicate ability to respond to issues.

“You need a very small space to have sex.”[Straits Times, , 12 Oct 2016] Duh.

In her BBC appearance, Jos asserted, “There are in Southeast Asia alone about 10 million migrant workers. A fraction of them in Singapore. We’re not perfect but we do what we can,” she said. Sounds very reasonable.

Last I checked, there are 622 mil people in ASEAN. Singapore has 5.8 mil residents. Teo asserted SG has only a fraction Of the 10mil, or 400k. Or 1/25, oh yea, only a fraction. But on a per 1000 basis, we have about 68.7 Foreign Workers per 1000 residents. Compared to less than 15.6 for the rest of ASEAN residents.

In other words, Teo could have also said that her government is intoxicated with exploiting cheap foreign labourers to the tune of 4.4 times our neighbours.

Her majesty spins a fine yarn of math and statistics.

Today (4 May) in parliament, she now claims, “Throughout this period, migrant workers were also on our radar,” said Teo.

Her subtext is, she has foresight and effort to show for. Don’t we all appreciate her hardwork? But, wait a second, didn’t Lawrence Wong plead on 9 April, “Unfortunately, we do not have the luxury of the benefit of hindsight,”? So, who are we to believe? The Spin Queen?

In the private sector, key managers are paid for results, neither for their plans nor their efforts. If she dares to take home her private-sector $mil salary, it’s only right to hold her performance by her results or lack thereof.

I save the best for last. At a 21 Apr news conference she said, “And it is important for us to recognise this (question of FWs’ livelihood and what is necessary to break the transmission) and not frame this really from a cost viewpoint and as a result conclude that we didn’t undertake these measures earlier only because of cost.”

Her subtext is, she’s a deep thinker, circumspect and thorough and humane.

In any business scenario planning – and in matters of national gravity, it should be no less if not more important – a manager has to come forward with the total projected costs of taking preemptive action versus costs needed to deal with the consequences of inaction or ineffective action.

So, with the FWs CoVid19 situation, that would be the taxpayers money spent to take preemptive action to pay their salaries, waive their levies and be able to re-house  and feed them at the same venues and facilities that would have to be used if and when the infection spread, as is now the case. But the setting up of those venues and facilities would have been done at a measured pace – without the urgency for which contractors would demand and extract  a price premium – at taxpayers’ expense.

And apart from the quantifiable monetary costs, imagine the immeasurable value of what the free, glowing international publicity the PAP so craved for will be now. Instead, SG is being reported as shamefully exploitative of poor Third World labourers, dropping the ball and bluntly – and rightly – told to “cut back on the back-patting”.

Teo can spin however hard and fast she wants but a closer examination of the details shows up her yarn of hollow, self-serving, Party-serving sound bites that come back to bite her, her PAP and, sadly, Singaporean taxpayers pockets.

Regrettably, unless Singapore voters vote in more non-PAP MPs into parliament, Teo will simply brush aside ALL calls by Opposition MPs for the comparative full cost details between what is now done to manage the FW CoVid19 infection and acting preemptively to minimise infection amongst our FWs.

Covid19 Measures vs Personal Data Protection Act

The media reports today that “According to a Telegram and WhatsApp message sent out by the Government on Thursday morning, those intending to visit supermarkets, shopping malls or wet markets should bring their NRIC or other official photo identification with a barcode for scanning, such as a driving licence.”

The first reported requirement to bring one’s NRIC for entry into certain markets was to manage the size of shoppers at certain wet markets. NRICs ending with even or odd numbers are allowed entry only on corresponding even or odd dates of the month.

Typically, the PAP government, so used to doing things their self-proclaimed decisive way simply made the announcement for the requirement to take immediate effect. In so doing, the government conveniently disregarded the very laws that they have themselves voted in parliament to enact.

I am referring to the Personal Data Protection Act 2012.  According to Sect 62 of the Act, “62.  The Commission may, with the approval of the Minister, by order published in the Gazette, exempt any person or organisation or any class of persons or organisations from all or any of the provisions of this Act, subject to such terms or conditions as may be specified in the order.”

As a layman, I understand that to mean that The Info‑communications Media Development Authority as the designated Personal Data Protection Commission has to ‘publish in the Gazette’ exemptions or suspension of the provisions in the PDPA. As far as I am aware, none has been published. If I’m mistaken on the above 2 counts, I stand corrected.

