2econdsight

"to rescue truth from beauty and meaning from belief"


1 Comment

Sex & The Minister

I address this blog to my fellow younger citizens, Singaporeans of my children’s generation, born in the 1990’s. “Sex in small places” concerns them. Beyond the funny responses and factual criticisms is a bigger issue at stake – the mindset of the ministers they vote for, whose thinking will influence their future, their lives. It’s much more than just sex and is surely no small matter.

Josephine Teo had all the time in the world to reply to the “question on whether young people are not getting their flats early enough to have children.” But

with a straight face, Mrs Teo declared: “You need a very small space to have sex.”

She cannot try to wiggle her way out by claiming that her reported words “might not have captured everything in the way I intended.” And, now, wants to switch to “an honest conversation on how, as a society, we can get ready for Millennial family.”

Unless, of course, she’s (Alice in Wonderland) Humpty Dumpty, “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” Nope. ‘You need a very small space to have sex’ is basic
subject-verb-object English with simple words whose meaning is clear enough.

So, no, no, no. Don’t change the subject. Cannot!

Aside from the avalanche of responses directly engaging her “sex in small spaces”, the more relevant question, the mindset issue is, “What informs such a cheeky, cavalier, condescending reply from a senior minister?” Or, what guides her to reply with the words she did?

To uncover what’s behind her reply, we just need to ask her a simple question:

“Would Josephine Teo tell that to her own three children, would she?”

It’s highly unlikely, if not rather obvious, that as a mother, she would not tell that to her own children. So, why is she dishing out such advice to our millennial citizens?

Because “sex in small places” applies and is good enough for little people, for peasants. The retort is similar in vein to another minister asking, “Do you want three meals in a hawker centre, food court or restaurant?” It’s pompous and patronizing. But it’s how an ‘actsy-borak’ airhead would talk to those she considers to be beneath her station in life, simpletons, peasants.

So, “sex in small places” reveals a mindset that thinks…

While our children have sex;
They, the elites’ offspring, well, they make love.
While our children must make do with a very small area;
They, their elites’ offspring get a new condo with their S$mil salary in a year.
While our children have to put up in their parents’ HDB 4-roomer;
They, their elites’ offspring are gifted a new wing in their bungalow.
And while to us they preach the virtues of self-reliance;
They, the elites, well, they get to practise self-actualization.

My fellow younger citizens, you and your lives are no more than a problem for the PAP ministers to solve, to social-experiment. You are a digit, a number in their statistics game, another brick in the wall.

You can either believe Josephine’s euphemistic, soothing doublespeak, “In this day and age, it is not possible for us to say that you are somehow bad, you are not doing your part for society”. Or, you can put the pieces of how she and her colleagues have been talking down to, patronizing us on various matters to form the consistent picture of who they really are, what they think of us. They reveal their true selves unconsciously, inadvertently, unintentionally by how they answer to our concerns. For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks
.
The truth, my young friends, is they want to mould you into happy idiots….

I’m going to find myself a girl
Who can show me what laughter means
And we’ll fill in the missing colors
In each other’s paint-by-number dreams
And then we’ll put our dark glasses on
Have ‘sex in small places’* until our strength is gone
And when the morning light comes streaming in
We’ll get up and do it again
Get it up again

I’m going to be a happy idiot
And struggle for the legal tender
Where the ads take aim and lay their claim
To the heart and the soul of the spender
And believe in whatever may lie
In those things that money can buy
Though true love could have been a contender
Are you there?
Say a prayer for the Pretender
Who started out so young and strong
Only to surrender
…Jackson Browne, 1976, (* with apologies)

So, Josephine, would you tell your own children, your colleagues’ children, “You need a very small space to have sex”? Would you? If not, why say that to our children?

Law Kim Hwee

Advertisements


2 Comments

The Truth Behind The Beauty of Tharman (Part 2/2)

We next analyze Tharman’s response to being the next PM of choice in a survey. One that had Singaporeans across all social strata eating out of his hand.  One that serves only to re-confirm why their overwhelming choice (55% vs Teo CH’s 17%) is not misplaced.

