THE AHPETC AGO REPORT

WINNING THE ALJUNIED GRC

I can vividly remember during the hustings of 2011 General Elections, the Workers Party A Team consisting two-and-all of its key leaders Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim tagging along three others was challenging Aljunied GRC. History well recorded, their gamble of show-hand had rewarded them with a historical breakthrough in Singapore politics. No opposition party has ever taken a Group Representative Constituency since its inception.
That seals the deal. People of Aljunied GRC did not just voted for the Workers Party, they voted for democracy in Singapore.  Singapore needs more oppositions in parliament.
Besides speaking on behalf of Singaporeans as one of their promised duties, they are also responsible for managing and maintaining common areas in the precincts of Aljunied GRC, Hougang and later on Punggol East where PAP MP Michael Palmer resigned and WP's Lee Li Lian won the By-Elections.

The show-hand tactic may not have worked if it was not accompanied by branding it as a national election zeroed in on Aljunied. The call was.."This is not a local election. This is not about Aljunied GRC alone. This is about Singapore, about democracy in Singapore."




HIGH PROFILE ISSUES IN AHPETC


There were a number of high profile row between the AHPETC and the government ever since then. The town council was being accused for lying with regards to cleaning of hawker centres by asking for extra charges where cleaning of high ceiling areas.  They were also accused of keeping silent about major issues in parliament. The town council was also brought to court for organizing trade fairs without a permit issued by the National Environment Agency.  Then the issued of it not submitting its reports pertaining to arrears on Service and Conservancy Charges (S&CC) and for allowing it to pile. It also has not been fully complying in the submitting of its financial reports. And last of all, the just released Auditor General's report on gross lapses in managing public funds that sparked heated debates inside and outside of parliament.



STRANGE POLITICAL SITUATION

It is inevitable that the Workers Party will face teething problems with managing and maintaining a combined township of seven constituencies. A weight lifter would need to have his weights gradually increased and not by seven times at one go.

Mr Low had pleaded that the WP faced problem with shopping around for a managing agent to manage the town after they won the elections and no companies except FMSS was interested.

I was just wondering behind my mind that what if other companies did participate in AHPETC's open tender, what kind of result that would produced? Or worse, what if no companies; not even FMSS put in a bid.  Will the constituency that WP won in the elections be left is a very sorry state with no services provided?

The last scenario was unlikely because there was an incumbent managing agent and all its supporting services there, and previous chairman Ms Cynthia Phua had promised a smooth handover. The PAP will not, at all cost be seen as sacrificing residents' interest for no political gain at this critical time. It seems all was well handed over except for the accounting software system that led to the beginning of a series of spats.

There was no agreement between AHPETC and Action Information Management (AIM) the service provider of the town council management software. And AIM became yet another convenient politicized item for buying over the software developed by 14 PAP town councils and then leased its use back to the respective town councils and that somehow also caused the PAP to lose Punggol East subsequently.

So did PAP pressure companies not to participate in WP's tender for estate managing agent?

Was AIM set up just to sabotage WP so that it will not be able to carry out its management smoothly?

Two key factors that Mr Low had without direct reference as strange politicized situation pertaining to transition. It really sounds like Mr Low abhors such kind of political underhands if proven true. On hindsight it really makes the PAP looks silly had they really applied these tactics to sabotage the WP.

Whatever, the strange political situations Mr Low complained about strangely had worked perfectly in the WP's favour. The WP gets to work with its long standing partner who were former employees of the Hougang Town Council, and the WP had leveraged on AIM being a $2/- company and purportedly owned indirectly by the PAP to gain much political points.


EXPERIENCE MATTERS

Mr Low also cited a not too far fetched scenario that it is prerequisite for an opposition party aspiring to be the next government needs to have ready an army of civil servants. I took Mr Low's political swipe at the PAP government 'in perspective".

Reading what Mr Low said in context, a political party needs to be experienced to run a country. This runs contrary to people who says any political can be government and anybody can be Prime Minister after removing the PAP because the civil service will still be functioning as usual.

Mr Low cannot be talking about managing and maintaining of facilities because he also mentioned that AHPETC is comparable to PAP run town councils in this aspects.  And credit must go to where it is deserved.

The official chart indeed shows as Mr Low mentions that the AHPETC is comparable to PAP run town councils in the facilities management aspect. Neither Mr Low nor his fellow WP parliamentarians; as well as FMSS the managing agent are incapable nor inexperienced.

Such technical services are aplenty and can be bought at very competitive rates and there are no lack of companies willing to take on contracts that pays well and prompt. Therefore the Ministry of National Development had found AHPETC relatively, and of course comparably well managed, except for "Arrears Management" and "Corporate Governance".

Does experience matters with arrears management and corporate governance? Mr Low seems to have adopted the position that it does. Given that Mr Low had been managing the Hougang Single Member Constituency (SMC) for twenty years; wouldn't twenty years be sufficient even if these needs experience to perfect? One would be able to tell whether someone is brought up to be courteous and well mannered even at their teen.

Arrears management is a common sense discipline and nothing to do with experience. You don't need experience to know that someone owes you money, and that you need to get it back, and that leads to corporate governance. If you recognized that these arrears ultimately are not your money, even if you chose to be kind to those owing, you are still duty bound to recall whatever is owed.

Corporate governance too is a common sense discipline and requires whether you want to put that into practice or not. All things may look absolutely legal, but it may just not seem right. Knowing well that certain actions are not right to do and do it regardless and irrespective is against the principle of corporate governance.

Can the person approving payments be the same person receiving the money? Is this a responsible act especially when it is about public funds?

The rule is there that sinking funds cannot be used for any other purpose that what is stated, and it was done regardless and irrespective. This is not about being inexperience. This is being insouciant and iniquitous. Heck to the rules, and heck to the principles. such behaviors resides in the persons, not the system. Corporate governance is a reflection of the people running the system, and the flaw is not whether the system needs improvement or not.


WHAT ABOUT THE BIG PICTURE?

Let's revisit the first para about the WP winning the last general elections on a "national agenda" that Singapore needs more oppositions in parliament. This is not about local issue, but the nation needs to progress in democracy and the nation needs more opposition in parliament.

The story the PAP was telling residents, and in particular Mr Lee Kuan Yew's unceremonious statement that Aljunied residents will live to repent for voting the WP in was your town will suffer.

These two contrasting stories presented during the election by the confronting parties are once again put before us, not just residents of Aljunied GRC, but Singaporeans.

WP's story had Aljunied GRC residents sacrificing their personal good for a "big picture" and "big hearted" mission of achieving democracy for Singapore.  PAP's story of a badly managed town did not sell well and was even taken as a threat, a fear tactic as often touted, and dismissed totally.

So what really matters to Singaporeans most, especially in the light of what happened to AHPETC?

Is it about having democracy and more opposition in parliament at all cost?  Put it in another way, do we want to vote out the PAP at all cost?

The AHPETC saga has given us some indication as to what we can expect out of the opposition. It also gives quite a frank and honest appraisal of themselves by themselves. They showed us who they are and what they are.

The price tag for having more oppositions in parliament is clearer now than ever.

