PeasantMoNkEy's MudHut

It's Amazingly Childish...

2006-06-22T01:20:00.000+08:00

I've avoided saying anything about the PAP govt's policy on HDB upgrading until now as I've been waiting to see if the Prime Minister himself would say anything about it. Well, today he did - as reported by the Straits Times and CNA.

What immediately strikes me about the Prime Minister's defence of the policy is how amazingly childish his words are. This is what the Prime Minister said:

"It's necessary because without that, the system cannot work. This is because if everything is the same, then the opposition will say that it doesn't matter, they (PAP) will have to take care of you anyway. So vote for us and you're going to have a PAP government."

And during the elections itself, the Prime Minister also said:

“Right now we have Low Thia Khiang, Chiam See Tong, Steve Chia. We can deal with them. Suppose you had 10, 15, 20 opposition members in Parliament. Instead of spending my time thinking what is the right policy for Singapore, I’m going to spend all my time thinking what’s the right way to fix them, to buy my supporters’ votes, how can I solve this week’s problem and forget about next year’s challenges?” CNA– 3 May 2006

And to sum up the ever-confusing rhetorics from the Prime Minister himself, here's what he said during the swearing in ceremony of the new cabinet on May 30 2006:

"We must also not allow ourselves to be divided between haves and have-nots, or winners and losers….If we let the politics of envy drive a wedge between us, our society will be destroyed, and all will suffer. That must never happen."

So, what and how are we to make of all these words?

Honestly, it is rather tiresome for me to try to rebut what he has said. This is because it all can be rather simple - except that the PAP govt has gone and complicated the entire matter based on some instinctive fear which they evidently have. A fear about losing their power base, or their legitimacy to provide for Singaporeans.

To me, it is all very simple indeed. If the govt cares - I mean, REALLY cares - about the old, elderly, infirmed, handicapped - they would see immediately the hypocrisy of such a policy. The fact that ministers and PAP MPs keep defending what is clearly an immoral (yes, immoral!) and unethical policy just shows to me the emptiness of their words - words which sounds really nice but which is now being proved to be hollow and hypocritical.

Here's another of the Prime Minister's quotes:

"Together we say the pledge, we sing the national anthem, we celebrate National Day and we live together as one people."

I can't help but question what exactly the Prime Minister means when he says those words. Is he talking out of both ends of his mouth?

"We live together as one people" but the govt is free to discriminate against those who have chosen - democratically - to vote for another party other than the PAP?

"We must also not allow ourselves to be divided between haves and have-nots, or winners and losers….If we let the politics of envy drives a wedge between us, our society will be destroyed, and all will suffer. That must never happen."

Indeed, lets not 'drive a wedge' by the blatant discriminatory use of HDB upgrading as a tool to cut our society up.

Every Singaporean contributes to the economy. Singaporeans from all walks of life chip in to help the less fortunate. Ordinary Singaporeans do not discriminate between who has voted for the PAP and who has voted for the opposition. Why then, is our self-proclaimed 'gracious' and 'compassionate' govt doing exactly the opposite?

Did not the PAP govt and its leaders speak of 'confucian values'? Did they not call themselves 'jun tzu' or 'gentlemen'?

How shall our society be elevated to the lofty goals of being compassionate and gracious when the very govt which sets the tone of our society is behaving as if they've just been force-fed a bag full of sour grapes?

A government has to rise above the pettiness - and revengeful inclinations - of party politics once it comes into power. The important thing is this, which has been missed by most commentators:

A GOVT THAT HAS BEEN ELECTED INTO POWER BY THE PEOPLE MUST NOT - INDEED, MUST NEVER - TAKE ON A ROLE OF VENGEANCE AGAINST ITS OWN CITIZENS.

This is why I am so disgusted with the way the PAP govt is behaving right now - barely two months after they won what they themselves call a 'strong mandate' from the people.

Lets call a spade a spade and do away with niceties. The PAP govt is clearly embarking on a crusade of revenge against those who have been courageous enough to vote differently. And make no mistake about it, this spells serious problems for the country.

Before and even during the eletions, we were seduced, courted and enticed with cash giveaways, upgrading, promises of more jobs and better salaries, etc.. Yet, here we are after the elections - with the PAP's vindictiveness totally bared for all to see.

Singaporeans must spend some time thinking about the larger implications of a govt which so easily and insistently continues to defend and implement such an abhorrent policy.

What values are we sending to our young? That when it comes to hanging on to power, that the means justify the ends?

An 80 year old in Hougang has the same lift upgrading needs as an 80 year old in Marine Parade or Ang Mo Kio.

A compasionate & gracious, benevolent & wise govt will not even consider vote percentages as criterias for determining if these elderly folks should be given what they need. A wise and compassionate govt would do the right thing - which is simply to render what is necessary to the old folks who needs lifts to stop on every floor not as a matter of luxury but as a matter of necessity.

