Man Enough? Less Than Meets The Eye

(Original illustration: Adam Lee)

Paternity leave? You see, men being men (and not Transformers) do not have the ability to transform into mommies. They are not equipped for the job.

In case it is not obvious enough: Men do not have functional boobs. Maternity leave is given to women in the period immediately following birth for two reasons. One: for them to recover from the strain of giving birth and Two: to breastfeed their babies. Men on the one hand do not need to recover from any (physical) stress and on the other do not have the mammaries to provide for their infants.

So, PM Lee with all the theatrics of an amateur magician looking for applause when pulling out the paternity leave rabbit out of the hat and pausing for the applause shows two things. One: He is pandering to the masses or being populist. Two: The average citizen is clueless and doesn't understand (what is being given) or even know what they want/need.

I believe what would be useful is Child Care leave. I believe such a scheme is already available. If it is currently only available to the mother, then it would be useful to have it extended to the father as well. This would make better sense than paternity leave.

Considering the 'caliber' of the audience for the National Day Rally speech, I would hope that it is polite applause and not that the citizens there actually thought it was a good idea. But I have my doubts...

So Lame (Brain)

Recent incidents reported in the press should give Singaporeans cause for concern regarding the true quality of our much vaunted public institutions. When put to the test, they fail our expectations. The fault lies in both the people and the systems under which they operate. Or maybe it's something in the water that is dumbing us down!

SBS Transit NE MRT Line Service Breakdown
Public transportation has become a politicised issue thanks to the rash of major breakdowns at the end of last year. So it is no surprise that when a fault developed in the NE line last week, the operators shied away from calling it a breakdown and chose to call it a delay instead.

Even if the delay is truly 10mins (PER station as it turned out), it represented a reduction in throughput of at least 80% if normal train intervals is 2mins. Front line staff either never made the mental connection that transportation is about moving people (and not about whether the train is moving however slowly or not) or are constrained from action by company policies to take sensible action, namely: Activating shuttle buses to relieve the passenger load from the trains. The shuttle buses need not be free-of-charge. The excuse we heard was that as long as the trains are moving, they cannot provide shuttle buses.

Wild Boar Culling
Granted that we might not expect the brightest bulbs in the Admin service to be seconded to NParks, the public response from NParks to the need to manage the wild boar population nevertheless gives cause for concern. Managing the wild boar population is going to be an ongoing activity. It's like cutting grass. It is not
something that you do once and that's it.

Given that it is not going to be a one time activity, then is culling the best approach? NParks is suggesting sedation and then euthanisation by injection. Is the cost of sedation and euthanisation by injection cheaper than administering a chemical contraceptive for example?

Clearing away food sources like oil palms will only force the boars to concentrate on remaining food sources like wild gingers and seeds from the hardwood trees (which NParks wants to protect) or else to wander out of the parks. Do we expect the boars to remain in the reserve and starve themselves? Destruction of saplings for nesting and seeds need to be seen in the context of natural forest regeneration. New trees can only grow when an old tree falls and creates the space. Most of those saplings have no chance of ever growing into trees, wild boar or no wild boar.

But most egregious of all is the apparent eagerness of NParks to go ahead with the culling when they do not even have the most basic of information available: What is the size of the wild boar population and what is its composition (males, females, adults, juveniles). Do they have a long term plan to effectively manage the size and health of the population? Do they even HAVE a plan at all?

50 Year Home Loans
Mr Khaw Boon Wan has come out and labelled the 50 year home loan offered by UOB as a gimmick. We were rather hoping that he would go further and ask UOB to terminate such loans. But alas, not! Mr Khaw Boon Wan, one presumes is instead adding it to his "I'm monitoring it" list.

If something has no redeeming value and is likely to cause harm, why leave it be? Surely we can't be leaving it to the principle of "caveat emptor"? If there is a big pothole in the middle of the road, do we leave it for the individual car drivers to avoid? Why have a casino exclusion list? Why control the sale of hard drugs? If someone wants to gamble their lives away at the casino or 'chase the dragon' into zombie land, let them, caveat emptor man!

