The More We Share Together...NOT

The concept of sharing is very laudable but the devil as they say is in the details. Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew has commented that higher bus costs are to be shared, the problem is he didn't go into detail about the sharing formula. Is it going to be a case of one for you (the public) and three for me (the bus companies) type of sharing?

Minister Lui said that by relying more and more on government subsidies (for offsetting costs) would give the operators (transport companies) no incentive to be efficient or to provide good services to commuters. I find this comment troubling.

1: Nowhere has the public pushed the government to subsidise the operators. The $1.1 billion 'gift' the government gave to the operators for additional buses was on the initiative of the government in the aftermath of severe MRT breakdowns/disruptions for likely political reasons.

2. So, if this injection of public funds de-incentivises the operators to be more efficient, it is the government's or Minister Lui's fault for doing so without attaching ANY conditions to the gift.

3. Just what does Minister Lui mean by "good service". Please enumerate and do not give motherhood statements. Without knowing what comprises 'good service', how can Minister Lui's ministry and the public monitor and measure whether the operator's are providing said 'good service'?

Minister Lui also made clear that any fare increase must be accompanied by service improvements and not just boost the short term profits of the operators. I think Minister Lui is being too generous. If the fare increase it to cater for increases in driver salaries, then there should be at a minimum NO change in the profit at all.

Minister Lui further said that if the fares were increased, the government would do more to help commuters. What exactly does he mean by this? Again, no motherhood statements please. Elaborate and enumerate what comprises 'more to help commuters'. Is he talking about the famous one-off transport allowance gift to Singaporeans to offset a permanent increase in fares? If so, where is the money coming from? Our own taxes? Ie: paying ourselves with our own money to offset increased costs by a public listed company?

For all we know, when the drivers salaries are increased (by a pittance) as a result of this fare increase, the executives of the transport companies would concurrently award further pay increases for themselves too. After all if their drivers are getting a pay rise, they should be getting one as well!

Would the minister ensure that that will NOT be the case? Somehow I doubt it. After all, the minister's pay happens to be benchmarked to the salaries of just such executives. If the minister were to push for salary reductions for the executives, it could backfire and result in himself and his cabinet colleagues receiving smaller (but still generous) salaries themselves. Somehow, I doubt the minister's desire to serve the public is strong enough to overcome this conflict of interest.

Given that ALL past PTC fare reviews have resulted in recommendations in favour of the operators, it is time for the operators to do their part and finally fulfill a part of their responsibilities to the public. I mean, look at what past fare increases have achieved? The current crisis! I seriously doubt any further fare increases will change ANYTHING. Would Minister Lui like to stake his reputation (such little as there is) that this latest fare increase will finally do the trick?

Incidentally, in all the brouhaha over the foreign drivers strike, Minister Lui's absence from the fracas was surprising considering his unfailing appearance in the past whenever something happens like maybe a nut falling off from an MRT train. Not that I'm against having his lieutenants, Mr Tan Chuan Jin and Josephine Teo doing something to earn their salaries once in a while...

Long on Promise, Short on Details

Minister of National Development Mr Khaw Boon Wan has sought to reassure Singaporeans that the government would make sure there's enough housing. Affordability of such homes is also assured as "Pricing is also within my control".

He said the government had built about 25 000 new homes each year over the last two years. The assumption here is that the government has the means to continue building MORE housing over the coming years. Unfortunately he did not specify HOW the government is going to do so.

More than one government minister has in the past mentioned the lack of land in Singapore. The retro-active building of eldercare facilities have moved affected residents sufficiently to register their misgivings to the authorities. Considering that the average Singaporean is rather apathetic, this is quite an achievement by the authorities.

Mr Khaw however did not provide any details of how he is going to achieve this. Is growing the land area of Singapore also within his control? Is the quality of the living environment going to be affected? Already our environment is being marred by 50plus story housing popping up all over Singapore, it will not be long before if you want to see the sky, you have to look straight upwards. Not to say of ideas for building underground being seriously considered.

