A Singaporean in Johor

When I grow old(er), I will move to…Johor! I mean, have you seen the stuff that’s coming up in Iskandar region? More importantly, did you read about what those homes could be priced at?
Go buy BT.

There is this place called the Oasis, a 147-unit development of premium strata residences consisting of studie, 1, 2 and 2+1 bedroom units. Priced at RM700 – 800 psf, a 500 -1,000 sqf studio could cost RM350,000 – 800,000. (Hmm…what’s the price of a COE?)

Oh! Oh! And then there is this other place called Avira, with bungalow, terrace houses, semi-ds, condo units and service apartments. A double-story terrace house of 2,200 sqf will cost RM924,000. RM is Malaysian ringgit for those who are really, really blur. Go get your own calculator and work out the exchange rate.

Okay, I know there are plenty of Singaporeans with homes next door but these places come with a Singapore stamp. Temasek Holdings has sunk a foot in these developments. Other Singapore developers are also in the fray. Plus these places seem designed for people like me – I almost make the grade as a post-war baby boomer. Living there means being surrounded by what is known as “wellness’’ amenities plus plenty of hospitals with familiar Singapore names.(I THINK can use Medisave there.)

The announcements by the two Prime Ministers of Singapore and Malaysia look like the best news in recent time. For both leaders, it’s probably great timing. Malaysia has a general election due by middle of the year. Singapore is screaming about lack of space. So Johor is …our hinterland? I will do my patriotic duty and move over so as not to be a burden on the state, dependent on the ever small-group of younger Singaporeans and a strain on our infrastructure.

Go further up by fast-speed rail and KL is… our playground? I think plenty of people are excited by this prospect. I know the costs haven’t been worked out, but I sure hope the ticket is less than the price of admission into Gardens by the Bay.

But wait a minute. What if the Malaysians decide to treat foreigners differently? You know, levy higher charges on non-Malaysians in healthcare? Or impose a national service tax of sorts because we are leeching on their resources? Or complain that we are raising property prices and the price of everything else? Cannot be right? What if Malaysians say they should have first dibs who gets to stay there? I suppose I’ll have to pay some additional stamp duty to own a property. You think I can get part-time employment there? Or is there a levy/quota?

Oh wait. What if the rules change?

I also read in BT that there will be an “airport city’’ around Senai. Hmm…so if I live around there, I go Senai for my travels? Wouldn’t this be competition to our own Changi airport? I am real proud of Changi, so I guess I’ll travel back into Singapore so that Changi can keep boasting about its arrival/departure figures.

But why I am pouring cold water over such news? I shouldn’t. At the very least, it shows that bilateral relations are blossoming. I don’t have to read about the haggling over water prices or railway land or a crooked bridge to replace the Causeway although I’m quite intrigued about the “third link’’ that’s proposed.

I also hope Mr Najib stays in power because I don’t know how a new leadership would act. New broom, you know, sweeps clean and we might just be some dust in the corner.

And as non-citizens, we wouldn’t have any speaking rights no matter if Temasek or Capitaland has a say in Iskandar. Hmm… I sound like a foreigner.

Maybe I should stay at home. At least I have voting rights, even if whatever I say isn’t loud enough to be heard.

Missing in MSM

The Prime Minister said many things at the IPS Perspective Conference but somehow the MSM didn’t pick up the stuff that would have interested the online community. Okay, I have to be fair…I am talking about the ST.

Today picked up his point about Section 377a and how he seems to be leaning towards maintaining the status quo, that is, homosexual sex remains criminalised. I wonder why this wasn’t published in ST? Because the PM might have run foul of subjudice rules that the Attorney-General’s Chambers had just reminded everyone of? A protective measure? If so, Today didn’t get the message.

http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/lets-agree-disagree-gay-rights-pm-lee

The PM didn’t unilaterally raise the topic, but was answering two questions that were very finely crafted in my opinion. First, was how a secular state could reconcile itself with having an old archaic law that discriminates against a group of people. The second, by NMP Janice Koh, was whether Singapore had the space to discuss issues that were potentially polarising. Looks like Section 377a is on the PM’s mind since he didn’t side-step the issue.

