Monday, September 13, 2010 

New Email

Hi all

Life goes on...

Feel free to email me at the new address

For the lack of creativity in naming my email....anyway, who cares? I am still after the person who deleted my Lim Chin Siong article....

Monday, August 09, 2010 

Happy National Day!

Yes, I am still very much alive.....just busy like every other Singaporean.

Saturday, October 13, 2007 

Politics of Money - Action over Words

Well, just to annouce that I am still alive. It has been such a long time that I last wrote anything. It was also the same time that I last used the "busy" excuse. Guess that is with all Singaporeans that life is a list of priority of priorities. We will just keep listing of important thing over another important thing. Are we a soul-less nation? Yes, I think so.

Before the finger starts pointing at the most usual and convenient suspect (more like convict since people's judgement is without trial), the PAP, we should think of it as human evolution. Every nation now, is and will be economic driven to ensure survival (less Myanmar).

I do read the comments posted in the last round and sure, we will always keep to the idealistic world but how many can match their actions to words?

Just weeks after I wrote the last blog, I was confronted with a situation where I can walk out of my team, which is depleted in number and moral, and join a rival for 40% more pay. Well, this team has taught me everything I know in my line, and to walk out on them is a tough call. Anyway, I sure you will not be interested in the full story. Eventually, I stayed on the same team and forgo the 40%. I am not saying I am a saint or role model. I am not and never will be.

But any Singaporean, confronted with temptations of higher pay, will you always choose the moral high ground? Easy to say yes, when you are not the one on the spot. But when every you are on the spot, make sure you do what you preech.

"He, who is without sins, cast the first stone"

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 

Politics of Money II – A Reply

I thank all comments that you’ve posted. To me, all the comments were positive and constructive, and I truly appreciate it. None of the comments were irrelevant or negative. Some prefer not to read my blog after this post, fine with me since there are plenty of “I-hate-PAP-tailored-blogs” out there. Anyway, this blog is not of the consensus of following the “mainstream netizen”.

Think this blog did serve its purpose by getting you all to speak up and throw out some ideas. In my perspectives, politics is speaking out your own ideals, ask questions, challenge the norms, challenge your own ideals and last and most importantly, finding the answer and why things are the way are on YOUR OWN. The problem with us, Asians, is that we either don’t question and allow others to dictate us or ask but are constantly too sluggish to find out our own answers. Do I have my own disagreements with PAP? Of course! But instead of listing my grumbles like many others, why don’t I challenge myself further and answer my own grumbles. Put them to the practical test and challenge them. If you do so, some of your own questions might be answered.

Back to the questions. First and foremost, did I simplify the whole issue to a one-liner, “competition of talents from the private sector”? Yes, I did. I could and I would list all the reasons, logics and statistics into 10,000 words thesis to support my claim, but who would ever bother reading it, not mentioning, commenting on it. Yes, there are more factors to consider. And your inputs are valid. Perhaps having a short and provocative article to spark the answers from you is better than me listing my thoughts and imposing them on you.

Replying to some of your questions, Marc, good point, but I have statistics to represent the contrary to yours. It is not true that Singapore has spent proportionally less on education, health care and welfare for the needy. Kai, I’ve listed the tax rates of the Scandinavian countries for your use n the previous post’s comments. And to Young Singaporean, thanks for your comments. To asiayouthmedia.com, twasher and ttg, and Kelvin Lim, I appreciate your comments and your points are well-noted.

Morals Vs Money
I guess most people oppose the statement I made about the monetary competition and the morals of a leader quote. You’ve every right to be. Maybe I am becoming like the Thrasymachus of Socrates age, a pragmatist and realist.

Year 1
Suppose everyone who reads this blog sits in an enclosed room and the LKY asked, “I’ve got confidence in your ability and for SGD50k per annum, I want you to be my minister.” I am sure at least 9/10, if not all, will say yes. Why? He thinks we are capable, we are moral and we are not in it for the money, so despite the pay, we will volunteer our service to the nation. I am sure every one of us WILL think this way. And this is the most common comment I’ve seen in the previous post, ie, moral leader should service his country and not for the pay. I agree with this totally.

Year 5
Part II and this will get more interesting. Five years down the road, you have experienced tiring but rewarding job of making a change in people’s lives. Some will appreciate, but in like every other democratic country, most will criticize you. Every week you’ve spent your time in the Meet-the-People Session answering to issues on the ground. Get scolded by a good number of them. Your family has lost their privacy (see MP Wee Siew Kim’s daughter). While you’ve spent so much time (literary a 24/7 job) planning, implementing and answering to the people, the people thinks you are nothing but a ribbon cutter at events. If you are the Minister of Health, how do you balance the cost of health care against the quality of health care? Either ways, you will be criticized by some. If you are the Minister of Transport, how do you justify the cost of transportation (which is privatized) with the quality? Similar, both ways you will have your opponents. Minister of Finance, how do you balance your budget while setting aside enough for healthcare, welfare and education, with limited taxes (one of the lowest in Asia – aside from HK)? Minister of Manpower, how to do you lower the unemployment rates? Create jobs! How do you create jobs? Get in foreign MNCs! How to you attract MNCs? Lower taxes, provide security and stability…etc! Then you will have issues with MOF, MCYS, MTI and others who will ask you on budgeting issues. All these are the battles you will face in every parliamentary session. In addition to that, your daily running of the Ministry and making key decisions. Bottomline, you’ve realized that being a Minister is not so simply. And for the SGD50k per annum, the answering the people, doing your roles, being accountable and making such public sacrifices maybe quite a stretch.

Year 6
Before you know it, the next General Election is here. Now, a MNC (let’s just say, NOL) asked you to join them for SGD1mil per annum as their CEO. Stress and accountability should be more or less the same. LKY asked, “You’ve proven yourself and I want you in my team. According to the statures, I’ll increase your salary to SGD60k per annum. Are you with me? Now, how many of the 10 do you think will stay? Some will say 10/10 but a realist might say that one term is good enough for some to call it a day, so maybe 8/10.

Let’s just say 1/10 Ministers will leave to join the private sector. Essentially, this would represent and result in a small number of “short-term” thinking Ministers in the Cabinet. As for the ills of short-term-thinking Ministers, you should be able to critically figure it out.

Year 10
Now you are the Prime Minister of Singapore, and to the cohort of moral leaders. Your Ministers are in the position of making laws, approving multi-billion to a few million dollars public contracts and running their Ministries. But because we are all moral leaders who have visited this blog and happened to say “yes” in Year 1, you are confident that they are not corrupted. In every public contract (big or small), there will be disputes on favouritism. Once in a while, there will be complaints that reach to your ear on the corruption of the civil services. Two points arises.

1) How confident are you of your Ministers of not being corrupted since the reward for corruption is much higher than easer for a (subjectively) lower-paid Minister?
2) As a member of public, how confident are you of the Minister for impartiality in the tendering of the contracts?

In such cases, if you are the Minister, I’m sure you are not corrupted. But you, the moral leader will have to face such accusations year-in year-out. To such an extent, you will think that is this all worthwhile, fighting false accusations and for your family to bear the burden with you?

May I suggest, which most of you might disagree is that, increasing the Minister’s salary 1) makes them harder to be corrupt, 2) undertake more responsibility to perform and account and 3) gives confidence to the public of his undertaking of office. Maybe you might not know of this but the implicit rule made known to the PAP Ministers is that if you corrupt, you will commit suicide. Unless you choose to be a coward and will face the humiliation that will slain your name for life. I kid you not on this. A PAP Minister once said this.

Summary
Maybe you might be thinking that I’ve seriously exaggerated the scenarios but I can assure you that every one scenario, I can name you a real life Minister living through this. Now, hope that you will just answer the following questions from the perspective that you are one of the 10 Ministers:

1) Year 1 – Will you say yes to LKY to be a Minister? How many do you think will say “yes” from the 10? (eg: 9/10)

2) Year 5 – After all the realization of work and responsibility as a Minister, will you continue? How many do you think will stay on as Minister from the 10? (eg: 9/10)

3) Year 6 – Will you accept the offer from NOL? How do you think will stay on for a second term from the 10? (eg: 9/10)

4) Year 10 – As the PM, are you absolutely confident that your Ministers are incorruptible?

5) Year 10 – If you are the Minister, how many of your peers from the 10, do you think will quit in the midst of moderate public confidence?

I would just like to hear your answers as if you are the Minister and your opinions of your fellow Ministers. The answers to these questions will be the answer to your questions. And I hope you do so with a practical and not an ideal sense. Good night and I await your interesting, and most probably opposing comments.

Thursday, June 21, 2007 

The Politics of Money

Yes, after a long hiatus I’m finally back. Contrary to popular beliefs that I’ve given up on my ideals or that I’ve been arrested by ISD, both didn’t happen (much to the disappointment of some). The reason for the long break from posting any article was that I’ve been really busy with work and could only write this article because I took leave today. For the past months, it was quite a personal struggle to get grips over my career and my future. I was brought down to reality on how brutally realistic the working life is compared to our own utopia of morals, philosophy and politics. Yes, this sentence doesn’t make much sense to you at the moment. Hopefully, I explain it better later on.

I’m in the corporate banking line, a line which is unforgiving and sanitized of feelings. If there is one thing I learned is that loyalty doesn’t pay. Move to a bank, achieve your monetary objectives, and after three to five years, move on the other banks. Why 3-5 years time? This is because you will have enough credibility, experience and accumulate enough clienteles to sell out to other banks. Your value is the highest within this number of years. This is how the game is being played and you are expected to observe this. No one will pay you extra for doing the otherwise.

In the political science of this “world”, is that the people will plan and work with a short term horizon since they may not be here to solve the problems that might pop out only in 3-5 years time. As such, people might just focus all their efforts, rightly or wrongly, on the short term goals to achieve their targets, key performance indicators or similar. There are ethical and unethical people who will do all that they could and to sweep the problems under the carpet for enough time before they leave the bank. You can only hope that you’ve got the right man, with the right morals for the job. But in truth, it might just be a 60-40 issue that for every 10 people you hired, 6 are likely to aim for short term goals. Or you might just believe that man are born good but corrupted by society.