Given his record thus far, his "I'm okay with it" wrt to the purchase of Brompton bikes and his "I'll be monitoring it" wrt to shoebox sized apartments and 50 year mortages, I think Singaporeans should be even MORE worried than assured by his remarks. So Mr Khaw, how EXACTLY do you intend to deliver on your assurances? I'm sure the directors of the gold 'investment' company, Genneva were equally assuring when telling their clients that their investments are 'safe'. Hah!

Excuse me for being cynical, but the current frenetic pace of construction of homes is driven only by political objectives of hopefully retaining enough votes to win the coming election. This is the can kicking, take the less painful road for their (PAP) governments' own (rather than the country's) interest.

If at this juncture the present day governmen is already abdicating its long term responsibility to the people for shorter term political gains, what more when the day of reckoning arrives in the not too distant future when the challenges and constraints are even more acute? Do you expect the government then to suddenly become cognisant of their obligations/responsibilities and then do the right things?

I doubt it. You only need to take a look at the policies of Ben Bernanke, US Fed chairman in tackling monetary and fiscal challenges of the US government. I can tell you that the people in our present government are no better than Ben Bernanke in addressing the challenges currently facing us.

Justice is Not Just Blind, it is Also Inconsistent

Singaporean Style justice has just been meted out to a businessman for a traffic offence in which he was sentenced to six weeks in jail. Consider the following salient points of this case versus that of Dr Woffles Wu.

1. The businessman (Mr Seah Hock Thiam) did not himself commit a traffic offence. The public were in no danger. Dr Woffles Wu's original offence was for that of SPEEDING in his Porsche. And he committed the offence TWICE. The public could have been seriously hurt.

2. Mr Seah's offence was for that of abettment. He got his driver to find people to take the ILLEGAL PARKING offence rap for his friends. Dr Woffles Wu abetted an elderly employee of his to take the rap for his SPEEDING offences. TWICE.

District Judge Liew Thiam Leng justified his sentencing as follows:

Getting someone else to take the rap would undermine the points demerit system potentially permitting people who would otherwise be suspended from driving to continue driving and hence pose a danger to the public. I do not see how Dr Woffles in getting his employee to take the rap for him does not undermine the points demerit system!

Dr Woffles Wu was charged under the Road Traffic Act which carries much lower maximum sentences. (He was eventually fined $1000 six years after the offences were committed). Mr Seah's sole charge (abettment) was apparently of a 'more serious' nature and was charged under another act carrying heavier maximum sentences. Why wasn't Mr Seah charged under the lesser act?

After all, he did not personally commit any traffic offence, just that of abettment. Dr Woffles on the other hand committed BOTH traffic offences (speeding) and abettment, which even under the lesser act provided for a maximum custodial sentence of 6 months other than the maximum fine of $1000. Not to mention that Dr woffles was a REPEAT offender.

The justice highlighted another difference between the two cases saying that Dr Woffles did not give any monetary award to his employee to take the rap for him (thus apparently justifying Dr Woffles lighter sentence). Do we even need to highlight the fact that an employer does not need to give additional monetary inducement to get an employee to do something illegal like this as there is always the implied threat/potential of dismissal/loss of promotion that an employer holds over their employees?

Justice Liew further justified the sentence he meted out by saying that such cases (abettment) 'usually attracted a jail term'. Yet in the case of the Pastor charged with violating the three quarter tank rule and lying about it, former Chief JUstice Chan Sek Keong set aside a custodial sentence and imposed a fine instead. The 'usual' sentence in the past 62 out of 64 cases had been a custodial sentence. So the former Chief Justice decided to NOT follow 'usual' sentencing while Justice Liew decided to follow usual sentencing and on rather shaky grounds at that.

The former Chief Justice said that the jail term for the Paster was "inappropriate and disproportionate" to the gravity of the offence and should not be the norm for a first offender in such a case. We would like to remind Justice Liew that Mr Seah is also a first time offender and in all respects, his offence is lesser than than committed by Dr Woffles.

If Mr Seah fails in his appeal against his custodial sentence, the greater tragedy would not be that his lawyer is possibly incompetent, but that Singaporean justice is in danger of descending into farce, the kind that used to be associated with 3rd world banana republics where justice is a negiotable quantity rather than one impartially based on law and precedence.