Is Mr Khaw waiting for the take up rate for the 50 year loans to get big enough to become a sub-prime problem of our own before he takes action? I would suggest he tries to 'fix' the problem now for the few who have taken up such loans to get a feel for the kind of effort it would take.

I would like to be able to write something positive about some policy or action that is good but I can't find any! Take the news about the building of preschools being ramped up. Sounds good right? But wait a minute... if parents are not having enough babies, then why is there a shortage of preschools? Where are these preschools being built? Would they crowd out the building of eldercare centers? Again, something is not right here!

Woffles Wu Saga Continues. Where is MP Hri Kumar?

Earlier this week, the Woffles Wu saga was given an airing in parliament thanks to MP Sylvia Lim's question. Unfortunately in what followed, Minister for Law, Mr K Shanmugam intead of clarifying the matter, left yet more questions in its wake.

At stake apparently is the reputation of the AGC, (the public's interest notwithstanding). We are sure Mr Shanmugam as the Law Minister, would agree without reservation that: No One Is Above The Law. A necessary corollary to that assertion would be: No One Is Above Being Questioned. So while the Office of the AGC may be sacrosanct, the person occupying that office is not.

If this is not the case, then how would Mr Shanmugam reconcile this with the government's action against City Harvest Church's pastor, Hong Kee? Is Mr Shanmugam implying that in this particular case, the government is actually questioning the sancity and authority of the Church/God (and not Hong Kee himself) in the use/misuse of its funds? I'm sure the congregation of CHC (and other Christians outside of it) would love to have that point clarified.

In the Woffles Wu case, the seemingly light sentence he received for two speeding offences and associated abettment of his employee to take the rap for him, raised questions of favouritism in the application of the law. Unfortunately for Woffles, he is a well known personality, possibly well connected and relatively wealthy. If he had been an unknown member of the public, all these questions of favouritism would not have arisen precisely because he would not then be in the position to induce a lighter sentence.

One is left further mystified by the choice of past cases that Mr Shanmugam chose to use to support the view that the sentence given by the AGC to Woffles Wu was within the norms set by these cases. Of the six cases mentioned, only one had a speeding offence. All had documentary issues, either driving with an invalid licence and/or no proper insurance. This has no relevance to the Woffles Wu case. We need to compare apples with apples.

In one of the AGC's earlier clarifications to the Woffles Wu case, it justified the sentence given by saying that Woffles Wu only exceeded the speed limit by a 'little'. In the latest clarification on Friday (Aug 17), we finally had a figure to one of the speeding offences: 95km/h on Lornie Rd which had a speed limit of 70km/h. The other offence was for a speed of 91km/h (presumably on the same road, no mention of it was made). Little or not, it would appear that the offence of abetting someone else to take the rap does not carry much weight in deciding the sentence.

But in another traffic offence case reported in the press a few weeks ago, a couple of men who had a friend who got another friend to take the rap for an illegal PARKING offence(!!!) were given much heavier fines (and possibly a custodial sentence as well, I can't remember the full details) than what Woffles Wu got for speeding AND abettment.

In a more recent case, that involving one of the leaders of the Loyang Tua Pek Kong temple, the offender was given a custodial sentence on top of a $5000 fine for getting a friend to arrange for someone else to take the rap for his wife's traffic offence of beating a red light (whether she was speeding while doing it was not mentioned). District Judge Wong Li Tein said that the offence of beating a red light was not a serious one, but that the crime was in getting someone else to bear the penalty of the offence. So it would appear that the offence of abettment warranted a heavier sentence.

Just based on the offence of abetting someone else to take the rap for a traffic offence, it would seem Woffles Wu got off very lightly (compared to the two cases above). I would say in Woffles Wu's case, his abettment offence is even more serious because he got an employee to take the rap. A friend or a friend of a friend can refuse to take the rap with little or no consequence. But an employee would feel coerced to comply because of the employer-employee relationship. From a layman's perspective, this should warrant a heavier (even a deterent) sentence!