If you are thinking that Thrasymachus has sudden changed his blog from politics to a “daily lives – oh, another xiaxue blog”, you are wrong. Something which I have not commented on was the debate on Ministers’ pay raise. I was “off-the-market” and late in the delivery of this article as I was busy (see above, yes, a circular argument). As such, let me relate the reality of totally realistic and practical world of banking to the unreal expectation and philosophy on what a Minister should be paid.

Paying for a Philosophy King
Maybe for those who have read Plato’s Republic will understand why I’ve sub-titled this “Paying for a Philosophy King”. As Plato quoted Socrates in the book, “Until philosophers are king, or kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy, and political greatness and wisdom meet in one, and those commoners natures who pursue either to the exclusion of the other are compelled to stand aside, cities will never have rest from their evils, -no, nor the human race, as I believe, -and then only will this our State have a possibility of life and behold the light of day.”

In short, we all know what the ideal ruler should be, kind, intelligent, incorruptible, loving, wise, philosophical, embraces justice and equality and so on and so forth. We all want those qualities in a Singapore Minister, just that we don’t want to pay them. How Singaporean - wanting the best but at the cheapest cost, or if possible, free!

How much do you think England is willing to pay to have Lee Kwan Yew as their Prime Minister when he was aged 60? Probably, less than David Beckham but definitely more than Sven Goran Eriksson. How much do you think China is willing to pay to have Goh Chok Tong to be their Central Bank Chairman? Definitely much more than the amount of money spent on investigating on central bank corruptions. Or do you want to pay just USD300k to a Vice-President who cooks up a story to invade an oil-rich country, only to award all oil-related contracts to the his former company that stills pay him USD1m every year until his death?

The price of all the qualities you want in a politician and Minister is hard to quantify. Yes, a politician and a Minister should not serve not because of money but because of their passion to serve the people. Most people treat this as the central argument of the whole Minister’s pay debate. But this is not the crux of the issue. The issue is sustainability. Can the system, select the leaders among Singaporeans, who has the right morals and qualities without competition from the real world? I don’t think so.

You want a Minister whom has the trust of the nation and that his integrity to serve Singapore, not for a short term of 5 years, but beyond his terms and for decades. One who is forward looking, whose policies benefit not just his electoral results but the nation’s competitive future. You wouldn’t want a corporate banking-like Minister who thinks only on short term basis just to win votes and make him look good. If you think that a Minister’s role is just to attend events and cut ribbons, then that it is really naïve of you. It is really a 24/7 job, thinking and planning. There is more behind the scenes that the media doesn’t tell. Increasing the pay for the Ministers is also to up the stakes that a Minister can’t fail in his task. If we remain short-sighted, the future Ministers will too.

Not many nations will you find the governments lowing taxes to below 20% and yet having a budget surplus. We have that. We are a small nation but even a far-off country like Egypt, our name looms large. Many things that we attributed it to “Singapore” are really the works of a couple of great men who we sometimes fail to appreciate. Until we have a bad government, we may never realize how good our present one is. Without going into all the things each Minister had mentioned about the pay debate, I will only ask of you to consider the differences between reality and ideals. It is easy for an opposition to oppose the hike, but it is even easier to fail to appreciate our current government. I’ve seen a department taking a nose-dive for the worse within 6 months just by changing a single leader and the impact of a crap Minister will just extrapolates this to a greater extent in a Ministry. As such, I urge you to think objectively and be more far-sighted in your judgment.

On a side note, no, I’ve not sold my soul to the finance world. I’ve never given up and never will. I am still dreaming of my own utopia. You should too.

Thursday, March 08, 2007 

Some Political Prophecies That Might Never Come True

After the General Election, all things political in Singapore seem to be as dry and bland as watching “Days of Our Lives” – the never-ending-bore-you-to-tears soap opera. Year 2007 seems to be a year that is politically castrated. Rather, castrated of its politics. In this land sanitized of politics, we can’t look forward to the 10-yearly affair of military coups like Thailand (before Thaksin, it was almost a 2 yearly affair), 4-yearly event when we accuse another US President of election fraud, 2-yearly schedule where George W Bush invades another country, a yearly affair when Italy changes another Prime Minister, monthly fist fights in Taiwan’s parliament or daily dose of “Down with Ah-Bian (Taiwan’s Chen Shui Bian, of course)” street protest.

Watching the political upheavals of our neighbouring and other countries made us wonder what it would be like to have a day of chaos in Singapore. It is almost unimaginable, not even in the most tempting of situations when the IMF/World Bank’s stopover during September last year. As unlikely as Dr Chee Soon Juan becoming our next PM in the next elections, you will most certainly never find me advocating protest for the sake of protest. Once, someone commented that a certain level of fuzziness and messiness would lead to creativity and economic growth. I’d both agree and disagree with that, but to go into the whole argument of that might take another 10,000 words thesis.

So, aside from the all the political pandemonium, which is almost never going to happen, what other political events can we look forward to? Here are some prophecies. Like most prophecies, these come with disclaimers that you know they have got no basis of truth. Just like old times. :)

Old Man Vs Not-So-Old Men
In 2006, we witnessed the retirement of several Ministers. Well, in Singapore, retirement is really used to the dictionary’s definition here. Retirement is often associated with older people reaching to a certain age (around 55 to 60) before voluntarily or involuntarily stop working. But in the dictionary’s definition, age is not requisite for retirement. It is just the removal or withdrawal from service, office, or business.

Most notably, former DPM Tony Tan and Transport Minister Yeo Cheow Tong “retired” before the recent GE (as correctly predicted in my previous articles months back). While Minister in PMO Lim Boon Heng and MICA Minister Lee Boon Yang are slated to retire, the signal is mixed.
On 28 May 2006, the Straits Times report that: “Labour chief Lim Boon Heng, 58, who is Minister in the Prime Minister's Office, will hand the reins of the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) towards the end of this year to Mr Lim Swee Say, who is now the deputy secretary-general. PM Lee said he has agreed 'to stay on in the Cabinet until he hands over in NTUC'.” As for Lee Boon Yang, “Dr Lee, 58, had asked to retire, said Mr Lee, who persuaded him to stay on till mid-term so a successor can be groomed.”

Although we have yet to reach to mid-term, Lee Boon Yang is clearly in the “ORD” mood with most MICA issues handled by Second Minister Dr Vivian and Senior Minister of State Dr Balaji. On the other hand, Lim Boon Heng has taken on new responsibilities in heading the Ministerial Committee on Ageing Issues and deputy chairman of the People’s Association, while retaining his post as the Chairman of PAP Central Executive Committee (CEC). Do not underestimate the seemingly-nominal post of Deputy Chairman in PA and Chairman of PAP CEC. Traditionally, the post of deputy-chairman of the PA was held by high-profile ministers, such as DPM Wong Kan Seng and former Education Minister Lee Yock Suan, and is no minor post since the deputy chairman constitutionally takes charge of the grassroots. (Note: Chairman of the PA will always be the Prime Minister). Also the Chairman of the PAP CEC, an elected post for the highest number of votes by party cadres, he is supposedly the “second in power” after the party Secretary-General. Being the party chairman puts him in the likes of Deputy Prime Ministers such as Dr Tony Tan and Toh Chin Chye.

But the significant point is why there was a U-turn in his earlier announced retirement, as suggested by PM Lee? It is difficult to understand the rationale from an external view. However, we could still attempt to second-guess the PM’s thoughts.

Before elections, he would have got a mental list of the ministers to retain and those he wishes to drop. The dilemma is not whether who to retain or drop (as he should have gotten a clear idea by then) but if he should announce it at all, and if so, when to announce it. It is imperative that such announcement would not swing the electoral votes against him, if he drops a minister just before elections. As cautious as he is, he left most ministers unchanged (except for Dr Tony Tan and Lee Yock Suan, both had stepped down during the term) to head the GRCs and waited after the GE to make the decision and announcement. First to fall was the not-so-popular transport minister Yeo Cheow Tong. Together with the same announcement was the impending retirement of Lim Boon Heng and Lee Boon Yang. While Lee Boon Yang is most likely to step down as planned, Lim Boon Heng’s U-turn was for other reasons. Several possibilities arise. The PM can’t ignore the fact that he has got several “senior citizens” in his Cabinet (LKY, GCT and Jayakumar) and has to make contingency on this. Compared to these senior citizens, Boon Heng is a teenager. But I don’t think this is the reason for his retention. This leads me to my next point. Maybe there is a lack of capable junior ministers taking over him, in the eyes of PM.

Who’s Hot Who’s Not?
The most junior ministers of state (MOS), Grace Fu, Lui Tuck Yew and Lee Yi Shyan have yet to prove their worth or demonstrated to be on par with the likes of Tharman and Ng Eng Hen. The recent promotions of Koo Tsai Kee, S Iswaran and Gan Kim Yong to MOS still needed time to impress. While the female MOS such as Lim Hwee Hwa and Yu-Foo Yee Shoon have certain advantages in the push for female Cabinet ministers. However, they have yet to shine and PM is insistent that he will not promote a female MOS just because she is a female. That leaves us with the “Senior” ministers of state, Ho Peng Kee, Balaji Sadasivan and Zainul Abidin.

Assoc Prof Ho Peng Kee has been in parliament since 1991, later, a minister of state in 1997 and a senior minister of state from 2001. Every Cabinet reshuffle, he seemed to be constantly overlooked and younger ministers from the 2001 cohort have leapfrogged over him, into the Cabinet. A possible and positive view of this that he is slated to take over DPM Jayakumar for the Minister of Law, since he is the most and only one qualified for that law position. However, this doesn’t seem to be happening anytime soon, especially when he is still managing a single member constituency (SMC) ward. I think I’ve mentioned this many times over that in single member constituency, MOS MPs are quite often an indication that promotion is quite unlikely.