I would venture to say that justice inconsistently applied is not justice at all. That is NOT to say that sentencing should be immutable but that any change with precedence must be CLEARLY justifiable. In these cases, I don't think so. What do you think?

Ostriches in our Midst

Ostriches are well known in popular myth for sticking their heads in the sand to avoid reality. It would appear that our government leaders are doing the same trying to avoid the reality that our little red dot has only so much capacity for development and growth.

It is yet another indication of the disconnect our government/civil servants have with reality. In their pursuit of 'holistic' solutions to our problems, they have gotten confused and are proposing hole-in-the-ground solutions.

Floods in Orchard Road? Dig a hole in the ground as a retention pond. Running out of land to build housing? Feasibility studies of building housing underground is being carried out. We are told that JTC is looking at a plan for an underground science ciy to be built in caverns excavated under Kent Ridge Park.

The underground science park is supposed to house R&D and data center facilities. Data centers are notorious for their huge energy requirements not only to run their computer servers, but also for cooling systems to remove the heat generated. Companies like Google are building some of their data centers in colder polar regions to save on heating costs and the geniuses in our government want to build one underground?

I had thought that it was just a cover story for the intention to build a secret underground nuclear energy facility under Kent Ridge, but since the nuclear energy option is off the table at least for now, it would appear the cover story is being given more serious consideration. Are our current above ground business parks so fully occupied that we need to build one underground? I would suggest building less shopping malls (or repurpose existing ones) if the need is really so great.

The government has also commissioned a study to build an underground landfill to hold 40 years of rubbish! I'm guessing that our minister of environment Dr Vivian Balakrishnan has been unsuccessful in negotiations with our neighbouring countries to take our trash after our Pulau Semakau landfill reaches full capacity.

Dr Vivian has kept out of the population debates. He appears to think it doesn't concern his ministry. But a larger population generates more rubbish and if we keep increasing our population, we are going to fill up the landfill at Pulau Semakau even quicker. It has everything to do with his ministry and building underground silos to store our rubbish is NOT a solution.

The obvious solution which will solve ALL our problems is to reduce the size of our population to a level such that our requirements on living space, water, food and energy needs can be sustainably met without resorting to stop gap can kicking temporary and completely insane 'solutions' such as these hole-in-the-ground ideas.

Holistic or Hole-in-the-Head?

'Holistic' appears to be the in word to use recently among government agencies here in Singapore. First used I think by the Minister of Education, Heng Swee Kiat to characterise his approach/contribution towards education policies.

Its usage has now spread to the LTA. In a recent article on a million vehicles on the road, LTA was quoted as saying that it is adopting a holistic package of measures which include building more roads, regulating vehicle growth, implementing traffic engineering solutions, promoting use of public transport and managing traffic demand through increasing usage costs.

The question is if this is 'holistic', then what has LTA been doing all along? Other than 'implementing traffic engineering solutions' whatever that means, all the other measures have been in practice for some time already. The fact that we are STILL having traffic congestion problems mean that such measures have NOT worked. Doing MORE of what that does not work isn't gong to make it magically work!

Then, we have a reply from the Director of Corp Comms MHA in response to a forum query on 'tackling really bad disasters'. MHA apparently has a crisis management structure that would enable it to 'holistically assess and mitigate any evolving situation that could post a threat to Singaporeans'. Whatever it means, we can only hope that their holistic process is more effective than LTA's. But if the response to the recent MRT breakdowns is anything to go by, we shouldn't keep our hopes too high. MRT breakdowns are a walk in the park compared to bad 'disasters', man-made or otherwise.

Holistic I think is nothing but a code word for saying 'same old same old' while keeping their fingers crossed. I'm waiting with anticipation for the SAF to come out with a similar statement that they are also taking a holistic approach towards training. It will probably mean that they will be asking for permission from the enemy first before taking a shot at them!

Grand Gestures Minimal Benefits

Our government is fond of making grand gestures. For example the banning of chewing gum. A better and more meaningful gesture would have been a ban on tobacco products.

