Singapore Notes

Malcolm Gladwell retells the classic underdog tale in a TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) talk: David, a young shepherd boy armed only with a sling, beats Goliath, the mighty warrior. The story has transcended its biblical origins to become a common shorthand for improbable victory.

Gladwell suggests that Goliath was disadvantaged. His height was clue that he suffered from acromegaly, a form of gigantism with manifestations which include benign tumours, tall stature, and impaired vision. And probably a superego to match. Goliath never realised that David did not intend to engage him in hand to hand combat. All he had was a leather pouch attached to a cord, but Gladwell calculates that the stopping power of the rock projectile was equivalent to a bullet from a 45mm handgun. The lumbering Goliath, weighted down by heavy armour, never stood a chance. The bigger they come, the harder the fall. Gravity's a bitch.

Anyway, that's one view for the optimists. When a sledge hammer is let fly on a mosquito, it's difficult to root for the heavy weight.

When Michelangelo sculpted the statue of David, he broke with all traditional images. Instead of showing Goliath's defeat, Michelangelo chose to depict the young shepherd boy at the exact moment of decision. His look is of concern, but also of conviction. Goliath is nowhere to be seen.

The hot topic of the day is Central Provident Fund (CPF). When the CPF was first started in 1955, both employees and employers had to contribute 5%. Over the years, the rate was gradually increased until it reached 25% in 1985 for both parties. Surely one of the highest compulsory savings rates ever - 50 cents in the kitty for every $1 earned - ensuring a secure nest egg for a comfortable retirement. It's turning out to be a rotten egg, all sulphurous and foul smelling.

Member of parliament (MP) Inderjit Singh inadvertently touched on one source of the stench, "If we use less for housing, we will have more for retirement". Investing CPF monies in property makes sense only if the asset enhancement model works. But like all investment plans - including CPF Investment Scheme–Ordinary Account (CPFIS-OA) and Special Account (CPFIS-SA) funds going into insurance, unit trusts, exchange traded funds (ETFs), bonds and treasury bills, shares and gold - the game is all about risk versus reward. No one guarantees the pot of gold will still be there after the upturn and downturn cycles. You need more than a pinch of salt to swallow the property agent's snake oil, that rentals will always cover the cost of the bank loan.

Civil servants at the CPF board who were not comfortable stashing the money in biscuit tins or under the matresses knew they had to generate at least interest income to pay out to the citizens when it was time to collect, which used to be age 55. Never underestimate the power of the compounding rate.

MP (Chua Chu Kang GRC) Zaqy Mohamad is proposing an investment-linked plan managed by the CPF board to pool the investments from different members and provide higher returns. But the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) is already doling out the CPF funds to investment entities through the mechanism of Singapore Government Securities (SGS). The difference is the quality of returns. Our northern neighbour's Employees' Provident Fund (EPF) declares an annual dividend on funds on deposit which has varied over time, depending on investment results. Recent numbers are 5.90% (2010), 6.00% (2011), 6.15% (2012), 6.35% (2013).

Which brings to mind Chris Balding's observation that, in our topsy-turvy CPF world, risks are socialized while benefits are privatized. Ergo, if the investments do well, the government gets to keep everything above the 2.5-4% CPF interest payment level; if the investments do poorly - as in the Bank of America buy high sell low debacle - tax payers will have to work longer years to guarantee the payment to CPF holders. No wonder the citizenry is upset.

That whiff in the air, not alcohol, not riot inducing. Smells like.... like another excuse to raise the bus fares.

You get the drift when they pointedly mentioned that in the London system, which is one of two contracting models quoted, fares have gone up by 59% since 2005. In Perth, the Premier of Western Australia is cited as saying commuters may soon have to pay half the costs of running the bus and rail system, instead of the present one third. No data was provided for Japan, Korea or any other country.

According to the Land Transport Authority, operators under current privatised model may not run services if they are deemed to be unprofitable, hence the occasional shortages and tenuous waiting times. Profit before service seems to be the mantra. It's cold comfort that these operators, namely SMRT and SBS Transit, need not bid for 80% or 9 packages of existing and new routes. They need not compete with the new entrants, which will be fighting for the 20% or 3 packages. Their negotiated contracts will ensure that the new system restructure will have little or no impact on SMRT and SBS Transit balance sheets. SMRT share price actually hit an 11-month high of $1.475 on Tuesday, affirmation that someone upstairs is still taking good care of them. Never mind that if they had done a better job, this whole exercise would not have been necessary.