There are 3 observations in this development relevant to us as citizens;

1. It has become part of the PAP leaders’ nature, so ensconced as they are in their total dominance of the parliament for so long, to do whatever they please however they want whenever they wish with total disregard to even the very laws that they have enacted by their total dominance of parliamentary proceedings.
   Yes, we live in extraordinary Covid19 times. But no, it is all the more important that the law must be religiously followed. Just ask Shanmugam.

   Oh, maybe, it’s just an oversight….Perhaps, so….As with the many oversights we have been witnessing on the part of these self-vaunting leaders.

2. Citizens do well to take note how commercial entities take the lead from the government’s behaviour.Commercial entities like NTUC Fairprice, Sheng Siong, Giant, Cold Storage have simply to announce that they will insist on capturing your NRIC details. No ifs, no buts. Citizens, like “sheeples”, will just as simplistically comply – without so much as a whimper of a query, “But why must we give you NRIC details?”
   As an aside, remember back when (2014?) the Govt increased ad valorem tax from 44 to 66 cents and the petrol pump price went up by not the additional 22 cents but by 26 cents (or something close)? Which other companies having been screwing us all?

   The economic term is ‘rent-seeking‘. Particularly in the last 20 years since Goh Chok Tong became PM, we have all been screwed big time by this government and commercial entities, the latter courtesy of the former’s leadership behaviour.

3. The final observation I’d like to make is this:
   

I am sure that the PAP leaders (with the help of compliant civil servants) are spinning their oversights during this Covid19 crisis to polish their own reputation. Well, two can play the game.

I urge my fellow citizens to open up their eyes to observe, their ears to listen, their minds to absorb and, not least, open up their mouths to share how this crisis is showing up the very nature of the PAP leaders camouflaged as it is by a veneer of claim for Singaporeans interests. In truth, it is trying to do everything they can using our tax money to ensure they win big the next GE. The way to make a change is to share your observations with your circle of contacts who are likely PAP supporters or fence-sitters in order to influence their votes. Not your fellow “choir members”.

Hey, they even rope in the PM’s wife to sell and/or reinforce their marketing efforts – using her working hours paid for by taxpayer, no less.

Law

 

Singapore Schools Stay Open: Is My Child Expendable?

So, by and by, Singapore now reports our first CoVid19-infected young student at Palm View Primary School in Sengkang today, a mere 8 days into the new school term. This, after education minister Ong insisted that it’s the better decision not to close our schools. This, after the majority of concerned parents gave honest responses to dissuade him via his FB post had all their views deleted to be magically replaced by supportive ones. (Read here and here.)

Singaporeans should have been conditioned by now with PAP ministers sagely talking about “trade-offs” whenever tough decisions are publicly discussed. In most cases, the PAP does what the Party already has decided, never mind what the people think (according to PAP’s founding Sec-gen own words).

A trade-off is a situational decision that involves diminishing or losing one quality, quantity or property of a set or design in return for gains in other aspects. In simple terms, a trade-off  is where one thing increases and another must decrease. (Wikipedia)

In Feb, Ong discussed the trade-offs for this CoVid19 situation. (Read here.) If we ask more deeply, we likely realise that his 2 given trade-offs, namely; being cooped up in school vs home and school status quo vs disruption to parents are rather lame and unsupported with actual quantitative info.

Like me, although I have no school-age children now, many concerned parents with kids must be wondering why the PAP ministers appear to act so decisively on some measures (that have as many cons vs pros as those for closing/opening schools) but so hesitant, even resistant, to heeding the calls of concerned parents to do right by them to, for goodness sake, be proactive, shut the schools!

Yes, before we lose one child to the virus.

Perhaps, like what happened with trade minister Chan CS, we wonder what “frank, closed-door discussion” where PAP ministers “do not mince…words when presenting hard truths and trade-offs” could be. 

Let us guess.

Is it because, similar to how they use our taxpayers’ hard-earned money to pay for Stay Home Notices accommodation and food at Sentosa Shangri-la Resort (note that those serving SHN are probably well-off travellers able to fly to USA or UK, not Ahmad, Anil or Ah Seng returning via ferry or budget air from Batam or Bangkok), PAP ministers pick and choose actions with a view to juicing up their brand image to the world at large? Walau! Where to find….only in PAP’s SG, fully-paid 5-star hotel and food for SHN!