Just to be absolutely clear, because I know there’s this talk going around … I’m not the man for PM, I say that categorically. It’s not me. I know myself, I know what I can do and it’s not me. I’m good at policy-making, good at advising my younger colleagues and supporting the PM, not being the PM. That’s not my ambition and that’s not me.

Whoever’s the next Prime Minister will be part of this team culture. He or she would be first amongst equals, first among equals in a team. We each find a way to contribute to Singapore, that matches our strengths, and we each contribute to a strong team. (28 Sep 2016)

A proven leader, an intellectual respected and recognized internationally, not just domestically, speaking such humble words. A rarity, indeed.

Now, we analyze not to ascribe negative implications but to try to uncover, to understand better the possible truths behind the beauty of his utterance.

In search of higher honour
Perhaps, Tharman is wise to these words, “But when you are invited (to a wedding feast), take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up to a better place.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all the other guests.”

He knows that the Blackbox survey outcome is inviting. But it is not the official ‘invitation’ – not yet.

Teasing out peer support
Perhaps, he takes a leaf from Dr Mahathir’s masterful performance at the UMNO 22/06/02 AGM. For those not familiar, read this or watch this. Not as dramatic, but the desired effect of such public an announcement (his ‘I’m not the man for PM’ vs Dr M’s ‘I’m resigning all party posts, as PM etc’) cannot but serve to create some needed theatre, the more to deepen the favourable impression.

Ruling himself out, Tharman positions himself to gain from creating the conditions whereby if he is ‘forced to be‘ PM (his words on 4 Jul 2015 broadcast to an international audience, no less), then those who ‘force’ his change of mind (similar to Mahathir being pleaded to rescind his decision) will have to back that up to support him loyally. Brilliant!

Disarming the competitors, charming the market
Perhaps, Tharman knows, sees, senses subtleties within the cabinet. Or who knows what’s whispered behind closed doors? Who can vouch for the cabinet members’ absence of secret ambitions? As the clock goes tick-tock-tick-tock;  it can only encourage outsize ambitions or narcissistic ones in disguise, no?

How better to disarm potential competitors to the crown while charming the populace than to so publicly volunteer one’s disinterest to be ‘first among equals’. All the more potent a maneuver when none from the crop of mostly GRC-parachuted paper generals appears to be his equal.

Consider the polled ‘first choice ‘ paper general to be PM (9% vs Tharman’s 55%); he’s helmed 4 ministries since May 2011, namely; Community Development, Youth & Sports, Defence (2nd minister), Social and Family Development, sec-gen of NTUC & minister in PMO i.e. merely 17, 19, 20, 12 and 13 months respectively in each post – what has he got to show for pocketing >3X his previous Army Chief salary during those tenures? No surprise that pmo.gov.sg displays only his CV of appointments, but nothing on quantifiable achievements.

Dispelling suspicions, maintaining the peace
Perhaps, as the far-and-away favourite, keeping quiet is not an option for Tharman. It raises too many suspicions, emotions among colleagues.

So, in the Singapore context, it isn’t too far-fetched to think that someone has to plant (assign) both the reporter and the particular questions for Tharman to, well, clear the air.

Isn’t it curious that, when his boss isn’t the issue, he took pains to remark, “he’s extremely highly regarded, not just domestically but internationally.”

Creating higher entry barrier for Opposition
Perhaps, by weaving ‘team culture’ into his explanation, Tharman deliberately condenses the PAP history, stories, heroic figures (Goh Keng Swee & Rajaratnam) and values and beliefs in the best possible light. The unspoken goal: to further exaggerate and entrench the cultural elements (4 of the 6 identified by Deal and Kennedy, 1982) of the better characteristics of PAP’S leadership model in the minds of citizens.

Against the backdrop of his approval ratings, his intonation of PAP ‘team culture’ raises the bar for the Opposition in the minds of his audience.

And so, perhaps, the truth…
Beyond his expressed disinterest to the Premiership, the subtle possibilities of his smooth-spoken, carefully-weaved words are many. In short: Here is a man gifted and politically deft; skills he can deploy and employ to either prioritize his own, his party’s or the nation’s interests. The question is, “What is the man’s true intent?”

