Doubt on Day 5

Do you realise the Prime Minister likes talking in threes? I don’t mean three languages like he did in Parliament.

- He set three groups apart for special consideration (old, young and poor),
- He set out three issues that arise from the population conundrum (baby numbers, identity building and economic consideration)
- He gave three ways to make Singaporeans feel special (they are in the majority, they are better treated than others, they will be given the chance to upgrade and get good jobs)
- He pointed out three issues for further discussion (how to get Singaporeans to marry and have babies, how to restructure the economy while keeping it vibrant, how to keep Singapore’s identity strong while keeping the country open)

Well, that looks clear enough although I wish he was reported in threes, which would have made reading the whole of words in the media more simple. So did he or did he not “cast aside’’ the 6.9m population projection as BT put it? None of the other media said it that way, except BT. Rather, they focused on the 2020 review that is to come. Well, I think it’s good to kill this divisive figure, whether it’s a target, a projection, a planning parameter or whatever. I wish the PM would be more precise about this – so that we could put the figure to rest.

Threading through the speech was an unsaid acknowledgment that the G had miscalculated – again. This time, over the way it sold the White Paper. Much ink has been spilled on the way the G looks only at numbers and hasn’t felt the pulse of the people well enough to realise that the White Paper would rouse such resentment. It is, in fact, the first time I can ever recall that the G making such a mis-step, a terrible mis-step, since it had already admitted that it did not realise how much resentment the people would feel over the recent influx of foreigners straining the infrastructure. It was then actually a mis-step on top of a mis-step.

So did the PM manage to paper over or patch up the differences over the White Paper? Did he manage to persuade the people to get over the emotional hump posed by the 6.9m figure as ST commentator Chua Mui Hoong put it? Did he manage to at least repair the bridge between the government and the governed, and make a start at restoring public confidence in the G’s ability to solve problems, as ex-ST editor Han Fook Kwang put it in The Sunday Times?

I wish I was in Parliament to listen to the proceedings as it seemed that even the PAP MPs seem to have caught on to the Us-versus-the G rhetoric so much so that MP Denise Phua has to call on all to stop the G-bashing already. I liked what she said, that the MPs will work harder but that the only promise that can’t be made was to “turn our cheek every time we are being slapped’’.

In fact, the G has been subjected to quite a bit of “slapping’’ and it has been turning the other cheek. It’s very un-PAP like. The apologies, the clarifications by ministers no less…but I don’t think they assuaged the population. In fact, it only whets the appetite for more. I feel sorry for the G and actually wonder if the PAP would be able to persuade more people to join its fold, so unpopular it has become. I have to say this: the PAP G is looking soft, and I don’t like it. And those who have always liked a tough G – and that could be a big group – might be wondering at our wavering politicians.

Or maybe I have got it all wrong. There are still plenty of people who are firmly behind the PAP. Maybe, in their heart of hearts, even those who are pro-opposition will admit that there isn’t any other group with the ability to take its place in Government. Even the Workers’ Party doesn’t think it can do the job. At least not yet.

But what’s the bet that even if the PAP delivers on its promises to strengthen and expand the infrastructure in the next few years, that the people’s anger will abate? That the trust that has been forged between the older generation and the older leaders would be replicated among the younger set?

Politics is an emotional thing and come 2016, what will happen? Will a political tsunami accompany the silver one?

I dread to think.

Duelling on Day 4

There is some merit in NOT carpet bombing the news. I read ST’s coverage of Day 4 and got thoroughly confused about what’s happening. Stuff kept getting repeated. Quotes got repeated too. Seems no one person is looking over the whole coverage.
And those boring, boring headlines. Yesterday’s headline was about a “major’’ shift in planning infrastructure. Today’s ST headline was yet another “major’’ shift in the economy. I don’t think anything quite beats the headline for the first day of debate : that the White Paper was for “the benefit of Singaporeans’’.

Here’s where the smaller papers do much better – pick the relevant points and home in on them. But I suppose ST has to labour under the burden of being the newspaper of record (of sorts).

BT homed in on the G’s objections to a total foreign labour freeze advocated by the Worker’s Party while Today gave an excellent account of the PAP-versus-WP sword play. I could follow it, because each cut and thrust was well juxtaposed, with relevant backgrounding. I thought its insertion of PAP MP Lim Wee Kiak’s apology to WP’s Low Thia Kiang right at the top of the article was a stroke of genius: It reflected how tense and impassioned the debate had become for Dr Lim to tell Mr Low to “turn up his hearing aid’’. Ooh, what a cut! For which Dr Lim was good enough to apologise for.