I shudder to think how much longer we will have to wait for the govt to see the hypocrisy of this particular policy. I shudder because when I think of Singapore being one of the fastest ageing population in the world, I am afraid of how much longer we will be held ransom by the PAP govt's policy on upgrading.

What is even more appalling is that out of 82 PAP MPs who proclaim themselves 'leaders of integrity' and 'non-conformists', whom the PM himself has urged to speak up even if what they say is critical of the govt, it is appalling that NONE of the 82 has said anything about the hypocritical nature of this policy!

Are they taking the asy way out and turning a blind eye to what is clearly discriminatory? Or have they been so indoctrinated by party philosophy that they have lost all common sense?

82 PAP MPs and NONE sees the discrimination against Singaporeans - especially elderly Singaporeans.

It is indeed amazing!

Will they still be threatening, discriminating against me when I am in my 60s, 70s & 80s?

Will I have to give my one precious vote to them so that I do not have to climb the steps to my flat when I am old, weak or infirmed?

I wonder - seriously - what Confucius would think of such a policy.

I believe that he would be aghast at the twisted manner by which the PAP govt and its leaders have hijacked his teachings and deformed them to suit their selfish & hypocritical political greed.

Lee Hsien Loong

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/060531/5/singapore211126.html

"To be able under all circumstances to practice five things constitutes perfect virtue; these five things are gravity, generosity of soul, sincerity, earnestness and kindness."

- Confucius

The Young & The Politics Of Singapore

2006-06-01T16:04:00.000+08:00

It is said that young Singaporeans are apathetic, self-serving, self-engrossed and ignorant when it comes to Singapore politics. I have always taken a slightly different view from this.

Sure, they may not - as a whole - be as knowledgeable as older Singaporeans about local politics. However, could that be due to older folks simply living more years than the young , thus having been exposed to more politics? Even if that were so, there are many older folks who are just as uninformed as the young.

To me, the real reason why the young are regarded as apathetic is also a very simple one: The environment in Singapore is not one where politics are openly participated. It really is as simple as that. We have an education system and schools (where kids spend an increasingly larger amount of time daily) which do not actively encourage political discourses or involvement.

Sure, you have your occasional NUS political forum but that's about it, really. There are a few hundred thousand students in our hundreds of schools. How many are exposed to such forums? A miniscule number, no doubt. That leaves the vast majority out.

Having said all that, however, the Workers' Party so-called "Suicide Squad" team in the recent elections has raised political interest among the young - simply because the 6 are in the young age groups of 20s & 30s. (Gopal Krishnan may be 52 but he's young too - at heart!) It was a masterstroke by the WP leadership to pit this young team against the man at the helm in the PAP (and Singapore), PM Lee Hsien Loong himself.

That caught the imagination of Singaporeans.

What perhaps even the WP didn't suspect was the 'positive fallout' effect of fielding such a team. This 'positive effect' was the raising of awareness not only among the general public but especially among the younger set. Granted that the level of awareness of the WP team was not as phenomenal as could be - but this is because of the media which shunned giving 'undue' publicity to the them.

Even so, the interest generated by the young team is undeniable.

Would younger Singaporeans take this team as a sort of role model? Would this awareness encourage the young to be more involved in the politics of our country? That is left to be seen. It will depend on how the team fares in the coming years and beyond. However, there is much that the team can do to further promote engagement of young citizens in the present moment. There is a need to keep up the interest through continuous engagement. What and how this can be done is best left to the Workers' Party itself.

I would also say that the local mainstream media has a role to play. Instead of shunning the team, they should engage it and help raise political awareness among the young especially. This is a golden opportunity for Singaporeans - everyone: the media, political parties, ordinary Singaporeans - to take part in something which until now has been the domain of the few elites.

The WP's AMK team could be the catalyst for a new political awakening. Indeed, when asked for his assessment of the recent GE, the WP's Goh Meng Seng used two words to describe it: "Political awakening".

I agree.

But an awakening can also fizzle out. We should not let this happen as this awakening was borne out of what was truly a 'baptism of fire' - something which even the PAP cannot claim to have for its new candidates. Thus, all Singaporeans (and not just the Workers' Party) shoudl cherish it, embrace it and further it in whatever ways they can.

The young are at a threshold. We should not keep harping to them about just jobs, money and material wants (or greed). There should be a new dimension to their lives in Singapore. I would offer that a political dimension or outlook in the lives of young Singaporeans would be most fulfilling, and exciting.

Those who have important roles to play include:

1. The media

2. The Workers' Party & the AMK "Suicide Squad" in particular

3. The govt : They should not put obstacles in the way of such awakening.

4. Schools : Teachers & principals should also use this interest generated by the elections to further allow and engage students politically.

5. Ordinary Singaporeans : Everyone has a role to play.

Of the above 5, the Workers' Party has the most important role. For it is from them that Singaporeans took notice of how things can be done another way - instead of just the "PAP way".