Let’s be reminded that it was Tharman who announced in Apr 2013, that the cabinet is now more left-of-centre, “focused on upgrading the lives and improving the lives of lower-income Singaporeans and older folk too“. Trumpeting such a fundamental change by the PAP cannot be accidental but planned. And only someone in the vanguard of the change in thinking could be the appointed herald. Just how radical a change? Look no further than Apr 2007; Balakrishnan sarcastically asking ‘Do you want three meals in a hawker centre, food court or restaurant?’, reacting to an MP’s plead for a few dollars more for the poor,.

But singing the praises of PAP’s leadership change process, Tharman also calls it ‘succession‘. Succession happens only in Communist China, Cuba and North Korea. Does that hint of his covert ideological bent to perpetuate the dominance of the PAP’s rule?

Is he playing his ‘joker’ card in a very well-hidden, complex and conv0luted intra-party game to commandeer the left-of-centre thinking a little further left so as to serve, to truly serve our low-income and elderly? And while he’s at it, to repair the extensive and substantive damage done by the GDP-growth-at-all-cost-cum-FT-policies  and also lighten our high housing/cost-of-living and citizens’ over-taxed burdens?

Hence, the truth is that in Tharman holds both the hope of we-the-citizens for a re-imagined, gentler, kinder Singapore and the nightmare of the worst of the PAP’s insatiable desire for political dominance to carry on their cold, calculating GDP-growth-at-all-cost and ‘Singapore is for everybody’ policies to the detriment of we-the-citizens’ unity as a nation.

For now, both truths are only possibilities. Which will prevail. Only Tharman knows. While we can only hope.

But while we hope, let the preferred PM-to-be know that we are stuffed with DNA from our parents and grandparents who conquered the odds to build the Singapore we now have. We got the verve, the spirit in us all to reshape our lives to be truer and closer to our pledge to “achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation” –  not ‘for everyone’ or just ‘for rich citizens, rich foreigners’ but ‘for we-the-citzens’ who recite the Singapore Pledge from our hearts since Primary One.

We’ll rally around him.

Is Tharman up to the challenge?

Law Kim Hwee


1 Comment

The Truth Behind The Beauty Of Tharman (Part 1)

Given the current, overwhelming approbations and adoration, even, in both social and mainstream media for PAP Elder-cum-Dy PM Tharman, it is with a truckload of trepidation that I approach my blog today….

Let me begin by stating clearly that I admire Mr Tharman for all the same reasons that the majority of we-the-citizens-of-Singapore do. I was lucky enough to have met him personally on 10 Mar 2013 at Taman Jurong Hawker Centre. He extended and followed-up  his words of assistance in my job hunt, emailing me a few times. He’s the real deal.

We all recall his admonition to SDP Chee to ‘discuss things openly, tell people the truth‘.
But I am of the view that Tharman doesn’t practise what he preaches – most of the time. Neither with discussing things openly (remember the smack-down in parliament, ‘no strategic purpose‘ for us to know about what went wrong at Temasek with Goodyear) nor, most certainly, with telling the truth, but only selected facts or half-truths.

So, what then the truth behind this beauty of a party elder, a statesman?

To find out, let’s first ‘discuss things openly, tell people the truth’ about our retirement adequacy via our CPF scheme. Tharman claims ‘the CPF system provides a level of retirement adequacy comparable, if not superior, to other pension systems once you take into account the savings that are locked in one’s housing‘.

Scratch deeper and Tharman’s assertion comes up troubling when we consider;

*One’s housing price appreciation must continue to beat inflation between the times of purchase and unlocking. Put differently, for such an retirement plan to work, our children or grandchildren must shoulder the ever-widening gap between house value appreciaction and real inflation. A house of cards, a Ponzi-sque scheme? Perversely, in between, Singaporeans end up funding PRs who buy our HDB units, cash out and retire comfortably in China, India, Malaysia, Philippines.

*HDB statistics show that 117,225, 241,343, 309,007, 256,913 & 85,070 ‘dwelling units’ were built in ’61-’70, ’71-80, ’81-’90, ’91-2000 & 2001-10 respectively. The leasehold balance of the units will continue to age  – and their values will correspondingly depreciate.
What then for 2,3 generations of daft ones believing in ‘unlocking’ a sure-bet basic roof over one’s head?