Like Ho Peng Kee, Zainul Abidin’s career path is quite similar. Entered parliament in 1997 as the senior parliamentary secretary, promoted to MOS in 2001, and was promoted to senior minister of state last year. As a MP, he was a strong Malay leader and commands great respect amongst the community. His presence in Aljunied GRC certainly swung the votes from the Malay community over. In the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, his position was to handle the Middle East relations and to attract some investments out of the lucrative Islamic banking and finance industry to Singapore. All in all, he has demonstrated to be a good number two, but not quite a number one man. He hasn’t portrait himself to be capable of leading and defending a ministry in parliament. While he might be capable enough, he needs to demonstrate more to warrant a position in Cabinet.

Last, but certainly not the least, is Dr Balaji Sadasivan. Unlike Ho Peng Kee and Zainul, he jumped straight into office as a MOS after his first elections in 2001. While his other peers like Dr Vivian and Tharman has been promoted into Cabinet, he has not. In 2004, he was promoted to senior minister of state of health and MICA and later in MFA. Separately, I’ve already covered the career and political life of Dr Balaji in a previous article and will not be repeating it. Aside from his quiet demure, his chances of promotion seem to be the highest of the lot. But a lot will depend on how he fit into the political ideology and plans of the Prime Minister. Will he be too liberal or conservative for the Cabinet? We shall see in the coming year.

Temasek Holding’s Next Financial Statements?
After the Shin Corp disaster, it will be interesting to see how Temasek Holdings present their financial statements for the financial year. My view is that they will lump all into provisions, and state the group profits without the asset lost or income statement changes due to Shin Corp. This year, by concealing the impact in the provisions, they can hold the issue and present a credible book to the public. By next financial year, when they make the provisions material, the public would have forgotten the issue and Temasek will also have other profit generators to cover the losses.

Anyway, let’s not spoil the fun and wait for the results before commenting further.

Post-65 MPs – Egalitarians or Elitists?
You’ve seen them dance in Chingay ’07, and will have your own thoughts on their moves. But I don’t think I’m too far wrong to say that they will never get any “officer bearer” in Ministry of Sound (MOS). While it’s too early to judge or cast stones at them, they seemed to be more elitist than egalitarian. MPs are supposed to be reflective of their generation. Thus, the question is whether the P65 are reflective of their generation?

If you look at their backgrounds – eg; Christopher de Souza, a lawyer at Lee & Lee, first class honours and formerly from Raffles Junior College. Same with Hri Kumar and Michael Palmer, both lawyers. Teo Ser Luck, a tri-athletic, who rose to become the general manager of DHL Express similar to Jessica Tan at Microsoft. Dr Faisal, a career lecturer at NUS. Dr Lam Pin Min and Dr Fatimah, both doctors.

Yes, MPs are supposed to have credible backgrounds and proven track records in prominent business sectors. But I think having a group of lawyers and doctors, growing up in education fast track, don’t quite reflect the laymen’s concerns and problems. They might be excellence communicators and speech-makers, but in every speech, it must have a soul. The MP must feel for the issue and to feel the issue, they have to experience the issue. We don’t need another blue-nose aristocrat in parliament speaking in flowerily languages. There is a difference between a MP and a Minister. And far too often we have MPs falling in between the characteristics of a MP and a Minister. Ministers have every right to be “unlike” the common people and to be brilliant visionaries that sets the moral direction for the country. MPs are and have to be reflective of their generation and fight with conviction for the thoughts and feels of the people. But the problem is having people who are neither MP-like nor Minister-like. Background near a minister but can never be one, and being a MP that was never quite representative of a generation.

Like I said, the P65 group needs more time to prove themselves, and prove that they are not another academically “straight-As” MP. The reason I ask if they are elitists or egalitarians is that the social character is of this nature. The P65 never experienced the traumatic split from Malaya but was in an era of academic elitism of Lee Kuan Yew. If you scored well, you will be rewarded by having a ladder to climb upwards. Fair or unfair to say that these MPs are the ones who climbed the ladder and made it good in economic and social sense. In that view, they are the elitists who reflect their generation; rather, they reflect the cream of the crop of their generation.

Alternative way of viewing this is that they reflect, not society, but the ideological direction of the selectors (the PAP Ministers). If they land up being egalitarian or elitist, that is the way the selectors set it out to be.

In short, time will tell.
Note: By the way, I "googled" my own blog name and surprisingly found quite a few people convinced that this blog is setup by the PAP government. Rest assured that I'm not in the government, sent by the government, paid by the government, moderately look like anyone from the government, or intent to be part of the government. In summary, this blog has nothing to do with the government. Maybe I should just change the blog address to prevent any misconceptions. I'm just another ordinary blogger with too much political rumour to spread.

Thursday, January 11, 2007 

Short Story of Three Emperors

Well, everyone is well acquainted with this blog writing on Singapore Politics (as suggested by the title of this blog…duh…). Perhaps it might be interesting to write on sometime totally not related to Singapore politics and yet, has much relevance to local politics. This is a true story about the lives of three emperors, in certain country and in certain period of history. Maybe in the end, you might be able to draw parallels with local politics but I stressed that this article has “nothing” to do with local politics. For convenience, let’s just name the first emperor to be Emperor K, the second emperor to be Emperor G and the third emperor to be Emperor Loong.

Emperor K
Emperor K was the longest reigning emperor in the country’s history. He was born and raised in an era political instability, turmoil and power struggle, brought about by decades of war and conflict. His ideology of politics was largely shaped by this period of conflict. Although he seemed destined for greatness and leadership, his path to secure the throne was not a smooth one.

In the early stage of his life, Emperor K was overshadowed by some one (let’s name him to be Official O) more influential and powerful than him. On the surface, Emperor K seems to be leader but in actual fact, Emperor K can’t function without Official O. Official O grew in support amongst the people and other officials. Many dubbed him as the “real emperor” behind the throne. However, Official O underestimated the young and crafty emperor. While appearing to be unison, Emperor K was scheming to oust Official O from power. After a fierce underground political power struggle, spread over several years, Emperor K mustered enough power to oust Official O and condemn O into the depths of prison.

With O out of sight and power, Emperor K can finally have absolute power to manage the country. As a leader, he has a good foresight in choosing and managing talented Ministers. However, the dark side of him is his authoritarian and sometimes despotic nature. He has low tolerance for inefficiency, incompetence and corruption. In the later years, he is wary of succession problems (which will be mentioned later) and distrust most people beside him.

Emperor K was accredited for many great accomplishments. From a war-torn country, he led the country into unimagined prosperity within two decades, making the country a shining beacon of economic prosperity. However, prosperity came at a price in the form of absolute obedience from his people. Anyone who steps out of line will be punished severely. The people were often reminded of the warring past and treasured the peace and prosperous times. As such, there were very few rebellions and the majority chose to remain silent and obedient.

Unlike many other rulers of his time, information of Emperor K was plenty. Emperor K wrote his own thoughts and words in his biography as records and advice to his future generations. In his biography, he portrait himself as a decisive leader never as an authoritarian, and justified his actions by the delicate and sometimes unenviable situation he was in. From his self-portray, he describes his succession dilemma in searching for someone in his mold, the strong and uncompromising. His intended successor was to be groomed from young, as he wanted his heir apparent to possess all the qualities that he has and needed to be emperor. However, the heir apparent was not the officials’ or the people’s choice to lead the country due his character flaw. Officially, the heir apparent was removed based on health reasons. Instead, an unlikely prince was crowned the Emperor G.

Emperor K’s was always remembered as the founder of the empire, although he wasn’t the first emperor of the dynasty. But nonetheless, he was praised, despite his despotic tendency, to be the best and most brilliant of emperors in the country’s history.

Emperor G
In the early reign of Emperor G, he was plagued with rumours about his succession and never really full legitimized himself until his later years. One of the many reasoning for his appointment was that Emperor K adored Prince Loong, the apparent successor to Emperor G. As it was not appropriate to skip a generation, Emperor Y was appointed as his successor to the throne. Some many, Emperor G was very much a seat-warmer emperor for Prince Loong. Prince Loong was Emperor K’s favourite as he felt that Loong's mannerism and ways was very close to his own. Despite these succession rumours, Emperor G reigned for 14 years.

When Emperor G was crowned, Prince Loong was immediated promoted to Prince of the Blood (1st Rank) or the equivalent of a deputy prime minister in the modern days. For Emperor G did not allowed the position of Crown Prince, everyone expected Prince Loong to be the successor, especially when he deputise the emperor when Emperor G was out of the capital.

Emperor G was a tough but very hard-working ruler. G continued an era of continued peace and prosperity as he cracked down on corruption, waste, and reformed financial administration. In particular, he took great focus in curbing and suppressing other writings he deemed inimical to his regime or rumours that spoke ill of him. Another major focus of his adminstration was dealing with a hostile neighbour north of his empire. But he was never able to fully resolve the matter during his reign.

Having battled the rumours of succession problems prior to his ascension, he was determined not to repeat this mistake for his future generations. Thus, he developed a unprecedented system that would allow a smooth transition and identification of the next emperor.

Emperor Loong
When Emperor Loong ascended to the throne, there was never any doubts that he was the chosen one. Since his birth, Emperor K set his sights for Loong to ascend to the throne. Emperor G was merely the “seat-warmer” for 14 years, for Loong to attain maturity and prevent any accusations of going against traditions given his young age.

Many draw parallels of Emperor Loong to Emperor K, but never to the emperor “sandwiched” between them, Emperor G. Loong was like a replica in mannerisim and thinking to K. Contrastingly, Emperor K’s character was molded through hard and tough time during his era while Loong’s character was shaped by the influence and idolation of K.

Loong harvested the fruits of K’s & G’s labour and enjoyed the economic prosperity and social stability. With his country stable and prosperous upon taking over the reins, Loong can afford to concentrate on foreign policies and used his empire’s clout to solve territory issues that Emperor G could not. During Loong’s reign, the empire was at its largest and economically most vibrant. In his early years on the throne, Loong corrected much of the stagnation and strict administrative stiffness inherited from Emperor G’s policies, injecting the country with renew vigor and energy.