Not saying all their decisions and actions are based on that motivation. But is the decision to keep our schools open and our children at risk in large groups (surely, much, much larger and in direct physical contact with others than if they e-learn at home) because ministers want to be able to boast come general election time, “We are the only country among First World nations able to continue with operating our schools – with no fatalities”?

Are we citizens so conditioned that we just trust everything they do, believing in their pure, goodness of heart with absolute zero political calculations?

Where is the leadership we so need that mirrors NY Governor Cuomo who publicly said his tackling the CoVid19 crisis is dictated by “my mother is not expendable, your mother is not expendable”?

 

Is your child expendable – as a trade-off to burnish PAP’s global reputation managing the CoVid19 crisis?

Workers’ Party Solo vs Opposition Unity: False Modesty and False Dilemma

On opposition unity, WP sec-gen, Pritam Singh, claims his party’s fundamental belief is to be “an opposition plays an important check and balance role and is an integral part of our parliamentary democracy, no matter which party is in Government and whoever is represented by the opposition.” Does he imply that other opposition parties exist for less honourable beliefs?

He continues, “To that end, our objective is not the destruction of our political opponents.”

He’s kidding, right?  Since “the destruction of our political opponents” is a non-starter for the mostly straggle-like opposition parties other than WP itself. Maybe he has pivoted from discussing Opposition Unity to take a potshot at PAP?

Then, “As a small political player in our landscape….” What false modesty is Pritam smoking? As the sole opposition party in parliament and the only one to beat PAP at the GRC game, he claims WP to be “a small…player”? Oh, please, Stop! imitating the false modesty of the PAP leaders and MPs.

WP is the biggest and the strongest, by far. No need to say anything about being small to justify what followed i.e. “the WP must get its political purpose right”.

So, what are WP’s reasons for trampling on opposition unity in Singapore? He references his ex-sec-gen Mr Low TK’s explanation during a 2013 by-election. If you care to read, here’s the link. I always doubted those were the real reasons behind Low making light of opposition unity.

My gut feel is, the WP believe they are the top opposition dog in the field. Theirs is a brand name to be protected. In Low’s calculus, linking WP with other opposition dilutes its brandname value for which, rightly so, he has invested huge costs to achieve. So, why let others hitch a ride? That is the party-selfish motivation to rubbish opposition unity – that WP will deny.

So to camouflage their “arrogance and dismissive(ness)” of other opposition parties (not all), WP creates a false dilemma on purpose – to mislead Singaporeans that it is not WP’s fault to go solo. It’s “an impossible goal” (Low’s words).

WP’s position, in effect, helps to perpetuate PAP’s total dominance in parliament and in politics.

It is a false dilemma to imply that all the opposition parties’ fundamental belief are so different (they are not) as to be irreconcilable. Just look to Malaysia where, hey, even parties formed along hard racial and religious lines, even leaders jailed previously join hands with their prosecutors in alliance to defeat the incumbent government – in its first attempt. That the Pakatan Harapan is now struggling as a united force is beside the point. They have achieved the ominous dominance of the party in power for too long. Against all odds, for the love of country, they set aside differences, came together to knock the dire trajectory upon which Malaysia might suffer a worse fate had Najib continued to rule.

Shouldn’t we also try to disrupt the PAP trajectory of GDP growth at all cost – to heck with increased income gap, the haves against the have-nots?

Further, Pritam is not being honest with Singaporeans in painting the binary possibilities of opposition unity. For one, there’s no need to go for unity by all opposition parties. If WP truly puts Singaporeans’ interest above their party brand parochial interest, they can segue  from Low’s arrogance and reach out to just the next 2, maybe 3 credible parties; perhaps, Tan Cheng Bock’s PSP and SDP. Disregard other opposition parties that serve mainly as vehicles for some individuals to look important helming a party. Others may have seen better days.

It’s time to get off your high horse, Mr Singh and do right by Singaporeans who are desperate to break up the indecent and abusive dominance of the PAP before it gets even harder, more disruptive and painful for our younger generation to do so down the line.