Thus, I hope to see more activities and engagement events from the Workers' Party in the coming months and years.

It would be a shame if such a hard-fought opportunity is left to chance - or worse, wasted ignorantly.

Censorship

2006-05-29T15:26:00.000+08:00

GE 2006 has brought the issue of censorhip into the forefront of Singaporeans' consciousness. The media is, according to some, most guilty. The biased and one-sided coverage of the PAP's campaign has irked (and angered) quite a few people. In my own private conversations with friends, even those who were pro-PAP or 'fence-sitters' were all unanimously frustrated.

The sad thing to me is that the media has not changed much at all in the last 40 or so years. There have been some commentators - such as Cherian George - who claimed otherwise. Perhaps they are not entirely wrong but if there were any changes or improvements, I would argue that they were minimal and inconsequential. Thus, generally, nothing much has indeed changed.

I fear for the negative 'tone of society' which such self-censorship creates. Many-a-time have we heard govt officials lamenting and then urging, encouraging Singaporeans to speak up, to have an opinion. Yet, when it came to something as crucial and important as the elections, we have regressed - as far as the media is concerned. Daily, nauseating one-sided news report in print and broadcast was the order of the day - for 9 days.

The incessant espousing 'of one particular sychophantic political philosophy', to paraphrase Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

Couple this sort of unashamed, biased reportings with the ban on podcasting, videocasting, political films, and requiring blogs which are 'persistently political' to register, and we have a scenario where only one view is allowed to be propagated.

I would offer that this is a very dangerous thing indeed.

In a time when the world is a global village, where technology is always changing and improving, where a people is constantly exposed to the world at large, such blatant gagging of a national media - and alternative media - through crude laws and restrictions, spells trouble in the long term.

What are these problems?

One, only allowing one official view to be propagated gives the impression and perception that only this one view is the 'right' one.

Two, for censorship to take place, it must mean that there are some - a group of, a committe of, or otherwise - people who dictates and decide what is allowable.

Three, it casts a shadow of fear amongst the electorate. A fear that any other views outside of the official one is perhaps tantamount to open dissent.

Four, the very act of censorship itself means that there are those in the media who are powerless and unable to speak up against it - even though their members may be truly frustrated and who are against such controls. (There have been stories of journalists and reporters who are alleged to have said that they were thinking of quitting their jobs because of such censorship during the elections.)

Five, censorship laws are too vague, too wide and too ambiguous. This is on purpose, I suppose, so as to allow the law to be 'flexible' to accomodate any future 'unforeseen, undesirable' forms of communication and communication tools.

Six, censorship controls by the few means that the citizenry is not allowed to participate in vibrant, dynamic and necessary exchanges of views, ideas and opinions. This may - and can - lead to disillusionment, apathy and frustration - especially among the young who are increasingly more outspoken.

The next 5 years therefore will be of immense importance. How the govt deals with such issues will decide the entire tone of society, including the fear factor.

I would hate to see us regress further.

The govt has to realise, and do so quickly, that this is a time where immense opportunities for our society to open up is taking shape. To try and curtail, cage and control it with crude, vague and blunt laws and regulations will result in a stagnant and dull environment.

We are now in the 21st century.

It is time to rid oursleves of ways of thinking which clearly belongs to the Dark Ages.

Bloggers..

2006-05-27T14:47:00.000+08:00

Gayle Goh. It's a little strange to me how a simple letter of exchange between two people can generate such huge interest. The exchange between Gayle and a govt official has sparked a lot of talk - especially on the internet. It is both refreshing - and worrisome.

It is refreshing because it is heartening to see someone as young as Gayle (who is 17) go head to head - as it were - with such a senior member of the establishment. However, she is not the only one. I've been attending some public forums and what I have seen are young students engaging issues with senior people in govt departments. The recent NUSS Forum at Guild House is one example. Two students from Raffles took PAP MP-elect Denise Phua to task for some the remarks she made. It was quite an insight to be witness to the sharpness of the students in putting their points and questions across. (However, I do think they were a little emotional at times - the students, that is.)

So, what is so worrisome about students or young people becoming more engaged in national issues? It is worrisome for a few reasons:

1. The fact that Gayle has generated so much attention shows that political discourse among the young has been non-existent before despite what the govt has been saying and trying to do which is to engage the young. If it were not, Gayle would not be so 'special', right? So, the question is: What exactly has the govt been doing?

2. Another worry is that these students and young people might be too focussed on the theorical side of issues. How many of them are or have plans to be active in community work, for example? They must realise that blogging and presenting their views are all well and fine. Indeed, it is important. But at the end of the day, one's view must be tampered by one's own personal experiences and one's personal contact with the people who are affected by policies. I am therefore hopeful that bloggers like Gayle will take their activism beyond cyberspace and consider their pariticipation in the 'real' world. I am sure they will write with much more credibility, depth and conviction.