Then we have the ban on the keeping of poultry by residents living on Pulau Ubin. This in response to the bird flu scare. All their poultry had to be culled. I believe at one stage, even the culling of the birds at Jurong Bird Park was under
serious consideration!

Post 9-11, the line of rain trees outside the American Embassy were stripped bare of their ferns. Apparently the authorities were afraid that terrorists might be using them as cover.

Then, there's the culling of wild boars. Someone's pet dog was killed by one. I wonder how many dogs were put down by the SPCA? Of the about 100 or so wild boars in the Lower Pierce area, at least 90 are being targeted to be culled. If only the authorities were as determined and efficient in 'culling' the inflow of foreign workers. A reduction of a mere thousand (32 000 to 31 000) was considered as a 'drastic' reduction!

A likely cornered boar that 'attacked' a boy and a security guard resulting in at most a few scratches moved a minister to voice his intention of 'protecting our babies' and further moved our dear PM LHL to say (at an international
conference no less) "better do something about it. Finally, we have to do something about it." Meanwhile a recklessly driven Ferrari actually KILLED at least 3 people. Nothing was said by ANY minister about limiting the speed or banning the use of such vehicles on our roads. Instead, the F1 races was extended for another 5 years at considerable taxpayers expense!

Then, there's the 'gift' of granting paternity leave to fathers. Unless the fathers are expected to take over the role of the confinement nanny, such leave is about as useful as his nipples.

These gestures while largely laudable on the surface, does leave one wondering as to their motivations. Dig a little deeper and one can find a common thread running through them all. What do you think that is?

All That Glitters Is Not Gold

In today's forum page, a certain Ms Grace Tan wrote on MAS's handling of the gold buyback firm Genneva in which she supported MAS's hands-off policy in monitoring the activities of such firms instead of outright banning their questionable activities.

She further says that "it does not seem right to hold the authorities responsible and blame regulatory laxity. The government cannot arrest anyone who looks like a crook unless the person commits a crime."

I fear she is wrong. And the fact that her letter is printed in the Straits Times forum page shows that the powers that be who are behind the paper, ie: the government is sympathetic to her views.

I wonder if she would continue to hold such views if she or her daughter is about to be raped and the police did nothing until after the rape had actually occured because until it had occured, the rapist is not a rapist yet! Also, would the government wait for a terrorist to plant and explode a bomb first before taking action? Why then did they arrest Mas Selamat and his fellow JI members? All they did was talk and take a few videos. Why not just list them on the police website as potential troublemakers and be done with it?

The thing is MAS is the financial regulator. The public has a reasonable expectation that any company that deals in financial products would first have already passed MAS's scrutiny and obtained their permission before being allowed to operate in Singapore. It is not as though these companies are operating out of a makeshift table in some dark alley in Geylang. They could be operating out of offices in the financial district itself.

Yes, an investor should do their homework and decide on the risk of any investments. Not everyone is as diligent and sophisticated an investor as Ms Tan. But this does not mean that MAS can wash its hands of its regulatory responsibilities by merely publishing on its website that such-and-such a company is of dubious repute.

Investors should be doing due diligence on the investment products/instruments. MAS should be doing due diligence on the companies selling such investments. Any company that doesn't pass the smell test should not be allowed to operate. Let me ask you: If a safety barrier on a flyover is missing, should LTA just post a warning sign about its absence and consider its job done? After all, if you are a motorist, it is your responsibility to drive carefully.

Too Complicated To Regulate

Early last month our dear PM LHL said at a dialogue with businessmen in New Zealand that regulating the financial industry too tightly is 'not always feasible'. Specifically, he mentioned that today's financial markets are too complex to separate the commercial and investment banking systems.

He apparently has forgotten that the world's financial systems had operated perfectly well (and prudently so) for decades until precisely the different roles of these banks were conmingled. This likely started when the Glass Steagall act was repealed in the US and ushered in the era of increasing self-regulation in the banking ector.

And as we know today, it has been downhill ever since, the excesses of which finally came to a head in 2008 with the implosion of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers.