*What if, like the situation that is unfolding before our very eyes today, one happens to ‘retire’ and need to unlock one’s housing – only to face a real estate market in decline with falling prices? And, of course, with Murphy’s Law, that usually happens with one losing one’s job as well.

*Aside from the cold, hard numbers, forcing, coercing or enticing retirees to sell off, rent out one’s ‘home’ where privacy and dignity should be the least one’s left to ask of this life – how’s that for a sense of humanity for fellow we-the-citizens who are less naturally-endowed, less talented to earn more than enough to survive when able-bodied? A heart-of-stone approach to governing?

 

While I acknowledge the arguments that Yeoh Lam Keong advances for improvements to the 3 pillars to ‘fill up’ our retirement nest, I find it disappointing that the issue of ‘leaks’ from that nest via rent-seeking prices on our public housing is not categorically dealt with at all.

The above factual and situational scenarios I have listed are by not means exhaustive. There are many other unforeseen and unforeseeable developments. Developments that will sink Tharman’s assertion, nay, boast that the PAP’s continuously-managed-for-60 years CPF is built on false hope and Ponzi-like foundations, at least for the less capable ones amongst we-the-citizens.
Will the real Tharman please ‘discuss things openly, tell people the truth’?

In our next post, we try to understand the truth behind Tharman’s modest response to calls for his premiership.

Law Kim Hwee


Leave a comment

Minority President: The Truth Behind The Beauty of Symbolism

Let’s try to ‘rescue truth from beauty’….

Truth vs Beauty

“It is a very necessary symbolism of what we are as a multiracial society – what Singapore means, stands for and what we aspire to be.” PM Lee Hsien Loong

The beauty of a symbolic minority-race Singapore President, albeit an elected one, is that those of the majority race can say with a straight face that the tyranny of the ethnic majority does not exist in Singapore.

But the truth is that the Malays, in particular, continue to be discriminated against in the military, the civil service and select cabinet portfolios – after half a century as an independent Singapore.

Likewise, and perhaps sadder still, the truth is that the Singapore female, at a 1.036 ratio higher than male, continues to be overwhelmingly under-represented in the top echelons of the cabinet, among MPs and the civil service – after half a century of universal education for all regardless of sex.

Do the above racial and gender (factual) situations not deserve the same ‘very necessary symbolism of what we are as a multiracial society’, Mr Prime Minister?

Symbolism With Substance
Symbolism taken to its progressive, logical end can only mean proportional representation across racial and gender lines and across all offices. That, however, is neither a realistic nor a wise approach given the self-evident differences in human beings, as much as the similarities we all share. Whilst proportionality ensures all categories of people have a seat at the table, society may not be prepared to pay the price of a slower and, probably, lower average rate of material progress.

PM himself admits ‘the head of state represents all Singaporeans‘ – more a figurehead than an elected office bearer – with nothing much needed to show for. Hence, would not the ‘very necessary symbolism’ that the PM so believes in be truly better served with symbolism in offices of true substance – where the office bearer or appointee gets the opportunity to show her/his leadership competence in the military, civil service and cabinet?

What’s more, what does it mean to claim, ‘yes, this is my country. Someone like me can become the head of state, can represent the country‘ when only the daft ones will not know that that Malay, Indian or Eurasian President is only there because it is her/his turn to occupy the Istana as a mere symbol of multi-racialism?

Symbolism vs Tokenism vs…Puppetism
To get a clearer understanding, we look up any reputable dictionary to understand what ‘symbolism’ and, its very close synonym, ‘tokenism’ mean.

sym·bol·ism

n.1. The practice of representing things by means of symbols or of attributing symbolic meanings or significance to objects, events, or relationships.

to·ken·ism

n.1. The policy of making only a perfunctory effort or symbolic gesture toward the accomplishment of a goal, such as racial integration.