But, hey, I certainly hope the Judiciary will not be influenced by what the Executive has said on the issue, the top executive, some more! Methinks the PM should have held his peace, like all of us have been told to do.

Citing the example of gay rights, Mr Lee said: “These are not issues that we can settle one way or the other, and it’s really best for us just to leave them be, and just agree to disagree. I think that’s the way Singapore will be for a long time.”
He added that the “conservative roots” in society do not want to see the social landscape change.

Another point that has the online community buzzing but which I saw no sign of in MSM were his comments on new media: “We don’t believe the community in the social space, especially online, moderates itself. It doesn’t happen anywhere in the world.

“You have views going to extremes and when people respond to their views, they may respond in an extreme way, and when people decide to disapprove of something which was inappropriate, the disapproval can also happen in an extreme way.’’

“It’s in the nature of the medium, the way the interactions work and that’s the reason why we think it cannot be completely left by itself.”

I don’t know what the context of his comments were since this is a just a quote that has been going round online – and which I hope is accurate. For context, I usually rely on MSM given that they have paid professionals who would have known that context is important. But, hey, they’ve left it out entirely! How can?

You can bet that the online community is buzzing about an upcoming clampdown… An online naming law?

The effect of this by-election

There are only two things that will get ordinary Singaporeans to cheer – and that’s when Singapore wins a significant soccer match and when the Opposition wins an election. And so it was… just now. And I am not even talking about those at the counting centre or those who are die-hard supporters of the hammer. I gather it was quite noisy in Hougang.

Truth to tell, I thought the PAP would win. So much had been made of local issues – and if the constituents really thought that way, they would plump for the person who had the backing of the Government. This was also not Hougang, but a PAP ward for what it seems forever and ex-MP Michael Palmer was said to have been pretty good at working the ground. But it seems the voters thought: a) The WP can do the job in the ward as well too b) The PAP deserves a “slap” c) Singapore needs a plural Government d) We remember Lee Li Lian; we don’t know Koh Poh Koon e) Those national packages will be delivered anyway however we vote.

Any one of the five or a combination?

Now I suppose much will be made of the by-election “effect”. That the people want the PAP in power, but a by-election was a good chance to put in a new voice. The WP campaigned that way although I thought that it was only at its final rally that it got its act together to push the PAP back on the defensive. I thought it should have used its First World Parliament slogan. I thought it should have taken aim at AIMgate earlier in the campaign.

In fact, I thought the “hammering” that the WP got, at least online and from certain opposition quarters, for being so “conciliatory” towards the G – telling people that the policies need to mature and that it sometimes works with the G behind close doors, would not do it good. I thought Ms Lee was a bit of a damp squib, who would counteract the strong support from the WP leadership. I wondered if if those jibes about the WP being “arrogant” would work.

On all fronts, I thought wrong. And I congratulate the WP.

The BE result showed that voters considered the WP the dominant opposition party. A multi-cornered fight diluting the opposition vote? Nah. The disarray among the opposition ranks turning voters to the PAP side. No too. Now, what if the Singapore Democratic Party contested? How would the vote go? I almost wish it did, just so to hear from the voters on how they rate the SDP. My heart, though, really goes out to Singapore Democratic Alliance’s Desmond Lim. Just half a per cent, even less than the 4 per cent the last time round.

So what now? DPM Teo Chee Hean, anchor minister in that part of Singapore, looked so drawn and haggard. Both he and the PM did the courteous thing, thanking supporters and congratulating the victors. The voters have made their choice, they said. I was expecting something more…”and they would have to live with it…”…But no. I don’t know how Dr Koh feels. He must have realised it was risky never mind the Punggol boy- made – good tag. And never mind what I think was a tight campaign by the PAP, with quick counters after WP rallies and no mis-thought retorts and mis-timed attacks. I say he is a brave man. The thing is, the PAP says he will be fielded in future elections. And people will remember if he is NOT fielded in Punggol East again but in a safe GRC.