Politically, Loong’s era was as strong, if not, stronger than the times of Emperor K & G. But his personal life was a different story. His life was marred by the tragic loss of his favourite empress and son. Since then, he was never same man as he was. However, later in his life, he was attracted to a younger civil servant (let’s name this person to be Official Ho). Official Ho was originally a lowly civil servant, but with the favour of Loong, Ho rose to become the controller of the empire’s wealth. Once securing the Emperor's favour and approbation, Ho enjoyed almost complete freedom of actions. At the peak of his career, Ho personally controlled most if not all of the country’s treasury. This set the beginning of the empire’s degeneration. In addition, the expensive mega-structures by Loong’s later reign exhausted the country’s wealth.

Loong’s reign was in fact longer than K’s but out of deep respect to K, he retired before exceeding K’s tenure. Later generations look to Loong with mixed feelings, as he was brilliant in his early years and careless in his older years. In the end, most would agree that his years was the “watershed” of the empire.


Any guesses on who Emperor K, Emperor G and Emperor Loong are?

Thursday, December 14, 2006 

“The Argumentative Singaporean (Part 1)” – PAP-Bashing with Reasoning

I guess I am one blogger that never comes out with good eye-catching titles. The suggestion of having the title, “The Argumentative Singaporean”, was largely inspired by the book by Amartya Sen titled, “The Argumentative Indian”. If you are wondering if I’ve read that book, the answer is a resounding “no”. But I did catch a glimpse of the book and its synopsis. Guess this book must make its way to my shelves by this weekend! Anyway, the purpose of starting this “PAP-Bashing with Reasoning” thread is to engage any reader into a thought-process to see if our regular qualms and criticisms of PAP are justified. Just like what Amartya Sen argued, “discussions and argument are critically important for democracy and public reasoning”. The argumentative tradition, if used with deliberation and commitment, can also be extremely important in resisting social inequalities and removing poverty and deprivation. Voice is a crucial component of the pursuit of social justice.” Voting and balloting — the inventions of Athens and the ancient West — are just part of a much larger story.

Yes, this is just my little feeble attempt at assessing our own argumentative culture of voicing our grievances against the ruling. For this, let’s keep any open our mind to debates and challenges to our statements. Stand for what you believe in and argue your case. But accept the challengers’ points if they are valid and sound. I believe we are all matured and learned people who are rational enough to assess the validity of the points. The point we should also note is that when we seemingly lost the argument, we shouldn’t resort to petty mudslinging, personal insults and stubborn claiming victory, likening a “Party” familiar to us all.

Just to state my position in this episode is that I am writing a pseudo-govt’s perspective on possibly why they did that or have not done that or did that but no one knows about it. So don’t burn me at the stake or lynch me for my comments. Now, lets move on to your valued inputs and comments. From the 40-50 replies, I think there are some salient points repeated by the contributors. So let’s start with some interesting ones.

Qn: “My main beef with the PAP is that they are close-minded to criticisms. It seems like they care more about maintaining their ego and image than about real debate and feedback. PM Lee keeps claiming that he wants a more open and inclusive society, and encourages people to speak up for issues they are passionate about, but sadly does not match his rhetoric with his actions. Many examples abound, all taken from just this year alone…”

This is just one of the many comments and charges on the PAP not listening enough and slamming down hard on those who gave their piece. I think this encompasses several issues and sub-parts, 1) PAP not listening enough; 2) They closed-up whenever the criticisms get potential sever; 3) They force policies down the throat of Singaporeans regardless of the majority consensus; 4) They words do not match their actions, which is that the open and inclusive society is done at face-value; 5) They adopting an elitist and top-down action in regardless of nature of the policies or problems. While these comments are fairly common and one-sided (against the PAP, of course), I don’t think anyone or any group has adequately looked into this. It is hard to find any middle ground in this, as there is too thin a line to divide one who is in the “mainstream” criticizing the PAP and the other end of what the PAP are saying now. So bear with me in attempting to walk this thin line, as it will be likely that I’d be seen stepping more towards the PAP side (to balance the weight on the other).

In any political action, policy or comment, no party in the world can ignore the political cost involved, not even the PAP. The PAP, or any other parties, will not be immune to the political implications if they make decision regardless of the wishes of the people. One good example is the integrated resorts (IR). When it was first mooted that the PAP government will take the opinions and feedbacks of Singaporeans in deciding whether or not to have the IR, many voiced their opinions and opposition towards it. While there seem to be many opposing the IR, the PAP went ahead with it and allowed, not one, but two IRs. Again, many slammed the PAP for their “authoritarian” action. The question became not whether we should or should not have the IR but was whether the PAP made the effort to listen to the opinions of the people. Many felt that the PAP didn’t. May I just say this, “this is the true democracy at work, and in this aspect, PAP is democratic.” And I don’t mean this with any cynicism or to poke fun at PAP. This is really democracy to its true meaning.

Let’s put this into scenarios.

1) 51% (aka majority) of the people oppose to the decision to go ahead with the IR
2) 51% (aka majority) of the people agree to the decision to go ahead with the IR

If PAP chose (1), they would have suffered the serious political implications of losing a few seats during GE or the whole GE itself. Of course, you will think this is crap and the government will not lose the majority in parliament over an IR policy. But this is precisely how a democratic government should and would function. There will be a tipping point or issue that is sensitive to the median voter and threaten the position of the government. One such example of the “tipping point or issue” is the Shin Corp and Thaksin saga.

So, now we know that the issues or bitter policies that the PAP had implemented were not the tipping point issues, even the recent GST hikes. But the question is really, why then is the PAP able to make unpopular policies and still able to retain a comfortable majority in parliament? Let’s not be overly engrossed in “repressive crap” and fear of being traced and purged rubbish. We can go on and on about these conspiracy theories and have no conclusions. Frankly, to me, these crap hold little water.

From deduction, this leaves us with two other options: a) the policies that PAP implemented has the endorsement of 51% of the majority (likely the silent majority), b) net effect of the unpopular and popular policies are in favour of the PAP. Both are the side effects of the democracy or what the great John Stuart Mills called the “tyranny of the majority”. While we may not be a perfect democracy, but we are a democratic country. The point I’m driving at is not whether is the PAP right or wrong in their policies or actions and calculated move in assessing the tipping point. If there is an issue you felt strongly about, don’t be in the silent majority and grumble behind the scenes. Take your words into action. Back your words with reasoning and debate over your views. If you are wrong, take it head-on and accept the better argument. If you are right, persist and change the norms. Tilt the tide in your favour and be a change starter, not sitting there to wait for things to happen.

Make no bones about whether your views will be taken seriously. If you are serious about your views and your views are serious, people will take you seriously. We grumbled when the GST goes up or when the transport cost goes up. The government has a well-reasoned argument (don’t think you need me to state those again, but if you wishes to, I’ll be happy to do so), but have the critics got one? From the government’s perspective, it is logical and beneficial to the majority, but time and time again, people grumbled when their pockets hurt. We did what European governments failed to do, and they failed because they failed to do what we did. If we continuously fail to think beyond our self-interest and look at the net benefits, we will experience the same decline as many European countries.

I guess this thread should start many talking points and before we move on the other issues, let’s debate over this and not let this sweep conveniently under the carpet.

Tuesday, October 31, 2006 

PAP-Bashing with Reasoning II

I guess most of the entries on why you've dislike the PAP are already in. Thus, I'll take the next week or so to distil the comments into few key arguments and take it on from there. Many thanks for your "bashing with reasoning". Perhaps, after this "PAP-Bashing with Reasoning", we could start something of ex-President and lesser appreciated Founding Father of Singapore, Devan Nair. His speeches are often inspirational and maybe it would be good to start by publishing some of his speeches before commencing an article on him. Stay tuned!

Monday, October 16, 2006 

PAP-Bashing with Reasoning

As many of us do have our fair share of reasons for criticising the PAP, at many times these may not be as fair as we assume ourselves to be. As such, I was wondering to do it differently by having anyone who is willing to share your (well-thought) reasons for criticising the PAP, and either I'll reply to it, or I might even invite an undisclosed public official to reply to it.

If this suggestion appeals to you, may your PAP-bashing start now on this posting. But may I just add that the reasoning should be specific and not too generic that it takes a 10,000 words thesis to reply to you.

Negative example: (I hate PAP because I think they are non-democratic!)

Positive example: (I dislike the PAP for their inability to solve haze problem attributable to their weak foreign diplomacy approaches.)

Please be event or policy-specific (as the title suggest it) to demonstrate that you do have legitimate reasons for our criticism. Rest assured this will not be a Mao Tze Tung-like "Hundred Flowers Campaign". If you have fully comprehended the rules of the game, then "may the hundred flowers bloom and the hundred thoughts flourish"!

Monday, September 25, 2006 

IMF/World Bank – A Pseudo-Government’s Perspective

The 61st IMF/World Bank meeting has just concluded couple of days ago, in our little island. While there are much breakthrough on the IMF/World Bank policies and voting rights, I guess most Singaporeans can’t be bothered by it. Perhaps the issues that interest most is the CSO – Civil Society Organization matters and what is the government’s take on these CSOs’ protests. This is just a pseudo-government’s perspective on what was possibly the sentiment on the government. Of course, don’t take this as gospel as I am only trying to second-guess the government!

Background
Just a little background for the “uninitiated”. The IMF/World Bank meeting held in Singapore from the 11 – 20 September 2006, was the largest turnout for an overseas-held meeting. A total 23,000 delegates and 300 finance Ministers from all over the world came to this much-maligned (or deservingly named, depending on which angle you see) authoritarian state called Singapore. Policy-wise, there have been major breakthroughs with the voting reforms in the IMF and policy against corrupted third-world countries. But away from the meetings, the issue that dominated some foreign press was the Singapore’s treatment to the Civil Society Organizations (CSOs).