As can be seen, what PM Lee tries to sell to us is for the minority-race President to ‘attribute symbolic meanings or significance’ to our belief in multi-racialism. But, isn’t it clearer still that, since he is not interested whatsoever in addressing the as-very-necessary racial and gender symbolism in the military, civil service and cabinet, what Singaporeans, especially the aggrieved minorities are being shortchanged with ‘tokenism’ i.e. ‘making only perfunctory effort or symbolic gesture’ towards multi-racialism?

The analysis leads us inevitably to the truth of tokenism devised and disguised as the beauty of ‘a very necessary symbolism‘. One designed to advance the PAP imperative for puppetism in order to serve its party dominance in Singapore. in order that they, the natural aristocrats, can ‘decide what is right. Never mind what the people think‘. Never mind what the elected President thinks.

The ultimate survival of Singapore is secondary to that imperative of PAP dominance. Thus, expect a superficial, wayang-like parliamentary debate where PM Lee will ‘persuade you that it is something that we should do and which is good for Singapore’.

If he truly believes in the strength of his argument, he’d put the proposed amendments to a referendum. Tetapi Perdana Menteri tidak mempunyai bola, methinks.

 


Leave a comment

NSF Deferment Idea: Not Your Average Joe’s School of Thought

Whilst it’s nice that our Gold Olympian’s National Service obligation has been settled, it isn’t far enough. For a government that always prides itself with it’s self-proclaimed long-term planning prowess, deferring Schooling’s NSF a mere 4 years – and they call that ‘long-term’ and prowess?

Please lah!

Heard of a planning concept that is superior to ‘long-term planning’? It’s called, ‘Begin with the end in mind’.

So, in Schooling’s case, he should be asking himself, ‘Assuming nothing untoward happens to me, how many more Olympics am I good for?’ It’s not too ambitious to look at  3 more Olympics (= 12 years) as a guide. By then Joseph will be a ripe 33, only 2 years more than Phelps in his 5th Olympic outing.

Did not the Schoolings aim for Olympic gold instead of, say, just national, Asian or Commonweath glory? So, any visibility for Joseph short of 3 more Olympics as the ‘end in mind’ is less than ‘gold standard’ planning.

But we can count on the PAP cabinet, never ever one to admit shortcoming, to retort, let’s cross the bridge when we reach it. You know, there are so many ‘what ifs’ along the way that can scupper the best-laid plans.

But that’s merely an excuse. See, Schooling can always be granted deferment till after Olympics 2028 – but always and only conditional on his performance (say, must minimum qualify for finals or win a medal) at the each Olympics.

Fair? But we know that’s not going to happen. For all the blah-blah-blah spouted, not one single minister can or has come up with a dollar figure of how much they have invested in Schooling. Ironically, we can add up all the good money that has been thrown at mostly pedestrian foreign participants under the FST (Foreign Sports Talent) Scheme. Oh, yes, they didn’t even bother considering the small change needed to broadcast Rio live. That’s truly how much they think of we-the-citizens. But when they see gold glittering around Joseph’s neck, they move a motion in parliament, full of sound and fury – signifying their hypocrisy for the world to see.

So, Joseph, are you reading this post?

Here’s a crazy idea for you to consider. I go so far as to say that if you take up this idea, you will be doing MORE than just “NSF” (National Service Fulltime). You will be doing our Nation a true, Lifetime Service; an act to strengthen the unity of Singaporeans for generations to come. Sorry to pile pressure on you. But YOU are the only one capable to do so at this moment for us.

– First, you give up your Singapore citizenship.
– Then you apply for US or Aussie citizenship. Otherwise, try UK (where your great-grandpa hailed, if anything, they’d be happy to show some subtle ‘contempt’ of the PAP). If all fail, get a Timbuktu’s passport.
– Next, you continue with your planned training, studies and life.
– Finally, a year before Tokyo 2020, apply to become a Singapore citizen. Don’t worry, the PAP, if still in power, will capitalize on it and show how generous they are, very broad-minded. If out of power, the new government will approve your citizenship if only to show what idiots the PAP was to force your hand.

Via the above steps, you will be exempted from NSF FOREVER!!! Just like what your Olympian colleague, Chen Feng and others enjoy now.