Meanwhile the talking heads are having a field day debating whether the whole revamp - Government owing all bus operating assets, infrastructure, monitoring and operating systems, fare collection - is tantamount to nationalisation or semi-nationalisation. Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew says that nationalising public transport will lead to higher fares and a heftier burden on taxpayers. In the absence of any stated objectives to cut costs and reduce overheads, the inevitable hike is a foregone conclusion. Already they are planning to repaint all the buses, in mimic of the iconic red London bus.

And you thought the whole shebang was about shaving off some minutes from your waiting time for the next bus. A little birdie just let it be known that the duopoly of public bus transport operators was losing money in recent times, to the tune of some $40 million a year. You'll never glean this from the published figures, the SBS Transit 2013 annual report indicates a healthy operating profit of $15.526 millions, down from 2012's $25.418 millions. The red ink must be stanched at all cost.

The sale of assets to the Government will net a transfusion of cash, whether priced at written down value or cost at acquisition. Whatever's best for dressing up the books. Thanks to the greedy anticipation of large dividend payouts when the huge amount of "free money" rushes in, shares of both companies have soared and closed at their highest in two years.

You will appreciate the popularity of the exercise with stakeholders when you know who stands to benefit most from the bailout:

SMRT Top 5 largest shareholders:
Temasek Holdings Pte Ltd (54.23%)
DBSN Services Pte Ltd (4.97%)
DBS Nominees Pte Ltd (3.70%)
Citibank Nominees Pte Ltd (3.56%)
HSBC (Singapore) Nominees Pte Ltd (2.18)

SBS Transit Top 5 largest shareholders:
Comfort Delgro Corporation Limited (75.21%)
BNP Paribas Securites Services Singapore (3.55%)
DBS Nominees Pte Ltd (1.70%)
United Overseas Bank Nominees Pte Ltd (0.91%)
Citibank Nominees Singapore Pte Ltd (0.52%)

ComfortDelGro Corp's 3rd largest shareholder used to be the Singapore Labour Foundation (after DBS nominees and DBSN Services), which has pared down its stake in the transport giant over the years, from 12.08% (2011), 11.18% (2012) to 2.47% in 2013.

Whither the harassed ordinary commuter? Same old, same old, pay and pay until broke. It's no coincidence that an Australian bus operator has declared their intent to enter the "ideal" Singapore market, where profits are guaranteed by captive consumers who have no alternative but to grin and bear it.

British historian and author David Irving specialises in the military and political history of World War II and believes the Holocaust never happened, just like some Japanese who think the Nanking Massacre never took place. When American academic Deborah Lipstadt called Irving a Holocaust denier, falsifier, and bigot in her book "Denying the Holocaust", he sued her and her publisher Penguin Books on 5 September 1996.

Although the book was first published in the United States in 1993, Irving decided to sue in an English court. And for good reason: English libel law puts the burden of proof on the defence.

Under American libel law, a public figure who claims to have been libelled must prove that the statements in question are defamatory, that they are false, and that they were made with actual malice. Furthermore, reliance on credible sources (even if they turn out to be false) is a valid defence. In contrast, English defamation law puts the burden of proving the truth of allegedly defamatory statements on the defendant, rather than the plaintiff. A defamatory statement is presumed to be false, unless the defendant can prove its truth, and reliance on sources is irrelevant. This has been considered an impediment to free speech in much of the developed world.

Lipstadt was intimidated by the lawsuit, since she was a humble professor of limited financial means. Irving is the author of some 30 books, including "The Destruction of Dresden" (1963), "Hitler's War" (1977), "Churchill's War" (1987), and "Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich" (1996).

To cut a long story short, Irving not only lost the case, but in light of evidence presented at the trial a number of his works that had previously escaped serious scrutiny were brought to critical public examination. Irving was shown to have misstated evidence; misquoted sources; falsified statistics; misconstrued information and bent historical evidence so that it conforms to his neo-fascist political agenda and ideological beliefs. The expenses arising from the court proceedings forced him into bankruptcy, and he lost his home.

Professor Lipstadt was fortunate in that many rallied to her cause when she was in dire need of support. Although gratified by the court ruling, she reminded us to be vigilant, "I do not delude myself that, though my battle with Mr Irving may be over, the fight against those who will pervert the historical record for their own political and ideological goals has ended". Especially those with the financial clout to unleash expensive litigation.