The PM wants attention back on national issues. Yes. The BE is out of the way. We should get back to national issues. Now with a bigger presence in Parliament, WP will have to live up to its words and act as a check. Or show the “value of political competition”, as Sylvia Lim said. Even if the WP does not have its own transport masterplan or marriage and parenthood package, the hope is that it will critique thoroughly those policies that have been just announced. Also, that it will get to the bottom of AIMgate – which it had provoked. In my view, it should come up with its own proposal on the “fundamental nature” of town councils, which is being studied by the National Development ministry. This it should do, now that it has even more town councils under its charge.

Anyway, the WP seems to have planned ahead, announcing date and venue of Ms Lee’s first Meet-the-People session. It is looking way ahead too, introducing four new faces (almost PAP-like I must say) at its last rally. It looks good to stay ahead of the rest of the opposition pack, although I am sure there will be some debate on whether olive branches should be held out to the other political parties.

The more difficult “thinking” will have to be done within the PAP though. It cannot simply content itself that this was just a by-election, and an opposition win was to be expected. I doubt that it will be complacent. I wonder now what new strategy will be formulated, whether in Parliament or in image. Its much vaunted “new normal” after the last GE doesn’t seem to have sunk in. Will it by the next GE? Or not at all. If so, the by-election effect might well sweep the general election.

You know what? There is someone I wish we could hear from. Former PM Lee Kuan Yew. What is he thinking I wonder. That the vote of the people is a terrible thing, as he once said?

Clever tactics

Reading the news reports on the by-election, it seems Workers’ Party’s Low Thia Khiang is in a bit of a fix. I had wondered why he chose to “thank’’ PM Lee Hsien Loong for his comments over the weekend that the WP hadn’t been able to make much headway in Parliament with its own policy proposals.

At last night’s rally, he clarified that it was because the PM had reminded “all of us that the Workers’ Party is still not large enough to have the resources to make alternative policies’’.
“In the Westminster parliamentary system, an alternative government must be complete with a shadow cabinet and ample resources for policy research to verify and propose alternative policies. Currently, we have a small group of professionals and academics working behind the scenes to help MPs scrutinise government policies. But expecting a party with 6 elected MPs to form an alternative government is premature and unrealistic.’’

So that’s why you need one more WP member in Parliament, he reasoned. Clever twist.

The PAP seems intent on making sure everyone knows that the WP “got no ideas’’, much less the ability to form a government. But the second part about being in Parliament is about raising relevant questions. Mr Low cited his MPs who spoke up and on what issues. But in this instance, the WP will be better off giving statistics of PAP MPs who did not speak or made only minimal contributions in Parliament in the check-and-balance role. And the proportion (not number) of questions and interventions WP made in Parliament compared to the much more sizeable PAP.

If there is someone Mr Low should thank, methinks its SDA’s Desmond Lim who elevated WP to a “dominant’’ party in his self-styled online rally. He spoke about how there were only “two’’ voices in Parliament. (Gosh! I would have thought that in a shouting match, the WP would be drowned out by the PAP chorus). Of course, Mr Lim didn’t mean it to be complimentary. It was more like the WP was singing at the same pitch as the PAP (that’s my interpretation, btw) and not performing the “checking’’ function.

Seems a lot of firepower is being directed at the WP. Ex-members are speaking up online about past squabbles etc. Mr Low has had to go on the defensive and rebut charges of being “arrogant’’. Odd, I thought that was a label more commonly attached to the PAP.

You have got to admire the PAP in this regard. Unless it had all its MPs sign some binding non-disclosure contract, its ex-MPs generally stay silent – and even run PAP companies. They help out in party HQ or in other ways on the ground. They don’t deride the party. If they do, they go the whole hog – and run for President!!! (Sorry, Dr Tan Cheng Bock, couldn’t resist it)

The PAP also seems to have a “tighter’’ campaign, going with “the man with a plan’’ when it comments on the BE. It’s letting its “national’’ campaign be represented in the announcements on train expansion, property and baby boosters . Clever people.