Sorry. The rant above was just me using my ex-journalist lens while reading the newspapers.

Back to Day 4.

You know, I almost expected an apology from Mr Wong Kan Seng. This was the minister who presided over the whole population growth and who turned on the tap big-big. He was a pretty tough nut then, putting down criticisms of immigration. I guess he was only doing what he had to. I wish he had said more about those years of exploding numbers, never mind that PM Lee had already said that the G lacked foresight then.

I also wish (well, almost) the WP had never put out its paper. Then we might get down to tackling some points in the White Paper instead of witnessing point scoring, jibes and snide remarks. Then again, if the WP didn’t, we wouldn’t be having a debate on whether the tap should be shut tight, or opened slightly. Clearly, the WP’s no increase in foreign workers position is being attacked, both in and out of the House. I can’t agree with the WP either. No increase at all? Rather too drastic. I know it’s the WORKERS party, but it can’t mean that it is so totally against employers as not to give them a bit of room to hire a few more people? By the way, ordinary Singaporeans employ foreigners too, as maids. And nursing homes need foreign helpers too.

I want to see the PAP MPs and Nominated MPs get down to other issues.
Can we, for example, have a clear definition of what is the Singapore core? I don’t think PAP MP Alex Yam’s use of the apple – which he brought into Parliament – quite makes it. You eat the apple (which I presume stands for foreigners) and you throw away the core!
So must the Singapore core be born and bred – as WP’s Sylvia Lim put it? Or can we be Singaporeans out of conviction and choice, as Manpower Minister Tan Chuan Jin said quoting the late PAP ideologue S Rajaratnam?

Hopefully, this can be settled today. Along with it, I hope the sentiments of the minority communities can be addressed too. I count at least three Malay MPs who have wondered if the racial makeup will stay the same and the status of Singapore Malays in 2030. Then there was an intriguing comment by Nominated MP R Dhinakaran on the worries of the Tamil-speaking Singaporeans being swamped by the non Tamil-speaking Indians.

The Eurasians? Speaking for myself, I don’t care lah. But I don’t know if others do.

Detractors on Day 2

I wish The Straits Times had excerpted Inderjit Singh’s speech. It’s amazing how he swung both ways – hit the G and hit the Workers’ Party. But his words resonated with me although I wonder quite a bit about his call for a “breather’’ on growing the population.

He said that we should stop getting in new citizens and PRs for a while and get going on correcting the mistakes of the past, that is, ramp up the infrastructure. So let Singapore be like Dubai for a while, with transient workers. Sounds interesting. But this still doesn’t mean Singapore won’t be crowded, however transient those workers are. I am not sure whether Singapore is more worried about the rising number of foreign-born new citizens and PRs, or the absolute number of people crowding this space.

The New Paper had a lot more detail on his speech and in fact, focused parliamentary coverage on the veteran MP who has been known for speaking his mind and speaking up for small businesses. It seems like he wants some measures to make sure that PRs and new citizens are “committed’’ to the country. So much so that he actually suggested jailing PR boys who don’t do national service. He also wants a $50,000 levy on PRs who buy HDB flats on the open market and to sell them to Singaporeans only if they moved. Also, to tighten rules on the number of dependents a new citizen or PR can bring into the country.

You know, this is going to make Singapore pretty unattractive to foreigners who want to set down roots here – or maybe it will drive them to think harder about committing to Singapore. This isn’t just a place you can make money, you have to pay an admission price too.

Business Times chose to highlight MPs who like Mr Singh talked about fixing the current problems first. This was one way to gain Singaporeans’ trust that the G put the people first, they said. Some might say that this was refreshing, and even a little sad, to have even PAP MPs say that the G should do more about tearing down the cynicism gap. I find it tragic that ministers have to keep reiterating that the White Paper is for the benefit of Singaporeans. Call me naïve (okay, I am) but why would any elected G dependent on votes do things to earn the ire, rather the fury, of its voters? Unless there is a view that the G somehow aggrandises itself in the process…you know, infrastructure brings in big bucks… Now, whatever one might say about the PAP G, I don’t think it’s “like that’’.