3. There is a tendency also to be focussing on the 'demerits' of govt policies at the risk of ignoring altogether the merits. After all, who wants to read about how good the govt is, right? We already get that 24/7 from the local media.

Although these are worries and concerns on my part, the wonderful advantage that these young bloggers have is time. They are young, eager, creative and outspoken. Not to mention they are also intelligent and incisive.

How they progress from cyber world into the real world will depend on how the govt 'manages' (to use Denise Phua's word) such a proliferation of anti-PAP blogs or at least blogs critical of the PAP govt.

I would urge the authorities not to have knee jerk reactions and - again - use a sledgehammer to kill a fly. Allow this cocoon to develop and turn into a beautiful butterfly, this is what I think the govt should do. The reason is simple: Technology cannot be stopped and in the years to come, technological advances will avail us to even more influential tools online.

To try and control this with outdated mechanisms will and can only backfire.

So, please let bloggers like Gayle to continue to voice out their opinions. The govt may want to engage the young through official, proper, neatly-organised forums or channels. The question is however : "Do young people want to be engaged in such a fashion?"

I hope not.

I prefer that opinion be allowed to be expressed in any way (except illegal ones) which the individual feels is most appropriate.

PM Lee has called for the young to 'speak up'. Well, they are! Is the govt ready to hear their views? Is the govt ready to accept that not all of them will agree with the govt's policies or stance? Is the govt ready to accept robust criticisms?

We shall know the answer once the report on the influence of the internet during GE 2006 is out.

I hope we will not be taking another two-steps back - especially when the young themselves have taken one step forward.

Ultimately, It's The Mind That Gets Numbed

2006-05-21T16:31:00.000+08:00

Freedom of expression. This phrase has been misunderstood by many. I guess it might just be an abstract, even esoteric, idea to them in their minds. It has no relevance whatsoever to their daily living, their struggle with bread and butter issues. This is because we do not have a culture where we can express ourselves freely. When one does not know a thing, one intend to doubt it - and its benefits.

I am one who fully support freedom of expression. This, to me, is not just an abstract ideal but an ideal which has pratical and pragmatic benefits - and yes, it can provide bread and butter as well.

Allow me to explain.

Everything that we have created in this world - from the chair you are sitting on, to the the paint on your walls, to the beautiful buildings you see outside your windows, to the satellites floating out there in the stratosphere - all started as just an idea in the mind.

They become 'real' in the physical world because someone made it real. Someone took it out of his mind and made it a physical reality.

Someone expressed his ideas.

We can hardly name one thing around us that is not man-made, which therefore started out as just an idea in the human psyche, the human mind. This is what expression is. Expression is not just about speaking, which most people mistake it to be. Expression is not confined to this. Indeed, it is more, much more, than just speaking what is in your mind.

When the mind is allowed to express itself, miracles can happen - and miracles have happened. Just look around you. Don't you wonder at the limitlessness of the mind to create and express itself? It's the most wondrous thing, in my humble opinion.

For the mind to be free to express itself, of course there is a need for a free environment. You cannot cage a bird and asks it to fly at the same time. Which brings me to freedom of expression in Singapore's context.

There is an urgent need, now more than ever, for Singaporeans to be allowed to express what's in their minds. It is a strange thing to say that - that "Singaporeans be allowed to express themselves". It is rather sad too because it means that our minds have been 'caged' for the past 40+ years. I do not think many - except the PAP govt - would dispute this. Indeed, this is why the govt had called for Singaporeans to be 'spontaneous', 'creative', 'to dare to do', 'to be non-conformists', 'to be 'mavericks', 'think out of the box'.

It is all very well to encourage all this - but the govt has to go beyond mere cheat-thumping rhetorics. PM Lee himself called for the youths, especially, to not be afraid, to 'just do it'. Indeed, I myself was quite impressed with his words and thought to myself that at last, this govt is growing up and letting go of the apron strings.

However, this expectation, this joy was dashed just before the general elections when the very same govt calling for such gung-ho spirit did an about-face and banned podcasting, videocasting, required blogs to register - besides the already-declared ban on 'party political films and videos'.

Suddenly, the mind became closed again - the minds of the govt and the citizenry.

It is extremely disheartening that the govt has gone back to providing this 'cloud of fear' over our society. How can the human mind be free to express itself when it is constantly being thumped down?

Allow me at this point to explain - in pragmatic terms - why freedom of expression is important and how it does relate to bread and butter issues.

Bill Gates. A genius, no doubt. How he started out is the same as any other human being - with an idea in his mind. The difference is that he was in an environment which allowed him to express himself in the way he preferred - leaving school and going into enterprise. He took the idea of out his mind and expressed it in real, physical, pragmatic terms - and Microsoft Windows was born. It changed the world, or at least how the world communicated, which is no small feat.