The video clip posted by Lee Hsien Loong on his Facebook page of the Indranee Rajah response comes on right after Low Thia Khiang's speech. For a guy whose delivery in dialect is more powerful than in Queen's English, this is one command performance that resonates. The keystone of his message, and probably why it was clipped, is this reminder:
"If the people continue to support a government party that uses high-handed tactics against its political opponents, we are endorsing a bullying political culture. If the people support a governing party that uses governmental resources, including civil servants, to serve its partisan goals, we are condoning the abuse of political power as an acceptable culture."

The mainstream media refers to it as a "heated debate", but if you watch the lacklustre retort of Rajah, it comes across as a tired response, with the speaker looking, and articulating, a decade older than her actual years. You would be tired too, repeating the unchanging rote of a programmed automaton. If her demeanour spells her party's enthusiasm for "putting Singapore at the heart of what we do", it explains the lethargic efforts at addressing the housing, transport and foreign invasion issues.

Anyone playing the devil's advocate could easily twist Low's words, and shame him for blaming the electorate for the current state of affairs. Not unlike blaming the people of Germany for the undulating support of a little corporal from Bavaria during WWII. Maybe not that easy, since criticism is now seeping in from unlikely circles.

Inderjit Singh (Ang Mo Kio GRC) is best remembered for taking a leak in the little boys' room to avoid voting for the Population White Paper. This time round he decided to be conveniently overseas, when he posted "hard-hitting" comments on the President's Address:
"I encounter a fair number of residents who question the rationale of government policies. They feel the Government does not understand their needs and concerns but instead craft policy while seated in, what effectively seems like a different world, an ideal clean and sterile policy lab or ivory tower perched high up."

We wish he would give us more leaks, the types provided by a Edward Snowden or Julian Assange. That's the only way for folks to stop swallowing the blue pill, and start opting for the red one.

Devadas Krishnadas, CEO of consultancy Future-Moves Group, nails it when he fleshed out the sweetheart deal between the Government and the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board:

"The Government issues Special Singapore Government Securities or SSGS to the CPF with a coupon rate matching the rate of return on CPF monies.
The SSGS is non-tradable and the CPF is the only purchaser of these securities.
According to the Accountant-General’s Department, SSGS amounted to nearly S$250 billion as of March 2013. What happens is that the CPF monies are transformed, via this mechanism, into investable capital. This capital, when variously invested, then earns a return which permits the paying of the coupon, which in turn allows the CPF to pay interest to its members."

An astute commentator, a Ms Chung, completes the rest of the story which may never see the light day until the current political scene is changed out:

"This article didn't answer the following:-
(i) transparency of how funds flow between CPF, GIC and Temasek;
(ii) the high rates of returns for our SWFs vis a vis CPF interest;
(iii) the rate of increase for MS is higher than inflation; and
(iv) whether there can be increased flexibility for people to use their CPF, esp for those caught in dire life situations not of their making.
v) If you are 55 and you sell your flat... if you don't meet the minimum sum AFTER refunding the CPF utilized + interests; they will withhold the proceeds from the sales to cover the shortfall... Does this makes (sic) absurd sense???"

Until the incumbents decide to come clean, it will always be hard for Singaporeans to understand CPF. The face off in parliament is not about constructive politics, whatever Uncle Tony Tan had in mind.

Politics (from Greek: πολιτικός politikos, meaning "of, for, or relating to citizens") is defined as the practice and theory of influencing other people on a civic or individual level. There are no holds barred in the range of unsavoury methods employed in politics, which include promoting one's own political agenda among people, manipulating laws for selfish reasons, and exercising force, including warfare against adversaries. In the latter, short of another Operation Spectrum, we are witnessing high-handed tactics against political opponents and abuse of governmental resources, including civil servants, to serve partisan goals. The type of politics, as Mr Low Thia Khiang pointed out, that is constructive only for the incumbents.

Enjoying a ringside seat of constructive politics in parliament

The Workers' Party was recently accused of being inarticulate about many things, but come election time, they turn into tigers and heroes. Strangely, their members of parliament (MPs) seem to have quite a bit to say during the "Debate on President’s Address 2014". More than the oldest member in the house anyway. Maybe they should have livened up the proceedings by throwing shoes and stuff.

MP Sylvia Lim’s speech - Towards a Safe, Fair and Just Society - touched on two essential services that are supposed to ensure that we live in a safe, fair and just society, namely challenges for the Home Team and Access to Justice. She was surprised to discover that new NPPs (Neighbourhood Police Post), called e-NPPs or enhanced NPPs, offer electronic services, but are completely unmanned. Ah Kong will have to learn to type if he needs help. Access to justice, she noted, means the rich have the resources to engage expensive lawyers, but the poor have to make decisions based on their means. This sometimes includes pleading guilty, when they do not have the resources to contest their charges.