I wouldn’t question the motives of the G at all, but I would question its methods. In this regard, I wondered at the way the PAP tackled the WP on its own proposals. It’s the usual strategy: Don’t talk so big; show me “how’’. I hope I don’t have to hear Mr Low Thia Khiang say, as he had before, that the WP’s role is to check the G, not to propose policy alternatives since it doesn’t have the resources at its disposal and is not ready to form the next G for some time…

But I think some of questions posed to the WP can be posed to the PAP too. I still have no clue how some of those projections are made. If labour force growth and productivity growth is so low, doesn’t it mean that it hasn’t done enough or the measures to raise both don’t work or won’t make much of an impact? How did it come to such conclusions? After a year of work, there must be some “numbers’’.
By the way, there was a bid to amend the motion on endorsing the White Paper yesterday to delete the words “population policy roadmap’’ so that the White Paper wouldn’t look like a population target but a land use plan to meet population projections. It’s a simple change and some would say even just cosmetic, but no harm done if the G is intent on “clarifying’’ that 6.9m number as something we all hope will not be reached.

So how should the debate proceed after Day 2? There is a letter in the ST Forum Page today that’s pretty useful methinks. Let’s put those big population figures out of the way on focus on just a few things – the low fertility, aging population, reliance on foreign labour, depletion of local workforce. That 6.9m number is too distracting, said the writer.

I agree.

Deciphering Day 1

OKAY, I am asking this question again. What happens after five days of Parliamentary debate on the White Paper? Doubtless, the paper will be endorsed given the People’s Action Party’s majority in Parliament. And then what? Will it be revised in any way to take into account comments and views made by the PAP MPs and Opposition MPs? Will we see the revised version? Or is this a done deal?

I agree with an MP who talked about the haste with which this White Paper seemed to be proceeding. ST commentator Chua Mui Hoong said the PAP was doing business-as-usual and tried to make the point that this debate was NOT usual. She stopped short though of saying anything more beyond giving reasons for the difference between this debate and others.

So we have DPM Teo Chee Hean sketching out the plan, arguing that the G was not pro-foreigner but intent on keeping the Singapore “core’’. I don’t think his points in Parliament went very much beyond what the White Paper said. I guess he’s saving some bullets when he has to round up the debate. Oh my, the dozens of civil servants who must be taking notes….

So, the WP opposes the plan. Of course it does. So do the National Solidarity Party and the Reform Party. The NSP wants a referendum while the Reform Party went into full scale attack mode on almost every point.
The WP thinks the upward boundary could be 5.9 million, if we squeezed the retirees, housewives etc back into the workforce and thought harder about getting more Singaporeans to have babies.

Actually, this is one point that the PAP should explain – its “resigned’’ attitude towards future TFR, as WP’s Sylvia Lim put it. How did it come to conclude that its marriage and parenthood package would only raise TFR to 1.6, from the current 1.2? Do we need more radical thinking?

Also, the policy changes to get Singaporeans back to work or to work longer – they have just started. So it doesn’t have much faith in them either? There’s the Special Employment Credit which encourages hiring of older workers, re-employment legislation which just kicked in last year. The latest labour force statistics comparing last year and 2011 showed that the employment rate of women aged 25-54 is up (from 73.0% to 74.0%) and the employment rate for older residents aged 55-64 is up from 61.2% to 64.0%. Is this not a helpful sign? Or still not enough?

I wish the White Paper gave more insight into how the planners do projections. I mean, the sort of statistics that would explain how the big numbers that so plague us come about. Economist Donald Low has pointed out that the White Paper seemed to lack research. I agree – or maybe the planners think most of us wouldn’t be able to understand the research anyway? That this is a paper that’s pitched to the general population? If so, shame on them. For a paper as important as this, it should justify all its numbers.
Instead, we are supposed to take the big numbers at face value, trusting that the planners have worked through the numbers? But the same question can be thrown at the opposition as well. How did it come to 5.9 million as the upper limit? It’s not enough to say “our projections show’’…Hmm. What underlying numbers are we talking about?

Also, did the planners look at how other countries do it? Did they remove the bias against welfarism, as MP Seah Kian Peng put it, and keep an open mind about the practices that can be adopted/adapted from, say, the Nordic countries? Because you know what…without such references, the planners looked like they were planning Singapore’s future in an ivory tower. Someone, somewhere must have done something right that we can copy – no need for a uniquely Singaporean solution right?