What price are you willing to pay?

https://www.facebook.com/Anthony-Kan-Page-620606971399453/timeline/

MINISTER SALARY

POLITICAL GAME OF SALARY

The thorn that inflicts pain in the PAP in the coming general election, and for that matter any general election is not the CPF issue that landed blogger Roy Ngerng in trouble, it is the issue of Minister Salary.  Foreign Talents being the other.

Minister Salary & Foreign Talents touches the nerves of "Unfairness" in what deems most sensitive to most ordinary Singaporeans, their income.  The Workers Party calls it "elitist" while the Singapore Democratic Party calls it "Unethical". Their supporters, "immoral", "shameful", and "robbers of people's money" etc etc.

The issue of ministerial salary was hotly debated in parliament, and the government had also taken steps to address the negative perception with a reduction in salary in the wake of public disquiet.  But the oppositions still believe the salaries of ministers are still way too high, where foreign governments are paid only a fraction comparably. They argued that political office should not be a lucrative career path for a selected few but a noble calling of which the remuneration should reflect the noble sacrifice one is called to serve.

The government, namely the Prime Minister had defended the pay packages in that it has to be attractive enough for good people to come forward to serve Singapore.  This response had brought about more jeer than cheer. The oppositions proponed that either the calling was not noble enough for good people to sacrifice, and/or that the crop of ministers are not up to the noble calling where for they are only motivated by high salary.

No explanation can be accepted because this in reality is not about millions in terms of numbers, but millions in terms feelings.  A million dollar can be both extravagant as well in gross insufficiency, whichever way you want to paint it and whichever way you get to perceived it.

I think it is also important to note at this point that this article is not about whether it is right or wrong for Singapore's ministers to be paid what they are getting now, but to ponder if our assessment of it had been "Fair" or otherwise.

FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS PAID LESS

Countering, the government had maintain that comparing pay packages of Singapore government and that of foreign governments is both impractical and unfair. Undeclared perks and advantages aside, cost and standard of living are remarkably different.  The available talent pool too is comparing the Pacific Ocean with Jurong Lake.  They have abundant supply of well trained talents, let alone many of them already have well established sources of income behind them.

Ugly or dirty as the words may be, Singapore can only afford career ministers. This is an absolute "Unfair Disadvantage" we have in our hands.

There is really no "Fairness" in comparing what foreign government are paid, in particular the Western countries with much longer history and nation building can only be found in history books.


POLITICAL SERVICE IS A CALLING

Between the crook and the haloed saint, what is a practical and sensible pay package should ministers be remunerated? Is there a better, fairer formula than to be a fraction lower than the best paid individuals in Singapore?

In perspective the "Nation" is the apex of all enterprises of Singapore the country. The Nation flourishes, all other enterprises flourish, and if the Nation fails, all else fail.  Thus the paramount importance and responsibility laid upon the shoulders of those tasked with keeping the Nation up and preventing it from failing.

Lives and livelihood of all citizens are rested in the hands of a few men and women whose job is to make sure we have food on our table, a roof over our head, our safe passages day in and out, and we don;t get bullied by others who think they have better muscles. They devoted themselves to serving Singapore and its people, but to call them servants derogates the dignity that belongs to every individual Singaporeans for which they serve.

Shouldn't these be rewarded accordingly and compatibly with the heavy responsibilities that come with the job?

However, most people don't or are unable to see or even imagine the intensity of work that these ministers do.  The ministers have themselves to blame for painting a picture of themselves as no more than experts in cutting ribbons. Citizens never get to feel how important and heavy is the job of a minister.

It is commonly believed that anybody can be a minister where the civil servants are those doing the real job.  I supposed the rapid and frequent changes of governments in certain countries have created such an impression.  It is not untrue that institutions will remain even if there is a change of government but civil servants do not have to answer to the people why things fail, or worst of scenario why the country fails. Who gets the brunt when the MRT slowed or stalled altogether? It is Lui Tuck Yew, not the Permanent Secretary of the ministry.  Even if Desmond Kwek gets dragged into the blame game, it ultimate traces back to the government for putting him there.

Was the blame of freak flooding borne by PUB or the senior civil servants of the ministry of Environment and Water Rsources?  No it is Vivian Balakrishnan who takes the lashes.

But of course these ministers can in turn bang tables on their civil service colleagues, but five years time it is the political office holders that will face their real bosses.  Singapore needs strong political leaders because we have a very strong civil service.  If you may, this is a power unit unto itself.  A weak government will not be able to stand up to the strong will of powerful civil servants, and civil servants are not robots void of ambitions and ego.  Thus far the present government had a well balanced relationship with the civil service, weeding out any impropriety as a means of maintenance as well as deterrence.

It is not unfamiliar to notice discontented civil servants with ambitions beyond their jobs.  Many left to pursue political office.  Civil servants need not oblige their political bosses if their bosses lack the capability and strength to define a constructive working relationship.

Singapore has become a niche exporter of "Governance Software" with proven effectiveness and marketability. The Singapore government has made a "success story" of itself being able to consistently produce results that advanced countries were unable to.  Our governing system is sought after and not exactly replicated but applied to countries that have seen it working.  In that sense, the salaries of those who produce these "governance Software" cannot be non-reflective of its success, can it?

Ultimately salaries needs to be symmetrical to the job. Every job in Singapore is noble and honourable, be you a teacher, a cleaner, a banker, and each has its own portion of sacrifice.  Why then should ministers bear more monetary sacrifices than any other when the weight on their shoulder is so much heavier.

It is not the case where the country is deep in an abyss of debt, nor the country is unable to provide jobs, home, and safety for its citizens.  It would have been justifiable to question about high salary if the country needs to borrow or print more money to pay for its programme, neither is the case. Maybe these did happen in countries where their ministers are paid lower, but that is being symmetrical either.

This issue has no impact at all on Singaporean lives, but plain, pure politicking.

https://www.facebook.com/Anthony-Kan-Page-620606971399453/timeline/

THE POLITICAL HAZE BY CHAN CHUN SING & CHEE SOON JUAN

The haze started with Minister Chan Chun Sing in a statement rebutting Huffington Post for publishing two of SDP politician Chee Soon Juan's articles criticizing the government.  In it, M-Chan had called Chee a "political failure" detailing some of Chee's past failings.

Why the rebuttal and to whom is M-Chan is rebutting?

I can't see it as prima facie where the obvious target is HuffPost, what for?  The logic didn't follow either. Telling HuffPost that they are giving considerable but undeserved space to Chee, and correcting them for believing Chee is a weighty political figure?  Unbelievable.  You are only asking to be slapped on the face.  How HuffPost allocates its space and to whom is none of you Chan Chun Sing's business, neither it is Singapore government's businesss.  After all, even though Singaporeans do have access to HuffPost, its reach are largely foreigners.  Again, telling them not to publish Chee's articles  is as good as telling Charlie Hebdo not to draw satirical cartoons.

I see it more like the Chinese stratagem  "声东击西", making lots of noise on the Eastern front but invading the West.  It's a tactical distraction that seems like hitting out at HuffPost, but in fact targeting Chee.  That was exactly how it looks like, at least on paper.