I find it incredible that he said that Singapore's government's approach to deal with this potential systemic threat to the financial system from the risks resulting from mixing commercial and investment banking is "to build up the nations (ie: Singapore's) reserves instead (of properly regulating and separating the functions of such banks) in anticipation of such events (banks blowing up like Lehman)".

What PM Lee is effectively saying is that HDB prices need to be kept high so that we have enough government reserves to rescue banks when their risky and over-leveraged bets in the financial markets fail. The services traditionally provided by the banking sector has always been of a parasitic nature to the larger body of the economy. The diversification of its role into investment banking, largely fueled by greed has changed the nature of its role in the economy to such an extent, that now the banking parasite has become more important than the host! Hence the occurance of Too Big To Fail bailouts of banks across the developed world, principally the US, Eurozone and from much earlier, Japan.

Apparently, we are not immune either. We have a President who is an ex-banker (OCBC) and who was quoted as saying that "securitization is a good thing" (for banks of course!). This in reference to CDO's, that financial weapon of mass destruction fingered as having triggered the current financial crisis back in 2008.

If the financial industry has indeed become too complex to regulate, then the logical thing to do is to simplify it. If the regulatory authority, MAS does not understand what is going on, what hope does the ordinary citizen have? MAS cannot abdicate its responsibility to ensure that whatever the financial industry is doing does not adversely impact the interests of the public. That is its sole reason for existence in the first place: To protect the public's interest.

MAS is not there to facilitate the financial industry in profiteering by exploiting the public with complicated "investment" products. If that were the case, we might as well do away with MAS altogether (and save the public a whole lot of money
paying their salaries). The financial industry can take care of itself very well and would profit far more easily if MAS were not around in the first place!

Strip-trees.

This is something that NParks (or perhaps LTA) is prone to doing for reasons I would rather leave for them to provide. I can see very little reason why roadside trees are being striped of their ferns, orchids and other epiphytic plants.

Either NParks/LTA have not been doing their job in properly briefing their roadside tree maintenance contractors (to not remove such plants) or more likely, these organisations felt that it looked 'untidy' and so had them removed.

This is the before picture (taken back in 2003)


And this is the after picture (taken this year: 2012) WHY?


Again, what we are seeing is either rank incompetence or having the wrong people in the wrong jobs. Neat freaks should be put to work at the NEA to ensure our food courts and public toilets are kept clean and 'neat'.

Only in Singapore: Canopy Walk with no canopy.

You would think that it is not possible for NParks reputation to sink ever lower, but they still managed to surprise us. Incompetency apparently knows no lower limit. An irate user has written to the Straits Times forum a few days ago to complain that trees leading to the Tree Top Walk in MacRitchie Reservoir is being cleared away.

Apparently, this is to ensure 'safety' after a tree fell on an unfortunate SAF soldier at an army camp in another location sometime ago. This is an over-reaction bordering on the ludicrous if not criminally incompetent. One only hopes that the trees lining the Tree Walk hasn't been cleared away too. After all, what is the whole point of a Tree Walk if not to walk among the trees?

Shit happens. I mean, how many people get killed by falling trees? The only way to ensure it never happens is to chop down ALL trees. It is a good thing NParks staff do not run the health ministry. Otherwise, in order to prevent breast cancer, they would make it mandatory for all Singaporean women to undergo double masectomies. Sorry guys, no more fondling for you! To be fair of course, all Singaporean men will have to be castrated to prevent testicular cancer. In this case though, it would be an improvement. It would mean no more sex for favours cases or under-aged sex.

There is a canopy walk in Kent Ridge park. There too, the canopy has been removed. See picture below. The whole point of a canopy walk is to allow people to see what goes on in the canopies of trees. I cannot fathom the thinking behind the way NParks operates. Instead of being a custodian of our natural environments, it is instead a force for destruction. The way NParks has been operating is yet another visible symptom of the incompetency we increasingly see in public organisations.

At most, to mitigate the risk from falling trees, trees near enough to the walks could have guide ropes attached to their trunks in such a way that should the trees fall, it would be more likely for them to fall away from the walks. That would have been a sensible precautionary action.