As for the White Paper’s productivity targets – well, the employers seem to agree that they can’t achieve productivity by much and that’s why they need more foreign labour. Looks like all employers, big and small, are united on that front. No ifs and buts. This is going to be interesting….Which MP is going to speak for them in Parliament? Speaking for business will go against the grain so to speak. It will be highly unpopular to the people at large who want fewer foreigners in future. I suppose Nominated MPs – not accountable to the electorate – can play the role…

By the way, I like what Mr Seah said as reported in ST:

The Government does not always know best, he acknowledged. “It may only know what is efficient, what is rational, what costs the most, or the least.”
Sometimes, he pointed out, it is right to do what the people want. “Not because we think it is right, but because they do.”
The Government must resist the “self-righteous, sanctimonious chant that ‘We do what is right, rather than what is popular’”, he said.

Hmm. I think PAP Ministers should take heed and think hard about how they come across to people especially on this topic. Win their hearts first, then their mind.
In this case, I don’t think ST did the PAP a service. Its coverage seemed focused on giving Mr Teo the stage, to the extent of excerpting his speech. It’s way too much. All it does is make him come across as defensive.

Sorry.

ALL MPs should work harder

So now you have ministers stumbling over themselves and each other to explain the 6.9m figure. It’s not a target, not a prediction, not a projection. It’s a planning parameter, a worst case scenario. In other words, we might not hit it. So please don’t worry. Thing is, if we don’t hit it, the White Paper makes it seems like we will not even make 1 to 2 per cent growth (which is really low going by the standards we’re used to). Is that really the case?

In any case, Parliament sits today and a whole bunch of people are speaking up, including all the opposition MPs. I hope they dispense with the niceties and cut to the chase and don’t all start lauding the White Paper for its comprehensiveness and then immediately go on to do the popular thing of talking about the people’s worries of living in a crowded space.

Can we hear some substantial views instead about how to keep Singapore going, an analysis of the assumptions the White Paper has made, and deeper look at particular parts of the paper?

Based on what I’ve read online and offline, some strands of thought have emerged. And yes, some are contradictory.
a. Is the G too fixated on GDP growth and have simply worked backwards to come up with the numbers? Does GDP growth equate to higher standard of living? Some have pointed to Nordic countries which have kept populations small while still achieving a quality life style.

b. Is the G paying enough attention to the baby front? Should we be devoting even more resources to have more babies?
Suggestions:
- Take a look at Singapore’s adoption processes and see if things can be made easier for couples who can afford it to adopt an “instant’’ Singaporean brought up in the Singapore way. And who will serve NS.
- Or put all our effort into raising the fertility rate, that is, really, really subsidize potential parents. (Then you have to deal with where the money is coming from – single taxpayers?)
- Convert long-staying foreign spouses to PR and then to citizens (TNP had a story last weekend about a poor Indonesian who has been rejected time and again even though she’s bringing up Singaporean children as a widow of Singaporean husband) Of course, some would make the point that these foreigners are not economically active, hence why give citizenship…? (That’s the problem when Singapore men marry down. Serious.)
- Slay the sacred cow of the ban on dual citizenships. After all, it’s not uncommon to hear even Singaporeans saying they will jump ship if things get too crowded. And some 200,000 already living abroad anyway. Plus there are long-staying foreigners here married to Singaporeans and think that giving up their citizenship marks a betrayal of their homeland. Usually the better-educated men. (That’s the problem when Singapore women marry up. Serious).

c. Cost of living versus standard of living is something that should be explained. Are they necessarily opposed to each other? An ST Forum Page writer raised this matter today and it’s worth elaborating that keeping cost down means somebody else is going to suffer. I mean, if taxi fares remained low, you wouldn’t have so many people wanting to be taxi drivers because they realise they can now make a decent living driving…But of course, I would STILL complain leh. Human nature.

d. Another point on cost of living. Dare we slay the sacred cow about “home ownership’’? Our home ownership push is so successful that every newly formed family expects to own a new home asap if not immediately – and then they scream about high prices. Thing is, is renting or leasing such a bad thing? If something is out of reach, then you settle for the next best before you can afford what you want. I am not talking about rental flats from the G which should only be for those who are in real dire straits. But renting from the rental market. Why should only foreigners be tenants? Can’t Singaporeans rent homes too? Or too paiseh?