Then again what is there to gain or prevent from losing by hitting out at Chee? There is no value in attacking Chee as some of his supporters commented online, "If Chee Soo Juan is already a political failure and a loser, why does a cabinet minister need to go through the trouble attacking him publicly?" Unless the minister really thinks that Chee could be a threat.  No more than a week ago the hint was sent out from the SDP camp that they could possibly contest Tanjong Pagar GRC in the coming general elections.  Could this be M-Chan's preemptive strike to dent SDP's firepower?  This bear some resemblance to another classic tactic "抛砖引玉", throwing a piece of crude brick to lure a valuable piece of jade.  M-Chan's true target audience are Singaporeans.  He leveraged on the opportunity given by Chee's post in HuffPost and raised the spectre of Chee being an unreliable person by detailing his failures and wrongdoings.  Thus he can make some headway in the minds of prospective voters.

Did it work?

Not quite clear-cut though.  Some in the public-relations & media circles had labelled M-Chan's move as clumsy.  Some of the boo boos were already mentioned above, but mitigated away for their tactical reasons.  Still this open salvo played out like an unguarded fort for Chee to launch a full scale retaliation, and he did.

Calling Chee a "political failure" and a "loser" falls right into what Chee had wanted it to happen, that is his constant decrier that the PAP repeatedly uses underhanded name calling to discredit oppositions instead of engaging in matured debates.  One point to Chee here.

The political terrain is no longer a place for name calling.  Singaporeans seem to have a great sense of fairness, but more like a great sense of unfairness.  Whichever way, name calling is a no no, even though opposition supporters online have been using it freely and rampantly.

If there is really a need to find the best description to address Chee, it is safer to call him a "Liar" than calling him a "Failure".  Lies can be proven, but a "Failure" can only be determined on the day he dies, but Chee is still up and kicking.

So Chee mounted a hearted defense.

He denied allegations of sacrificing Singapore by writing on foreign media articles critical of Singapore's policies and politics.  He put it such that PAP and Singapore are not the same, and he is criticizing PAP and not Singapore.  He even revealed that the Straits Times refused to publish his writings and he has to resort to putting them on foreign media.  All these helped him scored well, particularly to younger Singaporeans who find him cool.  The PAP was apparently out manoeuvred and beaten..

Not yet.

While denying that he had sacrificed Singapore in his articles, but were merely critical of the PAP, he went into alleging that Lee Kuan Yew was in fact the one who sacrificed Singapore. He alluded that Lee had likened Singaporeans to "indolent animals" in the National Geographic article of which Lee did not said that at all.  Here's the government's transcript of the same article, provided by The Online Citizen that helped exposed Chee's yet again deceptive means of using "decoys".

In reality he does not need to refer to the NatGeo interview and that all else had sufficiently supported his denial of any wrongdoing.  But it was his hatred for Lee Kuan Yew that he found this opportunity of taking a swipe at Lee too tempting and irresistible.  He fell into his own trap by making that innuendo about Lee Kuan Yew. Check out the two links provided above and judge it for yourself without prejudice and see if Lee Kuan Yew had indeed sell out Singaporeans during his interview with NatGeo.

So finally Chee Soon Juan had himself to blame for failing to live up to the high standard he set for politicians including himself, and acting exactly as what M-Chan Chun Sing had clumsily painted him to be.  His defense collapsed like domino pieces with his underhand tactics.

SENGKANG COLUMBARIUM - WHO WINS?

IF THE GOVERNMENT RETRACTS

Assuming now, that Minister Khaw Boon Wan has directed URA and HDB to retract the tender for the Sengkang land for administrative and procedural review, what does that signals?

Who shall we award the trophy to as ultimate winner in this tussle?

I would suggest that residents of Sengkang who made their displeasure known not to celebrate that they have triumphed over the authorities.  It certainly bears resemblance of a tiny "People's Power" but read the situation with care...."It is not".  Remember that the fracas began with residents' unhappiness with the possibility of a Chinese Temple housing niches of the deceased and worse still, conducting funeral services within the premises.  While having funeral services is no longer an issue anymore, the housing of niches within the temple is not negotiable.

Why the tender was awarded to a profit-centred entity was never the original contention by residents till it was picked up later on by others to lend weight to the challenge.  Invariably this has become the sore thumb that seemingly requires immediate attention.

As it was mentioned in my previous blog the PAP government has a firm stand that it does not bow to populist demand big or small, and in this case the policy to allow niches to be integrated into place of worship is consistent with URA's planning policy as well as being a broadly accepted practice by communities across Singapore.

SHORT HISTORY OF NICHES

Why niches are a necessary part of many Chinese temples and why the government supported this religious practice?  Many temples in Singapore are part of our history, and not just history but also testimonial to the development of civilization and culture Singapore. Temples sprouted up from clannish, dialect, or even kampung origins. Temples were also meeting place for early migrants to seek mutual help, spiritual refuge, and social connections.  

Niches in temples was a necessary part of Singapore's particularly so for many who could not afford the price of a burial ground.  It is all about ancestral sacrifices for the betterment of the descendants, and about reverence and filial piety that anchors deep in Chinese tradition in Singapore.

Urban development has uprooted many of such historical temples and many of them too small and ill financed to continue their benevolent services had to merge or ceased to exist fostering the ashes of the deceased to bigger temples.  When burial becomes impractical in land scarce Singapore, the government built and operate columbariums to house niches for descendants to pay their respect and to keep family bonds intact.  

Urban development had also resulted in burial grounds being exhumed, and one prominent case in time was the acquisition of Kwong Wai Siu Pek San Teng burial grounds and this is where Bishan estate now stands.  A piece of land was given to the association of Cantonese clans to build a columbarium to house ancestral remains as well as providing for the future.

So many of these niches found in temples were there since history, and as temples continue to be relocated and the population of deceased continues to increase, more space will be needed to render such benevolent services to the community.

Therefore to most Chinese, to show discontent towards the housing of niches invariably demonstrates irreverence to our ancestors, disregard to their sacrifices and a contempt to tradition.

WINNING & LOSING

But it remains that the perimeters of tenders for place of worship need a hard review, and if possible immediate rectification if found wanting.

So if and when the government decides to retract the tender and rectify the perimeters of tender for place of worship, who is set to be seen as a winner and who is the loser?  Obviously if there happens to be a 'political motive" somewhere in this fracas, being a winner or a loser stakes a significant meaning to the outcome, but that would be the most undesirable outcome.

Winning and Losing should never be part of Singapore's administrative life where political gains and losses overshadow real needs and practical solutions.  If winning and losing becomes the main consideration, it forces parties to act irrationally and the ultimate losers are the people of Singapore.

It is only good for Singapore, its people when the government is willing to listen, respond rightly, and appreciated by the people that there is truly a two-way traffic between Singaporeans and the government that is running smoothly for the benefits of all.

JE SUIS CHARLIE

AM I CHARLIE ?  Who is Charlie?

French people locked hands to condemn the brutal killing of twelve people, some of whom are not even part of Charlie Hebdo's satirical publishing outfit shouting "God is Great" even as the world questions "Why did not God stop such atrocities from happening?"  