So, Mr Shanmugam's reply to MP Sylvia Lim's question has not resolved the issue, but instead has created yet more questions on whether the law is even consistently applied, let alone whether favouritism was involved in Woffles Wu's case. Even more surprising was his admonishment of MP Sylvia Lim "to look at issues without having to inject politics into it". Sylvia Lim was merely putting forward a question of public interest, something which MPs of Mr Shanmugam party has apparently decided not to so do.

Which brings us to MP Hri Kumar. He was among the first few people to comment on the Woffles Wu case. For some reason he has now gone silent. Why? Is he now in possession of some facts that has resolved his initial concerns regarding the case? If so, could he address parliament to give his understanding of the case and perhaps enlighten the public?

What we are concerned is that the party whip may have been imposed on Hri Kumar to refrain from further discussing the issue. If this is so, we need an explaination from perhaps, the Speaker of Parliament as to why this should be so. This is a matter of public interest and as an MP, Hri Kumar took an oath of office to we're sure: serve the people of Singapore. Gagging him in this instance would be quite far from the spirit and letter of that oath.

And amidst all of these hullabaloo, one niggling question still remains unanswered: Why was Woffles Wu's case delayed for a period of almost six years? On this one question alone, all issues regarding this saga could potentially be resolved.

Really Mr Tharman? Are You Serious?

Finance Minister Mr Tharman has stated that the government is not satisfied with the state of its procurement processes and that the rules on procurement would be tightened. How exactly is this going to improve the procurement processes may one ask?

What Mr Tharman proposes is somewhat akin to asking the foxes guarding the hens in the chicken coop to be more alert when on guard duty. The problem is not the alertness of the foxes but that the fox is being asked to self-supervise its own actions. It's the old problem of who is going to guard the guards isn't it?

In today's world of pervasive internet connectivity there is a solution not available to the Roman empire: Namely: crowd sourcing and social media. Purchasing decisions of all public institutions should be made available for public scrutiny. With the possible exceptions of weapons and security systems purchases, all other purchases/works order should be made public. The following basic information should be made available for each purchase:

Which is the purchasing organisation
What is being purchased
How much it costs
Who was it purchased from

The vast majority of purchasing decisions by our public institutions cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered state secrets. It is precisely the current lack of transparency and therefore external accountability that has allowed such malpractices to occur, the most egregious (exposed to date) being the scam perpetrated by the LTA officers.

Let the public be the many extra (and unpaid) eyeballs to keep public officers honest and on their toes. This is the equivalent of letting the chickens check on the fox. If Mr Fox who is supposed to be guarding the chickens is not doing his job, the squawking chickens should be able to alert the farmer.

Consider the the $7billion worth of "administrative expenses" that Temasek Holdings incurred for the year 2010. I'm sure the public would like to know the breakdown of how that money was spent. There are doubtless people working in the public service who would know, but are not telling. These people mistakenly believe that they are working for Temasek Holdings etc... but in reality, they are working for the public who are footing the bill, including their salaries.

For perspective, the original MRT network (East-West and North-South lines) costs approximately $5billion to construct back in 1988. And Temasek Holdings and their subsidiaries are spending on average of $7billion a year on ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES!! Just how many Brompton bike-like purchases do you think can be hidden with such a huge expense account?

It's well past time that the chickens are armed Mr Tharman. Public institutions spending the public's money have NO reason not to reveal to the public what they are spending the money on. If you are truly serious about tightening procurement procedures and all this talk is not just empty posturing, we would expect no less. If not, you need to explain to the public WHY not?

Bad Boar Hunting

The decision to cull the wild boar population is a foregone conclusion. The REAL issue is not whether we should or should not cull, but how that decision was arrived at. It is a prime example of how governance as it is being practiced in Singapore has gone awry.