For the second time in the meetings' history (the first was Dubai 2003), outdoor demonstrations are outlawed due to Singapore laws banning outdoor protests and marches. Numerous appeals to the authorities to approve such protest were rejected as the government cited security reasons including potential terrorist threat. The authorities are also denying entries of accredited civil society representatives whom the police regards as "troublemakers", despite the IMF/World Bank appeals to the government to allow them to attend the meetings. Registered civil service organisations (CSO) may hold indoor demonstrations on the ground floor of Suntec Singapore outside Starbucks Coffee, within a 14 by 8 metre space boundary, but CSOs are disappointed with the arrangement. The CSO protests were supposed to start on 11 September, but the police has pushed the date to 13 September.

On 11 September, when civic activists began arriving in Singapore, 27 activists were denied entry and had to leave the country. The police explained that these people were involved in violent demonstrations, including breaking into the World Bank headquarters in Washington D.C.. These individuals claimed that they had permission from the IMF and World Bank, but the police had stated that it is the local government's decision whether or not to allow them to enter the city state. Later, the World Bank and IMF accused the Singapore government of failing to allow the protestors into the country, with Paul Wolfowitz calling it a “going-back on an explicit agreement”, saying that Singapore had signed an open-access agreement or the Memorandum of Understanding in 2003. The World Bank added that it is a “breach” of their agreement and they worked with them and also valued their role even when they disagree on their views. They were cleared by their home governments beforehand and the World Bank believed that all of them should not be excluded from the annual meetings. The organising committee told the press, they were looking into the matter at that point of time. Later condemning the restrictions as "authoritarian". At that time, the Singapore police tried to contact the individuals via the World Bank or the embassies in Singapore, to prevent them from making a wasted trip to the country.

On 15 September 2006, the Singapore government announced that they will allow 22 out of the 27 banned activists into the country after reviewing the list of activists whose entry was subject to an interview if they entered the city-state. The organising committee said it reviewed the input provided by the IMF and the World Bank earlier that morning. On an another occasion, two Filipino activists were deported back to their country on 13 September as they were not accredited by the IMF/World Bank, and could post a security and public order threat. It was after interviews and full consideration of the circumstances. 14 September, an Indian national was denied entry into the country, and has been deported by the police.

If there were ever going to be protest in Singapore, how could ever do without Dr Chee Soon Juan and gang. The self-styled “martyr for his own voice” did his protest at Hong Lim Park with more foreign press than supportors. Many apologies, but I just can’t resist any opportunities to deliver punts at him. Just a note, have you ever visited Dr Chee’s blog? The strongest advocate for freedom doesn’t even allow comments on his blogs! So much for freedom of expression. Sorry, I really have to stop this bad habit of poking fun at him, but in my defensive, I am exercising my health need for freedom of speech! =P

The Pseudo-Govt’s Perspective
So the question, really, is the Singapore government even bothered about the protest about the protest? And what is the government’s opinion in this whole saga? Well, for the true answer, you might have to ask PM Lee or members of the Cabinet. But, pseudo-government’s guess is this.

For once, the government managed to turn the public opinion in favour of them with the help of media. Why do I say that? Firstly, this is the first time in recent history that protest was an non-event in IMF/World Bank. Hardly any solid (or liquid, for that matter) object was thrown at delegates. Naturely and diplomatically, the delegates have to say that the CSOs have the right to protest and their opinions are much appreciated. Deep down, they are extremely happy that there wasn’t any trouble and flying objects thrown at them. Put your shoes into a highly-paid CEO of an international bank being invited to attend an overseas that often resulted in a traumatic experience of fearing from your own safety and protests outside your meeting area. You fear walking in the streets being haressed or scorned and for much the 10 days. Effectively, you are stuck between the hotel and the meeting area. This is the feeling of my CEO on the past IMF/World Bank meetings, and probably the same feeling for most of the delegates.

Despite whatever have been said about the barring of protest by the CSOs, the strong turnout by the delegates was testimont to the their satisfaction. This will do Singapore lots of good and enhance our reputation as a place to hold conventions and meetings. The criticism from foreign presses and journalists are irrelevant and of little concern. The common mentality of these foreign presses and journalists are that they felt it is their moral obigation to push and expand the boundaries of freedom of speech and write on news that is of interest. While they might be opinion shapers in their own sphere, it is the opinions of the delegates, those with clout to shape economic balance of the world, that matters most during these 10 days. Singapore has demonstrated their ability to curb a traditional protest and guarenteed unprecedented security to these delegates, yet rank highly in conducive investment environment. This must have a lasting impact on these delegates and bankers. To add to the sobering effect, the Thailand military coup happened just 1 day before the end of the meetings. If you are an investor thinking of where to park your millions, Singapore just became the best alternative in Southeast Asia with Thailand shoot themselves in the foot.

For Wolfowitz to “cry wolf” and calling foul on Singapore, isn’t a problem as well. I am sure, with top legal brains like DPM Jayakumar in the Cabinet, we wouldn’t be liability for any contractual breach. Even if we do, the Singapore government would have choice their words carefully to circumvent the clauses. To the public, the blame game by Wolfowitz was made too blantly even for the CSOs to buy into that argument. This has worked in our favour.

So, the foreign opinions that needed to be secured were secured. This leads me to my second point. Locally, the papers have published letters by Singaporeans speaking in support of the government against the remarks by Wolfowitz. For the government not to reply too deeply and reactively (aka Bavani-style), they actually gained more goodwill for themselves. Seemingly, the government has used this incident to good effect to gain support from the local Singaporeans. While Dr Chee tried to use this event to rally support, it didn’t work well. He landed up bunching himself with the Wolfowitz-Singapore-government-bashing gang, that happens to be “target of the month” of Singaporeans.

In summary, it is really a win-win for the Singapore government. They have won local opinions and the delgates’ opinions without bending backwards for it. Let’s just now hope that the Singapore government learnt their lessons on how to effectively manage public opinions rather than being at the receiving end of negative public opinions.


Note: After reading some of the comments, I guess most people would disagree with this article. Very rightly so. That is one reason why I stated the title as pseudo-govt's perspective. This is possibly the opinion of the government, hence, they didn't really bother much about the external noises by the foreign presses. But keep your comments coming in and all opinions are very much welcomed.

Wednesday, September 20, 2006 

Article from BBC: Singapore welcome raises doubts

Came across this article from BBC that I've found quite interesting, given the perspective of an outsider look into Singapore. Since there are also lots of pro-Singapore comments on local papers (why am I not surprised that those are published on local papers... =P), I am still trying to reconcile the true perception. Do let me know your views on this issue and the article. Should we or shouldn't we be so uptight over the "traditional" civil group protest?


Singapore welcome raises doubts
By Andrew Harding BBC News, Singapore


Sometimes the adverts can be as revealing as the front pages.

This week some of Singapore's newspapers have been teeming with new recruitment ads put in by the city's many escort agencies. They're all busily hunting for what they describe as "young, outgoing girls... in their twenties".

The apparent hiring frenzy has been triggered by the arrival of some 24,000 visitors - all coming to town this week with just one thing on their minds... the annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.

The front page headline in this morning's Straits Times boasts that this is the biggest turnout ever. The delegates do have some serious business to discuss here - in particular, plans to restructure the IMF's voting system to give countries like China and Mexico more clout. But for Singapore - a tiny, humid and tightly-controlled city state - the real issue is how well it looks after its guests.

Citizens are being urged to smile. To make sure the delegates respond in kind, they're being offered discounts on botox injections and other beauty treatments. An article in the New Paper urges visitors to venture out of their convention centre and discover the city's secrets, declaring that there is much more to this place than "rules, laws and squeaky clean streets".

Campaigners barred
But it is Singapore's laws which are in danger of overshadowing this week's meeting. It is illegal here for more than four people to demonstrate together outside. So what to do with the many thousands of international activists who usually congregate at such events?

A number of campaigners have already been barred from entering the country. Those who have been allowed in are being carefully chaperoned. They will be allowed to protest, but only in designated indoor areas. They are also being provided with special, soft placards to wave.
Thursday's Straits Times carries a small article - tucked deep inside the newspaper - which some might argue belongs nearer the front page. The World Bank has come to its critics' defence, accusing Singapore of breaching a formal agreement by barring 28 activists from the country. In a statement, it says: "We work with these representatives of civil societies, and we value their role - even when we disagree with what they say."

More criticism has come from one of Singapore's tiny opposition parties. In an open letter, the Democratic Party has accused the authorities of stifling dissent, behaving like despots. What is more, the party has thrown down a direct challenge, vowing to go ahead with a big outdoor protest this Saturday, and inviting all the visiting delegates to come along and see what happens.

Friday, August 25, 2006 

National Day Rally without "Harm"

Upon an anonymous suggestion, I’ve decided to write something and some thoughts on the National Day Rally (NDR). Since many of us are sick of the “aerial” and “ground bombardment” of post-NDRs, I should write something different about this year’s NDR. Perhaps before starting on any thoughts it might be interesting (things that I’ve found boring was interesting to the readers and vice versa, so when I say its interesting, it might be boring! Readers beware!) to have some fun facts on the NDR.

Things you didn’t get to see on national TV
1) Who was the last MP to arrive at the National Day Rally?
Mr Ong Chit Chung. The MP from Jurong GRC, Bukit Batok Division, came in the hall a whooping 5 minutes late and after PM Lee had already started his speech. It didn’t help much to be stealth when he wore a red shirt brighter than the PM’s. It was a close fight between him and the former MP, Wong Kai Yuen who came in slightly later than Ong Chit Chung. But Wong Kai Yuen lost out on this one, as he is no longer a MP. Unanimously, the award had to go to Ong Chit Chung.

2) Who was the last Minister (aside from MM Lee and PM Lee) to be seated?
Tharman Shanmugaratnam. The Minister for Education and MP from Jurong GRC (there must be something with MPs from Jurong) took his seat just before the tradition last arrival of MM Lee. However, he was one of the earliest Ministers to arrive to the University Cultural Centre and mingled with the audience during the reception before the Rally. Other early comers included Foreign Minister George Yeo and Minister Lim Swee Say. Strangely, Tharman was the last to take his seat. Perhaps he might have remembered the perpetually endless toilet queues during the “half-time” break of NDR at last year’s NDR.