You owe it to Singaporeans and Singapore. Quit that hifalutin bull that Low spoke about. He has played his part very well. You are now the sec-gen. Convince your colleagues. Singapore deserves more from the WP.

Similarly, I urge the other opposition party leaders to leave your personal pride and agenda and allow WP to take the lead in this small step towards a semblance of unity – for the sake of your party’s stated democratic cause.

And, by the way, Pritam, if as you claim WP is a “small player” and you disdain opposition unity, what kind of humility can Singaporeans expect from you when you evolve into a “big player”? Wash the feet of your opposition colleagues?

Pritam, show some leadership and foresight where needed. WP is the current “big brother” of the opposition. As the “eldest”, you gather together those credible opposition parties in the house to form a focused opposition front, can you not see that Singaporeans will throw our weight behind you and frown against the other straggling opposition parties?

You will then be one more step closer to achieving better check and balance against the domineering PAP that has “lost its way”.

Just do it!

Out-of-Touch, Out-of-Depth MP Ong Teng Koon

Mr Ong Teng Koon, one of the GE2011 new MPs, was the son of Mr Ong Ah Heng, 67, ex-MP for Nee Soon Central. With such an old boys’ network, he just needed to ride on the coattails of one of the PAP ministers and into parliament he went.

Still, his is a sterling CV.

Occupation: Commodities trader with American financial-services firm Morgan Stanley. (2011)

Background: He graduated from the London School of Economics in 2001 with first-class honours in Economics, before obtaining a Master in Finance from Princeton University in 2003. He worked for Goldman Sachs in Chicago as a trader and joined Morgan Stanley in 2009.

From the reported engagement he had with PMD owners who were food delivery riders, here’s what we learn:-

First, he suggested bicycles. Ha ha ha…this LSE-cum-Princeton graduate, big-money commodity trade probably rides, if in fact he cycles, for recreation only. To relax, never to earn $5 to deliver food in Singapore. He appeared not to know that the base rates are $5 per trip or $9 per hour.

And, yes, he knows nothing about being scotched under a blazing Singapore sun and drenched in 96% daytime humidity.

And, oh, can anyone imagine cycling for 4-8 hours a workday to earn between $60-$120 – which Ong probably makes in 10-30 mins with his (at least) dual trader salary and MP incomes. Ong has no clue whatsoever.

Second, “GOOD JOBS FOR SINGAPOREANS!”, so claimed PM Lee (here), DPM Heng (here) and MOM Jo Teo (here). Ong was “prepared” with e21 and NTUC comrades ready to help with “good jobs”. Yes, why not become postmen???

Ong has probably not read “A Day in the life of a postman: Two slices of bread and a toilet break 12 hours of work”. And, for that matter, he was probably absent – or couldn’t register – when his parley colleague, Sim Ann shared how “SingPost’s postmen have to make between 35 and 45 doorstep parcel deliveries each day, apart from their respective regular mail loads.”

He came focused on getting e21 and NTUC to offer “good jobs for Ali, Anand and Ah Heng – “there are some postman jobs, I try to help you with the postman jobs“….Such a great job. you don’t want to work just 8 but 12 hours a day!

Mr Ong Teng Koon, despite his father appearing a sort-of regular heartlander chap who helped wrestled the Nee Soon seat from the Opposition in 1997, and claiming to accompany his pa on his MP rounds, never really understood the struggles of Mr GrabFood Everyman. And from his towering Morgan Stanley heights, how could he empathise with Ali, Anand and Ah Heng down in their depths?

But! Ladies and gentlemen of Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC and fellow Singaporeans, a hand for your out-of-touch, out-of-depth PAP Member of Parliament! If for nothing else than to try to speak Singlish to Ali, Anand and Ah Heng to “try to solve one case at a time lah” and for not thinking that “one solution everyone also can!” and, with apparent honesty, “we want to help you lah!”

Hey, Mr Ong, how about taking a portion of your MP salary to help Ali, Anand and Ah Heng instead of buying the replacement new iPhones or iPads for your children?

Can?

 

The Rise of Xeno-Apartheid in Singapore?

I have travelled to work with and observe how foreign managers based across Asian countries always treated their local subordinates and the general population with basic courtesy if not respect. It was no different in the 1980’s to early 2000’s even in Singapore.