Meanwhile, after multiple fatalities on our roads from supercars, the government has yet to impose a ban on such vehicles on our roads. I wonder why? Perhaps NParks should be put in charge of road safey instead!

Amputation. Do it slow or do it quick?

If your doctor tells you that your leg must be amputated, do you want to have it done quickly or to have it done slowly? As a sensible person, your first question would be: "Doctor, why must my leg be cut off?"

If your doctor happens to be the government, he will ignore your question and nstead tell you that to alleviate the pain of losing your leg, he will do it in stages, first cutting the skin, wait a while, then cut the muscle, wait a while longer and then cut through the bone. In between while waiting, presumably you will get used to hobbling along with a partially cut leg and so eventually get used to moving along without it.

This is the 'solution' proposed by the government for some stall holders of a few food centers who are facing huge (over two hundred percent in one case) increases in cleaning costs. The increases ostensibly is due to efforts to increase the income of cleaners. Well and good, but in order for such fee increases to be acceptable, the government needs to show in breakdown form, WHERE EXACTLY the fee increases are going.

Cleaners' welfare should not be used as a cover and opportunity to further pad the operators profit margins. As a patient, you have a right to know the reasons for a doctor's recommended procedure. For all we know, the doctor is being paid a commission from the company selling prosthetic legs and wheelchairs and there is a less drastic option than cutting off your leg!

Are we surprised by this 'solution' of staggering out the fee increases in stages? Nope. This is the same government that offers one time rebates for permanent increases in public transport costs. This is the same government that 'compromised' the destruction of a green space in Dairy Farm estate by reducing the condo development by two stories. (How does this save the green space?) This is the government whose solution to the building of an eldercare centre blocking the view and air circulation of Bishan residents is to plant trees to screen the building. (How does this improve air circulation? It's the building that is blocking air movement!)

One-off half measures to offset permanent cost increases and environmental degradation. The government might think that it has won by ramming through such 'fixes'. But each time they do it, they lose ever more of their credibility. I find it hard to believe that these otherwise seemingly sensible and capable people can spew out such complete illogical nonsense with a straight face without any hint of duplicity the moment they put on their government hats.

Bomb Maker or Bomber. Who is MORE guilty?

The answer is they are both equally guilty. But in the case of inappropriate comments posted on social media, it appears only the bomb maker is guilty. Those who planted the bombs and then set it off escape scot free and indeed are feted as heroes and guardians of public propriety. And if we continue to do so, the problem will never be solved.

Today's Straits Times showed a list of similar past incidents dating back to 2005. Has the authorities actions against such incidents in the past worked to deter further incidents? Obviously not. What will be the authorities action in this (Amy Cheong) incident be? Yet more of the same...

One does not accidentally stumble upon such a post on someone's personal social media site. Some of her supposed friends instead of privately messaging her about the inappropriateness of her posting chose to do a screen shot of it and distribute or otherwise publicise it outside of her personal site. What could possibly be the intention or motivation of such individuals?

If Amy Cheong's posts have 'elements of offence involving incitement to hatred' as some lawyers say, then those individuals who help to publicise it are no less guilty of a similar offence. If the authorities truly want to stop such inappropriate posts from going viral and possibly getting out of hand in the future, these individuals need to be arrested, charged and prosecuted as well.

Jail, fine and termination of internet access for people who publicise such postings will do more to deter future similar incidences than any punishment meted out ONLY to the original poster. One can only hope that the authorities will take such action. But if recent disclosures of incompetent behaviour up and down the line of public servants from front line staff all the way up to cabinet ministers are anything to go by, this can be nothing more than a vain hope.

I hope I'm wrong, but I, without any intention of blowing my own horn, will unfortunately usually be proven right. Just wait and see.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone

I'm surprised at the number of apparently sinless people living amidst us here in Singapore. It must be yet another one of our first in the world records. So Amy Cheong posted a racist rant on her blog and it appears almost everyone and their mother were scrambling over each other to proclaim their righteous disgust and make known their "I'm 'holier' than Amy Cheong" credentials.