MP Png Eng Huat’s speech pleaded the case for our pioneer generation workers, in particular the anxiety of not knowing what is to come after retirement. The anticipation and excitement of being able to finally collect their lifelong CPF savings in full at retirement age, which was 55 then, dashed to bits with the shifting of the goal post to 62 and beyond. Instead of looking forward to grandchildren bouncing on their laps, they had better be familiar with bouncing checks.

MP Lee Li Lian’s speech lauded the Presidential commitment to keeping the pathway upwards open to all Singaporeans, regardless of their background or circumstances, but brought home the harsh reality faced by vulnerable groups. Guys ensconced in ivory towers need the occasional reminder of what ground zero is like. Her Mandarin portion commented on financial incentives introduced by the Government such as Baby Bonus and Child Development Account to encourage having more children. They need to be complemented by a change in attitudes and mind-set of employers with regards to flexible work options.

MP Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap’s speech asked the hard questions. Is the social safety net doing its job? Is the social safety net performing to help Singaporeans pick themselves up after a fall? Is the social safety net pulling families out of the poverty trap? How do we know that the temporary poor are indeed temporarily poor and are moving up the government’s different scales of help closer to median income self-sufficiency? What do you think?

"Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister may be right to say that there are no dead poor in Singapore because no one here lives under the World Bank’s extreme poverty line of $1.50 a day. But as he acknowledges, there are the relatively poor and the temporary poor. These are Singaporeans who are experiencing a fraction of the standard of living enjoyed by the average Singaporean. We need to know whether the government’s multiple lines of assistance, the social safety net, is helping them and whether the overall situation is improving year on year."

MP Pritam Singh’s speech weighted on Defence Diplomacy and better management of the Defence Budget. But splurging on expensive F35s is pretty pointless when, "Unfortunately, we are not in a position to determine or prevent a conflict in the South China Sea beyond offering ourselves as a neutral arbiter and an advocate for a Code of Conduct in the South China Sea." Focus instead, on more immediate worries closer to home.

NCMP Yee Jenn Jong’s speech on education and social mobility is close to his heart, as he declared, he owns businesses that provide services and products to schools. He frets about the reproduction of class stratification. In 2008, the PSC revealed that 47% of the PSC scholarship recipients that year lived in HDB flats, and 53% lived in private housing. This is an over representation of private housing as up to 85 per cent of Singaporeans live in HDB flats.

NCMP Gerald Giam’s speech is about managing risks, incentivising hard work and constructive politics.
MediShield Fund having a capital adequacy ratio of 161% in 2012, which is more than 40% higher than what the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) expects of commercial insurance funds, means that it is collecting a lot more in premiums than it is paying out in claims, transferring too much risk to citizens. Socializing risks, privatising gains - does that ring a bell? That has to be a damper on incentivising hard work.
Low Thia Khiang has more to say about constructive politics.

One advantage of the new digital television broadcast transmission (DVB-T2) is the ability to screen capture in glorious high definition, full 1920 x 1080p resolution. You can even see if the speaker is wearing his designer hearing aid or not.

What did his debating adversary say to make him so upset? It's not like some one yelled, "Ooi! Your mother wears army boots!" or "Look out for the flying shoe!" Altercation wise, 10 minutes is not too much of a verbal joust, but somehow a few key blows must have connected. Some possibilities:

"... I also noted that when the PAP has to make a policy U-turn, they call it policy shift. I don’t know whether that is a shift or it’s a flip-flop."

"Mdm Speaker, I thank the PM for praising the WP’s ability to fight in the elections."

"We don’t oppose all the policies but where we think that there is a need for us to oppose and it concerns the future of Singapore, like the Population White Paper, we did so. "

"We have said our piece but we have to respect the decision of the Government to move on. But our message has got across."

"... allowing the Government to move forward, not to jam up the Government. It is a mark of a responsible Government and a mark of first world Parliament."

Google translate: Pinoy, Free and Responsible New Hero

The mainstream media reported on Tuesday (27 May) that the Pilipino Independence Day Council of Singapore (PIDCS) decided to cancel the celebration of the Philippines’ 116th Independence Day altogether for this year, "owing to difficulties in getting alternative locations" for the event. That's pure bull.

The real reason is that their stubborn insistence to convene the 8 June happening at Ngee Ann City Civic Plaza Singapore was rejected by the Singapore Police Force (SPF) due to “public order and safety issues”. With the horrors of the Little India fiasco still fresh on their minds, the SPF has learnt a lesson or two. Our nice policemen did try to helpfully suggest holding the big bash at other places, such as Suntec City or Hong Lim Park, which they did make do with in 2011 & 2013 (Hong Lim) and 2012 (Suntec). Last we heard, the anti-pink party planned for the Padang was not shifted to either venue.