Staying safe in Punggol East

First, a confession. I am relying mainly on MSM news reports and my FB feeds to get news of the by-election. I read so much about the candidates offering practically their lives to get elected. I know so much about their backgrounds. I know what they want to do for those lucky Punggol East people. I suppose this is what a by-election is about.

But I wonder about why no one is talking about the big stuff or impending big stuff. I don’t mean the usual complaints about high transport, health and housing costs but the stuff that people are talking about and want to hear about. And I don’t mean general stuff like whether we need more opposition voices in Parliament. (BTW, I thought SDA’s Desmond Lim paid a huge tribute to the Workers’ Party by calling it a dominant party. He wants to be the third voice in a two-voice Parliament. Diversity of views, I suppose.)

Anyway, here is my own list of “missing’’ issues:

a. Why is no one talking about AIM, that PAP-run company that does the town councils’ books? Is everyone waiting for the National Development ministry to finish its report – and then comment? Is it the worry about incomplete information which might get them into trouble? I know WP withdrew its motion and I praised the move. But you know, I think any political party can speak about the subject at a time of election – especially whether town councils are “political’’ associations. And give its own take about the “fundamental nature’’ of town councils which even the PM wants studied.

b. No one is really getting into Palmergate, at least not the way Yaw Shin Leong’s character was dissected in the Hougang BE. Maybe because he’s too popular with residents to be raised as an issue? Then what about the more general qualities expected of a political representative? I mean, the seat fell vacant because of his indiscretion. So how come there’s no comment on it?

c. The immigrant issue. I suppose more childcare centres, covered linkways and bus services are “safe’’ topics. But what about this nagging, niggling problem we have about the foreigners in our midst? Companies say they are suffering because of the squeeze on foreign labour, NGOs think that the G doesn’t treat foreign workers right. And some of the comments being heard are outright xenophobic or racist. We still need foriegners, never mind the $2billion Population package announced yesterday that won’t have us replacing ourselves any time soon. So where do the parties stand on the immigration issue? Too hot a topic?

d. Then there are the constitutional challenges coming up pretty soon, such as on the PM’s right to call or not call a by-election, which must surely be something parties can take a stand on? Or is it because they think they might run foul of the court? Surely, this is something that also falls within the political arena?

e. Now, there’s a row between pro-Section 377a and anti-Section 377a on the criminalisation of homosexual acts. I hope the politicians are not so busy campaigning that they do not notice the heightened tensions and some hysteria online. Religion is getting political. What a dangerous mix which I thought the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act was designed to separate…or am I wrong? Questions are coming up on freedom of expression – both pro-gay and anti-gay. Politicians are being courted to take sides. So many issues here …or is this considered too explosive a mix to bring to the public’s attention? Maybe, again, everyone is waiting again for the court to rule.

Anyway, that’s just my one cent worth. Maybe what the voters really really want to know is exactly when (give exact date please) Rivervale Plaza will be fully ready.

Partying in Punggol East

It’s been a busy political weekend. Hands have been shaken. Fliers distributed. Speeches made. Now, what can anyone make of this? Has there been a “joining of issues’’? Are there new promises/pledges? Is this a national or a local election?

It’s local.

That’s because every candidate is talking about making Punggol East a better place to live in. So, more childcare places, more bus services, one more coffeeshop, quicker completion of Rivervale Plaza. PAP’s Koh Poh Koon has also thrown in facilities for the elderly and a covered linkway. You would think those 30,000 voters are living in slums the way physical upgrading is being promised…

If the constituents really want those things, I guess they should vote for the person whose party is in power. Really. Let’s be frank. It’s the PAP which can get stuff done faster, simply because it holds the reins on everything and has the pushing power. Not to mention a grassroots network which remains intact whichever party represents the ward. This is the problem – or advantage – of BIG government.

The opposition has offered some carrots too, along the same lines as the PAP. But you know what? Quite a lot would depend on whether the G machinery would crank along with their wish list.