I was attempting a question to myself : "What if we do away with all religion, its commandments, its traditions, and its rituals, will humankind still go after each other's throat?"  Sadly the answer I had so far is not what I had hope to arrive at and humankind will still go after each other's throat.......to settle the intolerance of difference, and also to force on or coerce others into being similar.

Religion has become so contentious, and differences become so wide that in the big ways people go to war, and in smaller ways they sue each other in court.  Breakaway groups sprouted up all over with hyper emphasis on specific doctrines or rituals that are mere part of what the entire religion is founded upon.  Their religious mission becomes fragmented parts instead of a harmonized whole.

But in the first place, religion is supposed to help put order into a continuously populating world, and in a way slows down the pace of self destruction by pursuing good, yet there are people who are against having religion not knowing that by being anti-religion they have invariably created another religion and contributing to the ever increasing differences and dissimilarities. Diversity is not a need but a result to live with yet these days we worship the sacredness of diversity and enshrined upon the alter.

Had not for those working for Charlie Hebdo try to make a mockery of another religion so that theirs can look better and more powerful, their fate could well be different and live to enjoy more.  Had not the killers took religious authority upon their own hands to settle the differences, they would not have invited the world to point their guns at them.

So when the French people proclaims in solidarity JE SUIS CHARLIE, are these people uniting in the religion that Charlie Hebdo is proliferating or is it really something else?  

They just seem too in a hurry to unite, and too eager to let their solidarity be known and JE SUIS CHARLIE is already there and it sounds sexy enough.

As the dust settles, CHARLIE didn't seems quite right.  Those guys are bloody provocateurs and they brought it upon themselves taking along the innocents.  I AM NOT CHARLIE!  Charlie is a rogue that creates problem that others had to bear with them.

Why was there no condemnation for Charlie?  Why is the one that says "Shoot Me" less culpable that the one that answered "OK I shoot you?"

What is that hidden fear that people dare to condemn unbridled freedom of expression?  Is there something more fearful than to have a bullet in the head?

People seems to be supporting and condemning all the wrong things.

They supported those who sow discord and perpetrated hate n their choice of JE SUIS CHARLIE as symbol for solidarity.

By rallying against Muslims, they are perpetuating a conflict that based on misguided understanding, and instead persecuting those who stood for Peace.

I CONDEMN HATE KILLING.

I CONDEMN THOSE WHO SPREAD HATE IN THE NAME OF EXPRESSION FREEDOM!

I CONDEMN THOSE WHO FORCE THEIR BELIEFS UPON OTHERS BY WHATEVER MEANS.

I AM NOT CHARLIE!  

THE FERNVAL LEA & COLUMBARIUM

MP Dr Lam Pin Min had his hands full these days.  The public announcements of Life Corp winning the tender to develop a Chinese Temple with an integrated Columbarium is located well within his Dr Lam's Sengkang West constituency that is part of the larger Ang Mo Kio GRC, Dr Lam has been stretched thin to find a resolution that will be pleasing and acceptable to residents both current and future.  Let's take a look at some of the different angles of the issue of what is not so straight forward a matter.

Upon the public announcement of the successful tender, buyers and would be future residents of the Fernvale Lea, a Built-To-Order project located next to the proposed Chinese Temple had accused the the HDB of not being forthcoming in their sales brochure.

SITE PLAN-HDB BROCHURE

The above is a site plan of the Fernvale Lea development inside a typical HDB sales brochure.  Buyers or applicants of the BTO project rely on the information provided in the brochure before deciding as to whether they would subscribe to the project or forgo for another.  Typically buyers look first at the block layout plan and the floor plans and select their desired type of flat to subscribe to.  Amenities and other peripheral facilities do influence their decision, but by and large they do not go into details as to ask what kind of school, or community institution, or in this particular case the Chinese Temple before purchase takes place.

On the part of HDB or even URA, it is important as well as being fair to know that they do not have any material information available to offer when proposing the project to members of the public before tenders of the adjacent sites take place.  Having said that, HDB and/or URA do have some fundamental criteria that is affixed to the specific use of land parcels up for tender.  So whether the HDB had or had not been forthcoming remains rather subjective.

Looking at the layout, it seems that HDB planners had in fact acted quite sensibly and sensitively in locating the temple plot at the corner and being shielded by a Multi-Storey-Car-park, and also incorporating a stretch of green buffer.  What that means is that the Chinese Temple is virtually out of sight from the residential blocks, and sound transmission could also have been substantially insulated.  

FUNERAL SERVICES & COLUMBARIUM

The saga may not have emerged and gets heated up had LIfe Corp, the successful tenderer not made a public announcement about their intention to provide full suite premium funeral services on top of the integrated columbarium of which they will eventually market on a per niche basis.

With a surely aging and affluent population, Singapore is green pasture for funeral service providers from abroad, and in this case Life Corp which is based in Australia.  Yet, funerals are not something welcoming for Singaporeans who are still flowing with hot Asian blood, no matter what race or religion you belonged to or how well exposed to the world.

Residents hate the idea of constantly having dead bodies lying in the backyard, and the imagination of people crying over dead bodies being a daily routines.

Thereafter, the souls of the dead are said to find their rest at the same place.  What if some of these were reluctant souls and cannot find rest at all?  And they are so near me?

Can you imagine the unsettling fear residents have with that big idea from a company that is not ever Singaporean?

Actually both having funerals and columbarium in close proximity to our home have been part and parcel of HDB living for as long as HDB existed.  Don't we get occasional funerals happening in our void-decks and nearby temples that are also housing ashes of the dead within the neighbourhood for years without complain?  What is so unique about the Life Corp tender that sparks the raising of blood pressure?  Let's put this last question to be answered lower down the scroll.

To mitigate matters, Dr Lam had put together an eye-to-eye meeting for all stakeholders involved.  What came out of this meeting was an assurance that "funeral services" will not be conducted.  With one taboo eliminated, that left one more in the chest.

WHAT DO RESIDENTS WANT?

Residents are said to have demanded for a refund for the purchase of Fernvale Lea.  With the issues of funeral services gone and columbarium well on the side of the authorities and Life Corp, do resident still have sufficient reasons to win the negotiation to stall the project or to have their purchase contract rescinded and get a refund?  

No matter how the negotiations go, the thorn-in-the-flesh will always remain with the authorities (Life Corp not included) that is "politics" with General Elections possibly happening this year or next.  The fingers are pointing at the "Tender Process" noting that URA had allowed a private profit entity to bid for the tender of the land parcel which is clearly stated for "Religious Use" only.  

Dr Lam had also told the media that current regulations did not restrict the types of company that can develop places of worship, but he reiterated that in view of residents' strong view against it, he will reflect it to the authorities......which may take to mean respective Ministers.

ARE THERE FLAWS IN THE TENDER?

Were there flaws with the "tender process" as claimed by disgruntled residents?  As far as we know from Dr Lam, the current regulations do not restrict the type of companies tendering for land parcels designated for "places of worship", in this case a Chinese Temple.

Also, as far as we know, URA that comes under the Ministry of National Development oversees public tender of government land that includes putting in place tender documents that widely covers matters that involves physical development.  The successful tenderer is expected to fully comply with all requirements stipulated in the tender document.  What is left to be answered is : Should URA stipulates the legal entity for which land parcels are tendered for places of worship?