The PIDCS organisers probably thought that with the ringing endorsement of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong (‘bigots’ and ‘trolls’) and Manpower Minister Tan Chuan-Jin ('repulsive'), the SPF would surely cave in to their demands. Sorry, guys, this is Singapore, not the Philippines. They may have marched down Epifanio de los Santos Avenue (EDSA) and disrupted the main traffic artery in Metro Manila, but we have laws against illegal gatherings exceeding 5 in number, which happened to be revised to 1 person not too long ago. Yes, Virginia, a single person can be deemed an illegal assembly according to the law in Singapore.

Curiously, the actual date of the Philippine independence day is a subject of contention. It was President Diosdado Macapagal who signed the executive order Republic Act No. 4166 in August 1964 that "moved" the Philippines's independence day from 4 July 1946 to 12 June 1898, the year when General Emilio Aguinaldo declared Philippine "independence" over the dead bodies of Katipunan founder, Andres Bonifacio, his brothers and their followers. Aguinaldo's goons murdered these freedom fighters who founded the Katipunan secret society of Filipino rebels on July 7, 1892 to fight the Spanish colonization. 1946 was the year when the Philippine-American War ended, and the US granted independence to the Philippines on 4 July 1946 through the Treaty of Manila.

So there's nothing really special about 8 June that warrants kicking a fuss over. It's just another occasion for people like West Coast GRC Member of Parliament Arthur Fong to castigate Singaporeans and canonise the Philippines I-Day event as a “shot across the bow” that should “prompt Singaporeans to examine themselves”. And remind us of his party's pro-alien sympathies.

Sometimes our religious friends get upset when we use phrases like, "Omigod, they increased the freaking Minimum Sum again!" Just because of three letters, we are accused of as calling on the name of The Lord in vain. One citizen was apparently hauled into court for the mere mention of a politician's name.

~~Thank God~~ Mercifully, Judicial Commissioner Lee Kim Shin trashed the lawsuit that was the gag order that went awry. True, as the defendant acknowledged, there was a written revised agreement - price for her paid silence - stipulating that she was not allowed to say anything scandalous, untrue or defamatory about the plaintiff and the her family. That's not the same as talking publicly about members of the dysfunctional family. Such as passing comment on a parliamentary question about public housing prices which was broached by one daughter-in-law Foo Mee Har.

Clearly the good judge, like any fair minded citizen, saw nothing scandalous, untrue or defamatory about Foo's presence in parliament. Nobody pays serious attention to the stories of her near miraculous instant citizenship and party membership, or her hubby's monetary tussles with her employer bank. Similarly, nobody can be fooled by the argument that Madam Tan will not be able to live the rest of her long life "in peace and privacy" because of an innocent passing remark on some obscure social media page.

The defendant was understandably relieved, "It's like a burden has been lifted as this case has been going on for a year and a half". Consider this: for 1 1/2 years, the foreigner welcomed for her talent, into the country and into parliament, could not see through the waste of time and money expended on a frivolous litigation. If she can't provide decent advice for a little old lady, can she come up with meaningful contribution to the constructive politics of our country? The jury could be out for this.

People support CPF cuts

According to the table (see below) at the Central Provident Fund (CPF) website, the first CPF change was introduced on 1 Oct 2003, the cruel contribution cut to 33%. "The First Cut Is The Deepest" is also the title of a song by Rod Stewart, but nobody has the mood to sing after this.

And since the Prime Minister said, “People support CPF cuts because there are no protest outside parliament,” the CPF board got carried away with the implicit consent. CPF Minimum sum, salary ceiling, lower contribution rate for older workers, Medisave minimum sum, phasing of withdrawal rules, etc - the sky's the limit.

And the table does not include one more significant change - the erosion of CPF interest rate over the years. It was 5% in 1963, went up to 6.5% in 1974, and then the slide started heading south to current 2.5%. The formula for calculating the interest rate is a complicated business. From 1 July 1999 to present, the formula is supposedly 80% fixed deposit rate and 20% savings rate of the average of the major local banks over the preceding relevant 3 months. Problem with this method is that the banks have a different rate for someone depositing $100, and another with $100 million to park here. Just ask any wealth management executive.