On the local front, what REALLY can the opposition promise? I suppose it will have to do with town council operations then. The Workers’ Party can at least say that it has the experience. So far, the Reform Party and SDA seems to be offering a portion of their MP allowance! But what can an opposition-run town council do that a PAP-run town council can’t or won’t? How different is the WP town council from the PAP town council – besides being behind in the collection of arrears? By the way, this “defect’’ can be viewed as being compassionate/kind or tardy/inefficient. I am not even touching AIM – in fact, no one is!

I suppose it’s tough now to assess how the PAP runs the Punggol East ward per se, since the town council covers a far bigger area than just Punggol East. But it would be good to know that the opposition has looked over its books and can offer some concrete suggestions knowing what sort of money or manpower the town council has.

Hmm…lower service and conservancy fees? More frequent cleaning of open spaces? More hiring of those within the constituency? Price checks on products/food being sold in the area? A subsidy for the elderly who cannot afford basic products? Tie-ups with NGOs and charities? Because the opposition is by definition not the Government, it should have on its side a whole bunch of supporting characters/organisations who are willing to lend a hand on the local front. I haven’t heard of any.

As an aside, this whole “who will harder for you’’ is getting quite funny. So the PAP wants the vote so the WP will work harder; and vice versa. Then there is the “we will work hard for you anyway, regardless of…’’ sort of campaign theme. I have got to say that on this “work harder’’ front, Education Minister Heng Swee Keat should know that you always need competition to spur you to do better. Ask any student.

Likewise, PM Lee Hsien Loong speaking about the by-election effect, talks about how constituents shouldn’t have this idea that they would have BOTH the PAP and an opposition politician working the ward if they went for the opposition. I suppose that was one of the original attractions of the by-election effect.

But I doubt that voters are thinking in those terms – of having two nannies. It’s more of having their cake and eating it – PAP in power, opposition in Parliament. Now, whether those 30,000 voters feel this way would depend on whether they think their ward would suffer “physically’’ if they went for the opposition. I haven’t heard any threats yet from the PAP about withdrawing services (Let me reiterate, I am not talking about AIM here)

Therefore, it’s also national.

And it’s getting pretty strange. You can see how far the Workers’ Party have come from the JBJ days. The Reform Party, helmed by JBJ’s son, is actually the old Workers’ Party. You have Low Thia Khiang practically speaking on the PAP Government’s behalf – exhorting the people to give the G time for policies to change and bear fruit, even as the WP keeps a close watch on it. I gather die-hard opposition supporters aren’t too happy with it. What WP thinks is a moderate, conciliatory stand is being taken as, well, “PAP lite’’.

Again, as I said in an earlier post, I wish the opposition would give its parliamentary record to the people. I am not even asking for a restatement of policy positions, but what it did in its “watcher’’ role. We need to know if they are effective watchdogs or just there to sit pretty. We’re not forgetting those former Singapore Democratic Party MPs of the past, who said nary a word and if they did, didn’t make much sense.

Anyway, the G has been rolling out stuff pretty quickly. Like an expanded rail network for which it hasn’t done any engineering studies – and therefore cannot tell you what it will cost. Then so many flats are coming up to woo people who want to own one plus cooling measures that no one is sure will work or not.

In the meantime, things are breaking down – the NEL stoppage on Nomination Day, the M1 cellphone system conking out… Not the G’s fault, but contributing to a certain sourness on the ground. Plus, the price of fish maw and abalone is ridiculous! How to celebrate Chinese New Year like that?

Anyway, Polling Day is Jan 26.

A lot can happen between now and then.

A political performance

Go buy The Sunday Times. If only to read Zuraidah Ibrahim’s piece on her experience covering elections in Singapore and what has or hasn’t changed. I love it when the veterans write, because they have institutional memory to draw upon and can give far greater context to events than a newbie reporter, however smart he or she is.

Those who are older and have followed politics over the years will recognise some of what she wrote, like former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s assertion that opposition-run town councils will lead to your rubbish chutes being clogged (I haven’t heard of this happening yet).