NParks, the organisation that is supposed to be looking after our natural resources turned out to be the leading advocate of the cull. This is a little disconcerting, almost like finding out that the police chief is also the mafia boss!

When it suits its purpose, it is willing to quote 'experts' views eg: on the loss of wild gingers and seeds of rain forest trees due to wild boar predations. But when the MP of the area, Mr Inderjit Singh suggested that an expert panel be formed to discuss how to MANAGE the boar population, it said that it had arrived at its decision after considering the views of experts.

Perhaps NParks would be kind enough as to tell us who these experts they have consulted are? Surely that is not a state secret? From what we can glean from press releases, their so-called experts are two university professors, likely from the botany department. Do these two professors have any experience or qualifications in wildlife management? If not, then on what basis does NParks have to rely on their recommendations?

Wild boars are a part of our natural heritage. They are not vermin like cockroaches or even rats. If NParks is not going to do a proper study of the boar population first like Mr Inderjit Singh suggests, then on what basis is it going to decide how much of the population to cull? How to ensure that the culling does not disrupt the social structure of the herd (killing a nursing mother will end up starving and killing all the piglets for example) and even to ensure that the genetic diversity of the animals are not adversely affected?

These are all important and NECESSARY questions that need to be thought out and addressed before even the first cull takes place. Chemical contraceptives were ruled out as impractical because apparently follow-up injections would be necessary. Is NParks serious? Outside of total extermination, managing the wild boar population will have to be an unavoidable ON-GOING process. Apparently follow-up culling/hunting operations are not impractical!

Capturing and sedating the boars for surgical sterilization was ruled out because it would be "stressful" for them. NParks apparently thinks that hunting and killing them would be less stressful for the boars. Coming from an organisation that thinks spending $2200 for a bicycle is justifiable, perhaps it shouldn't surprise us...anymore.

And now, NParks has declared that "no outsiders" would be allowed for the boar culling operation. This is like saying no outsiders should question its purchasing decisions. We know how well that ended up. We need impartial outside observers to ensure that the cull is done correctly. The operation is NOT about letting someone with a gun going all Rambo like, shooting at anything that moves. We also need to ensure that the boar carcasses do not wind up being sold by NPark employees to restaurants for profit. Perhaps Acres should run a sting operation to ensure that doesn't occur!

On a side note, we can't claim that we have an overpopulation of wild boars if we keep destroying what little green spaces we have left. Take for example the forested patch in Dairy Farm estate which is making way for a condo. Mr Khaw Boon Wan has also threatened to build another 100,000 units of housing if necessary (to save his political ass among other things). You know, if we got rid of a million foreigners, that should free up at least 100,000 units of EXISTING housing!

Splitting Hairs - Event or Process?

Singapore High Court Justice Philip Pillai has concluded that "there is no requirement" in our constitution to call for elections to fill a vacancy when an MP leaves his parliamentary seat for whatever reason.

His ruling rests on the interpretation of the term "election" in Article 49(1) in Part VI of Singapore's constitution (Reproduced below)

Filling of vacancies
49.

—(1) Whenever the seat of a Member, not being a non-constituency Member, has become vacant for any reason other than a dissolution of Parliament, the vacancy shall be filled by election in the manner provided by or under any law relating to Parliamentary elections for the time being in force.

According to Justice Pillai, if the word 'election' is interpreted as a process, then it is not mandatory for the PM to call for a by-election. If it is interpreted as an event, then it is mandatory.

But a reasonable man might ask how would a parliamentary seat be filled otherwise other than by a process of election? Surely our constitution does not permit a parliamentary seat to be filled by appointment? If that is the case, then the event of election is a prerequisite. You cannot have the process of election without the event of election occuring first. So, wouldn't interpreting the word 'election' as a process be putting the proverbial cart before the horse?

One can only hope that the Act governing the General Election is not couched in similarly ambiguous terms. For all we know, the PM also has the discretion to call or not to call for general elections every five years!