Don't set your hopes too high up for the coming 7 June gathering of disgruntled voices at Hong Lim Park. Even the sympathetic members of parliament calling for higher rates and improvements to our CPF system will be met with same deaf ears. Technology makes it easy for the cold hearted, they simply switch off the hearing aid. Maybe what we need is a change of venue, say, outside parliament house.

You know respect for the prime minister has hit an all time low when, despite blustering and making ugly faces in parliament to insist that a spade should be called a spade, the Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore (IDA) is ignoring him and refusing to own up to a breach in security.

Faces at Crimson Logic turned red when they first discovered that SingPass account holders found password reset notification letters in the mail even though they had made no such requests. Account holders whose personal data, such as contact information, employer details and remuneration records, were in the custody of Crimson Logic, the appointed operator of the SingPass single-factor authentication system for all government e-services in Singapore.

IDA investigated, and discovered 1,560 user profiles were illegally accessed. At least 419 fell for the ruse, and their passwords were reset. Affected SingPass users had their account profiles modified and linked to a small pool of Singapore-registered mobile numbers - IDA refused to tell how many. The mobile number can be used in a two-factor authentication procedure. When the victim changes his or her password, this number will serve to "verify" the request. This is obviously too technical for IDA, "We continue to explore the use of two-factor authentication for e-government transactions, particularly those involving sensitive data..." Nothing much has changed at IDA, ever since the very first chief executive famously said that although she knows zilch about technology, she can always hire someone who does.

The Managing Director for IDA, Ms Jacqueline Poh, is treating the incident as "a shot across the bow" and advised all individuals to "examine themselves" and take personal responsibility for their own cyber security, to borrow the phraseology used by one Arthur Fong about foreign intrusion. IDA has filed a police report, and since they are insisting that the SingPass system has not been compromised or breached, IDA must be saying the stolen addresses and IDs were looted from virtual personal premises. And not filched from the highly secured and firewalled database of the Crimson Logic operator. Go figure.

The last episode of Talking Point ("Can Politics Be Constructive") kicked off by regurgitating the official definition of constructive politics, namely:

Effective policies that improve lives,
Putting forward good leaders,
Robust, open debate,
High standards of integrity, and
Rallying people around a common cause.

The panelists, comprising a cultural critic (what's that?), an academic and a president of a student's union, spoke eloquently and presented credible viewpoints. It was also obvious they were overtly cautious about pushing the envelope, and veering too close to O.B. markers. Invisible, malleable goal posts demarcating the imagined boundaries of politically correct articulation. They are so definitely not looking forward to a lawyer's letter in the mail.

But the common man, pushed to the threshold of pain, has no such qualms. It was refreshing, therefore, when a caller spoke from his, and our hearts. The parsing of language may be no match to the erudite guests at the table, but you can't fault him for purity of thought. He kicks in at around 39:31:

"First of all, I think very important is.... leadership is about being able to listen (to) both good and bad without getting angry, and without having the urge for retaliation. Like, you know, possibly like suing and things like that.
So I guess it's better that you say, okay, you say your points, we can always discuss. I'll get my perm sec, I'll get my ministers, then we sit down and call you in, or call a few guys in and have a chat. Then we can put up a report, yes, we have discussed this and this is what we have come up to a conclusion or whatever.
Basically it is a more amicable way of doing things for the progress, and for moving forward constructively. That is constructive politics.
Destructive is, basically you clobber people, you threaten people, and you do things that anger people, and worse still, you get politicians coming up with words like xenophobic and things like that. You know, it is uncomfortable, it irritates."

It's weird, when you listen to this a couple of times, it sounds so familiar. It evokes a sense of déjà vu especially for the pioneer generation. Once upon a time, Lee Kuan Yew used to speak like this, off the cuff, on a simple stage, without a prepared script. That was how he used to rally the people around a common cause.

"Indicative premiums" for a middle-income family

When Health Minister Gan asks you not to worry about the cost for Medishield Life premiums it's time to panic. Those who sent their kids overseas because places at the local universities were given gratis to foreigners should start asking them to look for a job over there and sponsor mom and dad across. While remaining coy about the actual premiums planned, Gan and Senior Minister of State (Health) Amy Khor seem to have the secretive numbers to claim the additional 1 per cent employer Medisave contribution should cover the increase. As if the sickly, handicapped and aged are likely to find an employer to cough up the additional dues so easily.

The charade is starting to resemble a seafood meal gone bad at Newtown Circus, where the scamster won't show you the price except to say it's according to market rate. Who ordered the removal of the $300,000 lifetime claim limit, increase of yearly claim limit from current $70,000 to $100,000, or increased daily claim limits for normal hospital wards? Who wants to partake of Alaskan crab when three meals a day - at hawker center, food court or restaurant - is already a daily struggle?