Microsoft was set up, a new industry was born, new business opportunity sprang up everywhere. Millions suddenly had jobs. With jobs come income. With income, you put food on the table. You raise a family.

An idea that was just in someone's mind has now become a physical reality and one which has real, pragmatic benefits.

This is how the world has always operated - through the creation of physical reality from ideas first formed in the human mind.

Is it any surprise then that the world looks towards the US and countries with established freedom of expressions tradition?

What then should Singapore do? What then can Singapore learn?

The problem we have in the composition of those who make up our govt is that they are mostly people who are theer because of their coldhearted, pragmatic sense and views of how to run a country. There is no thinker among them. There is no idealist among them. There is no poet, no artiste, no philosopher.

There is no humanity among the PAP govt.

What we need is for the govt to realise that the human being is made up of many facets - especially the spiritual aspect. I am not talking of religion here. I am talking about that part of the human being which essence is 'freedom'.

The human spirit is a free spirit.

Caging it, restricting it, controlling it, disempowering it leads to dullness, sloth and dependency. It is time we realise this.

It is said that "If you do not let go of fear, fear will not let go of you."

In this case, it is not the people who are fearful. Indeed, it is the people who are calling for the govt to let go!

The fear resides in the govt.

If the PAP has the interests of the country - and Singaporeans - at heart, then it should - MUST - overcome this fear of losing control and allow the human mind to express itself freely.

For if the govt continues to stifle and restrain and restrict such free expression, it will only bode ill for the future of Singapore.

Freedom to express oneself can and will result in new ideas for industry and enterprise.

Continuation to curtail and control expression will lead to the numbing of minds... as even Lee Kuan Yew himself once believed:

"Let us get down to fundamentals. Is this an open, or is this a closed society? Is it a society where men can preach ideas - novel, unorthodox, heresies, to established churches and established governments - where there is a constant contest for men's hearts and minds on the basis of what is right, of what is just, of what is in the national interests, or is it a closed society where the mass media - the newspapers, the journals, publications, TV, radio - either bound by sound or by sight, or both sound and sight, men's minds are fed with a constant drone of sycophantic support for a particular orthodox political philosophy?

(Lee Kuan Yew, Before Singapore's independence, Malaysian Parliamentary Debates, Dec 18, 1964 )

New Form Of Journalism.. ?

2006-05-18T18:16:00.000+08:00

The just-concluded general elections has thrown up some interesting questions about the local media. Questions of bias-ness, unfairness, govt control. Also, questions of alternative sources of information, particularly the internet.

Criticisms of the media has been fast and furious - and numerous. So, I shall not dwell on that aspect. Instead, I would like to speak a little about the alternative forms sources of news and information.

The govt's attempt to gag the internet during the elections - as everyone knows - has failed, and failed miserably. Bloggers, especially, continued to post pictures, videos, audio files and news reports on their blogs during the GE. The govt (to its credit) did not do anything about it. I suspect it is more because they cannot do anything about it. It would have cast a huge clooud of darkness over the country if the govt had hauled up any of those bloggers - during the GE.

I am sure the govt was aware of the backlash at the polls if they had taken such a step.

Which birngs us to the interesting question: What will the govt do next? It is indeed caught between a rock and a hard place. They have set a precedence of sort - by omission. Not hauling up any blogger during the recent GE has set a precedence for future GEs. They - the govt- would have a weaker case, surely, if they charged any blogger in future elections for contravening the law.

If one takes a broader view of this whole issue, one realises the petty and insecure nature of the PAP govt. To try to micro-manage of all things, the internet, smacks of ignorance and desperation. In the next 5 years, I am quite confident that new technologies will emerge which will be even more powerful than blogs and podcastings. What then will the govt do? What then can the govt do?

Imagine this new technology:

Your cell phone is able to broadcast 'live' streaming video to your friends. You are at an election rally, your friend or family is at home. You whip out your cellphone, switches it to video-streaming mode and you start broadcasting the event to your friend's phone. Your friend, who is at home, plugs his phone in to the computer or tv, and voila, they have 'live' pictures of rallies - right in their own home - with sound and all.

What are the consequences of such a revolution. (Make no mistake, this will be revolutionary!)

Perhaps, I am thinking too far ahead. Even so, with the internet much can be done and much can be achieved vis a vis the issue of new sources for information.

To be objective, the blogs online are still a disparage group, disorganised as a unit. It will still be some time before the internet truly challenges the mainstream media as a popular choice for news. However, having said that, it would be wrong to dismiss its influence. YawningBread's picture of the Workers' Party rally in Hougang has become the iconic picture of GE 2006 - and has further shot Yawningbread higher into the blogosphere's Hall Of Fame.

And that's just one picture.

Imagine a good-quality, sleek video - of say, the WP's recitation of the National Pledge at Serangoon Stadium. It's reach could be phenomenal.