3) What was most peculiar and different about this year’s Rally that no one noticed?
This one is really curved-ball and has to do with SM Goh. Traditionally, just before the start of every rally, all will be seated before MM Lee Kuan Yew enter the hall to a rousing applause by all. The past two NDRs, SM Goh entered just before MM Lee and was received by applauses from the audiences. This year’s National Day Rally, GCT entered the hall with no one applauding him despite him turning around to face the audiences, expecting an applause. He intended to wave at the audience, but given the zero response, he turned back, sat down and didn’t move until to the Rally ended. Maybe he met with tough audiences or was just a victim falling from grace. But you could sense and see his disappointment. After the Rally, GCT was with Mah Bow Tan chatting about their perception on the youth near the buffet table. From my “eavesdropping”, I believed they weren’t talking about his non-applause. ;)

4) Did former Ministers get any stick from their ex-colleagues?
Unlike last year, when David Lim (former Acting Minister for MICA) walked across the whole front row Cabinet Ministers without any eye contact and smile from both parties, this year’s former Ministers faired better. Former DPM Dr Tony Tan had a lengthy conversation with now DPM Wong Kan Seng just before the Rally started and was well-received by all Ministers and MP. Former Transport Minister Yeo Cheow Tong had some mixed reactions. He was largely ignored by some Ministers (DPM Wong Kan Seng rather focus on his mobile phone than to look at his ex-colleague) but was greeted with smiles by some others like the ever-friendly Lim Swee Say, Lee Boon Yang and Teo Chee Hean. Only Dr Balaji Sadasivan, literately and physically, bent backwards to shake Yeo Cheow Tong’s hand.

5) Who was notably absented from this year’s NDR?
MM Lee’s wife. This is probably the first National Day Rally that she didn’t attend, or maybe I just didn’t see her there. I don’t think anyone did. Usually, she will be seated on the right side centre stand of the auditorium, with her daughter, Lee Wei Ling. But no conspiracy or wild guess, please! I do have vested interest in the stock market!

6) What usually happen after National Day Rallies?
This is something good-to-know if you ever get invited to National Day Rally. Traditionally, there will be receptions (of course with food) before and after the Rally where the Ministers and MP mingled with the attendees. But there is an implicit observation that many don’t see. Grassroots and Party (PAP of course) cadres are usually invited to the rallies. And Ministers and MPs will also gather with their constituency members for discussions and chitchats. Occasionally, the Ministers will be talking among each other on work related issues or with prominent businessmen. But most of the time, they will be with their own grassroots. Before going to that, just some quick observations. Dr Vivian was seen with DPM Jayakumar, Mah Bow Tan with SM Goh and Lim Hng Kiang was with Kwek Leng Joo, the Managing Director of City Development Limited (CDL) – formerly in the running for the Marina IR with Las Vegas Sands. Now for the main course: what is the implicit message?

PM and the rest of the senior leaders will also be at the reception to mingle with the crowd. But sometimes, what is evident is that this is one of the occasions to assess how well supported are the Ministers and MPs by their grassroots. Every NDR, there are two areas for reception, the second floor and the first floor. For the MPs and Ministers to get maximum exposure, they will usually be at the floor where the PM is. Second floor is a lot quieter. But those Ministers and MPs who are not too concern over this will visit the second floor to mingle. Some spotted at the second floor includes, Foreign Minister George Yeo, Senior Minister of State Dr Balaji Sadasivan and MP Wee Siew Kim. {See Photo: PM Lee is in red shirt with back facing the camera. Can you spot the other Minister "near" him?}

The support from the grassroots can be quite an important assessment guide of the MPs, by the PM. If a MP doesn’t seem to have grassroots support for the major events, how well can he/she even connect with the rest of the constituency and the voters? Don’t need to believe my words, by if you have a chance, observe it for yourself and make the conclusion.

7) Was Thrasymachus at the National Day Rally?
If he wasn’t there, how could he write the above observations (not conclusions)? ;)

Thrasymachus’s Thoughts on the National Day Rally
This section could be potentially so boring that it could tranquilize an elephant that can read. So please beware! Lame jokes aside, I’ll not be mentioning the stuff and so-called “analysis” on the papers but just some implicit notes and punts (not the “mee siam mai harm” kind) used by the PM.

Contrary to popular belief that only the PM drafts the NDR speech, it is not the case. The whole Cabinet is involved in the process of tailoring the speech. Thus, long before the day itself, all Ministers would have already known the content but not the delivery. This year’s NDR, he highlighted several key areas to focus on, namely, population, digital age and Singapore Heartware. Through his speech, you can also see which Ministers he has more interaction with and which Ministers are not. Many people also underestimated the NDR as a platform and channel to communicate implicit messages to the people. Like in 2003, then-PM Goh Chok Tong mentioned several key Ministers that LHL should retain when he steps down. NDR remains as an important platform for the PM.

Rising Stars and Setting Sun
In the past three National Day Rally by LHL, only one Minister was mentioned in every of his speech: Education Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam. Each time, the comment regarding Tharman was directed on their seemingly casual conversations. Perhaps he was consulted often by the PM and might be groomed for greatness. Aside from the commonly mentioned Ministers, there are also the “punts intended”. In this year’s NDR translation from his Chinese speech, he mentioned this, “Two years ago, we introduced major policy changes to encourage couples to have more babies. So far the results have been very modest.” Two years ago, Lim Hng Kiang was the Minister-in-Charge of the birth rates policies. Punts intended? Maybe. Given the amount of budget spent on improving the birth rates, he has done quite an abysmal job. But in the first place, this task was not something that one could easily manage and be done within two years. In other words, this is quite a suicidal task.

To Make or Import?
Since Goh Chok Tong’s time as PM until LHL, birth rate policies and incentives have always been a permanent fixture in NDRs and Budget speeches. But for the PM to highlight this issue but totally not speak about birth rates policies or incentives is quite a significant deviation from the norm. First, this might signal that they have given up their continual monetary incentive efforts of improving birth rates. Second, they would rather opt for a short-term fix in getting foreign talents than to pursue a seemingly lost cause. Lastly, if both are true, then they have to resolve the tension between the foreigners and locals. The foreign talents policy has been around for sometime, but seldom mentioned in NDRs as it is potentially touchy. Phrasing in the wrong manner, may have significant consequences. But I think the PM carried it well.

The Policy “Face”
Political science lesson 201: Every policy needs a “face”. This means that for every policy, some ministers must take responsibility or take the face of it. Name any policy, and you should or must be able to find a face to it. Like Goh Chok Tong’s initiative of the CPF cuts during the economic downturn, George Yeo to FTAs, or the building of MRT to Ong Teng Cheong’s credit, are the faces of the policies. So far, Lee Hsien Loong has been elusive in doing that, rightly so. Since taking on the post of Prime Minister, he has been careful in avoiding putting his face on any policies, except the IR. I don’t think that he is trying to sidestep any responsibility or controversy but is a deliberate strategy to strengthen his hold on his leadership.

Every Prime Minister needs to step out of the shadow of his predecessor, just like GCT differentiating himself from LKY, Abdullah Badawi from Mahathir. This is no easy task. But LHL is a quick learner in this field. What some new leaders did wrong was taking an issue or policy to benchmark as “success” over the transition. When Badawi took over from Mahathir, he took himself to task of eliminating corruption in the government as his report card. And he announced this even before he has grip and control over the government. Without the good ground support, he was doomed to fail from the start and is now attacked because that was his benchmarking policy and he is the face to it. LHL has smartened from this. Instead of putting his face to the policies, he delegates the policy implementation to other Ministers once he has initiates it. An example would be the population control responsibility being with Wong Kan Seng after the NDR.

Political leaders can only be criticized or attacked in two areas, leadership and policy. Leadership can be hidden as long as your team publicly voice support for you. Policies are in the public eye and success depends also on the public eye. This, of course, is more difficult to predict or manage. Thus, unless LHL is confident that he has control over the government, with his people in place, he will be and should be “elusive” in the policy limelight. And NDR is the stage where he has to be in the policy limelight. Hence, this NDR was purposely focused on broad issues, no specific policies, general and directional at best.

The Brown Man Causing Black Faces?
Yes, the latest Mr Brown’s “mai hum feat. PM Lee” got me tickling. Maybe this is already stale news to many but maybe I could just give a little heads up on what happened behind the Brown saga from MICA’s point of view.

We all reacted strongly in the way the MICA’s Press Secretary K Bavani responded to the article. But maybe you didn’t know this but several Ministers were very upset with the Press Secretary as well. Apparently, some of the MICA Ministers (except Lee Boon Yang) and other Cabinet Ministers were not informed when the press letter was published. And many Ministers were angry with her and her badly crafted letter. Simply, she reacted too soon, too harsh and without much consideration. Considering that she was also the President of the Institute of Public Relations of Singapore, her mistake was inexcusable and was not taken too lightly. But being part of the civil service the Ministers can’t turn around and scold her in public. Unity has to be presented under every circumstance. This is the rule of thumb of the government. However, this is case of forgiven but not forgotten. Thus, if you read the statements of the Ministers after the letter was published, there was a slight disjoint in statement and tune. While seemingly supporting the Press Secretary, they tried to soften the damage done. All sang the same song with a different tune (no punt intended). Don’t be surprised if you see some changes to her position in the coming 2 years (but not within this year).

It will be interesting to see or find out if Dr Lee Boon Yang, Minister of MICA, shouldered most of the blame during the stormy Cabinet meeting. In any case, it doesn’t matter, as he will be joining Yeo Cheow Tong on retirement soon.