Your loyalty to Singapore is never in doubt. What’s more, no mere words but your unprecedented, courageous act will demonstrate your true love for your fellow Singaporeans. In fact, bless your parents, they brought you up right by Singapore (unlike some PAP ministers with some children for quitters, NS ‘preferential deferrers’ and or others with family living overseas).

Your course of action will lay bare the bankrupt nature of PAP’s sorry and inequitable policies of ‘NS for male citizens and steal-a-march-option for male PRs/new citizens’. I and all my sons have served our due. There’s no personal gain in my suggestion to you,

Joseph, even as you bask in your deserved limelight, think of how the policy has not only denied the likes of Ang Peng Siong and many of your earlier fellow Olympians their medals. While outside of the sports fraternity, ‘NS for male citizens and steal-a-march-option for male PRs/new citizens’ has been sowing doubts in all our minds of what patriotism entails. PAP ministers are all none so deaf and blind to the collateral consequence of their policy only because they choose not to hear and see.

Dear Joseph, please reflect on it. Has God gifted you just be a mere Gold Olympian?  Or perhaps, He’s uniquely equipped, placed and timed you for a greater purpose to nudge Singapore from its current, nation-disunifying trajectory back to our original ‘one united people’ pledge?
Law Kim Hwee

PS: I’d love to hear from fellow Singaporeans how the idea can be improved upon.

 


2 Comments

New M$20 Road Charge: The Low-down

160714 Road Charge

I have been openly critical of Transport Minister Khaw Boon Wan. But with Malaysia’s impending M$20 ‘Road Charge’, I fully support and praise his decision to “match it in some form“. Proviso: I have a personal interest in this; my wife and I drive to JB (often, to stretch our grocery dollars & food hunt) as well as KL (occasionally).

Why then support a move that will cost me more?

Simple: Oppose government policies I may but when other countries seek to exploit us, our duty is to stand on the side of our Singapore. Higher cost becomes secondary.

How did Malaysia come to finally, finally pull this trigger? In a word, GREED.

But first, there are two important factors, without which, greed might have taken a back seat to the commercial interests of Malaysian retail and tourist business owners whose support the Malaysian government need badly to oil their political and personal interests. Or, for that matter, both governments’ hollow expressed desire to increase, improve people-to-people contact.

1. Smiling Tigers
Here’s ex-Malaysian High Commissioner to Singapore Datuk Parameswaran urging Malaysia to match Singapore’s new VEP on every SG car entering Malaysia:

“I think the notion that Singaporeans will shun Johor if a levy is imposed no longer holds water. Things have changed in recent years as many Singaporeans have bought property here, and are commuting between both countries daily.” (quoted in Star Aug 2014, hyperlink lost)

Such a statement may be par for the course with the usual politician. But an ex-high commissioner? We would think he’d try to help his country understand a neighbour better –  the better to build up government-to-government and people-to-people relationships. But no, not Datuk Parameswaran. He’s right in front pushing his government to exploit Singaporeans.

2. Toothless Lions
Singapore is known for no protests allowed. Our northern neighbours, nay the whole world, could see, have seen how we-the-citizens are such docile, submissive, almost spineless creatures. Too afraid, almost beaten to a pulp by repressive laws and ruthless lawsuits.

All PAP leaders need to do is to give cursory explanations, no need to convince anyone, then sign a tax or whatever into law. And Singaporeans will simply fall in line – no ifs, no buts, no protests.

Is it any wonder that Malaysian politicians rub their hands in glee at the PAP-given opportunities aplenty to extract money for their country and for themselves. After all, LKY’s “what’s wrong with collecting more money” has not only never been challenged but his idea has been systematically hijacked by LKY-wannabe ministers and civil elites into a key article of faith across all ministries. Pay-And-Pay!

But herein lies the paradox of his declaration: Carried out judiciously, it’s good for a government’s legit revenues. But practised across most if not all ministries, what Singaporeans end up with is that we live and work mostly to Pay-And-Pay into government’s coffers (via public services and GLCs…with some unknown amounts leaking into Temasek Holdings’ top management, as bonuses for rent-seeking us their captive customers).