The only way the PAP can ever hope to counter all these is actually quite simple: Free the mainstream media. Allow them to be independent, free and fair. There have been stories of journalists breaking down during the GE after being booed by the crowd, stories of journalists who were thinking of quitting their job because of the derision of their professionalism.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong - whom I believe wants to open society up more - should be steadfast and proceed to do so. To try and gag, ban and restrict the flow of information will result in serious consequences for the country - the main one will be to further reinforce the fear factor in our society, and also further drive citizens into political apathy.

No one wins in such a scenario.

So, I urge the govt to look at the wider picture. Bloggers are not out to dismantle our society or to topple the govt. No blogger is calling for bloody revolution, or chaotic demonstrations in the streets. (At least, I've not come across any such blogs yet.)

Citizens will continue to push for more freedom - especially with a people who are highly educated and constantly exposed to the rest of the world.

I urge the govt to allow the free flow of expression.

If we are still being forcefully tied to the apron strings of a petty, insecure nanny, we will never become what the PAP govt hopes we will become - creative, non-conformists, and mavericks.

And these are their words.

Not mine.

So we shall see, the next 5 years.

The Workers' Party AMK "Suicide 6"

2006-05-16T17:35:00.000+08:00

I had the privilege of being part of the Workers' Party team which contested Ang Mo Kio GRC in the last elections.

My role was basically to keep a video & photo record of what they do, help them out in their daily activites (like distributing flyers and going on walkabouts) and also to be the election agent of one of the candidates, Melvin Tan. (I was also suppose to be polling agent but the administration screwed up.)

The team consisted of team leader Yaw Shin Leong, Abdul Salim, Lee Wai Leng, Gopal Krishnan, Melvin Tan & Glenda Han. I must say honestly that I was very impressed by the level of commitment of each one of them - especially when we're going up against the PM in his home turf.

In those months before and during the elections, I did not hear any one of the 6 complained at all. That is a testament to the way the team worked. It is, in my opinion, due in no small part to the tireless planning of Yaw Shin Leong. Shin Leong is someone who inspires with his boundless energy. You never see him being still! He's the human equivalent to the energizer bunny.

During the GE, I mostly work with Melvin and Glenda - two of the most hardworking people I know. Melvin is a 'lone ranger' as he likes to accomplish tasks on his own - and he does it truly well. He's a man who wears many hats - which is actually a sign of the trust and faith that the party has in him. Another tireless worker, he once distributed the party's leaflets door to door until 5am in the morning! If anyone has any doubt about the AMK Team's commitment, Melvin's actions will dispel it immediately.

Glenda is a surprise to me. Honestly, I had my doubts if she would be able to have the energy to last such an intense 9-day campaign. Man, was I proved wrong! From the daily door-to-door distribution of leaflets (which is not an easy thing at all), to driving from one place to another ferrying other members of the team, to writing her own speeches and finding time in between to do her laundry and attend to her pub, Glenda showed multi-tasking under such a situation is not a problem at all.

Only thing is, she does not seem to do as well with the condition of her car! LOlzz..

We had another member helping us in all these - his name is Ernest. Everyday during the GE, Ernest is always around. He's the appointed election agent for Glenda - and he does a wonderful job. Glenda can attest to that. Glenda can also attest to Ernest's ability to feed her. LOLz...

The 9 days went by in a hurry and I suspect all of us kinda miss being together and working together everyday. How I wish the elections happened every year. 5 years is a long time to wait to be able to work with such wonderful people again.

We are all very very happy with the result which the team achieved - 33.87% of the vote. It's more than what we had expected - although I personally am not that surprised as I have always believed that the PM's support in AMK was not as strong as some may think. Also, walking the ground in AMK, it is quite easy to decipher the ground feeling.

In any case, we did an extremely good job.

I am immensely proud of the AMK 6.

2006-02-12T23:43:00.000+08:00

RCs...CCs...& CCCs....

They've been in the news lately since the Workers' Party called for their abolition in their manifesto. The PAP came out with guns blazing. Hey, I am not surprised. I expect nothing less from the PAP when their very legs are being threatened - how would they be able to stand up if that happened, right? So, we saw Mr Ng Eng Hen being pointman and Khaw Boon Wan his lieutenant coming out with their sledgehammers.

"They're time bombs!"

"They're poison! They need to be removed!"

Someone who claimed to be a grassroots leader also told me that they were 'suicide pills'.

Much ado over nothing? Mountain out of molehill?

In the coffeeshops and gossip corners, what the WP says is nothing new. Singaporeans - at least those I spoke to - have the impression that the GROs (Grassroots Organisations) are indeed tools of the PAP. Of course the PAP will not and have never admitted this.