e. Businesses are screaming about tightening of foreign labour in the immediate term and how they will have to close down or relocate. This is in contrast to the ordinary people’s views: They think already too many here. I guess some business people figure that this is “forced’’ restructuring of the economy into the higher value-added services sector although it wouldn’t be politic for any G man to say so. Then, there’s this question of productivity. It would be good if we have an update on whether the productivity incentives are bearing fruit – and whether more can be done to make it easier for businesses to access. Even the planners admit that 2 to 3 per cent growth is a stretched target – which begs the question of why it is in the paper in the first place. And what would change if the target isn’t met? We bring in more foreigners to achieve GDP growth or throw in even more incentives for baby-making?

f. All those plans for more rails, reclamation etc is nice. But one wonders how we are going to pay for them. So the projected GDP growth is enough to cover the cost of laying rail lines and building new homes? Or are we looking at the possibility of dipping into reserves on the premise that we’ll be investing in Singapore’s future and averting a future crisis? By the way, who’s going to sell us sand?

I’m sorry if I’m not very coherent. I guess the subject matter is so vast that to come up with something sharper is difficult. Or I’m just stupid. You know, I’m looking forward to hearing the MPs speak. A couple of opposition parties have already said their piece but not the Workers’ Party. I know Mr Low Thia Khiang is trying to project a moderate image and seems to expect to only serve as a “check’’ or co-driver. You can bet everyone will be watching the party’s performance in this regard. With so high a margin of victory in Punggol East, we expect a rigorous performance. No less. And from the PAP MPs too, if they don’t want to labour under the perception that they merely parrot the G’s line which is why the G needs a “check”. And from Nominated MPs as well given that they have picked because they have some level of expertise in some areas. Bring that expertise to the fore please.

The case of the philandering parliamentarian Part 3

ST has gone one up on TNP over Palmergate, coming up with the name of Laura Ong’s boyfriend. Who is trying desperately to lose himself…The poor man is removing online traces of himself and playing hide-and-seek with the media. Still, a somewhat blurry photo of him was obtained with some background on his educational qualifications and what not.

I don’t know about you but I would give the poor guy a break. Unless ST thinks he’s the whistle-blower who went to TNP with the incriminating SMSes. Even so, I would protect his identity. He’s clearly the cuckold in the business, just as Mrs Palmer was. Now, if we are cutting the missus some slack, what about some for the boyfriend too? Unless he wants to come out and tell what he knows and let it all hang out emo-style, which is not what Singaporeans are good at as the world knows.

Likewise, I wish her now-separated husband’s identity had been kept private. He’s got nothing to do with this affair. Or did he?

I know that the media wants as much information on the saga as possible –  it’s the stuff of adrenalin-pumping reporting – but we really have got to be fair. I doubt they are thronging the gates of the Palmer residence, so what not treat Laura’s family in Marine Parade in the same manner? Obviously, she isn’t there.

There are ways to get people to talk without harassing them. I don’t think the public really wants to know who they are, but want to hear what they say. In fact, there are better chances to get them to talk if the media agrees to protect their identity. So I would give the people who are hounded the same unsolicited advice I gave Mrs Palmer – send out a press statement, give a few lines and say you want the matter to end there. Oh, and then go stay in a hotel for a few days or get out of town.

As for Palmergate, I guess the PAP leaders who were quick to fire off shots at Yaw Shin Leong and WP are really getting the brunt of online attacks now. The online world keeps reminding them of what they said then.  Goes to show that people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

Methinks the dust won’t quite settle until we have a firm answer on the yes or no of a by-election. Even Dr Tan Cheng Bock has weighed in on the matter, never mind the opposition parties. ST reported political watchers are helping giving some dates for possible election timings – none said there shouldn’t be one although they acknowledged that it was for the PM to make the call.

I don’t live in Punggol East, but I think they have a right to an elected representative. Why doesn’t someone go ask THEM what they think?

   

The case of the philandering parliamentarian Part 2

Ooh…I really loved ST’s intro on the Michael Palmer affair: BARELY a year after a much- heralded appointment as Speaker of Parliament, Mr Michael Palmer’s ebullient political career ended in ignominy.

I advocate simple writing, but it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t have style. Not often have I seen the words ebullient and ignominy in a local story.

As expected, everybody went to town on the matter and much that was reported in the morning today I’ve already known from the online crowd before 10pm last night. BUT, go buy TNP!