Pedestrian foreigners on vacation will always make snide observations and have a run-in or two with locals. But no foreign manager working and living in Asia would dare to speak to an Indonesian or Thai or Malay or Filipino or Vietnamese even a Bruneian (let alone a China Chinese) worker the way Ramesh E (of JP Morgan) did to our fellow Singaporean security uncle doing his proper job assigned to him at 8 Riversuites.

So, what has happened to our beloved Singapore from the 1980’s when I first entered the workforce to today?

From the time Goh Keng Swee implemented the strategic policy to attract MNCs right up to the late 1990’s, the MNCs came with their home managers. Most would also be adequately vetted if not trained to be respectful of local cultures – and residents. And the MNCs would employ Singaporeans as mid-managers and usually, after some period of time, relinquished their top positions in favour of Singaporeans. I saw and experienced that firsthand.

By and by, Goh Chok Tong came to power and with the idea of creating “a mild Indian fever” in 1994. Not only did he start the process of enabling that in policy terms via CECA (the Sg-India FTA), reportedly negotiated by one Heng Eng Keat as then perm-sec of ministry of trade and industry, he went further in his 1997 National Day Speech announcing a formal “Foreign Talent Policy“.

Combined that with his “Asset Enhancement Scheme” launched in the early 1990’s (to blackmail more votes for PAP i.e. Vote PAP = Get HDB upgrading, Vote Opposition = You wait long long), Singaporeans got slowly stuck between higher HDB prices and lower salaries or less/no jobs with more “foreign talents” worming their way into the job market via super friendly MOM approval processes….and, in many cases, dubious connections and certificates.

The above 2 broad policies serve to do Singaporeans in – slowly. Singaporean PMETs end up with lower salaries or being under-employed – particularly if one is over 40 years old. That’s when, if you are married, you are straddled with servicing high mortgage and trying to raise your young children. Maybe, also feed aged parents with insufficient CPF savings.

Many of the older ones above 50 years end up with what ministers euphemistically call “good jobs” such as security officers, cleaners, Grab or cab or bus drivers or similar.

The younger, less academically-qualified are relegated to be Grab/Panda Food delivery boys.

As with any social-divide trends, it is our fellow citizens in the lower rungs of society who first suffer the collateral damage of policy overreach.

Remember Amy Cheong in 2012 belittling our Malay neighbours holding too many S$50/- weddings in Void Decks? Or Anton Casey in 2014 labelling our MRT riders “poor people”? And, in betwixt, the many cases of foreigners hurting our taxi uncles and public order servants – and getting away with what citizens perceived to be light-touch sentences and punishments compared to what citizens were likely to get for similar offences?

So, is it fair to see Ramesh E’s action as xeno-apartheid taking roots in Singapore? Not only did he abuse our security uncle verbally, he indirectly disparaged 90% of our citizens (well, maybe 70% with 20% FTs tenants) HDB heartlanders as lesser mortals than he in his $1.5 mil Riversuites Condo. Unless you belong to the elite class, which of us have in our daily lives not also encountered or heard similar xeno-apartheid incidences? 

Let our security uncle’s treatment by Ramesh E serve us to remind that today, it’s him, tomorrow – with the continued, unmitigated, unrelenting FT policy in force – the xeno-apartheid experience will rise slowly but surely to ensnare all of us holding on to jobs in service of or in subordination to foreigners in our midst.

Is it enlightened political leadership to sacrifice Singaporeans’ dignity at the golden calf of GDP growth at all costs?  What should voters do about that?

Law Kim Hwee

https://2econdsight.wordpress.com

GCT Imitates Trump’s Name-calling and Personal Attack

To read GCT’s latest FB post is shocking. Not unlike Trump’s tweets against those he often berates and insults, however much each has been loyal to him over many years – including his I’d-take-a-bullet-for-Trump personal lawyer.

We can be pretty certain that claiming Dr Tan Cheng Bock “has conveniently left out ‘For Me’! (yes, cap ‘M’ & ‘!’)” in his call for Singaporeans to come forward to “work together…for the progress of Singapore. For country, for people” is an unequivocal personal attack. A totally needless, unmitigated, uninstigated assault on Dr Tan’s integrity since the latter had spoken only about how the 2016 constitutional change to the PE and the 2017 Oxley Rd parliamentary debate led him to conclude that PAP is not what it was…(left unsaid) during LKYˊs or GCTˊs stewardship.
And likening Dr Tan to Don Quixote is no compliment even if the knight is motivated by chivalry. Quixote was deemed to have suffered “from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind” to the extent that he was wont to “attack imaginary enemies” (tilt at windmills).