But it is quite plain to see that the grassroots and the PAP are pretty much intertwined. An example is the PAP's own Eric Low (their candidate in Hougang SMC in the 2001 elections) saying:

"I would dare to challenge anyone who would say our grassroots are not doing their job. Frankly, without them, I can't be doing what I have....I would imagine that if anyone wants to take that away it's because they feel it as a threat, they are not able of putting up another system which is comparable to ours.... I am very proud of my GROs." (CNA 12 Feb 2006: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/192823/1/.html)

(Emphasis are mine)

So there it is.

Quite plain to see, really.

Some would ask, "What's wrong with the GROs being so closely intertwined with the PAP?". Well, the first reason of course is that GROs were set up to be apolitical, that is neutral. There purpose is to serve ALL Singaporeans in their constituency - regardless of their political affiliation.

Second, being politically neutral, Singaporeans who do not support the ruling party and those who have no political affiliations would be more willing to volunteer their time in the GROs and take part in the activities of the GROs. This is an important distinction. Again, I reiterate that the GROs are suppose to be apolitical - and not be affiliated to any political party, ruling or otherwise.

Third, the GROs should work with the MP who is elected by the people and not with the one who has lost an election, thus have been rejected by the people. If the GROs work with the loser of the elections, then what is the point of the whole elections? This would in effect make the loser the de facto MP of the ward! Wouldn't this be disrespecting the choice of the people?

Why then have elections?

In conclusion, GROs have to above party politics. It's that simple. They should and must work with the member elected by the people. To do otherwise is to make a mockery of the elections AND to make a mockery of the people who have cast their votes for the leader of their choice.

Just a note: It is interesting to me that all these years, no grassroots leader has brought this issue up. Are they so unaware of the impression singaporeans have of their political affiliations? If that is so, then they are not the 'eyes and ears' of the govt as claimed, are they? If they are however, aware of singaporeans' impression of their political affiliation, then why has no one in the GROs brought this issue up?

2006-02-10T17:12:00.000+08:00

The Incredible Spinning Machine In Full Swing
Singapore news headlines - courtesy of the ST, CNA, TODAY, etc.

"Higher wages seen for Singapore workers as job market tightens"

"Singapore businesses optimistic in first half of 2006"

"Singapore's employment in 2005 at all-time high of 2.3 million"

"Singapore's economy expected to continue prospering: PM Lee"

"$1b help for low-wage earners"

"NTUC aim: Make 10,000 jobs pay more this year "

"Record 32m pass through Changi Airport"

"Foreign Trade hits record $716b"

"RECORD panel recommends financial incentives for NSmen"

"Private and HDB home prices move up"

"Panel recommends incentive package for companies to hire older workers"

"More workers expected to find jobs in 2006: NTUC Chief "

"Biomedical sciences industry may exceed government's 2015 target"

"NTUC to set up $50m fund to help low-wage workers upgrade their skills "

"S'pore strong trade performance expected to continue into H1 2006"

"Medisave withdrawal limit to be raised from $300 to $400 from April"

"Singapore expects strong manufacturing investments in 2006 "

"Strong jobs gains show Singapore employers hiring for growth: analysts "

"Jalan Besar Town Council unveils $517m estate upgrading plan"

"S&C and rental rebates for 700,000 households"

"Sembawang Town Council to spend $570m on renewal plan"

"Civil servants to get 1.75 month year-end bonus"

"12% of Singapore employers to increase hiring in Q1: survey "

"Singapore created 28,500 jobs in Q3 "

"Singapore raises economic growth forecast to around 5% for full year"

"ComCare Fund disburses $8.7m to help low income households"

"East Coast Town to undergo S$500m renewal programme "

"HDB upgrading programme speeds up with 64 precincts chosen for 2006 "

"Jobless rate down to 2.5%. Lowest in 4 years"

"More Jobs Than Ever Before As The Tide Turns"

"Singapore retailers say festive season sales the best since 2003"

"Manufacturing, service sectors optimistic about business conditions"

"Singapore's PMI expands for 9th straight month in January"

"Singapore's STI ends at six-year high for second day running "

"Singapore banks expected to post strong Q4 earnings"

"Singaporeans less worried about economy, job security: survey "

"SilkAir flew record 134,000 in Dec "

"Singapore's M&A market hits record number of deals in 2005 "

"SingTel's regional mobile users rise to 78m by end of Dec 2005 "

"More SMEs expected to launch IPO this year"

"SE Asia a key growth region for many S'pore firms"

"Bets still on for global stock market rally despite slow start to year"

"Panasonic sets up new semiconductor plant, expands capacity by 25% "

"More couples having more children, 2005 birth rates up marginally"

"MediaCorp Raintree Pictures' "I Not Stupid Too" beats Jet Li's "Fearless"

"More poly graduates finding jobs at higher starting pay: survey"

"Gallery outreach, higher incomes drive growing interest in art collecting"

2006-02-08T00:44:00.000+08:00

Why We Need To Have Alternatives In Govt.