I was supposed to talk about the National Day Rally, but landed up talking about many other things that are not really related. As usual…

One more note:
Well, while many thought that the government "forced" TODAY papers to suspend Mr Brown, they didn't. When the editor of TODAY decided to suspend Mr Brown, out of fear of kanna knocked in the head by his boss or pure stupidity or purely to push the blame to the government, they did not inform the government or MICA. The officials only learnt about the suspension when it was published. This led many MICA Ministers even more upset as the whole would have thought that the government "forced" TODAY into doing that. You may not believed me in this, but trust my MICA source and TODAY papers friend. TODAY did a screw job on the government, well enough to think that it was the "MICA's heavy hand" in action again. I'm so sure about this statement that I double dare TODAY to sue me on this one (Ooops, sorry James Gomez, for bringing up unhappy and familiar GE2006 memories. I was well indoctrinated by the white forces during my early education.).

Sunday, August 13, 2006 

Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong
The Benevolent Leader or The Unwilling Candidate?

I think to those who read my blog, they often have five conclusions: 1) I don’t update my blog that often (in my defense, I am rather busy and each article takes lots o f research… *eyeballs rolling*); 2) This blog seems like a FAQ for the govt and PAP (doesn’t mean that I am pro-PAP); 3) Each article is so damn lengthy (that is if you read them); 4) I wrote more on the dead than the living (or when the living becomes dead); 5) Whatever you wish to read, I’ll try to write! (*fingers crossed*)

In this article, I’ll be writing on a recent and continuing history of SM Goh Chok Tong with a slight twist. There are little doubts that he was a popular PM in comparison with his predecessor and successor. His “softer” approach and style was a breath of fresh air to many. Upon his stepping down from his premiership, there have been many articles written on his policies, his leadership and his achievements. This will not be one of them. Simply, if I do write on those standard contents, you will be better off reading the Straits Times than this lengthy blasphemy (not that Straits Times always purport the unbiased truth!).

The first lesson of observing political truths is to never treat an entity as one (btw, who am I to teach lessons of politics…Ooops). In other words, is never to stereotype or characterize the entity. What is the PAP? What characteristics does the PAP MPs or Ministers have? These questions are fallacies. Behind the scenes of unity, there may be differences in opinions, characters and ambitions. There is no PAP character or person but is just an amalgamation of diverse people and their motives. Anyway, many of policies made within the Cabinet are not unanimous. That is politics; the innate and unseen character of each participating entity. Of course, like what Lim Kim San mentioned about assessing people is that one could only briefly know the other person through observation and instinct. This is what made assessing politicians so difficult. In the public face and media spotlight, we thought we know them like friends but there are more that we don’t know than we thought we know. The resulting impact is that we place mental and perception brackets on their names, like Lee Kuan Yew (the Authoritarian), Goh Chok Tong (the Good Guy) and the Cabinet (the group of “Yes-men”) based on what the media feeds to us. This article (or blasphemy, depending on how you see it) will just add fuel for your thoughts with statements from GCT and on GCT. Ultimately, this blog can’t claim to know or speak the unspoken truth on GCT or any politicians, but just form an alternative perception track. I’ll leave you to make your own conclusions.

His Political Beginnings
In LKY’s memoirs (Chapter 41 – Passing the Baton, Pg 735), he mentioned about how he ease the way for GCT to succeed him. For those who have not read that chapter, I strongly recommend that you do. That chapter is very interesting as words are contained within words. Depending on which angle you read, you will get a different story.

First, we must know that LKY’s book was an international bestseller across many countries, and read by most leaders around the world. Second fact is that whatever he wrote in his book about GCT or LHL would be what foreign leaders read about them. In that chapter, he described GCT as “not a natural politician…tall, gangling and awkward, and spoke English with a heavy Hokkien accent.” This is not the best description for the person who is about to succeed you. LKY also described GCT as “self-conscious and without the gift of speech-making but had ability, dedication and drive, and was interested in people”. Later LKY even mentioned that he found an English women to teach GCT to speak in a more relaxed and natural way. For a person who will be Prime Minister, he still needed someone to assist him to look for a tutor? This might have pointed out that GCT wasn’t really in the “driving seat” but had an instructor beside him, constantly.

Another interesting point to the chapter was GCT not wanting move into LKY’s office. “I did not suffer any withdrawal syndrome. Chok Tong did not want to move into my old office in the Istana Annexe, which I had occupied for 20 years since I moved from City Hall, but chose to create a new office on the floor above mine.” Aside from the niceties that one might think of when he first read it, there might be more significance in that statement. Maybe LKY was literately the “power behind the throne”, or maybe it suggested how much power LKY had and wish to remind GCT about it. More importantly, what is the message that LKY wants to bring to all the leaders in the world about his deputy?

Building His Own Legitimacy
Perhaps the second lesson of politics is the word, “legitimacy”. Whether be it an organization or leader, it or he has to have some form of legitimacy. The forms of legitimacy includes: mandate from people (elections), leadership charisma (eg: Mao Tze-Dong), expert knowledge (for technocrats), military power (like in Indonesia) or economic performances. The last form of legitimacy, economic performances, is developing into the most important form for any political office. For the case of PAP, the core strength is their ability to provide economic success and is unmatched by any parties. No opposition parties came close to challenging them in that area. The trends for the past few GEs was for the oppositions to divert away from economical issues and focus on other side issues such as human rights infringements.

For leaders, they too have to build their own legitimacy and mandate as well. “Inherited” authority will not last long without legitimacy. Similarly, if a leader managed to last long (in at least a semi-democratic country), you could somewhat say that he is not riding on “inherited” authority but has some form of legitimacy (yes, I am hinted at someone).

In the case of GCT, many assumed that he was a seat-warmer, sandwiched between the Lees. In his early political years as PM, he needed to gain support from three areas, within the Cabinet, within the Party cadres and with the Singapore population. His apparent tactics was to first gain the mandate of the Singaporeans by General Elections then gradually make changes within the party and Cabinet to place the men loyal to him in key positions. Doing the opposite might anger his predecessor who still has considerably power and influence over all matters. He has seen lessons from his neighbouring counterparties and will be careful not to make the same mistakes. However, his election mandate will not come easy. Since Independence, LKY has been Singapore’s only Prime Minister. For GCT to step into his shoes and gain the confidence of the population was no easy feat.

Altered Ego in Elections
However, his first GE (1991) was setback from him and probably changed his “election personality” several degrees. In the 1991 GE, the PAP lost a record of 4 seats to the opposition, one of which was his female Senior Minister of State, Seet Ai Mee. Other wards, such as Bukit Batok, were barely won by the PAP. That election was the turning point of his “election mentality”. Since then, he has opted to be tougher during elections with his words and actions.

In the 1997 Election, he was determined to be tough on the Oppositions and would take them out by any means, previously endorsed by LKY. During the “Battle of Cheng San”, GCT gave this message,

“You decide. You choose Tang Liang Hong, Jeyeratnam, raise their status and lower the Prime Minister’s the Deputy Prime Ministers’ stature, in Singapore, internationally, that will have very serious consequences.”

“What we are now doing is to… put all the chips on the table. It is a winner-takes-all situation. MRT, LRT, Punggol 21, upgrading, estate improvement, libraries, kindergartens, better schools… all these are plans which… have put to the people.”

“We win, Cheng San will get not just the attention of Lee Yock Suan and the team. Cheng San will get the Government’s attention, my attention, Lee Hsien Loong’s attention, Tony Tan’s attention. Even in Marine Parade you don’t get such attention. So you win big or you lose big. So tomorrow, you have to decide.”


Of course, we all knew what happened to Tang Liang Hong and JBJ after that Election.

Era of Disposed Number Ones & Downfall of Twos
cheng ye xiao he, bai ye xiao he” – He who gave you success, can bring your downfall.

If one reads the memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew, both volumes, you could sense his apprehension over several domestic issues such as Party splits (which I will mention later), succession planning, ousting of top Asian leaders and the downfalls of Number Twos. Not known to many is that the PAP suffered a Party split twice, once by the charismatic Mayor Ong Eng Guan and by the leftist, Lim Chin Siong. The latter split was devastating and almost permanently crippled the PAP. In recent history of our neighbours, UMNO suffered two party splits when Tengku Razaleigh openly challenged Mahathir in 1987 and when Anwar fell out with Dr M. These incidents, locally and abroad, remained deeply entrenched in LKY’s mind, even until today.

The world has seen plenty of examples of the difficult relationships between the leaders and their deputies. All these incidents led both LKY and GCT to rethink their own potentially precarious position. No matter what LKY said, deep down, he wanted LHL to be the Prime Minister someday. And he could only exert his influence if he is still in Cabinet. And for GCT, he knows what LKY wants from him and knows that LKY still has the ability and power to remove him should there be a need to. This is a tango that both are dancing in secret. Given their delicate relationship, it is not surprising to see GCT echoing most of LKY views and words. If you look through all the news reports on GCT, majority of his words are singing in the same tune as what LKY previously sung. In the opinions of many, GCT never really stepped out of LKY’s shadow.

Unwillingly Unseated?
Many often wondered if GCT stepped down willingly from the position of PM or was he pressed into doing so. Perhaps only three people in Singapore know the answer. But what we can do is to decipher his actions and words leading up to his stepping down. In the article on Lee Hsien Loong, I’ve mentioned this before and will do it here again. During GCT’s last National Day Rally as Prime Minister, he mentioned this:

“You may also have heard this old story about Loong. Back in 1990, Loong had a quarrel with Richard Hu. Dhanabalan sided with Richard. Loong lost his temper, reached across the table, and gave Dhanabalan a tight slap! The whole Cabinet was thrown into commotion. I then forced Loong to apologise.

I must be suffering from amnesia. I just cannot remember this incident! Now you know how creative Singaporeans are!”

GCT need not mention the Dhanabalan incident since it was already 13 years ago (from the National Day Rally). People wouldn’t remember if they weren’t reminded by him. But he still made that comment and later claimed amnesia. And for the first time in Singapore history, GCT created a three-step process to the transition of power, through endorsements from the PAP Central Executive Committee, PAP Cabinet Ministers and the PAP MPs. The words and actions of GCT during that year can be quite intriguing. But I’ll leave you to decipher that.