And all these from Singapore’s very own, ex-PM, now Emeritus Senior Minister Goh stooping low, very low his office and hitting below the belt against a friend who, in his own words, he’s “known him close for over 60 years”. Not known him for “close to 60 years” but known him close over 60 years. Such is the value of a ‘close’ 60-year friendship. Young Singaporeans, do take note of such a leader and such leadership display.

Well, so much for the incoming 4G anointed PM-to-be Heng Swee Keat’s proclamation that “adversarial politics” is not good for Singapore. Adversarial politics is in PAP’s DNA – from LKY’s merciless “if you are a troublemaker…it is our job to politically destroy you” (referencing JB Jeyaratnam) to GCT’s lead in 11 and 13 lawsuits against JB Jeyaratnam and Tang Liang Hong respectively in GE 1997 and LHL’s being the first sitting PM to sue a non-politician for defamation (2016) and famously, publicly spoke of “fixing” opposition MPs (not unelected politicians) in 2006.

I should like to remind my fellow Singaporeans that much of what we are experiencing and suffering now, which moved Dr Tan to come forth to speak on our behalf, originated from his “close” friend, Chok Tong.

It was Goh who started the “asset enhancement programme” as newly-minted PM in 2001 that resulted in the 4-room HDB price/GNP per capita ratio almost doubling from the 2.32 (1990) he inherited to 4.20 in 2000. (Link, pg 7)

It was Goh who visited India no less than 3 times as PM and in his 1994 first visit, after being suitably masala-feted as chief guest at India’s Republic Day, returned home “determined to start an India fever”. That fever (apparently negotiated by Heng Swee Keat, then perm sec for trade & industry) was morphed by him and his successor into the Foreign Talent policy that increased our non-Singaporean population, most with good jobs and

• Chinese immigrants growing from 150,447 in 1990 to 448,566 in 2015, representing an increase of 163%

• Indian immigrants from 14,109 in 1990 to 150,082 in 2015, representing a growth rate as high as 964%.

 

In 1990, 423,396 non-PRs & PRs made up about 13.9% of our total population. By 2015, the numbers rose to 2,159,979 or 39% of 5.535,302.

By 2016, some 12.6% of non-PRs were non-Work Permit & non-Foreign Domestic Workers (FDW) while 9% were PRs out of a total population of 5.61 mil. With about 1.74 mil Singaporeans employed (latest available data) and 1.21 mil (12.6 + 9)%, it means that 4 out of every 10 professional (good) jobs are held by PRs and non-Work Permit and non-FDW foreigner.

Does it sadden you to know that much of the issues that tilted Dr Tan Cheng Bock away at not windmills but against the PAP that is no longer the one he knew are Goh’s initiatives? Let’s not forget, Goh is enjoying to the fullest his ministerial pensions, medical benefits (his recent stent ops) etc etc while finding time to set a Trumpian behavioural example towards long-time friends and others who are thinking of standing up to be counted for a more transparent, independent and accountable government.

 

In a different imagined Singapore not continuously dominated by the PAP for 54 years, a different ex-PM and ESM might have written the following;

“My friend of more than 60 years, Cheng Bock, who I introduced into politics, has given up retirement in favour of serving Singapore in politics (again)!

More younger Singaporeans should draw inspiration fr Bock to step forward to serve our beloved country – whether in govt or in opposition, as long as they have a heart for Singapore.

As an old, old friend, I extend my personal best wishes to Bock in his endeavour. May the party with the better ideas, people and dedication win the baton of leadership for the good and growth of Singapore and Singaporeans all. We are one family! Maju-lah Singapura! Vote PAP!”

Wouldn’t that be nice?

Law Kim Hwee

The Art of PAPsplaining

There’s mansplaining, womansplaining…there’s also whitesplaining….then there’s PAPsplaining in Singapore and for Singaporeans only.

Wiki, BBC, Merriam-Webster explain the various meanings. I’m here to try to capture how in our Uniquely Singapore context, our ruling, dominant political leaders have been “PAPsplaining” issues – and failures, in particular – to us Singaporeans.