There was a case before the courts about development of a columbarium in 2009 CASE

The case background showed that one of the conditions as laid out in the public tender to develop a columbarium is that the tenderer had to be a "Religious Organization".

While the specifications of the two public tenders are different, with one being a Chinese Temple, and the other a Columbarium, the logical deduction is that it makes more sense that a Religious Organization should have been dictated by the authorities to operate a Chinese Temple, and not the other way round as in the other case.

Was there a change in rules in public tender for land parcels designated for places of worship and for columbarium since 2009?

What is a Chinese Temple and who can operate a Chinese Temple?  By convention, temples in Singapore are mostly run as "Societies" that come under the Societies Act.  Others may do so through a "Company Limited by Guarantee".  Bottom line of both sees individuals taking personal responsibilities and liabilities over the running of the organization, that typically are funded by donations from members and well wishers and as such will also render the organization coming under the scrutiny of the IRAS' Charities Act having being classified as "Charities".

By far, no information about the intended Chinese Temple had been released by Life Corp, inviting more questions.  Have they already registered as a temple prior to the tender or they will only do so after the tender becomes successful?  Who are the trustees of the temple and what corresponding relations do they have with the owners of the "building"?

The biggest question is : If they had not registered themselves as a temple, have they also at material time when they submitted the tender placed themselves in a questionable position of the law when they have not gotten themselves the satisfactory conditions and official approval?

UNFAIR TENDER

By having no restrictions built into the tender documents, did URA or HDB actually allowed a backdoor entry for a commercial, for profit entity to gain unfair benefits of what the government may have given special grace for community benefits and mutual help?

Religious organizations by way of their operations and coming under strict regulatory controls are restricted from financial activities that a commercial entity enjoys, and so are the difference in risks and responsibilities.  Thus my view of this tender had been unfairly conducted.

SOLUTION

So what should be the best outcome of the ongoing negotiation?  In my opinion, the best outcome for everyone is to have the "Tender" annulled as a result of separate negotiation between the authorities and the successful tenderer.

For buyers of Fernvale Lea, rescinding the purchase contract will sure set them back at all ends with no refund going by the contract.  If they chose to live on they will end up being unhappy Singaporeans and thus unhappy voters at the General Elections for which they may be forced to vote for some that in truth not suitable to rule.  NO ONE GAINS.  Not the residents, not the government.

Is it going to be a lost of face for the government and seen as backing down by popular pressure, something the PAP is proud to say that they will never?  Not at all.

The Magic Wand is given into the hands of MP Dr Lam Pin Min to wield it to his and his party's benefit.

THE NEW SINGAPORE

Returning to a previous question, "Why is this case so unique?"

Singaporeans now felt empowered through social media.  Popular sentiments can cause a lot of good as well as destruction.  No longer are we living in the days when things simply gets by easily, unquestioned.

Much of the ways we do things remain in the old mode even as gradual change has begun.  This case has provide the unique opportunity for the government to relook, re-calibrate the way, those mundane things that lower rung civil servants do day in and out.  More zest can be added into these when officials begin to see how far fetched the implications of what used to be the old normal can be, and learn to stretch their imaginations and thinking farther than before.

On politics, no longer are we living in the days when the Minister will always be the boss of the MP.  The segregation of roles and duties are expected to be visible by a whole new generation of Singaporeans.  One question that brought up by alternative media was "Why was Dr Lam seated with the panel?".

Even with my bad blood with alternative media, I have to agree that Dr Lam should be seated opposite the panel and be on the side of residents questioning the authorities.  Dr Lam is the elected MP by the people and that is the role he should be playing during that meeting.

I have broken my own rule of keeping articles short.  But as the question goes, this is an unique case that requires unique treatment.

HDB NEEDS LAW TO ACCESS FLATS FOR REPAIR

A BLESSED CHRISTMAS ! to all Singaporeans and all who live in this tiny little island state.

Are you one of those who see your HDB apartment as a "blessing"?

For all who applied for a flat directly from the Hosing Board, the value of their flat increased the moment they take possession of the keys to the apartment. Though there is a restriction purposely built in so that the primary aim of HDB providing affordable housing to Singaporeans is achieved, there is also a leeway provided that one can profit from the difference between the original price and your selling price.  This is a fair balance between achieving a social goal and that of individual desire or aspiration.

While the distinction between a private apartments and HDB flat is largely perception than real, the lifestyle that goes on behind closed doors will determine the true quality of life you are enjoying out of the real estate.

This goes to say that you may well be living in a privately developed apartment yet your lifestyle may not reflect the prestige that the market associates with private apartments, and conversely your lifestyle living in a HDB flat may surpassed that of many in the private development sector.  Quite obviously one of the key reason is personal income and affordability.  There are high earners who prefer to live in HDB flats that actually comes with lots of conveniences and less restrictions comparably.

I am therefore surprised by the lack of wisdom and understanding by many who posted their views on "alternative media sites" alleging that the government is asking for law to indiscriminately enter personal premises, robbing people's freedom of privacy, robbing the rights of peaceful abode, and disrespecting the sanctity of property ownership as well as disregarding mutual respect between people and government.

Many people are blessed with very good neighbours, neighbours that understand that there could be times when one may inconvenience the other due to circumstances and the need to rectify the circumstances that peaceful abode can be enjoyed by all.  This calls for the neighbourhood to have a spirit of friendliness, mutual understanding and that may come with an unusual demand for self inconvenienced and sacrifice.

Even as we are all too familiar with good angels of Christmas praising God, there too exist the presence of bad angels that rebel.  Same with human kind that we cannot expect all neighbours to have characters of good angels.  Whether in private or in public housing, ordinary folks needs help to deal with circumstances where neighbours become uncooperative and unhelpful.  

Management Corporations in private condominiums have their by-laws to compel owners and occupiers to cooperate where repairs within premises is deemed necessary.  But the HDB has all along depended on the "kampung spiritness" to deal with such problems and so far it has been working in the past.  

But when society becomes more emphasizing on personal rights and such over-emphasis becomes an infringement into that of another, the old way of doing things has to change according to society's character changes.  HDB being the LESSOR of the real estate needs to intervene as MODERATOR and rules and laws are necessary to mitigate that neighbours do understand and accept that many of such rights actually overlapsed into each other.

The allegations against the HDB and government are seen to be overly distorted to the extent of blatant lies which serves no good for Singaporeans other than those who benefits from lying to the public.

I do hope Singaporeans will be able to comprehend the need for this law change and what protection it comes with. 

Have a Blessed Christmas.

A DEADLY SERIOUS GE

What Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said at a rally on Sunday 7th August 2014 has set Singapore guessing and many tongues wagging.  This was what he said essentially.

"Singapore's next General Election (GE) will be a "deadly serious" fight between the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) and the opposition. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said the GE will be crucial to Singaporeans, as it will be about who forms the government and not just how many seats the opposition gets."

First guess, the next general election will be held next year, in 2015 instead of closer to the stipulated deadline of Jan 2017. Actually this was the guess when the government decided to celebrate SG50 to mark the nations's 50th year of independence.