If Amy Cheong is to be judged as being guilty of a socially unacceptable act, then everyone else who publicised her post, retweeted it, emailed it to their friends, reported it to the police is equally guilty. In cases of libel, reproducing the libellious content makes you equally liable to libel charges as the originator. If your neighbour's house is on fire and you added fuel and further fanned the flames, are you not guilty of making the situation worse even if you did not start the fire in the first place?

The blame for the increasing level of intolerance and exposition of extremist views and responses to perceived slights can be laid squarely at the door of the authorities. Their mistaken belief that by making examples of earlier bloggers of racist postings (highly publicised arrest and prosecution) would deter others have had the exact opposite effect. It had instead, spawned internet vigilantes ever on the lookout for the next opportunity to blow their own horn of moral superiority.

Racism, bigotry and discrimination like charity, begins at home. No one is immune. None other than our own ex MM LKY once asked the rhetorical question: "If your daughter were to bring home a black man (as a potential spouse), would you (as a parent) be happy?" (or something to that effect). Some may consider it racist, but no one ever to my knowledge, has accused him of it. Perhaps his daughter Dr Lee Wei Ling may want to write an article about it. It should be quite illuminating.

If the authorities REALLY want to solve this problem, they need to arrest those people responsible for spreading the original posting (at least up to the second level of reposting) and ESPECIALLY those who report it to the police. The authorities by reacting as predictably as they do are providing exactly what these internet vigilantes want: Notoriety. I mean, if one finds something offensive, why else would one help to spread it?

Unfortunately, as with other 'problelms' created by the authorities themselves, the answer will likely be to do MORE of the same. Like in the case of Singapore having a 'lack of land', so the solution is to bring in MORE foreigners. Our infrastructure is already bursting at the seams with a population of 5.3million, yet we have a population target of 6.1 million (for now...) Something is seriously out of whack. I wonder what it is....

SolidariNOT

Minister of State for Health Dr Amy Khor has been quoted as saying in a blog post that accepting eldercare facilities would be an "expression of solidarity with those advanced in years". Since when has solidarity have anything to do with eldercare?

No one disputes the necessity of facilities for caring of the elderly in our midst. It is WHEREthose facilities are to be sited. Dr Amy Khor herself has choked out on national television that one such facility (to be sited in Bishan Street 31) was constrained by the "scarcity of land". As it turned out, that facility will be built at that location despite local residents reservations after some "tweaking".

Urban planners when they design the layout of a community will plan for an appropriate mix of buildings and open spaces. Each of which serves a NEEDED function. Now, due to an apparently unanticipated need for eldercare facilities, an integral part of the original design is being sacrificed.

This isn't about solidarity. This is about living space, living environment and quality of life. When the occupants of the surrounding flats bought their units, they didn't buy them with the knowledge that one day their units would be blocked by an eldercare centre built right in front of their units. Is the government going to compensate them for the drop in their property's value? Property for which they are probably paying a 30 year mortgage for?

Dear Dr Amy Khor, if you expect these residents (and soon residents of another 100 other locations at least) to stand in "solidarity" with your plans, they would expect that you and your colleagues stand with them. We do not understand how on the one hand we need to make such sacrifices due to the "constraint of scarcity of land" and yet on the other, your Prime Minister could blithely state that we can "afford" a population of over 6 million.

For a start, perhaps you and your cabinet colleagues could make a veeery SMALL gesture of SOLIDARITY with your constituents: Voluntarily take public transport (buses and/or MRT trains) to and from work everyday. Surely this would not be too much to ask as this is a routine for over 90% of your fellow Singaporeans. You and your colleagues will then get to experience how the policies you've taken so much pains to convince your fellow Singaporeans to accept, first hand. And then in a further show of TRUE solidarity, to have eldercare facilities built right next to and in front of your own homes.

Are you and your colleagues with us (or not)? When we sing "Majulah Singapura", we want you to be marching with us, not hanging apart or worse, moving in the opposite direction. If you and your colleagues are truly with us, show it in deeds. Words are cheap, insincere words even cheaper. What say you Dr Amy Khor?

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!