What is PAPsplaining?
PAPsplaining is when members, especially leaders, of the governing People’s Action Party try to explain a situation in such a way as to assume the intended Singaporean audience is all mostly daft or/and they think they can get away with their none-the-wiser explanation. PAPsplanation defects blame away from the PAPsplainer.

Government ministers are most prone to PAPsplaining when the situation is an especially bad one, like the death (again) of another precious Son of Singapore during NS training. That is when they try to PAPsplain blame away from themselves. They sometimes preface it with the sounds of the words of sadness/regret if the situation so warrants.

The evident effectiveness of PAPsplaining is when Singaporeans end up none the wiser but the PAP leaders are allowed, without any question from or in the mass media whatsoever, to continue doing the same PAPsplaining another day.

Here are recent examples of PAPsplaining (or PAPsplanation)

1. Heng Swee Kiat and Gan Kim Yong
In response to a Feb 1 LianHe ZaoBao editorial, Heng basically echoed all the previous “PAPsplanations” for all the recent failures that the LianHe editor raised to support the observation and concern that, perhaps, the government has “gone slack”. Heng, failed to explain how it has come about that, unlike in previous decades, all the recent failures appear to converge recently. That is the crux of the issue – not how each failure – individually occurred. But why they all come together NOW – which may indicate underlying slackness in leadership.

No, Heng simply responded, “I reject the suggestion” that this cabinet has allowed the whole system to go slack, re-PAPsplained all the recent failures in “National Service training deaths, SingHealth cyberattack and the HIV data leak”, pinning blame on lower ranks. Not taking responsibility as leaders.

Similarly, Gan also came out to echo “I reject” any allegation of cover-up by his ministry in the HIV data leak. Yay, sure, failing to reveal since 2016, is not a “cover-up”. “On the one hand, there is the need to be transparent,” he elaborated. “On the other hand, we need to consider the impact of an announcement on the affected persons with HIV – would it serve their interest, or harm them instead?”

That consideration didn’t apply to the 8 deaths from Hep C infection. Then, there was no need to consider “the impact of an announcement” since the 8 were already dead and gone. Instead, the PAPsplanation then was not to create a “blame culture”.

2. Ng Eng Hen and Lee Hsien Loong
It took 4 deaths in 17 months – and a long 19 days after Aloysius Pang’s death – before Ng to come forward to say “I am deeply sorry”. His ministerial statement in the 11 Feb 19 parliament is little different from all previous ones.

You know, where your time is, there your heart will be also. Never mind his touching words, in all his nearly 8 years as Defence Minister, did we ever read of Ng showing up time and time again at SAF training exercises to speak to and emphasise the need for safe training? Nope. Not once. Just check his Facebook entries. Zilch. Zero.

If the top dog pays only lip service to Safety, First, what do you think those Chiefs of Defence, Chiefs of Army and the lowly Training Safety Officers were doing about safety? Why am I not surprised to learn of death #11, a.k.a CFC Aloysius Pang?

We are left with yet another same-same-but-different COI – and none the wiser why our NS sons keep dying during training.

Then, after 3 weeks, Lee Hsien Loong pitched in to say the obvious, “We know zero fatalities is extremely hard to achieve” and “We cannot outsource our security and defence to anyone else”.

Mr Highest-paid Politician in the World, please tell us something we don’t already know!

3. Monkey hear, monkey say
So, the PAPsplaining habit continues down the line of leadership. Here’s Senior Parliamentary Secretary (Education) Low Yen Ling PAPsplaining why Mikhy F Brochez was employed with fake qualifications, “there is unfortunately no system that is able to exhaustively keep out those who are out to lie and cheat,” Please lah, tell us something we don’t already know!

She also revealed that “prior to hiring Brochez, both polytechnics had carried out the pre-employment checks by verifying Brochez’s educational certificates against ‘original’ certificates he produced.” And the answer is to PAPsplain away the failure in diligence, in HR practice? What a joke! Our education services’ due diligence has been not the current highest “best practice” that the private head-hunters do.
Should we be surprised that the PAPsplaining virus has infected the entire political leadership in Singapore? It’s an Art Form, actually. No PAP-smear needed. Or can help – except to vote wisely.