Or what he would have done to SDP’s Chee Soon Juan who once heckled then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong in public asking “Where is our money?’’ (By the way, Mr Goh, when taunted, made a show of looking into his shirt pocket). I guessed Mr Lee would have decked Dr Chee instead (Now, that would have been an event worth capturing for the record!)

You might remember too the crowds who turned up at Eunos GRC rallies to hear the dapper lawyer Francis Seow, Singapore’s one-time Solicitor-General, who stood on the Workers’ Party platform, castigating the PAP government as a bunch of “eunuchs’’.

More recently, at the GE before the last, there was this dramatic scene of a harried court officer who had to mount the rally stage to deliver Dr Chee a summons. He and Dr Chee had been playing hide-and-seek all day.

Ms Ibrahim described election time as Singapore without the make-up. It’s also politics un-plugged, methinks. What I have always remembered when covering past elections is not quite what the candidates said at rallies, but how they treated people during their rounds. Ms Ibrahim referred to Dr Seet Ai Mee’s “chop chop’’ efficiency during her rounds of Bukit Gombak during one GE and SDP’s Ling How Doong’s more avuncular style. The people picked him. Electability is also about likeability. Whether that likeability translates into real ability as a member of Parliament, however, is something else.

Here’s a suggestion on assessing an MP’s performance.

Each MP should put up a yearly account to their constituents of what they did or said in Parliament. How many sessions did they turn up for? How many Bills did they vote on – and what did they say about them in Parliament? How many questions did they ask from ministers – both oral and written. What sort of answers did they get – and did the questions work in getting things done?

I’m sure (or almost sure) that every MP keeps some kind of record or at least their legislative assistants did (how many have such assistants anyway?)

I think this keeps constituents politically attuned and keeps the MPs accountable. Simply saying vote for me again (I am looking ahead to the next GE) because I am kind, good, committed etc and my party has done what and what… isn’t good enough. Thing is, what have YOU done lately for me as my voice in Parliament?

This yearly accounting could also include attendance at Meet-the-People sessions and the issues raised. The Prime Minister earlier this week gave his own report card for his Teck Ghee residents. I found it useful, because it gives citizens an idea of the issues that affect the people who need help. It’s probably only half a barometer of people’s worries – because the middle-class are more likely to take matters into their own hands than seek a petition from the MP. Now can the other MPs do the same? Or collectively as a party? The Workers’ Party too. If we want to have a Singapore Conversation, it would be good to know the real worries of the people, especially those who are down and out.

Now, back to the by-election. Some random thoughts, some of which are tongue-in-cheek and some not. Leave you to go figure.

a. PM Lee said Dr Koh Poh Koon could be more than an MP if elected. I think he said the same for defeated Aljunied GRC candidate Ong Ye Kung too.

b. Reform Party’s Kenneth Jeyaretnam will give one tenth of his annual MP allowance, SDA’s Desmond Lim will give one-third. I waiting to hear from WP’s Lee Li Lian and Dr Koh…

c. ST reported that WP had to defend itself from criticisms of its parliamentary performance at rallies -that they were too soft on the PAP. Thing is, I don’t think I have read anything, at least not in MSM, about WP being too soft and should have whacked harder.

d. ST reported WP’s Sylvia Lim saying that some things are submitted to G (alternative suggestions on certain policies)behind “closed doors’’. Goodness! That sounds too cosy a relationship! Why not tell the rest of us what they were?

e. Both WP and PAP candidates and their supporters are trying desperately hard to paint the candidates as “real’’ people. I suppose they are thinking about the likeability factor.

f. Given the “local’’ issues in the ward – not enough coffeeshops, ever-upgrading Rivervale Paza, lack of childcare, bus services – do they make you feel like ex-MP Michael Palmer had been sleeping on the job? No pun intended.

g. Kenneth Jeyaretnam has filed a police report about threats to his family. Desmond Lim has threatened to sue those who are asking if his volunteers were “paid’’. I haven’t heard anything about police reports and law suits emanating from the PAP. Yet?

h. TNP reported that Punggol-east residents are tired of shaking hands and having their quiet estate disrupted by by-election activities. I think the more important question should be: Are they intending to go to the rallies? Or is that crowd at night with feet in muddy waters merely gawkers and sight-seers who cannot influence the vote? (They make for nice pictures though)

i. Finally, does Ms Lee Li Lian mind being called Ah Lian?