The most mind boggling is what the "deadly serious" means.

I would like to attempt the most maverick guess next.  Is the PM actually referring to an alternate party (opposition) with the capability and ability to form the next government, but till now not known to Singaporeans.  I have always entertained the thought that George Yeo, would lead a pack of dynamic personalities to serve as an alternate to the PAP. If this is so as guessed, this would be most palatable to a sizeable number of voters who wants alternate voice yet governed by a stable government.  Whether the PAP ultimately wins or "X" party gets the mandate, the boat of Singapore's stability is not rocked.

The current crop of opposition parties grossly lack the kind of leadership integrity, ability, and experience that George Yeo can bring along to the table.  Many who did not vote for the PAP had been sympathetic at the lost of George Yeo for Aljunied although they had no pity at all for the PAP.  Till now, no political party with such impressive credentials has yet to emerge.

Without any better choice and still wanting oppositions in parliament, the voting public has to live with whatever they choose even if there are lingering doubts.  Of course the main doubt or you may even call it fear that the prediction of Ho Kwan Ping's prediction of a freaked election comes true. It may not be the Workers Party winning more than two thirds of the seats, but an uncomfortably misfitting coalition of opposition parties forming a fragile government.

As noted by Straits Times, this is the first time PM spoke about a possibility of PAP not forming the government.

Some has taken PM Lee's comments as yet another "wolf is coming", or "Fear Factor". Indeed the PAP has in recent modern times issued many warnings, but each time the real and painful sufferings did not cause too much discomfort to Singaporeans. Could this be the answer behind the "Fear Factor" notion that Singaporeans had quite got used to? Then this must be a damn big mistake for both PAP and Singaporeans at the same time.

The PAP had it in their culture that it is their duty to warn of any calamities, work the solutions, talk about it for a while and file closed. Many a times these fore-warnings that did invite some resentments among Singaporeans were dismissed as distractions and the work to avoid calamities continues.  Recent property price rise, unbridled car ownership supported by insensible loan availability, swelling debts even amidst the possibility of a return of higher interest in borrowing were all dutifully addressed and guided towards soft landing.  But Singaporeans are viewing measure to curb property prices, control loan quantum as obstructions created to better their lives.  They cannot upgrade to a better house now, nor buy a better car for the family.  Even the industry is accusing the PAP of stifling their business and causing them loses.

The PAP has always took it upon themselves to solve problems ahead and Singaporeans have little or no part in the problem solving equation.  What happens next is...Got problem? Ask government to solve.  Not happy, blame government.  Don't this sounds familiar?

The PAP may have realized, or even awaken to the fact that Singaporeans must grow up, and be matured.  Maybe I should not be putting it this way.  We Singaporeans have already grown up and are matured enough to manage our own affairs.  We can even manage our own CPF monies, but why sue the guy who spoke up on Singaporeans' behalf?  This is yet another contentious point, the PAP will always sue dissenters, make them bankrupt, make them incapable of running for political office.

I cannot help but being forced back in time to re-experience what it feels to be adolescence again. Am I a grown-up or am I not?  Am I not matured?  I guessed this is what Singaporeans are, both grown up and not being an "adult" at the same time. Mature, yet not mature.

Like it or not, Singaporeans must grow up and be matured. For Singaporeans' sake, or for PAP's sake.  Fifty (50) years have gone by, it's time to calibrate the relationship between the PAP government and Singaporeans.  Although 50 years in human history is short by any standard, it is long enough for Singapore as a small country and fast paced Singaporeans. But that is "mental time" or "philosophical time".  In "real time" Singapore has not finished its Nation Building phase, yet it may have to slow down and focus on issues that "grown up" states are facing. Now we see Singapore as being an "Adolescent State". We may have to give up some things that a growing-up nation needs and parachute ourselves to face the harsh real world of "Adults". 

Singaporeans have enjoyed great teenage frills. The "by election" effect that PM Lee mentioned allowed Singaporeans to experience voting in oppositions to check on the government and yet still enjoys the safety of parental (PAP) provision. To this point, those who say the PAP is very paternal is not very wrong either. But the paternal PAP feels that the kind of adult experience Singaporeans are getting is incorrect and inaccurate. The oppositions they voted into the parliament are not exactly what opposition members should be.  Singaporeans will end up getting a parliament that is very "unreal".  PM Lee's further comments about opposition politicians attested to this.

So at the next general election, Singaporeans are expected to come out of their paternal sheltering and "be a man" so to speak.  So what does the PAP meant by "choosing the next government"? Could it be that if they are able to form the next government but short of two thirds, they will resign enmass?  Could it be that they'll scrap the GRC system altogether and eradicate the effectiveness of the opposition's by-election strategy?

Whatever strategy that is going to emerge from the PAP in the coming months, there is no escape for Singaporeans to vote for the opposition and get the PAP man working, another strategy employed by the opposition parties. Every vote will decide who is going to be government.

SMALL TALKS ABOUT TOWN COUNCILS

The PAP government has ordered its supporters in Aljunied GRC, Punggol East and Hougang not to pay Service and Conservancy Charges.  At the same time, Workers Party is rewarding those who voted for them in the last GE with waiver for S&CC.

No, none of these were true. What is true is the Workers Party has once again found itself being red flagged in the latest Town Council Management Report (TCMR) released by the Ministry of National Development for poor Arrears Management and Corporate Governance.

The government released more information that the Workers Party town council in fact had stopped submitting Arrears Report months ago, therefore suggesting that the state of bad debts could be worse than expected. The juiciest part of the story is a hefty $3.3 million surpluses accumulated previously by the PAP is now down to a deficit of over $700K making a loss of about $4 million on the operating balance sheet in just two years.

Who's side are you with?  Are you one of those who say that the PAP government is at it again, bullying and intimidating opposition parties by unfair tactics or are you one calling the WP an incompetent squanderer?

Those supporting the opposition party dug up "adverse opinions" issued by auditors of People's Association to defend Workers Party entanglement with its accounts. If a government related statutory board cannot get itself straight with its accounts, what moral rights has the PAP to tell WP what is proper and what is not?

Another point that opposition supporters are alleging is that the PAP government has been unfairly subsidizing PAP run town councils that enables them to write off bad debts from their Arrears account. How this work according to them is through estate upgrading projects, maintenance works undertaken by town councils were suspended for the period and such savings on expenditure were then invested and interest and profits earned were then used to cover for bad debts written off.

On the other hand, PAP supporters are not letting go of what they view as a nice piece of meat.  "Where Did the $4 Million Dollars Go?" It was revealed that prior to the watershed general election in 2011, the Hougang Town Council of Workers Party under Mr Low Thia Khiang was running on a deficit and its independent auditors had questioned its operating viability.  At about the same time, there was a squabble going on with residents of the just privatized HUDC precinct over "sinking funds" due to be transfer over to them from the town council.

Aljunied GRC has a operating surplus of $3.3 million at the time when Workers Party took over the town council.  In a short 2 years, not only the surpluses were gone but the AHPETC under Workers Party had recorded a deficit of over $700,000-00. They are not just incompetent to run the town councils, but also squanders who have no moral obligation and accountability towards the people of Aljunied GRC, Punggol East as well as Houngang.