Can there be Three Tigers in One Mountain?
One question that no one explicitly asked was whether the system and post of Senior Minister would exist when LKY passes. The current situation, of having two former Prime Ministers in the present Cabinet (plus the present PM), is unprecedented in any part of the world. Since it currently exists, the question should really be whether it should continue to exist and will it cease to exist. There are some coffeeshop talks on this issue that before LKY passes, GCT will either step down or have his loyal men removed. (According to market talks) Given LKY sensitive nature developed during the tumultuous times (see the History of PAP) and struggle of the traumatic party split, he will leave nothing to chance. Although the possibilities of a party split or power struggle is negligible, he will not rest until that has been resolved even after his death.

Necessary Stage of Change: Uprooting the Roots
Some might find this (removing GCT or his men) objectionable or unwarranted, but there is nothing inherently wrong with that. The mistake that Abdullah Badawi (Malaysia’s current PM) made was his inability to gradually and systematically remove his predecessor’s men from the Cabinet and plant his loyal lieutenants into key positions. Now, he is facing a situation of having policies with no one loyal enough to him to implement it. With half of the Cabinet still loyal to Mahathir and a strong number two candidate in Najip, his position is vulnerable to ousting. That is the main reason for him to undertake several key Ministries (PMO, Home Affairs and Finance) himself.

For LHL’s team to be effective, it is vital and necessary for him to place his people into the key Ministries. As predicted before the GE 2006, I expected Yeo Cheow Tong, Lee Boon Yang and Lim Boon Heng to gradually step down (within one year) and it is taking shape now. Yeo Cheow Tong has stepped down, and both Lee Boon Yang and Lim Boon Heng have indicted their stepping down within a year. MPs loyal to GCT like Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Golf partner of GCT) have also stepped down. For GCT himself, he has been assigned to foreign and finance affairs issues such as Middle East Islamic finance hub and Malaysia bilateral issues. This isolates his impact on “domestic politics”, leading him away from the public eye and leaving room for LHL in the spotlight. Again, there is nothing wrong with that, all in the name of “renewal”.

Deciphering GE2006
Similarly, during the GE2006, two incidents are worth analyzing. Firstly, before the GE, GCT openly challenged the opposition parties to test Marine Parade GRC (his ward). Yes, all MPs and Ministers also challenged or stated that they welcomed opposition contest. But for GCT, it was different. He needed the contest to demonstrate that he is still more popular than LHL, something which he is sure of but required undisputable figures. If he scored well in the contest, it might prolong his career in LHL’s administration or (very remotely and speculatively) offer him a chance of a comeback (which GCT himself wouldn’t even expect or probably want). But he didn’t receive a contest and it turned out worse.

The second incident was his assignment to win back Potong Pasir and Hougang from Chiam (SDA) and Low Thia Khiang (WP). This is an astute move by LHL (possibly LKY). On the face of it, it demonstrates the new PM’s serious intent on recovering Potong Pasir and Hougang. The implicitly explicit reason is to keep the opposition leaders, Low and Chiam, busy in their own wards and negate their effects on the neighbouring GRCs, especially Aljunied GRC. But the real beneficiary of this strategy is LHL. There are four possible scenarios out of this strategy: 1) winning both Potong Pasir and Hougang back; 2) winning one of them back, like to be Potong Pasir; 3) losing both wards by lesser margins and; 4) losing both wards by larger margins.


If (1) happens, LHL will be credited for winning back the PP and Hougang but not GCT, since GCT was not able to do it when he was PM. But the government will run into lots of foreign affairs (such as democracy advocators) issues of having no oppositions in parliament (inter-parliamentary visits require oppositions as well).
If (2) happens, LHL will still be credited more than GCT. If (3) happens, it shows the slight impact of GCT’s campaigning influence. Lastly, if (4) happens (which happened), it will be the worst scenario for GCT. As he mentioned during the campaign, the losses will affect his “personal prestige” and “reputation”, almost like a slap in his face. Since scenario (4) materialized, GCT doesn’t have the chip to say that he is more popular than LHL or LHL is any less popular than him. And since LHL didn’t campaign at PP and Hougang (at all), the burden of loss is solely and squarely on GCT.

Conclusions
Once again, I’ve asked more questions than provide answers. This is probably what makes a perceivably dull local politics interesting. As mentioned in the beginning, I am no pseudo-Lim Kim San and can never be and never will be. Never can I claim to speak the uncensored truth about one’s character since I don’t know him in person. What I can do is to spark some interest that allows you to question the answers you see or hear in public and make judgments of your own. Of course, we maybe wrong and must accept that we might be wrong. There is always more that we don’t know than know. This article provides only an alternative view which might be wrong, so do make your own judgment call.

The Idealist

  • Thrasymachus
  • Propagating In: Singapore
  • The Critic, The Philosopher, The Pragmatist, The Moralist, The Egalitarian, The Confused, The True-Blue Singaporean
My profile

Email Me At:

    thrasymachus.sg@gmail.com

Singapore Time

Poll Your Agony!

    NEW!
    Do you support the government's decision in barring certain Civil Society Organization members from the IMF/WB meetings?
    Fully support!
    Yes, but could have been more lenient
    Don't know...
    No, the govt is too rigid
    Absolute no!
    I don't give a damn about it...
    Current results


    Which topic do you wish to read at Singaporegovt?
    SM Goh Chok Tong: Behind the Scene
    Oppositions: Singapore Democratic Party
    Super Seven: Khaw Boon Wan, Dr Ng Eng Hen
    Super Seven II: Dr Vivian, Raymond Lim
    History V: Devan Nair
    History VI: Dr Goh Keng Swee
    Who is Thrasymachus (aka me)?
    All of the Above!
    None of the Above - I hate reading!
    Current results


    NEW!
    What do you think of the General Election 2006 (GE) Results?
    Accurately reflects the political preference of Singaporeans
    Somewhat accurate in reflecting Singapore's political preference
    PAP's win was too flattering
    Oppositions' percentage was too high
    Not accurate in reflecting the political preference of Singaporeans
    Totally inaccurate!
    Current results


    NEW!
    What do you think of the Gomez Issue?
    He is guilty of deceiving!
    He is not guilty!
    The whole issue was overblown by the PAP & media
    Don't care, Don't know!
    Current results


    NEW!
    What do you think of this site (singaporegovt.blogspot)?
    Good, Fair, Objective, Interesting Read
    Above Average
    Average
    Below Average
    Total Rubbish!
    Total mouthpiece of the PAP government!
    I HATE this site!
    I LOVE this site!
    Current results


    NEW!
    Which (Senior) Minister of State do you wish to see promoted to Full Minister?
    Ho Peng Kee
    Dr Balaji Sadasivan
    Zainul Abidin Rasheed
    Heng Chee How
    Lim Hwee Hua
    Grace Fu
    Radm Lui Teck Yew
    Lim Yi Shyan
    Gan Kim Yong
    Current results


    Which Election Candidate do you prefer?
    Low Thia Khiang (WP)
    Chiam See Tong (SDA)
    Sylvia Lim (WP)
    Chee Soon Juan (SDP)
    J.B. Jeyaratnam (Formerly WP)
    Lee Hsien Loong (PAP)
    Dr Ng Eng Hen (PAP)
    Sitoh Yih Pin (PAP)
    Eric Low (PAP)
    Current results


    How do you rate PM Lee Hsien Loong's Performance (as Prime Minister) so far?
    Excellent
    Very Good
    Above Expectation
    Average
    Poor ("I can even do better!")
    Very Poor
    Current results


    Do you have confidence in PM Lee Hsien Loong's leadership and his team of Ministers?
    Yes
    No
    Too early to tell...
    Any one but them!
    Current results


    Do you think Lee Hsien Loong became Prime Minister on his own merits?
    Yes!
    Yes! ("He was the best candidate")
    No! ("He has obvious backing from LKY")
    No! ("There wasn't any alternative candidate to challenge him in the first place")
    Current results


    Which of the (Junior) Minister to you wish to see him/her step down? (Part III)
    Raymond Lim
    Balaji Sadasivan
    Ho Peng Kee
    Chan Soo Sen
    Lim Hwee Hua
    Heng Chee How
    Gan Kim Yong
    Yu-Foo Yee Shoon
    Zainul Abidin
    Current results


    Which Minister do you wish to see him step down? (Part I)
    Lee Hsien Loong
    Goh Chok Tong
    Lee Kuan Yew
    Lim Boon Heng
    Lee Boon Yang
    Yeo Cheow Tong
    Mah Bow Tan
    George Yeo
    Teo Chee Hean
    Current results


    Which Minister do you wish to see him step down? (Part II)
    Lim Hng Kiang
    Wong Kan Seng
    S Jayakumar
    Tharman Shanmuguratnam
    Lim Swee Say
    Ng Eng Hen
    Vivian Balakrishnan
    Khaw Boon Wan
    Yaacob Ibrahim
    Current results


    What is your utmost concern for the coming General Elections?
    "Bread & Butter" issues - Jobs, economy, salary, etc
    Freedom of Speech - or lack of
    HDB issues - upgrading, high housing cost, etc
    International Issues - govt's handling of foreign relationships
    Transport issues - LTA, NEL, MRT
    Change of Leadership - from SM Goh to PM Lee
    All of the above
    I'll vote any party except PAP!
    I'll only vote for PAP!
    Current results


    Which is your favourite Minister?
    PM Lee Hsien Loong
    SM Goh Chok Tong
    MM Lee Kuan Yew
    DPM Jayakumar
    Dr Vivian Balakrishnan
    Teo Chee Hean
    George Yeo
    Tharman S.
    I Hate of them!
    Current results

Faces of Singapore

    www.flickr.com
    Thrasymachus' photos More of Thrasymachus' photos

Disclaimer

    The author of this blog bears no responsibility for any misinterpretation, libel, defamation, injury and death as a result of reading this blog. Contents are high subjective and readers should read with caution. All readers should be 18 years and above, with half a decent brain to judge the validity of the articles.

Search Blog


    Search WWW Search singaporegovt.blogspot.com

Number of Visitors

Powered by Blogger
and Blogger Templates