He hath spoken

I feel sorry for the Prime Minister.

It’s been one thing after another in recent months. Strike-gate, Palmergate and now town councils. We shouldn’t forget the EC issue as well – you know those big penthouses meant for the sandwiched class? All taking place in an economy that’s slowing down, a labour crunch, poor productivity scores…and escalating COE prices.

Nevertheless, he hath spoken on town councils – and none too soon. I’ve often wondered why as head of the People’s Action Party, he hasn’t reined in his MPs. Instead, they are offering all sorts of explanations on the town council-AIM transaction and how the issue should be looked at. I guess even the PAP isn’t immune to the Facebook phenomenon, with trigger happy MPs and Ministers deciding to let fly in the name of engagement. Where’s the party whip? WHO is the party whip anyway?
But that’s looking at it from the PAP point of view. From the point of view of a reader and a Singaporean, it’s been interesting politics. You get to know a person better when their views are not controlled…

So now the PM has ordered a review of the town council-AIM transaction. By MND, the governing ministry. I guess there will be some unhappiness with that. You can just expect calls for an independent review. After all, if there was anything untoward in the transaction, shouldn’t MND have spotted it in the first place? It’s like telling MND to go through self-criticism.

What’s more interesting is how he wants a review of the “fundamental nature’’ of town councils. I wish the PM expanded on this point. Is he talking about the separation of political and public service aspects of town councils? Does he think the whole Town Council Act should be gone over with a fine-tooth comb? And if we’re looking at the “fundamental nature’’ of town councils, shouldn’t more people be involved in this exercise? Instead, he’s given a deadline of a month or two… How come? So the issue will be settled before he calls for the Punggol East by-election?

Alert: I am going to start meandering from here…

a. On politics and business
The PM has focused attention on town councils. Now what about shining a spotlight on the PAP’s own policies and practices? A small light? Like what sort of companies it has, for what purpose etc. You know, basic stuff…I keep wondering if the PM himself had been kept in the loop about AIM and its aims. Surely MND Minister Khaw Boon Wan knows more?

b. On ECs
Mr Khaw’s focus seems to be on ECs, like getting his ministry to review this gambit developers have of selling off free open spaces for profit. You know, it’s time he called for a review of the “fundamental nature’’ of ECs as well. Clearly developers aren’t listening to his exhortations to keep to the core of the EC policy: subsidised housing for the sandwiched class. He had better do it fast too because a whole lot of land has been allocated to the building of ECs in the coming couple of years.
You know, I’d really like to hear from these developers of EC skysuites. Get them to account for why they fly in the face of policy. Instead, the media is hyping up the sales, bringing more and more people to these EC showrooms. Heck, I want a sky suite too!!!!

c. On the possible PAP candidate
Wow! Did you see those credentials of Dr Koh Poh Koon? Looks like the PAP has ditched Ong Ye Kung or he’s ditched the PAP for a good private sector life in Keppel…

A by-election agenda

So many political parties interested in a vacant parliamentary seat even though there hasn’t been a firm indication that a by-election will be called in Punggol East. It would be tragic don’t you think if the opposition parties start grassroots work and the PM decides that he would NOT hold a BE but just wait till the next GE.

I wonder how many people are betting on the will he or won’t he question, or the when question….I gather that the opposition parties will campaign on national rather than local issues. There’s plenty of fodder, whether in housing, healthcare or transport or cost of living. Here’s a thought: The Population Report will be out in January with a gameplan on how to deal with the no-baby, so -many-foreigners problem. The strategy it puts out will point Singapore’s way forward. How about putting that on BE agenda, should a BE come to pass? That would be a real meaty issue that would concentrate minds in the poll booth.

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?