I have decided to put my personal opinions in red to differentiate them from the rest of the commentaries.

For opposition supporters using PA auditor's "adverse opinion" to justify WP's accounts which remains questionable and suspicious is akin to putting a wrong to justify another wrong. as the sayings go...."two wrongs don't make a right" even though on the part of PA auditors did not suspect the PA of any wrong doings nor deemed the procedural discrepancy illegal. 

Citizens may for reasons do not heart the PAP, but that should not be reason for shielding or encouraging the opposition in doing wrong.  I must qualify that this is a general statement that does not presume the WP had done wrong in this particular instance.

The reasoning that PAP town councils could accumulate surpluses and write off arrears through government funded estate upgrading projects did not convince me sufficiently. Simply, the Workers Party was already given accumulated surpluses without having gone through upgrading, and if the formula they presumed PAP town councils were working,they should have also have invested the $3.3 million to generate interest in order to write off bad debts. Why didn't they?

Where People's Association applies, I believed they owe Singaporeans the duty to present its accounts as according to prescribed standard. As observed by certain alternative sites, they had over the years ignored qualifications made by independent auditors and had even replaced full disclosure with consolidated statements in their annual reporting. 

Citizens would like to see political leaders doing the right thing, making themselves models of upright characters for citizens to emulate and to fall inline with.

A question was raised recently......what happens when a town council goes bankrupt?  If the AHPETC indeed goes bankrupt, does it means that Lee Kuan Yew's prophetic statement that those who voted the PAP out of Aljunied GRC will live to regret and needs repentance badly?

Can we change the laws now where it is not provided to punish those who ruins the town council? It will be unthinkable without another uproar of PAP bullying opposition, and WP MPs will certainly put up their most vigorous "Against" vote.

As of now only an election can stop a certain political party and its politicians from ruining a town council or to perpetuate it, and we are not talking about an entire country yet.

Is that why MND minister Khaw Boon Wan is not for depoliticizing town councils, insisting that town councils are political animals.  He said : "town council is not public services". He is both right and wrong.

FOREIGN WORKERS ARE HUMANS TOO!

It is interesting how we sometimes can change perceptions after second, or even a third and fourth thought if necessary, 

On first contact with the pictures

and the post title "Simulation exercise involving real foreign workers dehumanizing : says rights group", my first thought seemed to resonate with the writer who was suggesting that the police, and indeed later on Mr Khaw the MND minister for lacking in sensitivity in the deployment of foreign workers in an exercise depicting a riot that could broke put in foreign workers dormitories across the island.

The police responded that the foreign workers had volunteered themselves in this exercise, and according to reports they are actually from an organized group known as "foreign workers ambassadors".  Recalling, I remembered the group was initially formed years ago to tackle littering in public places.  Not much was reported about the group thereafter till this incident.

My second thought to this has somehow diluted the effects of strong condemnation by migrant workers groups.  The police as well as the organizers of this exercise cannot be that inhuman.  What would be most inhuman is when the authorities, the broader community left the foreign workers disengaged, and pull the trigger when they become naughty.  In other words, don't talk to them not inter-relate with them, keep them alone like chickens in cages to lay eggs and sell them away for slaughter when they don't produce anymore.  

But the police cannot be let off without taking some blame.  Their response to the public was grossly under-represented. They have said that the exercise was to test or demonstrate their response towards such incidents and in reality you don't need real foreign workers to co-stage the show in order to arrive at similar outcome. They had not in their public response elaborated the more important side of the exercise which is, 1. To continue informal engagement with the foreign workers community who are alien to our way of life, our laws, and our social expectations.  2. Such exercise can drive home a mental image in the foreign workers community that sad and unbecoming outcomes can be avoided.

While the condemnations by migrant workers groups were well meaning, and what they have been doing for transient workers were highly commendable, there are areas and roles they cannot and probably will not be part but are equally well meaning and beneficial to the foreign workers community.

These experiences in Singapore prepares them to be mentally and emotionally richer than their fellow citizens when they return to their home countries.

Singapore wants to treat foreign workers as fellow human beings and not chickens in cages waiting to be fed, produced, and slaughtered.

THE CHEE DEFENSE OF HLP COMMOTION

Whoever having a sensitive feel of Singapore's political temperature will tell you that the anti-establishments had hit the forbidden column in a structural sense when the organizers of #ReturnOurCPF protest went overboard by massing and shouting in front of a stage when a group of children were performing.  The details surrounding the two events that were held at Hong Lim Park on a Saturday of September were highly controversial, but what may cause the anti-establishments to burn their whole game away was that these kids were no ordinary kids.  They were less than ordinary having born with mental and physical capacities that are so much lower than others.  This put the gang of anti-establishments including Singapore Democratic Party chief Dr Chee Soon Juan on damage control mode.  Why did Dr Chee came to their defense while certain Workers Party politicians outwardly criticized the actions is better left to one's imagination.  It is also curious that key politicians over at the Workers Party like Low Thia Khiang, Sylvia Lim, and the rest of the elected MPs kept their silence so far.

An uncut video chronicled the event that took place on that day clearly showed that the organizers of #ReturnOurCPF protest were indeed deliberately creating a fracas inside the venue where a charity event was simultaneously held by YMCA.  One needs to know that each event had their designated perimeters, thus the protesters committed their first breach by encroaching into the designated premises not meant for them.

What relationship exist between Dr Chee and the organizers Roy Ngerng and Han Hui Hui is not disclosed, but another person who has been seen alongside the two, one named Ariffin Shah who is known for being administrator of Facebook Page : Wake Up, Singapore is a member of the Singapore Democratic Party that Dr Chee heads.

Opening his defense for the two published on The Online Citizens Dr Chee was very much concerned about the acrimony emanated by the ugly scene created.  He has urged readers to focus on lessons one can learn out of it rather than lingering around the bitterness created.

His first lesson is : Roy and Hui Hui should offer an apology to the children and parents present and were affected by the disturbances.  He mentioned that Roy had asked to meet the children and parents, to apologise to them and this is the right thing to do.  He also added that his meeting with Roy gave him the impression that Roy is a thoughtful person and that no one should believe that he had intentionally targeted the poor under-privileged kids.

Isn't that quite a first lesson to learn?  When you wronged someone--apologize.  that's the right thing to do.  That is a sure way of showing remorse.  But how do you show remorse that those being wronged can accept and forgive?  By asking to meet all the parents to bring their children to meet you so that you can apologize to them is by no means an acceptable way of showing remorse.

Let me tell you why.  Those kids were traumatized by what they saw and heard when this group of angry people gesturing and shouting and moving towards them while they were performing on stage.  They registered that frightening scene much like how they had watched a horror movie.  Now you want to appear before them again.  Isn't a one time trauma not enough for the kids, and you want to do that again one more time?

Next.  Dr Chee was impressed by a very thoughtful Roy he met and he urged his believers and the public to disbelieve any accusation against Roy that he had intentionally planned the public disturbance.