And then there's this subsidy card they like to play, treating the citizenry like fools who will fall for the trickery, again and again. What's the use of a temporal "transitional subsidy" when the full force of the hefty bill will hit after a brief respite?

When Medishield Life Review Committee chairman Chin was asked why there are no premium rebates for those who maintain good health, never had to see the doctor for a cough or a cold, he said the committee did not want people to forgo necessary treatment just to get a no-claim bonus, "We want to encourage good lifestyles... but not through the Medishield framework". Does that suspiciously sound like Medishield Life is not intended to look after the well being of your life? More like another scam to perpetuate the life long lock up of our retirement savings?

The only good news about the shady package is the reduction of the co-insurance component of the medical bill. Then again, they never did promise not to hike the rates for various hospital charges and procedures. Gotcha again.

Who wants to live up to a 100?

In 1984, Lee Kuan Yew said the practice of American corporations was for the chief executive officer to step down at age 65. He believed it was based on sound medical grounds. Something else also jolted him into reality. This is how he presented it at the National Day Rally speech:

"I do not know how much time the old Guards have. My senior colleagues and I are in our early and late 60s. Last October, three senior ministers were in hospital at the same time, in different parts of the world - one in New York and two in Singapore. Rajaratnam had a heart attack when he was at the UN. Goh Keng Swee was in SGH for treatment. Hon Sui Sen was recovering and was talking to Goh Keng Swee before lunch. After lunch Hon Sui Sen had a massive infarct. He died that same afternoon.
A skilful surgeon in London, through delicate additional plumbing to his heart, has given Rajaratnam a reprieve. Goh Keng Swee has got a remission. But he has given me notice he is not standing for re-election. Rajaratnam too wants to stand down. Goh Keng Swee cannot be moved. I am trying to persuade Rajaratnam to go on for another term at at least half a term."

Looking at the face of Alexander Imich, a retired chemist and parapsychologist, who died in New York City at the age of 111, one wonders when he decided to call it quits (He published a book "Incredible Tales of the Paranormal," when he was 92). Imich attributed his longevity to good genetics, proper nutrition and exercise and the fact that he and his wife did not have children. Factors which some may want to take into consideration, especially those who plan to maximise on the "benefits" of the Medishield Life scheme which provide lifetime coverage.

My aunt, 89, is not one of those. Recently she met up with another relative, 82, and told her she never intended to live so long. One eye has failed, hearing in one ear is gone, and the taste buds are pretty useless. Indeed, many seniors would rather stop labouring at 55, and check out the bucket list of things to do, die happy. Much better than a sickly life of old age. Poor Goh Keng Swee was blind for his last ten years, unable to indulge in his happy pursuits of reading and photography. Immortality is so over rated.

During the run-up to the 2006 General Elections, Mediacorp aired a special 50 minute-long forum on Channel NewsAsia entitled “Why My Vote Matters.” It featured a dialogue session between then Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and a selected panel of young voters, mass communication practitioners from the media industry born after 1965.

At around 11:40 minutes into the program, Lee asks the youngsters point-blank, ".... and you are afraid that if you vote against the PAP and something will happen to you?"
To which came the quick response, "This is the impression the PAP has created."

Suffice it to say, there's enough anecdotal evidence to suggest it's more than an impression now. First there was this trainman who lost his job because he was not supposed to board a coach using a certain entrance way. Now a health worker has been sacked for alleged defamation when the court case has yet to be convened.

The employer, Tan Tock Seng Hospital (TTSH), phrased the details for what happened thus:
“Mr Ngerng’s conduct was incompatible with the values and standards we expect of our employees. While our staff are free to pursue their personal interests outside work, they must conduct themselves properly, honourably and with integrity."
“In particular, they cannot defame someone else without basis, which essentially means knowingly stating a falsehood to the public.”

The Ministry of Health (MOH) - those folks who are foisting Medishield Life on us - was quick to oblige with a twist of the dagger:
"MOH would like to reiterate that it supports TTSH's decision as Mr Ngerng's actions show a lack of integrity and are incompatible with values and standards of behavior expected of hospital employees."

In the case of the lusty professor at the law faculty of our national university, the academic's employ, and his paycheck, were terminated only after the court convicted him. Conspiracy theories about his political predilections notwithstanding, the message for our young ones seem to be that sexual misdemeanors are less serious than politically incorrect opinions. And in the case of the Brompton Bikes, in which the prosecutor maintained there was strong public interest in ensuring the integrity of the process through which public funds are spent, a $5,000 fine was considered appropriate atonement. This has to be a confusing time for the younger generation.