Wow! It actually had some SMSes between Palmer and his lady friend sent to the newsroom on Saturday, the day of the confession.  They weren’t lurid or saucy like the Ng Boon Gay and Cecilia Sue exchange. They were more like what a courting couple would send to each other. Still, it would explain why the PAP was in a hurry to tell all quickly. There’s the threat of exposure a la Yaw Shin Leong style. The men-in-white would have wanted to be prepared well for this eventuality and wash their dirty linen quickly before someone else does the laundry for them.

So, the questions then:

1. Did TNP check on the tip off and drew a blank on the PAP side? Or did it dismiss it as some prankster?
2. Did TNP trace its source and have it verified? No, I am not asking for the source which TNP should protect. Just want to know that the text messages are not the actions of romance novelist…
3. Is this what the PAP is afraid would happen? That word would get out? Frankly, the source must be pretty resourceful or well-connected to get such screen grabs. I would have thought only certain agencies would have been able to compel such things.
4. What’s this thing about “Monday’’ that keeps popping up in text messages? Rendezvous day? Just curious…

Anyway, it’s clear that the media is obeying/respecting the wishes of Palmer, DPM Teo and PM Lee to leave the Palmer family alone. I mean, you catch the wife at the party branch and you didn’t talk to her? And no pictures of the meeting at Punggol East PAP branch which she attended? I’ll have to buy Shin Min and Wanbao later to see if they toed the line too.

A piece of unsolicited advice for Mrs Palmer: Give the media a one-line statement to satisfy the people who want to hear from you. Then, the media would feel better about leaving you alone. And the curious and unsavoury people (me included) would have a bone to chew over. Serious.

As for the PA staffer who’s been identified, I hope she’s left town. She had several days to do so anyway. Also the “respect privacy’’ plea doesn’t seem to have applied to her. She is the “other’’ woman. I also noticed that TNP didn’t name her husband although it gave details of how they met and the businesses he ran. Perhaps, this is because they were already separated pre-Palmer. ST did though. Poor thing. He doesn’t deserve the spotlight.

What’s next then?

1. A Speaker has to be properly named. It’s now Charles Chong stepping up to the plate Palmer vacated. So is he going to go full-time or will a new Speaker be named? Is the Speaker coming from the backbenches or appointed from outside, as is allowed?
2. How long will it take for the PM to “consider carefully’’ whether he will hold a by-election in Punggol East? How snap can snap be? You know, given our campaign period, you can conceivably squeeze in the event about the year end/year beginning, which used to be a favourite time for elections. Or you could squeeze it in between the January release of the Population report and the Budget statement. Frankly, I realise that the report etc are big national issues that should occupy the minds of politicians and the people. But, hey, they are going to be distracted if this BE isn’t held.
3. What’s Palmer going to do? Good thing he’s a lawyer and so is his wife, who quit to look after the home. I guess there’s little worry on that front. But what is the poor PA woman going to do….do a bunk like Amy Cheong? Except that she’s Singaporean and has a mother and a younger sister here.

Anyway, who would have thought there would be so much sex in sanitary Singapore?

 

The case of the philandering parliamentarian

Okay, so who’s the woman? I sound like a tabloid journalist, I know. But, hey, everybody wants to know who’s the PA staffer who caught Michael Palmer’s eye. The works, please. Everything about the Palmer marriage as well. With pictures. Can the media oblige?

I am assuming there’s no unwanted interference from up above. And I am asking in the spirit of fairness vis-à-vis the Yaw Shin Leong affair of not too long ago. One thing, I am glad about… so far online media has labelled it an extra-marital affair and not some euphemism like “indiscretion’’.

I sound terrible. Like some bloodsucker from now-defunct News of the World. But everyone deserves “fair’’ treatment or the media will be unfair. Yaw Shin Leong must be laughing his socks off somewhere now that the boot is truly on the other foot…and it’s finally dropped. On the PAP.

I suppose the defence the PAP will come up with is to compare not the two ex-MPs, but the way the two parties approached the issue of a philandering parliamentarian. Like, Palmer admitted it and said sorry. Like, we worked faster, even called a press conference. Like, we quickly made plans on how to “cover’’ his duties. Like, we know Michael Palmer; he’s no Yaw Shin Leong.

Then again, I suppose Workers’ Party would be pretty quick too to go on the attack. Who would be able to resist it? It shows that despite whatever the PAP says about itself, the men in white aren’t so spotless. Like, what did the PAP say again about its selection process compared to ours? Like, he ain’t just an MP, he’s the Speaker of Parliament, for crying out loud! Like, we were tough and sacked Yaw, Palmer quit with your blessings. Like, when’s the by-election?