Now either Dr Chee has erred in his reading of Roy's personality or simply thoughtfulness has nothing to do with deliberate mischief.  Roy demonstrated no thoughtfulness at all when he asked to meet the affected parents and children.  Had he been thoughtful, he would not have requested to meet the poor children that will surely give them another session of horrifying experience.

Yes I have learned my lesson well, indeed.  Going by Dr Chee's further assertion in the same article that labeling the protest organizers "immature", "inexcusable", "attention seekers" is unhelpful, he certainly thinks that the civil disturbance caused by the protesters and their leaders is something society should gracefully accept.  Thus Dr Chee's defense is that the public failed to understand that such disturbances is necessary, and the apology is to be strategic rather than sincere.

I have also learned by chance that Dr Chee and his fellow "civil societies" community will continue to create disturbances till they meet their goal, whatever that might be and we as members of the public must tolerate such nonsensical disturbances as part of greater good for the nation.

I'm afraid, very afraid that if we buy into Dr Chee's argument or excuses, we will never see the peace we are so used to.  Let me explain.  They believe democracy is about giving "every citizen" equal rights and access to decision making, but that is not realizable nor practical at all.  No two persons can agree on everything, what more when 3 million people exerts their rights all the time.  Every now and then we will have different groups of people challenging each other, occupying public premises and causing a standstill to normal civil functions.

Protest can never be the way to solve problems.  It can only escalate adversary and enmity.  Dr Chee has always been promoting civil civil disobedience in his writings, and he believed this is basic human rights.

I don't wish to see such a day arriving, but if it did i would have probably been transformed into a beast with unrestrained violent instinct.  

PAST TENSE, PRESENT TENSE

For the treatment of white scours in calves and pneumonia, footrot, joint – ill and navel–ill in calves, lambs, kids, foals and piglets.

• 2 Tablets per 5 kg body mass followed by halve initial dose daily for a maximum of four days.  
• Do not use in Ruminants older than 3 months..   
• Animals under treatment should have free access to ample drinking water during treatment and for at least two days after last treatment.
• Do not slaughter animals for human consumption within 7 days of last treatment.   
• Keep out of reach of children.
• Although this remedy has been extensively tested under a large variety of conditions, failure of this remedy may ensue as a result of a wide rage of reasons. If this is suspected, seek veterinary advice and notify the registration holder.

Available Size:  50 tablets / 250 tablets

CONTAINS:  Sulphapyridine B.P.       82,5% m/m

During the days when Singapore was battling the communist both in the jungle and the schools, M&B 693 was used to treat diseases relating to bacterial infection.  Except for its unreliable solubility that could crystallize in the bladder or urethra, it was known to be exceptionally effective.

Even till the early sixties, it was like every home would have some 693 tablets on standby for emergency.  Its use was later terminated and replaced with Penicillin.  There are others like Yunnan White Oitment (云南白药) good for bulging sores (疮) and open wounds were also terminated subsequently as Singapore better linked to the global information network.

Singaporeans were also quite happy buying raw meat and fish at housefly infested markets, and squatting by the drain side enjoying a bowl of hot noodles.  As they say, those were the days.

Today, Singaporeans gets a little retro and a little nostalgic and they want to recreate the "kampong spirit" and they reminiscent the hawker scenes of old in China Town.  They want heritage sites preserved so that history could be better remembered.

Does Singapore really want a kampong recreated, or should I say can Singapore ever recreate the kampong spirit anew?  The old kampongs thrived on a need for mutual dependency, of borrowing by those who have not and lending by those who have.  We are living in a very different world with a very different spirit.  Without the free running scavenging rats and roach buddies, as well as the wind carried smell of clogged drains, it can never be the roadside hawkers of old.

Bacterial infection was a common thing and commonly treated with 693, the drug used only on animals now.  We were quite close to being animals in those days if you may.

Can anyone who has never lived through that part of history understands why they had to use animal drugs on human, and for that matter why and how Singaporeans suffered under the tyranny of the British, and then the Japanese, and then back to British again and at the same time having to confront clannish and gang rivalry?

So if someone were to come out and sue the government for allowing M&B 693 to be used to treat him for an infection some fifty, sixty years ago and now his bladder and urethra are both clogged, what do make of that?

Along this same line I am asking, how is it that the "exiles" are asking to be heard today?  How is it that some young people chose to believe the exiles and not the official version?  Don't they each have a 50/50 chance to be accurate?  For the government the decision and the course of action that follows were consistent with the imminent threat to national security of the time, and any subsequent references to that needs to be consistent as well.

Can you allow someone to blatantly insert a disclaimer, an escape clause into a signed contract right before your opened eyes?  Obviously not, hence I support MDA's ban on Tan Pin Pin's film.  Those who are indeed interest to listen to what the exiles have to say will not have their passport forfeited, but as a matter of principle, I do not think Singapore should screen a version that voids the government's previous decision.

SYLVIALOGIC STRIKES...What is that to you?

There arose in the Singapore Cafe resentment against Fabrication About The PAP's post with regards to opposition MP Sylvia Lim's contention of the proposed Family court in parliament.

Resentment against FAP isn't something new nor novel, but this is something which I like to share some thinking but not to get into some meaningless debates with meddlers at the Singapore Cafe.

The contention is FAP strikes Slyvia Lim without giving due consideration to the key context found in the whole of her speech which was reproduced in WP's website http://wp.sg/2014/08/debate-on-family-justice-bill-mp-sylvia-lim/.  There is really no telling whether the FAP admin did or did not read the article in its entire before making the "photoshoped" comment.

The point here is not about defending FAP, reasonable or otherwise.

It is about how we look at context and apply treatment to it.

The bone really is whether the Family Court should be conducted closed door or open itself to the media for public scrutiny.  Is there not a provision for the process to be opened at the court's discretion? 

They key argument that Sylvia Lim and those who bought her story over at The Singapore Cafe relies on is that the Family Court will normally function in closed door unless ordered otherwise is a departure from the open court concept of the other courts.  The supportive argument is that the Juvenile Court allows the presence of news agencies in its hearing of youths in trouble.

Further supportive arguments to push her point, she questioned why shouldn't family matters be opened for public scrutiny.  She believes correct and accurate reporting of such cases would enable the public to have a better understanding of family laws and how the Family Court operates.  At the same time she too acknowledges that there exist media who would also otherwise sensationalize the reporting, though without mentioning what consequences that may bring about nor how to rectify the damage done if rectifying is ever possible,

Thus I am not sure whether Sylvia Lim and those in cohort of this case are arguing as a matter or principle or for the sake of argument.

They have selfishly placed the rigid way of how they think a court should operates above the tender fragility and sensitivity of family affairs, and allow person to person relationships to be rampaged in the open possibly resulting in irreparable hurt and damages to family and children.

It is not that the court has no room to flexibly manouevre where public interest may be a concern, and neither are cases concerning youths in trouble the same as family issues.  Cases of youths in trouble are mainly brought about when a young person committed a crime, and public interest is always present in such cases.  In contrast, family cases are largely civil cases about personal relationships.

So I deemed Sylvia Lim and her cohort are a cruel and selfish lot only out to satisfy their thirst for having their way no matter at what cost to others.