Similarly, with a “no protest please, we are Singaporeans”, helped by state-controlled media, the unintended consequence or paradox is you end up not allowing Singaporeans, human beings, to vent our collective emotions, sense of injustice, anger against exploitation etc – in the moment, not just rationally at general elections.

The Truth Behind The M$6,90 x 2 Tolls
Does anyone recall the initial hooha when Malaysia implemented the RM$6.90 per way toll on 27 Jul 2014? Who protested? It was the Malaysian transport companies that loudly protested and blocked the Causeway – for a day. Where were Singaporeans? Were there any significant discussions in the media, let alone physical protests? Parliamentary debates? – what a joke, Zero. Zilch. Kosong. Read here for more info.

What then happened to the Malaysian protests? Here’s my guess. Behind closed doors, their government explained to the Malaysian protestors (mainly Chinese-owned business interests), “Look, 90% of the vehicles are from Singapore side. We collect the money from their wallets. Johoreans then get to use the EDL (Eastern Dispersal Link) – for FREE. What do you think, Mr Chinese businessmen?”

Since then, that M$6.90 toll has yielded an estimated minimum o f M$110,00/day for the Malaysian government, manna from heaven with just a stroke of their pen. That’s M$40mil out of mostly Singaporeans’ pockets! Of course, it also means LTA pocketing additional S$15.8mil/year, also out of Singaporeans’ discretionary income. (based on my own estimated average of 8000 cars/day).

The Truth Behind The New M$20 Road Charge
GREED, in and of itself, cannot succeed if the exploited party refuses to co-operate or are not as daft and easily conned. Or docile. Or submissive. And spineless, not exposed to unite in protest.

Unfortunately, the observation that Singaporeans are Toothless Lions (citizenry) that cannot even roar, let alone bite or fight back against our northern Smiling Tigers (politicians/civil servants) has been reinforced by the success seen in the M$6.90/way charge implemented since Aug 2014. Traffic went back to normal after the initial drop.

The bottomline is: Voiceless, docile, submissive and spineless Singaporeans will again help fill up Malaysia’s state coffers to the tune of another M$M160,000 (assume 8000 cars unchanged) every day till kingdom cometh! That also means another S$7.80/car/day (=S$62,400/day total = S$22.77mil/year) into LTA coffers. In total, another S$40mil out of Singaporeans’ discretionary income.

“What’s wrong with collecting more money?” INDEED!

So, Why Support LTA’s Policy?
In the face of exploitation that benefits other governments and in the absence of any meaningful, effective way to register our unhappiness to Malaysia, we must stand together to try to make the latter’s greed backfire on themselves.

Aside from the soundness of Khaw’s “long-standing policy is to ensure Malaysia takes into consideration Singapore’s response whenever it plans to raise tolls”, the likely impact of a much higher toll will, hopefully, result in a drastic and more lasting drop in Singaporeans’ spending in Johore – to the detriment of the commercial interests (mainly Chinese & Indians but also Malay), other tax & fee payable by same and, over time trickle down to noticeable job loss affecting the livelihood of their citizens of all races. Perhaps, then an impact on the ballot boxes in Johore will result.

It’s a longer route to make Singaporeans’ voices and interests heard across the Causeway. But what else can we do?

Oh, boycott Johore? That’s a dead-in-the-water option where Singaporeans are concerned. Apart from our pathetic lack of will and practice to rise up collectively in a meaningful, physical but non-violent way, we are kiasu to the core, remember? Individual self-interest is paramount…let someone else take the lead. How I wish to be proven wrong!

Conclusion
So, bring on the additional toll, LTA, to match Malaysia’s money grab. You have a supporter in me this instance.

But, if I may postulate from the situation described above, stretch the argument a little further, what the neighbours observe of we-the-citizens is a real worry. Never mind if SG has the latest weaponry and strong economics, the people are toothless, docile, submissive and spineless to stand up for themselves. Their politicians have got the daft citizenry, like a “young apprentice caught between the Scylla and Charibdes” and wrapped around their little fingers.