Gosh. Could Singapore be having yet another by-election? Seems to me the PM is in a pretty difficult position. Never mind that we sorted out this question of whether holding a by-election is at his discretion – it is. The fact is that the Hougang BE set a precedent. A single-seat ward was vacated by a sitting MP, not a GRC slot where the excuse for not holding one would be that the other GRC MPs can cover his duties.

Of course, the Hougang ward did not belong to the PAP and it was therefore a prime opportunity for the PAP to get it back from the WP. Palmer vacated Punggol East, yet another single seat ward, but this time belonging to the PAP. It wouldn’t look good on the PM at all if he exercised his discretion to NOT hold a BE there. Even if he argues that he’s already assigned Teo Ser Luck to look after constituents. (BTW, the PAP has quite a handful of full-time MPs now – why not one of them?)

I’m sorry that this has happened to Palmer, who overturned the conventional wisdom that a non-Chinese would not be able to carry a single-seat ward. Well, he did and he should be a poster boy for the Abolish GRC brigade.

I am sorry that this happened to Singapore’s Speaker of Parliament, because he should have a stricter code of conduct than the parliamentarians he presides over, and because he represents the Singapore Parliament to parliamentary delegates from other countries. I am not sure but I think he sometimes doubles up for the President as well…

I am most sorry for his wife and kid. When men are naughty, their women suffer. Just ask Mrs Ng Boon Gay.

Leave your iPad behind

I haven’t watched Parliamentary proceedings in ages so I never knew that MPs were allowed to use iPads in the House until today when ST published an interview with Speaker Michael Palmer. It was, he said, so that they could answer emails and check on points made.

Frankly, I’m appalled. Can fiddle with handphone, now can fiddle with iPad. Bigger screen, easier to use.

Already, the obsession with gadgets and the need to be “in touch” all the time has taken over all kinds of social activity. You have people texting away at meetings, updating facebook at work, answering emails during dinners. You can have a whole bunch of people sitting down – in silence - while they “talk” to their iPad or phone. And here is the highest forum in the land where listening should be prized and attention, focused. You put your brain to work, listening, processing and concluding. Parliament doesn’t sit very often, and even so not for that long. For a few hours, you can’t leave your gadgets behind? Michael Palmer says no wi-fi, but there’s always 3G.

It used to be that when you have an important phone call to make, you get out of the meeting. Someone slips you a note when you have an urgent matter to attend to and you excuse yourself.  If something is really so important that requires an instant answer from you, you can bet someone will find a way to reach you even when you are in Parliament.

Maybe I’m being too hard on MPs. Maybe over the past years, they have been very restrained about turning their attention to their iPads. Maybe.

Maybe we’ll also see a full House, or at least a quorum, every time a Bill is debated. Too.

Change or no change

I found ST’s page 1 story on casinos a bit baffling. I always thought that newspapers report changes, but here is a headline which says that Govt’s approach to regulating casinos HASN’T changed: Iswaran.

It’s fine by me if the talk was that the approach is being changed or there is fear and anticipation that it will be changed. Although to be replaced by what, I can’t tell.

Anyway, the story was about changes to the Casino Control laws which have been much talked about, particularly on limiting the “financially vulnerable’’ people’s access to casinos. If there is a change in approach at all, it is that the G is hoping to further minimise social ills – which the MPs roundly applauded with some even wanting more done. I suppose this should count as a “tightening’’ of approach – not a change?

In any case, there I was trying to figure out if I am right about the “real’’ changes (go count the number of times change/changes was used in the article) and I was getting stymied by G reiterating its approach… Only later did I get the news that some committee is being set up, in addition to the curbs on the “financial vulnerable’’. In contrast, I thought Today did a better job of giving the news quick although it did ramble in the end trying to take in MPs’ comments.

On the other hand, I couldn’t find any reference to Teo Chee Hean’s admission that infrastructural development didn’t keep pace with population growth in ST. Maybe I went blind trying to wade through the parliamentary reports. If so, I stand corrected. But it was highlighted in BT and angled that way. It was in Today too, but under the headline that the Population paper will be ready in January. I don’t think that’s a new point – and maybe it’s just a way of capturing what the DPM said.