In law, sub judice, classical Latin literally for "under judgment" (Latin sub iūdice : sub, beneath, before + iūdice, ablative of iūdex, judge.), means that a particular case or matter is under trial or being considered by a judge or court and therefore prohibited from public discussion elsewhere.

That's not stopping the Ministry of Health (MOH) from blabbing about it. Worse, as Ravi pointed out, MOH is not party to Mr Ngerng's contract of employment. Tan Tock Seng Hospital's (TTSH) sacking may be a case of jumping the gun, given the lawsuit - which neither involves TTSH and MOH - has yet to run its course. Having said that, we know that an opposition political leader did lose his job over taxi claims.

TTSH and MOH are not legal experts, so maybe we can cut them a little slack. But that leeway cannot be extended to the National University of Singapore (NUS) which is supposed to have a reputable Law Faculty.

Professor Tey Tsun Hang is back in the limelight, after filing papers in an attempt to get the High Court to force NUS to reinstate his position as tenured professor. One fine point of law has to do with carrying out displinary proceedings against him before initiating the firing. The sacking was another instance of jumping the gun, as he was free to appeal, and which happened to turn in his favour. The decision was "illegal, irrational and procedurally improper," Tey claims.

We are dealing with academics here, and their interpretation of the law may be different from practitioners. Here we have NUS appearing to be cognizant of sub judice, saying "As Mr Tey's application to the court is a legal matter, we have referred this case to the lawyers", right after going on in lurid detail about misconduct and impropriety. When do these guys ever learn to shut up?

Which reminds us of a practising lawyer who also failed to zip up, and went down defending a "public dialogue" on CPF titled “CPF – An Honest Conversation”. Let the lawyers define "public" and "honest". Mere mortals have better things to do, you know, take care of the mortage, put food on the table, get to work on time and avoid being sacked at the drop of a hat.

Membership has its privileges. It is now confirmed, grassroots leaders did get priority for their children registering for places in choice Primary schools. And you thought the rush to sign up as grassroots volunteers was because of free packet meals at election rallies.

A seasoned member of a citizens' consultative committee claims that when you have a popular school within a certain constituency, there's no shortage of willing hands. The carrots bring them in by the droves. However, it had been observed that the parents soon drop out after their children are successfully placed. "We should not allow the system to be abused like this," he said.

So, instead of priority for their children in schools near their homes as well as in the constituencies, the People's Association (PA) is now trimming the privilege to just schools within the constituency. With the kind of electoral boundaries drawn up by the Elections Department, school can now be more than 1-2 kilometers away from home in spite of all the apple polishing. Volunteers will also have to satisfy two full years of faithful grassroots work, instead of just one token year of servitude. PA says the changes were made to ensure only "deserving" grassroots and district councillors will be entitled to special treatment.

Time will tell if the attendance at election rallies will be adversely affected. After all Primary I priority rules may be just the tip of the iceberg, there must be lots of other goodies we have yet to read about.

The lady who recorded the video reflects:
"I was already in tears when they wanted to take her off the mic to shut her up. I salute her bravery so I decided to hold on to my camera & cried silently praying that she be allowed to finish her speech to the MP."

I dare think most of us are beyond the tearing stage, and fast approaching the precipice of raw anger. How can anyone remain stone cold when the 76 year old spinster, definitely of the Pioneer Generation category, tells of this awful tale at 1:34:

"I was given this letter, telling me that they “hacked” into my personal POSB book, scoured my amounts and took away the money from my bank to give to the property tax. Do you think it is ethical?
Do you think its ethical? Do you think it is right?"

We hope she was wrong, and that Damn Bloody Slow (DBS) bank has a good explanation. Someone else once narrated how money was transferred from his ordinary account to top up his Medisave account, after having incurred some medical expenses, without his authorisation. Maybe this is the stuff of urban legends, but if the people in charge fail to step up to clear the air soon, Singaporeans will no longer trust the government.

The Truth About Goliath

CPF Is Broke

Profit Before Service

Too Big To Fall

A Question Of Libel

A Choice Of Colours

Going For The Jugular

Crouching Tigers Hidden Heroes

Picture Of The Week

War Over

Justice Is Finally Served

First Cut Is Always Deepest

A Breach Should Be Called A Breach

The Destruction Of Politics

The Con Goes On

Facing Reality

Et Tu, Brute

Shut Up Already

Primary I Priority

Can They Do This?