This is an old question. In past elections the alternative parties (I refer to the opposition parties as such) have made this their platform in general elections. They tried to convince the people of the necessity of having alternative parties in parliament, the highest law-making body in the country. Sadly, such 'noble' messages have been drowned out by the counter-strategies of the PAP which focussed mainly on material promises.

And so, with the next elections on the horizon, we revisit this issue again.

In my view, we now - more than ever - needs to have alternatives in parliament. Perhaps it's the situation of recent years when the economy went bad that we realised the PAP govt is not that perfect after all, if they were indeed perfect in the first place.

Many lost their jobs, retrenched, and had to truly tighten their belts to get through the hard times. One issue which irked many people was the govt's refusal to allow citizens to use their CPF savings to help them tide over this difficult period. Rumblings of this dissatisfaction can still be heard. Also, it was during this difficult period that the govt also made a token gesture of having their own ministers' salaries cut - but promptly reinstated them exactly one year later even though the economy was still in the doldrums.

"It is reasonable" - said Minister Ng Eng Hen.

This difficult period showed up the frustration of singaporeans who felt that they were helpless and hapless, in spite of PM Goh's promise to bring singaporeans 'out of the valley into the highlands'. many felt that they had no voice, that their concerns were not heard. Coupled with the high salaries of the PAP ministers, this was extremely frustrating indeed.

The rich do not suffer. The poor does. No matter how you see it. I do not believe that a multi-millionaire minister sufferred more than a cleaning lady trying to just make ends meet.

So, why have an alternative in parliament?

I have heard ridiculous arguments from pro-PAP supporters that 'the PAP has done so well that there is no need for an opposition." This is one of the most ludicrous argument I've heard so far. For in that assertion is the presumption that the PAP - whether as a political party or a govt - will always stay un-corrupt.

I do not think even the PAP itself can or will make such a promise - and even if they did, they would not say that they will always remain un-corrupt.

There are examples of countries where alternative parties emerge only when something has gone wrong and the people are out on the streets baying for blood and crying for change. The whole country is in turmoil and people suffer even more. Blood is even shed, lives lost.

In Singapore, we are lucky in the sense that the PAP govt has been able to maintain a measure of peace. (Whether the means of achieving this 'peace' have resulted in a climate of fear is another issue which I will perhaps write about in future.)

I would say that now is the best time for us Singaporeans to help nurture and support alternative parties grow. Putting aside partisan politics, this can only be good for the country and its people. Having choices is a good thing in this case. It is always good to have choices as to who you want to run the country. The only countries which do not afford its citizens any choices are totalitarian, communist and dictatorial ones.

Singapore, hopefully, is none of the three.

So, we should allow alternative parties the chance to put forth their programmes and yes, scrutinise them. But we must also be aware of the limitations they face. I find that Singaporeans scrutinise the alternative parties more than they scrutinise the PAP. I guess that's because the PAP has a track record and people gives them the benefit of the doubt willingly. Of course, having the mass media at their disposal has helped the PAP immensely in this aspect of having the people's trust. There is much you can do with tv, newspapers and radio.

Giving alternative parties a chance also allows them to learn while the country is at peace. To learn what? To learn the ropes of governing. We would dread it if the PAP is voted out of office and an alternative party takes over with no knowledge or experiences of governing. That would be dreadful.

But most importantly, having alternative parties in parliament will go a long way to re-set the mindsets of Singaporeans.

This is the crux of the whole matter of giving alternative parties a chance. For 40 years, we've had nothing but one-party rule. The whole country - and its people - has been indoctrinated in one philosophy, the PAP's philosophy. So much so that many Singaporeans cannot fathom a Singapore without the PAP.

Is that good?

I do not think so, certainly. In an ocean of sweeping waves and rising tides, it is always good to have life vests as your alternatives. If you have only one small boat and no life vests, you depend entirely on the boat to carry you to shore.

That is the situation Singapore is in. One boat - the PAP boat and no alternatives, no life vests.

Singapore needs a change of mindset. This change is not limited to the economic sphere, or the cultural sphere, or other areas of our society. It should and must include - most importantly - the political sphere as well. For it is in politics that the whole tone of society depends. Leaders set the tone. The people elect the leaders. But the people must have a choice of who to choose.

The emergence of alternatives will not come unless and until Singaporeans realise, deep in their hearts, that the PAP will not always be there. That Lee Kuan Yew will one day leave this earth. That Singapore and Singaporeans will then have to be truly a global city with the attending democracy, freedom and the right to have choices.

But this will only come about if the people are willing to allow the alternatives a chance to serve the people. If the people keep being seduced by material baits, then I am sad to say that this country will be a vase - exquisite on the outside but hollow on the inside.

I do hope that the alternative parties will achieve a good result this coming GE.

It will be good for the country.

And for Singaporeans.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sammyboymod/messages?msg=39516.1