How is the attribute good for Singapore’s defence and survival when the unexpected crisis comes? Can our elected leaders (oh, so many decorated military generals who never fought a war but demonstrated how good they are at selling off NOL, not able to resolve train issues, skipping from ministries to ministries without any concrete results to show for their geniuses) rally us to be united? How?

Can we reasonably expect Singaporeans will rise up in unison at external threats when a people has never learned how to organize themselves spontaneously and willfully? Especially when there’s palpable disquiet about our sons having to serve NS while foreigners and their sons steal a 2-year march in our sons’ career?

Perhaps, that’s something for us all to ponder over. As I say, it may be a stretch to link the no-protest-allowed issue with our ability to unite meaningfully and spontaneously. But there’s always “the law of unintended consequences”. Or, as I see it, there’s always a weakness in a strength – usually hidden and revealed only too late.

Law Kim Hwee

 

 

 

 


7 Comments

Defective Trains: The Sagely One Speaks

Many Singaporeans must have heaved a sign of deep relief when Khaw Boon Wan finally
put on his safety helmet to show up at Bishan MRT Depot. After all, there was a report that
Singaporeans prepare for worst as Khaw Boon Wan still missing 2 days after defective MRT trains made public.”

The Sagely One (remember his ‘Butterfly Lovers’ explanation of the Sengkang Columbarium sage – his then HDB officers had assumed, yes assumed the winner of a tender to be affiliated to a religious organization), must have been meditating at Mount Silent prior to showing up. It seems the time spent invisible and incommunicado was worth it for us as he didn’t disappoint with his words of wisdom to explain why LTA’s and his transport ministry’s hands were forced on the issue of our defective trains.

Undue Panic

Declaring that trains were being returned to China for repairs due to hairline cracks could have caused undue panic, Transport Minister Khaw Boon Wan said at the Bishan Depot on Tuesday (Jul 12).

Mr Khaw said that going public for something that was “not a major event” might have caused unnecessary panic to the layman, noting that to engineers, not all cracks are the same.

Any “undue panic” he speaks about can only originate from Singapore citizens since he’s asserted that the defects were “not a major event”. As the saga continues to unfold and we sort among the stories we are told, to Khaw’s latest spin, here’s the question that’s hard for us to hold:

So, does that mean that we, the citizens of Singapore, after 50 years of the PAP education in school and exposure to realities and reporting, mostly through our mainstream media (ST, Mediacorp), are not able to even differentiate between a major or minor event? Between the truth or otherwise of the nature of the trains’ defects? That we are such a panicky people – all these after 50 years of nation-building (plus the million$ just expended in 2015 to celebrate and remind ourselves of how far we have come?

Really?

The Sagely One has to decide if his explanation is a valid one and, if so, what it says about us, the citizens of Singapore under PAP for 50 unbroken years.

Everyone Loves A Conspiracy Theory
…and Khaw obliges.

Mr Khaw, who is also Coordinating Minister for Infrastructure, linked the news — broken by Hong Kong’s FactWire news agency — to factions in the city with an anti-China political agenda. Having read various analyses on the controversy, Mr Khaw said: “We are caught in a crossfire and there are factions in Hong Kong who wanted to cause some difficulties for mainland China. I have no inside information on whether that is true or not, but it’s possible.”

“Unfortunately, we become a convenient bullet and collateral damage.”

What does it tell when Khaw would actually, deliberately spill the above lines for we the citizens of Singapore, his audience? What does he take us for? Does it not show just how this Foreign-Talent Minister (unlike ex-Ceylonese Mr S Rajaratnam, ex-Malaysians Mr Goh Keng Swee, Mr Toh Chin Chye, Mr Ong Pang Boon, Mr Hon Sui Sen) view us Singaporeans – with contempt?

Even though I know who I voted for, I truly believe that Democracy is the worst system there is, except for the rest – I therefore accept that we the citizens of Singapore deserve the government leaders we have collectively elected in Sep 2015.

With such senior leadership, I think some critical change should not be very far ahead for Singaporeans. Unless, of course…

Law Kim Hwee

PS: Mr Tharman, you around? Please help us understand how your colleague Khaw’s explanation fits into your ‘discuss things openly, tell people the truth‘ approach to politics and leadership?